Jallianwalabagh, Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh and how it all went down

[HarmanSingh]

I cannot respect Gandhi as a man for many reasons. The biggest in my eyes being his claim that Guru Gobind Singh JI was a "misguided patriot".

As a political leader, sure he did some good. But I feel he was divisive for a number of reasons already listed.

As to why Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh don't get the accolades Gandhi got, I think a lot of it is a product of the Indian government. They never gave Udham Singh and Bhagat Singh the respect they deserved and shied away from giving them any public respect. A lot of this can be attributed to the reluctance most governments have in acknowledging the good that comes from violent resistance. The same way Malcolm X was never given the credit he deserved by the United States government, is the same way Udham Singh and Bhagat Singh were never given respect. And just a Martin Luther King's message was skewed over time to make him sound like some "turn the other cheek even if the other guy is stabbing you" kind of guy, Gandhi's message and personal issues were hidden. MLK called out the war in Vietnam, called out the government for its negligence in combating poverty and said on many occasions that non violent resistance was as tool for civil rights, not in his personal life. Many don't know MLK had a weapon in his home to protect his family from white supremacists. He also purposely engaged supremacists in violent conflict as to gain public attention over the barbarism displayed by white America but nationally and internationally. The man was not some soft punk like some want you to think, he was a smart man who simply felt non violence was the best way to obtain equality for blacks. But white America has packaged him up as to say "see, you dont need to fight for equality, it will come to you," as a way to silently telling minorities equality will come if they wait long enough. Similarly, Gandhi has been made into some non violent, perfect man because the Indian government cannot afford to have another Udham Singh or Bhagat Singh demand justice for the lower castes or the poor. It would be bad business.

 

[Naveen Singh Khokhar]

well said harman

 

[Jeeti]

I cannot respect Gandhi as a man for many reasons. The biggest in my eyes being his claim that Guru Gobind Singh JI was a "misguided patriot".

As a political leader, sure he did some good. But I feel he was divisive for a number of reasons already listed.

As to why Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh don't get the accolades Gandhi got, I think a lot of it is a product of the Indian government. They never gave Udham Singh and Bhagat Singh the respect they deserved and shied away from giving them any public respect. A lot of this can be attributed to the reluctance most governments have in acknowledging the good that comes from violent resistance. The same way Malcolm X was never given the credit he deserved by the United States government, is the same way Udham Singh and Bhagat Singh were never given respect. And just a Martin Luther King's message was skewed over time to make him sound like some "turn the other cheek even if the other guy is stabbing you" kind of guy, Gandhi's message and personal issues were hidden. MLK called out the war in Vietnam, called out the government for its negligence in combating poverty and said on many occasions that non violent resistance was as tool for civil rights, not in his personal life. Many don't know MLK had a weapon in his home to protect his family from white supremacists. He also purposely engaged supremacists in violent conflict as to gain public attention over the barbarism displayed by white America but nationally and internationally. The man was not some soft punk like some want you to think, he was a smart man who simply felt non violence was the best way to obtain equality for blacks. But white America has packaged him up as to say "see, you dont need to fight for equality, it will come to you," as a way to silently telling minorities equality will come if they wait long enough. Similarly, Gandhi has been made into some non violent, perfect man because the Indian government cannot afford to have another Udham Singh or Bhagat Singh demand justice for the lower castes or the poor. It would be bad business.

Harman paaji...your suggestions are excellent, BUT WAY TOO IDEAL. Of course...in a perfect world...anyone would like to promote what the Shaheeds were able to accomplish, but bro in this world....if you want to be in a position of power, you have to be political...simple as that...nothing more nothing less...we all love to sit on our soap box and hope for the most ideal situation...but if you are to get anywhere, you have to submit the perfect medium so as not to upset anyone too much (See Barack Obama). Again, Harman...I love your opinion..especially with MLK and the things that he did, but...I just think its tooo ideal bro...

 

[HarmanSingh]

Oh for sure Jeeti, I realize the fact that Udham Singh was not political kind of makes him less of a figure head of the movement. My comments were just meant to be my opinion on why the Indian government chose not to acknowledge Udham Singh's work for the movement.

 

[Nikhil]

I really am amazed by how knowledgeable we are as a young generation. Thanks everyone for sharing knowledge.

My question is regarding Jinna: does anyone know his background and his relationship with Gandhiji? Did Jinna have any thoughts on our Punjabi Shaheed rising in India? I ask this question because I have never heard about Jinna's story.

 

[yraparla]

I think there are a bunch of issues that should be parsed.

a few that I can quickly come up with are:

1) The lack of coverage of Punjabi/Sikh patriots. I don't think recognition is the right word in this case, I think it's an issue of quantity rather than quality (i.e. everyone who's heard of them knows how important they were. But how many have heard of them to begin with? few.)

2) Ghandi's actual influence versus the legend

3) non-violence effectiveness

I guess my feeling is that it's extremely important to recognize the various factors involved in Indian Independence. One of the largest parts is simply the over-extension of the British Rule and the inability of the British economy to continue to maintain a level of control they previously enjoyed. I agree that the armed resistance was a critical part of the movement, but I think what we're missing is that so was the non-violence. They both needed each other to truly be effective. Violence would only bring the British down harder, while non-violence simply relies upon political pressure outside Britain, often taking generations to truly manifest (see: US Civil Rights). So both in conjunction allowed for political and practical resistance making Britain wary of continuing control. I think this thread has for the most part undervalued the political aspect of the resistance. The sacrifice of the armed patriots is certainly more tangible, and easier to glorify and respect, but the politicians (e.g. Ghandi) who pushed and pushed as the revolutionaries fought and fought are equally as important.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with all the criticisms of Ghandi. But his most endearing quality to me is that he wasn't some enlightened being that rose from the ground to lead India to peace with marches. He was complex, and his views evolved. I would highly disagree with any analysis that assumes the Ghandi of the 40s was the Ghandi of South Africa. We all change, we all evolve, and while Ghandi deserves criticism (especially for his support of partition which we still deal with today in ever escalating consequences), I think it is important, as Summy said, to divide the man and the philosophy. India needed someone bigger than life to look to for political guidance. The message and legend of Ghandi served as a sort of centrist marker to keep people on edge, regardless of his actual dealings.

So teach and educate. It's not enough to post on BTF. There are patriots who are not getting their due, and more importantly, whose lessons are not being taught. It's not simply about praising or appreciating the heroes. I honestly believe they couldn't care less if their names were remembered. But what they stood for, what they fought for...this is what they want their legacy to be. So go out, get involved and teach those younger than you that there are two sides to every coin, and two sides to every resistance.

If you care enough to make/join a stupid and inarticulate fb group, why not doing something actually useful?

 

[Jabar Jung]

first off, i want to apologize for posting the picture, i didn't know how serious this discussion was, therefore i am here with some intellectual, scholarly response to what was said....

Why I hate Gandhi

Under the Gandhi-Irwin pact, it was decided that the British Government was going to release Political Prisoners, only non-violent prisoners. In return Gandhi's so called "Civil Disobedience" was suspended---even after the deal was signed, it all went back to how it was before, British had the same power, nothing changed.

If gandhi would've refused to sign the pact, they probably would have released or even commute the death sentence of the political prisoners including Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev amd their lives could have been saved.

I will now let you experience kuldeep nayar's words...that i found in the book Without Fear: The life & Trial of Bhagat Singh by Kuldeep Nayar

1-" All eyes were on gandhi. only he had the influence to do something. His pact with the viceroy Irwin was on the anvil. Although people realized that gandhi was opposed to the cult of the bomb, they believe that the situation had taken a different turn, It had passed the stage of wrong and right, moral or immoral, Bhagat singh and his comrades had to be saved.

2-" ...If gandhi was the sun on the political sky of india, Bhagat Singh was the star that had risen form the depths of darkness. Why should gandhi hesitate to support those who were in no way less committed than him in the struggle for freedom? At stake were three lives, not a Philosophical treatise.

3-" Bhagat Singh was also confident that gandhi's pact with viceroy would outrage the people"

4-" When the congress working committee endorsed the gandhi-Irwin pact on 4 March one day before it was signed, Progressive forces termed the pact as "Betrayal'"

5-" On meeting with Herbert Emerson, the viceroy's advisor who recorded gandhi's feelings...gandhi did not seem to be particularly concerned in the matter. I told him that we got lucky if we even got through without disorder and asked all that he could to prevent meetings in delhi. he promised to do all he could"

Why did the British want to execute Bhagat singh and his comrades so bad?

6-"...Bhagat singh and his 2 comrades from the very outset of the trial proceedings was needed, then the viceroy's letter was there for all to see. They could deal with gandhi's non-violent revolution but not BHAGAT SINGH's violent one.


I, 10000000% agree with Meistro about the civil disobedience and someone breaking in

Comparing gandhi's civil disobedience with Dr. King's civil disobedience

The english were in our home, it wasn't their home, this is why civil disobedience never really worked, whereas in the US, Dr. King for the rights of people as mentioned before.

**If we were to make the situation in the US like in India, The African Americans were the british and gores in the US were the indians and they wanted to get rid of the African American people.

Imagery like this goes against everything that is the purity of Sikhism.

So jeeti, are you implying that I am a Sikh Or do you think if i am a Sikh Or you actually know that i am a Sikh?



well, i am not, i am an athiest, thank you.

Summy, Do you know what was the role of Sardaar Kartaar Singh Sarabha and Dr. Kichloo around the time of Jallian wala bagh massacre?


I will write more as soon as i get more time

 

[Jeeti]

Jabar Jung,

I sincerely apologize for assuming that you were a Sikh, but I hope you can see how it was easy for me to do so given the image and facebook group that you presented. ALL THAT BEING SAID, there was still a very ignorant image posted by you sir (see Sapan's post for why Gandi deserves a bit more credit THEN FOR HIM TO BE COMPARED AS A DEVIL..COME ON NOW).

Jabar...im sure you are not gonna agree with me...but I relate you and your vicious pride to the martyrs that were punjabi independence...but come on..please do not insult Gandhi...

HAD ALL THE PEOPLE OF INDIA RESORTED TO VIOLENCE AS SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH AND UDHAM SINGH RESORTED TO WOULD THE END RESULT BE THE SAME...OR WOULD THERE BE MORE PEOPLE DEAD FROM THE REVOLUTION?

this is my only question, AND IF YOU CAN HONESTLY TELL ME THAT VIOLENCE WOULD HAVE SAVED MORE INDIAN LIVES, THEN TO YOU I HAVE NO ANSWER. As a person ridiculously proud of what Shaheed Udham and Bhagat Singh, I want to make sure that we are at least fair...Violence begets violence..and you can tear me open for that...but thats where I stand...and Gandhi's stance made THE WORLD NOTICE...

AS SUMMY SAID...Gandhi was not JUST DEALING WITH HIS OWN CONSCIOUS...he was also dealing with the Indian population (which for the majority were behind him) ....for him to contradict THE FOUNDATIONS OF HIS PRINCIPLES...would be counterproductive...please try and see the bigger picture in this situation....Gandhi was a great politician and had to stand by his principles....

that being said...what's your ultimate decision...should Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Shaheed Udham Singh be given sole credit for India's independence?

Doubtful....it was a combination of multiple forces (Shaheed Bhagat Singh Udham Singh and Gandhi) that led to India's independence.

please don't find my tone offensive Jabar, just expressing my opinion.

P.S. All of the highlighted sections are specifically highlighted to make Gandhi appear as some monster...are you kidding bro? Wasn't he fighting the same fight as Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh were fighting?

I don't know what else to say...How can you denounce Gandhi?

 

[Varun]

Naujawan like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev wanted to die. That was their ultimate sacrifice to their nation and cause, so maybe you should think twice about how unfortunate it is that Gandhi did not do everything in his power to save their lives. Bhagat Singh probably knew the establishment would do nothing, so rather quiver in fear, he did something revolutionary by embracing his death and making sure it made a point.

The worst thing though is how Bhagat Singh, the image, not the man, has been manipulated so much. I can ELABORATE on this alot but I'll leave a quote from a blog that really made me think :

"This is not the first endeavor to distort the message of the great Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh is an outstanding personality who lived beyond his natural life due to his ideological stance and consistant struggle. Fearing the repercussions of the movement that Bhagat and his comrades initiated, the ruling classes and reactionary elements of India and Pakistan have made numerous attempts to disfigure them. Here in Pakistan, there is just no good place for a non-muslim in the text books of History. On the other side of the border, Bhagat's head is covered again by the Sikh turban in order to divorce him from his definite political positions. During the 1980s, The Khalistani fascists tried to depict Bhagat Singh as a Sikh nationalist..."

 

[Jabar Jung]

i am seriosly about to break this computer or cry, i just lost 30 mins of things i wrote .stupid aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ill try to repost what i said !

 

[Karan V]

in my social studies 11 class, our teacher told the clas that Britain asked India to go to war or sumthing and India said that if you give us independence, we will aid in war. then Britain agreed. he said that thats the main reason.

 

[Gugu]

Great discussion yall, I'd post my opinion but I think most has already been said. Plus I think I need a lot of time to make a post regarding this post, which studying for freakin MCATs doesn't permit.


I just wanted to ask though, what do you guys think of the Udham Singh movie? Was it accurate in portraying the situation? Impartial or biased? I'd liek to hear some opinions.. summy, harman etc?

 

[Summy]

Awwwwww man, the long wait for real issues on this site is over. Man, what a pleasure it is reading people's opinions, even if they disagree with myself or others, it just a pleasure after ive been insulted SO long for bringing up this issues.. Thats for your comments Jeeti, I really appreciate them bro. I think we are on the smae wavelength, so its always good talking brother.

First off Jabar Jung, I laughed really hard about the 30mins of lost work...haha. The same thing has happened to me a bunch of times, I understand your pain brother. ha.

--

Going back and forth is something that is harmful. For some people who critisize Gandhi, their critism lies in the fact that this man is heralded as a perfect being. As someone, who created a nation without the rise of a hand. This almost GOD like figure..

let's step back for a moment though. Lets not get caught up with labels. Take him as a normal, honourable man. His contribution is undeniable. I understand when people put labels on gandhi as the man who was responsible for everything, but I dont subscribe to that. I consider him a hand in the revolution. Now, in the west, is he more heralded, yes sir. One intersting notion is because he adhered to imperialists and choose not to fight back. Therefore we was someone that whites had no problem celebrating. Who wants to hear about some guys who killed someone after killing innocents? I dont necessary believe in that theory, but it is defintely an interesting pov.

Jabar Jung, I understand where you are coming from, I understand your frustration, but you are defintely forgetting the impact. I mean Gandhi introduce a new indian constitution bypassing british control with his influence. Think about this, your the british raj, and with ONE man's influence he was able to push a constitution with his intelligence and support pass your control. Without that constitution, the civil disobdience that he did, each and every one of the people protesting would have been brutally slaughtered for their protesting... kinda like.... whoa uuuuuuuhhhhhh huhhhh see that full circle... Jallianwalabagh.


People dont understand that Gandhi got the british when they were most vulnerable WW2. So many, including Gandhi himself were possibly offering support to the British but after a while, Gandhi installed what was called (i think) "Quit Bharat", or something like that. It was the resolution in many people eyes that started the independence fight.



See what Gandhi did was he faught the fight in the court room's, in the pplitical arenas. Lets be honest, Bhagat Singh, and Udham Singh can be the heart of the nation but when it came time to drafting a constitution, egnighting the masses LEGALLY so the british had their hands ties, I mean this is what made him the legendary figure he was.

Everyone remembers his mind and ideologies, but people forget what gained the independence his political movements. Without that, India would not be there. He was there sitting the rooms, dealing with the british. He was the force that the British realized if they didnt adhere to them, they wouldnt be leaving the country with what little remained.


So for us to say I hate Gandhi. Lets take him out of the picture. The congress of India during that time was pasty's to the raj. Therefore, we wouldnt have our freedom they way we have it today. He was one hand in the revolution, and equally important hand as everyone else's.

---------

Gugu, good luck on your MCAT, but what movie are you talking about? There have been quite a few made

-----

Also, Jubar Jung, Katar Singh Sharaba died in 1915, four years before Jallianwalabagh, so I am not sure what influence you are talking about.. Can you elaborate?

 

[Meistro]

i think he's talking about Shaheed Udham Singh: RAM MOHAMMAD SINGH AZAD..............starring Raj babbar. Gurdas Mann played Shaheed Bhagat Singh's role.

 

[Jabar Jung]

THEN FOR HIM TO BE COMPARED AS A DEVIL..COME ON NOW).

I already have apologized for what i posted before, you could let that go now. thank you

HAD ALL THE PEOPLE OF INDIA RESORTED TO VIOLENCE AS SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH AND UDHAM SINGH RESORTED TO WOULD THE END RESULT BE THE SAME...OR WOULD THERE BE MORE PEOPLE DEAD FROM THE REVOLUTION?

If you're asking me, there would have been less people from the revolution because even when gandhi started the civil disobedience, British were still killing indian regardless if it were revolutionaries or non-violent gandhians revolutionaries. If you look at the long term effect people were dying, so why not make something happen.

IF YOU CAN HONESTLY TELL ME THAT VIOLENCE WOULD HAVE SAVED MORE INDIAN LIVES, THEN TO YOU I HAVE NO ANSWER.

I am a little confused, so you are saying revolution violence killed more Indians than the British Raj? as i said before regardless of who you were a violent or a non-violent revolutionary, British treated you the sameway. They were ruthless hence the topic Jallianwala Bagh Massacre.

The Chauri Chora case a non-voilent protest was taking place and the British officers killed so many people. I don't know about you, however if it was me and my father/brother or whoever was killed, I wouldn't have waited for another Chauri Chora to happen. You are put in a situation where you are treated worst than a dog (india street dogs) in your own home and over that you family members are killed. It's very different to listen/read/talk about a situation than actually being in the situation and experiencing it yourself. In response a police chaunki was burned down, what does gandhi do, he first pulls out of his promise of not buying and british things also seen in the movie, shaheed bhagat singh, then he blames the protest victims for what they did.

It's been for a long time that even a little bit of violence always helped get freedom. Sikh gurus have faced mughals since the guru Nanak Dev ji's time when babur was the emperor. Then skip to Guru Gobind singh ji's time where they fought many mughals, i don't think civil disobedience would have helped india get its freedom from the mughals if it wasn't for the battles they fought. British were no different.

Gandhi has been around since even before Bhagat singh was born. they were trying to get independence but never really got anything done.

Bhagat singh was a catalyst for the movement. May be it was a time to try a different approach than gandhi?

If you saw the movie Shaheed Udham Singh and Bhagat singh w/ ajay devgan, there is a great depiction of what the british were doing w/ the indians... telling them to crawl on the streets and random beatings. Put yourself in that situation.

It was gotton so bad that people didn't worry about their lives, however what they did worry about was that they didn't want their grand children go through what they did.

...whats your ultimate decision...show Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh be given sole credit for India's Independence?

NO, as far as I know, It's the other way around, Gandhi has all the credit for the independence of india and NO i don't believe that only Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh should be given sole credit. In fact there were countless amounts of people who should be given credit no just gandhi or Bhagat Singh or Udham Singh, It should be more like Punjab, Gujrat, Bengal, South India, Maharashtra.

Doubtful...it was a combination of multiple forces Shaheed bhagat singh and Udham singh, gandhi that led to india's independencep/quote]

Are you telling me that?

yes, i do belive in that too.

P.S. All of the highlighted sections are specifically highlighted to make Gandhi appear as some monster...

Well the "monster" picture i posted was cencored and i was asked to reply in a "scholarly" manner and i did and if you think i made him look like a monster then i guess i did pretty good.

...are you kidding bro? Wasn't he fighting the same fight as Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh were fighting?

i will ask the same question, wasn't Shaheed Bhagat Singh fighting the same war as gandhi?

No disrespect taken or given it's internet 8)

 

[Jeeti]

I apologize if my post seemed like a direct attack on you...but let me point a few things out...you are misunderstanding me though I think...

....are you trying to say that revolution violence was necessary as part of the movement?

Of course it was, but the only reason I made the comments are made was because of my frustration towards the way Gandhi was being treated prior to other people on this forum agreeing with me.

Bro...by no means am I saying one way or the other..whether violence or non violence is chosen...if you look at my previous posts...its simply stating why what Gandhi did was so intriguing...no one can say that how the British treated Indians... they would not have wanted to take violent action to retaliate...OF COURSE...theres no question here bro, as i said earlier, I am a proud punjabi and very proud of the Shaheeda'n....

...if you believe that it was a combination of forces, as I believe....and actually THE PEOPLE and not a leader which lead a revolution...then I am on the exact same page with you brother...please don't take the fact that my promotion of nonviolence solely reflects how I feel about the situation....but I was just trying to make sure everyone appreciates Gandhi for his philosophy and why it was so important to the revolution.

Also..Why should we keep count of how many people were hurt during the revolution. You asked yourself..."you are saying revolution violence killed more Indians than the British Raj"...THATS WHY GANDHI'S PHILOSOPHY WORKED...you can't fight someone that isn't fighting back...does that make sense to anyone but myself? Gandhi's philosophy was to "be the bigger man" so to speak...whether you want to say that was weak or whatever you wanna call it...IT WAS A HUGE REASON WHY THE WORLD STARTED NOTICING the injustices that the British were treating the Indians with.

I understand the violence...and I understand the justification and reasoning for it, but to look down upon someone that chose nonviolence makes no sense to me especially when he ended up being a major part of the revolution...

your last comment makes no sense....regarding whether or not they were apart of the same revolution (asking whether Bhagat Singh was fighting the same revolution as Gandhi is just semantics)...of course they were...they chose two different paths..one ended up being a political master and for that is considered the father of India and the other did not receive nearly as much credit as he should which is unfortunate but should not matter because the bottom line is...

Every political figure must make some questionable decisions but all we can do is hope that is for some sense of greater good...the principles that Gandhi held led him to support those principles regardless of the situation because he could not afford to go against what he was attempting to get Indians to follow...make sense bro? You can't paint someone that was fighting the same fight and had the same cause as the people you happen to revere so dearly as a monster...especially a nonviolent one. Gandhi, Shaheed Udham Singh and Shaheed Bhagat Singh MUST, MUST, MUST be considered as soldiers in the same fight against the same evil....and anyone else in any other state must be considered the same way...theres no reason to paint anyone fighting that fight as a monster...

end result is the same, and both revolutionaries would be proud of how everything ended up....

 

[Jabar Jung]

agreed! good discussion we haf, we should do this more often

 

[kinnell]

This is an excellent topic.

I have the utmost respect for Bhagat Singh and similar heroes of India. Moreso than Mahatma Gandhi. (I believe both figures who important men in Indian revolution) However, I recently had an argument with an Indian uncle who likened Bhagat Singh to terrorists in his murder act (when he shot Saunders).

Initially, Bhagat Singh did great work in trying to inspire others to resist. However, when he shot Saunders and the conspiracy to shoot another officer. This can be compared to perhaps U.S. occupation of Iraq where terrorist groups have shot and killed American troops. Obviously the analogy is not perfect, but it does provoke debate in that it seems like it depends on perspective.

India eventually won its independence. They are the winners. Thus, the martyrs are martyrs who sacrificed themselves for their countries valiantly. If India was still under British rule, they would have been viewed as rebels who were like "suicide bombers" that resisted (and thus viewed in a negative light). Since it seems like the US uplifted a despot in Iraq and is doing a good job, we call these resisting groups, terrorists.

Can Bhagat Singh be likened to terrorists? I'm curious.

 

[Meistro]

Can Bhagat Singh be likened to terrorists? I'm curious.

It really depends on who you ask. If you're asking somebody who understands the history of how India got it's independance. Then the answer would be no. If you're asking a typical patriotic american, for example, he/she would probably compare him to "terrorists" in Iraq or elsewhere. I think the word terrorist is used too loosely nowadays. Anybody who inflicts violence on the oppressor is going to be labeled a terrorist, when in reality they are fighting for freedom. Something that I never understood is why Pres. Bush has always said that us Americans in Iraq are fighting for freedom. What freedom? Are we being conquered by another country? Do we live in concentration camps? Are we being held against our will against soldiers from a foreign country? You have kids in other countries strapping bombs to themselves, fighting for freedom of their people. These kids are labeled terrorists. However, the real terrorist is always going to be the oppressor in my opinion. We always hear about one or two soldiers in iraq dying or something. Everybody always feels sympathy for these ppl. We never hear about the "terrorist" women, children and men who are fighting to survive. They're almost living like animals. Sorry to go off on a tangent there. But I hope that sort of helps with your questions.

 

[Manjot]

Yeh like Meistro said...The British can be labeled as terrorists as well can't they?...they killed all those people in Jallianwalabagh for absolutely no reason at all...like Meistro said, depends who you ask.