02-04-2008, 10:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2008, 10:03 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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? Even Netaji had Muslims in his army, so one can assume that these men honestly thought being pro-muslim would help, considering the circumstances? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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.