Gandhi

[The Feral Underclass]

I am starting this thread using a post I made in the Revolution thread in theory...I would just like to know what other peoples opinions are of this man.


All this crap about Gandhi. Ok, so he led a non-violent movement that was involved in the transition of power from the British, but what was really the point. For a start the British ruling class used Gandhi as a puppet to quell violent dissent and only handed over power when the international trend shifted. If the British really wanted to keep India do you honestly believe that some skinney old fart in a white cloth would have stopped them. Get real!

Secondly what did Gandhi actually achieve. All he managed to do was transfer power from the British ruling class to Indian capitalists who did nothing, and still are doing nothing, to end poverty, famine, disease and depravation there. Furthermore he managed to ignite religous violence which has lasted for 50 years and ended up having to lose a great big chunk of land to now called Pakistan...

Gandhi achieved nothing of any significance to the world or to the Indians, especially the working class or peasentry. Just because he advocated non-violence does not make him a good leader or a moral crusader.

[Soviet power supreme]

If the British really wanted to keep India do you honestly believe that some skinney old fart in a white cloth would have stopped them

The brits couldn't keep India whether they wanted or not.They had suffered a lot in WW2.

[The Feral Underclass]

The man advocated non-violence...he wasnt a direct threat to the british establishment...when ever he did any thing non-violent they went in a beat the shit out of everyone and arrested them...this was the only opposition to british rule of any significance and it posed no threat at all...how can that have achieved what they wanted had the british not wanted to keep india.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Over and over again in threads about Gandhi people keep making the same stupid mistake: Looking at Gandhi as a politician.

As he always maintained, he was not a politician. But a freedom fighter. You say he only got power for Indian capitalists? Well I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in independance, free of any colonial or imperial rule, and have capitalist rulers from my own country than live under a brutal colonial regime which enslaved all of my country. Having capitalist rule is, in my opinion, far better than being ruled by colonialists. And the rulers of India which took over after independance such as Nehru and Indira Gandhi weren't even what I'd call "capitalists" at all. Even Che himself commended Nehru and his plight.

As for Pakistan, that was hardly any fault of the Mahatma's. Muhammed Ali Jinnah successfully stirred up enough religious fervour in the hearts of India's Muslims to get backing for a free state of Pakistan. Gandhi did not stir up religious violence. Gandhi wanted to free Indians, not Hindus. And the now Pakistani Muslims were then just as much Indians as the Hindus.

To say that Gandhi achieved nothing for the world is just a plain ignorant comment. It's not even worth debating. India was the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. Of course it wanted to hold onto power there. Gandhi helped Indians to prove that they were capable of witholding their own land and their own government. Yes, there were problems after independance and there are still problems in India now. But name me a country which, after escaping the shackles of imperliams and empire, does not have it's problems. And the fact that India's workers were transformed from slaves to Indian workers with independance proves that Gandhi and his men did achieve much for Indian peasants. The basis for his fight came from his want for a better deal for the peasants in India. He took a train ride all over India and visited hundreds of peasant villages to discover what needed to be done. He united them as Indians, something unheard of in the parochialism of the day.

Gandhi was a humanist. Not a politician. He simply wanted to free people from slavery and empirical rule. And he did that. That "skinney old fart in a white cloth" is one of the greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen and if you don't appreciate and accept that then you simply cannot grasp historical fact.

[Scottish_Militant]

posted this once before

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 Wellred Bookshop (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.

I think this is sufficient evidence to show that Gandhi was nothing more than a cretin and a prick!

[The Feral Underclass]

Wow!!!

I agree whole heartedly with you CR!!! Thanks for the quotes.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...21428&hl=gandhi (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=21428&hl=gandhi)

:) (btw, read my posts there on Gandhi)

[SittingBull47]

Yea, he wasn't a politician. He fought for the indian people, and if you can't find anything good about his non-violent tactics then you should at least recognize the fact that he gave India back to the people.

[Soviet power supreme]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in independance, free of any colonial or imperial rule, and have capitalist rulers from my own country than live under a brutal colonial regime which enslaved all of my country. Having capitalist rule is, in my opinion, far better than being ruled by colonialists.

Now why would you?
The class war against imperialist force would be less bloodier than class war against own bourgeoisie.

[pandora]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 3 2004, 03:56 PM
but I'd rather live in independance, free of any colonial or imperial rule, and have capitalist rulers from my own country than live under a brutal colonial regime which enslaved all of my country. Having capitalist rule is, in my opinion, far better than being ruled by colonialists.
When you live under a capitalist regime you are living under colonial rule.
End of question. Explain to me how you are not?

[Scottish_Militant]

Yes, tell me, if someone killed you would it be 'better' if he was from the same country as you? :blink:

A capitalist is a capitalist, it dosent matter where it was born!

[BOZG]

Cretin.....reasons have already been explained.



*Please don't look at any of my first posts on this board :D

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2004, 04:26 PM
The man advocated non-violence...he wasnt a direct threat to the british establishment...when ever he did any thing non-violent they went in a beat the shit out of everyone and arrested them...this was the only opposition to british rule of any significance and it posed no threat at all...how can that have achieved what they wanted had the british not wanted to keep india.
Non-violent? Which Ghandi are we talking about

the man wanted to fight in the Boer War, the War against the Zulus, and WWI

[Morpheus]

"Non-violence" for Ghanhi, as most pacifists, was just rheotoric. Ghandi supported the British in ww2 and supported several other wars. He was a capitalist cretin, see http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml That said, achieving independance did help the average Indian a little. There were less famines after formal colonialism ended.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 01:18 AM
you should at least recognize the fact that he gave India back to the people.
Yes the Capitalist ruling class people!

[SittingBull47]

well, it least they weren't the british imperialists. I guess i would rather have a native man hold power over me than a foreign intruder.

[Comrade BNS]

Ghandi was responsible for the partition was he? So when he said he dreamed of a united India where hindu's and muslims could co-exist in peace he really meant he wanted segregation and subjugation? The Muslim congress were the ones that insisted on self-governing regions, or failing that a seperate muslim nation. Come on people, quote hunting is piss weak way of trying to argue a case, as quotes can quite easily be taken out of context, which many of them have apparently have been.

"communist revolutionary" maybe you should take a look at "the anarchist tension's" signature... you are doing precisely that here. Since this is the history section of the board, you think you would have at least gotten to know the fucking history first!!!

Comrade BNS

[Scottish_Militant]

"communist revolutionary" maybe you should take a look at "the anarchist tension's" signature... you are doing precisely that here. Since this is the history section of the board, you think you would have at least gotten to know the fucking history first!!!


Well I'm sorry that I've only provided facts and quotes comrade, if that upsets you then I'm afraid the is little I can do for you :P

[canikickit]

Gandhi was a counterrevolutionary.

http://www.proxsa.org/inspiration/ambedkar.html

I've posted it many times before, but just read about how Gandhi did his best to keep a system which propagates classes.

Ambedkar's programs were intended to integrate the Untouchable into Indian society in modern, not traditional ways, and on as high a level as possible. This goal stood in marked contrast to Gandhi's "Ideal Bhangi" (Harijan, 23 November 1936) who would continue to do sanitation work even though his status would equal that of a Brahmin. Ambedkar's ideal for the depressed [classes] was to "raise their educational standard so that they may know their own conditions, have aspiratiosn to rise to the level of the highest Hindu and be in a position to use political power as a means to that end." Both reformers had a vision of equality, but for Ambedkar equality meant not only equal status of the Varnas, but equal social, political, and economic opportunity for all. Ambedkar planned his porgrams to bring the Untouchable from a stat eof "dehumanization" and "slavery" into one of equality through the use of modern methods based on education and the exercize of legal and political rights. . . .

Ambedkar's adaptation of western concepts to the Indian scene is also reflected int he terms he used to justify Untouchable political rights: democracy, fraternity, and liberty. In his Marathi speeches, Ambedkar conveyed the implication of these concepts in a single word, manuski, that was readily understood by the most illiterate Mahar villager. Although manuski's literal meaning is "human-ness", it serves to evoke feelings of self-respect and human attitudes towards one's fellow [humans]
(From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement, Eleanor Zelliot, 1992, Manohar Publications: New Delhi)

[Urban Rubble]

Non-violence" for Ghanhi, as most pacifists, was just rheotoric. Ghandi supported the British in ww2 and supported several other wars. He was a capitalist cretin, see http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml That said, achieving independance did help the average Indian a little. There were less famines after formal colonialism ended.

There is a difference between non violence and letting yourself be killed. Why shouldn't the British be supported in WW2 ? Would you rather the Nazis overrun them ? Defending yourseld while preaching non violence is not a contradiction. If someone attacks you then obviously you are going to defend yourself.

Not that I have any love for Gandhi. I think he's overrated personally.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

I think it is not always a simple matter of what the man was really like. Ghandi's modern influence depends upon his reputation as a pacifist. Even if this reputation is unwarranted, it has still influenced many generations of people in a positive manner. Therefore I think the legend is good, regardless of whether or not the man could always live up to it (and indeed, in cases like Ghandi's it is hard to imagine how he could really have been are great as he is often presented).

[Comrade BNS]

Why is it that people feel they need to make character assassinations continuously? What does it serve to do, other then satisfy your petty subconscious insecurities?

We all know that Hitler was an evil prick, doesn't mean he didn't have SOME worthwhile and intelligent things to say. So how does an attempt at dragging Ghandi down achieve anything. MAYBE he didn't practice what he preached, but so what? Doesn't make what he had to say any less true or potent.

Comrade BNS

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2004, 10:17 PM
Why is it that people feel they need to make character assassinations continuously? What does it serve to do, other then satisfy your petty subconscious insecurities?

We all know that Hitler was an evil prick, doesn't mean he didn't have SOME worthwhile and intelligent things to say. So how does an attempt at dragging Ghandi down achieve anything. MAYBE he didn't practice what he preached, but so what? Doesn't make what he had to say any less true or potent.

Comrade BNS
Because this is a forum where you debate stuff!

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 02:54 PM
well, it least they weren't the british imperialists. I guess i would rather have a native man hold power over me than a foreign intruder.
could you explain how this sentiment is vaguely rational

[Comrade BNS]

Because this is a forum where you debate stuff!

hahaha!!! sorry could have fooled me, from my observations a forum *ahem* this forum is a place where certain extremeists can have their egos and ideologies reaffirmed! and you still haven't answered me as to why it is necessary to make character assassinations, and why even if you do that why a person's intellectual fruits are subsequently deemed rotten.

Comrade BNS

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Comrade BNS has a point...

A corrupt notion on an individual is wrong...if you think Gandhi was all good, you're sadly mistaken (as I've said before).

Alotta ppl have said he was the 'best' human being to come along since the likes of Jesus Christ. Debatable I say, but nobody wants to debate it. Everyone just wants to pump in more 'Gandhi was good, etc'. C'mon, what happened to a balanced view on the individual?

Hitler was an evil prick indeed. Was he the worst? Doubt it. Stalin killed 20 million people. The US Gov't has killed millions of ppl in the past century. Hitler's just some posterchild for what not to be, yet paying less and less attention to gov'ts and other individuals that have done worse. It's wrong to stigmatize one, and not the other.

If balance is key...how come nobody is doing so?

[Dune Dx]

Just to make out one poit that may or may not be important but th Queen of England is still the queen of India

The queen is the most powerfull head of state in the world even more powerfull than the president (US) and I think she is quite a selfless individual compared to many leaders in the world

[Essential Insignificance]

The queen is the most powerfull head of state in the world even more powerfull than the president (US) and I think she is quite a selfless individual compared to many leaders in the world

The Kings and Queens were in the day of aristocrats and feudalism the ''absolute rulers'' of a given nation-England, etc. I don't know of any European counties were a king or queen presides over the nation.

To put forward that she is currently, "the most powerful head of state" , is nothing short of ridiculous.

I think its high time to read a few books. She plays enormously know function in the bourgeoisie governing of the England.

[Revolution67]

Before USSR joined the ranks of reluctant Allies during the WWII, Indian Communists were happy opposing the British rule India. When USSR joined in, Indian Communists helped British intelligence by spying on other revolutionaries and having them arrested thereby helped them to strangulate freedom moevment. This is one big stigma, which refuses to wash away even after more than 60 years! Gandhi cannot be analysed solely on the basis of a few quotes and statements attributed to him.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:23 AM
Yea, he wasn't a politician. He fought for the indian people, and if you can't find anything good about his non-violent tactics then you should at least recognize the fact that he gave India back to the people.
Exactly!!

[UltraLeftGerry]

Ghandi was a bourgeois "freedom fighter." He was also possibly anti-semetic. Those are strikes against him in our eyes now, but let's look at the historical situation in India. He helped strike a major blow against Imperialism. The Indian example no doubt inspired other bourgeois revolutionaries in British colonies to attempt to smash British control. India unlike many other decolonized nations, actually managed to avoid dependency and built up its own capitalist infrastructure. I'm not exactly sure why we're here to determine if Ghandi was reactionary or not. He may have held reactionary views, but India is progressing economically and that's what matters. A socialist revolution in India in 1947 would have turned out the same way as China and Russia. Ghandi is objectively progressive given the colonialism and lack of a modern economy in India at the time.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 3 2004, 03:01 PM
Over and over again in threads about Gandhi people keep making the same stupid mistake: Looking at Gandhi as a politician.

As he always maintained, he was not a politician. But a freedom fighter. You say he only got power for Indian capitalists? Well I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in independance, free of any colonial or imperial rule, and have capitalist rulers from my own country than live under a brutal colonial regime which enslaved all of my country. Having capitalist rule is, in my opinion, far better than being ruled by colonialists. And the rulers of India which took over after independance such as Nehru and Indira Gandhi weren't even what I'd call "capitalists" at all. Even Che himself commended Nehru and his plight.

As for Pakistan, that was hardly any fault of the Mahatma's. Muhammed Ali Jinnah successfully stirred up enough religious fervour in the hearts of India's Muslims to get backing for a free state of Pakistan. Gandhi did not stir up religious violence. Gandhi wanted to free Indians, not Hindus. And the now Pakistani Muslims were then just as much Indians as the Hindus.

To say that Gandhi achieved nothing for the world is just a plain ignorant comment. It's not even worth debating. India was the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. Of course it wanted to hold onto power there. Gandhi helped Indians to prove that they were capable of witholding their own land and their own government. Yes, there were problems after independance and there are still problems in India now. But name me a country which, after escaping the shackles of imperliams and empire, does not have it's problems. And the fact that India's workers were transformed from slaves to Indian workers with independance proves that Gandhi and his men did achieve much for Indian peasants. The basis for his fight came from his want for a better deal for the peasants in India. He took a train ride all over India and visited hundreds of peasant villages to discover what needed to be done. He united them as Indians, something unheard of in the parochialism of the day.

Gandhi was a humanist. Not a politician. He simply wanted to free people from slavery and empirical rule. And he did that. That "skinney old fart in a white cloth" is one of the greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen and if you don't appreciate and accept that then you simply cannot grasp historical fact.
My feelings exactly, brilliant post Socialism O Muerte

[John Dory]

Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself. That's pretty fucked up.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

hahahahahaha!!!!

Source? Oh, and if the source is your imagination, don't bother posting.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:25 PM
Gandhi refused to let his dying wife take penicillin yet took quinine to save himself. That's pretty fucked up.
I remember reading that somewhere but cant remember if the source was credible or not.

[float_613]

Ghandi was racist toward Black Africans.

"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen. "

- Published in 'The Indian Opinion'

"You say that the magistrate's decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate's decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."

- Also published in 'The Indian Opinion'

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

He's a racist, therefore I have little respect for him.

[Vargha Poralli]

This thread makes me feel very upset about revolutionary left. Your reactions to Gandhi makes me feel very much upset as you guys seems to have never made any research about Gandhi or the situation of Indian people Then and Now. In my Opinion you are the one's who are reactionary and Jump to conclusions about someone without doing proper research but give shitty opinions and comments proving that most of you are no different from reactionaries.

As for as Gandhi deitification is concerned it is comparable to deitification of Lenin by stalin to fool Russian people and to justify his crimes. The same thing is done by Indian Politicians today.

And Gandhi wanted India to be United because he Knew that the demand for Pakistan is just yet another divide and rule policy of the Brit Imperialists. and he is right to oppose it. You must see Pakistani people They are fooled by their rulers both military and democratic politicians for nearly 50 years just by threatening them with "Hindu Dominated India". and they are still gullible to that old rhetoric.Funny since India had 2 Muslim Head of States and Many from minority religions had held responsible posts but all the Hindu's who lived before partition in Pakistan had been driven out of their homes . and Gandhi was killed by an Hindu extremist for his condemnation of violence towards the Muslims in India by Hindu Fanatics.

Edit:
For all those Gandhi Bashers i recommend to read his own Atuobiography. Trust me he has criticised himself in many places in the book and it is an excellent reading

Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Autobiography_or_The_Story_of_my_Experiments_wi th_Truth)

Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0807059099&id=rNXCuWx-9soC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Story+of+My+Experiments+with+TruthThe)

Other Sources


http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?book=bg0001&link=bg&id=1&lang=en
http://www.gandhiana.org/Search/SearchModule.php?ActionType=DisplayPbooks&BkId=GAN710

[RedKnight]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Gandhi#On_the_West

[Comrade_Scott]

I once held Gandhi in high regards but hell i never knew he was so fucked up. wasnt aware he was so messed up in polices and practices.....damn thats messed up

[Louis Pio]

Well ghandi was certainly a bourgious and he even supported the shooting of demonstrators. The reason the brits left was first and foremost because of the movement of workers and not because what Ghandi did or did not.
I post something I wrote about him on the yfis discussion board some years back:
http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=698.0

"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=partition&x=39&y=13 "

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 03:42 am
Ghandi was racist toward Black Africans.

"Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen. "

- Published in 'The Indian Opinion'

"You say that the magistrate's decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate's decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."

- Also published in 'The Indian Opinion'

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

He's a racist, therefore I have little respect for him.
Yup, the arsehole. Fuck Gandhi. :angry:

I'm quite ragey about the way he's lionised, particularly amongst lefty noobs, being South African Indian myself...