BHAGAT SINGH :THE MAKING OF THE REVOLUTIONARY

[HellzHere]

ahhhh he also tried to killed the goras and dont forget the death of the innocent police officer who btw was local not even a gora.

you may come up with thousands of excuses but all fails epically as long as you agree to one standard definition of "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" for all.

Then the rebels in Libya fighting against Gaddafi's oppressive rule are terrorists for you?But your countrymen seem to be supporting them

 

[HellzHere]

Nothing to derail.

we dont glorify terrorists on the forum according to rules of the forum. But if you are insisting on changing the meaning of the terrorist then i am afraid we have to change it for everyone.

Beta yahan per toh Bhagat singh ko terrorist bol rahi hai,aur tu India bhi aai hui hai,India mein galti se bhi Bhagat singh ko terrorist na bol diyo.

Haddiyan tak nahi milengi.

 

[jayron]

lol, that's a highlight? Sounds so much like Mumtaz Qadri...

This is what happens when most of your leaders conspired with the colonialists for their own selfish reason. Bhagat singh is more like Che Guvera, one who fought against a colonial power and wanted to bring change. Quadri is an indoctrinated weirdo .

 

[HellzHere]

Administrator of PDF comparing Bhagat Singh and Qadri.......

Do Pakistanis seriously have that low level of IQ?

 

[desioptimist]

Terrorist: person who considers common civilian(arbitrary) as party to the conflict and combatant for the govt in power, and causes violent act against them to force them agree to his/her cause

Militant: Person who considers govt machinery(especially forces) to be combatant, and spares the common civilians.

Both above persons are in sound mental condition.

Notice that usually govt forces are not considered terrorists even though they may cause violence against civilians. Nor is attack by enemy forces on civilians is considered terrorism.

Terrorism is quite modern term, and trying to use it against bhagat singh / prof mohammed / Genghis Khan is risky.

Example:
kashmiri armed struggle against indian army: militancy
punjabi armed struggle against indian state: militancy
kashmiri blowing up arbitrary 10 civilians : terrorism

Example of acts not considered terrorism:
salman taseer's murder taseer was party to conflict, so a target killing, it is not arbitrary killing of some random civilian)
Pakistan army's torture and killing in baluchistan
Indian army's torture and killing in kashmir
snake/tiger killing a human (terrorist has to be human)
Gunman in some school in US emptying his gun on classmates/teachers

 

[alphamale]

@ indian members- no need to give justification to anyone over bhagat singh. for indians he is the one of the greatest freedom fighter. we don't want a certificate from anyone to declare him as a freedom fighter.

 

[majesticpankaj]

@ indian members- no need to give justification to anyone over bhagat singh. for indians he is the one of the greatest freedom fighter. we don't want a certificate from anyone to declare him as a freedom fighter.

absolutely right sir... bhagat singh is a legend ... we don't need to prove it..he fasted for 64 days along with other revolutionary in jail for the sake of all the prisoners.. salute to u sir... jo aadmi desh ke liye haste haste fasi per chadd gaya usko badnaam na karo

 

[Awesome]

The point remains he adopted intimidation tactics which are never okay. The justification that he never attacked any innocent citizen, is not good enough. The fight against the British in the end was not won by arms, but by wits. It was through mobilizing the masses and making them want azaadi, not by intimidating the ones that didn't. Which is why Bhagat Singh till date remains a footnote in the battle for Azaadi, while Jinnah and Gandhi are credited with the actual substantial gains.

It's like I start being intolerant of Mullahs' right to exist for the sake of spreading tolerance in Pakistan. First I would be called an intolerant and then maybe if I achieved anything... a revolutionary.

Bhagat Singh is apparently played up a lot on this forum by random Indians whereas history has shown that he received no respect from Pakistanis and hence its a failed effort, one that needs to be let go for the sake of your sanity and ours. We have no beef with your reverence of the guy, just don't shove your heroes down our throats and not expect a reaction.

 

[ares]

The point remains he adopted intimidation tactics which are never okay. The justification that he never attacked any innocent citizen, is not good enough. The fight against the British in the end was not won by arms, but by wits. It was through mobilizing the masses and making them want azaadi, not by intimidating the ones that didn't. Which is why Bhagat Singh till date remains a footnote in the battle for Azaadi, while Jinnah and Gandhi are credited with the actual substantial gains.

It's like I start being intolerant of Mullahs' right to exist for the sake of spreading tolerance in Pakistan. First I would be called an intolerant and then maybe if I achieved anything... a revolutionary.

Bhagat Singh is apparently played up a lot on this forum by random Indians whereas history has shown that he received no respect from Pakistanis and hence its a failed effort, one that needs to be let go for the sake of your sanity and ours. We have no beef with your reverence of the guy, just don't shove your heroes down our throats and not expect a reaction.

Are you saying he never received any respect from Pakistanis because of his religion or Pakistanis as a practice only respect peaceful freedom fighters?

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

The point remains he adopted intimidation tactics which are never okay. The justification that he never attacked any innocent citizen, is not good enough.

You are being unfair towards Bhagat Singh. Sure, he used intimidating tactics, but then so did a lot of other recognised freedom fighters. The entire 1857 revolt was an armed struggle!! Bhagat Singh enjoys the same status as a Subhas Chandra Bose, Rani Laxmibai or Tipu Sultan or many others.

The fight against the British in the end was not won by arms, but by wits. It was through mobilizing the masses and making them want azaadi, not by intimidating the ones that didn't. Which is why Bhagat Singh till date remains a footnote in the battle for Azaadi, while Jinnah and Gandhi are credited with the actual substantial gains.

No one is crediting Bhagat Singh for earning independence for our countries. But winning a fight is not the only thing that matters. His actions instilled a belief in all of us, a vigor inside the common man which was previously missing.

Bhagat Singh is apparently played up a lot on this forum by random Indians whereas history has shown that he received no respect from Pakistanis and hence its a failed effort, one that needs to be let go for the sake of your sanity and ours. We have no beef with your reverence of the guy, just don't shove your heroes down our throats and not expect a reaction.

The problem is that you guys have not been able to decide who is your hero and who isn't. In this very thread, 3rd or 4th post has a Pakistani trying to hog credit for Bhagat Singh's work, yet here you are complaining that we are shoving OUR heroes down your throat?