M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy

11-25-2005, 04:44 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 6 2005, 11:03 PM)jayshastri,
Actually, Gandhi was not popular in greater Punjab (Punjab, Harayana, HP), around and after partition.

gandhis lack of popularity in the punjab pales in comparism to his total lack of popularity in bengal. bengalis, for all their wizardry with words (ie. literature), still struggle to find a swearword befitting this confused anglophile.

QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 6 2005, 11:03 PM) His grand image was created later more than what he was.
During Partition time Kids used to slap his posters with shoes or paste his face with cow dung.Â Have you given thought why he went to Bengal not to Punjab when Punjab was burning. People used to curse him.

Some Indians creates temple for anyone including Lalu and Sonia, soon we may see Rahul or Priyanka.

India was not founded by Gandhi, India was there 5000 years back. Bharatvarsh formed long time back. Every era people have contributed either to destroy or to build Indic civilization.
[right][snapback]38387[/snapback][/right]

11-25-2005, 09:41 AM

QUOTE("ben ami")MK was one such stupid wimp.

Stupid he might be, wimp he was not.

11-25-2005, 11:04 AM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 09:41 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("ben ami")MK was one such stupid wimp.

Stupid he might be, wimp he was not.
[right][snapback]41969[/snapback][/right]
</div>

oh yeah... it was very brave of him to send his countrymen to die in europe in an effort to bail out the poms from the krauts.

it was also un-wimp-ish of him to ditch netaji and ditch hindus and sow the seeds of muslim appeasement and follow it up by currupting indian modern history by planting his "paltu kutta"/"chamcha" (nehru) in the hot seat.

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.

but yes... his himalayan stupidity i guess dwarfs his wimpicity.

without gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.

11-25-2005, 12:06 PM

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.

Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.

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).

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 .

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

rhytha · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2005, 09:33 PM by rhytha.)

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 01:34 AM)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.


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.

QUOTEwithout gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.


An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.

QUOTE(Kaushal)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.


The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.

QUOTEAs 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).


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.

QUOTEThe 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 .


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.

QUOTEMy 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

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?

Sunder · 11-25-2005, 10:43 PM

Shaurya, you are right in your first point that wimps do not run away, and Gandhi did not run away from PHYSICAL attacks. But when it came to negotiations, did he stand his ground ? When it came to Muslims, did he stand by his principles? When it came to partition, did he go with what he believed in? When Moplah instigated massacre took place post kilafat, did he preach non-violence to them? Au contraire.....

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEwithout gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.


An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.
</div>

Here is a small snipped on what happened in 1939. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

Clouds of World War II were gathering fast and Bose warned the Indian people and the British against dragging India into the war and the material losses she could incur. He (Bose) was elected president of the Indian National Congress twice in 1937 and in 1939, the second time defeating Gandhiji's nominee. <b>He (Bose) brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president</b> and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block (1939).

---
What made the INC decide not to side with their appointed president? Why was the INC (Including Gandhi?) unwilling to take the opportunity and kick the brithsh at a time they were in quagmire ? Why did they (the INC including Gandhi) have to agree to the british decision of Indian being a warring state?

QUOTE<b>Bose advocated complete freedom for India at the earliest, whereas the Congress Committee wanted it in phases, through a Dominion status.</b> Other younger leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru supported Bose and finally at the historic Lahore Congress convention, the Congress had to adopt Poorna Swaraj (complete freedom) as its motto.
Why did the INC want freedom in installments when the optiion was fully open ? I hope you have explanations for the illogical behavior of INC.

11-25-2005, 11:39 PM

Somehow I cant make up my mind whether MKG was good for India or not. Some random thoughts..

1. I find myself flipflopping between approving MKG methods due to the effectiveness in building the nation and then a second later as Guroos here indicate, his reactions to Moplah massacre come to mind.

2. I know people have said he was inspired by JC or the Jaina philosophy, but sometimes I think he found a Vaishya/Baniya solution when the Brahmins/Kshatriyas of the nation had failed.

3. It seems that given the spiritual (right or wrong) msg in his life ensures that the path to discrediting hinduism goes through discrediting MKG.

4. I dont know where I read this or maybe the thought came to mind but MKG attacked the very foundation of the colonial edifice -> colonialism for the good for natives and that colonial powers were actually uber-ethical mahatmas.

Cant think of anything more..

Shaurya · (This post was last modified: 11-25-2005, 11:56 PM by Shaurya.)

QUOTE(Sunder @ Nov 25 2005, 01:13 PM)Shaurya, you are right in your first point that wimps do not run away, and Gandhi did not run away from PHYSICAL attacks. But when it came to negotiations, did he stand his ground ? When it came to Muslims, did he stand by his principles? When it came to partition, did he go with what he believed in? When Moplah instigated massacre took place post kilafat, did he preach non-violence to them? Au contraire.....


Gandhi was blinded by the need to keep the masses united. He failed to see the political nature of Islam and as a result the nation paid heavily due to his and the INC's policy of appeasement. It is also true that Gandhi's doctrine of non violence and his most potent weapon (fast unto death) were used only against the Hindus and against a liberal colonial power.

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEwithout gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.

An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.


Here is a small snipped on what happened in 1939. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

Clouds of World War II were gathering fast and Bose warned the Indian people and the British against dragging India into the war and the material losses she could incur. He (Bose) was elected president of the Indian National Congress twice in 1937 and in 1939, the second time defeating Gandhiji's nominee. <b>He (Bose) brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president</b> and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block (1939).

---
What made the INC decide not to side with their appointed president? Why was the INC (Including Gandhi?) unwilling to take the opportunity and kick the brithsh at a time they were in quagmire ? Why did they (the INC including Gandhi) have to agree to the british decision of Indian being a warring state?

QUOTE<b>Bose advocated complete freedom for India at the earliest, whereas the Congress Committee wanted it in phases, through a Dominion status.</b> Other younger leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru supported Bose and finally at the historic Lahore Congress convention, the Congress had to adopt Poorna Swaraj (complete freedom) as its motto.
Why did the INC want freedom in installments when the optiion was fully open ? I hope you have explanations for the illogical behavior of INC.
[right][snapback]41991[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Gandhi did not support the militant style of Bose and his lack of commitment to the ideal of non-violence. These are the key reasons, why Bose resigned from the INC. I think even Bose realized that without Gandhi's active support it was not possible to continue to lead the Congress.

If just by saying we want freedom and we want it in 6 months was enough to get the British out, we would have achieved it a long time ago. With all due to respect to Bose as a patriot, I simply reject any notion that his method or collusion with the Axis powers would have resulted in any meaningful results for the freedom movement.

The question of why did INC wait till 1930 to declare complete independence as the goal? The answer to this lies in the confidence of our leaders in Indian society to unite against the British and then manage a land so disunited, economically and socially backward. A leader is someone who the masses follow - right. So if the leader (Bose) says march against the British and the masses do not follow, he ceases to be the leader and resigns from the post of leadership. If Gandhi says quit India in 1942 and the masses follow he gets the right to continue to occupy the leadership position. So instead of faulting these leaders blindly, one also has to look at the situation on the ground (SOG) at that point of time. It is a matter of debate as to whether the progressive method of freedom (local rule...dominion status...complete freedom) would have led us to freedom faster and in an un-partitioned manner or was the way of the young leaders at that time Nehru, Bose et al the best way or a violent struggle as symbolized by the revolutionaries the best way forward. Could alternative models led us there faster, maybe. I am convinced though that any model, which did not recognize the core realities of India at that time was destined to fail

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.

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)I think it ws unnecessary to call Gandhi a wimp to make theÂ point that many of his actions which were considered courageous or deemedÂ 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.


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?)

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.


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).
QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)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. 

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.

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)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).


yes.

the poms were quick to recognise that gandhi was afterall just one gutless soul leading a nation of gutless souls.
QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)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.


spot on.
QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)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 theÂ pusillanimous pussyfooting by the likes ofÂ Gandhi for an indefinite period.



yes, spot on, again.

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)The success of the enormous con job they pulled on the Indians should be gaged by the factÂ 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 .

true.
QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 25 2005, 12:06 PM)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]


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.

11-26-2005, 12:31 AM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 01:34 AM)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.


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.

QUOTEwithout gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.


An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.

QUOTE(Kaushal)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.


The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.

QUOTEAs 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).


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.

QUOTEThe 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 .


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.

QUOTEMy 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

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?
[right][snapback]41984[/snapback][/right]
</div>

i didnt read your whole post and dont want to either.

there's no pojnt in talking to a person who believes that non-violence (of gandhi) was a good idea, when actually the whole country was being looted hollow, when indians were being slaughtered, when muslims and tribals were being treated as the real indians, when indians were being sent to die fighting wars to save the poms.

that netaji did not have the stupid commitment towards non-violence is one of the greatest things about him.

that gandhi wanted to forgive the english and the muslims even if it meant that indians died by the thousands and their indipencence was delqayed by a dozen years if not more (all that needed to be done was break the raj army. both netaji and sarvarkar, showing deep insight, had managed to identify this part. but gandhi could not, which is why he was a political imbecile) was the stupidestest thing about this otherwise stupid man.

the poms could not have asked for a more useful thing towards prolonging and easing their stay in india, than the naked fakir.

and then came his macaulite socialist paltu kutta - nehru.

india is one unfortunate country.

but yes the fault lies in ourselves. there would be no gandhi or nehru if there werent defeatist people like you, to support them.

11-26-2005, 12:32 AM

Instead of focusing on absolutes like good and bad, it is important to focus on lessons learned from Gandhi's methods. To me they are the following:

1. Appeasement of muslims was a disastrous policy ultimately leading to the partition of the nation
2. Uniting hindu society against the evils of the caste system and the various superstitions and backward practices was as equal a need as freedom itself.
3. Non violence is an ideal, not a method to win political battles. The end justifies the means and not the other way around.

11-26-2005, 12:41 AM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Nov 25 2005, 11:39 PM)Somehow I cant make up my mind whether MKG was good for India or not. Some random thoughts..

1. I find myself flipflopping between approving MKG methods due to the effectiveness in building the nation and then a second later as Guroos here indicate, his reactions to Moplah massacre come to mind.



nothing was less effective in building the nation than gandhi's defeatist methods.

effective in building the nation would be the path of a bloody freedom, like the one advocated by lal-bal-pal, by aurobindo, netaji and sarvarkar.

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Nov 25 2005, 11:39 PM)2. I know people have said he was inspired by JC or the Jaina philosophy, but sometimes I think he found a Vaishya/Baniya solution when the Brahmins/Kshatriyas of the nation had failed.

3. It seems that given the spiritual (right or wrong) msg in his life ensures that the path to discrediting hinduism goes through discrediting MKG.

4. I dont know where I read this or maybe the thought came to mind but MKG attacked the very foundation of the colonial edifice -> colonialism for the good for natives and that colonial powers were actually uber-ethical mahatmas.

Cant think of anything more..
[right][snapback]41993[/snapback][/right]


point 2 --------------

gandhi was inspired by a completely wrong understanding of hinduism in general, and ramayan and the concept of ahimsha in particular. that he couldnt understand a bit of the mhabharat is equally apparent.

poiht 3 --------------

spirituality does not win you freedom. fighting does. killing does. blood does.

point 4 --------------

i could not understand what you meant by point 4.

kushal......... do you think india is damaged beyond repair thanks to the beevis and butthead combine.... or can we still get our facts right and most importantly chuck our defeatist attitude and become....well,... "fighters" ??

11-26-2005, 12:56 AM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 26 2005, 12:32 AM)Instead of focusing on absolutes like good and bad, it is important to focus on lessons learned from Gandhi's methods. To me they are the following:

1. Appeasement of muslims was a disastrous policy ultimately leading to the partition of the nation
2. Uniting hindu society against the evils of the caste system and the various superstitions and backward practices was as equal a need as freedom itself.
3. Non violence is an ideal, not a method to win political battles. The end justifies the means and not the other way around.
[right][snapback]41998[/snapback][/right]


yes.

point 1>>

appeasement of muslims was disastrous yes.

but partition itself wasnt bad. it allowed india to get rid of a large part of her camel jockey population. what was bad was that millions of those camel jockeys stayed back and to this day are a burden to the nation (which itself is due to the aforementioned appeasement. had the muslims been told that they'd be treated as dogs.... which i regret is NOT a sort of treatment that the muslims are given though they deserve it thorougly, they many more of them would have left for pakistan).

the other bad thing about partition was the size of the chunks given away to the camel jockeys.

pakistan should have been carved in such a way that the river sindhu and the major parts of the swaraswati valley civilization fell in india and not pakistan.

similarly, bangladesh - the MOST fertile piece of land in the whole world, should have been carved in such a way that the camel jockeys got 1/3rd of it whilst we kept 2/3rd of bengal.

but in both cases the opposite happened.

point 2)

uniting hindus against the evils of caste system was important yes. but thats due to ambedkar and sarvarkar to as equal measure as its to gandhi.

btw can some of the experts here supply any proof that the evils of caste system increased during the camel jockey era??

point 3)

yes nonviolence is an ideal and not a method to win political battles.

which is why gandhi was a moron.

he thought it (ie... non violence/ahimsha) was not just a method of winning political battles but also our freedom as well !!!

he failed to see that ahimsha was at best only an ideal with little value in life or death (of the nation/people) situations.

the ends that non-violence achieved are close to nothing, and thus vindicate just how ineffective nonviolence was and how stupid it was not to jave gone for the jugular (ie. break the pom indian army)

11-26-2005, 01:52 AM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 03:26 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 26 2005, 12:32 AM)Instead of focusing on absolutes like good and bad, it is important to focus on lessons learned from Gandhi's methods. To me they are the following:

1. Appeasement of muslims was a disastrous policy ultimately leading to the partition of the nation
2. Uniting hindu society against the evils of the caste system and the various superstitions and backward practices was as equal a need as freedom itself.
3. Non violence is an ideal, not a method to win political battles. The end justifies the means and not the other way around.
[right][snapback]41998[/snapback][/right]


yes.

point 1>>

appeasement of muslims was disastrous yes.

but partition itself wasnt bad. it allowed india to get rid of a large part of her camel jockey population. what was bad was that millions of those camel jockeys stayed back and to this day are a burden to the nation (which itself is due to the aforementioned appeasement. had the muslims been told that they'd be treated as dogs.... which i regret is NOT a sort of treatment that the muslims are given though they deserve it thorougly, they many more of them would have left for pakistan).

the other bad thing about partition was the size of the chunks given away to the camel jockeys.

pakistan should have been carved in such a way that the river sindhu and the major parts of the swaraswati valley civilization fell in india and not pakistan.

similarly, bangladesh - the MOST fertile piece of land in the whole world, should have been carved in such a way that the camel jockeys got 1/3rd of it whilst we kept 2/3rd of bengal.

but in both cases the opposite happened.

point 2)

uniting hindus against the evils of caste system was important yes. but thats due to ambedkar and sarvarkar to as equal measure as its to gandhi.

btw can some of the experts here supply any proof that the evils of caste system increased during the camel jockey era??

point 3)

yes nonviolence is an ideal and not a method to win political battles.

which is why gandhi was a moron.

he thought it (ie... non violence/ahimsha) was not just a method of winning political battles but also our freedom as well !!!

he failed to see that ahimsha was at best only an ideal with little value in life or death (of the nation/people) situations.

the ends that non-violence achieved are close to nothing, and thus vindicate just how ineffective nonviolence was and how stupid it was not to jave gone for the jugular (ie. break the pom indian army)
[right][snapback]42002[/snapback][/right]
</div>

So your position is:

1. Partition was good for India
2. Ambedkar had an equal role to play in uniting hindus of all castes? Which version of history do you read?
3. Since Gandhi supported non-violence he must be a moron

On 1, You should then thank Gandhi that it was due to his appeasement policies, which helped the creation of TSP and the reason why he was killed.

On 2, to, To set the record straight, it was Gandhi who went on a fast to oppose the british government;s idea of separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. His chief opponent was Ambedkar, who he convinced/compelled that it was not a good idea. Ambedkar, however towards the end did convert to buddhism, after independence.

On 3, Contempt alone will not help us learn from Gandhi. An analysis of his actions in the context of the given environment will allow us to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and the positive elements are retained.

11-26-2005, 03:04 AM

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

QUOTE The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.

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
QUOTESo 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

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 <span style='color:red'>unconditionally advocated violent resistance on every occasion, but at the same time I do not see the need to make ahimsa a central principle in the freedom struggle. The leader that i find myself 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.</span>

11-26-2005, 03:24 AM

QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 26 2005, 01:52 AM)So your position is:

1. Partition was good for India
2. Ambedkar had an equal role to play in uniting hindus of all castes? Which version of history do you read?
3. Since Gandhi supported non-violence he must be a moron

On 1, You should then thank Gandhi that it was due to his appeasement policies, which helped the creation of TSP and the reason why he was killed.

On 2, to, To set the record straight, it was Gandhi who went on a fast to oppose the british government;s idea of separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. His chief opponent was Ambedkar, who he convinced/compelled that it was not a good idea. Ambedkar, however towards the end did convert to buddhism, after independence.

On 3, Contempt alone will not help us learn from Gandhi. An analysis of his actions in the context of the given environment will allow us to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and the positive elements are retained.
[right][snapback]42003[/snapback][/right]


let me clarify.

#1
partition was good for india - because in parting with 2 pieces of india, we also partitioned half the camel jockey population out of india.
i do maintain that we should have partitioned a lot mre camel jockeys and a lot less land.

#2
ambedkar did more than any other indian to restore the dignity of the lower castes and pull india out of the ills of the social injustice that the caste system snowballed into. its because of him that we had someone like Tarun Das as the chairman of FICCI, that we produced a Meghnath Saha, a K R Narayanan and a lot many of other eminent people from the lower castes.

but for him india's human resource wouldnt have been tapped into, to the extent it is. i hope that in another 50 years the contribution of the underpriveledged castes in all walks of life will be as much as that of the upper castes.

too bad that some of the lower castes especially the dalits harbour separatist designs, instead of trying to latch on to the positive discrimination (rightly) handed unto them and joining the mainstream. amdedkar also did a very wise thing by not converting to christianity or islam but buddhism instead. i have no problems with the dalits becomming buddhists, for buddhists arnt millitant like christians.

#3
i support non violence too. and yet i am not a moron. and nor was gandhi a moron just cos he supported non violence.

he was a moron cos he supported non-violence as a PLAUSIBLE MEANS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE.

non-violence solves social problems, like that of discrimination, be it apartheid in south africa or the rosa parks thing in usa or closer home, the caste system.

but nonviolence and other utopian crap doesnt throw out an enemy who's out to kill your people and economically strangle your nation. non-violence is not the way to stop huns, turks, mongols or germanics.

and whats is TSP ??

seperate electorate maybe not, but reservations for s.c. in parliament and in govt jobs and education institutes is a move that i support whole heartedly.

the s.t. thingie is a sham though, since the AIT is a hoax. reservations on the masis of religion is a sham too, cos there's no "oppressed" religion in india, save hinduism.

what we need to leaen from is not gandhi's mistakes but the mistakes of the people who followed this gutless person instead of backing sarvarkar and netaji. what we need to learn from is not nehru's mistakes but from the mistakes of the people, especially in the hindi heartland, who show such fanatical devotion to this butthead and even his progeny. there'd never be any gandhi or nehru but for the support the gutless and selfrespectless people of india gave them. thats what we need to work on. as long as indians dont learn to stand up and fight when in mortal danger, as long as indians remain wimps, we will keep having jokers like these as our leaders and not firebrands like a tilak or a netaji or a patel.

11-26-2005, 03:37 AM

QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 26 2005, 03:04 AM)There are a lot of differentÂ 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

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE The point is Gandhi cared for these luxuries? I think a closer look at his life and how he lived will dispense this claim.

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
QUOTESo 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

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]
</div>

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.

11-26-2005, 05:13 AM

benami, apropos , the use of violence, I have altered my post and added the word unconditionally as a qualifier to the use of violence, meaning violence in the form of military action should be the part of the tool box of any nation or people. But its efficacy is diluted if one uses it indiscriminately. Human life is precious and i agree with General Patton that we allow the other guy to give up his life for his cause rather than give up your own. IOW finesse the situation in a non violent manner before resorting to violence. sri Krishna tries every trick in the book to avoid violent conflict in this case fratricidal) before he instructs Arjuna that the time has come to fight. so also there is a time to fight but like Field Marshall Sam Maneckshaw in 1971 we pick the time , the venue and the circumstances and not be forced into a reactionary cycle of violence

Shaurya · (This post was last modified: 11-26-2005, 08:26 AM by Shaurya.)

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 05:54 PM)let me clarify.
#1
partition was good for india - because in parting with 2 pieces of india, we also partitioned half the camel jockey population out of india.
i do maintain that we should have partitioned a lot mre camel jockeys and a lot less land.

So your position is the opposite of Savarkar, who believed in the concept of Akhand Bharat and yes he knew what was the muslim population of India.
QUOTE#2
ambedkar did more than any other indian to restore the dignity of the lower castes and pull india out of the ills of the social injustice that the caste system snowballed into. its because of him that we had someone like Tarun Das as the chairman of FICCI, that we produced a Meghnath Saha, a K R Narayanan and a lot many of other eminent people from the lower castes.

but for him india's human resource wouldnt have been tapped into, to the extent it is. i hope that in another 50 years the contribution of the underpriveledged castes in all walks of life will be as much as that of the upper castes.

too bad that some of the lower castes especially the dalits harbour separatist designs, instead of trying to latch on to the positive discrimination (rightly) handed unto them and joining the mainstream. amdedkar also did a very wise thing by not converting to christianity or islam but buddhism instead. i have no problems with the dalits becomming buddhists, for buddhists arnt millitant like christians.

A view undoubtedly popularized by the infamous writers of our history at JNU ! Please try to know a little bit more on Ambedkar, his fights with Gandhi, his support of british attemts to break hind society and his general collusion with the British to further his own personal and political goals. Arun Shourie's eminent historians will be a good start, I suggest.
QUOTE#3
i support non violence too. and yet i am not a moron. and nor was gandhi a moron just cos he supported non violence.

he was a moron cos he supported non-violence as a PLAUSIBLE MEANS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE.

non-violence solves social problems, like that of discrimination, be it apartheid in south africa or the rosa parks thing in usa or closer home, the caste system.

but nonviolence and other utopian crap doesnt throw out an enemy who's out to kill your people and economically strangle your nation. non-violence is not the way to stop huns, turks, mongols or germanics.

And yet it was this man who was the mass leader of the people. Non-violence was his credence and the people responded. Do you know of any other leader in pre-independence India who commanded the attention of the masses the way he did? Bose, Savarkar, Aurobindo did not even come close.
QUOTEand whats is TSP ??
 The State of Pakistan
QUOTEseperate electorate maybe not, but reservations for s.c. in parliament and in govt jobs and education institutes is a move that i support whole heartedly.

the s.t. thingie is a sham though, since the AIT is a hoax. reservations on the masis of religion is a sham too, cos there's no "oppressed" religion in india, save hinduism.
Without gettiig into the politics of reservations, the demand of Ambedkarites in the 1930's was for separate electorates.
QUOTEwhat we need to leaen from is not gandhi's mistakes but the mistakes of the people who followed this gutless person instead of backing sarvarkar and netaji. what we need to learn from is not nehru's mistakes but from the mistakes of the people, especially in the hindi heartland, who show such fanatical devotion to this butthead and even his progeny. there'd never be any gandhi or nehru but for the support the gutless and selfrespectless people of india gave them. thats what we need to work on. as long as indians dont learn to stand up and fight when in mortal danger, as long as indians remain wimps, we will keep having jokers like these as our leaders and not firebrands like a tilak or a netaji or a patel.
[right][snapback]42007[/snapback][/right]

We need to learn many things and possibly do not need to go too much in the past. E.g: By all accounts the NDA government gave a decent performance in its six years of rule and yet lost the elections in 2004. Why? Hint: The secret lies in knowing the dark realities of our society.

Kaushal,

You believe that Gandhi/Nehrus incarceration was benign and that the INC started as a british plan. What can I say, lucky for them and us (on that count alone) that they had the British and not the mongols as their rulers. As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!

11-26-2005, 09:43 AM

QUOTEPlease try to know a little bit more on Ambedkar, his fights with Gandhi, his support of british attemts to break hind society and his general collusion with the British to further his own personal and political goals. Arun Shourie's eminent historians will be a good start, I suggest
Perhaps you are referring to 'Worshipping false Gods' by Shourie?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?