Adventures of Huck Finn essays

Adventures of Huck Finn essays 1. In the novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck Finn was the main character. The story was told through his eyes, and most of the events that took place happened around him. But some of these events would not have happened without other main characters as well, like Jim, Tom Sawyer, the King, or the Duke. Hucks personality at the start of the novel had changed gradually throughout the novel and until the end. At first, Miss Watson tried to make him pray for things but Huck did not believe in praying because it brought him bad luck. Later in the novel, Huck tries to pray for forgiveness and wants to erase his sin for stealing a nigger. After he prays, he feels he can pray openly now and will not sin anymore (CH. 31). Huck was also superstitious and believed that everything that went wrong was because of certain things he did, like the snake in Jims blanket. And everything was blamed on the bad luck Huck and Jim had. Huck also became kind, especially after the quarrel with his father, pap. He learned that in order to get along with people (like the king and duke), you have to let them have their way, and Huck did. Jim, at first, was looked upon as just an ordinary nigger. But Huck and Tom soon realized that he was very smart and had helped Huck through most of his adventures. But as a nigger, Jim was looked up to as a hero to other niggers. For instance, Huck tells the reader when niggers from all over the country came to see Jim and hear of his heroic stories and every nigger wanted to be like Jim. Jim was also very superstitious, especially in chapter eight when Jim talks about all of his superstitions, like counting the things for dinner and telling the bees that their owner had just died. All of this supposedly brought bad luck. Tom Sawyer was also a very influential character to the story. He was the one who came up with all the solutions for things, which eventually made m...

Harold Coward Book Review Essay Example

Harold Coward Book Review Essay Example Indian Critiques Of Gandhi By Harold Coward Book Review Indian Critiques Of Gandhi By Harold Coward Book Review In regard with the life of Mahatma Gandhi, Coward argues that the ideology that this great person propagated across India and the world as a whole was formed under the influence of other significant historical figures. Mahatma Gandhi had not only supporters and admirers but also critics who had different perspectives. By considering the arguments of both the legendary leader and his critics, the author in this piece decisively and authoritatively allows the reader to appreciate the strengths and the weaknesses of Mahatma Gandhis real contribution to the Indian nation, as well as the rest of the world. The main arguments revolve around independence and Indian nationalism assuming that Gandhis ideology is seen as not always immaculate contrary to what his supporters may think. Harold Coward Book Review This book plays a significant role in the history of India and its politics as it enlightens the reader as to the pluralist opinion that engulfed and possibly continues to engulf this nation in such aspects as independence, democracy and religion, among other things. In the book Indian Critiques of Gandhi, Harold Coward manages to present Mahatma Gandhi and his ideals in a manner that has been overlooked by most history scholars who have a keen interest in learning Gandhi’s contribution to the enlightenment and independence of India. In addition, Harold portrays Mahatma Gandhi as a magnanimous leader who later worked with his fierce critics to secure his country’s independence; however, the author failed to explore the characters of Gandhi’s critics in full to establish their motives. In Distinct Worlds, the author argues that despite his relationship with Gandhi, Nehru was a very dynamic political activist who did not avoid stating his disagreements and often his disappointments with Gandhi’s ideologies. He saw Gandhi rather differently and considered his views to be rather simplistic and non-political, which made the leader being unable to ride the Indian nation at the next level. India was on the verge of a new awakening while the rest of the world and Nehru believed that Gandhi would have to change his perspective and anti-technological philosophies in order to move in the right direction, with the Indian population behind him. It can be noted here that Nehru is not only a friend and possibly a confidant but also a strong critic who was always willing to express his concerns about India under the guidance of Gandhi (Coward 2003). Untouchability is in this case a key point for Gandhi’s criticism. He may not have believed in untouchability, but he certainly did not dedicate himself to dissolving the caste system that at the time was perceived as a problem. In this argument, the author portrays Gandhi’s inadequacy with respect to fighting for the cause of the untouchables in a manner that would have appeased them. However, he employed a different tactic that did not involve dissolving the caste system but elevated the status of the untouchables giving them equal rights instead of the intended autonomy and privileges that they felt they could have. In Indian Nationalism, Gandhi fails to see the significance of requesting for self rule rather than independence. The non-cooperation ideology here is heavily criticized based on its unsettling nature that would create a rift with the colonial masters. In this case, Annie Bensant is seen trying to convince Gandhi of the evils of fighting for independence through non-cooperation; however, he does not heed her arguments, and in the end, the Indian people get their independence. On one hand, Gandhi was right to fight for India’s independence, but as Annie Bensant had predicted, there was a heavy cost to pay, and in this case, it was the war with England. Nonviolence as a central concept in Gandhi’s philosophy is criticized in the context of its limitations with respect to solving the problems of the Indian people and humanity’s struggles in general. On one hand, Nonviolence may be considered as a positive concept for maintaining peace; but with the extremist sentiments of the Gandhian ideologies, it becomes the vulnerability that would expose the Indian nation to so many adversaries. The remainder of the book then argues about the various groups that had issues with the Gandhian philosophy including the Hindu Mahasabha, the Christian community, the Sikhs and the Indian Muslims. Gandhi is also criticized based on his handling of the Hindu Urdu Question, with a special emphasis on the relevance of his actions considering that he is blamed for the separatist mindset that divided the Muslims and the Hindus in India in the first place. From this book, it can be distinguished that the authors are generally looking for the distinctions in Gandhi’s relationship and perspectives within his circle. Although most of his critics are seen as close friends and acquaintances, it can also be noted that some of these individuals never met him in person, and thus their criticism was based purely on rational reasoning but not on personal connections and sentiments. Nevertheless, some of his close friends also offer very strong critique that contains a generally close argument, which, however, did not affect Gandhi’s opinion or conduct. Evaluation and Analysis Distinct Worlds Jawaharlal Nehru was a close friend and admirer of Mahatma Gandhi, but he did not share the legend’s viewpoint in a number of subjects. In the book, it can be seen that Nehru had a radically different mindset, especially in matters such as technology and reality. He considered Mahatma Gandhi a common man who had rather antitechnological and thus pre-modern views. Nehru especially disagreed with Gandhi on the anti-British mentality that demonized all foreign influences brought about by the country’s colonization by the British Empire. In the book, Harold Coward claims that Nehru saw Gandhi as a rather unpolitical person with a simplistic approach. This did not depreciate his admiration for Gandhi’s heroic actions within India and beyond it, but it does prove the fact that Mahatma Gandhi indeed surrounded himself with people from other philosophies and schools of thought. Coward also argues that Nehru’s deep ideological differences shaped the history of Indi a in that it allowed Gandhi to see the other side of his ideology. He may not always have heeded Nehru’s counsel, but he was able to listen to the counterarguments whenever he could. Some of the credible examples provided by the author include non-violence and the suspension on non-cooperative movements in India. Untouchability Dr. Rao Ambedkar is another outspoken critic of Gandhi who is discussed in the book. He is an untouchable who seeks to fight for the oppressed in the Indian society. It can be appreciated that Mahatma Gandhi did not believe in untouchability and that he himself was a great revolutionary for the causes of equality and the eradication of outcasteness. Thus, it is interesting why an untouchable individual would criticize this great mind. The author explains that Dr. Rao Ambedkar’s quarrel with the Gandhi was based on the fact that Gandhi’s interests went beyond the needs of the outcastes (Coward 2003). He did not devote himself to fighting for their equal rights but rather sought to eliminate their oppression. Dr. Ambedkar wanted Gandhi to empower the oppressed classes by giving them privileges that would ensure they had a political power and social strength regardless of the caste they belonged to. However, Gandhi believed in a complete social democracy where castes were not eliminated, but rather outcasteness became history. The author also argues that this particular critic was fastidious in his call to Gandhi’s championing the rights of the oppressed classes and becoming their hero instead of appearing to fight for the larger society. In regard with untouchability and social equality, it can be noted that a number of people at the time considered Gandhi as a spokesperson for the upper classes that were comfortable with the status quo. Nevertheless, it is more appropriate to see Gandhi only focusing on the sustainability of his actions and legislations. He did not need the laws to acknowledge and respect the untouchables but rather the people to be willing to embrace them and see them as a part of the mainstream society. Indian Nationalism Annie Besant was a pro-nationalist from England whose interests centred around supporting England’s influence on India but fighting for the self-rule such that the Indian government would be able to deal with their own matters as they saw fit. However, this contradicted Gandhi’s dream of independence from the British Empire. The author here argues that being a woman in power in India at a time when orthodox Hinduism oppressed both the women and children, Annie was a great mind and her opinion was highly appreciated in Indian political class. She may have been infamous for her revolutionary views, but she was a very powerful person within her circles. In this case, Home Rule as advocated for by Besant was a way to establish sovereignty in a gradual and rather peaceful way as compared to the revolutionary and chaotic way that Gandhi was promoting. Her ideas in this regard went unheeded, and in the end, it was Gandhi who finished leading the nation to independence despite the chaos and disagreements that arouse between India and England. Another aspect of Annie Besant’s contribution to India’s nationalism would be the connection between religion and politics. Gandhi can hardly be called a very religious man (Coward 2003). He believed in the supernatural, but he did not consider religion to play an important role in matters of the state. However, his interaction with Annie Besant changed this perspective and enabled Gandhi to appreciate the role of religion thus redefining Indian nationalism. Nonviolence Sri Aurobindo Ghose is a renowned Indian nationalist who openly criticized the Gandhian concept of nonviolence. Sri Aurobindo was a guru who never actually met Gandhi in person although the two men knew each other given that they were both popular and their ideologies were widespread. In this book, the author points out the fact that Sri Aurobindo Ghose was not a Gandhian, and thus, his criticism of Gandhi’s ideology is rather rational and not sentimental or biased in their inspiration. According to Sri Aurobindo, Gandhi’s stand and emphasis on nonviolence was rather limited in its potential for aiding humanity in its real struggle. As explained by the author here, nonviolence was totally acceptable in the context of a growing nation that still had much to learn. However, its centrality to the Gandhian philosophy hoever made humanity seem very simplistic and their struggles extremely easy. In his wisdom as a guru, writer and later yogi, Sri Aurobindo was able to study t he subject of humanity in depth and breadth, and in the end, he concluded that the consideration for nonviolence in the Gandhian philosophy is noble in the context that it is peaceful. However, the Indian people need to know and understand that they have to fight for their rights and sustain their position even if it meant walking the line between life and death. In this case, his criticism is based on the significance of circumstances that can only be surmounted practically. In this case, nonviolence would make the people vulnerable to their violent adversaries who have proven to advocate against the Gandhian philosophy. The author here argues that Sri Aurobindo’s perspective brings to light the flaws in Gandhi’s emphasis on nonviolence, especially in the way that it opens the nation to destruction by external enemies who do not subscribe to the same ideology. Hindu Mahasabha The Hindu Mahasabha was a group of Hindu leaders who opposed to the idea of a separate state based on religion. They recognized India as a Hindu state and were thus more comfortable if it remained that way. When Muslims were given a separate political leverage with the backing of Mahatma Gandhi, this group strongly criticized the move. They were not in support of a separate political outfit aimed at appeasing the other religions. In this book, the author argues that the Hindu Mahasabha was a group of Hindu leaders who had the interests of the Indian populace at heart. As one would expect, they were fighting for a united India that did not in any way recognize other religions as part of the political leadership. Rather than the separate electorate created for their Muslim brethren, they wanted a united India where all the people had the same level of power. The Hindu Mahasabha specifically blamed Gandhi for the formation of Pakistan, a separate Muslim state that had the audacity to mo ve away from the Hindu roots of the larger India. It is this criticism that later led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi whose appeasing tendencies towards the Muslims and the British were seen as those misguiding the nation and leading the Indian people to their doom. Christian Community Mahatma Gandhi’s view on Christianity was rather stubborn and persistent, and it never changed even considering the deep friendship he had with some of the Christian missionaries. At the time, Christians in India were seen as denationalized individuals who could not demonstrate their nationalistic views (Coward 2003). At some point, the Indian-Christians were publicly known to oppose the idea of self-rule to the point that they were publishing in newspapers in pursuit of the colonial powers to object to the idea. Gandhi’s view on Christianity was mutually exclusive with nationalism. Owing to its foreign origin, the Christian faith was heavily associated with foreign domination in all aspects of life including politics and society. The irony is that Gandhi himself believed in making personal sacrifices and practicing strict discipline in all aspects of one’s life. However, he did not consider Christianity as a way of life that also respected the concept of making the same sacrifices and following a set order in terms of morals and social relationships. In this book, it is argued that the Christian community did not appreciate Gandhi’s philosophies on a number of subjects including the significance of their faith in their life as Indians. The Christians were especially distraught by the way Gandhi saw them as less Indians due to the fact that they subscribed to Christianity as their chosen religion. The criticism of the Christian community often went unheeded despite the closeness that some of the missionaries enjoyed in their relationship with Gandhi. Some of them even took their time to study his ideas, but he never listened to their concerns. It can be observed in this book that Gandhi is portra yed in his rigidity with respect to ideas and perspectives as a man who barely changed his mind. Sikhs The Sikhs were generally disappointed with Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology. Gandhi was known to endear himself to the Sikhs often referring himself to one of them. He was a disciple of the Guru Granth and he even borrowed numerous Sikh influences for his own prayers and arguments. However, the book here indicates that his affiliation for this group could hardly be called mutual. They considered him a man with no conviction seeing as he was claiming to belong to all religions at the same time. He also broke a number of promises, one of which was the deep Sikh blue that was expected to feature in the Indian flag upon its independence. It can be seen that in as far as religious groups go, the Sikhs significantly influenced Gandhi’s views, but they remained silent or rather mildly critical of his ideas and actions. On the other hand, Gandhi was growing increasingly suspicious of the Sikhs as they seemed to be intending to become an exclusive community within India. Their demands for autonomy in matters of culture and religion were in some ways intriguing, and they managed to distinguish his suspicion, which probably lead to his withdrawal from supporting their cause. At this time, the government had only increased their repression of the Sikhs, and it can be noticed that they lost their faith in Gandhi’s ability to champion their cause and get them the kind of power and recognition that they were fighting for. Indian Muslims In regard with this aspect, the author considers only the Indian Muslims who had known and worked with Mahatma Gandhi in person. It can be appreciated that the opinions of the Muslims with respect to Gandhi’s ideology is somehow torn in the middle. The Muslims generally appreciated the fact that Gandhi had provided them with some level of autonomy in terms of their political position within the Indian nation. However, they were also aware of the amount of division that had been cultivated as a result of this miscalculation. There were so many divisions in India, for example, those between the Muslims and the Hindus, and even Muslims and other Muslims based on Gandhi’s ideas. The author here argues that there were four categories of criticism that Gandhi got from the Indian Muslims including those friendly disagreements, varying policy convictions, direction of Gandhi’s leadership for India, and the continuing shift in Gandhi’s stand on a number of issues. It can be noted here that the book presents Gandhi as a dynamic leader who sought to embrace everyone who he found agreeable but was unable to take a stand and support one specific group at the expense of another. In general, he is seen fighting more for India as a whole than for any specific group. The Hindu Urdu Question Mahatma Gandhi can be especially commended for his efforts towards bridging the Hindi-Urdu rift although he found it already in existence. With the creation of Hindustan, he attempted to incorporate aspects of both Hindu and Urdu in the mainstream Indian society, but he failed miserably. This attempt is known to fuel the separatist policies that engulfed the nation drawing a distinct line between Muslims and Hindus at the time. In regard with the Hindu-Urdu question, Gandhi is widely criticized for enabling a further differentiation between the two languages by trying to bring them together in one language. As people sought autonomy and distinction from the others, they continued to develop their chosen language thus straying further from a united language. This means that the Indian people in general viewed the Hindu Urdu controversy’s escalation in Gandhi’s time as a product of his own miscalculations with the Hindustan creation. While Hindustan became popular in the Hindu speaking parts of the country, it was ignored mostly by the Hindus and Muslims of India as a distraction from their deep seated divisive politics. From the author’s perspective, one might agree here that Gandhi should not have attempted to create a uniform language for these communities. He had already done the damage by allowing political autonomy for the Muslims in India, and his efforts to get them back into the mainstream society were viewed as a feeble attempt to correct his initial grave mistake. Harold Coward’s book is a great insight into the life and work of Mahatma Gandhi and especially into the direction of his leadership. This man has been lauded for bringing India to independence, and that is the story that is commonly told from generation to generation. However, the truth behind this story seemingly differs from the common perception as he was not always the ideal leader that one may view him to be from the history books. His critics highlight the strengths and the weaknesses of his ideas and actions, especially in seeking to solve the challenges of the Indian people as a whole. In this book, Gandhi registers more failures than successes as is the truth in reality. The reason is that he believed in simplicity and can somehow be considered as a simple-minded man who thought everything could be solved by making personal sacrifices and practicing moralist ideas. In this book, one is able to understand why India did not prosper as much as it could have if the leade rship had focused on fostering unity more than in dividing the citizens. It can be appreciated that in contrast to the Gandhi who is discussed in most history classes, Harold Coward’s Gandhi is a phenomenal leader with an equal share of phenomenal critics who elicited the flaws in his mindset and in most cases managed to enlighten the public as to the problems that Gandhi created in India’s future.

Process Analysis Essay on the Various Types of Development Patterns

Process Analysis on the Various Types of Development Patterns - Essay Example I had never heard of many of the different types of patterns of development. Therefore subsequent to the initial introduction to this pattern by the lecturer I decided I needed to obtain additional material in order to enhance my ability to effectively utilize the process analysis. Thus, I searched the internet and other text for a more detailed analysis of the process. I then decided to attempt to write a process analysis on my own. The assignment to choose a type of pattern of development and write an essay displaying the process analysis has been a challenging but a formative experience. I began to analyze in a systematic manner the necessary steps for the process. This approach was rather trying in the context that I did not exist in a vacuum. William Shakespeare’s allusion to the fact that â€Å"life is a stage and we are the actors† rings true when one considers the plethora of activities from which one must devote one’s time. At one point I became so overwhelmed that I had no other choice but to create a to-do list in order to prioritize my activities. Thus, after the creation of the to-do list and the prioritization of the activities, I eventually arrived at the stage when it was time to write. I brainstormed the ideas, created a semantic map and itemized the content of my five paragraphs that were needed for the process analysis essay. I, therefore, wrote the paragraphs and edited e ach paragraph for errors in grammar or spelling. It was a fulfilling experience because it allowed me to observe in an objective manner the various stages through which my practice of the writing was taking me. I began by having very little knowledge about the writing process. After the initial practice, I discovered that my writing skill was rather mediocre and needed a great deal of improvement. I began, therefore, to experiment with the different types of patterns of development.

The fall of Berlin Wall Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The fall of Berlin Wall - Essay Example After German invasion of the Soviet Union and the end of Nazi war, the four nations decided to divide Berlin the capital of Germany into four parts. Thereafter, a Cold War ensued between U.S and Soviet Union leading to the division of Germany into East and West Germany with East Germany under control of USSR and West Germany under the other three superpowers that had united their occupations to form Federal Republic of Germany. A wall was erected to divide the two Germans thus preventing travel or communication with either side of the divide. However, in 1989 after much pressure from civic organizations in East Germany and after an announcement by USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev that â€Å"the days of monolithic Soviet Bloc were over† thus relinquishing its hold on former satellite states (Fulbrook 243; Turner 230) the ‘iron curtain’ of Europe came tumbling down. ... This led to mass movement of East Germans through Hungary-Austria border and others through Czechoslovakia while still others sought refuge in West Germany embassies in Prague and Warsaw until it reached crisis levels. There was shortage of housing in West Germany plus a strain on its economy. This was also a blow to the East as it lost much of its productive population. At first, German Democratic Republic (GDR) tried to imprison immigrants in Eastern Europe while conducting ‘house arrests’ in GDR to stop them but it did not work. Those who went and came back from the West came with new ideas and view of the world thus pressure began mounting on the government for reforms. This led to peaceful non-violent demonstrations, prayer meetings and discussions by churches. These Leipzig demonstrations were met with violence especially by the Stagi (secret political police) but in the end the SED led by Erich Honecker agreed to dialogue (Fulbrook 245). Honecker instituted few re forms but the GDR citizens were not satisfied. They wanted democratization and free elections. As such, the movement to the West continued and by September, more than 3500 GDR citizens in Hungary were demanding to be allowed to leave for the West (Turner 227). Some went to Warsaw to demand that West Germany embassy to allow them to leave for Federal Republic. Due to pressure by international media, SED allowed those in Prague and Warsaw to travel. However, in early October, it closed borders to GDR leading to unrest. Independent civic organizations such as the New Forum, Democracy Now Democratic Awakening, and Social Democratic Party (SDP) were formed. They were all demanding for free elections and removal of restrictions on travel. To appease the

The fall of Berlin Wall Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The fall of Berlin Wall - Essay Example After German invasion of the Soviet Union and the end of Nazi war, the four nations decided to divide Berlin the capital of Germany into four parts. Thereafter, a Cold War ensued between U.S and Soviet Union leading to the division of Germany into East and West Germany with East Germany under control of USSR and West Germany under the other three superpowers that had united their occupations to form Federal Republic of Germany. A wall was erected to divide the two Germans thus preventing travel or communication with either side of the divide. However, in 1989 after much pressure from civic organizations in East Germany and after an announcement by USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev that â€Å"the days of monolithic Soviet Bloc were over† thus relinquishing its hold on former satellite states (Fulbrook 243; Turner 230) the ‘iron curtain’ of Europe came tumbling down. ... This led to mass movement of East Germans through Hungary-Austria border and others through Czechoslovakia while still others sought refuge in West Germany embassies in Prague and Warsaw until it reached crisis levels. There was shortage of housing in West Germany plus a strain on its economy. This was also a blow to the East as it lost much of its productive population. At first, German Democratic Republic (GDR) tried to imprison immigrants in Eastern Europe while conducting ‘house arrests’ in GDR to stop them but it did not work. Those who went and came back from the West came with new ideas and view of the world thus pressure began mounting on the government for reforms. This led to peaceful non-violent demonstrations, prayer meetings and discussions by churches. These Leipzig demonstrations were met with violence especially by the Stagi (secret political police) but in the end the SED led by Erich Honecker agreed to dialogue (Fulbrook 245). Honecker instituted few re forms but the GDR citizens were not satisfied. They wanted democratization and free elections. As such, the movement to the West continued and by September, more than 3500 GDR citizens in Hungary were demanding to be allowed to leave for the West (Turner 227). Some went to Warsaw to demand that West Germany embassy to allow them to leave for Federal Republic. Due to pressure by international media, SED allowed those in Prague and Warsaw to travel. However, in early October, it closed borders to GDR leading to unrest. Independent civic organizations such as the New Forum, Democracy Now Democratic Awakening, and Social Democratic Party (SDP) were formed. They were all demanding for free elections and removal of restrictions on travel. To appease the

The fall of Berlin Wall Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The fall of Berlin Wall - Essay Example After German invasion of the Soviet Union and the end of Nazi war, the four nations decided to divide Berlin the capital of Germany into four parts. Thereafter, a Cold War ensued between U.S and Soviet Union leading to the division of Germany into East and West Germany with East Germany under control of USSR and West Germany under the other three superpowers that had united their occupations to form Federal Republic of Germany. A wall was erected to divide the two Germans thus preventing travel or communication with either side of the divide. However, in 1989 after much pressure from civic organizations in East Germany and after an announcement by USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev that â€Å"the days of monolithic Soviet Bloc were over† thus relinquishing its hold on former satellite states (Fulbrook 243; Turner 230) the ‘iron curtain’ of Europe came tumbling down. ... This led to mass movement of East Germans through Hungary-Austria border and others through Czechoslovakia while still others sought refuge in West Germany embassies in Prague and Warsaw until it reached crisis levels. There was shortage of housing in West Germany plus a strain on its economy. This was also a blow to the East as it lost much of its productive population. At first, German Democratic Republic (GDR) tried to imprison immigrants in Eastern Europe while conducting ‘house arrests’ in GDR to stop them but it did not work. Those who went and came back from the West came with new ideas and view of the world thus pressure began mounting on the government for reforms. This led to peaceful non-violent demonstrations, prayer meetings and discussions by churches. These Leipzig demonstrations were met with violence especially by the Stagi (secret political police) but in the end the SED led by Erich Honecker agreed to dialogue (Fulbrook 245). Honecker instituted few re forms but the GDR citizens were not satisfied. They wanted democratization and free elections. As such, the movement to the West continued and by September, more than 3500 GDR citizens in Hungary were demanding to be allowed to leave for the West (Turner 227). Some went to Warsaw to demand that West Germany embassy to allow them to leave for Federal Republic. Due to pressure by international media, SED allowed those in Prague and Warsaw to travel. However, in early October, it closed borders to GDR leading to unrest. Independent civic organizations such as the New Forum, Democracy Now Democratic Awakening, and Social Democratic Party (SDP) were formed. They were all demanding for free elections and removal of restrictions on travel. To appease the

Guerrilla Wafare Of Shivaji

Guerrilla Wafare Of Shivaji 106. This paper has put forward an argument that little has changed since the times of Kaultiya and Sun Tzu . Shivaji borrowed heavily from Kautilya , while Mao and Che have quoted Sun Tzu in detail. The only aspect that has been added to the modern day guerrilla war is religious fanaticism. Comparison 107. Guerrilla warfare as conducted by Shivaji , Mao tse Tung and Che Guevara will be compared on basis of the following aspects:- (a) Ideology. (b) Violent Means. (c) Non violent Means. 49 (d) Impact and Result. Ideology 108. Shivaji. Shivaji led the freedom struggle of the Marathas against Muslim rule in Deccan. His ideology was to establish Hindavi Swarajya and subsequent expansion of the Maratha Empire. This was partly responsible for re-establishment of Hindu rule and its re-emergent assertiveness throughout the mainland of present day India after being ruled and dominated by various Muslim dynasties for several centuries. The ideology of Hindavi Swarajya was in part the inspiration that propelled the succeeding generation of Marathas to establish independent kingdom in India prior to their eventual defeat by the British. He succeeded in establishing control of a well-defended segment of the present state of Maharastra in western India, during his lifetime. The prevalent practices of treating women as war booty, destruction of religious monuments, slavery and forceful religious conversions were firmly opposed under his administration. Shivaji was a religious Hindu, but showed respect toward other religions. Shivaji innovated rules of military engagement of that era. He pioneered Ganimi Kava (in Marathi), or guerrilla tactics, which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his bigger and more powerful enemies. 109. Mao tse Tung. Maos ideology was greatly influenced by Leninism, Marxism and Trotskyism. But soon he developed his own blend of communism , widely known as Maoism. Some components of Maoism are as follows:- 50 (a) Peoples War. The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues. (b) New Democracy. In backward countries, socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character. (c) Contradictions as the most important feature of society. Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalins era. (d) Cultural revolution. Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted. 110. Che Guevara. Che widely quoted Mao and Sun Tzu. He was highly impressed by Maos insurrection and his rise to power. Che propounded his ideology 51 known as Guevarism . His ideology promotes exporting revolution to any country whose leader is supported by the United States and has fallen out of favour with its citizens. Guevara talked about how constant guerrilla warfare taking place in non-urban areas can overcome leaders. He introduced three points that are representative of his ideology as a whole, that the people can win with proper organization against a nations army; that the conditions that make a revolution possible can be put in place by the popular forces and that the popular forces always have an advantage in a non urban setting. 111. He had a dedication to foco techniques, also known as focalism (or foquismo in Spanish): vanguardism by small armed units, frequently in place of established communist parties, initially launching attacks from rural areas to mobilize unrest into a popular front against a sitting regime. Despite differences in approachemphasizing guerrilla leadership and audacious raids that engender general uprising, rather than consolidating political power in military strongholds before expanding to new onesChe Guevara took great inspiration from the Maoist notion of protracted peopleHYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_peoples_warHYPERLINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_peoples_wars war Violent Means 112. Shivaji. The times in which Shivaji lived were extremely harsh and trying ones. It was a period when Mughals , Adilshah of Bijapur, Qutubshah of Golconda and Nizamshah of Ahmednagar were at the peak of their power. Internecine conflicts between these powers were always bloody and violent. Shivaji established his 52 kingdom in this period. He had to fight very many bloody battles i.e. Battle of Purandar , Battle of Sinhagarh, Killing of Afzal Khan, Rout of Shahistakhan etc. He always tried to resolve issues as less bloodshed as possible. 113. Mao tse Tung. Mao tse Tung led the insurrection of his people of his people by propounding Communism and established an everlasting communist rule in China. He started as an urban revolutionary first, but soon understood that real power lied with the peasants and gave a rural shade to his revolution. He was ruthless in dealing with the Koumingtang and also the Japanese. His use of violence was at times to the extent of being a sadist. Mao advanced further strategy and tactics of direct action by combining political and military strategy and war and revolutionary means. His long-range strategy, outlined in his essay On Contradictions, is based on a general proposition that change is determined by contradictions and conflicts. Of particular interest in this regard is Maos utilization of the Chinese peasantry and the Peoples Liberation Army in accomplishing the Communist revolutionary victory in China and in structuring post-revolutionary society. 114. Che Guevara. Che Guevara was a ruthless revolutionary who executed hundreds. He argued in his writings and speeches that hatred is good because it, transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. He said , I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ. I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I dont get nailed to a cross or any other 53 place. The consequences of building violent, selective, and cold killing machines is that these means lead to tragic ends that continue the cycle of violence and bloodshed. One example took place in the early morning hours of July 13, 1994 just six miles from HavanaHYPERLINK http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/96eng/Cuba11436.htmHYPERLINK http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/96eng/Cuba11436.htms sea wall, the Malecon, out in the ocean a tug-boat with more than 71 Cubans trying to head for sanctuary were attacked. These victims were met by other tugboats captained by Che, who used high pressure hoses to knock these refugees overboard into the sea and later rammed and sank the boat drowning 41 passengers. 21 of the dead were women and children. Che said in the UN General Assembly in 1964, HYPERLINK http://www.patriagrande.net/cuba/ernesto.che.guevara/discursos/19641211a.htmWe must say here what is a known truth, which we have always expressed before the world: firing squad executions, yes, we have executed; we are executing and we will continue to execute as long as is necessary. Our struggle is a struggle to the death.HYPERLINK http://www.patriagrande.net/cuba/ernesto.che.guevara/discursos/19641211a.htm Non violent Means. 115. Shivaji was the biggest proponent of non violent means amongst the three. He tried to avoid combat as long as the ends were being met by negotiations and guile. But one must not consider him weak due this practice of his. Whereas Mao tse Tung and Che Guevara are little known to have employed non violent means. Impact and Result 116. Shivaji had a far reaching impact on the psyche of India as a nation , he promoted the sense of independence from the Muslim rulers amongst several rulers of South India , Rajputs and Punjab. He was able to establish a free Maratha 54 kingdom in the Muslim dominated politics of his times. This kingdom was further expanded till Delhi by the Peshwas. 117. Mao established the Communist rule in China, which still exists , by ousting Chiang Kai Sheks Koumintang. Che Guevara was the romantic guerrilla, who helped Fidel Castro in taking over Cuba from Batista, but he is more remembered after his death. Relevance in Modern Times 118. The precepts propounded by Shivaji and theorised by Mao tse Tung and Che Guevara are relevant in the modern times. The new guerrilla, terrorists, are making full use of the theories laid by these three. Therefore to counter these threats, government have forces also have to resort to guerrilla warfare. 55 CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION Insurrection by means of guerrilla bands is the true method of warfare for all nations desirous of emancipating themselves from a foreign yoke à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ It is invincible, indestructible. Giuseppe Mazzini 119. The leaders discussed in the paper are all of them charismatic characters. The aim was to illustrate as to how they adapted their guerrilla theories to their particular terrain and situation and developed new ideas as the struggle continued. An objective analysis of Shivaji, Mao tse Tung and Che Guevara proves that there was very little difference in the way they fought their war. Following conclusions are evident:- (a) They were all strong proponents of guerrilla warfare, due to the inherent asymmetry between them and their adversaries. (b) They were able to channelize the masses, so important for the revolution. (c) The principles of war employed by them are important today as armed conflict between belligerents is becoming asymmetric in nature day by day. 56 120. History shows that nineteenth-century guerrilla wars invariably failed to achieve their objectives except with the support of the regular army, domestic or foreign. A powerful impetus was given to guerrilla war after 1945 with the disintegration of colonial empires. The colonial powers no longer had the will to fight and even if the guerrillas were militarily ineffective, to combat them became so costly, that the imperial power had to withdraw. Guerrilla wars against domestic leaders have succeeded.