sanjiva@goedel.UUCP (Sanjiva Prasad) (03/15/86)
Cc : ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1951@hao.UUCP> <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1040@burl.UUCP> <514@nrcvax.UUCP> This is a FLAME directed at Terry Grevstad. Which is why it is in net.singles, where Terry's posting appeared. I find fairly common comments such as India's freedom movement was the bloodiest ever. A writer in our campus paper said 30 - 40 million people died ! Which would have been between 15 and 20 % of our population in the early decades of this century. Some statistics requested : 1. How many people died in the 1857 wars ? 2. How many died between 1921 and 1946, the period when Gandhi was the most important leader, while participating in the movement he led and as a direct consequence of their politics ? Any details of the circumstances i.e. communal riots / Br Govt shootings or police torture ? 3. How many died in pre-Partition riots in 1947 ? 4. How many died in post-Partition riots in 1947-48 ? 5. How do these figures compare with, say, the American War of Independence, the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, Vietnam, the Red-White wars in newborn Soviet Union, the Tibetan carnage, the Armenian carnage, Wars in Palestine between the 30s and the '67 war ? *********************FLAME ON******************************************* Terry Grevstad says ( ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry ): > geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) says: > > As long as the 'war' is fought on these > >grounds you will receive a lot of moral support (and other kinds) from > >people who are not otherwise involved. This is akin to Gandi's liberation > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >of India. And its ultimate success will rest on the same principles that his > ^^^^^^^^ > >did -- people are basically GOOD. There will always be jerks and assholes > >out there, but these are made all the more noticable because of the way > >they stand out from the milieu. If this were not true, then Gandi's plan > >would not have worked. If the British response had simply been to kill 10 > >people for every infraction, non-violence would have gotten him nowhere. > >The Indians would probably have won the ensuing war, but at what cost? Pyrrhic > >victories belong in textbooks, not in real life. > > > ><please try to make the flames interesting> > > Not exactly a flame, and I'll try to be interesting. Your reference ^^^^^^^^^^^ That is a commonly used euphemism for being a badly informed, argumentative, and stubborn bore. You tried, and ......... > to Ghandi in this context is rather strange since, if you will > remember (or care to read any history books on the subject), Ghandi's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'd like to know which *history* books *you* read ? I HOPE my views are closer to what happened, though they are coloured by personal beliefs. My sources are : (1) Indian historians of and supportive of the mainstream Congress party. (2) Communist historians, both of India and the Socialist Bloc (3) Writings of Labour and Social Democrat politicians of Europe, and America --- Laski, Nye Bevan, etc., who ultimately supported the Indian freedom movement. (4) Reactionary and Tory historians and politicians like Churchill, some of them so unbelievably racist and imperialist, who felt that dark-skinned people were inherently inferior and incapable of governing themselves. > 'liberation of India' let to one of the bloodiest civil wars in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I sincerely hope that India's long and tumultous struggle against British rule racial and imperial dominance is not, repeat NOT, categorized as "Gandhi's ( please note the spelling ) liberation of India". Gandhi was ONE of the leaders, although the one who commanded the most respect with the masses, of the major mainstream movement/party/association, which itself was full of people with different views on almost everything. There were other political groups, some of which were terrorist, some fundamentalist, some both. As for the post-PARTITION riots being bloody, sure they were but note : 1. They were RIOTS and only in some sense a *civil war*. 2. The majority of people killed were in the POST-PARTITION chaos, NOT during the main years of the peaceful struggle ( 1916 to 1945 ). 3. While there were instances of massacres, and communal riots ( the term used to describe the religious fundamentalists' clashes ), how many people were killed/ wounded seriously compared to say the REALLY BLOODY CIVIL WARS ? The American Civil War, The Spanish Civil War, Wars in Palestine from the 30s to the '67 war, Vietnam ? > history. The Muslims and Hindus each tried to exterminate the other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > in order to be the 'ruling party' when the British left. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Pretty conveniently, you obscure the fact that the British imperialists (not all British) encouraged fundamentalists of different religions, and focussed on their conflicting views to perpetrate British rule. Ever heard of the "Divide and Conquer" doctrine of imperialists ? Also the final deals made to get them out of India as fast as possible included Partition and the creation of Pakistan. India became a secular democratic republic, Pakistan an Islamic republic. I don't think Pakistani historians will be too kind on the British either. They possibly wouldn't think too highly of Gandhi because of his opposition to Jinnah's concept of a separate Muslim state, and possibly his mass-movement political skills. But I don't think a progressive Pakistani historian will deny the fact that Gandhi was an astute leader who managed a popular and peaceful upsurge. Some Pakistani journalists (some London-based ones are columnists in Indian papers ) have also written of Gandhi as being a major factor ensuring the well-being of Muslims in India ( There are more Muslims in India than in any country save Indonesia : ~ 85 million ; something I doubt would be possible after a war as dreadful as you say it was). > The British knew this would happen. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *knew* ? THAT was precisely the argument they had been selling to all and sundry to perpetrate their own rule. "We really aren't imperialists, and we aren't exploiting the colonies. We are helping them by civilizing them. If we leave those poor HEATHENS will destroy themselves." What a laugh! > They tried to tell the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > world that it would happen, but nobody was interested in listening. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is that why they encouraged a religious divide ( fairly well documented in HISTORY BOOKS ). Is that why they were so aggressive and brutal in putting down a sullen but non-violent movement ? If you've seen the movie "Gandhi" you'd probably recall the Jallianwallah Bagh incident where Gen. Dyer ordered troops open fire on a large meeting, which was peaceful. British Govt estimates : about 750 dead. Other estimates : 1500 - 3000 people dead. > Ghandi had the world brainwashed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Let me remind you of the fact that Gandhi and Nehru had convinced only the progressive elements in Europe ( America was kind of isolated from the scene until the middle of WW II ). And where were they between 1916 and 1939? The tories were in power in UK ( although on the wane ), Germany was ruled by the Nazis who were busy clobbering all forms of progressive ( which also meant anti-racial at that time ) politics. Ditto in Spain, Italy, Portugal, Japan, France, etc. USSR was kind of isolated -- and though it voiced support for the Indian freedom movement, it was also looking to the Communist parties in India for a revolution. Countries like Czechoslovakia that had empathy with Indians were being invaded. USA was wrapped up in itself even after progressives came to power ( because of the Depression ), China was still effectively a colony, Africa and the rest of Asia were colonised, and Latin America was either in chaos or being effectively being colonised by the USA. How much of the world was left to be brainwashed ? To this day several million Indians aren't convinced by him ( and NOT in retrospect ) as several million disagreed with him while he lived : on whether it would take a bloody coup to dethrone the British, on whether India should be secular, on whether India should be a united India. ( One dissenter ultimately shot him. ) Time to put on the record that Gandhi also lent to the movement a social reformist character, goals of economic self-sufficiency, village government and participatory democracy at the lowest level and emancipation of women and socially opressed groups. I'm not surprised at Terry's views, considering the compressed views of the people who shape opinion ( in books, on TV, in papers ). However, I'm pained that many in this country feel terms like PEACE ACTIVIST are dirty words. Sanjiva Prasad