What Would Gandhi Do?

[Anarcho-Communist]

Ghandi on World War Two, said: The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed ?

This man is mad, how can he be good!

Facist Bastard!

Peace, Love, Empathy

[burn_ladiesagainstfeminism]

Thats rather interesting, where did you find it?

[fernando]

Maybe this was a case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend"? I dunno...

[encephalon]

yeah.. I would like to know where you got that quote from. Not that I doubt it, because even now the Prominent Hindu Party in India is just as fascist as the Nazis were.. I'd just like to know that accuracy of that.

And, btw, Ghandi would get shot.

[Anarcho-Communist]

I got those facts from www.politicalcompass.org

ghandi would be shot for crimes to humanity

[El_Revolucionario]

I had also read that from politicalcompass some time ago, and I was extremely shocked to read it. I don't know if it's true that he said that.

[El_Revolucionario]

by the way, vero , couldn't help but comment on the fact that in the spanish quote you have, the accent is backwards. It should be forwards like this: ó

[bolshevik butcher]

i just thought that it was awoth pointing out that ghandi had a war with Pakistan, he wasn't that peace loving. Also, it was the workers' strike that really freed india.

[encephalon]

haven't we all learned by now that charismatic figures are romanticized by the ruling establishment to meet their own ends? Of course ghandi wasn't peace loving, nor tolerant. His use of "non-violent" protest was a political ploy to gain attention and victimize himself to the media. He was by no means a saint.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Though I doubt that quote was really said, I would remind you that facts about WW2 were not know as it was happening. In Kershaw's book on Hitler, he explains that Hitler realised he was, literally, getting away with murder as people didn't know the bloodhsed that went on during his invasions of Europe.

As for the one about the Jews, I have even less faith that that quote is real. Anyone who has read extensively about Gandhi and not just from little websites will know that his whole method was preaching tolerance of all faiths, even Muslims despite the various riots and fights that would break out between Hindus and Muslims. He was distraught when Mohammed Ali Jinnah lead the Muslim breakaway of Pakistan, which leads me to my next point....

ClenchedFist:

just thought that it was awoth pointing out that ghandi had a war with Pakistan

This is possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Gandhi had a war with Pakistan?!?! He didn't want Pakistan to exist because he wanted all Indians to be united whatever religion they were. If that is a "war" then so be it. All he wanted was one united India for people of all faiths. He was very critical of Jinnah for leading a seperatist movement based on faith, but I see that as being completely justified.

encephalon:

Of course ghandi wasn't peace loving, nor tolerant. His use of "non-violent" protest was a political ploy to gain attention and victimize himself to the media

Another absurd remark. He was not peace loving? Examples of when he was no peace loving please? Nor tolerant? Again, please give me an example, from a reliable source, to prove he was in any way intolerant.

encephalon:

because even now the Prominent Hindu Party in India is just as fascist as the Nazis were

So because it is bad now, it is Gandhi's fault? A man who died about 50 years ago? I see how you did that. Especially as Gandhi was never a member of any political party and always said he was not a politician. The politics was left to Jawaharlal Nehru, so criticise him.

I don't know if you've heard about the passport burning in South Africa, the fasts which nearly took his life but stopped Muslims and Hindus warring, The Amristar Massacre of 1919, The Salt March, the numerous prison vists.

He was a Nationalist, yes. But only so in the face of the repressive British colonial power. His methods extinguished colonial control in India without any war and Indian Muslims, depsite their eventual breakaway, still acredit their independance to Gandhi's struggle.

[Antijingo]

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.
This quotation is also on Wikiquote.org. The background info says "It was made in May of 1940, when the battles of World War II were just beginning, where the Germany's blitzkrieg was indeed swift and relatively bloodless compared to the battle trenches of the World War One. Also at the time the persecution of the Jews in the eyes of the world was limited to lowered civil rights, concentration camps and ghettos. Just a few years before even so notable an adversary to Hitler as Winston Churchill, in his book Great Contemporaries (1937) had declared: "One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What would Ghandi do?

Sell out, that's what.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Oh how wise. Typical, "I-don't-want-to-believe-what-'they'-tell-me-because-I'm-a-holier-than-thou-think-I'm-radical-'communist" attitude.

Give it a rest and discuss history with facts.

[Sabocat]

Well we all know that facts about Gandhi don't we?

Complete capitualtion to the Indian oligarchs.

Weakened the communist worker movements.

Ensured the ruling class would have no debilitating strikes that would interupt production.


I don't doubt those remarks.

[Black Dagger]

his methods extinguished colonial control in India without any war and Indian Muslims, depsite their eventual breakaway, still acredit their independance to Gandhi's struggle.p.

'His methods' were not what 'extinguished colonial control in india', Britain was always going to dump india, and the soldiers mutiny, violent protests, direct actions and increasingly volatile populace pushed it over the edge. At the time Britain gave India it's independance the colony was costing the British more than they were making 'extracting wealth', the increasingly volatile situation only worsened this, Britain had no other option. Ghandi fit perfectly into this situation, he opposed the violent elements in the resistance movement and actively worked to pacify 'the masses', what more could Britain ask for in a neo-colonial 'leader'?

[MKS]

All major leaders did not think Hitler was as bad as he turned out to be. England even signed a treaty with him. Signaling Ghandi out is unfair, you should also mention Stalin, Chamberlin, and Roosevelt when talking about people who appeased Hitler.

Ghandi was a great leader who along with others helped India gain its independence from Britain. If Ghandi had not done what he had India would have remained a colony and possesion of the British Empire. The fact India was a money pit would have no bearing on the narcissism of the British government. They loved thier Empire and would do anything to maintain it.

Ghandi also gave the world a new way of dealing with oppression, civil disobediance, mass protest and boycott, which illustrated to the British and to the world that India could determine its own destiny, and did not need the yoke of foreign rule.

He could not fight against the Caste system, it was too much a part of Indian culture (he was shot when he tried to), he could not end the crippiling poverty as he was only one man( but he did fight hard against it), he could not stop the alienation of the muslims. He could however inspire a nation to action and to make an Empire stand up and recgonize.

Ghandi was also a leader of non violent resitance which is a great thing, something that is needed by all humanity. To end the cycle of war, death and destruction that remains a constant theme in the history of the world.

Ghandi was not a fascist!
Ghandi did what alot of us will never do. Stand up and fight for his people.

[Sabocat]

he could not end the crippiling poverty as he was only one man( but he did fight hard against it)

How? By brokering a deal between the business owners and the workers to avoid a strike and perhaps the chance at real liberation rather than just a nationalistic one?



Ghandi did what alot of us will never do. Stand up and fight for his people.


If he was really interested in the welfare of "his"people, then he would have joined in and urged the national strikes, forced out the Indian oligarchs and would have helped the communists eject the ruling class.


Ghandi was also a leader of non violent resitance which is a great thing

Yeah....as long as you're not one of the thousand or so in front that absorbs the first volley out of the soldiers rifles.

[American_Trotskyist]

Gandhi

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.as...ition&x=39&y=13


already posted on YFIS Disscussion board. Ghandi was a pon of imperialism and anyone who claims to be affiliated with him and a communist is an ignorant fool or lying.

[MKS]

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.

Ghandi was an opponet of the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. He urged the Hindu citizenry and Muslim citizenry to abandon all fears and prejudices against one another. However the British imperialists, masters of exploiting divisions (just look at Ireland) fuled the fire and warned that once British forces could not protect the muslims of the north that the Hindus would usurp their land and property and marginalise them in any political matters. The Muslims out of fear petitoned for the creation of Pakistan, and the Indian leadership had no choice but allow as they did not want to hinder the independence of the Indian nation. Even after Pakistan was established massive riots and acts of massacre were frequent along the northern borders and Ghandi went on a hunger strike, urging all Hindus and Muslims to abandon violence, fear and hatred. The strike for the most part was successful, the riots stopped for the most part. However it was not permamnet and even today hatred between muslims and hindus is strong.



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.

This quote shows Ghandi was a idealist and knew that he would be a hypocrite if he yelled at the soldiers when they were only doing what they were told. If when he established a government and an army he would have to order the soldiers to do the same thing, and if the soldier disobeyed in that case it would have been bad. Soldiers take an oath of obiedence, and whether the obiendence is used for "good" or "bad" is of no consequence.

Lets put it communist terms: if the US army were ordered to shoot a bunch of communist protestors and they refused, they were not obiedent, than the same army, same soldiers were now led by communists and were ordered to shoot capitalist protestors, would you want them to disobey? No you wouldnt, but what would stop them, disobiedence worked before.

The quote dosent show a hypocritical stance on non-vioence or the army. It was more of a stance on blind obiedience which I think is very bad. Ghandi makes a valid point, but I dont think things should be so objective.

That was one of Ghandis faults, he was an extreme idealist, and belived the world should opreate on strict moral grounds and objective methods.


"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"

There was no (communist) revolutionary fire burning in India. How could have Ghandi watered it down. If anything Ghandi was a great champion of anti-imperialism, which I admire him for. He wasnt a communist, never claimed to be. Does that make him a bad person? I dont think it does.

Culture and society in India is very regimented and segmented, due to the religous caste system. It is from the hindu religion that such division are accepted by the people of India, they see no need for class struggle as thier life is eternal and continuing. Whether you agree with them or not is another issue, but that is the reality in India today, and even more so in Ghandis time.

Did Ghandi support the burgoise of India? I think he did indirectly, since the burgoise or memebers of the ruling caste were the only ones in a position to affectively take power from Britain. I would rather say that the burhoise of India took advantage of Ghandi, used him to obtain power and unfourtuantely after his killing further oppress the poor and perpetuate the caste system. Ghandi however was not burgoise, he lived a very spartan life, even making his own clothes.
Ghandi did try to fight against the caste system but was met with stiff resistance from hard-line hindus, which many believe were responsible for his assasination. He was a champion for equality, peace and justice. Again not a communist, but a man who believed in the value of every human life, and more importantly in self determination.

Ghandis main message and purpose for India was self determination and the destrcution of the Imperial stranglehold on the nation. Also is strict adherence to non violent methods is admirable. He showed there is a way to get results without warfare.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:20 AM


I figured I probably should get into this thread for obvious reasons.


Ghandi on World War Two, said: The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs
This refers to passive, non-violent philosophy.
Also said by Gandhi:
"I am asking my countrymen in India to follow no other gospel than the gospel of self-sacrifice which precedes every battle. Whether you belong to the school of violence or non-violence, you will still have to go through the fire of sacrifice and of discipline."

The difference is in a battle, you are a killer, too.
Non-violence, and you are the victim and perhaps a martyr.
I without hesitation would rather die a victim then a murderer.

Also remember: the Holocaust wasn't known until the end of WWII.
Gandhi died in January 1948.


I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed
This is early in the rein, when, yes, Hitler was not seen as evil by many leaders.
Early in Hitler's rein, this was true!
Hitler obtained much of his empire without firing a shot.
Much of the territory was obtained via diplomacy.
Much of it was obtained via overwhelming the invaded land; marching your army through so they give up before the fight started.
You much admit, this is "without much bloodshed."

It's amazing who's a facist when you take their quotes out of context.
No offence, I'm making a point, but:
I bet, given the same number of quotations by you, and given a little bit of time, I can prove you are a facist, a father-stabber, mother-raper, and enjoy a baby BBQ.
Gandhi's quotes are vast. You would have a hard time going through them all, and you could probably twist his words to fit whatever purpose you have in mind.

I admit that your chosen quote is. . .a bad thing to say, given the information we have today. I am sure Gandhi would agree.

I don't want to be a jack-ass, but it's Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

http://www.mkgandhi.org/philosophy/main.htm

[Anarcho-Communist]

Don't get angry at me i was just posting facts

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

AmericanTrotskyist

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.

When did anyone say he was a communist? When did anyone say he was against private ownership?

The argument is he did amazing amounts to free India from control. This, of course, was helped by other leaders. But I would argue that Gandhi instilled a national identity in Indians which built up the belief inside them to oppose the colonial powers.

I also echo everything MKS said about what you said about Gandhi's "part in partition". He was completely against it because he wanted unity, that was his part.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 12 2005, 10:41 PM
Oh how wise. Typical, "I-don't-want-to-believe-what-'they'-tell-me-because-I'm-a-holier-than-thou-think-I'm-radical-'communist" attitude.

Give it a rest and discuss history with facts.
what about the caste system? Ghandi had the best oppertunity to destroy it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:50 PM
Well we all know that facts about Gandhi don't we?

Complete capitualtion to the Indian oligarchs.

Weakened the communist worker movements.

Ensured the ruling class would have no debilitating strikes that would interupt production.


I don't doubt those remarks.
I would have thought everyone knew, but it seems not.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:19 AM
Don't get angry at me i was just posting facts
Quotes aren't facts, and interpreting quotes are defidently not facts.
Calling someone a "facist bastard" is an opinion, not a fact.

I am not angry in the least, I just wanted to point out that you cannot read a quote and know the whole story.
Now that you mention it, I realize I can sound angry often, but truely, I am not. That is my writing style, I am brutaly direct in order to get a point across. I don't bother with subtlety or political correctness which can muddle up meanings.


I also don't get why everyone is trying to prove that Gandhi was pro- or anti- communist.
1. If he were around to ask, I doubt he'd care. Freeing India was his goal.
2. You're trying to detirmine what someone would do if they lived long enough. He died too soon to know. He didn't have all the facts and knowledge that we do today.

People are trying to stretch Gandhi out into some complicated political charecter who fit into whatever roles you wish for him (good or bad).
Those people are having a hard time distinguishing between Gandhi and his ideals and legacy.

Gandhi was not complex, Gandhi was a very simple man.
That is why he was able to go forward with such single-minded stubborness.
That is where his greatness came from.

Don't try to think of Gandhi in a political role (that was his secondary role), think of him as a human being.

[MKS]

what about the caste system? Ghandi had the best oppertunity to destroy it.
Quote from Clenched Fist

Ghandi did try to begin the destruction of the caste system. However you must remember the system is thousands of years old, and engrained in the conciousness of every Hindu citizen of India. It is accepted and protected becasue it is a foundation of their religous beliefs. Ghandi knew that trying to break down the system wold be opposed by almost every Hindu Caste, however he tried, and some say that, and his acceptance of Muslims is why he was assasinated by a hard-line Hindu.
It is hard for westerners to understand the Caste System, to us it only looks like oppression, but to the Hindu Indians it is a very nessecary componet of their Culture. (Is it oppression, yes it is) Ghandi knew this and tried to to fight against it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Again, MKS is correct.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Gandhi (can everyone just spell it correctly)always said he was not a politician, he was just an Indian. Nehru and Jinnah were the politicians, any political criticism should be aimed at them. Gandhi's work was all humanist.

[Reuben]

what a silly comment

as if humanity is a politically neutral concept

[workersunity]

In terms of war, hitler did win much without bloodshed, i give you austria, and the sudetenland in czecholslovakia

[bolshevik butcher]

or anywhere in the USSR, or poland.

[MKS]

In terms of war, hitler did win much without bloodshed, i give you austria, and the sudetenland in czecholslovakia

Without bloodshed? Thats a joke, how many ant-nazis in Austria and Czech were killed by the SS and Gestapo? Maybe the bloodhsed wasnt along the scale of France, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Thats without mentioning the bloodshed that was commited after the annexation of Austria and the Sudentenland. I guess all those Jewish people just moved huh?

Nothing Hitler and the nazis did was bloodless.

[Colombia]

I think you misunderstand MKS, I beleive he was just trying to point out that he was able to take over countrys without having to send a single soldier into the country to kill anyone. No one denies that Hitler killed many people.

[MKS]

In terms of war, hitler did win much without bloodshed, i give you austria, and the sudetenland in czecholslovakia
Quote from workersunity




think you misunderstand MKS, I beleive he was just trying to point out that he was able to take over countrys without having to send a single soldier into the country to kill anyone
Quote from Colombia

Hitler occupied Austria and Czech, the SS who were soldiers, and the gestapo killed many anti-nazi sympathisers, every peice of land Hitler gained was preluded by bloodshed.

whats evern worse is that it seems there was a equation of Hitler with Gandhi, Gandhi never killed anyone, Hitler killed millions to even compare them in terms of "bloodless" action is ridiculous.


as if humanity is a politically neutral concept
Reuben


Exactly, that was Gandhis main point, humanity should be above all things, politics, religion, culture, fear, prejudice etc. Gandhi fought for the humanity of all Indians and in a larger sense the protection and glorification of all humanity.
Gandhi believed that Humanity was a politicaly neutral concept.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:00 AM

In terms of war, hitler did win much without bloodshed, i give you austria, and the sudetenland in czecholslovakia

Without bloodshed? Thats a joke, how many ant-nazis in Austria and Czech were killed by the SS and Gestapo? Maybe the bloodhsed wasnt along the scale of France, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Thats without mentioning the bloodshed that was commited after the annexation of Austria and the Sudentenland. I guess all those Jewish people just moved huh?

Nothing Hitler and the nazis did was bloodless.
You miss the point.

Gandhi's quote remains valid because he didn't have the information.
At the time, SS, Gestapo, holocaust were all under wraps.

Gandhi mentioned a reletively bloodless victory because those were the facts available to him.

[Black Dagger]

Gandhi fought for the humanity of all Indians and in a larger sense the protection and glorification of all humanity.

Except when he was living in South Africa and was more concerned with the conditions and rights of Indians in that country, than the Africans.



Gandhi believed that Humanity was a politicaly neutral concept.

Then Gandhi was a fool, there are very few if any 'politically neutral' concepts, LIFE is political. Everything in society operates, exists within the borders of capitalism, class, sexuality, gender, race and so forth. Humanity is one of, if not the worst example of a supposedly non-political or 'politically neutral' concept.

[bolshevik butcher]

If ghandi was so unpolitical how did he become the prime minister of india?

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2005, 07:04 AM

Gandhi fought for the humanity of all Indians and in a larger sense the protection and glorification of all humanity.

Except when he was living in South Africa and was more concerned with the conditions and rights of Indians in that country, than the Africans.



Gandhi believed that Humanity was a politicaly neutral concept.

Then Gandhi was a fool, there are very few if any 'politically neutral' concepts, LIFE is political. Everything in society operates, exists within the borders of capitalism, class, sexuality, gender, race and so forth. Humanity is one of, if not the worst example of a supposedly non-political or 'politically neutral' concept.
thankyou black dagger. FOr laissez fairre economists trading and competition is human nature and from this perspective our humanity could best be realised in a free market societ. For socialsits humanity is about co-operation. If ghandi thought that the idea of/welfare of humanity could somehow be placed above and outside politics then as black dagger said he was a fool.

On the specific issue of Ghandi his view of human redemption was certainly not polittically neutral. In the 1920s hwen civil disobedience started qup his stated intention was to remake society as it had been under king raam (regarded by hindus as a deity). In this sense, while he killed by hjindo extremists his notion of indian freedom and human redemption was not absolutely devoid of religious values.

[Anarcho-Communist]

I hate ghandi!

[codyvo]

I think his quote about Hitler was taken way out of context, trust me Ghandi wasn't some guy that used peace to bring attention to himself he wanted to free his country and violent revolution simply would not have worked.

[MKS]

Then Gandhi was a fool, there are very few if any 'politically neutral' concepts, LIFE is political. Everything in society operates, exists within the borders of capitalism, class, sexuality, gender, race and so forth. Humanity is one of, if not the worst example of a supposedly non-political or 'politically neutral' concept.

Im sure Gandhi would disagree with you. So would I, and so would almost an entire nation of people. What I think many westerners and others do not realize is that Indian culture is based on Hinduism (it defines who they are). Therfore the idea that humanity is above politics is too many Indians not foolish but prophetic. I dont think that trying to give humanity an apolitical stance is bad, if anything it gives people more respect and love of the human despite politics, prejudice and fear.



In this sense, while he killed by hjindo extremists his notion of indian freedom and human redemption was not absolutely devoid of religious values.

Gandhi was a very spiritual person and of course his ideals were dervied from his hindu culture, however he did wish to see India united, not divided by religion. He was willing to forgoe indivdual dogmas of religion for the "big picture", the ideals of human redemption, acceptance, love and peace. He was killed by Hindu extremists because like in many religions certain people are dedicated more to dogma than by principle.



Except when he was living in South Africa and was more concerned with the conditions and rights of Indians in that country, than the Africans.

Gandhi was still a young lawyer while in Africa and had been there paticularly to aide the Indian workers. His philosophies, like most peoples, developed over time, and while I do not think he acted against the Africans, while in South Africa, he did act mainly for the protction of the Indian laborers. However Im sure the examples Gandhi set forth in his lifetime, could have aided the black South Africans in their struggle. To judge an entire man by his early professional career is ludicrous and unfair.

I admire Gandhi becaue he was strong enough to stand up for what he believed in, he helped lead a nation to freedom, and allowed humainty to witness the power of civil disobience. My admiration for Gandhi grew while traveling in Gujurat, India and learning of his influence on the people, not so much a poltical influence, but a philosophical influence. Many older Indians professed of how Gandhi gave them a pride that had been stolen by the British, a pride that allowed them seek greater freedom and justice in their own lives.



I hate ghandi!

A sentiment probably shared by many Imperialists. Why is there so much hatred for a man who never affected your life, never tried to affect your life, and has been dead for about 60+ years? Im sure you have no idea about the affects of Gandhi on India, only regurgitated rhetoric from cynical anarchists and communists.

[Anarcho-Communist]

i bet you just sit their wanking and reading a dictionary all day just so you can sound smart you fascist bastard!

Peace, Love, Empathy

[Phalanx]

Where is raul? i think i'd be interesting to hear what the Indian textbooks have to say about Gandhi.

[Anarcho-Communist]

i think that ghandi did do a lot for india but he is an arsehole

[Black Dagger]

What I think many westerners and others do not realize is that Indian culture is based on Hinduism (it defines who they are).

That's a generalisation, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity have had no impact on this so-called 'Indian culture'? India is a multi-cultural society (has been for a very long time), and has a rich history of cultural exchange and inter-mixture, it's a gross-over simplification (usually made by westerners) that 'Indian culture' (a homogenising term) is based purely on Hinduism. At present (as in the past) there are large religious minorities (which were larger pre-partition) and they've been important in the development of the national 'culture', over centuries of foreign-rule, and religious-dynasties.



Therfore the idea that humanity is above politics is too many Indians not foolish but prophetic.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever, you can't say 'therfore' when you haven't proven anything, you've just made an incredibly vague reference to supposedly hindu philosophy, explain.



I dont think that trying to give humanity an apolitical stance is bad, if anything it gives people more respect and love of the human despite politics, prejudice and fear.

This, as with the above statement is a border-line evasion. How does asserting that humanity and by extension human relations are apolitical give people more 'respect and love of the human'? Mysticism just makes dicussion confusing.



Im sure you have no idea about the affects of Gandhi on India, only regurgitated rhetoric from cynical anarchists and communists.

I have no 'idea' because my 'idea' contradicts yours? All you 'have' is vague references to a homogenising conception of Indian society.

[MKS]

What I think many westerners and others do not realize is that Indian culture is based on Hinduism (it defines who they are).



That's a generalisation, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity have had no impact on this so-called 'Indian culture'? India is a multi-cultural society (has been for a very long time), and has a rich history of cultural exchange and inter-mixture, it's a gross-over simplification (usually made by westerners) that 'Indian culture' (a homogenising term) is based purely on Hinduism. At present (as in the past) there are large religious minorities (which were larger pre-partition) and they've been important in the development of the national 'culture', over centuries of foreign-rule, and religious-dynasties.


Hinduism is the primary religion in India, the caste system which is proabably the most idetfiable factor of Indian culture is dervied from Hinduism, the caste system literarly defines a persons life in India, the Hindu religion, regardless of the individuals religous practices, is a major factor in every Indians life. Of course India is a diverse nation in terms of religion, however the biggest, most dominating religon in India is Hinduism. You said it yourself there are many religous minorities in India, just like in almost every country, minorities are usually seldom heard from.



Therfore the idea that humanity is above politics is too many Indians not foolish but prophetic.



This statement makes no sense whatsoever, you can't say 'therfore' when you haven't proven anything, you've just made an incredibly vague reference to supposedly hindu philosophy, explain.

Hinduism belives in the conept of the reincarnation of souls in order to gain redemtion and ultimatley achieve heaven. They believe in the supremecy of the spirit, and not of the material world. Therfore the idea the humanity can be above politics, above all material trappings of the human condition, is prophetic, it is a religious message. Gandhi, who preached the glorification of the human spirit and of the ability and nessecity of the human to rise above politics, fear and prejudice etc, is seen more as a spirtiual leader than a political leader.



This, as with the above statement is a border-line evasion. How does asserting that humanity and by extension human relations are apolitical give people more 'respect and love of the human'? Mysticism just makes dicussion confusing.

By trying to rise above politics, we can achieve a greater respect and love for all of humanity. If we take away all political, economic, ethnic, and cutural aspects of man, then we can begin to recgonze the equality of all man, and at the very least have realized the humanity of all mankind. Too many times in this world do politics, economics, culture etc allow man to wage war, to murder, to steal, and to destory, because we have failed to see the basic humanity in our "enemies", we are blinded by the material creations of politics and greed, of culture and nationalism. This was one of Gandhi's main messages, one I agree with.



I hate ghandi!
Quote from Vero




Im sure you have no idea about the affects of Gandhi on India, only regurgitated rhetoric from cynical anarchists and communists.
Quote from MKS




I have no 'idea' because my 'idea' contradicts yours? All you 'have' is vague references to a homogenising conception of Indian society.
Quote from Black Dagger


Well, first off that remark wasnt directed to you. I made the remark because it seems like some people are qiuck to judge Gandhi he dosent fit into the "anarchist/communist" mold.

As for my conception of India: My "conception" of India was dervied from, for the most part, living in Gujurat for a month, and from a life long friendship with a Gujuarti. From my travel I saw first hand the affect Gandhi is still having on the people of India. Most people I met loved the man, some did not (mostly hard-line Hindus and priests), but all people knew he was a man who worked his whole life for the liberation of their people, and for justice, and for the ideal that all Indians deserved freedom and the chance of a diginifed existence.
Through my frienship I have seen the caste system practised in the US, I have seen arranged marriage, I have seen the Hindu worship. I belive I have garnered a greater undersatanding of India and of Indian life, by trying to abandon western conceptions of India.

[Anarcho-Communist]

stop using all that #### like "regurgitated rhetoric from cynical anarchists and communists" its bullshit

[MKS]

stop using all that #### like "regurgitated rhetoric from cynical anarchists and communists" its bullshit

It seems many arguments on this topic are just "sonud bytes" and quotes from communist theorists. Ive come to notice that many people abandon original thought and reason when claiming allegiance to any theory, practice or doctrine. Most of these viewpoints, are in my opinion very cynical and show a mistrust and even hatred of anything non-communist or non- anarchist. thats just my opinion based on what Ive read in past posts.

[Anarcho-Communist]

we are all comrades here and believe in what we think...

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:54 PM
1.If he was really interested in the welfare of "his"people, then he would have joined in and urged the national strikes, forced out the Indian oligarchs and would have helped the communists eject the ruling class.

2.Yeah....as long as you're not one of the thousand or so in front that absorbs the first volley out of the soldiers rifles.
1. Just because someone isn't a Communist doesn't automatically reject them from being concerned for the welfare of their people. He did say something once to the effect of "If socialism means to make friends out of enemies, then I could be considered a socialist." or something of that sort.

2. There would have been thousands more dead had they used violence. People die using nonviolence, no doubt, but usually (and in this case) a hell of a lot less people do than had violence been used.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 13 2005, 08:05 AM
what about the caste system? Ghandi had the best oppertunity to destroy it.
He avidly spoke against it and tried to destroy it.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 15 2005, 06:50 AM
If ghandi was so unpolitical how did he become the prime minister of india?
... he didn't.

[Anarcho-Communist]

Ghandi wasn't the prime minister he was just a highly respected person amongst the other indians of the country, he did a lot for them