Bhagat Singh Terrorist or freedom fighter????

[Spring Onion]

Bhagat singh didnt ask his followers to wear the belt and blow themselves up in the middle of civilians.


Bhagat Singh in now way caused any harm to Indians, but targeted british officers.

What was his way of fighting and targeting the British Officers ?????

 

[Goodperson]

He did not kill anyone he threw smoke bomb in court. His protest lead to revolt against British

Bhagat Singh and spark of revolt in India|29Sep07|Socialist Worker

 

[Spring Onion]

Give Bhagat Singh his due place in history, demand Netizens
1 Nov 2007, 1732 hrs IST,Poonam Bisht,INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK



He was revered by the youth, loathed by British Raj and opposed by none other than the greatest freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi. Like his fellow revolutionaries, idealistic and visionary, he dreamt of freeing his motherland from the clutches of the British rule. And at the young age of 23, Bhagat Singh laid down his life for his countrymen, setting an example of putting one's self before one's nation.

Several decades have passed since then. The martyr's name has once again made headlines. However, this time it is for different reasons. A debate has been triggered by the Union Public Service Commission's reference to the brave freedom fighter as "a revolutionary terrorist", in its general studies paper of UPSC's civil services exams recently.

It rarely happens that the struggle for country's Independence is being talked about by the masses and the contribution of Bhagat Singh doesn't feature in it. Ironically, history text books at the school or college level for decades tell a different story altogether. While historians chose to ignore the revolutionary efforts of the youth icon in the freedom struggle, Bhagat Singh's supporters believe that their hero has never got his due over all these years, thanks to the iconic names of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, which completely dominated history lessons.

When Timesofindia.com ran a story on how the UPSC entrance exam termed Bhagat Singh as a 'revolutionary terrorist', Netizens overwhelmingly raised strict objections to the reference. Most of them call it an act of blasphemy and an insult to the great freedom fighter's 'unmatched' contribution in the freedom struggle and nationalist movement.
Prateek Singh, Delhi, says, "This is an insult to some of greatest freedom strugglers. How can Bhagat Singh be equated to Osama Bin Laden? It is ironic that even after sixty odd years of our Independence, we have not been able to judge the role of our revolutionaries and give them proper respect. And regarding terrorism, the best explanation of means used by Bhagat Singh can be found in his statements (during his trial) and his letters. It would be highly appropriate if those letters and statements are taken into account while assessing the role of our revolutionaries."

Expressing dismay over the issue, Prabha from Dubai, says, "Those personnel involved and collaborated in bringing out such humiliating words as "revolutionary terrorist" for Shaheed Bhagat Singh should be punished as traitors of our nation."
Voicing his opinion all the way from Washington, Jayantsays,"Terrorism in all forms endorses killing of innocents bystanders. It cannot be justified for any cause. If Bhagat Singh can be called a revolutionary terrorist, then Gandhi should be called revolutionary terrorist as well since he was responsible for millions of death during Partition. Bhagat Singh never killed any innocent people for India's Independence. There is no place for any kind of terrorism in today's world. Those who support the term 'revolutionary terrorism' may be interested to see today's actual terrorists (including Naxals) getting a legal status."

In 1928, Bhagat Singh and his comrades shot Lahore Deputy Police Superintendent J P Saunders (who was mistaken for Police Chief Scott), to avenge the lathi-charge on Lala Lajpat Rai which led to his death. The next year, they hurled a harmless bomb in the National Assembly and threw pamphlets.

However, they made it clear in the court later that their only intention was 'to make the deaf hear'. Many Netizens feel that Bhagat Singh never wanted to unleash bloodshed. Rather, he was using such modes to make his countrymen aware of the existing scenario and the suffering of their brethren.

There are many who admit that Bhagat Singh's ways were not peaceful in nature but he certainly could not be referred to as a terrorist, a term which has now become synonymous with the likes of ULFA, LTTE, Al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Hizbul Mujaheedin and many other outfits responsible for killing several innocent people all over the world, in the name of freedom struggle.

Bhagat Singh and his brave comrades displayed remarkable grit, determination and patriotism and were guided by the sole intention of securing freedom for the motherland. They never shied away from owning the responsibilities for their acts. Should those heroes be branded as "terrorists", who kissed the gallows with smiles on their vibrant faces, without showing any traces of fear and died with only one slogan Inquilab Zindabad on their lips?




-----------
Give Bhagat Singh his due place in history, demand Netizens-India-The Times of India

 

[Spring Onion]

He did not kill anyone he threw smoke bomb in court. His protest lead to revolt against British

Bhagat Singh and spark of revolt in India|29Sep07|Socialist Worker

Read the above story it says

In 1928, Bhagat Singh and his comrades shot Lahore Deputy Police Superintendent J P Saunders (who was mistaken for Police Chief Scott), to avenge the lathi-charge on Lala Lajpat Rai which led to his death. The next year, they hurled a harmless bomb in the National Assembly and threw pamphlets

Now as far that bomb well it was not a smoke bomb rather grenade thrown at the national assembly of British Raj at that time and for that Bhagat Singh was arrested and hanged.

if he can be called freedom fighter why those fighing against modern times occupation today are not called by indians as freedom fighters.

 

[Bull]

What was his way of fighting and targeting the British Officers ?????

Im no good at spoon feeding, go figure out.

 

[Bull]

Read the above story it says
Now as far that bomb well it was not a smoke bomb rather grenade thrown at the national assembly of British Raj at that time and for that Bhagat Singh was arrested and hanged.

Very true, a grenade that blew right in the middle and just puffed smoke!!! When they managed to smuggle a bomb into the assembly cant understand why they threw at the well and not at the people.

 

[Spring Onion]

Very true, a grenade that blew right in the middle and just puffed smoke!!! When they managed to smuggle a bomb into the assembly cant understand why they threw at the well and not at the people.

earlier he had killed a police officer right ????

So why he would use just a smoke bomb???

Gandhi Jee Qauid-e-Azam and both Muslims and Hindus were fighting independence war at that time so why they did not use these ways instead they used peacful means.

 

[Flintlock]

Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter without any doubt. Calling him a terrorist is not only stupid, its also dishonest.

 

[aryan2007]

earlier he had killed a police officer right ????

To take revenge for the murder of Lala Lajpat Rai(Punjab Kesari) and he was justified in my eyes for taking up arms against the enemy for the judiciary was partial towards the British police officers...

So why he would use just a smoke bomb???

To direct attention to the cause of complete Independence of India (at a time when 2-Nation theory was not invented/propounded/though of)

Gandhi Jee Qauid-e-Azam and both Muslims and Hindus were fighting independence war at that time so why they did not use these ways instead they used peacful means.

Please can you tell me how many rallies and protest did the Quaid-e-Azam of Pakistan undertake against teh British for the cause of Pakistani independence??

How many Muslim League or Jinnah's supporters were imprisioned/died while fighting against the British if they fought that is ???

How could someone expect Bhagat Singh to involve himself in petty affairs otherwise called religious affairs when his motherland was burning?? I think his right to violence was justifiable.. and this instilled pride amongst the Indians and Inspired millions and even to this day..

Gandhi was not only a freedom fighter but a social worker who worked hard to bring dignity, courage and pride amongst the Indians.. Gandhiji was committed to his ideals and beliefs which made violence antithetical to his very being.

Bhagat Singh felt that his means were justified morally might I add he was an atheist.. To call him a terrorists is to insult not only us South Asians but all those people who are fighting oppression..


Both were role models for patriotic Indians, one by action and violence the other by non-co-operation and non violence... Much the same way some people like Musharraf others Imran Khan..

I am pretty surprised that not much is known about Bhagat Singh in Pakistan .. I met a Lahori who surprisingly schooled me in some of the other lesser known Freedom Fighters... I would like to believe he was a role model for Pakistanis as well


Bhagat's SIngh's quotes about him being a terrorist and his using force

"Let me announced with all the strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was, expected perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career. And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through those methods. One can easily judge it from the history of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. All our activities were directed towards an aim, i.e., identifying ourselves with the great movement as its military wing. If anybody has misunderstood me, let him amend his ideas. I do not mean that bombs and pistols are useless, rather the contrary. But I mean to say that mere bomb-throwing is not only useless but sometimes harmful. The military department of the party should always keep ready all the war-material it can command for any emergency. It should back the political work of the party. It cannot and should not work independently."


"Force when aggressively applied is "violence" and is, therefore, morally unjustifiable, but when it is used in the furtherance of a legitimate cause, it has its moral justification. The elimination of force at all costs in Utopian.."

PS: Has anyone heard of Udham Singh?? or Kartar Singh Sarabha Grewal?

 

[Amalek]

Bhagat Singh was a self-less man who gave up his life so that his country could become independent from the British rule.

He was a revolutionary, having socialist ideals of all men being equal irrespective of religion or caste.

He was a true freedom fighter of India, a role model to many.

 

[Spring Onion]

Bhagat Singh was a self-less man who gave up his life so that his country could become independent from the British rule.

He was a revolutionary, having socialist ideals of all men being equal irrespective of religion or caste.

He was a true freedom fighter of India, a role model to many.

In the same breath all Iraqies are freedom fighters fighting the foreign occpuation.

The Kashmiris the most real freedom fighters fighting for Independence from India and its opperssion for the last 60 years.

The Afgan people who are fighting foreign occupation, the Taliban are all freedom fighters.
The Palestinians are real freedom fighters who are fighting against Israeli aggression.
All are selfless people who are fighting for freedom

 

[Flintlock]

In the same breath all Iraqies are freedom fighters fighting the foreign occpuation.

The Kashmiris the most real freedom fighters fighting for Independence from India and its opperssion for the last 60 years.

The Afgan people who are fighting foreign occupation, the Taliban are all freedom fighters.
The Palestinians are real freedom fighters who are fighting against Israeli aggression.
All are selfless people who are fighting for freedom

You are missing the point.

The question isn't whether to fight or not. The question is what are their methods and what they are fighting for.

 

[aryan2007]

In the same breath all Iraqies are freedom fighters fighting the foreign occpuation.

The Kashmiris the most real freedom fighters fighting for Independence from India and its opperssion for the last 60 years.

The Afgan people who are fighting foreign occupation, the Taliban are all freedom fighters.

The Palestinians are real freedom fighters who are fighting against Israeli aggression.
All are selfless people who are fighting for freedom

no.. if all Indians were freedom fighters than yes.. the question is of Bhagat Singh.. How many innocents did he kill??

He is at the very top of people who achieved martyrdom... he was not long gone before Pakistan as a concept was given birth too.. otherwise things would have been much different..

 

[Spring Onion]

aryan and stealth

be neutral and comment fairly.
compare the difference between ,18, 19 centuray and today.
Bhagat Singh did attack and tried to kill the British officer but mistakenly a native police official was killed isnt it???

he did not have sophisticated weapons at that time whatever he had he used it isnt it???

today's scenario is totally different with more weapons to use by all sides.

even Gandhi did not approve of his way of fighting for freedom rather he was taking revenge for killiong of lala which can not be called freedom fight rather a revenge.

if you justify his action than do have moral courage to accept that all those who are fighting foreign occupation today are fighting for freedom and they are also freedom fighters.

 

[niaz]

We must not forget that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is very little. It all depends upon which end of the telescope you are looking at it.

Let us examine dispassionately:

1. When I read history in the early 50's. Most text books were printed during the Raj and 1857 rebellion was known as "Ghadar" now it is called Jang-e- Azadi.

2. Mujibir Rahman was a traitor to Pakistan but a hero to Bengla Deshis.

3. Subhash Chandar Bose strongly opposed Ganghiji's non voilence movement and travelled both to Germany and Japan in order to start a rebellion against the British. He was branded as fascist and a terrorist; hunted down by the British and now revered as 'Neta Ji'.

4. Menachem Began began his life as a terrorirst and a member of Irgun and the Haganah. He was planting bombs against British Palestine manadate regime. His bombs at the King David Hotel killed 91 people!! Later he was to become a hero and an Israeli Prime Minister.

All the above illustrates that while one side calls an organization or an individual a terrorist, the other side will call him a freedom fighter. Bhagat Singh was in the same mould. India, now being independent, Bhagat Singh is a hero. If Khalistan becomes a reality some time in the far future; Bhindrewalla would also be revered as a hero.