Ramanna,here is a viewpoint often forgotten by the mainstream media and the world of the key importance of the Indian fight for independence,from the other side of the freedom struggle coin,the armed freedom fighters,Netaji and the INA and the other "mutineers" of the time.They caught the British between "a hard place and a rock",so to speak,between Gandhi and the INC and Bose and the INA.In fact,the "desertion" of Indian soldiers to the INA rocked the British govt. as much as Gandhi's non-violent campaign.They knew that they were finished in India beacuse of the two opposite methods of kicking them out.
Independence Day Special
http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sunda ... al&rLink=0
Militants had a crucial role
Sunday August 10 2008 05:05 IST
N A Karim
The destiny of a nation is shaped by several factors including the quality of leadership. India emerged from colonial rule without shedding much blood and leaving little bitterness between rulers and ruled. That does not mean that the country and the people did not suffer, but it was mitigated by the non-violent and non-cooperation mode of struggle the Indian National Congress followed under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi from the 1920s.
On a closer analysis of the national movement, one can see a confluence of the currents of non-violence and violence that helped India achieve Independence in 1947. The almost parallel Quit India movement here, and the war cry “Dilli Challo” raised by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose abroad, together undermined British authority.
In spite of the fact that Gandhi and Bose took diametrically opposite paths to freedom their efforts were politically complementary. Gandhi thoroughly disapproved of the violent means adopted by Bose but was all praise for his courage and patriotism. In the same way, Netaji wanted to dedicate the freedom to the Mahatma, to be used in any manner he liked.
Therefore, it cannot be said that India won freedom exclusively through non-violent means. It would be a black ingratitude to the memory of Netaji and thousands of his followers who sacrificed their lives here and abroad. The statues of Gandhi in his characteristically simple dress, and Bose in his army boots and military uniform in the Parliament House compound loudly proclaim the way in which India won freedom.
The urge for freedom was strong and growing irresistibly. India would have won Independence irrespective of the means, violent or non-violent. But the flavour of freedom would have been distinctly different if it had been exclusively through violent means. Indeed, violent means would have brought more radical changes in the social structure of the country and the movement itself would probably have been more secular.
Indeed, parallel to the non-violent movement led by Gandhi, a violent struggle was underway, started by revolutionaries or extremists, whom the colonial power generally dubbed as terrorists. But unlike today’s terrorists they ensured that civilians were not hurt by their activities. They targeted their selected white victims with care, risking their own lives in the process.
The long line of revolutionaries continued to the very end of the struggle, and they followed their own path without concerning themselves with the Congress. People like Shahid Bhagat-Singh, though young, showed political maturity and had a clear vision of the future after Independence, a secular, socialist India.
There were also a number of Congressmen who were impatient with Gandhi’s methods, and they wanted fight the colonial rulers through more militant methods. Young socialists and revolutionaries formed small groups in the Congress. Gandhi and the official leadership looked upon them with disapproval and suspicion. These young leaders had a mass following outside the party and posed a distinct threat to the moderate leadership.
The election of Bose as president of the Congress against Gandhi’s nominee Pattabhi Sitaramaiah in 1938 created a crisis in the organisation. It also led to Gandhi and Bose going their own separate ways. He formed the Forward Bloc and decided to fight the enemy from abroad, making use of the opportunity offered by World War II to capture political power in India with the help of the Axis Powers, Germany and Japan. But it failed with their defeat.
Though his military venture was a complete failure, Bose spread the contagion of nationalism among Indian soldiers and persuaded them to desert the British and fight for the freedom of their country abroad under his leadership. It was an event of great significance.
This disaffection in the army weighed with Britain’s decision to quit India at the end of the war. The mutiny of Indian naval ratings in Bombay and other naval bases of the Royal Indian Navy, the discontent of Indians in the Royal Air Force (RAF) that surfaced in a threatening manner was the last straw on the camels back, as it were.
Thus, the possibility of violence would have played on British minds and pushed forward the timetable for Independence. This is where Bose’s influence can be seen. That he could mobilise Indian soldiers of the British army and form the Indian National Army (INA) in faraway Malaysia, and set up an independent Indian government abroad was a feat of revolutionary action that thrilled Indians everywhere.
Non-violence did have one very important side-effect. It was Gandhi’s way and the Indian National Congress reaped the harvest of that reflected glory long after his death. It monopolised political power in independent India for a long time only because the transfer of power was smooth, though rivers of blood flowed on either side of the border due to the insensitive manner in which Partition was carried out by Cyril Radcliff.
He did with a butcher’s cleaver a task that should have been performed with surgical care. It is also worth noting that Partition itself may not have been necessary if a more secular and revolutionary liberation movement had gained the upper hand in clinching the freedom issue.
In their greed and impatience for political power, some Congress leaders hastily agreed to Partition, an unsavoury fact that has been clearly brought out by the Transfer of Power papers since published. Independent writers in their studies and books have established that a moth-eaten Pakistan was thrust upon M A Jinnah as he was not particular about the vivisection. The demand for Pakistan was put forward earlier by others, and Jinnah, a hard-headed political realist, made use of it only as a bargaining counter. However, Partition ended in the biggest ever man-made tragedy on the Indian subcontinent.
At the beginning of World War II, Britain had refused to consider even Dominion status for India. After the war, though, the British suddenly decided to quit the country after elections brought the Labour Party to power under the leadership of Clement Attlee. So perhaps violence played a role after all, offstage as it were.
One fact that emerges from a look at the national movement is that the role of south India is proportionately small. This neglect of the south seems to be a habit. Even early Indian historians did not think there were Indians beyond the Vindhyas. This focus only on aryavarta, the heartland of India, is an old tradition, though ordinary writers feel the south has played more than its share in all spheres of human endeavour.
Regarding the south’s contribution to the freedom movement, there is a deficit, particularly in the area of agitational and militant activities. But the south contributed a number of the finest minds to the movement.
At the same time, the south got much less than its rightful share in the pie. This imbalance between south and north should be redressed by suitable political and administrative mechanisms. It is strange that it continues in various forms even after 60 years of freedom and democracy.
Now India at 60, with more than a billion people and a rapidly growing economy has to contend with a neighbourhood that is not kindly disposed to it. Bold policy decisions regarding external security are needed.
Here, the old doubts on the morality of force and violence will have to give way to pragmatism. True to its traditions India can uphold the principle of panchasheel but at the same time keep its powder always dry.
— Dr N A Karim is a former pro vice-chancellor of the University of Kerala.
Everyone talks about Russia's population decline. This is misleading. Russia's population is slowly increasing but the population of ethnic Russians is declining. In another words ethnic Russians will be minority if the trend is not rectified. What no one is talking about is that this trend is also taking place in the USA. The whites will be less than 50 percent in about 2048. So to all the comentators who have been belittling Russia for their ethnic decline......watch your back....payback is a biatch.