Log in

View Full Version : Gandhi



Scottish_Militant
20th January 2004, 06:21
Well I wanted to discuss Gandhi. Many people still see him as a great man but I think this is only because they don't know about his role in the partition of the Indian subcontinent.

Here a some quotes to give u a picture on how this "great man" really was.

Gandhi on private ownership:
" I will never be a participant in snatching away of the properties from their owners and you should know that I will use all my influence and authority against class war. If somebody wants to deprive you from your property you will find me standing shoulder to shoulder with you"
taken from Partition can it be undone? by Lal Khan page 52.

Also this "great" pacifist was actually a big hypocrite on the question of the army. When a group of soldiers refused to fire on an anti-imperialist demonstration Gandhi condemned it and said:
"When a soldier refuses to fire then he is guilty of betraying his oath (!). I can never advise soldiers to defy the orders of officers because, if tomorrow I form a government, I will have to use the same soldiers and officers. If today I advise them for any defiance then tomorrow they can also refuse to obey my orders"
Ibid page 52.

As Trotsky put it in 1934:
"We must expose the treacheries and deceptions of Ghandism in front of the colonial peoples. The main aim of Ghandism is to water down the burning revolutionary fires amongst the people and to continue their exploitation for the petty interests of the national bourgeoisie"
Ibid page 50 and 51.

If any of you are interested in reading about how the Indian bourgeoisie let their interests lead to massmurder on people and the partition of India into India and Pakistan you should read: Partition can it be undone? By Lal Khan. It is availible from the wellread bookshop, just go to http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?s=par...ition&x=39&y=13 (http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?s=partition&x=39&y=13)


Gandhi and his strategy of civil disobedience were clearly aimed at containing the revolutionary anti-imperialist character of the struggle of Indian workers and peasants, and this was clearly shown at every juncture of the movement for national independence.

He went as far as to call off any civil disobedience when the movement threatened to adopt a mass character and move beyond the limits of peaceful petioning into revolutionary action. Some examples:

- Gandhi started his activities in South Africa where he fought for political rights only for Indians (not for Blacks who were the majority opf the population), in fact he voluntarily recruited Indians for a support company for the colonial army in 1906 during the great Zulu uprising (despite the fact that at that time Indians had no rights at all).

- during World War One, already in India, he tried to recruit a corps of Indians to fight for the British Empire, but he did not have much success since people asked themselves why should they fight for the empire that was slaving them!

- in 1916 he "mediated" in a strike of mill workers in Ahmehabad, in which he insisted that the workers should NOT picket the premises and should settle for a 35% wage increase faced with a 60% prices increase! By the end of the whole experience the workers were bitterly angry at Gandhi "for being a friend of the millowners, riding in their motor-cars and eating sumptuously with them, while the weavers were starving".

- the first part of the disobedience campaign in India was in the 1919. A central theme of the agitation in that period was the passing of the Rowlette act which basically extended the denial of democratic rights which had been established with the excuse of world war one (Congress had loyaly supported Britain in WW1) This aroused millions of workers and peasants into mass action and there were virtual insurrections in several provinces. Congress and Gandhi first accepted the Rowlette act, but when the movement became too big, then they joined it and tried to control it under the slogans of non-violence. The idea was that the middle class would take the leadership of the movement while the masses should limit themselves to hand-spinning cotton.

- a 1919 resolution of the Congress reads: "This Congress, while fully recognising the grave provocation that led to a sudden outburst of mob frenzy, deeply regrets and condemns the excesses committed in certain parts of the Punjab and Gujarat resulting in the loss of lives and injury to person and property during the month of April last." This was after the British had killed at least 1,200 people in Punjab (where only 4 British had died in the incidents) and after the famous Amritsar incident where the British fired on an unarmed crowd in an enclosed square killing at least 400!! And Congress regreted "mob frenzy"!!!

- When the movement was reaching its peak and the British feared social revolution (that is the overthrow not only of British rule but also of landlordism and capitalism), Gandhi called off the campaign. The excuse used was the Chauri Chaura incident when groups of peasants faced with attacks on the part of the police ended up burning down a police station killing a number of police officers. "non-violence and non-cooperation" were abandoned in favour of the "constructive programme" which consisted in Congress workers going to the villages to preach traditional methods of production. 172 Chauri Chaura villagers were sentenced to death and there was no protest or campaign on the part of Congress leaders.

- the suspension of the mass movement was accompanied by a call to peasants to resume payment of taxes and other levies to the landlords! In fact in the resolution suspending the campaign there were three out of seven clauses relating to the payment of rents to the landlords by small peasants.

- the second wave of the campaign started in 1930. From the beginning the campaign was to be limited to Gandhi and a few chosen followers in what was known as the Slat March. The masses were asked to be patient and follow with the contructive programme. Again when the movement became too revolutionary Gandhi called it off in 1931 and signed the treacherous Gandhi-Irwin Pact

- in 1937-39 Congress Ministers took office in seven of the 11 provinces in India. They carried out a pro-capitalist pro-landlord policy, to the point of using armed force to supress workers and peasants' struggle. Thus the Bombay general strike was put down by the police and the army sent in by a Congress Minister. So much for non-violence!

This is not meant to be a complete history of Congress or of Gandhi's thought, just a few examples to show that the real aim of Gandhi was to achieve independence by "civilised" means, while maintaining the rule of capitalists and landlords in India and avoid any action which might spur the revolutionary aims of workers and peasants.

Hiero
21st January 2004, 09:58
Raise our glasses to Ghandi for the impact his life made on this world. whne people started to think of Ghandi as a perfect person he told them not to because if they did they would recognise his wrongs, so thats what we must do. He did great things and had a great philosophy which he held to plan so Ghandi is great.

Knowledge 6 6 6
21st January 2004, 10:39
I made a previous topic about the 'mahatma', and found out several things...

Around Gandhi's time there was another leader, by the name of Bhagat Singh. as a child he followed Gandhi on the non-violence independence plight, which I may add, Gandhi called off several times. Reason being that there would be an occasional uprising against the police, which would result in a few casualties.

Gandhi was very stubborn in the sense that if not everyone followed through, he would not continue. What he didnt realise was that he was expecting hundreds of millions to follow his every command, and sometimes they didnt. When you see your family being beaten to a bloody pulp, I dont think anyone would think of non-violent resistance.

Singh was intent on his personal ideology, stating that violence is only violence when one inflicts it to be used as punishment or torture. But, if someone were to constantly beat on you, self-defense must come into play. He had a more reasonable solution that we shouldn't be violent, but that we should use self-defense when necessary...

There were more followers of Singh in India than of Gandhi. Singh was a bigger threat to the British and both the Brits and Gandhi knew it. When Bhagat Singh threw a bomb at the national congress in an empty space to get congress's attention, Gandhi deemed Singh and his partner as 'irresponsible young men'.

Bhagat promoted socialism. Gandhi once asked for dominion status, half indian rule, half British rule. That would accomplish nothing. Singh promoted socialism for the labourers, because it was they that made India great, not the few rich Indians...

At the age of 23, Singh was hung by British officials, and his body was burned so that the people would never know. A huge crowd saw the British burning his body. What is even more frightening, is that Gandhi could've prevented Singh's death by signing a treaty w/ the British...but didnt. Gandhi knew Singh had to be eliminated.

-Knowledge

RedAnarchist
21st January 2004, 11:54
Ghandi was a good person who belived in ahimsa (non-violence) and wished for his country to be free of imperialist shackles.

Socialsmo o Muerte
21st January 2004, 23:34
As Gandhi insisted, there should be no politik attached to him.

He was no communist, no socialist. He was a humanist and above all believed in freedom for people all over the world from oppression, discrimination and humiliation.

He played the key role in liberating the whole of the Indian subcontinent from colonial degradation. Give the man some credit. Partition and the issues facing India today have been created by other, less moral leaders e.g. Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

Take Gandhi for what he wanted people to take him for, and what he indeed was.

Knowledge 6 6 6
22nd January 2004, 00:06
Of course I'll give Gandhi mad respects for everything he did in his life...nonviolent resistance is something we all wanna achieve later down the road at some point. He was the future mind of the world in terms of political struggle against an alien gov't...

But you cant have a biased view on the man. You cant conintually say all good about him, because he wasnt all good, in fact, nobody on this earth ever was. Gandhi did alotta bad before he became the 'great soul'. As a child, he smoked, he even contemplated suicide at the age of 12. While his father was dying, he was having sex with his wife while she was 8 months pregnant. His father died that instance, and his wife had a miscarriage.

Like I said, Singh had a stronger rep than Gandhi, a bigger backing and a larger support not only from the youth of India, but most were behind him. The British knew they could walk all over Gandhi, they knew they could constantly send him to jail and sort've got rid of him temporarily. They couldnt do that to Singh...he promoted non-violence in the sense that violence was defined by him as oppression and torture of another person. He highly promoted self-defense.

"In my lifetime I have also learned that to follow someone blindly is also slavery." - Bhagat Singh.

I've studied Gandhi for the past 2 years, and have read almost everything the man wrote. I've done my hmwk on the 'mahatma'.

Understand both sides of the coin before you make a judgment. None of you have paid attention to my previous post.

LiquidX
22nd January 2004, 03:25
I think that Ghandi was a great man for freeing his contry from the oppression of the english, but there are some disconcerning things he had also done. It has been mentionned that it is very hard to stand behind a man that wont lift a finger. You could also draw some comparisons to Ghandi and Singh being like Martin luther King and Malcolm X. King was a much more passive man and wanted his people to fight with words and not use violence. Whereas Malcolm was content with being not exactly violent, but he didnt discourage violence and did infact encourage self defense.

However you look around to today with all that is happening, obviously there arent enough people in the world who have learnt about Ghandi and his message, either that or there are too many people who just dont care. Which if you think about it wouldnt be very alarming in todays world...

mia wallace
22nd January 2004, 10:14
gandhi was quite a great man and i really respect his ideas and work :redstar2000:

Vladimir I. Kropotkin
22nd January 2004, 12:19
Perhaps people should take the time to read the evidence provided by both sides. Rather than completely ignoring the fact that although a great human being in many respects, his role was at many points in the timeline of the colonial struggle a reactionary one, that is counter-revolutionary. A fire that could have burned straight through the british empire was left to embers, smothered, but revolution was never his goal, so in that sense he has failed only the socialists of his country. Similar to the role played by MLK Jr. and Lech Walsea in Poland, the problem with these kind of leaders is that although they are commited and have the best interests of the people in mind, their interpretations of these needs dont always meet with reality, often the people want more than what is being offered by them and by the ruling classes, they're angry, and so Gandhi in this respect was the enabler that let the struggle fall short of a much larger picture.

That said, i respect all of the forementioned leaders, King Jr. at least was moving to a more militant position before his murder, Walsea, a the strike leader in poland in the 1980s played a similar role to Gandhi, he sent people back to work when strikes were to be called and workers were angry and united, the polish could have gone so much further, but who knows, perhaps it was all for the best... hind-sight is a *****.

EDIT: thanks comrade for posting the information, it was a very interesting read

Don't Change Your Name
23rd January 2004, 03:13
Although Gandhi had some nice ideals I think falling into his anti-violence and anti-technology ideas in an excessive way is very dangerous.

I heard reactionary right-wing bastards asking some of our more violent comrades to follow Gandhi's example... do not listen to them because you can be sure they have a "surprise". I mean, sometimes vilence is needed.

seen_che
24th January 2004, 23:17
Gandhi was a great man becaus of hes anti-violence

Knowledge 6 6 6
24th January 2004, 23:41
...whoa, back to grammar school. lol jks!
:D

STI
28th January 2004, 13:58
Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 22 2004, 12:34 AM
He was no communist, no socialist.
"If socialism means turning enemies into friends, I should be considered a genuine socialist"
- Gandhi

Knowledge 6 6 6
28th January 2004, 22:27
Socialism doesn't mean that though, lol.

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

(source - http://www.m-w.com)

Gandhi wasn't for socialism. Singh was. He renamed the HRA (Hindustan Republican Asssociation) to the HSRA (Hindustan Socialist Republican Association).

Zanzibar
28th January 2004, 23:02
I never did understand the typical white, liberal, North American's fascination with Gandhi. At ayrate I don't particularily care about him, nor do I believe in non-violence.

Knowledge 6 6 6
29th January 2004, 19:03
It's okay if he doesn't entraul you as much as he does others...

Being non-white, and frankly not really attaching myself too greatly with any political party, I find him a very interesting character.

You have to understand the fact that the British would throw him in jail, and would kill his own people, yet he would not raise a hand against them. Tolerance and passiveness is Gandhi's strong point. Something we all can learn from, worldwide.

Knowledge 6 6 6
29th January 2004, 21:39
totally wrong there my friend...educate yourself on Gandhi a bit further. You'll find out how great the man actually was..

I would go on...but y'know what...i've said the same things about Gandhi so many times. Dont go on the 'net, but read books on him...u'll find out he wasnt some 'propagandist' as you claim...but very solid, something hard to find amidst many modern-day leaders. *cough* George W. Bush *cough*. :P

amarulj4714
29th January 2004, 22:11
ok, I will do that for you...still not sure tho. :D