The foundation of Indian National Movement was laid by Surendernath Banerjee with the formation of Indian Association at Calcutta in 1876. The aim of the Association was to represent the views of the educated middle class, inspire the Indian community to take a living interest in public affairs and teach the value of united action. Then Indian National Congress was founded in 1885 with the help of A. 0. Hume, a retired officer. First session of Indian National Congress was held in Bombay in December 1885 under the presidentship of W.C. Bannerjee and was attended among others by Dada bhai Noroji and Badruddin Tayyabji. The second session of the Congress was held at Calcutta in 1886 under the presidentship of Dada Bhai Noroji. Soon the congress attracted a galaxy of leaders such as Firoz Shah Mehta, Romesh Chandra Dutt, Gopal Krishna Gokhle and Anand Mohan Bose. The Congress demanded that the Legislative Council be given more powers the members of the councils should be elected representative of the people. That Indians should be recruited to the higher posts, that the civil services examinations should be held in India that economic policies of Indian Government should be modified to facilitate the growth of Indian Industries and that the welfare programmes should be expanded. But the British Government particularly under Viceroy Curzon adopted repressive measures and flouted Indian opinion under its divide and rule policy. The province of Bengal, which included Bihar and parts of Orissa, was partitioned in 1905 and the Muslim dominated East Bengal created. This created a wave of indignation. Swadeshi and the Boycott movements spread to the rest of the country and assumed the shape of powerful agitation. This attracted the wrath of the British who came out with further repressive measures. The Call for Swaraj.

The Congress session at Calcutta in 1906, presided by Dadabhai Noroji, gave a call for attainment of Swaraj-a type of self-government elected by the people within the British Dominion as it prevailed in Canada and Australia, which were the parts of British Empire. The British could not really stomach this demand and arrested many leaders including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat and Bipin Chandra Pal who were later released but Tilak was deposed to Burma for six years.

Meanwhile in 1909, British Government announced certain reforms in the structure of Government in India, which are known as Merely Minto-Reforms. The number of additional members in the central Legislative Council was raised from 16 to 60, of which 27 were to be elected, not only by the people, but by the organization of landlords and industrialists, and separate representation was given to the Muslims. The number of members of the provincial council was also increased.

The Mortey-Minto Reforms came as a disappointment as they did not mark any advance towards the establishment of a representative government. The provision of special representation of the Muslims was seen as a threat to the Hindu-Muslim Unity on which the strength of the National Movement rested. So these reforms were vehemently opposed by all the leaders, including the Muslim leader Mohammed All Jinnah. Subsequently in the Delhi Durbar held in 1991 in honour of King George V, two important, announcements were made firstly the partition of Bengal, which had been affected in 1905, was annulled, and secondly it was announced that the capital of India was to be shifted from Calcutta to Delhi.

The disgust with reforms announced in1909 led to the intensification of the struggle for Swaraj. While, on one side, the extremists led by the great leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilk, Lala Lajpat Ray and Bipin Chandra pal waged a virtual war against the British on the other side the revolutionaries stepped up their violent activités. There was a widespread unrest in the country.

Prior to this India fully cooperated with the British in the First world war (1914-1918) in the hope that the British would grant at least Dominion status to India after the war wherein thousands of Indians sacrificed their lives for the British cause. But the British Government, apart from erecting a memorial, in New Delhi in the name of Indian soldiers did nothing to meet the aspirations of Indians. It only responded with Montague-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 whereby the Central Legislative Council came to have two causes via, the Legislative Council and Council of states. These houses were to have majority of elected members, but again these members were to be elected not by the common people, but only the men with property were given the right to vote. All the important powers remained vested with the Governor General who was not responsible to the Indian people. The Government of India Act 1919 introduced dyarchy in the provinces wherein provincial subjects; were divided into two parts, viz., the reserved subjects and transferred subjects while the reserved were entrusted to the charge of senior civil servants, only the transferred subjects were given to the elected representative.

These reforms did not satisfy the aspirations of the Indian people who hoped to achieve Swaraj after the end of the First World War. To add to the already growing discontent among the people Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919 which empowered the Government to put people in jail without trial. This caused widespread indignation and led to massive demonstrations and hartals which the Government repressed with brutal measures. The Jalianwala Bagh massacre of April 13,1919, in which thousands of unarmed peaceful Swarajists were gunned downed on the order of General Dyres also aroused the fury of the Indians people which was again silenced by further brutalities by the British Government

Disgusted with the barbaric firing on the peaceful gathering Rabindra Nath Tagore the great poet novelist, philosopher patriot relinquished the knighthood bestowed upon him by the British as a protest against such inhuman brutality.

Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience—After the first world war, Gandhiji became the undisputed leader of the congress and the organization adopted a new form of struggle against the British. The Non-cooperarion Movement launched in1920was a great success as even the arrests, firings and brutalities of the British could not stem its tide. Meanwhile new leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose also emerged on the scene and advocated adoption of complete independence as the goal of national movement. Under their influence, the national movement became more vociferous and militant but overall quiet prevailed till about1927. The Simon Commission was sent to India in 1927 by the British Government to suggest further reformers in the structure of Indian Government. The Commission did not include any Indian member and the Government showed no intention accepting the demand for Swaraj. Therefore it sparked a wave of protest all over the country and the congress as well as the Muslim league gave a call to buycott it. When the commission arrived in 1928 there were widespread protests. The crowds were lathi-charged and Lala Lajpat Rai Shere Punjab died of the blows received in an agitation.

Civil Disobedience Movement—The India National Congress in its annual session at Lahore in 1929 under the President ship of Jawahar Lai Nehru adopted a resolution demanded a complete independence and decided to launch Civil Disobedience Movement. It also decided to celebrate January 26 as the Independence Day. The observance of Independence Day on January 26, 1930 was followed by the Civil Disobedience Movement, which began with famous Dandi March by Gandhi, in which lakhs of people joined. Government tried to repress the movement and resorted to brutal firing, killing hundreds of people. Thousands were arrested along with Gandhiji and Jawaharlal Nehru. But the movement spread to all the four corners of the country. Following this Round Table conference was arranged by the British and Gandhiji attended the second round table conference at London. But nothing came out of the conference and the civil Disobedience Movement was received.

Subsequently the Government of India Act of1935was passed which introduced a measure of provincial autonomy. The powers of the provincial legislature were increased and ministers were made responsible to the legislatures. The congress participated in the 1937elections. It swept the polls and formed government in many provinces. But at the break of the Second World War in 1939, the congress ministers resigned on the issue of Indian participation in the war without their consent.

Quit India Movement—In 1942 Gandhiji started the Quit India Movement and decided to launch mass civil disobedience movement He gave or die call to force the British to leave India. However all the prominent leaders were arrested? The congress was banned and the police and the army were brought out to suppress the movement. Meanwhile Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who had escaped from India in 1941 organized the Indian National Army.

After the conclusion of Second World War the labour party under the Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee, came to power in Britain. The labour party was largely sympathetic towards Indian people in their struggle for freedom. A cabinet mission was sent to India in March 1946 which, after careful study of the Indian political scenario, proposed the formation of an interim government and convening of a Constituent Assembly comprising members elected by the provincial legislatures and nominees of the Indian states. An Interim Government was formed which was headed by Jawahar Lai Nehru. The Muslim League refused to participate in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly and pressed for the separate state of Pakistan. Lord Mount batten, the viceroy of India, presented a plan for the division of India into India and Pakistan and the Indian had no choice but to accept the demand as Muslim league was adamant. Thus India became free on August 15, 1947.




Politics has come to acquire a bad odour and generally implies unfair, underhand dealings, exploitation of the poor and the ignorant, though it need not necessarily be so. Since it generally involves the attainment of certain objectives, such as the seizure of power by all available methods, violence often becomes a part of it. Of course, violence need not be a vital or essential part of politics even in the most ill-governed country, but there is no doubt that unscrupulous politicians seldom hesitate to resort to violent methods to achieve their aims. Whenever the practitioners of the art of politics find that normal and socially acceptable methods and practices have not brought them the desired achievements, they stoop to unethical methods, including incitement of sensitive people to violence.

It is tragic reflection on civilization that with the much-publicized progress in various spheres of human activity the resort to violence has also increased. In fact, one of the dominating factors in the postwar years is the growth of the spirit of violence. Even in India, where the apostle of peace and non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, preached that violence is both degrading and derogatory to human beings, the menace has been increasing. Proof of this dismal phenomenon is found in the sharp increase in violent crimes in the country, including murders, stabbings and other manifestations of cruelty. The concept of “might is right” is being practiced with a callousness. That is highly disgraceful and a sorry reflection on civilization.

It is poor consolation that violence has been on the increase not only in India but also all the world over, even in the most civilized countries, such as the U.S A and Britain. Naked, unabashed violence has even been glorified in certain continents; the number and intensity of armed dashes between various classes of people is yet another proof; and so is the increasing number of communal riots, many of which have their roots in politics. In fact, there would be no communal disturbances in the country if the spirit of non-violence were universally accepted as a guiding factor of human life.

It is indeed a sorry reflection on the state of our civilization that more politics has come to imply more violence; what is worse, violence begets violence. When one party adopts violent means to achieve its objectives the other follows suit in the firm, though unwarranted, belief that the only answer to violence is greater violence, not peaceful overtures or non­violent satyagraha which Mahatma so earnestly advocated.

Yet another tragedy of modern civilization is that politicians refute by their actions the sound principle that a State based on force and violence is built on foundations of sand. There can be no social economic or political stability where the entire polity is based on force and violence, not on the people freely expressed and frequently affirmed (through periodic elections) support and consent. Ousters of one group by another are sometimes accompanied by force and violence, together with reprisals in various forms. Violence in politics also takes the form of coercion, which is another form of compulsion, and compulsion involves or implies the use of force or threat of force.

It is not surprising in such circumstances that politics of peace is becoming uncommon, and politics of war is replacing it gradually but surely. Some of those who are very much in politics and seldom hesitate to adopt violence as a means to an end quote Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though moral force is more effective at times, the Mahatma conceded that in certain circumstances, the refusal to fight
violence adequately might smack of cowardice. Why does India maintain a large police force and ever-expanding military forces? The State has to use force to quell riots of various types and has to be in a constant state of
preparedness to meet aggression by hostile countries. Violence then becomes inescapable. Ironically, both peace and politics have become difficult to ensure without adequate preparations for fighting violence. This genuine peace in politics has become uncommon and the spirit of violence is abroad—like an infection that has seeped into all areas of human activity.



 Everybody wants to be successful in his life. But while dreaming success one should not forget the battle, which is necessary for victory. Life is beautiful when the art of living is understood. In this case it has been aptly said.

Life is an art

A mountain of troubles

In your trouble don’t cry

You should only try and try

Struggle hard

And conquer the sky

With your skill

M And power of will.

‘Proverbs like ‘where there is will’ there is a way are often used and experienced in our daily life, when someone wants to get something from his heart he tries to get it with all his efforts and will power. Naturally when we feel the dire needs of life, we definitely struggle hard to achieve it. Nothing is impossible once you try hard. If the will power is strong anything can be achieved. In her book ‘I Dare’, Kiran Bedi says, if you want to achieve something you must struggle. Throw yourself in the volley of your aim. Do not think about the deepness and results of your task, when you will achieve your aim. You will definitely forget about the struggle and pain.

We are often inspired by the example of those who have become success. The strong will power is the only base of your success. Kiran Bedi, the first lady IPS officer struggled hard and became successful and popular in our country. She is a woman like other women. But her strong will power made her stormy personality. Our cricketer super star Sachin Tendulkar has achieved fame and wealth and everything. Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a simple person became the prime minister of India. Our new President Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam got the highest post because of his sheer will power. Was it possible for them to become great without strong will power? P. T. Usha has proved that age can’t be an obstacle on the way to success. Besides we read in the Mahabharat that Eklavya completed his education with the help of the statue of Guru Dronacharya because Dronacharya refused to teach him but by sheer will power he learnt the art of archery inspired by the master. One should always remember God help those who help themselves.

Nothing is impossible if you try. With the help of will power one can achieve anything. A small sparrow makes a very beautiful nest with the help of her will power. It is an art, which comes from her will power to protect her children. Will power gives courage and energy to win. The main obstacle in the way of success is tardiness and lack of will power.

Be active,

Ever green and optimistic hope for the sky

You will learn to fly.

Do not blame fate only those who struggle become successful. Many believe in fate or luck. Sometimes one who struggles go on struggling and another person who waits without struggle becomes successful. But it does not happen all the time though fate plays a great role in our success. Will power is also very important and with the help of will power one can conquer fate. But one should not hope for victory before fighting the battle. Luck or opportunity never bothers men who are firmly set on getting ahead. They will create the opportunity themselves and make their way to success. Always remember fortune favours the brave. To achieve success, make progress and gain profit one has to dare and take risks. Kiran Bedi says,

“People who do not carry out the responsibilities of their lives are lathi charged by the time. Success is not cheap.”

To dream is your right

To struggle is your duty.

Will power is your need

To achieve the sky and to fly.

Everybody knows that success does not go to those who never struggle. But while dreaming success one should be always ready for hard work. It is not something, which can be achieved by spending money. But will power, which comes from your soul and heart, is needed if your will power is strong. You will be successful, and a successful person is always found confident. But success demands hard work, struggle, sacrifice etc. Emily Dickinson says, success is counted sweetest by those who never succeed. It is true but success is counted sweetest by everyone who struggles. So struggle hard and be successful, nothing is impossible if your will is strong. You can achieve everything. After all where mere is a will there is a way. Do not be afraid of failure because failure is the first step on the way to success; learn to face problems. Bear your troubles don’t worry and be happy. Remember that if you laugh the whole world laughs with you but if you weep you will have to weep alone With your strong will power and enthusiasm any great thing can be achieved.




The ongoing war between Israel and the Lebanon-based Shia militia Hizbollah assumed unprecedented intensity with no immediate prospect of ceasefire in the offing as the Israeli Cabinet decided on August 9, 2006 to launch a more broad-based ground offensive in Lebanon. In a statement issued after the cabinet meeting, Israel’s Industry and Trade Minister Mr. Eli Yishai said that the Israeli Government had decided to embark on fresh operation, which was likely to last around a month. According to a report released on its website by the Israeli English daily Haaretz, Prime Minister Mr. Ehud Olmert had asked the military to draw up alternative plans, apprehending that a large number of Israeli troops could be killed in case a heavy ground offensive was undertaken. The Israeli military proposed mat the Lebanese territory, a little beyond the Litani river should be targeted first so as to eliminate the Hizbollah’s capacity to launch short-range rockets. Eventually, the Israeli authorities came to the conclusion that additional 30,000 troops might be required for the daunting task.

Earlier, on August8,2006 several thousand terrified residents of the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona fled to the city for fear of being attacked by Hizbollah, in the first evacuation of an entire town since the creation of Israel in 1948. With the crisis deepening beyond remedy Israel appointed Major-General Mosha Kaplinsky as the new commander for the war in Lebanon. Major-General Kaplinsky’s 30-year career has been mostly focused on fighting Hizbollah guerrillas.

Meanwhile, in a statement issued on August 6, 2006, in the thick of the violent clashes between the Israeli Army and Hizbollah militia, Major General Alain Pellegrini, the head of UMFIL, the UN’s monitoring mission in Lebanon, said any attempt to deploy international troops to disarm the Hizbollah by force would turn Lebanon into another Iraq. As he put it, “It is always the same when you have to fight against guerillas. You will have a kind of Iraq situation”.

The French General, who has commanded the contingent of 2,000 armed monitors from eight countries for two years, said Israel’s air campaign had failed to destroy all of Hizbollah’s installations, Israel had not expected the amount of resistance Hizbollah has put up, he said. He was sceptical of the optimism coming from the UN that Israel would accept a ceasefire soon. “It is not yet evident that they will accept a cessation of hostilities rapidly,” he said. “They want to reach their goals and this is not yet done.”

The UNIFIL was set up in 1978 to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli troops who had invaded Lebanon to try to destroy Palestinian guerillas. At that time Hizbollah did not exist. The Bush administration and Israel claim UNIFIL has railed because it has done nothing to prevent Hizbollah from building a network of tunnels and caves in the Lebanese hills and inserting huge caches of rockets, mines and other weapons.

The UNIFIL occupies dozens of posts on hilltops around south Lebanon. They are helped by 50 military observers from the UN Truce Supervision Organization, (UNTSO). Since the end of its last invasion in May 2000, Israel has violated the agreement more often than Hizbollah.

Earlier, within days of killing scores of civilians in Qana, Israel was accused by Lebanese authorities of carrying out its second atrocity in Lebanon in the border village of Houla. Addressing Arab Foreign Ministers in Beirut on August 7, 2006, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Mr. Fuad Saniora said on Israeli attack had killed as many as 40 persons in Houla. Mr. Saniora accused Israel of indulging in “State terrorism”. “If these horrific actions are not State terrorism then what in State terrorism?” On the other hand, the Israel army said it was investigating the allegation, but added that it had warned residents in Lebanon’s southern villages to leave.

Houla has been the scene of heavy ground fighting recently. Hizbollah fighters have claimed to have killed four Israeli soldiers in the vicinity of the hamlet.

Israeli soldiers and the Hizbollah have been fighting ferocious battles at many locations close to the border since July 2006. Mr. Milow Strugar, spokesman for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon that is deployed in south Lebanon, has said, “There has been no change in terms of territory. But there has been an intensification of exchanges of fire on the ground in different areas all along the border.” He added that fighting had been intense around the badly hit village of Bint Jbeil and Taibe in the east. On August 6,2006, Hizbollah fighters fired a barrage of rockets that killed 15 Israelis, including 12 soldiers, the largest numbers to be killed in Israel during a single day in the nearly month long conflict. Israel has been focusing on an area around the southern cities of Tyre and Sidon.

On the diplomatic front sharp differences persisted on the draft UN resolution proposed by France and the United States to bring fighting to a halt. Lebanon has already rejected the draft that calls for a “full cessation” of fighting but not for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the country. Syria and Iran have dismissed the text.



From time immemorial, great thinkers and philosophers have been trying to uncover the mainsprings of action in the human mind. Their investigations have led them to explore its inmost recesses to find out what moves it and inspires it to action, whether human nature is divine or demoniac, whether man is essentially peaceful or conflict-loving etc. Barring a few optimists, almost all of them have reached the conclusion that war rather than peace is the natural state of man. Speaking of Hobbes, the greatest political thinker England has produced. Burke has said “A meditation on the conduct of political societies made old Hobbes imagine that war was the state of nature.” Defoe considers the art of war to be “the highest perfection of human knowledge.” In The Prince Machiavelli has observed, “War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing time which gives him leisure to contrive and furnishes ability to execute military plans.”

A preference for war is a natural instinct in man. He is a child of conflict—torn all his life between opposing sentiments, passions and forces, battling against a hostile world to protect and maintain his social identity and economic stability. No wonder he is conflict-loves by nature. He began

his life on this earth as a hunter, out to kill in search of food. Gradually the drive of hunger was augmented by similar other drives like territorial dominance, sex, revenge etc., and all these in combination or singly gave rise to hostility when smooth realization of the aim or aims was obstructed. Thus we see that war was just one step ahead of the hunt.

Reading Machiavelli one may fall into the error that war was the favourite sport of princes at which they could play because their subjects were not wise enough. But mat view would have been totally opposed to reality. At that; time it was the princes who harnessed a natural instinct in their subjects to subserve the aim of achieving personal glory. Now the former have been replaced by popular governments ever on the alert to go to war for defending national honour or interests, whatever may be at stake. There is nothing to match a war to knit the people of a country    closer as a nation or to induce mass-hysteria among them.

We can have some idea of the extent of man’s preoccupation with war from the fact that in less than six thousand years of recorded history, he has fought more than 14,500 major and minor wars. Out of 185 known generations, only ten have enjoyed undisturbed peace. And if he still retains his preference for war, it is not for lack of deterrents. Over the centuries, the mechanism of war has been greatly enlarged, so that it is today something vastly different from what it was once. But the growing ferodty and horror of the battlefield have only whetted man’s lust for blood and fire. Each new instrument of destruction he has acquired has produced in him feelings of exultation rather than that fear which could have weaned him from the path of violence. The invention of gunpowder could not frighten him. Likewise poison gases could not stop wars. And science has evolved even more diabolical engines of destruction and thus multiplied the power of war-makers.

Whenever some new and more dreadful weapon was invented, it was claimed that its destructive power would strike terror into the hearts of men and force the nations of the world to abjure war. Such hopes have been expressed time and again, e.g., immediately after the world had witnessed the death and destruction wrought in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the first ever use of atomic weapons in a war. At that time Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain—a man who knew more about \ war and peace than any other man ‘looked forward with great confidence to the potentiality of universal destruction.” Similarly, when the hydrogen bomb had been exploded, it was hoped that the new terror would outlaw war. But such hopes were never fulfilled. Nor are they going to be fulfilled as long as compel men to human nature remains what it is. Even after the destructive capability of nuclear weapons had been demonstrated, there have been no less than fifty big or small conflicts in the world.

That war is a permanent condition of mankind may not have been as clear—say fifty years ago, as it is today. When only one type of war, viz., and the hot war was in vogue, the intervals between wars were utilized as breathers for contriving new strategy. In the present-day world, particularly after world war n, the phenomenon of war has assumed various aspects, i.e., hot wars, not-so-hot wars, cold wars, propaganda wars etc. so that once war breaks out between two countries, they are constantly at it. As a French strategist has said, “There is no longer such a thing as war and peace; just different levels of confrontation.”

Every time men have gone to war, it was proclaimed that it would be a war to end all wars. The allies in the Second World War had also declared that after the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, all nations of the world must abandon the use of force, and strive towards a peace which would afford to all of them the means of dwelling in safety within their boundaries. But like similar pronouncements before it, this declaration too has remained a pious hope. The United Nations has not been able “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. The dream of world peace remains unrealized because man’s protestations of peace are not sincere.

It is a measure of man’s natural preference for the arbitrament of arms that today “there are more military men acting as political leaders than at any time in the twentieth century”.

It would, however, be wrong to conclude from the foregoing that the sole reason for war being the permanent conditions of mankind is man’s natural preference for force. The choice is not only instinctive but also logical. When all has been said and done, war remains the most functional and definitive way of settling international disputes. Once hostilities break out, a fight to the finish is the best way of bringing them to close. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial than harmful if the Arabs and the Jews in West Asia, the Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus, the Indians and Pakistanis in South Asia and the communist and others in South east Asia could be allowed to fight it out to the finish with their own resources?

There is no doubt that war is a horrible thing—particularly today when it almost invariably means total war aimed at not only the destruction of the rival military force but also the destruction of the enemy’s economy. No humane man can applaud the cruelties of war but as long as nation-States exist, they will not be able to renounce it if they have to preserve their national honour and freedom. It is horrible and repellent but inevitable till the dream of a world order has been realized, and if and when that ideal state has been achieved, it remains a moot point whether men will not even then occasionally go to war just for the heck of it.