tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7381909.post113535345610873462..comments2023-08-04T17:34:49.094+05:30Comments on A New Praxis in a changed world: Lagaan..an interesting analysis and the movements..Srinivasan Ramanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13620263203764236450noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7381909.post-1140537527845574232006-02-21T21:28:00.000+05:302006-02-21T21:28:00.000+05:30Funny you say that, Simha. I am just coming from a...Funny you say that, Simha. I am just coming from a talk on "". The speaker, Prof. Utsa Patnaik was just mentioning about how if the Soviet Union hadn't existed, it would have been impossible for all those decolonized countries to achieve independence. Do you think, if someone lies down in front of a tank in Baghdad today would be able to churn the moral innards of George Bush and get him out of Iraq? <BR/><BR/>The people who murdered the Czar and his family were local leaders in Ekaterinburg. They were not under the orders of the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution. It is still debatable as to whether the orders to pull the trigger were from Moscow. There was a great anarchic situation prevailing after the Revolution, with the Bolsheviks themselves trying hard to gain control of the sequence of events, ergo, Lenin's call for the strengthening of the state mechanism, his call for a People's Army etc. <BR/><BR/>Another point, the Tsar who was killed, was responsible for the Black Sunday or was it Thursday in 1905..he was solely responsible for the deaths and misery of thousands of Russians who were forced to go to the Imperialist war fought between the Rajas and Maharajas (all cousins/ co-brothers what not) of the European nations, a fight over the loot that these nations were getting outta their colonies. The Tsar if tried in an Indian court today or even in Hague would have got a death sentence for his innumerable crimes. I have no sympathy for him or his debauched Tsarina whose concern for the demon Rasputin was greater than that of the suffering Russian people. <BR/><BR/>Coming back to Gandhi. If he was opposed to violence, why didn't he stop the violent end of Bhagat Singh. Yes, he was a misguided revolutionary, who wanted to prove to the British that "you need a bomb to make the British hear". Yes, his methods were wrong. He himself realised it. Read Bhagat Singh's "Why I am am Atheist" for the same. But Gandhi could have used the Irwin Pact as a quid pro quo to bail Bhagat Singh out of the hanging (of course, Bhagat would have refused to do so himself notwithstanding). Thats the point of critique I am making against Gandhi.Srinivasan Ramanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13620263203764236450noreply@blogger.com