About Gandhi - Is this true?

[Garuda]

30 minutes ago, Under_Score said:

Brits had to leave...they didn't leave bcoz they got tired of smacking his candy ass...it was WW2 and also others reasons like this person mentions

 

 

This is from a wikipedia article on Gandhi

Quote

Gandhi came from a poor family, and he had dropped out of the cheapest college he could afford.^[46] Mavji Dave Joshiji, a Brahmin priest and family friend, advised Gandhi and his family that he should consider law studies in London.^[47] In July 1888, his wife Kasturba gave birth to their first surviving son, Harilal.^[48] His mother was not comfortable about Gandhi leaving his wife and family, and going so far from home. Gandhi's uncle Tulsidas also tried to dissuade his nephew. Gandhi wanted to go. To persuade his wife and mother, Gandhi made a vow in front of his mother that he would abstain from meat, alcohol and women. Gandhi's brother Laxmidas, who was already a lawyer, cheered Gandhi's London studies plan and offered to support him. Putlibai gave Gandhi her permission and blessing.^[45][49]

On 10 August 1888, Gandhi aged 18, left Porbandar for Mumbai, then known as Bombay. Upon arrival, he stayed with the local Modh Bania community while waiting for the ship travel arrangements. The head of the community knew Gandhi's father. After learning Gandhi's plans, he and other elders warned Gandhi that England would tempt him to compromise his religion, and eat and drink in Western ways. Gandhi informed them of his promise to his mother and her blessings. The local chief disregarded it, and excommunicated him an outcast. But Gandhi ignored this, and on 4 September, he sailed from Bombay to London. His brother saw him off.^[48][50]

 

 

Gandhi in London as a law student

In London, Gandhi studied law and jurisprudence and enrolled at the Inner Temple with the intention of becoming a barrister. His childhood shyness and self withdrawal had continued through his teens, and he remained so when he arrived in London, but he joined a public speaking practice group and overcame this handicap to practise law.^[51]

Gandhi came from a poor family yet he goes to London and studied law in one of the prestigious schools. I wonder how?

[Alam_dar]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Thoughts on this? Genuinely interested btw as you seem to know your history.

 

 

How Gandhi, Patel and Nehru colluded with Brits to suppress Naval Mutiny of 1946

Take such articles as grain of salt.

They are written by Gandhi's opponents.

And also they are based upon "Conjectures". 

 

For example, this article claims that:

(1) When navy revolted, then Gandhi, Patel and Nehru  supported the British against them and they were the complicit. 

But the writer provided absolutely no proof of this accusation. 

Later the writer made it clear that "not joining" the revolt was equal to supporting the Britain. It is absolute pathetic to make the accusation of being complicit of Britain for not joining this revolt. 

 

(2) Then comes the "conjecture" of the writer in play where he claims that Gandhi didn't join the navy and thus Army and Air Force also not joined in revolt, and had Gandhi joined the revolt like Bose then Army and Air Force had also followed. 

Reality is this that this revolt was not even able to inspire the whole Navy. It was only one navy port of many. Then what to talk about whole Army and Air Force?

 

[Garuda]

Quote

When it comes to Shaheeds and martyrs for the independence movement, Bengalis are the bravest of the lot. Which is strange, because before the British, you'd have to go back a thousand years to find a brave Bengali.

So this guy is a bong no surprises  for the fake intellectuals and communist/atheist supporters are usually bengali. Bengalis and bravery  im sorry. Most of them worship Kali. Bravery doesnt mean destruction which is what Kali represents. Bravery means you fight against an overmatched opponent like Purushottam (Porus) vs Alexander. And guess what the ethnicity of Porus is - Punjabi. This is not a Bollywood image.

Kali also means deception, cunning and dacoitery which is usually worshipped by desert people. You will be at home in the deserts of the chosen people and Mongolia. No wonder your idol is Gneghis Khan and Gandhi. I'm sure sexual debauchery not only runs rife there but is a must. This guy is the one who said polyandry was the norm in ancient India. Maybe it is in your neck of the woods buddy. Dont speak for other ethnicities you turd.

This guy is a slap in the face to NSC Bose yuck

[Alam_dar]

On 20/04/2018 at 8:37 AM, beetle said:

Taking advantage of your position to exploit others is a huge character flaw. 

When the flaw includes exploitation of young kids ,young people or people with less power, who may not have a choice of refusing, it is criminal behavior.

If Gandhi lived in these times, he would be called a sexual offender like some of the babas are being called out .

 

Please tell us, from where did you come up with:

(1) Gandhi "exploited" others.

(2) Gandhi exploited the young kids?

 

There exists absolutely no proof that Gandhi misused his position to exploit the other. 

There exists absolutely no proof that Gandhi exploited any young kid. The age of 18 is considered as legal age of making own's decision. 

All the women had the FULL liberty to make their own choices and refusing and no way Gandhi compelled them for it. 

 

If you make any such "allegations" of exploitation, then you must also present "very strong Proofs", but here exists 0 proofs. All these women stayed alive long long after Gandhi and none of them said that they were exploited by Gandhi. 

 

Please be open to new Ideas:

 

We are frogs of the well, and see the world through only our own Ethics. 

 

There are tribes in the world who live totally naked along with naked young girls and young boys. By judging them through our present ethics, we are going to blame them to be sexual offenders like Gandhi. 

 

There are families in the modern west who consider dressing as not natural. These families don't wear clothes in the beaches, but there is neither any exploitation nor rape there (at least not so much exploitation or rape as it is present in our easter societies with full clothes). 

 

You have full liberty to differ with Gandhi and his experiments, but if you label him sexual offender like some Gurus who used to wear clothes, then it is injustice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[adi B]

The history we have been taught in schools since the independence distorted in many ways ,my two cents is dont blindly follow evrrything you read in the books or media ,search for the truth on your own 

[adi B]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Most Indians put him on a pedestal because Gandhi is the singular biggest reason for our independence.

 

Get lost !! 

[Jimmy Cliff]

54 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Take such articles as grain of salt.

They are written by Gandhi's opponents.

And also they are based upon "Conjectures". 

 

For example, this article claims that:

(1) When navy revolted, then Gandhi, Patel and Nehru  supported the British against them and they were the complicit. 

But the writer provided absolutely no proof of this accusation. 

Later the writer made it clear that "not joining" the revolt was equal to supporting the Britain. It is absolute pathetic to make the accusation of being complicit of Britain for not joining this revolt. 

 

(2) Then comes the "conjecture" of the writer in play where he claims that Gandhi didn't join the navy and thus Army and Air Force also not joined in revolt, and had Gandhi joined the revolt like Bose then Army and Air Force had also followed. 

Reality is this that this revolt was not even able to inspire the whole Navy. It was only one navy port of many. Then what to talk about whole Army and Air Force?

 

 

Thanks for your response. Tbh I was more interested in his take on Atlee's "Minimal" comment when asked about Gandhi's influence on the Brits' decision to quit India. Or for that matter, various British MPs/officials calling him an "asset"/"Best policeman the British had in India" and so on.

 

I also wonder why the Brits who banished Savarkar to a cellular jail in Andaman, assaulted Lajpat Rai to death, hanged Bhagat Singh and co. were so soft on Gandhi by only placing him under house arrest at the Aga Khan Palace. I mean if he was the biggest reason for the British Raj to lose money in India surely they could have "suppressed" him a lot earlier, right?

 

And then there is this huge contradiction where Gandhi relentlessly opposed violence against the Brits as part of the freedom struggle but had no problems in recruiting Indian soldiers to fight for the British in WWI. 

 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

30 minutes ago, adi B said:

The history we have been taught in schools since the independence distorted in many ways ,my two cents is dont blindly follow evrrything you read in the books or media ,search for the truth on your own 

Agree 100%.

[Alam_dar]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I also wonder why the Brits who banished Savarkar to a cellular jail in Andaman, assaulted Lajpat Rai to death, hanged Bhagat Singh and co. were so soft on Gandhi by only placing him under house arrest at the Aga Khan Palace. I mean if he was the biggest reason for the British Raj to lose money in India surely they could have "suppressed" him a lot earlier, right?

It was not easy for the British to do it "Politically". 

It is same as South Africa also killed many, but was not able to kill Nelson Mandela. 

Gandhi was all together on different level when it came to leadership as compared to others. He was a true National Level leader, while Bhagat Singh and Lajpat Rai and others had very limited support and mostly regional support. They didn't ascend to the "national" level. 

 

Surely British were able to banish or kill Gandhi, but it would have been back fired badly upon them.

 

Perhaps it would have ended like the Khomeini movement in Iran against Shah. Khomeini was banished, but then he became much more popular  and whole country started protesting. And at some point, protests became so huge that Shah had to run away from Iran. 

 

Too bad that Khomeini hijacked and turned that resistence movement into an Islamic movement later. 

 

Gandhi was that to the Indian what Khomeini was to Iranians. They got the same level of support from the masses. Due to that fear of support, Shah didn't kill Khomeini but only banished him from Iran. 

 

34 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

And then there is this huge contradiction where Gandhi relentlessly opposed violence against the Brits as part of the freedom struggle but had no problems in recruiting Indian soldiers to fight for the British in WWI. 

I don't know exactly about it. 

But I could imagine that Gandhi was not so much aware of politics in the first world war as he was young at that time. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

16 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

It was not easy for the British to do it "Politically". 

It is same as South Africa also killed many, but was not able to kill Nelson Mandela. 

Gandhi was all together on different level when it came to leadership as compared to others. He was a true National Level leader, while Bhagat Singh and Lajpat Rai and others had very limited support and mostly regional support. They didn't ascend to the "national" level. 

 

Surely British were able to banish or kill Gandhi, but it would have been back fired badly upon them.

 

Perhaps it would have ended like the Khomeini movement in Iran against Shah. Khomeini was banished, but then he became much more popular  and whole country started protesting. And at some point, protests became so huge that Shah had to run away from Iran. 

 

Too bad that Khomeini hijacked and turned that resistence movement into an Islamic movement later. 

 

Gandhi was that to the Indian what Khomeini was to Iranians. They got the same level of support from the masses. Due to that fear of support, Shah didn't kill Khomeini but only banished him from Iran. 

 

Well I am not really familiar with Mandela's political career so I am not sure if he is a comparable figure w.r.t Gandhi. Although a cursory look at his Wikipedia page suggests that he spent nearly 3 decades in prison! About Gandhi's stature as a National leader compared to the others, I wonder if it would have been possible for him to achieve that status if he hadn't been such a benign adversary for the Brits in the first place.

[Alam_dar]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Well I am not really familiar with Mandela's political career so I am not sure if he is a comparable figure w.r.t Gandhi. Although a cursory look at his Wikipedia page suggests that he spent nearly 3 decades in prison! About Gandhi's stature as a National leader compared to the others, I wonder if it would have been possible for him to achieve that status if he hadn't been such a benign adversary for the Brits in the first place.

Every one has it's own way. 

Gandhi didn't stop the way of Bhugat Sing and others for armed struggle. 

Gandhi's and Mandela's way may take longer time, but they are also more "stable" ways which usually last long. British and Europe were becoming "Civilized" at that time, and perhaps a peaceful protest would have been a better choice at that period of time. 

 

It remains a question and nobody could answer it had Palestinians got more success with peaceful Intefada against Israel (like the 1st Intefada) or they had got more success with Hamas type armed struggle. Answer depends upon time and situation at that specific time. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Green Monster said:

dhimmi, since you cant source actual peer reviewed articles or university research papers, you need to learn how to wikipedia better!!!

 

If it was so easy, why don't you provide it!!! we all know ur bigoted Punjabi hating brain was addled by ur bigotry and that is why u are a fake engineer who won't back up waht u say!!!

I have sourced peer reviewed article that shows homosexuality exists in almost all extant clades in animal kingdom. 

Taqqiya is not good. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Green Monster said:

brother, this is not a peer-reviewed scholaraly journal

 

u are a hypocrite and a bhagoda!!!

That is a first hand source, moron. 

When i do link peer reviewed sources, like the one which said homosexuality exits in almost all extant clades in animal kingdom, you tucked tail and ran.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Green Monster said:

@Muloghonto

 

Chotu, everyone is asking for u to substantiate ur claims with something besides declarations of ur own "immense knowledge"

 

Under_Score paaji and brother Garuda are both asking, me too as well!!!

Learn to read, fake psychiatrist. I made a claim and then presented the source of that claim, which is a chronicle of the mongols, by the mongols.

 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Garuda said:

So this guy is a bong no surprises  for the fake intellectuals and communist/atheist supporters are usually bengali. Bengalis and bravery  im sorry. Most of them worship Kali. Bravery doesnt mean destruction which is what Kali represents. Bravery means you fight against an overmatched opponent like Purushottam (Porus) vs Alexander. And guess what the ethnicity of Porus is - Punjabi. This is not a Bollywood image.

Kali also means deception, cunning and dacoitery which is usually worshipped by desert people. You will be at home in the deserts of the chosen people and Mongolia. No wonder your idol is Gneghis Khan and Gandhi. I'm sure sexual debauchery not only runs rife there but is a must. This guy is the one who said polyandry was the norm in ancient India. Maybe it is in your neck of the woods buddy. Dont speak for other ethnicities you turd.

This guy is a slap in the face to NSC Bose yuck

1. I didn't say polyandry was the norm in ancient India- i said it was prevalent. 

2. As for Bongs and bravery -if you have a chance, visit Port Blair. In Kalapani, were the most violent revolutionaries incarcerated by the British and over 50% of the inmates were Bongs. Bongs, then Marathis, then everyone else is the order of those who were the most violent towards the British.

3. Those who fight when overmatched are not brave, they are stupid. For the point of fighting, is to win. 'Live today, fight tomorrow', as the saying goes. Porus wasn't brave- he was stupid. 

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Thoughts on this? Genuinely interested btw as you seem to know your history.

 

 

How Gandhi, Patel and Nehru colluded with Brits to suppress Naval Mutiny of 1946

The naval mutiny IMO was the reason for the hasty partition and hasty retreat of the Brits- because they were scared that if news of mutiny of British forces spread, it would nose-dive the morale of the British forces elsewhere. 

However, the Naval mutiny was not relevant towards independence, which was long since discussed. 

The two major parties in India's independence was the Tehran accords and Gandhi.

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Under_Score said:

Brits had to leave...they didn't leave bcoz they got tired of smacking his candy ass...it was WW2 and also other reasons like this

 

 

 

The biggest reason why they left after WWII and not WWI is because of Gandhi- Gandhi's marches and bandhs made the Raj a deeply loss making entity. 

[Muloghonto]

@Garuda

 

Havn't heard from you since i posted the source re: Genghis Khan. Tucked tail and ran away ??

[Mariyam]

There was this one time, during the Quit India movement, that a young British journalist was handed down his first assignment: to interview Mahatma Gandhi (MG).

 

On reaching the rendezvous point: Bombay Central station, he starts looking for MG in all the first class compartments. Then he proceeds to check all the second class compartments and finally finds a huge gathering of people outside a third class carriage. On entering, he finds MG seated in inside sharing food with co-passengers. Exasperated, he asks: Why do you travel in third class? I know of so many people, Indian and British, who would willingly give up their first class/ coupe seats for you. 

To this MG replies: I travel third class because there is no fourth class.

[Garuda]

3 hours ago, Mariyam said:

There was this one time, during the Quit India movement, that a young British journalist was handed down his first assignment: to interview Mahatma Gandhi (MG).

 

On reaching the rendezvous point: Bombay Central station, he starts looking for MG in all the first class compartments. Then he proceeds to check all the second class compartments and finally finds a huge gathering of people outside a third class carriage. On entering, he finds MG seated in inside sharing food with co-passengers. Exasperated, he asks: Why do you travel in third class? I know of so many people, Indian and British, who would willingly give up their first class/ coupe seats for you. 

To this MG replies: I travel third class because there is no fourth class.

How sweet? And Iraq had WMD. I'll tell you about another person who is all peace, charity and forgiving. Whenever she comes after meeting with some business magnate in the West, her flight would land and she would carry leftover airline food out. When enquired she would say there are so many poor people in her hsopices and this airline food would be much helpful. And every news outlet would paint a rosy picture of her. Awww isnt she so helpful and nice. Shes an angel. Do you know who she is.