kds1980, HTML Code:
it is a well known fact that gandhi could have saved bhagat singh.
http://www.boloji.com/people/04002.htm
That's why it was so benumbing to the nation, when Bhagat Singh died.
Most possibly, he could have been saved with an effort by the Congress
in general, and the Mahatma in particular. But that was not supposed to be.
__________________________________________
even in the film on bhagat singh it is shown that
after the death of bhagat singh the suppoters were saying
"gandhi hai hai".
Bhagat Singh and two others had sent off a letter to the Viceroy because their friends coaxed them to do so.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8786
But in that letter they had not asked for clemency. Instead they asked the Viceroy to treat them as prisoners
of war and hence to shoot them rather than hang them. With this letter now available, it is no use lamenting
on Gandhiji's stand, whatever that was, because Bhagat Singh did not relish the idea of asking for a pardon.
This is evident from the fact that a friend of his (Prannath Mehta) visited him in the jail on March 20 with a
draft letter for clemency but he declined to sign it.
It will be proper to sit in judgment on the matter only after knowing the background of the Gandhi-Irwin pact.
This first ever agreement between the Raj and the Congress came after two years of turmoil in the country
in the form of a non-violent civil disobedience struggle. After the Congress passed its Poorna Swaraj resolution
in December 1929, Gandhiji devised the 450-kilometre Dandi March to shake the rural people out of inaction
and break the Salt Law, as a token of disobedience. The chain of events that followed showed that the extent
of sacrifice needed for a non-violent struggle was no less than what was required for a violent struggle. Apart
from making monetary and career sacrifices, the participants showed, in the face of police torture, a level of
physical courage that would have been required in a violent struggle. By December that year almost all leaders,
including Gandhiji, were rounded up and jails in the country were full. Finally, thanks to the mediation of
moderates like Tej Bahadur Sapru, the government came forward to talk to the satyagrahis. As a precondition
the leaders were released in January 1931. Gandhiji stayed in Delhi where later he convened a meeting of the
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8786
Congress Working Committee.
Accounts of the parleys between the Congress and the government between February 17 and March 5 indicate
that frequently there were delicate moments of stalemate, long arguments over a phrase or a word, objections
from colleagues and so on. Many a time Gandhiji was seen off by the Viceroy after midnight and the former
would walk down to his residence at Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari's house, which was 8 km away.
It was on this occasion that Winston Churchill made the nasty remark describing Gandhiji as a half-naked fakir. Disturbed by the endless discussions, he had said: "It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace... to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor."
The outcome of the talks was a mixed one. Each leader was unhappy about specific parts of the pact.
Subhas Chandra Bose, for example, told the leftists among Congressmen: "Between us and the British
lies an ocean of blood and a mountain of corpses. Nothing on earth can induce us to accept this compromise
which Gandhiji had signed." On the whole, the Congress had to accept the pact because the Working
Committee was with Gandhiji at every stage of the discussions. But the militants and their supporters
would not have it. What is the use of a truce that does not get amnesty for Bhagat Singh and his colleagues?
Wherever Gandhiji went, youngsters with red flags encountered him with questions; sometimes he was even
manhandled. At the All India Congress Committee (AICC) meeting in Karachi they shouted: "Gandhi's truce
sent Bhagat Singh to the gallows."
WHILE parading through history, it would be unfair to Gandhiji if one does not record his efforts in this case.
He was not a mere politician but a humanist at the core. He got 90,000 political prisoners other than
satyagrahis released under the pretext of "relieving political tension". He did plead for the commutation
of the death sentence of the three heroes, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, also. But he did not succeed
because the Viceroy's moves were governed from England and these three were a challenge to the Raj and
thus were not thought fit for pardon. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Viceroy on the day of their execution,
pleading fervently for commutation, not knowing that the letter would be too late.
Otherwise a leader who spearheaded a successful, unique, non-violent agitation that attracted the attention
of the press the world over and drew millions, including women and children who showed a rare spirit of sacrifice,
need not have made so many concessions to the government. In such a situation he could not have been
expected to win on the major issue of commutation of death sentences.
He said in Karachi: "I might have done one more thing, you say. I might have made the commutation a term of settlement. It could not be done so. And to threaten withdrawal now would be a breach of faith." But this should not be taken as a manifestation of a lukewarm feeling towards Bhagat Singh.
These are the things that made Gandhi a Mahatma. You give your word, you keep that word.
Thanks. 
Our Donation Goal
: Why Donate? : Donate Today! : Donate Anonymously (ਗੁਪਤ) : Our Family of Supporters 
.jpg)
Re: Bhagat Singh and the Khalistani. 
is making has no basis. He is just on Sikh forums to create trouble. He is an internet troll and fool who has been defeated (and probably banned) from in the Sikh-History.com Forums. Unfortunately when you come to the 
Linear Mode
