Mahatma Gandhi Reassasinated.

[Royal Lancer]

He was the movement.

There were several other leaders, who anyway ended up becoming more prominent as Independence neared & after Gandhi was assassinated. This need to give all the credit to one person and make some sort of angel/God out of him while conveniently airbrushing his many faults and stupidities (a more polite and patient person would call them naiveties) is ridiculous. And some of those other leaders weren't nearly as blinded by the sort of heady idealism that Gandhi was. Letting Gandhi repeatedly emotionally armtwist everyone into following his often disastrous and plain suicidal whims and fancies was the biggest problem. And Gandhi was far from the original creator or practitioner of this concept of nonviolent resistance by the way.

His pacifist ideology was based on a much higher spiritual principle that attracted the mass then.

It may have been useful to recruit support at some point, but it was kept around way past its expiration date and went bad - just like Gandhi himself.

this so called pacifist' ideology shaped independent India's image as a peace loving country before the world, a country that gained independence through non violence.

Oh yaaay great, the peace loving "soft power" that everyone effortlessly pushed around for God knows how long. The one that even now doesn't command the sort of respect and influence that it should. So proud. Soft power has serious limits, its the icing on the cake not the cake itself; the world runs on hard power, ask China.

 

[Darwin]

Yes, all these documentaries on Indian slums and lack of toilets must be a lie!

No lies but a partial truth. But you know that. India is wrongly projected as a future superpower by some media while Pakistan is still discussing whether minorities should be treated as humans and which country.next pm niazi should go to plead for aid. See the difference ?
Pakistan made up areas didn't even have the grinding poverty that resulted in mass famines in the 50s and 60s of India. Now you sit in the bottom of all human indices in the world..

 

[Royal Lancer]

By the way, I just laugh at the assumption that being imprisoned in cellular jail and not in Yerwada means the former was more feared by the British.

There was a difference in the treatment meted out at Cellular and other jails, I never speculated about who they feared more, but there was surely some basis on which decisions were made as to who got Kaalapani and who got to stay on the mainland. Or are you suggesting there was no difference at all?

 

[scorpionx]

He was FAR more useful to the British in Life.

Then again there was not much different between the british and Nehru. The original brown sahib who claimed to be "superior" to the rest of the brown Indians.



LOL...... Gandhi trying to stop riots in Naokhali ?

Where was he during the "Mopilla riots" which happened dur to the "Kilafat movement" ?

For the uninitiated, Kilafat movement was "Calipate movement", with foolish Indians supporting the Islamic Caliphate which sided with germany during world war and was split up into multiple nations after the war.

Foolish Indians wanted to keep the islamic calipate whole

This emboldened the muslims in Kerala to do this to the Hindus.

And what did Gandhi do ?

He absolved the Mopallias of any and all blame .............. and asked the hindus to "suck it up" to ensure "communal peace".

Here is Gandhi's comment on the Mopilla riots,

And here is Annie Basent on Gandhi,

Do you really read what you post?

There was a difference in the treatment meted out at Cellular and other jails, I never speculated about who they feared more.

Gandhi, Nehru, Patel etc were face of Indian freedom struggle. Why would they be treated like any other freedom fighter/ dissenter?

 

[Royal Lancer]

Do you really read what you post?


Gandhi, Nehru, Patel etc were face of Indian freedom struggle. Why would they be treated like any other freedom fighter/ dissenter?

Really? Because usually it's the leaders of movements that oppressors make the biggest examples out of.

 

[scorpionx]

There were several other leaders, who anyway ended up becoming more prominent as Independence neared & after Gandhi was assassinated. This need to give all the credit to one person and make some sort of angel/God out of him while conveniently airbrushing his many faults and stupidities (a more polite and patient person would call them naiveties) is ridiculous. And some of those other leaders weren't nearly as blinded by the sort of heady idealism that Gandhi was. Letting Gandhi repeatedly emotionally armtwist everyone into following his often disastrous and plain suicidal whims and fancies was the biggest problem. And Gandhi was far from the original creator or practitioner of this concept of nonviolent resistance by the way.



It may have been useful to recruit support at some point, but it was kept around way past its expiration date and went bad - just like Gandhi himself.



Oh yaaay great, the peace loving "soft power" that everyone effortlessly pushed around for God knows how long. The one that even now doesn't command the sort of respect and influence that it should. So proud. Soft power has serious limits, its the icing on the cake not the cake itself; the world runs on hard power, ask China.

Who is making God/Angel out of him? Did my post suggest any of that sort? He was a human being with both good and bad qualities. I know, where he got his idea of non-violence from. That does not take a slightest credit away from him that he introduced it with success in South Africa and India.

We may or may not agree with all his ideologies. Ideologies are not to be meant to be engraved on stones. They are meant to evolve with time and circumstances. So is Gandhi's. Non-violence in my opinion has not past it's expiry date. It is still a method of dignified protest.

The world runs on hard power, true. The European Imperial powers once ran on it, Former Soviet Russia ran on it, North Korea and China too run on it. Which way is more sustaining, only time will tell.

Really? Because usually it's the leaders of movements that oppressors make the biggest examples out of.

Yes. That is exactly the reason why they were in Puna, not Andaman.​

 

[Royal Lancer]

Who is making God/Angel out of him.

Way too many people, especially in India.

He was a human being with both good and bad qualities.

Yes, but some of those bad qualities were more serious than just run of the mill bad qualities. And due to the amount of veneration & the pedestal he was placed on, where the masses followed him like mindless sheep, on more than one occasion he led us to our own slaughter (sometimes literally, but also figuratively).

Non-violence in my opinion has not past it's expiry date. It will always remain a method of dignified protest.

A form of dignified protest, sure. A national or civilizational worldview/philosophy and form of state policy - absolutely bloody not. And without going too far into the nitty gritty, his ahimsa Kool Aid has also had serious effects on those social groups within India who lapped it up unquestioningly.

The world runs on hard power, true. The European Imperial powers once ran on it, Former Soviet Russia ran on it, North Korea and China too run on it. Which way is more sustaining, only time will tell.

You've slyly quoted selective examples. Gandhi's way was overly idealistic to the point of delusion (an understatement) and downright suicidal - any country that runs the way he would've wanted is bound to get wiped out through internal and external enemies. If you have to pick only one between hard and soft power, it absolutely has to be hard power; but the truly ideal way is a combination. Call it whatever you want, the iron fist in the velvet glove, speaking softly & carrying a big stick - basically the path taken by the US.

Yes. That is exactly the reason why they were in Puna, not Andaman.

Compare the treatments of those at Poona and Cellular - the biggest examples are always traditionally made out of the leaders, those who have the greatest importance. Doesn't add up.

 

[GHALIB]

A legend admired all over the world, assassinated again yesterday.The most unfortunate part is, while discussing Gandhi with my colleagues (mostly under 30 and engineers), this same viewpoint echoes often. I sometimes wonder, is evolution a reversible process?

This is very unfortunate behaviour from extremists

 

[Cookie Monster]

"Even If Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing us we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives." - "Mahatma" Gandhi

Good Riddance.

Let me put it this way, I wouldn't go out of my way to create an effigy of him and shoot it - but I'm not crying big tears after watching this video either. He was useful as a rallying figure/face for the movement, but he outlived his usefulness, and started to become a serious liability for India and especially for Hindus. And the sort of pacifist ideology he instilled took India a lot of time, effort and bitter experiences to unlearn/move on from.

Usefulness? Seriously? That's how u view one of ur founding fathers...someone who made great contributions in the struggle for freedom.

Wow...I've never seen such display of selfishness.

I wonder what ur reaction would be if ur father had been murdered...and someone made an effigy of ur father and shot it to glorify the murderer while disrespecting ur father.

Would u be angry? Or would u be like "my father had outlived his usefulness. He was really old and due to expenses related to his health problems...was becoming a liability...good riddance"?

I can't wait to hear this response. Let's see if ur answer remains the same now. Come on now show me ur hypocrisy in case when the same situation applies to u.

Obviously you guys would love him

Sure yeah Pakistanis would "love" him bcuz he was against the creation of Pakistan
Idk if u have read history but Jinnah and Gandhi had major differences...despite many debates/arguments they never saw eye to eye when it came to partition.

However even with those differences, we recognize that still Gandhi made valuable contributions in the struggle for freedom. It's something called respect...something the ppl here(including u) who are condoning this behavior wouldn't understand.

@I.R.A bhai ek or namoona aa gaya. Also could u plz read my request in this post below and guide me?
Mahatma Gandhi Reassasinated.

 

[Royal Lancer]

That's how u view one of ur founding fathers...someone who made great contributions in the struggle for freedom.

There was a lot more to him than his contributions to the freedom struggle, a lot of what he did/taught/instilled/ordered turned out to be a serious setback both for India and for Hindus.

Wow...I've never seen such display of selfishness.

Not selfishness, pragmatism. I've never denied he had a role in getting freedom or that he was a founding father, but he was kept around beyond his usefulness, and he started to become a problem for us. And once there were multiple nation states in South Asia with statecraft at play, he was completely out of his depth.

I wonder what ur reaction would be if ur father had been murdered...and someone made an effigy of ur father and shot it to glorify the murderer while disrespecting ur father.

Would u be angry? Or would u be like "my father had outlived his usefulness. He was really old and due to expenses related to his health problems...was becoming a liability...good riddance"?

My father isn't a delusional, suicidal peacenik hippy responsible for a lot of the ills that plagued, and still plague India and Hindus.

Sure yeah Pakistanis would "love" him bcuz he was against the creation of Pakistan
Idk if u have read history but Jinnah and Gandhi had major differences...despite many debates/arguments they never saw eye to eye when it came to partition.

You, meaning Pakistanis, as well as Muslims as a greater group, would love him; because he was soft as hell on you, and was far more concerned about your rights and how you were treated than he was about Hindus. He loved you folks so much he started the Khilafat Movement (yes I'm well aware of what his thinking was behind it, but it completely backfired - and was completely unnecessary). If you have a hard time understanding that, read the very first quote I posted in this thread, and the kicker is, that's not an isolated quote, he had several others like that - the common theme always being that Hindus and Sikhs should happily allow themselves to be slaughtered by Muslims and not fight back.

 

[Cookie Monster]

There was a lot more to him than his contributions to the freedom struggle, a lot of what he did/taught/instilled/ordered turned out to be a serious setback both for India and for Hindus.

Not selfishness, pragmatism. I've never denied he had a role in getting freedom or that he was a founding father, but he was kept around beyond his usefulness, and he started to become a problem for us. And once there were multiple nation states in South Asia with statecraft at play, he was completely out of his depth.

He got u that India, which u r chest thumping about rn.

I'm not saying u have to love him...at the very least learn to respect the deceased instead of condoning this behavior of mockery and taking pleasure in their murder. If u can't see what's wrong with such behavior then there's nothing to argue here...u r too far gone...too set in ur ways to see otherwise.

My father isn't a delusional, suicidal peacenik hippy responsible for a lot of the ills that plagued, and still plague India and Hindus.

Nice attempt at deflection. I see u chose not to answer bcuz ur answer would've been different in this case...which would've made u look like a hypocrite.

You, meaning Pakistanis, as well as Muslims as a greater group, would love him; because he was soft as hell on you, and was far more concerned about your rights and how you were treated than he was about Hindus.

He stood for what's right...regardless of color/caste/religion/etc.

What do u mean he was "soft" on Muslims? Was he "hard" on anyone? Was he "hard" on Hindus? on Christians? on Sikhs?

Oh wait I know...u just don't like that he wasn't a crazed RSS kind of bhakt who should've favored Hindus and should've been "hard" on Muslims.

If u don't get that simple fact about him then again...there's no argument to be had. His whole philosophy was "one nation theory". He was trying to unite the ppl of India above the minor differences. He spearheaded the "secular united India" concept...which is exactly opposite of what Pakistanis(of today and the Pakistan favoring leaders of his time) wanted...and yet u don't see us disrespecting him by glorifying his murderer. It's something called manners.

He loved you folks so much he started the Khilafat Movement (yes I'm well aware of what his thinking was behind it, but it completely backfired - and was completely unnecessary). If you have a hard time understanding that, read the very first quote I posted in this thread, and the kicker is, that's not an isolated quote, he had several others like that - the common theme always being that Hindus and Sikhs should happily allow themselves to be slaughtered by Muslims and not fight back.

Show me one example of where he stated or his action where he favored(or allowed in any way) that Hindus/Sikhs should be slaughtered by Muslims. This is just ur opinion...a false one.

He didn't want there to be violence...he didn't want anyone slaughtering anyone. Learn some manners and learn to respect others...especially those who worked hard and sacrificed a lot for ur freedom.

If u still wish to hate him just remember hatred only begets hatred.

 

[Maxpane]

india is on way of destruction

 

[Royal Lancer]

He got u that India, which u r chest thumping about rn.

I'm not saying u have to love him...at the very least learn to respect the deceased instead of condoning this behavior of mockery and taking pleasure in their murder. If u can't see what's wrong with such behavior then there's nothing to argue here...u r too far gone...too set in ur ways to see otherwise.

We would've eventually got that India one way or another - after WWII once the Brits saw their Empire as unsustainable if nothing else, but as I said, I've never denied his role or denied him his due credit. So I don't know what you're rambling on about.

And I'm already being quite polite and charitable about him; he has Hindu and Indian blood on his hands - for various reasons, as I said before, I wouldn't go out of my way to build an effigy and shoot it - but I really couldn't care less about this incident or the original assassination.

Nice attempt at deflection. I see u chose not to answer bcuz ur answer would've been different in this case...which would've made u look like a hypocrite.

Nothing to do with hypocrisy and no deflection at all, visibly you haven't learned about false parallels, i.e. comparing apples to oranges. Your comparison is incorrect and illogical, and artificially crafted in a particular way to draw certain desired responses - I'm not obligated to play along and walk into your poorly laid trap so you can scream "gotcha" and feel clever.

He stood for what's right...regardless of color/caste/religion/etc.

What do u mean he was "soft" on Muslims? Was he "hard" on anyone? Was he "hard" on Hindus? on Christians? on Sikhs?

Oh wait I know...u just don't like that he wasn't a crazed RSS kind of bhakt who should've favored Hindus and should've been "hard" on Muslims.

If u don't get that simple fact about him then again...there's no argument to be had. His whole philosophy was "one nation theory". He was trying to unite the ppl of India above the minor differences. He spearheaded the "secular united India" concept...which is exactly opposite of what Pakistanis(of today and the Pakistan favoring leaders of his time) wanted...and yet u don't see us disrespecting him by glorifying his murderer. It's something called manners.

He was absolutely much harder on Hindus and Sikhs. If you haven't seen the quote I posted, or the other similar ones by Gandhi regarding other incidents (Rawalpindi, Moplah, Noakhali) - go look them up before arguing with me; and if you have read them and still can't see something that's as clear as day - then you're either silly or deeply dishonest.

Also, LMFAO - Gandhi didn't need to be a Bhakt or RSS, he DID need to have common sense; like Sardar Patel or Ambedkar. Now don't go rambling about how those two were Sanghi Saffron Bhakts LOOOL.

Show me one example of where he stated or his action where he favored(or allowed in any way) that Hindus/Sikhs should be slaughtered by Muslims. This is just ur opinion...a false one.

He didn't want there to be violence...he didn't want anyone slaughtering anyone. Learn some manners and learn to respect others...especially those who worked hard and sacrificed a lot for ur freedom.

If u still wish to hate him just remember hatred only begets hatred.

L.M.F.A.O. It's not a freakin' opinion Mr. Mahatma 2.0, go and actually read the quotes before lecturing me, you'll get all the proof you need. It's hilarious to see how much love and respect you people suddenly have for Gandhi now; sure didn't stop you from slaughtering Hindus & Sikhs in various Riots/Direct Action Day, and didn't stop you from cleaving his country into three pieces, and now you lecture us about loving him after he gave us the much shorter end of the stick because of his need to go soft on you.

 

[Cookie Monster]

We would've eventually got that India one way or another - after WWII once the Brits saw their Empire as unsustainable if nothing else, but as I said, I've never denied his role or denied him his due credit. So I don't know what you're rambling on about.

And I'm already being quite polite and charitable about him; he has Hindu and Indian blood on his hands - for various reasons, as I said before, I wouldn't go out of my way to build an effigy and shoot it - but I really couldn't care less about this incident or the original assassination.

Nothing to do with hypocrisy and no deflection at all, visibly you haven't learned about false parallels, i.e. comparing apples to oranges. Your comparison is incorrect and illogical, and artificially crafted in a particular way to draw certain desired responses - I'm not obligated to play along and walk into your poorly laid trap so you can scream "gotcha" and feel clever.

He was absolutely much harder on Hindus and Sikhs. If you haven't seen the quote I posted, or the other similar ones by Gandhi regarding other incidents (Rawalpindi, Moplah, Noakhali) - go look them up before arguing with me; and if you have read them and still can't see something that's as clear as day - then you're either silly or deeply dishonest.

Also, LMFAO - Gandhi didn't need to be a Bhakt or RSS, he DID need to have common sense; like Sardar Patel or Ambedkar. Now don't go rambling about how those two were Sanghi Saffron Bhakts LOOOL.

L.M.F.A.O. It's not a freakin' opinion Mr. Mahatma 2.0, go and actually read the quotes before lecturing me, you'll get all the proof you need. It's hilarious to see how much love and respect you people suddenly have for Gandhi now; sure didn't stop you from slaughtering Hindus & Sikhs in various Riots/Direct Action Day, and didn't stop you from cleaving his country into three pieces, and now you lecture us about loving him after he gave us the much shorter end of the stick because of his need to go soft on you.

lol Pakistan was gonna happen regardless. Gandhi didn't give u the short end of the stick...if anything it was Gandhi's views of a secular united India(one nation theory) that lessened support for the creation of Pakistan among the Indian Muslims(Maulana Kalam Azad and the likes).

As for Muslims slaughtering Hindus and Sikhs...hmm I wonder what Hindus and Sikhs were doing...throwing roses perhaps? Oh right u conveniently missed out the part that Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtering Muslims.

No one in Pakistan has any love for Gandhi...and I'm not here to tell u what u should or should not do...so no need to get butt hurt. Remember I didn't quote u...u quoted me. I was only engaging the more civil members here presenting the more human side of the argument like how we shouldn't mock the deceased by glorifying their murderers. It's something called respect/manners/honor/etc...something that's hard for u to comprehend.

As for u not wishing to answer when the same situation applies to u...just the fact that u r shying away from answering is enough for me to know. Ur hypocrisy is shining bright. In my case I like to treat others how I want to be treated. So go ahead glorify the murderer and stomp on the name and legacy of the man who gave u ur freedom...I don't care either way. However I will continue to speak my mind whenever and wherever I please...and u don't have to engage me if it doesn't fit ur misguided world view...just disagree in ur head and spare me ur "arguments"(if we can call it that).

 

[HariPrasad]

Meanwhile, when many trolls are busy in discovering great fundamentalism in shooting a picture of Bapu, A 25 year old lady is shot on head who was bagging for mercy. I do not see any thread on that. Perhaps, it is against the convince of Pseudo secular who are busy in exploring fundamentalism of Hinuds and Hindu organizations. No mater an innocent lady bagging for mercy was shot on her head. Her dead body was also shot with one more round. There is no discussion, there is no anger, there is no abuse. hates off to me who has always unmasked these double standard hypocrites who post here with a fixed agenda and have a little concern for real human rights.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...errorists-in-pulwama/articleshow/65438001.cms