Bhagat Singh Terrorist or freedom fighter????

[aryan2007]

aryan and stealth
be neutral and comment fairly.
compare the difference between ,18, 19 centuray and today.

k

Bhagat Singh did attack and tried to kill the British officer but mistakenly a native police official was killed isnt it???

Mistakenly.. duh...

He wanted to take revenge for killing the British official responsible for getting Lalaji murdered in a non-violent protest..

I see nothing wrong with that.. he just wanted to restore the Indian pride and teach a lesson to the British..

Udham Singh went all the way to UK.. to kill the then the gov of Punjab who was involved in Jallianwala Bagh,, he is a celebrated martyr too...


these acts were acts of barbarity .. these were responses to terrorism..

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

He had bombs in the assembly.. he didn't kill anyone with it...

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

yep.. but in that when you don't have weapons and fighting an enemy who has weapons.. and that enemy kills you when you are protesting and not showing any violence...

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.

Killing a murderer to restore the pride of the nation is not wrong... that act was an act of a revolutionary.. He has very explicity said that the military wing of HSRA is nothing without its political wings.

He staged shows to protest the British, got arrested, then staged protests, he refused to snitch, he acknowledged all the charges, he died to be an inspiration to the masses..

He did justify violence against the guilty.. He actually moved the children(British I presume) away from the police station before shooting the Cop..

He refused to eat food for over a month to protest injustice and inhumanity in treating the goray and Indians..

He was fighting for his land... He did not discriminate against Muslims or Hindus.. he was against that..

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.

Anyone who is fighting for the cause and not killing innocent women and children whether they be Jihadi, Mujahideen, LTTE..


why does LTTE have no support in Rest of India because they are using terrorism to spread their message.. and killing innocents..


Why does your so called Kashmir Freedom Fighter has no sympathy from the world because they are fighting a political battle and calling it a religious one.. & at the same they are killing innocents(armymen are not innocent)... they are terrorising and torturing civvies..


Look at Kashmir from a third party POV.. these guys are armed and killing all iresp whether they are army people or not. they are killing Kashmiri non-muslims.. Kashmir is a diverse land.. how can you call Kashmir struggle a religious one.. when it is a political fight.. do you call them freedom fighters.. kudos.. I call them terrorists..


why did the Khalistani terrorists have no sympathy within the Sikhs.. because they were killing innocents..


Why do I not have sympathy to either Israelis or Palestinians because they hide behind innocents both, and then carry out suicide attacks and what not...

Dalai Lama is a freedom fighter..!!

 

[aryan2007]

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.

I think not..

Let us examine dispassionately:

I can try

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.

1857's revolt had mixed reaction..it was actually the Muslims and Hindus fighting the British because for hurting their religious beliefs.. and wanted to overthrow them under the banner of Bahadur Shah and restore the Mogul empire..

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.

no idea..

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.

It all depends on the way you carry out your political agenda...

Bhagat Singh was in the same mould. India, now being independent, Bhagat Singh is a hero.

Bhagat Singh was a martyr before India got independent.. like many others..

If Khalistan becomes a reality some time in the far future;

Khalistan is dead.. and was always a minority movement.. and it would not have happened had it not been from anti-Indian support.. (capische?)

Bhindrewalla would also be revered as a hero.

Bhindranwale is the most abused person amongst Indian Sikhs.... He started out as a very promising person but ended up being corrupted by power.. He is revered as a hero by the Canadian and British Sikhs..

 

[IndianVijay]

Sorry to have informally interfered with this discussion.

But I guess, the word terrorist termed by the english has a diff meaning.

And talking about Bhagat Singh. If killing British officer was their motto. They could have killed so many Brits, without even getting caught.
They had a point to prove, they weren't being heard.

This is the only way.

Killing of the British Officer was just to show that the wont be quite if such things go.

Any unrude and civilised reply is welcome

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

Damn! 5 year old thread !!!!

lol@Thread and Thread starter.....

Failed

 

[M. Sarmad]

''Let us declare that the state of war does exist and shall exist so long as the Indian toiling masses and the natural resources are being exploited by a handful of parasites. They may be purely British Capitalist or mixed British and Indian or even purely Indian. They may be carrying on their insidious exploitation through mixed or even on purely Indian bureaucratic apparatus. All these things make no difference. ".....The war neither began with us nor is it going to end with our lives.''

23 March 1931
Comrade bhagat singh

 

[Android]

Leaders Bhagat Singh, Netaji Bose might have been great leaders of Independence Movement but due to their socialist philosophy they all would have been a big disaster when it actually comes to governing and leading the nation not much different than Nehru although they would have been much more practical in dealing with issues related to national security unlike the pacifist nature of nehru

 

[Patriots]

Bhagat Singh and others were terrorist in front of Brit rulers ... Now same role is being played by India and calls terrorist to Kashmiri freedom fighters .............


What the height of Indian hypocrisy ..............

 

[Secularpakistani]

Definitely a freedom fighter.I have plenty of respect for such people.

 

[Janmejay]

Bhagat Singh and others were terrorist in front of Brit rulers ... Now same role is being played by India and calls terrorist to Kashmiri freedom fighters .............


What the height of Indian hypocrisy ..............

So what are your views about Mr. Jinnah then??

 

[scorpionx]

I agree with the view that the definition of terrorist varies with nationality. One who is considered a mass murderer and fanatic psychopath in West may not be looked in a similar way in distant East. But should we be remain confused about the course of action taken by Bhagat Singh and his compatriots if these are terrorist act or not? Bhagat Singh did not murder any innocent civilians. He mistakenly killed the John Saunders, Assistant Superintendent of Police whom Bhagat Singh and his associates thought to be J.A Scott the person who allegedly beaten up Lala Lajpat Rai to death.

Bhagat Singh threw a harmless bomb in Central Legislative assembly, away from the seated members "to make a deaf hear." It did not hurt anyone present. Can these be imagined today or expected from today's terrorists? Do these incidents suggest that he was a terrorist? I guess not.These acts do not conform with the idea of terrorism we evidence today where thousands of innocents are being killed in the name of religion and in the name of preserving peace. There is no scope to remain perplexed in this matter in any way.

 

[joekrish]

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

What is right today does not have to be right yesterday or tomorrow.
Comparing your view to your great-grandmother or your grandchildren, Do you think they would agree with you?
He was a freedom fighter and you could question his ways today but that does not make him any less.
Anyways you have compared him with todays terrorist
Name one Kashmiri terrorist who has fought for Kashmir and it's people by being selfless?

 

[A Town]

Bhagat Singh and others were terrorist in front of Brit rulers ... Now same role is being played by India and calls terrorist to Kashmiri freedom fighters .............


What the height of Indian hypocrisy ..............

Baloch people are proud freedom fighters from Pakistani oppression and chauvinism.
Pakistani hypocrisy.

 

[Spring Onion]

What is right today does not have to be right yesterday or tomorrow.
Comparing your view to your great-grandmother or your grandchildren, Do you think they would agree with you?
He was a freedom fighter and you could question his ways today but that does not make him any less.
Anyways you have compared him with todays terrorist
Name one Kashmiri terrorist who has fought for Kashmir and it's people by being selfless?

fighters against any invasion are freedom fighters or all are terrorists simple as that.

I agree with the view that the definition of terrorist varies with nationality. One who is considered a mass murderer and fanatic psychopath in West may not be looked in a similar way in distant East. But should we be remain confused about the course of action taken by Bhagat Singh and his compatriots if these are terrorist act or not? Bhagat Singh did not murder any innocent civilians. He mistakenly killed the John Saunders, Assistant Superintendent of Police whom Bhagat Singh and his associates thought to be J.A Scott the person who allegedly beaten up Lala Lajpat Rai to death.

Bhagat Singh threw a harmless bomb in Central Legislative assembly, away from the seated members "to make a deaf hear." It did not hurt anyone present. Can these be imagined today or expected from today's terrorists? Do these incidents suggest that he was a terrorist? I guess not.These acts do not conform with the idea of terrorism we evidence today where thousands of innocents are being killed in the name of religion and in the name of preserving peace. There is no scope to remain perplexed in this matter in any way.

mistakenly ?

he dint have advance weapons at that time otherwise he would have used. simple as that.

 

[Khan_patriot]

the terms are interchangeable depending on where your allegiances lay, for the Brits he was a terrorist and for the Indians he was and maybe is a freedom fighter, same can be said about George Washington and Ben Franklin and dare I say even OBL.....

 

[KingMamba]

So what are your views about Mr. Jinnah then??

Did he kill anyone bharoti?