A View on Gandhi

[sunillathwal]

that Gandhi was not some philosopher but a shrewd politician.

Precisely.
He was not what we are taught in NCERT books! His shortcomings are either completely omitted or glossed over. One thing that is hammered again and again: He gave us FREEDOM and he was a saint.

Well, I agree with your point that Gandhi never asked anybody to call him 'father of the nation' or 'mahatma' and others have created this image.
But when you (and other members) say that he had the charisma, he was a 'strong' character, he had the mass following, he followed his principles, he was revered by the other great leaders etc.; well, even Adolf Hitler too had these qualities, he was fierce nationalist, he was also a 'strong' character, he too had blind followers!! but what world remembers of Hitler is as pure 'Evil'!

Regarding, your first point of 'Indian' soldiers fighting for British in WW1: That is the difference between a soldier and a leader. You and I remember Gandhi even today but do we remember even name of even one soldier who fought for British (rhetorical question )!? It was the crunch time for Indian Congress Party, which was quite influential by then, to take a stand against British but they did not! When these 'soldiers' had a leader during WW2, they were 'ready' to fight against British.

 

[deepshi]

Precisely.
He was not what we are taught in NCERT books! His shortcomings are either completely omitted or glossed over. .

Precisely...if its truth..let it be all there, instead of brainwashing young minds with lopsided biased information.
Wonder if the young kids will gloss over the OTHER and true details though.
Farce..

 

[cooljat]

.

I thought other way round as I find most of your posts 'Politically Correct' ..

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..

 

[cooljat]

.

It doesn't matter and am not trying to conclude anything here. I just wanted to bring this in your notice and open your blind fold eyes that Gandhi wasn't that great as he was presented. But you guys just refuse to listen anything against Gandhi.

Why don't you guys answer the questions Samar raised instead of finding other breaks!

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.

 

[kapdal]

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.

Oh bhai, you completely misunderstood the "may or may not" comment and then used it to post your entire reply! "May or may not" meant that I don't know the veracity of these comments. What else can I say about something I don't know? And immediately afterwards, I said that it doesn't matter as it is not shocking even if it was true. And you have built an entire case around "may or may not"!

You pick statements of Gandhi when he was 20-30 years old and then compare it with his actions when he was 40-70 years old. If you do this with any person on the planet, you will find that he is a hypocrite. People change all the time based on their life experiences and I am sorry if that is news to you. You know what, when you die after 120 years or so, and people analyse what you have written on JL- I can bet my life that your thoughts won't come out as consistent. As I said earlier, Gandhi was not God born with super-duper qualities. He evolved and changed like every other human does. That is why I gave you so many examples of historical figures who changed over their lifetime based on their experiences. Plus the context was different in those times. One can't judge historical figures by the standards of our time. The period of time you are quoting, Gandhi was actually participating in Boer Wars on behalf of the British Empire! Is it really shocking he said all this? As I said, the only people who should be shocked are those who have known all their life that Gandhi was God's Avatar (which you probably did till you discovered Google).

Gandhi was not in a position to send the troops anywhere. From where do you get such ideas? In fact, he didn't even support the British Empire during World War 2 (he did in World War 1 and I have discussed that earlier). And the comment on Jews, Gandhi was merely repeating his political philosophy, where you did this sort of "crazy" stuff to make the other person realise his folly/guilt himself and to evoke revulsion within the aggressor or others. As if you resist with force, it'd be a fight and the weaker side would be the losing side. This is what George Orwell said about Gandhi's Jew comment:
"Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. He did not — indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not — take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you're another” type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence.” After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths."

Orwell goes ahead to find holes in Gandhi's philosophy:
"At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary."

Orwell is the guy who gave us Animal Farm and 1984. I hope his word carries more weight than some silly guy's blog out on his own trip to ridicule Gandhi. Which is why I think source matters.

Again, my personal opinion on Gandhi's quote on Jews would be negative. I think it was a naive comment and I am in full agreement with Orwell's 2nd paragraph. Similar are my reasons for criticising Gandhi. I have criticised him a lot on JL. And this is important. Why do I still jump in here to support him? Because the kind of charges being levelled against him are absolutely abysmal. If he is not a hero to you, doesn't mean you make him a villain. Because he was a good man, a remarkable man, someone who comes around once in a blue moon. Which is why a guy of Einstein's stature said what he said about it being unbelievable that such a man even existed. That he was extraordinary doesn't mean I have blind faith in his policies/philosophy. I am free to judge them on merit. But it is painful to see a good guy, one who is long dead at that, being taken apart with innuendoes. There are very few followers of Gandhi in India, if at all. There are those who just misuse his name for political gain. And the others who hate him for one reason or the other. Someone who spent half his life in service of mankind (Indians at that) deserves much better. That is why I think it is the right thing to do to defend him against such silly charges, even if you are not a follower or have problems with his politics/philosophy.

 

[kapdal]

Precisely.
He was not what we are taught in NCERT books! His shortcomings are either completely omitted or glossed over. One thing that is hammered again and again: He gave us FREEDOM and he was a saint.

Well, I agree with your point that Gandhi never asked anybody to call him 'father of the nation' or 'mahatma' and others have created this image.
But when you (and other members) say that he had the charisma, he was a 'strong' character, he had the mass following, he followed his principles, he was revered by the other great leaders etc.; well, even Adolf Hitler too had these qualities, he was fierce nationalist, he was also a 'strong' character, he too had blind followers!! but what world remembers of Hitler is as pure 'Evil'!

Regarding, your first point of 'Indian' soldiers fighting for British in WW1: That is the difference between a soldier and a leader. You and I remember Gandhi even today but do we remember even name of even one soldier who fought for British (rhetorical question )!? It was the crunch time for Indian Congress Party, which was quite influential by then, to take a stand against British but they did not! When these 'soldiers' had a leader during WW2, they were 'ready' to fight against British.

But again, what we are taught in NCERT books is not Gandhi's fault. His own autobiography is full of critical material on himself. He didn't write these glowing tributes to himself (which most people do in their autobiographies).

The comparison with Hitler is "selective"- you have selected some qualities that match. Is the fact that both of them could exercise remarkable power over men make them equivalent? Isn't it important to see how they used this power? One man used it for his own personal ego trip, to cause much destruction, millions of death and spread hatred. The other man used it to influence people to be good to others, to spread peace and whole lot of other "good" things.

What you said about leader and solider is a truism. It is bang on. But what's more to it apart from that? You can put any leader, any famous king- and it would have been the case. If you are saying that the onus was on Gandhi/Congress to oppose the British, then you are right, right with the benefit of hindsight. I can only say again that those were different times. We didn't live in those times. Not a single Indian leader was thinking in terms of free India in those times. Maybe we are so patriotic now that the thought is hard to swallow. But it was the case. Gandhi was not even that powerful in India at that time. That he supported the Britishers during the war hoping that loyalty would result in more rights post war is a fact. The other more powerful leaders also did the same.

If you are referring to Bose in World War 2, that is a different story altogether. Firstly, his army was made up of British Indian Army soldiers captured by Germans/Japanese who otherwise would have become war prisoners. It was not as if that soldiers in British Indian Army defected to fight for him. Secondly, who knows the counterfactual had Germany/Japanese won. Would India have won its independence or would have been divided as war reward between Japanese and Germans, who were even more brutal masters than the British.

 

[ravichaudhary]

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.

Samar

Do take it easy.

Other people also " sleep with young, women, experiment with enema, brahmacharya".

No one is perfect. He was not God.

That should not be the only standard by whuch we should judge a person.

He has a lot of positives too.

He did inspire millions and milliions of Indians, and unite them. He touched and influenced many millions with his message.

The positive aspects of his life and philosophy influenced many movements in the orld. They achieved what violence could not.

This is not to say that non violence works always. Yet his method of non violence, did ensure communication with the other side, and the other side was shamed into first engagement, second self introspection.

Admittedly this occured only in cases where the other side was willing to engage, as in the case of the civil rights movement in the USA.

The point is that let us not be so carrried away in our criticism of this man, that we lose sight of the rest

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[harendramalik]

yes its the reality of gandhi/

 

[vijay]

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.

You should have take pain to read the whole thread before commenting.
Read my post ( No. 19) on this SAME thread where i clearly mentioned about Gandhi's Military assignments.

 

[vijay]

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

Let me try Samar !

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.

Take some pain to read the comments you posted last year at Jatland and compare them with your present point of views. Gandhi took at least few decades ( as compared to few months by you ) to bring some changes in his thoughts. At least he was not arrogant.

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.

History contains so many instances of may or may not and it is not a good idea to make it the core issue. We should only discuss what happened and why ?

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?

A wrong approach by Gandhi without any trace of doubt.

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.

Try to become fit and flexible to understand the core reality of life that life is not all about Black and White but it consists of Grey areas as a whole. If you take some pain to read first couple of pages to read my views about Gandhi then you can easily conclude that i am not impressed by Gandhi's views and approach in GENERAL. But, that doesn't mean that we should discard the good qualities of him.

Nobody cares what you think personally when you are commenting/posting on a public portal but its all about the general and acceptable viewpoints that matters provided that you have some reliable information to believe upon.

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.

There is no doubt that he was a shrewd person. He was intelligent, smart, opportunistic, straight forward, calm and contented. If these are the drawbacks and you believe on just black and white life then lets consider the opposite. Was he illiterate, dumb, not an opportunistic, introvert and shy, aggressive or arrogant and unsatisfied ?

Reply and justify your answer for yourself !

Avtaar ???? are you kidding ?

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.

I assume that you were eye witness and know what he uttered actually when he was shot by Godse.

May or may not ???????

 

[upendersingh]

यहां गांधी पर एक आरोप बार-बार लगाया जा रहा है कि वो नंगा होकर युवा लड़कियों के साथ सोता था. ऐसे आरोप लगाने वाले भाईयों से बस मैं यह जानना चाहता हूं कि ऐसा करके वे क्या सिद्ध करना चाहते हैं?
ऐसा लगता है कि गांधी को सदबुद्धि देर से आई. तब तक गांधी वैवाहिक जीवन भी भोग चुका था, कई बच्चों का पिता भी बन चुका था. ऐसे में उसके लिए सामान्य ब्रह्मचर्य के कोई मायने नहीं थे. कोई जेल में सजा काट रहा कैदी कहे कि मैं शराब नहीं पीता तो इस बात का कोई महत्व नहीं है, उसे शराब मिली ही नहीं, अन्यथा वो तो खूब पी लेता. तो शराब न पीने का महत्व उसका है, जिसके पास शराब उपलब्ध हो.
वृद्धावस्था में बिना लड़कियों के साथ सोए गांधी के ब्रह्मचर्य का कोई महत्व ही नहीं था, क्योंकि वो लगभग पूरा जीवन तो भोग चुका था. ऐसे में अपनी तपस्या को कड़ी करने के लिए उसने लड़कियों के साथ सोने को चुना. उसका यह कदम गलत कहा जा सकता है, बशर्ते कि कभी उन लड़कियों ने इस बाबत कोई शिकायत की हो.
क्या उन लड़कियों ने कभी कहा कि उन्हें ऐसा करने के लिए मजबूर किया जा रहा है? क्या उन लड़कियों ने कभी शिकायत की कि गांधी एक ढोंगी व्यक्ति है और वो रोजाना उनसे संबंध बनाता है. बहुत संभव है कि अंदर कमरे में गांधी उन लड़कियों को कह देता हो कि तुम मुझसे अलग सोओ, मैं यहां सोऊंगा तुम वहां सोओ. कुछ भी हो, उन लड़कियों ने कभी गांधी की शिकायत नहीं की.
हो सकता है गांधी के संपर्क में रहने से और गांधी के ऐसा करने से उन लड़कियों को भी जीवन में कुछ आत्मसंयम की शिक्षा मिली हो. 78 साल की आयु में जब गांधी की हत्या हुई तो जहां तक मैं जानता हूं, वे लड़कियां तो दुखी हुई थीं. हम अपने आप ही कैसे यह निर्णय ले सकते हैं कि गांधी तो बदमाश था और वो उन लड़कियों के साथ मुंह काला करता था?

 

[vijay123]

Bhai, hum le sakate hai, kyunk ab hame azaadi mil chuki hai. Hamne kabhi gulaami nahi dekhi, isliye ab aise insaan ki importance bhi khatam ho gayee hai. Now we have got new role models like pawar, laalu, mayawati, chautala, ajit, shibu soren, reddy etc etc. Yeh log sabko bahut inspire kar rahe hai

हम अपने आप ही कैसे यह निर्णय ले सकते हैं कि गांधी तो बदमाश था और वो उन लड़कियों के साथ मुंह काला करता था?

 

[samarkadian]

You should have take pain to read the whole thread before commenting.
Read my post ( No. 19) on this SAME thread where i clearly mentioned about Gandhi's Military assignments.

I just repeated. So?

Let me try Samar !

okay Vijay.

Take some pain to read the comments you posted last year at Jatland and compare them with your present point of views. Gandhi took at least few decades ( as compared to few months by you ) to bring some changes in his thoughts. At least he was not arrogant.

I improved upon my information about him and his principles.Yes I am arrogant, next.

History contains so many instances of may or may not and it is not a good idea to make it the core issue. We should only discuss what happened and why ?

When few people who wrote/made history then it must be discussed with WHO/WHOM

A wrong approach by Gandhi without any trace of doubt.



Try to become fit and flexible to understand the core reality of life that life is not all about Black and White but it consists of Grey areas as a whole. If you take some pain to read first couple of pages to read my views about Gandhi then you can easily conclude that i am not impressed by Gandhi's views and approach in GENERAL. But, that doesn't mean that we should discard the good qualities of him.

Is there anything grey between birth and death in life? What is grey abouth both? I ve read your view in that post and yes are unimpressed with him. His good qualities were nothing but a facade of his own whims. As Kapil said - My way or high way kind while leading 35 Crore population. Exclude myself from We here.

Nobody cares what you think personally when you are commenting/posting on a public portal but its all about the general and acceptable viewpoints that matters provided that you have some reliable information to believe upon.

Sources I provided contain *documented* facts and evidences not just day dreams. I don't care wether others care or not. I didn't write it to please anyone. It is about knowing and spreading certain things which people or me didnt know earlier and unmasking acceptable or general view.

There is no doubt that he was a shrewd person. He was intelligent, smart, opportunistic, straight forward, calm and contented. If these are the drawbacks and you believe on just black and white life then lets consider the opposite. Was he illiterate, dumb, not an opportunistic, introvert and shy, aggressive or arrogant and unsatisfied ?

He was tharki, paedophillic, hypocrite, unsatisfied sexualy, arrogant wife beater, interovertly violent blackmailer, insensitive father whose two sons left him and accepted Islam, cheater to Kasturba. Rest in next edition of hate bulletin as Kapil said.

Reply and justify your answer for yourself !

Did and already convinced.

Avtaar ???? are you kidding ?

Yeps Lord Mounbaiton and many authors put him at par with Jesus and Budha.

I assume that you were eye witness and know what he uttered actually when he was shot by Godse.

Documented witnesses were his own personal secretary , Godse and Manu. You assumed utterly wrong about my presence there.

May or may not ???????

Definitely, Yes or Not!

यहां गांधी पर एक आरोप बार-बार लगाया जा रहा है कि वो नंगा होकर युवा लड़कियों के साथ सोता था. ऐसे आरोप लगाने वाले भाईयों से बस मैं यह जानना चाहता हूं कि ऐसा करके वे क्या सिद्ध करना चाहते हैं?

Pahli baat aarop nahi laga rahe jo hai wo bata rahe hain Upender.

Sidh:-

Tharki, Paedophillic and further a cheater!

ऐसा लगता है कि गांधी को सदबुद्धि देर से आई. तब तक गांधी वैवाहिक जीवन भी भोग चुका था, कई बच्चों का पिता भी बन चुका था. ऐसे में उसके लिए सामान्य ब्रह्मचर्य के कोई मायने नहीं थे. कोई जेल में सजा काट रहा कैदी कहे कि मैं शराब नहीं पीता तो इस बात का कोई महत्व नहीं है, उसे शराब मिली ही नहीं, अन्यथा वो तो खूब पी लेता. तो शराब न पीने का महत्व उसका है, जिसके पास शराब उपलब्ध हो.

Aisa lagta hai ya aisa jante ho?

वृद्धावस्था में बिना लड़कियों के साथ सोए गांधी के ब्रह्मचर्य का कोई महत्व ही नहीं था, क्योंकि वो लगभग पूरा जीवन तो भोग चुका था. ऐसे में अपनी तपस्या को कड़ी करने के लिए उसने लड़कियों के साथ सोने को चुना. उसका यह कदम गलत कहा जा सकता है, बशर्ते कि कभी उन लड़कियों ने इस बाबत कोई शिकायत की हो.

What the heck is Barshate part, Upender? Sushila Nair told Ved Mehta that Gandhi was a ''dirty mind''.

क्या उन लड़कियों ने कभी कहा कि उन्हें ऐसा करने के लिए मजबूर किया जा रहा है? क्या उन लड़कियों ने कभी शिकायत की कि गांधी एक ढोंगी व्यक्ति है और वो रोजाना उनसे संबंध बनाता है. बहुत संभव है कि अंदर कमरे में गांधी उन लड़कियों को कह देता हो कि तुम मुझसे अलग सोओ, मैं यहां सोऊंगा तुम वहां सोओ. कुछ भी हो, उन लड़कियों ने कभी गांधी की शिकायत नहीं की.

Kisse karni thi? To Nehru the other ******.?

हो सकता है गांधी के संपर्क में रहने से और गांधी के ऐसा करने से उन लड़कियों को भी जीवन में कुछ आत्मसंयम की शिक्षा मिली हो. 78 साल की आयु में जब गांधी की हत्या हुई तो जहां तक मैं जानता हूं, वे लड़कियां तो दुखी हुई थीं. हम अपने आप ही कैसे यह निर्णय ले सकते हैं कि गांधी तो बदमाश था और वो उन लड़कियों के साथ मुंह काला करता था?

Ho Sakta hai unko bawasir bhi ho gayi ho? Niyrnya karne ke liye Kiraye per China se sasti labour bulaye?

Samar

Do take it easy.

Other people also " sleep with young, women, experiment with enema, brahmacharya".

No one is perfect. He was not God.

That should not be the only standard by whuch we should judge a person.

He has a lot of positives too.

He did inspire millions and milliions of Indians, and unite them. He touched and influenced many millions with his message.

The positive aspects of his life and philosophy influenced many movements in the orld. They achieved what violence could not.

This is not to say that non violence works always. Yet his method of non violence, did ensure communication with the other side, and the other side was shamed into first engagement, second self introspection.

Admittedly this occured only in cases where the other side was willing to engage, as in the case of the civil rights movement in the USA.

The point is that let us not be so carrried away in our criticism of this man, that we lose sight of the rest

Ravi Chaudhary

Ravi ji,

Non-Violence worked in movie Lage Raho Munna Bhai . Jat Aarkashan stryggle started with this Gandhigiri gimmicks to no avail and then when they turned violent and then was only noticed at state level.

Why did he fail to inspire Bhagat Singh and Nathu Ram Godse?

Saying no man is perfect is poor and just letting it go kind of explaination. He is being worshipped at one temple in UP. Again someone would say he didnt ask for it but he behaved like it for sure.

Rest is your own perorgative.

 

[ravichaudhary]

Samar

Gandhi's time was complex. He too was a complex man.

He did galvanize the whole sub continent.

That was no mean achievement.

He achieved what he set out to do.

He was no god. If in some temple he is worshiped , then I am not surprised. In the Krishna Janabhoomi temple in Mathura, a Birla statue is erected. I was shocked. People were walking around the staue with folded hands, asking for blessings. In a few decades he will be worshiped too, possibly become a new avatar of Vishnu.

Indians deify personalities.

Gandhi had his flaws.


Some will see good points about him, and some will see bad. All will agree that he had a huge influence on people.


My humble suggestion . It is time to let the subject go. It is over. His time is in the past.


Ravi Chaudhary

 

[upendersingh]

Pahli baat aarop nahi laga rahe jo hai wo bata rahe hain Upender.

Sidh:-

Tharki, Paedophillic and further a cheater!

But the world doesn't think so, Samar Bhai. We have evidences that Gandhi is hero of Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King like personalities. Notice one thing that almost no great personality of the world has ever criticized Gandhi. Do you want to say that we are much more greater and intelligent than the whole world? If it is so, then what are the logics?

Aisa lagta hai ya aisa jante ho?

आपको भी गांधी के बारे में 'लगता' ही है, मैं या आप उसके साथ नहीं रहते थे. गांधी के बारे में जो भी आपके विचार हैं, क्या उनका कोई सबूत भी है आपके पास?

What the heck is Barshate part, Upender? Sushila Nair told Ved Mehta that Gandhi was a ''dirty mind''.

It seems you know nothing about Sushila Nair, Samar Ji. Have a look at this para please :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sushila Nayyar was deeply influenced by the Gandhian philosophy of hard work and abstinence. She felt strongly about the need for prohibition and linked this to the domestic concerns of poor women whose lives were often blighted by alcoholism in their husbands. She was also a staunch campaigner for family planning, once again seeing this as essential empowerment for women, especially poor women. In her personal life she practised strict discipline and expected this also of her followers, acolytes and students. She was one of the circle of young women who followed Gandhi and were deeply impressed by his charisma and magnetism, such that he became the central focus of their lives. She never married. In an age when it was extremely difficult for single young women to have careers, she managed by sheer grit and dedication to carve out a life for herself without concessions to her gender or status. She also believed like Gandhi that there was no such thing as a dirty job, and that medicine required hands-on involvement with patients and their ailments, regardless of feminine delicacy or upper caste squeamishness. However, she could also be authoritarian and unforgiving about other people's foibles, and expected similar leves of sacrifice and ruthlessness from those around her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kisse karni thi? To Nehru the other ******.?

कमाल है समर जी, ऐसी बातों की अपेक्षा कम से कम से कम आपके जैसे सुलझे हुए शख्स से तो नहीं की जा सकती. आपका यहां पर प्रभाव एक बेहद बुद्धिमान व्यक्ति का है और आपकी कई बातें तो मेरे भी मन-मस्तिष्क में गहराई तक हलचल मचाती हैं. क्या गांधी कोई माफिया सरगना था कि अगर कोई उसकी शिकायत करता/करती तो वो उसे जान से मरवा देता? वे सब स्त्रियां उसके साथ खुले में घूमती थीं. आम लोगों में पहुंचते ही शोर मचा देतीं कि हमारा शोषण हो रहा है, हमें बचाओ...

Ho Sakta hai unko bawasir bhi ho gayi ho? Niyrnya karne ke liye Kiraye per China se sasti labour bulaye?

सुशीला नायर वाले पैरे में आपको अपने इस सवाल का जवाब मिल गया होगा शायद...

 

[ravinderjeet]

world remembers of Hitler is as pure 'Evil'!

he was a true solider ,he fought for his great nation, but the real evils were those forces who painted him as evil.the nehru-gandhi duo were the son of setaan.i call Nehru biggest deshdrohi ,India ever had.

 

[sumi2722]

sir,
I am agree with your view

 

[anilsangwan]

Chalo koye to kise tein "Agree" huya is thread pe

sir,
I am agree with your view

 

[samarkadian]

More haters on board from San Franciso rallying up a protest against Gandhi's statue.


http://in.yfittopostblog.com/2010/10/08/was-mahatma-gandhi-a-racist/

 

[cooljat]

.

Lately I've been reading the famous book 'The men who killed gandhi by Manohar Malgaonkar' and must say it's an eye opener. I bet most of Indians really don't have any clue what was reason behind Godse's decision to kill Gandhi. And to add more all the Gandhi followers treat him as terrorist but wondering how many of them know, Nathuram used to be a big supporter of Gandhi's 'Asayog Andolan' ? He was a brave man in my view cuz unlike terrorist he didn't kill any innocent nor he tried to run away like a coward from the site. If you go thro' the book then u will realize how right was Godse in his decision.

Anyways that's other thing ... btw I just discovered a good informative blog (containing excerpts of various famous books)which shed some light on Netaji Bose's life, contribution and sacrifices to India's freedom movement and how Gandhi, Nehru conspired to remove Netaji from the post of president, Congress and how they tried to defame him and his works later on.

Here is the link - http://netajimystery.blogspot.com/


Cheers
Jit