A View on Gandhi

[rajpaldular]

पिछले १०० वर्षों के इतिहास के अध्ययन के पश्चात, मैंने ये निर्णय लिया है कि अब मैं श्री मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी जी को न बापू कहूँगा और न ही राष्ट्रपिता. मैं उन्हें महात्मा भी नहीं मानता. मैं उन्हें एक भ्रष्ट कांग्रेसी नेता के रूप में मानता हूँ, जिनके समय में अहिंसक स्वतंत्रता आन्दोलन को गति मिली, अल्पसंख्यक तुष्टिकरण हुआ और अंततः देश का विभाजन हुआ.क्या आप भी मेरे विचारों से सहमत हैं, यदि हाँ तो एक स्वतंत्र भारत नागरिक होने के नाते अपने विचारों को खुलकर जाटलैंड.कॉम पर आने दीजिये और अपने मित्रों के विचार भी इस विषय पर जानिए.

 

[singhvp]

पिछले १०० वर्षों के इतिहास के अध्ययन के पश्चात, मैंने ये निर्णय लिया है कि अब मैं श्री मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी जी को न बापू कहूँगा और न ही राष्ट्रपिता. मैं उन्हें महात्मा भी नहीं मानता. मैं उन्हें एक भ्रष्ट कांग्रेसी नेता के रूप में मानता हूँ, जिनके समय में अहिंसक स्वतंत्रता आन्दोलन को गति मिली, अल्पसंख्यक तुष्टिकरण हुआ और अंततः देश का विभाजन हुआ.क्या आप भी मेरे विचारों से सहमत हैं, यदि हाँ तो एक स्वतंत्र भारत नागरिक होने के नाते अपने विचारों को खुलकर जाटलैंड.कॉम पर आने दीजिये और अपने मित्रों के विचार भी इस विषय पर जानिए.

I would like to recommend a reference book in this regard titled "Gandhivad ki Shav Preekshia" (Post Mortem of Gandhism) written by the Gyanpeeth Awardee Hindi literateur , Yash Pal. I happened to read this book way back in 1980 and found to be a good analysis of Gandhian philosophy. Inspite of many fallacies of Gandhism, Gandhi cannot be so easily discarded. The principles of non-violence and passive resistance enunciated by Gandhi will always remain valid as long as we believe in democracy. Of course, country is still paying a heavy price of his appeasement policy and follies like acceptance of two-nation theory. Given his aristocratic background, he could never hide his sympathy and loyalty to the wealthy sections and aristocracy of contemporary India. His close connections with people like Birla and Jamna lal Bajaj, their hospitality availed by Gandhi and his statement that "the businessmen are the trustees of people's wealth" area few testimonies to this fact. Gandhi is also alleged to have subverted the socialist movement spearheaded by the left oriented leaders like Bhagat Singh and the contemporary Marxists for introducing a socialist pattern of governance after independence. But Gandhi was shrewd enough to use his huge mass support and personal rapport with the British stewards, especially Lord Mountbatten in manoeuvring the transfer of power in favour of Indian Aristocracy headed by Nehru. Government has been spending huge amount of money towards running of so many institutes in the name of Gandhi and publication of Gandhian literature which is nothing but a wastage of money as hardly a few are interested to read such literature. Gandhism is loosing relevance fast with evolving ethos of socio-economic management.

 

[jkundu]

Gandhi : Dragon whose fodder is 'Change' (Change for betterment)

Gandhi is a voice of hindu-india. He very aptly demonstrated the characteristic of people residing in Hindustan of that time which involved the likes of two bones 'field(agriculture)' inefficient body &
trying to carve out livelihood mainly through cunning or say not so-straightforward ways.

His success proved his 'oneness'- the alikeness with majority of population.

Negativities in decision making like those of Casteism , Cheerful support to money oriented lobby ,
& above all special chocolates to near ones like to Pt JawaharLal Nehru in name of " Gaddi of Hindustan"

Nehru father knew such "Connection theories" will be fruitful for his son , so brought Junior Nehru closer
to 'Fate making man'.
( * Remember Senior Nehru was a posthumous child , so was more keen to prove parental love)

Whatever one can say : Gandhian ways are intrinsic to indian culture and widely seen even in democratic set-up. e.g. Present Prime Minister of India has never won even a Sarpanchi election , still leading the largest democracy!

 

[virj]

Gandhi was not a saint. But Gandhi was somewhere between a saint and a politician. Gandhi also objected using the name Mahatma in front of him. Such a big name he is that no doubt he would attract controversies.

I would like to recommend a reference book in this regard titled "Gandhivad ki Shav Preekshia" (Post Mortem of Gandhism) written by the Gyanpeeth Awardee Hindi literateur , Yash Pal. I happened to read this book way back in 1980 and found to be a good analysis of Gandhian philosophy. Inspite of many fallacies of Gandhism, Gandhi cannot be so easily discarded. The principles of non-violence and passive resistance enunciated by Gandhi will always remain valid as long as we believe in democracy. Of course, country is still paying a heavy price of his appeasement policy and follies like acceptance of two-nation theory. Given his aristocratic background, he could never hide his sympathy and loyalty to the wealthy sections and aristocracy of contemporary India.

I beg to differ Bade bhai!!

I want to know more about his appeasement policies and was he alone responcible for the Nation divide??

In fact what I have read and understood is Gandhi fought agaisnt economy based on large scale industries. Because he knew it could ruin our economy where majority of the people reside in villages. He promoted small scale industries. Gandhians developed 'charkha'. Set up organisations to help village development. Focused on small scale industries.

People think Nehru is what Gandhi was and carried his legacy. No they used to differ on many occasions and what Nehru implemented in later years is not all what Gandhi believed and preached. Gandhi was against 'westernised economy which many congress Govt followed. Gandhi was very much afraid to see concentration of economic and political power into the hands of the state which happened later. He would even prefer private ownership to state ownership.

Gandhi is also alleged to have subverted the socialist movement spearheaded by the left oriented leaders like Bhagat Singh and the contemporary Marxists for introducing a socialist pattern of governance after independence. But Gandhi was shrewd enough to use his huge mass support and personal rapport with the British stewards, especially Lord Mountbatten in manoeuvring the transfer of power in favour of Indian Aristocracy headed by Nehru.

Yes Bhagat Singh was influenced by Marxism( I heard) but I also heard Gandhi was an admirer of Bhagat Singh and publicly applauded his patriotism on many occasions. The Mahatma in fact wrote to the Viceroy pleading him to commute the death sentence of Singh and his accomplices.
Below is what Gandhi wrote( and thought) about socialism. Yes its right that he believed Nehru would be the 'best person' to lead the country.

Below is what Gandhi thought about various socio-political-economic approaches

On Capitalism:

It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention, and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. ... Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is in a position to become co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave. If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the hen that lays golden eggs. Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. A man living on the banks of a river has any day more opportunity of growing crops than one living in the arid desert.


On Socialism and Communism: I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor. ...

The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will.

It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.



Below is what he said about Trusueeship:

...That no matter how much money we have earned, we should regard ourselves as trustees, holding this money for the welfare of all our neighbours. If God gives us power and wealth, he gives us the same so that we may use them for the benefit of the mankind and not for our selfish, carnal purpose....
...My theory of trusteeship is no makeshift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it.
I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.

The question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction.

It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.

Gandhi was a humanitarian. He was against capitalism but not against capitalists. He once said " The State Govt should impose death duties so that propoerties of the millionaires go to the poor not to their heirs. But Gandhi has distrust of the state and its powers.

Narayan Murthy once said he is a socialist at heart and a capitalist by profession. Gandhi wanted the capitalist or the wealth creators to be the trustees of the wealth they create. In that trusteeship remains one of the most relevant of Gandhi's concept, which something which most of us can easily relate.

Government has been spending huge amount of money towards running of so many institutes in the name of Gandhi and publication of Gandhian literature which is nothing but a wastage of money as hardly a few are interested to read such literature. Gandhism is loosing relevance fast with evolving ethos of socio-economic management.

Some people do read Gandhi's literature ,trust me, though for different reasons. His autobiography is still great and relevant to me. I am not sure how many institues would be there ,which the govt is running, just to publish Gandhi's literature. They wont be many and wont be costing too much of money. Though I don’t agree with the above but Gandhi's crtics should not be worried about this. If Gandhism is losing relevance they should be happy. But Gandhi's name was poitically used by Nehru-Gandhi's family and many people in India believed(that time) that these Gandhi's are relatives of this great Gandhi.(How wise were we?) Congress still use Gandhi's name but left his policies soon after independence.


P.S: I could be wrong on the above but this is just what I have read and understood. Also the views above mentioned are Gandhi's view not necessarilly depicts my views

 

[narendra81]

Hi Vipin,
I do not agree with you on the below statement. Gandhi never resisted bhagat singh's death sentence. in his own words,
For instance, in the context of Bhagat Singh's hanging, even as Gandhi condemned the British government, he observed: "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only." (See Collected Works, vol. 45, p.359-61, in Gujarati)
Refe: http://india_resource.tripod.com/gandhi.html

Moreover it looks too insensitive behavior on gandhi's part looking at the age of bhagat singh and the fact that gandhi's efforts could have saved his life. Everyone knew that bhagat singh dint have any intension to kill anyone during the incident for which he was senetenced. This behavior is an irony in itself when we believe that gandhi was a very sensitive and humane person.

One more fact is that he sometimes misused his power of fasting. He was defeted by Mr. Bose in congress elections and he couldnt digest that, he started fasting(what do we call this behavior?).

Yes Bhagat Singh was influenced by Marxism( I heard) but I also heard Gandhi was an admirer of Bhagat Singh and publicly applauded his patriotism on many occasions. The Mahatma in fact wrote to the Viceroy pleading him to commute the death sentence of Singh and his accomplices.

 

[virj]

Narender,

Thanks for pointing this out. I knew someone would ask this. Below is the full text.

One of the most popular ones is that Mahatma Gandhi had an opportunity to stop Singh's execution but did not. This particular theory has spread amongst the public in modern times after the creation of modern films such as The Legend of Bhagat Singh, which portray Gandhi as someone who was strongly at odds with Bhagat Singh and did not oppose his hanging.[46] A variation on this theory is that Gandhi actively conspired with the British to have Singh executed. Both theories are highly controversial and hotly contested. Gandhi's supporters say that Gandhi did not have enough influence with the British to stop the execution, much less arrange it. Furthermore, Gandhi's supporters assert that Singh's role in the independence movement was no threat to Gandhi's role as its leader, and so Gandhi would have no reason to want him dead.
Gandhi, during his lifetime, always maintained that he was a great admirer of Singh's patriotism. He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment in general) and proclaimed that he had no power to stop it. On Singh's execution, Gandhi said, "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only."[47] Gandhi also once said, on capital punishment, "I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it." I dont know what the real truth was but gandhi himself had said he couldnt save bhagat Singh. In fact the great bhagat singh was also accused of " being too eager to die, as opposed to staying alive and continuing his movement. It has been alleged that he could have escaped from prison if he so wished, but he preferred that he die and become a legacy for other youths in India. Some lament that he may have done much more for India had he stayed alive.

But as I said I could be wrong so if u have more information please share it.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh


Regarding Bose:

Even though Bose and Gandhi had differing ideologies, the latter called Bose the “Patriot of Patriots” (Bose had called Gandhi “Father of the Nation”). They both had their own ideological differences and he never defected Gandhi in election as far as I remember,though he opposed him because he didnt like his ideologies.

For me they both were great people and may be we wont see such people again in our life span.

 

[singhvp]

Chhote please read between the lines.

Gandhi was not a saint. But Gandhi was somewhere between a saint and a politician. Gandhi also objected using the name Mahatma in front of him. Such a big name he is that no doubt he would attract controversies.

Ans: Hardly matters whether Gandhi lived saintly life or a natural life like other ordinary mortals. It is the thinking which matters more than the clothes one wears. A man in Armani Jean and a Burberry T-Shirt may be a saint but a man in lion cloth (langoti) may not necessarily be a saint.

I beg to differ Bade bhai!!

I want to know more about his appeasement policies and was he alone responcible for the Nation divide??

Ans: Sangh Parivar may be in a better position to explain this.

In fact what I have read and understood is Gandhi fought agaisnt economy based on large scale industries. Because he knew it could ruin our economy where majority of the people reside in villages. He promoted small scale industries. Gandhians developed 'charkha'. Set up organisations to help village development. Focused on small scale industries.

Ans: I used to buy Khadi Kurta Pyajama from Gandhi Ashram in Regal Building in Cannaught place during my college days to promote cottage and small scale industry as inspired by Gandhi ji (and also with an intention to get a tag of Neta ji.) Soon, I was dismayed to find the rates of hand-made khadi clothes much more than the machine made clothes. Specialization and large scale production is always cost effective in relation to small scale production. Charkha was good for certain kind of clothes/rugs used in villages during Gandhian era but the villagers were already making use of it without Gandhi ji's advice. Charkha is not a substitute of Industrialization and heavy machinery which is the backbone of a healthy economy.

People think Nehru is what Gandhi was and carried his legacy. No they used to differ on many occasions and what Nehru implemented in later years is not all what Gandhi believed and preached. Gandhi was against 'westernised economy which many congress Govt followed. Gandhi was very much afraid to see concentration of economic and political power into the hands of the state which happened later. He would even prefer private ownership to state ownership.

Ans: You are right. Gandhi preferred private ownership of national wealth to State ownership. I can infer from your statement, that Gandhi wanted concentration of wealth in private hands. In other words he was more more concerned about Birla, Dalmiya and Jamna lal Bajaj. He never talked about egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunities.

Yes Bhagat Singh was influenced by Marxism( I heard) but I also heard Gandhi was an admirer of Bhagat Singh and publicly applauded his patriotism on many occasions. The Mahatma in fact wrote to the Viceroy pleading him to commute the death sentence of Singh and his accomplices.

Let me brush up and update your knowledge. Bhagat Singh was a great admirer of Marx and Lenin and their philosophies. As far as my knowledge goes, he was reading a book written by Lenin just before he was summoned for hanging (as per the version of jail authorities). One of his comrades-in-arms and contemporary revolutionary, famous Hindi writer Yash Pal has also given many instances of his being greatly influenced by Marxism and socialist ideology.

If Gandhi were an admirer of Bhagat Singh, he would have seriously tried to save him from the gallows. He just gave a lip service by saying a few words of sympathy in a passing way. In his heart of hearts he was wary of the revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and his colleagues due to basic ideological differences. While those young revolutionaries had envisioned a socialist India, Gandhi's had the vision of a State led by the Indian Elites representing the wealthy business lobby, to the contrary.

Below is what Gandhi wrote( and thought) about socialism. Yes its right that he believed Nehru would be the 'best person' to lead the country.

Gandhi's socialism was never manifest in his actions.



On Capitalism:


To know his standpoint more clearly, I have already recommended a book "Gandhivad ki Shav Pareeksha". You may like to read it and will get all answers.


Some people do read Gandhi's literature ,trust me, though for different reasons. His autobiography is still great and relevant to me. I am not sure how many institues would be there ,which the govt is running, just to publish Gandhi's literature. They wont be many and wont be costing too much of money. Though I don’t agree with the above but Gandhi's crtics should not be worried about this. If Gandhism is losing relevance they should be happy. But Gandhi's name was poitically used by Nehru-Gandhi's family and many people in India believed(that time) that these Gandhi's are relatives of this great Gandhi.(How wise were we?) Congress still use Gandhi's name but left his policies soon after independence.

Ans: Gandhi's Autobiography: Depiction of sensuous experiments have made this book relevant for many. It is relevant not only to you but equally relevant to me as well. When I was of your age, I read the relevant portions twice or thrice. But was that so important to share those personal experiments and secrets with public. Who knows thousands and thousand might have followed suit inspired by those novel Gandhian methods.

Gandhi Family's connection: People are no more as innocent that they can be beguiled into believing this Gandhi connection.

P.S: I could be wrong on the above but this is just what I have read and understood. Also the views above mentioned are Gandhi's view not necessarilly depicts my views

Chhote, I remember, quite recently you were eulogizing the Moaists comparing them to Bhagat Singh. You had said that like Bhagat Singh they will achieve their little. Here you seem to be defending Gandhi in not supporting or defending Bhagat Singh. Aren't you contradicting yourself.

 

[cooljat]

.

Very enlightening reply VP sir ji n' I second most of your viewpoint. Never been a fan of Gandhi.

Btw, for all of your ref Gandhi's been discussed on JL a lot of times and it's been quite interesting too. Read this very informative thread: http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?7324-Nathu-Ram-Godse-s-Speech-At-The-Trial

Cheers
Jit

Chhote please read between the lines.
Gandhi was not a saint. But Gandhi was somewhere between a saint and a politician. Gandhi also objected using the name Mahatma in front of him. Such a big name he is that no doubt he would attract controversies.

Ans: Hardly matters whether Gandhi lived saintly life or a natural life like other ordinary mortals. It is the thinking which matters more than the clothes one wears. A man in Armani Jean and a Burberry T-Shirt may be a saint but a man in lion cloth (langoti) may not necessarily be a saint.

I beg to differ Bade bhai!!

I want to know more about his appeasement policies and was he alone responcible for the Nation divide??

Ans: Sangh Parivar may be in a better position to explain this.

In fact what I have read and understood is Gandhi fought agaisnt economy based on large scale industries. Because he knew it could ruin our economy where majority of the people reside in villages. He promoted small scale industries. Gandhians developed 'charkha'. Set up organisations to help village development. Focused on small scale industries.

Ans: I used to buy Khadi Kurta Pyajama from Gandhi Ashram in Regal Building in Cannaught place during my college days to promote cottage and small scale industry as inspired by Gandhi ji (and also with an intention to get a tag of Neta ji.) Soon, I was dismayed to find the rates of hand-made khadi clothes much more than the machine made clothes. Specialization and large scale production is always cost effective in relation to small scale production. Charkha was good for certain kind of clothes/rugs used in villages during Gandhian era but the villagers were already making use of it without Gandhi ji's advice. Charkha is not a substitute of Industrialization and heavy machinery which is the backbone of a healthy economy.

People think Nehru is what Gandhi was and carried his legacy. No they used to differ on many occasions and what Nehru implemented in later years is not all what Gandhi believed and preached. Gandhi was against 'westernised economy which many congress Govt followed. Gandhi was very much afraid to see concentration of economic and political power into the hands of the state which happened later. He would even prefer private ownership to state ownership.

Ans: You are right. Gandhi preferred private ownership of national wealth to State ownership. I can infer from your statement, that Gandhi wanted concentration of wealth in private hands. In other words he was more more concerned about Birla, Dalmiya and Jamna lal Bajaj. He never talked about egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunities.

Yes Bhagat Singh was influenced by Marxism( I heard) but I also heard Gandhi was an admirer of Bhagat Singh and publicly applauded his patriotism on many occasions. The Mahatma in fact wrote to the Viceroy pleading him to commute the death sentence of Singh and his accomplices.

Let me brush up and update your knowledge. Bhagat Singh was a great admirer of Marx and Lenin and their philosophies. As far as my knowledge goes, he was reading a book written by Lenin just before he was summoned for hanging (as per the version of jail authorities). One of his comrades-in-arms and contemporary revolutionary, famous Hindi writer Yash Pal has also given many instances of his being greatly influenced by Marxism and socialist ideology.

If Gandhi were an admirer of Bhagat Singh, he would have seriously tried to save him from the gallows. He just gave a lip service by saying a few words of sympathy in a passing way. In his heart of hearts he was wary of the revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh and his colleagues due to basic ideological differences. While those young revolutionaries had envisioned a socialist India, Gandhi's had the vision of a State led by the Indian Elites representing the wealthy business lobby, to the contrary.

Below is what Gandhi wrote( and thought) about socialism. Yes its right that he believed Nehru would be the 'best person' to lead the country.

Gandhi's socialism was never manifest in his actions.



On Capitalism:


To know his standpoint more clearly, I have already recommended a book "Gandhivad ki Shav Pareeksha". You may like to read it and will get all answers.


Some people do read Gandhi's literature ,trust me, though for different reasons. His autobiography is still great and relevant to me. I am not sure how many institues would be there ,which the govt is running, just to publish Gandhi's literature. They wont be many and wont be costing too much of money. Though I don’t agree with the above but Gandhi's crtics should not be worried about this. If Gandhism is losing relevance they should be happy. But Gandhi's name was poitically used by Nehru-Gandhi's family and many people in India believed(that time) that these Gandhi's are relatives of this great Gandhi.(How wise were we?) Congress still use Gandhi's name but left his policies soon after independence.

Ans: Gandhi's Autobiography: Depiction of sensuous experiments have made this book relevant for many. It is relevant not only to you but equally relevant to me as well. When I was of your age, I read the relevant portions twice or thrice. But was that so important to share those personal experiments and secrets with public. Who knows thousands and thousand might have followed suit inspired by those novel Gandhian methods.

Gandhi Family's connection: People are no more as innocent that they can be beguiled into believing this Gandhi connection.

P.S: I could be wrong on the above but this is just what I have read and understood. Also the views above mentioned are Gandhi's view not necessarilly depicts my views

Chhote, I remember, quite recently you were eulogizing the Moaists comparing them to Bhagat Singh. You had said that like Bhagat Singh they will achieve their little. Here you seem to be defending Gandhi in not supporting or defending Bhagat Singh. Aren't you contradicting yourself.

 

[virj]

Chhote please read between the lines.

Chhote, I remember, quite recently you were eulogizing the Moaists comparing them to Bhagat Singh. You had said that like Bhagat Singh they will achieve their little. Here you seem to be defending Gandhi in not supporting or defending Bhagat Singh. Aren't you contradicting yourself.

Bade,

I dont believe what Sang Parivar or BJP says. They know that Gandhi's name is associated with Congress and hence they often come up with various theories. Though I would belive what a neutral person like you say.

I said these(economis) are not necessary my views. These are gandhi's views. Gandhi said he couldnt save Bhagat Singh. But u are right. It could be a mere 'lip-service' though he claim he send a letter to the viceroy. Gandhi could be right too ?? But he was a politician not a saint. But I support Bhagat as a great deshbagat not as a great socialist. As a great man who was ready to defy all odds who was ready to die for our country.

To be honest to me Bhagat was never a great economist and I have never read his economic theories. Yes they wanted a socialist India but like Gandhi I dont believe in the concetration of powers and economies in the hand of the state. Because I also dont trust state. And guess what we are against that socialism today. Bade, I only compared naxalis (not moasist) to Bagat only in the manner that they will fight even though they cant win like Bhagat did. I made myself clear 5 times in that thread already. He knew he couldnt win the British but he hoped that his sacrifice would bring the change which he dreamed of. People said they dont support voilence but still they cherish bhagat not gandhi. I said voilence can be justified in both cases (here and there).

Gandhi holds the view of the maximization of social welfare and for this he gives prime importance to the welfare of the individuals by reducing inequalities in income and wealth. According to Gandhi every person should be provided with bare minimum necessaries i.e. food, shelter, and clothing. Concentration of wealth to a few groups of people certainly will shatter the dream of a society which will be socialist in nature. Gandhi is in favour of the self-sufficient village economy where the villages will be the independent economic units. 'Khadi' was also used as a tool of non-cooperation. It was used as a tool to boycot all British products. He stressed on the small scale considering 80% people lived in villlage that time and were killing these small karigars. That’s why Gandhi gives stress on the growth of the rural industries like khadi, handlooms, sericulture and handicrafts. These were his views and looks OK to me during that time though some are still relevant.

You said "Gandhi preferred private ownership of national wealth to State ownership. I can infer from your statement, that Gandhi wanted concentration of wealth in private hands. In other words he was more more concerned about Birla, Dalmiya and Jamna lal Bajaj. He never talked about egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunities" ------> Answer to this is already mentioned above--> Gandhi was a humanitarian. He was against capitalism but not against capitalists. He once said " The State Govt should impose death duties so that propoerties of the millionaires go to the poor not to their heirs. But Gandhi has distrust of the state and its powers. It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service. As above said Gandhi never trusted state like communist and I also dont trust state. Do u?

Now whether Gandhi was faking all this and he was a pro capitalist or whether he conspired to kill Bhagat or what he used to do with those bakris, I dont know because I didnt live with him. But to me Gandhi was a great man who made this country 'pagal' and to me Bhagat was a great legand people like whom born once in centuries. Lot of people say Krantikari's would have achieved independence much earlier. Well I m no God but it would have been very hard to defeat British in gun battle.

You say "Gandhi's socialism was never manifest in his actions." Lot has been said about his above and again he was capitalist by profession but socialist by heart. He Set up organisations to help village development

If I support Gandhi does that mean I oppose Bhagat? To me no. I support both on many if not all points. Though I also oppose Gandhi on a few occasions but overall this person was great and wasnt that bad as we try to present him often.

Different people have written different theoris on Gandhi and Bhagat and Subash. But many of them are contradictory?



'Gandhi Family's connection: People are no more that innocent that they can be beguiled into believing this Gandhi connection." I clearly said that time ( 40 -50 years before) people believed this not today. Though I dont call them fool they were ignorant

Gandhi's Autobiography: Depiction of sensuous experiments have made this book relevant for many. It is relevant not only to you but equally relevant to me as well. When I was of your age, I read the relevant portions twice or thrice. But was that so important to share those personal experiments and secrets with public. ??? Really !!!!!!! Was it a 'capitalist' romantic novel !!!!!!!!!!

BTW thanks for updating and brushing my knowledge. Always welcome!

 

[vijay]

Regarding Bose:

Even though Bose and Gandhi had differing ideologies, the latter called Bose the “Patriot of Patriots” (Bose had called Gandhi “Father of the Nation”). They both had their own ideological differences and he never defected Gandhi in election as far as I remember,though he opposed him because he didnt like his ideologies.

In 1938, Subhash was nominated by Gandhi as candiadte for President of National Congress. Guess what ? Subhash was not a primary member of Congress at that time. because at that time Subhash was vastly popular through out the country and among the congress party. As Subhash and Gandhi had different ideologies, Gandhi afraid that Subhash's influence can split the congress. That's why gandhi Nominated Subhash for Presidential Election in Congress. Hence in the 51st session of the Congress held at Haripura, Subhas was unanimously elected as the President of Indian national Congress.

Gandhi thought of playing subhash card as per his thoughts but Subhash had his own plans. He called upon the people to get united for an armed struggle against the Britishers. Gandhi was strongly against it. And the rifts between the two went on.


In 1939, Subhash contested again for the Presidential Election and was strongly opposed by Gandhi and Nehru. Subhash defeated gandhi's nominee Dr. Pattabhi Sittaramayya. Gandhi openly showed his discomfort by saying that "Ramayya's defeat is my own defeat". He said that Subhas's references to his colleagues were unjustified and unworthy. He remarked that since Subhas had criticized his colleagues as 'rightists', it would be most appropriate on his part to choose a homogeneous cabinet and enforce his action. That was clear that Gandhi was calling a non cooperation movement within Congress against Subhash.

At the Tripuri Congress, Bose as the president made a clear proposal that the Indian National Congress should immediately send an ultimatum to the British Government demanding independence within six months. It was opposed by the Gandhi and Nehru supporters. In the midst of the hostile situation Subhas resigned the Presidentship of the Congress on 29th April, 1939.

One more interesting point for you people.

Do you know that Subhash Bose was declared a criminal of war by govt of India ( By british at that time ) and his that status didn't changed even after Independence. India had a treaty with British to hand over Subhash as soon as they found him. So, even in Independent India subhash was most wanted war criminal.

Subhash's status as a 'war criminal' was terminated by the first opposition govt in 1977 by terminating that treaty with the British.

 

[vijay]

Gandhi's Non-Violence

First of all, Gandhi never introduced the concepts of non-violence, civil disobedience etc. Boycott of British goods, civil disobedience, non-violence were already being practiced by the Congress when Gandhi joined the movement.

Interestingly, Gandhi's Non-Violence was more a symbol of cowradiness rather than any braveness. Gandhi's non-violence was not inspired by a genuine sense of non-injury but it was a blind fanatical adherence to a Hindu dictate 'Ahimsa paramo dharma'(non-violence is the highest principle)?

It would be interesting to see what advice Gandhi had for the British when they were threatened by the German troops during WWII and had to defend themselves. Here is part of the letter Gandhi wrote to Winston Churchill on the 4th of July, 1940 :

"I appeal for cessation of hostilities because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for having you or humanity. 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. You will give these but not your souls not your minds."

How many would like to agree with What Gandhi's advice to Churchill ?

Another incident of his deceptive and cowardice non-voilence was Chouri-Chora episode.

The villegers of Chauri Chora in Gorakhur District joined the non-corporation Movement. The villagers started picketing the local bazaar against liquor sales and high food prices. It was a peaceful non-violent protest. But the police arrested and beat up the volunteer leader Bhagwan Amit. A crowd came to the police station to protest, and the police responded by firing. The angry crowd then burnt down the police station, killing 22 policemen inside it.

Immediately upon hearing of the incident, Gandhi unilaterally called off the entire non-co-operation movement. Not even other Congress leaders were consulted. Even as British courts sentenced 172 of the 225 Chauri Chaura accused to death, there was no protest from Gandhi.

The impact of the calling off the strikes was very traumatic for many Indians. Scores and scores of Indians had given up Government jobs, children had left schools, students had boycotted colleges thinking their sacrifice would gain freedom for their country. But now they were all left stranded. They were rejected from their previous jobs and institutions and had no future at all. Gandhi did not bother about them one bit. He was so furious that his word was not followed, that he destroyed the futures of thousands who had sacrificed all they had to fight for freedom. Instead of unilaterally calling off the civil disobedience movement he could have reprimanded those responsible for the incident, but instead he chose to destroy the lives of thousands of selfless people.

Was Gandhi's non-voilence theory stood only about non-violence against the British or Indian mass should had been included also ?

Gandhi never showed any concern about the voilence against the Indians by the British.

 

[malikdeepak1]

My query is that in the first place itself if he was such a great patriot then why did he go to SA and started practising there? And why he started movements only when he got thrown out of train by britishers? Didn't he see such things earlier or he realized only when he suffered the same from britishers? Gandhi ko kabhi lathi khate hue suna?? jabki aur baki log pit-te rahte the uski movements me.

I'm not counting down his efforts for freedom of our country, but these things do come up in my mind whenever i think of Gandhi.

 

[virj]

First of all, Gandhi never introduced the concepts of non-violence, civil disobedience etc. Boycott of British goods, civil disobedience, non-violence were already being practiced by the Congress when Gandhi joined the movement.

Interestingly, Gandhi's Non-Violence was more a symbol of cowradiness rather than any braveness.

Yes, non voilence was practised earlier in various countries.

Gandhi changed the scene of Indian politics to which Britishers had no answer. Britishers tried to project them as benovalent rulers as someone who are morally superior not only militarily. They did some good reforms. There were people in India who used to support Britain as they thought they are doing good work. There was no unity among Indians. Gandhi started protesting through non voilence. But this struggle created dilemma in British minds. How to tackle it? Should they use force against the non voilent protest?

It was a movement which united India. Took struggle to the masses all over. Bagat Singh, Chandershekar etc were all influenced by this at one stage. Though it was alone not responcible for the freedom. For freedom there were a lot of factor responcible. Like Violent protest by our great krantikaris, 'Quit india' Movement, England itself became weak after war and it was hard for them to fool people any more. Indian people were not satisfied with anything lesser than freedom. But this non-voilence movement provided that base which was much needed at that time.

 

[rakeshsehrawat]

I think second world war made England very weak and it become difficult for them to control whole world and improve themselves at same time.
Loss of legends like Bhagat Singh Netaji and Azad united people emotionally which created a moment. Every moment needs a leader and due to good politicians like Nehru Gandhi was pictured as a very great personality.

 

[ravinderjeet]

raaj karien bhaaman,baaniye. marey jaataan ke chhorey.
kitnaaey samjhaaley eenney, rahey korey-ke-korey.

 

[vijay123]

Jab jago tabhi savera. Balmiki bhi ek daaku tha or Vishwamitra bhi bahut ghamandi raja. Everyone need some sort of stimulus to achieve something. By birth to sab bhole hi paida hote hain leking aage jakar kya kaam karte hain us se hi unki pehchaan hoti hai. Lathi or goli to kabhi koi neta nahi khata, aaj bhi yehi sach hai.

My query is that in the first place itself if he was such a great patriot then why did he go to SA and started practising there? And why he started movements only when he got thrown out of train by britishers? Didn't he see such things earlier or he realized only when he suffered the same from britishers? Gandhi ko kabhi lathi khate hue suna?? jabki aur baki log pit-te rahte the uski movements me.

I'm not counting down his efforts for freedom of our country, but these things do come up in my mind whenever i think of Gandhi.

 

[malikdeepak1]

Jab jago tabhi savera. Balmiki bhi ek daaku tha or Vishwamitra bhi bahut ghamandi raja. Everyone need some sort of stimulus to achieve something. By birth to sab bhole hi paida hote hain leking aage jakar kya kaam karte hain us se hi unki pehchaan hoti hai. Lathi or goli to kabhi koi neta nahi khata, aaj bhi yehi sach hai.

Ok, I accept your first line. But still m not satisfied with your answer sir. Meri ab bhi ye samjh nahi aata ki wo england me padhayi poori karne ke baad SA kyu gya practice karne ke liye? Bharat wapis kyu nahi aaya? Uska janam ek gulaam desh me hua tha. to kya wo prichit nahi tha apen desh ke badtar haalato se? Kya usne kabhi nahi dekha apne desh ke logo ko gulaami karte hue? Aadmi kitna hi gwaar kyu na ho, yadi wo apne bhai-bhanduo ko gulaami karte hue ya atyaachaar sahte hue dekhta hai to uske ander khun khud b khud ubalne lagta hai. Aur gandhi ko to achi seeksha mili hui thi. usko to bahot pahle samajh jana chaiye tha. Bhagat singh ki khaani to sabko pta hai. chota sa bacha khet me bandook ugane ki koshish kar rha tha taki apne desh ko ajad karwa sake!

Gandhi ne SA ko kyu chuna apne desh ke bajaye, ye meri samjh ke pare hai. yadi aapke pas koi jankaari uplabdh ho to kripya usko share karke meri uljhan ko dur kare.

Aur us time me aur aaj ke time me farak hai sir. Lalaji ki maut ka karan to pta hi hoga? Simon wapis jao! ka nara lagaya tha unhone. leader the us ke wo. unki maut lathiyo se hi hui thi. Fir gandhi kaise bacha rha 30 saal tak bina lathi khaye, totally out of my imagination.

I'm sorry to ask the questions again, but i was not satisfied by the reply, so i repeated them.

 

[singhabhimanyu]

भाई तेरी लोकेशन का PINCODE रह गया.
rajpaldular

LocationMUKUND GARH, JHUNJHUNU,RAJASTHAN AND OFFICE NO. 09, COMAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, PLOT NO. 305, WARD NO 12/B, NEAR SHIVAJI PARK, GANDHI DHAM (KANDLA PORT) KUTCH, GUJARAT



जिब कौन कह है तन्ने कहन की?

मैंने ये निर्णय लिया है कि अब मैं श्री मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी जी को न बापू कहूँगा और न ही राष्ट्रपिता.

 

[vijay]

Here is the answer to your query !

Meri ab bhi ye samjh nahi aata ki wo england me padhayi poori karne ke baad SA kyu gya practice karne ke liye?

Gandhi ne SA ko kyu chuna apne desh ke bajaye, ye meri samjh ke pare hai. yadi aapke pas koi jankaari uplabdh ho to kripya usko share karke meri uljhan ko dur kare.

Gandhi went South Africa on behalf of 'Voluntary Indian Infantry Regiment' of British Empire. Gandhi participated in the crushing of the Bombatta rebellion in which more than four thousand Africans were killed and thousands were sentenced to whipping. Gandhi himself could not take part in actual warfare as he was not eligible for military service due to his physical condition. Gandhi was actively involved in the recruitment for the 'Voluntary Indian Infantry Regiment'. Gandhi also ran an ambulance corps to help the wounded soldiers fighting the Africans. For his services, Gandhi eventually won the War Medal and was promoted to Sergeant Major.

Gandhi later wrote in his autobiography (p. 231): "I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the `rebellion' itself, but I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire. The rightness or otherwise of the `rebellion' was therefore not likely to affect my decision."

Gandhi wrote in his 'Indian Opinion' of September 24 1903, "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We also believe that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race."

Now, it can be easily understandable that why the British and Western Media admired Gandhi.

 

[upendersingh]

पिछले १०० वर्षों के इतिहास के अध्ययन के पश्चात, मैंने ये निर्णय लिया है कि अब मैं श्री मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी जी को न बापू कहूँगा और न ही राष्ट्रपिता. मैं उन्हें महात्मा भी नहीं मानता.

गांधी एक बहुत बड़ा नाम है. इस दुनिया में इस नाम ने पता नहीं कितने लोगों को प्रेरणा दी है और कितने लोगों का भला किया है. अधिकतर अफ़्रीकी देश, जैसे दक्षिण अफ्रीका, जिंबाब्वे इत्यादि इसी नाम से प्रेरित होकर अंग्रेजों की गुलामी से मुक्त हुए. अमेरिका में इसी गाँधी नाम से प्रेरित होकर अफ्रीकन अमेरिकन सिविल राइट्स के लिए मार्टिन लूथर किंग जैसे लोगों ने आवाज उठाई और सफलता भी हासिल की. गाँधी को भारतीय परिप्रेक्ष्य में नहीं, बल्कि विश्व परिप्रेक्ष्य में देखा जाना चाहिए. गाँधी से ज्यादा मशहूर नाम इस दुनिया में भगवानों को छोड़कर किसी का भी नहीं है. गाँधी ने लोगों को शराब न पीने की शिक्षा दी, जो एक अच्छी शिक्षा है. गाँधी ने अछूतों को भी हिंदू धर्म से जोड़े रखने में अहम् भूमिका निभाई. गाँधी को एक महात्मा कहा जा सकता है.

मैं उन्हें एक भ्रष्ट कांग्रेसी नेता के रूप में मानता हूँ, जिनके समय में अहिंसक स्वतंत्रता आन्दोलन को गति मिली, अल्पसंख्यक तुष्टिकरण हुआ और अंततः देश का विभाजन हुआ.क्या आप भी मेरे विचारों से सहमत हैं, यदि हाँ तो एक स्वतंत्र भारत नागरिक होने के नाते अपने विचारों को खुलकर जाटलैंड.कॉम पर आने दीजिये और अपने मित्रों के विचार भी इस विषय पर जानिए.

अहिंसक आंदोलन उस समय की मजबूरी थी. ब्रिटेन के पास बी-52 बमवर्षक विमान थे, जबकि भारत के पास तो अपनी कोई सेना भी नहीं थी. ऐसे में कुछ न करने से बेहतर था कुछ करना. गाँधी ने वही किया. उसने भारतीय लोगों को एकजुट किया और अहिंसक आंदोलन से अंग्रेजों को ये अहसास करवाया कि वे गलत कर रहे हैं. सबसे बड़ी बात ये कि उसकी कोशिश का कुछ नतीजा निकला और सौभाग्य से या दुर्भाग्य से उसी दौरान भारत को आज़ादी मिल गई, उस वजह से 'गाँधी' नाम और भी बड़ा बन गया. देश के विभाजन के लिए अकेले गाँधी को जिम्मेदार ठहराना हरगिज उचित नहीं है. उसके लिए मोहम्मद अली जिन्ना और अंग्रेज भी बराबर के जिम्मेदार थे. अच्छा हुआ जो भारत का विभाजन हो गया, नहीं तो आज भारत में लगभग 50 करोड़ मुसलमान होते और बहुत संभव था कि एकाध प्रधानमंत्री भी मुसलमान बन गया होता. अब हमारे पास पाकिस्तान और बंगलादेश के रूप में एक लक्ष्य तो है उन्हें वापस हिंदू बनाकर भारत में मिलाने के लिए, यदि देश का विभाजन न हुआ होता तो फिर तो ये हम लोगों में घुल-मिलकर रहते और फिर इन्हें निशाने पर नहीं लिया जा सकता था. हाँ, ये जरूर हैं कि गाँधी का अहिंसा का सिद्धांत वर्तमान समय में अप्रासंगिक हो चुका है और मेरा इस सिद्धांत में हरगिज विश्वास नहीं है, लेकिन इसके बावजूद गांधी को हम अच्छा नहीं कह सकते तो फिर बुरा भी क्यों कहें. 35-40 साल की उम्र के बाद उसने लगातार बस एक धोती पहनी, चरखा कातकर खादी को बढ़ावा दिया, राम भजन गाए, पढ़ा-लिखा वकील होने के बावजूद कोई बंगला, गाड़ी, धन-दौलत नहीं बनाई. ये भी कोई कम बात थोड़े ही है. ठीक बात तो यही है कि चाहे गरम दल वाले रहे हों या नरम दल वाले, जिन लोगों ने भी भारत की आज़ादी में योगदान दिया, उनके लिए समान रूप से सम्मान व्यक्त करना चाहिए. बाकी सब लोगों के अपने-अपने विचार हैं.