posted September 14, 2011 06:17 AM            

I dont see how Ghandhi whom I sought for as a respected leader to be an example to look upto as he no longer holds the same views that I once held for him.
Let me explain why-
The face he shows to the world and his private life is starkly contrasting!! There's a reason why Dalits in India hate Gandhi.
There is a reason why his son's washed their hands off him.
"abnormal and unnatural" was how the first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, described Gandhi's advice to newlyweds to stay celibate for the sake of their souls.Why did the US Congress condemn Mohandas Gandhi? You can fool some of the poeple all the time, all the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. Slowly but steadily the truth about Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s racism is becoming self evident to most Americans.

Contrary to popular beliefs that it was Ghandhi-titled "father of Nation" solely responsible for India's freedom through
Non-Violent means,In actuality
Mohandas Gandhi extended life of British colonial rule. Gandhi did not bring the British Empire to its knees—they had already decided to leave. By supporting the war “Recruiter-in-Chief”, Sergeant Major Gandhi extended colonialism, and sent thousands to their death as cannon-fodder.

An alien power can resort to two tactics to strengthen its hold over the conquered people: it can either resort to coercion by brutal use of superior force or can resort to persuasive means to co-opt the natives in the process of governance. A few lac British could not employ naked force over four hundred million Indians so cooption was the practical option. The colonised also possess two options: either they can out rightly resist or collaborate with foreign aggressors. Mohandas K Gandhi, the ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Bapu’ of the Hindus and a Christ-like figure for most Westerners also had two choices: either to resist or collaborate with the oppressive and exploitative colonists. Sadly, he preferred to be a collaborator of the Raj. He was the voice and conscience of three hundred million Hindus. Instead of fighting the British usurpers, he betrayed his people by prolonging their misery under the garb of ‘passive resistance’.

No colonial war can ever be justified as a just war. The British were indulging in aggression against the Boers and Gandhi was offering ‘unflinching devotion to duty’.

On October 19, 1899, he reiterated: “The motive underlying this humble offer is to endeavour to prove that, in common with other subjects of the Queen-Empress in South Africa, the Indians, too, are ready to do duty for their Sovereign on the battlefield. The offer is meant to be an earnest of the Indian loyalty.” This smashes the myth of the ‘little Mahatma’ as a great Indian freedom fighter. One, he had accepted the Queen of England as the Sovereign of the Indians, and two, he was dying to prove that the Indians were loyal subjects of the British Raj. To what degree could Gandhi go in his blind loyalty to the imperial power can be imagined from his another statement of December 13, 1899: “The English-speaking Indians came to the conclusion that they would offer their services unconditionally and absolutely without payment…in order to show the colonists that they were worthy subjects of the Queen.”

One wonders how can the historians – both Indian and Western – project Gandhi as the champion of Indian resistance when he had himself established beyond doubt his obedience to the foreign masters. Back in India, his collaboration with the British continued in the garb of ‘passive resistance’.

Fact & Fiction: What the world thinks of Mohandas Gandhi!

The British left South Asia because of Jinnah & Bose not Gandhi

Gandhi’s wrote letters to his friend Hitler and supported him. Gandhi’s horrific advice to Jews—Commit mass suicide. “We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Gandhi to Hitler.

If the Ameicans had opted for non-violence against the nazis-We all can agree what thw resultant outcome would have been.
We would still be shouting Hail Hitler! Even today.

So to say-His “Nonviolence” gimmick failed to achieve any results.He was a part-time pacifist. Is it a marketing success??

posted September 21, 2011 11:45 AM            

I have read your many posts on this website in various forums which no doubt are very informative and balanced in approach towards the subject.

I presume that you are from India and hence this reply to you. Please listen to the following link which is related to Mahatma Gandhi.the audio lecture is at www.rajivdixit.com /audio/other audio lecutre/Mahatma Gandhi ko shradhanjali.

This lecture will help you .

Love & Peace.

posted September 23, 2011 12:19 AM            

I belive it is not right to attack individuals after there death because they are not here to answer you.And also nobody knows the truth but that individual ,we can only assume or guess what must have happened in the history,History is to learn not to blame individuals.
Mistakes are part of every persons life everyone makes mistakes that is how we evolve,Likewise every country makes a mistake and learns(evolve) through them.
Lets not use harsh & uncalled for words against anyone.

posted September 23, 2011 04:21 AM            

Ofcourse Life has a way of reminding one that it can be worse but I believe real freedom comes about only Until one understands the low and darker side of life, the appreciation of the awe-inspiring highs will remain stagnant.
Let us all be neutral and try to understand both sides of the coin.

There were a number of films and plays that portrayed Gandhi as a great man but with his own long list of flaws, which went against the near-perfect godlike image which school textbooks projected. I saw it as a breath of fresh air. The demystification only made Gandhi into an even more interesting character for me.

posted September 23, 2011 07:59 AM            

In some Metaphysical Circles, Gandhi was said to be a vessel through whom many Advanced Entities may have communicated. The flaws could be the human errors prior to his Kundalini Awakening. Gandhi has also been hijacked by the ruling classes. The hatred is because of the misuse of Gandhi's name by the hijackers. He never wanted to be a "Father of the Nation" type. He just wanted the British to leave India.

There could be karma involved for a Dalit in hating Gandhi because Gandhi called them "Harijans" or "Sons of God" to help eliminate untouchability. He wanted Dalits to have the freedom to enter upper caste temples etc. We must analyze all facts and criticize glaring errors to improve but hatred of Gandhi without reason especially by a Dalit is akin to karmic Self Sabotage.

If Dalits have to hate anything, it is their forefathers mistake of accepting defeat and allowing others to diminish their self worth.
There is arguably no greater crime of omission committed by humanity than allowing others to put them down unfairly, and suffer in silence.

Not allowed in temples because of caste?

Just Barge in.

Demand fair treatment.

Hug the Brahmins in 24/7 Media Glare, let me see how many Brahmins refuse to hug a Dalit Activist on TV. Hug the heads of RSS, SJM, BJP, VHP on camera.

Just do not back down, and do not blame poor martyr Gandhi's errors for the collective ill treatment of 3000+ years. The man took a bullet at point blank range and forgave his Hindu fundamentalist assassin, that alone deserves respect.

P.S: I am ashamed to say that in this day and age, I have to force a qualified Dalit Engineer to shake my hand because he is afraid I might scold him for touching me.
The programming of low self worth runs very deep.

posted September 23, 2011 09:54 AM            

The book “Mohandas” also describes Gandhi’s practice of brahmacharya in his life. He would sleep nude with his niece Manu. “It’s a matter of historical record. This has been written about many times. Even Gandhi wrote about it. In doing so, he was surrendering his sexuality and that of his partner’s, after passing a huge test.“

In his book The Sexual Teachings of the White Tigress: Secrets of the Female Taoist Masters, Hsi Lai writes that Mahatma Gandhi "periodically slept between two twelve-year-old female virgins. ...as an ancient practice of rejuvenating his male energy. . . . Taoists called this method 'using the ultimate yin to replenish the yang.'"

The following is a quote from Collins and La Pierre in Freedom at Midnight.Chapter 4 (A Last Tattoo For A Dieing Raj)

"Gandhi saw in Manu's words the chance to make her the perfect female votary. "If out of India's millions of daughters, I can train even one into an ideal woman by becoming an ideal mother to you" he told he "I shall have remembered a unique service to womankind". But first he felt he had to be sure she was telling the truth. Only his closest collaborators were accompanying him to Noakhali, he informed her, but she would be welcome, provided she submitted to his discipline and went through the test which he meant to subject her.

They would, he decreed, share each night the crude straw pallet which passed for his bed. He regarded himself her mother; she had said that she found nothing but a mothers love for him. If they were both truthful, if he remained firm in his ancient vow of chastity and she had never know sexual arousal, then they would be able to lie together in the innocence of a mother daughter. If one of them was not being truthful, they would soon discover it.

In her essay “Gandhi’s Women Problem, Women’s Gandhi Problem,’ Sukai Lessardai voiced the concerns of many women wary of Gandhi’s apparent philandering. “Whether or not he was celibate, his need to prove his spiritual manhood by lying with five naked women is an affront to the dignity and equality of women everywhere.’ And as Willmed Schneidermanai of the Indian Enterprise Institute points out, “It’s not so much the fact that he slept with these women or regularly indulged in enemas; it’s that he showed such bad judgment in doing so. I think this raises serious questions about Gandhi’s self-discipline and insensitivity to the appearances of impropriety –and finally about Gandhi’s ability to lead a successful non-violent movement.’

Sushila Nayar recalls Gandhi’s explanation to Manu: “We both may be killed by the Muslims at any time. We must both put our purity to the ultimate test. . . and we should now both start sleeping naked.”

Before we proceed further with the topic.
Let us study some not so famous quotes and satements made from among the people close to him.

“it costs the nation millions to keep Gandhi living in poverty.” Sarojini Naidu...

Mr. Gandhi used to travel in specially constructed 3rd class train bogeys (which were not really 3rd class). It provided Mr. Gandhi and his women special quarters etc.

The government had to spend millions to build a special Asharam which looked as if it was a village. In actuality, it had all the modern facilities.

Special products and services were imported to market the image of Mr. Gandhi living in penury!

This is what Naidu was referring to... Ms. Naidu’s ideas about Mr. Gandhi are a matter or record. He was not held in high esteem by her. Read Bose and Ambedakar who disliked Mr. Gandhi also.

.

“We know from his autobiography how shamefully he treated his wife. He was transparently honest and he had much less to hide from anyone else. Nothing can be found if other public figures are to be scrutinized because things have been carefully hidden and suppressed.” Gandhi, the family man. Gandhi’s Grandson.

This is what Time Magazine says:

"Exceptions to the author's reserve mostly center on Gandhi's limitations as a family man. Where the world sees a saint, Rajmohan Gandhi sees a cruel husband and a mostly absent father, paying scant attention to his children's schooling and dragging wife Kasturba across continents at will, belittling her desire for the simplest of material possessions, then expecting her to comply when he turns from amorous husband to platonic companion to apparent adulterer."

posted September 23, 2011 10:09 AM            

Furthermore I take Gandhi at his word that he did not have carnal relations with many women whom he slept.

After learning of the experiments, Bose wrote that he would “never tempt [himself] like that; nor would my respect for a woman’s personality permit me to treat her as an instrument of an experiment undertaken only for my own sake.” He was also concerned about the women’s emotional health: “Whatever may be the value of the [experiment] on Gandhiji’s own case, it does leave mark of injury on the personality of others who are not of the same moral stature as he himself is, and for whom sharing in Gandhiji’s experiment is no spiritual necessity.”

Finally It also must be said, no matter how much we want to hold Gandhi in the highest esteem, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Gandhi was inconsistent in his justifications for his sexual experiments and not completely sincere in carrying them out. This would then lead one to question whether these experiments were a spiritual necessity or simply a personal indulgence and abuse of power??

posted September 23, 2011 10:19 AM            

an interview with Prime Minster Attlee, who won the British election on the platform to cut down the size of the Empire. Mr. Attlee clearly said that Mr. Gandhi’s influence on the British decision to leave South Asia was “minimal”. Once the Labor Party had won the election, and the war was over–the British Empire was history and withdrawal from South Asia only a matter of time. Mr. Gandhi’s useless salt marches did not accomplish anything. His boycott of foreign goods were insignificant. South Asia role in world trade had gone down from 25% (before Lord Clive came to Plassey) to less than 1 percent (in the 40s). A few rupees not going to the Textile giants in Manchester would not have made any difference.

Mr. Gandhi’s marches were for self-aggrandizement as orchestrated by Mr. Birla–who was funding the campaign. He was repaid handsomely by the INC by giving him a monopoly over many shoddy goods from 1947 all the way up to 1980. Thats what it was all about.

posted September 23, 2011 10:33 AM            

quote:

---

There could be karma involved for a Dalit in hating Gandhi because Gandhi called them "Harijans" or "Sons of God" to help eliminate untouchability. He wanted Dalits to have the freedom to enter upper caste temples etc. We must analyze all facts and criticize glaring errors to improve but hatred of Gandhi without reason especially by a Dalit is akin to karmic Self Sabotage.

---

That is precisely why Dalits hate him!For calling them Harijans!– a name that they have rejected because it is condescending.

By not giving the Dalits separate electorate, he kept them in slavery. He said that one would have to go over his dead body to abolish the caste system. That is why the 450 million Dalits and Lower Caste hate him so much. Ambedaker also disliked Gandhi. His followers detest him also.

A book we highly recommend. Beverley Nichols, a famous novelist, musician, playwright, essayist, reporter, and a journalist visited British India. During this visit, he met Dr. Ambedkar, who told him:

"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India."

So what did Ambedkar mean? Mr. Nichols explained it as follows:

[We can best explain it by a parallel. Take Ambedkar's remark, and for the word "untouchable" substitute the word "peace." Now imagine that a great champion of peace, like Lord Cecil, said, "Gandhi is the greatest enemy of peace the world has ever had." What would he mean, using these words of the most spectacular pacifist of modern times? He would mean that passive resistance--which is Gandhi's form of pacifism--could only lead to chaos and the eventual triumph of brute force; that to lie down and let people trample on you (which was Gandhi's recipe for dealing with the Japanese) is a temptation to the aggressor rather than an example to the aggressed; and that in order to have peace you must organize, you must be strong, and that you must be prepared to use force. Mutatis mutandis, that is precisely what Ambedkar meant about the untouchables. He wanted them to be recognized and he wanted them to be strong. He rightly considered that the best way of gaining his object was by granting them separate electorates; a solid block of 60 million would be in a position to dictate terms to its oppressors. Gandhi fiercely opposed this scheme. "Give the untouchables separate electorates," he cried, "and you only perpetuate their status for all time." It was a queer argument, and those who were not bemused by the Mahatma's charm considered it a phoney one. They suspected that Gandhi was a little afraid that 60 million untouchables might join up with the 100 million Muslims--(as they nearly did)--and challenge the dictatorship of the 180 million orthodox Hindus. With such irreverent criticisms were made to him, Gandhi resorted to his usual tactics: he began to fast unto death. (As if that altered the situation by a comma or proved anything but his own obstinacy!) There was a frenzy of excitement, ending in a compromise on the seventh day of the fast. The untouchables still vote in the same constituencies as the caste Hindus, but a substantial number of seats are now reserved for them in the provincial legislatures. It is better than nothing, but it is not nearly so good as it would have been if Gandhi had not interfered. That is what Doctor Ambedkar meant. And I think that he was right.]

A man’s success or failure is determined by his accomplishments and his character. Mr. Gandhi it seems–didn’t have either.

posted September 23, 2011 10:48 AM            

While some say that Mr. Gandhi was non-violent, he actually beat up his wife on a regular basis. He supported every British war–Zulu, Kaffir, Boer, WW1 and WW2 and thus extended the life of the British Empire. Some Non-Violence!

Bharat exported terror to Tibet, Sikkim, Bhautan, Nepal, Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives and is still doing it in Pakistan. REcenty the Bharati sponsored LTTE was decimated in Lanka (with Chinese and Pakistan help)

In a country that enslaves 450 million Dalits and Untouchables (450 million), Bharat is highest on the Hunger Index, where 50% of the populations of Delhi, Hyderabad, Benaras, Mumbia sleeps on the sidelwalks–a country that is buying planes because it cannot make them. 150 million Muslims remain marginalized, and 40% of the territory is in the hands of the Naxals. Seven Sister states of Assam and Kashmir are in open rebellions. The Talanagana episode has brought to the surface the balkanization tendencies for the creation of more than 50 states in various stages of secession.Why should Mr. Gandhi be immune from a critical analysis? What makes him immune. The criticism of Bharat–from Bharati’s cannot be suppressed. It is out in the open. The RSS, the BJP and the Shiv Sena have written reams about Mr. Gandhi–none of it complementary. The BJP was in power a few years ago–so a huge section of the Bharati population believes in the BJP philosophy. Mr. Jaswant Singh is only one example of Gandhi detractors.

Mr. Gandhi was entitled to his idiosyncrasies and his procivlity for the fairer sex. However the farce of Bharamacharaya was propagated to hide the sinister aspects of Mr. Gandhi’s personal life. Bose was livid when he found out that Mr. Gandhi was sleeping with his wife. Mr. Gandhi’s Non-Violence did not cover his wife–who was repeatedly subjected to abuse.

There is a plethora of material on this available on this subject.I know it is difficult to gulp down the facts like I once did but i feel sorry and enlightened to tell you that it is all true.
There are many articles on the internet which shed further light on this subject.
However I refrained myself from posting some facts which were outright disgusting.

No,many do not think that Mr. Gandhi did good. This shared by millions around South Asia, the Novel peace Prize Committee and the COngress of the United States which has condemned his racism and bigotry. In practise M.K. Ghandhi and few other names were forced on us to be taken as NATIONAL PRIDE.

posted September 23, 2011 12:16 PM            

We throw stones towards a tree which is rich with fruits.

Love & Peace.

posted September 23, 2011 02:35 PM            

I think Gandhi's intentions were good, the plans backfired later on.

Many things went awry in 1940s. Things would have been different had there been no partition. The Indian Polity would have been 500 million Dalits and 500 million Muslims in a total population of 1.6 billion Indians.

The British would not have any of that and they played the Divide and Rule cards.

Before Gandhi could do anything positive prior to India becoming a republic, he was assassinated. The mistakes went uncorrected.