PDA

View Full Version : What was Gandhi's legacy?



R Gitananda
01 October 2012, 04:38 PM
Born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on 2 October 1869
Died Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by an assassin's bullet.

What was his legacy - both for India as a nation and for Sanatana Dharma?

Is his legacy primarily political or spiritual?


Gandhiji was a great seeker and an intellectual but he wasn’t a mahatma in the spiritual sense. - Swami Shantatmananda http://www.speakingtree.in/public/spiritual-articles/lifestyle/making-of-a-mahatma
His last journey is enough of an evidence that grateful nation acknowledged his peaceful movement's power to free the nation from foreign yolk. What did his peace movement involve?
MASS AWAKENING!http://www.speakingtree.in/asset/js/ckeditor/plugins/smiley/images/thumbs_up.gif
Can you think of any religious leader even coming close to it even? - Manmohan Kumar http://www.speakingtree.in/public/spiritual-blogs/seekers/faith-and-rituals/world-order-religion-can-it-be-gandhian
Personally I read his autobiography 'My experiments with Truth' and I think it gives great insight into the way he thinks.
I have serious reservations about several of his positions but I do not think that I could have walked in his shoes.
What do you think about Gandhi's legacy?

MahaHrada
01 October 2012, 06:14 PM
What do you think about Gandhi's legacy?

What about:

While alive the destruction of Indias sovereignity unity and dignity ending in partition, then bloodshed, rape, hate, murder of Innocents that followed his extortions?

Appeasement of violent Muslim extremists? Protection of british interests and the destruction of the indigenous hindu nationalist rebellion?

After his death the rise of a nuclear armend terrorist nation ruled by fanatics that has now become a constant threat not only to india but to world peace?

wundermonk
01 October 2012, 11:20 PM
What do you think about Gandhi's legacy?

One of his legacies is that his last name, Gandhi, has been usurped by Raoul Gandhi, Bianca Gandhi, Sonia Maino Gandhi and these latter folks seem to have convinced many illiterates that they have the best interest of India at heart via association of the word "Gandhi" with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. :)

AmIHindu
02 October 2012, 08:35 AM
to have convinced many illiterates that they have the best interest of India at heart via association of the word "Gandhi" with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. :)

Namaste,

Please use correct words- MOST OF ILLITERATES AS WELL AS LITERATES. They are ruling party, 66.67 % majority. :banghead:

=============================================
I do not have any comments for Gandhji, it has already been done, talking about it will not change anything.

ShivaFan
03 October 2012, 01:20 AM
Namaste

I have to be careful how I word this since I know that Mr. Gandhi was a devotee of Ram. However, I have seen evidence that Gandhi was also an advocate of Buddhism. I am not saying that if he loved Lord Buddha there is something wrong in that, he can love whoever he likes including Mohammed and Jesus, but the evidence I have seen was his inclination to the modern interpretation of Buddha, and he seemed to have perhaps not made his mind up whether he was a Hindu or not, or just some mix of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Parsi, Islam, Zen, Shinto, Zorostrian, Jain, Vedic, Bhakti, Atheist combined with Humanism.

But that is not my criticism.

My criticism is the partition of India.

So I am not a big fan of Mr. Gandhi. I respect him, his heart, but not his politics. Sorry.

Om Namah Sivaya

devotee
03 October 2012, 06:10 AM
Another Gandhi bashing thread ! No, not again !! :(

OM

Eastern Mind
03 October 2012, 07:34 AM
Vannakkam Devotee et al: All I know is I know nothing. Here in the west we only ever got one version of Gandhi. Same as for Mother Theresa, the Greek philosophers and start of 'democracy' , communism and Marx, and countless other histories. They were either presented as totally positive or totally negative, because in Abrahamic society, that is the way it's done: black and white, good or bad, and no in-between.

For me personally, there was a time in my life when I accepted ever single thing that I read and heard. Gandhi was total hero. Marx was total evil. Our native aboriginals were lazy and drunks. We only heard one party line.

That mindset continues here today in politics. A certain party that your family has voted for all their lives is always in the right, no matter what. They just can't be corrupt, because they are the _______s.

Then I met Harvey, a Canadian aboriginal who was the best hired hand my father ever had. It got me to THINKING! What a concept! Maybe just some of what we'd heard all of our lives had a certain bias to it. Maybe there was a bigger picture.

You see, Devotee, you're different than me. You grew up in India, and had the opportunity to hear both sides of this, and clearly you've made your decision. You had the opportunity to think about it.

I didn't. So at least this way, when two or more views are presented, I get to make up my own mind, and not be a sheep who follows the party line.

Aum Namasivaya

Omkara
03 October 2012, 08:52 AM
Namaste,

Please use correct words- MOST OF ILLITERATES AS WELL AS LITERATES. They are ruling party, 66.67 % majority. :banghead:

=============================================
I do not have any comments for Gandhji, it has already been done, talking about it will not change anything.

Am waiting eagerly for the next election and for the CONgress to fall to double digits in the next parliament.The streets are seething with range...I do not think any government in the world has ever been exposed as having looted over 100 billion $ from the pubic exchequer in the span of one term in office.So many ministers have resigned in disgrace or gone to jail aldredy....have a feeling Sriprakash Jaiswal is next in line.

Hope Narendra Modi becomes PM, for good measure.I have reservations about him,but it would be a ringing slap in the face of the sickularists.The Gandhis are going to be out of power for a long time.

Omkara
03 October 2012, 08:54 AM
What about:

While alive the destruction of Indias sovereignity unity and dignity ending in partition, then bloodshed, rape, hate, murder of Innocents that followed his extortions?

Appeasement of violent Muslim extremists? Protection of british interests and the destruction of the indigenous hindu nationalist rebellion?

After his death the rise of a nuclear armend terrorist nation ruled by fanatics that has now become a constant threat not only to india but to world peace?

Add to that his crypto-jain views on absolute pacifism and non violence which is completely opposed to the hindu pov.

R Gitananda
03 October 2012, 12:48 PM
namaste

I started this thread and it was not with the intent to bash anyone. If you want to
participate in this thread then please feel to share your opinion about Gandhi's legacy.

Hari Aum



Another Gandhi bashing thread ! No, not again !! :(

OM

AmIHindu
03 October 2012, 03:52 PM
Namaste,


October 2nd is Birth Date of Shree Lal Bahadur Shastri also. So I guess we need to remember him, 2nd Prime Minister of India.

Believer
03 October 2012, 05:25 PM
Namaste,

Gandhi did lot of good for the country, but many of his ideas/thinking/policies were at odds with the Hindu nationalists. So, the legacy is a mixed bag. Whereas I respect him as a person and am grateful for many of his accomplishments; I fully embrace his assassin's p.o.v. also. It seems that the name Gandhi attracts assassins - Mohan Das, Indira and Rajiv, all Gandhis, were the only three high profile leaders gunned down/blown away in the history of independent India. Our simple minded electorate keep electing the political party aligned with Gandhi's ideology, even though the leaders have lost their moral bearings and have become thoroughly corrupt. His name still carries lot of weight among the masses, which is unfortunate because the people getting into power with his association have been destroying the nation from within.

Pranam.

Omkara
03 October 2012, 08:59 PM
I do not think anyone,pro or anti Congress,associates the congress with the Mahatma anymore or has done so after Nehru's death.

Gandhiji was a great man and he made important contributiins to both India and the world,but he soes not deserve to be singularly idolized at the expense of other leaders, and nor is he deserving of all the hyperbole that surrounds him.He made several blunders like cancelling the Non cooperation movement and demanding concessions to pakistan at the time of partition.Nor is his personal life as squeaky clean as is commonly portrayed.

devotee
03 October 2012, 11:46 PM
Namaste EM and all,

My opinion is that people should read and have in depth knowledge on Gandhi if we are trying to make an opinion on him. Let's remember that Gandhi was a political leader and therefore, as it happens in politics, there are many political outfits who were and even today are against Gandhi. I have studied quite a good lot about him and I have to share this :

a) Gandhi always believed that changes can be brought about by peaceful means. He also believed that to change the world, one has to change himself. He did exactly that. Before Gandhi such an experiment was almost unheard of. On his proposal to register protest, some hard core revolutionists had remarked : Even the English dogs won't be afraid of him !

History tells us that his thoughts got him the full backing of common masses of India and that made the movement of Independence as common man's movement in India. People advocating violent means for independence were proved wrong. My father, who was a witness to the later part of Independence movement, used to tell us : Gandhi was worshipped by common people almost literally. People were ready to go to any length under his leadership. It was believed that he was another Avatar like Rama and Krishna.

The hardliners could never got the support of the masses and that is why all their efforts failed to bring any big changes in India even when great souls like Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Ashfaqullah Khan, Khudi Ram Bose, Ram Prasad Bismil etc. were sacrificed to this doctrine.

b) The allegation that Gandhi encouraged Muslims propitiation is true to great extent. The reason was that Gandhi knew very well that a peaceful and prosperous India was possible only when people of all faiths would march together for the good of the country. The large population of Muslims couldn't have been wished away without a massive bloodshed and unthinkable destruction. The partition of India and the bloodshed witnessed after that proved this point beyond doubt.

Moreover, where would have Indian Muslims go ? All their ancestors were born on the very land, India. Did they lose their rights on this country just be changing their faith ?

Let me tell you all that this was the main point which irked the Hindutva promoting parties. Veer Sarvakar, Nathu Ram Godse etc. were promoters of this doctrine that "India is for the Hindus alone". They were against Gandhi as they felt that even after Independence, the rein of the country may not come into their hands.

c) Who was behind that partition of India ? It is the greatest lie being spread and also being accepted to a great extent by today's young people who have not read about Gandhi in depth that it was Gandhi who was responsible for the partition of the country. Nothing can be farther than the truth. Gandhi was dead against partition and it was he who proposed that even if by making Jinnah the Prime Minister, partition can be avoided, it should be done. Naturally, this was not acceptable to many.

There are many such lies against Gandhi and the worst part of it is that the young generation has started believing the lie as the Truth. If you keep telling the same lie a hundred times, it might be accept as the Truth and I can see that this what is happening in case of Gandhi. Today, it is almost impossible for anyone of us to follow his path ... it is really difficult. The sacrifices he made for this country is difficult to make for any ordinary person. He left the luxurious life of a Barrister and adopted the life of a common poor man of India. He could not care much for his children ... his family life was highly neglected. He didn't ask for any post of profit for himself even after independence. Throughout his life he wore only one dhoti as he saw that many Indians have not enough clothes to wear.

So, emulating Gandhi is a very difficult proposition. But we can always bring him down to our level by maligning him and using disparaging remarks against him !

OM

wundermonk
04 October 2012, 12:58 AM
Moreover, where would have Indian Muslims go ? All their ancestors were born on the very land, India. Did they lose their rights on this country just be changing their faith ?

It is not non-Mohammedans who point out the incompatibility between being a Mohammedan and a proud Indian at the same time. Mohammedans are taught to disrespect ANY nation by Mohammed himself and his Quran!


O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust. [Qur'an 9:23, Shakir translation]

O mankind! We have created you from a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has piety. [Qur'an 49:13, Shakir translation]

The Prophet (S) said: "Whosoever possesses in his heart 'asabiyyah (prejudice in any of its forms such as tribalism, racism, nationalism) even to the extent of a mustard seed, God will raise him on the Day of Resurrection with the (pagan) Beduins of the Jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era)." (al-Kafi)

Also keep in mind that Mohammedans are perenially in a state of war with Kuffars. Their Quran prescribed duty is to convert Dar al harb (land of Kuffar) to Dar al Islam (land of prostrating Momins).

I have been told on more than one occassion by Mohammedans themselves that in case of an outright war between Mohammedan majority nation and Kuffar majority nation, the Quran expects Mohammedans (regardless of nationality) to NOT kill other Mohammedans. Kuffars are to be killed first. Mohammedans do NOT respect the right to life of Kuffars.

Islam is quite unlike anything that you have ever known, devoteeji.

:)

devotee
04 October 2012, 01:38 AM
Namaste WM,

What you say is not incorrect. In fact, the only religion which is difficult for me to understand is Islam and the most difficult scripture to accept is Quran. I can't believe how God can allow such a scripture which openly justifies violence in the name of God.

However, politically speaking, we don't have the luxury of choosing our neighbours and the countrymen that we live in with. This country has more than 12 Crore Muslims. Either we have to learn to live with them peacefully or be ready for destruction.

We don't have a choice. We have to find ways to assimilate them to the mainstream by making them more and more literate which can make them see reason. ... and I don't agree with you that by becoming a Muslim one becomes anti-India. On the contrary, I have many examples including Captain Hamid of Indo-Pak war who sacrificed their lives for India. It is not fair to doubt on their integrity. That way we have many Jaichands within our Hindu community. I cannot advocate in favour of them just because they are Hindus.

Anyway, this thread is for Gandhi and not for discussing Muslim's integrity etc.

OM

Omkara
04 October 2012, 01:46 AM
So the genocidal Old Testament makes for easier reading than the Koran?Or even the new testament, for that matter?

Omkara
04 October 2012, 01:50 AM
Also,being Hindus,where does the question of you accepting or not accepting the koran or any other mleccha text as revealed literature come into the picture?All non-vedic texts must be automatically rejected.

wundermonk
04 October 2012, 01:50 AM
Either we have to learn to live with them peacefully or be ready for destruction.

If I may, one way is to mercilessly mock Islam in the hope that Mohammedans realize the futility of believing in it. 72 virgins with Allah being a pimp, Allah sitting idle before creation, Allah loves sneezing but hates yawning, Mo showing his private parts to Abu Bakr, Mo getting some of his verses when he was snoozing on Ayesha's lap, Mo consummating his marriage with 9 year old Ayesha, Mo marrying his daughterinlaw, all of these are fair game! Keep in mind that nothing irritates a Mohammedan more than making fun of Mo. They can withstand an atheist who denies the existence of Allah, but they can kill if one so much as opens one's mouth against their beloved Mo. This should be exposed as idol worship and Mohammedans should be taught that there is hellfire waiting for them if they love Mo so much. That would go against Allah's words.

Moderate Mohammedans have time and again proven that they are disinterested or incapable of controlling the extremists in their midst. Left to itself, Islam will not self-correct because it cannot. So, we - as concerned world citizens who would like to leave the world in a better shape than how we found it - are forced to take up the fight on their behalf.

This is not an OP-derail because one of Gandhi's legacy is his ham-handed approach towards dealing with the Mohammedan problem.

Twilightdance
04 October 2012, 08:20 AM
So the genocidal Old Testament makes for easier reading than the Koran?Or even the new testament, for that matter?

Definitely more readable, Koran is almost unreadable in totality with no sequence in chapter or verse coupled strange attempt to be poetic from an illiterate person. Bible scores much better in terms of readability but is of course still excruciatingly boring.

R Gitananda
04 October 2012, 03:19 PM
namaste

I would only agree that the Bible is "excruciatingly boring" if a person were to just pick up an archaic English translation and try to read it as if it were a novel. However if one has really nice Bible study notes (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) that direct their attention to the really interesting stuff then they will find that it is anything but boring. The same holds true for the Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm). I understand that Gandhi enjoyed both books.

Hari Aum



Definitely more readable, Koran is almost unreadable in totality with no sequence in chapter or verse coupled strange attempt to be poetic from an illiterate person. Bible scores much better in terms of readability but is of course still excruciatingly boring.

wundermonk
05 October 2012, 04:28 AM
However if one has really nice Bible study notes (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) that direct their attention to the really interesting stuff then they will find that it is anything but boring. The same holds true for the Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm). I understand that Gandhi enjoyed both books.


On going through the text of your post alone, I was going to :headscratch: . Then I realized you linked to SAB and then I went :Roll: