he father can forgive his children, but can we forgive ourselves for what we did to him? What did he get in return for all the sacrifices he made for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity? He got nothing but three bullets into his stomach from a Hindu maniac and apathy from the Muslims. The fact of the matter is whenever Gandhi needed their support, both Hindus and Muslims, turned their backs on him.
True, Gandhi was deeply disappointed with the unhelpful attitude of the Hindus, but, he was equally hurt by the callousness of the Muslims. ‘India’s Iron Man’, the biography of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel by Balraj Krishna, offers a vivid account of how Gandhi perceived Muslims’ apathy towards him and how he resented their uncooperative attitude. He seldom made his grievances against the Muslims public though, lest he should be misconstrued.
In the quiet, uncontaminated climate of the Yervada jail in 1932, and in the company of his most trusted colleagues including Sardar Patel, Gandhi, for the first time, revealed how much ‘sorrow and pain’ were caused to him by the Muslims’ attitude towards him in the Kohat communal rioting and at the 1931 Round Table Conference in London. In a depressed vein, Gandhi said,
“Whom should I tell the insults I have borne on behalf of the Muslims? For their sake I have drunk bitter cups of sorrow.”
One day while reading an Urdu school textbook, Gandhi admitted,
“The book pours out maximum poison. It was prescribed by the government as a textbook before the Hindu-Muslim conflict began; and today’s Muslim youth has been brought up on such books.”
On another occasion Gandhi referred to a fourth standard Urdu primer of Lahore’s Anjuman-i-Himayat, and regretfully observed,
“The reading of this book makes one sad. It appears the Muslim children are taught violence and bloodshed from their childhood.”
Gandhi told Patel and Mahadev Desai one day,
“Iqbal’s opposition to (single) nationhood is shared by many Muslims. Some speak out; others don’t. Iqbal now repudiates his ‘Sare Jahan Se Acchha Hindustan Hamara’ song.”
On another day, Gandhi asked Mahadev Desai to draw Patel’s attention to the distorted version of the same song in a government school textbook in Urdu. The song propagated Pan-Islamism, and its first two lines read:
“China, Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara; Muslim hain hum, watan hai sara jahan hamara.”(From China to Arabia, the whole territory is ours; India is ours; we are Muslims , and the whole world is ours.)Gandhi in a melancholic vein commented,
“The Muslim boys are brought up on such education. The book hasn’t a single lesson which should teach the Muslim boys that this country is theirs and they should take pride in her. Not only that. As a result, the Muslims have developed enmity with others.”
Gandhi’s regret was that all this was happening despite what he had done or undergone for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity. Who can forget his heroic fast unto death, held to save the lives of those thousands of Muslims who were sitting ducks in Calcutta amidst the ongoing communal frenzy, in a wretched hovel at the city’s Beliaghata Road in August, 1947? Who can forget his last fast unto death in Delhi, after the cataclysmic partition, held to protect the lives of those vulnerable Muslims who had become refugees in their own country, and to ensure that ‘Pakistan gets its due share’?
Gandhi led the Khilafat agitation, boldly bearing attacks from senior Congress leaders, Hindu leaders and the saintly Britisher, CF Andrews. And it was at the Round Table Conference, which could have provided India with an opportunity to gain independence in 1931, that Gandhi met his Waterloo at the hands of the Muslims. Maulana Shaukat Ali had told the American journalist William Shirer:
“If the Hindus don’t meet our demands this time, we’re going to make war on them. We ruled the Hindus once. At least we don’t intend to be ruled by them now.”
This was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Gandhi had to admit to ‘an inglorious end’ to his years of labours. According to Shirer,
“This failure, as Gandhi often said, was the greatest cross he ever bore.”
One day Patel ruefully asked Gandhi:
“Are there any Muslims who will listen to you?”
The truth is nobody, nobody paid heed to Gandhi, neither Hindus nor Muslims. Yes, he was let down by all of us; we deserted him whilst the forsaken Mahatma fought alone for peace.
It’s a pity that 66 years since independence we have not learned our lessons yet. It’s a pity that we are allowing his sacrifice to go waste.
Father, forgive us.
The father can forgive his children, but can we forgive ourselvesfor what we did to him? What did he get in return for all thesacrifices he made for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity? He got nothingbut three bullets into his stomach from a Hindu maniac and apathy fromthe Muslims. The fact of the matter is whenever Gandhi needed theirsupport, both Hindus and Muslims, turned their backs on him.
True, Gandhi was deeply disappointed with the unhelpful attitude ofthe Hindus, but, he was equally hurt by the callousness of the Muslims. ‘India’s Iron Man’, the biography of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patelby Balraj Krishna, offers a vivid account of how Gandhi perceivedMuslims’ apathy towards him and how he resented their uncooperativeattitude. He seldom made his grievances against the Muslims publicthough, lest he should be misconstrued.
In the quiet, uncontaminated climate of the Yervada jail in 1932, andin the company of his most trusted colleagues including Sardar Patel,Gandhi, for the first time, revealed how much ‘sorrow and pain’ werecaused to him by the Muslims’ attitude towards him in the Kohat communalrioting and at the 1931 Round Table Conference in London. In adepressed vein, Gandhi said,
John James Marshall was an American lawyer, judge, politician, diplomat, legislator, statesman, jurist and military. He served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835 and also served as the United States Secretary of State.
When Marshall was Chief Justice, he helped shaping the American judicial system, specially with the rights of the citizens, he also expanded the Court's jurisdiction to make it an integral part of the federal system of checks and balances, before that the Court didn't have substantial authority. He gave the Supreme Court authority over every legislature and court in the nation and gave power to throw out laws that contradicted the constitution. That way the Judicial, Executive and Legislative Branches were equals.
Before the war, the United States defended an “open door” policy as the best solution to strong imperialist competition. In this context, US government officials believed that all imperialists had equal rights in the exploration of Afro-Asian territories.
Despite this conciliatory premise, European countries preferred war as a solution. In this new context, the United States began to profit at the expense of the First World War. In a short space of time, European nations needed huge amounts of food and weapons for the conflict. Even though it remained neutral, for the sake of interest and affinity, the US government exported its products only to the nations that belong to the Triple Entente.
The solidary behavior of the USA soon deepened, especially when we observed the borrowing of financial resources for the war in Europe. Until that moment, the conflict was becoming a very profitable and beneficial event for the American economy. In the political sphere, the United States hoped that the nation could become even stronger by possibly assuming the status of intermediary in peace treaties.
The Russians abandoned the Triple Entente with the development of the Russian Revolution.
On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on the Germans and their allies. A large volume of soldiers, tanks, ships and warplanes were used to ensure the Entente's victory was assured. Before long, German and Austrian troops were defeated. In November 1918, the Compiègne armistice arranged for the Germans to withdraw and the Triple Entente to win quickly.
Answer:
they told cmon here if you u can
Explanation:
i'll beat u up huh
this is the answer
thank u that u thanked me
BYE
It freed all slaves in American territory.
It was issued after the Battle of Antietam.
It ensured that England would not support the South.
It actually freed very few slaves immediately.
It was written before the war as a goal of Lincoln's government.
B. Warren believed the Court had to honor all precedents.
C. Warren believed that the Supreme Court should uphold the policies of President Eisenhower
D. Warren believed that laws were not flexible, that they had to be interpreted according to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.