Comments on: World’s Oldest Democracy

By: varaaroho

varaaroho — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:02:19 +0000

The topic is about Kaling not Indian Independence. I would be interested if you please shed some more light on the Kaling Republic rather than India’s Independence.

Does anybody have more information about the Kaling Republic? You can mail me. My email id is varaaroho@gmail.com

By: simran Jagdev

simran Jagdev — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:45:02 +0000

I read it somewhere and this is the information I found:
Oldest Democracy of the World � Malana Valley
Malana is a tribal village, which is considered as the oldest democracy in the world. The permission must be obtained by the head of the villagers to visit the important places in the village and one have to be very careful to not touch the untouched places (sacred places and monuments). In that case the villagers can claim the fine to the person who touched the places intentionally or not.

http://www.mapsofindia.com/shimla/malana.html

http://privacycore.info/index.php?hl=f5&q=uggc%3A%2F%2Febpxnpyvzon.jbeqcerff.pbz%2F2008%2F06%2F12%2Fznynan-xhyyl-inyyrl-va-uvznpuny-cenqrfu%2F

By: roua

roua — Sun, 18 May 2008 07:12:16 +0000

hi ich bin dein groööster fen

By: Gururaj

Gururaj — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:21:05 +0000

I am happy that India won its independance in a non voilent way. Non voilence is a sign of maturity. I remember watching a program on Nat Geo on poisonous snakes. There is a some kind of snake very poisonous but when that snake meets another adversary, instead of fighting and biting each other which would have meant killing each other instantly, they would resort to a ‘dance’ to resolve the conflict. whoever loses the dance competition should withdraw from the territory.

when snakes can have such maturity why not humans ?

By: Gurudev

Gurudev — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:58:34 +0000

Kartik
Yes thats a nice feeling indeed

By: Gurudev

Gurudev — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:41:04 +0000

Yes Gururaj, I agree with you that Gandhi acted as an uniting force for entire India during the freedom movement, but he failed to maintain this unity in the end.

I feel that partition was definitely avoidable, and would have resulted in a even stronger India if India was undivided. It is sad that a power hungry congress under Nehru, who was unwilling to share power with Jinna preferred partition.

By: Gururaj

Gururaj — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:30:00 +0000

what everyone seems to forget is that it was Gandhiji who was primarily responsible for the unified voice of Indian freedom movement. And unifying India is such stupendous task that it can never be over emphasized. Till Gandhiji arrived all the struggle for freedom was segregated ; never unified. Even in congress there was section called ‘naram dhal’ led by Gokhale and ‘garam dhal’ led by Tilak. It was only Gandhi who inspired all sections of people to even think about freedom. Even now many believe that British raj was good. You can imagine how divided we were then?

And remember some of the statements he made are so timeless. Here are few still so relevant (not exact words):

A nation’s advancement is measured by how it treats its animals.

Nature can fullfill everyman’s need but not everyone’s greed.

Every change you want to see in the world is change in you.

In my view Gandhi was a genius. You cannot sustain non voilence without the intellectual and spiritual wisdom and an ability to read your adversary’s mind clearly.

But the irony is that he failed to implement his principles with his own people at the time of partition. Again suggesting even great men are fallible. and that Life is not summable.

By: Kartik

Kartik — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:05:56 +0000

i would want to believe that we drove(kicked!) them off rather than they themselves went off.

By: Gurudev

Gurudev — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:43:47 +0000

Kartik
There is no doubt that Gandhiji led the non-violent freedom movement in India and gave India a special place in terms of its freedom movement.

But did the British leave India because of this? Britishers had promised India freedom if Gandhi asked Indians to fight for the British in WW II. But how many times had the British kept their promise till then? What changed in Indian in 1947 which was not there earlier? Undoubtedly it was the terrible losses suffered by the British in WWII, the inability to maintain a huge army in India, the great blow given by Netaji which gave new signals to Indian youth, and India had been almost completely looted by then and nothing really was left to be looted

By: Kartik

Kartik — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:48:52 +0000

“”Again, even in 1947 I dont think it was because of Gandhiji or non-violence that India became independent.. it was more because of the world war II that ended in 1945, where the British had suffered terrible losses”"
this statement of urs, according to me, is undermining the effort of Gandhiji. I like Gandhiji’s ways because that brought respect to us from others. Even many britishers respect us for that.
Jai Hind