Mahatma Gandhi

[jitenderhooda]

Dear all ,

Mahatma Gandhi is rastrapita,and we are reading from the begining about his fight for the freedom and several movements initiated by him .
and

Dedi hume ajadi bina khadag bina dhaal ......

But when we listen views of people about him i found majority of people are against his doings .

So , what is your opinion about Mahatma Gandhi ?

Some said that if he will be willing and have joined hands with revolutionary party of bagat singh and other activists then india would have been freed long back in 20's .

Later he was responsible for which Vallabh bhai patel was not elected as First primeMinister and if he would be there, today we wouldnot have Kashmir Problem and these refugees those are spread all over the country like amar bail.


share your wise comments on this ...

Jiten

[scsheorayan]

There was only one Mohan Das Karam Chand Gandhi and perhaps we will not see another one like him in our life time. There are many interpretations of historical events and possiblities some intelligent guesses and some pure speculations.

The reason why World is in such a mess is because there are not enough people who believe in non-violence and have strength to follow in his foot steps. Love is stronger than hate and he showed the World how powerful it can be. Violence is natural animal instinct but non violence requires a lot of self discipline.

[saroj]

I agree with Sheorayanji bhaishab. There was only one person who followed the non violence strategy and spreader at the time. It is also a personal point of view people can judge him as they wish. I believe he was a great soul. Jai Ghandhiji ki.

[jagmohan]

Dear All,

Jiten has done a lot of good (After hating girls!!!!) by starting a topic on Gandhiji. Jiten the pun is very much intended!!

I totally agree with Sheorayan Ji. In 1000 years from now, Gandhiji will be worshipped like Buddha. Whatever may have been his failings, wrongly perceived by us, during the 'Partition Time', he remains the tallest Indian. We can't even fathom his greatness because he remains the most misunderstood man. Also it requires immense courage to follow him. Total self denial and sacrifice is not easy to preech, leave alone practice.

While the sacrifices of Subhash Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh for the freedom of our motherland cannot be denied, it was Gandhi who gave a direction to polity of the day.

However, I cannot stop myself from quoting an old man from my village. He said " Jo yu Nehru bachpan mein malariye ya typhide te mar jata na, to iss desh ka bhala ho jata".

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN

[sansanwalamit]

On his 134th birthday, I am very happy and excited to give my views about the person whom I think is the biggest inspiration and builder of the identity behind being an Indian.
There is no doubt that he would be worshiped in the coming times, and I am sure that I am not the only one who regard him as a superhuman.There is no aspect in our lives which he doesnt inspire.
He brought confidence not just amongst us Indians but amongst all the countries and people who had lost it. It would be wrong to take him as just a freedom fighter, or political leader, he reminded us of our religious and cultural identities. I myself realised the blessing of being a hindu because of him. I am sure we hindus had forgotten Ahimsa, Karmayoga, and many more virtues of our religion but he not only reminded us of that but showed the whole world the power that lies in them.
And as they say little knowledge is dangerous, well that is the reason why such a soul gets criticised, I do get scared when I see people criticising him especially out of India. It is surely a matter of shame and I am requesting all of my Jat brothers and sisters to never give your crtical views about him to non-indians as it is better to keep them within ourselves or else it is all of us who become the laughing stock by criticising someone who is a part of our own identity of being Indian, or being hindu or being colored.

[sansanwalamit]

and as far as Mr Nehru is concerned well nobody could have ever said it better then the wise old man.

[shailendra]

Amit Sansanwal (Oct 02, 2003 06:16 a.m.):
and as far as Mr Nehru is concerned well nobody could have ever said it better then the wise old man.

...And whom do you think got him (the western Playboy)there???...where he created the havoc our Country still bears the burnt to this day????????????????????????????????????

[rsdalal]

As per my views

As an induvidual person Gandhi(Ji) was a good person and it is very hard to follow him. He was a good person he did lots of good things, he saved lots of lives(In India).

But at the same time he was a good black mailer. because of this as well many people lost their lives. He knew very well how to emothionally black mail his followers. That's why he was on fast all the time.

Not many well known people follow his principles(Most of the world just talk about it) Apart from Nelson Mandela and Martin Luthar King.

He was not good for his family and his well wisher, but definatly he was good for their enemies.

[rkumar]

Dear friends,

Volumes have been written on Gandhi ji and as times goes on, volumes will be written. There is no doubt, Gandhi ji belongs to the likes of Lord Budha , Jesus and Lord Rama. He was a rare soul which visit Earth only once in 1000s of years. He was never in favour of division of India and even offered Prime Ministership to Jinah to save the nation. Unfortunately the politician in Nehru opposed this move and Indian subcontinent is where we are today.

Nehru was a politician and not a social reformer. He had all the good and bad qualities like most politicians. Its hard to compare leaders in retrospective. Patel had his qualities and Nehru his own. Two were more of complimentary and not total in eitherself. With all the shortcomings of Nehru, one can not simply write off his contribution to the nation building of India. Compare India with other countries who got their freedom along with us. I am sure most will agree, we haven't fared so badly. Fifty Six years in the history of a free nation is not a great deal. We may argue, we might have done better. Even I agree. Unfortunately nations do not move at the same pace as we individuals think. Dictators often get this notion of moving the nations at the pace of their thinking and fail badly. We will do great injustice to our leaders of that era if we doubt their intentions and integrity. In their own right, they were all great. May be each had his own views and philosophy on nation building. Compare with modern day politicians, they all lived simple life and sacrificed everything for the nation. Most aristocrate of all Nehru suffered a lot at personal front. His wife dies of tuberculosis and he had no time to be by her side. The family gave up everything for the nation. In comparision look at today's Chief Ministers and even smaller politicians. They all have shares in business and have money in Swiss Bank.

I know we can debate this topic for years. People can come out heaps of ridicule against any past leader. However, let us judge them by their intentions and not by some mistakes or human weaknesses they had. They were all great people in their own respect and stood much taller than any of the present day leader/ polotician.

Regards
'Rajendra

[abhishek]

As of Gandhi´s contribution to indian independence I believe he came back to India very famous for his exploits in South Africa and instantly got the leadership of congress which was vacant around that time. And how he lead the movement I think tons of material is there on it.
But independence was as much as result of practical analysis by british(their hallmark) as the contribution of creme la creme of congress leadership.I would rather attribute it to the erosion of economic value of India as colony and I read recently that at the time of independence Britain owed money to India for services of indian soldiers in both world wars.
I believe this fact would take off much credit from Gandhi as "the man" who got us independence!
He didnt live long enough after independence but that was good enough to have sizeable muslim population back in India. Partition was inevitable would or would not have Nehru yielded in.There are numerous accounts of hindus being persecuted in north western provinces. Also hindu in western punjab were mostly big landlords or money lenders and muslims were small farmers and even if they had big land holdings they owed to hindu baniya so there was this simmering anti-hindu sentiments which could have erupted even if partition didnt happen. I am particularly appalled at the way Gandhi handled aftermath of partition and his murder was inevitable as numerous hindu saw it as injustice.
Now if we look at his non-violence methodology I am surprised how he thought it would work against people as cold and as inconsiderate as english and peope who are as oppressed and as depraved as indians at that time. And there were incidents when patience on both sides ran out and results were there to be seen.
And on austerity in his lifestyle well it is said that it was maintained to be looked that way.Lesser said is better.
And to compare this man with Gautam Budh and other greats will be a travesty for Gautam Budh left a legacy which saved millions of people from harshness of brahminism . What Gandhi left behind is Nehru and India with all the ethnic problems what it has today!!!
He applied wrong methods at wrong time and wrong place and was too emotional to be leader of great country as ours.
Comments are welcome

[rkumar]

Dear Abhishek,

1. I differ on the point that British gave freedom to India purely because of economic reasons. They were rulers and could have easily got it passed in parliament to get the money written off. Who could stop them ?

2. This will be great injustice to the man if one says that he was made to live that way with some motive behind. He could have easily lived in England and practiced law. By our thinking he should have never gone to SA and then return to India..

3. Putting him in the cataory of Budha and others is again a matter of personal value one puts on his actions. What Lord Rama is to us Hindus, may be nothing at all to Muslims.

3. I do not agree that he left behind the mess what India is today. If I accept your views on this, I will go a step further and say that 2/3rd of Gods were born in India and its they who left all this mess here. Interstingly all our Gods were born in UP and Bihar area of India and how two states are is a matter of everyones knowledge.

As I said, there will be differing views on such topics ...

Regards
Rajendra

[satyeshwar]

Just a few points from my side.

Gandhi ji died on January of 48, while trains full of Muslims were still going to Pakistan until August 48. It was Nehru who stopped them citing the "plight" of the "poor" Muslims. I believe that it was a good strategy to get Muslim Votes and compassion. Whatever his reasons were, it was definitely Nehru and not Gandhi who prevented Muslims to go to Pakistan.

Gandhi was truly a great leader of non-violence and I think that freedom can't be won through violence. You just re-enforce the will of the opressors to curb your "terrorism".

The one mistake that Gandhi made was that he didn't let Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel become the Prime Minister even though more members of Parliament as well as Congress were with him than Nehru. If Patel was the PM, there would have been two nations, Pakistan full of Muslims, and India with other religions.

Finally, I would like to say that I still have a lot of respect for Gandhi ji because it's extremely hard to follow the path of Truth & Non-Violence.

-Satyeshwar

[shailendra]

Satyeshwar Singh (Oct 02, 2003 02:03 p.m.):

The one mistake that Gandhi made was that he didn't let Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel become the Prime Minister ....
-Satyeshwar

Yeah well, My friend that one mistake cost a nation much!...

...Anyways, to continue the discussion, we must realize that although the preaching of non-violence might have got results where much else failed, but we would be gravely mistaken if we believe that it was all that was needed for the change of heart by the British.

As a national leader he stands right there with the rest, but I think it is probably more appropriate to say that actually they ALL complimented each, more than one individual standing out!...For me, he is right there with Patel, Shastri, Bose and even Nehru (who although bombed horribly with the Simla accord, and was doubtable at best as a policy maker, still managed to jump start a nation into what is called now the modern India!), but that's it...period! He (Gandhi) was... because they all were!...and also because there were all the lakhs that followed....The followers make the man, not vice-versa!

The country went into mourning with Gandhi's death but it did not stop the turning of the wheels of a nation rising from slumber...

The bottom line is when it mattered the most the great 'Mahatma' bowed to the politics, and erred horribly to the cost of generations and centuries to come in a nation that is till mired in appalling policies. Turning your cheek for a second slap has been stretched to fifth and sixth slaps now. Where we all know that non-violence is no more the means to an end now, and just as a nations natural aspiration to self assessment cannot be undermined anymore by mindless and redundant policies by leaders of a past era, ...so is the practice of trying to draw the present generation into thanking him or putting him on a pedestal, when they experience the fallout each and every day!!!....

[bnashier]

"Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." - Albert Einstein

"Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. The intellectual and moral satisfaction that I failed to gain from the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the revolutionary methods of Marx and Lenin, the social contract theory of Hobbes, the 'back to nature' optimism of Rousseau, and the superman philosophy of Nietzsche, I found in the non-violent resistance pholosophy of Gandhi." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"There can be few men in history who, by personal character and example have been able so deeply to influence the thought of their generation." - Lord Irwin, India's former Viceroy

"No country but India and no religion but Hinduism could have given birth to a Gandhi."
- Editorial, The Times of London





"Bravery is not a quality of the body, it is of the soul." - Mahatma Gandhi

[sansanwalamit]

by the "old wise man" I meant the guy who said it would have been better for India if Nehru had died in his childhood..........
And Mahatama Gandhi was never with or against anyone for the post of the first PM.

[shailendra]

"Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." - Albert Einstein

AND THE SAME ALBERT EINSTEIN ALSO SAID-"Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. This basic force of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms!"...

"Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. The intellectual and moral satisfaction that I failed to gain from the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the revolutionary methods of Marx and Lenin, the social contract theory of Hobbes, the 'back to nature' optimism of Rousseau, and the superman philosophy of Nietzsche, I found in the non-violent resistance pholosophy of Gandhi." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

..AND THIS LEADER OF THE BLACKS ALSO FAMOUSLY SAID-"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.

"There can be few men in history who, by personal character and example have been able so deeply to influence the thought of their generation." - Lord Irwin, India's former Viceroy

...SINCE WE ARE ON THE TOPIC of British Viceroy's, maybe the quote by this another Viceroy to India, Lord Linlithgow... WILL EXPLAIN WHERE, WHEN AND WHAT THEY REALLY LIKED TO SAY ABOUT THOSE DAMNED INDIAN'S-""After all, we framed the constitution as it stands in the Act of 1935, because we thought that was the best way - given the political position in both countries - of maintaining British influence in India. It is no part of policy, I take it, to expedite the constitutional changes for their own sake, or gratuitously to hurry the handing over of controls to Indian hands at any faster pace than we regard as best calculated on a long view to hold India to the Empire."

"Bravery is not a quality of the body, it is of the soul." - Mahatma Gandhi

AND WELL FINALLY SOME WORDS....SPOKEN BY THE 'MAHATMA' HIMSELF-"The Muslim as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward."....

...AND I REST MY CASE....

[shailendra]

Amit Sansanwal (Oct 03, 2003 03:45 p.m.):
by the "old wise man" I meant the guy who said it would have been better for India if Nehru had died in his childhood..........
And Mahatama Gandhi was never with or against anyone for the post of the first PM.

...Oh really?
Even if that is true (and a quick trip to the official recorded history should be enough to bring to light the true facts to most)...then I presume he just very conveniently chose to keep a studious silence about those final ongoing proceedings before him (after just having wrestled his precious nation form the British), did he?...

...and on an ending note, what could be a bigger tragedy and/or more pathetic when people who can really make a difference.......... stay silent at crucial moments?

[dan]

GANDHI: Traitor to the People
By Raj Dhillon

Destiny and fate are for clowns. Events are the result of planned action in a particular interest. The assertion of Gandhi was deliberate and staged.

Gandhi is regarded as the traitor of True Indian Independence by Indians throughout India. This is supported by all Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis whom have studied the truth of Indian history as written from the Indian viewpoint as opposed to that presented by the west (British) and that written by high government officials whom have somewhat falsified a version of our history to suit their own requirements.

"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British empire in it's dying hour."
The abundant evidence is clear as is presented by Gandhi's autobiography, ("Experiments with Truth"), where he continually contradicts his own varying views. What you observe as good and wholesome is the subjective and heavily biased perception presented forward by British historians and current government endorsed publications. They fail to even mention the failures by the British raj against other freedom fighting parties which played a very large part in the destabilization of colonial rule during the imperialists' dying hour.

Instead they show the British as "peacefully withdrawing" from India as a direct cause of Gandhi's activity. However they completely and very conveniently forgot to mention the losses faced by British troops through rebellion of North West and East India. Destabilization was already afoot. Indian regiments were in rebellion in the south, east and west. The martyrdom of over 500 Indian regiment troops in south India is but one of many examples. It was a matter of; do the British tactfully retreat essentially buying time to withdraw all resources with minimal damage and loss...Or do they face the rising onslaught of their own troops and face being thrown out at the expense of the loss of valuable resource export.Please do not take the British raj for idiots. They executed this plan very well indeed.

Secondly Gandhi was a prime candidate for this course of action. Widely accepted as having an inferiority complex which is further supported by his autobiography; quote:

(Example 1)
"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British empire in it's dying hour"

(Example 2)
"We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilze ourselves first. [like the British]"

Do you think it acceptable to fight for your own captors and exploiters as was done in W.W.II??? Can you logically conclude that we should lay down our lives for the same people that whipped our people, raped our women and pillaged our country? Do you regard Indian philosophy of that era so backward that we should strive to become "British" before we are granted freedom??? Why does Gandhi regard freedom not a right!!! These are just some ridicules of British History and the Gandhi hypocrisy. A preacher of non-violence indeed [sarcasm].He himself recruited troops for the British army during W.W.II. Where was his preaching of non-violence then. His hypocrisy by endorsing so called non-violence for the purpose of suffocating Indian revolt is clearly demonstrated by his sudden change in philosophy to recruit troops for the British army during W.W.II. His values, beliefs and views are clearly hypocritical and ridiculous.

The fundamental and fatal flaws in Gandhi's philosophy can be deduced from his own writings. The content and tone not only in his "Experiments with Truth" autobiography but with his other excerpts also support his inferiority complex. He was taught in Britain from a young age in an open racially discriminating environment. If you are told all your life that you are inferior then this has that affect on your psyche. Such a leader with such a complex is very detrimental for the people of India indeed. We can see the consequences in the poverty and exploitation of our people and the "so-called" democratic system which remains as a dud and legacy from British colonial rule. The constitution of which has not changed since British Imperialism. The rulers of India may have changed, but the system of rape pillage and exploitation of people has not.

I find it infuriating when people quote our History according to British translation or rather, British manufacture. I would suggest that you please read Gandhi's works before before drawing such assumptions of his character and purpose. Indian history at source holds truth. Not historical analysis commissioned by various British organizations or those serving such. You may surprise yourself and the beliefs we have been indoctrined with by the west as well as the powers at large of our divided nation.

Don't even mention his policy of so-called "non-violence". Why the hell did he make the statement above as well as lead a recruitment march for British Army during W.W.I???

Gandhi was a traitorous puppet. A clown by all standards.


References: Autobiography : "The Story of My Experiments With Truth" : Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi;

[rkumar]

Dear Rajdan,

Everyone has the right to his or her views on any matter or about any person or faith. There has not been any great person in history who has not faced such criticism. I wish to express my views on some of the points on which Gandhi ji has been painted black;

1. First of all on Indian troops taking part in world wars; .. This was a right decision to oppose Hitler and Japanese who were so racists. Look at what Hitler did to millions of Jews and Japanese did to Chinese and Koreans. Imagine the fate of world with Germany and Japan in control...That would have been a much worst world...

2. Radical views are always there about any great leader or social reformer. Most had the same fate, be it Jesus, Lord Krishna, Daya Nanad to name few. Often they get assasinated in real or or through writings. People with hardly any existance pass judgements on such great people. It reminds me of the reactions we Jats had few months back when Monica Dutta wrote about Jats and then Vir Singhvi wrote. Historians are not history makers. At best they are like film crtics and nothing more.

3. For the moment let us assume Gandhi ji was what Dhillon and his likes think. Will any one name me a person or leader who would have got India freedom? If so, why that person did not do so or could not do so? What prevented that leader to do so?

One can postmartum the past and come out with findings of one's choice or likings, no one can prevent. Every man and woman in India was not a fool that they joined the freedom movement on Gandhi ji's call. People threw their imported cloths in fire. In Gandhi most Indians saw a honest committed man who stood for their cause and applied the right methods. If we can not emulate a person, let us not condem him or her just because God has given us the toungue to speak and wrting power to write. Finally, Sun can not be covered by dust storms here and there...It will always shine high in the sky. Finally, Why can't the people like Raj Dhillon or all those who think Gandhi was traitor to people, come out in open and sove the problems of this country. There is so much to do and these great historians know so well what is right for India and how to do it.. Who is stopping them ? Why can't at lesat one of them come out and lead the masses of this contry to overtake USA or all those who ruled us..???? I will accept they words on Gandhi if they lead the nation for its betterment.

Regards
Rajendra

[jagmohan]

Dear All,

I am in complete agreement with Rajinder Ji and would not like to add any further except to comment on the recruitment of Indians for World War I&II. The British Indian Army which was officered by the Britishers and Indians, mostly had Indian soldiers. By Indian I mean Indian and Pakistani. I hope I don't offend many when I say that the progress we see in our commumnity today is because our grandfathers joined the Army and fought in Europe, Middle and Far East. They also learnt new skills. All those who want to know how, please read 'A Matter of Honour' by Mason, I think Peter it is. Gandhiji did a great favour by asking the masses to join the war effort. Who benefited? Indians. Yes, the Britishers were saved the blushes but then they were the rulers. In any case the Regiments fight for the 'Naam', 'Namak' and 'Nishan'.

A word about India and what have we done with that Independence. I gave this example to my Italian friends just the other day. We have all played jig saw puzzle sometimes. I remember playing it with the Map of India in school. Well try playing it with a world map and place India on Europe in this manner. Place Kanyakumari (The southern most tip) on Istanbul in Turkey and Srinagar on Norway. You would now have Gujarat on Spain and our Eastern most tip near Moscow. I know you would be surprised to see the length and breadth of our sub-continent. This land mass has remained one despite all our failings. And 57 years is not even a 'comma' in the life of a nation. Yugoslavia, an Andhra Pradesh sized country, could not remain one and saw the worst massacre after WW II. And all this is because we have a Gandhi in each one of us who tells us to be tolerant, forgiving and more.

The fault is not in Gandhiji or his teachings but within ourselves as we cannot make sacrifices that are required of us. Criticism is easy and we criticise. We are the master followers of and old saying "Do what I say, not what I do". We will reach no where if we keep discussing "If he would have done that" or " If Jinnah was made the PM". The reality is in front of us and we have to make do with what we have.

Let us now see what you do for your society, commumnity and country.

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN

[scsheorayan]

Well said Fauji,

It is not the individual which wins or loses but the principles which he follows. What ever I know about MKG's principles are I think much higher than those of any person known to me. "Kuchh to log kahenge logon ka kaam hai kahna."
He is a great role model to follow because greater than body is the mind and greater than mind is the spirit. He had a great spirit which could inspire millions at the time and it still does.

[bnashier]

Rajendra, Shubha Chand & Jagmohan bhai:

I commend you for your eloquent narration. The following part of Gandhi Ji's speach in South Africa says and teaches humanity more than any doctrine perhaps ever written or spoken.

"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."

Look around and see what is happening in the world. Gandhi's words are resonating louder and louder today than any other time in human history. Brute force does not solve anything - rather it makes matters hellish.

[bnashier]

Rajendra, Shubha Chand & Jagmohan bhai:

I commend you for your eloquent narration. The following part of Gandhi Ji's speach in South Africa says and teaches humanity more than any doctrine perhaps ever written or spoken.

"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."

Look around and see what is happening in the world. Gandhi's words are resonating louder and louder today than any other time in human history. Brute force does not solve anything - rather it makes matters hellish.

[rsdalal]

Budh Nashier (Oct 04, 2003 09:09 a.m.):
"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."

Guru Govind Singh, Shivaji and Gokul Jat responded exactly opposite when it happened same to them or their people. If they would not have done so, it would have been different history today.

Indians joined armed forces at that time. Does not mean they were very loyal to British or they were against Nazi Germany. It just happened that they needed that job to survive and take care of their families.

There were many Indians who were working against these Indians (INA). Now which one we can say is more right. In my opinion both were right. Indians in INA were True Indian soldiers and Indians in British army were soldiers who needed that job to survive.
(Enrolling in Indian army was influenced by many other reason as well, especially Ginha encouraged Muslims to enroll in British army, as he perceived it will help him to get better deal after WWII, and in fact it did , As Col Malik pointed out benefits of joining army)

If world was so impressed (Great British Empire at that time, which was on it’s peak) with MKG that they give out independent to India. Why the same people locked up Nelson Mandela for 26 years, who was doing exactly same thing, what MKG did.

[mbamal]

Mahatama Gandhi was not a superhuman but a simple man who clear vision about the future of this country. Altough Indian independence was achieved beacuse Britishers were too weak to control 30 crore indians after their losses in WW2. But Gandhi did a great thing in mobilizing the opionion of non-cooperation among us. Altough Indian independence was not won because of a struggle, since non-voilent struggle is not a struggle but a mix of submission and unwillingness to cooperate, but that was the best option at that time. Gandhi realized this and so he pursued a non-voilent way to stop cooperating with the british. He was also against the concept of secularism w/o relegion (the Nehru's ideology) and spiritualism. He knew very well the importance of relegion in India.

But on the whole he devoted his life to India and not to hindus or muslims. He was a man of vision and he had the perseverence it takes to follow ones vision. For me he epitomizes ones faith in himself and a undying enthusiasm to help ones country. Nathuram Godse was nothing but an illusioned Hindu fanatic who did not represented any hindu. Atleast he does not represent me at all.

[vrattan]

I would say just one thing.......Among all the countries which were won their freedom with us after WW2, its only our India which didn't have single military coup or dictator. Our democracy is one of the most deep rooted and stable today in whole of the world. And the credit for this all goes to Mahatma Gandhi. He was the only great man in the recent histroy of India who had decreased the distance between his mind and heart to zero. I agree wholly to the views of Budh Singh Bhaisaab.
Vivek

[uday]

I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings but could not resist myself in writing some facts and personal views....
**********************
Nehru ne to Kateak ( Kartik Month) ali mai bhi lutluti na le, usmain bhi bach gaya...

Mrs. Mountbatton and Nehru @ :-)$%^&

Gandhi was defeated by Netaji in Congress Adhivesan for the post of congress president by 89% to 11%..... Gandhi was annoyed with his defeat and declare of his retirement from Politics..Netaji was not comfortable in achieveing his goal thro' congress ( Freedom for INDIA ). Netaji resigned from post of congress president and rest is history.....

Nathuram Godse wrote a book in Jail.... "Maine Gandhi ko kyon mara" which was not allowed to publish and destroyed.

Bhagat Singh would have been saved from " Fansi" if Gandhi approach to Angrez.. but he never did... may be against his policy ( Ahinsa Permo Dharam ). Is Ahinsa ke chakkar main Moughals + Angrez ruled India for such a long time. AHINSA MEANS DOOSREY KO MAT SATAO... Per jab koi hindustan walon ko subah , shyam.. uthley bathey sattaney mare ( I mean Gulami ) ... to kaise ahinsa?? Ahinsa .. vahinsa se hame koi aazadi nahi mili.... Kya ahinsa se Kargil vapis mila tha ??
Answer is BIG NOPE.
Ahinsa se China se Zameen vapis la le kya.. It was Nehru "Ahinsa Policy" which lost our elders in Nefa hills and these 'YELLOW RACES' capture our territory.

Gandhji answer was " Agar koi aapke ek gaal per thappad marey to doosra gaal aagey kar do" . How Funny...IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. ( If we follow it it means if Paki capture Kargil , surrender Poonch Rajora and RS Pura also.. ) Agar koi bageer aapki galti ke ek maarey to uske do maaro.

It was Garam Dal and alliance people who gave us freedom not by Gandhi. Barat ( fast)rakhne se koi aazadi nahi mili.... Bagar roi to maan bhi doodh nahi deti.... Gandhi was a shrude politician who took all credit of those who sacrificed their lives for their motherland. Hindustan's fate was written and kept in dark black box for some time from the day since when this Gujju Baniya ( MKG) and Kashmiri Bhaman ( NEHRU) start giving direction to Indians. Hindustan main bawle logon ki ratio comparitively jyada hai.. bus Banane wala chaiye.. Acharya Rajnish ( Bhagwan ?? ) was one of latest example.

How many of us aware of Lal Bhadur Shastri @2nd October.?

Abdul Kalam Azad statement before filing PRESIDENT OF INDIA papers "Missiles are to be deployed not to be stored".








Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 02, 2003 12:51 a.m.):


However, I cannot stop myself from quoting an old man from my village. He said " Jo yu Nehru bachpan mein malariye ya typhide te mar jata na, to iss desh ka bhala ho jata".

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN

[manojpoonia]

Hi Uday,

Pls dont try to justify urself by putting wrong facts. Just want to contradict some of ur points(No pun intended).

Gandhi never fought for any presidential election against Netaji. It was Nehru who was defeated and not Gandhi( not sure abt the margin). And later Netaji resigned in respect to the wishes of Gandhi.

Try to judge a person by what he has done and not by what more he could have done(Bhagat Singh was a martyr and he would have never got martyrdom, had Gandhiji approached angrez for his clemency). Both Gandhiji and Netaji were nationlist in true sense, as well as all the people you talked about, Bhagat Singh, Patel, Shastri and Abdul kalam.

They differ only in their approach and so its good to argue it withour being malign to them as a person or to the class to which they belong( pls note that u used "Yellow Race","Gujju Baniya and Kashmiri Bhahman" in a very derogatory sense).

And how can a country allow a book, having fanatic views of an overzealous person who killed the Father of the Nation, to be published.
A country and its people are always expected to pay respect to each and everyone who fought for what it is today.

Uday ji, you started with the words "I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings ..."... but i must say that u did exactly that.

Thanks,
Manoj.


Uday Dahiya (Oct 06, 2003 04:47 a.m.):
I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings but could not resist myself in writing some facts and personal views....
**********************
Nehru ne to Kateak ( Kartik Month) ali mai bhi lutluti na le, usmain bhi bach gaya...

Mrs. Mountbatton and Nehru @ :-)$%^&

Gandhi was defeated by Netaji in Congress Adhivesan for the post of congress president by 89% to 11%..... Gandhi was annoyed with his defeat and declare of his retirement from Politics..Netaji was not comfortable in achieveing his goal thro' congress ( Freedom for INDIA ). Netaji resigned from post of congress president and rest is history.....

Nathuram Godse wrote a book in Jail.... "Maine Gandhi ko kyon mara" which was not allowed to publish and destroyed.

Bhagat Singh would have been saved from " Fansi" if Gandhi approach to Angrez.. but he never did... may be against his policy ( Ahinsa Permo Dharam ). Is Ahinsa ke chakkar main Moughals + Angrez ruled India for such a long time. AHINSA MEANS DOOSREY KO MAT SATAO... Per jab koi hindustan walon ko subah , shyam.. uthley bathey sattaney mare ( I mean Gulami ) ... to kaise ahinsa?? Ahinsa .. vahinsa se hame koi aazadi nahi mili.... Kya ahinsa se Kargil vapis mila tha ??
Answer is BIG NOPE.
Ahinsa se China se Zameen vapis la le kya.. It was Nehru "Ahinsa Policy" which lost our elders in Nefa hills and these 'YELLOW RACES' capture our territory.

Gandhji answer was " Agar koi aapke ek gaal per thappad marey to doosra gaal aagey kar do" . How Funny...IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. ( If we follow it it means if Paki capture Kargil , surrender Poonch Rajora and RS Pura also.. ) Agar koi bageer aapki galti ke ek maarey to uske do maaro.

It was Garam Dal and alliance people who gave us freedom not by Gandhi. Barat ( fast)rakhne se koi aazadi nahi mili.... Bagar roi to maan bhi doodh nahi deti.... Gandhi was a shrude politician who took all credit of those who sacrificed their lives for their motherland. Hindustan's fate was written and kept in dark black box for some time from the day since when this Gujju Baniya ( MKG) and Kashmiri Bhaman ( NEHRU) start giving direction to Indians. Hindustan main bawle logon ki ratio comparitively jyada hai.. bus Banane wala chaiye.. Acharya Rajnish ( Bhagwan ?? ) was one of latest example.

How many of us aware of Lal Bhadur Shastri @2nd October.?

Abdul Kalam Azad statement before filing PRESIDENT OF INDIA papers "Missiles are to be deployed not to be stored".








Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 02, 2003 12:51 a.m.):


However, I cannot stop myself from quoting an old man from my village. He said " Jo yu Nehru bachpan mein malariye ya typhide te mar jata na, to iss desh ka bhala ho jata".

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN

[dan]

After all i have read all i can say is mr Gandhis approach of non violence woyuldnt have gotten us independence even in 2003 ,the britisheras didnt care about lathi charging a bunch of indians ..if the were capable of jalianwala bag u can just imagine wat lenghts they would have gone to prevent the precious colony to get away.
If we follow a "baniya" attitude of just sitting there and doin nothin in response to aggresive actionn then all i can say today there would be no indian kashmir or for that matter of fact north eastern india ..

For all those people who so are in awae of mr gandhi y don u go to the border and tell the asoldiers to give up their arms and juss stand as a wall as the would pre independence and ask the pakis to lathi charge them....

If gandhi would be alive today The geography of india would be totaly different.....

same guy who gave around 40 crore inr in 1948 to pakistan
same guy who was ready to make jinah the president of india
same guy who convinced milliions of indians and u people that non violence was the way to independence..........

If only we would have had an armed rebellion we would have been independent by early 1900s when ww1 was breakin out....................

[abhishek]

Non-violence as guiding philospy of nation´s policies may not be best one.It should be rather pragmatic and cognizant of geopolitical realities.
It may look somewhat odd to blame a person after almost six decades of his murder but when personality of that person played such an important role in destiny of nation as great as ours one cant help but to ponder over things he preached about and profound effect it had on India´s policies.
Ofcourse one cannot blame Gandhi outright failure but some of his decisions dont stand in good light. It is a fact that although he took congress to masses but it´s leadership remained in hands of elite of indian society who were comfortable in company of british in any case and were going to be in driving seat once India gained independence.
As it is that nothing is absolute black or white, to portray it in that way would be futile and will prove to be an eyewash.

[jitendersingh]

Dear Jitu,

Probably iffs and buts are not the decisive factor of the greatness. What was done is the fact and that Gandhiji led India to freedom fight is as hard a truth as you and me.

Finally what is the guarantee that Patel would have been better PM than Nehru?

If anyone has doubts over his greatness do try to read his autobiography. Even though I also don't fully agree to his practices, but sure what Einstien said about him is proving to be true:
"People will find it difficult to believe that such a being existed on this earth."
Sure!!!!

[shailendra]

...I think it is time one thanks Rajdan Nain, Ranvir Dalal, Abhishek Dhama for their views on the other side of the coin, too...

I also think maybe it should be clarified that there is no denying the fact that Gandhi was a leader who was an important aspect to the whole Independence movement, but I think the idea here is to really discuss his role AFTER we were free as a nation, ALSO!!!...

ON a passing note; MR. Kalkhunde please do not kid yourself that the Indian troops went to the World War because they decided it was high time somebody stopped the racist Hitler (and/or the Japanese!)..geez!!!...You know, they probably had enough problems at home as it is with the very real Racist Britisher's (it would be ridiculous to say that never happened!)...

Secondly, let's not get swayed by let's say a song somebody wrote and sang, saying'"De dee humee azaadi bina khadak bina...Sabarmati ke sant....blah-blah!" cause it might sound good in 'legend-talk' but the British did not just get up and leave cause they really got the shivers with all that silent treatment alone!...and definitely please do not question anyone's sensibilities by asking a question about if there being 'any other one person or leader who would have got India freedom'...(!)[Do you by any chance have a signed letter somewhere in your cupboard where the British wrote to you about how they have decided to run and leave India for good just because of a certain Gandhi???...]

Mr.Jagmohan Malik Sir, I am the son of a retired Colonel in the Indian Army and have full faith in the tradition of our Armed forces...But please maybe you should think twice before quoting things like,'...The progress in our community today is because our grandfathers joined the Army and fought in Europe, middle and far east'(?)...Boy! Surely then the countries that never fought alongside the British, less so never went to war at all...must be really struggling to get out of their 'Third world Country' mode and status, isn't it???...(and I really am confused here now, so what was it again that Gandhi really supported?... the violence of half-clad/under-armed Indian's at the war front or the non-violence of half-clad/badly beaten-up Indian's on the home front???)

Personally..... Gandhi was the leader who did things the way he thought best, one cheek after the other and so-on and so-forth...and was successful at it, no doubt....but then there were other leaders that did things there own way, and succeeded in their own way and styles too....let's not just dismiss it by saying that they were insignificant with a 'Gandhi' around.
Dying with the bullet of a in-house fanatic or the enemy's (British; in most of the other freedom fighters case's)....both are still considered dying for a cause and martyrdom!!!...

Let's also not get carried away and forget that the idea of this free and fair discussion is about Gandhi alone (his policies, his successes and failures....his ultimate blunder of after getting slapped by the British, giving the other cheek to the Pakistani's-with the following generations getting slapped by them every where now, be it the cheek, forehead, chin or the 'kanpatti'...), and remember it's just Gandhi we are talking about not the complete freedom movement of India!!!...

[rkumar]

[quote]Shailendra (Oct 07, 2003 10:26 a.m.):
...I think it is time one thanks Rajdan Nain, Ranvir Dalal, Abhishek Dhama for their views on the other side of the coin, too...
....... .......
ON a passing note; MR. Kalkhunde please do not kid yourself that the Indian troops went to the World War because they decided it was high time somebody stopped the racist Hitler (and/or the Japanese!)..geez!!!...You know, they probably had enough problems at home as it is with the very real Racist Britisher's (it would be ridiculous to say that never happened!)...

Secondly, let's not get swayed by let's say a song somebody wrote and sang, saying'"De dee humee azaadi bina khadak bina...Sabarmati ke sant....blah-blah!" cause it might sound good in 'legend-talk' but the British did not just get up and leave cause they really got the shivers with all that silent treatment alone!...and definitely please do not question anyone's sensibilities by asking a question about if there being 'any other one person or leader who would have got India freedom'...(!)[Do you by any chance have a signed letter somewhere in your cupboard where the British wrote to you about how they have decided to run and leave India for good just because of a certain Gandhi???...]
................. ........... ........

Dear Shailendra,

I agree that I do not have a signed letter in my cupboard or else where, as to why British left. Unfortunately, there is neither a letter that they left because of some Garam Dal young Turks. If you or some one else has, please let us know. Like you have your interpretations of history, we too have. Majorty of the Indians and for that matter world population knows who did what. This reminds me of Mahabharat when both sides were getting ready for war. Duriyodhan was upbeat that entire Naraynee saina was with him and Pandwas had only Narayan and that too unarmed. Final outcome is a matter of public knowledge.
Any society where moderate voice is silenced just by lung power, has the fate of what is happening in Kashmir, Afganistan and in many other countries. Thank God this did not happen in India, else we would have gone to dogs long back..and trust me, this will never happen. Momentum of moderation in India is far too big.

Final poser to you and others...Had force been the most effective method to get freedom, Sarazudaula, the nawab of Avadh had no match in that. He put 100s of British in kal kothree and they all died. Mind you that was very early part of British in India and with all the violance against them, they should have never stayed here. There was lots of sustained violence against them in 1857. Why did they not leave India at that time ? Do not tell me that Britsh left in 1947 because of the violence of 1857 and 1749...

Rajendra

[shailendra]

Dear Mr.Kalkhunde,

...Thanks for the enlightenment that indeed the British really got rattled with Gandhi's fasting and non-co-operation movement after all and decided to go play colonist's somewhere else...(You know, they were probably laughing all the way back to England after having sucked us dry, and then leaving a fractured nation for the non-violent baniya and his cronies to play leader-leader!)...

In any case, since apparently you failed to read the part where I mentioned that this is less about the Indian freedom movement than more about the 'great-Mahatma' himself.... I still congratulate you again about touching on the 'Mahabharata' itself!...Now I sure hope you undertsand that the great freedom fighter's and Gandhi's non-violent follower's both were fighting a common enemy (and hence at least supporting the movement as in the larger picture) and not each other!!!...and well, most of 'us' I am sure know that the Pandavs & Kauravas were actually fighting each-other!!!... Having said that I fail to see your parallel.

My heartiest congratulations therefore is to making making my point more clearer that the big picture is not violence verses non-violence....but what is probably most important [if we are to talk about independence] is that; Freedom was achieved by the collective effort of great men and women who wanted to wrestle back their birthright of complete freedom from the colonist's!!!...and please let's not beat the drum of just one visionary if we can...

Also, your reference about; and quote,"...Any society where moderate voice is silenced just by lung power, has the fate of what is happening in Kashmir, Afganistan and in many other countries. Thank God this did not happen in India, else we would have gone to dogs long back..and trust me, this will never happen. Momentum of moderation in India is far too big...."

...As far as I last remember, Kashmir was still very much a part of India, and what is happening there is STILL of a great deal of concern and reflects on most of India,...whether it is it's international Policy, agenda on a UN/SAARC summit, or even talks with it's neighboring 'Kaurav' Brethen!!!...(and I am sure the people in Kashmir would be very interested in your views on non-violence!)

And on a final note:..You say,"..Had force been the most effective method to get freedom....Do not tell me that Britsh left in 1947 because of the violence of 1857 and 1749..."

Please go read my earlier reponses again, I fail to find any reference in there about the usefulness (or uselessness) of violence at all, so I guess you are just reading between the lines there...

In any case, since we ARE talking about violence now... I presume the British too managed aquiring not only India but other Colonies thru peaceful means? [...How about maybe we try thinking more on the lines of the backbone-less-ness of selfish but useless Kings that sat on Jhulaas, and watched courtesans all day and invited the enemy within the holy land, just to be able to have them help in getting new and vast lands!!!]...and also as a side note; maybe you might wanna go check on the History about the great Mutiny too while you are at it...Young turks or not notwithstanding, my point is; One did what they had to do for the motherland...in whatever way they could!...

My poser to you,

...Any thoughts why he was thrown out of South-Africa while trying to practise the same things?...(God knows we would have still got freedom no matter what, while he could have better dedicated himself to creating a North and South Africa instead!)

[rkumar]

My poser to you,

...Any thoughts why he was thrown out of South-Africa while trying to practise the same things?...(God knows we would have still got freedom no matter what, while he could have better dedicated himself to creating a North and South Africa instead!
..............................................

Thrwoing out means very little in such cases. This does not reduce the worth of a person. May be he thought to utilize his life better for fellow Indians back at home. One can not just be foolish to prove his or her point every where. As far as God is concerned I am sure God would have kept quite till some Mahatma came ..... There is so much of social evil now all around, why can't this home grown enlightened youth take up the issues ?

Anyway as i told you such debates are end less..Gandhi will remain Gandhi no matter what I say and what you all guys say...I am sure he does not need our re-certification..

Rajendra

[dan]

Anyway as i told you such debates are end less..Gandhi will remain Gandhi no matter what I say and what you all guys say...I am sure he does not need our re-certificatio

That is the fact of the matter but sir that is not what we are debating,but the whole issue that does he deserve the laurels that he got .......

if only there was an immaginary world where gandhi was still alive ..kasshmir would be sittin in pakistans lap and we like a bunch of spineless baniyas would be in a non violent way re iteratin our point in the Un...

The real heroes like subash chandra bhose ..bhagat singh ..chandrashekar azad are not give due credit for theirr work ......

non co operation..wat a load of bull **** ....the britishers came and the britishers went and we stil cant get over our fantasy of a man who tho unintentionally gave us a problem 50 yrs bak that we loose 19 year olds every day for such a baseless cause

[sansanwalamit]

I simply do not understand why Gandhi is just related to Indian independence and politics, we should be rather discussing about what made that man so great, how he touched our lives and in what way does he inspire us even today.
we shall not just go on debating about what would have happened if he was there or was not, or taking or giving him credit for India's independence.
All I can say about being independent is that whenever I look at so many of the "freedom fighters" starting from Nawab of Bengal to Nehru, I feel that they did not want independence all they wanted was power to shift from britishers hand to theirs and eventually this is what happened and India is still getting plundered today. But what Gandhi did is the most remarkable act that never happened anywhere else, he wanted our minds to get independent, the self sufficiancy of villages is an example of that.
He did not fight britishers , he was fighting opressers and the exploiters, had he been alive today he would have been doing the same thing and this time he would have been fighting against his own countrymen, who are exploiting this nation and we all know who they are.
Thus, debating about his role or even violence and non violence is baseless, today the whole world admires him not because he freed India, but because he gave what humanity needed the most in such times, self confidence not self impostition, patriotism not cahuvanism , co-existence not exploitation, brotherhood not racism or castism and a lot more.
Finally, if anyone could do that and would do that would be a great soul and humanity would always be thankful forever for his existence.

[jagmohan]

Dear All,

Gandhiji name does inspire extreme reactions from individuals, more so from the younger generation. I am 45 years young and please don't count me in the older generation. Since the discussion has thrown up many side issues, may I attempt to give my views.

Dear Shailendra: It is a fact that people who have travelled far have always had a better perspective. Now I don't mean to say that one who hasn't dosen't. Historically communities who have dared to travel (Or displaced) have done well. They have occupied new lands, captured and killed if need be. The history of JATS points to this fact. We travelled and conquered. It was in this context that I said that progress of our community can be pointed to the fact that our grandfathers fought in WW I & II. By no means it means that those who didn't fight with or for the British have made no progress.

Points have been made regarding why Britishers ruled us and what were our Rajas doing. The fact is simple. The Rajas were enjoing and the 'Praja' was too weak to protest. Whenever someone from the 'Praja' decided to fight against the oppresor he fought. If he succeeded he ruled. If he failed he was hung. As simple as that. And let me remind my friends that if we become weak again, we would be 'gulams' again. And this time it may not be the Britishers, may be the Bangladeshis. (I know I am going to stir some really nasty comments: Can't help it as truth is always bitter). And there is no real Gandhi today to electrify the masses.

When did Gandhiji say that Non-violence means that you don't defend yourself against Armed agression. He had very clear views on fighting for your motherland. Comparing non-violence with cowardice is incorrect.

No one has said that it was Gandhiji who gave us freedom. Even Gandhiji never claimed so. He was not even present in Delhi when 'Chacha Nehru' unfurled the Tri-colour. I think Gandhiji was in Kolkata fighting communal forces. Achieveing freedom was like achieveing God. You follow different routes to do that. No one has denounced the role played by Chandershekar 'Azad', Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose. They did what they thought was correct. But to think that those who were in the Indian National Army (INA) were more loyal than the Indian Army of that time is totally incorrect. By the way there are doubts about the contribution of INA towards the freedom struggle and Independence. May be some one more knowledgeable can throw some light in a separate discussion. My study of Military History says that they hardly fought a battle of consequence in the Eastern Front (Burma War) and were used mainly as porters and camp followers by the Japanese. (Again I am stepping into a very sentimental area, but facts are facts). However, what SC Bose did, no one else, including Gandhiji, could do. Even though Gandhiji remains the tallest Indian in my eyes, others contributions can't be wished away.

Let me for a moment take you all back to your villages in the 50s & 60s (Those who were not born can ask their elders). Whose photographs or poeters did you see in your 'Haveli's' and houses. I am 99.9% on the dot when I say that the Photos were of Gandhiji, Sir Chhotu Ram, Swami Dayanand, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad and may be, just may be that of Nehru. Later Shastriji's photos were also added. And ofcourse that 'Geeta ka Updesh' ka poster (Krishna and Arjun) was a must.

I thought a formal congratulations was not needed for those who have a different view point. We are all 'ONE', brothers and sisters on this JATLAND site. I am sure we respect each other and that would naturally mean each others views as well. An old saying "If two people agree with each other on all issues, one of them is surely mad". It is important ot have different view points on issues.

Where is Jitender Singh Hooda who started this discussion on Gandhiji? Bhai Hooda, hope you are not reading 'My Experiments with Truth' before giving your considered opinion!!!

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN

[rsdalal]

Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 08, 2003 12:44 a.m.):
We are all 'ONE', brothers and sisters on this JATLAND site. I am sure we respect each other and that would naturally mean each others views as well. An old saying "If two people agree with each other on all issues, one of them is surely mad". It is important ot have different view points on issues.


Col Malik, very right said sir.


Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 08, 2003 12:44 a.m.):
My study of Military History says that they hardly fought a battle of consequence in the Eastern Front (Burma War) and were used mainly as porters and camp followers by the Japanese. (Again I am stepping into a very sentimental area, but facts are facts).

That make sense. That would not make any sense that jappanese use INA instead of thier own highly trained recruites in critical positions.

[shailendra]

Amit when you say things like, Quote/Unquote;..."All I can say about being independent is that whenever I look at so many of the "freedom fighters" starting from Nawab of Bengal to Nehru, I feel that they did not want independence all they wanted was power to shift from britishers hand to theirs and eventually this is what happened and India is still getting plundered today."...

I would be a little careful, cause you fail to notice that the persons you mentioned are not even considered under the ideal version of the typical 'freedom fighters'...There is a long list of them who that really are revered as great 'freedom fighters' till now and I am not gonna start writing that huge list,....But they all laid down their lives without a single regret of missing out on the great pie!!!...

But other than that, I agree that this discussion is about Gandhi himself, and even though since a link was there and will have to mentioned now and then...we still need to just look only at him subjectively.

[sansanwalamit]

Shailendra, if you would notice that I said
"All I can say about being independent is that whenever I look at SO MANY of the "freedom fighters" starting from Nawab of Bengal to Nehru, I feel that they did not want independence all they wanted was power to shift from britishers hand to theirs and eventually this is what happened and India is still getting plundered today."...
thus so many cannot include everyone. And the names mentioned were to make it more obvious that who I think were not fighting for the independence but were just power hungry people.

[akdabas]

Here is a link which talks about Mahatma Gandhi from The Hindu newspaper.

http://www.thehindu.com/th125/gandhi.htm

[rohit]

i am really sorry that i could not write anything on this topic so far.
usually i have noticed most of the negative things about gandhi is purely propaganda against him. and propaganda becomes even more believable when we read about gandhi. what he has done seems very different from our present day ideology and people simply refuse to believe that a human being is capable of doing these things. and some of his ideas had a very far reaching effects which people at that time could not comprehend. for example he talked about village economy which was opposed by nehru. now panchatiraj is doing the same thing.

yesterday i got a chain mail about nehru family which was forwarded which had some negative point about gandhi not saying anything about indras marriage to firoz gandhi in his autobiography. Interestingly when gandhi wrote his autobiography Indra was only 5-6 years old :)

People take gandhi as someone who preached non violence but for me he is a icon of unbreakable sprit who achieve greatness only though his strong will power and good intentions. he was an ordinary man who achieved greatness through his work. you and me can also do so...

rohit

[shailendra]

i am really sorry that i could not write anything on this topic so far.
usually i have noticed most of the negative things about gandhi is purely propaganda against him. and propaganda becomes even more believable when we read about gandhi. what he has done seems very different from our present day ideology and people simply refuse to believe that a human being is capable of doing these things. and some of his ideas had a very far reaching effects which people at that time could not comprehend. for example he talked about village economy which was opposed by nehru. now panchatiraj is doing the same thing.

yesterday i got a chain mail about nehru family which was forwarded which had some negative point about gandhi not saying anything about indras marriage to firoz gandhi in his autobiography. Interestingly when gandhi wrote his autobiography Indra was only 5-6 years old :)

People take gandhi as someone who preached non violence but for me he is a icon of unbreakable sprit who achieve greatness only though his strong will power and good intentions. he was an ordinary man who achieved greatness through his work. you and me can also do so...

rohit

What are the Nehru's cribbing about? isn't it the 'Mahatma' himself that put a disfunctional, European-molded, casanova Jawaharlal on the driving seat anways!?!... :confused:

ps. I sure hope Rohit that the next time someone slaps you hard and talks bad about you, your Country and your ideology, you can rise up to the occasion and give him the other cheek!!! :rolleyes: Now here is the catch; You better hope there is another friend on your side that moves to defend you and take the agression the aggressor....cause believe me ONLY the combined treatment of your silent non-aggresive attitude with that of your friend's smouldering fury is gonna 'stop' that person from going ahead and slapping you hard on the other cheek too!!! ;)

Point in context: Don't kid yourself if you think that one freedom fighter like a Gandhi did it by himself!

[anilkc]

my beleif is that it was not Gandhi Jis non-violence or this cheek that cheek that won the freedom. What got us the freedom was the collective action of the whole nation. Ppl were already fighting the british with guns and bombs, but only a small group was able to do so though they had silent support of many. what changed with Gandhi was that he showed a way where you can fight the british even if you dont have a gun or dont know how/want to use it. It was the idea of non-cooperation/boycott of anything british that led to britishers finally leaving. The other important thing that Gandhi did was organisation. He was able to mobilise and organise the movement very effectively.

[stokas]

i am really sorry that i could not write anything on this topic so far.
usually i have noticed most of the negative things about gandhi is purely propaganda against him. and propaganda becomes even more believable when we read about gandhi. what he has done seems very different from our present day ideology and people simply refuse to believe that a human being is capable of doing these things. and some of his ideas had a very far reaching effects which people at that time could not comprehend. for example he talked about village economy which was opposed by nehru. now panchatiraj is doing the same thing.

yesterday i got a chain mail about nehru family which was forwarded which had some negative point about gandhi not saying anything about indras marriage to firoz gandhi in his autobiography. Interestingly when gandhi wrote his autobiography Indra was only 5-6 years old :)

People take gandhi as someone who preached non violence but for me he is a icon of unbreakable sprit who achieve greatness only though his strong will power and good intentions. he was an ordinary man who achieved greatness through his work. you and me can also do so...

rohit


Dear Rohit,
Yuo are right.
Here are some points to consider:
-Gandhi Ji practiced LAW in 'those' days, but HE left his JOB for a cause.
-He wore KHADI, just to protest against the foreigners.
-When our country was partitioning, HE was in Bengal, to woo an ordinary citizen, not to do 'this'.
-HE 'never' portrayed for a photographer. He made 'this' condition to photograph HIM.
-HE never sought any type of recognition/posting.
-Last, but not the least, HE was assasinated!!!!!!

What did HE get?

(HE may have been wrong on some fronts, but this could not have been the cause to 'assasinate' HIM).

How many of 'Us' are ready to quit our job/profession today?
Even these days, our Country is in 'dire' need of some good type of 'Leaders'. What WE all are doing? Just 'sitting' and 'watching'?

What type of GREAT Leaders we have today, everybody knows that.

Can Laalo Yadav be forced to quit politics and sit at home? NO!!!!!!!!!

So, where was Gandhi Ji wrong?


Thanks,
Shailendra Tokas

____________________
-Hatred does not cease with hatred; it ceases with love.

-Best friends are those, who care without temptation, remember without limitation.

-A man’s invaluable and imperishable wealth is his learning; all other riches are nothing before it.

[shailendra]

Dear Rohit,
Yuo are right.
Here are some points to consider:
-Gandhi Ji practiced LAW in 'those' days, but HE left his JOB for a cause.
-He wore KHADI, just to protest against the foreigners.
-When our country was partitioning, HE was in Bengal, to woo an ordinary citizen, not to do 'this'.
-HE 'never' portrayed for a photographer. He made 'this' condition to photograph HIM.
-HE never sought any type of recognition/posting.
-Last, but not the least, HE was assasinated!!!!!!

What did HE get?

(HE may have been wrong on some fronts, but this could not have been the cause to 'assasinate' HIM).

How many of 'Us' are ready to quit our job/profession today?
Even these days, our Country is in 'dire' need of some good type of 'Leaders'. What WE all are doing? Just 'sitting' and 'watching'?

What type of GREAT Leaders we have today, everybody knows that.

Can Laalo Yadav be forced to quit politics and sit at home? NO!!!!!!!!!

So, where was Gandhi Ji wrong?


Thanks,
Shailendra Tokas

____________________
-Hatred does not cease with hatred; it ceases with love.

-Best friends are those, who care without temptation, remember without limitation.

-A man’s invaluable and imperishable wealth is his learning; all other riches are nothing before it.

Aji Tokasji koi aur aadmi nahi mila compare karne ko Laloo ke siva??? :cool:
... By the way politicians like Laloo are the product of the same system that was laid by these very congressmen (after Independence) you are talking about.

-Gandhi Ji practiced LAW in 'those' days, but HE left his JOB for a cause.
Well after being sent there to study by the 'Birlas' of India (whom he remained obliged till his death and the same obligation was, some say, also the reason for some of the same 'wrong' decisions he made after Independence)... and his actual rude awakening happened after he was unceremoniously thrown out of a Train by the British and that's when he literally decided to give up his law practise (in a foreign land mind you!) to come back to his own Country and take up the cudgels of the freedom movement!

-He wore KHADI, just to protest against the foreigners.
Come on, you are not seriously linking that to be such a huge and 'great' sacrifice' now, are you? By the way, so did wear the lakh of followers at that time too. (Anyways, good strategy against the British colonialism for sure!)

-When our country was partitioning, HE was in Bengal, to woo an ordinary citizen, not to do 'this'. {By the way what do you mean when you keep refering to 'this'??? Sounds kinda fishy you know!}
Oh yeah, that's right, I am sure he was not around ....you see, after you have made the wrong decisions leading to something big deal like the partition of your very own Country, better leave it to the 'dogs' to fight between themselves and go away to some far enough place from all that din!!!

-HE 'never' portrayed for a photographer. He made 'this' ('this' again!?! What is it??? ;) ) condition to photograph HIM.
-HE never sought any type of recognition/posting.
Oh you got me there on both accounts! Definitely qualities of a great National figure....

-Last, but not the least, HE was assassinated!!!!!!
Oh dear, now what is that he could have done that prompted that reaction!!! Those silly people!... What are small 'mistakes' like not only helping decide dividing a Nation but making the impact last all these years too!?! No big deal, why kill him for that? But yes, the 'assassination' definitely makes him ‘worshipable’ material!

Ok now if anything in your post the only important question I see here is about the kind of Politician's nowadays!...Well, but then that is something that will need a lifetime to debate on!!! ;) ... (Don't have the answers to that though!) :cool:

[stokas]

Aji Tokasji koi aur aadmi nahi mila compare karne ko Laloo ke siva??? :cool:
... By the way politicians like Laloo are the product of the same system that was laid by these very congressmen (after Independence) you are talking about.

-Gandhi Ji practiced LAW in 'those' days, but HE left his JOB for a cause.
Well after being sent there to study by the 'Birlas' of India (whom he remained obliged till his death and the same obligation was, some say, also the reason for some of the same 'wrong' decisions he made after Independence)... and his actual rude awakening happened after he was unceremoniously thrown out of a Train by the British and that's when he literally decided to give up his law practise (in a foreign land mind you!) to come back to his own Country and take up the cudgels of the freedom movement!

-He wore KHADI, just to protest against the foreigners.
Come on, you are not seriously linking that to be such a huge and 'great' sacrifice' now, are you? By the way, so did wear the lakh of followers at that time too. (Anyways, good strategy against the British colonialism for sure!)

-When our country was partitioning, HE was in Bengal, to woo an ordinary citizen, not to do 'this'. {By the way what do you mean when you keep refering to 'this'??? Sounds kinda fishy you know!}
Oh yeah, that's right, I am sure he was not around ....you see, after you have made the wrong decisions leading to something big deal like the partition of your very own Country, better leave it to the 'dogs' to fight between themselves and go away to some far enough place from all that din!!!

-HE 'never' portrayed for a photographer. He made 'this' ('this' again!?! What is it??? ;) ) condition to photograph HIM.
-HE never sought any type of recognition/posting.
Oh you got me there on both accounts! Definitely qualities of a great National figure....

-Last, but not the least, HE was assassinated!!!!!!
Oh dear, now what is that he could have done that prompted that reaction!!! Those silly people!... What are small 'mistakes' like not only helping decide dividing a Nation but making the impact last all these years too!?! No big deal, why kill him for that? But yes, the 'assassination' definitely makes him ‘worshipable’ material!

Ok now if anything in your post the only important question I see here is about the kind of Politician's nowadays!...Well, but then that is something that will need a lifetime to debate on!!! ;) ... (Don't have the answers to that though!) :cool:


Shailendra bhaai,
You must be right on all fronts.
But, these are only personal views. Please don't take them seriously.

Thanks,

Shailendra Tokas

[shailendra]

Shailendra bhaai,
You must be right on all fronts.
But, these are only personal views. Please don't take them seriously.

Thanks,

Shailendra Tokas

Oh No, no!!! :) Don't get me wrong..................
Of course I enjoy the opportunity of a healthy discussion always, and it was good to wrangle with you a bit on the different point of views on the topic!

Please continue to provide your own thoughts as always...there is definitely nothing personal about these discussions! A healthy discussion is always good for a forum like this rather than just reading them, thinking 'no comments' and simply moving on....[like I am sure a lot of the members are guilty of doing, right!?! Come on guys.....kya kehte ho???)

So no, I am thankful for your meaningful dialouge on the topic...

Keep writing!

[stokas]

Oh No, no!!! :) Don't get me wrong..................
Of course I enjoy the opportunity of a healthy discussion always, and it was good to wrangle with you a bit on the different point of views on the topic!

Please continue to provide your own thoughts as always...there is definitely nothing personal about these discussions! A healthy discussion is always good for a forum like this rather than just reading them, thinking 'no comments' and simply moving on....[like I am sure a lot of the members are guilty of doing, right!?! Come on guys.....kya kehte ho???)

So no, I am thankful for your meaningful dialouge on the topic...

Keep writing!


Bhaai Jaan,

You got it right.
It's always good for these types of dicussions in here.
Aur main DIL mein aaee baat ko rok nahin paata.

Thanks,

Tokas

_____________________
-In defeat, you learn to appreciate life.

-The world is divided into people who do things and people who get the credit. Try, if you can, to belong to the first group. There’s less competition.

[rohit]

Aji Tokasji koi aur aadmi nahi mila compare karne ko Laloo ke siva??? :cool:
... By the way politicians like Laloo are the product of the same system that was laid by these very congressmen (after Independence) you are talking about.

-Gandhi Ji practiced LAW in 'those' days, but HE left his JOB for a cause.
Well after being sent there to study by the 'Birlas' of India (whom he remained obliged till his death and the same obligation was, some say, also the reason for some of the same 'wrong' decisions he made after Independence)... and his actual rude awakening happened after he was unceremoniously thrown out of a Train by the British and that's when he literally decided to give up his law practise (in a foreign land mind you!) to come back to his own Country and take up the cudgels of the freedom movement!

-He wore KHADI, just to protest against the foreigners.
Come on, you are not seriously linking that to be such a huge and 'great' sacrifice' now, are you? By the way, so did wear the lakh of followers at that time too. (Anyways, good strategy against the British colonialism for sure!)

-When our country was partitioning, HE was in Bengal, to woo an ordinary citizen, not to do 'this'. {By the way what do you mean when you keep refering to 'this'??? Sounds kinda fishy you know!}
Oh yeah, that's right, I am sure he was not around ....you see, after you have made the wrong decisions leading to something big deal like the partition of your very own Country, better leave it to the 'dogs' to fight between themselves and go away to some far enough place from all that din!!!

-HE 'never' portrayed for a photographer. He made 'this' ('this' again!?! What is it??? ;) ) condition to photograph HIM.
-HE never sought any type of recognition/posting.
Oh you got me there on both accounts! Definitely qualities of a great National figure....

-Last, but not the least, HE was assassinated!!!!!!
Oh dear, now what is that he could have done that prompted that reaction!!! Those silly people!... What are small 'mistakes' like not only helping decide dividing a Nation but making the impact last all these years too!?! No big deal, why kill him for that? But yes, the 'assassination' definitely makes him ‘worshipable’ material!

Ok now if anything in your post the only important question I see here is about the kind of Politician's nowadays!...Well, but then that is something that will need a lifetime to debate on!!! ;) ... (Don't have the answers to that though!) :cool:


hi all,

there are so many things that surprise me... we do not base our opinion on facts but on hearsay and misinformation is so much in the world that we miss the actual facts. i would like to clarify certain points here
1. gandhiji was not sent to London by birlas but his elder brother finance that trip
2. he went to South Africa and did not stop his practice after he was thrown out of the train. infact he became a highly successful professional in SA after the incidence
3. he did not dislike foreigners but he started boycotting foreign cloths because
a) we wanted to improve condition of local weavers
b) he wanted to defeat the very reason of indian occupation by britishers.. ie financial benefits that they drive out of indians
c) he was welcomed by the britisher textiles workers during london visit ( i think it happened when he went to talks in third round table conference)
4. i doubt he took any wrong decision in his life... and if he had taken some wrong decisions he was the first person to accept it. we just need to look at his actions in the light of his phylisphosy.(this may be considered to be my personal opinion)
5. he was murdered by people who were influenced by leaders like veer sarvarkar , hindu mahasabha and RSS. hindu muslim hatred was on its high level and what he did for muslims in india as a human beings was not appreciated by hindu fundamentalists group. but his death achieved something...his death brought peace between hindus and muslims for few decades.


there are few book that everyone who want to know about gandhi should read
1. "satyagrah in south africa" by M. K. Gandhi
" story of my experiments with truth" By M. K. Gandhi
2. Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre


Note: this mail is not to pointout mistakes of others but it is just to give some facts about gandhi. it has become more important because of kind of propaganda taking place these days.

rohit

[rkumar]

Old habits die hard. Foreign rule has taught something to all Indians and particularly those who are in politics. The simple rule is to demolish the icon of other party.

1. Muslims Rulers tried to demolish Hindu ideology
2. British tried to demolish everything Indian
3. Now the BJP and their alike are trying their best to prove that Gandhi is the root cause of all present day problems in India.
4. Mayawati and Company have created their own icon in Ambedkar.

Its matter of shame for us a nation if we cannot protect the honour of all those who sacrificed their lives for this nation. Gandhi deserves a much higher place not only in India but whole world.

Rajendra