What's new

Mahatama Gandhi's statue removed in Ghana

PakLFC

Test Debutant
Joined
Sep 4, 2016
Runs
16,496
Post of the Week
1
Last edited by a moderator:
How come the statue was there in the first place?

I guess the people who erected it didn't know the truth about Gandhi. Many statues of such people are all over the world without people knowing the truth about them.
 
Instances like this are popping up fairly frequently the last couple of years. Remember a similar instance in Oxford re the Rhodes statue or maybe removing his name from a building or something along those lines.

The truth is many revered figures from the past would have held positions distasteful to us in the modern age. A little unfair to judge them by today's standards. Closer inspection of any 'great' historical figures will more often than not turn up some uncomfortable truths, particularly the further back you go. No one is likely to come out squeaky clean in such exercises, primarily because what constitutes squeaky clean is constantly evolving.

Anyone from the early 20th century is likely to have held quite racist views so it's difficult to gauge how harshly Gandhi should be judged. It should not be ignored, but certainly don't think it should tarnish the other good he did. In any case it is likely the OP and most on this forum will latch use this as a stick to beat him with because Gandhi is a symbol of the 'enemy' nation and therefore should be discredited at every opportunity. The irony that he was a great ally and friend of Indian muslims is of course lost on such people.
 
Abdus Salaam, MA Jinnah, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and Allama Iqbal are all Pak icons for me. I don't need anyone's blessings or approval to tell me this.
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah even rejected knighthood that is how great he was. He could easily have been made a "Sir" if he wanted to be one. His other incredible achievements like being the best paid lawyer are known to all. Even he had certain short comings as well like all humans do.
 
Last edited:
Their country, their wish. But this is the problem when you try to judge historical figures based on today's context. Forget Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela etc, even many prophets, saints and supposedly benevolent emperors of medieval/ancient times will have actions and life choices/styles that won't sit well with today's generation. People need to be more open minded when learning about history, not everything is black and white.
 
The most important thing people miss is that people change with time. Gandhi may have held racist views in his young days but may have grown past that with age and maturity, nobody is born with wisdom. Saint Paul prior to accepting Christianity ruthlessly persecuted the early Christians, Abu Sufyan likewise did it to the early Muslims but then became their defender. Not comparing Gandhi to these people per se, but reinforcing the point that you can't judge a person by his/her actions in youth days.

I have done some stuff as a high school kid I am ashamed of today but vow to not go down that path in the future, fortunately I am not popular like Gandhi so those idiotic deeds will never even reach the ears of my relatives and colleagues. Popular people aren't so lucky, every aspect of their life is researched and commented upon for eternity.

I sincerely believe only those who experience the other side (negativity, hatred, racism) will have the understanding and moral strength to fight its evils and become agents for positive change, often you hear about some violent Islamophobes changing their outlook and becoming the polar opposite of what they earlier stood for. Or drug addicts turning a new leaf and becoming crusaders in the war against drugs, terrorists giving up arms and becoming undaunted peace warriors, list goes on.
 
I was wondering what it was that Gandhi said that was racist about black people, and apparently he was on record saying Indian people were infinitely superior to Africans....which is pretty racist for someone who is hailed as such an icon of morality.

But quite topically, in the news recently, a university social scientist was given a prestigious role at Cambridge University, and he too has been accused of racist stereotyping, his work focusing on race and genetics.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...le-to-academic-accused-of-racist-stereotyping
 
I was wondering what it was that Gandhi said that was racist about black people, and apparently he was on record saying Indian people were infinitely superior to Africans....which is pretty racist for someone who is hailed as such an icon of morality.

But quite topically, in the news recently, a university social scientist was given a prestigious role at Cambridge University, and he too has been accused of racist stereotyping, his work focusing on race and genetics.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...le-to-academic-accused-of-racist-stereotyping

He is not alone in that regard. Abraham Lincoln who is an icon for emancipating slaves had a very unfavorable opinion about African Americans. If you apply modern standards to him he will come out looking much worse than a dedicated white supremacist from Alabama. Likewise every single historical figure revered today will have gaping holes that don't sit well with modern times.

We should look at the context and make adjustments while assessing their lives. Also we need to take into consideration how their views changed with time, for example Gandhi was an advocate of the caste system in his youth days but towards the end of his life wanted to abolish the system.
 
please back this with evidence.

From critical to radical
Gandhi’s stand on caste changed over the years. Although eradication of untouchability was one of his passions, he remained an advocate of the caste system for long. For instance, in 1921, he wrote in his journal Navajivan, “f Hindu Society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system”. While being an admirer of the caste system, he believed that there should be no hierarchy between castes and that all castes should be considered equal.

By 1930s, however, he had become critical of the caste system. On 16 November 1935, he wrote in an article, “The sooner public opinion abolishes [the caste system], the better”. The article was published with this title in capitals – ‘CASTE HAS TO GO’.

As Independence neared, Gandhi became radical in his ideas. When he went to Noakhali in eastern Bengal (in January 1947) to tackle the communal violence there, he gave, as Rajmohan Gandhi calls it, a “radical advice” to the upper-caste Hindu women. “Invite a Harijan every day to dine with you. Or, at least ask the Harijan to touch the food or the water before you consume it. Do penance for your sins”.

In April 1947, he announced that he will give his blessings only to weddings between Dalit and non-Dalit. Gandhi was the first one to propose (in June 1947) the idea of appointing a Dalit man or woman as the first president of Independent India. He believed that this would be a ‘strong symbolic move’ towards eradication of caste differences. Although his proposal was not accepted, Gandhi’s bold new avatar tackled the notions of caste privileges and prejudices.

In fact, Gandhi’s inconsistent stand on caste has been highlighted and criticised by one of his closest disciples, Ram Manohar Lohia. Lohia felt that “Gandhi was not aware of the full implications of the caste system right up to a few years before his death”. While observing that “[it] is true that [Gandhi] had all along tried to remove untouchability”, Lohia termed Gandhi’s initial view on caste system as that of a “reformer’s act, and not a revolutionary’s”.

The clash and the change
Intellectual curiosity is a good reason to contemplate what caused change in Gandhi’s perception on caste. Gandhi of 1915 was different from Gandhi of mid-1930s. In his latest book Gandhi 1914-1948: The Years That Changed the World, Ramachandra Guha has contemplated that the transformation in Gandhi’s perception of caste and “his increasing willingness to challenge its prejudices” were a direct result of his engagements with social reformers who were “more radical than himself”.

Ambedkar was a powerful radical figure contemporary to Gandhi, who questioned his views. Ambedkar, an admirer of Gandhi for some years in the 1920s, became openly critical of Gandhi’s ideas since August 1931, when the two met for the first time.

Ambedkar and Gandhi then clashed at the 1931 London Roundtable Conference over separate versus joint electorates. When separate electorates were announced and Gandhi began his fast in Yerwada jail to oppose it, Ambedkar met Gandhi again to defend the cause of “political power” for his community. While Ambedkar bargained hard for his community, both settled for a compromise – famously called the “Poona Pact”, which allowed quotas or reservation for Dalits in legislature.

After the Poona Pact, Ambedkar went to see Gandhi again in Yerwada to discuss the best way to end untouchability. While Gandhi’s focus was on temple-entry for Dalits, Ambedkar told Gandhi that “the crying need is the raising of the economic status and decent behaviour in the daily contact [between Dalits and non-Dalits]”. Gandhi issued a statement that he “felt the force of [Ambedkar’s] remarks” and hoped that others will do likewise.

In later years, Ambedkar did not leave any occasion to pick holes in Gandhi’s theoretical defence of the varna system. He advocated complete destruction of the caste system. It can be said that as Ambedkar boldly challenged Gandhi’s views on the caste system, he forced him to rethink his ideas. “From his belief that the caste system was a part of religion”, Lohia once said, “[Gandhi] went on to say that it was a sin”.

In his last years, Gandhi expressed his eagerness to have Ambedkar join the first cabinet. Ambedkar agreed and piloted the Indian Constitution into force, which provides civil rights to Dalits and abolishes untouchability.



https://theprint.in/opinion/this-leader-forced-mahatma-gandhi-to-change-his-views-on-caste/128108/
 
He is not alone in that regard. Abraham Lincoln who is an icon for emancipating slaves had a very unfavorable opinion about African Americans.

Saw a Ch4 documentary where it proposes it wasn't for idealistic reasons that he emancipated the slaves, it was economics as always.

Because slave labour was essentially free, no one was employing white people to do the same type of work. (Not sure if they would have wanted to).

The more it changes, the more it remains the same.

The man that Muhammed Ali was named originally, Cassius Marcellus Clay, was not only an extraordinary character was instrumental in the movement to give slaves their freedom during the Lincoln administration.

Clay was also the guy who engineered the sweetest deal to buy Alaska from Russia.

Clay was awesome.

Back on topic - never judge someone from a different era unless they profess to be for ALL TIME.
 
Last edited:
Saw a Ch4 documentary where it proposes it wasn't for idealistic reasons that he emancipated the slaves, it was economics as always.

Because slave labour was essentially free, no one was employing white people to do the same type of work. (Not sure if they would have wanted to).

The more it changes, the more it remains the same.

The man that Muhammed Ali was named originally, Cassius Marcellus Clay, was not only an extraordinary character was instrumental in the movement to give slaves their freedom during the Lincoln administration.

Clay was also the guy who engineered the sweetest deal to buy Alaska from Russia.

Clay was awesome.

Back on topic - never judge someone from a different era unless they profess to be for ALL TIME.

Thanks for the info, didn't know about Cassius Marcellus Clay.
 
Thanks for the info, didn't know about Cassius Marcellus Clay.

Nor did i til i did and that was earlier this year, i dont remember if the Ch4 documentary mentioned, i am sure if they had i would have remembered it because of the Mohammad Ali/Cassius Clay link...

Kinda mixed feelings regarding name chsnge from the one his grandfather had given him, named after the man who did more for black slaves in USA than any other, who hapoened to be white.

Imagine his life, all slave traders hated him, he survived assassination attempts, he was passionate about, if iirc he freed all the slaves that he inherited from his slave owning father.

I dont use the word awesome often if at all when it comes to people.
 
Muhammad Ali Jinnah even rejected knighthood that is how great he was. He could easily have been made a "Sir" if he wanted to be one. His other incredible achievements like being the best paid lawyer are known to all. Even he had certain short comings as well like all humans do.

Rabindranath Tagore did something similar, he renounced his knighthood.
 
Good. Gandhi shouldn’t be celebrated because he opposed the English who brought railroad system to the subcontinent. And That’s not even their biggest contribution.
 
Gandhi was someone I really admire and I still do like many but some of acts were questionable. Like abandoing great freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, laying with underage girls, and his ardent backing of the caste system. Still his sturggle for freedom through non violence is an example for all.
 
Instances like this are popping up fairly frequently the last couple of years. Remember a similar instance in Oxford re the Rhodes statue or maybe removing his name from a building or something along those lines.

The truth is many revered figures from the past would have held positions distasteful to us in the modern age. A little unfair to judge them by today's standards. Closer inspection of any 'great' historical figures will more often than not turn up some uncomfortable truths, particularly the further back you go. No one is likely to come out squeaky clean in such exercises, primarily because what constitutes squeaky clean is constantly evolving.

Anyone from the early 20th century is likely to have held quite racist views so it's difficult to gauge how harshly Gandhi should be judged. It should not be ignored, but certainly don't think it should tarnish the other good he did. In any case it is likely the OP and most on this forum will latch use this as a stick to beat him with because Gandhi is a symbol of the 'enemy' nation and therefore should be discredited at every opportunity. The irony that he was a great ally and friend of Indian muslims is of course lost on such people.

Good post!

For eg. in the US, It is getting ridiculous. For eg. Gen Robert E Lee's statues are being removed or asked to be removed eventhough he is a great Southern hero

Heck. Some hippies also want George Washington to be not as revered since he owned slaves in 1700s :facepalm:
 
Good post!

For eg. in the US, It is getting ridiculous. For eg. Gen Robert E Lee's statues are being removed or asked to be removed eventhough he is a great Southern hero

Heck. Some hippies also want George Washington to be not as revered since he owned slaves in 1700s :facepalm:

Yes I heard about some of the cases coming out of the US.

Although I didn't mention this in my original post, I do think it's a tricky issue and IMO might have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. The examples coming out of the US do seem like excessive hand-wringing; like it or not but the figures some are lashing out against played a pivotal role in forming the US. As long as they aren't overly romanticised and their flaws acknowledged, my position is that monuments to them are fine and just part of the historical narrative of the country.

On the other hand I think monuments of especially brutal colonial figures in their former colonies (e.g. Leopold in the Congo), are fair game. Given the suffering they would no doubt represent for the local people. Particularly if it concerns recent history compared to something many centuries ago (another factor that might need to be weighed in!)

So all in all, not a trivial issue :smith!
 
Rabindranath Tagore did something similar, he renounced his knighthood.

Good for him. It means certain people don't need outsiders to acknowledge them. Only those suffering from a massive western complex need others to tell them how great they are.
 
What I find interesting is how Martin Luther King idolised Gandhi and his way of life was inspired by Gandhi. Surely an man of MLK's intellect would have been aware of this if the allegations against Gandhi were true and wouldnt associate himself with him..

As MLK said:

He lived, thought and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk.”
 
Their country, their wish. But this is the problem when you try to judge historical figures based on today's context. Forget Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela etc, even many prophets, saints and supposedly benevolent emperors of medieval/ancient times will have actions and life choices/styles that won't sit well with today's generation. People need to be more open minded when learning about history, not everything is black and white.

And the same holds true when we talk about countries and their actions in the past. Like that idiot, Shashi Taroor, going on and on about how the British Empire looted India, how it was an evil Empire etc.

You cannot apply today's standards to the past.
 
So who did it?

Hindu extremists who hate Gandhi?
BLM types?
Khalistanis?

None of the above?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A statue of Gandhi, which was donated by the Indian government, was vandalised in a park in California<a href="https://t.co/jaKAewtSU5">https://t.co/jaKAewtSU5</a></p>— The Hindu (@the_hindu) <a href="https://twitter.com/the_hindu/status/1355412956071284737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Unknown persons vandalised statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Central Park, City of Davis, California on 28th January. Govt of India had gifted the statue in 2016. Govt of India has condemned this malicious and despicable act against universally respected icon of peace and justice. <a href="https://t.co/V3IZrymWRK">pic.twitter.com/V3IZrymWRK</a></p>— Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1355483944775344135?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Gandhi may have for a time had racist views but he was also the victim of British racism. While holding such views is wrong they were coming from a racially subjugated person trying to please what was in a sense his imperial master. Calling him a racist is perhaps a simplification - ignorant is a better word.

The vandalism of statues by BLM and their ilk have been of statues of people who profited from the racial subjugation of others. Gandhi was a poor and simple man. He shouldn't be viewed in the same way as the white racists who profited from their horrible views on race.
 
I don't agree with vandalisation of statues anywhere, but really a statue of Gandhi had no place in California anyway.
 
Ghandi got lucky. His pacifist approach was ineffective, that is, until the British Empire were reeling from WW2. The British military and economy were suffering and they had no option but to flee. Otherwise a pacifist vs one of the most brutal empires was no match.

He got lucky through attrition and his statue being removed is the first of many steps in exposing the truth.
 
Because he has no relevance to Californians.

There's a statue of Muhammad pbuh (with the face covered up) on US supreme court to honor his Justice and to pay respect to him as an important figure in the history of law

There are many other statue through out the US respecting important figures in human history for values and ideals

So his statue wasn't there for hero worshipping but to hold up to his ideals of non-violance and peaceful protests (you can disagree with it just like some people do Prophet PBUH and his laws but the motivation for the statue still stands)

Statue for revering a fellow human being is such a dumb, de humanising, and archaic idea so the idea of idea of building a statue on that concept in my humble opinion a bit foolish

So most sane people build statues to hold up to the ideals and values a person stood for not to revere tham
 
There's a statue of Muhammad pbuh (with the face covered up) on US supreme court to honor his Justice and to pay respect to him as an important figure in the history of law

There are many other statue through out the US respecting important figures in human history for values and ideals

So his statue wasn't there for hero worshipping but to hold up to his ideals of non-violance and peaceful protests (you can disagree with it just like some people do Prophet PBUH and his laws but the motivation for the statue still stands)

Statue for revering a fellow human being is such a dumb, de humanising, and archaic idea so the idea of idea of building a statue on that concept in my humble opinion a bit foolish

So most sane people build statues to hold up to the ideals and values a person stood for not to revere tham

I guess the US is a big place and you get many different mindsets depending on which part of it you land so should not be as surprised as I was to hear that. Food for thought.
 
Hours ago an Indian actress with 3 million followers, posted a tweet praising Gandhi’s killers.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Every story has three sides to it, yours, mine and the truth .... <br>A good story teller neither commits nor conceals... and that’s why our text books suck ... full of exposition <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NathuramGodse?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NathuramGodse</a> <a href="https://t.co/fLrobIMZlU">pic.twitter.com/fLrobIMZlU</a></p>— Kangana Ranaut (@KanganaTeam) <a href="https://twitter.com/KanganaTeam/status/1355483992477335555?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The attack could be anyone but most likely suspect are far rightHindu/rss types. Considering how much hate they have for Gandhi.
 
Hours ago an Indian actress with 3 million followers, posted a tweet praising Gandhi’s killers.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Every story has three sides to it, yours, mine and the truth .... <br>A good story teller neither commits nor conceals... and that’s why our text books suck ... full of exposition <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NathuramGodse?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NathuramGodse</a> <a href="https://t.co/fLrobIMZlU">pic.twitter.com/fLrobIMZlU</a></p>— Kangana Ranaut (@KanganaTeam) <a href="https://twitter.com/KanganaTeam/status/1355483992477335555?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The attack could be anyone but most likely suspect are far rightHindu/rss types. Considering how much hate they have for Gandhi.
Who in their right mind will follow this vile creature? Well actually there are 3 million equally vile creatures in India who follow this bigot!
 
Who in their right mind will follow this vile creature? Well actually there are 3 million equally vile creatures in India who follow this bigot!

This vile creature killed another vile creature, what do you think of that.
 
While growing up in bengal and returning from school, we used to take aim at the bust of mohandas karamchand. Glad that the world is waking up and doing what this person mohandas deserves.
 
California is not really a hotbed of lunatics like Boston or wisconsin so I'm really surprised by it
Probably just some yobs in the park frustrated by Covid taking out their frustration on some random buddha
 
Back
Top