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 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh#cite_note-45) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism). He also said that he was opposed to Singh's execution (and, for that matter, capital punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh#cite_note-46) 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]

[B]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.

[B][COLOR=sienna]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.
rajpaldularhttp://www.jatland.com/forums/images/statusicon/user-offline.png 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]

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.

[vijay]

अहिंसक आंदोलन उस समय की मजबूरी थी. ब्रिटेन के पास बी-52 बमवर्षक विमान थे

B-52 came into existance in 1955 in USA but not Britain ..... After 7 good year of our Independence.

[JKundu]

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.

Agar kabhi zarurat padi to Musalmaan hi Jatto ka saath denge , ye baat bata deta hoon.

[VirJ]

Few things, as mentioned earlier, which I couldn’t understand about Gandhi:

1. Was he was race suprimist ? People say this was because of 'Hinduism blessing' which divide people based on varna (color) where a lighter color is prefered over the darker color. We can see that even today that even some Jats say they are superior than Baniyas or others because of their 'lighter skin' or strength. Though people say he got enlighted later in his life. A few People even call him racist.

2. Has he done enough for the Harijans. Ambedkars opposed the word harijans. They blame Gandhi opposed the separate electorate for harijans because he didn’t want the real upliftment of the untouchables. Supporters says Gandhi didn’t want futher division among Hindus. Did Gandhi put sincere efforts to remove untouchability ?

3 Why did Gandhi oppose the idea of emigration of all muslims to Pakistan if he was racist ? Gandhi did say on occasion for Jews that a man has the right to call a country his home where he earn bread and butter. So a Jew born in France is a french. Was that the reason he didnt want muslims to be displaced like Jews?

Any unbiased views on these?

[rakeshsehrawat]

B-52 came into existance in 1955 in USA but not Britain ..... After 7 good year of our Independence.

During war with China in 1962 Soldiers wore fleet shoes in dense snow of himalyas.
Ib janta ka ke byont hai? agar Pakistan ki tarah yahan bhi military raj aa jaye to log kya kar lenge?

[Khatkar]

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.


War can not win by solely machines but by man behind the machines.

[malikdeepak1]

[B][COLOR=sienna]Now, it can be easily understandable that why the British and Western Media admired Gandhi.

Yeah!
That satisfies my curiosity to certain extent.

I would also like to have some more clarifications or knowledge about him or his activities.
1. Gandhi is being alleged that he did fasting during the time of division of our country in order to help the "pukistaanis" with some 55/65 crores and not for maintaining peace. Was this his real agenda behind his fasts?

2. I have read somewhere that he promised that after independence the president of country would be a "harijan" and a "lady". AFAIK Dr. Rajender prasad was neither a harijan nor a lady. (I'm not questioning who was the president, but why he was elected when Nehru, the main ally of gandhi, was PM and he should have kept gandhi's words). Is this just a rumour?

3. He could have saved Bhagat singh if he would have denied signing the treaty. But he did not do so. difference in ideology, perhaps or some pressure from others that it would hamper their movement for getting swaraj that too only half of it?

Please enlighten me!

Thanks for your patience and answers :)

[upendersingh]

B-52 came into existance in 1955 in USA but not Britain ..... After 7 good year of our Independence.


Certainly I had read it B-52 somewhere, but it might be B-29 or other series of this aircraft in fact. By the way, crux of the matter was British Army had warplanes and Indians were nowhere to Britishers' defence power then. You must be agreed upon this fact that Britishers had warplanes in 40s. Thanks for correction. Will be more thankful to you if you can tell the real name of the aircrafts. It will be good for amending the facts I/we have read.

[upendersingh]

War can not win by solely machines but by man behind the machines.

An army of 20 lac soldiers without warplanes can be devastated only by one pilot with the attack of just one nuclear bomb. Along with the men, machines have also become decisive in warfares in present.

[upendersingh]

Agar kabhi zarurat padi to Musalmaan hi Jatto ka saath denge , ye baat bata deta hoon.


साथ दे तो रहे हैं. लश्कर-ए-तोयबा वाले खूब जाट फौजियों का खून बहा रहे हैं कश्मीर में. इंडियन मुजाहिदीन के आतंकवादी भी खूब बढ़िया साथ निभा रहे हैं. कुछ समय पहले बंगलादेश राइफल्स के लोगों ने बी.एस.एफ. के दर्जनों जवानों को मारकर बहुत अच्छा साथ निभाया था जाटों का. बी.एस.एफ. में भी जाट कोई कम थोड़े ही हैं. तुम थोड़ा-सा कमजोर पड़ो, तुम्हें खाने के लिए तैयार बैठे हैं लोग. मुसलमानों का नंबर तो बाद में लगेगा, उससे पहले और बहुत तैयार बैठे हैं. कुंडू साहब, तुम आदमी तो ठीक-ठाक हो, लेकिन ये हरकत तुम्हारे जैसे एक खरे आदमी को शोभा नहीं देती. अब ये मत पूछ लेना कि कौन-सी हरकत?

[VirJ]

Certainly I had read it B-52 somewhere, but it might be B-29 or other series of this aircraft in fact. By the way, crux of the matter was British Army had warplanes and Indians were nowhere to Britishers' defence power then. You must be agreed upon this fact that Britishers had warplanes in 40s. Thanks for correction. Will be more thankful to you if you can tell the real name of the aircrafts. It will be good for amending the facts I/we have read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft#World_War_II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft

May be u meant HP.52 Hampden

[upendersingh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft#World_War_II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft

May be u meant HP.52 Hampden


Yeah, it might be HP.52. Thanks a lot Vipin Ji, for sharing this information.

[JKundu]

साथ दे तो रहे हैं. लश्कर-ए-तोयबा वाले खूब जाट फौजियों का खून बहा रहे हैं कश्मीर में. इंडियन मुजाहिदीन के आतंकवादी भी खूब बढ़िया साथ निभा रहे हैं. कुछ समय पहले बंगलादेश राइफल्स के लोगों ने बी.एस.एफ. के दर्जनों जवानों को मारकर बहुत अच्छा साथ निभाया था जाटों का. बी.एस.एफ. में भी जाट कोई कम थोड़े ही हैं. तुम थोड़ा-सा कमजोर पड़ो, तुम्हें खाने के लिए तैयार बैठे हैं लोग. मुसलमानों का नंबर तो बाद में लगेगा, उससे पहले और बहुत तैयार बैठे हैं. कुंडू साहब, तुम आदमी तो ठीक-ठाक हो, लेकिन ये हरकत तुम्हारे जैसे एक खरे आदमी को शोभा नहीं देती. अब ये मत पूछ लेना कि कौन-सी हरकत?

Arrey mera bhai toh naraaz ho gya , achha koni kahoon muslim saath denge.

[vijay]

Certainly I had read it B-52 somewhere, but it might be B-29 or other series of this aircraft in fact. Thanks for correction. Will be more thankful to you if you can tell the real name of the aircrafts. It will be good for amending the facts I/we have read.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft#World_War_II


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft

May be u meant HP.52 Hampden

Hurricane and P-51 Mustang were two major fighter planes in Royal Air force ( British ). Hurricanes were British made while P-51 Mustangs were imported from America.

[akshaymalik84]

Ye Saari Gandhi ki baat/burai...NCERT ki books mei chapwa dyo...make young generation to hate MKG .ask your children to follow the path of HINSA and Untruth,tell them to be like Bhagat singh and WASTE their life on country. Ask your children to go to Army and die on front for you and your country.

We all follow what we think is right so did they. Whats the argument? Who did wronge?.....go ahead and change that wronge and change our country.

[vijay]

tell them to be like Bhagat singh and WASTE their life on country. Ask your children to go to Army and die on front for you and your country.


Its really nice to know that Bhagat Singh WASTED his life for the country.

Its still good that you didn't called him a terrorist unlike Mayawati who declared Chandersekhar Azad a terrorist.

[vijay]

1. Gandhi is being alleged that he did fasting during the time of division of our country in order to help the "pukistaanis" with some 55/65 crores and not for maintaining peace. Was this his real agenda behind his fasts?


Gandhi was a good politician and was a domineering personality. He ran congress by his own rules and people who were not in sync with his ideas were sidelined by him. He won the confidence of the British by praising them and in turn British made him anonymous leader of People of India. During the course of time and events Jinnah and Ambedkar came out from nowhere and emerged as leaders of Muslim and Dalit communities. In a counter attack, Gandhi started Muslim and Dalit appeasement policy. He started talking about welfare of Muslims and Dalits. Hindusim and Nationalism took a back seat.

That's why Gandhi was upset when so many Muslims were leaving India and shifting to Pakistan. He was not concerned a bit about the violence and bloodshed. He wanted Muslims to stay in India at ANY cost.

During the partition Gandhi went of fasting for the violence against Muslims but hardly showed any concern about the millions of Hindus who were massacred, raped, maimed, tortured by Muslims. Gandhi didn't wanted Hindus from Pakistan to shift in India. Gandhi wanted those Hindus die there for the goodness.

The Hindus who managed to escape from Pakistan were shocked to hear this speech from Gandhi on 23rd September 1947 :"I asked them why all they came here (in Delhi). Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief one should stick to the place where we happen to live even if we are cruelly treated and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us; but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue. Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody, you should realise that even if they are killed they have had a good and proper end."





2. I have read somewhere that he promised that after independence the president of country would be a "harijan" and a "lady". AFAIK Dr. Rajender prasad was neither a harijan nor a lady. (I'm not questioning who was the president, but why he was elected when Nehru, the main ally of gandhi, was PM and he should have kept gandhi's words). Is this just a rumour?


Nehru was not an anonymous choice for Prime Minister's post. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel was more popular in Congress and was a better administrator than Nehru. Gandhi could not nominate people for every post by his will. So, In the political deal, Nehru got the Prime Minister seat while Patel became home Minister and Presidential Seat was given to Patel camp as a compansation. Lady and Harijan are just nice points to become goody goody boy.





3. He could have saved Bhagat singh if he would have denied signing the treaty. But he did not do so. difference in ideology, perhaps or some pressure from others that it would hamper their movement for getting swaraj that too only half of it?


I don't know whether Gandhi could save Bhagat Singh or not but ironically Gandhi never showed any intentions to save Bhagat Singh. So many International personalities like King of Norway, various American Businessmen, Prominent Jews and even many British MPs requested the British Rulers change decision about Bhagat Singh.

Most of the congress members, Subhash Bose and millions of patriotic Indian wrote to Gandhi to save Bhagat Singh. Subhash Bose asked Gandhi not to sign the Gandhi-Erwin pact unless the british agreed to commute the death sentence of Bhagat Singh. But Gandhi was unrelenting. In a very weak attempt gandhi just wrote a letter to Viceroy pleading the case for Bhagat Singh. Gandhi neither gave any speech about Bhagat Singh, nor did he go on any fast.

The British still were very unsure of the reaction in India if Bhagat Singh was hanged. They needed to gain some ground so they could brace for any violent reactions. So they decided to sign the Gandhi-Irwin pact and agree to a compromise with the Indian people. Gandhi signed the pact which ended the civil disobedience movement and British had nothing to do in return.

Subhash Bose remarked on the pact "Between us and the British lies an ocean of blood and a mountain of corpses. Nothing on earth can induce us to accept this compromise which Gandhiji had signed."

The Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed on 4th March 1931. Bhagat Singh and his associates were hanged on 23rd March 1931. Gandhi's signing of the Gandhi-Irwin pact just days before Bhagat Singh was hanged was totally inexplicable. The least Gandhi could have done was wait till the actual date of execution. This would have put a lot of pressure on the British.

[karan]

raaj karien bhaaman,baaniye. marey jaataan ke chhorey.
kitnaaey samjhaaley eenney, rahey korey-ke-korey.
Spot On, Couldn't agree more.

[rameshlakra]

It is very easy to criticise. Mahatma Gandhi could not have done better for his country. He neglected his own family (his grandsons are living in obscurity). One can always find faults after the events, but at that point of time he had ensured that a country called India was born. Things could have been worst, as small provinces could have mushroomed into full states in a way the African continent is. Division of country was not his choice, things had snowballed into situation to the point of no return- either have division or face civil war (as bluntly put by Jinnah). He can be called a lunatic, moody, autocratic or "sathiya-ya-hua"- but it was all need of the hour and i would call it determined and clear cut decision making. His path to truth and non-violence is the only solution to terrorist problem we have today. Read a few books like "My experience with truth" and "freedom at midnight" to understand him.

Regards

[rajpaldular]

सर्वप्रथम मैं सभी जाटलैंड.कॉम के सदस्यों का धन्यवाद करना चाहूँगा जिन्होंने "गाँधी पर एक द्रष्टि" पर अपना अमूल्य समय निकाल कर अपने अपने विचार प्रस्तुत किये. एक सदस्य श्री अभिमन्यु सिंह जी को संभवतया मेरा गांधीजी पर लिखना अप्रिय लगा है, परन्तु मैं भी स्वतंत्र भारत का एक नागरिक होने के नाते अपने विचार प्रस्तुत करने अधिकार रखता हूँ.
श्री उपेन्द्र सिंह जी लाकड़ा ने लिखा है की यदि १९४७ में भारत का विभाजन नहीं होता तो ५० करोड़ से अधिक मुसलमान भारत में होते और १-२ प्रधान मंत्री भी उनका बन गया होता, उपेन्द्र सिंह जी आपका कहना सही है कि पाकिस्तान और बंगलादेश के रूप में लक्ष्य तो है परन्तु परिणाम में कौन परिवर्तित करेगा? कांग्रेस और क्षेत्रीय पार्टियाँ तो अल्पसंख्यक तुष्टिकरण में लगी हुई है और भारतीय जनता पार्टी कभी अपने बल बूते पर केंद्र में सरकार बना लेगी ऐसा लगता नहीं है. एक सूरत में भारतीय जनता पार्टी अपने दम पर सरकार बना सकती है, यदि कांग्रेस की तर्ज़ पर "भाजपा" श्रीमती मेनका गाँधी को पार्टी की अध्यक्ष बना दे और श्री वरुण गाँधी को "सयुंक्त महासचिव" बना दे परंतु ये "संघ परिवार" को कभी भी रास नहीं आयेगा. तो मेरे प्रिय उपेन्द्र सिंह जी पाकिस्तान और बंगलादेश को हिन्दू देश कौन बनाएगा?......

[rajpaldular]

? आप तो इन दोनों देशों को हिन्दू राष्ट्र बनाने की बात कर रहे हैं, कहीं ऐसा न हो कि हम भारतीय हिन्दुओं को ही अगले २०-२५ वर्षों में समाप्त कर दिया जाये. भारत में नक्सलवाद चीन का फैलाया हुआ है, जो कि कई राज्यों में अपनी गहरी जड़ें जमा चुका है, अफगानिस्तान से अमेरिका अपनी सेना को २०११ में वापस बुला लेगा, ये निर्णय अमेरिकी कांग्रेस ने ले लिया है और भारत को कह दिया है कि वह अपने विकास कार्यक्रम अफगानिस्तान में जारी रखे तो जैसे ही अमेरिकी फ़ौज अफगानिस्तान से हटेंगी वैसे ही तालिबान और पाकिस्तान के आतंकवादी भारतीयों को अफगानिस्तान से दौड़ा दौड़ा कर भारत में खदेड़ देंगे अथवा मार देंगे और संभवतया तालिबान अगले २०-२५ वर्षों में बेलगाम होकर भारत में आतंक मचाएगा, पाकिस्तान के आतंकवादी तो चीख चीख कर कह ही रहे हैं कि जब तक भारत के लाल किले पर हरा झंडा (इस्लामिक झंडा) नहीं फहराएंगे तब तक चैन से नहीं बैठेंगे. .....

[rajpaldular]

आपको ज्ञात होना चाहिए कि वर्तमानमें (यू. पी. ए.) कांग्रेस सरकार सांप्रदायिक हिंसा रोकने के लिए एक विधेयक लोकसभा में पास करने वाली है संभवतया इसी वर्ष के अंत तक. यदि ये विधेयक पास हो गया तो क्या होगा? होगा ये कि कोई भी मुसलमान किसी भी हिन्दू के घर में घुस कर चोरी, डकैती, हत्या अथवा बलात्कार तक कर लेगा और उस पीड़ित हिन्दू परिवार की सुनवाई कहीं भी,किसी भी कोर्ट में नहीं हो सकेगी.
काश श्री सुभाषचन्द्र बोस सन १९४७ में हमारे बीच में होते और राष्ट्र पिता बनाये जाते, काश सरदार वल्लभ भाई पटेल को नेहरु के स्थान पर प्रथम प्रधान मंत्री बनाया गया होता तो आज भारत की दशा और दिशा कुछ और ही होती, संभवतया भारत आज एकमात्र महाशक्ति होता!!!!!!

[cooljat]

.

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

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

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

Cheers
Jit

[rameshlakra]

.

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

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

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

Cheers
Jit

There is nothing new in this book or the article you have mentioned above. The same thing has been covered in the book i mentioned earlier "freedom at midnight" by Dominic lepierre three decades back. It is just a new wine in an old bottle.

[cooljat]

Agreed Bhaisaab, it may be a new wine in an old bottle or vice-versa but I wonder if two wrong make one right? If a Mahatma that too Father of nation used to practice such things then why to blame various babas n' sandhus who often caught doing such illicit acts ??? :rolleyes:

Sometimes I wonder how influential leader Gandhi would have been that his followers rather blind followers just refuse to listen anything against him. I agree that he's been a great leader & his sacrifices n' efforts in freedom movement can't not be denied BUT for me he wasn't that extra-ordinary or heaven sent. I'll always put Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose & Sardar Patel far far ahead of Gandhi. They're the one who fought for freedom n' sacrificed all selflessly. For me Gandhi was more of an opportunist.

Isn't it an irony that picture of great worshiper of Ahimsa is on the thing that's arguably the no #1 reason of violence i.e. Indian Currency! :rolleyes:

Cheers
Jit



There is nothing new in this book or the article you have mentioned above. The same thing has been covered in the book i mentioned earlier "freedom at midnight" by Dominic lepierre three decades back. It is just a new wine in an old bottle.

[sunnytewatia]

mei samaj gya apki baat

आपको ज्ञात होना चाहिए कि वर्तमानमें (यू. पी. ए.) कांग्रेस सरकार सांप्रदायिक हिंसा रोकने के लिए एक विधेयक लोकसभा में पास करने वाली है संभवतया इसी वर्ष के अंत तक. यदि ये विधेयक पास हो गया तो क्या होगा? होगा ये कि कोई भी मुसलमान किसी भी हिन्दू के घर में घुस कर चोरी, डकैती, हत्या अथवा बलात्कार तक कर लेगा और उस पीड़ित हिन्दू परिवार की सुनवाई कहीं भी,किसी भी कोर्ट में नहीं हो सकेगी.
काश श्री सुभाषचन्द्र बोस सन १९४७ में हमारे बीच में होते और राष्ट्र पिता बनाये जाते, काश सरदार वल्लभ भाई पटेल को नेहरु के स्थान पर प्रथम प्रधान मंत्री बनाया गया होता तो आज भारत की दशा और दिशा कुछ और ही होती, संभवतया भारत आज एकमात्र महाशक्ति होता!!!!!!

[rajpaldular]

mei samaj gya apki baat

A bundle of Thanks Mr. Tewatia.

[rajpaldular]

मुसलमानों द्वारा गौ हत्या एवं गौमांस खाने के सम्बन्ध में गांधीजी ने कहा था कि यदि कुरान गौमांस और गौहत्या की शिक्षा देती है तो मैं कौन होता हूँ उसे रोकने वाला. (लाहौर से प्रकाशित समाचार पत्र 'प्रताप' दिनांक २९.१२.१९४२).कश्मीर मामले पर गांधीजी का मत था कि कश्मीर मुस्लिम राज्य है इसलिए महाराजा हरिसिंह को सत्ता अब्दुल्ला को सौंप कर काशी चले जाना चाहिए. गांधीजी ने प्रत्येक भाषण में क्रान्तिकारी आन्दोलन की निंदा की. शिवाबानी ५२ छंदों का संग्रह है जिसमे छत्रपति शिवाजी के शौर्य एवं हिन्दुओं की रक्षा का वर्णन है पर गांधीजी ने प्रतिबन्ध लगवाया. १९३१ में गांधीजी ने इरविन समझौते में शहीदे आज़म भगत सिंह, राजगुरु तथा सुखदेव की फांसी रुकवाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई प्रयास नहीं किया. गांधीजी के बारे में उपरोक्त बातें अटपटी लगें किन्तु कटु एवं शर्मनाक सत्य है.

[nijjhar]

Hi,

I was 14 years old when the Partition of India took place. My father was in the education department and he went around villages telling them that Sikh, Hindu or Muslim they are religious selves never born and never die. We Jatts are going to die in fighting and killing others.

My father wrote to Lala Gandhi to hold general elections to take over the reigns of the government but he would not hold one and hypocritically divided our Motherland, the Punjab.

All the three leaders were Lalas. Lala Tara Singh Malhotra Khatri, Lala Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a Babla Bhatia and Lala Gandhi, a Bania.

This Kalyug belongs to Khatris as the Doapar belonged to Yadav or Jatts. Shri Krishan Baldev Ji was the incarnation of Shiv and not of Vishnu. Ram Chander Ji was of Vishnu.

For details visit my Youtube Videos under Channel nijjhar1.

[rajpaldular]

Rajinder Nijjhar Sir ! Aapke amulya vichar padhe, bahut acchcha laga. Bahut bahut dhanyawad.

[Samarkadian]

Guys , actually title of this thread is the title of a book written at our collective father Mahatma Ghandi and his sexual behaviour. It has been reviewed and reported in British Media. A Hindi journalist Hargobind Vishvkarma has published his article based on to the reports and reviews in Britain. I am sharing this Hindi write up. This is interesting and informative about the Great Man.

********************************

क्या राष्ट्रपिता मोहनदास कर्मचंद गांधी असामान्य सेक्स बीहैवियर वाले अर्द्ध-दमित सेक्स मैनियॉक थे? जी हां, महात्मा गांधी के सेक्स-जीवन को केंद्र बनाकर लिखी गई किताब “गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन” में एक ब्रिटिश प्रधानमंत्री के हवाले से ऐसा ही कहा गया है। महात्मा गांधी पर लिखी किताब आते ही विवाद के केंद्र में आ गई है जिसके चलते अंतरराष्ट्रीय बाज़ार में उसकी मांग बढ़ गई है। मशहूर ब्रिटिश इतिहासकार जैड ऐडम्स ने पंद्रह साल के अध्ययन और शोध के बाद “गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन” को किताब का रूप दिया है।

किताब में वैसे तो नया कुछ नहीं है। राष्ट्रपिता के जीवन में आने वाली महिलाओं और लड़कियों के साथ गांधी के आत्मीय और मधुर रिश्तों पर ख़ास प्रकाश डाला गया है। रिश्ते को सनसनीख़ेज़ बनाने की कोशिश की गई है। मसलन, जैड ऐडम्स ने लिखा है कि गांधी नग्न होकर लड़कियों और महिलाओं के साथ सोते ही नहीं थे बल्कि उनके साथ बाथरूम में “नग्न स्नान” भी करते थे।

महात्मा गांधी हत्या के साठ साल गुज़र जाने के बाद भी हमारे मानस-पटल पर किसी संत की तरह उभरते हैं। अब तक बापू की छवि गोल फ्रेम का चश्मा पहने लंगोटधारी बुजुर्ग की रही है जो दो युवा-स्त्रियों को लाठी के रूप में सहारे के लिए इस्तेमाल करता हुआ चलता-फिरता है। आख़िरी क्षण तक गांधी ऐसे ही राजसी माहौल में रहे। मगर किसी ने उन पर उंगली नहीं उठाई। ऐसे में इस किताब में लिखी बाते लोगों ख़ासकर, गांधीभक्तों को शायद ही हजम हों। दुनिया के लिए गांधी भारत के स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के आध्यात्मिक नेता हैं। वह अहिंसा के प्रणेता और भारत के राष्ट्रपिता भी हैं। जो दुनिया को सविनय अवज्ञा और अहिंसा की राह पर चलने की प्रेरणा देता है। कहना न होगा कि दुबली काया वाले उस पुतले ने दुनिया के कोने-कोने में मानव अधिकार आंदोलनों को ऊर्जा दी, उन्हें प्रेरित किया।

नई किताब यह खुलासा करती है कि गांधी उन युवा महिलाओं के साथ ख़ुद को संतप्त किया जो उनकी पूजा करती थीं और अकसर उनके साथ बिस्तर शेयर करती थीं। बहरहाल, ऐडम्स का दावा है कि लंदन से क़ानून की पढ़ाई करने के बाद वकील से गुरु बने गांधी की इमैज कठोर नेता की बनी जो अपने अनोखी सेक्सुअल डिमांड से अनुयायियों को वशीभूत कर लेता है। आमतौर पर लोग के लिए यह आचरण असहज हो सकता है पर गांधी के लिए सामान्य था। ऐडम्स ने किताब में लिखा है कि गांधी ने अपने आश्रमों में इतना कठोर अनुशासन बनाया था कि उनकी छवि 20वीं सदी के धर्मवादी नेताओं जैम्स वॉरेन जोन्स और डेविड कोरेश की तरह बन गई जो अपनी सम्मोहक सेक्स अपील से अनुयायियों को क़रीब-क़रीब ज्यों का त्यों वश में कर लेते थे। ब्रिटिश हिस्टोरियन के मुताबिक महात्मा गांधी सेक्स के बारे लिखना या बातें करना बेहद पसंद करते थे। किताब के मुताबिक हालांकि अन्य उच्चाकाक्षी पुरुषों की तरह गांधी कामुक भी थे और सेक्स से जुड़े तत्थों के बारे में आमतौर पर खुल कर लिखते थे। अपनी इच्छा को दमित करने के लिए ही उन्होंने कठोर परिश्रम का अनोखा स्वाभाव अपनाया जो कई लोगों को स्वीकार नहीं हो सकता।

किताब की शुरुआत ही गांधी की उस स्वीकारोक्ति से हुई है जिसमें गांधी ख़ुद लिखा या कहा करते थे कि उनके अंदर सेक्स-ऑब्सेशन का बीजारोपण किशोरावस्था में हुआ और वह बहुत कामुक हो गए थे। 13 साल की उम्र में 12 साल की कस्तूरबा से विवाह होने के बाद गांधी अकसर बेडरूम में होते थे। यहां तक कि उनके पिता कर्मचंद उर्फ कबा गांधी जब मृत्यु-शैया पर पड़े मौत से जूझ रहे थे उस समय किशोर मोहनदास पत्नी कस्तूरबा के साथ अपने बेडरूम में सेक्स का आनंद ले रहे थे।

किताब में कहा गया है कि विभाजन के दौरान नेहरू गांधी को अप्राकृतिक और असामान्य आदत वाला इंसान मानने लगे थे। सीनियर लीडर जेबी कृपलानी और वल्लभभाई पटेल ने गांधी के कामुक व्यवहार के चलते ही उनसे दूरी बना ली। यहां तक कि उनके परिवार के सदस्य और अन्य राजनीतिक साथी भी इससे ख़फ़ा थे। कई लोगों ने गांधी के प्रयोगों के चलते आश्रम छोड़ दिया। ऐडम ने गांधी और उनके क़रीबी लोगों के कथनों का हवाला देकर बापू को अत्यधिक कामुक साबित करने का पूरा प्रयास किया है। किताब में पंचगनी में ब्रह्मचर्य का प्रयोग का भी वर्णन किया है, जहां गांधी की सहयोगी सुशीला नायर गांधी के साथ निर्वस्त्र होकर सोती थीं और उनके साथ निर्वस्त्र होकर नहाती भी थीं। किताब में गांधी के ही वक्तव्य को उद्धरित किया गया है। मसलन इस बारे में गांधी ने ख़ुद लिखा है, “नहाते समय जब सुशीला निर्वस्त्र मेरे सामने होती है तो मेरी आंखें कसकर बंद हो जाती हैं। मुझे कुछ भी नज़र नहीं आता। मुझे बस केवल साबुन लगाने की आहट सुनाई देती है। मुझे कतई पता नहीं चलता कि कब वह पूरी तरह से नग्न हो गई है और कब वह सिर्फ अंतःवस्त्र पहनी होती है।”

किताब के ही मुताबिक जब बंगाल में दंगे हो रहे थे गांधी ने 18 साल की मनु को बुलाया और कहा “अगर तुम साथ नहीं होती तो मुस्लिम चरमपंथी हमारा क़त्ल कर देते। आओ आज से हम दोनों निर्वस्त्र होकर एक दूसरे के साथ सोएं और अपने शुद्ध होने और ब्रह्मचर्य का परीक्षण करें।” ऐडम का दावा है कि गांधी के साथ सोने वाली सुशीला, मनु और आभा ने गांधी के साथ शारीरिक संबंधों के बारे हमेशा अस्पष्ट बात कही। जब भी पूछा गया तब केवल यही कहा कि वह ब्रह्मचर्य के प्रयोग के सिद्धांतों का अभिन्न अंग है।

ऐडम्स के मुताबिक गांधी अपने लिए महात्मा संबोधन पसंद नहीं करते थे और वह अपने आध्यात्मिक कार्य में मशगूल रहे। गांधी की मृत्यु के बाद लंबे समय तक सेक्स को लेकर उनके प्रयोगों पर लीपापोती की जाती रही। हत्या के बाद गांधी को महिमामंडित करने और राष्ट्रपिता बनाने के लिए उन दस्तावेजों, तथ्यों और सबूतों को नष्ट कर दिया, जिनसे साबित किया जा सकता था कि संत गांधी दरअसल सेक्स मैनियैक थे। कांग्रेस भी स्वार्थों के लिए अब तक गांधी और उनके सेक्स-एक्सपेरिमेंट से जुड़े सच को छुपाती रही है। गांधीजी की हत्या के बाद मनु को मुंह बंद रखने की सलाह दी गई। सुशीला भी इस मसले पर हमेशा चुप ही रहीं।

किताब में ऐडम्स दावा करते हैं कि सेक्स के जरिए गांधी अपने को आध्यात्मिक रूप से शुद्ध और परिष्कृत करने की कोशिशों में लगे रहे। नवविवाहित जोड़ों को अलग-अलग सोकर ब्रह्मचर्य का उपदेश देते थे। ऐडम्स के अनुसार सुशीला नायर, मनु और आभा के अलावा बड़ी तादाद में महिलाएं गांधी के क़रीब आईं। कुछ उनकी बेहद ख़ास बन गईं। बंगाली परिवार की विद्वान और ख़ूबसूरत महिला सरलादेवी चौधरी से गांधी का संबंध जगज़ाहिर है। हालांकि गांधी केवल यही कहते रहे कि सरलादेवी उनकी “आध्यात्मिक पत्नी” हैं। गांधी जी डेनमार्क मिशनरी की महिला इस्टर फाइरिंग को प्रेमपत्र लिखते थे। इस्टर जब आश्रम में आती तो बाकी लोगों को जलन होती क्योंकि गांधी उनसे एकांत में बातचीत करते थे। किताब में ब्रिटिश एडमिरल की बेटी मैडलीन स्लैड से गांधी के मधुर रिश्ते का जिक्र किया गया है जो हिंदुस्तान में आकर रहने लगीं और गांधी ने उन्हें मीराबेन का नाम दिया।

ऐडम्स ने कहा है कि नब्बे के दशक में उसे अपनी किताब “द डाइनैस्टी” लिखते समय गांधी और नेहरू के रिश्ते के बारे में काफी कुछ जानने को मिला। इसके बाद लेखक की तमन्ना थी कि वह गांधी के जीवन को अन्य लोगों के नजरिए से किताब के जरिए उकेरे। यह किताब उसी कोशिश का नतीजा है। जैड दावा करते हैं कि उन्होंने ख़ुद गांधी और उन्हें बेहद क़रीब से जानने वालों की महात्मा के बारे में लिखे गए किताबों और अन्य दस्तावेजों का गहन अध्ययन और शोध किया है। उनके विचारों का जानने के लिए कई साल तक शोध किया। उसके बाद इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचे।

इस बारे में ऐडम्स ने स्वीकार किया है कि यह किताब विवाद से घिरेगी। उन्होंने कहा, “मैं जानता हूं इस एक किताब को पढ़कर भारत के लोग मुझसे नाराज़ हो सकते हैं लेकिन जब मेरी किताब का लंदन विश्वविद्यालय में विमोचन हुआ तो तमाम भारतीय छात्रों ने मेरे प्रयास की सराहना की, मुझे बधाई दी।” 288 पेज की करीब आठ सौ रुपए मूल्य की यह किताब जल्द ही भारतीय बाज़ार में उपलब्ध होगी। 'गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन' का लंदन यूनिवर्सिटी में विमोचन हो चुका है। किताब में गांधी की जीवन की तक़रीबन हर अहम घटना को समाहित करने की कोशिश की गई है। जैड ऐडम्स ने गांधी के महाव्यक्तित्व को महिमामंडित करने की पूरी कोशिश की है। हालांकि उनके सेक्स-जीवन की इस तरह व्याख्या की है कि गांधीवादियों और कांग्रेसियों को इस पर सख़्त ऐतराज़ हो सकता है।

http://www.vichar.bhadas4media.com/home-page/37-my-view/286-book-on-gandhiji.html


My only point is how one can practise Brahmcharya at age of above 60 and its significance if any and Why after fathering few children?

[anilsangwan]

Really enlightening!!... I heard Nehru also had similar hostory...

Samar bhai, thanks for sharing this. Is this book available in India?



Guys , actually title of this thread is the title of a book written at our collective father Mahatma Ghandi and his sexual behaviour. It has been reviewed and reported in British Media. A Hindi journalist Hargobind Vishvkarma has published his article based on to the reports and reviews in Britain. I am sharing this Hindi write up. This is interesting and informative about the Great Man.

********************************

क्या राष्ट्रपिता मोहनदास कर्मचंद गांधी असामान्य सेक्स बीहैवियर वाले अर्द्ध-दमित सेक्स मैनियॉक थे? जी हां, महात्मा गांधी के सेक्स-जीवन को केंद्र बनाकर लिखी गई किताब “गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन” में एक ब्रिटिश प्रधानमंत्री के हवाले से ऐसा ही कहा गया है। महात्मा गांधी पर लिखी किताब आते ही विवाद के केंद्र में आ गई है जिसके चलते अंतरराष्ट्रीय बाज़ार में उसकी मांग बढ़ गई है। मशहूर ब्रिटिश इतिहासकार जैड ऐडम्स ने पंद्रह साल के अध्ययन और शोध के बाद “गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन” को किताब का रूप दिया है।

किताब में वैसे तो नया कुछ नहीं है। राष्ट्रपिता के जीवन में आने वाली महिलाओं और लड़कियों के साथ गांधी के आत्मीय और मधुर रिश्तों पर ख़ास प्रकाश डाला गया है। रिश्ते को सनसनीख़ेज़ बनाने की कोशिश की गई है। मसलन, जैड ऐडम्स ने लिखा है कि गांधी नग्न होकर लड़कियों और महिलाओं के साथ सोते ही नहीं थे बल्कि उनके साथ बाथरूम में “नग्न स्नान” भी करते थे।

महात्मा गांधी हत्या के साठ साल गुज़र जाने के बाद भी हमारे मानस-पटल पर किसी संत की तरह उभरते हैं। अब तक बापू की छवि गोल फ्रेम का चश्मा पहने लंगोटधारी बुजुर्ग की रही है जो दो युवा-स्त्रियों को लाठी के रूप में सहारे के लिए इस्तेमाल करता हुआ चलता-फिरता है। आख़िरी क्षण तक गांधी ऐसे ही राजसी माहौल में रहे। मगर किसी ने उन पर उंगली नहीं उठाई। ऐसे में इस किताब में लिखी बाते लोगों ख़ासकर, गांधीभक्तों को शायद ही हजम हों। दुनिया के लिए गांधी भारत के स्वतंत्रता आंदोलन के आध्यात्मिक नेता हैं। वह अहिंसा के प्रणेता और भारत के राष्ट्रपिता भी हैं। जो दुनिया को सविनय अवज्ञा और अहिंसा की राह पर चलने की प्रेरणा देता है। कहना न होगा कि दुबली काया वाले उस पुतले ने दुनिया के कोने-कोने में मानव अधिकार आंदोलनों को ऊर्जा दी, उन्हें प्रेरित किया।

नई किताब यह खुलासा करती है कि गांधी उन युवा महिलाओं के साथ ख़ुद को संतप्त किया जो उनकी पूजा करती थीं और अकसर उनके साथ बिस्तर शेयर करती थीं। बहरहाल, ऐडम्स का दावा है कि लंदन से क़ानून की पढ़ाई करने के बाद वकील से गुरु बने गांधी की इमैज कठोर नेता की बनी जो अपने अनोखी सेक्सुअल डिमांड से अनुयायियों को वशीभूत कर लेता है। आमतौर पर लोग के लिए यह आचरण असहज हो सकता है पर गांधी के लिए सामान्य था। ऐडम्स ने किताब में लिखा है कि गांधी ने अपने आश्रमों में इतना कठोर अनुशासन बनाया था कि उनकी छवि 20वीं सदी के धर्मवादी नेताओं जैम्स वॉरेन जोन्स और डेविड कोरेश की तरह बन गई जो अपनी सम्मोहक सेक्स अपील से अनुयायियों को क़रीब-क़रीब ज्यों का त्यों वश में कर लेते थे। ब्रिटिश हिस्टोरियन के मुताबिक महात्मा गांधी सेक्स के बारे लिखना या बातें करना बेहद पसंद करते थे। किताब के मुताबिक हालांकि अन्य उच्चाकाक्षी पुरुषों की तरह गांधी कामुक भी थे और सेक्स से जुड़े तत्थों के बारे में आमतौर पर खुल कर लिखते थे। अपनी इच्छा को दमित करने के लिए ही उन्होंने कठोर परिश्रम का अनोखा स्वाभाव अपनाया जो कई लोगों को स्वीकार नहीं हो सकता।

किताब की शुरुआत ही गांधी की उस स्वीकारोक्ति से हुई है जिसमें गांधी ख़ुद लिखा या कहा करते थे कि उनके अंदर सेक्स-ऑब्सेशन का बीजारोपण किशोरावस्था में हुआ और वह बहुत कामुक हो गए थे। 13 साल की उम्र में 12 साल की कस्तूरबा से विवाह होने के बाद गांधी अकसर बेडरूम में होते थे। यहां तक कि उनके पिता कर्मचंद उर्फ कबा गांधी जब मृत्यु-शैया पर पड़े मौत से जूझ रहे थे उस समय किशोर मोहनदास पत्नी कस्तूरबा के साथ अपने बेडरूम में सेक्स का आनंद ले रहे थे।

किताब में कहा गया है कि विभाजन के दौरान नेहरू गांधी को अप्राकृतिक और असामान्य आदत वाला इंसान मानने लगे थे। सीनियर लीडर जेबी कृपलानी और वल्लभभाई पटेल ने गांधी के कामुक व्यवहार के चलते ही उनसे दूरी बना ली। यहां तक कि उनके परिवार के सदस्य और अन्य राजनीतिक साथी भी इससे ख़फ़ा थे। कई लोगों ने गांधी के प्रयोगों के चलते आश्रम छोड़ दिया। ऐडम ने गांधी और उनके क़रीबी लोगों के कथनों का हवाला देकर बापू को अत्यधिक कामुक साबित करने का पूरा प्रयास किया है। किताब में पंचगनी में ब्रह्मचर्य का प्रयोग का भी वर्णन किया है, जहां गांधी की सहयोगी सुशीला नायर गांधी के साथ निर्वस्त्र होकर सोती थीं और उनके साथ निर्वस्त्र होकर नहाती भी थीं। किताब में गांधी के ही वक्तव्य को उद्धरित किया गया है। मसलन इस बारे में गांधी ने ख़ुद लिखा है, “नहाते समय जब सुशीला निर्वस्त्र मेरे सामने होती है तो मेरी आंखें कसकर बंद हो जाती हैं। मुझे कुछ भी नज़र नहीं आता। मुझे बस केवल साबुन लगाने की आहट सुनाई देती है। मुझे कतई पता नहीं चलता कि कब वह पूरी तरह से नग्न हो गई है और कब वह सिर्फ अंतःवस्त्र पहनी होती है।”

किताब के ही मुताबिक जब बंगाल में दंगे हो रहे थे गांधी ने 18 साल की मनु को बुलाया और कहा “अगर तुम साथ नहीं होती तो मुस्लिम चरमपंथी हमारा क़त्ल कर देते। आओ आज से हम दोनों निर्वस्त्र होकर एक दूसरे के साथ सोएं और अपने शुद्ध होने और ब्रह्मचर्य का परीक्षण करें।” ऐडम का दावा है कि गांधी के साथ सोने वाली सुशीला, मनु और आभा ने गांधी के साथ शारीरिक संबंधों के बारे हमेशा अस्पष्ट बात कही। जब भी पूछा गया तब केवल यही कहा कि वह ब्रह्मचर्य के प्रयोग के सिद्धांतों का अभिन्न अंग है।

ऐडम्स के मुताबिक गांधी अपने लिए महात्मा संबोधन पसंद नहीं करते थे और वह अपने आध्यात्मिक कार्य में मशगूल रहे। गांधी की मृत्यु के बाद लंबे समय तक सेक्स को लेकर उनके प्रयोगों पर लीपापोती की जाती रही। हत्या के बाद गांधी को महिमामंडित करने और राष्ट्रपिता बनाने के लिए उन दस्तावेजों, तथ्यों और सबूतों को नष्ट कर दिया, जिनसे साबित किया जा सकता था कि संत गांधी दरअसल सेक्स मैनियैक थे। कांग्रेस भी स्वार्थों के लिए अब तक गांधी और उनके सेक्स-एक्सपेरिमेंट से जुड़े सच को छुपाती रही है। गांधीजी की हत्या के बाद मनु को मुंह बंद रखने की सलाह दी गई। सुशीला भी इस मसले पर हमेशा चुप ही रहीं।

किताब में ऐडम्स दावा करते हैं कि सेक्स के जरिए गांधी अपने को आध्यात्मिक रूप से शुद्ध और परिष्कृत करने की कोशिशों में लगे रहे। नवविवाहित जोड़ों को अलग-अलग सोकर ब्रह्मचर्य का उपदेश देते थे। ऐडम्स के अनुसार सुशीला नायर, मनु और आभा के अलावा बड़ी तादाद में महिलाएं गांधी के क़रीब आईं। कुछ उनकी बेहद ख़ास बन गईं। बंगाली परिवार की विद्वान और ख़ूबसूरत महिला सरलादेवी चौधरी से गांधी का संबंध जगज़ाहिर है। हालांकि गांधी केवल यही कहते रहे कि सरलादेवी उनकी “आध्यात्मिक पत्नी” हैं। गांधी जी डेनमार्क मिशनरी की महिला इस्टर फाइरिंग को प्रेमपत्र लिखते थे। इस्टर जब आश्रम में आती तो बाकी लोगों को जलन होती क्योंकि गांधी उनसे एकांत में बातचीत करते थे। किताब में ब्रिटिश एडमिरल की बेटी मैडलीन स्लैड से गांधी के मधुर रिश्ते का जिक्र किया गया है जो हिंदुस्तान में आकर रहने लगीं और गांधी ने उन्हें मीराबेन का नाम दिया।

ऐडम्स ने कहा है कि नब्बे के दशक में उसे अपनी किताब “द डाइनैस्टी” लिखते समय गांधी और नेहरू के रिश्ते के बारे में काफी कुछ जानने को मिला। इसके बाद लेखक की तमन्ना थी कि वह गांधी के जीवन को अन्य लोगों के नजरिए से किताब के जरिए उकेरे। यह किताब उसी कोशिश का नतीजा है। जैड दावा करते हैं कि उन्होंने ख़ुद गांधी और उन्हें बेहद क़रीब से जानने वालों की महात्मा के बारे में लिखे गए किताबों और अन्य दस्तावेजों का गहन अध्ययन और शोध किया है। उनके विचारों का जानने के लिए कई साल तक शोध किया। उसके बाद इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचे।

इस बारे में ऐडम्स ने स्वीकार किया है कि यह किताब विवाद से घिरेगी। उन्होंने कहा, “मैं जानता हूं इस एक किताब को पढ़कर भारत के लोग मुझसे नाराज़ हो सकते हैं लेकिन जब मेरी किताब का लंदन विश्वविद्यालय में विमोचन हुआ तो तमाम भारतीय छात्रों ने मेरे प्रयास की सराहना की, मुझे बधाई दी।” 288 पेज की करीब आठ सौ रुपए मूल्य की यह किताब जल्द ही भारतीय बाज़ार में उपलब्ध होगी। 'गांधीः नैक्ड ऐंबिशन' का लंदन यूनिवर्सिटी में विमोचन हो चुका है। किताब में गांधी की जीवन की तक़रीबन हर अहम घटना को समाहित करने की कोशिश की गई है। जैड ऐडम्स ने गांधी के महाव्यक्तित्व को महिमामंडित करने की पूरी कोशिश की है। हालांकि उनके सेक्स-जीवन की इस तरह व्याख्या की है कि गांधीवादियों और कांग्रेसियों को इस पर सख़्त ऐतराज़ हो सकता है।

http://www.vichar.bhadas4media.com/home-page/37-my-view/286-book-on-gandhiji.html


My only point is how one can practise Brahmcharya at age of above 60 and its significance if any and Why after fathering few children?

[akshaymalik84]

There is a book named "My days with Gandhi" written by Nirmal Bose(Gandhi's Bangali interpreter). In his book he wrote,"It is generally believed that Gandhi started sleeping with women toward the close of his life. According to Sushila Nayar, he started much earlier. However, at the time he called it ‘nature cure.’ She told Mehta, ‘long before Manu came into the picture I used to sleep with him just as I would with my mother. He might say my back aches. Put some pressure on it. So I might put some pressure on it or lie down on his back and he might just go to sleep. In the early days there was no question of calling this a brahamacharya experiment. It was just part of nature cure. Later on, when people started asking questions about his physical contact with women, the idea of brahamacharya experiments was developed. Don’t ask me any more questions about brahamacharya experiments. There is nothing to say, unless you have a dirty mind like Bose.’Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles is an extremely well-written book. Mehta has made it highly readable with his subtle expression and suave sarcasm, particularly when he reproduces his conversations with Gandhians. He has shown courage in unraveling some of the myths woven around Gandhi by his blind followers. The latter will certainly be dismayed by Mehta’s forthrightness. The book has created a tumult in the Indian Parliament. It will be a great pity if it is banned”.

[VirJ]

My only point is how one can practise Brahmcharya at age of above 60 and its significance if any and Why after fathering few children?

Though its really true that he used to sleep naked with young women even with the one from his extended families. P. Parasuram found him sleeping naked with Manu too.

He said he test himself through this experiement. He never felt aroused among their company. Bose also said their is no immorality on Gandhi's part. However he didnt like the practise.

He was never accused by Manu and Abha who were his realtives. Sushila Nayar died just in 2000 but didnt say anything.

But we should focus more on his other works/deeds which were more relevant to us like his role in freedom struggle, his role in shaping india, his role in partition of India, Why he chose Nehru over others etc. rather then making an opinion about these allegations which are more personal in nature and cant be proved or denied as he isnt alive to answer these questions of ours.

[skarmveer]

Bhai Rastra Pita or Mahan Sant hai kuchh bhee kar saktey hai...Congress aaj tak unkey naam kee roti khaa rahi hai..pata nahi kitney congression key vastvik pita hongey...Hamara Koi Javab nahi ..........Hum Bhartiye laa javab hai........Jai Hind..Jai...Hind key Neta.................................Pata nahi or kaya -2 sunana or dekhna padeyga...........................

[VPannu]

Congress aaj tak unkey naam kee roti khaa rahi hai..unke naam ki roti to poora Bharat khaa rakha hai Karmveer ji (since every currency note bears his watermark)

[cooljat]

The very book is available online for your reading, check the url -

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=mSZCoC8U24cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=My+days+with+Gandhi&source=bl&ots=ST4KalaYdl&sig=D6gjcNWSchhy9qeMam3oMyxKAD8&hl=en&ei=trmNTNz1HoWGvgPYgOnnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true


There is a book named "My days with Gandhi" written by Nirmal Bose(Gandhi's Bangali interpreter). In his book he wrote,"It is generally believed that Gandhi started sleeping with women toward the close of his life. According to Sushila Nayar, he started much earlier. However, at the time he called it ‘nature cure.’ She told Mehta, ‘long before Manu came into the picture I used to sleep with him just as I would with my mother. He might say my back aches. Put some pressure on it. So I might put some pressure on it or lie down on his back and he might just go to sleep. In the early days there was no question of calling this a brahamacharya experiment. It was just part of nature cure. Later on, when people started asking questions about his physical contact with women, the idea of brahamacharya experiments was developed. Don’t ask me any more questions about brahamacharya experiments. There is nothing to say, unless you have a dirty mind like Bose.’Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles is an extremely well-written book. Mehta has made it highly readable with his subtle expression and suave sarcasm, particularly when he reproduces his conversations with Gandhians. He has shown courage in unraveling some of the myths woven around Gandhi by his blind followers. The latter will certainly be dismayed by Mehta’s forthrightness. The book has created a tumult in the Indian Parliament. It will be a great pity if it is banned”.

[anilsangwan]

True sir........ one can search internet with 'Sanjay Gandhi Mohammad Yusuf' and he can find many theories proving that he was not real son of Firoz Gandhi.


Bhai Rastra Pita or Mahan Sant hai kuchh bhee kar saktey hai...Congress aaj tak unkey naam kee roti khaa rahi hai..pata nahi kitney congression key vastvik pita hongey...Hamara Koi Javab nahi ..........Hum Bhartiye laa javab hai........Jai Hind..Jai...Hind key Neta.................................Pata nahi or kaya -2 sunana or dekhna padeyga...........................

[singhvp]

He was never accused by Manu and Abha who were his realtives. Sushila Nayar died just in 2000 but didnt say anything.

But we should focus more on his other works/deeds which were more relevant to us like his role in freedom struggle, his role in shaping india, his role in partition of India, Why he chose Nehru over others etc. rather then making an opinion about these allegations which are more personal in nature and cant be proved or denied as he isnt alive to answer these questions of ours.

Exactly. When Manu, Abha and Susheela didn't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life. We should not try to peep into our neighbour's bedrooms with binoculars. Every creature seeks to attend to the call of nature and it is not a big deal if Gandhi also did that unless he raped someone. Only the ways of fulfillment of sensual gratification are different. There could be many other great leaders/Mahatmas like Gandhi. But they might be introvert and wouldn't have preferred to share their innate feelings with others. Some like Gandhi have courage to share their pillow secrets with others. It speaks of his honesty and truthfulness. This may not be construed as my endorsement of all his policies viz. political and economic. My opposition/criticism to his economic policies and political vision apart, I salute his honesty.

[cooljat]

Jyani Bhai,

I think you missed Samar's point, he clearly mentioned - how one can practice Brahmcharya at age of above 60 and its significance if any and Why after fathering few children?

As far I know about Celibacy or Brahmcharya, it's been practiced till 28 years of age to keep your vital energy intact as par Ayurveda. After 28 year one can get married and enjoy the Grahast-Ashram. I wonder what is the use of practicing Celibacy in the age of 60? At that old age most of the men automatically become celibate in a way. ;)

Therefore it proves Gandhi was sex-slave and even at that period of his life he couldn't able to stay away from temptation n' such illicit acts and just to save himself from defame he gave it name of celibacy.

Yeah, agree that we should focus on his deeds in freedom struggle n' his sacrifices but at the same time we can not close eyes on his other side may be his personal front, illicit acts or the blunders he made. After-all he was a mass Leader, collective Father of Nation. Every single thing about his life n' life style does matter !




Though its really true that he used to sleep naked with young women even with the one from his extended families. P. Parasuram found him sleeping naked with Manu too.

He said he test himself through this experiement. He never felt aroused among their company.Bose also said their is no immorality on Gandhi's part. However he didnt like the practise.

He was never accused by Manu and Abha who were his realtives. Sushila Nayar died just in 2000 but didnt say anything.

But we should focus more on his other works/deeds which were more relevant to us like his role in freedom struggle, his role in shaping india, his role in partition of India, Why he chose Nehru over others etc. rather then making an opinion about these allegations which are more personal in nature and cant be proved or denied as he isnt alive to answer these questions of ours.

[jitendershooda]

But we should focus more on his other works/deeds which were more relevant to us like his role in freedom struggle, his role in shaping india, his role in partition of India, Why he chose Nehru over others etc. rather then making an opinion about these allegations which are more personal in nature and cant be proved or denied as he isnt alive to answer these questions of ours.

I agree. You can find different stories if you try to look beyond one's bedroom doors.

Ek be ek hawan chal rahya tha Hanuman ka kime Rott kar rakhya tha ek ne. Bamman hawan ke beech mein bolya ... 5 brahmchari yuvak aage aayein. 10-12 khade ho liye. Pher wo nue bolya .... Soch lein phir se ... poorn brahmchari hi aage aayen. Ek ek karke sare baith-ge. :)

[anilsangwan]

Sir... I think you have taken it wrongly. In my opinion, matter of discussion on this thread is not about what happened in gandhi's bedroom and enjoy....... but is to understand that how such things are concealed to portray someone as "Father of the Nation".

Also, people need to understand and raise a question as to why this person is shown next to God where several more honest leaders have been in the past. Why not Lal Bahadur Shastry's pictures put of currency notes... ( not even one denomination note they are put)..... Why not Lala Lajpat Rai... Bhagat Singh.... why only Gandhi? Was he so great? ... NO, he was made great by this Nehru-Gandhi family...

Congressis and Gandhians may boast of his policy of "Non-violence".... but the truth is that India's freedom was delayed by couple of decades due to this gentleman.
And, last thing.... Gandhi himself had not shared these secrets.... others have brought it forward and Gandhi had to accept in closed forums.



Exactly. When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life. We should not try to peep into our neighbour's bedrooms with binoculars. Every creature seeks to attend to the call of nature and it is not a big deal if Gandhi also did that unless he raped someone. Only the ways of fulfillment of sensual gratification are different. There could be many other great leaders/Mahatmas like Gandhi. But they might be introvert and wouldn't have preferred to share their innate feelings with others. Some like Gandhi have courage to share their pillow secrets with others. It speaks of his honesty and truthfulness. This may not be construed as my endorsement of all his policies viz. political and economic. My opposition/criticism to his economic policies and political vision apart, I salute his honesty.

[VirJ]

[COLOR=RoyalBlue]Jyani Bhai,

[/I]As far I know about Celibacy or Brahmcharya, it's been practiced till 28 years of age to keep your vital energy intact as par Ayurveda. After 28 year one can get married and enjoy the Grahast-Ashram. I wonder what is the use of practicing Celibacy in the age of 60? At that old age most of the men automatically become celibate in a way. ;)


As far as I know Bramcharya or celibacy can be practised life long or at any stage of life and its means more toward controlling oneself. He started celibacy at the age of 36 and there was a particular incident what made him do so. What you are talking about is a different thing and it is attached to various phases of life. In his autobiography he said Brahmacharya means "control of the senses in thought, word and deed". Where is the confusion?

I understand Samar's and your point very well but looks like you missed what I was saying.

Last thing "Gandhi never called himself Mahatma". He had objection using this word for him. The country made him mahatma and now accusing him not being a mahatma ?

I just said he isnt here to answer your allegations but those who slept with him never accused him.

I dont know the truth as I wasn't there but common sense says if he wasnt accused by those girls who were from his extended family, if he wasnt accused by his relatives. if he wasnt accused by S. Nayar then may be he wasnt wrong !

Better would be if you criticise his policies, his public deeds, his manuvering and his contribution rather then who used to wash his underwear.

[singhvp]

Sir... I think you have taken it wrongly. In my opinion, matter of discussion on this thread is not about what happened in gandhi's bedroom and enjoy....... but is to understand that how such things are concealed to portray someone as "Father of the Nation".

Also, people need to understand and raise a question as to why this person is shown next to God where several more honest leaders have been in the past. Why not Lal Bahadur Shastry's pictures put of currency notes... ( not even one denomination note they are put)..... Why not Lala Lajpat Rai... Bhagat Singh.... why only Gandhi? Was he so great? ... NO, he was made great by this Nehru-Gandhi family...

Congressis and Gandhians may boast of his policy of "Non-violence".... but the truth is that India's freedom was delayed by couple of decades due to this gentleman.
And, last thing.... Gandhi himself had not shared these secrets.... others have brought it forward and Gandhi had to accept in closed forums.

Anil, I totally agree with your argument that why only Gandhi has been glorified by Congress Party and why not other revolutionaries. It is all for political gains. Sex is still exercised as taboo in India and people wouldn't have supported Congress had they known the bare facts of its mentor. Therefore, concealing of the bare facts about Gandhi's unique experiments was a brilliantly calculated move of Nehru and party.

[sunillathwal]

Also, people need to understand and raise a question as to why this person is shown next to God where several more honest leaders have been in the past. Why not Lal Bahadur Shastry's pictures put of currency notes... ( not even one denomination note they are put)..... Why not Lala Lajpat Rai... Bhagat Singh.... why only Gandhi? Was he so great? ... NO, he was made great by this Nehru-Gandhi family...

Anil bhaai, add Rajendar Prasad and Vallabh Bhai Patel also. Excellent leaders.. honest, non-corrupt (morally) and not to mention lived and died in poverty.
Where as these Nehrus Badmash & company always lived like aristocrats! Gandhi was no less.. सरोजनी नायडू ने पोल खोल दी इस 'फ़कीर' की.



Congressis and Gandhians may boast of his policy of "Non-violence".... but the truth is that India's freedom was delayed by couple of decades due to this gentleman.
And, last thing.... Gandhi himself had not shared these secrets.... others have brought it forward and Gandhi had to accept in closed forums.

यो 'नॉन-वाय्लांस' अर गाँधी इन पश्चमी देश आले ने घणे चढ़ा रखे हैं..
ओबामा भी ले है अर कदे हो गाँधी की 'नॉन-वाय्लांस' के गुण-गाण लाग ज्या से करण |

अर सब ते कसूत बात: उं ते मेरे बट्टे 'नॉन-वाय्लांस'-'नॉन-वाय्लांस' करे ज्या से पर इनके देश पे या नागरिका कान्या कोए लखा भी दे ना करड़ी ढाल, साब्ते देश का धुम्मा ठा दे हैं...
वो देख ल्यो, इराक का के हाल कराया कसाईया ने!! कति खामखा इतने बम बरसा दिये, कई साल नहीं चुगे ज्यां बेचारे इराक आले पे...
बेरा नहीं कित चली जा से वा "इनकी नॉन-वाय्लांस" ?

अंग्रेज का पाला होड़ पट्ठा था यो गाँधी, फद्दु बणाया राख्या सारा देश इस ने.. ठीक रान्द कटगी बीमारी की ४८ में ना ते और दुःख देवे हो !!

[akshaymalik84]

Gandhi role to india's independence was minimal. It was Britains own choice to leave india as India was becoming a liability to them. It was not Gandhi's saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country was about to erupt into a slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it (http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/bose.htm#Sir_Stafford_Cripps). What they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims and Hindus. This violence included the “Great Calcutta Killing” of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in three days.Another factor was the terrorism–and this need not be a term of condemnation–quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did.

Lord Clement Atlee , the PM of Britain at that time himself said the role of Gandhi in India's independence was not much.He said it was lack of loyality of Indian Army and Navy to Britain because of Bose activities that lead to their departure.

And if he was so much a philosopher and country lover, he didn't think twice what would his followers learn from his sex antics and incestfull play. What kind of HONEST person was he who beat his wife and slept naked with girls 40years younger than him.Yes,Brahmacharya means "control of the senses in thought, word and deed" but not experimenting with 18 year old that too at the age of 60.

Mr. VP singh Ji, {When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life.} If any girl dont have any problem sleeping with any person who is married and father of five. What would our society call that girl and that Person? Is it okay for a Married man to sleep with other girls??????Though you dont have any problem but still is it OK?

[sunillathwal]

Gandhi role to india's independence was minimal. It was Britains own choice to leave india as India was becoming a liability to them. It was not Gandhi's saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country was about to erupt into a slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it (http://www.tamilnation.org/ideology/bose.htm#Sir_Stafford_Cripps). What they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims and Hindus. This violence included the “Great Calcutta Killing” of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in three days.Another factor was the terrorism–and this need not be a term of condemnation–quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did.

Lord Clement Atlee , the PM of Britain at that time himself said the role of Gandhi in India's independence was not much.He said it was lack of loyality of Indian Army and Navy to Britain because of Bose activities that lead to their departure.


Akshay, biggest (and dare I say only) reason was WW-II.
Angrej would have let ALL hindus & muslims slaughter each-other if other 'conditions' were in their favor. 'Hindu-Muslim ekta' or welfare of Indians were the last things on their minds!
Needless to say, most colonies got their freedom around same time.

[prashantacmet]

Theek kahi bhai anil, akshay, samar, jit aur sunil ne!!...

[anilsangwan]

Bhai, I totally agree with you. Dr Rajendar Prasad and Vallabh Bhai Patel were greatest leaders of their time. But this congress ruled country will never understand the unneccesary and fake glorification of Gandhi and Nehru...

जब नेहरु मरा..... तो तत्कालीन प्रधानमंत्री निवास "त्रिमूर्ति भवन" को उसके नाम पे स्मारक के तौर पे बना दिया.... क्यों? लेकिन जब डॉ राजेंदर प्रसाद की म्रत्यु हुयी तो राष्ट्रपति भवन को स्मारक क्यों नहीं बनाया...? ... कारण साफ़ था, नेहरु गाँधी परिवार से नहीं थे डॉ प्रसाद...

राजीव गाँधी की म्रत्यु के बाद "राजीव गाँधी ट्रस्ट" बनाया गया जिस में सरकार ने सैंकड़ो करोड़ रूपये दिए... ...... कहीं नाम सुना है बाढ़- दंगो-अकाल के वक़्त की ये ट्रस्ट कुछ करता हो.... कभी नहीं..... देश इनकी प्रोपर्टी है .... जैसे चाहे लूटो... पता नहीं कितने ट्रस्ट इनके नाम से चल रहे हैं और सरकार का अनुदान खा रहे हैं नीचे नीचे .....

और गाँधी जी Father of the Nation.... :(





Anil bhaai, add Rajendar Prasad and Vallabh Bhai Patel also. Excellent leaders.. honest, non-corrupt (morally) and not to mention lived and died in poverty.
Where as these Nehrus Badmash & company always lived like aristocrats! Gandhi was no less.. सरोजनी नायडू ने पोल खोल दी इस 'फ़कीर' की.



यो 'नॉन-वाय्लांस' अर गाँधी इन पश्चमी देश आले ने घणे चढ़ा रखे हैं..
ओबामा भी ले है अर कदे हो गाँधी की 'नॉन-वाय्लांस' के गुण-गाण लाग ज्या से करण |

अर सब ते कसूत बात: उं ते मेरे बट्टे 'नॉन-वाय्लांस'-'नॉन-वाय्लांस' करे ज्या से पर इनके देश पे या नागरिका कान्या कोए लखा भी दे ना करड़ी ढाल, साब्ते देश का धुम्मा ठा दे हैं...
वो देख ल्यो, इराक का के हाल कराया कसाईया ने!! कति खामखा इतने बम बरसा दिये, कई साल नहीं चुगे ज्यां बेचारे इराक आले पे...
बेरा नहीं कित चली जा से वा "इनकी नॉन-वाय्लांस" ?

अंग्रेज का पाला होड़ पट्ठा था यो गाँधी, फद्दु बणाया राख्या सारा देश इस ने.. ठीक रान्द कटगी बीमारी की ४८ में ना ते और दुःख देवे हो !!

[ravinderjeet]

Mr. VP singh Ji, {When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life.} If any girl dont have any problem sleeping with any person who is married and father of five. What would our society call that girl and that Person? Is it okay for a Married man to sleep with other girls??????Though you dont have any problem but still is it OK?

V.P. Singh ji ke vichaar hameshaa karaantikaari rahey hein,wey hameshaa hat kar sochtey hein,aur har pahlu se vichaar kartey hein muddey kaa (3D)isliye hamaare jesey mand matiyon ko dishaa bharam ho jaataa hey.

agar kissi ke ghar waaley naa bolein aur wo khud bhi naa boley to unkey pariwaar walon kaa shaaririk shoshan jaayaj hey.aur kaanooni hey.iss parkaar koi bhi vayakti veybhichaar kartey huey purey bhaarat kaa baap ban saktaa hey.kyuon V.P.Ji ? sahi samjhaa naa meney!!!!!!!!!

[anilsangwan]

Bhai Ravinder देश के मालिकां के आगे कुण बोल सके थी........ जिब्बे मरवा देते उन ने ...


Mr. VP singh Ji, {When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life.} If any girl dont have any problem sleeping with any person who is married and father of five. What would our society call that girl and that Person? Is it okay for a Married man to sleep with other girls??????Though you dont have any problem but still is it OK?

V.P. Singh ji ke vichaar hameshaa karaantikaari rahey hein,wey hameshaa hat kar sochtey hein,aur har pahlu se vichaar kartey hein muddey kaa (3D)isliye hamaare jesey mand matiyon ko dishaa bharam ho jaataa hey.

agar kissi ke ghar waaley naa bolein aur wo khud bhi naa boley to unkey pariwaar walon kaa shaaririk shoshan jaayaj hey.aur kaanooni hey.iss parkaar koi bhi vayakti veybhichaar kartey huey purey bhaarat kaa baap ban saktaa hey.kyuon V.P.Ji ? sahi samjhaa naa meney!!!!!!!!!

[cooljat]

Agree with your definition of Brahmcharya but Gandhi's (so called) barmhcharya was related to controlling the sexual urge only as far I understand from his experiments with sleeping with young women. Btw, If he really wanted to practice Brahmcharya in real mean then what was need of experiencing/practicing with young girls? Why to prove? Common sense also says that if a man of 60 yrs indulge himself in such acts, what it will be called?

As for his deeds/policies .. Akshay and Sunil explained it well in later posts.


As far as I know Bramcharya or celibacy can be practised life long or at any stage of life and its means more toward controlling oneself. He started celibacy at the age of 36 and there was a particular incident what made him do so. What you are talking about is a different thing and it is attached to various phases of life. In his autobiography he said Brahmacharya means "control of the senses in thought, word and deed". Where is the confusion?

I understand Samar's and your point very well but looks like you missed what I was saying.

Last thing "Gandhi never called himself Mahatma". He had objection using this word for him. The country made him mahatma and now accusing him not being a mahatma ?

I just said he isnt here to answer your allegations but those who slept with him never accused him.

I dont know the truth as I wasn't there but common sense says if he wasnt accused by those girls who were from his extended family, if he wasnt accused by his relatives. if he wasnt accused by S. Nayar then may be he wasnt wrong !

Better would be if you criticise his policies, his public deeds, his manuvering and his contribution rather then who used to wash his underwear.

[narendra81]

i dint know till now that this gandhi was so noughty....

[akshaymalik84]

i dint know till now that this gandhi was so noughty....

or k iske naam ka thread chalwa ho hai...."Albadhi Buddhe k Kisse"

[anilsangwan]

i dint know till now that this gandhi was so noughty....

Manu, Abha and Susheela can confirm if he was Naughty ;) :rock :rock

[singhvp]

Mr. VP singh Ji, {When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life.} If any girl dont have any problem sleeping with any person who is married and father of five. What would our society call that girl and that Person? Is it okay for a Married man to sleep with other girls??????Though you dont have any problem but still is it OK?[/FONT]


Well, I dont bother what Gandhi was doing in his personal life. I never considered him a great man or a super human being. In my opinion he was just an ordinary mortal like us but by virtue of his being born in a rich family could get better education and rose to fame. In India, no surprise, if people make God out of a donkey. My only point was that it should hardly matter for others if there is consensual relation between a man and a woman/girls irrespective of age unless they have kinship with each other. The important thing to be noted is whether that person is contributing/paying back to the society by his noble deeds or not. There are so many sex scandals in India and I do not see Gandhi episode in isolation to those incidents. But he was honest in admitting his acts which you may consider sinful.

[VirJ]

Agree with your definition of Brahmcharya but Gandhi's (so called) barmhcharya was related to controlling the sexual urge only as far I understand from his experiments with sleeping with young women. Btw, If he really wanted to practice Brahmcharya in real mean then what was need of experiencing/practicing with young girls? Why to prove? Common sense also says that if a man of 60 yrs indulge himself in such acts, what it will be called?

As for his deeds/policies .. Akshay and Sunil explained it well in later posts.

Bhai, all I wanted to say is such sort of news are there to create controversies. Gandhi has put his views regarding this when he was asled. He didnt have sex with these ladies as far as I believe. However I could be very wrong but so far no one has claimed so. I dont consider him our spritual leader nor he ever claimed. To me he was a politician who tried to be a spritual leader as well. When you dont consider him as a spritual leader how can you judge him as one?

His experiment was just for himself not for us. Yes we can argue what this a correct way to experiment or was it not? This is truth that Gandhi slept naked and the world knows it. But what are we trying to achieve by this? Whats the use of these questions now. These should have been asked when these people were alive. But no one asked or these were asked and we know the answer very well. Now this just create controversy and give chance to people to say some good words about him.

[singhvp]

His experiment was just for himself not for us. Yes we can argue what this a correct way to experiment or was it not? This is truth that Gandhi slept naked and the world knows it. But what are we trying to achieve by this? Whats the use of these questions now. These should have been asked when these people were alive. But no one asked or these were asked and we know the answer very well. Now this just create controversy and give chance to people to say some good words about him.

You are right. This is a non-issue. Even if it was an issue ever, it has become a dead issue by now and nothing is going to come out of this "Lassi". Simply wastage of time and energy and acrimony. So, I would like to sign off this thread. All are requested not to address any query to me as I am out of it.

[singhvp]

Mr. VP singh Ji, {When Manu, Abha and Susheela don't have any problem, people shouldn't have anything to do with his personal life.} If any girl dont have any problem sleeping with any person who is married and father of five. What would our society call that girl and that Person? Is it okay for a Married man to sleep with other girls??????Though you dont have any problem but still is it OK?

V.P. Singh ji ke vichaar hameshaa karaantikaari rahey hein,wey hameshaa hat kar sochtey hein,aur har pahlu se vichaar kartey hein muddey kaa (3D)isliye hamaare jesey mand matiyon ko dishaa bharam ho jaataa hey.

agar kissi ke ghar waaley naa bolein aur wo khud bhi naa boley to unkey pariwaar walon kaa shaaririk shoshan jaayaj hey.aur kaanooni hey.iss parkaar koi bhi vayakti veybhichaar kartey huey purey bhaarat kaa baap ban saktaa hey.kyuon V.P.Ji ? sahi samjhaa naa meney!!!!!!!!!


Ravinder Galat twist dega bhai thread ko. Mera yo matlab nahin tha. Mera matlab tha ke aap log Gandhi ke baare me itna kyon sochte ho. Mar-maragya ib to time khota karne wali baat sai. Isliye Ravinder tannai katai galat samjha.

[malikdeepak1]

Mar-mara gya yu to desh ne ulajh-pulajh kar ke ne! aade eeb kham-kha ka thook biloye te ke banega??
Aagle ne chahe kuch karya ho ya nahi, Sabte upar se wo Bharat desh me. Sab "Bapu" kahve se usne, er 2 Oct ne "Dry Day" bi karwa gya, er sare nota pe fotu chipwa li. Wo to "jise" le ke ud gya, er eeb bheet me sir mare te kuch nahi hona. NCERT ki kitaab me "Rashtrapita Mahatama Gandhi" ki Jeevani nyu ki nyu rahvegi.

Wo eeb aan aala to se nahi sare sawala ka jwaab den tayi. Jab uski gel rahen aaliya ne kade kuch nahi kahya to eeb 60 saal pacche ekdum ke huk-huki laag gi uske naam ki?? Leave him aside. His stature can never be changed/damaged in India, koi chahe kuch bhi kaho ab.

[rakeshsehrawat]

.

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

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

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

Cheers
Jit
Jiska raj ho uske khilaf bolne ki himmat kisi ki nahi hoti.
Baaki yu group harmiyo ka hi tha. Muslim vote bank ki khatir Indira ki shaadi Firoj khan se hui. Kashmir ko vibhajit rakhna bhi ek lambi paari khelene ki hi soch thee

[VirJ]

There is another book by By G. B. Singh named: Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

The text from the book : Singh puts forward that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is "the work of the Hindu propaganda machine" and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have failed to critically examine

The authur believes gandhi was race superimist. Has anyone read this book?


I mentioned similar things in post 23. Its not easy to understand Gandhi. Is it?

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?29806-A-View-on-Gandhi/page2

[cooljat]

Thanks Jyani bhai for letting us know about this very book. Certainly this book looks promising and informative.
I, even found few impressive n' convincing reviews of it on various sites; Amazon is one of them.
Have a look : http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Divinity-G-B-Singh/dp/1573929980 (http://www.amazon.com/Gandhi-Divinity-G-B-Singh/dp/1573929980)

Synopsis of the book -

Over the years I have discussed Gandhi with many Americans, both formally and informally. . . .What continues to irk me is the amount of Gandhi "propaganda material" that has flooded our libraries and bookstores. For an unsuspecting Westerner, the reading of Gandhi as he is portrayed on these shelves can bring about the intended result. That is understandable. This book is an attempt to close the gap between the popularized Gandhi and the historical Gandhi. This book will incite readers to be more open-minded and to seek to validate the "truths" presented. My hope is that it will provoke honest, healthy, and open dialogue and foster more critical scrutiny about him. . . . Years of dedicated research on Gandhi convinced me that our hero was fundamentally a racist. In this book, I present the facts. The evidence presented here is not a matter of speculation or distorted interpretation. Much of the irrefutable evidence lay buried beneath a mountain of Gandhi's own writings - in his own words, which I have uncovered - comments that will be difficult to dispute once they are read. In this book you will read the evidence in its entirety. My primary intention is to untangle the web that Gandhi weaved - and his followers are still weaving - for many years. Only through a methodical probing can we expose Gandhi's campaign of deception: the lies, the propaganda, the misinformation, the half-truths, and the efforts to hide behind religion. Where Gandhi left off, his followers have picked up, and they continue their own sophisticated campaigns, both in India and abroad. This book should not be looked upon as another Gandhi biography. Rather, it should provide a standard by which to weigh the Gandhian literature for accuracy and objectivity. Also this book, though narrowly focused, should stand as a guide alerting us to how thoroughly the Gandhi propagandists and others have succeeded in deceiving us.


Mera Bharat mahan aur iske deshwashi to aur bhi mahan, Kisi ne Desh ka Baap bana de hein aur kisi ne Chacha ! :rolleyes:


There is another book by By G. B. Singh named: By G. B. Singh Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

The text from the book : Singh puts forward that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is "the work of the Hindu propaganda machine" and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have failed to critically examine

The authur believes gandhi was race superimist. Has anyone read this book?


I mentioned similar things in post 23. Its not easy to understand Gandhi. Is it?

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?29806-A-View-on-Gandhi/page2

[ravichaudhary]

Jiska raj ho uske khilaf bolne ki himmat kisi ki nahi hoti.
Baaki yu group harmiyo ka hi tha. Muslim vote bank ki khatir Indira ki shaadi Firoj khan se hui. Kashmir ko vibhajit rakhna bhi ek lambi paari khelene ki hi soch thee

Indira married Feroze Gandhi. Feroze was a parsee, not a Muslim.

[SALURAM]

raviji bilkul sahi likha aapne firoze gandhi parsee the lekin logon me tab vaham tha ki firoze ek muslim hain aur kahi na kahin yeh vaham sach me congress ko madad karta tha.

[mukeshkumar007]

I don't understand why people are wasting their energy in discussing the personal life of a leader.. It seems that you all are trying to satisfy your ego or trying to project yourself an intellectual of high class ..Looks like people are too much frustrated with the popularity enjoyed by Gandhi.. Take it easy Men....

who is saint here.. the personal life of most of us might have been more dark and corrupt than of Gandhiji..now you might say that you are not as popular as Gandhi therefore your wrongdoings are justifiable :D is it? I salute him that atleast he confessed what he did..and left the history of his life wide open to judge by the people of the country..he didn't portrayed himself

Some of you have problem on calling him as a "father of the nation" but it was not he who asked the people to call him in that way.. did he ?

I have read a lot on Gandhiji but I keep my reading limited to his political and social life as being an Indian this is what matter me a lot.. I have nothing to do with his personal life..

@ Jit.. it looks like you posses a great knowledge on Gandhiji.. thats great.. by the way I wonder if you have even read any of the book you referred above in detail apart from reading one or two para to let you write something here on JL to prove your depth in knowledge on Gandhi..
I'm more than sure that you never google anything on Gandhi's contribution to this country as I never heard or read from you anything writing/speaking on his movements and political decision apart from the one relating to his inability to save Bhagat singh's .. Kindly invest some time in reading the political history of this country..

and if you people think that Gandhi has no contribution in the betterment of this country than I think instead of wasting your time in discussing his personal life better you concentrate on rectifying his mistakes. He had an opportunity to do something for the country and he did what he felt right... correct or wrong is a different thing.. now if in your opinion his decisions made the nation to pay a great price then why don't you do something which may compensate the loss.. Go and lead the mass.. but beware from becoming too much popular else your coming generation will poke into your personal life.. so beware..

[delhione]

One thing I don’t like in just a few of our Indians brothers/ sisters is that whenever they come across any literature criticizing any of our frontline freedom struggle leader, or as a matter of fact ‘Mahatma Gandhi’, they consider themselves as duty-bound to accept the contents of the literature in totality, without investigating the credentials of the writer, and his/ her frame of mind to write such venomous words; and foremost! What is the underlying purpose to publish the so called cheap piece of academics at the price of hundreds of rupees per book ?

Below here is some of the information I have collected from the internet about this writer who has written this impugned Book about Mahatma gandhi , may be it would be useful for all of you to judge the quality and truth of his work :-

Mr. Jad Adams is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at the Institute of English in London University's School of Advanced Study.
He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, has an MA in Victorian Studies from University of London and a BA from the University of Sussex.


This clearly shows that he has done just a basic study in a distant British University and have been to one not so known post graduate school, so far he has not got any recognition from anywhere and that is why he is attempting to publish his pervert figment of imaginations about India’s father of Nation.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________
Books
1. HIDEOUS ABSINTHE is published in the US by the University of Winconsin Press
2. Pankhurst – A Biography (2003 Haus Publishing)
3. Madder Music, Stronger Wine: The Life of Ernest Dowson (2000,I.B.Tauris)
4. Dynasty: The Nehru-Gandhi Story (with Phillip Whitehead 1997 Penguin)
5. Tony Benn - A Biography (1992 Macmillan)
6. KIPLING- itwas officially launched on Friday 17 March 2006 with a talk by Jad Adams titled 'Must We Burn Kipling?' hosted by the Birkbeck College Hisotry Society at the University of London, Birkbeck College.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
MAGAZINE ARTICLES
Gandhi: Thrill of the Chaste – The Independent 7 April 2010
A Man Out of Time? – Gandhi’s legacy History Today April 2010
Dandy Gandhi to Naked Fakir – Gandhi’s dress code BBC History Magazine June 2010
Microbes, Magic Bullets and Morality – syphilis and the development of Salvarsan BBC History Magazine January 2009
1911’s Summer of Discontent – Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine February 2009
One Family’s Tryst with Destiny – The Nehru dynasty History Today September 2007
White Man’s Wordsmith – Kipling’s contradictions BBC History Magazine January 2006
The Girl He Left Behind – Kipling’s first love Guardian Review 28 January 2006

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
Mr. Jad majorly survives from funding of some institutes and British Government.
__________________________________________________ ___________________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________

I hope that after knowing that this so acclaimed British historian has just published 6 or 7 books and few articles in some megazines, all of you would regard him with a smirk and address his work as “Foolish” along with a derisive laughter over his idea to write about Mahatma Gandhi.

Lets also try to reverse the clock and start from year 1615 when (Sir) Thomas Roe,</SPAN> a British merchant, who came to Jahangir’s court.Thomas Roe was the first British man to enter Jahangir court in the guise of British Businessman to establish trade centers at Agra, Surat, Ahmedabad and Broach and later those Britishers swallowed our entire country.

Mahatma Gandhi along with other leaders selflessly contributed in getting freedom from the shakles of those British Imperialists and that is why every Indian deeply regards him and have statured his persona at the highest level on India’s free sky. Now, to me it appears that this British writer by publishing his figment of deprave imaginations on our Indian soil wants to take vengeance against Mahatma Gandhi and wants to spit at the our Indian sky. But he has forgotten that spitting at sky would backfire at him and likes of his clan.

I doubt this writer’s academic credibility as well, because the literature on Mahatma Gandhi is so vast and voluminous that I am sure one man in his entire age cannot read out completely to come to any conclusion over any particular thing; and to my utter surprise after reading few piece of papers, that too may be from garbage or from publishers of his own clan, he claims to present himself as Nobel Laurate James Bond Academician to publish a book on Mahatma Gandhi.

I request all the members to condemn this piece of pervert British literary work and resist from making any comment over his work.

Regards,

Yashpal

[kapdal]

I am a critic of Gandhi on several issues, including his sleeping with young women, as part of his experiments with truth. But criticism is different from outright hatred that some of us are showing here. Relax, guys!

Some of us are talking of him as if he was some sex maniac. Which he obviously was not! The maniacs don't talk about what their deeds in their prayer meetings. Everything he did was out in the open. He talked about his personal life and all these things as honestly as anyone can ever do. When we think that he was upto 'something' with these girls, I think it reflects on our own thinking rather than Gandhi's character. His supporters tried to make him stop from talking about these things, but he chided them saying that hiding this would be going against all he stood for- which was honesty. I am against this "experiment" of his because it was wrong on the girls who acted as guinea pigs for the experiment. But to attribute some sort of evil character to Gandhi is plain silly. He has written about such things openly in his biography- like how he left his father the night he died to have sex with Kasturba; and how his death made him feel guilty about his shameful act. Not that I agree with his conclusions, but the point is that there are no skeletons in his closet.

The second point that all critics need to consider is that the man is dead now. He is not here to defend himself. When he was alive and doing all this stuff, he was free to be questioned by all as he was not hiding it. When he was questioned, he had answers. Many people knew all this and more. Yet, they were happy to follow him and call him Bapu and Mahatma. Were they all dumb and we are all intelligent? Undoubtedly, these facts were suppressed after his death, but that was the work of his so-called followers. He never accepted hiding anything related to his life ever.

The same is true for all the people like Bhagat Singh, Subhash Bose and Vallabhbhai Patel who are truly not given the importance they deserve. But again what the post-independence Congress did had nothing to do with Gandhi. Also all these people, despite their differences with Gandhi, never considered him in lesser light. Bhagat Singh started as a Gandhian disciple and later shunned non-violence. Subhash Bose resigned after winning the Congress presidency as he didn't have Gandhi's support. If he wanted, he could have split the Congress, but he chose to go his own way. And despite these big differences, Bose was the one who called Gandhi "The Father of our nation" for the first time ever in a radio broadcast on Azad Hind Radio in 1944. Patel was a self-professed Gandhian and gave up prime-ministership despite winning internal Congress elections, because Gandhi chose Nehru. The common theme in all these stories is the huge respect these guys had for Gandhi till his or their death. These were all great people, were they all idiots to call Gandhi Bapu?

And please, let's not start talking about some random guys' random books as evidence of Gandhi's evil. Atleast go for credible sources! Lots of very well known thinkers wrote about Gandhi. George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, Ravindranath Tagore, Ambedkar to name a few. In fact, likes of Ambedkar are unabashed critics of Gandhi. But at least his criticism is logical and not some cheap attempt at character assassination.

[Samarkadian]

I don't understand why people are wasting their energy in discussing the personal life of a leader.. It seems that you all are trying to satisfy your ego or trying to project yourself an intellectual of high class ..Looks like people are too much frustrated with the popularity enjoyed by Gandhi.. Take it easy Men....

who is saint here.. the personal life of most of us might have been more dark and corrupt than of Gandhiji..now you might say that you are not as popular as Gandhi therefore your wrongdoings are justifiable :D is it? I salute him that atleast he confessed what he did..and left the history of his life wide open to judge by the people of the country..he didn't portrayed himself

Some of you have problem on calling him as a "father of the nation" but it was not he who asked the people to call him in that way.. did he ?

I have read a lot on Gandhiji but I keep my reading limited to his political and social life as being an Indian this is what matter me a lot.. I have nothing to do with his personal life..

@ Jit.. it looks like you posses a great knowledge on Gandhiji.. thats great.. by the way I wonder if you have even read any of the book you referred above in detail apart from reading one or two para to let you write something here on JL to prove your depth in knowledge on Gandhi..
I'm more than sure that you never google anything on Gandhi's contribution to this country as I never heard or read from you anything writing/speaking on his movements and political decision apart from the one relating to his inability to save Bhagat singh's .. Kindly invest some time in reading the political history of this country..

and if you people think that Gandhi has no contribution in the betterment of this country than I think instead of wasting your time in discussing his personal life better you concentrate on rectifying his mistakes. He had an opportunity to do something for the country and he did what he felt right... correct or wrong is a different thing.. now if in your opinion his decisions made the nation to pay a great price then why don't you do something which may compensate the loss.. Go and lead the mass.. but beware from becoming too much popular else your coming generation will poke into your personal life.. so beware..

Mukesh seems to be boiling! Lets see how is it.

A person about whom Einsteen had said that future generation might not believe that Ghandi was a human of Flash n Bones.
It reqires guts to get impressed and follow someone. You have stated it completely wrong Mukesh. When a person becomes a Mass/Popular leader ; he is supposed to lead others. Why he is being made or choosen a leader ?Because of his strengths and particularly character strength. So it is obvious that his actions are no longer private as you stated. Everything a leader do or don't do is followed religiously and faithfully. We 've been brainwashed almost half of our life about Ghandi. What you are saying us to be frustated with his popularity, lets replace it with curosity about the character and to flaw covered by a sharp and calcuated definition of own - Brahmcharya.

We are mere ordinary citizens not a saint so there is no question of being talked about us or our petty lives unless we do something extra-ordinary. Honsety is a virtue but does it cover the deed which is exposed? Did he say sorry or something like that? Then why to get just impressed with honesty. If confession is the criteria would you salute Kasab for his confession? Dear friend n readers , didn't he portray a self designed brahmcharya? We will pay for our karmas definitely positively or negatively but like you said his wrongdoings are being paid now when youngesters are gettings to know about the play behind his Brahmcharya and getting judged as per your own words. Why do you want to hinder that judging process? He didnt involve in sexual act with those ladies but is that that penetration only matters?


He didn't ask to call himself the father of nation but again he behaved like the Mai-Baap of country for years n decades. Didn't he?

How much you limit yourself to read about him is your own perorgative about Ghandi Ji. We all may say that you are insecure or frightened to acknoweldge his sexual behaviour under the name of self developed concept of Brahmcharya. That is your own flaw not ours.

What you 've to say what British Prime Minister said about his role in Independence? Why did he say that he had a minimal role. Without logic you think? Kindly re-google your queries this way.


Last part of your post was a nice speech but utterly boring.

We 've grown up reading Ishwar Allah Tero Naam.. I want to give back something to him if up at sky he is reading this thread by any chance :-

इश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम
उस ''ठरकी'' को इतनी ज्यादा सन्मति क्यों दी भगवान!!

[akshaymalik84]

FYI....here is what Gandhi said in his Book "My experiment with truth".

"Every night whilst my hands were busy massaging my father's leg, my mind was hovering about the bedroom - and that too at the time when relegion,medical science and common sense alike forbade sexual intercourse.I was glad to be relieved from my duty and went straight to the bedroom after doing obeisance to my father."

Another phrase:"It was 10:30 or 11 PM. i was giving the massage. My uncle relieved me. I was glad and went straight to bedroom. My wife,poor thing was fast asleep. But how could she sleep when i was there? I woke her up. In 5 or 6 min, however servent knocked the door."

No wonder his child breathed no more than three or four days.

[VirJ]

One thing I don’t like in just a few of our Indians brothers/ sisters is that whenever they come across any literature criticizing any of our frontline freedom struggle leader, or as a matter of fact ‘Mahatma Gandhi’, they consider themselves as duty-bound to accept the contents of the literature in totality, without investigating the credentials of the writer, and his/ her frame of mind to write such venomous words; and foremost! What is the underlying purpose to publish the so called cheap piece of academics at the price of hundreds of rupees per book ?
Yashpal

Yashpal Ji, A book shouldn't be judged by who wrote it. A book should be judged by whats written in it not who wrote it. We should look at the facts that are presented. Based on facts we should come to our own conclusions.
We dont have to agree with the auther's conclusion but we should surely look at how he came to that conclusion. Every writer has their own biases and prejudices. Neither should we trust a book written by a famous writer nor by not so famous writer just by the name of the writer.
But yes, not reading the full story and drawing conclusion is also not ideal. However I dont agree with this writer about Gandhi calling him sex manic.


Lets also try to reverse the clock and start from year 1615 when (Sir) Thomas Roe,</SPAN> a British merchant, who came to Jahangir’s court.Thomas Roe was the first British man to enter Jahangir court in the guise of British Businessman to establish trade centers at Agra, Surat, Ahmedabad and Broach and later those Britishers swallowed our entire country

Most of today's India was already swallowed that time by the Moughals. Moughals were aiyash, looters,fanatcis, cruel and outsiders.

[VirJ]

He didn't ask to call himself the father of nation but again he behaved like the Mai-Baap of country for years n decades. Didn't he?



Yes, he did. Though he had chosen Nehru as prime minister, Gandhi himself went to hunger strike to emotionally blackmail him as well. I am not questioning his intention but his way. His way like of a stubborn old father in the family who emotionally blackmail his kids. He did that many times. He accused Subash(even though Subash agreed to it of being fascist) but gandhi himself was another sort of Tanashah. He blackmailed people at times to had his own say.

[Ankurbaliyan]

Mr. M.K. Gandhi was responsible for Bhagat Singh death........ Gandhi was dangerous and has to be kill. I would have kill him, had he been alive. Because he always feared by the fact that one day Bhagat Singh popularity will overpowered him.... We got freedom not because of the Gandhi. So many people sacrifised their life for the freedom but do they every remembered? not exactly...What happened to Batukeshwar dutt after the indipendence? He was the true devotee of free India. I agree he had some qualities and I don't deny them. History is always re-writen by the winners, they were in power so history was twisted and made according to them.....

[anilsangwan]

इश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम
उस ''ठरकी'' को इतनी ज्यादा सन्मति क्यों दी भगवान!!

:rock :rock :rock !! Sahi baat !

[amankadian]

Main muje itna Khana hai ki
Insaan do hi bar dusro ko Bura Lagta hai.
Jab koi bhut Jayda accha ho
Ya fir bhut Jyda bura

Kisi bhi chiz ka control m rhana thek hai
Jyda hote hi karabi kar de sa

[cooljat]

.

Quite impressive n' informative replies by Samar & Jyani, Thanks for the contribution. I noted one significant shift lately, earlier both Jyani and Samar were fan of Gandhi and always kept admiring him but now they started to believe from various sensible finding that Gandhi wasn't that great as he was presented & propagated here in India. I know few of them will argue that he never called him Mahatma, Father of Nation or like that but tell me how many of other freedom fighters got due recognization. Tell me how many of us remember and celebrate great freedom fighters like Suabsh Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh etc and others, why only 2nd Oct, 14th Nov and 3oth Jan are remembered?

I also have observed that most of Gandhi followers n' fans refuse to hear anything against Gandhi, this is surprising and feels to me like they are brainwashed. I agree there're few unique qualities in Gandhi that makes him good leader but not the Greatest.

[VirJ]

Bhai, I was never a big fan of Gandhi. I am and was always a big fan of Subash Bose & Azad since my childhood because my father is their fan too. I still admire Gandhi for a few things and dismiss for other. He was a great politician and he was the one who made us believe that we are one country. Before him we never thought we are one. He stirred India the way no one ever could. He changed the shape of freedom movement for ever.
Gandhi shouldn't be judged just by his contribution toward freedom struggle. He contributed in other spheres too. And to your surprise if you ask me who was the greatest politician out of three (Gandhi, Azad and Subash) I would say Gandhi.

Where did u see the change?

[kapdal]

.

Quite impressive n' informative replies by Samar & Jyani, Thanks for the contribution. I noted one significant shift lately, earlier both Jyani and Samar were fan of Gandhi and always kept admiring him but now they started to believe from various sensible finding that Gandhi wasn't that great as he was presented & propagated here in India. I know few of them will argue that he never called him Mahatma, Father of Nation or like that but tell me how many of other freedom fighters got due recognization. Tell me how many of us remember and celebrate great freedom fighters like Suabsh Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Bhagat Singh etc and others, why only 2nd Oct, 14th Nov and 3oth Jan are remembered?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[akshaymalik84]

Kapil, Bose and Patel showed too much respect to Gandhi.They both step down from congress presidentship after wining election just because Gandhi didn't want them to head the congress. Both Bose and Patel were popular but not as much as Gandhi. May be they knew that going against Gandhi would divide congress and the followers as well.
This is only my assumption.

[kapdal]

Kapil, Bose and Patel showed too much respect to Gandhi.They both step down from congress presidentship after wining election just because Gandhi didn't want them to head the congress. Both Bose and Patel were popular but not as much as Gandhi. May be they knew that going against Gandhi would divide congress and the followers as well.
This is only my assumption.

Akshay- I agree. And this is one of my criticism of Gandhi- his my way or highway approach. But Gandhi was solely guided by his principles. As much as I disagree with his principles in the first place, I think great men like Bose and Patel understood the same. They understood that Gandhi was not against them personally but against their political leanings. Bose broke up with Congress and formed Forward Bloc in 1939 and Azad Hind Fauj subsequently. He was insanely popular amongst many people- and much more popular than Gandhi in Bengal. That he won the presidency against Gandhi's candidate shows his popularity- he got most of the votes from Bengal and South. Still, he was the one who called Gandhi "The Father of our nation" in 1944 when he was not even in India. I don't think a bitter person would have done that. Patel didn't even break with Gandhi, just submitted to his wishes and stood by him till Gandhi died. A man who would have been the first PM, first denied himself the opportunity because Gandhi didn't approve and then still stood by Gandhi's side. What feelings could he have for Gandhi?

[Samarkadian]

Kapil,

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

What was the base?

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

[kapdal]

Kapil,

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

What was the base?

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

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

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

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



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

I didn't understand this.

[anilsangwan]

जैसा की "ग़दर" में सन्नी देओल ने कहा....... उसी अंदाज में गाँधी जी के बारे में......

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

Film/Thread Superhit!

[cooljat]

Kapil,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kapdal]

Kapil,

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for criticism, I am not in agreement with his views or actions on science, economics, casteism, religion in politics, calling off Non-cooperation movement after Chauri Chaura, etc. If you want good criticism, read debates between Gandhi/Tagore; Gandhi/Ambedkar. Gandhi on Hitler..:), are you sure you are not trying to understand War and Peace before even learning the alphabet? Jumping to conclusions before understanding the basics is a common error.

[cooljat]

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

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

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

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


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

As for criticism, I am not in agreement with his views or actions on science, economics, casteism, religion in politics, calling off Non-cooperation movement after Chauri Chaura, etc. If you want good criticism, read debates between Gandhi/Tagore; Gandhi/Ambedkar. Gandhi on Hitler..:), are you sure you are not trying to understand War and Peace before even learning the alphabet? Jumping to conclusions before understanding the basics is a common error.

[vijay]

India's Independence is not an exclusive effort of Gandhi Only but Gandhi certainly played a significant role irrespective of his good and/or bad decisions. Bose, Bhagat, Azad, Patel and all other great men also played major role but everybody had their own ways to do that and Gandhi was no exception. We should respect that man for his good work instead of JUST pointing out fingers at his personal life. We can criticize him just because he never hide his personal life and we know a lot about it. There is no doubt that he was an extraordinary man with some significant traits apart from some habits/views which we may found NOT GOOD. And this certainly proves the Universal fact that "Nobody is Perfect"

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

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

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

I dislike as well as criticize Gandhi for so many reasons but still i have a lot of respect for that man.

[kapdal]

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


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

You are also attributing lots of his qualities to your assumptions (illicit acts, self-glorification, etc.). You could also see the positive aspects of those qualities. Something I tried to list. But you choose to make sinister imaginations. Such random assumptions can be made on anyone really. Like Buddha came up with Buddhism for self-glorification" There is no way to tackle these arguments as they are not logical, but "beliefs". So, your choice again..

[upendersingh]

गांधी सर्वश्रेष्ठ नहीं था. जीवन की परीक्षा में उसके 100 /100 नंबर नहीं थे. शिवजी और विष्णु के भी 100/100 नंबर नहीं थे (99/100). 100/100 नंबर जिसके होंगे, वो इस दुनिया का मालिक होगा (ईश्वर, खुदा, अल्लाह, परमपिता परमेश्वर, शिवजी-विष्णु से भी बड़ा). ऐसा आज तक कोई नहीं हो सका है.
मेरे विचारानुसार गांधी के 80/100 नंबर थे, लेकिन हम लोगों के तो 100 में से बस 40-50 ही नंबर हैं. :)हमारी समस्या यह है कि हम गांधी को बुरा बताते हैं, क्योंकि उसके 20 नंबर कम थे. निस्संदेह उसने कुछ सवाल गलत किए, लेकिन इसके बावजूद हम उसे बुरा कहने के हकदार नहीं हैं. हमारे तो उसके जितने भी नंबर नहीं हैं. जिसके हमारे से ज्यादा नंबर हैं, हम उसको अच्छा नहीं कह सकते तो बुरा भी नहीं कहना चाहिए. बाकी सबके अपने-अपने विचार हैं. गांधी का जो हक़ बनता था, वो उसको मिल गया. हम उसे कितना भी बुरा कहें, ये दुनिया बिलकुल ठीक इंसाफ करती है. असंख्य आलोचक भी गांधी को विश्व स्तर पर प्रसिद्ध होने से नहीं रोक सके.

[mukeshkumar007]

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

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

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

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

Jit,

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

[kapdal]

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

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

[sunillathwal]

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

Kapil, agreed in parts.
Gandhi did not want Indians to die in India for Indian Independence but he was happy to let Indians die in world-war for Kingdom!!

[vijay]

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


Agree with you Kapil.

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

Regarding Chauri-Chaura Episode, maybe, Gandhi was right and maybe he was wrong. There are always two aspects of any movement. The policy makers and the people who execute them. Gandhi might have analyzed a much wider and long term impact of the situation while the other side just wanted Independence at any cost and within a flash. Both were right and both were wrong at the same time. But we can only discuss what happened and only assume that what could have happened. Who knows about the future ?

[mukeshkumar007]

I am personally against his decision to call off the movement post Chauri-Chaura. But I can't take anything away from him for being true to his principle of non-violence, whatever the costs. And there is a school of thought that says that there was loads of pragmatism behind his choosing the path of non-violence. How many people would have been killed in a violent struggle is unknown. Most of them would have been Indians. We can only compare it with 1857 when thousands of Indians were killed as they were on both sides of the battle. The shooters in Jallianwala Bagh were also Indians as were the policemen hacked in Chauri Chaura. There was a full pro-British govt. machinery full of Indians. The non-violent movement ensured that largely Indians didn't kill each other, and I have some sympathy for this school of thought.

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

[Samarkadian]

The Statue of peace, Mesiah of Harijans, Sole torch bearer of truth was Racist of Classic order. Won't believe me? Okay. See yourself!

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/1939582-ghandi-s-letter-to-hitler-1.jpg


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In his prayers his mind seems to be violent.

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

[kapdal]

Kapil, agreed in parts.
Gandhi did not want Indians to die in India for Indian Independence but he was happy to let Indians die in world-war for Kingdom!!

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

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

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

[kapdal]

The Statue of peace, Mesiah of Harijans, Sole torch bearer of truth was Racist of Classic order. Won't believe me? Okay. See yourself!

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/1939582-ghandi-s-letter-to-hitler-1.jpg


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

In his prayers his mind seems to be violent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ravichaudhary]

.

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

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

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

Cheers
Jit



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

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

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

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

An example is the author below. See also review

James Laine’s Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was he perfect? No!

Did his philosophy and methods have weaknesses? Yes

Was he arrogant? Probably.

Did he mesmerize and motivate the nation? Yes


Did he contribute heavily to the independence movement? Yes

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

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


Ravi Chaudhary

[Samarkadian]

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.

[Samarkadian]

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

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

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

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

An example is the author below. See also review

James Laine’s Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was he perfect? No!

Did his philosophy and methods have weaknesses? Yes

Was he arrogant? Probably.

Did he mesmerize and motivate the nation? Yes


Did he contribute heavily to the independence movement? Yes

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

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


Ravi Chaudhary

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

Further, forget last 40 years of Authors of Gandhi's life. His cotemporary authors, newspapers [Herald particularly], women he slept with in experimenting enema and Brahmcharya, peers had said it all at that time about the hypocritic life Mohandas lived. Authors after 50s just carrying almost the same messages. Indian Hindi authors as well as English ones.

[Samarkadian]

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

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

[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'! :D :D

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 :D)!? 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'! :D :D

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 :D)!? 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. [QUOTE]

Aisa lagta hai ya aisa jante ho?


[QUOTE]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'! :D :D

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

[rajpaldular]

Thousands of books have been written on Mahatma Gandhiwith each new one claiming to have discovered an unknown facet of his eventful life. When reviews of Pulitzer Prize winner Joseph Lelyveld's "Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India" hit the newspapers in England and US claiming that the book says Gandhi was a bisexual and had a German-Jewish bodybuilder lover in Hermann Kallenbach it created immediate sensation.

But as the Daily Mail's review of the book created a storm in cyberspace, there was a barrage of protests not just from Gandhians who said this was "blasphemy", but from the book's author himself who denied having suggested anything of the sort.

Lelyveld told TOI, "I do not allege that Gandhi is a racist or bisexual in 'Great Soul'. The word 'bisexual' nowhere appears in the book." He also denied having called Gandhi a racist. "The word 'racist' is used once to characterise comments by Gandhi early in his stay in South Africa, part of a chapter summarising his statements about Africans and his relations with them. The chapter in no way concludes that he was a racist or offers any suggestion of it."

Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, one of the first to write on Gandhi's sexuality in 'Intimate Relations: Exploring Indian Sexuality' and later in 'Mira and Mahatma', is yet to read the book but has gone through an ocean of archives on Gandhi and says he never discovered anything that the reviewers claim the book consists of.

Kakar remembers finding references to Kallenbach during his research but not the way the reviewers have portrayed it. He says if the book has what reviewers claim then it is plain "stupid." "Gandhi always talked of complete love but it was of platonic kind," he says. Another eminent modern India historian who has read the book said, "The reviews are by Churchill fans and rightwingers." The Mahatma's grandson Gopal Gandhi said, "I will not comment till I read the book."

But Gandhian scholar Tridip Suhrud, author of books like 'The Autobiography of The Story of My Experiments With Truth' not only interacted with Lelyveld when he was researching the book but has also read it. He is aghast with the reviews and swears by Lelyveld. Suhrud says the section on Kallenbach begins with a quote from him.

"Lelyveld asks me what I think of Gandhi's relationship with Kallenbach and I say, 'It is almost like a couple'. The two had a deep bond that borders on attraction of platonic kind. Joseph is not talking about what the reviewers are claiming," Suhrud says. He explains that in the late 19th century and early 20th century men addressed each other in a way that can be construed now as lovers.

He gives the instance of letters between Rabindranath Tagore and CF Andrews. "Andrews wrote to Tagore in a manner that might raise eyebrows today. But the context was different then as also the usage of words. Tagore addressed him as Charlie," Suhrud says. He also says reviewers claim that the book portrays Gandhi as a racist is factually incorrect. In fact, he says, the book chronicles his work with Zulus as well during the Boer War where he took up the cause of the blacks.

Suhrud goes on to give full marks to Lelyveld and the book. He says it is the first political biography of Gandhi by an expert on apartheid. "It is a fascinating work. Lelyveld shows there is continuity in Gandhi as well as major points of departure. Gandhi of South Africa was not the same as Gandhi of Sabarmati ashram. And Gandhi of Sabarmati was not the same after Dandi March." Lelyveld agrees: "The aim of 'Great Soul' is to sift the evidence and facts of Gandhi's life and discuss them in a careful, responsible and balanced way."

[ravinderpannu]

सदा सच बोलो..!!
ये पंक्तियाँ हजारो वर्ष पुराणी हैं ....लेकिन इन महत्व तब बढ़ जाता है जब कोई इन को अपने जीवन में उतार लेता है ..और फिर ये पंक्तियाँ उसके व्यक्तित्व के साथ संलग्न कर दी जाती हैं ..!!
,,.
congress might had been following non co-operation that time,,but gandhiji pumped blood in its vains..thats it.!!


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.

[vikasJAT]

Bhai mane bhi bot padha hai Gandhi k bare me, last me ek he conclusion pe aaya hoon ki Gandhi ne jeete ji bhi desh ka nash kiya aur marne k baad bhi kara.

[rakeshsehrawat]

Bhai mane bhi bot padha hai Gandhi k bare me, last me ek he conclusion pe aaya hoon ki Gandhi ne jeete ji bhi desh ka nash kiya aur marne k baad bhi kara.

Any moment or revolution can not be started with an ease you need strong command and dedication for that.
Gandhi was projected as a great leader who have no intentions to rule India because positions were already distributed.
in other words "Gandhi to BHOOND BANDHAN KHATER LE RAKHYA THA KARANIYE DOOSRE THE NAAM ISKA HO GYA"

[ashoo]

desh ka vibhajan karvave bawli janta ,duniya likhe farjee sahitya ,is desh mein bhrashtachar ne kar rakhya satyanash,
jo hona tha vo ho gaya,eib be akal ka beej nahin dikhta jatland.com site par.



je gandhi ne desh ki azadi mein positive yogdaan nahin diya to ----
jatland.com par thread open karo desh azaad kisne karaaya,
ke fer angrez desh ne nyun ae chod ke ar tod ke chale gaye.

[ravinderpannu]

After reading all this thread and related material i observed that there are some people who don't want to change their view point even after getting good enough proofs.
there are authors who have been busy finding out the sensational side a person's (here MKG) life and than presenting it in a very glamourous (absurd) way to get fame and money...anyways good for them..

Samar Bhai,..,i am not convinced with most of the things/material/views you presented.
आप एक हठी बालक की तरह अपनी ही धुन में गा रहे थे ... जो बिलकुल भी समझने तो तैयार नहीं है ..!!
also Jit you are damn offended by MKG...

Upendra ji, Ravi ji,,Vijay ji , RK^2 ji, came up with very valid point...not to forget Kapil Bhai presented very good thoughts and made discussion very interesting...!!
All in all it was a worth reading thread...!!


P.S. pls don't get offended these are personal view,,which came to my mind and i put in the words..!!

[cooljat]

HaHa :D Pannu bhai, your verdict gave me a good laugh !

Bhai, same question can be asked to all the loyal blindfolded followers of Gandhi too. Agree! He was a good leader with immense mass following but he too had flaws n' committed big blunders that makes him just an ordinary leader or mahatma whatever but still not a single Gandhian follower is ready to listen against him. Looks like all of Gandhi followers are brain washed.


After reading all this thread and related material i observed that there are some people who don't want to change their view point even after getting good enough proofs.
there are authors who have been busy finding out the sensational side a person's (here MKG) life and than presenting it in a very glamourous (absurd) way to get fame and money...anyways good for them..

Samar Bhai,..,i am not convinced with most of the things/material/views you presented.
आप एक हठी बालक की तरह अपनी ही धुन में गा रहे थे ... जो बिलकुल भी समझने तो तैयार नहीं है ..!!
also Jit you are damn offended by MKG...

Upendra ji, Ravi ji,,Vijay ji , RK^2 ji, came up with very valid point...not to forget Kapil Bhai presented very good thoughts and made discussion very interesting...!!
All in all it was a worth reading thread...!!


P.S. pls don't get offended these are personal view,,which came to my mind and i put in the words..!!

[cooljat]

.

He was indeed a 'Mahatma' .. yakken nahi ho to ye link pad lo ! -

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265600

[prashantacmet]

Mahatma gandhi was a Jat..ancestors of gandhi migrated to gujarat from Rajasthan some 300 years ago before he was born and start calling themselves gandhi because Jats were not in a good situation there..this is also one dark side of gandhi past that was never came in light before a great jat historian discovered it. I have read that book, name of historian is Ramsharan Baliyan but sorry I don't have any proof to paste here.

[kapdal]

.

He was indeed a 'Mahatma' .. yakken nahi ho to ye link pad lo ! -

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265600





This is actually a great article! Thanks. And I hope you agree with what Khushwant Singh is trying to say..

[cooljat]

Well, Khushwant Singh fan may agree with him but definitely I don't. Khushwant's satire based review of the book doesn't dilute Gandhi's sick mentality and illicit acts!


This is actually a great article! Thanks. And I hope you agree with what Khushwant Singh is trying to say..

[htomar]

Khushwant singh ke baare mai to jitna kahu utna hi kam hai.Suraj ko deepak dikhane jaisa kaam hai.
wese Shobhaa de ke article padho to jyada ache se samjh aata hai is person ke baare mai.


Well, Khushwant Singh fan may agree with him but definitely I don't. Khushwant's satire based review of the book doesn't dilute Gandhi's sick mentality and illicit acts!

[kapdal]

Well, Khushwant Singh fan may agree with him but definitely I don't. Khushwant's satire based review of the book doesn't dilute Gandhi's sick mentality and illicit acts!

Hehe, so now you don't agree with the link. Or rather you want to derive your own lessons. This reminds me of a short story.

The morals we draw
The father gathered the two little girls around him. Since they had disturbed him while he was reading a book on Gandhi, he decided to tell them about the Mahatma and more specifically, why he had a large framed photograph of the man in his study. So he told them the story of India’s independence and why it was unique among all such struggles. He told them that non-violent struggle, “not listening to the orders of the bad guys” was about thinking different. And if they looked carefully, they’d see “Think Different” written at the top right corner of the said photograph.
As usual, he asked “So, what’s the moral of the story?”
Instantly the Little Airy replied “Don’t listen (to orders).”
It figures, the father thought.

[skarmveer]

Bhai Vikas eakdam Sahi likha hai aapney...Aksharsh: satya hai.

[ravinderpannu]

This is actually a great article! Thanks. And I hope you agree with what Khushwant Singh is trying to say..


Well, Khushwant Singh fan may agree with him but definitely I don't. Khushwant's satire based review of the book doesn't dilute Gandhi's sick mentality and illicit acts!

hahaha,, jeet bhai now your lines have given me a laugh..!! :)

[cooljat]

You got to read the book 'Gandhi: Naked Ambition' by Jad Adams and if not read 'The company of woman' by Khushwant Singh as well. Then surely you'll get the in-sight of their sick mentality.

I wonder how the followers justify their so called Mahatma's shortcomings.



Hehe, so now you don't agree with the link. Or rather you want to derive your own lessons. This reminds me of a short story.

The morals we draw
The father gathered the two little girls around him. Since they had disturbed him while he was reading a book on Gandhi, he decided to tell them about the Mahatma and more specifically, why he had a large framed photograph of the man in his study. So he told them the story of India’s independence and why it was unique among all such struggles. He told them that non-violent struggle, “not listening to the orders of the bad guys” was about thinking different. And if they looked carefully, they’d see “Think Different” written at the top right corner of the said photograph.
As usual, he asked “So, what’s the moral of the story?”
Instantly the Little Airy replied “Don’t listen (to orders).”
It figures, the father thought.

[riyaa]

Well for me gandhi ji was never a great person, i always feel that sardar bhagat singh should be the father of this nation, And the currency should be like this



11669

And well its a crazy thing to die for the people you don't know even, at the age of 22.


If the deaf are to hear, the sound has to be very loud. When we dropped the bomb, it was not our intention to kill anybody. We have bombed the British Government. The British must quit India and make her free."”

[shivamchaudhary]

Gandhi Ji, Indeed was a Mahatma.

Only one bad decision was giving power and name to Nehru family.

I have read many book, and autobiography and it very hard to opt a hard path and mission life.

Only "leader's by self" chooses sacrifice not everyone. And beneficiary of his sacrifice is Nehru family, not even his own family.

[rakeshsehrawat]

Source Times Of India

PUNE: He calls himself a fakir — a man who has no family, no property and no bank balance. He lives in a 10ft x 10ft spartan room attached to the Yadavbaba temple in Ahmednagar's Ralegan Siddhi (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Ralegan Siddhi) village, 110km from Pune and wears only khadi.

But when 71-year-old Kisan Baburao Hazare alias Anna starts an agitation, every leader from Mumbai (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Mumbai) to Delhi (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Delhi) sits up and takes notice. Even his detractors and politicians who hate his guts, grudgingly accept he is the only person who has the power to mobilize common people across the country and shake up a government. His small frail body has taken several blows from the countless agitations, tours and hunger strikes he has undertaken since he came in public life in 1975.

"I am not scared of death. I have no family to cry over me and if I die while doing something for the country I would be happy. We need to start a second freedom movement to get rid of corruption, red tapism, delays in government offices, frequent transfers of honest officials and lack of transparency," he says. Anna lost his mother Laxmibai in 2002 and has two married sisters — one in Mumbai and another in Sangamner who worry everytime their "stubborn brother starts an indefinite hunger strike".

However Anna has chosen to firmly stay away from any family ties and never visits his sisters. "I do have a home in Ralegan Siddhi but I have never set foot inside it in the last four decades," he once said.

He was born on January 15, 1940 in Bhingar village of Ahmednagar district to a family of an unskilled labourer who owned five acres of cultivable land. Adverse conditions pushed their family into the grip of poverty and in 1952 Hazare moved into his ancestral home in Ralegan Siddhi. He was brought up by a childless aunt who funded his education in Mumbai but financial instability pushed him into selling flowers for a living and he had to quit studies after Class VII.

Soon after, he joined the Army (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Army) and trained as a truck driver but his days were spent reading books on the philosophy of Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Mahatma-Gandhi) and Acharya Vinoba Bhave.

That turned him to social work. Two near-fatal mishaps in the 1965 war with Pakistan (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Pakistan) changed his outlook towards life and seeking voluntary retirement from the Army, he returned to Ralegan Siddhi in 1975 which was then in the grip of drought, poverty, crimes and alcoholism.

He used his savings for developmental work of the village. "I asked them to take an oath banning liquor, excessive grazing by cattle and felling of trees. Another oath was to have small families with men undergoing vasectomy," he recalled during an interaction.

He motivated villagers into voluntary labour. Canals and bunds were built to hold rainwater which solved the water scarcity problem and also increased irrigation possibilities in the village.

His achievements have won him many awards like the Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra award, the Krishi Bhushana award, the Padma Shree, Padma Bhushan and the Ramon Magsaysay award (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Ramon Magsaysay award). Care International (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/CARE-International) of the USA, Transparency International, Seoul (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Seoul) (South Korea) also felicitated him

[rakeshsehrawat]

Today he is a motivator what if after his death, few gori/kali chamdiwala bringout few facts like Gandhi
or his juniors/followers become Prime Minister.


Neither i am a follower of Gandhi nor i like his theories, But that man was a great leader.
I am not able to make even one follower but he United whole country under one flag.
I salute his leadership quality.

[ravinderpannu]

Mahatma gandhi was a Jat..ancestors of gandhi migrated to gujarat from Rajasthan some 300 years ago before he was born and start calling themselves gandhi because Jats were not in a good situation there..this is also one dark side of gandhi past that was never came in light before a great jat historian discovered it. I have read that book, name of historian is Ramsharan Baliyan but sorry I don't have any proof to paste here.


ha ha ha ha..!!!!! kilkiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[ravinderjeet]

Mahatma gandhi was a Jat..ancestors of gandhi migrated to gujarat from Rajasthan some 300 years ago before he was born and start calling themselves gandhi because Jats were not in a good situation there..this is also one dark side of gandhi past that was never came in light before a great jat historian discovered it. I have read that book, name of historian is Ramsharan Baliyan but sorry I don't have any proof to paste here.

खीस्याणी बिल्ली खम्बा नोचे |

[prashantacmet]

खीस्याणी बिल्ली खम्बा नोचे |
..................

[ravinderjeet]

dedh ne dedh ganga ji pe toh liya kare.....
arr kana kagga hockey se naak aale ki moonch paadya kare...............kilkii....
..........arr aap bhi objection utha rahe ho...waah waah kya kahne....writer ka naam to likha hai , aur main aapko bata du yeh sab ek pustak ke anusaar hai..eibb bhi bacjh gya kuch ya eibb mere pai tai photo mangoge gandhi ke pardaada ka....???

आपे लिखे एर आपे किलकी मारे | आपने मुंह मियाँ मिठु | किसे ने तेरी बात पसंद भी सें | आपने डी.अन.ए चेक करवा ले |

[prashantacmet]

आपे लिखे एर आपे किलकी मारे | आपने मुंह मियाँ मिठु | किसे ने तेरी बात पसंद भी सें | आपने डी.अन.ए चेक करवा ले |
................

[rakeshsehrawat]

dedh ne dedh ganga ji pe toh liya kare.....
arr kana kagga hockey se naak aale ki moonch paadya kare...............kilkii....
..........arr aap bhi objection utha rahe ho...waah waah kya kahne....writer ka naam to likha hai , aur main aapko bata du yeh sab ek pustak ke anusaar hai..eibb bhi bacjh gya kuch ya eibb mere pai tai photo mangoge gandhi ke pardaada ka....???

Marre batte pakad gaye ek doosre ki rag dekh lyo kit aake fete hain .

[prashantacmet]

Marre batte pakad gaye ek doosre ki rag dekh lyo kit aake fete hain .
...........................

[shivamchaudhary]

...........................

Bahut kum der rakhi aapne apni post.... ya kisi aur ne edit kar di bhai ??

Lagta hai active janta ko hi padhana chahate the :)

[shivamchaudhary]

lo manne bhi yo line khechani padengi ..

ya duplicate post ban gyi wa bhi ek hi click me ..


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

delete it pls.

[nijjhar]

Hi,

I was 14 years old when Lala Mohan Dass Karam Chand Gandhi and other Lalas, Lala Tara Singh Malhotra Khatri and Lala Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a Babla Bhatia, were preparing to divide our Jatland Punjab. We were at Montgomery, now Sahiwal and my father was a Science Teacher. He knew what they were doing and wrote to Lala Gandhi to get the general elections for receiving the Freedom. But he said if we hold general elections, then vil;lage people may ask the British to stay on.

Now, these three Lalas were not the elected representatives of the public but of their own Parties that were dominated by the Lalas.

So, it was a Lala Partition and my father warned our Jatt brethren to be careful and look after each other. 2000 peoplke of Arian tribe, Sainis turned Mohammedans, came to attack our village Dhannuana, near Shahkot, Pakistan and when my father told the attacking head of the party Zaildar, that we Jatts and you Arian are going to fight and die and not the Sikhs or Muslims, the spiritual selves and explained to him the mischief by the three Lalas, he came as foe and asked his attacking party to look after us as their guests. Which they did and further he asked my father let us go to Lahore to stop this Partition and bloodshed but my father said, it is too late.

This is called SATT protecting you and our Jatt tribal father brought Friendship between the Arians and the Jatts.

So, these Three Lalas represent a typical example of hypocrisy that the simpleton Jatts could hardly understand and suffered. Thus, Lala Gandhi was the Greatest Hypocrite of this Dark Age.

Have you ever thought of why we Jatts never changed our tribal name on becoming Mohammedans? Doapar Yug belonged to Jatts and Shri Krishan Baldev Ji, the incarnation of Shiv, appeared among our Root people and we are the SHIV SAINA to bring the greedy people to justice. These Lalas are fleecing Jatts and getting richer. During the war, it will be their riches that would attract the Looters mainly from the villages to avenge their fleecing.

End of the world is not far away as the establishment of Israel is written before the ATOMIC WAR -Matt.13.24-30. Now, I have over 2100 Youtube Videos.

[satyeshwar]

First, as a moderator, stop pulling each others legs or you will find yourself banned.

Second, as a member and just my own views, there was some charm in the person that millions followed him. Your own forefathers were perhaps one of them who gladly went to jail following his principles. Insulting him now with ideas that lack truth is synonymous to insulting countless Indians who laid their lives fighting for the independence of India. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and several other leaders were inspired by Gandhi and fought for equal rights in their countries with varies degrees of success. Truth and non violence may have not been started by him but these principles were definitely pioneered in the modern age by him. It is perhaps for this reason alone that all of our names will be forgotten in the anals of history while his would be around for eons to come.

I know that this is a Gandhi bashing thread and I am perhaps inviting a lot of angst, but still wanted to say my 2 cents. I am not debating this subject with anyone so this is my first and last post on the matter.

-Satyeshwar

[Fateh]

First, as a moderator, stop pulling each others legs or you will find yourself banned.

Second, as a member and just my own views, there was some charm in the person that millions followed him. Your own forefathers were perhaps one of them who gladly went to jail following his principles. Insulting him now with ideas that lack truth is synonymous to insulting countless Indians who laid their lives fighting for the independence of India. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and several other leaders were inspired by Gandhi and fought for equal rights in their countries with varies degrees of success. Truth and non violence may have not been started by him but these principles were definitely pioneered in the modern age by him. It is perhaps for this reason alone that all of our names will be forgotten in the anals of history while his would be around for eons to come.

I know that this is a Gandhi bashing thread and I am perhaps inviting a lot of angst, but still wanted to say my 2 cents. I am not debating this subject with anyone so this is my first and last post on the matter.

-Satyeshwar

Brother, I agree that their was something in him that is why we are discussing today, but I came to know about him through my studies of post graduation of History, through legal history, through my grand father who was assosiated with the strugle and met many elderly people who were assosiated with him, my personal openion is---(Ganga ko ana tha, Bhagirath ko juss milana tha) otherwise nothing so greate as projected by the congress, the nehru, the britishers and the BANIA COMMUNITY. INFACT, THE PARTITION AND ESTABLISHING THE NEHRU FAMILY IN THE CHAIR WERE TWO BIGGEST MISTAKES OF GANDHI. bROTHERWISE, WHEN GANDHI appeared on the front, the freedom strugle was already approching the destination, the rulers were tired, have realised the seriousness and found comparatively Gandhi batter to deal with, also Indian public was also tired of voilence hence nonvoilence call of gandhi was accepted easily. Infact the idea/suggestion of nonvoilence came from Britishers because they were totally tired and afraid of voilent freedom fighters. So these were cicumstances, the BRITISHERS, the nehru family and few congress chamchas & finally the Godsey who killed him, made him greate. but the fact is that Gandhi is one of the greate hero of this century even the facts may be different.

[Fateh]

Mahatma gandhi was a Jat..ancestors of gandhi migrated to gujarat from Rajasthan some 300 years ago before he was born and start calling themselves gandhi because Jats were not in a good situation there..this is also one dark side of gandhi past that was never came in light before a great jat historian discovered it. I have read that book, name of historian is Ramsharan Baliyan but sorry I don't have any proof to paste here.

Bhai, Gandhi may be any thing but please donnot abuse jats by calling Gandhi a jat. I have gone through most of the post on Gandhi here, I feel all facts, incidents and assessment by mr Vijay are correct,

[prashantacmet]

Bhai, Gandhi may be any thing but please donnot abuse jats by calling Gandhi a jat. I have gone through most of the post on Gandhi here, I feel all facts, incidents and assessment by mr Vijay are correct,
kaharb sahab!! If shivaji and maharana pratap were Jats, gandhi may be a Jat too. These were not my findings, a historian claimed the words.

[Fateh]

kaharb sahab!! If shivaji and maharana pratap were Jats, gandhi may be a Jat too. These were not my findings, a historian claimed the words.

Brother, though, I donnot consider myself a historian but my first post graduation was in history. Also I just donnot agree that shivaji &rana pratap were jats but by personalty traits (physical & mental) they were like jats but personalty of Gandhi donnot match at all with jats. However, dear please let me know the source of your information that Gandhi was or his elders were jats. Persently I am in Gujarat, so I can further inquire on the toppic, if some worth info/material can be collected & shared with our Brothers. May I know the name the historian and his book please. regards

[cooljat]

Come thro' this write up on Facebook that depicts Gandhi's real picture in simple words. This may look like more of pro-Hindu and RSS propaganda to many but seriously I agree most of the description. I also mentioned in my earlier posts that it was sheer Congress conspiracy .. Jinhone Gandhi ko desh ka baap aur Nehru ko chacha bana diya. Read on ..

राष्ट्र पिता का मूल्यांकन फिर से किया जाए ?

--1-- क्या राष्ट्रीय पिता उसे कहते है जो किसी एक विशेष समुदाय के प्रति तुष्टिकरण की निति रखता हो,

--2-- ऐसे अहिंसा के पुजारी जिसके मंदिर मे १ महीने मे १० लाख लोग मौत के काल मे समां गए,

--3-- अगर इसे महात्मा कहते है तो वह १० लाख लोगो की मौते नहीं होती ! उसे पता थी यह बात की एसा हो जायेगा, क्योकि वह तो महात्मा थे ना ?

--4-- भ्रह्मचर्य का सिर्फ अभ्यास कोई भला ६० साल तक करता है ? उसके प्रयोग करता हो, भ्रह्मचर्य का पालन जन्म से लागु होता है, गाँधी ने इसकी अलग ही परिभाषा लिख डाली

--5-- एसा महात्मा जो पाकिस्तान को ५५ करोड़ जेसी भरी भरकम राशी ( आज के समय मे २०,००० करोड़ ) देने के लिए अनसन पर बैठा हो,

--6-- एसा "राष्ठ्रपिता" जो जनता को सिखाये की कैसे अपनी मांगो के लिए हड़ताल करनी चाहिए, ये हाल आज भी है, लोग हड़ताले करते है रोज, बैंक की हड़ताल, शिक्षको की हड़ताले... वगेरह

--7-- एसा महात्मा जो सरकार पर मस्जिद बनवाने के लिए दबाव बनाता हो और सोमनाथ मंदिर के लिए पैसे मांगने पर उसे व्यर्थ का सरकारी खर्च मानता हो !


--8-- इस महात्मा को सिर्फ भारत के भूखे नंगो को इकठ्ठा करना आता था जिसकी कला आज के रौल विंसी, अंतोनियो, बियंका मे भी है ( राहुल गाँधी, सोनिया, प्रियंका )

--9-- कहते है की गाँधी तपती धुप मे यात्रा करते थे तो उस ज़माने मे क्या किसान घर मे छत के निचे खेती बड़ी करते थे ? , और क्या साथ मे मारुती गाड़ी रखते थे ? कम ही ऐसे थे जो गाड़ी / बेलगाडी से यात्रा करते थे

--10-- कोंग्रेस के द्वारा घोषित तथाकथित "राष्ट्रपिता" क्या भारत इतिहास के अकेले भारतीय थे जो भ्रह्मचर्य की बाते करते थे, उनके भी संताने थी और भ्रह्मचर्य का अखंड पालन करने वाले विवेकानंद क्यों नहीं राष्ट्रपिता थे ? वो तो गाँधी से १०० गुना सच्चे देश भक्त थे और दुनिया उन्हें आदर भाव देती है है इसी किताब जिसमे उनके बारे मे गलत लिखा है ? पूरी दुनिया मे उन्होंने भारत का सही मान बढाया था !

--11-- लेकिन क्या है ना की स्वामी विवेकानंद जी जैसे धर्म पुरुष से कोई सत्ता हासिल नहीं होती थी इसलिए "गाँधी" ब्रांड का सहारा लिया कोंग्रेस ने !

--12-- भारतवासियों को हमेशा दुसरे गाल पर भी खाने की सलाह देने वाले गांधीजी के कोंग्रेसी अनुयायी कितने हत्यारों ( गुरु, मदनी, कसाब आदि ) को पनाह देती है

--13-- अगर ऐसे महात्मा कहा जाता है तो नाथूराम जेसे तथाकथित "हत्यारा" जिसकी अस्थिया आज भी पुणे में पड़ी है, उसने एक दिन कहा था की "मेरी अस्थिया उस सिन्धु नदी मे बहा देना जिस दिन सिन्धु नदी भारत झंडे के तले बहने लगे ! " ऐसा भला क्यों कहा ? जब उनका मानसिक संतुलन का "टेस्ट" हुआ था तो उनका स्वास्थ्य एकदम ठीक था सामान्य मनुष्य की तरह ! फिर उनको कोंग्रेस की किताबो मे मानसिक रोगी क्यों कहा ?

--14-- ये कोंग्रेस के द्वारा घोषित महात्मा है, जिन्होंने पुरे विश्व में अंग्रेजी साहित्य के माध्यम से अपने सत्ता के तृष्णा के लिए किसी तथाकथित "महात्मा" का सहारा लिया जिसने हमेशा बोस, पटेल, भगत सिंह, उस्फफ़ उल्लाह खान, राजगुरु की नीतियों का विरोध किया और उन्हें देश द्रोही तक कह दिया

--15-- आज समय आ गया है की नई पीढ़ी कोंग्रेसी किताबो के इतिहास से परे सच्चाई जानने का प्रयास करे, और सुनिश्चित करे की राजगुरु, भगत सिंह, अबुल कलम आजाद, उल्लाह खान, बोस, पटेल , गोडसे आदि देश भक्त थे या फिर ये तथाकथित "महात्मा" भारत के नोट पर शोभा बनने के लायक !

--16-- हमने जहा से इस तथाकथित राष्ट्रीय पिता के बारे मे कोंग्रेसी इतिहास से पढ़ा - सुना, और उसे राष्ट्रीय पिता का दर्जा दे दिया , वन्दे मातरम !

--17-- गांधी "जी" (?) ने एक बार कहा था कि यदि गो-हत्या देख कर दुःख होता है तो उसके विरोध में अपनी जान दे दो लेकिन गो-हत्या करने वाले को क्षति मत पहुँचाओ. वाह रे गाँधी वाह! मतलब गायें तो मारी हीं जाएँ और साथ में गोपालक भी मरे. तो लक्ष्य किसका सधा ? मुसलमानों को हम गाय के साथ स्वयं को भी समर्पित करें !

--18-- आजकल राहुल गांधी जैसे अज्ञानी को भीमहन बना देती है मीडिया नाम की ब्रांडिंग अजेंसी, वैसे ही गांधी को उस समय एक ब्रांडिंग अजेंसी ने ब्रांड बनाया था घर घर तक ! आप ही बताइये उस एजेंसी की मेहनत व्यर्थ जाने वाली थी क्या (क्यूंकी उस समय लोगो ज्यादा अनपढ़ थे ) यही कारण था की भगतसिंह , आजाद, बॉस जैसे लोगो के साथ पढेलिखे लोग थे ? आज की हिन्दू जनता से यह अवश्य पूछना / सर्वे करना चाहिए की उसका राष्ट्रपिता कैसा हो ना की एक पार्टी किसी अयोग्य व्यक्ति को राष्ट्र-पिता जैसा महान दर्जा दें, हमारा राष्ट्र से मतलब भारत और भारत का राष्ट्र पिता गाँधी जेसा हो तो फिर स्वामी विवेकानंद, गौतम बुद्ध, दयानंद सरस्वती, महर्षि अरविन्द, सुभाष चन्द्र बोश, भगत सिंह, आजाद, टोपे, मंगल पांडे, वीर सावरकर ( इन्हें तो कोंग्रेस आतंकवादी कहती है ) , राज गुरु, अस्फफ़ उल्लाह खान, राणा प्रताप, शिवाजी, भामा शाह, राणा सांगा, बिस्मिल राणा कुम्भा, रामदास, तुका राम, संत कबीर, रैदास, राम कृष्ण परमहंस, राम, कृष्ण, अर्जुन, भीम, भरत, भीष्म पिता, परशुराम, युधिष्ठिर, पृथ्वी राज चौहान ( भारत का अंतिम हिन्दू सम्राट जिसने मोहम्मद गौरी जेसे नीच, आतंकवादी को १४ बार परस्त किया) , हनुमानजी , राजा हर्षवर्धन ( ऐसे महान सम्राट के बारे मे शायद मेक-डोनाल्ड मे जाने वाला क्या जाने ?) , अशोक क्या सिर्फ कहानिया मात्र थी ? क्या ये सभी गाँधी से कम महान थे ... राणा सांगा अगर अहिंसा नहीं करते और आतंकवादियों को नहीं खदेड़ते तो वे राणा सांगा नहीं कहलाते, अच्छा हुआ की गाँधी जैसे "महापुरुष" ने इस मुर्दी सदी मे मुर्दे लोगो के संग अवतार लिया ! आज के ज़माने मै गाँधी को महत्व क्यों दिया जा रहा है इसका एक कारण है की ओबामा गाँधी को मानता है ( मानने का ढोंग करता है , काले अंग्रेजो को बेवकूफ बनाने के लिए )------नोट: मेरा गाँधी के साथ कोई जाती दुश्मनी नहीं है, मेरे ह्रदय मे सिर्फ हमारी हजारो साल पुरानी सभ्यता का गौरव है बस ! इसलिए मुझे घृणा है ऐसे लोगो से जो राष्ट्र-पिता शब्द का अपमान करते है और उस शब्द का मतलब नहीं समझते , और किसी एरे गेरे को राष्ट्र पिता बना देते है, मुझे आपत्ति है इस शब्द से मेरे भारत का पिता ऐसा नहीं हो सकता है !

[rajpaldular]

कहते हैँ भारत को स्वतंत्रता दिलाई थी गाँधी जी ने. अर्थात हम नहीं कहते ऐसा कांग्रेसियों ने कहा. हमने माना क्योंकि हमारे पूर्वजों ने तब आँख कान बन्द कर लिए और महात्मा के चेलों ने सत्तासीन होने के लिए बेचारों का लाभ उठाया. चलिए हमें गाँधी जी के महात्मा होने से भी समस्या नहीं पर हम जानना चाहेंगे उन तमाम सत्ता के लड्डू चखने वाले कांग्रेसियों से और उन गाँधी टोपी पहनने वालों से कि क्या उत्तर है उनके पास इन प्रश्नों के :--

भगत सिंह, सुखदेव और राजगुरु को गाँधी के प्रयासों से बचाया जा सकता था. पर ऐसा क्यों नहीं हुआ? क्या गाँधी देशभक्ति से अधिक राजनीति में रूचि लेने लग गए थे? क्या उनके ‘करियर’ को देशभक्त क्रान्तिकारियों व उनकी बढ़ती हुई ख्याति से ख़तरा मालूम होने लगा था?
गाँधी ने सत्य और अहिंसा की सौगंध खाईं और लोगों को खाने पर विवश भी किया. उन्होंने कहा कि पाकिस्तान उनके शव पर ही बनेगा. पर गाँधी जी का शव 14 अगस्त 1947 में नहीं गिरा. यदि वो सत्य के मार्ग पर इतनी शिद्दत से चलते थे तो आत्महत्या क्यों नहीं की?
अंग्रेज़ों के पश्चात हमारे देश की आर्थिक स्थिति बहुत ख़राब थी. पर गाँधी के कहने पर 56 करोड़ रुपए पाकिस्तान को दिए गए. क्या हमें यह जानने का अधिकार नहीं?
गाँधी ने 1942 में भारत छोड़ो आन्दोलन की घोषणा की. कुछ कुछ वैसा ही जब प्रथम विश्व युद्ध के प्रारंभिक दिनों में लोकमान्य तिलक ने कहा था 'लोहा गरम है चोट करो’. तब गाँधी ने इसे (अंग्रेज़ों की) पीठ पर वार करने जैसा कह के विरोध किया था. क्यों? तीस वर्षों में क्या सारे सिद्धान्त बदल गए? अथवा 1914 में राजनीति में चमकने का अवसर नहीं खोना चाहते थे?
नेहरू ने उन्हें बापू कहा तो देश ने राष्ट्रपिता भी मान लिया? क्यों? पिता का कर्तव्य होता है जन्म देने के पश्चात अपनी संतान का भरण-पोषण करना पर यहाँ तो महात्मा जी ने उसके दो टुकड़े करा डाले. क्या ये ही राष्ट्र के पिता जी का काम था?
क्यों सुभाष चन्द्र बोस के कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष का चुनाव जीतने पर गाँधी ने उसे अपनी निजी हार बताया?


मुझे लगता है आप सभी जाटलैंड के सदस्य पढ़े लिखे होने के साथ साथ विचारशील और मननशील भी हैं. इसलिए इन प्रश्नों पर एक बार सोचिएगा अवश्य. सोचने पर आप पाएँगे कि एक एक प्रश्न अक्षरश: सत्य है.

[skarmveer]

Hamney to isey hamesh hee Congress Pita kaha hai, Note per photo chhapney say koi Rastra pita nahi hota logon key dil mein raheny say or aapne jimmewariyeo ka sahi nirvah karney say hota hai. Koi kuchh bhe kahey par Congress ney jis tarah Ansan per baithey logo ko aadhi raat maar kar bhagya us-say to yahi sidh hota hai kee Ansan say na to aajadi mili or na hee koi or maang puri ho sakti hai fir ansan kari Gandhi kesey rastra pita huaaa.


Come thro' this write up on Facebook that depicts Gandhi's real picture in simple words. This may look like more of pro-Hindu and RSS propaganda to many but seriously I agree most of the description. I also mentioned in my earlier posts that it was sheer Congress conspiracy .. Jinhone Gandhi ko desh ka baap aur Nehru ko chacha bana diya. Read on ..

राष्ट्र पिता का मूल्यांकन फिर से किया जाए ?

--1-- क्या राष्ट्रीय पिता उसे कहते है जो किसी एक विशेष समुदाय के प्रति तुष्टिकरण की निति रखता हो,

--2-- ऐसे अहिंसा के पुजारी जिसके मंदिर मे १ महीने मे १० लाख लोग मौत के काल मे समां गए,

--3-- अगर इसे महात्मा कहते है तो वह १० लाख लोगो की मौते नहीं होती ! उसे पता थी यह बात की एसा हो जायेगा, क्योकि वह तो महात्मा थे ना ?

--4-- भ्रह्मचर्य का सिर्फ अभ्यास कोई भला ६० साल तक करता है ? उसके प्रयोग करता हो, भ्रह्मचर्य का पालन जन्म से लागु होता है, गाँधी ने इसकी अलग ही परिभाषा लिख डाली

--5-- एसा महात्मा जो पाकिस्तान को ५५ करोड़ जेसी भरी भरकम राशी ( आज के समय मे २०,००० करोड़ ) देने के लिए अनसन पर बैठा हो,

--6-- एसा "राष्ठ्रपिता" जो जनता को सिखाये की कैसे अपनी मांगो के लिए हड़ताल करनी चाहिए, ये हाल आज भी है, लोग हड़ताले करते है रोज, बैंक की हड़ताल, शिक्षको की हड़ताले... वगेरह

--7-- एसा महात्मा जो सरकार पर मस्जिद बनवाने के लिए दबाव बनाता हो और सोमनाथ मंदिर के लिए पैसे मांगने पर उसे व्यर्थ का सरकारी खर्च मानता हो !


--8-- इस महात्मा को सिर्फ भारत के भूखे नंगो को इकठ्ठा करना आता था जिसकी कला आज के रौल विंसी, अंतोनियो, बियंका मे भी है ( राहुल गाँधी, सोनिया, प्रियंका )

--9-- कहते है की गाँधी तपती धुप मे यात्रा करते थे तो उस ज़माने मे क्या किसान घर मे छत के निचे खेती बड़ी करते थे ? , और क्या साथ मे मारुती गाड़ी रखते थे ? कम ही ऐसे थे जो गाड़ी / बेलगाडी से यात्रा करते थे

--10-- कोंग्रेस के द्वारा घोषित तथाकथित "राष्ट्रपिता" क्या भारत इतिहास के अकेले भारतीय थे जो भ्रह्मचर्य की बाते करते थे, उनके भी संताने थी और भ्रह्मचर्य का अखंड पालन करने वाले विवेकानंद क्यों नहीं राष्ट्रपिता थे ? वो तो गाँधी से १०० गुना सच्चे देश भक्त थे और दुनिया उन्हें आदर भाव देती है है इसी किताब जिसमे उनके बारे मे गलत लिखा है ? पूरी दुनिया मे उन्होंने भारत का सही मान बढाया था !

--11-- लेकिन क्या है ना की स्वामी विवेकानंद जी जैसे धर्म पुरुष से कोई सत्ता हासिल नहीं होती थी इसलिए "गाँधी" ब्रांड का सहारा लिया कोंग्रेस ने !

--12-- भारतवासियों को हमेशा दुसरे गाल पर भी खाने की सलाह देने वाले गांधीजी के कोंग्रेसी अनुयायी कितने हत्यारों ( गुरु, मदनी, कसाब आदि ) को पनाह देती है

--13-- अगर ऐसे महात्मा कहा जाता है तो नाथूराम जेसे तथाकथित "हत्यारा" जिसकी अस्थिया आज भी पुणे में पड़ी है, उसने एक दिन कहा था की "मेरी अस्थिया उस सिन्धु नदी मे बहा देना जिस दिन सिन्धु नदी भारत झंडे के तले बहने लगे ! " ऐसा भला क्यों कहा ? जब उनका मानसिक संतुलन का "टेस्ट" हुआ था तो उनका स्वास्थ्य एकदम ठीक था सामान्य मनुष्य की तरह ! फिर उनको कोंग्रेस की किताबो मे मानसिक रोगी क्यों कहा ?

--14-- ये कोंग्रेस के द्वारा घोषित महात्मा है, जिन्होंने पुरे विश्व में अंग्रेजी साहित्य के माध्यम से अपने सत्ता के तृष्णा के लिए किसी तथाकथित "महात्मा" का सहारा लिया जिसने हमेशा बोस, पटेल, भगत सिंह, उस्फफ़ उल्लाह खान, राजगुरु की नीतियों का विरोध किया और उन्हें देश द्रोही तक कह दिया

--15-- आज समय आ गया है की नई पीढ़ी कोंग्रेसी किताबो के इतिहास से परे सच्चाई जानने का प्रयास करे, और सुनिश्चित करे की राजगुरु, भगत सिंह, अबुल कलम आजाद, उल्लाह खान, बोस, पटेल , गोडसे आदि देश भक्त थे या फिर ये तथाकथित "महात्मा" भारत के नोट पर शोभा बनने के लायक !

--16-- हमने जहा से इस तथाकथित राष्ट्रीय पिता के बारे मे कोंग्रेसी इतिहास से पढ़ा - सुना, और उसे राष्ट्रीय पिता का दर्जा दे दिया , वन्दे मातरम !

--17-- गांधी "जी" (?) ने एक बार कहा था कि यदि गो-हत्या देख कर दुःख होता है तो उसके विरोध में अपनी जान दे दो लेकिन गो-हत्या करने वाले को क्षति मत पहुँचाओ. वाह रे गाँधी वाह! मतलब गायें तो मारी हीं जाएँ और साथ में गोपालक भी मरे. तो लक्ष्य किसका सधा ? मुसलमानों को हम गाय के साथ स्वयं को भी समर्पित करें !

--18-- आजकल राहुल गांधी जैसे अज्ञानी को भीमहन बना देती है मीडिया नाम की ब्रांडिंग अजेंसी, वैसे ही गांधी को उस समय एक ब्रांडिंग अजेंसी ने ब्रांड बनाया था घर घर तक ! आप ही बताइये उस एजेंसी की मेहनत व्यर्थ जाने वाली थी क्या (क्यूंकी उस समय लोगो ज्यादा अनपढ़ थे ) यही कारण था की भगतसिंह , आजाद, बॉस जैसे लोगो के साथ पढेलिखे लोग थे ? आज की हिन्दू जनता से यह अवश्य पूछना / सर्वे करना चाहिए की उसका राष्ट्रपिता कैसा हो ना की एक पार्टी किसी अयोग्य व्यक्ति को राष्ट्र-पिता जैसा महान दर्जा दें, हमारा राष्ट्र से मतलब भारत और भारत का राष्ट्र पिता गाँधी जेसा हो तो फिर स्वामी विवेकानंद, गौतम बुद्ध, दयानंद सरस्वती, महर्षि अरविन्द, सुभाष चन्द्र बोश, भगत सिंह, आजाद, टोपे, मंगल पांडे, वीर सावरकर ( इन्हें तो कोंग्रेस आतंकवादी कहती है ) , राज गुरु, अस्फफ़ उल्लाह खान, राणा प्रताप, शिवाजी, भामा शाह, राणा सांगा, बिस्मिल राणा कुम्भा, रामदास, तुका राम, संत कबीर, रैदास, राम कृष्ण परमहंस, राम, कृष्ण, अर्जुन, भीम, भरत, भीष्म पिता, परशुराम, युधिष्ठिर, पृथ्वी राज चौहान ( भारत का अंतिम हिन्दू सम्राट जिसने मोहम्मद गौरी जेसे नीच, आतंकवादी को १४ बार परस्त किया) , हनुमानजी , राजा हर्षवर्धन ( ऐसे महान सम्राट के बारे मे शायद मेक-डोनाल्ड मे जाने वाला क्या जाने ?) , अशोक क्या सिर्फ कहानिया मात्र थी ? क्या ये सभी गाँधी से कम महान थे ... राणा सांगा अगर अहिंसा नहीं करते और आतंकवादियों को नहीं खदेड़ते तो वे राणा सांगा नहीं कहलाते, अच्छा हुआ की गाँधी जैसे "महापुरुष" ने इस मुर्दी सदी मे मुर्दे लोगो के संग अवतार लिया ! आज के ज़माने मै गाँधी को महत्व क्यों दिया जा रहा है इसका एक कारण है की ओबामा गाँधी को मानता है ( मानने का ढोंग करता है , काले अंग्रेजो को बेवकूफ बनाने के लिए )------नोट: मेरा गाँधी के साथ कोई जाती दुश्मनी नहीं है, मेरे ह्रदय मे सिर्फ हमारी हजारो साल पुरानी सभ्यता का गौरव है बस ! इसलिए मुझे घृणा है ऐसे लोगो से जो राष्ट्र-पिता शब्द का अपमान करते है और उस शब्द का मतलब नहीं समझते , और किसी एरे गेरे को राष्ट्र पिता बना देते है, मुझे आपत्ति है इस शब्द से मेरे भारत का पिता ऐसा नहीं हो सकता है !

[rajpaldular]

राष्ट्र पिता बनने के सही अधिकारी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस ही हैं.

[kuldeeppunia25]

Kapil,

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

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

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

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

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

बाबु गाँधी एक आछा आदमी था / क्यूंकि वोही एक आदमी है जिसके जुल्मदिन पे कंसट्रकसंन आल्या की भी छुटी हो जया है , वो न्यू कह्या करे ''आप्पा साचा झगड़ा झूठा''http://content.sweetim.com/sim/cpie/emoticons/00020662.gif (http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=10)
(http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=12)

[singhvp]

राष्ट्र पिता बनने के सही अधिकारी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस ही हैं.राष्ट्र बनता है लोगों से और लोगों के पास अपने-अपने बाप हैं या थे I वैसे भी एक आदमी सारे राष्ट्र का बाप कैसे हो सकता है I Officially , गाँधी सिर्फ चार-पांच बच्चों का पिता था और सुभाष सिर्फ एक लड़की का पिता I इन नै तम सारे राष्ट्र के बाप क्यों बणावो सो I हिन्दुस्तान मैं व्यक्ति पूजा का रिवाज़ घणा ज्यादा सै I देश की आजादी मैं लाखों ऐसे महान देशभक्त और क्रांतिकारी शहीद हो गए जिनका कोई नाम नहीं, परन्तु कुछ संभ्रांत लोगों की भूमिका को हमेशा जरूरत से ज्यादा प्रचारित प्रसारित किया गया और आज भी वही मानसिकता काम कर रही है I पता नहीं कितने गुदड़ी के लाल आज भी देशभक्ति के भावों से ओतप्रोत हैं परन्तु उनके पास प्रचार प्रसार के साधन नहीं और सच्चे देशभक्त और समाज-सेवी को प्रचार की भूख भी नहीं होती I

[upendersingh]

इस दुनिया में 'परिणाम' का महत्त्व है. जिसने जो रास्ता पकड़ा, उसका परिणाम क्या रहा. सुभाष चंद्र बोस निःसंदेह एक महान देशभक्त थे, लेकिन उन्होंने उस समय देश को आजाद करवाने का जो रास्ता चुना, उसका परिणाम नकारात्मक रहा था. अंग्रेजों ने उनके नेतृत्व वाली आजाद हिंद फ़ौज को हरा दिया था. भगत सिंह, चंद्रशेखर आजाद, राजगुरु, खुदीराम बोस, मंगल पांडे इत्यादि सभी शहीदों की देशभक्ति का स्तर बेहद ऊंचा था, लेकिन वे अपने मकसद को अंजाम तक नहीं पहुंचा सके और यही कारण है कि उनके जैसे अनेकों हो गए. जिसके जैसे अनेकों हो गए, उसे राष्ट्र पिता का दर्जा नहीं दिया जा सकता (हालांकि किसी को भी यह दर्जा नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए. यह एक अर्थहीन अवधारणा है). बहरहाल गांधी ने जो रास्ता चुना, उसका परिणाम सकारात्मक रहा. वास्तविकता तो यह है कि गांधी का पूरा जीवन उनके किसी पिछले जन्म के संघर्षपूर्ण जीवन का फल था. वे उस विश्व स्तर की प्रसिद्धि के हकदार थे. द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध में अंग्रेजों को कमजोर करना और भारत को स्वतंत्रता प्रदान करने के लिए विवश करना इस दुनिया को चलाने वाली अदृश्य शक्ति का कारनामा था, क्योंकि गांधी को उसका हक़ प्रदान करना उस शक्ति का दायित्व था. हम चाहें ऐसे गूढ़ रहस्यों को न समझें, लेकिन दुनिया में और बहुत से तो समझते हैं.
अब यदि हम कहें कि सुभाष चंद्र बोस को राष्ट्र पिता बनाया जाना चाहिए था तो सवाल खड़ा होता है कि यदि उन्हें अपने लक्ष्य में असफल रहने के बावजूद यह दर्जा दिया जाता तो फिर यह गांधी जैसी शख्सियत के साथ अन्याय होता, जो अपने लक्ष्य में सफल हुए. यदि भगत सिंह की तस्वीर नोटों पर छपनी चाहिए तो फिर चंद्रशेखर आजाद और इनके जैसे अन्य देशभक्तों की भी छपनी चाहिए. फिर तो कैप्टन सौरभ कालिया और उनके 5 साथी फौजियों की तस्वीर भी नोटों पर छपनी चाहिए, जिन्हें बुजदिल पाकिस्तानियों ने तमाम युद्ध नियमों की धज्जियां उड़ाते हुए करगिल युद्ध के दौरान तड़पा-तड़पाकर मारा था. उनकी आंखें फोड़ दी गई थीं, कानों के परदे नुकीले शूलों से बेध दिए गए थे, शरीर पर बार-बार उबलता पानी डाला गया था, गुप्तांगों को बड़ी बेरहमी से भंग किया गया था.
दरअसल जो देश के लिए कुर्बान हो गए, उनके लिए देशवासियों के दिलों में सम्मान होना चाहिए, लेकिन असली सम्मान उनके लिए होना चाहिए, जो दुश्मनों के हाथों खुद का बुरा हश्र न करवाएं, बल्कि दुश्मनों का हश्र बुरा करें. गांधी के समय में हमारे पास न तो अत्याधुनिक हथियार थे और न ही कोई सेना. ऐसा होने की संभावना भी न के ही बराबर थी. ऐसे में कुछ भी न करने की बजाय कुछ करना ठीक था. अहिंसात्मक आंदोलन उस समय की मजबूरी थी. खैर, मैं गांधी का कोई बहुत बड़ा प्रशंसक नहीं हूं, लेकिन आलोचक भी नहीं हूं. गांधी के सिद्धांत वर्तमान में प्रासंगिक नहीं हैं. इसके बावजूद अपने निजी विचार यहां रख रहा हूं. जरूरी नहीं है कि दूसरे भी ऐसा ही सोचें.

[cooljat]

क्यों मुझे गाँधी पसंद नहीं है ?

1. अमृतसर के जलियाँवाला बाग़ गोली काण्ड (1919) से समस्त देशवासी आक्रोश में
थे तथा चाहते थे कि इस नरसंहार के खलनायक जनरल डायर पर अभियोग चलाया जाए।
गान्धी ने भारतवासियों के इस आग्रह को समर्थन देने से मना कर दिया।

2. भगत सिंह व उसके साथियों के मृत्युदण्ड के निर्णय से सारा देश क्षुब्ध था व
गान्धी की ओर देख रहा था कि वह हस्तक्षेप कर इन देशभक्तों को मृत्यु से बचाएं,
किन्तु गान्धी ने भगत सिंह की हिंसा को अनुचित ठहराते हुए जनसामान्य की इस माँग
को अस्वीकार कर दिया। क्या आश्चर्य कि आज भी भगत सिंह वे अन्य क्रान्तिकारियों
को आतंकवादी कहा जाता है।

3. 6 मई 1946 को समाजवादी कार्यकर्ताओं को अपने सम्बोधन में गान्धी ने मुस्लिम
लीग की हिंसा के समक्ष अपनी आहुति देने की प्रेरणा दी।

4.मोहम्मद अली जिन्ना आदि राष्ट्रवादी मुस्लिम नेताओं के विरोध को अनदेखा करते
हुए 1921 में गान्धी ने खिलाफ़त आन्दोलन को समर्थन देने की घोषणा की। तो भी
केरल के मोपला में मुसलमानों द्वारा वहाँ के हिन्दुओं की मारकाट की जिसमें लगभग
1500 हिन्दु मारे गए व 2000 से अधिक को मुसलमान बना लिया गया। गान्धी ने इस
हिंसा का विरोध नहीं किया, वरन् खुदा के बहादुर बन्दों की बहादुरी के रूप में
वर्णन किया।

5.1926 में आर्य समाज द्वारा चलाए गए शुद्धि आन्दोलन में लगे स्वामी
श्रद्धानन्द जी की हत्या अब्दुल रशीद नामक एक मुस्लिम युवक ने कर दी, इसकी
प्रतिक्रियास्वरूप गान्धी ने अब्दुल रशीद को अपना भाई कह कर उसके इस कृत्य को
उचित ठहराया व शुद्धि आन्दोलन को अनर्गल राष्ट्र-विरोधी तथा हिन्दु-मुस्लिम
एकता के लिए अहितकारी घोषित किया।

6.गान्धी ने अनेक अवसरों पर छत्रपति शिवाजी, महाराणा प्रताप व गुरू गोविन्द
सिंह जी को पथभ्रष्ट देशभक्त कहा।

7.गान्धी ने जहाँ एक ओर काश्मीर के हिन्दु राजा हरि सिंह को काश्मीर मुस्लिम
बहुल होने से शासन छोड़ने व काशी जाकर प्रायश्चित करने का परामर्श दिया, वहीं
दूसरी ओर हैदराबाद के निज़ाम के शासन का हिन्दु बहुल हैदराबाद में समर्थन किया।

8. यह गान्धी ही था जिसने मोहम्मद अली जिन्ना को कायदे-आज़म की उपाधि दी।

9. कॉंग्रेस के ध्वज निर्धारण के लिए बनी समिति (1931) ने सर्वसम्मति से चरखा
अंकित भगवा वस्त्र पर निर्णय लिया किन्तु गाँधी कि जिद के कारण उसे तिरंगा कर
दिया गया।

10. कॉंग्रेस के त्रिपुरा अधिवेशन में नेताजी सुभाष चन्द्र बोस को बहुमत से
कॉंग्रेस अध्यक्ष चुन लिया गया किन्तु गान्धी पट्टभि सीतारमय्या का समर्थन कर
रहा था, अत: सुभाष बाबू ने निरन्तर विरोध व असहयोग के कारण पदत्याग कर दिया।

11. लाहोर कॉंग्रेस में वल्लभभाई पटेल का बहुमत से चुनाव सम्पन्न हुआ किन्तु
गान्धी की जिद के कारण यह पद जवाहरलाल नेहरु को दिया गया।

12. 14-15 जून, 1947 को दिल्ली में आयोजित अखिल भारतीय कॉंग्रेस समिति की बैठक
में भारत विभाजन का प्रस्ताव अस्वीकृत होने वाला था, किन्तु गान्धी ने वहाँ
पहुंच प्रस्ताव का समर्थन करवाया। यह भी तब जबकि उन्होंने स्वयं ही यह कहा था
कि देश का विभाजन उनकी लाश पर होगा।

13. मोहम्मद अली जिन्ना ने गान्धी से विभाजन के समय हिन्दु मुस्लिम जनसँख्या की
सम्पूर्ण अदला बदली का आग्रह किया था जिसे गान्धी ने अस्वीकार कर दिया।

14. जवाहरलाल की अध्यक्षता में मन्त्रीमण्डल ने सोमनाथ मन्दिर का सरकारी व्यय
पर पुनर्निर्माण का प्रस्ताव पारित किया, किन्तु गान्धी जो कि मन्त्रीमण्डल के
सदस्य भी नहीं थे ने सोमनाथ मन्दिर पर सरकारी व्यय के प्रस्ताव को निरस्त
करवाया और 13 जनवरी 1948 को आमरण अनशन के माध्यम से सरकार पर दिल्ली की
मस्जिदों का सरकारी खर्चे से पुनर्निर्माण कराने के लिए दबाव डाला।

15. पाकिस्तान से आए विस्थापित हिन्दुओं ने दिल्ली की खाली मस्जिदों में जब
अस्थाई शरण ली तो गान्धी ने उन उजड़े हिन्दुओं को जिनमें वृद्ध, स्त्रियाँ व
बालक अधिक थे मस्जिदों से से खदेड़ बाहर ठिठुरते शीत में रात बिताने पर मजबूर
किया गया।

16. 22 अक्तूबर 1947 को पाकिस्तान ने काश्मीर पर आक्रमण कर दिया, उससे पूर्व
माउँटबैटन ने भारत सरकार से पाकिस्तान सरकार को 55 करोड़ रुपए की राशि देने का
परामर्श दिया था। केन्द्रीय मन्त्रीमण्डल ने आक्रमण के दृष्टिगत यह राशि देने
को टालने का निर्णय लिया किन्तु गान्धी ने उसी समय यह राशि तुरन्त दिलवाने के
लिए आमरण अनशन किया- फलस्वरूप यह राशि पाकिस्तान को भारत के हितों के विपरीत दे
दी गयी।

17.गाँधी ने गौ हत्या पर पर्तिबंध लगाने का विरोध किया

18. द्वितीया विश्वा युध मे गाँधी ने भारतीय सैनिको को ब्रिटेन का लिए हथियार
उठा कर लड़ने के लिए प्रेरित किया , जबकि वो हमेशा अहिंसा की पीपनी बजाते है

.19. क्या ५०००० हिंदू की जान से बढ़ कर थी मुसलमान की ५ टाइम की नमाज़ ?????
विभाजन के बाद दिल्ली की जमा मस्जिद मे पानी और ठंड से बचने के लिए ५००० हिंदू
ने जामा मस्जिद मे पनाह ले रखी थी…मुसलमानो ने इसका विरोध किया पर हिंदू को ५
टाइम नमाज़ से ज़यादा कीमती अपनी जान लगी.. इसलिए उस ने माना कर दिया. .. उस
समय गाँधी नाम का वो शैतान बरसते पानी मे बैठ गया धरने पर की जब तक हिंदू को
मस्जिद से भगाया नही जाता तब तक गाँधी यहा से नही जाएगा….फिर पुलिस ने मजबूर
हो कर उन हिंदू को मार मार कर बरसते पानी मे भगाया…. और वो हिंदू— गाँधी
मरता है तो मरने दो —- के नारे लगा कर वाहा से भीगते हुए गये थे…,,,
रिपोर्ट — जस्टिस कपूर.. सुप्रीम कोर्ट….. फॉर गाँधी वध क्यो ?

२०. भगत सिंह, राजगुरु और सुखदेव को 24 मार्च 1931 को फांसी लगाई जानी थी, सुबह
करीब 8 बजे। लेकिन 23 मार्च 1931 को ही इन तीनों को देर शाम करीब सात बजे फांसी
लगा दी गई और शव रिश्तेदारों को न देकर रातोंरात ले जाकर ब्यास नदी के किनारे
जला दिए गए। असल में मुकदमे की पूरी कार्यवाही के दौरान भगत सिंह ने जिस तरह
अपने विचार सबके सामने रखे थे और अखबारों ने जिस तरह इन विचारों को तवज्जो दी
थी, उससे ये तीनों, खासकर भगत सिंह हिंदुस्तानी अवाम के नायक बन गए थे। उनकी
लोकप्रियता से राजनीतिक लोभियों को समस्या होने लगी थी।
उनकी लोकप्रियता महात्मा गांधी को मात देनी लगी थी। कांग्रेस तक में अंदरूनी
दबाव था कि इनकी फांसी की सज़ा कम से कम कुछ दिन बाद होने वाले पार्टी के
सम्मेलन तक टलवा दी जाए। लेकिन अड़ियल महात्मा ने ऐसा नहीं होने दिया। चंद
दिनों के भीतर ही ऐतिहासिक गांधी-इरविन समझौता हुआ जिसमें ब्रिटिश सरकार सभी
राजनीतिक कैदियों को रिहा करने पर राज़ी हो गई। सोचिए, अगर गांधी ने दबाव बनाया
होता तो भगत सिंह भी रिहा हो सकते थे क्योंकि हिंदुस्तानी जनता सड़कों पर उतरकर
उन्हें ज़रूर राजनीतिक कैदी मनवाने में कामयाब रहती। लेकिन गांधी दिल से ऐसा
नहीं चाहते थे क्योंकि तब भगत सिंह के आगे इन्हें किनारे होना पड़ता.

[ravinderjeet]

इस दुरात्मा गांधी, नेहरु ने मिलकर भारत को बर्बाद कर दिया | जिस का खामियाजा हम आज भी उनकी नाजायज ओलादों को ढो कर उठा रहे हैं |

[rajpaldular]

गाँधी प्रायः चापलूसी का शिकार हो जाया करता था. यही कारण था कि उसने सुभाषचंद्र बोस जैसे प्रतिभाशाली देशभक्त को पहले कांग्रेस से बाहर किया और इसके पश्चात देश से निष्कासित करवाकर नेहरु जैसे मतिमंद चापलूसों को आगे बढाने में अधिक रुचि दिखाई. मोतीलाल ने मानो जवाहर को गाँधी की झोली में डाल दिया था. कसौटी के निर्णायक क्षणों में (जब अंग्रेजों द्वारा कांग्रेस को सत्ता हस्तांतरित की जानी थी, उससे पूर्व देश में कांग्रेस के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष का चुनाव होना था, तब एक भी प्रांत से नेहरु के नाम का समर्थन न होने पर और कुल सत्रह में से चौदह प्रान्तों द्वारा सरदार पटेल का खुला समर्थन करने के बाद भी गाँधी ने दबाव डालकर नेहरु को ही उस निर्णायक वर्ष में कांग्रेस का राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष बनवाया और मानो तत्क्षण ही जवाहरलाल को देश का प्रथम प्रधानमंत्री भी बना दिया) गाँधी ने नेहरु परिवार के साथ जैसी यारी निभाई, उतनी निष्ठा तो उसने देश के प्रति भी न दिखाई. प्रधानमंत्री मनमोहन सिंह एक सच्चे गाँधीवादी ही तो हैं, जो देश से अधिक नेहरु परिवार के प्रति अपनी वफादारी निभाने में गाँधी का ही अनुसरण किये जा रहे हैं.

अस्तु, स्वाधीनता संग्राम के दिनों में अंग्रेजों ने गाँधी को कई समस्याओं में एक साथ उलझा रखा था. तब, समाज में हिंदू-मुस्लिम का प्रश्न तो खड़ा था ही, साथ ही, कपटी फिरंगियों ने भारत के समरस समाज से दलितों को भी तोड़ने के लिए जाल फैला दिए थे.

इसी तनावग्रस्त वातावरण में गाँधी ने अहिंसा और सत्याग्रह के नाम पर अपने जो-जो प्रयोग किए अथवा उसने जब-जब जितने आंदोलन आरंभ किए, अंग्रेजों की कुटिल चालों ने प्रायः उन सभी को विफल कर दिया. गाँधी का प्रत्येक आंदोलन यद्यपि अपार जन चेतना तो जगाता था, परन्तु जिस-जिस लक्ष्य को लेकर आंदोलन आरंभ किया जाता था, वह लक्ष्य कभी पूरा नहीं हो पाता था. गाँधी या तो स्वयं ही अपने नियम-कायदों के बंधक बनकर बैठ जाता था और आंदोलन को उग्र होता देख स्वयं ही उसकी समाप्ति की घोषणा कर देता था, या फिर अंततः वार्ता की मेज़ पर परास्त हो जाता था. अंग्रेज किसी न किसी तरह उसकी वैचारिक दृढ़ता में सेंध लगाने में सफल रहते थे. इसका सबसे प्रमुख कारण यह था कि गाँधी अपमानित होने से बहुत डरता था, इसलिए तत्पर बीच का मार्ग निकालने और समझौते करने में अधिक विश्वास रखता था.

देश भर से मिलने वाली जय-जयकार के प्रभाव से गाँधी के भीतर जो 'महात्मा' उठ खड़ा हुआ था, वह 'हिंद स्वराज' के चिंतनशील लेखक पर हावी हो गया और उसने ग्रामोत्थान का स्वप्न देखने वाले मोहनदास को दबा लिया. तत्पश्चात, आगे चलकर उस नए 'महात्मा' ने पूरे देश को ही दबा लिया. गाँधी को सादगी तो पसंद थी, परन्तु उसे देश के किसी भी गाँव में रहना अधिक नहीं भाया. फिर भी, चूँकि उसे अपनी संत-महात्मा वाली छवि को प्रामाणिकता भी दिलानी थी, इसलिए उसने साधुओं के अखाड़ों की तरह अपने लिए अलग से कृत्रिम आश्रमों का निर्माण करवाना उचित समझा और उनमें बैठ गया. उन आश्रमों में गाँधी के देशी-विदेशी प्रशंसक ही अधिक रहते थे, आम गाँववालों की उनमें अधिक भागीदारी न थी. संभवतः किन्हीं अज्ञात कारणों से गाँधी को अपनी अन्त्योदय, सर्वोदय जैसी योजनाओं व ग्रामोत्थान के विविध प्रकल्पों को किसी बसे-बसाए अभावग्रस्त गाँव में चलाना संभव नहीं लगा होगा, इसलिए उसने कई पृथक आश्रम खड़े किये और विश्व भर के मीडिया को बुला-बुलाकर अपने सब प्रकल्प दिखाए.

यदि गाँधी पर उसकी 'महात्मा' की छवि का सतोगुणी राक्षस हावी न होता तो क्या नौआखली से लौटने के पश्चात भी गाँधी सांप्रदायिक हिंसा से निपटने में बुरी तरह उलझे हुए नेहरु-पटेल से दूरी बनाकर रखता और उनसे पाकिस्तान को पचपन करोड़ रुपये देने का दुराग्रह करता? क्या 'हिंद स्वराज' का लेखक अपनी ही सरकार पर एक शत्रु राष्ट्र को विशाल धनराशि देने का दबाव डालता और ऐसा न करने की स्थिति में अनशन करने की धमकी देकर उसे ब्लैकमेल करता? 'महात्मा' बन जाने से गाँधी अपनी ही कृत्रिम छवि के व्यामोह में फँसकर सत्य से कोसों दूर जा खड़ा हो गया था. वह भारत और पाकिस्तान दोनों के 'बापू' बनना चाहता था. परन्तु, आज अखंड भारत के उपासक जितनी घृणा (गाँधी वाले) कायदे आज़म व पाकिस्तानियों के पैरोकार, मुहम्मद अली जिन्नाह से करते हैं, किसी 'अव्यक्त' कारण से, उससे भी अधिक घृणा पाकिस्तानी लोग महात्मा गाँधी से करते हैं. यहाँ, एक और अविश्वसनीय सत्य यह है कि गाँधी के कटु आलोचकों की जितनी संख्या पाकिस्तान सहित पूरे विश्व में है, शायद गाँधीवाद के आलोचकों की उससे भी कहीं अधिक संख्या गाँधी के अपने भारत में ही है.

[ravinderjeet]

यहाँ मुंबई में एक मुहावरा चलता हे "मजबूरी का नाम महात्मा गांधी "| समझने की बात हे की इस दुरात्मा की ,आम जनता कितनी बेज्जती करती हे |

[rajneeshantil]

i can only say " saari azadi ne akla gandhi ye pi gya" courtes- babbu mann.

[Fateh]

इस दुनिया में 'परिणाम' का महत्त्व है. जिसने जो रास्ता पकड़ा, उसका परिणाम क्या रहा. सुभाष चंद्र बोस निःसंदेह एक महान देशभक्त थे, लेकिन उन्होंने उस समय देश को आजाद करवाने का जो रास्ता चुना, उसका परिणाम नकारात्मक रहा था. अंग्रेजों ने उनके नेतृत्व वाली आजाद हिंद फ़ौज को हरा दिया था. भगत सिंह, चंद्रशेखर आजाद, राजगुरु, खुदीराम बोस, मंगल पांडे इत्यादि सभी शहीदों की देशभक्ति का स्तर बेहद ऊंचा था, लेकिन वे अपने मकसद को अंजाम तक नहीं पहुंचा सके और यही कारण है कि उनके जैसे अनेकों हो गए. जिसके जैसे अनेकों हो गए, उसे राष्ट्र पिता का दर्जा नहीं दिया जा सकता (हालांकि किसी को भी यह दर्जा नहीं दिया जाना चाहिए. यह एक अर्थहीन अवधारणा है). बहरहाल गांधी ने जो रास्ता चुना, उसका परिणाम सकारात्मक रहा. वास्तविकता तो यह है कि गांधी का पूरा जीवन उनके किसी पिछले जन्म के संघर्षपूर्ण जीवन का फल था. वे उस विश्व स्तर की प्रसिद्धि के हकदार थे. द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध में अंग्रेजों को कमजोर करना और भारत को स्वतंत्रता प्रदान करने के लिए विवश करना इस दुनिया को चलाने वाली अदृश्य शक्ति का कारनामा था, क्योंकि गांधी को उसका हक़ प्रदान करना उस शक्ति का दायित्व था. हम चाहें ऐसे गूढ़ रहस्यों को न समझें, लेकिन दुनिया में और बहुत से तो समझते हैं.
अब यदि हम कहें कि सुभाष चंद्र बोस को राष्ट्र पिता बनाया जाना चाहिए था तो सवाल खड़ा होता है कि यदि उन्हें अपने लक्ष्य में असफल रहने के बावजूद यह दर्जा दिया जाता तो फिर यह गांधी जैसी शख्सियत के साथ अन्याय होता, जो अपने लक्ष्य में सफल हुए. यदि भगत सिंह की तस्वीर नोटों पर छपनी चाहिए तो फिर चंद्रशेखर आजाद और इनके जैसे अन्य देशभक्तों की भी छपनी चाहिए. फिर तो कैप्टन सौरभ कालिया और उनके 5 साथी फौजियों की तस्वीर भी नोटों पर छपनी चाहिए, जिन्हें बुजदिल पाकिस्तानियों ने तमाम युद्ध नियमों की धज्जियां उड़ाते हुए करगिल युद्ध के दौरान तड़पा-तड़पाकर मारा था. उनकी आंखें फोड़ दी गई थीं, कानों के परदे नुकीले शूलों से बेध दिए गए थे, शरीर पर बार-बार उबलता पानी डाला गया था, गुप्तांगों को बड़ी बेरहमी से भंग किया गया था.
दरअसल जो देश के लिए कुर्बान हो गए, उनके लिए देशवासियों के दिलों में सम्मान होना चाहिए, लेकिन असली सम्मान उनके लिए होना चाहिए, जो दुश्मनों के हाथों खुद का बुरा हश्र न करवाएं, बल्कि दुश्मनों का हश्र बुरा करें. गांधी के समय में हमारे पास न तो अत्याधुनिक हथियार थे और न ही कोई सेना. ऐसा होने की संभावना भी न के ही बराबर थी. ऐसे में कुछ भी न करने की बजाय कुछ करना ठीक था. अहिंसात्मक आंदोलन उस समय की मजबूरी थी. खैर, मैं गांधी का कोई बहुत बड़ा प्रशंसक नहीं हूं, लेकिन आलोचक भी नहीं हूं. गांधी के सिद्धांत वर्तमान में प्रासंगिक नहीं हैं. इसके बावजूद अपने निजी विचार यहां रख रहा हूं. जरूरी नहीं है कि दूसरे भी ऐसा ही सोचें.

Independence didnot come because of gandhi but due to long fight of many patriots like Bhagat, Subhas etc, Gandhi was never in strugle earlier but later joined to make use of situation. the fact seems to me that since rulers realised that they have to go, but they were afraid of voilence so they prefered nonvoilence and gandhi who was close to rulers, given importance in dealing with the govt. Ofcourse, he was lucky, independence was to come but this person got the credit. Also if he was not killed by godse, he wouldnot have become father of the nation but he was really lucky. In gujarat a temple is coming up on his name. Fronkly speaking niether he was a good person nor was a leader and took all wrong decision but.....luck

[rajpaldular]

क्या आप जानते हैं कि: ---

३० जनवरी को यदि गांधी वध ना होता तो ३ फरवरी १९४८ को देश का एक और विभाजन निश्चित था.
जिन्ना की मांग थी कि पश्चिमी पाकिस्तान से पूर्वी पाकिस्तान जाने में बहुत समय लगता है एवं वायु यान से जाने की सभी की क्षमता नहीं है, तो हमको बिलकुल मध्य भारत से एक कोरिडोर बना कर दिया जाए जो :-

१. लाहौर से ढाका जाता हो,

२. दिल्ली के पास से जाता हो,

३. जिसकी चौड़ाई कम से कम १० मील अर्थात १६ किलोमीटर हो,

४. १० मील के दोनों और केवल मुस्लिम बस्तियां ही बनेंगी.

तत्कालीन परिस्थितियों में सभी भारतीय और पाकिस्तानी इस सत्य से परिचित थे कि एक और विभाजन निश्चित है, उसके पश्चात नाथूराम गोडसे ने जो किया वो इतिहास है, यदि गाँधी वध का संकल्प पूरा ना होता तो आप ही बताइये आज भारत का मानचित्र कैसा होता?

गोडसे भागे नहीं, और इस पुण्य कार्य को न्यायालय के सभी ३५ सुनवाइयों पर स्वीकार किया.
पर क्या हम इस देवतुल्य वीर पुरुष के त्याग और बलिदान को सार्थक कर पा रहे हैं अथवा फिर अनेकों जिन्ना और अनेकों गाँधी के स्वार्थ में सनातन की बलि दी जा रही है.

[cooljat]

.

Informative article about Nathu Ram Godse with some rare pics! -

http://hinduawaken.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/total-recall-nathuram-godsea-incredible-revolutionary-homage-on-his-62nd-martyr-day15th-november/

[Sunil2011]

Ghadhi --- jo gandh(perfume) ka buisness karte hain Gujrat main unko Gandhi kahte hain,matlab ek baniya. Baniya kitna chalak hota hai kisi se chupa nahin hai.Is ghandi ne itne bade bade andolan kare hain angrenjo ke khilf, kabhi kaale pani ki saaja nahin hui isko,kabhi is per goli nahin chali,kabhi police ki ladhi nahin chali iss per ki ladhi khnae se maut ho jaati iski.
Jab hindustan ki janta jaan gayi thi ki yeh sab desk ke khilaf kar raha hai tab ek sache hindustani ne isko goli maari thi. Agar yeh sach main des bhagat hota to angrej hi isko goli mar dete. phir hindustani ne kyon goli maari.Kyon ki yeh hindustan ke khilf tha.
Agar koi hindustani kisi angrej ko thappad hi maar deta to usk kaya haal hota tha. yeh kisi se achoota nahin hai. to yeh kaise bach gaya. Hinudstaniyon ko bewkoof banane ke liye isko jail main daal dete the bas ,taki yeh safe rahe.
Yeh sab angrejo ke agent the bas. Isilye yeh jinda rahe aur aaj bhi dekh sakte hain inki jade hindustan main kitni gahari hain.

[Honi]

Gandhi was a killer, he killed Bhagat Singh. is baat se fark ni padta ki kya circumstances thi, Bhagat Singh aur unki baten Gandhi aur congress ke liye khatra thi, isliye gandhi ne Hamare Bhai ko Phansi lagva di, AUR BHAGAT SINGH SHAHEED ho gaye.

[vikda]

फिल्मा में कई बडे बूढ़े कहते सुने हैं कि "हमने गाँधी जी के साथ अंग्रेजो की लाठियां खाई हैं"पर गाँधी तो लाठी खाता कद्दे न दिखाया (गाँधी मूवी में भी नहीं !!!!)
यो बच्या क्यूकर करता उनते ????

Answer from any Gandhi Fan??

[ravinderjeet]

गाँधी ने कभी कोई आन्दोलन पूर्णता तक पहुँचने ही नहीं दिया | कहीं ना कहीं किसी बात पर आन्दोलन को बीच अधूरे छोड़ देता था | वास्तव में गांधी और नेहरु अंग्रेजों के एजेंट थे ,जो स्वतंत्रता आन्दोलन को भोंथरा करने के लिए गर्म दल ( जो हिंसक गतिविधियों द्वारा अंग्रेजों को भगाना चाहते थे ) वालों से जनता का ध्यान हटाने के लिए और एक समानांतर बिना किसी असर वाली ,दिखावटी गतिविधि चलाते थे | इसीलिए कभी भी किसी गांधीवादी को अंग्रेजों ने नहीं मारा ,केवल इनको जेल में डाल कर कुछ दिनों में माफ़ी दे कर फिर से छोड़ देते थे ,ताकि फिर से कोई दिग्भर्मित करने वाला आन्दोलन चला कर जनता का ध्यान बंटा दें | अगर ध्यान से देखा जाए तो इन्ही गांधी वादी कांग्रेसियों ने अंग्रेजों को कह कर अपने विरोधिओं को मरवाया हे ,जो आगे चल कर सत्ता ह्स्तान्तार्ण में हिस्सा ना मांग सकें | जितने भी गर्म दल के नेता या कार्यकर्ता मारे गए थे , उनमे इन् कान्ग्रेसिओं की खबरी की भूमिका जरूर मिलेगी |वास्तव में आज भी हर कांग्रेसी देशद्रोही हे |---- सद भावनाओं सहित |

[raka]

बाबु मान न अपने एक गीत म तोड़ की बात कह राखी स '' भगत सिंह आ गया शराबा किथे रह गया आजादी ता कल्ला गाँधी ले गया , गद्दर बाब्या दा गद्दर किवें भुलावा झूठे इतिहास ते मोहर किवें लावा '' |

शहीद-ऐ - आज़म भगत सिंह एक बात कहता था के '' यो गाँधी देश में सिर्फ वहां वहां घूमता हैं जहाँ जहाँ अंग्रेजो की रेल जाती हैं , इसे असल देश देहात का क्या पता '' |

पंडित लख्मीचंद वाली बात स के '' एक दिन इसा आवेगा भुंडे लोग अर्र भुंडी धरती की चढ़ेगी '''''''' न्यू की न्यू बणरी स आज

[cooljat]

Godse! An unsung Hero, Misunderstood Patriot, read the reality! -

Godse is often a misunderstood character. He is referred to as a Hindu fanatic. It is often hard to understand Godse because the Government of India had suppressed information about him. His court statements, letters etc. were all banned from the public until recently. Judging from his writings one thing becomes very clear – He was no fanatic. His court statements are very well read out and indicate a calm and collected mental disposition. He never even once speaks ill about Gandhi as a person, but only attacks Gandhi's policies which caused ruin and untold misery to Hindus. Another interesting point to note is that Godse had been working with the Hindu refugees fleeing from Pakistan. He had seen the horrible atrocities committed on them. Many women had their hands cut off, nose cut off, even little girls had been raped mercilessly. Despite this Godse did not harm even single Muslim in India which he could easily have. So it would be a grave mistake to call him a Hindu fanatic.

Let us start by studying the motive behind Godse's act. By seeing the nature of the assassination in public space and Godse's act of turning himself over to the Police, we can see that Godse did not do this for personal reasons. He very well knew that he would be hanged and his name would be disgraced as Gandhi was considered a saint. And again Godse could have ran away and escaped punishment. But he did the reverse. He called a police officer and courted arrest. Before we proceed it would be wise to understand the backdrop of the assassination.

The central government had taken a decision — Pakistan will not be given Rs 55 crores. On January 13 Gandhi started a fast unto death that Pakistan must be given the money. On January 13, the central government changed its earlier decision and announced that Pakistan would be given the amount. On January 13, Nathuram decided to assassinate Gandhi.

Nathuram Godse was a learned man, very sharp and intelligent – editor of "Agrani" (one of the most famous newspaper of that time – with Nana Aapte). In his last editorial of "Agrani" which he changed overnight – he said "Gandhi must be stopped – at any cost" and he justified why Gandhiji's assassination was not only inevitable but also a delayed action, sth tht shud've happened LONG AGO.

In Nathuram's words - " I don't refute Gandhi's theory of non-violence. He may be a saint but he is not a politician. His theory of non-violence denies self-defence and self-interest. The non-violence that defines the fight for survival as violence is a theory not of non-violence but of self-destruction.The division of the nation was an unnecessary decision. What was the percentage of the Muslim population as compared to the population of the nation? There was no need for a separate nation. Had it been a just demand, Maulana Azad would not have stayed back in India. But because Jinnah insisted and because Gandhi took his side, India was divided, in spite of opposition from the nation, the Cabinet. An individual is never greater than a nation.

In a democracy you cannot put forward your demands at knife-point. Jinnah did it and Gandhi stabbed the nation with the same knife. He dissected the land and gave a piece to Pakistan. We did picket that time but in vain. The Father of our Nation went to perform his paternal duties for Pakistan! Gandhi blackmailed the cabinet with his fast unto death. His body, his threats to die are causing the destruction — geographical as well as economical — of the nation. Today, Muslims have taken a part of the nation, tomorrow Sikhs may ask for Punjab. The religions are again dividend into castes, they will demand sub-divisions of the divisions. What remains of the concept of one nation, national integration? Why did we fight the British in unison for independence? Why not separately? Bhagat Singh did not ask only for an independent Punjab or Subhash Chandra Bose for an independent Bengal?

I am going to assassinate him in the open, before the public, because I am going to do it as my duty. If I do it surreptitiously, it becomes a crime in my own eyes. I will not try to escape, I will surrender and naturally I will be hanged. One assassination, one hanging. I don't want two executions for one assassination and I don't want your involvement, participation or company. (This was for Nana-Apte and Veer Savarkar as they were against ghandhi's policies too, Godse wanted to assassinate gandhi all by himself and took promise from Nana Apte that he will continue helping Veer Savarkar in rebuilding India as a strong free nation.)

On January 30, I reached Birla Bhavan at 12 pm. Gandhi was sitting outside on a cot enjoying the sunshine. Vallabhbhai Patel's granddaughter was sitting at his feet. I had the revolver with me. I could have assassinated him easily then, but I was convinced that his assassination was to be a punishment and a sentence against him, and I would execute him. I wanted witnesses for the execution but there were none. I did not want to escape after the execution as there was not an iota of guilt in my mind. I wanted to surrender, but surrender to whom? There was a good crowd to collect for the evening prayers. I decided on the evening of January 30 as the date for Gandhi's execution.

Gandhi climbed the steps and came forward. He had kept his hands on the shoulders of the two girls. I wanted just three seconds more. I moved two steps forward and faced Gandhi. Now I wanted to take out the revolver and salute him for whatever sacrifice and service he had made for the nation. One of the two girls was dangerously close to Gandhi and I was afraid that she might be injured in the course of firing. As a precautionary measure I went one more step ahead, bowed before him and gently pushed the girl away from the firing line. The next moment I fired at Gandhi. Gandhi was very weak, there was a feeble sound like 'aah' (There are proof that Gandhi did NOT say "Hey Raam" at that time – it's just made up stuff ) from him and he fell down.

After the firing I raised my hand holding the revolver and shouted, 'Police, police'. For 30 seconds nobody came forward and I scanned the crowd. I saw a police officer. I signalled to him to come forward and arrest me. He came and caught my wrist, then a second man came and touched the revolver… I let it go…"

[rana1]

Untold truths about Gandhi (Copy p)
1. Gandhi used to sleep with girls of aged
between 18 to 25. Very few people know
about this but its true (for detail you can
read books by Dr L .R. BALI named
“RANGEELA GANDHI” & “KYA GANDHI
MAHATMA THE”) the girls who slept with
Gandhi accepted this. Gandhi used to say
that he is doing all this for his
BRAHMCHARI Experiments. What from
his experiments he was wanted to prove
nobody knows? Gandhi himself accepted
this that at the time of going to London
for higher studies he decided to keep
himself away from MEAT, DARU and SEX,
but he accepted that he could not control
himself in the matter of SEX.
2. Gandhi went to South Africa just for
earning money and name because here in
India he could not do well(flop) there he
went mainly to save Abdullah &co.
whose business was of smuggling and
charged very much for this.
3. In 1932, Gandhi collected 1crore & 32
lakh Rs in the name of “TILAK SWRAJ”
fund, which was collected for the use of
DALITS. However, he did not spend even
a single penny on DALITS.
4. In his whole life Gandhi kept on
shouting that, he is in the supports
AAHINSA. However, at the time of
Second World War he himself sends
Indian army for the fight from England
side. AAHINSA kaha geye uss waqt?
5. During daytime, Gandhi spent the day
in the Jhugis but he spent the night in the
rest house of Birlas.
6. Gandhi advised people to live a simple
life, but his simplicity was that when he
was in jail there were three women in the
jail to serve him for his simplicity!
7. Gandhi did not open a single door of a
Hindu temple in Gujrat his home province
in India for the UNTOUCHABLES.
8. Gandhi used to say that Subhash
Chander Bose is like his own son, but
Gandhi went on hunger strike until Bose
leave his post in congress. Gandhi
promised to British govt. that if we
found Bose we will handover him to you
(Bose was wanted in those days).
9. Gandhi kept people in dark that he is
trying to save Bhagat Singh. However, the
truth is that he never tried to contact
VICEROY about Bhagat Singh issue. This
all is said by the friend of VICEROY &
Bhagat Singh named MANMATH NATH in
his writings. Gandhi was feared about the
popularity of Bhagat Singh because the
popularity of Bhagat Singh was increasing
of which Gandhi felt nervous.
10. Gandhi was saying that if the Pakistan
would made it will only happen after his
death. However, it was Gandhi who
signed 1st on the proposal of making
Pakistan.
11. Gandhi cheated all Indians at ROUND
TABLE CONFERENCES by not giving the
details in proper & those details, which
were true.
12. Gandhi started so many ANDOLANS
& LEHARS against British govt. but after a
month or after 2 months he withdraw he
all those ANDOLANS & LEHARS. Then
what was the use of starting all those?
What about the sacrifice of all those
people who took part in all those
ANDOLANS? In addition, he never went
to lead people in those ANDOLANS. Even
Gandhi’s own sons were against him but
I do not know why all people were
following him.
13. Now a days almost all Hindu people
say Gandhi as a revolutionair, but what
he said” I have come here on earth to
fulfill the laws of caste.” How can one
say such a person as a revolutionair? A
true revolutionair never thinks according
to caste line, not according to rich, poor
etc. These are very few points there are
many more truths about Gandhi. In
addition, from above point’s you people
can decide about Gandhi. In BABA
SAHEB’s own words “Gandhi Age is the
Dark Age of India”.
BABA SAHEB has also said in interview
to BBC that “A PERSON WHO CHEATS
AND KEEP OTHER PEOPLE IN DARK TO
THAT PERSON IF YOU SAY A MAHATMA
THEN GANDHI IS A MAHATMA

[mpaweria]

From my point of view also Gandhi and Nehru both were self centered and corrupt people.And encashed the efforts of Bose & Bhagat Singh.It is our bad luck that we got independence without Bose & Singh.
In last 60 years China become the world leader and we become the biggest begger due to Nehru and Gandhi prime ministership.After reading all replies and knowing the fact atleast now we should start supporting right people and stop those illegal heirs of Gandhi and Nehru families.
It is very sad that our Rastrapita is Gandhi and current Rastrapati is cook of Indira Gandhi. See the future of our country.

[rajpaldular]

आज पाकिस्तान के जनक मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी का जन्मदिवस है, ये वो पाकिस्तान है जिसके कारण आजतक देश में लाखों घर बर्बाद हो गए. ना जाने कितने लाख बालक अनाथ हो गए, और ना जाने कितनी महिलायें विधवा हो गई |

और ये आज भी निरंतर जारी है, क्या हमें ऐसे किसी के जन्मदिवस पर प्रसन्न होना चाहिए ??

ये किसी की आस्था को चोट पहुचानें के नहीं लिखा गया है, यदि आपकी आस्था है गाँधी में तो हम आपकी भावनाओं का सम्मान करते हैं |




पर उन लाखों-करोड़ों जीवन से ऊपर हम केवल एक मनुष्य को नहीं बैठा सकते |

आप लोगों का क्या कहना है ??

जय हिन्द, जय भारत | |




http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/185072_4286583217064_1832473893_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4286583217064&set=p.4286583217064&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)

[annch]

You acknowledged today as M.K.Gandhi's birthday, and forgot that it is also Lal Bahadur Shashtri's b'day?

आज पाकिस्तान के जनक मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी का जन्मदिवस है, ये वो पाकिस्तान है जिसके कारण आजतक देश में लाखों घर बर्बाद हो गए. ना जाने कितने लाख बालक अनाथ हो गए, और ना जाने कितनी महिलायें विधवा हो गई |

और ये आज भी निरंतर जारी है, क्या हमें ऐसे किसी के जन्मदिवस पर प्रसन्न होना चाहिए ??

ये किसी की आस्था को चोट पहुचानें के नहीं लिखा गया है, यदि आपकी आस्था है गाँधी में तो हम आपकी भावनाओं का सम्मान करते हैं |




पर उन लाखों-करोड़ों जीवन से ऊपर हम केवल एक मनुष्य को नहीं बैठा सकते |

आप लोगों का क्या कहना है ??

जय हिन्द, जय भारत | |






http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s480x480/185072_4286583217064_1832473893_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4286583217064&set=p.4286583217064&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)

[cooljat]

How can you say he forgot?
This thread is about Gandhi so why would he be "Off Topic" by talking about Shastri ji here?


You acknowledged today as M.K.Gandhi's birthday, and forgot that it is also Lal Bahadur Shashtri's b'day?

[annch]

Ok, so is there a new thread on a special mention of Shashtri ji's b'day?

How can you say he forgot?
This thread is about Gandhi so why would he be "Off Topic" by talking about Shastri ji here?

[annch]

Oh wait a minute.....how can there be a thread on Shashtri ji. He is not a jat. Right Jit?

[rajpaldular]

मित्रों ! कल 30 जनवरी है अर्थात "राष्ट्रीय कलंक मुक्ति दिवस". आप लोगों का तो ज्ञात नहीं पर मैं कल मंदिर में जाकर प्रसाद चढाऊंगा।

[rajpaldular]

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"




(अहिंसा सबसे बड़ा धर्म है और धर्म रक्षार्थ हिंसा भी उसी प्रकार श्रेष्ठ है)




Ahimsa Paramo Dharma Dharma himsa tathaiva cha.


(Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma).







भारत में स्वयंभू अहिंसा का पुजारी का ढोंग करने वाला गाँधी हिन्दुओं की सभा में सदैव यही श्लोक पढता था किन्तु हिन्दुओं को कायर रखने के लिए गांधी इस श्लोक को अधूरा ही पढ़ता था जिससे हिन्दुओं का धार्मिक रक्त उबल न पड़े। इसमें कोई संशय नहीं कि अहिंसा बहुत ही स्वीकार्य और महान सोच है परन्तु उसी के साथ हिन्दुओं / सनातनियो को अपने धर्म की रक्षा (राष्ट्र धर्म,मानवता, प्रकृति, कर्त्तव्य रक्षा, समाज रक्षा, गृहस्थ रक्षा अर्थात जितने धार्मिक कर्तव्य हैं ) के आड़े आने वाली प्रत्येक बाधा को समाप्त करने के लिए की गयी आवश्यक हिंसा उतनी ही श्रेष्ठ है। अपने बन्धु-बान्धवों की रक्षा राष्ट्र रक्षा का एक भाग जिसमें यदि हिंसा आवश्यक है तो करना श्रेष्ठ है।

[rajpaldular]

गाँधी और वीर सावरकर के बीच मुलाकात और बातचीत।
ये वीडियो दिखाता है कि महात्मा गाँधी और वीर सावरकर की सोच मे कितने मतभेद थे।
कितना अंतर था इनकी सोच में।
सावरकर हिंदुत्व को संगठित करना चाहते थे कास्ट सिस्टम को तोड़ कर। गाँधी इसके विरुद्ध था।
सावरकर गाँधी को बोलते हैं कि जो लोग धर्म परिवर्तन करके पछता रहे हैं उन्हें पुनः हिंदू धर्म मे लाना चाहिए। गाँधी इसका भी विरोध करता है।

आप ही बताइए इनमें से "महात्मा" कौन था?

भारतीय स्वतन्त्रता आन्दोलन के अग्रिम पंक्ति के सेनानी और प्रखर राष्ट्रवादी नेता विनायक दामोदर सावरकर जी के जन्मदिन पर उनको शत शत नमन |


पूरी बातचीत के लिए वीडियो देखें।




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2QJQ52Utl8
http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQAEB1Y7-hhu9Dj8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Ff2QJQ52Utl8%2 Fhqdefault.jpg%3Ffeature%3Dog&jq=100 (http://www.facebook.com/omnamah11/posts/10200785313690709?ref=notif&notif_t=close_friend_activity)

Savarkar meets Gandhi at Ratnagiri
www.youtube.comVinayak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2QJQ52Utl8) Damodar Savarkar meets Mahatma Gandhi at Ratnagiri. Clip from the movie Veer Savarkar.

[rajpaldular]

नाथूराम गोडसे का अंतिम बयान
{इसे सुनकर अदालत में उपस्थित
सभी लोगों की आँखे नम हो गई
थी और कई तो रोने लगे थे एक जज महोदय ने
अपनी टिप्पणी में लिखा था कि यदि उस
समय अदालत में उपस्थित लोगो को जूरी बनाया जाता और उनसे
निर्णय देने को कहा जाता तो निःसंदेह वे प्रचंड बहुमत से नाथूराम के निर्दोष होने
का निर्देश देते।
नाथूराम ने कोर्ट में कहा --

"सम्मान ,कर्तव्य और अपने देश
वासियों के प्रति प्यार कभी कभी हमे
अहिंसा के सिद्धांत से हटने के लिए
बाध्य कर देता है।
में कभी यह नहीं मान सकता कि किसी आक्रामक का सशस्त्र प्रतिरोध करना कभी गलत अथवा अन्याय
पूर्ण भी हो सकता है।
प्रतिरोध करने और यदि संभव हो तो ऐसे शत्रु को बलपूर्वक वश में
करना, मैं एक धार्मिक और नैतिक कर्तव्य मानता हूँ।
मुसलमान अपनी मनमानी कर रहे
थे या तो कांग्रेस
उनकी इच्छा के सामने आत्मसर्पण कर दे
और उनकी सनक ,मनमानी और आदिम
रवैये के स्वर में स्वर मिलाये अथवा उनके
बिना काम चलाये। वे अकेले ही प्रत्येक
वस्तु और व्यक्ति के निर्णायक थे।
गाँधी अपने लिए जूरी और जज
दोनों था। गाँधी ने मुस्लिमो को प्रसन्न
करने के लिए हिंदी भाषा के सौंदर्य और
सुन्दरता के साथ बलात्कार किया।
गाँधी के सारे प्रयोग केवल और केवल
हिन्दुओ के मूल्य पर किये जाते थे।
जो कांग्रेस अपनी देश भक्ति और
समाज वाद का दंभ भरा करती थी।
उसी ने गुप्त रूप से बन्दूक की नोक पर
'धूम्रलोचन पाकिस्तान' को स्वीकार कर लिया और
जिन्ना के सामने नीचता से आत्मसमर्पण कर दिया। मुस्लिम
तुष्टिकरण की नीति के कारण भारत माता के टुकड़े कर दिए गए।
और 15 अगस्त 1947 के पश्चात देश का एक
तिहाई भाग हमारे लिए ही विदेशी भूमि बन गई।
नेहरु तथा उसकी भीड़ की स्वीकृति के
साथ ही एक धर्म के आधार पर नया देश
बना दिया गया। इसी को वे
बलिदानों द्वारा जीती गई स्वतन्त्रता
कहते हैं किसका बलिदान?
जब कांग्रेस के शीर्ष नेताओं ने गाँधी की
सहमति से इस देश को काट डाला ,जिसे
हम पूजा की वस्तु मानते हैं
तो मेरा मस्तिष्क भयंकर क्रोध से भर
गया। में साहस पूर्वक कहता हूँ
कि गाँधी अपने कर्तव्य में असफल हो गया
उसने स्वयं को पाकिस्तान
का पिता होना सिद्ध किया।
मैं कहता हूँ कि मेरी गोलियाँ एक ऐसे
व्यक्ति पर चलाई गई थी ,जिसकी नीतियों और
कार्यों से करोडो हिन्दुओं को केवल
बर्बादी और विनाश ही मिला ऐसी कोई
क़ानूनी प्रक्रिया नहीं थी जिसके
द्वारा उस अपराधी को दंड दिया
जा सके इसलिये मैंने इस घातक मार्ग का अनुसरण किया।
मैं अपने लिए क्षमा की प्रार्थना नहीं करूँगा। जो मैंने
किया उस पर मुझे गर्व है।. मुझे कोई सन्देह
नहीं है कि इतिहास के निष्ठावान लेखक
मेरे कार्य का भार तौल कर भविष्य में
किसी दिन इसका सही मूल्याँकन करेंगे।
जब तक सिन्धु नदी भारत के ध्वज के
नीचे से ना बहे तब तक
मेरी अस्थियों का विसर्जन मत करना।"

[rajpaldular]

गाँधी का पाखंड और तानाशाही

"सादा जीवन उच्च विचार" का दम भरने वाले मूर्खात्मा गाँधी वास्तव में पाखंड और तानाशाही की मिसाल थे. उनके पाखंड के एक नहीं अनेक उदाहरण दिए जा सकते हैं. कभी गाय को पवित्र मानने वाले गाँधी ने किसी मूर्ख आदमी के कहने पर दूध एकदम छोड़ दिया था और जिंदगी भर दूध न पीने का संकल्प किया था. लेकिन जब इसके बिना काम न चला तो गाय या भैंस की जगह बकरी का दूध पीना शुरू कर दिया. यह पाखंड नहीं तो क्या है? अगर दूध ही पीना था तो अत्यंत गुणकारी गोदुग्ध पीना चाहिए था.
इसी तरह वे गरीबी में रहने का पाखंड करते थे. वे गरीबों की तरह रेल में तीसरी श्रेणी में यात्रा करते थे. लेकिन उनके लिए उनके चेले पूरा डिब्बे पर कब्ज़ा कर लेते थे. इस गुंडागर्दी का गाँधी विरोध नहीं करते थे और यह मान लेते थे कि उनके लिए जनता ने खुद डिब्बा खाली छोड़ दिया है. वे बकरी का दूध पीते थे, इसलिए हर जगह बकरी उनके साथ ही जाती थी. वे इस बात की चिंता नहीं करते थे कि इस पर कितना खर्च होगा. सरोजिनी नायडू ने एक बार स्पष्ट स्वीकार किया था कि गाँधी को गरीब बनाये रखने में हमें बहुत धन खर्च करना पड़ता है.
स्वभाव से गाँधी अधिनायकवादी थे. अपनी बात किसी भी प्रकार से सबसे मनवा लेते थे. उनके इस तानाशाही स्वभाव को देखकर ही एक बार किसी विदेशी विद्वान ने कहा था कि यदि इस आदमी के हाथ में कभी सत्ता आई, तो यह इतिहास का सबसे नृशंस और निकृष्ट तानाशाह सिद्ध होगा. गाँधी की इस प्रवृति का स्वाद कांग्रेस के कार्यकर्ताओं और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के सेनानियों को बार-बार चखना पड़ता था. हर आन्दोलन को वे चरम पर पहुँचने के बाद भी उद्देश्य पूरा होने से पहले ही वापस ले लेते थे. इसी कारण कांग्रेस द्वारा चलाये गए सारे आन्दोलन बुरी तरह असफल रहे.
एक बार कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष पद के चुनाव में नेताजी सुभाषचंद्र बोस भारी बहुमत से जीत गए और गाँधी के उम्मीदवार प. सीतारामैय्या बुरी तरह हार गए. गाँधी इस हार को नहीं पचा सके. उन्होंने इसे व्यक्तिगत हार माना और नेताजी के प्रति असहयोग का रवैय्या अपना लिया. उनके चमचे कई नेताओं जैसे नेहरु, आजाद आदि ने भी ऐसा ही किया. मजबूर होकर नेताजी को अध्यक्ष पद से त्यागपत्र देना पड़ा और वे कांग्रेस को भी छोड़ गए. गाँधी की तानाशाही इस घटना से सबके सामने नंगी हो गयी.

[rekhasmriti]

"मूर्ख आदमी के कहने पर दूध एकदम छोड़ दिया था और जिंदगी भर दूध न पीने का संकल्प किया था , अगर दूध ही पीना था तो अत्यंत गुणकारी गोदुग्ध पीना चाहिए था."

As per me , this is personal choice . Also , Milk is boon for kids not for adults .some lactose intolerance thing .

"लेकिन उनके लिए उनके चेले पूरा डिब्बे पर कब्ज़ा कर लेते थे. इस गुंडागर्दी का गाँधी विरोध नहीं करते थे और यह मान लेते थे कि उनके लिए जनता ने खुद डिब्बा खाली छोड़ दिया है"
N how can we say so , some assumption or different view point .

" सरोजिनी नायडू ने एक बार स्पष्ट स्वीकार किया था कि गाँधी को गरीब बनाये रखने में हमें बहुत धन खर्च करना पड़ता है."
Well this is good fact by Sarojini against Gandhi , how some anti congress has not use this fact yet .( if this is fact )

"तो यह इतिहास का सबसे नृशंस और निकृष्ट तानाशाह सिद्ध होगा"
Now this is new , somebody who had used non violence thing -----could be a Brutal ruler .

A leader is one who has followers , n Gandhi had big mass of followers . There could be 2 reasons for this 1- Either he had some charisma that no one could escape or 2- Followers were blind ....dhhhhh just following with no reason ...,Possible hai " One eyed man rules the kingdom of blind people -kuch aise hi ek quote hai "

"चुनाव में नेताजी सुभाषचंद्र बोस भारी बहुमत से जीत गए"
Even I heard something like that , as per the version I had heard . Kuch tha , n majority had nominated Neta ji's name . Then Gandhi ji wrote something on a piece of paper n handed over to Neta ji - he read it n withdraw his nomination .
Ab usmie kya likha tha , no body knew just 2 people Gandhi ji and Neta ji .

We all know there were 2 groups Moderates and extremists . No one was better or worse just different ways . People as per their choice opted either of the group .

[DrRajpalSingh]

गाँधी का पाखंड और तानाशाही

"सादा जीवन उच्च विचार" का दम भरने वाले मूर्खात्मा गाँधी वास्तव में पाखंड और तानाशाही की मिसाल थे. उनके पाखंड के एक नहीं अनेक उदाहरण दिए जा सकते हैं. कभी गाय को पवित्र मानने वाले गाँधी ने किसी मूर्ख आदमी के कहने पर दूध एकदम छोड़ दिया था और जिंदगी भर दूध न पीने का संकल्प किया था. लेकिन जब इसके बिना काम न चला तो गाय या भैंस की जगह बकरी का दूध पीना शुरू कर दिया. यह पाखंड नहीं तो क्या है? अगर दूध ही पीना था तो अत्यंत गुणकारी गोदुग्ध पीना चाहिए था.
इसी तरह वे गरीबी में रहने का पाखंड करते थे. वे गरीबों की तरह रेल में तीसरी श्रेणी में यात्रा करते थे. लेकिन उनके लिए उनके चेले पूरा डिब्बे पर कब्ज़ा कर लेते थे. इस गुंडागर्दी का गाँधी विरोध नहीं करते थे और यह मान लेते थे कि उनके लिए जनता ने खुद डिब्बा खाली छोड़ दिया है. वे बकरी का दूध पीते थे, इसलिए हर जगह बकरी उनके साथ ही जाती थी. वे इस बात की चिंता नहीं करते थे कि इस पर कितना खर्च होगा. सरोजिनी नायडू ने एक बार स्पष्ट स्वीकार किया था कि गाँधी को गरीब बनाये रखने में हमें बहुत धन खर्च करना पड़ता है.
स्वभाव से गाँधी अधिनायकवादी थे. अपनी बात किसी भी प्रकार से सबसे मनवा लेते थे. उनके इस तानाशाही स्वभाव को देखकर ही एक बार किसी विदेशी विद्वान ने कहा था कि यदि इस आदमी के हाथ में कभी सत्ता आई, तो यह इतिहास का सबसे नृशंस और निकृष्ट तानाशाह सिद्ध होगा. गाँधी की इस प्रवृति का स्वाद कांग्रेस के कार्यकर्ताओं और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम के सेनानियों को बार-बार चखना पड़ता था. हर आन्दोलन को वे चरम पर पहुँचने के बाद भी उद्देश्य पूरा होने से पहले ही वापस ले लेते थे. इसी कारण कांग्रेस द्वारा चलाये गए सारे आन्दोलन बुरी तरह असफल रहे.
एक बार कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष पद के चुनाव में नेताजी सुभाषचंद्र बोस भारी बहुमत से जीत गए और गाँधी के उम्मीदवार प. सीतारामैय्या बुरी तरह हार गए. गाँधी इस हार को नहीं पचा सके. उन्होंने इसे व्यक्तिगत हार माना और नेताजी के प्रति असहयोग का रवैय्या अपना लिया. उनके चमचे कई नेताओं जैसे नेहरु, आजाद आदि ने भी ऐसा ही किया. मजबूर होकर नेताजी को अध्यक्ष पद से त्यागपत्र देना पड़ा और वे कांग्रेस को भी छोड़ गए. गाँधी की तानाशाही इस घटना से सबके सामने नंगी हो गयी.

In spite of his many a human failings and error of judgement, he was a great man.

That is why, Netaji Subhash chandra Bose was the first to address him as the Father of the Nation.

[DrRajpalSingh]

.................................................. ...
"चुनाव में नेताजी सुभाषचंद्र बोस भारी बहुमत से जीत गए"
Even I heard something like that , as per the version I had heard . Kuch tha , n majority had nominated Neta ji's name . Then Gandhi ji wrote something on a piece of paper n handed over to Neta ji - he read it n withdraw his nomination .
Ab usmie kya likha tha , no body knew just 2 people Gandhi ji and Neta ji ............ .

This is to update you that the election was held and Netaji defeated P Sitaramayya, the nominee sponsored by Mahatma Gandhi with a big margin.

This is also on record that Mahatma Gandhi and his closest group members in the party did not co operate with Netaji S C Bose,duly elected President of All India Congress for the second time at Haripura Congress Session.

[dharmendra16]

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.



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.I agree with author that both parties be equally whether they are from Garam dal or Naram dal.As a matter of fact Garam dal gave more sacrifices & deserve more respect.dharmendra16

[malikdeepak1]

Bhai "dharmendra16", aapki har post ka title "Clean train coach by sms. " hi hota hai. Bhai train na clean rahi, aur na clean hovengi. Baki chutkule ke roop me ye baat thik hai ;)

[ravinderjeet]

Bhai "dharmendra16", aapki har post ka title "Clean train coach by sms. " hi hota hai. Bhai train na clean rahi, aur na clean hovengi. Baki chutkule ke roop me ye baat thik hai ;)

यु ठेकेदार होगा ! डब्बे साफ़ करवान आला ।

[rajpaldular]

मैंने कहीं पठन किया था कि अँग्रेजों ने गाँधी को ट्रेन के डब्बे से उठाकर बाहर फेंक दिया था।


काश यदि गाँधी का उसी समय "राम नाम सत्य" हो गया होता तो:-
इंदिरा गाँधी नही होती।
फिरोज गाँधी नही होता।
राजीव गाँधी नही होता।
सोनिया गाँधी नही होती।
भोंदू राहुल गाँधी नही होता।
किन्तु भारत विश्वगुरु अवश्य बन गया होता।

[ravinderjeet]

ये है गाँधी का असली चेहरा...........

23 मार्च 1931 को शहीद-ए-आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी के तख्ते पर ले जाने वाला पहला जिम्मेवार सोहनलाल वोहरा हिन्दू की गवाही थी ।
यही गवाह बाद में इंग्लैण्ड भाग गया और वहीं पर मरा । शहीदे आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी दिए जाने पर अहिंसा के महान पुजारी गांधी ने कहा था, ‘‘हमें ब्रिटेन के
विनाश के बदले अपनी आजादी नहीं चाहिए ।’’ और आगे कहा, ‘‘भगतसिंह की पूजा से देशको बहुत हानि हुई और हो रही है ।
वहीं इसका परिणाम गुंडागर्दी का पतन है । फांसी शीघ्र दे दी जाए ताकि 30 मार्च सेकरांची में होने वाले कांग्रेस अधिवेशन में कोई
बाधा न आवे ।” अर्थात् गांधी की परिभाषा में किसी को फांसी देना हिंसा नहीं थी ।

इसी प्रकार एक ओर महान् क्रान्तिकारी जतिनदास को जो आगरा में अंग्रेजों ने शहीद किया तो गांधी आगरामें ही थे और जब गांधी को उनके पार्थिक शरीर पर माला चढ़ाने को कहा गया तो उन्होंने साफ इनकार कर दिया अर्थात् उस नौजवान द्वारा खुद को देश के लिए कुर्बान करने पर भी गांधी के दिल में किसी प्रकार की दया और सहानुभूति नहीं उपजी, ऐसे थे हमारे अहिंसावादी गांधी ।

जब सन् 1937 में कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष के लिए नेताजी सुभाष और गांधी द्वारा मनोनीत सीताभिरमैया के मध्य मुकाबला हुआ तो गांधी ने कहा यदि रमैया चुनाव हार गया तो वे राजनीति छोड़ देंगे लेकिन उन्होंने अपने मरने तक राजनीति नहीं छोड़ी जबकि रमैया चुनाव हार गए थे।

इसी प्रकार गांधी ने कहा था, “पाकिस्तान उनकी लाश पर बनेगा” लेकिन पाकिस्तान उनके समर्थन से ही बना । ऐसे थे हमारे सत्यवादी गांधी । इससे भी बढ़कर गांधी और कांग्रेस ने दूसरे विश्वयुद्ध में अंग्रेजों का समर्थन किया तो फिर क्या लड़ाई में हिंसा थी या लड्डू बंटरहे थे ?

पाठक स्वयं बतलाएं ? गांधी ने अपने जीवन में तीन आन्दोलन (सत्याग्रहद्) चलाए और तीनों को ही बीच में वापिस ले लिया गया फिर भी लोग कहते हैं कि आजादी गांधी ने दिलवाई ।

इससे भी बढ़कर जब देश के महान सपूत उधमसिंहने इंग्लैण्ड में माईकल डायर को मारा तो गांधी ने उन्हें पागल कहा इसलिए नीरद चौ० ने गांधी को दुनियां का सबसे बड़ा सफल पाखण्डी लिखा है ।

इस आजादी के बारे में इतिहासकार सी. आर. मजूमदार लिखते हैं –
“भारत की आजादी का सेहरा गांधी के सिर बांधना सच्चाई से मजाक होगा । यह कहना उसने सत्याग्रह व चरखे से आजादी दिलाई बहुत बड़ी मूर्खता होगी । इसलिए गांधी को आजादी का ‘हीरो’ कहना उन सभी क्रान्तिकारियोंका अपमान है जिन्होंने देश की आजादी के लिए अपना खून
बहाया ।”

[rajpaldular]

देश में एक गीत बहुत अधिक गाया जाता है "दे दी हमें आजादी बिना खड़ग बिना ढ़ाल साबरमती के सन्त तूने कर दिया कमाल।"


अब कोई ये बताये कि जिस देश ने 1830 का संथाल, 1839 का कूका आन्दोलन, 1838 का भील आन्दोलन, सिख आन्दोलन, नागा साधू आन्दोलन में 4 करोड़ भारतीय हुतात्मा (शहीद) हुए। उसके बाद देश के इतिहास में महान प्रथम स्वतंत्रता संग्राम हुए जिसमें 1 करोड़ 70 लाख भारतीयों ने मातृभूमि के लिए प्राण न्यौछावर किये, देश में 7 लाख क्रान्तिकारियों जिनमे भगत सिंह, अशफाक उल्लाह खान, बटुकेश्वर दत्त, राजगुरु, सुखदेव, राम प्रसाद बिस्मिल, चंद्रशेखर आजाद, राजेंदर लाहिरी, जतिन दस, रोशन लाल, भगवती चरण वोहरा, दुर्गा भाभी ने देश की स्वाधीनता के लिए अपने प्राण न्यौछावर कर दिए।


क्या देश इतने सारे बलिदान भूल गया?????????????????

[amitd]

The things about Gandhi I do not like - apni aulad ko kabhi acchi tarah pala nahi kabhi dyan nahee diya. apna naam kamane ke liye
second him doing his so called "brahmacharya experiments" sleeping naked with other women including his niece and he continued to do this even after sardar patel and others asked him to stop this.
what did he do for jats?
him fighting at times for muslims
I dont think hindus could have lived alongside with them so many muslims in peace. look at Pakistan now.

[rekhasmriti]

Welcome Aboard Amit .

Regards,

[cooljat]

.

Details that continue to emerge (http://news.oneindia.in/india/did-asaram-bapus-aides-supply-him-girls-and-women-1299376.html) about Asaram’s past indicate that he not only sexually abused and raped other women, but that he regarded the women in his ashram as his sexual ‘toys.’ Gandhi on the other hand would have among the younger of his female followers, some in their late teens, sleep naked with him, in his bed, at night. He claimed that was his way of testing his ‘power’ of abstinence. More shockingly, this was open knowledge not just among his followers, but among everyone who came in contact with him—his large fan following of politicians, activists, philosophers, and journalists—both from Indian and abroad. While having the girls and women sleep naked with him was in and of itself a form of sexual abuse – a privilege Gandhi exercised because of his position and stature, what actually took place in his bed remains hidden, because the women were sworn to secrecy. Non-the-less studying the behavior and responses of the women around him, and examining excerpts from some of their diaries, there are clear indications of sexual manipulation and exploitation. [See below an excerpt from my book ‘Sex and Power.’]

http://genderbytes.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/gandhi-to-asaram-who-empowers-the-sex-crimes-of-gurus/

[sandeepnehra86]

I agree with you,gandhi is the only person who want nehru as our PM ,even congress party members also dont want nehru as pm but one person mr. gandhi want him and he became our first PM,from that point of time we are suffering from congress party's decisions and there work.
e.g.:-
1.Reservation,
22Mid day meal,
3.Education fee and other reimbursement for St/Sc/Bc and other reserved class people,They get 50 thousand Rs per Annam during the Engineering education and they pay only 15000/- as fee so net income of a student is Rs 35000/-,student income,not expenses.General Category student pay for his books,tution,And annual fee is Rs 125000/-,total expenses per annam is more than 170000/-,so net diff is 205000/-.and they are poor people.Unka soshan hota ha.
4.2 G ghotala
5.chara ghotala,
6.Koyala ghotala,etc etc ghotala,jo mila wahi kha gaye,bandwidth tak nhi chode inho ne.
7.Bahar ki mahila Raj kar rahi hum par phir sa bas diff. ya ha pahle hum jabardaste sa gulam tha aaj hum apni marji sa mulam ha,adat ho gayi ha hamme gulami karne ki.
sab gandhi ki daane ha or hum kahte ha baapu unha.
The joke of the country

[rajpaldular]

गाँधी ने अपने पुरे जीवन में एक काम पूरी ईमानदारी से किया था :-
और वो काम था हम भारतियों को अहिंसक बना कर अंग्रेजों के हाथो मरवाने का ||

60 हज़ार अंग्रेजों ने 13 लाख से ज्यादा भारतियों को इसी अहिंसा के चलते चुन चुन कर मार दिया था और इसी अहिंसा के चलते गाँधी ने कहा था भले ही पाकिस्तान से हमारे हिन्दुओं की कितनी भी लाशें ट्रेनों में भरकर आये भारत में एक भी मुसलमान की लाश नहीं गिरनी चाहिएं तब 7.5 लाख हिन्दू अहिंसा की भेट चढ़ गए | इसी अहिंसा के चलते गांधी ने दिल्ली की मस्जिदों में शरण लिए हुए पाकिस्तान से आये हिन्दू सिख भाइयों को पुलिस से लाठियां खिलवा कर बाहर फिकवा दिया था क्योकि गाँधी का कहना था पकिस्तान अब मुसलमानों का है वहां के मंदिर टूटते है तो टूट जाए मगर भारत की मस्जिदों पर हिन्दुओं का तावा (अधिकार) नहीं रहना चाहिए ||

दे दी हमें बर्बादी बिना खडग बिना ढाल साबरमती के कंस तूने कर दिया कमाल ||

[rajpaldular]

कल का न्यूज़ पेपर जब आप पढेंगे तो उसमे केवल और केवल गाँधी ही दृष्टिगोचर होगा। , लाल बहादुर शास्त्री जी को एक कोने में स्थान दिया जायेगा।

और शास्त्री जी के साथ कैसा व्यवहार है कांग्रेस का?


अब तो हमारे पास सोशल मीडिया है और हम किसी भी न्यूज़ के लिए बिकाऊ मीडिया के मोहताज़ नहीं हैं।


तो आओ मनाये केवल और केवल लाल बहादुर शास्त्री जयंती।


गाँधी के लिए आप चिंता ना करें उसके लिए कांग्रेस पार्टी है ना।


देखते है आप कितना साथ देते हैं?


जय जवान जय किसान।

[rajpaldular]

इतिहास का एक पन्ना जिसे हटा दिया गया है !!!!!


गाँधी को गोखले दक्षिणी अफ्रीका से भारत ले कर आये थे, गोखले जो ब्रिटिश सरकार के सलाहकार थे , अपने बाद गाँधी को उतराधिकारी बनाना चाहते थे ,( $ गाँधी ने भारत आने से पूर्व में ब्रिटिश की और से ज़ुल्लू , बोअर्स और इंग्लैंड में प्रथम महायुद्ध में भाग ले कर अपनी स्वामी भक्ति ब्रिटिश सरकार और क्राउन के प्रति अपनी निष्ठा बार बार व्यक्त कर चुके थे $) , ब्रिटिश सरकार नहीं चाहती थी कि तिलक के बाद सावरकर उनके उतराधिकारी बने , इसीलिए तिलक और सावरकर को मांडले और कालेपानी (अंडमान) भेजा ताकि गाँधी अपने पाँव भारत में जमा सके l
($) इस लेख के कोष्टक के अंश गाँधी जी की पुस्तक सच से साक्षात्कार पर आधारित है l

[rajpaldular]

23 मार्च 1931 को शहीद-ए-आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी के तख्ते पर ले जाने वाला पहला जिम्मेवार सोहनलाल वोहरा हिन्दू की गवाही थी ।
यही गवाह बाद में इंग्लैण्ड भाग गया और वहीं पर मरा । शहीदे आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी दिए जाने पर अहिंसा के महान पुजारी गांधी ने कहा था, ‘‘हमें ब्रिटेन के विनाश के बदले अपनी आजादी नहीं चाहिए ।’’ और आगे कहा, ‘‘भगतसिंह की पूजा से देश को बहुत हानि हुई और हो रही है । वहीं इसका परिणाम गुंडागर्दी का पतन है । फांसी शीघ्र दे दी जाए ताकि 30 मार्च से करांची में होने वाले कांग्रेस अधिवेशन में कोई बाधा न आवे ।”
अर्थात् गांधी की परिभाषा में किसी को फांसी देना हिंसा नहीं थी । इसी प्रकार एक ओर महान् क्रान्तिकारी जतिनदास को जो आगरा में अंग्रेजों ने शहीद किया तो गांधी आगरा में ही थे और जब गांधी को उनके पार्थिक शरीर पर माला चढ़ाने को कहा गया तो उन्होंने साफ इनकार कर दिया अर्थात् उस नौजवान द्वारा खुद को देश के लिए कुर्बान करने पर भी गांधी के दिल में किसी प्रकार की दया और सहानुभूति नहीं उपजी, ऐसे थे हमारे अहिंसावादी गांधी । जब सन् 1937 में कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष के लिए नेताजी सुभाष और गांधी द्वारा मनोनीत सीताभिरमैया के मध्य मुकाबला हुआ तो गांधी ने कहा यदि रमैया चुनाव हार गया तो वे राजनीति छोड़ देंगे लेकिन उन्होंने अपने मरने तक राजनीति नहीं छोड़ी जबकि रमैया चुनाव हार गए थे।
इसी प्रकार गांधी ने कहा था, “पाकिस्तान उनकी लाश पर बनेगा” लेकिन पाकिस्तान उनके समर्थन से ही बना । ऐसे थे हमारे सत्यवादी गांधी । इससे भी बढ़कर गांधी और कांग्रेस ने दूसरे विश्वयुद्ध में अंग्रेजों का समर्थन किया तो फिर क्या लड़ाई में हिंसा थी या लड्डू बंट रहे थे ? पाठक स्वयं बतलाएं ? गांधी ने अपने जीवन में तीन आन्दोलन (सत्याग्रहद्) चलाए और तीनों को ही बीच में वापिस ले लिया गया फिर भी लोग कहते हैं कि आजादी गांधी ने दिलवाई ।इससे भी बढ़कर जब देश के महान सपूत उधमसिंह ने इंग्लैण्ड में माईकल डायर को मारा तो गांधी ने उन्हें पागल कहा इसलिए नीरद चौ० ने गांधी को दुनियां का सबसे बड़ा सफल पाखण्डी लिखा है । इस आजादी के बारे में इतिहासकार सी. आर. मजूमदार लिखते हैं – “भारत की आजादी का सेहरा गांधी के सिर बांधना सच्चाई से मजाक होगा । यह कहना उसने सत्याग्रह व चरखे से आजादी दिलाई बहुत बड़ी मूर्खता होगी । इसलिए गांधी को आजादी का ‘हीरो’ कहना उन सभी क्रान्तिकारियों का अपमान है जिन्होंने देश की आजादी के लिए अपना खून बहाया ।” यदि चरखों की आजादी की रक्षा सम्भव होती है तो बार्डर पर टैंकों की जगह चरखे क्यों नहीं रखवा दिए जाते ...........??

[DrRajpalSingh]

23 मार्च 1931 को शहीद-ए-आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी के तख्ते पर ले जाने वाला पहला जिम्मेवार सोहनलाल वोहरा हिन्दू की गवाही थी ।
यही गवाह बाद में इंग्लैण्ड भाग गया और वहीं पर मरा । शहीदे आजम भगतसिंह को फांसी दिए जाने पर अहिंसा के महान पुजारी गांधी ने कहा था, ‘‘हमें ब्रिटेन के विनाश के बदले अपनी आजादी नहीं चाहिए ।’’ और आगे कहा, ‘‘भगतसिंह की पूजा से देश को बहुत हानि हुई और हो रही है । वहीं इसका परिणाम गुंडागर्दी का पतन है । फांसी शीघ्र दे दी जाए ताकि 30 मार्च से करांची में होने वाले कांग्रेस अधिवेशन में कोई बाधा न आवे ।”
अर्थात् गांधी की परिभाषा में किसी को फांसी देना हिंसा नहीं थी । इसी प्रकार एक ओर महान् क्रान्तिकारी जतिनदास को जो आगरा में अंग्रेजों ने शहीद किया तो गांधी आगरा में ही थे और जब गांधी को उनके पार्थिक शरीर पर माला चढ़ाने को कहा गया तो उन्होंने साफ इनकार कर दिया अर्थात् उस नौजवान द्वारा खुद को देश के लिए कुर्बान करने पर भी गांधी के दिल में किसी प्रकार की दया और सहानुभूति नहीं उपजी, ऐसे थे हमारे अहिंसावादी गांधी । जब सन् 1937 में कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष के लिए नेताजी सुभाष और गांधी द्वारा मनोनीत सीताभिरमैया के मध्य मुकाबला हुआ तो गांधी ने कहा यदि रमैया चुनाव हार गया तो वे राजनीति छोड़ देंगे लेकिन उन्होंने अपने मरने तक राजनीति नहीं छोड़ी जबकि रमैया चुनाव हार गए थे।
इसी प्रकार गांधी ने कहा था, “पाकिस्तान उनकी लाश पर बनेगा” लेकिन पाकिस्तान उनके समर्थन से ही बना । ऐसे थे हमारे सत्यवादी गांधी । इससे भी बढ़कर गांधी और कांग्रेस ने दूसरे विश्वयुद्ध में अंग्रेजों का समर्थन किया तो फिर क्या लड़ाई में हिंसा थी या लड्डू बंट रहे थे ? पाठक स्वयं बतलाएं ? गांधी ने अपने जीवन में तीन आन्दोलन (सत्याग्रहद्) चलाए और तीनों को ही बीच में वापिस ले लिया गया फिर भी लोग कहते हैं कि आजादी गांधी ने दिलवाई ।इससे भी बढ़कर जब देश के महान सपूत उधमसिंह ने इंग्लैण्ड में माईकल डायर को मारा तो गांधी ने उन्हें पागल कहा इसलिए नीरद चौ० ने गांधी को दुनियां का सबसे बड़ा सफल पाखण्डी लिखा है । इस आजादी के बारे में इतिहासकार सी. आर. मजूमदार लिखते हैं – “भारत की आजादी का सेहरा गांधी के सिर बांधना सच्चाई से मजाक होगा । यह कहना उसने सत्याग्रह व चरखे से आजादी दिलाई बहुत बड़ी मूर्खता होगी । इसलिए गांधी को आजादी का ‘हीरो’ कहना उन सभी क्रान्तिकारियों का अपमान है जिन्होंने देश की आजादी के लिए अपना खून बहाया ।” यदि चरखों की आजादी की रक्षा सम्भव होती है तो बार्डर पर टैंकों की जगह चरखे क्यों नहीं रखवा दिए जाते ...........??

Friend,

Let history remain history as it is rightly called double edged sword. So twisting of history to suit oneself is as dangerous as not reporting the facts. There is enough space which could be rightly allotted to the Revolutionaries and Moderates both in the history of India. Leaders of both the streams played their sterling roles by treading on their chosen path to achieve the same goal i.e. liberating India from the fetters of the British imperialism. Criticism of one or the other shade of leaders by selecting quotes/half quotes and out of reference talks must be avoided as much as possible.

For example I cite two three quotes from your post to prove the twisting of history.

This is wrong to say that Gandhiji on the court case against Shahid-i-Azam had pleaded with the British that :" फांसी शीघ्र दे दी जाए ताकि 30 मार्च से करांची में होने वाले कांग्रेस अधिवेशन में कोई बाधा न आवे ।”

Kindly see Gandhi-Irwin correspondence on the issue where Gandhiji pleaded with the Governor General-cum-Viceroy to Postpone decision on the issue at least till the time the All India Congress Session at Karachi was held, otherwise, he expressed the fear that the black shadow of the decision would caste its spell on the proceedings of the meeting.

Rather Gandhiji on learning about announcement of the Government decision was taken aback as he believed that the British will not disappoint him.

Contrary to your saying, the Congress did not cooperate or join war efforts of the British during World War II.

Regards and thanks


Note:C R Majumdar--who ? Kindly name the book and its full reference about author, C R Majumdar, from which you have taken last quote of the post on AAZADI so that cross check of the statement could be made .

[rajpaldular]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s403x403/1381665_518866474871512_1464273640_n.jpg

[rajpaldular]

कांग्रेस ने गांधी को सम्मान देने के लिए चरखे वाले ध्वज को राष्ट्रीय ध्वज बनाया। प्रत्येक अधिवेशन मेँ प्रचुर मात्रा मेँ ये ध्वज लगाये जाते थे । इस ध्वज के साथ कांग्रेस का अति घनिष्ट सम्बन्ध था। नोआख्याली के 1946 के दंगोँ के बाद वह ध्वज गांधी की कुटिया पर भी लहरा रहा था, परन्तु जब एक मुसलमान को ध्वज के लहराने पर आपत्ति हुई तो गांधी ने तत्काल उसे उतरवा दिया। इस प्रकार लाखोँ - करोडोँ देशवासियोँ की इस ध्वज के प्रति श्रद्धा को गांधी ने अपमानित किया। केवल इसलिए की ध्वज को उतारने से एक मुसलमान खुश होता थ!

[rajpaldular]

घुपति राघव राजा राम इस भजन का नाम है.."राम धुन" जो कि बेहद लोकप्रिय भजन था.. महात्मा गाँधी ने इस में परिवर्तन करते हुए अल्लाह शब्द जोड़ दिया..
आप भी नीचे देख लीजिए..असली भजन और महात्मा गाँधी द्वारा बेहद चालाकी से किया गया परिवर्तन.. महात्मा गाँधी का भजन रघुपति राघव राजाराम,
पतित पावन सीताराम
सीताराम सीताराम,
भज प्यारे तू सीताराम
ईश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम,
सब को सन्मति दे भगवान
*असली राम धुन भजन
रघुपति राघव राजाराम
पतित पावन सीताराम
सुंदर विग्रह मेघश्याम गंगा तुलसी शालग्राम भद्रगिरीश्वर सीताराम भगत-जनप्रिय सीताराम जानकीरमणा सीताराम
जयजय राघव सीताराम
अब सवाल ये उठता है, की मोहन दास करमचंद गाँधी को ये अधिकार किसने दिया की हमारे हिंदुत्व पर उंगली उठा दे.. हमारे श्री राम को सुमिरन करने के भजन में ही अल्लाह को घुसा दे.. क्या वो खुद को ही भगवान समझता था? या भगवान से भी उपर..?
अल्लाह का हमसे क्या संबंध? क्या अब हिंदू अपने ईष्ट देव का ध्यान भी अपनी मर्ज़ी से नही ले सकता..? क्या ज़रूरत थी अल्लाह को हमारे भजन के बीच में घुसाने की???
कितना नीच एवं कलंकित कार्य किया..इस व्यक्ति ने.. अगर आज ये जिंदा होता तो हमारे क्रोध का शिकार हो गया होता।
और जिस भी व्यक्ति को हमारी बात से कष्ट हुआ हो..वो इसी भजन को अल्लाह शब्द वाला संस्करण ज़रा किसी मस्जिद मे चलवा कर दिखा दे.. फिर हमसे कोई
गीला शिकवा करे ।
मज़ाक बना के रख दिया है..मेरे धर्म का इन कलयुग के राक्षस रूपी पाप आत्माओं ने। अब और नही सहा जाएगा.
क्या आप सह पाएँगे?

[Fateh]

Friend,

Let history remain history as it is rightly called double edged sword. So twisting of history to suit oneself is as dangerous as not reporting the facts. There is enough space which could be rightly allotted to the Revolutionaries and Moderates both in the history of India. Leaders of both the streams played their sterling roles by treading on their chosen path to achieve the same goal i.e. liberating India from the fetters of the British imperialism. Criticism of one or the other shade of leaders by selecting quotes/half quotes and out of reference talks must be avoided as much as possible.

For example I cite two three quotes from your post to prove the twisting of history.

This is wrong to say that Gandhiji on the court case against Shahid-i-Azam had pleaded with the British that :" फांसी शीघ्र दे दी जाए ताकि 30 मार्च से करांची में होने वाले कांग्रेस अधिवेशन में कोई बाधा न आवे ।”

Kindly see Gandhi-Irwin correspondence on the issue where Gandhiji pleaded with the Governor General-cum-Viceroy to Postpone decision on the issue at least till the time the All India Congress Session at Karachi was held, otherwise, he expressed the fear that the black shadow of the decision would caste its spell on the proceedings of the meeting.

Rather Gandhiji on learning about announcement of the Government decision was taken aback as he believed that the British will not disappoint him.

Contrary to your saying, the Congress did not cooperate or join war efforts of the British during World War II.

Regards and thanks


Note:C R Majumdar--who ? Kindly name the book and its full reference about author, C R Majumdar, from which you have taken last quote of the post on AAZADI so that cross check of the statement could be made .



Dr sahab, you being historian, you must be knowing that our history of efforts of independence was totally changed by nehru, secondly every body knows that gandhi always sided britishers, what ever rajpaldular has written, is correct and gandhi desrve much more blame, neither he was a good person nor a leader, many old people in gujarat say that he was son of Muslim and supported a mu-gal nehru. but nothing can be done at this stage, except bringing truth in front of people

[rajpaldular]

अच्छा होता कि मोहनदास करमचंद गाँधी की विरासत का सम्यक मूल्यांकन करके उन के विचार व कर्म से दूध और पानी अलग कर के लाभ उठाया जाता। तब उन के महान कार्यों के साथ-साथ भयंकर गलतियों से भी सीख ले कर हम आगे बढ़ सकते थे।
क्या आपने कभी नोट किया है कि कश्मीर, पंजाब और बंगाल में गाँधी को चाहने वाले दीपक लेकर खोजने से भी शायद ही मिलें! क्यों?गाँधी का जयकारा वहीं होता है जहाँ जयकारे करने वाला बुद्धिजीवी, नेता या प्रवचनकर्ता मजे से शांति, सुरक्षा के वातावरण में रह रहा हो।मुसलमान तो कभी इस भ्रम में पड़ नहीं सकते। उदार, सज्जन मुसलमान भी। क्योंकिउन का मजहब यह सब मानने की इजाजत ही नहीं देता। रुशदी से लेकर तसलीमा तक किसी का हश्र देख लीजिए। निरी उपेक्षा के रूप में अपने निवर्तमान राष्ट्रपति कलाम का भी हाल देखें। उन्हें कौन मुसलमान पूछता है!सेक्यूलरिज्म की राजनीति अंततः हिन्दू-विरोध की राजनीति का ही दूसरा नाम बन गई। सेक्यूलरिज्म की राजनीति अथवा गाँधीगिरी केवल हिन्दू जनता के बीच की जाती है। मुस्लिम जनता के बीच हरेक दल इस्लाम-परस्ती की ही प्रतियोगिता करता है, ताकि वोट मिलें। यही वोट-बैंक की राजनीति या सेक्यूलर राजनीति है।
भारत में वोट-बैंक राजनीति की लालसा के पहले शिकार मोहनदास करमचंद गाँधी थे। तुर्की के खलीफा की सत्ता बचाने के लिए हुए ‘खिलाफत जिहाद’ (एनी बेसेंट के शब्द) में भारतीय मुस्लिमों ने जबर्दस्त भागीदारी की। यह सन् 1916-20 की बात है। गाँधी उस संगठित, विशाल संख्या से मोहित हो गए। तुर्की में खलीफा रहे या जाए, इस से भारतीय हितों का दूर से भी संबंध न था। अतः खिलाफत नेताओं को भी कांग्रेस समर्थन की अपेक्षा न थी। दोनों की दो दिशा थी। एक तुर्की के लिए विश्व-इस्लामी आंदोलन था। जबकि कांग्रेस विदेशी शासकों से कुछ सुधारों की माँग कर रही थी। इसीलिए जब गाँधी ने खिलाफत से कांग्रेस को जोड़ना चाहा तो मोतीलाल नेहरू को छोड़कर कोई उन के साथ न था।यह संदेह खुली चर्चा में था, जिस पर एनी बेसेंट, लाला लाजपत राय, रवीन्द्रनाथ टैगोर, श्रीअरविन्द आदि अनेक मनीषियों ने भी सार्वजनिक चिंता प्रकट की थी। अतः अनेक कारणों से खलीफत आंदोलन के समर्थन का विरोध था।खलीफत खत्म होने पर पहले तो यहाँ मुसलमानों ने कई स्थानों पर अपना क्रोध हिन्दुओं पर उतारा। मौलाना आजाद सुभानी जैसे कई मुस्लिम नेता अंग्रेजों से भी बड़ा दुश्मन ‘बाईस करोड़ हिन्दुओं’ को मानते थे। जिस तुर्की खलीफा को स्वयं उसके अपने देशवासियों ने सत्ताच्युत किया, उसके रंज में केरल में मोपला मुसलमानों ने हिन्दुओं का कत्लेआम, जबरन धर्मांतरण, मंदिरों का ध्वंस और वीभत्स अत्याचार किए।गाँधीजी ने उसकी भर्त्सना के बजाए कहा कि “मुस्लिम भाइयों ने वह किया जो उन का धर्म उन्हें कहता है”
यही तो वोट-बैंक राजनीति है! गाँधी के प्रियतम जवाहरलाल नेहरू ने भी अपनी आत्मकथा में लिखा है कि गाँधीजी,“वह सब मानने के लिए तैयार रहते थे जो मुसलमान माँगें। वह उन्हें जीतना चाहते थे।”लंदन में गोल-मेज कांफ्रेंस (1931) में यह खुल कर आया जब गाँधी ने कांग्रेस को हिन्दुओं और मुसलमानों दोनों की प्रतिनिधि बताने की कोशिश की।स्वामी श्रद्धानंद जैसे महान सपूत की हत्या करने वाले को अपना ‘भाई’ कहा, जैसे बाद में कलकत्ता में पाँच हजार हिन्दुओं का कत्लेआम कराने वाले सुहरावर्दी को भी।वही मोहनदास गाँधी कभी चंद्रशेखर आजाद, चंद्रसिंह गढ़वाली, भगत सिंह, मदनलाला ढींगरा और ऊधम सिंह जैसे महान सूपतों को भी भाई नहीं कहते थे।
डॉ. अंबेदकर के अनुसार गाँधीजी ने हिन्दुओं के विरुद्ध मुस्लिमों द्वारा किए गए किसी अत्याचार, हिंसा और हत्याओं पर कभी एक शब्द न कहा। डॉ. अंबेदकर के शब्दों में, “मुसलमानों की राजनीतिक माँगें हनुमानजी की पूँछ की तरह बढ़ती जाती हैं।” उन्हें पूरा करते जाने के चक्कर में गाँधी ने देश का विभाजन तक करा लिया।
वोट-बैंक राजनीति के पहले शिकार गाँधी थे। देश की हानि के सिवा इस राजनीति ने कभी कुछ नहीं दिया है।उस दौरान अनेकानेक नेताओं, मनीषियों ने गाँधी को चेतावनी दी थी। पर वह उस मोह से उबर नहीं सके। जब गाँधी जैसे व्यक्ति उस से पिट गए तब लालू, मुलायम, चंद्र बाबू और वाजपेयी आदि को उस से क्या मिलना था!..

[sanjeev_balyan]

http://www.thevoiceofnation.com/mahatma-gandhi-was-fond-of-meat-daru-and-sex/