M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy

09-05-2005, 02:49 AM

First, take a deep breath. Now. Being an Indian what would make you most happy 20 years from now? A prosperous India united and strong? or weak and confused India?

Another thing, let me name some leaders. Martin Luther King Jr., Churchill, George Washington, Alexander,Cesar, Mao, What do people know them by? their follies or their achievements. E.g. how many people talk about Martin Luther King's extramarital affair, which was well documented by FBI to blackmail him? If history was forgiving to follies of virtually every great leader of past, why do you expect Gandhi and is followers to be absolutely without fault?
You may have valid grievances against Gandhi. and having more people agree with you may perhaps give you satisfaction. But how productive would that be for the future of India? Is future of India important to you? could you imagine a prosperous future of a country whose 'founding fathers' are tainted with allegations and doubt? Whom would we unite behind? What Ideology would you fight for? I don't recommend false history or lies. Not because it is immoral, but because hidden lies would create greater problems later. There is no point in denying mistakes that Gandhi did. If they surface a progressive Indian should accept it and politely down play it. That would not be lying. At times like these look back to the Shastras and Purans. Remeber Gita and see if it makes more sense. Would Bhishma been killed if Arjun did not hide behind Shikhandi? Would Duryodhana's brother been killed if Krishna did not hint Bhima how to kill him?
In the end if you or any one else can make sense how slanderous remark about Gandhi would help India become more united and stronger, I would love to know. Every step we take, every fights we start, every group we create, should only be for a stronger future of India. We cannot start our own fights that leave us exhausted and India weak. Every ounce of our streangth and every grain of knowledge should be <b>dedicated solely towards glorious future of India</b>

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-05-2005, 04:05 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEIn the end if you or any one else can make sense how slanderous remark about Gandhi would help India become more united and stronger, I would love to know. 
It will help India become more united and stronger because Hindus will then learn some real history and will organise themselves, the fate of India and Sanatana Dharma are tied together unlike what secular morons say, Hinduism is the glue that holds India together and when Gandhis mistakes are exposed Hindus will give up his failed policy of ahimsa and militarise themselves as Savarkar advocated. Today Gandhis name is only used by Muslims (who never listened to him when he was alive and even after his death), secularists and all kinds of anti hindu people, so higlighting Gandhis mistakes will help Hindus learn from our past failures, when 80% of the country still believes in Gandhian ahimsa then India will never succeed and finally Hindus will stop begging Muslims to join them (like Gandhi did) and will do what they have to do by themselves. Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's advice to Hindus should be followed if Hindus have any hope of making Bharat a superpower, here is what he has to say about the Hindu-Muslim problem:

QUOTE"The problem before Hindus, therefore, is not to bring about his unnatural union between Hindus and Muslims. Their task is to achieve unity within their own community, and to bring an end to the folly of those practising Hindus (Hindu dharmaablambi) who insult some people by calling them 'low caste'. Even more pressing is the need for Hindus to think about how they may let the (religious) truth within them blossom like a flower in their everyday lives and public behaviour. Those who think do not speak, those who speak do not act and those who act are not accepted. If this evil is not checked, even God will not be able to mend the countless holes that are being punched into the fabric of the (Hindus) community.

"This is the problem and this is the duty. There is no point in wailing or beating our breasts because Hindu-Muslim unity has not come about. If we stop our own crying, we may be able to hear crying from their quarters.

"Hindustan is the homeland of the Hindus. Therefore it is the duty of the Hindus alone to free this nation from the chains of servitude. Muslims look towards Turkey and Arabia, their hearts are not in India. What is the use of bemoaning this facts? To appeal to them in the name of the Soil of Mother India is as pointless as talking to a brick wall. Today it is vital that we understand this point - that this work is the work only of Hindus, and no one else. There is no need to get agitated counting how numerous is the Muslim population. Numbers are not the ultimate truth in this world. There are greater truths, in whose scale of values the arithmetic of counting heads has no place"

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0605/1.html
This is in marked contrast to Gandhis policy of grovelling before Muslims and begging them for unity and Hindus still believe in this grovelling before Muslims for unity and by highlighting Gandhis mistakes Hindus will finally get rid of this servile mentality. No other person had a more harmful effect on Hindu society and India in the last 100 years than Gandhi and we still eulogise him and make him into a God.

09-05-2005, 04:43 AM

Idea of secular country is the foundation of India. Secularism is the way of future. Hinduism is secular. Hinduism is the way of the future. Hindus and Muslims cannot be friends. Not because secularism is wrong, but because Islam cannot be secular. Hindu fanaticism cannot be a response to muslim fanaticism. (not to say we join our hands when they try to attack us). Being of higher culture most hindus would not opt for barbaric acts of savagery without provocation. This need not be our weakness. a Lion has a powerful jaws and sharp claws that can tear humans in peaces. But man has powerful brain. Its pointless if a man tries to fight a lion like a lion, its no bravery. A cleaver man takes a insignificant stick and a small rope to make a bow, another stick to make an arrow. and now a weak looking man with weak looking sticks is stronger than the lion. The way to kill a bull is to let him run after you enough. Man being lean can run more a bull being huge will get tired soon and fall under his own weight. you will never be able to get enough support from educated Hindus to behave like barbarians to get ride of Muslims. I totally agree with you that muslims <b>as long as they follow Kuran</b> verbeterm they cannot leave in peace with hindus. But fight with Islam is a foolish venture. though we know the reality of Islam and its teachings a wise man should never directly confront the whole Islam religion. If you preach anti Islam people will shun you out even if you are right. But if you preach Secularism, tolerance people will listen to you. If you are successful in making every one value secularism and tolerance more than their life then they will fight with you against intolerance and barbarism.

09-05-2005, 11:05 PM

To understand why Gandhiji supported the Khilafat movement, one has to look the crisis that emerged in the Muslim league leadership and the metamorphis of the national struggle.

The Muslim League was formed by members of the aristocracy, upper middle class muslims and connivance of the Brits. It was lead by "Syeds", the self proclaimed purer, truer and whiter Muslims who hailed from Central Asia or better, Arabia. Syed Ahmed Khan himself once said he was an "Indian, but not an aboriginal" when questioned about his roots by a Britisher. Others like hakim Ajmal khan, The strutting Nawabs, Syed Amir Ali were all of the same flock. They were totally subservient to the British, did every bidding of their masters.
But around 1915, a younger and more modern leadership under Ali brothers, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad rose from the ranks. They bros weren't truly nationalistic, but they resented the British rule in India. probably they were pissed by the British actions aginst Turkey during the Serbian war or they were just subscribing to the Global Ummah ideology. Unlike the earlier mustache-petes, these new leaders were ready to ally with the mainstream national movement, at least to just spite the Brits. The Lucknow pact of 1916 was a major turnaround.

This metamorphis could be tuned into and maybe merged into the National Movement, Gandhiji prolly calculated. As he was about to launch the largest and most radical mass, national movement india has ever seen....... Calpihate and the empire was done away by the Brits. The Deobandi, Calcutta and Aligarh movement were pretty much the leaders of the Muslim movement in those times. They were major pissed with the humiliation of the khalifa and all Muslims throughout India were, for the first time, showing signs of political awakening. All india Khilafat Committee was created after a tie up b/w the INC and the Khilafatists... Gandhiji as the President. Not many realise it, but the Khilafat movement was a parallel nonco-operation movement that was launched along with the Non-Co-operation movement of the Congress.

However, this was forced unity, unity established from the top.......it didn''t trickle down due to factors known to perhaps everyone here. Soon the bhai-bhai turned to an orgy of violence in many regions as the frustrated and tense Indians took on each other. But even then the Ali brothers stayed with G, the break....a very bitter one at that came later. The way the NC movement was turning, the communal color it wa taking up was the reason Gandhiji suspended it. Chauri Chaura was just an excuse.....

My point is, there were Muslim leaders who tried to forge a Hindu-Muslim unity... but the ground realities and the absence of real support for these leaders torpedoed the whole thing. Leaders like G and co tried their hand.... and it worked fr the most part till the ML changed its strategy after their utter rout in the 1937 elections.
Its easy to polemicaly blame Gandhiji for "grovelling", but he realised that a mass movement will not be truly a mass movement when Muslims who constituted 25% of British india stayed away. Already the British refused many Cong demands as they accused the INC of being just a Hindu party not representing "this downtrodden Mussalmans of India"............ oh, they did play that game well! The "adjustements" like Khilafat were done to show them that the Hindus understand Muslim problems and thus get their faith and support.

******************************
I know many people hate Gandhiji here, almost a Pavlovian or rather Polemical reaction. I'm not here to try and convert you.... each one can ride his favurite pony. But i would like to say that old man g was just a man... could make mistakes. And he had made a few of them. The Khilafat move was a mistake he made in his days of pure idealism. But notice how his program radicalised and he became more politically pragmatic over the years.
Idealism to Agrarian radicalism to Civil Disobedience to silence on Quit India movement violence and finally giving the green signal for Indian ops in Kashmir.
A superficial analysis of his programs and his political thought alone would reveal the genius of that man.

His eccentricities and sometimes ridiculous ideals were still there....But then he was only human. And can anyone deny the role he played as the leader of the national movement for 3 decades? Heck, the Cong leadership didn't want to launch the Quit India movement, but G's threat of "launching another movement from the sands of India which will destroy even the Congress" capped the issue. His political program was responsible for the slow yet significant changes in brit governance in favour of Indians... as seen from the Acts of 1919 and 1935.
As Ptolmey said about Alexander "His failures tower over other men's achievements".

Just my 2 cents as "Devil's Advocate".

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 09-05-2005, 11:27 PM by acharya.)

The Khilafat move was a mistake he made in his days of pure idealism. But notice how his program radicalised and he became more politically pragmatic over the years. Idealism to Agrarian radicalism to Civil Disobedience to silence on Quit India movement violence and finally giving the green signal for Indian ops in Kashmir.
A superficial analysis of his programs and his political thought alone would reveal the genius of that man.

I agree with this. The support to Khalifat movement was a geo-political game at the same level as the British empire geo-political game. It was supposed to undermine the the entire British game of getting the Ummah to support them long term after WWI.
It was supposed to split the Ummah plan of the British to create a homogenous muslim block out of Hindustan Muslim who will be subservient to the British and Anglo Saxons after the fall of the Ottoman empire.

Even in 1942 timing of the Quit India movement was to hurt the British global aims during the WWII when it delayed the Allies plan for the second front.

09-06-2005, 02:03 AM

QUOTEwhen it delayed the Allies plan for the second front. 
I think it was due to US.

Bharatvarsh · 09-06-2005, 04:50 AM

QUOTESoon the bhai-bhai turned to an orgy of violence in many regions as the frustrated and tense Indians took on each other.
I am sorry but I find this highly insulting to the Hindu victims of Muslim fanaticism, the riots were totally one sided and were led by Muslims and thousands of Hindus were killed and thousands more forcible converted and Hindu woman dishonoured and you say "Indians took on each other" as if Hindus also participated in the riots, the riots were so horrifying that Annie Besant herself wrote a letter to Gandhi chastising him for his callous attitude towards Hindus and even Ambedkar condemned them, Gandhi on the other hand praised the Moplah Muslim fanatics as God fearing men and said that there was only one case of forced conversion which was big lie. Here are Ambedkar and Annie Besant in their own words:

QUOTEDr Ambedkar wrote in 1940: âThe blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplahs in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over southern India, a wave of horrified feelings had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of congratulations to the Moplahs on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion,â

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...&pid=85&page=41
QUOTEMrs Annie Besant was completely moved. She wrote: âMalabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India. How sympathy with the Moplahs is felt by the Muslims outside Malabar has been proved by the defence raised by them for their fellow-believers, and by Mr Gandhi himself, who stated that they had acted as they believed that religion taught them to act. I fear that this is true; but there is no place in a civilised land for people who believe that their religion teaches them to murder, rob, rape, burn or drive away out of the country those who refuse to apostatise from their ancestral faiths, except in its schools under surveillance, or its goals,â

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...&pid=85&page=41
QUOTEBut i would like to say that old man g was just a man... could make mistakes. And he had made a few of them.
It is very easy for people to start saying that he was only human and that he committed mistakes but some of the mistakes he did are unpardonable <b>[edited]</b>, i mean the man was so callous to Hindu and Sikh refugees who after having lost everything had came to Delhi and took shelter in the worthless mosques of muslims and this man went on a fast to make them evacuate the mosques in the middle of winter when it was bitter cold without arranging any alternative shelter for them and eventually he succeeded, how can any sane human being do that?, and his advice to Hindu refugees was that they should all go back to Pakistan and voluntarily die at the hands of their Muslim brothers <b>(edited)</b>

09-06-2005, 08:47 PM

Bharatvarsh, your anger is valid if what you said is true. I doubt though, it would be as black and white as you indicate here. There has to be more factors involved then perhaps you are aware of. But even if what you say is just as it is, hate towards Gandhi is not going to help your cause at this moment. The image of our countries founding fathers is like image of deities in a temple. People go to that Image to get inspiration from what they know to be true about those deities. eg People feel energized when they look at Kali because they remember what they know of her strength and power. Any sensible person knows that it is not a magic of Kali in the heavens nor the Magic of the Image of Kali that inspires bravery in the worshipers. It is the faith and beliefs of the worshipers in Kali that inspires bravery. Similarly in this temple of âthe nation of Indiaâ there are Images of our âFounding Fathersâ. People go to visit these Images to get inspiration on how to better our country. It is only unchallenged faith and unshaken beliefs in the values of our founding fathers that would motivate us to better the nation. Tainting the images of our founding father is going to shake our resolve and put in doubt our strength. All the Idols in the temples(be it a temple of religion or temple of the nation) should be pious, clean and free from any taint. It could be replaced by a better idols but never, never , never be left tainted. If you strongly believe Gandhi is not the correct role model for the Future India you should first politely offer a better and apt replacement. Donât spit on the âGodsâ that are on the altar. âGodsâ are not present there any more, they are only stones, metals and sands, you are insulting the temple and the worshipers.

09-06-2005, 11:03 PM

jayshastri,
Actually, Gandhi was not popular in greater Punjab (Punjab, Harayana, HP), around and after partition. 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. 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.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-07-2005, 12:15 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

jayshastri what I said was true, here are some references:
QUOTESpeech at Prayer Meeting
New Delhi
May 1, 1947

...If the Hindus of Bihar act in frenzy again I shall fast unto death. In the same way, if the Muslims in Noakhali lose their heads, I shall lay down my life there. I have earned that right. I belong to the Muslims no less than to the Hindus. I belong to the Sikhs, Parsis and Christians in the same measure. I may be crying in the wilderness, but whatever I say would be on behalf of all and addressed to all.

But Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organization. Once he has affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindu be killed at the hands of the Muslims? I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. But why in the first place would a Muslim kill at all when he has been asked not to do it?

But the thing is that they have still to realize that in politics force cannot avail...

As it is, there are too many people in the world who meet force by force. They even talk about killing two for one, let alone one for one. But, I say there will never be any peace even if you kill not ten but a hundred for one. There is nothing brave about dying without killing. It is an illusion of bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life without killing.

You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain....

(Prarthana-Pravachan Part I pp 54-8, CWOMG vol 87 pg 394-5) 
QUOTE(a)"We should with a cool mind reflect when we are being swept away. Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo eve their existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely, may they, even rule the world, we shall inhabit the world. At least we should never fear death. We are destined to be born and die; then why need we feel gloomy over it? If all of us die with a smile on our lips, we shall enter a new life. We shall originate a new Hindustan." (6th April 1947).

http://indpride.com/nathuramgodse.html
QUOTEIn 1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as âShahid Saheb-a Martyr Soul (!) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but after coming to Delhi, Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so. But he could safely trample over the feelings of the tolerant Hindu. To belie this belief I determined to prove to Gandhiji that the Hindu too could be intolerant when his honor was insulted.

http://indpride.com/nathuramgodse.html
QUOTE122. Every day that dawned brought forth the news about thousands of Hindus being massacred. Sikhs numbering 15000 having been shot dead, hundreds of women torn of their clothes being made naked and taken into procession and that Hindu women were being sold in the market places like cattle. Thousands and thousands of Hindus had to run away for their lives and they had lost everything of theirs. A long line of refugees extending over the length of 40 miles was moving towards the Indian Union. How was this terrible happening counter acted by the Union Government? Oh! by throwing bread to the refugees from the air!

123. These atrocities and the blood-bath would have to some extent been checked if the Indian Government had lodged strong protests against the treatment meted out to the Minorities in Pakistan or even if a cold threat had been held out to the Muslims in Indian of being treated in the same manner as a measure of retaliation. But the Government which was under the thumb of Gandhiji resorted to absolutely different ways. If the grievances of the minorities in Pakistan were voiced in the Press, it was dubbed as an attempt to spread disaffection amongst the communities and made an offence and the Congress Governments in several Provinces started demanding securities under the press Emergency Powers Act, one after the other. ' Is it not the same situation today, try and criticize a Muslim even when he deserves to be criticized and you would be called Communal as if a Muslim can do no wrongs!'

124. When all these happenings were taking place in Pakistan, Gandhiji did not even by a single word protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. The Muslim atrocities resorted to in Pakistan to root out the Hindu culture and the Hindu society have been entirely due to the teachings of Gandhiji and his behavior. 'Is it not the same case today. Hindus in Bangladesh were recently killed, raped, ill-treated but the Indian government did not raise a finger, blame it on Gandhian/Nehruvian influence buddy.'

127. One of the seven conditions imposed by Gandhiji for the breaking of his fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Refugees. This condition was to the effect that all the mosques in Delhi, which were occupied by the Refugees, should be vacated or got vacated and be made over to the Muslims. Gandhiji got this condition accepted by the Government and a number of leaders by sheer coercion brought to bear upon them by his fast. On that day I happened to be in Delhi and I have personally seen some of the events that have occurred in getting this condition carried out to its full. Those were the days of bitter or extreme cold and on the day Gandhiji broke his fast it was also raining. Owing to this unusual weather condition, the pricking atmosphere made even person in well-placed positions shiver. Families after families of refugees who had come to Delhi for shelter were driven out and while doing so no provision was made for their shelter and stay. One or two families taking with them their children, women-folk and what little belongings they had with them and saying, 'Gandhiji, do give us a place for shelter' even approached and came to Birla House. But was it ever possible for the cries of these poor Hindu people to reach Gandhiji living in the palatial Birla House!

While Gandhiji made a demand for the evacuation of the mosques by the refugees had he also imposed a condition to the effect that the temples in Pakistan should be handed over to the Hindus by the Muslims, or some other condition, that would have shown that Gandhiji's teaching of non-violence, his anxiety for Hindu-Muslim Unity and his belief in soul force would have been taken or understood as being impartial, spiritual and non-communal. Gandhiji was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found any Muslim who could have shown some grief if the fast ended in the death of Gandhiji.

http://indpride.com/nathuramgodse.html
Hindus can keep following Gandhi, in the end all Hindus will end up just like Kashmiri Hindus.

09-07-2005, 12:17 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 6 2005, 11:03 PM)jayshastri,
Actually, Gandhi was not popular in greater Punjab, around and after partition. His grand image was created later more than what he was.
During Partition time Kids used to slap his posters with sleepers or paste 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 Indian creates temple for anyone including Lalu and Sonia, soon we may see Rahul or Priyanka.
[right][snapback]38387[/snapback][/right]


I don't mean temple in literal sense. Since the first Mogul invaded India till now Hindus have faced more terror then any other group of people. We could genuinely be angry about all of that. And in the hindsight put correct blame on deserving person. That would be crying on the past. How is it planning for future? Could you objectively tell me how is defaming Gandhi now be better for future unity of India. I can on the other hand step wise tell you how we should unit behind the âImageâ of Gandhi. I can objectively prove, why from this point on only praises of Gandhi would be beneficial for the unity of our country. Again it is not about Gandhi any more it is about how could we use the image or beliefs about Gandhi to motivate the future generations of India in the correct direction. We know some of the good things about Gandhi. We add some more positive aspect to it. We make him a model founding father and inspire future generation. In the end if you can convince me, progressive, motivated, well-meaning and patriotic Indians will unite strongly against Gandhi, and India has a greater chance in becoming a more united and stronger nation, just like Jews united against Hitler, I would defend Gandhiâs image no more. Do read my previous replies on this thread and let me know if any of what I says makes any sense.

09-07-2005, 12:25 AM

I don't consider Gandhi as a role model, he had done some good thing but lot of others also contributed more than him. He was a Congress leader when British Empire was collapsing because of prolonged war in Europe.

One should understand politics of pre independence and Gandhi was one of the entities of that period. He adjusted his politics according to time. Like any other politicians he also played double standard game.

My dedication is to Bharat Mata. One should unite behind Bharat Mata and commitment to Rich Indic civilization and its value. Bharat Mata is not image but a reality and no need to create false stories about her or image like one has to do for Gandhi.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-07-2005, 12:31 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

QUOTEI can on the other hand step wise tell you how we should unit behind the âImageâ of Gandhi.
Gandhi's image is basically that of a nonviolent suffering man, if u have to unite behind Gandhi then we have to follow his ideology, how can u unite behind the image of a man without even respecting/following his ideology? and his ideology is a failed ideology which we cannot follow, as Mudy said plenty of others contributed to India and we need to unite behind the rich civilisation of India, no man is greater than the country.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-07-2005, 01:00 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

People refuse to believe that Gandhi was heavily influenced by Christianity and that most of his ideas were Christian teachings, here I am quoting from his own autobiography which shows how Christian Gandhi had become:
QUOTEI sought an appointment, which he readily gave me. When I went, I found that his wife was on her death-bed. His house was simple. In the Congress I had seen him in a coat and trousers, but I was glad to find him now wearing a Bengali dhoti and shirt. I liked his simple mode of dress, though I myself then wore a Parsi coat and trousers. Without much ado I presented my difficulties to him. He asked : 'Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin ?

Â Â 'I do,' said I.

Â Â 'Well then Hinduism offers no absolution therefrom, Christianity does;' and added : 'the wages of sin is death, and the Bible says that the only way of deliverance is surrender unto Jesus.'

Â Â I put forward Bhakti-marga (the path of devotion) of the Bhagavad Gita, but to no avail, I thanked him for his goodness. He failed to satisfy me, but I benefited by the interview.

http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.j...ng=en&cat=books
So he believed in original sin, the central belief of Christian dogma without which Jesus could not have suffered for the sins of humanity, I have never come across any Hindu who believed in the original sin, it is a Christian doctrine which Gandhi believed which just shows how much he was influenced by Christian ideas.

09-07-2005, 01:55 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Sep 7 2005, 12:31 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEI can on the other hand step wise tell you how we should unit behind the âImageâ of Gandhi.
Gandhi's image is basically that of a nonviolent suffering man, if u have to unite behind Gandhi then we have to follow his ideology, how can u unite behind the image of a man without even respecting/following his ideology? and his ideology is a failed ideology which we cannot follow, as Mudy said plenty of others contributed to India and we need to unite behind the rich civilisation of India, no man is greater than the country.
[right][snapback]38392[/snapback][/right]
</div>

I agree totally we don't HAVE TO follow behind Gandhi. But he does not have to be tainted and ripped off our history. He and his ideology could be respectfully faded away if that's best for the country. But there needs to be some person or ideology that could be better than Gandhi. This Ideology should be SEEN as next generation ideology not an Anti Gandhi Ideology. We must be a nation of only Heroes. With newer Heroes in every generation. I donât mind Gandhi being forgotten at all. As long as him and his Ideology is replaced by something much better and progressive. I do mind though Gandhi being an integral part of Indian History and Identity and being tainted. That is what I meant in my previous post when I said âdonât spit on idols on the Altarâ.
Please Sir, donât let your anger and set notions stop you from seeing a fresh perspective to achieve your goal. We all have the same goal. Please make your GOAL the main objective, please be humble to see possibly a more efficient approach to it.

Bharatvarsh · (This post was last modified: 09-07-2005, 02:15 AM by Bharatvarsh.)

This is what the man who was supposed to have liberated India was saying about the British rule after the Swadeshi movement gained prominance due to Bengal's partition:
QUOTEShould the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that, even if we wanted to, India is not in a position to end it. By this we do not suggest that the British Raj is very powerful and that India has had incalculable advantages from it, or that India could not, if it so willed, remove British rule. But we hold that, whatever the motives of the British in coming to India, we have much to learn from them. They are brave and considerate people, and are on the whole honest. Blind where self-interest is concerned, they give unstinted admiration for bravery wherever found. They are a powerful nation, and India enjoys not a little protection under them. It is not, therefore, desirable that British rule in India should disappear.

Should we then repudiate such men as Lala Lajpat Rai? That, too, is not possible. In our view, the men of the Punjab and the others who carry on the agitation are brave men. They are patriots and endure hardships for the sake of the country. To that extent they command our respect. However, they appear to be in error in so far as they want to eliminate British rule. In pursuit of this end, they appear determined to suffer any punishment the law may inflict on them. We have nothing to blame them for. For, their sufferings will lead to India's happiness. They oppose British rule because of its drawbacks. Because of that rule, India is becoming poorer. To some extent, British rule is an important cause of even the plague in India. It adds to the illwill between Hindus and Muslims. It is also because of that rule that we have been reduced to such a low state and live like cowards. Exasperated by these evils, some Indian leaders will find fault with the entire British nation. ...

The fault, in fact, lies with us. If we remove the fault, British rule, which is a cause of misery today, can become a source of happiness. Public spirit is not likely to grow among us without western education and contacts with the West. If that spirit grows, the British may grant our demands without a fight, and may leave India if we want them to do so. The British colonies are what they are, not because the people there are white, but because they are brave and would take offence if their rights were not granted. That is why they are regarded as members of one family.

In short, we have no quarrel with British rule. We have to be proud of the courage of those who have been creating this unrest. Let us show the same courage ourselves, but instead of desiring the end of British rule, let us aspire to be as able and spirited as the Colonists are, and demand and secure the rights we want.

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/colum...cid=306007
And this prompted Sri Aurobindo (who was very active in the revolutionary movement back then) to write the following:
QUOTEGandhi's loyalism[9] is not a pattern for India which is not South Africa, and even Gandhi's loyalism is corrected by passive resistance. An abject tone of servility in politics is not âdiplomacyâ and is not good politics. It does not deceive or disarm the opponent; it does encourage nervelessness, fear and a cringing cunning in the subject people. What Gandhi has been attempting in South Africa is to secure for Indians the position of kindly treated serfs,âas a stepping-stone to something better.... Our position is different and our aim is different, not to secure a few privileges, but to create a nation of men fit for independence and able to secure and keep it.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_part2.htm

09-07-2005, 02:38 AM

With all due respect Sir, you are either not able to read what I am posting or not understand what I am writing. You seem to be in your own world unable to communicate logically to my comments. I have mentioned before and i shall mention again, Bharatvarsh it does not matter how bad Gandhi really was. Please read through my posts and comment accordingly. You seem to be ranting unobjectively

Bharatvarsh · 09-07-2005, 02:56 AM

jayshastri I did not post that as a response to u, if I did I would have quoted u and addressed it to u as I do in all my posts when I am responding to others, you and I have a different opinion of Gandhi so lets agree to disagree, you can keep him in the position he is in today and I am sure that India will end up paying the price again for deifying the man like he was God. If you can't read anything bad about Gandhi then too bad, go to a Gandhian forum where they will be doing puja to the man and u can join in.

09-07-2005, 03:12 AM

QUOTE. But he does not have to be tainted and ripped off our history.

He is part of history and we are here exploring his role. Truth is truth we can't change. We can't change history just to please future generation and cover mistake made by previous generation. We should learn from past. Some times truth is hard to swallow.

QUOTE I donât mind Gandhi being forgotten at all. As long as him and his Ideology is replaced by something much better and progressive.
There are better ideology, but why one should stick to one type of ideology. We should follow combination of best teaching from around the world.

Gita is best, none can replace its teaching. I consider it as supreme.

09-07-2005, 03:53 AM

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Sep 7 2005, 02:56 AM)jayshastri I did not post that as a response to u, if I did I would have quoted u and addressed it to u as I do in all my posts when I am responding to others, you and I have a different opinion of Gandhi so lets agree to disagree, you can keep him in the position he is in today and I am sure that India will end up paying the price again for deifying the man like he was God. 

I commented because your posts were with out any nuances. I fail to see any constructive Ideas or even clear objective of churning out all the dirt for Gandhi. I bet you probably don't care about that. There are those who shout and curse and blame when some one creates a problem (and there seems to be ample of them on this thread) then there are those who ask "now how do we fix it?"

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Sep 7 2005, 02:56 AM)If you can't read anything bad about Gandhi then too bad, go to a Gandhian forum where they will be doing puja to the man and u can join in.
[right][snapback]38402[/snapback][/right]


I have absolutely no problem about hearing any thing bad about Gandhi or his ideology. I don't agree with his ideology either. I just despise noise and chaos without any clear plan or objective. Your criticism of Gandhi, Bharatvarsh is simply that.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?