What do you like about Gandhi?

[redcom11]

I am sad that Gandhi failed. Perhaps even sadder that his message is so misremembered.

Gandhi was hardly decisive in convincing the British to leave India. But he had the opportunity to make the process a lot more humane than it might otherwise have been. I see him as a generous, courageous man that chose to give the British an impressive gift of wisdom that they would have trouble learning in other ways.

But then everything basically fell apart. The internal conflicts proved basically insuperable, and even the great love and admiration that he earned among the people of India seemed not nearly powerful enough to motivate them towards achieving mutual respect, acceptance and peace. It is no wonder that he decided to fast to his likely death more than once. It must have been difficult to want to live among so much evidence that his efforts were for nothing..

The Mahatama's ideology did not fail. It has not failed. You cannot judge his contribution to mankind by only looking at the nation's partition.

For me the greatest thing about Gandhi (despite all his human shortcomings) is that he laid the foundation (along with other great leaders of the time) of modern India. It is a nation that has no common language, no common religion, no common ethnicity....and yet it not only exists but improves with every passing year.

It is in no small measure because of his legacy that India is today among the few nations, with a sizable Muslim population, that remains peaceful even in such traumatic days. Incidentally, after Indonesia, India has the largest number of Muslims in the world.

India has never attacked another nation post independence. India is recognized as a leading soft power in the world.

Where are brother nation Pakistan has managed to reduce itself to ashes (or nearly so) by following a shortsighted and warped philosophy. India has managed to grow....and how.

India exists today as a consequence of the vision and greatness of its leaders who years ago charted a course for this nation of a billion people. A course and an ideology that has shown itself to the true and set the template for future civilizations to work towards.

That' s what I like about the Mahatma.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, what do you like about him. I admire he made the largest empire in the world leave, withought killing anyone.

Whaddya think:areyoucra

He may not have personally killed anyone but he allowed countless thousands of his followers to take part in protests that he knew were breaking the law and/or would result in violence, telling his followers to not put up a fight. Thousands would die in his protests. Many more were severely injured. Also, he was a man who did not believe apartheid should end and that black people were beneath him as an asian.

Just a few of the things I like about him.

 

[metis]

He may not have personally killed anyone but he allowed countless thousands of his followers to take part in protests that he knew were breaking the law and/or would result in violence, telling his followers to not put up a fight. Thousands would die in his protests. Many more were severely injured. Also, he was a man who did not believe apartheid should end and that black people were beneath him as an asian.

Just a few of the things I like about him.

Just two things on the above. One is that his use of non-violent resistance was done because too many people were literally starving and/or being seriously oppressed, so his approach was a replacement for war or violent protests, which are pretty much the only other alternatives besides just doing nothing.

You are correct of course dealing with his not dealing with blacks in South Africa, and his excuse was that he was employed there to represent working Indians. Even up to his last year there, he even didn't deal with "coolies", namely untouchables and other very poor Indians that only were allowed to do very menial tasks. However, that all changed the final year in S. Africa and then when he went to India, although there weren't hardly any African blacks in the latter.

Some historians feel that Gandhi was sympathetic for both blacks and "coolies" much earlier but thought that the social barriers amongst other Indians with these two groups would make it impossible to garner support for the cause he felt had to be done. IOW, he may have felt the need to use some sort of "one step at a time" approach. However, it appears that we'll never really know the answer to that question, and even the real answer may be that Gandhi and his beliefs and approaches were a "work in progress".

 

[roger1440]

The Mahatama's ideology did not fail. It has not failed. You cannot judge his contribution to mankind by only looking at the nation's partition.

For me the greatest thing about Gandhi (despite all his human shortcomings) is that he laid the foundation (along with other great leaders of the time) of modern India. It is a nation that has no common language, no common religion, no common ethnicity....and yet it not only exists but improves with every passing year.

It is in no small measure because of his legacy that India is today among the few nations, with a sizable Muslim population, that remains peaceful even in such traumatic days. Incidentally, after Indonesia, India has the largest number of Muslims in the world.

India has never attacked another nation post independence. India is recognized as a leading soft power in the world.

Where are brother nation Pakistan has managed to reduce itself to ashes (or nearly so) by following a shortsighted and warped philosophy. India has managed to grow....and how.

India exists today as a consequence of the vision and greatness of its leaders who years ago charted a course for this nation of a billion people. A course and an ideology that has shown itself to the true and set the template for future civilizations to work towards.

That' s what I like about the Mahatma.

You gotta respect a guy who has the guts the wear his underwear out in public and not get paid a dime, unlike Madonna.

 

[roger1440]

Gandhi was a showman. He knew how to work the people. He started as a lawyer, remember? Do you honestly think he would have accomplished what he did if he didn’t walk around half naked? I have studied Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Hitler, Malcolm X, Charles Manson, Farrakhan and others.

“Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.” (Psalm 146:3)

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

You gotta respect a guy who has the guts the wear his underwear out in public and not get paid a dime, unlike Madonna.

Not get paid? Do you know how wealthy Gandhi was and how w ealthy his family is now?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Gandhi was a showman. He knew how to work the people. He started as a lawyer, remember? Do you honestly think he would have accomplished what he did if he didn’t walk around half naked? I have studied Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Hitler, Malcolm X, Charles Manson, Farrakhan and others.

“Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.” (Psalm 146:3)

Malcolm X and MLK were both men who made the difference they promised they would.

Malcolm X in particular had the intelligence and the bravery to turn back on all that he thought had saved him, turn his back on the NOI, under threat or assassination and admit he was wrong about certain aspects of his life and beliefs. Whether you like him or not, he was impressive in doing so and that is to be commended and respected.

I don't like Gandhi but even I wouldn't lump him in there with Hitler.

And Farrakhan? He isn't even on the level of those others you have mentioned. SMH.

 

[roger1440]

Not get paid? Do you know how wealthy Gandhi was and how w ealthy his family is now?

Are you saying he got paid to lead protests?

 

[roger1440]

I don't like Gandhi but even I wouldn't lump him in there with Hitler.

Both Gandhi and Hitler were great showmen. They both knew how to move people. They were well versed in the art of persuasion. Gandhi was a lawyer. His very job was to persuade a judge. Hitler used to rehearse his speeches for hours.

"I know that men are won over less by the written than by the spoken word, that every great movement on this earth owes its growth to great orators and not to great writers." —Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf," 1925

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/hitler-rehearsing-speech-front-mirror-1925/

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hitler-was-such-a-successful-orator-2015-5

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ghandhi was really an English gentleman working under cover as part of an Empire down-sizing scheme. Lawrence of Arabia probably.

 

[metis]

Not get paid? Do you know how wealthy Gandhi was and how w ealthy his family is now?

Actually Gandhi died with very few possessions, mostly just his clothes, glasses, sandals, and books. He had taken a vow of poverty and very much lived up to it.

 

[metis]

Both Gandhi and Hitler were great showmen. They both knew how to move people. They were well versed in the art of persuasion. Gandhi was a lawyer. His very job was to persuade a judge. Hitler used to rehearse his speeches for hours.

"I know that men are won over less by the written than by the spoken word, that every great movement on this earth owes its growth to great orators and not to great writers." —Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf," 1925

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/hitler-rehearsing-speech-front-mirror-1925/

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hitler-was-such-a-successful-orator-2015-5

That's like saying that a grape and a bowling ball are pretty much the same because they're both round. So, the next time you try and eat a large grape that seems tough, ...

 

[roger1440]

That's like saying that a grape and a bowling ball are pretty much the same because they're both round. So, the next time you try and eat a large grape that seems tough, ...

Equally important to all great orators is not only the message but also how the message is delivered. They are entertainers. Hitler understood this. Listen closely to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. It almost sounds like he is singing. The pitch of his voice goes up and down.

 

[metis]

Equally important to all great orators is not only the message but also how the message is delivered. They are entertainers. Hitler understood this. Listen closely to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. It almost sounds like he is singing. The pitch of his voice goes up and down.

The irony is that Gandhi really wasn't a great orator. In his first legal case in India as a lawyer, the judge removed him because he was so inept when he spoke as he was much too insecure and shy. Yes, he got better as time went on, but it was much more his willingness to speak his mind and show compassion for others, regardless of the consequences, that inspired others much more. He tended to speak very slowly and was mostly monotone.

Hitler, otoh, was a master at speaking, with some experts believing that he may have been the best orator of the 20th century. Some of his speeches went to as long as 3 straight hours, and his staff had a cot for him to lay down on after giving such a speech because he was so exhausted at the end. His pattern was to start out very slowly and in a low voice, and by the end he was yelling and waving his arms and pounding his fists in a very powerful manner.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

His dedication to non violent war against the British.
His simplicity.
His work on removing casteism.
His devotion towards Rama and Krishna.
His halting of inter religious sectarian wars in Bengal.

But I kinda hate:
1. Extreme pacifism that is against Dharmic ideals... Which actually lead to the partition of India.
2. His consent in hanging 3 true patriots; Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, etc.
3. He trying to have sex with little girls.
4. Muslim appeasement for the sake of the barbarians that slaughtered millions.

Mixed emotions.

 

[metis]

His dedication to non violent war against the British.
His simplicity.
His work on removing casteism.
His devotion towards Rama and Krishna.
His halting of inter religious sectarian wars in Bengal.

But I kinda hate:
1. Extreme pacifism that is against Dharmic ideals... Which actually lead to the partition of India.
2. His consent in hanging 3 true patriots; Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, etc.
3. He trying to have sex with little girls.
4. Muslim appeasement for the sake of the barbarians that slaughtered millions.

Mixed emotions.

Gandhi was totally opposed to capital punishment, did not have sex with "little girls" as far as we know, opposed the partitioning of India, but he did feel that Muslims should be treated as equals in India.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Gandhi was totally opposed to capital punishment, did not have sex with "little girls" as far as we know, opposed the partitioning of India, but he did feel that Muslims should be treated as equals in India.

Maybe you should research from a non biased basis.
When Bhagat Singh was arrested and taken into prison, the British approached Gandhi for his opinion.
Instead of actually asking them to leave those actual freedom fighters, he simply called them violent and that he didn't want to do anything with them... And thus were hanged.
Basic fact!

Again, he did have sex with little girls... The western thinking of seeing uplifted people without a single flaw doesn't work in practicality.
He did what he did.

And no, he supported the partition of India simply because his non violent fight was only working due to global pressure.
Even Jawaharlal was against it.
Most people were... But for Muslim appeasement and to show that his weird Dharma was somehow in tune with Dharma, he had to.

 

[metis]

Maybe you should research from a non biased basis.
When Bhagat Singh was arrested and taken into prison, the British approached Gandhi for his opinion.
Instead of actually asking them to leave those actual freedom fighters, he simply called them violent and that he didn't want to do anything with them... And thus were hanged.
Basic fact!

Again, he did have sex with little girls... The western thinking of seeing uplifted people without a single flaw doesn't work in practicality.
He did what he did.

And no, he supported the partition of India simply because his non violent fight was only working due to global pressure.
Even Jawaharlal was against it.
Most people were... But for Muslim appeasement and to show that his weird Dharma was somehow in tune with Dharma, he had to.

Not only did I do the research, my best friend studied the effect of Gandhi on Hinduism back in 1973 for an entire summer and taught numerous seminars to various groups on him, and frequently I joined him. I have read probably no fewer than 20+ books on Gandhi, so I can categorically say that you do not know what you are talking about.

One, Gandhi repeatedly stated he opposed capital punishment. Secondly, the "little girls" you're probably talking about were two of his nieces that he slept naked with as a test of his detachment from sex. And finally, he was so opposed to the partition of India that he refused to attend the ceremonies that marked that event held in both India and Pakistan, claiming that it was one of the worst days of his life.

Here, do some homework instead of spouting nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Not only did I do the research, my best friend studied the effect of Gandhi on Hinduism back in 1973 for an entire summer and taught numerous seminars to various groups on him, and frequently I joined him. I have read probably no fewer than 20+ books on Gandhi, so I can categorically say that you do not know what you are talking about.

One, Gandhi repeatedly stated he opposed capital punishment. Secondly, the "little girls" you're probably talking about were two of his nieces that he slept naked with as a test of his detachment from sex. And finally, he was so opposed to the partition of India that he refused to attend the ceremonies that marked that event held in both India and Pakistan, claiming that it was one of the worst days of his life.

Here, do some homework instead of spouting nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

Congratulations... That means you have done an excellent work of copy pasting from another blind follower.
I repeat all the things above that he did. Also Gandhi was a vaishnava and also part Jain, not Hindu.
Check your resources.

 

[metis]

Congratulations... That means you have done an excellent work of copy pasting from another blind follower.
I repeat all the things above that he did. Also Gandhi was a vaishnava and also part Jain, not Hindu.
Check your resources.

He was not a Jain, but he did take their non-violent position, which is not exclusive to the Jains, btw. And I did check my resources, which came from multiple authors, but you clearly have not. If you think otherwise, post some support for your positions and link me to their source if you will. I provided you a link, now it's your turn.