After Independance in India. There was a debate between Nehru and Gandhi About the base of Development for our country. According to Gandhiji 70% people live in rural India and 30% people live in Urban areas and he also felt that India should have its own Indentity and development should be based on non-violence. But Nehru gave preference to Industrialisation which will benifit only 10% people of India. Also he felt that it has got nothing to do with non-violence.
2006-07-20 06:37:56 · 5 answers · asked by kelashish 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the policy of Lal Bahaddur Shastri was very good for india. He gave us thought of " Jay Jawan Jay Kisan " The first priority to Nation's Security and second to Agriculture. industrial development comes later.
2006-07-20 07:44:45 · answer #1 · answered by hero_with_zero 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The matter today is academic, of course, India has urbanized substantially, and the country's growing divide between urban and rural populations is not merely of wealth, but also of education, social attitudes, cultural development, health, and more.
Thus your query is mainly hypothetical. Many people today feel that had their nations remained more pastoral, their countries would enjoy a more solid social and cultural foundation based upon what might be seen as "conservative" principles. Some have attempted to achieve it - and each attempt has been utter and complete failure. Rolling back the clock does not work.
There is no reason that industrialization and national development cannot serve a greater part of the population than the very tiny 10% you cited. That is a matter of the nation's social, political and economic structure and is quite a separate matter indeed.
Similarly, a national ethic of non-violence is a wonderful idea, and again urbanization per se is not part of the equation. It didn't work as well as Ghandi wished - he was struck down by an assassin. But it did work when he led from the front across the nation to bring an end to colonial domination, at last - and that worked in the cities as well as the countryside. Non-violence was equally a successful technique applied by Dr. Martin Luther King in the cities and countryside of the United States.
Ultimately, both Nehru and Ghandi recognized that divisive competition - as opposed to productive business competition - was deadly for India. The country is still knitting itself together in this new, modern form - and it is a great issue that people of different regions, religious beliefs, and customs find ways to join hands across those differences. India is still an experiment in the development of human society.
2006-07-20 06:53:53 · answer #2 · answered by Der Lange 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the job that Bhagat singh chosen for himself replaced into for an extremely constrained objective. because he replaced into presented lack of life sentence, can emotionalize us, yet that doesn't make him competent sufficient to be equated with as extreme a personality as Mahatma Gandhi. The position style is Mahatma Gandhi with out any doubt. Bhagat Singh ought to correctly be a 'reachable position style' for individuals like Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi.
2016-12-10 12:29:07 · answer #3 · answered by moncalieri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd be inclined to agree with Gandhi.
2006-07-20 06:40:09 · answer #4 · answered by yogabear516 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
successful nations are not rural
2006-07-20 06:40:15 · answer #5 · answered by fact checker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋