Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Printable Version

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 - 11-01-2007

QUOTE("Stan_Savljevic")ramana, send me an email at sav_stan@yahoo.comÂ if u need the pdf

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("ramana")Try to get the Jurgenmeyer article on Gandhi
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/daed/136/1

Immediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the idea of taking a nonviolent stance in response to terrorism would have been dismissed out of hand. But now, after the invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries by the U.S. military, the loss of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis, and the start of a global jihadi war that seems unending, virtually any alternative seems worth considering. It is in this context that various forms of less militant response, including the methods of conflict resolution adopted by India's nationalist leader, Mohandas Gandhi, deserve a second look.

Like us, Gandhi had to deal with terrorism, and his responses show that he was a tough-minded realist. I say this knowing that this image of Gandhi is quite different from what most Westerners have in mind when they think of him. The popular view in Europe and the United States is the one a circle of Western pacifists writing in the 1920s promoted--the image of Gandhi as a saint.

In a 1921 lecture on "Who is the Greatest Man in the World Today?" John Haynes Holmes, the pastor of New York City's largest liberal congregation, extolled not Lenin or Woodrow Wilson or Sun Yat-sen but someone whom most of the crowd thronging the hall that day had never heard of--Mohandas Gandhi. (1) Holmes, who was later credited with being the West's discoverer of Gandhi, described him as his "seer and saint." (2)

In fact, the term 'Mahatma,' or 'great soul,' which is often appended to Gandhi's name, probably came not from admirers in India but from the West. Before the Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore used the term in his letter welcoming Gandhi to India in 1914, members of an American and European mystical movement, the Theosophists, had applied this name to Gandhi. Most likely, they were the ones who conveyed it to Tagore, and since then the term has persisted, even though it was Westerners rather than Indians who first regarded Gandhi in such a saintly mien.

In India, Gandhi was seen as a nationalist leader who, though greatly revered, was very much a politician. Though Gandhi was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize on several occasions, the selection committee hesitated, thinking that the choice of an activist rather than an idealist would stoke political controversies. Gandhi was indeed in the midst of political battle, and in the process he had to address the violence of both his side and the opponents, acts that looked very much like the terrorism of today.

India was on the verge of a violent confrontation with Britain when, in 1915, Gandhi was brought into India's independence movement from South Africa, where as a lawyer he had been a leader in the struggle for social equality for immigrant Indians. In India, as in South Africa, the British had overwhelming military superiority and were not afraid to use it. In 1919, in the North Indian city of Amritsar, an irate British brigadier-general slaughtered almost four hundred Indians who had come to the plaza of Jallianwala Bagh to protest peacefully.

But the nationalist side was countering with violence of its own. In Bengal, Sub-has Chandra Bose organized an Indian National Army, and, in Punjab, leaders of the Ghadar movement--supported by immigrant Punjabis in California--plotted a violent revolution that anticipated boatloads of weapons and revolutionaries transported to India from the United States. These Indian anarchists and militant Hindi nationalists saw violence as the only solution to break the power of the British over India.

Gandhi's views about violent struggle were sharpened in response to Indian activists who had defended a terrorist attack on a British official. The incident occurred in London in 1909, shortly before Gandhi arrived there to lobby the British Parliament on behalf of South African Indian immigrants. An Indian student in London, Madan Lal Dhingra, had attacked an official in Britain's India office, Sir William H. Curzon-Wylie, in protest against Britain's colonial control over India. At a formal function, Dhingra pulled out a gun and, at close range, fired five shots in his face. The British official died on the spot. Dhingra was immediately apprehended by the police; when people in the crowd called him a murderer, he said that he was only fighting for India's freedom.

Several weeks after Gandhi arrived in London, he was asked to debate this issue of violence with several of London's expatriate Indian nationalists. His chief opponent was Vinayak Savarkar, a militant Hindu who would later found the political movement known as the Hindu Mahasabha, a precursor to the present-day Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. At the time of the 1909 assassination Savarkar was reputed to have supplied the weapons and ammunition for the act, and to have instructed the ardent Hindu assassin in what to say in his final statement as he was led to the gallows. The young killer said that he was "prepared to die, glorying in martyrdom." (3)

Shortly before the debate, Gandhi wrote to a friend that in London he had met practically no Indian who believed "India can ever become free without resorting to violence." (4) He described the position of the militant activists as one in which terrorism would precede a general revolution: Their plans were first to "assassinate a few Englishmen and strike terror," after which "a few men who will have been armed will fight openly." Then, they calculated, eventually they might have to lose "a quarter of a million men, more or less," but the militant Indian nationalists thought this effort at guerilla warfare would "defeat the English" and "regain our land." (5)

During the debate, Gandhi challenged the logic of the militants on the grounds of political realism. They could hardly expect to defeat the might of the British military through sporadic acts of terrorism and guerilla warfare. More important, however, was the effect that violent tactics would have on the emerging Indian nationalist movement. He feared that the methods they used to combat the British would become part of India's national character.

Several weeks later Gandhi was still thinking about these things as he boarded a steamship to return to South Africa. He penned his response to the Indian activists in London in the form of a book. In a preliminary way, this essay, which Gandhi wrote hurriedly on the boat to Durban in 1909 (writing first with one hand and then the other to avoid getting cramps), set forth an approach to conflict resolution that he would pursue the rest of his life. The book, Hind Swaraj, or, Indian Home Rule, went to some lengths to describe both the goals of India's emerging independence movement and the appropriate methods to achieve it. He agreed with the Indian radicals in London that Britain should have no place in ruling India and exploiting its economy. Moreover, he thought that India should not try to emulate the materialism of Western civilization, which he described as a kind of "sickness."

The thrust of the book, however, was to counter terrorism. Gandhi sketched out a nonviolent approach, beginning with an examination of the nature of conflict. He insisted on looking beyond a specific clash between individuals to the larger issues for which they were fighting. Every conflict, Gandhi reasoned, was a contestation on two levels--between persons and between principles. Behind every fighter was the issue for which the fighter was fighting. Every fight, Gandhi explained in a later essay, was on some level an encounter between differing "angles of vision" illuminating the same truth. (6)

It was this difference in positions--sometimes even in worldviews--that needed to be resolved in order for a fight to be finished and the fighters reconciled. In that sense Gandhi's methods were more than a way of confronting an enemy; they were a way of dealing with conflict itself. For this reason he grew unhappy with the label, 'passive resistance,' that had been attached to the methods used by his protest movement in South Africa. There was nothing passive about it--in fact, Gandhi had led the movement into stormy confrontations with government authorities--and it was more than just resistance. It was also a way of searching for what was right and standing up for it, of speaking truth to power.

In 1906 Gandhi decided to find a new term for his method of engaging in conflict. He invited readers of his journal, Indian Opinion, to offer suggestions, and he offered a book prize for the winning entry. The one that most intrigued him came from his own cousin, Maganlal, which Gandhi refined into the term, satyagraha. The neologism is a conjunct of two Sanskrit words, satya, 'truth,' and agraha, 'to grasp firmly.' Hence it could be translated as 'grasping onto truth,' or as Gandhi liked to call it, "truth force."

What Gandhi found appealing about the winning phrase was its focus on truth. Gandhi reasoned that no one possesses a complete view of it. The very existence of a conflict indicates a deep difference over what is right. The first task of a conflict, then, is to try to see the conflict from both sides of an issue. This requires an effort to understand an opponent's position as well as one's own--or, as former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advised in the documentary film The Fog of War, "Empathize with the enemy."

The ability to cast an empathetic eye was central to Gandhi's view of conflict. It made it possible to imagine a solution that both sides could accept, at least in part--though Gandhi also recognized that sometimes the other side had very little worth respecting. In his campaign for the British to 'quit India,' for instance, he regarded the only righteous place for the British to be was Britain. Yet at the same time he openly appreciated the many positive things that British rule had brought to the Indian subcontinent, from roads to administrative offices.

After a solution was imagined, the second stage of a struggle was to achieve it. This meant fighting--but in a way that was consistent with the solution itself. Gandhi adamantly rejected the notion that the goal justifies the means. Gandhi argued that the ends and the means were ultimately the same. If you fought violently you would establish a pattern of violence that would be part of any solution to the conflict, no matter how noble it was supposed to be. Even if terrorists were successful in ousting the British from India, Gandhi asked, "Who will then rule in their place?" His answer was that it would be the ones who had killed in order to liberate India, adding, "India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers." (7)

A struggle could be forceful--often it would begin with a demonstration and "a refusal to cooperate with anything humiliating." But it could not be violent, Gandhi reasoned, for these destructive means would negate any positive benefits of a struggle's victory. If a fight is waged in the right way it could enlarge one's vision of the truth and enhance one's character in the process. What Gandhi disdained was the notion that one had to stoop to the lowest levels of human demeanor in fighting for something worthwhile.

This brings us to the way that Gandhi would respond to terrorism. To begin with, Gandhi insisted on some kind of response. He never recommended doing nothing at all. "Inaction at a time of conflagration is inexcusable," he once wrote. (8) He regarded cowardice as beneath contempt. Fighting--if it is nonviolent--is "never demoralizing," Gandhi said, while "cowardice always is." (9) And perhaps Gandhi's most memorable statement against a tepid response: "Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." (10)

Occasionally violence does indeed seem to be the only response available. Gandhi provided some examples. One was the mad dog. On confronting a dog with rabies, one must stop it by any means possible, including maiming or killing it. (11) Another case that Gandhi offered was a brutal rapist caught in the act. To do nothing in that situation, Gandhi said, makes the observer "a partner in violence." Hence violence could be used to counter it. Gandhi thus concluded, "Heroic violence is less sinful than cowardly nonviolence." (12)

By extension, one could imagine Gandhi justifying an act of violence to halt an act of terrorism in progress. If Gandhi had been sitting next to the suicide bomber in the London subway during the 2005 attack, for instance, he would have been justified in wrestling the man to the floor and subduing him. If no other means were available than a physical assault--even one that led to the man's death--it would have been preferable to the awful event that transpired when the bomb exploded.

Responding to terrorism after the fact, however, is quite a different matter. What Gandhi argued in Hind Swaraj was that violence never works as a response to violence. It usually generates more violence as a result, and precipitates a seemingly endless litany of tit-for-tat militant engagements.

Gandhi was adamantly opposed to the political positions that justified terrorism, but he was remarkably lenient toward the terrorists themselves. In the case of the assassination that occurred when Gandhi was in London in 1909, he did not blame Dhingra, the assassin of Curzon-Wyllie. He said that Dhingra as a person was not the main problem. Rather, Gandhi said, he was like a drunkard, in the grip of "a mad idea." (13)

The difficulty was the "mad idea," not the terrorists. Though he might have justified killing them if he had caught them in the act, after their tragic mission was over, Gandhi's attitude toward those who carried out terrorist acts was more of pity than of revenge. He would not let them go free, of course, but he treated them as misguided soldiers rather than as monsters.

Moreover, Gandhi thought it quite possible that the ideas for which the violent activists were fighting could be worthy ones. In the case of Dhingra and the Indian militants in 1909, for instance, they were championing a cause that Gandhi himself affirmed. Hence it would be an enormous mistake--foolish, from a Gandhian point of view--to fixate on terrorist acts solely as deviant behavior without taking seriously the causes for which these passionate soldiers were laboring.

A Gandhian strategy for confronting terrorism, therefore, would consist of the following:

Stop an act of violence in its tracks. The effort to do so should be nonviolent but forceful. Gandhi made a distinction between detentive force--the use of physical control in order to halt violence in progress--and coercive force. The latter is meant to intimidate and destroy, and hinders a Gandhian fight aimed at a resolution of principles at stake.

Address the issues behind the terrorism. To focus solely on acts of terrorism, Gandhi argued, would be like being concerned with weapons in an effort to stop the spread of racial hatred. Gandhi thought the sensible approach would be to confront the ideas and alleviate the conditions that motivated people to undertake such desperate operations in the first place.

Maintain the moral high ground. A bellicose stance, Gandhi thought, debased those who adopted it. A violent posture adopted by public authorities could lead to a civil order based on coercion. For this reason Gandhi insisted on means consistent with the moral goals of those engaged in the conflict.

These are worthy principles, but do they work? This question is often raised about nonviolent methods as a response to terrorism--as if the violent ones have been so effective. In Israel, a harsh response to Palestinian violence has often led to a surge of support for Hamas and an increase in terrorist violence. The U.S. responses to jihadi movements after the September 11 attacks have not diminished support for the movements nor reduced the number of terrorist incidents worldwide. Militant responses to terrorism do not possess a particularly good record of success.

Yet there is a recent example of a successful end to terrorism that was forged through nonviolent means. This is the case of Northern Ireland, a region plagued by violence for decades.

The troubles of Northern Ireland could be traced back to the British establishment of the Ulster Plantation in 1610, though the most recent round of violence began after a free Irish state was established in 1921. Catholics in the Northern Ireland counties felt marginalized in what they claimed to be Irish territory. Protestants feared they would become overwhelmed and banished from what they regarded as a part of Britain.

Violence erupted in the summer of 1969 in the Bogside area of the city of Londonderry. Following the clash, Protestants revived an old militia, the Ulster Volunteer Force, and militant Catholics created a 'provisional' version of the Irish Republican Army that would be more militant than the old IRA.

In 1971, Northern Ireland officials adopted a preemptive stance and began rounding up Catholic activists whom they regarded as potential terrorists. The activists were detained without charges. Within hours, rioting and shooting broke out in the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast and adjacent towns. The government, rather than retreating from its hard line, pressed on, declaring a war against terrorism. The suspects were beaten and tortured in an attempt to elicit information. They were forced to lie spread-eagle on the floor with hoods over their heads, and subjected to disorienting electronic sounds.

The government's attempt to end the violence by harshly treating those it suspected of perpetrating violence backfired. The Catholic community united solidly behind the insurgency, and the violence mounted. Later the Home Minister who sanctioned the crackdown admitted that the hard-line approach was "by almost universal consent an unmitigated disaster."

The violence of the early 1970s came to a head on what came to be called 'Bloody Sunday,' when a peaceful protest march against the internment of Catholic activists turned ugly. British troops fired on the crowd, killing thirteen.

For over twenty years the violence continued. Tit-for-tat acts of terrorism became a routine affair. The British embassy in Dublin was burned, British soldiers were attacked, police stations were bombed, and individual Catholics and Protestants were captured by opposing sides and sometimes hideously tortured and killed.

In 1988 an internal dialogue began to take place within the Catholic side between a moderate leader, John Hume, and the activist leader, Gerry Adams. In 1995, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was invited to Northern Ireland to help broker the peace talks. Initially they were unsuccessful, but then Mitchell returned for eight months of intensive negotiations. The talks involved members of Irish and British governments and eight political parties on both Catholic and Protestant sides of the Northern Irish divide. They reached an agreement on April 10, 1998--a day that happened to be Good Friday, the Christian holiday that precedes Easter.

The Good Friday Agreement is a remarkable document. It attempted to provide structural resolutions to several different problems at the same time. To respond to the public mistrust and insecurity brought on by years of violence, the Agreement set up Human Rights and Equality Commissions. It called for an early release of political prisoners, required the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, prescribed reforms of the criminal justice system and the policies of police, and supplied funds to help the victims of violence. It also addressed the problem of balanced governance by setting up a parliament with proportional representation, an executive branch that guaranteed representation from both communities, and a consultative Civic Forum that allowed for community concerns to be expressed directly from the people. The Agreement also dealt with relations among the three key states involved--Ireland, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland--by establishing several councils and mediating bodies.

Prior to the Agreement, the British government and the paramilitary forces on both the Unionist and IRA sides had found themselves in a situation similar to many violent confrontations. Their positions had been staked out in extreme and uncompromising terms, and the methods used by all sides were so harsh as to be virtually unforgivable. Ultimately they were able to break through this impasse by employing several basic nonviolent techniques:

Seeing the other side's point of view. When the British began to open lines of communication to the radical leaders on both sides, they began to break through the 'we-they' attitude that vexes most hostile confrontations.

Not responding to violence in kind. A series of ceasefires--including unilateral ceasefires by the IRA--were critical in helping to break the spiral of violence. Even as severe an incident as the Omagh terrorist bombing on August 15, 1998, did not elicit retaliatory attacks.

Letting moderate voices surface. Once the spiral of violence had been broken, and both sides no longer felt under siege, there was room for moderate voices to surface within the warring camps.

Isolating radical voices. The peace negotiators did not try to change what could not be changed. Hence they did not waste time in trying to reason with the militant Protestant leader, Reverend Ian Paisley, who had opted out of the process.

Setting up channels of communication. They involved an outsider--Senator Mitchell--to play a mediating role, and set up impartial frameworks of communication for the two sides, which had been deeply mistrustful of one another.

Peace in Northern Ireland was not inevitable, and there is no assurance that the agreement will last forever. Violence may again return to that troubled area of Ireland. Yet for a time the bombs have been silenced. At least in one case in recent political history terrorism has come to an end--through nonviolent means.

It is reasonable to ask whether the approach taken in Northern Ireland could work in other situations. Could it work in Kashmir, for instance, a region that is also claimed by two religious communities backed by powerful governments? It would not take a huge stretch of imagination to think that India and Pakistan could join in a settlement surprisingly similar to the Good Friday Agreement. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more complex, but like Northern Ireland it is essentially a conflict over territory in which both sides have a moral and political claim. Since the Oslo Agreement in 1993 a negotiated settlement in the region has seemed a realistic though still elusive possibility.

But what about the global jihadi war? This is the global conflict that President George W. Bush designated "the war on terror" shortly after September 11, 2001, and relabeled "the struggle against radical Islam" in July 2005. Osama bin Laden enunciated his own proclamation of this war in a fatwa against the United States in 1996. Bin Laden called on Muslims to join him in "correcting what had happened to the Islamic world in general" since the end of the Ottoman Empire. The aim, according to bin Laden, was "to return to the people their own rights, particularly after the large damages and the great aggression on the life and the religion of the people." (14)

Groups sharing an Al Qaeda perspective have attacked the very centers of Western power in New York, Madrid, and London, but their struggle is not in any simple sense about territory. It is a war without a frontline and without clear geographic lines of control. On the jihadi side it is a war without a conventional army and without the apparatus of a political state. For that matter, the jihadi movement seems to be without much centralized control at all.

With no one clearly in charge, negotiation is a difficult affair. It is unlikely that U.S. officials would hike into the mountains of Pakistan to chat with bin Laden, if indeed he could be found. And even if there were such conversations, what would be the point? He has no real control over the policies of the Middle East and is in no position to negotiate a settlement of the underlying issues of Western influence that his fatwa describes. To acknowledge bin Laden as a representative of the Muslim people would be to magnify his importance and reward his terrorism with political legitimacy. The United States has already exaggerated his importance--and unwittingly enlarged his support within the Muslim world--by singling him out as the global enemy of the United States. Negotiations with renegade extremists like bin Laden would not achieve any changes in underlying policy positions that would lessen tensions in the Middle East.

Behind the jihadi war is a conflict between ideas and worldviews. In saying this I do not mean to belittle the importance of the struggle, for ideas can have enormous power. But because the contest is between differing ways of perceiving the world and the relationship between political and moral order, the struggle has had a remarkably moralistic tone. The enemies are not really individuals as much as they are ways of thinking.

Both sides define their goal as freedom. On one side it is the liberty to choose a nation's own officials through democratic elections. On the other side it is liberation from outside influence and control. On both sides these positions have been magnified into a moral contest of such proportions that it has become a sacred struggle. The enemies have become cosmic foes. Large numbers of innocent people have been killed with moral indifference--or worse, with the self-righteous thinking that God is on one's side.

Is a nonviolent approach to conflict resolution relevant to the global jihadi war? Consider the guidelines that Gandhi enunciated in response to the terrorism of the Indian activists in London in 1909. They might be applied to the current situation in the following way:

Stop a situation of violence in its tracks. The first rule of nonviolence is to stop an act of violence as it occurs--or better, to prevent it before it happens. Gandhi would have approved of efforts to capture those involved in acts of terrorism and bring them to justice, and he would have applauded attempts to ward off future terrorist assaults through the legal forms of surveillance and detection that have been adopted after September 11. Even those measures that seem to be aimed only at giving the appearance of security have a certain utility, since they diminish the prime effects of terrorism--fear and intimidation. But even though Gandhi occasionally supported military action, including the British defense against Hitler in World War II, it is doubtful that he would have accepted large-scale military operations as a response to terrorist acts, especially if they left large numbers of casualties in their wake. Nor would he have approved of changes in the legal system that would deprive the public of its rights.

Address the issues behind the violence. The crucial part of nonviolent resolution is to look behind the violence at the issues that are at stake. Gandhi's goal was to form a resolution with the best features of both sides of a dispute. In the case of the global jihadi war, this would mean affirming the positive principles of both sides--though the 'sides' in this case are not only state and non-state organizations but also the concerned publics that stand behind them. Gandhi might have approved of the principles of both sides: the desire of many traditional Muslims in the Middle East to be free from American and European domination, and the expectation of those who hold modern social values that all societies should respect peoples of diverse cultures and be democratically governed. Since these goals are not necessarily incompatible, a resolution that accepts them both is conceivable.

Ultimately, tensions might not be fully resolved until there are significant changes in the political culture of Middle Eastern countries and dramatic reversals of the West's military and economic role in the Middle East. But in the meantime small steps can make a large difference. Any indication that either or both sides accept both sets of principles would be a positive shift toward reconciling the underlying differences and diminishing the support for extremists' positions.

Maintain the moral high ground. As Gandhi remarked to the Indian activists in London who proposed a violent overthrow of British control of India, violence begets violence. Proclaiming a 'war on terrorism,' from Gandhi's point of view, is tantamount to sinking to the terrorists' level. The very idea of war suggests an absolutism of conflict, where reason and negotiation have no place and where opponents are enemies. Though violent extremists are indeed difficult opponents, and Gandhi would not expect one to negotiate with them, he would be mindful that the more important struggle is the one for public support. This support could shift either way, and it would be a tragic error--and perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy--to regard potential supporters as enemies.

Mistreatment of those suspected of being involved in terrorist acts can also lead to a loss of public support. Gandhi urged that the assassin, Dhingra, be treated with caution but also with respect, as any suspect in a crime would be treated. Torture, from Gandhi's point of view, is ineffective not just because it rarely produces useful information but also because it corrupts the moral character of a society that allows it to be used. This was the point he made in Hind Swaraj when he stressed that the means of freeing India from British control should be consistent with the goals a free Indian society would want to achieve.

Many of these guidelines have been part of the public debate in the United States in the years following the September 11 attacks. Thus a nonviolent response to terrorism is already an element of political discourse. It is not a new idea, but rather a strand of public thinking that deserves attention and, Gandhi might argue, respect. As a pragmatic idealist, Gandhi would be pleased to know that nonviolent approaches to terrorism were taken seriously, not only because they invariably were the right thing to do, but also because on more than one occasion they have worked.

Mark Juergensmeyer is professor of sociology and global studies and director of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of numerous publications, including "The New Cold War?" (1993), "Terror in the Mind of God" (revised edition, 2003), and "Gandhi's Way" (revised edition, 2005).

1 John Haynes Holmes, "Who is the Greatest Man in the World Today?" a pamphlet published in 1921 and reprinted in Charles Chat-field, ed., The Americanization of Gandhi: Images of the Mahatma (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1976), 98.

2 John Haynes Holmes, My Gandhi (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), 9.

3 Indian Sociologist, September 1909, quoted in James D. Hunt, Gandhi in London (New Delhi: Promilla and Co., Publishers, 1973), 134. My thanks to Lloyd Rudolph for reminding me of this incident.

4 Gandhi's letter to Ampthill, October 30, in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 9 (Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1958), 509.

5 Mohandas Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, or, Indian Home Rule, 2nd ed. (Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House, 1938; originally published in 1910), 69.

6 Gandhi, writing in Young India, September 23, 1926. I explore Gandhi's ideas further in my book, Gandhi's Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution, rev. ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

7 Indian Sociologist, September 1909, quoted in Hunt, Gandhi in London, 134.

8 Harijan, April 7, 1946.

9 Young India, October 31, 1929.

10 Young India, August 11, 1920.

11 Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 14, 505.

12 Gandhi, Collected Works, vol. 51, 17.

13 Indian Sociologist, September 1909, quoted in Hunt, Gandhi in London, 134.

14 Osama bin Laden, "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," first published in Arabic in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, August 1996.</div>

I plan to post the pdf of "Hind Swaraj" which preceded Edward Said's Orientalism by ~ fifty years.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - acharya - 11-01-2007

http://www.forget-me.net/en/Gandhi/hind-swaraj.pdf

http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303cri...nd%20swaraj.pdf

http://swarajpeeth.org/program/HSCentenaryCelebration_E.pdf

http://www.europa.clio-online.de/site/lang...31/Default.aspx

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - acharya - 11-01-2007

Indian Home Rule
or
Hind Swaraj
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Page 2
H
IND
S
WARAJ OR
I
NDIAN
H
OME
R
ULE
Original editor & publisher (1938):
Jitendra T. Desai
Navajivan Publishing House
(Navajivan Mudranalaya)
Ahmedabad 380014
India
Translation of âHind Swarajâ,
published in the Gujarat columns of Indian Opinion.
11th and 18th December, 1909
ISBN 81-7229-070-5
Published by Yann FORGET
on 20th July 2003, with L
A
T
E
X2Îµ.
c Navajivan Trust, 1938
2
Page 3
Contents
I Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule
5
To the reader
6
Preface to the new edition
7
An Important Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
The Attack on Machinery and Civilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Limitations of the Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Preface
13
A Word of Explanation
15
A Message
17
I.
The Congress and its Officials
19
II.
The Partition of Bengal
22
III.
Discontent and unrest
24
IV.
What is swaraj?
25
V.
The condition of England
27
VI.
Civilization
29
VII.
Why was India lost?
31
VIII. The condition of India
33
IX.
The condition of India: Railways
35
3
Page 4
H
IND
S
WARAJ OR
I
NDIAN
H
OME
R
ULE
X.
The condition of India: The Hindus and the Mahomedans
37
XI.
The condition of India: Lawyers
41
XII.
The condition of India: Doctors
43
XIII. What is true civilization?
45
XIV.
How can India become free?
47
XV.
Italy and India
49
XVI. Brute force
51
XVII. Passive resistance
55
XVIII. Education
60
XIX. Machinery
63
XX.
Conclusion
65
II Appendices
70
I.
Some Authorithies
71
II.
Testimonies by eminent

72
Victor Cousin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
J. Seymour Keay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Friedrich Max Mueller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Michael G. Mulhall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Colonel Thomas Munro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Frederick von Schlegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Sir William Wedderburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
I. Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Abbe J. A. Dubois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 11-02-2007

Amazing he was familiar with Max Mueller, Abbe Dubois, Von Schlegel!

I came to know the latter two folks through IF threads.

The Link in the post has this pdf

http://swarajpeeth.org/program/HSCentenaryCelebration_E.pdf

I htink we should try to read and discuss this great book.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 11-02-2007

The Gandhi Nobody Knows
Richard Grenier

[From the magazine, "Commentary," March 1983, published monthly by the American Jewish Committee, New York, NY.]

http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 11-02-2007

ramana Wrote:In a 1921 lecture on "Who is the Greatest Man in the World Today?" John Haynes Holmes, the pastor of New York City's largest liberal congregation, extolled not Lenin or Woodrow Wilson or Sun Yat-sen but someone whom most of the crowd thronging the hall that day had never heard of--Mohandas Gandhi. (1) Holmes, who was later credited with being the West's discoverer of Gandhi, described him as his "seer and saint." (2)

From other IF thread Year 2012 -satya/dwapara Yuga, SATYA YUGA/DWAPARA YUGA

Raju Wrote:Let us gather a bit more info about this Vril occult...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vril

Quote:The Coming Race (original title), also reprinted as Vril: The Power of the Coming Race, is a novel by Edward Bulwer-Lytton published in 1870. The novel is an early example of science fiction, sometimes cited as the first of this genre. However, many early readers believed that its account of a superior subterranean master race and the energy-form called Vril was accurate, to the extent that some theosophists accepted the book as truth. Furthermore, since 1960 there has been a conspiracy theory about a secret Vril-Society.

the above connects with the description of the Agartha society which is considered to be subterranean and as per Srimad Bhagvatam is the origin for Kalki.

Quote:The plot of the novel centres on a young, independently wealthy traveler (the narrator), who accidentally finds his way into a subterranean world occupied by beings who seem to resemble angels, who call themselves Vril-ya. The hero soon discovers that they are descendants of an antediluvian civilisation who live in networks of subterranean caverns linked by tunnels. There they live in their technologically supported Utopia, chief among their tools being the "all-permeating fluid" called "Vril", a latent source of energy which his spiritually elevated hosts are able to master through training of their will, to a degree which depends upon their hereditary constitution, giving them access to an extraordinary force that can be controlled at will. The powers of the will include the ability to heal, change, and destroy beings and things--the destructive powers in particular are awesomely powerful, allowing a few young Vril-ya children to wipe out entire cities if necessary. The narrator suggests that in time, the Vril-ya will run out of habitable spaces underground and will start claiming the surface of the earth, destroying mankind in the process, if necessary.

The uses of Vril in the novel amongst the Vril-ya vary from an agent of destruction to a healing substance. According to Zee, the daughter of the narrator's host, Vril can be changed into the mightiest agency over all types of matter, both animate and inanimate. It can destroy like lightning or replenish life, heal, or cure. It is used to rend ways through solid matter. Its light is said to be steadier, softer and healthier than that from any flammable material. It can also be used as a power source for animating mechanisms. Vril can be harnessed by use of the Vril staff or mental concentration.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/vril/index.htm

Quote:"What is vril?" I asked.

Therewith Zee began to enter into an explanation of which I understood very little, for there is no word in any language I know which is an exact synonym for vril. I should call it electricity, except that it comprehends in its manifold branches other forces of nature, to which, in our scientific nomenclature, differing names are assigned, such as magnetism, galvanism, &c. These people consider that in vril they have arrived at the unity in natural energic agencies, which has been conjectured by many philosophers above ground, and which Faraday thus intimates under the more cautious term of correlation:--

Quote:They spoke the same language, though the dialects might slightly differ. They intermarried; they maintained the same general laws and customs; and so important a bond between these several communities was the knowledge of vril and the practice of its agencies, that the word A-Vril was synonymous with civilisation; and Vril-ya, signifying "The Civilised Nations," was the common name by which the communities employing the uses of vril distinguished themselves from such of the Ana as were yet in a state of barbarism.

Quote:Vril is one of many names for the primal life force, otherwise known as chi, prana, mana, od, magnetism, etc. Yogis and psychics master it to perform "miracles" materializing objects out of thin air, spontaneous healing, walking on fire . . . Mastering Vril = Mind over Matter.

Bodhi Wrote:Raju,

Have you also studied the development of Occultism in Russia at around the same time? A series of theosophists and spiritists appeared in Russia before the dawn of the last century. Many of them studied the tantra practices from 'pagans' like bouls and sibarian tribals and other "hidden" peoples. Some went to India and tibet.

Of note is the final and major of these - Gurdjieff, an armenian.

This process got abruptly aborted with the communist rise. With that, some of these schools and soceities, including that of Gurdjieff's own, quitely disappeared and later resurfaced in USA (and some in UK) where they continued with an insignificant and low profile.

Quote:George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff (1866?-1949) was born in Russian Armenia. He spent years searching in Central Asia, North Africa, and other places for a hidden tradition whose traces he had encountered in youth. During this search he came into contact with certain esoteric schools. In the early 1900's he brought to Europe a teaching that he had developed from the results of this contact.

Gurdjieff's basic teaching is that human life is lived in waking sleep; transcendence of the sleeping state requires a specific inner work, which is practiced in private quiet conditions, and in the midst of life with others. This leads to otherwise inaccessible levels of vitality and awareness. {Identical to Hindu teachings which says that we live in a world of maya(illusion) and without dyan(knowning one-self) we cannot free ourself from this cycle of life and death and achieve the realisation of the supreme truth.}

http://r.hodges.home.comcast.net/~r.hodges/G/G.html

Raju Wrote:Are you by any chance referring to Mme Blavatsky ?

She is responsible for having established a way of thinking and the bases which would later give place to societies such as the Thule society and the nazi esotherism.

It is interesting to know her point of view (later people following it would be called theosophists), and anyone seriously studying the Thule society and others must know at least the basics about Madame Blavatsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Petrovna_Blavatsky

---------------------------------------------------
here are some more pictures of the RFZ's:
http://www.fast-geheim.de/html/rundflugzeuge1.html
http://www.fast-geheim.de/html/rundflugzeuge2.html
http://www.fast-geheim.de/html/rundflugzeuge3.html
http://www.fast-geheim.de/html/technischezeichnungen.html

Interesting pattern here.Repeated mention of Theosophists.

From Raju's post,

Quote:*****
Mme Blavatsky is responsible for having established a way of thinking and the bases which would later give place to societies such as the Thule society and the nazi esotherism.It is interesting to know her point of view (later people following it would be called theosophists), and anyone seriously studying the Thule society and others must know at least the basics about Madame Blavatsky.

In 1914, members of an American and European mystical movement, the Theosophists, had applied 'Mahatma' or 'great soul' name to Gandhi.
*****

Even before Gandhi comes to India and starts his 'non-violent movement' or 'satyagraha' he is declared a great soul by the Theosophists. How do they know he is a great soul? Did they met him? or Was he one of them?

******
Gandhi was brought into India's independence movement from South Africa in 1915 to prevent the Indian nationalists from gaining control of India by over throwing the British Occupation.
******

Other Indian political leaders are conviniently sidelined and no mention of them is made thereafter since they were sent the infamous Cellular Jail or 'Kaala Pani' and were made to serve harsh punishments which included torture and forced labour.

What happened to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose? Did he die in the taiwan aircrash?
Even today Indians are trying to find the truth about what happened to him but the congress(I) does not want the truth to come out. Why?

********
In 1921 Gandhi is protrayed as a 'seer and saint' by a Christian pastor of New York City's largest congregation.
********

Why is a Christian priest who consider 'Hindus' as heathens protray a Hindu Gandhi as an 'seer or saint'?

***********

Bodhi Wrote:Raju,
Have you also studied the development of Occultism in Russia at around the same time? A series of theosophists and spiritists appeared in Russia before the dawn of the last century. Many of them studied the tantra practices from 'pagans' like bouls and sibarian tribals and other "hidden" peoples. Some went to India and tibet.
Of note is the final and major of these - Gurdjieff, an armenian.
This process got abruptly aborted with the communist rise. With that, some of these schools and soceities, including that of Gurdjieff's own, quitely disappeared and later resurfaced in USA (and some in UK) where they continued with an insignificant and low profile.

***********

Anyone here knows the year Gurdjieff came to US?

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 11-02-2007

Geet, there is a segement from MG's biography where i is clear that the decision to go back to India was made in London. He writes about his thoughts on the sea journey and the farewell meeting. It is interesng that he was called a saint in 1914 way before his actions.

BTW in Berkely there was a painting in the style of Greek Orthodox icons of Gandhi as Jesus in 1986. I kick myself for not purchasing it. Its gone now.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 11-04-2007

QUOTEThe Gandhi Nobody Knows
Richard Grenier

[From the magazine, "Commentary," March 1983, published monthly by the American Jewish Committee, New York, NY.]

http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Bodhi, did you read through it completely? There's a lot of anti-Hindu material in that article, although it does provide some unknown tidbits about Gandhi.

QUOTE...Hackneyed Indian falsehoods such as that "the
British keep trying to break India up" (as if Britain didn't give India a unity
it had never enjoyed in history), or that the British *created* Indian poverty
(a poverty which had not only existed since time immemorial but had been
considered holy)

QUOTEHe believed in
a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant. He worshipped cows.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 12-12-2007

X-Posted from BRF

QUOTE("indygill")When we talk of Gandhi

Abhischekcc

brought in Leo Tolstoy in reference to Gandhi. Which is very important to understand Gandhi and Congress, Independence and Hindu Muslim relations

How many people know this guy was Gandhis mentor or Guru it was literally Tolstoy who told Gandhi what to doâ¦..

Propaganda might say anything but are Non-violence, Social economy etc all Gandhis thoughts and brain child???? No they were never, they were all "white mans" ideas and as usual Hindus who could not resolve thier own issues looked at "outsiders" for resolve.

In short Gandhi himself was the biggest and smartest âMacaulistâ

Gandhi was literally influenced by Leo Tolstoy. He came up with the ideas of nonviolent resistance in his work The Kingdom of God is Within You .

Also do not forget the famous letter âA letter to a Hinduâ written by Leo TolstoyÂ in 1908. Gandhi after the letter made him his mentor and asked for guidance and Tolstoy designed the entire guidelines and planned the Independent movement of India for Gandhi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_to_a_Hindu

In A Letter to a Hindu, Tolstoy argued that only through the principle of love could the Indian people free themselves from colonial British rule. Tolstoy saw the law of love espoused in all the world's religions, and he argued that the individual, non-violent application of the law of love in the form of protests, strikes, and other forms of peaceful resistance were the only alternative to violent revolution

Second influence on Gandhi was by John Ruskin and his book âUnto This Lastâ

It is basically âanti-capitilistâ book set in 18th-19th Century. This is where Gandhi learnt of âSocial Economyâ and tried to implement it.

In short Gandhi never had any vision or philosphy. he simply was aloof from ground realities of India because his mentors were not "indians"!!!!

Thatâs why during the time of partition he was âcluelessâ and was left without any vision, conviction and resort.

Because his mentor and Guru who guided him step by step did not have the answer or even thought of âHindu-Muslimâ issue.

Result was Partition and death of millions!!!!! And since he was aloof from Religous ground realities (especially in North) he tried to take "relgion" as "class" section of society and tried resolve it as a "Class war" because all he knew of worlds reality was through the eyes of Leo Tolstoy and John Ruskin, he tried to mix both their resolves and tried to be "Genious or Mahtma" and come up with a "fetish solution". And that was the "appeasment" of the historical oppressors, Muslims.

In short we as Hindus are still suffering because of Gandhis "Macaulism" and in indian context it helps creat fetish ideologists based on alien realities and end result has always been death of millions..............

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Capt M Kumar - 01-18-2008

Did Gandhi make Nehru Indiaâs first Prime Minister?

If Rajmohan Gandhi is to be believed, the answer is yes.

â¦Four years later, in the summer of 1946, after Quit India movement and long and bitter spells in prison for Gandhi, Vallabhbhai, Nehru, Azad, Prasad and tens of thousands of others (Rajagopalachari had disagreed with Quit India and was not arrested), it was time to choose a Congress president again. Extended by several years because of Congress rebellion against the Raj, Azadâs term, begun in 1940, had ended. Who would follow Azad? The question was of more than usual interest because premier Clement Attlee of Britain had declared that Britain was quitting India and sent three cabinet ministers to arrange the withdrawal, which meant that Azadâs successor was likely to become the first Prime Minister. Azad desired reelection, a fact that agonized his close friend Jawaharlal, who had his hopes and claims. Vallabhbhai was also involved, for twelve of the fifteen provincial Congress committees had proposed his name. The names of Kriplani and Pattabhi , too, had been suggested.

The twenty-ninth of April, 1946, had been fixed as the last date for receiving nominations. On 20 April, Gandhi wrote Azad as follows, enclosing a newspaper report that claimed that Azad was willing to serve again but Gandhi was against the idea:

Please go through the enclosed cuttingâ¦When one or two Working Committee asked for my opinion, I said it would not be right for the President to continue another termâ¦ If you are of the same opinion, you may issue a statement about the cutting to say that you have no intention of becoming the president again, It is but proper that another person should now be the president.

If asked, I would prefer Jawaharlal in todayâs circumstances. I have reasons for them. Why go into them?

The trouble was that no provincial committee had proposed Nehruâs name. Learning of Gandhiâs wishes, Kriplani ââsent a paper roundâ on 25 April, proposing Nehruâs name and obtained the signatures of several Working Committee members and also of some Dlehi members of AICC. Fifteen valid signatures sufficed for Nehruâs nomination; in deference to Gandhâs wishes, Patel, Kriplani and Pattabhi withdrew; and Jawaharlal was duly elected president.

A small but important incident was, however, part of the exercise. Before signing his statement of withdrawal, Vallabhbhai handed it to Gandhi , who shows it to Jawaharlal, saying, ââNo PCC has put forward your name, only the Working Committee has.â Nehru, it seems, responded with âcomplete silence.â Returning the paper to Patel, Gandhi asked him to sign it. Vallabhbhai signed it at once.

Why did Gandhi show the sheet to Nehru and say what he did? Was he giving Jawaharlal an opportunity to withdraw? A more likely reason is that Gandhi wanted Nehru to recognize Patelâs strength in the party and the dimension of his sacrifice. As in 1936, Gandhi wanted Nehru to understand that his election and weightage for Patel went together.[Rajmohan Gandhi; The Good Boatman: A Portrait of Gandhi]

For those more interested in understanding Gandhi, Nehru and Patel and their relationship which shaped much of India as we know her today, I would highly recommend V.B Kulkarniâs The Indian triumvirate: A political biography of Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Pandit Nehru.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 01-30-2008

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14596866

The myth of Mahatma Gandhi
Tuesday, 29 January , 2008, 23:31

Arvind Lavakare may be 71, but the fire in his belly burns stronger than in many people half his age. The economics post-graduate worked with the Reserve Bank of India and several private and public sector companies before retiring in 1997. His first love, however, remains sports. An accredited cricket umpire in Mumbai, he has reported and commented on cricket matches for newspapers, Doordarshan and AIR. Lavakare has also been regularly writing on politics since 1997, and published a monograph, The Truth About Article 370, in 2005. 

Sixty years ago, today, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi of the Indian National Congress was shot dead. The ensuing flood of tributes hailed the dead man as a martyr, as an apostle of peace, as a version of Jesus Christ, as the deliverer of India's Independence, as the Father of the nation and much else besides such eulogies.

Soon thereafter, the Gandhi icon gradually lost its earlier sheen. Free India was confronted with scores of problems, and had little time to worship icons. Gandhi's name became a mere label to be affixed to schemes and roads alike. Newspapers stopped carrying Gandhi's 3-column photograph on the front page of their January 30 edition some years ago. Stopped earlier was the 11 am siren on that day, when the whole nation was expected to stand still and observe two minutes of silence in his memory. January 30 as well as October 2, Gandhi's date of birth, became just two more Bank holidays.

Simultaneously, as the information world expanded, disturbing facts about the icon came to light. But all of them were kept bottled up, because of the Indian belief that we should not talk ill about the dead.

But over the past three years, the country's Congress-led UPA government spearheaded by Sonia Gandhi sought to consciously revive the Gandhi icon.

In March 2005, the female and Italian version of Gandhi and some of her government's cabinet ministers participated in the re-enactment of the original Gandhi's Dandi Salt March of 1930 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the mass passive resistance, called satyagraha, against the tax on salt levied in India under the British Salt Act, 1882.

In 2006, the Sonia Gandhi-nominated Prime Minister was in Durban as part of the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the original Gandhi's first satyagraha in South Africa to protest against the identity card that the non-Europeans were asked to carry in that country. And last year, when October 2 was declared by the United Nations as World Peace Day, the UPA ensured that it was Sonia Gandhi who addressed the UN on the occasion.

Whether the three events were ploys to fuse the original Gandhi image with the Italian one is immaterial. What is relevant is that hard-nosed realists have been looking at historical accounts and are ready to prove that the icon is a myth.

Space constraint prevents a comprehensive case on this issue. It requires a whole book to do that, and a friend has sent me the first manuscript of such a book that could well explode on the public this year. Meanwhile, let us look at the icon's two satyagrahas celebrated by the UPA government.

Gandhi's satyagraha which began in September 1906 â against Transvaal Asiatic Ordinance requiring all Asiatic, Arab and Turkish people to always carry an identity pass for being eligible to stay in South Africa â lasted seven years, a highlight being the mass burning of such passes in protest.

After the deportation of many Indians and thousands of others facing imprisonment and injury, the passes were withdrawn â but only temporarily. What followed was worse: laws were passed to restrict the non-Europeans into designated areas in every city. Racial segregation had begun legally in South Africa. By any yardstick, Gandhi's satyagraha was a disaster.

Now consider his Dandi March. Walking 241 miles with hundreds joining him on the way, Gandhi broke the salt law on April 6, 1930 at the beach in Dandi in Gujarat. Within a few weeks about a hundred thousand men and women were in jail as salt depots were raided and crowds clashed with police. But the Viceroy of India, Lord Wavell, refused to abolish the salt law and it was left to Nehru's Interim Government to do so in October 1946. Thus, the Dandi March too was a failure. Yet its re-enactment by the UPA resulted in the issue of a series of commemorative five-rupee stamps by our postal department on April 5, 2005.

Did the icon's series of satyagrahas deliver freedom to India?

Without going into the outstanding anti-British role of the Indian National Army raised by the self-exiled Subhash Chandra Bose, the post-war trial by the British of three of INA's senior officers, its dramatic mutinous effects on the Indian Army sepoys and ratings of Royal Indian Navy, read what the famous historian, R C Muzumdar, wrote:

"The campaigns of Gandhiâ¦ came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved Independenceâ¦ the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India." (Three Phases of India's Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).

Consider, next, the icon's attitude to religion and his avowed creed of non-violence.

First, it is strange that while Gandhi confessed to worshipping the teachings of the Bhagvad Gita, he never realised that the sacred text preached war even against one's kith and kin when circumstances warranted it. How then could he himself preach and advocate ahimsa, non-violence, to his Hindu followers and to the Indian nation? How could he when the British Empire was crushing his own people every which way?

Today's "pseudo-secularists" have hailed Gandhi as a "secular" person. If "secular" means keeping religion away from politics, the icon certainly did not do that. He associated himself with the Khilafat Movement (1921), which was a political movement of Indian Muslims led by two brothers, Mohamed Ali and Shaukat Ali, for the restoration of the Caliphate abolished in Turkey after the First World War. The agitation was essentially religious, and Gandhi believed that by supporting it he would cement Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi's own statement in Young India of October 20, 1921 said:

"I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact â with Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Mussalman knife."

Ironically, Jinnah, who later in the forties advocated a separate Muslim nation, had earlier warned Gandhi not to encourage the fanaticism of Muslim religious leaders and their followers.

If "secular" means "equal respect to all religions", then Gandhi was not that kind of "secular" person too. In April 1932, when the British Government's "Communal Award" provided for separate electorates and reservation of seats for Muslims and the Depressed Classes, Gandhi announced that if the Award was not changed as to the Depressed Classes (who were Hindus) he would fast unto death. If that was not pro-Muslim bias, what else is?

Considering that he never ever fasted for a Hindu cause, never condemned Muslims for their violence in the Moplah revolution following the Khilafat or the mass killing of Hindus by the Muslims in the Direct Action undertaken in Muslim-ruled Bengal Province in 1946, Gandhi could well be dubbed the "father of minority appeasement" in India. Is that secularism?

Lastly, there's that non-violence business. Relying on secret documents of the British Government released in 1967, the legendary constitutional authority, H M Seervai, concluded, "Gandhi used non-violence as a political weapon, and was prepared to support, or connive at, violence to secure political goals." (Constitutional Law of India, Supplement to Third Edition, 1988, Pg 143 of Introduction). Seervai cites the following in support of his statement:

In the middle of 1918, Gandhi supported the War Conference main resolution of recruiting Indians to fight on the side of Britain and her allies if it ensured the acceptance of Congress-Muslim League scheme for Home Rule.

When Britain announced in 1939 that India was at war, Gandhi refused to support the Second World War on the ground that he would not support violence even to secure the independence of India.

In July 1944, when the tide of victory was flowing towards the Allies, Gandhi stated in an interview to News Chronicle, London, that the Viceroy could remain in charge of military operations and India could be used as a base for such military operations provided that a National Government was immediately formed.

In an interview with Lord Wavell on August 27, 1946, Gandhi told him that "If India wants a bloodbath, she shall have it."

Was the icon then really "an apostle of peace"? Was he also all else that he was said to be?

Or is the icon a myth?

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 01-30-2008

Gandhi on Jews and his appeasement policy toward Indian Muslim.QUOTEThe Jews cannot receive sovereign rights in a place which has been held for centuries by Muslim powers by right of religious conquest. The Muslim soldiers did not shed their blood in the late War for the purpose of surrendering Palestine out of Muslim control. I would like my Jewish friends to impartially consider the position of the seventy million Muslims of India. As a free nation, can they tolerate what they must regard as a treacherous disposal of their sacred possession?

Gandhi forgot that it was Hindus property in first place.

QUOTEThe remedy? My remedy is twofold. One is that those who profess to be Christians should learn the virtue of toleration and charity, and the second is for Jews to rid themselves of the causes for such reproach as may be justly laid at their door.

QUOTEREMARKS BY GANDHI DURING DISCUSSION WITH CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES, DECEMBER 1938

Take the question of the Jews on which I have written. No Jew need feel helpless if he takes the non-violent way. A friend has written me a letter objecting that in that article I have assumed that the Jews have been violent. It is true that the Jews have not been actively violent in their own persons. But they called down upon the Germans the curses of mankind, and they wanted America and England to fight Germany on their behalf. If I hit my adversary, that is of course violence, but to be truly non-violent, I must love him and pray for him even when he hits me. The Jews have not been actively non-violent or, in spite of the misdeeds of the dictators, they would say, "We shall suffer at their hands; they knew no better. But we shall suffer not in the manner in which they want us to suffer." If even one Jew acted thus, he would salve his self-respect and leave an example which, if it became infectious, would save the whole of Jewry and leave a rich heritage to mankind besides

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 02-01-2008

QUOTENot Gandhian, or is it?
pioneer.com
Ramesh N Rao
Mahatma Gandhi sired four sons, and his family history has become as rich and complex as any fable in Hindu mythology and may be more colourful and mixed than any post-modernist parable. Some in the family have leveraged the Mahatma's name to carve out a career for themselves, and of them, one grandson, Mr Arun Gandhi, came to the United States to launch his programme of non-violence. He founded the MK Gandhi Institute For Non-violence.

Mr Arun Gandhi was recently in the news. Invited by The Washington Post to contribute to an online discussion, 'On Faith', he wrote, "Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of how a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends."

Not content with that initial salvo, he asserted that the "Jewish identity in the future appears bleak", and any nation that "remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs". Finally, he went overboard, saying that "Israel and the Jews are the biggest players" in the modern "culture of violence".

More than 400 responses flooded the newspaper. Mr Gandhi wrote a half-hearted apology, poorly worded. He wrote that he had criticised other Governments too and so his criticism of the Israeli Government was not special. He then speciously commented that "... (if) people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends".

He did not tell his readers why he had singled out Jews. Don't Muslims all over the world hold historic grievances, not just against the Jews, but also against many other groups? And is not the continuing violence in West Asia based on a concerted effort by surrounding Muslim nations that have vowed to wipe Israel off the map of the world?

Given the tepid and defensive "apology", readers wrote back even more angrily. Mr Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said, "I think it's shameful that a peace institute would be headed up by a bigot... One would hope that the grandson of such an illustrious human being would be more sensitive to Jewish history." Mr Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, said, "My son Daniel died mighty proud of his Jewish identity. He, like the millions of decent and peace-seeking Israelis, and Americans who proudly carry on their Jewish heritage, did not see his identity as 'dependent on violence' as the title of Gandhi's article implies...".

Soon, Mr Gandhi submitted his resignation as president of the MK Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence. Given the incendiary nature of the flap, the University of Rochester, where the institute is located, accepted his resignation.

This brings us to the more important question about Mr Gandhi, which others have not asked: Was his blog entry an aberration, a single instance of misjudgement and analysis, or was this part of an ongoing pattern of selective attacks and selective support to religious groups?

The Mahatma had advised Jews, when they faced extinction at the hands of the Nazis, "... to lay down the arms you have... You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...". Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer, asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?" Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism." May be, his grandson wants the same.

The Mahatma was consistent in his advice to Hindus, too. When faced with violence perpetrated by Muslims, he asked them to not fight back but die "honourably". Many Hindus succumbed to the Mahatma's advice, and hundreds of thousands of Hindus were killed, raped and assaulted, over a period of three decades that the Mahatma's writ ran over India.

Gandhi never advised Muslims to lay down their arms. He sang, "Ishwar, Allah tere naam" but did not acknowledge that Muslims would never accept Allah be called anything but Allah. He did not ask Muslims to look into their hearts and find why they so hated their Hindu neighbours and fellow countrymen.

In an essay I had raised the question as to what would have happened had the Mahatma not backed Jawaharlal Nehru to become India's first Prime Minister instead of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Drawing from Durga Das' book, India from Curzon to Nehru and After, to point out how the Mahatma manipulated India's leaders and masses to do his bidding, it would not be incorrect to suggest that the Mahatma's support to the Khilafat movement led to the massacre of thousands of Hindus and the rape of hundreds of Hindu women in what is known as the Moplah massacre.

Responding to that essay, Mr Arun Gandhi wrote that the "Moplah rebellion" had nothing to do with the Khilafat movement, and that Gandhi's support of Nehru was because he wanted to "encourage young blood in a party dominated by old people"! Mr Gandhi concluded his rather wayward response by saying that if his grandfather had not returned to India from South Africa in 1915, the Congress would have continued to be a "country club," and that the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS "...could have mobilised people into a civil war against Muslims to teach that Hindustan is for Hindus and they better behave...", forgetting that before the Mahatma there were great Congressmen like Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak who had both indigenised the Congress and made it a people's party.

Mr Gandhi later acknowledged a connection between the Khilafat Movement and the Moplah Massacre. "But history is not often an accurate recording of events," he complained, and launched a tirade against the RSS. I had said nothing about the RSS in my essay, but Mr Gandhi raised the spectre of a Hindu extremist group that would ethnically cleanse Muslims out of India. He also accused the 1940s bureaucrats and politicians of India of collusion in the assassination of his grandfather. 

It is, therefore, not surprising that this loose-lipped Gandhi scion would pen something so obnoxious as he did for The Washington Post. But the disciplined Jews would not take this lying down, and Mr Gandhi has had to resign in shame.

Mr Gandhi's many cousins, nephews, uncles and aunts have succumbed to the lore and lure of their famous ancestor. In fact, his son, Mr Tushar Gandhi, too wags a similar loose tongue, and poses as a 'secular, progressive' person. Meanwhile, the Mahatma's grandson follows in his grandfather's footsteps, blinkered about political and religious dynamics. But he lacks the Mahatma's charisma.

-- Prof Rao is Chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre at Longwood University, USA

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - dhu - 02-02-2008

QUOTETell Me,Â where was any system which was there, to execute Non-Vyakti gata Dharma ? What was It ?

And Tell Me, Who supposed ? For what Reason ? Who asked him to suppose ? On Whose Behalf ? Discuss How that 'suppose'-ition was as per Dharma ?

Also, Tell Me, Your Interpretation of Ahimsa.

Infact, The Reason why Hindus never judge anything in unison is because, Our Interpretation of Dharma is as per our following parameters.

No doubt We Claim to belong to One Dharma - Sanathana Dharma. But, In the 20th Century, We forgot to Consider our existent Identities ofÂ SiddhAnthams, Mathams, Varnams, SampradAyams, and Kulams.

First Two are very very critical for understanding each other. Infact, Even The Whole Country failed to understand MKGandhi due to exactly this Reason. His Ahimsa was based on his SiddhAntha. For the Sake of Unity, Other Leaders did not bring out that difference into Discussion to avoid contentions among the people And Avoid the British from further Divide And Rule. MKGandhi Shamelessly used that 'Feeling for Unification' of Hindus in other Leaders. He VERY VERY SHAMELESSLY misused this opportunity to propagate his SiddhAntam and Matham. Even today, We are not considering this aspect to understand Him.

So, Tell Me, What is your SiddhAntham ? What is your Matham ?

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 02-04-2008

Many Hindutvadis consider Gandhi to be pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu. But people like Arun Shourie and others speak highly of him. So is it possible that Gandhi's pro-Muslim stance was just a tactical ploy? Because he perceived the Brit to be a greater danger, maybe he thought Hindu-Muslim alliance would be better? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /> Even Netaji had Muslims in his army, so one can assume that these men honestly thought being pro-muslim would help, considering the circumstances?

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Bharatvarsh - 02-04-2008

QUOTEMany Hindutvadis consider Gandhi to be pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu. But people like Arun Shourie and others speak highly of him. So is it possible that Gandhi's pro-Muslim stance was just a tactical ploy? Because he perceived the Brit to be a greater danger, maybe he thought Hindu-Muslim alliance would be better?Â Even Netaji had Muslims in his army, so one can assume that these men honestly thought being pro-muslim would help, considering the circumstances? 
But how can then one excuse his pro muslim fasts even after independence was guaranteed and even after partition and the massacres of Hindus+Sikhs happened.

I have respect for Arun Shourie and Goel but can't agree with them on Gandhi.

The older generation was brought up on this myth of Gandhi as some divine being but now the reality is out.

Also it"s one thing to be pro muslim for a while but even after massacre after massacre of Hindus if you refuse to shift your attitude like Gandhi then you are nothing but a braindead moron, Goel typically gives excuses that Muslim appeasement was on the scene before Gandhi and cites the Lucknow Pact presided over by Tilak as an example, agreed that's true, but he misses one critical point, other leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and Swami Shraddanand were also like that (both of them supported the Khilafat agitation misguidedly) BUT the big differemce is once they saw the massacres of Hindus in Kohat and Malabbar they were both shocked and Lala Lajpat Rai undertook a study of the Quran and wrote quite openly that Hindu-Muslim unity was a mirage since Islam doesn't permit any such thing, Swami Shraddananda wrote a book called "Hindu Sanghatan" and launched a vigorous shuddhi movement (for which he was condemned by Gandhi and later murdered by a Muslim). Notice that these 2 leaders were also like Gandhi in the earlier days but CHANGED in response to real life events, Gandhi by contrast kept on appeasing Muslims with ever larger concessions and absurd suggestions to Hindus.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 02-10-2008

A Letter to a Hindu
The Subjection of India--Its Cause and Cure
By Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy
With an Introduction by M. K. Gandhi
QUOTEThe letter printed below is a translation of Tolstoy's letter written in Russian in reply to one from the Editor of
Free Hindustan. After having passed from hand to hand, this letter at last came into my possession through a
friend who asked me, as one much interested in Tolstoy's writings, whether I thought it worth publishing. I at
once replied in the affirmative, and told him I should translate it myself into Gujarati and induce others' to
translate and publish it in various Indian vernaculars.

The letter as received by me was a type-written copy. It was therefore referred to the author, who confirmed it
as his and kindly granted me permission to print it.
To me, as a humble follower of that great teacher whom I have long looked upon as one of my guides, it is a
matter of honour to be connected with the publication of his letter, such especially as the one which is now
being given to the world.

It is a mere statement of fact to say that every Indian, whether he owns up to it or not, has national aspirations.
But there are as many opinions as there are Indian nationalists as to the exact meaning of that aspiration, and
more especially as to the methods to be used to attain the end.
One of the accepted and 'time-honoured' methods to attain the end is that of violence. The assassination of Sir
Curzon Wylie was an illustration of that method in its worst and most detestable form. Tolstoy's life has been
devoted to replacing the method of violence for removing tyranny or securing reform by the method of
non-resistance to evil. He would meet hatred expressed in violence by love expressed in self-suffering. He
admits of no exception to whittle down this great and divine law of love. He applies it to all the problems that
trouble mankind.

When a man like Tolstoy, one of the clearest thinkers in the western world, one of the greatest writers, one
who as a soldier has known what violence is and what it can do, condemns Japan for having blindly followed
the law of modern science, falsely so-called, and fears for that country 'the greatest calamities', it is for us to
pause and consider whether, in our impatience of English rule, we do not want to replace one evil by another
and a worse. India, which is the nursery of the great faiths of the world, will cease to be nationalist India,
whatever else she may become, when she goes through the process of civilization in the shape of reproduction
on that sacred soil of gun factories and the hateful industrialism which has reduced the people of Europe to a
state of slavery, and all but stifled among them the best instincts which are the heritage of the human family.
If we do not want the English in India we must pay the price. Tolstoy indicates it. 'Do not resist evil, but also
do not yourselves participate in evil--in the violent deeds of the administration of the law courts, the collection
of taxes and, what is more important, of the soldiers, and no one in the world will enslave you', passionately
declares the sage of Yasnaya Polyana. Who can question the truth of what he says in the following: 'A
commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from
superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand people,
not athletes, but rather weak and ordinary people, have enslaved two hundred millions of vigorous, clever,
capable, freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have
enslaved themselves?'

One need not accept all that Tolstoy says--some of his facts are not accurately stated--to realize the central
truth of his indictment of the present system, which is to understand and act upon the irresistible power of the
soul over the body, of love, which is an attribute of the soul, over the brute or body force generated by the
stirring in us of evil passions.

There is no doubt that there is nothing new in what Tolstoy preaches. But his presentation of the old truth is
refreshingly forceful. His logic is unassailable. And above all he endeavours to practise what he preaches. He
preaches to convince. He is sincere and in earnest. He commands attention.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Guest - 03-09-2008

Mahatma is a true Jihadi: Sargut
Sunday, March 9, 2008

New Delhi, PTI:

Mahatma Gandhi's fight with his ego and subsequent victory represents the qualities of what can be termed as true Jihad according to an eminent Islamic spiritual leader from Turkey.

"Gandhi is the martyr who has performed the real Jihad. As he taught us to first fight with one's ego and win, but never with guns," said Sheika Cemalnur Sargut, who heads the Istanbul branch of TURKKAD,the Turkish Women's cultural Association.

Drawing comparisons between a Haji and the Mahatma, Sargut said," Mahatma Gandhi is dressed exactly like one performing Haj. Muslims wear single unstiched clothing 'ihram' while performing Haj. This is a proof that he is always before Allah. He teaches real Islam", she adds.

Sargut is one of the main speakers of 'The World Council of Women Spiritual Leaders' summit which is going on in Jaipur from March 6-10.

Women leaders cutting across faiths from over 50 countries have gathered in Jaipur to deliberate on various global issues and encourage women leadership.

The delegates from countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Sudan, Palestine, Nepal, Tibet, Japan, United States and Afghanistan among others will be present at the event.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - ramana - 04-04-2008

Book Review from Pioneer, 3 April 008

QUOTEIndia failed Gandhi

While Bernard Imhasly is right in concluding that India has mostly failed Gandhi, he needs to question the yardstick itself. Why should this vast country yield to any human being, however great he might be, asks Lata Jagtiani

Goodbye To Gandhi
Author: Bernard Imhasly
Publisher: Penguin/Viking
Price: Rs 425Â

Prior to their arrival in India, foreigners have the image of this country as a land of snake-charmers, elephants, rajas, poverty, Taj Mahal and Mahatma Gandhi; however, the sooner they step out of the airport their jaws drop, as do their images. At once they are taken aback, often disgusted, surprised, delighted, awestruck and even perplexed.

No 200-page book can contain the details of India without failing. Every chronicler finds himself reduced to a Lilliputian when confronted by the vastness of the country. No wonder Switzerland's Bernard Imhasly, accustomed to neat, easily definable countries like Switzerland and Germany, falters and stumbles.

Imhasly admits, "The mammoth Indian subcontinent that covers 3.3 million square kilometres... far exceeds the limits of a book... The cultural diversity, socio-economic and religious faultlines, the sheer mass of humanity defy extrapolation." He adds that it is because of this that he moves from India to Gandhi, stating that the book is "an account of travels in modern India, with Gandhi as my guide". He measures current issues against Gandhi's life and ideas, and observes if India has adopted his idealism or ignored it. 

But the moot question is, can and should India be reduced to Gandhi? Mrs Indira Gandhi tried to narrow India down to "India is Indira, Indira is India" only to find herself thrown out of power in 1977. Also, India wouldn't have been a global power today had it blindly followed Gandhi's vision of swadeshi and self-sufficiency.

In his essay, "Reflections On Gandhi", George Orwell observed, "There is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British Government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity... he believed in 'arousing the world', which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing." Orwell points out that Gandhian methods were doomed to failure while dealing with lunatics or with misguided fanatics of the Hitlerian kind. In that event, how would one deal with terrorists and suicide bombers?

Imhasly's Goodbye to Gandhi is a loving yet bleak portrayal of a country that has gone way off the Gandhian mark. Well written and painstakingly put together, the book covers the writer's journey through some parts of the country. One wonders why he has mostly focussed on non-Congress States, as if he wanted not to offend the sensibilities of the Congress. He interviews Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia and KS Sudarshan, but never talks to a single Congress leader.

Imhasly finds proof that Gandhi is more irrelevant than relevant; more honoured in the breach than in the observance. His excellent style of writing and succinct descriptions make the book easy reading. Apart from a few oversights, such as the absence of notes to explain foreign italicised terms, such as "weltanschauung" and "schadenfreude", and the complete absence of a Bibliography and Index, the book is interesting. Its high point is the chapter, "The Mothers of Manipur", in which Imhasly reports on his attempts to meet Irom Sharmila, who, on November 2, 2000, decided that she would protest against the killing of innocents by going on a hunger strike. She was arrested on November 11, 2000, and has been under custody to this day.

However, Imhasly takes the usual 'secular' turn several times. Although at least 3,000 people were killed after the assassination of Mrs Gandhi in 1984, it is not Rajiv Gandhi but the "Congress party goons" who are regarded as guilty despite his infamous "when a big tree falls" remark. The author, however, does not give such benefit of doubt to Modi for the post-Godhra violence in 2002.

While Imhasly is right in concluding that India has mostly failed Gandhi, he needs to question the yardstick itself: Why should this vast country yield to any human being, however great he might be? Even Ramana Maharshi, Gandhi's contemporary, did not join hands with him, his path being that of a jnani, and not of a karmayogi. Gandhi could as little contain Ramana Maharshi as Ramana Maharshi could contain Gandhi, and they were just two of the many worlds that co-exist in diverse India.

Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology - Bodhi - 06-13-2008

In response to Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagvad Gita By: Kalyan Viswanathan, I commented:

QUOTEAuthor has exposed many of his misunderstandings both in the realm of the political history of the Indian Independance Movement as well as that of the dharmic philosophy of ahiMsA.

1. In the dhArmik philosophy, ahiMsA is a tool for individual spiritual sAdhanA, and NOT a policy of state or political leadership. ahiMsA whether listed as the second yama of the eight libs of yoga, as one of the shIla within the eight-fold path of buddha, or as one of the pa~ncha mahAbhUta in jina-darshana - ALWAYS it is a tool for the sadhana of an individual. Author would do well to show us where and in which scripture has it ever been proposed as a tool for politics or a policy of state - which would go out to lend scriptural validity of Gandhi"s half baked interpretation of ahiMsA as a political tool. If it can not be shown, then let this remain a Gandhian innovation, unapproved by Hindu scriptures and tradition. Any effort of indirectly procuring a scriptural approval, as author has tried to do, is futile.

2. Author would do well by going through shAnti parvan and anushAsana parvan - the 12th and 13th books - of mahAbhArata. Policy for state and dharma of politicians (kshatriyas) is discussed in extremely minute details by pitAmaha bhIShma with pANDava-s in general and the eldest pANDava in particular. In fact referring to the message of kR^iShNa, from the eyes of a rightful politician, bhIShma is very clear that for a political leader, rAja-dharma does invariably involve hiMsA when needed, and is in fact ahiMsA.

He re-explains from a statesman"s viewpoint what shrI kR^iShNa had already established in gItA. Soceity kind of outsources violence to those who take up rAja-dharma, and these noble kshatriyas carry out the violence, to let the soceity be non-violent. And therefore, for a political leader to have an extremist position of absolute non-violence is actually adharma, and gAndhiji stands accused of propogating that adharma. (Author kind of agreed to it at one place - but lost that thought when started talking about Gandhi)

3. Author does not seem to be aware, that this topic has been a subject of great contemplation by the second National Poet of Free India - shrI rAma dhArI siMha dinakar, who was a profound gAndhian, but also had a deep and thorough grasp on dharmic concepts - much better than his mentor Gandhi.

So dinakar"s mind, as he writes in his works, was greatly troubled when he saw the Gandhi"s (mis-)interpretaions on ahiMsA and his extremist positions on it. This struggle in his mind produced a classical poetry he penned as a book called "kurukshetra" in 1946 - the book is still considered a classic today and taught as a finest example of modern Hindi poetry in the Universities. In the end dinakar had to call himself a bad gandhian as he could not succumb to this non-violent extremism propogated by his mentor.

Allow me to present one stanza from that book:

tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa? bahut hoon jaanataa mai bhee, magar,
tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa viraagi yogiyon ke dharma hain;
yaaki unaki neeti, jinake haath me shaayak nahee;
yaa mrishaa paashanDa yah us kaapurush balheen kaa -
jo sadaa bhayabheet rahata yuddha se, yeh sochakar
glaanimay jeevan bahut achchha, maraNa achchaa nahee

bhIshma says:
{tyaga, tapa, bhiksha - I know about (these implements of ahiMsa) enough and more, but:
leave these for the dharma of virakta yogis alone,
or for those probably who hold not the duty-rod of the statesmen,
or these could be useful techniques for the cowards afraid of war -
who consider living an insultful life better than dying a graceful death}

also:

kaanan me dekh asthi-punja muni-pungavo ka
daitya-vadha ka kiya praNa jab rama ne
"mati-bhrashta maanavo ke shodha ka upaaya ek
shastra hee hai?" poochhaa tha komal-manaa-vaam ne
"nahee priye, sudhar manushya sakata hai tap,
tyaag se bhee," uttar diyaa tha ghana-shyam ne,
"tapa kaa kintu, vasha chalataa nahee sadaiv,
patit-samooh kee ku-vrittiyo ke saamane"

{Beholding the mountains of bones of the sages in the forest
when Lord Rama took a vow to exterminate off all the daitya-s,
His tender left (Seeta) had thus asked: can there be -
no non-violent way of bringing these evil-minded to proper path?
Yes Darling, had replied the dark one, man can of course bring about change
through non-violent tapa and tyaaga,
but when faced with such tendencies of sin-fallen as these
that policy does not always yield the results

4. Author contradicts himself. In the beginning he rightly pointed out that soceities under buddhism entered a great decline when from a spiritual nAstika system of world-renouncing-men it spanned its scope to entire soceity thereby declining the kshatriya qualities. And that exactly is what Gandhi attempted, and arguably acheived, in our modern times too. Thanks to Gandhi, and neo-gandhians, nation and especially its political class is generally bereft of natural kshatriya qualities in accordance to rAja-dharma. Day to day events in Indian horizon attest to this.

5. Common sense has it, that extremes in the practical world are bad:
ati kA bhalA na bolanA ati kI bhalI na chUp
ati kA bhalA na barasana, ati kI bhalI na dhUp (abdur rahIm khAnakhAnA)

{too much talking is bad, so is extreme silence
too much rains are bad and so is scorching sun}

Gandhi stands accused of extremism, and his political application of extreme ahiMsA defies common sense and established wisdom.

6. When Author credits gandhi with initiative of converting the Independance Struggle to a mass popular movement - he only repeats a myth created in last several decades by Pseudo-Gandhians making Gandhi our National Idol. Was Bal Gangadhara Tilak any less popular? Much before Gandhi appeared, Tilak had already taken the movement to the masses. Same was the case with Lala Lajpat Rai whose popularity had created a solid network of patriotic groups in all towns and cities in North and West India.

7. Has author even read "bhagvad-gItA" written by MK Gandhi - which makes explicit Gandhi"s own understanding on BG? I would bet he has not, because almost every thing author says about violence being allowed in dharma etc are negated by Gandhi most explicitly. Like the neo-Gandhian pseculars of today, Gandhi himself considers the event of mahabharata war and particularly that of a kR^iShNa delivering the message of gItA an unhistoric event and only symbolic mythology. In his interpretation, the whole war stuff is referring to an internal warfare of spiritual nature and all the bloodshed is a symbolic affaire. Much like his (mis-)interpretation of Koran"s invitation of jihad to Moslem.

8. Having said all the above, I am not discrediting many a wonderful services Gandhi did to the Indian Soceity, especially for the downtrodden. I also admire his uprightness against the christian missionary activities. My scope of objections is only limited to the author equating Gita"s Message with that of Gandhi - because they are diametrically opposite.