AmalgaNation
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
AmalgaNation

A Forum For Fans of All Audio-Visual Media

Members are requested to always regularly check the "Announcements" Section.
An IRC webchat has been placed at the bottom of the portal page. Type in a name and enter. This way, you do not need a IRC client, just open the portal page. No logging into forum account needed.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Gandhi

+6
Ankita
Arr0wHeaD
Aceviper
kyo
yuki
Omkar
10 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1Gandhi Empty Gandhi Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:20 pm

Omkar

Omkar
Active Member
Active Member

With all the euphoria surrounding the Gandhi Jayanti, all the debates held on relevance of Gandhi's ideology, the hymns sung in praise of the 'Mahatma' and a partly ridiculous article written by Chetan Bhagat in today's Times of India about youth appealing Gandhi to bring about unification in them, I want to share with you some lesser known bitter facts related to this dude that I came across while studying mass communicators for the exams. Sadly, as the exams start from tomorrow, I can't share them with you right now as they are too long and scandalous.
Watch out this space after 12th. Meanwhile, I want to know what you think about Gandhi.

http://creativelyfertile.blogspot.com/

2Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:39 pm

yuki

yuki
Active Member
Active Member

i think he's a great man cos if he weren't there, things might have been...different. i dunno. anything could have happened. but yeah, the point is, he never gave up and fought for our freedom and hence we live like we do today.

3Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:47 am

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

I am a Shubash Chandra Bose kinda guy.... and.... while I agree that Gandhi was the man who got us our freedom.... I still think that it was because of his attitude that we had to suffer through Partition and are having to bear the consequences of that incident to this day....

4Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:38 am

yuki

yuki
Active Member
Active Member

kyo wrote:I am a Shubash Chandra Bose kinda guy.... and.... while I agree that Gandhi was the man who got us our freedom.... I still think that it was because of his attitude that we had to suffer through Partition and are having to bear the consequences of that incident to this day....

so u believe in "fight ur way to freedom"? o.o

5Gandhi Empty Brace Yourselves! Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:11 pm

Omkar

Omkar
Active Member
Active Member

Finally I got a breather. Got a holiday tomorrow so I can afford to dawdle for some more time on net and post what I have been intending to.

WARNING:

The info I am sharing is controversial and might offend some of you. So instead of wanting to sue or screw me, as the case might be, better follow self-censoring and get the hell away.
.
.
.
.
I am serious. You might not like it.
.
.
.
.
What are you waiting for? Jee-O: GO!
.
.
.
.
Ok then, don't blame me then if you are offended after reading. You were warned.


As much as most of us respect Gandhi for his contribution in India's freedom struggle, we respect him also for his dedication, supposed sin and hatred free life. His penance, his kindness, his ideals, his asceticism, yada yada. But you know what, he wasn't much of a saint we think he was. In fact, our 'Mahatma' was a friggin hypocrite. The books dealing with Gandhi controversies, articles in print and visual media have been curbed and banned but thanks to less chances of internet censorship, it is abound with information about the dark side of Gandhi. Check this out-

http://listverse.com/2009/05/26/10-scandalous-or-obscure-facts-about-historical-figures/
states that
Fact: Gandhi was a dirty old man

At the age of 36, whilst married, Gandhi decided to become celibate in order to achieve a state of enlightenment (through the Hindu religion). As he got older, he became more and more fascinated with sex to the point that, second only to non-violence, it was the subject he most talked about. In order to “perfect” his celibate state, Gandhi would sleep naked with young naked women. One of the women was the 16 year old wife of his grand-nephew Kanu Gandhi. When he wanted to share his bed with his 19 year old grandniece Manu Gandhi, he wrote to her father and told him that they were sharing a bed so that he could “correct her sleeping posture”. When his stenographer R. P. Parasuram found him sleeping naked with Manu, he resigned in disgus
t.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Brahmacharya
goes a step further ans says:

In Gandhi's view 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 saw himself as a mother to these women and would refer to Abha and Manu as "my walking sticks"

Mother?? What a f****** creep. And how ridiculous can his contemplation theory get?

http://www.sikhtimes.com/books_020278a.html
gives a review of Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles, a hugely controversial book, echoing similar facts. It created a huge furore in the Parliament before getting banned(surprise surprise Rolling Eyes)

Now the question arises that why was Gandhi a dirty old man? Many believe that at that time, he developed some form of aversion towards Kasturba, an illiterate mother of three children, or in other words, he disliked to share bed with her. So, his intention was to abandon Kasturba as a sleeping partner in the name of keeping celibacy.

And that is not all. Gandhi also had an affair with Sarladevi, Rabindranath Tagore's niece. Gandhi used to admit that his relation with Saraladevi went up to sexuality Source: Girija Kumar (1997), The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India, Har-Anand Publishers. Of course, neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Sarla Devi wrote about their love affairs in their autobiographies.


This is our father of nation.

I've got more stuff besides his personal life. But I guess, this is enough for today.
Comment.

http://creativelyfertile.blogspot.com/

6Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:08 am

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

I am not going to skew my view of his 'public' deeds by looking through the prism of his personal life. That is not right. While those anecdotes disgust me on a personal level, on a wider scale, the man did some great things for this country. Basically, what I mean to say is that we are all human, but a normal Joe Nobody would not come under such fire or have to go to such lengths to protect his image in a similar situation. It is unfair to expect ANY person to be 100% 'pure' or whatever. This is not to say that I will accept or condone such behavior. I just feel that even public figures are human and that their misdeeds and faults should not be blown as far out of proportion when you consider that a normal person would not attract even a fraction of the attention for the same mistakes.

7Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:17 pm

Omkar

Omkar
Active Member
Active Member

kyo wrote:I am not going to skew my view of his 'public' deeds by looking through the prism of his personal life. That is not right. While those anecdotes disgust me on a personal level, on a wider scale, the man did some great things for this country. Basically, what I mean to say is that we are all human, but a normal Joe Nobody would not come under such fire or have to go to such lengths to protect his image in a similar situation. It is unfair to expect ANY person to be 100% 'pure' or whatever. This is not to say that I will accept or condone such behavior. I just feel that even public figures are human and that their misdeeds and faults should not be blown as far out of proportion when you consider that a normal person would not attract even a fraction of the attention for the same mistakes.

I knew someone would say that. But c'mon man, if we talk about other personalities that represent India like Amitabh Bachchan's affairs or Vijay Mallaya's personal life, even if they might have a shady side, I don't think we would flinch so much. Because this perv we are talking about here, he is the goddamn Father of the Nation. He was not born one, he was made even amidst his known pervy existence. Here's an analogy- father is family. And family is personal life. So when you look at a father, you don't look at how much he's progressed in his business or job. You look if he's been a a good father, a good husband, a good person. I would have compromised for Father of Independence, in spite of me differing in my views about his contribution. Look at how much he's earned publicity for his superficial ascetic existence.

My next post about his non-personal life is coming soon. Lets see how you can justify some of the utterly ridiculous and disgusting things he's done.

http://creativelyfertile.blogspot.com/

8Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:59 pm

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

Bring it!! But like I said.... I am Subhash Chandra Bose kinda guy... I basically disagreed with pretty much EVERYTHING Gandhi did as a public figure... even if it sorta got us our freedom....

9Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:19 pm

Aceviper

Aceviper
Administrator
Administrator

We accept him as Father Of Nation and without really knowing EVERYTHING about it, we accept his title too. But when you think of it, he was almost a cry baby. I mean, remember all those times people said he had perseverance? Let's re-enact the situation.

Gandhi - I want people to do so-and-so.
General Public - NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Gandhi - Then I will go on hunger Strike till you do what I have said.

Isn't that so damn similar to what a child will do?

Child - Mommy, I want that toy.
Mom -No, you're not getting it.
Child - Waaaaaa. Wont eat or wont listen to Mother.

I honour the fact that he was somehow able to get us independence, and saying that, I'd also like to state that I honour EVERY OTHER person who helped us get independence.

I don't have any animosity against him or what he did...but still, I somehow can't accept him as Father of Nation. Dunno. That's all I'll say for now.

10Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:20 am

yuki

yuki
Active Member
Active Member

I'm sorry guys but I think you are going a bit too far. I mean, Gandhi might not have been a perfect person, but never forget that he is one the main people who fought for India's freedom.

Ace, you said:
"We accept him as Father Of Nation and without really knowing EVERYTHING
about it, we accept his title too."
And you said that he is childish. But hey, don't you think literally fighting back against an 'enemy' who is stronger than you is just foolish? And I thought Gandhi had a lot of followers for his strikes; if people did not agree with his ideas then why did the whole nation(okay, maybe minus some people) support him?

Om:
Why do you think Gandhi is a dirty old man? Maybe because it said so in some articles, books etc. Do you think you can judge a person just based on that? And you know what, whenever a person becomes famous ( be it a scientist, politician, celebrity or whatever) , gossips follow them everywhere. Some of them might be exaggerated truths and some are outright lies.

Say what? Any of you ever read Gandhi's books? 'The story of my experiments with truth'?Or been to 'Sabarmathi Ashramam'? Probably not. My point is, judging a person based on some writings is just stupid. He might have done wrong, like any other human, but for you people to regard him with such hate and repulsion is just sad, especially all of us being Indians.

11Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:48 am

Aceviper

Aceviper
Administrator
Administrator

yuki wrote:
Ace, you said:
"We accept him as Father Of Nation and without really knowing EVERYTHING
about it, we accept his title too."
And you said that he is childish. But hey, don't you think literally fighting back against an 'enemy' who is stronger than you is just foolish? And I thought Gandhi had a lot of followers for his strikes; if people did not agree with his ideas then why did the whole nation(okay, maybe minus some people) support him?

Why were Indians convinced so easily that White Skin is better han dark skin? BECAUSE THEY WERE BACKBONELESS! Because more than 70% of the citizens at that time, were uneducated. You would tell them that so-and-so is right, and they would blindly follow. THAT'S why the Extremist Faction had more members - the one thing humans know without education that means retaliation is violence.

yuki wrote:Om:
Say what? Any of you ever read Gandhi's books? 'The story of my experiments with truth'?Or been to 'Sabarmathi Ashramam'? Probably not. My point is, judging a person based on some writings is just stupid. He might have done wrong, like any other human, but for you people to regard him with such hate and repulsion is just sad, especially all of us being Indians.

BACK AT YOU! You can't make judgments based on the stuff you've read - because all the books YOU have read, are talking about the good stuff - I don't deny he had a big role in independence - but I say that there should be many more people who might have gotten equal or more honour than him. Since he succeeded, we consider him the Father. What about the foundations of the Independence that the other Freedom Fighters gave their life for? Do they get no consideration Maybe except for a mention of their names in our History textbook?

We grew up learning Earth has no gravitational force in space, and we were proved wrong as we grew. Sometimes there are facts that we should check and verify for ourselves. Is what we knew really true? And so, I decided to Google stuff myself - to learn the "dark" side of what I know. I'll also keep you guys posted.

12Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:08 am

Aceviper

Aceviper
Administrator
Administrator

OH MY GOD! I don't believe it. Okay this is something I don't whether it happened before of after his sage-becoming, but I assume its after.


Furthermore...



I MEAN WHAT?! WTF?! I don't believe it. Isn't that taking non-violence a bit too far? No insult to him, but excuse me, that's not non-violence. That's more of...suicide (?) >__>



Last edited by Aceviper on Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:02 am; edited 1 time in total

13Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:22 am

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

As I said Non Violence was never my calling... and I didnt even know that the dude HAD an opinion on the Jews and WW2... but on the most basic levels I disagreed with his policies and views... even if it did get India its freedom... but if he did say and do all of that (or eevn some of that).... then my opinion of him dropped a notch lower....

14Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:00 am

Aceviper

Aceviper
Administrator
Administrator

And so, searching a bit, I find out some more about Gandhi's sex scandal. Here it is:-->

India, 1942: In the end, the political demise of Mohandas Gandhi came with stunning speed. Until last week, he was the reversed Mahatma--the Great Soul-- leader of 400 million Indians in the drive for independence from British colonial rule. With the election of the Labour Government in Britain increasingly likely, chances never seemed brighter for the free India that Gandhi had sought for so long.

But by week's end, in the wake of newspaper accounts of Gandhi's sexual peccadillos, bizarre personal habits and mind-bending cult practices, his career--and perhaps Indian nationalism --lay in ruins. Those closest to Gandhi likened it to a Greek tragedy, a giant cut down by his own hands. "Gandhi's personal life was a political time bomb waiting to explode,' said one distraught associate. "Now it's finally blown up in our faces.'

Ironically, Gandhi set the stage for his demise through his own pronouncements on sex. His obsession began in 1885 when he learned of his father's death while in bed with his wife. By 1906, he had taken a much celebrated vow of celibacy. An extraordinary commitment, but even then Gandhi was angling for moral loopholes. "If for want of physical enjoyment,' he wrote, "the mind wallows in thoughts of enjoyment, then it is legitimate to satisfy the hungers of the body.' For years, supporters now admit, Gandhi had pushed the outer limits of propriety. "The man in the loin cloth, it seems, has thought a good deal about loins,' said one observer.

After years of such rumors, it was the specific nature of the latest charges, followed by other damaging revelations, that undermined his political base. The shock waves were felt throughout the British empire--and new questions were raised about how relevant a politician's character was to his work, and whether in the case of Gandhi, the Fourth Estate went too far.

A Spiritual Experience? The trouble began a week ago when the New Delhi Herald published a front page story reporting that Gandhi had spent the weekend with five attractive young women--aides in his nonviolent campaign--at his ashram in Sevegram. Meanwhile, his wife Kasturbai was 2,000 miles away at their mountain retreat in Kashmir recuperating from an illness.

More Revelations: Still, by week's end, the prospects for Gandhi's political recovery looked grim, despite his denials and counter-attacks. In the next few days, there were other newspaper accounts of Gandhi's celibacy experiments. The Bombay Post ran an insiders' account of life in Gandhi's ashram. Contrary to the image he had cultivated of a gentle, loving soul, the two-part series, "The Dark Side of Gandhi,' detailed the brutal regimen imposed on his followers. His 100-plus disciples, forced to live in primitive mud and bamboo huts, were awakened daily at a A.M. to eat nothing but a few crumbs of unseasoned vegetarian gruel and dry wheat. Weakened, they were subjected to long harangues on arcane religious topics. Eyewitness accounts were gruesome. "We had to spend hours on our knees chanting prayers and spinning cotton,' said one American follower who defected. "We were like zombies.' Cult experts say Gandhi had dozens of ingenious schemes to weaken his followers' ties to their families and strengthen his control over them. Their secret name for their leader: "Bapu,' or father.

Okay, I dont know about the cult experts but that is one tangent way to look at things. And saying that, I'd also point out that THAT is one VERY mind boggling point!

The Post story was the final straw. In his political death throes, Gandhi made a dramatic appearance before his supporters--and stopped just short of abandoning his campaign for a free India. "I intended, in all honesty, to come to you this sunrise and tell you that I was leaving the cause. But, then, after tossing and turning all night, as I have through this ordeal, I woke up and said, "Heck, my goodness, no.''

Instead, Gandhi with his back against the proverbial wall reached deep into his bag of tricks and, like a cat with nine lives, pulled yet another rabbit from his hat: a hunger strike. Over the course of a fifty-year career, Gandhi had turned this familiar strategy into a crowd pleaser that could move the masses or pummel an Empire. "Under certain circumstances, fasting is the one weapon God has given us for use in times of utter helplessness,' said Gandhi defiantly.

And their judgment seemed harsh. Within a matter of days, the squalid controversy over Gandhi's private parts turned him from a national hero into a laughingstock. On his nightly radio program, comedian Charu Carson quipped, "Well, at least we know the Mahatma is big enough for the job of running India.' He added, to more laughter, "I guess he was really meditating his brains out this weekend.' Editorial cartoonists had a field day, as a bulging loin cloth quickly became the Mahatma's new trademark.

In the next few days more revelations came trickling out about other celibacy "experiments' he had been conducting since his forties, including one report of a pleasure trip down the Ganges with Nehru and two female assistants on the awkwardly named Holy Cow. The Post also revealed that at the end of each day, he had one of his attractive, young female disciples administer an enema, which he insisted was for "health' and "cleansing' purposes. "Gandhi gives as much as he takes-- even to total strangers,' said one Gandhi aide.

New Ground rules: Gandhi's sudden demise triggered an orgy of self-examination in the media. Did the press go too far? "At first, I agonized over whether we should risk tarnishing a great man's reputation with close-up photos of naked women and speculation about his sex life,' said Ved

Fiedleraba, who led the Herald stakeout. "But then I realized that the public had a right to know.' Fiedleraba reasoned that if there was the slightest possibility that Gandhi was lying about his celibacy, then that raised serious questions about his candor and his ability to negotiate with foreign leaders were India ever to become independent. "So, naturally, it was my moral obligation to set up camp outside his bedroom.'

Now the question is: Whither India? In his stead, there are other leaders who could possibly win independence for India--the Moslem Jinnah, or even Vallabhaai Patel--but neither has the stature and name recognition of a Gandhi. Non-violent disobedience seems a memory now. And nationalism itself is on the backburner. As the likely next Viceroy of the Raj, Lord Louis Mountbatten, points out, "If an entire nation could be led down the primrose path by this charlatan and hypocrite, the Indian people are not yet ready for independence.' Wise heads in India and Britain agreed, and with Gandhi's political demise, a tumultuous chapter in India's history closes, and calmer times lie ahead.

^ The last para goes exactly with what I said in my earlier post.

15Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:40 pm

yuki

yuki
Active Member
Active Member

Okay, maybe I should say it once again: Gandhi wasn't a perfect human. That's why I asked if you have read his autobiography - it doesn't say just about the 'good' side of him. He had a time when he wasn't 'good', but that side of him was left behind long ago, before he started fighting for independence. And I'll truthfully say that no, I haven't actually read about the 'other side of him' but I asked someone who knows a great deal about the freedom fighters. And he said that when Gandhi was young he wasn't exactly the same man as the one we look up to as the father of nation.

Then I thought, put myself in his shoes; what would I do? Or any other person do? We will simply carry on with life, remember that Gandhi studied in UK and with that degree he could have worked abroad instead of wasting away his years in India. Also, if he was such a sex fanatic, he would have had more scope in some other country than India. But he didn't. Instead he came back to India, and fought for our freedom along with other great leaders like Nehru, Shastri and so on. I understand the point that Indians were uneducated during that time. But people have common sense. Even if they get 'brainwashed', surely they would have realized about his misdeeds, just like how we realized 'white skin ain't all pretty'.

And like any other leader, he had his share of opposers/enemies. Well, that's why he got shot to death? Some of these stories could very well be made up by them and as I said before, some of them could be true. Now let me ask you this : Are you perfect? I have no shame in saying that I'm not, and I can never be a great person like Gandhi. I would never sacrifice my life for my country simply because I'm a coward and I value my own life than others'. In the end, its what you all choose to believe. I don't really like debates(because they are long) and this is my first time trying this hard to prove my point. The reason is because I felt bad when I saw the stuff you were saying about our leader. The reason why British conquered India so easily is this, we don't have faith in our own leaders. Its quite pathetic and I feel ashamed when I think about how the people here look upto their queen (even if she doesn't do much) and how people in India talk about their own leaders. I don't have much more to say in this topic. Believe what you want, because no matter what another person say, one has to decide for oneself on what view to take.

p.s. I missed out this bit. Gandhi actually urged Indians to fight with British in WW2. He knew that British were much more easier to deal with than Germans and Japanese. However with British, a war would merely end up in lots of death, because as i said before, they do not go back on their Queen's orders. The only way to win to non-violence, because in the end, British have that pride that Indians lack.

--The End--



Last edited by yuki on Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : -.- some <br> thing came up..)

16Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:41 pm

Aceviper

Aceviper
Administrator
Administrator

yuki wrote:Are you perfect?

The question has never been to be perfect or not! The question is whether he deserved the title he got! Or at least so in my case.

we don't have faith in our own leaders.

Proved wrong again. Aren't you noticing how much I am saying I honour the OTHER freedom fighters?!

p.s. I missed out this bit. Gandhi actually urged Indians to fight with British in WW2. He knew that British were much more easier to deal with than Germans and Japanese. However with British, a war would merely end up in lots of death, because as i said before, they do not go back on their Queen's orders. The only way to win to non-violence, because in the end, British have that pride that Indians lack.

He also fought on the side of Brits, mind you. See the following:-->

17Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:51 am

Arr0wHeaD

Arr0wHeaD
Forum Founder
Forum Founder

Also, if he was such a sex fanatic, he would have had more scope in some other country than India.
Nooot Really. If given a choice between living in the west as a regular dude or living in India while regarded as a demigod, It would be a lot easier to get 'action' in India.

But people have common sense. Even if they get 'brainwashed', surely they would have realized about his misdeeds, just like how we realized 'white skin ain't all pretty'.
Not happened yet. What do you think Fairness creams are for? We haven't learned anything, we're still into the fair skin superiority issue.

In the end, its what you all choose to believe.
Well, no. It's not a matter of faith here, he wasn't a religious teacher. It's a matter of facts. Sure it doesn't matter that much, he got us independence. But to consider him to be the epitome of virtue isn't right. For that matter, considering ANYONE as the epitome of virtue is just stupid. Nobody's perfect.

The reason why British conquered India so easily is this, we don't have faith in our own leaders. Its quite pathetic and I feel ashamed when I think about how the people here look upto their queen (even if she doesn't do much) and how people in India talk about their own leaders.

The Queen doesn't do a damn thing. Politicians though, both in India and Britan, are the ones who make decisions. I highly doubt that nobody badmouths politicians. We're talking about britan here. The country that made the 'Daily Mirror', a paper full of bull about everyone, from minor celebrities to Royalty..

p.s. I missed out this bit. Gandhi actually urged Indians to fight with British in WW2. He knew that British were much more easier to deal with than Germans and Japanese

Actually, he encouraged the Indians to fight in the World War because talks with british leaders lead him to believe that the Brits would leave India after the War. And also as he was hoping that the Brits would realize that the Indians were just as capable, competent and skilled as the Westerners.

Sadly they didn't.

The only way to win to non-violence, because in the end, British have that pride that Indians lack.
why don't Indians have pride? it has something to do with the hundreds of years when we were pushed around by westeners and instead of doing the logical thing, joining forces and kicking them the hell out the country, we remained disconnected from each other, tried small rebellions and acts of discontent and stuff.

Inspite of that,
Gandhi thought big and united the country.
That is where he rocked.
Not his celibacy, not his incestuous relationships and not his apparent hypocrisy. I doubt there are many who sit around today and spin khadi or meditate or any of that just because MKG did it. The reason he's called the father of the nation is because in a country where there are so many kinds of people that nobody understands each other. We haven't got over that after 61 years either, but the G man got them all to put that aside for long enough to gang up and...politely ask the brits to leave.

Ok, so that wasn't a perfect plan, but he got em united right? That is a feat that has not been repeated yet by any other politician, except maybe APJ Abdul Kalam.

https://amalganation.forumotion.net

18Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:42 pm

Omkar

Omkar
Active Member
Active Member

Arr0wHeaD wrote:

Inspite of that,
Gandhi thought big and united the country.
That is where he rocked.
Not his celibacy, not his incestuous relationships and not his apparent hypocrisy. I doubt there are many who sit around today and spin khadi or meditate or any of that just because MKG did it. The reason he's called the father of the nation is because in a country where there are so many kinds of people that nobody understands each other. We haven't got over that after 61 years either, but the G man got them all to put that aside for long enough to gang up and...politely ask the brits to leave.


The way non-violence works is the other side feels ashamed and finally reconciles to the demands. But what is the main necessity to this happening is the other side should have something called as 'conscience'.

Gandhi's theory had a merit, no doubt about it. But the thing is its an extremely slow and tedious process and not necessarily with a fruit in the end as the result-time varies from person to person and from situation to situation. But you know why it rocked so huge? Because people are, in general, bloody cowards. Did Gandhi's way involve plotting plans or organizing people, inspiring them and devising new ways to overthrow empire? No. Did his way involve directly crippling the British machinery by ruining their means of communication or disarming them financially and throwing their defense, rather, offence mechanism in tizzy? Hell, no. All it did was be mute sufferers, do not harm or offend either physically or mentally and in spite of it carry on the protest. Thus, a person at a grass-root level can gain satisfaction of 'fighting for the country' by doing almost nothing. Stop wearing foreign clothes worked coz foreign made clothes were obviously expensive when you compare them to khadi. Besides, if you yourself manufacture khadi, its dirt cheap. Overwhelming response is but obvious.
Satyagraha works but still sucks. Why? Because, I repeat, its extremely slow. Why else do you think after the entry of Gandhi in the political scene in 1916 we got independence 30 years later? On the other hand, Bhagat Singh set the white men's asses on fire in only 3 years after his entry in political scene in 1928.

I would also like to point out that Gandhi was, as Ace said, a cry-baby. But this was not just restricted against the British but for anyone who was disobedient to him, resulting in losses unimaginable. Take the case of Non co-operation movement. History states that it was an incredible hit all over the country and drastically affected the empire before being abruptly abandoned by Gandhi in 1922 over the Chauri-Chaura incident where a mob set on fire a police station in retaliation to the policemen firing at a peaceful rally. Tell me, what the f*** was that? Are we fighting because we are Gandhi's disciples or fighting for the greater good i.e. freedom?

I would love to talk more about your arguments Arrow but I think its about time that I open a fresh chapter. The non personal one. The political life's non-limelight side. The Bhagat Singh controversy.

Bhagat Singh was languishing in jail after the famous bombing the parliament incident. the judgement of him being hanged was pronounced. It was the same time i.e. 1931 that the Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed. Now let me illustrate the shrewdness of the British and Gandhi's f***headedness-

1. British viceroy Irwin carried out negotiations with Gandhi. Why? Because it was obvious Gandhi could be easily pacified. His Satyagraha, his meekness are all proof to it.
2. The pact had the Britishers releasing about 90,000 Satyagrahis that were jailed. While the negotiations were going on, Gandhi also had a chance of negotiating for Bhagat Singh release which he did but was met with a flat no. What's worse, he agreed to it.

Tell me, if the release of 90,000 people was possible, how hard was one more? Or I should say- 3 more, coz Rajguru and Sukhdev had a lion's share too. Gandhi represented the whole country. He could've easily bent the Britishers' back if he wanted to by refusing to sign but he didn't probably also because he hated violence. On the other hand, why were Britishers ready to release 90,000 people but stick their finger up when it comes to Bhagat Singh? The reason is obvious. They peed in their pants on the mention of the B word. An article from Frontline, a mag from The Hindu aptly proves my point.

Bhagat Singh. Mahatma Gandhi did plead for the commutation of the death sentence imposed on Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, but he did not succeed in the bid because the Viceroy's moves were governed from England and the three were considered a challenge to the Raj.

Ha!

http://creativelyfertile.blogspot.com/

19Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:57 pm

Ankita


Uprising Member
Uprising Member

Gandhi being a dirty old man matters to all our collective conscience. It goes to throw the robe of Divinity that he has wrapped himself in... If someone is called the 'Father of the Nation', it really matters as to what kind of a person he was. Currently, most of us are crying foul at what Tiger Woods did. Why? Because it gives a very negative impact on the golfers who held him as their role model. Now when we say its not possible to differentiate between Tiger Woods the golfer and Tiger the man, how can we separate the persona of Gandhi?
Moreover, I find his role in helping Indian attain freedom questionable. I am self confessed Subhash Chandra Bose fan and i truly believe in his theory. Check out the American War of Independence (1775 to 1783) or the bloody french Revolution (1789 to 1799). Yes, both these wars were bloody and gruesome. Yes, in both of them, a lot of people were killed. But weren't people killed in the Indian war of Independence? Statistically, probably Indians were killed in greater numbers than the French or the Americans. And yet, it took us NINETY years to attain independence. Why? Because of this big time hero who propagated NON VIOLENCE!! Its a basic basic fact! When your country is under a colonial rule, you can get independence just by walking all the way to Dandi or fasting! Its like trying to emotionally blackmail the British!!!
I might have been rude, insensitive, blatant and what not... but what irritates me the most is that every time someone says USA is a superpower and we are not cuz they got independence about a 150 years before India, i cant help but yell that the reason is GANDHI!!!!

20Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:12 pm

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

I think I said it early on in this thread... I was always more of a Subhash Chandra Bose kinda guy.... "Give me blood... and I will give you freedom..." If only he had been allowed to live and carry out his plans...

21Gandhi Empty Big Posts Make Me A Happy Chappy Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:47 pm

Red

Red
Complete Douchebag!
Complete Douchebag!



[Huge post. Me happy. If I were you, I wouldn't even bother reading this. It's all crap anyways Smile I just wrote all that because it's been a while since I made a big post. Me happy]

Kyo wrote:... I was always more of a Subhash Chandra Bose kinda guy.... "Give me blood... and I will give you freedom..." If only he had been allowed to live and carry out his plans...

Well, if that ever did happen, we would have been looked upon by the entire world as frikkin NAZIS!!!
Subhash Chandra Bose wanted an alliance with the Nazis to get the British out... because Nazis were the Empire's enemy. He was a "enemy's enemy is a friend" kinda guy I guess.

@Ankita & Kyo: I share the same sentiment about India actually "FIGHTING" the British away, but an all out rebellion/war would be near impossible with all the monitoring the Empire had on us. Communications between the the different rebel groups around the nation would have been seriously hindered and slowed down if not entirely compromised.


In the end it was either Gandhi's way or Her Majesty's Highway.

A pity, because when you look at it, it's not like India EARNED it's independence at the end after a great struggle. Sure there was a lot of boycotting and rallying out in the streets, but non-violence just makes it look like the British just left because they were quite tired of us nagging about a self-governed free country.

Like... like India was some whore that they were screwing. For around 400 years she took it in and out. They brought her gifts and presents like an excellent railways and transport, telegraph, postal system, education and what not and then one day she started nagging about swaraj... like in mid-sessions. This pissed the dude and he just couldn't stand it. So he got off her and left.

Dirty as that may sound, I mean no disrespect for my country. It's just that I'm bad at analogies. [see the Avatar thread in the movies section]

People tend to give less emphasis on the more violent struggles of Bhagat Sing, Sukdev, Rajguru and a lot many more unsung heroes (yes, even S C Bose) who actually challenged the frikkin EMPIRE with a raised FIST...full of grenades, knowing completely the futility of their actions yet hoping to send the clear message that they are no longer welcome.

I'm not saying they we should shun the non-violent, pervy hippies but an equal importance if not greater be given to the others as well.


Ankita wrote:... but what irritates me the most is that every time someone says USA is a superpower and we are not cuz they got independence about a 150 years before India, i cant help but yell that the reason is GANDHI!!!!
If what you're saying is true, that India isn't a superpower and that Gandhi is to be blamed for it.... then let me ask you where we are now. Look at India. She's growing.
It took us 60 years to get to where another country, like say America reached in about a 100. It's true and you know it. And the time when the economic crisis was going on in the US and most parts of the world, India was isolated from it (for whatever the moronic reasons it was because). An achievement I'd say. And there are many more to cite.
What I'm trying to say is that if we give her more time and hoping the brain drain isn't that drastic in the coming years, I'm sure India could be a superpower soon enough. Maybe the next 30 to 40 years.

Then again, why compare with another nation. America is what it is today because they did what they did. We're here today because Gandhi, supposedly, screwed us up. Well, we can get over that and and we did... to some extent.
So instead of pointing fingers and blaming an incestuous pery old man who's long dead, why don't we just sit down and do our respective jobs. And if we do need to compare with anybody, compare India of the present with the yesterday. That way we know how far ahead we have come are and how to proceed from there on.

And Ankita, nice comparison between Gandhi and Tiger Woods Wink


On the note of Gandhi's pervy-ness I'd like to point out the Nehru-Lady Mountbatten stories (if anybody hadn't mentioned it earlier) that have been circling since before 1947 Smile
My my, our leaders were pretty horny back then or what? Very Happy


Arr0wheaD wrote:

But people have common sense. Even if they get 'brainwashed', surely they would have realized about his misdeeds, just like how we realized 'white skin ain't all pretty'.
Not happened yet. What do you think Fairness creams are for? We haven't learned anything, we're still into the fair skin superiority issue.
True. Sad, but true.

Arr0wheaD wrote:
The only way to win to non-violence, because in the end, British have that pride that Indians lack.
why don't Indians have pride? it has something to do with the hundreds of years when we were pushed around by westeners and instead of doing the logical thing, joining forces and kicking them the hell out the country, we remained disconnected from each other, tried small rebellions and acts of discontent and stuff.

Uh, I don't understand how that has anything to do with Indians being proud of themselves, Arr0w. But yeah we didn't have that kind of pride in being what we are until Vivekananda showed us... in Chicago Smile

Arr0wheaD wrote:The reason he's called the father of the nation is because in a country where there are so many kinds of people that nobody understands each other. We haven't got over that after 61 years either, but the G man got them all to put that aside for long enough to gang up and...politely ask the brits to leave.
Lol. Good point.
Oh and are you a Half-Life fan? Coz you seem to call Gandhi, the G-Man.
Lol.


@Omkar: Killer post, man!
The Gandhi-Irwin pact thing was kinda new to me, ie I'd learned this in school but this is a new angle to it.
Well, if what you said is true then when they refused to let go of the krantikari-trio, Gandhi could have organized a satyagraha against it.... at the very least. I mean he did it all the time, he must've been used to it *suppressed giggle*

Lame jokes aside, satyagraha was a WEAK thing to do(both literally and metaphorically) but the important thing is, it worked. Slow, yes, but effective... eventually. And because it worked, we may never know if an armed rebellion would have worked or not. And even if that was successful, would it have any backlashes or any incentives for that matter? Since history is how we know it to be, things like this will just have to stay in our minds, in our curiosities... or maybe as posts in a forum like this.
Bummer!


Well, at the end of the day, I know who to blame for all this.
SOCIAL SCIENCE TEXT BOOKS! and the people who make them.
Somebody should go out there and tell the real story. We know that more than half of the crap we learned in school is fabricated. Sugar coated lies to make our country look pretty.
Or maybe that's just the conspiracy theorist in me talking.
But the textbooks need to be edited.

22Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:24 pm

Ankita


Uprising Member
Uprising Member

@Red
Totally agree to your talks about social science textbooks. Just wanna bring to your attention a small intelligent quote- "What is History but a fable agreed upon?"
If Jinnah is the villain here, he is the hero in Pakistan... So no one's gonna pay two hoots of attention to anything we write here. For the next 100 years, Gandhi will remain the hero in our History textbooks!!
And a small little arguement: We got in 60 years what America got in 100?? In what sense? And remember a certain president saying we will be a superpower in 2020? Something called Vision 2020?? And when 2010 is finally here, we think we need 30-40 years to reach there. So much for Development!!

23Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:44 pm

kyo

kyo
Active Member
Active Member

It is always going to be hard to tell who the villains and heros were when talking about any event where one was not directly involved... and even then... it always depends on ones perspective... "Justice which serves one man may be gross injustice for another"

Some Examples of 'Undecided' History....

Tienanmen Square: Most of the rest of the world believes that it was the Chinese government that played the villain in this event.... and I even believe it to be true myself... but there are millions of Chinese who believe that the Government did the right thing... that there were not too many casualties... that all of the reports of people being gunned down by the PLA were grossly exaggerated by western media as part of a propaganda war...

Lockerbie Bombing: While Libya has admitted responsibility... there are many who still believe in the innocence of Megrahi... some even go so far as to suggest that it was US agents who carried out the bombing in an attempt to frame Libya... Many have stated that Libya merely admitted responsibility as part of a bargain to rid itself of sanctions from the UN and the USA.... (actually just the USA since the UN is nothing but the USA's biggest foreign policy tool)...

---------

I fail to see why we concern ourselves with comparisons with America or for that matter... China. We are simply not on the same playing field.... our political climate and our populations are far too different...

For one thing... America and China have fairly homogeneous populations as compared to ours... both in terms of religion and race... which means they have fewer ethnic divisions... fewer vested interests.... i.e. you do not have too many disagreements for politicians to feed upon and create issues for political mileage and thereby slow the pace of development etc...

Despite the fact that they claim to be a democracy... Americas current political 'climate' is nothing more than a highly evolved form of Fascism... I say 'climate' because the Constitution still provides for a multi party system of government... However.... you only have Democrats and Republicans... nothing more... 2 parties... which control ALL the political power... the only difference from Fascism is that they have 2 parties instead of one... Its a lot easier to move bills/reforms/etc through parliament when you only one opponent to deal with as opposed to the huge numbers in India... and China is... Communist... not a democracy... there is really no one to make arguments against whatever policy is decided...


In summary... there is always going to be one sect of the population or political party which is somehow dissatisfied by some decision of the government (In India) and it will generally be a sufficiently large enough / politically powerful enough sect that its disagreement cannot be simply ignored... which means it takes a long damn time to arrive at a compromise which suits everyone... i.e. the pace of implementation and development is slower....

In terms of pure physics... one can have this analogy... the Indian system of government has the most 'inertia' when trying to 'move' whereas the Chinese have the least... there is a lot more 'friction' in Indian politics than in American...

24Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:36 pm

varnaac


INACTIVE MEMBER!
INACTIVE MEMBER!

hey ace.... which website did u find al dis.... i wanna read it too....

25Gandhi Empty Re: Gandhi Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:21 pm

FlamingStar

FlamingStar
Uprising Member
Uprising Member

I've always hated that bald dude......who gave him the 'Father of the Nation' tag anyway???
I hate his principles as well.....he practiced non-violence whereas thousands of Indians sacrificed their lives for India's freedom....
it's ridiculous......
and now that I know of his colourful character....I'm completely filled with disgust...

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum