[<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->He is part of history and we are here exploring his role.Â
[right][snapback]38404[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With the objective to.....? Have all the members of this forum disown him? that makes, say 1000 people and they convey that to another 100000 how soon before all or at least most of India is ready to rip off Gandhi from Indian History? You have destroyed his statue burned is effigies, just like Lenin, than what?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can't change history just to please future generation
[right][snapback]38404[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to Please them but to stop them from entangling in to issues that would frustrate and exhaust them. Stop them from starting fights that even if they win will achieve them very little. Shattering Gandhiâs Image alone will not bring honor and respect to Hindu religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 7 2005, 03:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are better ideology, but why one should stick to one type of ideology. We should follow combination of best teaching from around the world.
Gita is best, none can replace its teaching. I consider it as supreme.
[right][snapback]38404[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. May be it wonât be totally false to believe Gandhi followed Gita. But to believe one ideology does not mean to grind another in the ground. That would be like being a muslim. More than half of the population of Indian Hindus have visited muslim Darghahs and prophets. With 'tolerance' so deep in our culture, you will have a hard time making them dispice Gandhi. At the best you could only create a bigger chaos. You will not be able to change the history, you will just make it merky.
Jay Shastri,
The purpose of this thread is to list or explore Gandhian thoughts/philosophy/idealogy and the objective is not as you state start a pyramid scheme of 'disowning him'. Though I understand people do come here to this forum with preconcieved notions as to what the other forumites might be thinking or not.
Mahatma Gandhi led India in a myriad of political, spiritual and social issues. In each sphere he had his strengths and weakness and it should be explored because there are lessons to be learnt from his achievements and blunders. Let's not be presumptious and stiffle discussion just because someone just might fail to read the full thread and have some negative take aways about Mahatma Gandhi or our history. I do agree with your premise that we should try to sift chaff from wheat.
India (like many other countries) was never designed to have complete independence, and it is part of the game that has been going on for few centuries. Gandhi, wittingly/willingly (the only reason I chose to say that is due to his relationship with nationalists) played the role that pleases this "Internationalist Society" that continues its global hegemony.
Gandhi looked to statesmen and nations to use or develop certain methods and institutions. The chief of these are third party settlement, world government, disarmament and an international police force. You can find this in one of the Young India thingies...
Now, do we want to continue with incomplete independence nonsense and build temples to venerate incomplete men? choice is clear. Rest - religion, etc etc associated with these people are irrelevant. He is an accidental hero and has no relevance to the present day problems and future solutions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 7 2005, 04:40 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 7 2005, 04:40 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jay Shastri,
The purpose of this thread is to list or explore Gandhian thoughts/philosophy/idealogy and the objective is not as you state start a pyramid scheme of 'disowning him'. [right][snapback]38409[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The absence of direction and purpose of some posts puzzels me. The lengthy cut and past articles confuse me. More important than informations is knowledge, more important that knowledge is creativity. After 4 pages of lengthy articles puntuated with sporadic bolds and colour types, let us accept Gandhi was a horrible man. He made bad dissisions. And his dicissions made India weak <b>Like it or not thats what we got. So lets get our minds togeather, spot out the damage, use what we have and lets fix it. </b> (P.S. I don't mean any disrespect for those who have went to lengths to dig up less known informations and proofs. I am perhaps not half as well read as most of them are. I just think informations/articles should be used as support of an argument. Discussions and exchange of ideas should be the main focus.)
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Sep 7 2005, 05:07 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Sep 7 2005, 05:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->India (like many other countries) was never designed to have complete independence, and it is part of the game that has been going on for few centuries. Gandhi, wittingly/willingly (the only reason I chose to say that is due to his relationship with nationalists) played the role that pleases this "Internationalist Society" that continues its global hegemony.
Gandhi looked to statesmen and nations to use or develop certain methods and institutions. The chief of these are third party settlement, world government, disarmament and an international police force. You can find this in one of the Young India thingies...
Now, do we want to continue with incomplete independence nonsense and build temples to venerate incomplete men? choice is clear. Rest - religion, etc etc associated with these people are irrelevant. He is an accidental hero and has no relevance to the present day problems and future solutions.
[right][snapback]38410[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can undermin Gandhi's internationalisim or any other ideologies that are not favourable to Indian in current time without desecrating his image. We should always project an image of a nation of great heros. Never lie about our history but always put out best foot first.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> (P.S. I don't mean any disrespect for those who have went to lengths to dig up less known informations and proofs. I am perhaps not half as well read as most of them are. I just think informations/articles should be used as support of an argument. Discussions and exchange of ideas should be the main focus.) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our objective is to educate everybody and all information and articles are welcomed which are kept away from general public. Ofcourse discussion on those articles are welcomed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 7 2005, 09:43 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 7 2005, 09:43 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Our objective is to educate everybody and all information and articles are welcomed which are kept away from general public. Ofcourse discussion on those articles are welcomed.
[right][snapback]38415[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats great. But would love to see some discussion on getting solutions. Become more proactive. Very intersting materials so far though.
Jay,
The presense/absence of direction of posts is direct reflection of forum member participation, which includes you. The lengthy cut paste jobs might act as a repositry for information at one spot should someone decide to use it as a starting point for an article. You are welcome to lead the effort in setting tone/direction of the thread and request clarifications on posts in here - knowledgeable members will answer or even you might be able to shed some light on topics you know about - especially those in bold or highlighted fonts.
The end game is not to jump to any conclusions as to whether he was a as you put it "horrible man" or a "saint". So let's start with fresh page, shall we?
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 7 2005, 08:46 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 7 2005, 08:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are welcome to lead the effort in setting tone/direction of the thread and request clarifications on posts in here - knowledgeable members will answer or even you might be able to shed some light on topics you know about - especially those in bold or highlighted fonts.
[right][snapback]38427[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the argument is simple should there be effort and enrgy spend 'exposing' Gandhi. I would like to hear from other forum members why it is even nessasary to prove that Gandhi was an unfit leader? We Indians may have Likes, Dislikes or Indifference for Gandhi. How is, what we think about Gandhi important for the future of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 7 2005, 08:46 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 7 2005, 08:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The lengthy cut paste jobs might act as a repositry for information at one spot should someone decide to use it as a starting point for an article.
[right][snapback]38427[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fine. Except no responsible Indian should want to write those tainted articles for Gandhi or any other founding father for anoher 50 years. Because that is how long it is going to take us to fight the more relavent threats to India as well as Hindu Culture. Once we are out of the woods and our culture and populations is safe. We can nitpick our history and refine it to put right blames and accolades at right place.
Right now we should be obidient sons and a disiplined army. We must have a single and clear objective of making India stronger and united from Inside and progressive and advancing from out side. There are enough number of enemies of India and even more brainless, currupt Indians. We cannot afford to waist even a single thinking brain or a single patriotic heart in doing anything else but complete and unquestioned dedication to the nation. We should only be thinking about pluging the holes not creating new once.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->hat's fine. Except no responsible Indian should want to write those tainted articles for Gandhi or any other founding father for anoher 50 years. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Responsible Indians can write/discuss/articulate facts as they are/were. Let the chips fall where they may. I think responsible Indians as citizens of a mature society know the difference discussing facts/figures/events as they unfolded rather than post endlessly some idle banter. Or for that matter refuse to discuss their leaders of the past for the 'better good' of the society.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Because that is how long it is going to take us to fight the more relavent threats to India as well as Hindu Culture.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's double edged sword. If we can't peak into the past, how are we going to fight the relevant threats of today and tomorrow? Isn't there a saying about repeating history by failing to take lessons from it?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the argument is simple should there be effort and enrgy spend 'exposing' Gandhi. I would like to hear from other forum members why it is even nessasary to prove that Gandhi was an unfit leader?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Should we have a forum about India since we could very well be 'exposing India' too? I repeat, the purpose of this thread is not to prove Gandhi was an unfit/great leader or expose anyone around. But if you start with that premise, it's easy to reach that conclusion.
If you point to specific instances of posts and postors, maybe you'll get precise answers on any issues you might have/not in this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 8 2005, 12:32 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 8 2005, 12:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Isn't there a saying about repeating history by failing to take lessons from it?
[right][snapback]38437[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you think you are learning anything for the future from this... well! I fail to see it. We can learn more from sucsesses that came after failure. Then we can learn from failures.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 8 2005, 12:32 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 8 2005, 12:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I repeat, the purpose of this thread is not to prove Gandhi was an unfit/great leader or expose anyone around.
[right][snapback]38437[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunatly that's how it feels so far.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can learn more from sucsesses that came after failure. Then we can learn from failures.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You list the success and failures and the attribute the causes for each. Unless we discuss this, we won't know will we?
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 8 2005, 01:12 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 8 2005, 01:12 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can learn more from sucsesses that came after failure. Then we can learn from failures.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You list the success and failures and the attribute the causes for each. Unless we discuss this, we won't know will we?
[right][snapback]38442[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see any examples of Gandhi's sucess on this thread. Besides that is a very cliche argument and it does not work.
Quoting a great Afghan Warrior on somuch of disscussion about Gandhi "Jab sooch gehri hojay to fainsle kamzor ho jatein hain" <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see any examples of Gandhi's sucess on this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then maybe you should feel free to do the honors. Did you miss the posts by Raman in this thread regarding Gandhi's writings on Hind Swaraj?
Please spend some time reading the thread.
Your afghan warrior might have had Mohd in his mind when he said that. I can quote another 'Gandhian' afghan warrior (Khan Abdul Gafar Khan) who had a different take; but let's not divert from the thread, enough damage has been done already.
Just as a matter of curiosity did jayshastri ever post in bharat rakshak several years ago ?
<!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...44db9664dd42ac1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Though the majority of Mussulmans of India and the Hindus belong to the same stock, the religious environment has made them different. The Mussulman, being generally in minority, has, as a class, developed into a bully. Though, in my opinion, non-violence has a predominant place in the Quran (here is where he had gone wrongâMenon), the 1,300 years of imperialist expansion has made the Mussulmans fighters as a body. They are, therefore, aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an age-old civilisation. He is essentially non-violent. The Hindus as a body are thus not equipped for fighting. But not having retained their spiritual training, they have forgotten the effective use of a substitute for arms, and not having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to the point of timidity or cowardice. If Hindus would but believe in themselves and work in accordance with their traditions, they will have no reason to fear bullying. (Young India 19.6.1924)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to agree with Amarnath. I have never understood this - what is the connection between bhakti for Rama and this fanatical non-violence concept ?
Do I see him as a brilliant politician ? yes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
YES
(FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS, HE WAS INDEED A "POLITICIAN")
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Do I see him as a brilliant strategist ? yes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NO.
NOT MUCH OF A STRATEGIST, EVEN LESS BRILLIANT.
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Do I see him as one who brought the whole gamut of Indian population under one banner and popularised the concept of independence ? yes.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NOPE. GANDHI HAD IT NOT IN HIM.
THAT WAS JUST NETAJI.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/B...7-439.html
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> But why o why and where did this fanatical concept of Ahimsa ?
[right][snapback]20620[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
' COS HE WAS THE SORT OF INBRED HALFWIT who believed a lot in ahimsha when it came to indians fighting for their own country, but had no problems and no ahimsha-ic principle to offer when innocent indians went to europe and burma to die trying to save the very poms who colonised us !!
indian casualities in ww2 are second only to that of poms.
so thats the extent to which gandhi and his ahimsha benifitted indians - so much so that tens of 1000s of indians died in a war that wasnt even theirs !!
a dipshit.
aurangzeb did less damage to india than gandhi and his assclown sidekick ("paltu kutta" in hindi) nehru - whose sole legacy is to have planted his entire family tree in our parliament (which - the nehru-gandhi family - is till today the bane of indian politics)
we could really have done without beevis (nehru) and butthead(gandhi).
we... including all other colonies... became free, largely due to the second world war.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Oct 10 2004, 07:49 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Oct 10 2004, 07:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> But why o why and where did this fanatical concept of Ahimsa ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> But the Mahabharata makes it clear that there comes a time when it is necessary to cleanse the land of evil and that oneshould not negotiate with 'evil' when it means abandoning one's principles.
[right][snapback]20697[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree with you when you allude to the mahabharata.
"its a wise man who doesnt get angry.
its a stupid man who CANNOT get angry"
- OLD CHINESE proveb.
MK was one such stupid wimp.
|
