A View on Gandhi

Kapil,

Why did British PM say that Ghandi has minimal role in India's Independence?

What was the base?

and ofcourse your cocluded stance over all about Ghandi keeping aside political correctness of criticising few and liking few.?

The name is G-A-N-D-H-I. Not Ghandi..:). Comeon, don't tell me you found out the real name from some obscure internet site now..:)

If you noticed, I said that I'd be the last one to attribute India's independence to him alone. Unfortunately, being Indians, we have to give credit to some Indians for the event. The most vociferous anti-Gandhis would give it to someone else like Bhagat Singh or Bose. It suited Congress politics post independence that that person was Gandhi. Again, note that it suited Congress and not Gandhi. Gandhi was the one who wanted Congress to disband itself after independence, but the Congressmen didn't agree. My understanding is that the biggest factor was geo-politics. Britain was bankrupt post World War 2 and couldn't afford to have an empire. America emerged as numero uno and they didn't want any British empire. And then Labour won power in Britain and they were not flag bearing imperialists. Conservatives won't have given it away that easily. And then there was the factor that India was becoming increasingly ungovernable because of anti-British movement. Gandhi was the leader of the dominant national movement under Congress banner. There was also Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, Forward Bloc, Unionist Party and Ambedkar- each with their own agenda. But as far as freedom from Britishers went, Congress was at the forefront. Bose was a threat for a while, but not after the Japanese defeat in WW2. Though the trials of Azad Hind Fauj soldiers did evoke many Indians and also serving armymen and navymen.

As for Atlee, he may or may not have said it. The comment is from a reported conversation between him and a former CJ of Bengal in some other Bong's book. It doesn't surprise me if Atlee said it. I don't expect a British to say that they got scared of Gandhi and left. And as I said, I don't believe that myself. I won't be surprised if Atlee didn't actually say that- Bongs are known to be very sentimental about Bose and hence their dislike of Gandhi is not surprising.

and ofcourse your cocluded stance over all about Ghandi keeping aside political correctness of criticising few and liking few.?

I didn't understand this.
 
जैसा की "ग़दर" में सन्नी देओल ने कहा....... उसी अंदाज में गाँधी जी के बारे में......

"असरफ अली ............अली........~....अली .......~~अली ( गूंजती हुयी आवाज़).... ये सियासी खेल क्यों खेल रहे हैं?..... ब्रिटिश लेखक चाहे जिंदाबाद रहे या मुर्दाबाद.... हमें उस से कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता ...... लेकिन गाँधी जिंदाबाद थे .... जिंदाबाद हैं .... और जिंदाबाद रहेंगे.." ..... " वो इंडिया की currency पर छपे हुए थे छपे हुए हैं और छपे रहेंगे...."

Film/Thread Superhit!
 
Kapil,

I don't have any problem in people celebrating 2nd Oct nor do I have any personal issue with Gandhi himself. I stated that I don't deny his role in Freedom struggle but how come he been gloried as the whole sole contributor in India' freedom? Why not other Freedom Heroes celebrated like him? Isn't it some sort of well planed conspiracy? He didn't call himself Father or Mahatma but he acted same, he played mind game.

There would have many reasons of showing too much respect by Bose, Patel and few others but if they addressed him as Father of Nation .. doesn't make me believe the same. I need solid reasons for the same! Can you please provide 10 extraordinary achievements/deeds of him that makes him that Great.

You're getting me wrong, I don't hate Gandhi as a person but seriously dislike his acts like sleeping with young girls, my way or high way approach, emotional blackmailing by Satyagrah now and then. It was his trick to be honest/true to justify his illicit acts. For me he was a shrewd politician and an opportunist. Honesty and truthfulness don't 'only' make a person Great. You might know this so called Ahimsa worshiper was admirer of Hitler.

I'm not doing mud-slugging but criticizing in simple words which are being hard to digest for Gandhi fans. I find your stand quite confusing on Gandhi, one hand you say you're big critic of his ideas/policies and on the other you say he was a Great person and so powerful. Isn't it a bit contradictory?

Can you please describe me a ignorant, what are the points that makes him Great according to you and the one who makes him less Great. :)


So you have an issue with Gandhi because 2nd October is celebrated? He never celebrated October 2, nor did he ask others to celebrate it after his death. So what gives?

And you have completely ignored my point on Suabsh Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh, et al. Undoubtedly, they were great men. Do you think they were dumb to respect Gandhi and call him "Father of our nation", "Bapu", "Mahatma", etc. All of them were so popular at that time that they could have taken on Gandhi had they wanted. They were also honest people and not chamchas. So these great people who lived in the time of Gandhi considered him to be a great person, but we the super-intelligent who can google any tom-dick-harry's hate messages in an instant can judge Gandhi better than these great men. Wow! Only one side can be right here in this respect- either Bose, Bhagat, Patel who respected him despite their differences OR the "neo-intelligent brigade" who see nothing right in him/make fun of him.

Personally (and it is clear from many of my posts), I am a huge critic of some of Gandhi's policies and ideas. I'd be the last one to attribute India's independence to him alone. But it is ridiculous to say that he had no role or to cast aspersions on his character 60 years after his death after reading some sensationalising material.

If you go out looking for dirt on someone- anyone- you'd always find some. Gandhi is the easiest target as he actually talked or wrote about all these things. So there is no disputing facts. No one is saying that all this didn't happen. If you can think about it, it is an extraordinary thing in itself. Such a powerful man and so easy access to his bedroom secrets. Which other politician, current or past, affords you so much knowledge of his life? Gandhi did as he had nothing to hide. And now you use the same facts he shared in the first place to make fun of him- it is juvenile. Seriously, grow up bro..:)

If you want genuine criticism of Gandhi and not random mud slinging, read these.

An august dispute : Gandhi and Tagore
Venu Govindu reviews The Mahatma and the Poet : Letters and Debates between Gandhi and Tagore 1915-1941, compiled and edited by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya.
http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/may/rvw-gndhtgore.htm

http://www.ambedkar.org/research/GandhiAmbedkar.htm

http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi

I agree with your point on Samar though..:). He has been peddling a lot of hate off late. Probably he is going to join politics and thus showing that he has right credentials for the job..:)
 
Kapil,

I don't have any problem in people celebrating 2nd Oct nor do I have any personal issue with Gandhi himself. I stated that I don't deny his role in Freedom struggle but how come he been gloried as the whole sole contributor in India' freedom? Why not other Freedom Heroes celebrated like him? Isn't it some sort of well planed conspiracy? He didn't call himself Father or Mahatma but he acted same, he played mind game.

There would have many reasons of showing too much respect by Bose, Patel and few others but if they addressed him as Father of Nation .. doesn't make me believe the same. I need solid reasons for the same! Can you please provide 10 extraordinary achievements/deeds of him that makes him that Great.

You're getting me wrong, I don't hate Gandhi as a person but seriously dislike his acts like sleeping with young girls, my way or high way approach, emotional blackmailing by Satyagrah now and then. It was his trick to be honest/true to justify his illicit acts. For me he was a shrewd politician and an opportunist. Honesty and truthfulness don't 'only' make a person Great. You might know this so called Ahimsa worshiper was admirer of Hitler.

I'm not doing mud-slugging but criticizing in simple words which are being hard to digest for Gandhi fans. I find your stand quite confusing on Gandhi, one hand you say you're big critic of his ideas/policies and on the other you say he was a Great person and so powerful. Isn't it a bit contradictory?

Can you please describe me a ignorant, what are the points that makes him Great according to you and the one who makes him less Great. :)

Jit, a great person can have faults. All human beings have faults. What is a fault and what is not is not a law of nature, but based on opinions. So I do think Gandhi was a great man and I still disagree with him on many issues. There is no contradiction there if you don't look at life in Black and White terms. It is a pity if you really don't know any of his good qualities. Let me mention some of them. I can't think of many people with as much courage as Gandhi. The guy was absolutely fearless and more so inspired normal people to be fearless. It showed in both his thought and action- his ability to say the truth whatever the circumstances and the complete honesty vis-a-vis his own life. Unlike usual politicians, he didn't say one thing and did another. He practised what he preached. His commitment to his own principles was absolute. He sacrificed everything for the causes he believed in. He didn't use any of his power for any form of personal gain for either him or his family. His love for India and Indians was absolute. When all other politicians were busy power-mongering just before independence, he was alone in a riot-stricken area fasting for peace. He showed efficacy of non-violence and Satyagraha as an effective political tool (used later by Martin Luther King and Mandela). He had an uncanny knack of winning over people- the reason why he mesmerised so many people. He was extremely intelligent and shrewd man (comes across in his writings, conversations, etc.)- which in itself is extraordinary as such people hardly live their life in service of mankind, which Gandhi did. These are some of the points. If you think that these traits are present in even a few human beings, then you are entitled to think of him as some ordinary guy. I can't think of many people with such traits and I am personally not even 1% there.

As for criticism, I am not in agreement with his views or actions on science, economics, casteism, religion in politics, calling off Non-cooperation movement after Chauri Chaura, etc. If you want good criticism, read debates between Gandhi/Tagore; Gandhi/Ambedkar. Gandhi on Hitler..:), are you sure you are not trying to understand War and Peace before even learning the alphabet? Jumping to conclusions before understanding the basics is a common error.
 
Kapil, I believe all other Freedom Fighters be it Bose, Bhagat Singh, Azad, Patel or the unsung heroes were equally fearless even more. As for sacrifice, what will be a bigger sacrifice than of sacrificing own life? They all dedicated their life for struggle didn't they? Didn't they inspired mass to fight against Britishers ? Didn't they give their sweat and blood for freedom movement? But why Gandhi got most of the credit ??

As for Truthfulness & Fasting, he used them more of creating his image and glorifying his illicit acts, as for fasting he used more for emotional blackmailing & enforcing his policies. As for non-violence, its a effective tool but Gandhi used it with more of mind-set my way or high way. Wasn't it kinda dictatorship? He was shrewd politician and may be honest but again he was quite adamant, didn't he develop blind eye for Nehru?

I agree you won't find many ppl of his category but why to compare today's Gen? Why not with his Gen's other Leaders and Freedom Fighters? As for Hitler .. may be am naive to understand difference between war and peace but atleast I know who was Hitler! :)

Bhai get some specific points that differentiates him from rest of freedom fighters and makes him Father of Nation. Btw, Thanks for the links you mentioned in earlier posts, will read them .. looks promising.


Jit, a great person can have faults. All human beings have faults. What is a fault and what is not is not a law of nature, but based on opinions. So I do think Gandhi was a great man and I still disagree with him on many issues. There is no contradiction there if you don't look at life in Black and White terms. It is a pity if you really don't know any of his good qualities. Let me mention some of them. I can't think of many people with as much courage as Gandhi. The guy was absolutely fearless and more so inspired normal people to be fearless. It showed in both his thought and action- his ability to say the truth whatever the circumstances and the complete honesty vis-a-vis his own life. Unlike usual politicians, he didn't say one thing and did another. He practised what he preached. His commitment to his own principles was absolute. He sacrificed everything for the causes he believed in. He didn't use any of his power for any form of personal gain for either him or his family. His love for India and Indians was absolute. When all other politicians were busy power-mongering just before independence, he was alone in a riot-stricken area fasting for peace. He showed efficacy of non-violence and Satyagraha as an effective political tool (used later by Martin Luther King and Mandela). He had an uncanny knack of winning over people- the reason why he mesmerised so many people. He was extremely intelligent and shrewd man (comes across in his writings, conversations, etc.)- which in itself is extraordinary as such people hardly live their life in service of mankind, which Gandhi did. These are some of the points. If you think that these traits are present in even a few human beings, then you are entitled to think of him as some ordinary guy. I can't think of many people with such traits and I am personally not even 1% there.

As for criticism, I am not in agreement with his views or actions on science, economics, casteism, religion in politics, calling off Non-cooperation movement after Chauri Chaura, etc. If you want good criticism, read debates between Gandhi/Tagore; Gandhi/Ambedkar. Gandhi on Hitler..:), are you sure you are not trying to understand War and Peace before even learning the alphabet? Jumping to conclusions before understanding the basics is a common error.
 
India's Independence is not an exclusive effort of Gandhi Only but Gandhi certainly played a significant role irrespective of his good and/or bad decisions. Bose, Bhagat, Azad, Patel and all other great men also played major role but everybody had their own ways to do that and Gandhi was no exception. We should respect that man for his good work instead of JUST pointing out fingers at his personal life. We can criticize him just because he never hide his personal life and we know a lot about it. There is no doubt that he was an extraordinary man with some significant traits apart from some habits/views which we may found NOT GOOD. And this certainly proves the Universal fact that "Nobody is Perfect"

Brits wanted him to remain the leader of Indian Freedom Fighters because he believed in Non-violence otherwise scenario would have been different after Chora-Chori Incident. It was Gandhi who, intentionally or unintentionally, helped British to survive in India a couple of decades more. That's why they liked to talk with Gandhi ONLY. At that time they admired Gandhi like anything. But when we got independence, maybe Brits wanted to reverse the roles and maybe criticized Gandhi.

Brits and USA strongly objected and campaigned against him when Gandhi's name was being considered for Nobel Prize for peace. It's a pity that emblem of peace didn't got what he deserved.

I found it really stupid when govt. or someone says that it was Only Gandhi who begged Independence but he was certainly one of them who worked hard for it.

I dislike as well as criticize Gandhi for so many reasons but still i have a lot of respect for that man.
 
Kapil, I believe all other Freedom Fighters be it Bose, Bhagat Singh, Azad, Patel or the unsung heroes were equally fearless even more. As for sacrifice, what will be a bigger sacrifice than of sacrificing own life? They all dedicated their life for struggle didn't they? Didn't they inspired mass to fight against Britishers ? Didn't they give their sweat and blood for freedom movement? But why Gandhi got most of the credit ??

Basically, what you are saying again and again and again is that you are pissed with Gandhi as he gets all the credit and not other freedom fighters. It doesn't matter to you that he never sought any credit, never promoted his kith and kin, didn't acquire any assets. Well, your choice really......

You are also attributing lots of his qualities to your assumptions (illicit acts, self-glorification, etc.). You could also see the positive aspects of those qualities. Something I tried to list. But you choose to make sinister imaginations. Such random assumptions can be made on anyone really. Like Buddha came up with Buddhism for self-glorification" There is no way to tackle these arguments as they are not logical, but "beliefs". So, your choice again..
 
गांधी सर्वश्रेष्ठ नहीं था. जीवन की परीक्षा में उसके 100 /100 नंबर नहीं थे. शिवजी और विष्णु के भी 100/100 नंबर नहीं थे (99/100). 100/100 नंबर जिसके होंगे, वो इस दुनिया का मालिक होगा (ईश्वर, खुदा, अल्लाह, परमपिता परमेश्वर, शिवजी-विष्णु से भी बड़ा). ऐसा आज तक कोई नहीं हो सका है.
मेरे विचारानुसार गांधी के 80/100 नंबर थे, लेकिन हम लोगों के तो 100 में से बस 40-50 ही नंबर हैं. :)हमारी समस्या यह है कि हम गांधी को बुरा बताते हैं, क्योंकि उसके 20 नंबर कम थे. निस्संदेह उसने कुछ सवाल गलत किए, लेकिन इसके बावजूद हम उसे बुरा कहने के हकदार नहीं हैं. हमारे तो उसके जितने भी नंबर नहीं हैं. जिसके हमारे से ज्यादा नंबर हैं, हम उसको अच्छा नहीं कह सकते तो बुरा भी नहीं कहना चाहिए. बाकी सबके अपने-अपने विचार हैं. गांधी का जो हक़ बनता था, वो उसको मिल गया. हम उसे कितना भी बुरा कहें, ये दुनिया बिलकुल ठीक इंसाफ करती है. असंख्य आलोचक भी गांधी को विश्व स्तर पर प्रसिद्ध होने से नहीं रोक सके.
 
Kapil, I believe all other Freedom Fighters be it Bose, Bhagat Singh, Azad, Patel or the unsung heroes were equally fearless even more. As for sacrifice, what will be a bigger sacrifice than of sacrificing own life? They all dedicated their life for struggle didn't they? Didn't they inspired mass to fight against Britishers ? Didn't they give their sweat and blood for freedom movement? But why Gandhi got most of the credit ??

As for Truthfulness & Fasting, he used them more of creating his image and glorifying his illicit acts, as for fasting he used more for emotional blackmailing & enforcing his policies. As for non-violence, its a effective tool but Gandhi used it with more of mind-set my way or high way. Wasn't it kinda dictatorship? He was shrewd politician and may be honest but again he was quite adamant, didn't he develop blind eye for Nehru?

I agree you won't find many ppl of his category but why to compare today's Gen? Why not with his Gen's other Leaders and Freedom Fighters? As for Hitler .. may be am naive to understand difference between war and peace but atleast I know who was Hitler! :)

Bhai get some specific points that differentiates him from rest of freedom fighters and makes him Father of Nation. Btw, Thanks for the links you mentioned in earlier posts, will read them .. looks promising.

Jit,

Looks like you don't want to understand the point Kapil want you to understand.. I don't think that there can be any more simple explanation than the one produced by Kapil in this regard..
Jit, tell me honestly what literature you have read on Gandhi that you are concluding so many things on Gandhi.. What research you have done that you have even be able to make some psychological conclusion on intention behind the tactics used by Gandhi.. I'm sure you haven't read anything on him except few crap links.. Have you ever read any Good book written by many prominent figures, some of them are already referred by Kapil ? Why I'm asking these question that I found it hard to digest your conclusion provided you have yet to read a lot.. In order to make such kind of conclusion one need to have deep reading so it is very unfair of you to sit on the judgment chair provided you have no knowledge on his involvement in freedom struggle.. :) I really don't understand what you are trying to prove here..
It is my request that please have read something with open mind and then form your opinions. Don't form your thought process based on other's point of you which you normally do. It is my sincere request.
 


Brits wanted him to remain the leader of Indian Freedom Fighters because he believed in Non-violence otherwise scenario would have been different after Chora-Chori Incident. It was Gandhi who, intentionally or unintentionally, helped British to survive in India a couple of decades more. That's why they liked to talk with Gandhi ONLY. At that time they admired Gandhi like anything. But when we got independence, maybe Brits wanted to reverse the roles and maybe criticized Gandhi.

This is widely believed and there is probably some truth in it. But nobody knows the counterfactual. How can we predict what would have happened had Gandhi approved of violence. I am personally against his decision to call off the movement post Chauri-Chaura. But I can't take anything away from him for being true to his principle of non-violence, whatever the costs. And there is a school of thought that says that there was loads of pragmatism behind his choosing the path of non-violence. How many people would have been killed in a violent struggle is unknown. Most of them would have been Indians. We can only compare it with 1857 when thousands of Indians were killed as they were on both sides of the battle. The shooters in Jallianwala Bagh were also Indians as were the policemen hacked in Chauri Chaura. There was a full pro-British govt. machinery full of Indians. The non-violent movement ensured that largely Indians didn't kill each other, and I have some sympathy for this school of thought.
 
This is widely believed and there is probably some truth in it. But nobody knows the counterfactual. How can we predict what would have happened had Gandhi approved of violence. I am personally against his decision to call off the movement post Chauri-Chaura. But I can't take anything away from him for being true to his principle of non-violence, whatever the costs. And there is a school of thought that says that there was loads of pragmatism behind his choosing the path of non-violence. How many people would have been killed in a violent struggle is unknown. Most of them would have been Indians. We can only compare it with 1857 when thousands of Indians were killed as they were on both sides of the battle. The shooters in Jallianwala Bagh were also Indians as were the policemen hacked in Chauri Chaura. There was a full pro-British govt. machinery full of Indians. The non-violent movement ensured that largely Indians didn't kill each other, and I have some sympathy for this school of thought.

Kapil, agreed in parts.
Gandhi did not want Indians to die in India for Indian Independence but he was happy to let Indians die in world-war for Kingdom!!
 
This is widely believed and there is probably some truth in it. But nobody knows the counterfactual. How can we predict what would have happened had Gandhi approved of violence. I am personally against his decision to call off the movement post Chauri-Chaura. But I can't take anything away from him for being true to his principle of non-violence, whatever the costs. And there is a school of thought that says that there was loads of pragmatism behind his choosing the path of non-violence. How many people would have been killed in a violent struggle is unknown. Most of them would have been Indians. We can only compare it with 1857 when thousands of Indians were killed as they were on both sides of the battle. The shooters in Jallianwala Bagh were also Indians as were the policemen hacked in Chauri Chaura. There was a full pro-British govt. machinery full of Indians. The non-violent movement ensured that largely Indians didn't kill each other, and I have some sympathy for this school of thought.


Agree with you Kapil.

Gandhi was recruited in British Indian Army and served in South Africa. He saw and witnessed blood and violence at first hand. That's why, maybe, he was against any kind of violence and he practiced and preached for rest of his life.

Regarding Chauri-Chaura Episode, maybe, Gandhi was right and maybe he was wrong. There are always two aspects of any movement. The policy makers and the people who execute them. Gandhi might have analyzed a much wider and long term impact of the situation while the other side just wanted Independence at any cost and within a flash. Both were right and both were wrong at the same time. But we can only discuss what happened and only assume that what could have happened. Who knows about the future ?
 
I am personally against his decision to call off the movement post Chauri-Chaura. But I can't take anything away from him for being true to his principle of non-violence, whatever the costs. And there is a school of thought that says that there was loads of pragmatism behind his choosing the path of non-violence. How many people would have been killed in a violent struggle is unknown. Most of them would have been Indians. We can only compare it with 1857 when thousands of Indians were killed as they were on both sides of the battle. The shooters in Jallianwala Bagh were also Indians as were the policemen hacked in Chauri Chaura. There was a full pro-British govt. machinery full of Indians. The non-violent movement ensured that largely Indians didn't kill each other, and I have some sympathy for this school of thought.

My Grandfather used to tell me that people were so afraid that they even used to avoid discussing about British even in closed doors.. Gandhi realized it that in order to win over British it was important to involve the mass into the movement.. but to do so the first thing he had do is to get the fear factor out from the mind of the public.. Now at the time when govt was strong enough to suppress any violent movement so Gandhi left with only one option that is to bring all the people under one flag without any violence.. and it really worked..
Though the movement was in full swing before Chauri Chaura but this incident let the Gandhi interpreted that Govt could come into action and strike hard to make sure that movement like this could never happen.. so it was the only reason he took this decision as he could foresee that the JOB of bringing the mass under one flag is still pending..
We may not agree to this assumption of Gandhi but we can easily see how strong the government was when it suppressed the Quit India movement like anything.. Laksh of congressi were sent into jail all around the country nd movement failed to meet the objectives.. Maulan Azad warned the congress committee of likely suppressive action of the government incase the decision of starting the movement is taken. He had to say that at the time when Muslim League was busy in convincing the people about the Idea of Pakistan it was very important to had congressmen active to counter attack the tactics of Muslim league.. but the decision on Movement was taken and lakhs of Congressmen were sent into jail and Jinah nd league utilized this opportunity in manipulating the mind of the public..
 
The Statue of peace, Mesiah of Harijans, Sole torch bearer of truth was Racist of Classic order. Won't believe me? Okay. See yourself!

I never knew that in South Africa he had called Blacks as Kaafirs and tagged them below the SC/STs of India. Lord of Peace was a sergeant with British Army and helped them won battles and had won Medals too for repression of blacks during Boer and Zulu rebellion. He himself has written these words.

------------------------------------

--->“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” [local native of South Africa] (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

----->Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)


---->“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)


Gandhi’s description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

See the full hate of GHandi about Blacks here :- http://www.gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php


Now lets see his original letter to his beloved Hitler . Trying to sell his non-violence with utter adoration of Hitler Saheb. He ends and starts the letter with friends and with a promise of remaining sincere friend.

1939582-ghandi-s-letter-to-hitler-1.jpg



He expressed his love for violent Hitler during WW2 as :-

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if
you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man
.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)


------------------------------

After that he had written an open letter to all British in 1940 Which stated :-

“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.”

Among those who criticized this “open” letter, perhaps Sri Aurobindo (in his book ‘India’s Rebirth’) put it most succinctly:- “He must be a little cracked.”

-------------------------

In his prayers his mind seems to be violent.

During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.”
– June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)
 
Last edited:
Kapil, agreed in parts.
Gandhi did not want Indians to die in India for Indian Independence but he was happy to let Indians die in world-war for Kingdom!!

Sunil, I guess you are referring to world war 1 when Gandhi himself served in the ambulance corps for the empire and also urged Indians to support the Britishers. Well, even I feel that it is an apparent contradiction. I am not an expert on Gandhi to answer this precisely. But I dare say that we can't judge the people of those time by our current standards. For example, are we willing to call the Jats anti-national given that many Jats served in the British Army? Can we call Bose a fascist because he joined hands with Hitler and then the Japanese? What about reformers and great minds like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Tagore, CV Raman, etc. who were anglophiles. What about Ambedkar who considered Britishers much better than caste Hindus? What about our own Sir Chhotu Ram, who worked to recruit Jats for army and would be considered much more pro-British than Gandhi?

It is no secret to even a casual follower of History that Gandhi was pro-British empire in his early years in politics. He wanted more rights for Indians within the empire. I think his role in world war 1 was based on his belief that Britishers would reward Indians for their loyalty. He turned against the empire only when this didn't happen.

The charge that he was perhaps not true to his non-violent principle is a more serious charge. I'd make the same charge to a blind Gandhi faithful. Here I can try playing devil's advocate. It may make sense if you consider it on pragmatic grounds rather than moral ones. Indians in that age won't have been able to stand against the military might of the Britishers. And once some people are killed protesting, it instills fear in the heart of everyone else. Britishers were colonial masters, they won't have exercised restraint but came down hard on any sort of violent struggle. From that perspective, non-violence was much more effective than a violent approach. Now, of course, this doesn't apply to naturally fearless people like Bhagat Singh. But Britishers would never have been in India in the first place, if there had been many Bhagat Singhs. For rallying common masses, I think Gandhi got the right formula. The argument makes more sense if you consider that Gandhi was not some philosopher but a shrewd politician.
 
The Statue of peace, Mesiah of Harijans, Sole torch bearer of truth was Racist of Classic order. Won't believe me? Okay. See yourself!

I never knew that in South Africa he had called Blacks as Kaafirs and tagged them below the SC/STs of India. Lord of Peace was a sergeant with British Army and helped them won battles and had won Medals too for repression of blacks during Boer and Zulu rebellion. He himself has written these words.

------------------------------------

--->“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” [local native of South Africa] (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

----->Regarding forcible registration with the state of blacks: “One can understand the necessity for registration of Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] who will not work.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, p. 105)


---->“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension…the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs [local native of South Africa] from the Location.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol I, pp. 244-245)


Gandhi’s description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” – Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

See the full hate of GHandi about Blacks here :- http://www.gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php


Now lets see his original letter to his beloved Hitler . Trying to sell his non-violence with utter adoration of Hitler Saheb. He ends and starts the letter with friends and with a promise of remaining sincere friend.

1939582-ghandi-s-letter-to-hitler-1.jpg



He expressed his love for violent Hitler during WW2 as :-

To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if
you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)


------------------------------

After that he had written an open letter to all British in 1940 Which stated :-

“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings… If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered… I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.”

Among those who criticized this “open” letter, perhaps Sri Aurobindo (in his book ‘India’s Rebirth’) put it most succinctly:- “He must be a little cracked.”

-------------------------

In his prayers his mind seems to be violent.

During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)

Samar, you didn't give your 2nd source: http://www.pakistanpatriot.com/?tag=ww2
:)
Easy with surfing hate sites, tiger..:)

Anyways, going to your quotes- I don't know how many of those about Blacks are true. Maybe none, maybe all. To be honest, it doesn't make much of a difference. It should make a difference to those who think that Gandhi was God and beyong all wrongs. They may have been rudely shattered on finding this evidence of Gandhi as Satan (are you one of those converts?). Okay, the period you are quoting all this from was a time when Gandhi was taking his first tentative steps into public life. He was not a born Avatar capable of no wrongs and who came to the world armed with brilliant ideas like equality of men. He was born in a society that deeply believed in inequality of men, in castes, color and all kinds of discrimination. I won't be surprised at all if he considered Blacks to be inferior at that stage of his life. His achievement was that he was able to overcome his prejudices as he went along.

I'd again say that it is a folly to judge historical characters by the standards of our time. Abraham Lincoln is known for his role in abolishing slavery. But nowadays, you'd find tons of hate material on net about how Lincoln wanted to send Blacks back to Africa, how he considered them to be inferior and how he was not in favor of giving them voting rights, etc. etc. And all of it is true! But do you credit Lincoln for rising above the standards of his society and giving Blacks some basic rights or discredit him as a racist for not measuring up to the standards of our time? Do you discredit Asoka as the war mongerer of Kalinga or credit him for spreading Buddhism? Pick any great king from the past and tell me about their record on slaves. Coming to modern history- you are finding issues with letters of Gandhi to Hitler. What about Bose actually allying with Hitler and then with the fascist Japanese? Would you call Sir Chhotu Ram anti-national as he worked to recruit Jats for the British Army?

Now for your Hitler charge, again it is not some big secret you are unearthing. In fact, you missed the more (in)famous quote where Gandhi actually advised Jews to commit mass suicide. Now, I am not a fan of Gandhi for any of these things. But your conclusions are appalling. Gandhi called everyone "my friend", doesn't mean Hitler was his good friend. Most of Gandhi's actions were based on a concept called "inherent morality of man". I am not a great fan of this philosophy, but if you want to understand why he wrote to Hitler what he wrote, you have to understand it. This philosophy says that every human has a good side and you have to appeal to it. Gandhi called it "doctrine of universal friendship" with the basic idea to disarm the most passionate enemy by offering your unconditional friendship. It was his way of trying to prevent the war. Ineffective but well intentioned.

And he sent another letter to Hitler, which you won't find on the Pakistani site given the content. Here are some excerpts, judge for yourself.
"But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especial­ly in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendline­ss. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity." "If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud."

For what he said to Britishers, I paste this explanation from a site:
Gandhian method of making "their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation", based on "the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or unwilling, of the victim". "The rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls."
 
Last edited:
.

Wondering if anybody come through a new book - "Gandhi: Naked Ambition" by British historian Jad Adams lately ? If not please go thro' these urls and discover other side of Gandhi, that's too quite surprising ..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gYJyGU-0rbgSJxdfDaPZuLG1lVZQ

http://www.q8nri.com/home/2010/04/08/naked-ambition-is-it-the-truth-about-sex-life-of-gandhi/

Cheers
Jit



Historians and those claim to be one, should be taken with some salt if not skepticism.

Akin to Jad Adam’s book” Gandhi: Naked Ambition" by British historian Jad Adams”

We need to look at the motives and objectives of the writer, including their very human need for fame, publicity, money, the need to be noticed.

To be noticed they will often just take a=one angle and sensationalize- just the kind of situation we are facing with some journalists in the media, and people not in media.

An example is the author below. See also review

James Laine’s Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine0.htm#defn

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine1.htm

Briefly a book on Shivaji, the Mahratta ruler was written which caused a lot of controversy. The writer alleged among other things that Shivaji was not born from his father.

This raised a lot of hackles, and violence. The book was banned.

Laine’s work was reviewed, and many saw the scholarship to be quite casual.

Here to, Adams is taking as aspect of Gandhi's life, as it has sensationalist material. Is it balanced assessment, though?

Was he perfect? No!

Did his philosophy and methods have weaknesses? Yes

Was he arrogant? Probably.

Did he mesmerize and motivate the nation? Yes


Did he contribute heavily to the independence movement? Yes

I feel, violence would have played into the Britishers’ hands.

Gandhi had many faults. It cannot be denied though, that he caught the pulse of the nation and mobilized their minds for, coast to coast. He shook the British Empire.


Ravi Chaudhary
 
Very good. I liked it Kapil. First of all I didn't pick up from the site you mentioned rather from something purely dedicated to Gandhi. How does Pakistani site matters when he was shoot by a Hindu Nationalist. India may have more haters of Gandhi than pakistan. It is a wordpress blog from where I mentioned my inputs which you found at pakistani site. It doesn't matter further in origion as it is purely factul with evidences which you like the most.

http://mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com/

Let me start with your most loved phrase ''may or may not''. You should see that the references provided are of Indian governments documents about his Black Remarks. He himself used to edit that paper mentioned which is public archives. Atleast do not use 'may or may not' when it comes to authentic source.

You 've raised certain good questions which I would like to answer for sure.

1. Sir Chhotu Ram , Bose were not hypocrites of Gandhian order. Their actions and words matched each other. Almost everyone knows what Bose was up to unless he was murdered by Nehru. Gandhi was blown out of proportions to the masses. Thats where my point starts. It doesn't take you to be a converted satan but a bit curious individual. You can't justify by putting King's treatment of slaves with Gandhi's personal disliking to blacks. Why he kept on preaching other way in later life when he did opposite of it in his earlier public life with no apology whatsoever.

2. I know that second letter to Hitler but since you are in so much love with may or may not, I didn't 've that original copy so I didnt mention it. I also knew that infamous quote about collectives offering of Jews's neck to Butcher's knife. So which wisdom he spilled to Jews about mass suicide? Wordpress blog has all the contents as factual evidence. Go through if you 've time.

3. So Gandhi tried to stop the war by writing him first and then by sending Indian troops to fight against him. What an actor was he with that word friend?

4. You are up justifying almost brilliantly his stands as per your own understanding, thats okay, but again why do you say that you dislike or criticise his actions or beliefs or principles? That is what I meant in last part of my post to ask you which you didn't get about being politically correct about Gandhi. You can either be impressed or not OR is there any middle ground ? You must be a big hearted and forgiving guy if you still choose to respect him as a great man. For me personally it is all black or white. I am unfit to understand grey areas.

5. Also go through this link http://www.gandhism.net/williamdoherty.php and try to justify that how was he trying to bribe the widow of an American man murdered by Satyagrahis.

6.1893-1914 and 1915-1948 both aspects of his political and personal life were as immature as it could be. Actually after that Herald front page nude picture with women started his decline. He as shrewd man one as you said smartly framed all these failures in character as well as in policies under the sweet and appealling Non-violence, Truth and Brahmcharya. Even at time in mid fourties Nehru started rebuking him for his psychopathic behaviour of sexual acts and rectal enemas. He was niether an avtar earlier nor later.

Why Rajghat still has ''Hey Ram'' as his last words when he just uttered ''aahaiii ree'' or ''aaaaaaaaah'' or nothing after five close shots by Godse. Now don't say he may or may not.
 
Last edited:
Historians and those claim to be one, should be taken with some salt if not skepticism.

Akin to Jad Adam’s book” Gandhi: Naked Ambition" by British historian Jad Adams”

We need to look at the motives and objectives of the writer, including their very human need for fame, publicity, money, the need to be noticed.

To be noticed they will often just take a=one angle and sensationalize- just the kind of situation we are facing with some journalists in the media, and people not in media.

An example is the author below. See also review

James Laine’s Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine0.htm#defn

http://www.complete-review.com/quarterly/vol5/issue1/laine1.htm

Briefly a book on Shivaji, the Mahratta ruler was written which caused a lot of controversy. The writer alleged among other things that Shivaji was not born from his father.

This raised a lot of hackles, and violence. The book was banned.

Laine’s work was reviewed, and many saw the scholarship to be quite casual.

Here to, Adams is taking as aspect of Gandhi's life, as it has sensationalist material. Is it balanced assessment, though?

Was he perfect? No!

Did his philosophy and methods have weaknesses? Yes

Was he arrogant? Probably.

Did he mesmerize and motivate the nation? Yes


Did he contribute heavily to the independence movement? Yes

I feel, violence would have played into the Britishers’ hands.

Gandhi had many faults. It cannot be denied though, that he caught the pulse of the nation and mobilized their minds for, coast to coast. He shook the British Empire.


Ravi Chaudhary

Ravi ji pardon my ignorance but your last sentence is pure myth about shocking British Empire.

Further, forget last 40 years of Authors of Gandhi's life. His cotemporary authors, newspapers [Herald particularly], women he slept with in experimenting enema and Brahmcharya, peers had said it all at that time about the hypocritic life Mohandas lived. Authors after 50s just carrying almost the same messages. Indian Hindi authors as well as English ones.
 
Last edited:
My Grandfather used to tell me that people were so afraid that they even used to avoid discussing about British even in closed doors.. Gandhi realized it that in order to win over British it was important to involve the mass into the movement.. but to do so the first thing he had do is to get the fear factor out from the mind of the public.. Now at the time when govt was strong enough to suppress any violent movement so Gandhi left with only one option that is to bring all the people under one flag without any violence.. and it really worked..
Though the movement was in full swing before Chauri Chaura but this incident let the Gandhi interpreted that Govt could come into action and strike hard to make sure that movement like this could never happen.. so it was the only reason he took this decision as he could foresee that the JOB of bringing the mass under one flag is still pending..
We may not agree to this assumption of Gandhi but we can easily see how strong the government was when it suppressed the Quit India movement like anything.. Laksh of congressi were sent into jail all around the country nd movement failed to meet the objectives.. Maulan Azad warned the congress committee of likely suppressive action of the government incase the decision of starting the movement is taken. He had to say that at the time when Muslim League was busy in convincing the people about the Idea of Pakistan it was very important to had congressmen active to counter attack the tactics of Muslim league.. but the decision on Movement was taken and lakhs of Congressmen were sent into jail and Jinah nd league utilized this opportunity in manipulating the mind of the public..

Don't believe in fairytales especially about The Official Paedophilic Man of the Modern India , I mean always. In 1921 when he was busy sleeping with young women in Mumbai Satyagrahis murdered an American Man.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top