11-27-2006, 12:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2006, 05:12 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am surprised that people here refer to two of the most important figures in world history as 'guys.' <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Mahatma Gandhi understood the Indian psyche very well, which was why he advocated ahimsa. Not due to his own cowardice, because a coward wouldn't have the guts to face the lathi. But since he perceived most indians to be cowards, the Mahatma felt ahimsa was the only way. There was no other way for a weak, cowardly people to fight back. So Gandhi had to make the most of what he had, namely a clueless, hapless people. Even Aurobindo advocated this sort of passive resistance.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was the same cowardly Indian's that produced people like Shivaji, Banda, Rana Pratap, Hari Singh Nalwa, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Akali Phoola Singh, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, Peshwa Baji Rao and many others, so stop acting as if Indian's were always cowards, it is more apt to say that Gandhi's ideas turned Hindus into cowards.
Aurbobindo's concept of ahimsa or satyagraha were radically different as he explains in his own words in India's Rebirth, take some time to read it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And his support for muslims was a tactical move, in order to defeat the Brits. Gandhi was a brilliant politician and a tactician. His various activities and 'eccentric' ways must be understood in this connection only. He wasn't an ordinary person, so it isn't always easy for ordinary people to understand his motives.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right for his tactical moves Hindu lives were to be used as cannon fodder, he first supported Muslim fanaticism during the Khilafat movement in the hope that it will bring them into the freedom movement but what it led to was the murder and massacre of Hindus in the Moplah riots which he tried to cover up that there were only 3 cases of forcible conversion.
Then came the Kohat riots in which he adviced Hindus who were the victims the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I can only suggest solutions of questions in terms of swaraj. I would, therefore, sacrifice present individual gain for future national gain. Even if Musssalmans refuse to make approaches and even if the Hindus of Kohat may have to lose their all, I should still say that they are able to live at peace with the latter without the protection of the British bayonet.
http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/med...se_anderson.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also adviced Hindus and Sikhs to collectively get slaughtered during the partition riots and the Jews to do the same.
He should have tried his tactics on willing lab sheeps like his followers before making Hindu and Sikh lives and honor the subjects of his absurd experiments.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Mahatma Gandhi understood the Indian psyche very well, which was why he advocated ahimsa. Not due to his own cowardice, because a coward wouldn't have the guts to face the lathi. But since he perceived most indians to be cowards, the Mahatma felt ahimsa was the only way. There was no other way for a weak, cowardly people to fight back. So Gandhi had to make the most of what he had, namely a clueless, hapless people. Even Aurobindo advocated this sort of passive resistance.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It was the same cowardly Indian's that produced people like Shivaji, Banda, Rana Pratap, Hari Singh Nalwa, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Akali Phoola Singh, Baji Prabhu Deshpande, Peshwa Baji Rao and many others, so stop acting as if Indian's were always cowards, it is more apt to say that Gandhi's ideas turned Hindus into cowards.
Aurbobindo's concept of ahimsa or satyagraha were radically different as he explains in his own words in India's Rebirth, take some time to read it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And his support for muslims was a tactical move, in order to defeat the Brits. Gandhi was a brilliant politician and a tactician. His various activities and 'eccentric' ways must be understood in this connection only. He wasn't an ordinary person, so it isn't always easy for ordinary people to understand his motives.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right for his tactical moves Hindu lives were to be used as cannon fodder, he first supported Muslim fanaticism during the Khilafat movement in the hope that it will bring them into the freedom movement but what it led to was the murder and massacre of Hindus in the Moplah riots which he tried to cover up that there were only 3 cases of forcible conversion.
Then came the Kohat riots in which he adviced Hindus who were the victims the following:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I can only suggest solutions of questions in terms of swaraj. I would, therefore, sacrifice present individual gain for future national gain. Even if Musssalmans refuse to make approaches and even if the Hindus of Kohat may have to lose their all, I should still say that they are able to live at peace with the latter without the protection of the British bayonet.
http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/med...se_anderson.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He also adviced Hindus and Sikhs to collectively get slaughtered during the partition riots and the Jews to do the same.
He should have tried his tactics on willing lab sheeps like his followers before making Hindu and Sikh lives and honor the subjects of his absurd experiments.