So was the non-violent Gandhi a fraud? He was just a stooge for the British? It's a serious question. Perhaps a case could be made the Brits wanted to drop India like a hot potato - administering it was too much trouble and expense to a country weakened by WWII, and they used Gandhi as a face-saving way to avoid Britain being blamed for the human catastrophe that followed independence.
I know that after the Brits walked away, the Hindus, Moslems, and Sikks slaughtered one another by the millions. Didn't about ten million or so men, women and children die by being beaten to death, torn apart by hand, etc.? Suggests to me the Indians weren't so ready to be free.
If you were an adult at that time, would you have been a supporter of Bose or Gandhi?
India adopted the same means that the Palestenians are adopting currently. The Indian freedom fighters fought against the British, burned public buses, bombed courts and did everything to challenge and disrupt the British authority. Now the British called them terrorist.
So the Indians seeking independence blew up buses with Brit school children on them? They bombed British during their religious services, in their grocery stores and restaurants? They blew up British children outside ice cream parlors? I thought they reserved that sort of barbarity for other Indians based on ancient religious hatreds.
... Israelis. So far they have exhibited barbaric behavior. Very inhuman.
Kind of ironic observation. Compared to Indo-Pakistan, they are pikers at barbarism, looks to me.
... what aspirations drive someone to leave his/her family folks behind and kill himself/herself.
Maybe its because their families encourage them. Excuse me for being cynical, perhaps the bounty the families receive after a young person is induced to engage in a suicide attack has something to do with it. |
