What do you think of Gandhi?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by ( R )[email protected] 16, 2006 07:40 am
Dont do Ghandi. He was a hypocrit. All he did was replace the British ruling class with Indian ruling class.
Stop judging Gandhi's intentions, and instead judge his success as a revolutionary.

Gandhi achieved his goal -- sovereignty from British rule. Never did Gandhi claim to be for absolute sovereignty.

See, while I don't support the dictatorship Lenin imposed on Soviet Russia, I do admire his revolutionary ability. You don't have to support the cause, to admire the revolutionary.

[Tekun]

Stop judging Gandhi's intentions, and instead judge his success as a revolutionary.

What revolution did he bring about? Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats :rolleyes:



Gandhi achieved his goal -- sovereignty from British rule. Never did Gandhi claim to be for absolute sovereignty.

Exxxcelent
Should we praise Lincoln for "freeing" the slaves?
I want full and utter sovereingty, especially from capitalist rule


See, while I don't support the dictatorship Lenin imposed on Soviet Russia, I do admire his revolutionary ability. You don't have to support the cause, to admire the revolutionary.

This line of thinking is ridiculous
Kuz more or less, it forces us to praise someone based on a single aspect of their character, rather than on their entire character
Next you'll be making a case for Stalin and Kim Ill Sung

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 11:43 am

Stop judging Gandhi's intentions, and instead judge his success as a revolutionary.

What revolution did he bring about? Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats :rolleyes:



Gandhi achieved his goal -- sovereignty from British rule. Never did Gandhi claim to be for absolute sovereignty.

Exxxcelent
Should we praise Lincoln for "freeing" the slaves?
I want full and utter sovereingty, especially from capitalist rule


See, while I don't support the dictatorship Lenin imposed on Soviet Russia, I do admire his revolutionary ability. You don't have to support the cause, to admire the revolutionary.

This line of thinking is ridiculous
Kuz more or less, it forces us to praise someone based on a single aspect of their character, rather than on their entire character
Next you'll be making a case for Stalin and Kim Ill Sung
It's still a revolution. You're allowing political ideals to filter your judgement.

I'm not saying to praise Gandhi as an overall person; but rather as a revolutionary.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 17, 2006 06:09 am--> (counterblast @ December 17, 2006 06:09 am)
[email protected] 16, 2006 11:43 am

Stop judging Gandhi's intentions, and instead judge his success as a revolutionary.

What revolution did he bring about? Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats :rolleyes:



Gandhi achieved his goal -- sovereignty from British rule. Never did Gandhi claim to be for absolute sovereignty.

Exxxcelent
Should we praise Lincoln for "freeing" the slaves?
I want full and utter sovereingty, especially from capitalist rule


See, while I don't support the dictatorship Lenin imposed on Soviet Russia, I do admire his revolutionary ability. You don't have to support the cause, to admire the revolutionary.

This line of thinking is ridiculous
Kuz more or less, it forces us to praise someone based on a single aspect of their character, rather than on their entire character
Next you'll be making a case for Stalin and Kim Ill Sung
It's still a revolution. You're allowing political ideals to filter your judgement.

I'm not saying to praise Gandhi as an overall person; but rather as a revolutionary. [/b]
Are you serouis? So it doesnt matter how bad someone is oppresed because of a revolution but we should admire the person who started the revolution??? Sorry mate but that is a pretty idotic logic.

[Tekun]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 17, 2006 06:09 am--> (counterblast @ December 17, 2006 06:09 am)
[email protected] 16, 2006 11:43 am

Stop judging Gandhi's intentions, and instead judge his success as a revolutionary.

What revolution did he bring about? Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats :rolleyes:



Gandhi achieved his goal -- sovereignty from British rule. Never did Gandhi claim to be for absolute sovereignty.

Exxxcelent
Should we praise Lincoln for "freeing" the slaves?
I want full and utter sovereingty, especially from capitalist rule


See, while I don't support the dictatorship Lenin imposed on Soviet Russia, I do admire his revolutionary ability. You don't have to support the cause, to admire the revolutionary.

This line of thinking is ridiculous
Kuz more or less, it forces us to praise someone based on a single aspect of their character, rather than on their entire character
Next you'll be making a case for Stalin and Kim Ill Sung
It's still a revolution. You're allowing political ideals to filter your judgement.

I'm not saying to praise Gandhi as an overall person; but rather as a revolutionary. [/b]
Of course its a "revolution," but if u haven't noticed, this RevLeft i.e. socialist/communist/anarchst revolution is what we're all about
We don't praise anything less
If we celebrated every radical out there, our goal would not be to improve this miserable world, but to cheer on anyone who stirred up shit
Hitler revolutionized Germany, should we celebrate his skills as a "revolutionary" fascist?
Regan revolutionized conservative America, should we cry over his rotting ass?

Political ideals is what makes us socialists/communists/anarchists
Divorcing ourselves from our political identities is irrational and counterrevolutionary

I refuse to praise a man who had a disdain for South Africans, and advocated Indian conscription during WW1 on behalf of imperialist Britain

[Vargha Poralli]

This thread shows yet another immaturity of most of the revleft members.

1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don't expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain.

2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.

3) Tekun
Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats
In reality he opposed the Indian Independence and PARTITION he utmost severity. According to him Indian people didn't yet deserved the Independence yet since he thought chauvinism of all sorts is rampant in the minds of Indian youth. and he knew that it is not independence of masses of Indian people just the whips have changed hand from British to Indians. If you don't know about a subject or know a very little about it then you should not make this type of stupid statements.

4) Tekun
Hitler revolutionized Germany, should we celebrate his skills as a "revolutionary" fascist?
Regan revolutionized conservative America, should we cry over his rotting ass?


I refuse to praise a man who had a disdain for South Africans

Yet another stupidity . You sound very much like an asshole
(a) by comparing him with Hitler and Regan .
(b) by make an truly idiotic statement about his "DISDAIN to SOUTH AFRICANS".

Please do research about something before making stupid statements like this about it.

FYI A research by an SOUTH AFRICAN Organisation about the role and impact of Gandhi in South Africa (http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/hunt.html)


( R )evolution

Are you serouis? So it doesnt matter how bad someone is oppresed because of a revolution but we should admire the person who started the revolution??? Sorry mate but that is a pretty idotic logic.

what context are you speaking of ? Could you explain it ? My first 2 points could explain the nature of Gandhi's struggle and his intention. If you are not convinced by it pls refute my points .

And Finally the spelling is Gandhi not Ghandi. If you use Firefox it will have shown the mistake.

[Pawn Power]

Should we praise Lincoln for "freeing" the slaves?
I want full and utter sovereignty, especially from capitalist rule

Firstly, Lincoln didn't free the slaves and even with that out come of the civil war, the emancipation of Afrikan people in the United States was never his, or those in power, objective. I suggest reading Howard Zinn's A Peoples History for more information and facts on this matter.

Furthermore, there were those who fought to emancipate slaves, white abolitionists and slaves themselves. Should we discredit the white abolitionists because they were not trying to over through capitalism and state hierarchy? That would seem foolish considering the problems and material conditions of the time and also because they were actually fighting for some real freedoms. Clearly the freedom was not complete in the word we use it in regards to wage slavery and capitalism and ignoring but being away from a whip is something reassembling freedom, don't ya think?


Are you serouis? So it doesnt matter how bad someone is oppresed because of a revolution but we should admire the person who started the revolution??? Sorry mate but that is a pretty idotic logic.

Again, as revolutionary leftists today, we don't see oppression ending until capitalism is destroyed however in this situation, where a true communist revolution probably could not have occurred at the time, we most look at the result of the movement Gandhi lead. Did it significantly improve the lives of the people of India?

It should be said that this is all history and that judging these people and actions is rather futile in relation to a radical leftist revolutionary practices which they were not trying to achieve.


Of course its a "revolution," but if u haven't noticed, this RevLeft i.e. socialist/communist/anarchst revolution is what we're all about
We don't praise anything less

Again you must look at what was taking place at the time. Lets take the enslavement of the Afrikan people in the U$ again. Their liberty in the 19th century, however limited, improved their lives and was a necessary step before any sort of communist revolution.

We are looking at these events in history. It is not a question of absolute admiration, but of the necessity or inedibility of these events. I will venture to say, that fighting for a communist revolution in 1820 America would have done very little. I think it would have been much more productive to be an abolitionist at the time.


If we celebrated every radical out there, our goal would not be to improve this miserable world, but to cheer on anyone who stirred up shit

Our goal is not to improve this miserable world? Isn't the autonomy and liberation of the largest class of people, improvement (advancement).


Hitler revolutionized Germany, should we celebrate his skills as a "revolutionary" fascist?
Regan revolutionized conservative America, should we cry over his rotting ass?

That’s silly and a rather weak correlation. Hitler’s purpose and reasons for further industrializing Germany was far different for the aims of Gandhi.

[Pawn Power]

According to the practice of Gandhi the Jews should have gone "honorably" and passively to the gas chambers (which many did, but not because of Gandhi). The idea being that the rest of the world would sympathize and intervene (none violently of course) and furthermore the Nazis themselves would develop sympathy and discontinue their actions.

We could only expect a worse outcome of complete passive "resistance" of an already horrendous consequence in this case.

The fact that Jews did violently revolt, within the Ghettos and in the camps, discernibly did more to hinder extermination then any sort of non-violent resistance. The final end to "liquidation" coming from the Soviet Army violently fighting and pushing back the Nazis.

[Pirate Utopian]

Gandhitler

he was scum, even if he "liberated" India from the British imperialists (wich i think was the more militant groups of India) then what has he done?, how is India now?.
some revolution there!.
why do people of the revolutionary left show respect to this clown?, the guy was pro-private-property and pro-letting-people-die-without-fighting-back-but-all-for-the-"good"-cause-ofcourse!
his ideas never liberated anything and only kept people dumb, he was harmful to the revolutionary left because people now thought they could hug trees for the revolution!.
<_< fuck gandhi

[Guerrilla22]

Ghandi really didn&#39;t accomplish all that much, British colonialism would have ended after the second world war anyways because they could no longer afford it. He was a complete asshole.

[Comrade_Scott]

Gandhi got the british out of india and thats it. he replaced the old english rulling class with guess what... thats right an indian RULLING CLASS he was a racist and a capitalist who sympathised with facism so what do i think about gandhi well i just fucking dont like him :)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 19, 2006 10:34 pm
Gandhitler

he was scum, even if he "liberated" India from the British imperialists (wich i think was the more militant groups of India) then what has he done?, how is India now?.
some revolution there&#33;.
why do people of the revolutionary left show respect to this clown?, the guy was pro-private-property and pro-letting-people-die-without-fighting-back-but-all-for-the-"good"-cause-ofcourse&#33;
his ideas never liberated anything and only kept people dumb, he was harmful to the revolutionary left because people now thought they could hug trees for the revolution&#33;.
<_< fuck gandhi
You must be really a brainless piece of shit. :angry:


Gandhitler

Care to elaborate what your point is idiot ?

I think Pawn Power explained all this Jewish stupidity of gandhi. It was extremely stupid extreme pacifism and not antisemitism or Fascism or Nazism.



he was scum, even if he "liberated" India from the British imperialists (wich i think was the more militant groups of India) then what has he done?, how is India now?.
some revolution there&#33;.

Do you ever read what i wrote ?. Please read my second point .


why do people of the revolutionary left show respect to this clown?, the guy was pro-private-property and pro-letting-people-die-without-fighting-back-but-all-for-the-"good"-cause-ofcourse&#33;
his ideas never liberated anything and only kept people dumb, he was harmful to the revolutionary left because people now thought they could hug trees for the revolution&#33;.


ME
2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.


Quoted myself again. Read it and refute it point by point before fucking Gandhi.


Guerrilla22
Ghandi really didn&#39;t accomplish all that much, British colonialism would have ended after the second world war anyways because they could no longer afford it. He was a complete asshole.


ME AGAIN
2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.


YET ANOTHER ONE FROM ME
In reality he opposed the Indian Independence and PARTITION he utmost severity. According to him Indian people didn&#39;t yet deserved the Independence yet since he thought chauvinism of all sorts is rampant in the minds of Indian youth. and he knew that it is not independence of masses of Indian people just the whips have changed hand from British to Indians. If you don&#39;t know about a subject or know a very little about it then you should not make this type of stupid statements.

Care to explain why he was a complete asshole ? None of you have read my posts i think . Just posted some shitty statements without much thinking to increase your post count i think .


Comrade_Scott
Gandhi got the british out of india and thats it. he replaced the old english rulling class with guess what... thats right an indian RULLING CLASS he was a racist and a capitalist who sympathised with facism so what do i think about gandhi well i just fucking dont like him smile.gif

Care to back up yoor claim that Gandhi is a Racist.Sympathised with Fascism etc Asshole ? :angry:

He opposed imposing Jews in Palestine ie creation of Israel his reasons are in this Link (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm)

What he meant by Passive resistance. (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/hitler.htm)

[Guerrilla22]

Care to explain why he was a complete asshole ? None of you have read my posts i think . Just posted some shitty statements without much thinking to increase your post count i think .

Like I said, he reieved credit for accomplishing something that was going to happen anyways. Liberals seem to get off over Ghandie because he preached non-violence. Good thing Che didn&#39;t believe in this bullshit, or Cuba would still be a US controlled dictatorship.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:53 pm

Care to explain why he was a complete asshole ? None of you have read my posts i think . Just posted some shitty statements without much thinking to increase your post count i think .

Like I said, he reieved credit for accomplishing something that was going to happen anyways. Liberals seem to get off over Ghandie because he preached non-violence. Good thing Che didn&#39;t believe in this bullshit, or Cuba would still be a US controlled dictatorship.
Again i say u have not read my points. Instead of making more generalised opinion please refute the points i have made.


Like I said, he reieved credit for accomplishing something that was going to happen anyways

But also for preventing what could have happened if not for him.He as a lone man stopped a big communal violence against Muslim minorities in Calcutta.For which he is MURDERED BY A HINDU EXTREMIST.



Good thing Che didn&#39;t believe in this bullshit, or Cuba would still be a US controlled dictatorship.

India is not comparable to CUBA. It is more Comparable to whole Europe. More religion is followed here , more languages are spoken here. and there are more ethnic division that it is ion Africa.Gandhi&#39;s work had prevented India in to becoming another Yugoslavia,Rwanda-Burundi,Darfur and even its own neighbor SriLanka. and speaking of Che what did his method achieve more than Cuba ? why did he fail in Congo, Bolivia etc., ?

Again i say Gandhi did what is needed for the Masses of India. You need not praise him for that but don&#39;t blindly slander him by equating him with Fascists and other type of idiots.

[cumbia]

Ghandi didnt end up with a bullet through his head, che died on his knees at the hands of killers.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by g.ram+December 20, 2006 07:13 am--> (g.ram @ December 20, 2006 07:13 am)
Big [email protected] 19, 2006 10:34 pm
Gandhitler

he was scum, even if he "liberated" India from the British imperialists (wich i think was the more militant groups of India) then what has he done?, how is India now?.
some revolution there&#33;.
why do people of the revolutionary left show respect to this clown?, the guy was pro-private-property and pro-letting-people-die-without-fighting-back-but-all-for-the-"good"-cause-ofcourse&#33;
his ideas never liberated anything and only kept people dumb, he was harmful to the revolutionary left because people now thought they could hug trees for the revolution&#33;.
<_< fuck gandhi
You must be really a brainless piece of shit. :angry: [/b]
yeah well... Yo&#39; Mamma got wooden legs with real feet&#33;, punk&#33;




Gandhitler

Care to elaborate what your point is idiot ?

I think Pawn Power explained all this Jewish stupidity of gandhi. It was extremely stupid extreme pacifism and not antisemitism or Fascism or Nazism.
but he did say jews should get killed for the "greater good", hmm... who said that earlier?




he was scum, even if he "liberated" India from the British imperialists (wich i think was the more militant groups of India) then what has he done?, how is India now?.
some revolution there&#33;.

Do you ever read what i wrote ?. Please read my second point .
so your trying to say he thought his own people were weak?, gee what an improvement <_<
i dont give a shit what he thought, he is praised for "liberating" India while he didnt and now it shows he was agianst it wich prolly explains why India is still fucked up



why do people of the revolutionary left show respect to this clown?, the guy was pro-private-property and pro-letting-people-die-without-fighting-back-but-all-for-the-"good"-cause-ofcourse&#33;
his ideas never liberated anything and only kept people dumb, he was harmful to the revolutionary left because people now thought they could hug trees for the revolution&#33;.

ME
2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.


Quoted myself again. Read it and refute it point by point before fucking Gandhi.
yes and his conciousness is what fucked the people over into ridicilous garbage like pacifism, he deserves full appreciation for seeing everyone in india as chesspuppets for his little pacifist crap?, fuck him

[The Living Red]

Ghandi didnt end up with a bullet through his head

No, just in his chest. <_< What a loser.

[/QUOTE]he deserves full appreciation for seeing everyone in india as chesspuppets for his little pacifist crap?[QUOTE]

Ah yes, I suppose Gandhi forced the poor Indian masses into his brutal pacifist campaign? No of course he didn&#39;t. People took part in passive resistance, believe it or not, of their own accord&#33; :o
The Indian people who did this were not &#39;chesspuppets&#39; (if that is a real word) and were never seen as so; they did it because they believed it was the right course to take.

[Pirate Utopian]

they did it because they were suffering and parasites like gandhi took that oppurtunity with both hands

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 04:07 pm
Ghandi didnt end up with a bullet through his head, che died on his knees at the hands of killers.
I don&#39;t know who you are disrespecting ? Che or Gandhi ? FYI Gandhi too was killed by a man who followed Gandhi&#39;s religion,Spoke the language which Gandhi spoke and equal in Caste status with Gandhi.

And what did Che accomplish after Cuba though ? IF you want your heroes to be heroes from birth till death then i suggest you better keep on sleeping.Che too had many flaws in his ideologies and he is not critic-proof even from us.


but he did say jews should get killed for the "greater good", hmm... who said that earlier?

Where did you get that ? Care to provide sources ? I think probably from his article titled Zionism and Anti-Semitism ? IF so you are taking it totally out of context .He advocated Jews to passively resist Hitler&#39;s activities and not to use violence so that they might not use it as an excuse to use greater repression against them. Thats probably during 1935 just when Hitler gained power and just started repressions not only against Jews, but also against SPD,KPD,Gypsies,Homosexuals etc .Who knew what that Crazy fucker is going to do during WW2 ?


so your trying to say he thought his own people were weak?, gee what an improvement dry.gif
i dont give a shit what he thought, he is praised for "liberating" India while he didnt and now it shows he was agianst it wich prolly explains why India is still fucked up

Don&#39;t try to be a smart ass idiot because you are not. I live in India belong to majority in some cases and minority in others and I know a lot more about the situation here than you do. I explicitly gave the reason and you dodged that point. and India is not exactly "FUCKED UP" as you think. It may not comparable to the West and China, But it is a lot better than Yugoslavia, former USSR states and some African countries like Sudan,Rwanda etc. That too with more ethnic divisions than those nations.



yes and his conciousness is what fucked the people over into ridicilous garbage like pacifism, he deserves full appreciation for seeing everyone in india as chesspuppets for his little pacifist crap?, fuck him

Again don&#39;t dodge my point and just criticise Pacifism blindly. Tell me what violent armed struggle had accomplished in Peru(Shining Path),Colombia(FARC-EP),Congo(varoius groups),Palestine(HAMAS,FATAH,PLO etc),Lebanon(Hizbollah),Srilanka(LTTE) etc.


they did it because they were suffering and parasites like gandhi took that oppurtunity with both hands

Again don&#39;t speak of Millions of Indians asshole. You probably never Know where it is located.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 02:37 pm

but he did say jews should get killed for the "greater good", hmm... who said that earlier?

Where did you get that ? Care to provide sources ? I think probably from his article titled Zionism and Anti-Semitism ? IF so you are taking it totally out of context .He advocated Jews to passively resist Hitler&#39;s activities and not to use violence so that they might not use it as an excuse to use greater repression against them. Thats probably during 1935 just when Hitler gained power and just started repressions not only against Jews, but also against SPD,KPD,Gypsies,Homosexuals etc .Who knew what that Crazy fucker is going to do during WW2 ?
LOL as if i would even pay attention to anything that guy wrote, i base this on the fact he said jew should be martyrs so the nazi&#39;s and others would sympathise with them.
that plays right into hitler&#39;s hand&#33;



so your trying to say he thought his own people were weak?, gee what an improvement dry.gif
i dont give a shit what he thought, he is praised for "liberating" India while he didnt and now it shows he was agianst it wich prolly explains why India is still fucked up

Don&#39;t try to be a smart ass idiot because you are not. I live in India belong to majority in some cases and minority in others and I know a lot more about the situation here than you do. I explicitly gave the reason and you dodged that point. and India is not exactly "FUCKED UP" as you think. It may not comparable to the West and China, But it is a lot better than Yugoslavia, former USSR states and some African countries like Sudan,Rwanda etc. That too with more ethnic divisions than those nations.
smartass idiot? :lol:, im not saying it&#39;s more fucked up then any other countries are or were.
anyway to your point if he didnt want to free india from colonialism, then what did he do?, what good was he? what else do people praise him for?




yes and his conciousness is what fucked the people over into ridicilous garbage like pacifism, he deserves full appreciation for seeing everyone in india as chesspuppets for his little pacifist crap?, fuck him

Again don&#39;t dodge my point and just criticise Pacifism blindly. Tell me what violent armed struggle had accomplished in Peru(Shining Path),Colombia(FARC-EP),Congo(varoius groups),Palestine(HAMAS,FATAH,PLO etc),Lebanon(Hizbollah),Srilanka(LTTE) etc.
nothing but im not a defender of them, i know that it has had success in Cuba, China and Russia, even if you dont like what it became the truth is they did came to power with violence and no other socialist-thinker became leader with a pacifist revolution


they did it because they were suffering and parasites like gandhi took that oppurtunity with both hands

Again don&#39;t speak of Millions of Indians asshole. You probably never Know where it is located.
1. fuck you, i didnt personally insulted you, so shut up
2. you mean india in southeast asia?, next to China and Pakistan? with New Delhi as it&#39;s capital?
3. im not making generalizations im taking what he says, and india did have miserable conditions and when people are miserable they follow anyone who says he has awnsers, Gandhi is no exception

[Vargha Poralli]

LOL as if i would even pay attention to anything that guy wrote, i base this on the fact he said jew should be martyrs so the nazi&#39;s and others would sympathise with them.that plays right into hitler&#39;s hand&#33;

If you will not read anything by him then you should not make STUPID COMMENTARIES ABOUT HIM. And what is the pretense he had in Poor German and East European Jews who could not afford it to escape from that hell ?.He just gave an opinion in a newspaper he published in India and would have never reached those unfortunate people.If you think it is because the Jews followed his advice holocaust happened then you really don&#39;t have brain. and IF YOU are DETERMINED not to study his life and his methods then YOU SHOULD NOT BADMOUTH ABOUT IT.




smartass idiot? laugh.gif, im not saying it&#39;s more fucked up then any other countries are or were.
anyway to your point if he didnt want to free india from colonialism, then what did he do?, what good was he? what else do people praise him for?

I answered in above posts . If you stubbornly refuse to read and analyze the points i have made i think it is MORONIC on MY part to have a discussion with A FOOL LIKE YOU.


nothing but im not a defender of them, i know that it has had success in Cuba, China and Russia, even if you dont like what it became the truth is they did came to power with violence and no other socialist-thinker became leader with a pacifist revolution

And what did they accomplish ?Does USSR EXIST STILL NOW ? Is CHINA IS ANYMORE A SOCIALIST ? and Cuba is really a small Island and for fucks sake don&#39;t compare it with India.


1. fuck you, i didnt personally insulted you, so shut up
2. you mean india in southeast asia?, next to China and Pakistan? with New Delhi as it&#39;s capital?
3. im not making generalizations im taking what he says, and india did have miserable conditions and when people are miserable they follow anyone who says he has awnsers, Gandhi is no exception

I will not shut up because this is a general discussion forum and I consider it is my right to refute the stupid points you have made .

And Gandhi is not a type of prophet for people to follow him and more Indians at that time and even now just respect him for what he have accomplished and not what he preached. If you want to constructively criticise him(I assure you he is not immune to criticism) with valid points then i would never have started the name calling . But you are making blind stupid assumptions and speaking like you know top to bottom about the problems in India.

And India&#39;s problems have more variable reasons and has nothing to do with Gandhi.

And also please provide the source from where you have learned about the supposed RACISM OF GANDHI.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:37 pm

LOL as if i would even pay attention to anything that guy wrote, i base this on the fact he said jew should be martyrs so the nazi&#39;s and others would sympathise with them.that plays right into hitler&#39;s hand&#33;

If you will not read anything by him then you should not make STUPID COMMENTARIES ABOUT HIM. And what is the pretense he had in Poor German and East European Jews who could not afford it to escape from that hell ?.He just gave an opinion in a newspaper he published in India and would have never reached those unfortunate people.If you think it is because the Jews followed his advice holocaust happened then you really don&#39;t have brain. and IF YOU are DETERMINED not to study his life and his methods then YOU SHOULD NOT BADMOUTH ABOUT IT.
i didnt say he was responsable but im saying that he said stuff like that wich is simply crazy




smartass idiot? laugh.gif, im not saying it&#39;s more fucked up then any other countries are or were.
anyway to your point if he didnt want to free india from colonialism, then what did he do?, what good was he? what else do people praise him for?

I answered in above posts . If you stubbornly refuse to read and analyze the points i have made i think it is MORONIC on MY part to have a discussion with A FOOL LIKE YOU.
you just came up with points wich is ment to not insult him.
his spirituality and stuff didnt do much good now?



nothing but im not a defender of them, i know that it has had success in Cuba, China and Russia, even if you dont like what it became the truth is they did came to power with violence and no other socialist-thinker became leader with a pacifist revolution

And what did they accomplish ?Does USSR EXIST STILL NOW ? Is CHINA IS ANYMORE A SOCIALIST ? and Cuba is really a small Island and for fucks sake don&#39;t compare it with India.
they accomplished to get to power, Gandhi didnt come to power he just got the colonialists out of there.
and im not comparing them to India anymore then you compared it with Peru or Colombia



1. fuck you, i didnt personally insulted you, so shut up
2. you mean india in southeast asia?, next to China and Pakistan? with New Delhi as it&#39;s capital?
3. im not making generalizations im taking what he says, and india did have miserable conditions and when people are miserable they follow anyone who says he has awnsers, Gandhi is no exception

I will not shut up because this is a general discussion forum and I consider it is my right to refute the stupid points you have made .

And Gandhi is not a type of prophet for people to follow him and more Indians at that time and even now just respect him for what he have accomplished and not what he preached. If you want to constructively criticise him(I assure you he is not immune to criticism) with valid points then i would never have started the name calling . But you are making blind stupid assumptions and speaking like you know top to bottom about the problems in India.

And India&#39;s problems have more variable reasons and has nothing to do with Gandhi.

And also please provide the source from where you have learned about the supposed RACISM OF GANDHI.

1. this can happen without insults, general discussion does not mean general flamewar

2. im not making blind assumption cause the man said that about Jews and the man is beeing wellseen as a hero and im asking is why?, i dont care about his spirituality or karma or whatever, why is he great?

3. im not saying that but if im correct Gandhi claimed to be a socialist, right?
has there been socialism in India since Gandhi?

4. im not saying he was racist im saying what he said was not to be applauded and is so crazy it cant hardly be defended

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:23 am

Care to explain why he was a complete asshole ? None of you have read my posts i think . Just posted some shitty statements without much thinking to increase your post count i think .

Like I said, he reieved credit for accomplishing something that was going to happen anyways. Liberals seem to get off over Ghandie because he preached non-violence. Good thing Che didn&#39;t believe in this bullshit, or Cuba would still be a US controlled dictatorship.
[sarcasm] Yeah, because if Ernesto Guevara was never born there would have been no Cuban Revolution. [sarcasm] :rolleyes:

[Vargha Poralli]

i didnt say he was responsable but im saying that he said stuff like that wich is simply crazy
I really could not find an online source for that article but i will try out and find the offline source of that article and type it for you. then you can come to a conclusion.


you just came up with points wich is ment to not insult him.
his spirituality and stuff didnt do much good now?

His spirituality is not as bad as modern Hindu cults like HareKrishna,Osho,ISCKON and shit like that and he he did not preach Hindu spirituality alone . He took all which is good from Bible,Gita,Quran and preached them to people to relax high tension between Muslims,Christians and Hindus. Actually his spirituality is still doing a lot of good for Indains on various issues. The religious harmony is maintained both by Hindus and Muslims even though it is severely strained by fundamentalist idiots in both societies.


they accomplished to get to power, Gandhi didnt come to power he just got the colonialists out of there.


What is the Ultimate result comrade ? Russian revolution did not give power to the Russian Proletariat so will you criticise Lenin for it ? Same is the case in China ? Cuba is completely different both from Russia,China and India.


and im not comparing them to India anymore then you compared it with Peru or Colombia

I compared India more with former Yugoslavia and USSR and had given a reason for it.No response from your side.



2. im not making blind assumption cause the man said that about Jews and the man is beeing wellseen as a hero and im asking is why?, i dont care about his spirituality or karma or whatever, why is he great?

3. im not saying that but if im correct Gandhi claimed to be a socialist, right?
has there been socialism in India since Gandhi?

4. im not saying he was racist im saying what he said was not to be applauded and is so crazy it cant hardly be defended

Look no one is a PERFECT HUMAN BEING. Gandhi is seen as a hero by many Indians for what his teachings helped them to achive(way better than they lived a century before him) and many Indians forgive his Idiocy on many issues for it.His Jewish stance will be available to you in 2-3 days once i find it. and every man born in to some society will have to go through its customs regardless he likes it or not and only after certyain period they will grow out of it. Gandhi is not exception.


im not saying that but if im correct Gandhi claimed to be a socialist, right?
has there been socialism in India since Gandhi?

Yes and his socialism is way different from Marxism. He really does not claim to be a Marxist and he knew what Marx wrote and accepts with some of it and rejects some of it.It deserves a big book to explain it and it is not even fully understood by myself. And when is socialism had been copyrighted or patented to exclusively Marxists ?


im not saying he was racist im saying what he said was not to be applauded and is so crazy it cant hardly be defended

Ok what about preventing the terrible bloodshed in Calcutta,for which he is assassinated ? Again you need not defend everything he said and did and don&#39;t have to applaud it but you should not blindly slander him for the events in which he had no control(Like Holocaust) and because you misunderstood what he stood and fought for.

[Pirate Utopian]

i did not say socialism is reserved to marxists, even hitler claimed a from of socialism

[( R )evolution]

This is form a different thread on ghandi. It is not my post but it was a very good post. By Scottish Militiant


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 (&#33;). 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&#33;

- 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&#33; 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&#33;&#33; And Congress regreted "mob frenzy"&#33;&#33;&#33;

- 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&#33; 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&#39; 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&#33;

This is not meant to be a complete history of Congress or of Gandhi&#39;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&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+December 20, 2006 03:00 pm--> (Pawn Power @ December 20, 2006 03:00 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2006 03:23 am

Care to explain why he was a complete asshole ? None of you have read my posts i think . Just posted some shitty statements without much thinking to increase your post count i think .

Like I said, he reieved credit for accomplishing something that was going to happen anyways. Liberals seem to get off over Ghandie because he preached non-violence. Good thing Che didn&#39;t believe in this bullshit, or Cuba would still be a US controlled dictatorship.
[sarcasm] Yeah, because if Ernesto Guevara was never born there would have been no Cuban Revolution. [sarcasm] :rolleyes: [/b]
Not the point, I guess I shoul have said all involved in the Cuban revolution, at anyrate if they hadn&#39;t resorted to violence the Cuban revolution would not have been accomplished, along with so many other instances.

[Cryotank Screams]

Ghandi in my view is an over glorified hypocrite who did absolutely nothing revolutionary, he just traded in a despot for a despot, and in many respects was racist, and anti-worker, I agree fully with Trotsky on this issue.

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 08:57 am
and speaking of Che what did his method achieve more than Cuba ? why did he fail in Congo, Bolivia etc., ?
In the congo most of the congolese fighters were poorly trained and their commanders stubborn and as bad as they were, they loved to party but hated to work, and the commanders rufused Che the chance to train the congolese rebels and when the chance came to fight, the underexperienced congolese fighters ran away, a few people were hit with friendly fire because of this...

and bolivia, besides the communication problems that he encountered, the CIA backed soldiers (AND ppl like felix rodriguez) was right on his trail and you can&#39;t stay still or you get caught, so he couldnt wait for the other rebels to find him while they were split...


ghandi was a pacafist who like people have said before, did something that was going to inevitably happen either way and he still replaced imperialism with imperialism while teaching the masses to obey

[Guerrilla22]

What did Ghandi achieve other than leaving a capitalist state, where most of it&#39;s citizens are still impoverished?

[Jesus Christ!]

Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will. I&#39;m so sick of logging onto this board and reading teenagers really" tearing apart" greta thinkers and revolutionaries of the past. The mere fact that you put so much time and effort into this message board proves how much actual work you do for "the people."

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@December 21, 2006 01:05 am
Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will. I&#39;m so sick of logging onto this board and reading teenagers really" tearing apart" greta thinkers and revolutionaries of the past. The mere fact that you put so much time and effort into this message board proves how much actual work you do for "the people."
I&#39;m tied of people on this board using the "you&#39;re a stupid teenager" argument. Read the previous post.

[Louis Pio]

Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will.

Breaking up India into 2 countries was great? It leading to massmurder was great? Ghandi sucking up to the british and making sure their interests would be served after they gave India "independence" was great?
No
Now read the previous posts before you post again, and no am not teenager, besides that ageism is just stupid.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;@December 20, 2006 09:05 pm
Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will. I&#39;m so sick of logging onto this board and reading teenagers really" tearing apart" greta thinkers and revolutionaries of the past. The mere fact that you put so much time and effort into this message board proves how much actual work you do for "the people."
He traded a despot for a despot, and displayed racism, and allied himself in some cases with the very forces he allegedly was fighting against, he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary, he was anti-worker and was for the causes of the bosses and urged people to obey them, and most of all he was a walking hypocrisy, and if he really did anything then why was there and still is all the same ailments of the country as before? Nothing changed, therefore he did nothing.

[ack]

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Mohandas Gandhi

Hmm, I dunno, I like the guy.

[Louis Pio]

Hmm ack to put it simple, Ghandi sometimes talked the talk but he never walked the walk.
Sorry for being corny, it&#39;s late here and im preparing for exam in nursing so bear with me.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2006 06:53 am

Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will.

Breaking up India into 2 countries was great? It leading to massmurder was great? Ghandi sucking up to the british and making sure their interests would be served after they gave India "independence" was great?
No
Now read the previous posts before you post again, and no am not teenager, besides that ageism is just stupid.
I expected better from you. Gandhi had not intention in Dividing India and he opposed the independence specifically for it. And both Indians and Pakistanis paid and paying the price for it. Before making an statement please verify FACTS whether what you is saying is correct or not befor puking your stupid arguments like this.

(Cryotank Screams)
He traded a despot for a despot, and displayed racism, and allied himself in some cases with the very forces he allegedly was fighting against, he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary, he was anti-worker and was for the causes of the bosses and urged people to obey them, and most of all he was a walking hypocrisy, and if he really did anything then why was there and still is all the same ailments of the country as before? Nothing changed, therefore he did nothing.

(Guerrilla22)
What did Ghandi achieve other than leaving a capitalist state, where most of it&#39;s citizens are still impoverished?


(Solitary Mind)
ghandi was a pacafist who like people have said before, did something that was going to inevitably happen either way and he still replaced imperialism with imperialism while teaching the masses to obey


(Teis)
Hmm ack to put it simple, Ghandi sometimes talked the talk but he never walked the walk.


(( R )evolution)
This is form a different thread on ghandi. It is not my post but it was a very good post. By Scottish Militiant

I am really tired of repeating myself again dont you guys never read what i have posted ?


Myself again
1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don&#39;t expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain.

2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.

3) Tekun
QUOTE
Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats

In reality he opposed the Indian Independence and PARTITION he utmost severity. According to him Indian people didn&#39;t yet deserved the Independence yet since he thought chauvinism of all sorts is rampant in the minds of Indian youth. and he knew that it is not independence of masses of Indian people just the whips have changed hand from British to Indians. If you don&#39;t know about a subject or know a very little about it then you should not make this type of stupid statements.



In the congo most of the congolese fighters were poorly trained and their commanders stubborn and as bad as they were, they loved to party but hated to work, and the commanders rufused Che the chance to train the congolese rebels and when the chance came to fight, the underexperienced congolese fighters ran away, a few people were hit with friendly fire because of this...

and bolivia, besides the communication problems that he encountered, the CIA backed soldiers (AND ppl like felix rodriguez) was right on his trail and you can&#39;t stay still or you get caught, so he couldnt wait for the other rebels to find him while they were split...

India during the time of British rule had more troubles than Today&#39;s Congo. There are more than 100 (Armed)uprisings against the British rule and everything had been put down easily by British just by pitting one group against the other.Indians never thought themselves as one entity and gandhi tried to make them to do it. In it his methods are very much sucessful and it Holds India together still today.


Ghandi in my view is an over glorified hypocrite who did absolutely nothing revolutionary, he just traded in a despot for a despot, and in many respects was racist, and anti-worker, I agree fully with Trotsky on this issue

Care to provide your sources that he is an racist and anti-semite asshole ? This is the 3rd time i am hearing this and no one is providing the source.

And Trotsky never Knew About India and its Core problems and i don&#39;t agree with Trotsky&#39;s analysis in this Issue.

[stevec]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 19, 2006 04:14 pm
Again, as revolutionary leftists today, we don&#39;t see oppression ending until capitalism is destroyed however in this situation, where a true communist revolution probably could not have occurred at the time, we most look at the result of the movement Gandhi lead. Did it significantly improve the lives of the people of India?
Isn&#39;t oppression the will or desire to see something destroyed? Rather than ending oppression, you are continuing it.

Capitalism is an idea, just like communism or Islamism. You cannot kill an idea, but you can absorb its good points and purge its bad points. This is essentially what Hegel&#39;s dialectic was describing. Therefore "destroying capitalism" makes as much sense as destroying the Sun. At best you can move the evolutionary process along, but while faith can move a mountain, it always does so one grain at a time.

Gandhi tried to split this hair, but he failed because the will to political power is what creates the original oppression. Is it a surprise that in America that at the same time we were in Vietnam there were civil rights battles? It is the same story. The government is simply a reflection of the wisdom of the people, for better or worse. A wise King is the same as a wise President as the wise head of a workers council, and an unwise King is the same as an unwise President as an unwise leader of the workers.

Gandhi made people who were unwise more wise, and that is what changed the society. But change is not something that a leader can accomplish, or that some words on a piece of paper (laws) can accomplish, it is something that the masses must embrace. At the end of the day, the only thing we can change is ourselves, and Gandhi tried to show by example what Socrates and Christ tried to show thousands of years earlier.

It is the power of moral taboo that changes society. Capitalism is a cultural norm. Profit, Interest, Greed, Fear, self-righteousness are all cultural norms, and they apply to more than just the capitalists and upperclasses. The working poor have all the same moral failings, which is why that when one of them rises to the top and takes power he acts just like the person before him: He shares the same predominate moral taboo.

If you want to change the world, then you need to change the moral taboo, (starting with your own) which is what Gandhi did by attacking the caste system. But caste is only one problem of many. Complacency is a mountain, and Thoreau&#39;s observation applies to many areas:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.

[Vargha Poralli]

That post is really most Insightful stevec. Especially your theory on ending the oppression.

But Gandhi did more than what you have said and 90% were really done after a thorough understanding of the society in that time he lived in. For which he is either elevated next to GOD(his title Mahatma meaning great or mighty soul) negating the 10% wrongness in him or a knee jerk hatred turning blind to 90%that is good of him.

Stalinists and Maoists hate him for his pacifism without even acknowledging the fact that he welcomed Soviet Union and hailed Lenin as the titan of spirit and justified the Usage of Terror by them.

Trotskyists hate him because of an completely dogmatic analysis of Trotsky about him and Indian situation ( Trotsky&#39;s analysis is pretty much accurate on a purely material analysis but if we consider a hell a lot of factors unique to India it turns completely useless). Even then Trotskyist group of the fourth international at that time Bolshevik Leninist Party of India,Burma and Ceylon(now Srilanka) supported his Quit India Movement against the British Imperialism while the Stalinist CPI kissed its Ass under the direction of Comintern.

And I am still waiting for the evidence on Gandhi&#39;s alleged Racism and Anti-Semitism.

[Louis Pio]

I expected better from you. Gandhi had not intention in Dividing India and he opposed the independence specifically for it. And both Indians and Pakistanis paid and paying the price for it. Before making an statement please verify FACTS whether what you is saying is correct or not befor puking your stupid arguments like this.


Wheter or not what his intentions were is not really the point. Of course he shares the responsibility with the leaders of Pakistan and in the end the british.

[Brownfist]

There have been numerous evaluations of the role that Gandhi did play within the nationalist movement and I agree that he was a more conservative voice within the nationalist movement. I think that people are right, not to try to gauge his accomplishments by communist/anarchist standards and ideals, however, I do think that a proper evaluation of his role needs to be appreciated. It cannot go without a doubt that Gandhi did capture the imagination of a larger populace of people in India, and did allow for the development of a largely cohesive nationalist project (I would recommend looking at work by academics Shahid Amin and David Hardiman on this). Having said that, we need to recognize that prior to Gandhi&#39;s involvement in the Indian nationalist movement in India, the nationalist forces were incredibly fractured and regionalized (Gauatam Bhadra amongst others has written extensively on this). In many cases they were unaware or remotely aware of other nationalist forces in the country. The communist movement was extremely fractured with numerous parties being influenced by socialist/communist thought. There was also an anarchist tendency that was based in West Bengal and Punjab (and had much influence on the Punjabi populations residing in Vancouver and San Francisco, eg. Ghadar Party).

However, we need to recognize that till about the mid- to late 1930&#39;s Gandhi was not calling for an independent India. Rather, he was demanding dominion status under British rule, similar to that in Canada and Australia. The demand for an Indian independent state came from Republican organizations like the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (most famously led by Shaheed Bhagat Singh) and the Communist Party of India. The Congress Party had to re-evaluate its demands when it recognized that the party was loosing favor in the masses to these other parties. We also need to recognize that at numerous instances Gandhi took an anti-worker position in which he decried strikes, mutinies within the army and navy, and often acted as a broker between peasants and capitalists (in which the peasants were given marginal gains to the benefit of the capitalists). This is especially true of Gandhi&#39;s relationship with the Indian comprador bourgeoisie like the Birla&#39;s. Additionally, there are some cases in which Gandhi even sided with British imperialism by allowing for the killing of more radical nationalist leaders (eg. Bhagat Singh, whose death could have been possibly averted if Gandhi had made his release a pre-condition for an important treaty that was to be signed). Having said that, we need to recognize that Gandhi continued to be during even these moments an extremely popular leader, as he will able to bridge the imaginations of the peasantry, working-class and comprador bourgeoisie. I think that we need to also recognize that Gandhi was a conservative figure within his own party, and often attempted to quieten the more radical voices within the party including that of Subhas Chandra Bose who was forced out of his presidency of the party (despite his democratic win). Even his own pupil and follower, Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a member of the socialist faction within the Congress party had to be reined in at numerous moments. Furthermore, his use of Hindu revivalist language was extremely alienating to Muslim populations, resulting in a bandying around the Muslim League. This was also dangerous as it brough a religious politics to a central position, and was extremely problematic for other Hindu communities who were exploited by the caste system like the Dalits. Indeed the very phrase that Gandhi coined Harijan is hardly used today, due to the fact that Dalits tended to follow the leadership of Dr. Ambedkar.

I mean these are some initial thoughts about the question. The legacy that Gandhi has left us with us is a complicated and often contradictory one. His theoretical works are important to read and need a critical eye.

[Fawkes]

yeah well... Yo&#39; Mamma got wooden legs with real feet&#33;, punk&#33;

Yeah well guess what, Yo&#39; mama used to be fat until they came out with jizz flavored Slim-Fast.

OOHHHHHHHHOOHHHHHHHHH CAN I GET SOME HIGH FIVES FOR THAT ONE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Anyway, let&#39;s get serious now.

You seem to think that the ending of British rule in India was all due to Gandhi&#39;s pacifist strategy. That is in fact not the case. The people blowing up British supply lines had just as much to do with the outcome of the war as Gandhi&#39;s pacifists did. Not one person has yet mentioned that there in fact was violent attacks against the British by the Indians during the war, and those did play a part in the outcome. While Gandhi&#39;s supporters were letting themselves be butchered by the British (quite a stupid move I might add), there were others that were actually fighting the British instead of taking it all lying down. In my opinion, any revolutionary who holds pacifist beliefs is not truly a revolutionary at all because not once in history has pacifism by itself accomplished any goals when it comes to revolution.

Also, one can not help but criticize Gandhi for his pacifist beliefs when he let thousands of Indians just be butchered by British soldiers and did nothing but starve himself to retaliate.


Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will. I&#39;m so sick of logging onto this board and reading teenagers really" tearing apart" greta thinkers and revolutionaries of the past. The mere fact that you put so much time and effort into this message board proves how much actual work you do for "the people."

First of all, the fact that you do not reveal your birthday makes me think that you may in fact yourself be a teenager. Secondly, I don&#39;t see why Mods and Admins. don&#39;t punish Ageism in the same manner that they punish Racism or Homophobia.

[Vargha Poralli]

Teis

Wheter or not what his intentions were is not really the point. Of course he shares the responsibility with the leaders of Pakistan and in the end the british.

I really don&#39;t know why you are acting stupidly. As i said Gandhi opposed the partition to teeth and opposed the independence from british for that very same reason. But it was because british(ruling class) came to conclusion that they no longer hold India as they did so did a lasting damage.Did you read what i have said about Trotsky&#39;s analysis of India ?


Freedom for all

You seem to think that the ending of British rule in India was all due to Gandhi&#39;s pacifist strategy. That is in fact not the case. The people blowing up British supply lines had just as much to do with the outcome of the war as Gandhi&#39;s pacifists did. Not one person has yet mentioned that there in fact was violent attacks against the British by the Indians during the war, and those did play a part in the outcome. While Gandhi&#39;s supporters were letting themselves be butchered by the British (quite a stupid move I might add), there were others that were actually fighting the British instead of taking it all lying down. In my opinion, any revolutionary who holds pacifist beliefs is not truly a revolutionary at all because not once in history has pacifism by itself accomplished any goals when it comes to revolution.

Yeah because of these factors mainly.

INA Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbaksh_Singh_Dhillon#The_Red_Fort_trial)

RIN Mutiny because of that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Indian_Navy_Mutiny)
Non Wiki source (http://http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020224/spectrum/main3.htm)

Netaji Subash Chandra Bose is the reason for all these events and may be said to be the real freedom winner for India though he is Tainted for working with Fascists. Any way he is more respected by Indians than Gandhi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netaji)

In reality Gandhi did not want British to leave India at that time as things such as caste chauvinism,religious fanaticism and all other things that he worked for his life to remove from Indian masses began to appear again.



Also, one can not help but criticize Gandhi for his pacifist beliefs when he let thousands of Indians just be butchered by British soldiers and did nothing but starve himself to retaliate

You need to read and understand what he stood for and the conditions which made him to do it before coming to stupid conclusions like this.

Brown Fist

his use of Hindu revivalist language was extremely alienating to Muslim populations, resulting in a bandying around the Muslim League

That is not entirely true.It did alienate power hungry and greedy Muslim leaders but not ordinary Muslims. Many of them supported him and still have a great respect for him.


This was also dangerous as it brough a religious politics to a central position, and was extremely problematic for other Hindu communities who were exploited by the caste system like the Dalits. Indeed the very phrase that Gandhi coined Harijan is hardly used today, due to the fact that Dalits tended to follow the leadership of Dr. Ambedkar.

But Dalits are more alienated by the Politics of Ambedkar. Because of his politics many Hindu OBC&#39;s, MBC&#39;s and all of the forward castes have been driven in to reaction. His politics can be compared to some of the Arab leaders rhetoric against the Israelis which does not help the Palestinians but at the same time drive Israeli workers to Zionism.


I mean these are some initial thoughts about the question. The legacy that Gandhi has left us with us is a complicated and often contradictory one. His theoretical works are important to read and need a critical eye.

Any serious revolutionary would do that ,unlike some immature Revleft posters(disregarding age)

Edit:

he demand for an Indian independent state came from Republican organizations like the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (most famously led by Shaheed Bhagat Singh) and the Communist Party of India.

In fact CPI&#39;s stance turned left and right all time from its creation till Indian Independence.At first(1921 the year of its creation) it demanded complete independence from the British even before Congress.Then after Stalin&#39;s ascension to power(1928-1937) it kept quite about it not to do anything that might ruin their Great Comrade&#39;s strategies with the British. Then it opposed "Imperialist aggression"(1930-1941) against Hitler and the biggest shame of any communist movements is done by them after OB. It did all it can to ruin the Quit India Movement by snitching for the British imperialists. It even did it during the Bombay Mutiny.

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:42 pm

But Gandhi did more than what you have said and 90% were really done after a thorough understanding of the society in that time he lived in. For which he is either elevated next to GOD(his title Mahatma meaning great or mighty soul) negating the 10% wrongness in him or a knee jerk hatred turning blind to 90%that is good of him.

Stalinists and Maoists hate him for his pacifism without even acknowledging the fact that he welcomed Soviet Union and hailed Lenin as the titan of spirit and justified the Usage of Terror by them.

Trotskyists hate him because of an completely dogmatic analysis of Trotsky about him and Indian situation ( Trotsky&#39;s analysis is pretty much accurate on a purely material analysis but if we consider a hell a lot of factors unique to India it turns completely useless). Even then Trotskyist group of the fourth international at that time Bolshevik Leninist Party of India,Burma and Ceylon(now Srilanka) supported his Quit India Movement against the British Imperialism while the Stalinist CPI kissed its Ass under the direction of Comintern.

I think the analysis that men are different in different societies is a falacy. While there are some cultural differences, people are all learning the same lessons about themselves and the world around them in regard to the use of violence and the problem with greed.

In general, those who advocate the greater use of violence also have the highest levels of greed. The "give me liberty or give me death" syndrome is simply a swill of revenge and the will to power, for themselves, not to help others. While it is wrapped in the popular manifesto of the day (Declaration of Independence, Koran, Communist Manifesto, etc) ultimately people are claiming for themselves the right to be violent and greedy, while denying the same right to others. It is more than hypocrisy and a double-standard, it is a recipe for conflict. Two sides that think exactly the same, when both embrace violence and greed, can battle their mirror perpetually.

In an odd way, most political theory excludes the man and only sees the masses. Even when it champions the individual, it is usually for license to give him the right to perpetual greed against the masses. (Ayn Rand, etc.)

More odd is that what Marx was going for in his ideal worker-state is actually a spiritual or a religious state of mind, where people produce but do not possess. It isn&#39;t a political utopia. Like the Founding Fascists in America, his justification for violence betrayed everything he hoped to gain. No system can work without wise people, and violence is the unwisest choice of all.

Elevating people to God status is the second unwisest thing to do, because then people are thinking themselves great by association (by having read his book, a bumper sticker or a tshirt, voting for him, etc) and not by actually understanding the person. The violent and greedy follow the violent and greedy, just as the blind follow the blind, and you cannot think yourself equal to others if you believe someone else is superior.

[Brownfist]

Thank you comrade g.ram for your comments.


That is not entirely true.It did alienate power hungry and greedy Muslim leaders but not ordinary Muslims. Many of them supported him and still have a great respect for him.

This is actually quite untrue, especially by 1942. It is true, post-independence the nationalist historical school has reaffirmed Gandhi&#39;s role as a uniter of religious communities, and that Muslim confidence in the Congress Party and Gandhi has returned. However, I do think that if we actually look at the election results during the 1930&#39;s and 1940&#39;s, we actually see something remarkable. In the 1930&#39;s the Muslim League was unable to elicit any support from the Muslim community and consistently failed in winning seats. However, by 1942, the majority of the Muslim population was voting pro-Muslim League. Furthermore, we need to recognize that there was a great deal of support for movements like Caliph movement, and Muslim revivalist movements as well. While it is true that largely the Muslim community did until the 1940&#39;s largely did support the Congress and Gandhi, it is also equally true that this support was not unwavering, and what we do see is Gandhi using a lot of Hindu revivalist language to only go and support conservative Muslim movements to ensure continued support. Thus, the alienation did occur, but fears were assuaged by endorsement of conservative Islamic movements.


But Dalits are more alienated by the Politics of Ambedkar. Because of his politics many Hindu OBC&#39;s, MBC&#39;s and all of the forward castes have been driven in to reaction. His politics can be compared to some of the Arab leaders rhetoric against the Israelis which does not help the Palestinians but at the same time drive Israeli workers to Zionism.

I actually quite disagree with this point. Partly because it is not true, but also because it does not recognize the nature of the reactionary politics that are being ascribed to the Dalit community. Actually, what we see is that majority of mass Dalit organizations, militant or otherwise, consistently have seen ideological support and respect for Dr. Ambedkar. This can be seen during Dalit protests against the burning of his books at AIIMS in 2006. Majority, of the dalit activists I have met, have always respected his work, and have combined much of his work with Marxist theory. Furthermore, it is due to Dr. Ambedkar that we even have a politics surrounding dalits because Gandhi was willing to re-utilize the paternalistic relationship between industrialists/working-class and poor onto the caste question in which the upper-castes would care for the dalit populations and give them charity. Rather, Ambedkar not only emboldened the people but he ensured that they were represented. I would suggest that you read about the Ambedkar-Gandhi dispute, and the resulting allocation for seats within the Congress party for future elections. Due to Ambedkars intervention we have seen the rise of a progressive and regressive Dalit movements. These include the Dalit Panthers of course. In recent years much of these efforts have born fruit in the development of reservations for OBC&#39;s and OBT&#39;s. However, the Communist argument that reservations should be based on a question of class is also pertinent and should also be implemented, as the reservations are being used now by lower caste families of a middle/upper-class economic background. The reactionary politics that you are referencing is caused due to the reactionary nature of Hindu right-wing politics, which has caused the Dalit community to react consistently to right-wing attacks. I am not suggesting that their reactions are necessarily progressive ones, however, the dalits are stuck within a political and power struggle in which they are not on the strongest of feet. I would actually like for you to elucidate upon this point that you have made about Palestinians. What kind of politics are you thinking of, especially in the Dalit case?

On the question of the CPI and its role in the independence struggle I think that I will need more time to refute your arguments, just because I will have to actually get the books in my library to deal with the question in an honest manner. However, I do think that you are reproducing the nationalist discourse about the role of all parties that were not part of the Congress-led struggle. So I would ask about the numerous strikes that were led during the 1928-1937 period that you mention. I would also ask about the numerous cases of armed militancy that was led under the CPI? I know that you have some issues with the CPI due to its repudiation of Trotsky, but I think that we should not blacken the history of the CPI because of that. Furthermore, I think that we need to remember that the CPI was a new party, that was forced to go underground due its politics and actions very early. The Congress party never experienced the kind of repression that the communist forces did.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by stevec+January 03, 2007 05:22 pm--> (stevec @ January 03, 2007 05:22 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 05:42 pm

But Gandhi did more than what you have said and 90% were really done after a thorough understanding of the society in that time he lived in. For which he is either elevated next to GOD(his title Mahatma meaning great or mighty soul) negating the 10% wrongness in him or a knee jerk hatred turning blind to 90%that is good of him.

Stalinists and Maoists hate him for his pacifism without even acknowledging the fact that he welcomed Soviet Union and hailed Lenin as the titan of spirit and justified the Usage of Terror by them.

Trotskyists hate him because of an completely dogmatic analysis of Trotsky about him and Indian situation ( Trotsky&#39;s analysis is pretty much accurate on a purely material analysis but if we consider a hell a lot of factors unique to India it turns completely useless). Even then Trotskyist group of the fourth international at that time Bolshevik Leninist Party of India,Burma and Ceylon(now Srilanka) supported his Quit India Movement against the British Imperialism while the Stalinist CPI kissed its Ass under the direction of Comintern.

I think the analysis that men are different in different societies is a falacy. While there are some cultural differences, people are all learning the same lessons about themselves and the world around them in regard to the use of violence and the problem with greed.

In general, those who advocate the greater use of violence also have the highest levels of greed. The "give me liberty or give me death" syndrome is simply a swill of revenge and the will to power, for themselves, not to help others. While it is wrapped in the popular manifesto of the day (Declaration of Independence, Koran, Communist Manifesto, etc) ultimately people are claiming for themselves the right to be violent and greedy, while denying the same right to others. It is more than hypocrisy and a double-standard, it is a recipe for conflict. Two sides that think exactly the same, when both embrace violence and greed, can battle their mirror perpetually.

In an odd way, most political theory excludes the man and only sees the masses. Even when it champions the individual, it is usually for license to give him the right to perpetual greed against the masses. (Ayn Rand, etc.)

More odd is that what Marx was going for in his ideal worker-state is actually a spiritual or a religious state of mind, where people produce but do not possess. It isn&#39;t a political utopia. Like the Founding Fascists in America, his justification for violence betrayed everything he hoped to gain. No system can work without wise people, and violence is the unwisest choice of all.

Elevating people to God status is the second unwisest thing to do, because then people are thinking themselves great by association (by having read his book, a bumper sticker or a tshirt, voting for him, etc) and not by actually understanding the person. The violent and greedy follow the violent and greedy, just as the blind follow the blind, and you cannot think yourself equal to others if you believe someone else is superior. [/b]
Why is this poster not relegated to the opposing ideology forum?

[Vargha Poralli]

This is actually quite untrue, especially by 1942. It is true, post-independence the nationalist historical school has reaffirmed Gandhi&#39;s role as a uniter of religious communities, and that Muslim confidence in the Congress Party and Gandhi has returned. However, I do think that if we actually look at the election results during the 1930&#39;s and 1940&#39;s, we actually see something remarkable. In the 1930&#39;s the Muslim League was unable to elicit any support from the Muslim community and consistently failed in winning seats. However, by 1942, the majority of the Muslim population was voting pro-Muslim League. Furthermore, we need to recognize that there was a great deal of support for movements like Caliph movement, and Muslim revivalist movements as well. While it is true that largely the Muslim community did until the 1940&#39;s largely did support the Congress and Gandhi, it is also equally true that this support was not unwavering, and what we do see is Gandhi using a lot of Hindu revivalist language to only go and support conservative Muslim movements to ensure continued support. Thus, the alienation did occur, but fears were assuaged by endorsement of conservative Islamic movements.


That has more to do with the rise of RSS and its chauvinistic activities(and the inblity of Congress to stop it) than it had to do with Gandhi&#39;s politics. But a significant no of Muslims still chose to live in India regardless of creation of East and West Pakistan. Still India has significant number of Muslim population most of whom live harmoniously with the majority Hindus regardless of fundamentalist activities and provocation in Both sides.And India has 3rd biggest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan.

Indian Demographics taken from Wikipedia
India (2005 Est. 1,080 million vs. 1951 Census 361 million)

* 81.69% Hindu (839 million)
* 12.20% Muslims (135 million)
* 2.32% Christians (25 million)
* 1.85% Sikhs (20 million)
* 1.94% Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and others (21 million)



I actually quite disagree with this point. Partly because it is not true, but also because it does not recognize the nature of the reactionary politics that are being ascribed to the Dalit community. Actually, what we see is that majority of mass Dalit organizations, militant or otherwise, consistently have seen ideological support and respect for Dr. Ambedkar. This can be seen during Dalit protests against the burning of his books at AIIMS in 2006. Majority, of the dalit activists I have met, have always respected his work, and have combined much of his work with Marxist theory. Furthermore, it is due to Dr. Ambedkar that we even have a politics surrounding dalits because Gandhi was willing to re-utilize the paternalistic relationship between industrialists/working-class and poor onto the caste question in which the upper-castes would care for the dalit populations and give them charity. Rather, Ambedkar not only emboldened the people but he ensured that they were represented. I would suggest that you read about the Ambedkar-Gandhi dispute, and the resulting allocation for seats within the Congress party for future elections. Due to Ambedkars intervention we have seen the rise of a progressive and regressive Dalit movements. These include the Dalit Panthers of course. In recent years much of these efforts have born fruit in the development of reservations for OBC&#39;s and OBT&#39;s. However, the Communist argument that reservations should be based on a question of class is also pertinent and should also be implemented, as the reservations are being used now by lower caste families of a middle/upper-class economic background. The reactionary politics that you are referencing is caused due to the reactionary nature of Hindu right-wing politics, which has caused the Dalit community to react consistently to right-wing attacks. I am not suggesting that their reactions are necessarily progressive ones, however, the dalits are stuck within a political and power struggle in which they are not on the strongest of feet. I would actually like for you to elucidate upon this point that you have made about Palestinians. What kind of politics are you thinking of, especially in the Dalit case?

But as i have said Ambedkar&#39;s activities have made a serious drift between Dalits and rest of castes. And the recent AIIMS students(who had came from a economically privileged background regardless of Caste) struggle against the reservation in those institutions is actually against separate quoata OBC&#39;s and MBC&#39;s not dalits(who fall in to SC/ST category and already have reservation).

And their struggle is partially true since there are many Forward caste people who don&#39;t have strong economic background very seriously affected by this(my situation is one among them and once seriously hated myself for being a part of it). And i seriously wonder why they still have to be punished because of the crimes their ancestors have committed and because of a factor that they actually can&#39;t control(i.e being born in to a forward caste).It is these type of people whom the Sangh parivar uses to gain power.

That being said I seriously do not deny the fact that dalits are still oppressed here.The Khairlanji killings and its subsequent violence which has not been given siginificant coverage by (almost all) media unlike the AIIMS student riots tells us the true story. (http://www.anti-caste.org/news/maharasthra_burning.html) The fact that the Sangh Parivar did not have a significant role in it portrays the significance of backlash against politics Ambedkar&#39;s and those who use his name.



On the question of the CPI and its role in the independence struggle I think that I will need more time to refute your arguments, just because I will have to actually get the books in my library to deal with the question in an honest manner. However, I do think that you are reproducing the nationalist discourse about the role of all parties that were not part of the Congress-led struggle. So I would ask about the numerous strikes that were led during the 1928-1937 period that you mention. I would also ask about the numerous cases of armed militancy that was led under the CPI? I know that you have some issues with the CPI due to its repudiation of Trotsky, but I think that we should not blacken the history of the CPI because of that. Furthermore, I think that we need to remember that the CPI was a new party, that was forced to go underground due its politics and actions very early. The Congress party never experienced the kind of repression that the communist forces did.

I suggest you just to follow the activities of Comintern during this time whose guidance is followed by the CPI.


I know that you have some issues with the CPI due to its repudiation of Trotsky

I had been once a member of CPI(M)&#39;s SFI. And my criticsms and issues with both of them has more than Trotsky reudiation of them.And pls don&#39;t take me for a Trotskyist because i have not read him fully and i don&#39;t accept with some of his theories i have read off.


but I think that we should not blacken the history of the CPI because of that

That is not needed because CPI itself never denies those things.(Revisionist according to your outlook)

[stevec]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:03 am
Why is this poster not relegated to the opposing ideology forum?
I don&#39;t have an "opposing" ideology, I am just smarter than you. I understand all these competing theories better than you do, I recognize where their strengths, differences, weaknesses and similarities lie.

Ah well, they hate you if you&#39;re clever and they despise a fool. A working class hero is something to be.

What you just expressed is "the fear of words." Since you are unable to respond to the points made, you would prefer to silence the speaker. Everybody has a liitle fascist inside of them that sometimes breaks out, which is why generically all ideologies fail. Ideas can be pure, but people are never perfect 100% of the time.

[RedKnight]

Oh no. I do not wish to silence anyone, and we do not censor here, unless they be fascist and or racist. I just do not appreciate indivisuals like yourself trolling on contrary message boards, with there unwanted theological, philosophical, and or political views. I have and will continue to respond to you until I feel that all of my relevant points have been made. I consider myself to be reasonably well informed when it comes to the social sciences. I do not know how my intelligence quotiant compares to yours, not that it matters. My I.Q., according to different tests I&#39;ve taken is estimated to be between 92 and 95, which is about average. Our arguement is not due to lack of education, but differing opinion. I am not arrogant to think that I am superior to you in intellect. Maybe I am, or I might not be. But even if I am of inferier intellectual capacity, my views are no more or less valid than yours. THere are political comrades of mine who are both less and more intelligent than I am, as are my opponents. Guessing from what you&#39;ve posted so far however, from what I know of philosophy, I would guess that you are a hindu/ new ager, who believes in the principle of ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa). I could very well be wrong in this impression though, as there are others who have similar ethical beliefs. I do know for certain that you are not amish, as they do not have electricity. But you may be some other kind of anabaptist,as they also believe in Non-resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-resistance). Yet I rather doubt it. I feel that I know where you&#39;re coming from. And though I do not accept it, I do respect your right to have it. Just so you do not try to interfer with my right to bear arms and if necessary defend myself from aggression. Where I am coming from is from the principle of non-aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aggression_Principle). Meaning I have decided not to initiate force in order to acheive social change. This is probally where I differ from some other marxists.

[Brownfist]

Hello G. Ram,
I think that you are right in some of your criticisms of the CPI during the the 1940&#39;s especially because it did believe that the war against fascism was of vital importance, and I do think that is true. I mean I was just recently reading an account of Subhas Chandra Bose&#39;s stay in Germany during WW2 in which it demonstrates that Hitler was very keen on including India as a colony of Germany and was consistently reluctant to reaffirm Bose&#39;s argument that there be a republican India. I think that you do underestimate the threat the fascism posed during the period. I also do not think that the CPI was the most radical force during the time, and that there were several other parties including the Ghadarites that played a much more radical socialist role in India.

However, this does not take away from the fact that Gandhi was opposed to the kind of militant working class struggles that the CPI and other socialist parties indeed were engaged in, and often aided the British Raj in repressing these forces. Whether, the CPI followed the Comintern policies is somewhat inconsequential to the debate about the Gandhian legacy. Definitely we can draw upon more radical traditions in India that did not commit some of the same errors that you correctly do point to.

I think that you are lumping numerous caste issues into one caste issue. Dr. Ambedkar represented a very specific caste (which s extremely large in India) and articulated its politics, because at that time all caste oppression fell finally onto the Dalit. Thus, yes although there were caste antagonisms between the upper and lower castes, Ambedkar mobilized a very specific and large population of people.

It is true that a larger section of the Muslim population did not accede to Pakistan. There are several reasons for this: 1) The Muslim League largely organized and enjoyed popularity in the areas that were majority Muslim areas but huge swathes of the Muslim population was widely dispersed around the country; 2) The Muslim league was not the only representative of the Muslim population and was actually one of the moderate parties around which Muslims gathered around; 3) The question of Pakistan itself is a very complicated one and Muslims sentiments towards it varied, especially because the notion of Pakistan itself was a very fluid one. I have spent a great deal of time and actually wrote a major paper for my Bachelors degree on the different treaties and negotiations that were engaged in. Of course, the expert in my opinion on all of this is Ayesha Jalal. But, I do not think that we should downplay the role of the Hindu revivalist language and politics that Gandhi partook in, especially because we need to remember that the Congress Party was a very different party at the time in which it did play a large umbrella role for several wings including a socialist and a hindutva wing. This Hindutva wing definitely wrestled for power, and was closely connected to the elements of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.

[Vargha Poralli]

I think that you are right in some of your criticisms of the CPI during the the 1940&#39;s especially because it did believe that the war against fascism was of vital importance, and I do think that is true.

Then why the fuck did it oppose "Imperialist aggression" against Hitler.I learnt this from a maoist journal long back and i can&#39;t find it online or offline so i fear i can&#39;t backup.But Comintern after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did denounce declaration of war against Hitler by Britain

Wikipedia

At the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of pacifism and non-intervention, arguing that this was an imperialist war between various national ruling classes, much like World War I had been. In fact, Stalin was instrumentalizing it, in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed with Germany in August 1939, a year after the Munich Agreement in which the Soviet Union hadn&#39;t been invited and during which Czechoslovakia&#39;s Sudetenland had been delivered to Hitler by the French and British democratic regimes in a measure of "appeasement". However, when the Soviet Union itself was invaded on June 22, 1941, during Operation Barbarossa, the Comintern switched its position to one of active support for the Allies. The Comintern was subsequently officially dissolved on May 15, 1943.

The policy of Comintern is followed by CPI.I think it is not difficult to add 1+1=2.


But, I do not think that we should downplay the role of the Hindu revivalist language and politics that Gandhi partook in,

Then why was he killed by a Hindu ?


But, I do not think that we should downplay the role of the Hindu revivalist language and politics that Gandhi partook in, especially because we need to remember that the Congress Party was a very different party at the time in which it did play a large umbrella role for several wings including a socialist and a hindutva wing

Very far from truth IMO.HMS was from as early as 1910 as a reaction to both Muslim League and Secular Congress that is right before Gandhi&#39;s entry in to Political Scenario.And RSS was a watered down version of HMS(Less Fanatics) was formed in1925.


I think that you are lumping numerous caste issues into one caste issue. Dr. Ambedkar represented a very specific caste (which s extremely large in India) and articulated its politics, because at that time all caste oppression fell finally onto the Dalit. Thus, yes although there were caste antagonisms between the upper and lower castes, Ambedkar mobilized a very specific and large population of people.

Dalits are not a single entity first of all. There are many castes in India who are categorised in the fourth varna(Shudra).A single representation to them was given by Gandhi as Harijans(Children of God). Ambedkar gave a more militant mentality to their minds and many of them turned violent toward other Forward and Backward classes.That mentality created a reaction among the other castes to safeguard themselves. That is the reason why not all of them are not liberated from oppression and why no significant class conciousness among workers for almost 57 years. That is the reason why all the Leftwing parties and groups had not been able to garner significant support among workers of all castes.


This Hindutva wing definitely wrestled for power, and was closely connected to the elements of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.
A baseless claim.Extremist Hindus never liked Congress at all. Al the time they were extremely opposed to British Empire(Same as Communists but on the other spectrum)


However, this does not take away from the fact that Gandhi was opposed to the kind of militant working class struggles that the CPI and other socialist parties indeed were engaged in, and often aided the British Raj in repressing these forces. Whether, the CPI followed the Comintern policies is somewhat inconsequential to the debate about the Gandhian legacy. Definitely we can draw upon more radical traditions in India that did not commit some of the same errors that you correctly do point to.


First you must understand one thing. Gandhi totally opposed violence in any form because of the fact there are more divisions in India than the whole Europe.Violence is a knife without handle and much care must be taken to handle it effeciently without hurting yourself which is totally impossible in India at that stage(That is the reason Gandhi totally opposed Independence from British at that time and even didn&#39;t celebrate it along with other Indians). Speaking of which we must see the condition of IRAQ WITH JUST 3 MAJOR GROUPS(SHIA,SUNNI AND KURDS) AND HOW INEFFICIENT THEY ARE AGAINST THE IMPERIALISTS. Is there any fat chance that even if US leaves Iraq will not plunge in to civil war ?.

[The Grey Blur]

It&#39;s ridiculous that members of this board are trying to tell an Indian comrade what to think about Gandhi when he would obviously have more experience and knowledge on his legacy and actions. Fuck off.

My two cents :)

[Brownfist]

Permanent Revolution, I am Indian too. So I get to contest g. ram about his and my understandings of Gandhi.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I idolize him.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 10:13 pm
Permanent Revolution, I am Indian too. So I get to contest g. ram about his and my understandings of Gandhi.
I read the first page and saw a bunch of shitty critiscisms, none of them yours, and posted that in anger.

[Brownfist]

I think that you are right in some of your criticisms of the CPI during the the 1940&#39;s especially because it did believe that the war against fascism was of vital importance, and I do think that is true.

Then why the fuck did it oppose "Imperialist aggression" against Hitler.I learnt this from a maoist journal long back and i can&#39;t find it online or offline so i fear i can&#39;t backup.But Comintern after Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did denounce declaration of war against Hitler by Britain

Sorry, comrade please do not swear. Secondly, I am confused by your point. The CPI argued from my understanding that the movement in India would need to be briefly suspended in order to defeat fascism in Europe. However, we need to also recognize that numerous members of the CPI in Europe played several roles in the anti-fascist struggle, this even included sending one member to Spain. I am not an apologist for every act that the Comintern did, and definitely there was much confusion at the time about the Stalin-Hitler pact within the communist left.


But, I do not think that we should downplay the role of the Hindu revivalist language and politics that Gandhi partook in,


Then why was he killed by a Hindu ?

Gandhi was killed for several reasons: 1) Because of acquiescence to demands that were made by Muslim communities; 2) Because the Hindutva movement itself was far more based in Hindu nationalist logic than Gandhi was, just because Gandhi utilized Hindu revivalist language and politics does not mean that he was in the same camp as Hindutva. Just the same way that today the CPI(Marxist) kills CPI(Maoist) cadre.


Ambedkar gave a more militant mentality to their minds and many of them turned violent toward other Forward and Backward classes.That mentality created a reaction among the other castes to safeguard themselves. That is the reason why not all of them are not liberated from oppression and why no significant class conciousness among workers for almost 57 years. That is the reason why all the Leftwing parties and groups had not been able to garner significant support among workers of all castes.

Am I right to understand that you actually take issue with the fact that the Dalit population had a militant ideology? Also, are you blaming the dalit populations for demanding what was rightfully theirs, and had been taken away from them due to caste chauvinism? That is very much like arguing that today the working class should not have a militant attitude, but rather be reformist because it will cause the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie to safeguard their interests. Comrade, there has been much literature written on the intersections between caste and class, and how numerous communities in India feel their class antagonisms through a caste identity. The reason that the communist parties in India have been unable to mobilize the Dalit and lower caste populations has been due to a consistent failure on their part to address the caste issue, and reduce it to that of class. I think that all that you are demonstrating is the conservatism that was inherent to Gandhi&#39;s ideology, and perhaps some of your own caste politics.



This Hindutva wing definitely wrestled for power, and was closely connected to the elements of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha.

A baseless claim.Extremist Hindus never liked Congress at all. Al the time they were extremely opposed to British Empire(Same as Communists but on the other spectrum)

I actually would disagree. There have been several very good works by different academics on the Congress Party and partition that have adequately proved that there was definitely a Hindu-right wing within the Congress Party. Also, there is a lot of evidence that some of the elements within the Hindutva movement, which was heavily splintered and fragmented at the time, even supported British colonial rule but wanted a better deal for India. There has been a lot of very good work done by people, like Shahid Amin, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Partha Chatterjee and so forth, that actually demonstrates that the Congress party had a very complicated relationship to secularism.


Violence is a knife without handle and much care must be taken to handle it effeciently without hurting yourself which is totally impossible in India at that stage (That is the reason Gandhi totally opposed Independence from British at that time and even didn&#39;t celebrate it along with other Indians)

Comrade I think it is time that we stop negating the hundreds and thousands of movements that made independence possible. I really recommend that you read past the nationalist historiography that we get fed in school in India and read the academic literature that has been produced since. What you will find is a country full of struggles that were violent and non-violent and they all together liberated us from the British (albeit not completely). I think that you need to remember that Gandhi did not oppose Indian imperialism till the mid-1930&#39;s, approx. 1936. Till then the entire demand was that for Dominion Status. That is still colonialism in my eyes.

I am not disputing the fact that Gandhi was a great leader of the masses. However, I think that we as Indians, especially left-wing Indians need to have a much more complicated understanding of Gandhi and his role in the nationalist movement. We also need to understand how he ensured that the transfer of power occurred from one set of white elites to another set of brown elites, and we did not see the kind of government that really represented the masses of India (although Nehru was inspired to some level by the USSR). Sumit Sarkar has written much in very simple language on the fact that we did not gain independence through the Congress Party and Gandhi alone, but through the thousands strikes, mutinies within the army and the economic losses that the British government was making in India. There has been a recent book written by David Hardiman on Gandhi which looks very good. On the question of Partition there is so much material available but I would recommend books by Gyanendra Pandey.

[Vargha Poralli]

Sorry, comrade please do not swear. Secondly, I am confused by your point. The CPI argued from my understanding that the movement in India would need to be briefly suspended in order to defeat fascism in Europe. However, we need to also recognize that numerous members of the CPI in Europe played several roles in the anti-fascist struggle, this even included sending one member to Spain. I am not an apologist for every act that the Comintern did, and definitely there was much confusion at the time about the Stalin-Hitler pact within the communist left.

Sorry for swearing Comrade Brownfist. But I hate the state of many of our brothers and sisters live in and they are really fed up with the system but we have no alternative for either Congress or BJP.My anger is thus turned towards CPI for failing miserably.Yes they didn&#39;t have to jeopardise the fight against fascism but the fact that they initially supported Congress&#39;s stance against involving Indians in war and after Barbarossa supporting British Imperialists in breaking down worker movements participation in Quit India Struggle. This sort of hypocrisy turned them away from the Masses initially(After Independence IMO).


Am I right to understand that you actually take issue with the fact that the Dalit population had a militant ideology? Also, are you blaming the dalit populations for demanding what was rightfully theirs, and had been taken away from them due to caste chauvinism? That is very much like arguing that today the working class should not have a militant attitude, but rather be reformist because it will cause the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie to safeguard their interests. Comrade, there has been much literature written on the intersections between caste and class, and how numerous communities in India feel their class antagonisms through a caste identity. The reason that the communist parties in India have been unable to mobilize the Dalit and lower caste populations has been due to a consistent failure on their part to address the caste issue, and reduce it to that of class. I think that all that you are demonstrating is the conservatism that was inherent to Gandhi&#39;s ideology, and perhaps some of your own caste politics.

No i do not blame dalits for having a militant attitude.I blame that mentality misused by persons like Mayawati for their own personal gains .Persons like her absolutely do not help dalits anyway just like Ahmedinjad&#39;s antisemitic rhetoric is not going to help palestinian cause. I certainly don&#39;t know about whole India but the Dalit Panthers here in Tamil Nadu is an(ONLY)exception to this IMO.


Comrade I think it is time that we stop negating the hundreds and thousands of movements that made independence possible. I really recommend that you read past the nationalist historiography that we get fed in school in India and read the academic literature that has been produced since. What you will find is a country full of struggles that were violent and non-violent and they all together liberated us from the British (albeit not completely). I think that you need to remember that Gandhi did not oppose Indian imperialism till the mid-1930&#39;s, approx. 1936. Till then the entire demand was that for Dominion Status. That is still colonialism in my eyes.

Certainly I do not negate their causes. I hated once Gandhi for that specific reason for being credited for India&#39;s Independence.But after only after analysing the history that i took this neutral stance that whether we like it or not we can&#39;t deny or downplay his significance in Indian Nationalism.

I think you must do a good reaseach about the INA Trials and RIN mutiny which really made the Labour govt to leave India once for good.You certainly have to recognise the role of CPI in it as it generally discredited the Mutiny as it opposed to Netaji&#39;s INA and denounced those who fought in INA as Quislings.I think Indian workers never forgave CPI for it at that time.The resources for these i have provided some threads above.Certainly this event is blacked out by historians as Congress too played absolutely no role in that event.


I am not disputing the fact that Gandhi was a great leader of the masses. However, I think that we as Indians, especially left-wing Indians need to have a much more complicated understanding of Gandhi and his role in the nationalist movement. We also need to understand how he ensured that the transfer of power occurred from one set of white elites to another set of brown elites, and we did not see the kind of government that really represented the masses of India (although Nehru was inspired to some level by the USSR). Sumit Sarkar has written much in very simple language on the fact that we did not gain independence through the Congress Party and Gandhi alone, but through the thousands strikes, mutinies within the army and the economic losses that the British government was making in India. There has been a recent book written by David Hardiman on Gandhi which looks very good. On the question of Partition there is so much material available but I would recommend books by Gyanendra Pandey.

I certainly will look into to them once i lay my hands on them.

Permanent Revolution

It&#39;s ridiculous that members of this board are trying to tell an Indian comrade what to think about Gandhi when he would obviously have more experience and knowledge on his legacy and actions. Fuck off.

Thank you for your support comrade :wub:

Edit:
P.S : Comrade Brownfist do you Live in India or an NRI ?

[Brownfist]

Comrade G. Ram,
I am currently a NRI much to my chagrin. However, I am thinking of coming back to India to pursue a M.Phil in Political Science from JNU. I regularly come back to India, I will be most likely back in July of this year. The books that I have suggested are available in any good academic bookstore in India. Are you in touch with the comrades involved in the Dalit Panthers? We are currently running an archival project in Toronto and do not have any documents from the Dalit movement, especially the Dalit Panthers and would love to get some of their materials? I was under the impression that the Dalit Panthers had largely disbanded in the late 1980&#39;s and early 1990&#39;s. Do they hold the position of a Dalistan? I am very confused about this because information on the internet about these organizations is often contradictory.

I think that the CPI&#39;s revisionist politics has been correctly identified as early as the 1930&#39;s and 40&#39;s. Although the CPI was active in organizing workers, they were definitely not the most progressive of the parties. I was wondering what you thought about the RSP? Also, there were numerous smaller socialist organizations and parties that also organized the peasantry and the working class. It is very clear that the CPI has ensured that any real peasant revolution whether it was Tebhaga or Telangana. This was also the politics of Gandhi. I think the problem is that there have been very few genuine revolutionary movements that have tried to seriously engage with, and organize for an Indian socialist revolution. The CPI(ML) was the first party that really tried for this. However, as has been noted by numerous Maoists, outside the CPI(ML) like T.N. Reddy, Mohan Ram and Promode Sengupta have very clearly criticized the adventurist non-mass based CPI(ML) and have called for a mass movement for revolution and did good work with the APCCCR and later the UCCRI(ML). I would recommend that you get some of these materials as they suggest a much better programme of what needs to be done in India. Naxalbari was a peal of spring thunder in India, but it was bound to fail.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by g.ram+December 21, 2006 01:43 pm--> (g.ram @ December 21, 2006 01:43 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2006 06:53 am

Gandhi did 1,00,000 times more for his people than any of us ever will.

Breaking up India into 2 countries was great? It leading to massmurder was great? Ghandi sucking up to the british and making sure their interests would be served after they gave India "independence" was great?
No
Now read the previous posts before you post again, and no am not teenager, besides that ageism is just stupid.
I expected better from you. Gandhi had not intention in Dividing India and he opposed the independence specifically for it. And both Indians and Pakistanis paid and paying the price for it. Before making an statement please verify FACTS whether what you is saying is correct or not befor puking your stupid arguments like this.

(Cryotank Screams)
He traded a despot for a despot, and displayed racism, and allied himself in some cases with the very forces he allegedly was fighting against, he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary, he was anti-worker and was for the causes of the bosses and urged people to obey them, and most of all he was a walking hypocrisy, and if he really did anything then why was there and still is all the same ailments of the country as before? Nothing changed, therefore he did nothing.

(Guerrilla22)
What did Ghandi achieve other than leaving a capitalist state, where most of it&#39;s citizens are still impoverished?


(Solitary Mind)
ghandi was a pacafist who like people have said before, did something that was going to inevitably happen either way and he still replaced imperialism with imperialism while teaching the masses to obey


(Teis)
Hmm ack to put it simple, Ghandi sometimes talked the talk but he never walked the walk.


(( R )evolution)
This is form a different thread on ghandi. It is not my post but it was a very good post. By Scottish Militiant

I am really tired of repeating myself again dont you guys never read what i have posted ?


Myself again
1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don&#39;t expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain.

2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.

3) Tekun
QUOTE
Oh thats right, the one where he replaced English fatcats with Indian fatcats

In reality he opposed the Indian Independence and PARTITION he utmost severity. According to him Indian people didn&#39;t yet deserved the Independence yet since he thought chauvinism of all sorts is rampant in the minds of Indian youth. and he knew that it is not independence of masses of Indian people just the whips have changed hand from British to Indians. If you don&#39;t know about a subject or know a very little about it then you should not make this type of stupid statements.



In the congo most of the congolese fighters were poorly trained and their commanders stubborn and as bad as they were, they loved to party but hated to work, and the commanders rufused Che the chance to train the congolese rebels and when the chance came to fight, the underexperienced congolese fighters ran away, a few people were hit with friendly fire because of this...

and bolivia, besides the communication problems that he encountered, the CIA backed soldiers (AND ppl like felix rodriguez) was right on his trail and you can&#39;t stay still or you get caught, so he couldnt wait for the other rebels to find him while they were split...

India during the time of British rule had more troubles than Today&#39;s Congo. There are more than 100 (Armed)uprisings against the British rule and everything had been put down easily by British just by pitting one group against the other.Indians never thought themselves as one entity and gandhi tried to make them to do it. In it his methods are very much sucessful and it Holds India together still today.


Ghandi in my view is an over glorified hypocrite who did absolutely nothing revolutionary, he just traded in a despot for a despot, and in many respects was racist, and anti-worker, I agree fully with Trotsky on this issue

Care to provide your sources that he is an racist and anti-semite asshole ? This is the 3rd time i am hearing this and no one is providing the source.

And Trotsky never Knew About India and its Core problems and i don&#39;t agree with Trotsky&#39;s analysis in this Issue. [/b]
Again, you fail to give a reason why he was great. Like I said before, British ended in India because the British could no longer afford to maintain colonies all over the world, not because of Ghandi. British rule ended all over, not just India. So please explain to me why Ghandi was so great.

[Brownfist]

Hello Guerrilla22,
Gandhi is considered a great leader in India because he was able to mobilize the largest populace in India, and was integral to the development of a larger notion of nationhood in India. I am not suggesting that Gandhi was the first to propose a single nation-state of India as that would be completely preposterous, however, he was the first to really popularize it with the masses. He was able to take a series of disparates movements, regionalized insurgencies etc. and relocate them within a larger project of nationhood. Furthermore, he was one of the first national leaders who significantly looked and spoke like the mass population prior to that majority of the nationalist leadership was extremely British in dress and thought. This of course was in accordance to Gandhi&#39;s own notions of self-reliance and indigenaity which was extremely profound to a large mass of people, and movements calling for indigenous clothing, schooling and even, often contradictorally, modes of production really resounded with the population. I would suggest that you read Shahid Amin&#39;s great article entitled, "Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, 1921–2" in Subaltern Studies 3.

However, what made him extremely popular internationally was his often odd appearance (which often appealed to Western notions of indigenaity and Western orientalisms) and his message of ahimsa, or non-violence. This was especially popular due to the fact that it was quite distinct to the Irish national liberation struggle at the time, and did not pose a serious threat to capitalist desires in the region.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 06, 2007 06:09 pm
It&#39;s ridiculous that members of this board are trying to tell an Indian comrade what to think about Gandhi when he would obviously have more experience and knowledge on his legacy and actions.
Who cares where your bloody from? Just because you come from a specific region does not inherently make your point right, nor does it negate criticisms, by other comrades outside the region in question, and that kind of argument is only a means to bypass criticsms, and is like me saying that I get the final say on Marx and Engels and know more about them and their legacy because I am german.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 09, 2007 09:10 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 09, 2007 09:10 am)
Permanent Rev[email protected] 06, 2007 06:09 pm
It&#39;s ridiculous that members of this board are trying to tell an Indian comrade what to think about Gandhi when he would obviously have more experience and knowledge on his legacy and actions.
Who cares where your bloody from? Just because you come from a specific region does not inherently make your point right, nor does it negate criticisms, by other comrades outside the region in question, and that kind of argument is only a means to bypass criticsms, and is like me saying that I get the final say on Marx and Engels and know more about them and their legacy because I am german. [/b]

ust because you come from a specific region does not inherently make your point right, nor does it negate criticisms, by other comrades outside the region in question, and that kind of argument is only a means to bypass criticsms,

IF that criticsm is valid and backed up clear fact. what you posted was NOT CRITICSM but a blind ACCUSATION.

Quoting Yourself

He traded a despot for a despot, and displayed racism, and allied himself in some cases with the very forces he allegedly was fighting against, he wasn&#39;t a revolutionary, he was anti-worker and was for the causes of the bosses and urged people to obey them, and most of all he was a walking hypocrisy, and if he really did anything then why was there and still is all the same ailments of the country as before? Nothing changed, therefore he did nothing.

Where is your source for racism and anti-semitism you accuse him for ? For the rest of your rants you will find answers if you analyse the discussion between me and Brownfist in this thread.


Again, you fail to give a reason why he was great. Like I said before, British ended in India because the British could no longer afford to maintain colonies all over the world, not because of Ghandi. British rule ended all over, not just India. So please explain to me why Ghandi was so great.

If you have read the 3 pages in this thread you will have found out why he is great.

[Cryotank Screams]

IF that criticsm is valid and backed up clear fact. what you posted was NOT CRITICSM but a blind ACCUSATION.

Actually, no it was not, I got my facts from a thread posted below (which mind you, you yourself posted in as well), where a member named Scottish Militant, posted a lot of interesing facts about ghandi and his "legacy," and expels all the over-glorified myths about him.

If I may quote other comrades;


Originally posted by "Scottish_Militant"+--> ("Scottish_Militant")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 (&#33;). 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

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&#33;

- 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&#33; 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&#33;&#33; And Congress regreted "mob frenzy"&#33;&#33;&#33;

- 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&#33; 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&#39; 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&#33;

This is not meant to be a complete history of Congress or of Gandhi&#39;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&#33; [/b]

and


"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 &#39;The Indian Opinion&#39;

"You say that the magistrate&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s decision, only clean Indians or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."

- Also published in &#39;The Indian Opinion&#39;

"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&#39;s a racist, therefore I have little respect for him.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...hl=ghandi&st=25 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=22754&hl=ghandi&st=25)


Where is your source for racism and anti-semitism you accuse him for ? For the rest of your rants you will find answers if you analyse the discussion between me and Brownfist in this thread.

See above, along with the links in the quotes, and thread provided, look he was a capitalist, bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionary, who didn&#39;t do anything, take Trotsky&#39;s advice and get over it, ;) .


If you have read the 3 pages in this thread you will have found out why he is great.

Already have, and my criticisms still stand, he wasn&#39;t great, he wasn&#39;t noble, he was a capitalist counter-revolutionary.

[Guerrilla22]

If you have read the 3 pages in this thread you will have found out why he is great.

: I have read the previous three pages, and I&#39;m still not sure why some people think Ghandi was great. The only thing people seem to come up with is "because he brought Indians together and opposed British rule." That&#39;s not really saying a whole lot. Sure some his ideas were noble, but what he actually accomplished compared to what he is given credit for, is vastly overstated.

Like I&#39;ve said about four times now, Ghandi did not end British rule in India, British rule ended in India as well as in many other parts of the world when the British could no longer afford to maintain colonies after the second world war. This is something no one has challenged. The British left India and an exact carbon copy of the British bourgeois government was put into place and the this same bourgeois government is still in place. Ghandi cannot be compared to Che, because Che actually fought for socilist revolution in countries, he was not willing to settle merely for a bourgeois government, minus colonial rule.

[Vargha Poralli]

Cryotank Screams

What you have quoted is a;ready done by revolutionary Marxist for certain points i have answered already.(I am really tired of Quoting myself again and again.


Gandhi on private ownership:



(Myself)
1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don&#39;t expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain.

As Trotsky put it in 1934:


(Myself)
Trotskyists hate him because of an completely dogmatic analysis of Trotsky about him and Indian situation ( Trotsky&#39;s analysis is pretty much accurate on a purely material analysis but if we consider a hell a lot of factors unique to India it turns completely useless). Even then Trotskyist group of the fourth international at that time Bolshevik Leninist Party of India,Burma and Ceylon(now Srilanka) supported his Quit India Movement against the British Imperialism while the Stalinist CPI kissed its Ass under the direction of Comintern.



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


Certainly Gandhi was not interested in Partition. It is Power Hungry Leaders of Congress and Muslim League who supported the Partition(The later actually demanded).Another excellent source is Freedom in Midnight.



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).

It was in a much earlier stage in his Life and certainly he went to South Africa for representing a case for an Indian Firm.No he was not denying that he limited his action to Indians because he considered that Black Africans would never consider him as his leader. So he naturally limited his activity with Indians.


(despite the fact that at that time Indians had no rights at all)

What are you trying say from this ? Just like the Mexican labourers in America 2 day and Jews in your own Germany in 1933-1940 ? They were brought to SA by the British because slavery is abolished by Britain at that time so they were used as a replacement for them.The treatment for them was no different the blacks were treated at those time.

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

I don&#39;t know from where the hell did you get that info. In fact Salt March was a great victory for its purpose(That is Lifting Taxation on Salt). Gandhi never proclaimed that is fighting to free Indians from British rule. The whole painting of him as a freedom fighter was done by Indian Govt to hides its corruption from the Indians.



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&#33; 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.

Yeah those Indian Peasants burnt the Police Station and killed Indian Policemen Alive.Gandhi wanted to prevent this from Happening. The reasons i have stated already and read my comparison to Iraq.



- 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&#39; 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&#33;

This is not meant to be a complete history of Congress or of Gandhi&#39;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&#33;

And no body is denying these facts and any body can criticise everhing by sitting in front of an computer. The situation is far more complex than any one of you can imagine and NO ONE CAN DO EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.



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 &#39;The Indian Opinion&#39;

"You say that the magistrate&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s decision, only clean Indians or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams."

- Also published in &#39;The Indian Opinion&#39;

"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&#39;s a racist, therefore I have little respect for him.

I don&#39;t deny that he never wrote these things but it was when he was very young and being bought up in a High caste hindu family he certainly had all the prejudices of that upbringing.If you gonna take this one seriously than you must reject Marx and Engels for Homophobia and your Anarchist Godfather Proudhon for white supremacy and Mikhail Bakunin for anti-semitism. And also during Zulu wars the ambulance corps he served in was responsible for black African soldiers because the whites wouldn&#39;t treat them. All his life he had wrote more than 1000 articles and you select just 3 of such things(that too not in full just selective) and totally reject his achivements.


See above, along with the links in the quotes, and thread provided, look he was a capitalist, bourgeoisie, counter-revolutionary, who didn&#39;t do anything, take Trotsky&#39;s advice and get over it,

Trotsky&#39;s analysis was completely Blind as i have already stated. Indian situation even now is much more complex than whole Europe is put together so you better stop complaining.


Already have, and my criticisms still stand, he wasn&#39;t great, he wasn&#39;t noble, he was a capitalist counter-revolutionary.



You are entitled to your own opinions and but if your opinion was totally flawed i think i have the right to criticise it.


Guerrilla22

You are totally prejudiced about Gandhi i think that makes you blind to my posts.


Like I&#39;ve said about four times now, Ghandi did not end British rule in India, British rule ended in India as well as in many other parts of the world when the British could no longer afford to maintain colonies after the second world war. This is something no one has challenged. The British left India and an exact carbon copy of the British bourgeois government was put into place and the this same bourgeois government is still in place.

I have actually provided source for the real reason for British to leave India. It in the second page after Freedom for all..ALL/Fawkes post. Indian Independence was not an accomplishment of Gandhi in fact he even opposed it and it is for other things that I defend him .


Ghandi cannot be compared to Che, because Che actually fought for socilist revolution in countries, he was not willing to settle merely for a bourgeois government, minus colonial rule.

What did Che achieve apart from Cuba ? Cuba is a small country and yes Gandhi&#39;s achievement was much more greater than Che because the former had a much more difficult position than the latter.Because of Gandhi Indian had not turned to Yugoslavia/Sudan/Somalia/(Its own neighbour)Srilanka. Complete freedom for Indian workers and peasants must be achieved by them alone for which Communists must thank Gandhi for making our work simpler and easier as of now.

Quoting Brownfist

Gandhi is considered a great leader in India because he was able to mobilize the largest populace in India, and was integral to the development of a larger notion of nationhood in India. I am not suggesting that Gandhi was the first to propose a single nation-state of India as that would be completely preposterous, however, he was the first to really popularize it with the masses. He was able to take a series of disparates movements, regionalized insurgencies etc. and relocate them within a larger project of nationhood. Furthermore, he was one of the first national leaders who significantly looked and spoke like the mass population prior to that majority of the nationalist leadership was extremely British in dress and thought. This of course was in accordance to Gandhi&#39;s own notions of self-reliance and indigenaity which was extremely profound to a large mass of people, and movements calling for indigenous clothing, schooling and even, often contradictorally, modes of production really resounded with the population. I would suggest that you read Shahid Amin&#39;s great article entitled, "Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur District, Eastern UP, 1921–2" in Subaltern Studies 3.

[Guerrilla22]

I have actually provided source for the real reason for British to leave India. It in the second page after Freedom for all..ALL/Fawkes post. Indian Independence was not an accomplishment of Gandhi in fact he even opposed it and it is for other things that I defend him .

Which is what you have yet to explain, why you defend him. I think you need to put your nationalist sentiments aside and look at this subject objectively.


What did Che achieve apart from Cuba ? Cuba is a small country and yes Gandhi&#39;s achievement was much more greater than Che because the former had a much more difficult position than the latter.Because of Gandhi Indian had not turned to Yugoslavia/Sudan/Somalia/(Its own neighbour)Srilanka. Complete freedom for Indian workers and peasants must be achieved by them alone for which Communists must thank Gandhi for making our work simpler and easier as of now.

Che actually fought for socialist revolution and helped to achieve this in Cuba. Contrary to your claims the Indian workers do not have total frreedom, India is a bougeois, capitalist state where much of the population is horribly impoverished, work in teerible conditions and where children basically work slave labor. Ghandi did nothing to help the leftist cause. However liberals and appaertly Indian nationalist seem to love him for some reason.

[Vargha Poralli]

Which is what you have yet to explain, why you defend him. I think you need to put your nationalist sentiments aside and look at this subject objectively.


I defend him because his works were nonetheless very much important for members to analyse and eveluate. And many members have rejected because of false causes like racism and anti semitism.Because of him Indians today think themselves as one entity(Indians) so evolving them to think on par with world workers is esay for communists.



Che actually fought for socialist revolution and helped to achieve this in Cuba. Contrary to your claims the Indian workers do not have total frreedom, India is a bougeois, capitalist state where much of the population is horribly impoverished, work in teerible conditions and where children basically work slave labor. Ghandi did nothing to help the leftist cause. However liberals and appaertly Indian nationalist seem to love him for some reason.

Do you really lack brains. You sound much like a tape recorder repeating what you have said again and again.Even today many Indian people put their caste,religion and language first before everything else.Even then the fact India had not became turned to Yugoslavia/Sudan/Somalia is the significance of Gandhi.Marx called for workers of the world to Unite. Gandhi tried to unite Indians. This task of his itself is not complete and hell yes it is the task of the Communists to finish it.


CryoTank Screams

I have found the source for the statements you have provided as a proof of Gandhi&#39;s racism i provide it along with two more articles
/************************************************** ******************&#092;
Dear Sir
Namaste, Im forwarding you the texts of the passages you have asked from Indian Opinion ( the quotes are in bold letters) . Along with im attaching other two texts on Kaffirs ,which will enable you to understand why Gandhiji made such statements. As you rightly said , Gandhiji wrote these lines in certain context and not meant to be derogatory .



THE TRAM CASE

The discussion on the matter is still going on. The Town

Council has not yet answered the question put to it by Mr. Lane. Mr.

Gandhi has addressed a letter on the subject to the Leader to the

following effect.

1

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 has declared that the Kaffirs have no

legal right to travel by the trams. 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 by the trams.

But even this victory that we have achieved has been snatched

away from us by the Council in an indecent manner. For, while the

Magistrate gave his decision on Friday, on Saturday appeared the

news in the Government Gazette that the Town Council had withdrawn

the tram regulations. This means that an Indian will no more be able

to file a suit under the bye-laws; and the Council may perhaps be

under the impression that the Smallpox Act of 1897 will now apply to

Indians.

It has been a common belief that the British people never stab

any one in the back. But I feel—and other tax-payers must also feel

the same— that the Town Council has stabbed the Indian community

in the back. You express sorrow at the decision in the case; but, even

apart from the instances mentioned by me, there is nothing to be sorry

for, at least for the present. But do you approve of the crooked way in

which the Council has brought about this result?

Now commences the third stage of the tram case.



Indian Opinion, 2-6-1906





SPEECH AT PUBLIC MEETING, BOMBAY

1

September 26, 1896

( Passage taken from speech given in Bombay )

In most parts of South Africa, we may not stir out of our houses

after 9 p.m.— unless we are armed with passes from our employer.

An exception, however, is made in favour of those Indians who wear

the memon costume. Hotels shut their doors against us. We cannot

make use of the tram-cars unmolested. The coaches are not for us.

Between Barberton and Pretoria in the Transvaal, and Johannesburg

and Charlestown, when the latter were not connected by railway, the

Indians, as a rule, are and were not allowed to sit inside the coaches,

but are and were compelled to take their seats by the side of the

driver. This, on a frosty morning in the Transvaal, where winter is very

severe, is a sore trial apart from the indignity which it involves. The

coach-travelling involves long journeys and, at stated intervals,

accommodation and food are provided for passengers. No Indian is

allowed accommodation or a seat at the dining table in these places.

At the most, he can purchase food from behind the kitchen-room and

manage the best way he can. Instances of untold miseries suffered by

the Indians can be quoted by hundreds. Public baths are not for the

Indians. The high schools are not open to the Indians. A fortnight

before I left Natal, an Indian student applied for admission to the

Durban High School and his application was rejected. Even the

primary schools are not quite open to the Indians. An Indian

Missionary schoolmaster was driven out of an English Church in

Verulam, a small village in Natal. The Government of Natal have been

pining to hold a “coolie conference”, as it has been officially called,

in order to secure uniformity in Indian legislation throughout South

Africa, and in order to present a united front against the

blandishments of the Home Government on behalf of the Indian.

Such is the general feeling against the Indian in South Africa, except

the Portuguese Territories, where he is respected and has no grievance

apart from the general population. You can easily imagine how

difficult it must be for a respectable Indian to exist in such a country.

I am sure, gentlemen, that if our President went to South Africa, he

would find it, to use a colloquial phrase, “mighty hard” to secure

accommodation in a hotel, and he would not feel very comfortable in a

first-class railway carriage in Natal, and, after reaching Volksrust, he would

be put out unceremoniously from his first-class compartment

and accommodated in a tin compartment where Kaffirs are packed

like sheep. I may, however, assure him that if he ever came to South

Africa, and we wish our great men did come to these uncomfortable

quarters, if only to see and realize the plight in which their fellow-countrymen

are, we shall more than make up for these

inconveniences, which we cannot help, by according him a right royal

welcome, so united, so enthusiastic we are, at any rate for the present.

Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be

inflicted upon us by the Europeans, 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. The aim of the

Christian Governments, so we read, is to raise people whom they come

in contact with or whom they control. It is otherwise in South Africa.

There, the deliberately expressed object is not to allow the Indian to

rise higher in the scale of civilization but to lower him to the position

of the Kaffir; in the words of the Attorney-General of Natal, “to keep

him for ever a hewer of wood and drawer of water”, “not to let him

form part of the future South African nation that is going to be

built”; in the words of another legislator in Natal, “to make the

Indian’s life more comfortable in his native land than in the Colony

of Natal”. The struggle against such degradation is so severe that our

whole energy is spent in resistance. Consequently, we have very little

left in us to attempt to make any reforms from within.





LETTER TO DR. PORTER

21 TO 24 COURT CHAMBERS,

February 15, 1904



DR. C. PROTER

MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH

JOHANNESBURG

DEAR DR, PORTER,

I am extremely obliged to you for having paid a visit last

Saturady to the Indian Location and for the interest you are taking in

the proper sanitation of the site. The more I think of it, the uglier the

situation appears to me, and I think that, if the Town Council takes up

a position of non possumus, it will be an abdication of its function,

and I do respectfully say that nothing can justify the Public Health

Committee in saying that neither overcrowding nor insanitation could

be helped. I feel convinced that every minute wasted over the matter-merely

hastens a calamity for Johannesburg and that through absol-utely

no fault of the British Indians. Why, of all places in Johannes-burg,

the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the

kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. While the great projects

for sanitary reform of the Public Health Committee are undoubtedly

very laudable and probably necessary, the obvious duty of dealing

with the present danger of insanitation and overcrowding in the Indian

Location, in my humble opinion, is not to be neglected. I feel that a

few hundred pounds now spent will probably cause a saving of

thousands of pounds; for, if, unfortunately, an epidemic breaks out in

the Location, panic will ensue and money will then be spent like water

in order to cure an evil which is now absolutely preventible.

I do not wonder that your staff, hard worked as it is, is unable to

cope with sanitation in the Location, for what you do want, and what

you cannot get, is a topaz for each Stand. What is everybody’s

business is also nobody’s. You cannot expect every resident to look

after the sanitation. Before expropriation, every Stand-holder was held

responsible, and very naturally, for the proper sanitatiion of his Stand.

The result, as I know personally, was that evry Stand, had a topaz

attached to it who continually looked after the Stand, and I have no

hesitation in saying that compared to what the Stands are now, they

were kept in an ideally good condition.

You ask me to suggest remedies. I have slept over the matter

and, if only the Town Council would take up a reasonable atitude, I

have no doubt that an immediate improvement, without any cost to the

Town Council, and probably to the saving of a few pounds, is possi-ble.

Let short leases¾six-monthly or quarterly¾be given to the

Stand-holders. The leases may state exactly how many people are to

be kept on each Stand, or in each room. The lessees could pay, say,

8 per cent on the valuation of the valuators and should be made

strictly responsible for the sanitation of the Stand leased by them.

The sanitary regulations could then be strictly enforced; one or

two inspectors could visit the Stands daily and come down upon

defaulters with a heavy hand.

If this humble suggestion is accepted, you will see a vast

improvement in two or three days, and you, by a stroke of the pen,

could deal effectively with insanitation and overcrowding. The Town

Council would also be saved the necessity of having to make

individual collections of rents.

Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must with-draw

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.

Although I have not personally visited other portions included

within the Insanitary Area, I very much fear that the same condition of

things exists there and the suggestion I have made above would apply

to the other parts also.

I trust you will receive this letter in the spirit in which it is

written, and I hope that I have not expressed myself more stongly than

the urgency of the occasion requires. I need hardly add that my

services in this connection are entirely at the disposal of yourself and

the Public Health Committee and I have no doubt that, if the Town

Council would but give the Indian community a fair chance of

proving what it is capable of doing in the way of sanitation, I do not

think it would be much mistaken.

You may make what use you like of this communication.

In conclusion, I hope that an immediate remedy will be found

for the danger that threatens the community.

I remain,

Yours truly,

M. K. GANDHI

Indian Opinion, 9-4-1904





THE KAFFIR INCIDENT

(1) EXTRACT FROM REVIEW OF “A TRAGEDY OF EMPIRE” BY H. S. L.

POLAK, IN “RAND DAILY MAIL”, 5-11-1909:

“. . . it is alleged that whilst in prison, Mr. Gandhi was “seized by a Kaffir,

lifted high in the air and dashed violently to the ground. Had he not seized hold of a

door-post as he fell, he would have undoubtedly had his skull split open&#33;’ ”

(2) EXTRACT FROM REW. J. J. DOKE’S LETTER DATED OCTOBER 7 TO “RAND

DAILY MAIL”:

“In a sub-leader on the above subject published in your issue of Tuesday, I

notice that you hesitate to accept Mr. Polak’s statement that a brutal assault had

been made by a Kaffir on Mr. Gandhi, while the latter gentleman was imprisoned in

Johannesburg Gaol. You say: ‘It is not stated whether Mr. Gandhi complained to the

prison authorities and had the Kaffir punished’ . . . and you add, ‘in any case the

attack does not seem to us to be one for which the Transvaal Government can be held

responsible.’

It happens that I am able to supply part of the missing information. When I

knew of the shameful assault, the details of which you naturally do not publish, I

spoke of it personally to Mr. Roos, who expressed regret, and said that Mr. Gandhi

had already told him of it. The Kaffir, I imagine, was not punished, as Mr. Gandhi

would make it a point of conscience not to identify the man who had injured him. In

similar circumstances, he refused to prosecute the Pathan by whom he had been

assaulted.

Regarding the responsibility of the Government, I fail to agree with you. It is

perfectly true that the Government had nothing immediately to do with the assault,

and that great regret was privately expressed, and I have no doubt was felt, that this

had happened, but the Government is nevertheless responsible for the system under

which it was possible. The fact is that passive resistance Indians have been classed

as ‘Natives’ and as criminals, and all attempts to get this altered, so far as I am aware,

have failed. As a ‘Native’, Mr. Gandhi was locked up on one occasion in a cell withNatives, and suffered a night of torture such as Mr. Polak describes. As a Native he

was obliged to consort with Natives, and in that enforced contact the assault was

committed. Efforts are made now and I believe successfully, to keep the Indians as

much as possible to themselves. But so long as they are classed with Natives as

criminals, and watched by Native warders, what happened to Mr. Gandhi in the Fort,

to Nagappen at Yokeskei River Camp, and the others in different gaols may happen at

any moment.”



Indian Opinion, 16-10-1909



LETTER TO M. P. FANCY Tuesday, March 16, 1910)



I shuddered to read the account of the hardships that the

Kaffirs had to suffer in the third-class carriages in the Cape

and I wanted to experience the same hardships myself.

Indian Opinion, 19-3-1910

Emphasis added by me to indicate selective quotes by you. As you can see he did not hate Black Africans. He hated the way British treated them. So he was against the same type of treatment by British against Indians. He did not exclude African Rights from from his efforts he just did not include them.

[Guerrilla22]

defend him because his works were nonetheless very much important for members to analyse and eveluate. And many members have rejected because of false causes like racism and anti semitism.Because of him Indians today think themselves as one entity(Indians) so evolving them to think on par with world workers is esay for communists.

No, they reject his ideas, many are turned off by him because he wasn&#39;t revolutionary, revolution was never one of his goals, nor did he advocate it, which makes him bourgseoise.


Do you really lack brains. You sound much like a tape recorder repeating what you have said again and again.Even today many Indian people put their caste,religion and language first before everything else.Even then the fact India had not became turned to Yugoslavia/Sudan/Somalia is the significance of Gandhi.Marx called for workers of the world to Unite. Gandhi tried to unite Indians. This task of his itself is not complete and hell yes it is the task of the Communists to finish it.

I have to repeat myself, because you don&#39;t seem to understand simple reasoning.


Indian people put their caste,religion and language first before everything else

Which has been my point all along, he never actually accomplished anything.

[Vargha Poralli]

No, they reject his ideas, many are turned off by him because he wasn&#39;t revolutionary, revolution was never one of his goals, nor did he advocate it, which makes him bourgseoise.


When did Indians appoint you as their spokesperson ?



I have to repeat myself, because you don&#39;t seem to understand simple reasoning

You are repeating yourself because you are totally prejudiced beyond reasoning and never want to change your attitude.


Indian people put their caste,religion and language first before everything else


Which has been my point all along, he never actually accomplished anything.

YOU brainless IDIOT I have said many times that even with more divisions India is NOT YET turned in to YUGOSLAVIA,SOMALIA,SUDAN and its OWN NEIGHBOUR SRILANKA. That is the accomplishment of Gandhi.

Whatever you think of him Gandhi is instrumental in driving British out of India .More of his accomplishment is Indians still today had not yet started killing each other albeit many divisions between themselves.Gandhi&#39;s accomplishment is a thing which needs to be analysed by every sincere Communist who really want the WORKERS OF THE WORLD TO UNITE. Get over with it . You are right it is unnecessary for armchair socialists LIKE YOU who criticise everything sitting in an Ivory tower.

[Rawthentic]

So Ghandi was a revolutionary? Why do you support him? He might have driven the British out but he wasn&#39;t anti-capitalist, so he went against the interests of the people.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:42 am
So Ghandi was a revolutionary? Why do you support him? He might have driven the British out but he wasn&#39;t anti-capitalist, so he went against the interests of the people.
Did you ever read what i have posted ? You guys really annoy me a lot.


He might have driven the British out but he wasn&#39;t anti-capitalist, so he went against the interests of the people.

1) HE did not Drive the British People out.I have provided the real reason for Indian Independence in this THREAD which is in the 2nd page just below Fawkes&#39;s post.Go read it.

2) Majority of Indian workers and peasants at that time never know to read and write. So they did not know what class struggle is.They didn&#39;t even think themselves as Indians(They were more divided which made the British to break any thing against their domination). Gandhi made them to think themselves as one entity.It is a great achievement at his time. It is for this task Gandhi must be seriously analysed by communists to UNITE WORKERS OF THE WORLD.To make the workers of the world to THINK THEMSELVES AS ONE ENTITY.


So Ghandi was a revolutionary?

No Gandhi was not a revolutionary you Idiot and it is Gandhi not Ghandi.

[Rawthentic]

Take it easy, relax, kid, no need to call me an idiot. I was only misinformed on what you had said, but I see now.

Good luck in life and revolutionary politics treating people as if you knew everything, which you obviously don&#39;t.

[Sabocat]

2) Gandhi worked worked to improve the mentality of Indian people. India at that time (and even now in some cases) was NOT A NATION OF ONE ETHNIC RACE OR LANGUAGE OR RELIGION. His main aim was to raise the conciousness of Indian people to THINK THEM AS ONE ENTITY. In that he is victorious. It is not an easy task and it rightfully DESERVES FULL APPRECIATION. This task of his matters INDIANS still today since the FOUNDATION HE HAD LAID STILL HOLDS INDIA TOGETHER . It had prevented and preventing another YUGOSLAVIA in the subcontinent even with more ethnic divisions than the former.

A quick check of the numbers of Muslims slaughtered in India would prove this statement to be nonsense.

Genocide in India (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/0316-IndiaPogrom.html)

Gandhi was anti-union. Worked vigorously to dissuade the poor workers from striking and thus deferring to corporate interests.

Gandhi did nothing but replace English oligarchs with Indian oligarchs. Even today much of the nation is consumed by crippling poverty, poor literacy rates, poor healthcare etc. etc.

[Vargha Poralli]

A quick check of the numbers of Muslims slaughtered in India would prove this statement to be nonsense.

Genocide in India


In 50 years you take up just 1 single incident in one corner of India as a big proof to Indians barbarianism. You know what ? Those assholes who conducted that pogrom were the same one&#39;s who killed Gandhi. The purpose for that one is to rise communal tension and harvest votes from it. And it FAILED .So don&#39;t judge the whole India with that ONE INCIDENT.



Gandhi was anti-union. Worked vigorously to dissuade the poor workers from striking and thus deferring to corporate interests.

Gandhi did nothing but replace English oligarchs with Indian oligarchs. Even today much of the nation is consumed by crippling poverty, poor literacy rates, poor healthcare etc. etc.

Yeah great discovery. Good work Keep it up.


Take it easy, relax, kid, no need to call me an idiot. I was only misinformed on what you had said, but I see now.

Good luck in life and revolutionary politics treating people as if you knew everything, which you obviously don&#39;t.

Thanks for the advice man. But really you have to follow it before advicing me.

[Brownfist]

Gandhi needs to be seen as an important leader in India. However, this is of course prefaced with the fact that he was not revolutionary etc etc. He would be a civil rights leader. I think that people would never turn to a black person in the USA and say why was Malcolm X or MLK Jr. a great leader. However, one must note that both of them were ideologically and politically flawed in numerous ways, just like Gandhi, and neither called for revolution (well Malcolm kind of did, but a very different kind of revolution that few on this board would endorse). However, this does not take away their contributions from the civil rights movement and the fact that they were greater leaders (not revolutionaries)&#33; I dont think anyone would call Gandhi a revolutionary, or a socialist, rather he was a populist leader that was able to demonstrate to some populations that they were part of one nation-state, albeit this allowed for the repression of numerous nationalities within India.

I think that we need to understand the pogroms that have been conducted against Mulisms in their historical conditions and materialities, and by no means am I vindicating the perpetrators. I have been part and organized numerous anti-communal events and groups. The pogroms against Muslims comes out of a very complicated history of how Indians came to understand themselves as communal beings (especially due to colonial census practices), and the resulting seperate electorates and religiously-based nationalist and regional movements. This was in turn buttressed by extremist elements on both sides. Today we cannot reduce the Muslim question, and there has been much written by scholars and activists alike on the communal issue that we need to take in account.

[Sabocat]

Not that you&#39;ll read it, or agree with any of it&#39;s analysis because you&#39;re too tied up with nationalistic hero worship, but here&#39;s an article that is worth reading which exposes what kind of "leftist" Gandhi was.


In India we want no political strikes... We must gain control over all the unruly and disturbing elements... We seek not to destroy capital or capitalists, but to regulate the relations between capital and labor. We want to harness capital to our side. It would be folly to encourage sympathetic strikes. - Gandhi

Article (http://www.isreview.org/issues/14/Gandhi.shtml)

[Brownfist]

Fellow worker Sabocat as one wobbly to another don&#39;t be an idiot. I know the literature very well because that is what I study for a living. Furthermore, I have spent more of my life fighting communalism than you could ever imagine. I am not a nationalist, rather I think that we need to recognize that for numerous reasons Gandhi is very much respected and revered within the Indian working class, despite the numerous criticisms I have made of him (If you read my earlier posts you will find no nationalist declarations there). I myself know very well that Gandhi was not supportive of strikes and actually helped broker labour disputes between the Indian working class and Indian bourgeoisie. However, I think that we need to recognize that dispute all of these criticisms Gandhi remains an influential figure in India, and the question has to be why. I am not inclined to use the argument "false consciousness", because I do not think that it is an adequate solution. I know the reason you are fixated on the strike, is because of the analysis put forth in the IWW is that of the general strike, however, I do not think that would have been effective in India. Rather, the strike plays one part of a larger constellation of activities required to decolonize India, the general strike is more likely to be productive in an advanced capitalist country. However, your attitude reminds me of J. Sakai&#39;s critique of the IWW in his book Settlers.

[Vargha Poralli]

Don&#39;t expect that much maturity from "fortress in the sky" anarchists Comrade Brownfist. If he is that much mature he would have read the first post i have ever made in this thread and there would have been no need for him to post that article.

Sabocat

Since you are too blind I quote what I have said in the first post

(Myself)
1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don&#39;t expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain.

Of course unlike your anarchist of that time Gandhi welcomed October Revolution and justified the violence used by the young workers state to defend itself. He opposed violence in India for specific reasons and I have made those reasons in this post. So before posting something stupid and calling me a nationalist read it throughly and make a valid point. Don&#39;t just vomit the same points made by other posters.

[Fidelbrand]

He is a good man, thou not a leftist.

He is better than most of the people criticizing him here (armchair internet leftists)

[Guerrilla22]

You are repeating yourself because you are totally prejudiced beyond reasoning and never want to change your attitude.[QUOTE]

Well you&#39;re arguments aren&#39;t going to make me change my mind, that&#39;s for sure. I think you&#39;re clearly blined by your nationalist sentiments.

India is NOT YET turned in to YUGOSLAVIA,SOMALIA,SUDAN and its OWN NEIGHBOUR SRILANKA. That is the accomplishment of Gandhi.


:lol: That&#39;s not saying a whole lot, even if Ghandi was soley responsible for India&#39;s current socieconomic situation, which he is not. Pretty much any country can claim success when comparing themselves to the countries you mentioned.


Whatever you think of him Gandhi is instrumental in driving British out of India .More of his accomplishment is Indians still today had not yet started killing each other albeit many divisions between themselves.Gandhi&#39;s accomplishment is a thing which needs to be analysed by every sincere Communist who really want the WORKERS OF THE WORLD TO UNITE.


George Washington was insturmental in driving the British out of the US, should we now praise him, even though he didn&#39;t at all strive for what we leftist are seeking to aquire? I&#39;m still not sure how you can equate Ghandi with Marxism, its just absurd.

YOU brainless IDIOT , Get over with it . You are right it is unnecessary for armchair socialists LIKE YOU who criticise everything sitting in an Ivory tower.[QUOTE]

:lol: Wow. The fact that you have to resort to mindless flamming, rather than engaing in intelligent debate, based on constructive points really doesn&#39;t say much about your intellectual capacity.

[Sabocat]

Actually, I was responding to g.ram Brownfist, but there are some real nuggets here.


Fellow worker Sabocat as one wobbly to another don&#39;t be an idiot. I know the literature very well because that is what I study for a living.

My mistake, I was under the impression that a "fellow wobbly" would be interested in labor seizing the means of production from the capitalist class. The bullshit about it not in labors best interest to strike against capitalist exploitation unless it&#39;s in an advanced capitalist country is funny though. Well done.

Just out of curiosity, which union of the IWW do you belong to? I don&#39;t see which one is for literature study.

Department 100 - Agriculture and Fisheries

Department 200 - Mining and Minerals

Department 300 - General Construction

Department 400 - Manufacture and General Production

Department 500 - Transportation and Communication

Department 600 - Public Service



I am not a nationalist, rather I think that we need to recognize that for numerous reasons Gandhi is very much respected and revered within the Indian working class

GW Bush is respected and revered by some working class in the U.S. too. That doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s sensible. Respect from the working class for Gandhi is something the left should be trying to minimize.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but the thread title is "What do you think of Gandhi?", not "What do Indian workers and Indian nationalists think of Gandhi"

g.ram already realizes that Gandhi was really no leftist, but more a nationalist bourgeois liberal, and yet he poses the question to a leftist message board, and then answers with
1) Gandhi is not a communist . So don&#39;t expext a communist revolution from his followers. If you expect then you have no brain. What does he expect? For all of us to uncritically praise him? :lol:

Fidelbrand

He is better than most of the people criticizing him here (armchair internet leftists)

Those who live in glass houses my friend....

[Brownfist]

Fellow worker Sabocat,
If you must know my industrial union it is IU620 (Educational Workers Industrial Union 620). I am allowed to be an IWW member as a student, and additionally as a teaching assistant. Furthermore, my job as a community organizer at a radical student union also entitles me to be an IU620 member. Also, I work as an IWW organizer in my city and I am actively organizing workers. I did not know that the IWW discouraged people from reading and being anti-intellectual. I saw a lot of evidence of this Eurocentricism at the last IWW General Assembly in 2006, when talking to numerous American wobs who had no clue about colonial conditions, but still felt that they could make declarations about the right form of struggle. I think that we in the IWW need to seriously understand why our union has had its size dwindle to what it is, but numerous other radical unions around the world have been successful.

I think before we minimize it, we need to understand it. There must be very concrete reasons by which the Indian working class has assumed and retained Gandhi as a working class hero, and being anti-Gandhi does not allow for any relationship between the Left and the Indian working class. Also, by making attacks on Gandhi we are objectively on the side of Hindu nationalists who also decry Gandhi, thus we need to be careful. I do not feel like reiterating my arguments about Gandhi, and I just recommend that you scroll back and look at them. If you read my comments you well get a very good idea of what I think of Gandhi. I by no means defend Gandhi.

Also, as a wobbly I am not only interested but also actively engaged in organizing workers from seizing the means of production from the working class, but I do not think that alienating the working class by arguing about Gandhi does that. The same way that when I organize workers for the IWW I dont mention the collapse of capitalism and revolution. Again, I think you need to read what I wrote. I do not think that the "general strike", which is a very particular form of strike which is theorized by numerous people who the IWW itself draws upon, is a successful strategy in a semi-colonial semi-feudal country like in India, but of course I am supportive of all strikes that are conducted by the Indian working class. Hell I have even participated in them. I made no mention of it not being in the best interest of the Indian working class to strike, rather I argued that it would not be effective as a sole strategy as proposed by the IWW and its literature; rather, strikes would need to be part of a larger constellation of strategies. Even in North America I would argue that a general strike as outlined in the IWW literature would not be effective, as it would necessarily need to be an armed general strike.

[Vargha Poralli]

Comrade Brownfist,

It is totally useless discussing with these "Fortress in the sky anarchists" .All the time we had given reason to critically evaluate Gandhi they are still make vile comparisons with first Hitler,then Reagan and now Bush and Washington. And also not to mention their childish attitude.This is the reason why they totally unpopular in the 3rd world countries and their idealogy had done nothing useful for the working class. It is evident that i made a thread about it based on an article made by same website which sabocat publish http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60503 none of them answered the questions and dodged many points made in that article.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

While I don&#39;t have a particular problem with Gandhi, I believe that he is rather over-rated.

I tend to criticize both the Muslim leaders who separated Pakistan from India, and the Indian leaders themselves.

Having said that, I&#39;m not too sure on whether its fair to call Gandhi a reactionary.

For one, he was an anti-imperialist, and in a colonized, oppressed society, any anti-imperialist is progressive, not reactionary.

[Djehuti]

Myths and Legends - Gandhi

ORGANISE&#33; IS STARTING a new series, Myths and Legends, which will take a look at various ‘Sacred Cows’, diagnose BSE and recommend culling. We kick off with a look at the ‘saint’ of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi.

Mahatma Gandhi is often cited by pacifists as the shining example of how non-violent civil disobedience works successfully. Unfortunately, these paeans of praise leave out a close study of Gandhi’s role in the Indian struggle for ‘independence’, and just as importantly, who were his class allies in that struggle.

By 1919 the Indian capitalist class had decided they wanted independence from the British rulers. However, as can be imagined, the British were reluctant to agree to this and a propaganda campaign for withdrawal had no effect. Indian workers and peasants also resented the yoke of British domination. In response to a mass rally at Amritsar in the Punjab, General Dyer ordered the machine-gunning of the crowd, resulting in over 300 dead and many thousands wounded.

The Indian capitalist class came to the conclusion that after the failure of the propaganda campaign, mass action was necessary to gain independence. However, they were haunted by the spectre of the Russian revolution, which had progressed from democratic demands to outright social revolution. They received the answer to their prayers in Gandhi, who had already led several campaigns of civil disobedience in South Africa against the racist laws there. He thus had a certain credibility, and was also not hindered by any identification with any particular region of the sub-continent.

Trustees

His theories of civil disobedience were rooted in Hindu theology. He preached the unity of classes among Indians, the rich to be "trustees" to the poor. This message of class unity was vital if he was to create an alliance between the industrialists and the rich peasants. Indian capitalists enthusiastically welcomed these ideas, and he was financed by some of the leading industrialists in West India, the Sarabhais, textile magnates in the Gujarat, and the Birlas, second largest industrialist group in all of India. Millions of rupees were given to him over a period of 25 years. The rich peasants and shopkeepers also provided a pool of activists for his Congress Party. Gandhi, due to his simplicity of life style, was able to mobilise peasants and workers behind him in the cause of nationalism, where the Indian politicians in top hats and morning suits would have found it very difficult. He facilitated a cross-cross alliance for nationalism.

Gandhi had advocated his doctrines of non-violence from early on. This did not stop him from supporting the British in 1899 in the Boer War, volunteering to help them and organising an ambulance corps. As he said, "As long as the subjects owe allegiance to a state, it is their clear duty generally to accommodate themselves, and to accord their support, to the acts of the state". When Gandhi was organising a mass march in South Africa in 1913, to obtain rights for Indians there, the white railway workers went on strike over pay and conditions. Gandhi immediately cancelled his march, saying that civil resisters should not take advantage of a government’s difficulty .On the outbreak of the First World War, Gandhi actively recruited for the British war effort, despite his ‘pacifism’. On the outbreak of the Second World War, he publicly pledged not to embarrass the British, and would lend moral support to the Allies.

Obey

Each of Gandhi’s mass campaigns of civil disobedience (1920-1922, 1930-1933,1942) took place when British capitalism was in trouble. Each crisis broke a few more links with Britain. They also strengthened the Indian capitalists. Fair enough, one can argue, it was good tactics to attack British imperialism when it was in difficulties. What Gandhi failed to do was tie the second campaign to a massive working class upsurge, in conjunction with a mass campaign against a British Parliamentary Commission touring India (both in 1928). Instead he waited till 1930 to launch the campaign. He rejected the idea of teaming workers struggles with a campaign for British withdrawal because he was an advocate of peace between the different classes of India.

Gandhi never questioned the concept of "legality" either. He told his supporters to obey the law and he always insisted that the British had a "legal right" to arrest them. Once arrested, the campaigners were told to cut themselves off from everything outside and passively await their release.

When in April 1946 Indian sailors mutinied in Bombay and Indian soldiers refused to fire on them, Gandhi’s Congress Party refused to support them, which effectively broke the mutiny. Workers demonstrated their support in mass strikes, and the thought of workers and rank-and-file soldiers combining in action must have been troubling to Gandhi.

Gandhi’s use of the Hindu religion as justification for civil disobedience was disastrous. Not only did it alienate the members of other religions in India, principally the Muslims, but it legitimised the caste system. Gandhi opposed one caste oppressing another, but he never came out in favour of the abolition of the caste system itself. Many "untouchables" were alienated in this way. The massacres that took place after independence were at least partly due to Gandhi’s reluctance to include the Muslims within his Congress Party.

Although Gandhi admitted that he had read certain libertarian thinkers, principally Kropotkin, he had very little in common with their ideas. While Kropotkin was committed to the end of class society, Gandhi never repudiated either the class or the caste system, and never tried to reach out to the working class, in India or internationally. For that matter, his Puritanism, his dislike of sexuality, his cult of martyrdom, have very little to do with militant anarchism.

Link:
http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue46/myth.html

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:56 am
Comrade Brownfist,

It is totally useless discussing with these "Fortress in the sky anarchists" .All the time we had given reason to critically evaluate Gandhi they are still make vile comparisons with first Hitler,then Reagan and now Bush and Washington. And also not to mention their childish attitude.This is the reason why they totally unpopular in the 3rd world countries and their idealogy had done nothing useful for the working class. It is evident that i made a thread about it based on an article made by same website which sabocat publish http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60503 none of them answered the questions and dodged many points made in that article.
I&#39;m done with this thread. G ram doesn&#39;t seem to be able to back up his arguments with logic, he merely resorts to calling people "armchair socialist" and "fortress in the sky anarchist." Great debating skills. He&#39;s only defending Ghandi because of his nationalist sentiments. its really no different than if an American defended Washington on here because on nationalist sentimnets, of course that person would be torn to pieces, I&#39;m not sure why someone from another country doing the same thing is an exception.


For one, he was an anti-imperialist, and in a colonized, oppressed society, any anti-imperialist is progressive, not reactionary.

George Washington opposed colonization and British imperialism also, would you argue that he was progressive?

[Brownfist]

I disagree with G. Ram that any anti-imperialist is progressive. It is very clear, even in Indian history, that there were numerous anti-imperialist forces that were right-wing in nature. This can even be seen within the Hindutva movement in India which definitely had anti-imperialist components to it. I guess the question then becomes does one support a reactionary anti-imperialist force in the face of colonial onslaught? Thus, one does support the Iraqi resistance, or Palestinian Hamas, or Lebanese Hezbollah, because they are fighting American imperialism?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Supposedly he could be almost patronising to the "Untouchables" and other such things. A confusing man, almost a paradox. He did at least show the promise of non-violent civil disobediance, and if this could be harnessed without any of the religious mysticism or dodgy class-patronising he seemed to have it could be a massive force for change.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:48 am
Supposedly he could be almost patronising to the "Untouchables" and other such things. A confusing man, almost a paradox. He did at least show the promise of non-violent civil disobediance, and if this could be harnessed without any of the religious mysticism or dodgy class-patronising he seemed to have it could be a massive force for change.
But the time he lived in and the culture he grew up will not have allowed for him to do it. He could threw up his caste identity only after he had been ill treated by the White people in South Africa. Often he had to call of the movements because of some violent incidents which pit Indians against Indians. And the British gave him all concessions not because they were moved by Indian civil-disobedience but because of fear of turning it in to a violence. But nevertheless he is most progressive than any leader of his time considering the Conditions of his time.