Desi Cartman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 These guys' date=' with their collective efforts, earned us the freedom that allows us to today sit back and judge their actions in those difficult times. We love to judge people, don't we? We love to find faults in great men, in legends that we owe deeply. Since we got freedom free of cost since birth, we like to say how the freedom fighting should have been done differently. That makes us hypocrites.[/quote'] There are 2 extremes, one is to respect them for what they did and the other is to call them all out mahatman.I see the sacrifice and respect these leaders for that but I wouldnt call them perfect. I hope you understand my point
DomainK Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 There are 2 extremes, one is to respect them for what they did and the other is to call them all out mahatman.I see the sacrifice and respect these leaders for that but I wouldnt call them perfect. I hope you understand my point I understand your point clearly. I am just saying that in today's generation, in the internet generation, we have a tendency of critically judging people not knowing enough about them. But I agree with you that even those people had their share of human weaknesses.
Lurker Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I understand your point clearly. I am just saying that in today's generation' date= in the internet generation, we have a tendency of critically judging people not knowing enough about them. But I agree with you that even those people had their share of human weaknesses. Well said. The knowing enough part is important. What is as much worriesome is that when it comes to knowing, it invariably becomes about some weird retarded website that only adds more hatred.
Desi Cartman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Lurker mia , koi achi kitaab batain Gandhi ko samjhne ke liye Since Obama has pwned himself, I will have to start reading/listening to books more and avoid listening to radio altogether
Lurker Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Lurker mia , koi achi kitaab batain Gandhi ko samjhne ke liye Since Obama has pwned himself, I will have to start reading/listening to books more and avoid listening to radio altogether There are a few, how about you read (if you havent already) Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lappiere and Larry Collins. Spellings check kar lena but deals in a nice way about 1947 partition riots and roles of different leaders thus showing the difference between Gandhi vs Jinnah vs Nehru vs Patel.
Desi Cartman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Dhanyavad parantu yeh audible mein available nahi hai ... Is this any good ? http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_3?asin=B003IWX9DW&qid=1349374235&sr=1-3
ganeshran Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 the Mahatma's most admirable quality was his decision to stick to principle no matter how difficult the course may be. His calling off the Khilafat because of one violent incident, promising to make Jinnah the prime minister if it meant that India could be undivided, something that he requested Mountbatten too but was ignored. His spending time with Suhwarady in Calcutta in a muslim neighbourhood so Hindus and Muslims would not fight on the anniversary of Direct Action day. Staying true to one's ideals is very easy when the stakes are low, but the mind begins to waver when the stakes are higher. Gandhi stayed true to his principles even when the stakes were monumental
ganeshran Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Dhanyavad parantu yeh audible mein available nahi hai ... Is this any good ? http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_3?asin=B003IWX9DW&qid=1349374235&sr=1-3 Try this [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Gandhis-Passion-Legacy-Mahatma-Gandhi/dp/019515634X]Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi: Stanley Wolpert: 9780195156348: Amazon.com: Books[/ame] Experiments with truth is more of a philosohpical autobiography. If you are looking for an engaging read, then a biography like Wolpert's book is a better bet.
surajmal Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 the Mahatma's most admirable quality was his decision to stick to principle no matter how difficult the course may be. His calling off the Khilafat because of one violent incident, promising to make Jinnah the prime minister if it meant that India could be undivided, something that he requested Mountbatten too but was ignored. His spending time with Suhwarady in Calcutta in a muslim neighbourhood so Hindus and Muslims would not fight on the anniversary of Direct Action day. Staying true to one's ideals is very easy when the stakes are low, but the mind begins to waver when the stakes are higher. Gandhi stayed true to his principles even when the stakes were monumental Some would say that was his biggest weakness. If he wanted to stay absolute to his principles, he should have become a Philosopher or a Dharmic Leader in the mold of Buddha, Shankaracharaya or Gurunanak. Assuming the mantle of leader of the masses required some pliability because his decisions had tangible consequences - Hi fi talk is fit for the classroom (or a group high on marijuana) only.
surajmal Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 As far as the Gold Standard goes for Political Leaders of Bharat - Chanakya is still it. He was the perfect Realistic Idealist who proposed tangible solutions for problems around and didn't just shout maxims.
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I read his autobiography when i was 16 or 17.I was so overcome with pride for Gandhiji that that i vowed to myself that wont lie ever in my life.The consequences of following that were so hard that i coundt even sustain the vow for a single day. The Pride that he is our and only ours Mahatma just grows with everyday. :hatsoof:
Crookbond Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Agreed, the man was not above faults. For example his lack of support to likes of Azaad, Bhagat Singh and later on Subhas Bose. Also perhaps not the best Father. That said, he was still a man ahead of most of greats of our time. I sometimes find it a little disturbing that we for some reason have this notion of role models should be faultless - if so no man in the world would befit our expectations.
ravishingravi Posted October 5, 2012 Author Posted October 5, 2012 I sometimes find it a little disturbing that we for some reason have this notion of role models should be faultless - if so no man in the world would befit our expectations. The problem is not so much the flaws. The problem is wrong image being created in the first place. Our history books, commentators and media managed to create this god like figure. With times, the new revelations kept coming and suddenly that picture wasn't as pretty.
Lurker Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I sometimes find it a little disturbing that we for some reason have this notion of role models should be faultless - if so no man in the world would befit our expectations. I have to wonder how much of this is present day phenomenon? People have always been questioned and looked at sceptically, but I suppose more shine has been taken off world legendary figures in last 20 years than maybe in last 200 years. I mean the vilification of Gandhi from 1992-2012 will far precede that in say 1947-1992. How did that happen?
Crookbond Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 The problem is not so much the flaws. The problem is wrong image being created in the first place. Our history books' date= commentators and media managed to create this god like figure. With times, the new revelations kept coming and suddenly that picture wasn't as pretty. I have never understood that point as well - what is the need? :dontknow: Why can not a man be GREAT at one aspect and sh!t poor at others? Under the context X, they are great while others they are not. After all, aren't they human beings! I I have to wonder how much of this is present day phenomenon? People have always been questioned and looked at sceptically, but I suppose more shine has been taken off world legendary figures in last 20 years than maybe in last 200 years. I mean the vilification of Gandhi from 1992-2012 will far precede that in say 1947-1992. How did that happen? I would not like to compare past versus present but you got to factor into account the ease of information from one part of the world to the other and hence there would be "quickening up". The six degrees of separation from 1960's has gone down to four degrees now in a space of 50 years. That's a huge change. I once was in a session by Rajeev Sangal (Director IIITH and ex IIT Kanpur CSE Dean) about Gandhi [0]. He's a devout follower of Gandhi's principles and he made a very excellent point - "If British ruled India in modern times, they would rule us for 50 not 150 years". [0] http://www.iiit.ac.in/~sangal/
Sachin=GOD Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 There are a few' date=' how about you read (if you havent already) [b']Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lappiere and Larry Collins. Spellings check kar lena but deals in a nice way about 1947 partition riots and roles of different leaders thus showing the difference between Gandhi vs Jinnah vs Nehru vs Patel. very good book but its a bit too sympathetic towards the British Raaj. Ramchandra Guha is writing a 8 part biography of Mahatma Gandhi - that should be brilliant.
Lurker Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I would not like to compare past versus present but you got to factor into account the ease of information from one part of the world to the other and hence there would be "quickening up". The six degrees of separation from 1960's has gone down to four degrees now in a space of 50 years. That's a huge change. I once was in a session by Rajeev Sangal (Director IIITH and ex IIT Kanpur CSE Dean) about Gandhi [0]. He's a devout follower of Gandhi's principles and he made a very excellent point - "If British ruled India in modern times, they would rule us for 50 not 150 years". That is akin to suggesting how it took a person 10 years to make his first million, and only 1 to make his next. Whether it would take Brits 150 or 50 is hypothetical. In fact I would even argue that if modern times means 2012, Brits would not fancy their chance against India, most likely India would come out trumps in a war with UK. However all this is easy to sit back and create theories around after all the heavy lifting and modernization has happened. If you look at the history of India and how our founding fathers fought for it, 150 years does not seem like a long time. Heck in the 1857 freedom movement half the country was fighting against us. What else did we expect?
Crookbond Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 That is akin to suggesting how it took a person 10 years to make his first million, and only 1 to make his next. Whether it would take Brits 150 or 50 is hypothetical. In fact I would even argue that if modern times means 2012, Brits would not fancy their chance against India, most likely India would come out trumps in a war with UK. However all this is easy to sit back and create theories around after all the heavy lifting and modernization has happened. If you look at the history of India and how our founding fathers fought for it, 150 years does not seem like a long time. Heck in the 1857 freedom movement half the country was fighting against us. What else did we expect? This has taken a new direction - I did not mean disrespect. :poink:
Lurker Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 This has taken a new direction - I did not mean disrespect. :poink: I know you didn't. Just saying it is difficult to compare the two eras. Kind of like how much would Bradman make today I suppose.:cantstop:
Crookbond Posted October 5, 2012 Posted October 5, 2012 I know you didn't. Just saying it is difficult to compare the two eras. Kind of like how much would Bradman make today I suppose.:cantstop: That was my point - I thought you wanted to compare two eras my asking if this distortion theory is a modern phenomena? :hmmmm2:
Recommended Posts