User talk:Singhsurma

The word "militant" isn't an abusive word. If you look at the Wikipedia article called Militant, you'll see that a "militant" is simply somebody who uses violence as a means to an end. I think we can all agree that Bhagat Singh used violence to achieve his end of independence for India and so, by that definition, he is "militant." (Sorry, I put this on your user page at first, when I should've put it on your talk page.) --Hnsampat 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think "militant" is a pretty neutral word, but if you disagree, I won't make an issue out of it. I think the word "revolutionary" is too vague, though. Gandhi was also a revolutionary. "Revolutionary" is not a word that implies violence. The key difference between the two men is that Gandhi was a pacifist whereas Bhagat Singh advocated violence if deemed necessary. I'm going to change "militant" to "militaristic." How's that?

By the way, I don't think being "pro-Gandhi" means necessarily that I have to be "anti-Bhagat Singh." Besides, I try not to let whatever personal biases I have interfere with my work. I'm a big advocate for NPOV, as my work reflects. --Hnsampat 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)