Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

I've been studying Gandhi for a long time, and am currently in the middle of his autobiography...

Anyway, I'd love to hear everyone's opinions about his ideas of Nonviolence as a political movement. He proved it can work...by granting India independence from British rule...which is one hell of a feat...

What are your views about the great "Mahatma" Gandhi?

[Fidelbrand]

His philosophy was a beauty dream that human beings today can't live it up.

i support him wholeheartedly, but when things gets to fucked up, alternatives have to be used....... armed revolution might be an option, but of course, all measures will have to be tried before.~ :)

[Jesus Christ]

i can personally say that I believe that he is the greatest human being who ever lived

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 09:10 PM
i can personally say that I believe that he is the greatest human being who ever lived
i second that!!!

and if you havent read about him you should do so, he's very good to read about

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don't know much about him, but as I see it;

he supported Imperialistic Brittain in WW1,
he supported the Monarchy and the Commonwealth,
he didn't want to seperate India, but rather claim equal rights within the Commonwealth

And furthermore.

Because the majority of the Indians supported Ghandi, the Brittish knew it was useless to hold India any longer under their thumb. A (short) armed resistance could have brought them quiker to their goal.

Ghandi's violenceless resistance against a violent regime has probaly costed too much lives on his side. In any future revolt or armed struggle I do not wish to play a target for an agressor untill he (hopefully) changes thoughts.

India had it's own good jungle-trained troops, in geurillawar they had certainly won it of the Brittish troops.

But,

armed Indian resistance could have caused a long term Independance war, like in Indonesia and Algeria. Costing too much lives on both sides, leaving the country in destruction and an unstable "powervacuum".

I can't see which option would have been the most effective. But I've to admit that it's remarkable how a man has mobilized the entire Indian proletarian (and some parts of upper-classes) for a violenceless struggle. We should learn from him, he has showed history a classic example of the strength of the Pen above the Sword.

Altough my opinion.

[the SovieT]

if i will remember Ghandi saw Hitler not as a enemy, but as a eficient leader who always acomplished his goals with "the minimal bloodshed"...

Although a very "hippyesque" leader.. and someone who proved that non-violent action works in some cases, he was far from a revolutionary, for his propuse was Indias Independentism ONLY...
did he changed the current highly stractisfied society?
did he intented to modernize India and change what was a mostly feudalist state?

the answear is obviously no....



if you think deeply, he was not even original, may i remember you that the non-violent action was started by the proletariat, in strikes and manifs?

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

I'm not saying his idea of nonviolence was totally original, you have to realize, no idea's original. And that's a fact, believe it or not...

Hippyesque? Well, if by that, you mean, a different solution to oppression through the idea of peace and nonviolent resistence, then, I suppose you're correct.

Dude, understand what you're saying before you post it. Ahimsa and Satyagraha were key elements in the Mahatma's political struggle.

Far from a revolution? Alright man, you have your opinions, and I respect that. But you've gotta understand your facts. He WAS revolutionary, because the Indians were suppressed by British rule. They told them what to wear, how to behave, etc...with no respect to the Indian culture. The Mahatma told the British that the Indian culture must be cared for, and not dominated by an 'alien government'...

I really suggest you understand your stuff about Gandhi before you jump to conclusions about him. He was really more than what you 'assume' him to be...

~Knowledge~

[swapna]

Gandhi was a great leader in mobilizing the masses and asking them to join the independence struggle.
HE fought against the caste system in India and wanted hindu muslim equality.

Coming to the negative characters of GAndhi,

Gandhi's main aim wasnt "Complete Independence" for a long time. He just wanted Indians to be given part in the govt but still India would be under British Rule. When he realised socialists and communists were gaining popularity with that slogan, then the Indian National congress declared (just 18 years b4 independence) that it wanted complete independence.
There was one leader Subash Chandra Bose who thought armed struggle will liberate India. He won over the Gandhi's candidate in the Congress elections. Gandhi was jealous and made him resign.

There was a great communist revolutionary named bhagat singh who threw a bomb in parialment to protest "simon commission". he didnt kill anyone but he wanted his cry of independence reach the deaf ears. He had lot of popularity ( almost equal to that Gandhi). he was given a death sentence
Gandhi had a chance to save bhagat singh by refusing to sign the Gandhi - Irvin pact. he didnt even protest it. he said something like "let the law takes its course and i will take care of the people"

After bhagat singh died Gandhi gave a speech on the radio . you can see it at "http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/onbhagatsingh.htm" . not even once did he criticise the britishers for killing him .

Once during the "non-cooperation" movement when we were at the verge of getting freedom, there was an incident in which 20 british police men were killed in chouri choura. he called off the movement because it violated teh non-violence principles. all the revolutionaries denonced him for that.
You can guess what happened next. more than 400 indians were killed.

I dont agree we got freedom because of Gandhi. After the second world war britishers couldnt afford to stay in India. they had huge losses and there was growing discontent among the people.

Gandhi always wanted a truce b/w british and India. he thinks talking solves everything. no wonder brits call him "Mahatma" they could easily exploit India through him.

Indian masses are foolish . They blindly believe in relegion,non-violence and spirituality. that is the reason gandhi could bring milllions of Indians on to the same rope.

For me, he is a sheer opportunist due to whom getting our freedom was delayed but he had some great qualities too:)

[the SovieT]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 5 2003, 02:45 PM
I'm not saying his idea of nonviolence was totally original, you have to realize, no idea's original. And that's a fact, believe it or not...

Hippyesque? Well, if by that, you mean, a different solution to oppression through the idea of peace and nonviolent resistence, then, I suppose you're correct.

Dude, understand what you're saying before you post it. Ahimsa and Satyagraha were key elements in the Mahatma's political struggle.

Far from a revolution? Alright man, you have your opinions, and I respect that. But you've gotta understand your facts. He WAS revolutionary, because the Indians were suppressed by British rule. They told them what to wear, how to behave, etc...with no respect to the Indian culture. The Mahatma told the British that the Indian culture must be cared for, and not dominated by an 'alien government'...

I really suggest you understand your stuff about Gandhi before you jump to conclusions about him. He was really more than what you 'assume' him to be...

~Knowledge~
no...

the point here is that you do not know what "revolutionary" means...



a revolution does not simply change the countrys economy, nor politics, in order to be a Revolution it must change the previous social conditions...

facts are Ghandi didnt changed anything outside the Political campus..

no classes were abolished, no new class ascended to the power..

no war class happened here...




now we have a situation here...


you consider him as a great hero and revolutionary..

as a hero, i cannot do nothing...
i myself admire the man and reconize his skills as a leader and a independentist..

but surely NOT as a revolutionary....

[pedro san pedro]

he also worked to raise the unntouchable's (lowest indian caste) place in society, didn't he?

[RED CHARO]

Ghandi was a smart man,.... so oviously he could see that that the British (as the rest....) where at an end, thats why I feal he took the cause the way he did....
THE END