Gandhi Jayanti - Too early to evaluate Bapu ?

[coffee_rules]

14 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

I am seeing people on SM unilaterally bashing Bapu/MKG...  Also what is this that Bhagat Singh,  Rajguru,  Azaad were responsible for freedom like British really couldn't care less about them.  They sure were inspirational figures & just like other freedom fighters before them.  All had a role to play.   Alone they would be just as helpless as others. 

 

Another gem I saw was one g***du saying Gandhi recruited Indians to fight for British in WW2 completely ignoring if not for that India won't get Independent that soon..  Atlantic charter,  Gandhi's letter to Roosevelt etc people don't even know about Roosevelt Churchill deal even though Churchill was a real D Bag & wasn't giving any quarter. 

Also problem is Indian history books really don't highlight these critical events & INC & SC Bose glorifying takes over all the plaudits. 

 

Say whatever Gandhi's propaganda was top tier & dude had enormous reach & capability.   Sure he was a racist prick & had controversial opinions but his contribution is undeniable. 

Even if Gandhi had advised the Indian soldiers not to join the WWs, there were more than 1 mil and 2.5 mil respectively in the two wars employed , would not have listened to him. It was one of the sole source of employment for poor uneducated soldiers who didn’t have land to till. . Gandhi just went along Brits thinking they could use it as a bargaining tool for a dominion status. 
 

Yes, we got freedom mostly because of WW2, but even after 1945 Churchill was not willing to give in. The INA PoW trial and the subsequent naval mutiny threat was responsible for hastening the independence. Dedi hamein azaadi bina khadag bin dhaal is a hogwash from Congress , Nehru , penned by Bollywood is what we learned in schools. 
 

Appreciate Gandhi for mobilization of people to get on streets and raise global awareness of the evils of colonialism. But that’s about it. He was very selfish and self-centered ambitious politician. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by coffee_rules

[Lone Wolf]

13 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Even if Gandhi had advised the Indian soldiers not to join the WWs, there were more than 1 mil and 2.5 mil respectively in the two wars employed , would not have listened to him. It was one of the sole source of employment for poor uneducated soldiers who didn’t have land to till. . Gandhi just went along Brits thinking they could use it as a bargaining tool for a dominion status. 
 

Yes, we got freedom mostly because of WW2, but even after 1945 Churchill was not willing to give in. The INA PoW trial and the subsequent naval mutiny threat was responsible for hastening the independence. Dedi hamein azaadi bina khadag bin dhaal is a hogwash from Congress , Nehru , penned by Bollywood is what we learned in schools. 
 

Appreciate Gandhi for mobilization of people to get on streets and raise global awareness of the evils of colonialism. But that’s about it. He was very selfish and self-centered ambitious politician. 

Indeed that's why I said if not for WW2...  Independence was still good 15-20 years away at the very least. 

No love lost for Gandhi but I feel people questioning his contribution these days are going OTT now. 

Few alternate historians believe that Bose could've been the PM like British &,  US would really allow it.  Bose signed his death sentence siding with Imperial Japan & Axis powers..   And there was no returning from it. 

It was always supposed to be Nehru in every freakin scenario. 

All these guys had their fair share of flaws some more than others but they did the job for India in their own way. 

[Gollum]

Flawed man just like MLK Jr. and Mandela. Crazy ideas, personal life issues, hypocrisy yada yada.

 

But but but but we needed someone to channelize all our energies in one direction during freedom struggle. Gandhi gave that and more, he was like a giant umbrella encompassing different strands of the struggle, even Bose, Bhagat Singh respected him and regarded him as the face of the movement against the colonizers. Ordinary people can't mobilize 20 people from their own housing society for a small civic issue, look at the scale at which Gandhi was operating at....our population, diversity, might of Great Britain etc. Cunning politician he was (pre-requisite IMO), but had something in him (charisma, X factor, divine help whatever) that made so many people place trust in his leadership. 

 

But as others have pointed already we won independence thanks to WW-II. Otherwise we would have been under angrez huqumat till 60s (like so many other Asian and African countries) and things would have been messier, bloodier. 

Edited October 3, 2022 by Gollum

[I6MTW]

46 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Flawed man just like MLK Jr. and Mandela. Crazy ideas, personal life issues, hypocrisy yada yada.

 

But but but but we needed someone to channelize all our energies in one direction during freedom struggle. Gandhi gave that and more, he was like a giant umbrella encompassing different strands of the struggle, even Bose, Bhagat Singh respected him and regarded him as the face of the movement against the colonizers. Ordinary people can't mobilize 20 people from their own housing society for a small civic issue, look at the scale at which Gandhi was operating at....our population, diversity, might of Great Britain etc. Cunning politician he was (pre-requisite IMO), but had something in him (charisma, X factor, divine help whatever) that made so many people place trust in his leadership. 

 

But as others have pointed already we won independence thanks to WW-II. Otherwise we would have been under angrez huqumat till 60s (like so many other Asian and African countries) and things would have been messier, bloodier. 

MLK and NM are not good comparisons. While they had deeply troubled personal lives, and were flawed(who isn't though?, the world is not changed by perfect people), they weren't hypocrites like Gandhi. Nor were they as shrewd and astute politicians as Gandhi was. There were times where he was borderline psychopathic. He urged the Jews to submit to Hitler and not show resistance. Even though MLK had extra marital affairs, he was not a womanizer and a predator like Gandhi was.

 

He should be regarded as a controversial figure in today's times. 

[coffee_rules]

12 hours ago, zen said:

What I like about Gandhiji is that when he saw poverty in India including people not having enough clothes, he actually discarded his normal attire to dress up as the naked fakir ... India is more accustomed to leaders improving their lifestyle first. 

 

hats off to Gandhiji for that

 

 

Also Sept 30 to Oct 3 is a birthday period in my family:

 

Sept 30 - a family member

Oct 2 - a family member

Oct 3 - yours truly 

 

 

Best wishes on your Birthday  !!

[Khota]

10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Not agree with that but still a great person. Mahatma.

[nevada]

I like the young Gandhi. Went to SA, had a comfortable life as an attorney, but chucked it all to fight for the rights of the indentured. Went to jail many a time, suffered much hardship.  

[Khota]

34 minutes ago, nevada said:

I like the young Gandhi. Went to SA, had a comfortable life as an attorney, but chucked it all to fight for the rights of the indentured. Went to jail many a time, suffered much hardship.  

And they forget all this and point to other stuff. Moreover, he is a unifying force for India. They want to rewrite history and make Savarkar the father of the nation.

[BacktoCricaddict]

Here is another oft-discussed aspect of MKG's legacy.  Was he a racist?  Or is there more nuance there? A very interesting article.

 

https://scroll.in/article/754110/does-attacking-gandhi-for-his-racism-in-south-africa-even-have-a-point

Another important point to note is that Gandhi, in South Africa, was a leader of a disadvantaged group, fighting a desperate struggle for rights against a colonial state. In an ideal world Gandhi should have led all of South Africa against the Empire, rather than shunning the black population. But ideal worlds don't exist. We have to remember that at the turn of the previous century, leading the sort of nonviolent mass movements that Gandhi led against the Empire in South Africa was itself extraordinary. To condemn Gandhi’s remarkable politics in South Africa by expecting it to be perfect is just churlishness. 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 hours ago, nevada said:

fight for the rights of the indentured.

some, but not all, indentured?  Also, there are accusations that he fought more for the rights of the white-collar Indian even at the expense of the labor-class Indian in South Africa. 

 

What I would like to see is a timeline of his views from the time he arrived in SA as a 24-yr old and started the fight for "his" type of people to the time when he left for India as a 45-yr old.  Did he evolve and grow out of his views as a youngster, and can thus be forgiven?  Or did he continue to believe that "his" people were superior, equal to whites and thus deserved the same rights as whites, but that did not extend to others?  I honestly don't know.

Edited October 3, 2022 by BacktoCricaddict

[vayuu1]

 

 

[ravishingravi]

So Gandhi did go against the will of his party to anoint Nehru. Question is why. 

[Lone Wolf]

25 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

So Gandhi did go against the will of his party to anoint Nehru. Question is why. 

Nehru was younger (15 years)  & easily healthier than Patel who was ailing. 

Well versed in International politics & with connections which were both absent in Patel. 

Rest other choices were far worse.  Patel sure was popular within the party but Nehru was the face & had International recognition.  Guy had ambitions to be the leader of Asia too as funny as it sounds. 

 

[ravishingravi]

34 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Nehru was younger (15 years)  & easily healthier than Patel who was ailing. 

Well versed in International politics & with connections which were both absent in Patel. 

Rest other choices were far worse.  Patel sure was popular within the party but Nehru was the face & had International recognition.  Guy had ambitions to be the leader of Asia too as funny as it sounds. 

 

 

Well I am sure Gandhi would have his justification. But that's besides the point. He subverted and circumvented the democratic will of his party for what he thought was a better proposition.

 

Again quite a wonder that our history books this small detail that our first PM was not democratically selected. And that root cause has ailed the nation and that party till this day. For contesting their present elections they need the blessings of Gandhis.

[ravishingravi]

Gandhi does represent a great figure head. Also someone who was deeply seeking, perhaps the most Hindu quality one can have. I often go back to this speech of his. 

 

 

 

[ravishingravi]

 

[urbestfriend]

I think we should stop analyzing him from today's context. Gandhi had the support of majority of Hindus at that time and minority Muslims as well because people were not fools, but he had great ability to unify people and people listened to his speech. Whereas other congress politicians come across as politicians for some selfish interests, Gandhi was regarded at that time as saint. Considering Hindu ethos, that was a great unifying force as people got behind him with full force. He was "mahatma" for the Hindus at that time. People of today might dissect his personal life or his ways to means etc and question whether he was really a "mahatma" but what was important at that time was an unifying force that India looked up to.

I think he had identified that without Muslims support, Independence was not achievable. No one could foresee the world war etc, so I dont blame Gandhi for wanting to take Muslims along in the journey of independence. He was hypocrite for sure, because he wanted to show leniency  towards Moslems because he thought without them , hindus couldn't fight British. He dreamt of an unified India(akhand bharath) where both Hindus and Moslems can live together and HIndus has to make some sacrifice so that Moslems can be taken along for the fight for independence. It was a failed idea as eventually proved, but its wrong to judge his views based on the result. 
Britishers had propped up Moslems league to fight Congress, and Moslems league did a good job of taking majority of rich moslems with them by tapping their insecurities, which created conflicts in congress as well. Now Gandhi acted unifying force in congress. 
Eventually he failed to stop partition because other congress politicians failed to go with him..They had their own reasons, and they may have thought instead of this constant conflicts, a one time seperation is good for the country. How wrong they were? They didn't understand that Hindus and Muslims have been coliving in villages and a clean seperation is a myth. Most probably if all congressmen unified behind Gandhi, they could've avoided partition.
Listen to Nehru when he speaks he agreed for partition because he wanted land reforms. He feared that land reforms will be opposed by Muslims zamindars, so a partition where millions lost lives is worth. 

 

 

[urbestfriend]

Eventually he failed in what he was setting out to do..He couldn't get the independence without partition. He couldn't bring HIndu Moslem unity, his hypocrisy of not speaking against Muslim violence when he advocated nonviolence all his life will be questioned. But all through this, I can see Gandhi as someone who dreamt of Akhand Bharat with lot of modern values of secularism, equality etc, and his intensions and unifying ability can't be questioned.   

[urbestfriend]

23 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Nehru was younger (15 years)  & easily healthier than Patel who was ailing. 

Well versed in International politics & with connections which were both absent in Patel. 

Rest other choices were far worse.  Patel sure was popular within the party but Nehru was the face & had International recognition.  Guy had ambitions to be the leader of Asia too as funny as it sounds. 

 

 

Gandhi ceases to become Mahatma because of such decisions. He advocated democracy yet he wanted to establish Nehru because Patel was a hardliner towards his idea of HIndu-muslim unity.  He was a dictator in the garb of Mahatma  for those who listened to him..

[Clarke]

Very underrated, doesn't get any credit for bringing politics & acting closer than ever