Forums
Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology (/showthread.php?tid=374)

Pages: 1 2 3

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 02-27-2009

X-posted.....
<!--QuoteBegin-"brihaspati"+-->QUOTE("brihaspati")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rudradevji's post is great summary. I only have some doubts about the British doing US bidding in the background to the transition to Independence. As far as I know, it was a much more complex dynamic. <b>The British treated Roosevelt's emissary for Indian affairs with great suspcion and did everything to derail his attempts at looking for alternatives to the partition. It was primarily the British who were keen on the partition, and at that stage US had little interest in it. The British could not do much directly to defy the US because of the crucial dependence for resources, so they played the indirect diplomatic evasion and derailing they were so good at. It was the British strategy to see Pak as the key launching pad and remaining strategic presence on the subcontinent and partly to offset their losses to US gains in Asia.</b>

The Leftist connection of Nehru is doubtful as a motivator.<b> Nehru was deliberately promoted by the British with very specific calculations - he would be the weakest of the Congress leaders and the closest psychologically to the British, and therefore the best possible choice to be foisted at the top post.  He was the least penalized in terms of freedom to carry out his political activities (he was never exiled, while his potential competitors were usually kept under tight wraps and away from the population). We also see the peculiar pattern in some of our "nationalist" leaders, including Nehru - of suddenly realizing while in jail  of the importance of being not against the British but aginst the sole control by the British of state power.</b>  The British communist influence angle has to be taken with a pinch of salt as we know that "communists" infiltrated the secret services - which implies that the reverse could also be most likely given British style of functioning. <b>There are reasons for me to say that many of the communist parties of various countries including that of the British had very active moles probably right at the top levels, and could even have been promoted from behind by the secret services.</b> (Take this as my conjecture, as I am reluctant to spell out my arguments and sources). 

The British were more likely scared of the growth of popular participation in anti-British movements among the non-Muslims compared to the Muslims, and chose to protect this pocket of mass indifference or support as what they were a sounder basis for longer term startegic presence.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Husky - 03-01-2009

To do with Pandyan's post 40 above.

http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=365
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"May it please Your Honour"     
Nathuram Godse</b>
30 Jan 2009

<i>[On 8 November 1948, Nathuram Godse (19 May 1910-15 November 1949) rose to make his statement in court. Reading quietly from a typed manuscript, he sought to explain why he had killed Gandhi. His thesis covered ninety-pages, and he was on his feet for five hours. Godse's statement, excerpted below, should be read by citizens and scholars in its entirely, for it provides an insight into his personality and his understanding of the concept of Indian nationhood – Editor]</i>

<insert Pandyan's post #40 here>

<i>Nathuram Godse was hanged a year later, on 15 November 1949; as per his last wishes, his family and followers have preserved his ashes for immersion in the Indus River of a re-united India</i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Goes without saying that a re-united <i>Hindu</i> India is what he meant.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->  <b>User Comments:</b>

  Justice Khosla's observations after retirement are also worth noting. In a pen picture of the Court scene as it then passed before his eyes he has said: "The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defence. He spoke for several hours, discussing, in the first instance, the facts of the case and then the motive which had prompted him to take Mahatma Gandhi's life..... "The audience was visibly snd audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound an occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough.... "I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an overwhelming majority." May it please your honour, Surya Bharti Prakashan, Delhi, 1994, pp. 24-25 
  VK 
  30 Jan 2009 
   

  Justice Khoslas Observation And Pictorial Scene Of The Court At That Time , The Lawyers, Their Arguments, Public Present Would Have Give True Version Of What Actualy Happened -Posterity Can Remember. If Any Full Publication Available It Must Be Produced In All National Regional Languages And Populasrised. Rs 
  rajagopalansubramanian 
  01 Feb 2009 
   

  It is worth reading again, especially in today’s environment 
  DC 
  03 Feb 2009 
   

  Madam, I respect your courage to publish this speech of brave patriot late Nathuram Godse. I am a highly qualified Architect/engineer in America. I got frustrated with that old Gandhi –Nehru Congress and their British obligating dirty politics. I was young (around 18 years) when this Gandhi/Godse instance happened. Still, I was aware of the tricky politics of late Gandhi and his selfish followers. Anyway, thanks and congratulations again for your courage. 
  M. Kumbhojkar 
  05 Feb 2009 


  There is no doubt that the present day problems faced by India are the legacy of NEHRU-GANDHI follies.It is amazing that these two stalwarts never fathomed the ugli side of the muslims.Once Pakistan was acceeded to, all muslims should have been turned out just as hindus were from Pakistan.Today they live in India and have loyalties to PAN ISLAMIC notion as well as Pakistan.To believe that muslims are Indians at heart is a mistruth ingrained in us by Gandhi- Nehru combine and being nurtured by the Congress Party.I have grown up in a mohalla with mixed Hindu - muslim population.I know it too well that if one call is given by a mullah to kill the hindu neighbour , your muslim friend would do so without asking any question. 
  Gp Capt KP Sharma 
  24 Feb 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 06-19-2009

And, how do we define such an ‘insult’? This is where an enthusiast like Law Commission of India member Tahir Mahmood may find himself stumped for an answer. Greatly offended by the “insulting” remarks Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati recently made about the Mahatma — she called him a “natakbaaz” — he will write to the commission chairman for an amendment in the law that will, among other things, deny the “offender” the right to contest elections.

Recent Indian writing on the history of the country’s freedom movement has not shied from putting the Mahatma’s role under the scanner. While none questions his sincerity, there are a number of critics who believe Gandhi erred on some occasions and was irritatingly obstinate on others. His role in the isolation of Netaji Bose within the Congress and insistence of British assurance of freedom in lieu of support for the Second World War are two widely written instances of his ‘blunders’. Should, therefore, critics be hauled up for ‘insulting’ the Mahatama?

http://www.dailypioneer.com/183882/%E2%80%...e%E2%80%99.html

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Bodhi - 06-26-2009

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=654
Gandhi, Ambedkar and the Scheduled Castes

Radha Rajan

26 June 2009



[Recently, the mercurial Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati dubbed Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi a “natakbaaz” (pretender). This prompted Mr. Tahir Mahmood, Member, Law Commission, to propose making of derogatory remarks against Gandhi a punishable offence. This prompt reaction from an educated Muslim reflects the status of Gandhi with politically savvy Muslims and the serious reservations of Hindus about his role in the national movement and Partition, and towards Hindu society, particularly the scheduled castes and Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Hind Swaraj (1909) reveals Gandhi professing love for the cow but agreeing to continued cow slaughter if Muslims did not agree to a ban on its killing! His true attitude towards social uplift of untouchables and other oppressed sections of society are of a piece with this approach. We publish below an excerpt from a startling new book, released today, on Gandhi – Editor]



7.11 Gandhi, Ambedkar and the Scheduled Castes

The nineteenth and twentieth century was a period of great turbulence and upheaval for the Hindus of the nation. Not only were they confronting the external adversaries, ascendant Islam and the Christian-colonial British government but internally too, Hindu society was being churned by the incipient movement to end untouchability. One of the most positive fallout of the political movement to end colonial rule was the increasing awareness of the intrinsic injustice and criminality of the practice of untouchability in Hindu society.



Untouchability and the consequent cultural deprivation and social infirmity that it had caused to its victims, was beginning to rise to the surface of the collective Hindu consciousness, not the least because the harijans, as Gandhi insisted on calling the scheduled castes, were taking to English education and were becoming increasingly articulate and assertive in public life. Babasaheb Ambedkar was both the embodiment and symbol of this cataclysmic phenomenon and his inspirational life bestowed upon him iconic status among the scheduled castes; Ambedkar, in the last phase of the freedom movement was as powerful and influential as Gandhi and Jinnah, with a vast following of his own, not confined to his own community.



Gandhi knew that his clout with the British government was proportional to the size of his following and his capacity to bend his followers to his will; and that his power and influence over the people of this nation in his role as the tallest leader of the Congress was proportional to his clout with the British government and his capacity to deliver on the political front. Gandhi’s towering ambition to be the sole leader of all sections of the Indian populace flowed from the astute understanding of this critically important political factor. Gandhi already had the INC under his thumb and he therefore sought to make the INC the only legitimate and all-representative political vehicle. The reasoning was simple and sound – control of the INC effectively meant control of all sections of people – Muslims, Hindus, scheduled castes and the people of the Indian states.



But Gandhi failed to get all sections of the people behind him because he sought exclusive leadership; he wanted people to follow him but on his terms and without their leaders, unless their leaders were willing to subordinate themselves to his leadership. Gandhi wanted the Hindus without their rituals and daily observances, without their religious leaders and their caste and community leaders, he wanted the Muslims without Jinnah and the Muslim League, the scheduled castes without Ambedkar and the people of the Indian states without their Hindu maharajas and princes.



Gandhi wanted to publicly de-link these segments from its leadership and so he dealt with the practice of untouchability in one way and with Ambedkar and others like him who had emerged as the new generation leaders - the educated, assertive and politically conscious scheduled castes - in a radically different way. It is too much of a coincidence that Gandhi’s attention turned to the sinful practice of untouchability with the meteoric rise of Ambedkar in Indian politics.



With deliberate political intent, in startling contrast to Ambedkar and the aspirations of the new, articulate sections of the scheduled castes who wanted to end the isolation of their community and discard every insulting epithet used to describe and define them, Gandhi who had arrogated to himself the right to give them the name ‘harijan’ now replaced it and began to call them ‘bhangi’ [1]. As if to legitimize the pejorative (now outlawed) appellation and seek acceptance for the name in popular discourse Gandhi began to call himself a ‘bhangi-by-choice’. He usually preferred to stay in what he termed were “bhangi colonies”, not in the heart of these colonies but on the outskirts and his official residence in Delhi where he stayed whenever he was dabbling in politics was called “Bhangi Niwas”.



Gandhi, it was clear, was making a point against Ambedkar. While Ambedkar was striving by personal example to raise his people above their infirmity, Gandhi was positioning himself politically as a contrast to Ambedkar by conferring high status to a word Ambedkar abhorred. Gandhi endowed this new name with the appellation ‘ideal scavengers’. It cannot be emphasized enough that Gandhi relied on his mahatmahood to sell the proposition that he was wiping off the stigma from the despised word by making every Hindu a ‘bhangi’ in the Utopia of his conception.



We know that all real constructive work in society, including the mentally stressful, challenging task to end untouchability, the real yagna, was undertaken not just by Gandhi but by his devoted followers who carried on the work for years at a stretch, sometimes their entire lives. Gandhi offered himself merely as the symbol of this work and his work itself, whether growing food for the hungry, scavenging, spinning the charkha to clothe the naked or ending untouchability, was more symbolic than substantive. But such was the power of his mahatmahood, that his devoted followers, Thakkar Bapa, Acharya Vinobha Bhave and countless nameless others made it their life’s mission to live in villages and work ceaselessly to bring different communities together to end untouchability.



Theirs was the first extraordinarily noble, organized movement to end this terrible practice in Hindu society; with little success it may be true, but a great beginning had been made. Some measure of success was achieved to improve the living conditions, particularly the hygiene of the scheduled caste habitations in their segregated localities, but bringing about a change in the attitude of the caste Hindus to end the practice of untouchability continued to remain a long and uphill task. The inspiring force behind the movement for making our villages the focus of attention of the educated among us was undoubtedly Gandhi; his unerring instinct to restore the inter-dependence of communities for the social and economic well-being of the villages was also making some headway; but it was becoming clear that uprooting untouchability merely through social transformation or a voluntary change of heart, while not impossible, was going to be an arduous mission perhaps stretching beyond one generation. One such gesture that Gandhi exhorted Congress workers and members of the Harijan Sevak Sangh to make was to ask each one of them to marry or get their sons or daughters to marry a harijan.



As regards inter-dining and inter-caste marriage, Gandhiji said that so far as he understood the mind of the Congress he knew there was no difference of opinion about inter-dining but he thought that so long as one could not think himself one of the Harijans the poison of untouchability could not be removed. If anybody was not prepared to marry a Harijan he found no occasion of giving his blessings to that marriage. The question of marrying a Harijan was not so difficult but the difficulty was only mental [2].



But can the members of the Harijan Sevak Sangh truthfully claim to have eradicated the last trace of untouchability from their own hearts? Are their professions altogether on a par with their practice? A member asked as to what his criterion was in that respect.



Are you married?



The Member: I happen to be.



G. Then have you an unmarried daughter? If you have, get for her a Harijan bridegroom, not to satisfy her lust but in a purely religious spirit and I shall send you a wire of congratulations at my expense.



You will now realize why the Harijan sevaks are unable to move the hearts of the savarna Hindus. The reason is that they have not that fire of faith in their hearts, that impatient hunger for service which is the first essential for an effective appeal. Let but a handful of savarna Hindus go forth in that true missionary spirit and they will leaven the entire Hindu mass [3].



Gandhi’s sons, Manilal and Devdas, married the daughters of two of Gandhi’s most illustrious colleagues; Manilal married Sushila Mashruwalla, daughter of Kishorelal Mashruwalla, while Devdas fell in love with and married Lakshmi, daughter of C. Rajagopalachari or Rajaji. Needless to say neither Rajaji nor Kishorelal Mashruwalla was a harijan. While Gandhi’s ideas for integrating all communities for a harmonious village life with common social and economic objectives worked in the villages, Gandhi had not accounted for the scheduled castes moving out of villages and into cities, even traveling abroad, acquiring English education and developing a mind of their own about what they wanted to achieve, and how they expected to be treated.



Gandhi failed to come to terms with the reality that English education, for better or for worse, had become the instrument of political power under colonial dispensation and being elected to provincial legislatures, the viceroy’s council, being ministers in the provincial government or the interim government was perceived then as the only means to power and privilege. The educated scheduled castes were no different; in fact their passionate desire for political power had much to do with their impatience and even lack of faith for achieving equality through the slow and painstaking process of change of attitude and also because they understood the new reality that politics was a great equalizer.



The new generation of scheduled castes wanted political power and position to break the social glass ceiling. And it was this yearning for social respectability that made for the vital difference between why the Muslims and the scheduled castes aspired for political power. For the former, it was vivisection of the Hindu bhumi to set up an Islamic state while for the latter it was an empowering instrument to end social ostracism.



Gandhi undertook a fast-unto-death against separate electorates for the scheduled castes on the pretext that the scheduled castes were Hindus and if they sought political power through separate electorates it would sever them permanently from the Hindu samaj. Gandhi therefore insisted on joint electorates with the concession of reserved constituencies for the scheduled castes. So far so good; but given that the Congress was the only powerful political alternative to the Muslim League, no Hindu was going to vote for the Muslim League. Hindus generally voted for the Congress even though the Congress under Gandhi’s leadership, while depending on the vote of the Hindu majority, refused to represent Hindu interests [4]. Therefore if the scheduled castes had to win elections to provincial and central legislatures which would give them the opening to become ministers in government, they had to become a part of, or be supported by either the Muslim League or the Congress.



Gandhi did not like the idea of the scheduled castes demanding representation in politics on merit as their right and as a matter of sense of right. Gandhi wanted to be the source from which all things flowed and he wanted all things to flow “with my consent” [5]. Gandhi wanted the scheduled castes to accept what Gandhi, and through Gandhi the INC bestowed upon them in what they considered was in the fitness of things. Gandhi even took exception to feeding, without his prior consent, harijans who had been gathered for a public flag-hoisting ceremony to celebrate Gandhi’s birthday.



Gandhi stopped refreshments from being served to them on the ground that he did not want to make beggars and idlers of them! Hindu civilization has accorded sharing food and feeding the highest place in dharma. In fact, annadaanam or feeding the hungry is considered to be paramodharmah or the primary dharma of every Hindu. On every important occasion in a Hindu’s life beginning with the birth of a Hindu and until his death, his or her family undertakes feeding the community and sharing food with the hungry, an integral part of their duty towards society.



Yet his nearest comrades were about to make the mistake of serving refreshments, after the Jhanda-vandan by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, to volunteers and Harijans who were not in need of such. Was it not criminal to fritter away food-stuff that would serve to keep alive twenty men, to provide titbits to Harijans and volunteers who were certainly not suffering pangs of hunger? They were deceiving themselves if they thought that thereby they served the Harijans. The real hunger of the Harijans which needed to be satisfied was not for morsels of food but for decent living as self-respecting equal citizens, for a square deal as human beings, for freedom from fear, inculcation of clean and sanitary habits, thrift, industry, education.



That required perseverance, self-sacrifice and patient intelligent labour on our part. If they gave him money to feed Harijans he would refuse to accept it. For he did not want to make beggars and idlers of them. He pointedly referred to the fact that Dr. Rajendra Prasad was their Food Member who wanted to save for the famishing every morsel of food. In the circumstances he very much questioned whether the oversight of his comrades was not due to his being lax with himself. Was he not allowing himself to partake rather too freely of the fruits that were placed before him? The lesson of yesterday, he remarked, was a grave warning for all, if we are to learn truly the lesson of the charkha [6].



But Gandhi accepted with great equanimity the unprecedented gesture of having people celebrate not just his birthday but also celebrate his birthday for an entire week as Gandhi-jayanthi week; we have to infer that this too was done with his consent.



Though I have noticed it in the Gujarati columns of the Harijanbandhu from a different source, at the risk of repetition in another form, I must quote from a touching letter from Shri Parikshitlal Majumdar addressed to Shyamlalji, a copy of which has been sent by the latter.



“I am writing this from Bardoli. This year, during the Gandhi Jayanti week, nearly 40 public wells have been freely opened for the Harijans. People have taken to this programme of their own will. Local people have invited Harijans and taken them to the public wells. I myself have attended some functions and personally have become a witness to the marvelous change. No doubt, it is Gandhiji’s efforts and the recent writings that have brought this change. Numerous inter-communal dinners have been held. There was one such big dinner at Nadiad, the real capital of the Kaira District. One prominent well has been opened in Kadi, a citadel of orthodoxy and 150 people dined with Harijans at Padra in Baroda. There are numerous such incidents but I cannot enumerate them at present”.



Of course, compared to what we want to achieve, this progress is a miserable show. But seeing that Gujarat has been so far behind in this matter of removal of untouchability, the little progress of which Shri Parikshitlal takes note with pardonable satisfaction is pleasant, if it is permanent and is a precursor of better things to come. Every nail driven into the coffin of untouchability is a step in the right direction towards the purification of Hinduism [7].



While Gandhi reserved the right to handle politics for himself and for his favored ones in the INC, he apportioned social work or “constructive programme” to lesser mortals called ‘Congress workers’. Until the 1940s decade there were few who dared to question Gandhi on any issue but by the turn of the decade he was beginning to confront very sharp, pointed questions on several issues not only through the ‘question box’ in Harijan but also during his prayer meetings.



Gandhi received one such pointed letter in flawless English from a member of the scheduled castes, from the Mehtar community, on the eve of elections to the Constituent Assembly. Gandhi ridiculed the harijan’s ‘impertinence’ in writing to him in ‘bookish’ English, which Gandhi says patronizingly, the Mehtar harijan probably only half understood, and savagely mocked the aspiration of his community to enter the privileged portals of the Constituent Assembly. Instead, Gandhi advised the harijan condescendingly to use his English education to become a better ‘bhangi’ and to come forward to help Gandhi clean up the ‘bhangi’ colony in Mumbai!



<b>The letter by the educated scheduled caste person to Gandhi and Gandhi’s response to him is reproduced below in its entirety only to throw light on this little known side to Gandhi’s character. It was this vicious and even megalomaniac streak in Gandhi which kept critically important sections of Hindu community away from the INC at a time when forging a common front alone could have tamed the Muslim League and staved off impending vivisection.



I am writing this letter with a hope of getting proper and immediate response from you. Along with the whole of India I am well aware of your sweet will and affinity towards the Mehtar Community. Your Harijan has obliged us to a great extent by enabling us to see through your heart. Especially the recent Harijan have emphatically revealed your thoughts about the Mehtar Community. I now wish to reveal my interrogatory heart in order to be well nigh to your feelings towards us and to be definite about our position in the muddled and complicated Indian political field.



By the time you will receive this letter it will be the last date of filling in nomination forms for the candidateships for the Constituent Assembly, which has, it is learnt, to be completed by the end of this month. Congress is proposing particular M. L. as and non-M. L. as for the same. It is believed that Scheduled Castes are also to be represented (adequately?). But is there any proposal from you or from Congress to elect adequate or at least some members from the Mehtar Community who, I am sure, will discharge their duty of citizenship and pick up their legitimate share in the future constitution of Free India?



2. Generous as you are towards us, may I assure myself and my community that Mehtar seats in the Constituent Assembly will not escape your notice?



3. Who will be the components of the Advisory Board? Caste Hindus or Minorities including the Scheduled Castes?



4. Will the advice or proposals of the Advisory Board be binding to the Constituent Assembly? I think they will not. If so, what sense is there in appointing such a Board, which will be nonentity if the Constituent Assembly were not to pay heed to its advice? Is it not merely for the appeasement of the weak minorities? You might say you have been [doing] and will do everything for us, but I wish to say ‘let us be with you when everything for us is to be done. Let us be represented democratically.’ I strongly hope that my questions will be fully and satisfactorily answered by you with an obligation of immediate reply to me. I further humbly request you to be good enough to publish your answers in your weekly Harijan.

Hope to be excused for troubles.



Gandhi: I have reproduced the foregoing in order to show what havoc dangerous knowledge of English has produced in our society. This is a specimen not of English nor yet of Indian English. It is bookish English which the writer probably half understands. I suggest to him that if he had written to me in the national language Hindustani or in his provincial language, it would not have evoked an unfavourable response from me. The writer has paid me a left-handed compliment and that perhaps in order to teach me how to express my love for the Bhangi, otherwise known as Mehtar. The writer is a discontented graduate, setting no example or a bad example to Bhangis. He has isolated himself from them, though he professes to represent them. He will certainly become my teacher if he will be a graduate in the art of being a good Bhangi. I very much fear that he does no scavenging himself; he does not know what scientific scavenging is. If he became an expert in the art, his services would be wanted by all the cities of India. When Bhangis really rise from the slumber of ages, they will successfully sweep the Augean stables everywhere and India will be a pattern of cleanliness and there will be in India no plague and other diseases which are the descendants of filth and dirt.



In the place where I am living in Bombay, my room and the adjoining lavatory are fairly clean, but I am in the midst of suffocating dirt. I have had no time to examine the tenements in front of me. They are as crowded and as dirty as the ones in the quarters where I was living in New Delhi. Had my graduate fellow Bhangi been an expert in the art, I would, without doubt, have requisitioned his services as my guide and helper. As it is, not only have I no use for him, I have to risk his displeasure by telling him that he should not think of the Constituent Assembly or other assemblies. Let those go to them who are wanted there. Instead of getting rid of the wretched caste mentality, he argues that any Harijan is not good enough for the purpose but preference should be given to the Mehtar caste. I suggest to him that it is a harmful method, doing no good to anybody.



Anyway, he has expected the impossible from me. I am not made for these big institutions. I have never interested myself in the periodical assembly elections. I have not attended Working Committee meetings where they make these selections. What I know of the present selections is from the newspapers. I have become a Bhangi because I think that that is the vocation of every Hindu, that the hoary institution of untouchability as we know it today in its ugly shape will die a decent death only when the Hindus will be casteless by becoming Bhangis from the bottom of their hearts. That cannot be done by aspiring after the membership my correspondent has in view [8].</b>



Gandhi may not have dared to give Ambedkar a similar tongue-lashing in public but made sure Ambedkar realized that he was not welcome in the INC. Gandhi’s antipathy for Ambedkar did not escape notice however –

I understand and appreciate your remarks about Dr. Ambedkar. I suppose you are aware that I know him very well and that I have met him often enough. He represents a good cause but he is a bad advocate for the simple reason that his passion has made him bitter and made him depart from the straight and narrow path. As I know to my cost, he is a believer in questionable means so long as the end is considered to be good. With him and with men like him the end justifies the means. Have you read his book? It is packed with untruths almost from beginning to end. I am sorry to have to say this of a countryman who has himself been obliged to put up with insults which have embittered men mightier than Dr. Ambedkar. You need not take all I say as gospel truth. I have written this to you in order to give you my . . . that if I do not go out of my way to seek contact with Dr. Ambedkar it is not for want of will or want of regard for you and friends like you but because I know that such seeking will, in my view, harm the cause [rather] than help it. No question of prestige will deter me from walking to him. I can say that the question of prestige has never interfered with my doing what I believed was a duty. I have laboured to show that in this case duty points the other way [9].



With little thought to the immense hurt he was causing not only to the scheduled castes but to the entire Hindu samaj by marginalizing Ambedkar and ridiculing the aspirations of the newly educated in the community, Gandhi compounded the vexatious issue by encouraging the Congress to put up its own scheduled caste candidates against those owning allegiance to the Scheduled Castes’ Federation, formed by Ambedkar in 1942. Gandhi promoted the idea of Congress Muslim versus the League Muslim, understandably as a Muslim who did not subscribe to the idea of Pakistan and vivisection; less understandable is Gandhi’s move to promote the idea of Congress ‘harijan’ versus Ambedkar’s scheduled castes.



Not surprisingly, Ambedkar and the entire community viewed Gandhi’s moves as hostile to their self-assertion and political aspirations. Gandhi was totally right to insist that the scheduled castes were an integral part of the Hindu samaj; and that the separation implied by separate electorates would be suicidal not only for the scheduled castes but also for the caste Hindus [10]. But the remedy laid not in promoting Congress harijans against Ambedkar’s scheduled castes, but in the Congress refraining from entering the electoral fray in the reserved constituencies and allowing Ambedkar’s scheduled castes to occupy all the space with the full backing of the Congress. Politics, as it was being proved by the day from 1942 onwards, was not Gandhi’s karmabhumi, social transformation definitely was. Had Gandhi handled Ambedkar with greater tact and understanding, Ambedkar would have stood staunchly alongside the Congress and as a brilliant lawyer he would have added considerable weight to the Congress team against the Muslim League and the British government during the negotiations on the Cabinet Mission proposals and during the tragedy that followed thereafter.



On the one hand Gandhi was insisting that the scheduled castes should not ask for separate electorates because they were an integral part of the Hindu samaj; on the other hand, Gandhi refused to accommodate any of Ambedkar’s demands on behalf of his community and refused also to make space within the INC for the politically-ambitious Ambedkarite scheduled castes. In fact, Gandhi was using the Hindu card to play politics with Ambedkar; he was denying the scheduled castes what they thought was the best means for being elected in large numbers but doing little to make the INC responsive to their needs.



While Gandhi repeatedly insisted that the Congress was not a Hindu organization, he used the argument of “survival of Hinduism” as the fig-leaf to thwart Ambedkar’s demand for separate electorates. Gandhi was effectively doing everything to push Ambedkar and his followers inexorably out of the Hindu fold if that was the only way they could realize their political aspirations, just as he was doing everything to scuttle the Cabinet Mission.



I have not been able to answer your letter fully. The main problem is about Ambedkar. I see a risk in coming to any sort of understanding with him, for he has told me in so many words that for him there is no distinction between truth and untruth or between violence and non-violence. He follows one single principle, viz., to adopt any means which will serve his purpose. One has to be very careful indeed when dealing with a man who would become a Christian, Muslim or Sikh and then be reconverted according to his convenience. There is much more I could write in the same strain. To my mind it is all a snare. It is a “catch”. Besides, it is not necessary for him at present to insist on 20 p.c.... I therefore feel that at present we should not insist on an agreement such as you suggest. However, we should stress the capacity of the Congress to do justice. Mine may be a voice in the wilderness. Even so I prefer it that way. Therefore, if we negotiate with Ambedkar out of fear of the League we are likely to lose on both the fronts [11].



Of course we have no way of knowing if Ambedkar did indeed say what Gandhi is accusing him of saying; but Patel, with a better understanding of politics, of Ambedkar’s position in the emerging polity and with an unerring sense of impending danger were Ambedkar to publicly repudiate Gandhi and the Congress, keeps the doors open to Ambedkar and keeps the dialogue with Ambedkar going. As a forerunner of things to come when Patel would successfully integrate the Indian states within the Indian Union after August 1947, Patel does indeed come to an amicable agreement with Ambedkar [12].



The Muslim League just a couple of days earlier had rejected the Cabinet Mission proposals and held Gandhi solely responsible for their decision. Patel knew that if Ambedkar were to be alienated at that point in time, because of Congress refusal under Gandhi’s pressure to arrive at some kind of agreement with him, Ambedkar’s alienation could cause incalculable damage to the INC if he too were to publicly repudiate Gandhi. Failure to accommodate Ambedkar then would certainly have weakened the INC vis a vis the growing militancy of the Muslim League. It was a measure of Patel’s political astuteness and his quiet influence within the INC that Ambedkar was not only elected to the Constituent Assembly but also made Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the Constitution of India. It was probably Patel’s wisdom which reached out to the wounded Ambedkar on time which averted the real danger of Ambedkar and his followers from converting to either Islam or Christianity. Ambedkar, towards the end of his life chose to convert to Buddhism, which was civilizationally related by the umbilical cord to Hindu dharma.



Endnotes



1] Because the words ‘bhangi’ and ‘pariah’ are considered highly derogatory, using these words intentionally as terms of abuse is a cognizable offence and the law deals sternly with offenders. Successive Indian governments have put in place admirable measures to protect the dignity of the scheduled castes and the Hindi equivalent for scavenger has been used in the book only when Gandhi has been quoted on the issue.

2] Discussion with Congress Workers, January 1, 1946, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 3-1-1946, CWMG Vol. 89, page 150

3] Talk with members of Harijan Sevak Sangh, Panchgani, July 20, 1946, Harijan, 28-7-1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 320-21

4] There were some who described the Congress as a Hindu organization. They only betrayed their ignorance of the political history of India. At one time the Hindu Mahasabha was in the hands of the Congress and so was the Muslim League and others. Congress was not a Hindu organization. It did not serve Hindu interests to the exclusion of the other communities. It was hinted that the Congress leaders had come to consult him with regard to the interests of the Hindus. Had they done so they would have lowered the stature of the Indian National Congress in the eyes of the world. They had come to consult him, as an expert on the Hindu-Muslim question, as to how best to serve the national cause in the present crisis. (Speech at a prayer meeting, Srirampur, December 28, 1946, The Hindu, 2-1-1947; and Harijan, 26-1-1947, CWMG Vol 93, page 207)

5] I have asked you to pay me a brief visit. You might be of some use in the work that is being done here. That means your sparing a fortnight at the most. But I do not want you to neglect the duty you have undertaken, of course with my full consent. (Letter to Amrit Kaur, Patna March 18, 1947, CWMG Vol 94, page 136)

Mahadev I suppose did not have the same malady that you seem to have. In any case unless I know more fully I can’t guide you. Moreover, Mahadev had put himself under an Ayurvedic physician at that time, staying in bed. Of course he did so with my consent. (Letter to Jag Parvesh Chander, Patna March 18, 1947, CWMG Vol 94, page 139)

I have gone through your papers. You should not have undertaken the fast without my consent. It is good that you have broken it.(Letter to Prabhakar, April 11, 1947, CWMG Vol 94, page 285)

6] Harijan, 29-9-1946, Extracted from Pyarelal’s “Weekly Letter”. The Hindustan Times, 25-9-1946, also reports the speech, CWMG Vol. 92, page 225. Foot-note 2 in the above entry in CWMG says, “This was to be in celebration of Gandhiji’s birthday according to the Vikram calendar.

7] A Sign of Progress, SRIRAMPUR, November 30, 1946, Harijan, 15-12-1946, CWMG Vol. 93, pp 80-81

8] Left-handed Compliment, Bombay, July 6, 1946, Harijan 14-7-1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 241-43

9] Letter to Carl Heath, December 2, 1946, From a copy: Pyarelal Papers. Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Courtesy: Beladevi Nayyar and Dr. Sushila Nayyar, CWMG Vol. 93, pp 86-87

10] It is perfectly true that more is common between Hindus and Sikhs than between caste Hindus and untouchables. That is a blot upon caste Hindus and Hinduism. But the remedy is not to add evil to evil but to reform Hinduism, so that the demand for separation on the part of untouchables dies a natural death. Meantime Hindus cannot be expected to commit suicide which separation of Harijans from caste Hindus must mean. (“Scheduled castes”, Panchgani July 19, 1946, Harijan 28-7-1946, CWMG Vol 91, page 312)

11] Letter to Vallabhbhai Patel, August 1, 1946, Bapuna Patro—2: Sardar Vallabhbhaine, pp. 319-20, Vol. 91, pp 393-94

12] I have your letter. If you see no risk in it, what is there for me to say? Do by all means settle with Bhimarao. I have nothing further to say in the matter. (Letter to Vallabhbhai Patel, August 3, 1946, Bapuna Patro—2: Sardar Vallabhbhaine, p. 323, CWMG Vol. 91, page 412)





Excerpted from



Eclipse of The Hindu Nation: Gandhi and His Freedom Struggle

Radha Rajan

New Age Publishers Pvt Ltd, Delhi, 2009

Price: Rs 495/-


Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 09-09-2009

<!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo--> "You know, I think that it might be Gandhi, who is a real hero of mine," Obama said. "Now, it would probably be a really small meal because he didn't eat a lot," he said amidst laughter. But Mahatma Gandhi is someone who has inspired people across the world for the past several generations, he said.

Terming the iconic figure as the source of inspiration for many, Obama said "he (Mahatma Gandhi) is somebody whom I find a lot of inspiration in. He inspired Dr King (Martin Luther), so if it hadn't been for the non-violent movement in India, you might not have seen the same non-violent movement for civil rights here in the United States." said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/wo...how/4988799.cms

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 10-03-2009

<!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo--> WASHINGTON: Internet search
giant Google paid tribute to Mahatma Gandhi on Friday on the 140th anniversary of his birth, replacing the 'G' in its
Google logo
colorful logo with his picture.

Clicking on the logo takes a reader to links in the Google search engine to websites about Gandhi, who was born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on October 2, 1869 and was assassinated on January 30, 1948.

Google frequently changes the colorful logo on its famously sparse home page to mark holidays, anniversaries or significant events.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...how/5081471.cms

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 10-16-2009

<!--emo&:thumbsup--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbup.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbup.gif' /><!--endemo--> "As a man of his time who asked the deepest questions, even though he may not have had all of the answers, he became a man for all times and all places."

Remembering Gandhi as one of the most revered people of the last century, Republican Ed Royce, said "Mahatma is remembered for his efforts to build religious amity. Above all else, however, Gandhi worked tirelessly to free his nation and helped direct India into a new era of democracy."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...how/5130085.cms

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 12-28-2009

“We are often confronted with the task of examining a huge number of fake currency notes. We do it with all security features available in the literature and manuals. We have found that the features of the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi in the denominations of Rs. 1,000, 500 and 100 varied in genuine and fake notes,” said C.N. Bhattacharya, Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. Currency notes in the denominations of Rs. 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 feature Gandhiji’s image.



http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/28/stories/2009122859212000.htm

That reminds me our 1 of the childhood slogans:

ek chavanni chandi ki,

Jai bolo Mahatma Gandhi ki = 1 quarter of silver and hail Mahatma Gandhi!

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 06-18-2010

I am reading books on Western Literary criticsm. What I am struck is the many simialrities that Mahatma Gandhiji had with Christ like figure. No wonder he resonated with their thinking and had many disciples among Westerners.



Christ figure:

First level - crucified, wound in hands, feet, side and head often portrayed with arms outstretched.

Next level: Self sacrificing, good with children,known to use humble transprtation, known to have spent time alone in wilderness(rishi, came to reddem unworthy world, give hope and redemption.

Deeper level: crossed the seas or ocean and gets re-born - MKG re-born twice. Once to England and next to South Africa.



And killed like the Christ Figure.



I once saw an icon of Gandhi made up like Christ in a store in Berkeley.



Example but not the same as I saw:



[Image: Gandhi.jpg]

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 06-22-2010

You might have got an offer letter and already secured a seat in a prestigious university by now. Funds are already taken care of. But, are you ready to live one or two years of your life totally different from how you have lived in India?



This article has been inspired by the life of MK Gandhi, the Mahatma. Leaving for England for his Law degree, young Gandhi found life quite different and difficult initially. The people, language, food, conveyance, cost, the culture... almost everything was alien to him. Most of you planning to go abroad for the year starting 2010-11 might also find the place the way Gandhi found England. So, here are some tips to survive your student life abroad, taking a cue or two from the life of the Mahatma in London. http://education.in.msn.com/news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4040235&page=2

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 01-26-2011

First the Kashmiri lad's anti-India group and now, the anti-Gandhi group. The Indian hategroups are causing trouble for Facebook with the latest leading to an FIR against it.

Luknow: FIR has been lodged against Facebook and others in 'I hate Gandhi' group. Complaint has been filed by Amitabh Thakur, an IPS officer. The FIR says, that Facebook is a social networking site which is accessible to people globally. http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/Facebook_turns_criminal_Should_Indian_hategroups_be_blocked-nid-77896.html?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Subscriber

And I did not save a few more news for facebook e.g. divorce lawyers in USA are raising their fingers against Facebook and blaming it as 3rd party for spurt in divorces.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 05-16-2011

Book review in Pioneer.



http://www.dailypioneer.com/338673/Questioning-the-Mahatma.html



Quote:Questioning the Mahatma



May 16, 2011 11:03:33 PM





Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and His Freedom Struggle

Author: Radha Rajan

Publisher: New Age

Price: Rs 495



The book looks into the darker side of Gandhi and its impact on the country and its people, says Koenraad Elst



The latest American book on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul, has drawn a lot of attention. This was mainly because of its allegations about yet more eccentric sexual aspects of his Mahatma-hood on top of those already known. Lelyveld, in particular, overinterprets Gandhi’s correspondence with German-Jewish architect Hermann Kallenbach as evidence of a homosexual relationship. Bapu’s fans intoned the same mantra as the burners of Salman Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses: “Freedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to insult revered figures.” Well, if it doesn’t mean that, it doesn’t mean much.



In particular, Lelyveld has all the more right to disclose what he found in the Mahatma’s bedroom because the latter was quite an exhibitionist himself, detailing every straying thought and nocturnal emission in his sermons and editorials. But do these tickling insinuations carry any weight? Other, more troubling, aspects of Gandhi’s résumé are far more deserving of closer scrutiny. Some unpleasant instances of his impact on India and Hinduism have been discussed thoroughly in a new book, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and His Freedom Struggle, by Radha Rajan, editor of the Chennai-based nationalist website, http://www.vigilonline.com.



Rajan has already authored, with Krishen Kak, NGOs, Activists and Foreign Funds: Anti-Nation Industry (2006), a scholarly X-ray of the NGO scene, exposing this holier-than-thou cover for both corruption and anti-India machinations. The present book, likewise, takes a close look at a subject mostly presented in the broad strokes of hagiography. In particular, she dissects the Hindu and anti-Hindu content of Gandhi’s policies. Both were present, the author acknowledges, but there was a lot less Hindu in him than mostly assumed.



Rama had Vasishtha, Chandragupta had Chanakya, Shivaji had Ramdas, but Gandhi never solicited the guidance of any Hindu rajguru. By contrast, in his long formative years, he read Christian authors and welcomed the advice of Christian clergymen. This way, he imbibed many monotheistic prejudices against ‘heathen’ Hinduism, to the point that in 1946 he insisted for the new temple on the BHU campus not to contain an “idol”.



Gandhi took his Hindu constituents for granted, but never showed any concern for specific Hindu interests. The story that he staked his life to quell the massacres of Hindus in Noakhali in 1947 turns out to be untrue: His trip to East Bengal took place under security cover and well after the worst violence had subsided. There and wherever Hindus were getting butchered en masse in 1947-48, he advised them to get killed willingly, rather than fight back or flee. It is breathtaking how often his writings and speeches contain expressions like: “I don’t care if many die.” And it was the first time in Hindu history that anyone qualified going down without a fight against a murderous aggressor as “brave”.



All his fasts unto death proved to be empty play when he refused to use this weapon to avert Partition, in spite of promises given. It was the only time when he ran a real risk of being faced with an opponent willing to let him die, rather than give in. Rajan documents how unpopular he had become by then, not only among fellow politicians who were exasperated at his irrationality, but also the masses suffering the effects of his confused policies. Had Gandhi not been murdered, he would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.



Gandhi made a caricature of Hinduism by presenting his own whimsical conduct as quintessentially Hindu, such as the rejection of technological progress, maintaining sexual abstinence even within marriage and, most consequentially, extreme non-violence under all circumstances. This concept owed more to Jesus — “turning the other cheek” — than to Hindu-Buddhist ahimsa. He managed to read his own version of non-violence into the Bhagavad Gita, which centres on Krishna rebuking Arjuna for showing Gandhian passivity. He never invoked any of India’s warrior heroes and denounced the freedom fighters who opted for armed struggle.



The author acknowledges Gandhi’s sterling contribution to the weakening of caste prejudice among the upper castes. His patronising attitude towards the Harijans will remain controversial, but the change of heart he effected among the rest of Hindu society vis-à-vis the Scheduled Castes (SC) was revolutionary. However, once educated SC people started coming up and speaking for themselves, his response became abusive. Thus, a letter is reproduced in which the Mahatma with chilling pedantry belittles an admiring Constituent Assembly candidate from the scavengers’ caste for his “bookish English” and because “the writer is a discontented graduate”. Gandhi further insults him when he says that “I fear he does no scavenging himself” and thus “he sets a bad example” to other scavengers. A very few readers would have expected such a behaviour from the Mahatma.



Likewise, Gandhi’s supposed saintliness is incompatible with his well-documented mistreatment of his sons and his faithful wife. Here too, Gandhi’s sexual antics receive some attention. The whole idea of an old man seeking to strengthen his brahmacharya (chastity) by sleeping with naked young women, is bad enough. Perhaps we had to wait for a woman author to give these victims a proper hearing. Rajan documents the fear with which these women received Gandhi’s call to keep him company, as well as their attempts to avoid or escape this special treatment and the misgivings of their families. She praises the self-control of Gandhi’s confidants who, though horrified, kept the lid on this information out of concern for its likely demoralising effect on the Congress movement. The Mahatma wasn’t equally discreet; he revealed the names of the women he had used in his chastity experiments, unmindful of what it would do to their social standing.



When Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel expressed his stern disapproval of these experiments, Gandhi reacted with a list of cheap allegations, which the former promptly refuted. Lowly insinuations turn out to be a frequent presence in the Mahatma’s correspondence. As the author observes: “Reputed historians and other eminent academicians have not undertaken so far any honest study of Gandhi’s character. Just as little is known of his perverse experiments with women, as little is known of his vicious anger and lacerating speech that he routinely spewed at people who opposed him or rejected him.” While careful not to offend the powerful among his occasional critics, like his sponsor GD Birla, “he treated those whom he considered inferior to him in status with contempt and in wounding language”.



Unlike in Lelyveld’s account, the references to Gandhi’s sexual gimmicks here have political relevance. More importantly, Gandhi’s discomfort with Patel’s disapproval was a major reason for his overruling the Congress workers’ preference for Patel and foisting his flatterer, Jawaharlal Nehru, as Prime Minister on India instead. Thus, argues Rajan, he handed India’s destiny over to an emergent coalition of anti-Hindu forces. To replace Nehru as party leader, he had his yes-man JB Kripalani selected, not coincidentally the one among those in the know who had explicitly okayed the chastity experiments. The Mahatma’s private vices spilled over into his public choices with grave political consequences.



The reviewer is a Belgian author of over 15 books on Indian nationalism, history and politics



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ravicv - 06-05-2011

[quote name='ramana' date='16 May 2011 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1305568487' post='111603']

Book review in Pioneer.



http://www.dailypioneer.com/338673/Questioning-the-Mahatma.html

[/quote]



It's good that the truth has started coming out. Better late than never! Perhaps soon a similar work will be done on Nehru, who was pretty generous in donating Indian territory. These books should be translated into Indian languages and made available for one and all to read. The bovine Indian masses should know that since 1947, they've been worshipping "False Gods".

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - roosevelt92 - 06-24-2011

i liked the Gandhi ji ideology so its because of what ever the peace and serenity are which are still in India its because the great the person Mahatma Gandhi...

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Bharatvarsh2 - 06-25-2011

[quote name='deepak patel' date='24 June 2011 - 02:49 AM' timestamp='1308901264' post='112032']

i liked the Gandhi ji ideology so its because of what ever the peace and serenity are which are still in India its because the great the person Mahatma Gandhi...

[/quote]

More like all the suffering Hindus are undergoing at the hands of Jihad is due to Duratma Gandhi who refused an orderly population exchange as proposed by Ambedkar in the context of Partition.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Husky - 07-15-2011

[quote name='ramana' date='16 May 2011 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1305568487' post='111603']

Book review in Pioneer.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/338673/Questioning-the-Mahatma.html



[...]



in 1946 he [color="#800080"](Gandhi)[/color] insisted for the new temple on the BHU [color="#800080"](Benares Hindu University)[/color] campus not to contain an “idol”.



[...][/quote]



In a comment by Sharan on the above Pioneer piece by Elst reviewing Rajan's book on Gandhi:

https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/questioning-the-mahatma-koenraad-elst/

Quote:[...]

But the most shocking story about Gandhi is that the only picture he kept in his Sabarmati Ashram room was a picture of Jesus.

[...]

So:

- Gandhi booed and shooed at Hindu vigrahas - they're but "idols" to him

- Gandhi kept an idol ("picture") of the non-existent jeebus



At some point in the deheathenising process, it gets hard to distinguish between the subverted/de-heathenised and the successfully converted. I'm thinking the difference is one of consciousness/awareness in the minds of the victim (convert) concerning their converted state.







Quote:[color="#800080"](Deepak Patel wroteSmile[/color] i liked the Gandhi ji ideology so its because of what ever the peace and serenity are which are still in India its because the great the person Mahatma Gandhi...



There was a time I would have steered clear of taking pot-shots at others' (other Indians') heroes - back when I was labouring under the notion that taking away others' heroes must be mentally damaging to some extent (and therefore "bad" perse) - but it's people's own fault for having such lousy judgement as to fall for unworthy and frankly scary characters. And you're eventually either going to find out the negatives and be disappointed anyway, or you're going to continue to delude yourself and defend the indefensible or you're going to stagnate yourself by keeping unworthy entities as the standard you aspire to.

The first of these 3 likely consequences is temporary and affects only the disillusioned, the remaining 2 consequences bode a longterm hazard to the rest of society.



To any of Deepak Patel's opinion: Gandhi wasn't who you imagine he was. You're blinded by your unreal image of him. Among his "greatest" accomplishments is his emasculating our nation by making militant pacifism of victims (alone) into a prominent ideology/mindset, which further encouraged the violent to be more violent (since they know they may act with impunity).

If an unknown had argued for the same let alone attempted to foist it on the Dharmics of the nation as Gandhi had done, people would see it for the villainy it was.





Quote:because of what ever the peace and serenity are which are still in India its because the great the person Mahatma Gandhi...
No. Whatever peace and serenity there is in Bharatam was paid for with the blood of our ancestors who had purchased with it some time (some centuries) for us and this last bit of our ancestral land that we still call our homeland.



In contrast, Gandhi's idea of "peace and serenity" was of the self-extinction variety: to be obtained by Dharmic men literally getting themselves willingly (and happily) massacred by islamaniacs and by Dharmic women getting themselves willingly (and happily) assaulted (then massacred/enslaved) by islamaniacs. By reading others' posts on Gandhi in this forum, you will learn the extent of the literalness of this.