Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

[triam]

People who are criticizing Gandhi, care to list out the flaws? For me there are two sides of Gandhi, leading the pre independence India, was amazing, I dont think anyone else had the charisma or the mental werewithal to unite the whole of India. The only flaw I would note in Gandhi's role as a leader was he was an extremist, in the sense extreme in his adherence to pacifism. And nothing against Bhagat Singh who was great in his own way, but each and every country has a variation of Bhagat Singh, where as there are very few who can share the limelight with Gandhi maybe Mandela and Martin Luther King.

[ViruRulez]

That's right. I agree with you. Non-violence can be practiced by the brave only. However, not everyone is as brave as Gandhi was. There is a very fine line between non-violence and cowardice. Non-violence, as Gandhi practiced it, is when you are capable of violent protests, but chose not to do it because you believe it's not the right way. After his death, most people have practiced cowardice. Also non-violence is a concept easy to understand but difficult to realize. Gandhi led a nation into independence where people did not understand the value of independence as it did not come with visible sacrifices. It looked more like a gift from the British rather than something we claimed or took from them as a deserving right. As a result, we became formally independent, but mentally we remained servants still. The inferiority complex remains till date. It will take a few more generations before we get over that. Non-violence works for great individuals who understand it. Hardly works for the masses, especially in the long run. I still believe that Gandhi should not have opposed Subhash Chandra Bose or Bhagat Singh.

very well said :two_thumbs_up:

[Dirty_South]

British just left on their own - they could've ruled over the Indians far longer if they wanted to IMO.

So True ! BTW...I've no respect for MKG.

[triam]

So True ! BTW...I've no respect for MKG.

can you explain why? just curious

[yoda]

British left on their own....:giggle: All the freedom fighting etc was all a big show. :hatsoff:

[Rajiv]

:haha: Brits left on their own - they had a heart - classic

[ViruRulez]

British left on their own....:giggle: All the freedom fighting etc was all a big show. :hatsoff:

:haha: Brits left on their own - they had a heart - classic

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[ananthd]

Gandhi was a remarkable man..... Imagine this: almost all the guys who were in Indian politics came from wealthy families or from the "higher castes".... Gandhi was not inordinately wealthy(unlike a Nehru or even SC Bose), was a vaisya(relatively low down the totem pole) and yet could light a fire in people of his day more than anyone else.... He battle-tested his theory of non-cooperation in apartheid SA and it was superbly executed here.... His contribution is also in highlighting the hindu scriptural meaning of 'swaraj': personal freedom(from vice) and political freedom(from foreign rule)..... In his personal ethic of ascetiscm & conservation(he would have been a model environmentalist), his Yeravda fast(I believe one of the most underrated of his acheivements- the Brits were proposing caste-based electorates with Ambedkar's support and it took Gandhi's near death to get retraction of this)..... Many claim, the Brits would have left anyway, but you only have to look at other British colonies(which were in Britain's fold till 1968) to see how they have panned out..... Besides, I believe Gandhi's influence was prevalent in the early years of Congress party and established a democratic tradition in the country(Gandhi was not the sole influence).... Many of his experiments(like sleeping naked with his neices) I found disturbing, but I wish I could have been born in his generation to see him in action.....

[CSK Fan]

So True ! BTW...I've no respect for MKG.

Another kid who has been unsupervised on the internet for too long

[Sachinism]

Many of his experiments(like sleeping naked with his neices) I found disturbing' date=' but I wish I could have been born in his generation to see him in action.....[/quote'] :omg: damn that is disturbing for sure

[ViruRulez]

:omg: damn that is disturbing for sure

WTF.. where did you read that he was sleeping naked with his nieces.. do you mean to say incest.. it is not true for sure :omg:

[yoda]

http://qna.indiatimes.com/index.php?ref=permalinkquestion&question_id=50893

Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women. He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as "nature cure". Later in his life he started experimenting with Brahmacharya in order to test his self control. His letter to Birla in April, 1945 referring to ‘women or girls who have been naked with me’ indicates that several women were part of his experiments. Sex became the most talked about subject matter by Gandhi after ahimsa (non-violence) and increasingly so in his later years. He devoted five full editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of Brahmacharya. As part of these experiments, he initially slept with his women associates in the same room but at a distance. Afterwards he started to lie in the same bed with his women disciples and later took to sleeping naked alongside them. According to Gandhi active-celibacy meant perfect self control in the presence of opposite sex. Gandhi conducted his experiments with a number of women such as Abha, the sixteen-year-old wife of his grandnephew Kanu Gandhi. Gandhi acknowledged “that this experiment is very dangerous indeed”, but thought “that it was capable of yielding great results”. His nineteen-year-old grandniece, Manu Gandhi, too was part of his experiments. Gandhi had earlier written to her father, Jaisukhlal Gandhi, that Manu had started to share his bed so that he may "correct her sleeping posture". In Gandhi’s view, the experiment of sleeping naked with Manu in Noakhali would help him in contemplating upon Hindu-Muslim unity in India before partition and ease communal tensions. Gandhi called Sarladevi, a married woman with children and a devout follower, his “spiritual wife”. He later said that he had come close to having sexual relations with her. He had told a correspondent in March, 1945 that “sleeping together came with my taking up of bramhacharya or even before that”; he said he had experimented with his wife “but that was not enough”. Gandhi felt satisfied with his experiments and wrote to Manu that “I have successfully practiced the eleven vows taken by me. This is the culmination of my striving for last thirty six years. In this yajna I got a glimpse of the ideal truth and purity for which I have been striving”. Gandhi had to take criticism for his experiments by many of his followers and opponents. His stenographer, R. P. Parasuram, resigned when he saw Gandhi sleeping naked with Manu. Gandhi insisted that he never felt aroused while he slept beside her, or with Sushila or Abha. "I am sorry" Gandhi said to Parasuram, "you are at liberty to leave me today." Nirmal Kumar Bose, another close associate of Gandhi, parted company with him in April 1947, post Gandhi's tour of Noakhali, where some sort of altercation had taken place between Gandhi and Sushila Nayar in his bedroom at midnight that caused Gandhi to slap his forehead. Bose had stated that the nature of his experiments in Bramhacharya still remained unknown and unstated.

I don't know much of this is accurate, may be someone who has studied/read about this more can elaborate.

[punjabi_khota]

In my opinion, Gandhi and his efforts were the second biggest reason for British leaving India. The first one was WWII and its after effects. For all their heroics, I think people like Bose and Bhagat singh had very little effect on British.

[DeXteR]

I am glad though that Indian people of today still remember Bhagat Singh. For example, Take Gautam Gambhir. He wanted to be an Indian Army officer if not Cricketer and his Idol is Bhagat Singh.

Hey Bhagat Singh is very popular in northern regions. you will definitely find more fans of Bhagat Singh in this region.I have seen guys having tatto of Bhagat Singh in Punjab. But for Gandhi many people i know say that they Gandhi was great man..but the dont like him for the fact -he didnt save Bhagat Singh, especially in punjab.

[DeXteR]

Well i admire more of Bhagat Singh, Subash and Chandera Shekar than gandhi. But i have to admit -gandhi's non violence methods were just so different, he was great in that respect.

[Guest Gunner]

In my opinion' date=' Gandhi and his efforts were the second biggest reason for British leaving India. The first one was WWII and its after effects. For all their heroics, I think people like Bose and Bhagat singh had very little effect on British.[/quote'] Perfect rationale!!

[DomainK]

In my opinion' date=' Gandhi and his efforts were the second biggest reason for British leaving India. [b']The first one was WWII and its after effects. For all their heroics, I think people like Bose and Bhagat singh had very little effect on British.

I agree with that. WW II left the British quite exhausted and India was a big liability for them. But I don't think Bose and Bhagat Singh had no effect on the British. Rather I believe they were the ones the British truely feared because at that time they were least prepared to face a violent revolution. Gandhi suited them more as they left looking good and kind. Gandhi was a great man himself, but the people he backed were not so great. Nehru for example. The hurry in which everything was arranged and the amount of say the British were allowed was suspicious (though I admire Nehru for the foundation for education and industrialization he laid). The India Pakistan division happened because the men who fought for independence lacked unity and love. When a community fights for years for freedom and achieve it, division is not the first thing that comes to their mind. Slavery and revolution brings strong unity and such unity takes ages to break after freedom is gained. Not only did we divide, as soon as we gained freedom, we fought, ran riots and developed into an orderless and principle less corrupt society full of bribery, political/religious & communal hypocrisy, back stabbing and anarchy. Yes, we thought of division even before we had gained freedom. I believe (and it's my personal opinion) that it has a lot to do with the way we gained freedom. Like I said before, ahimsa is great in principle for exceptional individuals like Gandhi, but it's not for the masses. As soon as we gained the promise of freedom, we set Gandhi aside and started chasing individual ambitions. We failed massively in practicing that principle and in stead of being non-violent messengers of peace, we became a bunch of corrupt cowards. Non-violence is a great concept and can be practices by great individuals (like Gandhi). But you can not expect an entire population of a country to be such greats. Therefore, as soon as Gandhi was dead, we were left with a few crore of confused people who had a great legacy and had no idea what to do with it. Consequently, Gandhi became a portrait on a wall or the name of the busiest road in every city and we became a confused and hypocritical society. Therefore, while I respect Gandhi a great deal for what he was and what he did, I believe a freedom gained another way would have made us a much better nation than we are today.

[ViruRulez]

http://qna.indiatimes.com/index.php?ref=permalinkquestion&question_id=50893 I don't know much of this is accurate, may be someone who has studied/read about this more can elaborate.

I would not trust a yahoo answers reply or a post by any tom, dick or harry at some qna in indiatimes without any fact.. that person might be a Paki.. I would never trust a qna or a forum post without any evidence to back it up.

[CSK Fan]

british had no problem with dealing with gandhi types since gandhi & his followers got thrashed by brits on a regular basis, their concern was the violent types of Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru & Chandra Shekar Azad, the real men who braved death for freedom. gandhi was too weak to fight, he walked around with the support of two women..which is kinda strange. gandhi was killed by a Indian marathi guy and Bhagat Singh was hanged to death by british. I personally feel gandhi was no threat to british, British left India because they could never control such a big population for a longer time. They gave credit to gandhi for a reason it was the british way to tell the sane world that they left India bcoz they were so 'moved' by a non-violent person like gandhi rather than letting the world know that they were driven out by violent types like Bhagat Singh & Chandra Shekar Azad who bombed & shot at them.

It requires more courage to get thrashed without retaliating. It is the most easiest thing in the world to hit back at someone who has hit you. Al Queda, Taliban, etc are examples of organisations who use violence to retaliate against perceived injustice. Initially their cause might have been as just as say, Mandela's but becuase of the means they used, they are a threat to themselves and the world Do you really think that a country and its army, which fought and defeated the mighty Germans and Japanese, would actually get scared of a handful of people wielding country made pistols and bombs? Really? Might would never have overcome the British. It was finally the people refusing to co-operate, whatever the cost, that did them in. It was the people getting united under one umbreally of India that did them in. Imagine most of a people of a huge country not co-operating with you. No way in the word you can rule them. The reason the world is in such a mess as its today is because we have more people like Bush who think that might is right. We have people like you who think physical strength is what makes people superior (By that logic mankind should have been at the bottoom of the evolution table). The reason is that we dont have leaders of the stature of Gandhi. The British were driven out by a thought (vichar in hindi). the thought that India was one uniformed country with united people. Small packets of violent resistance didnt make any difference but India speaking in one voice did. And the British dont need to justify Gandhi as a legend and the reason for independence. Our countrymen still remember what he stood for. My grandparent still swear on his name. Sadly, as we start taking our independence for granted, we also come up deriding a person for his weakness of non-violence, when actually thats the greatest strength a person can ever have

[DeXteR]

^^^ thats a great point.