Bhaijaan
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Runs
- 68,321
- Post of the Week
- 1
Most famous Asian in the West.
What made Gandhi ji special?
What made Gandhi ji special?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder what ghandi would think of present day India?
I wonder what ghandi would think of present day India?
i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..
Gandhi was racist and casteist in his early years, later changed.
Gandhi was racist and casteist in his early years, later changed. During his stay in South Africa he was racist but he was a nobody then. People change their views with age and maturity, wrong to judge them based on their youth.
Mandela was a terrorist before he became a peace icon. Also we have to look at prevailing social landscape by putting ourselves in that era, 19th and 20th century had different morality and customs, look at Abraham Lincoln's views about blacks and you might think he is worse than today's alt-right. But what he did in his time towards abolishing slavery was so path-breaking. Similarly what was the status of women and LGBTs in the medieval ages? Normalization of violence and human rights violations? Treatment of prisoners and lepers? Even holy people and prophets would appear highly flawed looking from 2019 lens.
Context matters and no human is absolutely perfect. Just like the saying in sports 'champion in one era will always be a champion in another'. Similarly I am sure Gandhi, Lincoln, Mandela etc would have different mindset and worldview in today's era and still stand out from the crowd as agents of good.
i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..
What's with you repeatedly spelling Gandhi wronglyDid ghandi really do this?
Did ghandi really do this?
What's with you repeatedly spelling Gandhi wrongly
Did ghandi really do this?
U forgot to mention his frequent naps butt naked with under aged girls and his own grand neice...
I think even in the mid 1900s that was considered wrong. Lmao
I read that he did this to test his self control, I don't think the aim was to have sex with them, although still very weird no doubt. But then we find foreign cultures weird in general. Some Indians think drinking cow urine is beneficial, we in the west think it is absolutely perverse. But then you read scientific literature produced by Indian experts where they explain the medicinal benefits of urine drinking and it makes you consider from a new perspective. Although obviously we aren't about to start indulging ourselves, at least we can respect their views.
i wonder what people would say in the current day when he was sleeping with his nieces and under aged girls... or that he was a hard-core racist and didn't think blacks were human..
Around which period did he stop being a casteist? Answer please.
U forgot to mention his frequent naps butt naked with under aged girls and his own grand neice...
I think even in the mid 1900s that was considered wrong. Lmao
We have had this back and forth discussion on 2-3 other threads, use search button. This was one of them, post #12.
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?279481-Gandhi-statue-removed-in-Ghana&p=10027943
I disapprove, nay condemn such activities. But one must remember all men are flawed, all great men are flawed.
Focussing less on his personal eccentricities and more on politics, Gandhi's career was certainly a remarkable one, though not without its ambiguities.
Gandhi’s impact on the course of Indian nationalism is well understood. Before Gandhi’s imprint, Congress mainstream thinking was dominated by relatively polite petitioning and pleading by elite spokesmen that reflected a faith in the colonial rulers sense of justice. Gandhi altered the temper and ethos to one of active struggle and resistance that incorporated the masses and would eventually demand full independence as a moral imperative. Under Gandhi’s influence there was a democratisation of Indian nationalism. The element of fear of imperial government was diminished and the moral basis of colonial rule undermined. Gandhi was also pivotal in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.
Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form and a particular potency. Its success, as the historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.” Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.” It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly inspired and effective technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.
Despite doing so much to shape the Indian nationalist movement, his ideas had limited purchase in independent India. For Gandhi independence was always more than merely India winning national sovereignty and replacing foreign rule. He offered a moral critique of modern civilisation. In his view, modern civilisation reduced humans to insatiable consumers forever wanting more, creating a destructive competition which led to war, disease and poverty. Modern society was dominated by self-interest. Instead Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention, but made up of individual moral striving for truth. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’. In this Gandhi ran against a trend that was emerging in the inter-war years of a more activist state that sought to remake the human condition, exemplified by Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even the US under Franklin D. Roosevelt moved in the aftermath of the Great Depression to a more interventionist state.
Yet Gandhi possessed no real means to implement his ideals. Very few in the Congress were committed to his ideal of self-governing village republics. It could be argued he nurtured no pragmatic political programme. After independence he advised the Congress to dispense with political power and become instead an organisation of social workers. His call, of course, went largely unheeded. Ironically, despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed passionately in the capacity of modern state to achieve a top-down transformation in lives of ordinary people.
These were not the only ambiguities. In spite of the anti-industrial view of life, he accepted donations from businessmen such as Birla and indeed big business would forge a close relationship with Gandhi and the Congress right, providing a conservative counter-thrust to Nehru and the Congress left. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid constructing a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry.“For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”
The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, became associated with idealism, sacrifice and service to the nation as many of its activists went to prison or endured the heavy hand of the police. Nevertheless, the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people to its fold that were more interested in the fruits of political power than guided by a deep commitment to Gandhian idealism.
In contemporary India, Gandhi appears on the Indian rupee, and is still cast as the “father” of India. This perhaps is the final irony.
The greatest leader the subcontinent has ever produced, and one of the greatest leaders globally. A true inspiration for billions of people.
Focussing less on his personal eccentricities and more on politics, Gandhi's career was certainly a remarkable one, though not without its ambiguities.
Gandhi’s impact on the course of Indian nationalism is well understood. Before Gandhi’s imprint, Congress mainstream thinking was dominated by relatively polite petitioning and pleading by elite spokesmen that reflected a faith in the colonial rulers sense of justice. Gandhi altered the temper and ethos to one of active struggle and resistance that incorporated the masses and would eventually demand full independence as a moral imperative. Under Gandhi’s influence there was a democratisation of Indian nationalism. The element of fear of imperial government was diminished and the moral basis of colonial rule undermined. Gandhi was also pivotal in re-structuring the Congress party in the 1920s such that it was able to mobilise and importantly institutionalise popular support for the freedom struggle.
Gandhi’s ideas on non-violent protest certainly gave Indian nationalism a distinctive form and a particular potency. Its success, as the historian D.A Low reminded us, depended also on the character of British rule. Britain was determined to hold on to India and prepared to resort to force and to imprision nationalists. As Low states, this was unlike the Americans in the Philippines. Yet, they never went as far as the Dutch and the French in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively - unlike the Dutch they did not banish nationalist leaders for life and unlike the French they did not murder hundreds of them. In the striking comment of Ho Chi-minh in 1925, “The Gandhis and the De Valera would have long since entered heaven had they been born in one of the French colonies.” Britain adopted a far more ambiguous and ambidextrous approach and in Low’s words “found it exceedingly difficult to reconcile their intense imperial instincts with the liberal political values they held so dear.” It is within this context that we need to remember that non-violent satyagraha was a particularly inspired and effective technique. Mere petitioning and pleading was never going to be enough to dislodge Britain. But nor was Britain likely to be yield to violence either. Non-violent protest was therefore an ingenious response, effective precisely because of the nature and double-think of British rule.
Despite doing so much to shape the Indian nationalist movement, his ideas had limited purchase in independent India. For Gandhi independence was always more than merely India winning national sovereignty and replacing foreign rule. He offered a moral critique of modern civilisation. In his view, modern civilisation reduced humans to insatiable consumers forever wanting more, creating a destructive competition which led to war, disease and poverty. Modern society was dominated by self-interest. Instead Gandhi glorified the ancient past and envisaged a political system of self-governing and self-sufficient villages. His India of his dreams was a rural country with little state intervention, but made up of individual moral striving for truth. Gandhi was, in sum, an advocate for ‘enlightened anarchy’, or a ‘stateless society’. In this Gandhi ran against a trend that was emerging in the inter-war years of a more activist state that sought to remake the human condition, exemplified by Germany under Hitler or the Soviet Union under Stalin. Even the US under Franklin D. Roosevelt moved in the aftermath of the Great Depression to a more interventionist state.
Yet Gandhi possessed no real means to implement his ideals. Very few in the Congress were committed to his ideal of self-governing village republics. It could be argued he nurtured no pragmatic political programme. After independence he advised the Congress to dispense with political power and become instead an organisation of social workers. His call, of course, went largely unheeded. Ironically, despite an anti-statist outlook, the man he effectively anointed as the future Prime Minister of a free India - Jawaharlal Nehru – believed passionately in the capacity of modern state to achieve a top-down transformation in lives of ordinary people.
These were not the only ambiguities. In spite of the anti-industrial view of life, he accepted donations from businessmen such as Birla and indeed big business would forge a close relationship with Gandhi and the Congress right, providing a conservative counter-thrust to Nehru and the Congress left. He injected pride in the masses, especially the poor, but the support he aroused meant that the Congress could avoid constructing a serious programme to appeal to the under-privileged. The impoverished were inspired by Gandhi, but the Congress came to represent predominantly the interests of industrial capitalists and richer peasantry.“For the poor” wrote Ayesha Jalal and Sugata Bose, “suffering from economic oppression and social discrimination in rural and urban areas alike, Gandhi simply offered the palliative remedy of trusteeship.”
The Congress, under the influence of Gandhi, became associated with idealism, sacrifice and service to the nation as many of its activists went to prison or endured the heavy hand of the police. Nevertheless, the prestige and status that the Congress would eventually enjoy meant that it attracted many people to its fold that were more interested in the fruits of political power than guided by a deep commitment to Gandhian idealism.
In contemporary India, Gandhi appears on the Indian rupee, and is still cast as the “father” of India. This perhaps is the final irony.
Why ? What's wrong with present day India ?
Ghaffar Khan missing his old buddy eh...
Bacha Khan was a great leader.
Nothing on his contribution to dalit empowerment.
What do you have to say about that?
Let us weigh his flaws and his greatness.
Don't really care about his weird sexual experiments or that he was proven racist when in south africa. Want to judge him only as his role in the freedom movement and the legacy he left behind.
He joined the independence bandwagon very late. Till 1930 he was demanding autonomy and never full independence. Imagine a free kashmir anointing sheikh abdullah as the father of the nation. He encouraged indians to fight for the british during both the world wars ( prophet of non violence ). He forced congress to appoint his pet nominee as chief, when SC Bose won the congress elections (see how he valued democracy). He blackmailed Ambedkar into signing the Poona pact. He would never accept a view he disagreed with and would go on a hunger strike if his view was not accepted. He set a very dangerous precent of emotional blackmailing and is still practiced by indian leaders. Dr Ambedkar said such methods had no place in a democracy, where you must learn to accept others views, especially if backed by more votes. The deal breaker for me is his patronising attitude towards dalits and making sure they remain under the yoke of upper caste hindus. Just because the hindu far right hates him, his sins cannot be washed away. Ask the dalits.
He took over the khalifat movement in 1920 after he met Abdul azad and after the release of Muhammad Ali from prison
The non co-operation movement and the salt movement were also brainchild of Ghandi and they were pre 1930 too
We can also hail Ghandi for the failure of the Simon commission
He did support Britain in the Second World War but that was because he apparently wanted to teach hitler pacifism and thought hitlers ideals threatened democracy everywhere
Interestingly the Congress party didn’t agree with him and he let a lot of them resign because of this
On the other hand he didn’t mind Japanese intrusion into India towards the end of the Second World War
Ultimately Bapu brought Hindu-Muslim unity to a fore especially when he took over the khalifat movement and abul azad became president of the congress party
Ultimately he caused that unity to break too and we saw the rise of the mahasabha
Compared to someone like pratap singh who nehru thought lived in a fantasy world ghandi was very effective and very good at mobilising masses
All this non violence he preached was selective
Are these people a noisy minority or is Gandhi really starting to get disliked by the Indian populace at large.
India PM put a post for Gandhi and Shastri in quick succession and the Shastri post has 4 times more engagement
A lot of Indians these days don't exactly agree with Gandhi's theory of non violence. The newer generation believe in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Hence, the disagreements.
Those that think this way are deluded and over inflating their own ability.
I see similar sentiments in many 3rd 4th generation people whose countries are now in the post colonial. It's almost as if they feel that had they been around back then, they would have fought or did x y z.
In India this type of thinking does exist but the biggest reason why Gandhi is hated is due to a sense that he betrayed hindus - not because of his non violence.
It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.
No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.
Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi
Why do people feel betrayed by Ghandi? I’ve found in my time meeting people from there or have Indian or Nepalese origin, they generally don’t like him and I was surprised, always thought he was a popular cult figure
Why do people feel betrayed by Ghandi? I’ve found in my time meeting people from there or have Indian or Nepalese origin, they generally don’t like him and I was surprised, always thought he was a popular cult figure
It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.
No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.
Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi
Modern India would never support Gandhi, remember, Gandhi was assassinated by an RSS member, Godse, who is revered within the Hindutva ideology.
It’s both the reasons, not exactly about him betraying Hindus but appeasement and second one as Hitman said already.
No Punjabi or Bengali will ever be pro Mr.Gandhi and that’s not today’s thought process it always has been, even in my own family.
Also it’s not about inflating but about pacifying an entire generation based on the blackmailing and protests thought process of Mr.Gandhi
Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentionedGandhi is one of the biggest hypocrite.
He is portrayed as the epitome and the Messiah of Indian history which he is really not. He was member of Congress party so he could get fame and recognition and became a public identity. Efforts of many great freedom fighters such as Bhagat singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmibai is ignored.
Congress ruled India 60 years, so they put Ghandhi as Mahatma everywhere, everything, like textbooks to Indian currency note. Great emperors like Asoka, chandragupta Maurya, prithvi Raj Chauhan, satrapathi sivaji, rajendra chola. Such greats are ignored.
Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned
Aren’t Bengalis pro Marathas these days despite them carrying literal rape and plunder over hundreds of thousands Bengalis?
Gandhi is one of the biggest hypocrite.
He is portrayed as the epitome and the Messiah of Indian history which he is really not. He was member of Congress party so he could get fame and recognition and became a public identity. Efforts of many great freedom fighters such as Bhagat singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Mangal Pandey, Rani Laxmibai is ignored.
Congress ruled India 60 years, so they put Ghandhi as Mahatma everywhere, everything, like textbooks to Indian currency note. Great emperors like Asoka, chandragupta Maurya, prithvi Raj Chauhan, satrapathi sivaji, rajendra chola. Such greats are ignored.
Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned
Yeah the issue with that report is it wasn’t fact checked by other historians(scroll report i’m assuming).
Most Indians look at them as foreigners. It’s like adding Robert Clive etc to the list. I am not agreeing or disagreeing here but that has always been the general sentiment.
If Robert Clive’s dad, grandfather and great-grandfather was born in india then I’d say that makes him pretty Indian
They are invaders, looters, rapists and killed millions to convert the religion.Interesting you didn’t name Shah Jahan or Akbar who have a much more indelible print on india today than some of the names you mentioned
It’s been fact checked and is part of history. there’s literally a Bengali folk song about that
As I said previously it could be similar to current Pakistanis having no issues with Ghazni etc..
Also just because there is some folk song on Padmavati just doesn't make it factually true to that extent..
. If there is a third generation white guy living in India and Pakistan people will treat him like a foreigner.
Your first point may be correct. Tho Pakistanis would say Ghazni etc didn’t kill Muslims. Marathas killed Hindus and Muslims alike. Ghazni attacked in name of Islam (even if his actions prove that that was just a front and not real reason). Marathas didn’t rape and pillage Bengal in name of Hinduism. So not exact comparison there.
The folk song was just an example. There is enough empirical evidence across several sources to know its factual. But you can be an ostrich if you wish so.
Also Bengalis and Marathi people don’t share a lot in common, there would be nothing named on Maratha rulers in Bengal but as we know its not true in Pakistan wrt same.
.
It's a fallacy to say it's the supporters of 1 party that criticize him. It actually cuts across party lines. The Dalits and Backward castes hated him and hate him even now and they are congress supporters.It's so unfortunate for India that followers of one major party denigrate him despite being the founder of their nation.
It's so unfortunate for India that followers of one major party denigrate him despite being the founder of their nation.
Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.It’s fashionable to speak against Gandhiji because he’s alleged to have a soft corner for Muslims and for being a British agent. But he remains a national icon.
Couple of years ago, a local BJP leader talked about Gandhiji in a disrespectful manner after which Modi ji himself had to speak out against this behaviour.
That's just as one-sided a view as the guys who revere him as a saint.It's a fallacy to say it's the supporters of 1 party that criticize him. It actually cuts across party lines. The Dalits and Backward castes hated him and hate him even now and they are congress supporters.
He's a media driven overhyped leader who was racist sexist and casteist to the core.. and his experiments with truth would land him in jail for most of his life and actually his entire life if he was in the US. So no need to idolize him just because he was a cynical anti national Muslim appeasement guy...
let me tell you how I recall him. If you add all the hatred pakistanis have for Nawaz, Shehbaz, Maryam, Bilawal and Zardari, even then it may fall short of what I feel for mohandas karamchand. I wish I was Godse and met him unarmed and alone.Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.
Even many of your friends here like CC and Delteaxe consider him..... You know how they recall him.
You might like this one from Osho.let me tell you how I recall him. If you add all the hatred pakistanis have for Nawaz, Shehbaz, Maryam, Bilawal and Zardari, even then it may fall short of what I feel for mohandas karamchand. I wish I was Godse and met him unarmed and alone.