<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Nov 25 2005, 01:34 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 01:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->wimps are those who cant fight. gandhi was the definition of one. he was also spineless as he was gutless - for he send his brethern to die in the boer war and the world wars and bail out the poms from japanese camps in burma.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correction, wimps are those who run away from a fight. Gandhi never ran away and never asked people to run away. It takes guts to face lathis and bullets and not retaliate. You can question that policy but you cannot call it wimpyness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->without gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+-->QUOTE(Kaushal)<!--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-->
The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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. 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-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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. 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. 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-->
Again a claim made in hindsight without looking at some of the ground realities. Until, Gandhi, even the INC, leave alone a Savarkar or Aurobindo did not have the mass national following so critically needed to unite the country against an Invader. India was splintered into Kingdoms, regions, religions and castes to such a horrible degree that it was easy for any ruler to come in, dominate a small part, consolidate and grow from that point on, into adjacent areas. This is what happenned with the invasion of Islam and repeated by the British. Gandhi served a very important need of the INC and that was to take the struggle from a few pant wallahs to the masses of dhoti wallahs. He was right to gauge that in order to arouse the masses against colonial rule he had to unite the country. In this process he got some things right and some others wrong. He was right to recognize that the hindu masses would connect only with a message underlined in hindu spirituality. He was right, struggled hard and succeeded in maintaining the unity of the Harijans with the main stream of Hindu society. Where he went wrong was in the appeasement of muslims to keep them united with the hindus. This appeasement is what caused his death at the hands of Godse. We can debate that not Ahimsa but armed revoultion would have gotten us freedom earlier. It looks easy at a superficial level that about 100,000 british could have been thrown out through armed resistance - true if there was a leader/organization capable of uniting the masses aganst the incredibly disunity of the Indian masses at that time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that would be the purpose of debating Gandhi, not him as an individual (even his worst critics agree that you cannot fault his intentions, so i think we should leave that one aside) but his effect as a leader, where he was successful, where he was not. In what circumstances were the decisions made. What did Indian society look like? Where did we go wrong? What were our weaknesses? What decisions did he make that we disastrous/beneficial? Why did he make them?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correction, wimps are those who run away from a fight. Gandhi never ran away and never asked people to run away. It takes guts to face lathis and bullets and not retaliate. You can question that policy but you cannot call it wimpyness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->without gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+-->QUOTE(Kaushal)<!--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-->
The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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. 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-->
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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. 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. 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-->
Again a claim made in hindsight without looking at some of the ground realities. Until, Gandhi, even the INC, leave alone a Savarkar or Aurobindo did not have the mass national following so critically needed to unite the country against an Invader. India was splintered into Kingdoms, regions, religions and castes to such a horrible degree that it was easy for any ruler to come in, dominate a small part, consolidate and grow from that point on, into adjacent areas. This is what happenned with the invasion of Islam and repeated by the British. Gandhi served a very important need of the INC and that was to take the struggle from a few pant wallahs to the masses of dhoti wallahs. He was right to gauge that in order to arouse the masses against colonial rule he had to unite the country. In this process he got some things right and some others wrong. He was right to recognize that the hindu masses would connect only with a message underlined in hindu spirituality. He was right, struggled hard and succeeded in maintaining the unity of the Harijans with the main stream of Hindu society. Where he went wrong was in the appeasement of muslims to keep them united with the hindus. This appeasement is what caused his death at the hands of Godse. We can debate that not Ahimsa but armed revoultion would have gotten us freedom earlier. It looks easy at a superficial level that about 100,000 british could have been thrown out through armed resistance - true if there was a leader/organization capable of uniting the masses aganst the incredibly disunity of the Indian masses at that time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that would be the purpose of debating Gandhi, not him as an individual (even his worst critics agree that you cannot fault his intentions, so i think we should leave that one aside) but his effect as a leader, where he was successful, where he was not. In what circumstances were the decisions made. What did Indian society look like? Where did we go wrong? What were our weaknesses? What decisions did he make that we disastrous/beneficial? Why did he make them?