11-26-2005, 03:37 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 26 2005, 03:04 AM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 26 2005, 03:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are a lot of different issues being debated here, I dont know whether i will be able too get to all of them. Letmetake a few of them, one at a time
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was Sarojini Naidu, in a now famous quote was overheard remarking to Mountbatten (and i paraphrase)_that' you would be surprised Lord Louis, at how much it costs the Congress to keep Gandhiji in poverty'. It was well known that Gandhi was a fastidious man in many respects. Simply wearing a loin cloth does not make for simple living.
But that is not the crux of my assertion. My point is that Gandhi (and to a large extent Nehru) were afforded many facilities like writing materials and books and a desk during their incarceration which were not afforded to those like Savarkar who were sentenced to hard labor. What is the point of this assertion ? The point is that such an incarceration was not such a great hardship and was relatively benign compared to those who were sentenced to hard laborand therefore did not indicate a high level of courage on the part of Gandhiji knowing that the punishiment was easily bearable. The issue of whether Gandhiji cared for these luxuries is irrelevant, but the fact that they were there, puts a question mark on whether there was any real courage involved in his courting arrest.
Another point needs to be made. During his entire stay in South Africa, Gandhiji remained a staunch friend of the brits. It was not till jallianwallahbagh that it dawned on him that the presence of the brits in india was the problem
You must recall also that the reason i wrote the post was that i felt it was unnecessary to label Gandhiji a wimp, which i find to be unnecessarily derogatory. My view is that Indians tend to pigeonhole their leaders into saints or sinners. Well Gandhiji was neither and this constant tendency to deify our leaders takes away from the ability to look upon their achievements in an objective manner. BTw i do not deify any leader, while i find it distasteful to attack the personality of any leader, but criticism of his or her actions is quite another matter
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So we are to believe that since one of the founding members of INC was a Brit, the INC in 1885 was no differrent once the leadership had passed from his generation (Dadabhai et al) to Tilak to Gandhi and Nehru. Far from revolting in any great numbers, Indians by and large actively helped and sustain the british government<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument , but one minor point is that IIRC the majority of the founding members were brits. My point was that the Brits set the tone of the debate by starting the INC. They ensured that any nationalist movement that arose would be largely confined to the english speaking elite and that many avenues of action would not even be considered acceptable because the elite were already building a considerable stake in theeconomy and almost believed that without the Brits there would be no recovery possible for India. The point is that the INC was a British plant and it is to the credit of Indians like Tilak that they finally broke away from the ideological umbilical cord that the Brits had surreptitiously wrapped around the INC. You have to admit that starting the INC was a master stroke by the Brits
In reality their expectation were right on the button until Jallianwallahbagh . It was only then that the educated elite in India realized that the brits would resort to any measure to retain their hold in India.
Also , I have to be careful and not be unduly harsh on the average Indian during that period. The average Indian was poverty stricken and barely able to survive after 7 centuries of semislavery. My remarks were directed at the elite. It was well known that the Birts did not believe they would overcome the uprising of 1857 (which was ignited bottoms up by the aam janata) if the Maharaja of Scindia did not come through to their aid. Sure enough Scindia did not disappoint and the rest is history. The point being a large majority of the educated elite supported British rule , Again my reading of this is that after 7 centuries of mayhem and looting and impoverishment and lawlessness in the land the elite found the Brits to be relatively an improvement and were willing to settle for a small sliver of a loaf instead of a full loaf of bread (poorna swaraj).
One final point . I do not wish to give the impression that had i been alive during those time i would have advocated violent resistance, but at the same time I do not see the need to make ahimsa a central principle in the freedom struggle. The elader that i find m,yself in ideological proximity is clearly Tilak. Gandhiji has been conveniently deified by the western world after his death, but it is a matter to ponder that during his life he had very little support from the ruling elite of any country(let alone Britain for whom he did yoeman service during the Boer war In Africa), who were generally dismissive of his tactics.
[right][snapback]42006[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the scindia issue you allude to is sad. very sad.
i blame the princely states of india squarely for the plight of the nation. they failed to unite and fight the camel jockeys. and then they played polo and wined and dined with the poms while the country was looted hollow. and yet to this day their progeny are treated like gods and a gayatri devi wins by a landslide vote.
i am convinced that to of the biggest problems in the indian psyche is #1, they cant fight and #2, they deify their "leaders" without judging objectively whether those leaders are "Sell-outs" or not.
i do see you point about how many indians thought that the poms were a better deal than the camel jockeys (which they actually were, from the pov of mass murder, though they were clearly the worse of the 2 when it came to economic exploitation)
it was NICE to know that you think that had you been alive at that time you would have advocated violent resistance. and whereas i like tilak a lot, the leader i have the greatest respect for, is netaji, and thats by a very very long distance.
btw, why are we even discussing gandhi when its amply clear that he supported the poms ?? (which ofcourse explains why the poms like him so much)
the sooner we forget that fakir the better. and then there is nehru. swearwords fail me.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was Sarojini Naidu, in a now famous quote was overheard remarking to Mountbatten (and i paraphrase)_that' you would be surprised Lord Louis, at how much it costs the Congress to keep Gandhiji in poverty'. It was well known that Gandhi was a fastidious man in many respects. Simply wearing a loin cloth does not make for simple living.
But that is not the crux of my assertion. My point is that Gandhi (and to a large extent Nehru) were afforded many facilities like writing materials and books and a desk during their incarceration which were not afforded to those like Savarkar who were sentenced to hard labor. What is the point of this assertion ? The point is that such an incarceration was not such a great hardship and was relatively benign compared to those who were sentenced to hard laborand therefore did not indicate a high level of courage on the part of Gandhiji knowing that the punishiment was easily bearable. The issue of whether Gandhiji cared for these luxuries is irrelevant, but the fact that they were there, puts a question mark on whether there was any real courage involved in his courting arrest.
Another point needs to be made. During his entire stay in South Africa, Gandhiji remained a staunch friend of the brits. It was not till jallianwallahbagh that it dawned on him that the presence of the brits in india was the problem
You must recall also that the reason i wrote the post was that i felt it was unnecessary to label Gandhiji a wimp, which i find to be unnecessarily derogatory. My view is that Indians tend to pigeonhole their leaders into saints or sinners. Well Gandhiji was neither and this constant tendency to deify our leaders takes away from the ability to look upon their achievements in an objective manner. BTw i do not deify any leader, while i find it distasteful to attack the personality of any leader, but criticism of his or her actions is quite another matter
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So we are to believe that since one of the founding members of INC was a Brit, the INC in 1885 was no differrent once the leadership had passed from his generation (Dadabhai et al) to Tilak to Gandhi and Nehru. Far from revolting in any great numbers, Indians by and large actively helped and sustain the british government<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure where you are going with this line of argument , but one minor point is that IIRC the majority of the founding members were brits. My point was that the Brits set the tone of the debate by starting the INC. They ensured that any nationalist movement that arose would be largely confined to the english speaking elite and that many avenues of action would not even be considered acceptable because the elite were already building a considerable stake in theeconomy and almost believed that without the Brits there would be no recovery possible for India. The point is that the INC was a British plant and it is to the credit of Indians like Tilak that they finally broke away from the ideological umbilical cord that the Brits had surreptitiously wrapped around the INC. You have to admit that starting the INC was a master stroke by the Brits
In reality their expectation were right on the button until Jallianwallahbagh . It was only then that the educated elite in India realized that the brits would resort to any measure to retain their hold in India.
Also , I have to be careful and not be unduly harsh on the average Indian during that period. The average Indian was poverty stricken and barely able to survive after 7 centuries of semislavery. My remarks were directed at the elite. It was well known that the Birts did not believe they would overcome the uprising of 1857 (which was ignited bottoms up by the aam janata) if the Maharaja of Scindia did not come through to their aid. Sure enough Scindia did not disappoint and the rest is history. The point being a large majority of the educated elite supported British rule , Again my reading of this is that after 7 centuries of mayhem and looting and impoverishment and lawlessness in the land the elite found the Brits to be relatively an improvement and were willing to settle for a small sliver of a loaf instead of a full loaf of bread (poorna swaraj).
One final point . I do not wish to give the impression that had i been alive during those time i would have advocated violent resistance, but at the same time I do not see the need to make ahimsa a central principle in the freedom struggle. The elader that i find m,yself in ideological proximity is clearly Tilak. Gandhiji has been conveniently deified by the western world after his death, but it is a matter to ponder that during his life he had very little support from the ruling elite of any country(let alone Britain for whom he did yoeman service during the Boer war In Africa), who were generally dismissive of his tactics.
[right][snapback]42006[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the scindia issue you allude to is sad. very sad.
i blame the princely states of india squarely for the plight of the nation. they failed to unite and fight the camel jockeys. and then they played polo and wined and dined with the poms while the country was looted hollow. and yet to this day their progeny are treated like gods and a gayatri devi wins by a landslide vote.
i am convinced that to of the biggest problems in the indian psyche is #1, they cant fight and #2, they deify their "leaders" without judging objectively whether those leaders are "Sell-outs" or not.
i do see you point about how many indians thought that the poms were a better deal than the camel jockeys (which they actually were, from the pov of mass murder, though they were clearly the worse of the 2 when it came to economic exploitation)
it was NICE to know that you think that had you been alive at that time you would have advocated violent resistance. and whereas i like tilak a lot, the leader i have the greatest respect for, is netaji, and thats by a very very long distance.
btw, why are we even discussing gandhi when its amply clear that he supported the poms ?? (which ofcourse explains why the poms like him so much)
the sooner we forget that fakir the better. and then there is nehru. swearwords fail me.