There is a great big statue of Queen Victoria at Cubbon park circle, Bangalore. There are lot of debates to remove/replace etc but it still stays there (as far as I know),
There are plenty of trails of foreigner’s names in Bangalore. I am using this time that I drive (traffic Struck L ) to pen these names that I remember in BLR
> > In Pudukottai - the famous ARCH is in commemoration of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in throne...
yes i remember
the arch is going to be brought down because its stability is gone. i think victoria technical institute and victoria hostel too were commmomerative of her golden jubilee.
of course a typical question in a quiz on chennai would be
name 3 women who have statues on the marina or name 2 europeans who have statues on the marina.
> > Thomas Manro statue .. > > similar listings in Tamilnadu also can be compiled. > > Dear Thiru, > > these can be archieved for future reference suitbly. > > Thanks Malathi and regards / sps >
Wow Ganesh...what a list..yes Bangalore to remember was a great British colony down south due to the conducive weather and clean streets..the MG Road and surrounding areas are still referred to as 'Cantonment' by old Bangaloreans..
one twisty question was always whose statue looks at the sea in marina. most statues face otherwise. annie besant and vivekananda and possibly u vesa ( if not hidden by the aquarium)
jagajivan ram faces anna samadhi because it is cross
Hi Venkat, am not at all sure what you mean by the 'gandhi we know'? Every public figure has a private face to him, i think we talked once about the book by Gandhi's grandson where he talks of his grandfather's attraction to another woman politician in his latter years.
Shrewd politician? Gandhi? That sounds strange to me, he was a bad politician and let the country down especially during partition (people with values and integrity rarely make good politicians anyway). If anybody was shrewd I could call our late Rajaji shrewd, not Gandhi.
The way I see Gandhi was that a person who genuinely tried to be a better human being (btw he didnt' ask for the 'mahatma' title it was conferred on him) - a human being with many fallacies and yet someone who tried his best all the time with no cynical disbelief attached.
I react to these things (the initial remark) because it is somewhat of a fashion these days to throw remarks at big people like they did nothing, and I belive if we pass a criticism we must do so with due respect to what somenoe did for us, am sure you agree(or in other words better a foolish believer than a smart cynic).
Sorry for the long explanation, would love to hear what you say,
Actually there is no saint who 'would not hurt a fly' - saints are human beings with some spiritual experiences and every one of them have had their dark sides.
Gandhi's principles - raising the self respect of people and non violent protests are time tested values and under his great leadership they did contribute greatly. The British raj was collapsing but they would not have given us the country we know today if it was not for Gandhi to some extent and the many people who followed his principles. Where Gandhi failed (among other things) the country was his liberal attitude towards Jinnah and his stubborness to resolve the partition his way (fasting and offering the prime ministership on a plate to a reluctant selfish Jinnah). Gandhi's principles were of huge importance to him - a politician can only go so far with principles, like a businessman his primary interst should be his survival and survival of the people he represents - to my mind Gandhi did not look at it that way and we paid a very heavy price.
Would love to read Muruganandam's book some day, goes on my list,
. Gandhi's principles were of huge importance to him - a politician can only go so far with principles, like a businessman his primary interst should be his survival and survival of the people he represents - to my mind Gandhi did not look at it that way and we paid a very heavy price.
Maloo so you think we lost because of partition. why dont you spare a thought to a complete india. i certainly don t want Swat valley in homeland. even it being in the back yard guives us so much trouble.
india because of a different demographics must have been a terrible place to live in if it had not been divided. racial riot, bigotry and what not would have filed our newspapers. no thank you ma. i like the borders as they are. i think this was taken into account by leading politicians along with th british so worried about their legacy. gandhi was fighting both jinnah and the congres on this issue.
V
> > Would love to read Muruganandam's book some day, goes on my list,
if we are lucky his uppu thirudan may be released in our psvp thiruvizha.
Venkat, no am not against the partition per se but I belive the British created the seeds of long lasting enemity and discontent when they created a hindu nation and muslim nation in other words splitting the country on religious grounds was a huge mistake to do. Gandhi's unhappiness over the partition was also based on this idea that it made religious amity impossible not to mention displacing millions of families.
There is no telling what would have happened if the country was not partitioned on religious grounds. We might have had some states splitting off and making smaller countries. We might have still had a bigger country with lots of turmoil but atleast less fights on basis of religion. Who knows...it does remain a fact though that it was a poor strategy since relations remain poor to this day.
the fact remains that everybody at the helm, the british , congress and the muslim leauge were for the partition. only gandhi was against it, but realised it was something he could never fight against. perhaps he had lost the will after seeing the riots.
> Venkat, no am not against the partition per se but I belive the British created the seeds of long lasting enemity and discontent when they created a hindu nation and muslim nation
when bahadur shah was exiled there was an ethic cleansing in delhi. muslim men were shot or hanged. women and children thrown out of the fort walls to die of cold and were at the mercy of the gurjar dacoits. the muslim properties were auctioned and hindus picked it up.
this is a fact. so playing the hindu card against muslims and viceversa was common with the british.
but still looking at whats happening in pakisthan and bangladesh i am glad partition happened. it would have been anarchy otherwise. imagine governing the north west frontier. p. chidambaram would go bald faster.
venketesh
in other words splitting the country on religious grounds was a huge mistake to do. > Gandhi's unhappiness over the partition was also based on this idea that it made religious amity impossible not to mention displacing millions of families. > > There is no telling what would have happened if the country was not partitioned on religious grounds. We might have had some states splitting off and making smaller countries. We might have still had a bigger country with lots of turmoil but atleast less fights on basis of religion. Who knows...it does remain a fact though that it was a poor strategy since relations remain poor to this day. > > M > > >
I would like to share the below article with you all, as we could understand what Godse's felt about Gandhiji.
Gandhiji Assassin Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court
Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police staton at Delhi. The trial, which was held in camera, began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death.. An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld.
The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949. Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, "I have, however, no doudt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'not Guilty' by an overwhelming majority"
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.
In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm b