Gandhi Jayanti - Too early to evaluate Bapu ?

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, urbestfriend said:

 

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..

Patel wasn't ideal PM candidate...  Gandhi looked at Pros & Cons & arrived at a best possible solution.   Rajagopalachari aka Rajaji was a South Indian although his stature was as good as Nehru or Patel but couldn't become President ever despite being first Gov General & he had full Nehru support.  He was 3rd in the list of becoming first PM too but he was way too outspoken & wasn't viewed as positively within party compared to Patel & Nehru. 

That leaves Gandhi with only one obvious choice & it was Nehru. 

[urbestfriend]

26 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Patel wasn't ideal PM candidate...  Gandhi looked at Pros & Cons & arrived at a best possible solution.   Rajagopalachari aka Rajaji was a South Indian although his stature was as good as Nehru or Patel but couldn't become President ever despite being first Gov General & he had full Nehru support.  He was 3rd in the list of becoming first PM too but he was way too outspoken & wasn't viewed as positively within party compared to Patel & Nehru. 

That leaves Gandhi with only one obvious choice & it was Nehru. 

Who was Gandhi to force his decision to other congress men?  Patel was preferred to Nehru by other congress men, yet he could force his decision as everyone respected him. But whenever he wasn't respected, for eg: muslims, he proposed adjustment by his followers. IN a way he was soft dictator to those listened to him..

[Lone Wolf]

6 minutes ago, urbestfriend said:

Who was Gandhi to force his decision to other congress men?  Patel was preferred to Nehru by other congress men, yet he could force his decision as everyone respected him. But whenever he wasn't respected, for eg: muslims, he proposed adjustment by his followers. IN a way he was soft dictator to those listened to him..

Yes he was in a way he was...  They were all flawed individuals in the end.  Nobody in the world is perfect.   Nehru made it clear to Gandhi about his intentions of becoming PM even when Gandhi told him that Majority in party favors Patel...  So in a way MKG did made a last ditch effort to force Nehru even tho he was his first choice. 

Patel came across as a weak willed man when he took his name back in the name of Gandhi.  Who was he more loyal to? To an individual, to an organization or to his motherland?  

In my view we got the best possible deal wrt Nehru keeping the post WW2 order in mind. 

[Gollum]

Don't understand why RWers worship Godse. That fool by assassinating Gandhi sealed his deal as Mahatma, never to be questioned or criticized. He made him a martyr. Should have just let him live his final years doing whatever he was doing, he would have been exposed as just another tall freedom fighter with gazillion flaws (and hence not a saint), many characters in history have seen their reputations/legacy get a boost because of being assassinated, even that evil lady Indira Gandhi gets so much sympathy because of how she met her end!!!! 

 

Ever heard/read about Gandhi's stupid views on economy, village system, military, industries, science, medicine, caste, women etc? If he had lived for 10 more years he may even have clashed with Nehru over these matters, he was in general clueless and so out of touch with reality, people would have stopped taking him seriously beyond a point. 

 

Great man, unifying force in our freedom struggle yada yada but no mahatma or saint. 

[coffee_rules]

On 10/4/2022 at 12:44 AM, 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. 

 

Those are your reasons and not Gandhi’s. You keep saying Patel was weak and not ideal candidate. Can you elaborate on that? He was one of those idealist politician of that era, of the LBS mold , put party and nation first before family. Unlike Nehru/ Gandhi. He was also foreign educated, chose to live in India. Unlike Nehru, he didn’t have an aristocratic father to prop his image. There was no global image of Nehru that you speak about. He was close to Edwina, smoke and drank and had English habits. Patel was more popular in Congress too. He was sworn in as a deputy PM . It was only a strange bizarre infatuation of Gandhi with Nehru that made him the PM that’s about it. 

[urbestfriend]

48 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Those are your reasons and not Gandhi’s. You keep saying Patel was weak and not ideal candidate. Can you elaborate on that? He was one of those idealist politician of that era, of the LBS mold , put party and nation first before family. Unlike Nehru/ Gandhi. He was also foreign educated, chose to live in India. Unlike Nehru, he didn’t have an aristocratic father to prop his image. There was no global image of Nehru that you speak about. He was close to Edwina, smoke and drank and had English habits. Patel was more popular in Congress too. He was sworn in as a deputy PM . It was only a strange bizarre infatuation of Gandhi with Nehru that made him the PM that’s about it. 

Probably he meant Patel was weak because he had no overbearing ambition to become PM unlike Nehru who would've been in opposition if he wasn't made PM..But Gandhi is Gandhi, he wanted to escape the conflict by convincing Patel because he didn't want a conflict, in spite of Patel has support of 13 out of 16 pradesh committees. Its like Manager giving promotion to a candidate who threatens to quit rather than other candidate who has support of all his colleagues but he is more obeying. Now this could be a routine that happens everywhere, but it also shows the mindset of Gandhi who is afraid of taking the right path in difficult circumstances but advocates it..

[Ranvir]

Didn't he used to sleep naked with his nieces? 

I also read that at one point he was all for violent struggles but then changed his mind. 

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Those are your reasons and not Gandhi’s. You keep saying Patel was weak and not ideal candidate. Can you elaborate on that? He was one of those idealist politician of that era, of the LBS mold , put party and nation first before family. Unlike Nehru/ Gandhi. He was also foreign educated, chose to live in India. Unlike Nehru, he didn’t have an aristocratic father to prop his image. There was no global image of Nehru that you speak about. He was close to Edwina, smoke and drank and had English habits. Patel was more popular in Congress too. He was sworn in as a deputy PM . It was only a strange bizarre infatuation of Gandhi with Nehru that made him the PM that’s about it. 

That's a hindsight opinion...  Actual reality is Nehru was a Pan India face & extremely popular figure among masses including young ones thanks to his secular liberal Outlook.  Nehru was far more International recognized face than Patel second only to MKG,  in fact it wasn't even a close call. 

There's a saying "Patel was more popular in the party and Nehru with the people". 

 

Patel was a towering figure in Indian national movement but he had his limitations.   Gandhi knew Nehru won't take second place in any condition but he also didn't wanted to deprive India of Patel's services despite his health issues & knew about Patel's loyalty towards INC. 

 

This is what Prasad said & kinda gave a peek into Gandhi's thought process regarding a "glamorous" PM

Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the “glamorous Nehru” and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways”.

 

Patel also wasn't that well known to the South of Vindhyas & was mostly loved within the party for his work ethic & services. 

So yeah Nehru was the big deal of the two.  As much as it hurts everyone it is cold hard truth. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Lone Wolf

[urbestfriend]

36 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

That's a hindsight opinion...  Actual reality is Nehru was a Pan India face & extremely popular figure among masses including young ones thanks to his secular liberal Outlook.  Nehru was far more International recognized face than Patel second only to MKG,  in fact it wasn't even a close call. 

There's a saying "Patel was more popular in the party and Nehru with the people". 

 

Patel was a towering figure in Indian national movement but he had his limitations.   Gandhi knew Nehru won't take second place in any condition but he also didn't wanted to deprive India of Patel's services despite his health issues & knew about Patel's loyalty towards INC. 

 

This is what Prasad said & kinda gave a peek into Gandhi's thought process regarding a "glamorous" PM

Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the “glamorous Nehru” and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways”.

 

Patel also wasn't that well known to the South of Vindhyas & was mostly loved within the party for his work ethic & services. 

So yeah Nehru was the big deal of the two.  As much as it hurts everyone it is cold hard truth. 

I look down on such propaganda because there is no objective way of measuring them..Those days most congress men represented peoples aspiration of independence, and they were respected and adored by masses, and there is no measure of who people preferred..With 100% support from people for the indepdendence, people would've accepted and backed whoever has chosen as PM except that Nehru would've caused trouble by possibly breaking the party, Gandhi knew it..Patel being organisation man, wouldn't do that..No wonder it is easy to convince Patel to back out of the race..
But we're not discussing about who should've been India's first PM, you may have your own interpretations about it. But Gandhi's hypocrisy stands out in all this.

[ravishingravi]

Gandhi sir during moplah riots. If Modi is maulana, wonder who he was 

 

g

[Lone Wolf]

46 minutes ago, urbestfriend said:

I look down on such propaganda because there is no objective way of measuring them..Those days most congress men represented peoples aspiration of independence, and they were respected and adored by masses, and there is no measure of who people preferred..With 100% support from people for the indepdendence, people would've accepted and backed whoever has chosen as PM except that Nehru would've caused trouble by possibly breaking the party, Gandhi knew it..Patel being organisation man, wouldn't do that..No wonder it is easy to convince Patel to back out of the race..
But we're not discussing about who should've been India's first PM, you may have your own interpretations about it. But Gandhi's hypocrisy stands out in all this.

Gandhi was a hypocrite that's the point of all what I said earlier...  Not only Prasad but Maulana Azad also called him out later. 

Nehru wielded way too much power so Gandhi had to give in to his demand.  That's why he was the Face unlike Patel who worked in the shadows & as has been pointed out many times by historians wasn't a PAN India face...  One can't deny that. 

Gandhi died a Martyr (of sorts)  that's what made his acts & his thought process shielded from scrutiny.   He had a unique skill set that no other Indian leader possessed. 

Love/Hate debate wrt to Gandhi will go on & on as he cast a huge shadow on our history unlike anyone else 

[ravishingravi]

So, it wasn't just Savarkar receiving pension from british

 

https://twitter.com/sameer_kasture/status/1576649525862621184?s=20&t=Bv1uaBv2lDk2i-ymGHVnhQ

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 hours ago, Clarke said:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sad that people fall for this crap.

[urbestfriend]

19 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

So, it wasn't just Savarkar receiving pension from british

 

https://twitter.com/sameer_kasture/status/1576649525862621184?s=20&t=Bv1uaBv2lDk2i-ymGHVnhQ

Gandhi wasn't receiving the pension, read the letter properly. It was released for the maintenance of Gandhi in the prison. It doesnt mean Rs 100 per month was spent on Gandhi. It is the amount debited for important political prisoners. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, urbestfriend said:

But Gandhi's hypocrisy stands out in all this.

 

The older I get the more I realize that, in order to be a leader, one must be a bit of a hypocrite, have a narcissistic streak and be able to manipulate people to achieve certain ends. For sure, Gandhi was all of that.  The thing that rankles me is that people confer sainthood, and fatherhood to leaders and see them as infallible deities who must not be critiqued or questioned.

 

And this mindset holds for humanity in general, and is not unique to India.  

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

That's a hindsight opinion...  Actual reality is Nehru was a Pan India face & extremely popular figure among masses including young ones thanks to his secular liberal Outlook.  Nehru was far more International recognized face than Patel second only to MKG,  in fact it wasn't even a close call. 

There's a saying "Patel was more popular in the party and Nehru with the people". 

 

Patel was a towering figure in Indian national movement but he had his limitations.   Gandhi knew Nehru won't take second place in any condition but he also didn't wanted to deprive India of Patel's services despite his health issues & knew about Patel's loyalty towards INC. 

 

This is what Prasad said & kinda gave a peek into Gandhi's thought process regarding a "glamorous" PM

Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the “glamorous Nehru” and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways”.

 

Patel also wasn't that well known to the South of Vindhyas & was mostly loved within the party for his work ethic & services. 

So yeah Nehru was the big deal of the two.  As much as it hurts everyone it is cold hard truth. 

I remember an interview of a Kannada novellist SL Bhyrappa ,  who narrated pre-independence days. He was 16 yrs old  in 1947 and he told how newspapers and Kannada magazines wrote stories about Nehru  and people were informed of his everyday moves, lifestyle, riches , photos him with goras and goris . So his PR team had worked him very nicely of the people person narrative . If Congress won the Hindu seats and ML won majority of seats , it will be based on the local leaders (kind of like CMs now) and they vote for someone other than Nehru , why would they do that against the people’s choice? A socialist country hated zamindars and rich men , Nehru had a great PR team right from his dad. So, we can disagree about his popularity before Independence. Unless we had elections in 1947 to decide who was more popular, we can argue forever with folklores. Post independence, he was a single powerful leader that all leaders followed, with no one to counter after Patel died in 1950. Caste and religion fault lines were exploited to win elections. This interview below was some insight about How Nehru’s infatuation caused us to delay actions in Kashmir. We might have lost Gilgit-Baltistan to British forces.

 

It was so wrong for India to have Nehru as the “selected” PM

Edited October 5, 2022 by coffee_rules

[Lone Wolf]

31 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I remember an interview of a Kannada novellist SL Bhyrappa ,  who narrated pre-independence days. He was 16 yrs old  in 1947 and he told how newspapers and Kannada magazines wrote stories about Nehru  and people were informed of his everyday moves, lifestyle, riches , photos him with goras and goris . So his PR team had worked him very nicely of the people person narrative . If Congress won the Hindu seats and ML won majority of seats , it will be based on the local leaders (kind of like CMs now) and they vote for someone other than Nehru , why would they do that against the people’s choice? A socialist country hated zamindars and rich men , Nehru had a great PR team right from his dad. So, we can disagree about his popularity before Independence. Unless we had elections in 1947 to decide who was more popular, we can argue forever with folklores. Post independence, he was a single powerful leader that all leaders followed, with no one to counter after Patel died in 1950. Caste and religion fault lines were exploited to win elections. This interview below was some insight about How Nehru’s infatuation caused us to delay actions in Kashmir. We might have lost Gilgit-Baltistan to British forces.

 

It was so wrong for India to have Nehru as the “selected” PM

For a good reason imagine...  A hostile populace in a already troubled state.  J&K issue beyond Nehru or even Jinnah for that matter.  It's part of the  Great game involving Western Powers vis a vis Soviets.   That's a long long discussion. 

India's failure to make LoC a permanent border still haunts us.  Only failure of IG in the aftermath of 71.

[Pollack]

On 10/5/2022 at 3:42 PM, Lone Wolf said:

That's a hindsight opinion...  Actual reality is Nehru was a Pan India face & extremely popular figure among masses including young ones thanks to his secular liberal Outlook.  Nehru was far more International recognized face than Patel second only to MKG,  in fact it wasn't even a close call. 

There's a saying "Patel was more popular in the party and Nehru with the people". 

 

Patel was a towering figure in Indian national movement but he had his limitations.   Gandhi knew Nehru won't take second place in any condition but he also didn't wanted to deprive India of Patel's services despite his health issues & knew about Patel's loyalty towards INC. 

 

This is what Prasad said & kinda gave a peek into Gandhi's thought process regarding a "glamorous" PM

Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the “glamorous Nehru” and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways”.

 

Patel also wasn't that well known to the South of Vindhyas & was mostly loved within the party for his work ethic & services. 

So yeah Nehru was the big deal of the two.  As much as it hurts everyone it is cold hard truth. 

"Nehru" might be more saleable commodity but it's not like people would've protested or disappointed if Patel was made the PM. People respected all the Congress leaders then. So this people's leader argument is flaw. The only person who would've revolted is Nehru himself. He was a very ambitious leader and this is well known to all.

[Pollack]

The more I read about Gandhi the more I am convinced that he was seriously flawed and messed up. His ideas were contradictory, his behaviour conflicted the image he portrayed.

Nonetheless he was a great leader in our freedom struggle and galvanized and united Indians to fight for independence. It would have been great if we recognized him as a tall leader in our freedom struggle and not some Mahatma or a great soul and even more weirdly "Father of the nation" especially after reading his sexual experiments.

[Vilander]

On 10/2/2022 at 3:58 AM, ravishingravi said:

I think not. Perhaps the greatest disservice we have done to this nation is creating demagogues who cannot be questioned. Especially when you grow up in that environment, you are involuntarily in a state obeisance to those personalities. Tomorrow a Modi"ji" will be built up in same manner. 

 

Gandhi"ji" is certainly one of them. History is brutal. And a great political tool to mould the minds of future generations. Gandhi perhaps represents pinnacle of this tendency. I believe it's time scrutinize his life and some basic unanswered questions. 

 

He was a complex man and his motives are sure not clear for me. In a biblical sense, he seems like a wannabe Christ virulently fighting his temptations. Some questions that remain curiously unanswered for me :- 

 

1) How did he become so famous and influential in INC ? The simple narrative of his success in south Africa and INC lapping him up as a leader in India doesn't add up. 

 

2) Why did he prop up religion in politics especially "Ummah" during the khilafat movement ? What was he thinking will happen if he is also speaking of Ram Raksha and merits of caste system. 

 

3) Why did he ask Hindus getting killed in moplah riots to take it for the team ?

 

4) How was it that his treatment of women and young girls not used by British to defame him. This was public knowledge at the time. 

 

And many more. Seems amazing that after being most figure of this nation, we know so little about him apart from what few Marxist historians and British let us know. 

 

 

He devised an effective plan to dislodge an oppressive invading force that is disproportionately more powerful and also the sole super power of the world at that time. Imagine US Russia and Europe unifying as a political entity ( just for comparison not grounded in reality) and occupiying India how would you fight against them after your armed forces are wiped out in the initial exchanges. You do civil disobedience, unifying optics like satyagraha etc. He wanted unity in opposing the occupation thats all.

 

Nothing more nothing less.