11-26-2005, 12:19 AM
firstly let me confess that your post made for very pleasant reading. its been a long time since i have agreed so much with the many points in one single post. you hit many nails right on the head.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think it ws unnecessary to call Gandhi a wimp to make the point that many of his actions which were considered courageous or deemed to be such by a gullible public taken in by his sartorial habits (e.g. loincloth and not much else), do not stand deeper scrutiny. For example he was generally incarcerated in the Agha Khan palace which was far more luxurious than his permanent abode.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
un-necessary it may have been, but thats just because its not necessary to re-iterate that the sky is afterall blue (if you know what i mean).
i mean, as you said... they dont stand deeper scrutiny. so its more than obvious, that he was exactly what i called him.
but why take offence when someone calls gandhi by the sort of adjectives (ie,. wimp etc) he deserves ? is it because its gone into the psyche of indians that gandhi and nehru are gods (as are their progeny?)
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
gandhi's "courage" came from the millions of fools who followed him like the rats followed the pied piper.
on his own gandhi had it not in him to do an aurobindo (ie. throw bombs and kill englishmen).
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the INC (and by inference Gandhi) claiming all credit for independence, it must be remembered that Congress was a creature created by the Brits (founded by an Englishman by the name of Allan Octavian Hume) so that they could channel nationalist actvity into modes of conduct they could deal with in an easy manner. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
its precisely the people whom the english call the "patriots" (ie. the gandhi, nehru brigade) who never bothered the poms one bit, whilst the likes of sarvarkar, aurobindo, bipin chandra pal and that greatest of india's sons - netaji... all of whom were described as "terrorists" by the poms, were the ones who instilled fear in the damned poms.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->further, they were of course right in their expectation, that Indians would not revolt in great numbers even if they incarcerated Gandhi as long as they did not humiliate him excessively(and perhaps not even then).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.
the poms were quick to recognise that gandhi was afterall just one gutless soul leading a nation of gutless souls.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real revolutionaries they were afraid of were the Savarkars and the Aurobindos, because if the average Indian discovered that with a little bit of spine they could send the Brits packing, and discover that the Emperor (the real one in London) had no clothes and could be driven out of the subcontinet with relative ease.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
spot on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the Brits gaged the Indian very precisely, that long centuries of submissive behavior nurtured by invading marauders had robbed him of any self respect and respect for his own countrymen and leaders, and they wagered that they could easily deal with the pusillanimous pussyfooting by the likes of Gandhi for an indefinite period.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, spot on, again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The success of the enormous con job they pulled on the Indians should be gaged by the fact that they ruled India for 170 years ,a land of more than 100 million inhabitants with less than 100,000 englishman at any given time during that period .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is let us stop fixating on Gandhi.The fault dear Brutus,(if i may corrupt Shakespeare) lies in us for not having the guts to throw the rascals out much. earlier
[right][snapback]41978[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my point is also that lest stop fixating on gandhi and give credit to the ones who really deserve it - the bipin pals, the sarvarkars and the netajis.....as also to circumstance (ie..ww2 etc)
and yes, the fault lies not in our (super)stars (like gandhi and nehru) but in ourselves.
lies in the fact that we were reduced, by 1000 years of barbarian camel jockey (ie. muslim) onslaught, to such spineless, unity-less, gutless and commonsense-less idiots that we had it not in us to unite under a sarvarkar or a netaji and instead backed the most nutered of them all (ie, gandhi)... much to the convenience of the poms.
the poms could not have asked for a more selfrespect-less people than hindus.
i agree with you many times over.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I think it ws unnecessary to call Gandhi a wimp to make the point that many of his actions which were considered courageous or deemed to be such by a gullible public taken in by his sartorial habits (e.g. loincloth and not much else), do not stand deeper scrutiny. For example he was generally incarcerated in the Agha Khan palace which was far more luxurious than his permanent abode.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
un-necessary it may have been, but thats just because its not necessary to re-iterate that the sky is afterall blue (if you know what i mean).
i mean, as you said... they dont stand deeper scrutiny. so its more than obvious, that he was exactly what i called him.
but why take offence when someone calls gandhi by the sort of adjectives (ie,. wimp etc) he deserves ? is it because its gone into the psyche of indians that gandhi and nehru are gods (as are their progeny?)
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
gandhi's "courage" came from the millions of fools who followed him like the rats followed the pied piper.
on his own gandhi had it not in him to do an aurobindo (ie. throw bombs and kill englishmen).
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the INC (and by inference Gandhi) claiming all credit for independence, it must be remembered that Congress was a creature created by the Brits (founded by an Englishman by the name of Allan Octavian Hume) so that they could channel nationalist actvity into modes of conduct they could deal with in an easy manner. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
its precisely the people whom the english call the "patriots" (ie. the gandhi, nehru brigade) who never bothered the poms one bit, whilst the likes of sarvarkar, aurobindo, bipin chandra pal and that greatest of india's sons - netaji... all of whom were described as "terrorists" by the poms, were the ones who instilled fear in the damned poms.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->further, they were of course right in their expectation, that Indians would not revolt in great numbers even if they incarcerated Gandhi as long as they did not humiliate him excessively(and perhaps not even then).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.
the poms were quick to recognise that gandhi was afterall just one gutless soul leading a nation of gutless souls.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real revolutionaries they were afraid of were the Savarkars and the Aurobindos, because if the average Indian discovered that with a little bit of spine they could send the Brits packing, and discover that the Emperor (the real one in London) had no clothes and could be driven out of the subcontinet with relative ease.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
spot on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the Brits gaged the Indian very precisely, that long centuries of submissive behavior nurtured by invading marauders had robbed him of any self respect and respect for his own countrymen and leaders, and they wagered that they could easily deal with the pusillanimous pussyfooting by the likes of Gandhi for an indefinite period.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, spot on, again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The success of the enormous con job they pulled on the Indians should be gaged by the fact that they ruled India for 170 years ,a land of more than 100 million inhabitants with less than 100,000 englishman at any given time during that period .
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is let us stop fixating on Gandhi.The fault dear Brutus,(if i may corrupt Shakespeare) lies in us for not having the guts to throw the rascals out much. earlier
[right][snapback]41978[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my point is also that lest stop fixating on gandhi and give credit to the ones who really deserve it - the bipin pals, the sarvarkars and the netajis.....as also to circumstance (ie..ww2 etc)
and yes, the fault lies not in our (super)stars (like gandhi and nehru) but in ourselves.
lies in the fact that we were reduced, by 1000 years of barbarian camel jockey (ie. muslim) onslaught, to such spineless, unity-less, gutless and commonsense-less idiots that we had it not in us to unite under a sarvarkar or a netaji and instead backed the most nutered of them all (ie, gandhi)... much to the convenience of the poms.
the poms could not have asked for a more selfrespect-less people than hindus.
i agree with you many times over.