My beef with Gandhi

[SlowwHand]

Standing in line for government issue toilet paper doesn't make for a day to write about in your diary.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually towards the end of WW2 Ghandi publically admitted that non-violence would not have worked against the Nazis and the Japanese.

The Palestinians did have their non-violent phase too, and they accomplished more in terms of gaining recognition for their cause than they ever have.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually towards the end of WW2 Ghandi publically admitted that non-violence would not have worked against the Nazis and the Japanese.

I think that's pretty clear - but IMO Imran is right, the thing is he wasn't fighting the Nazis. So he took a strategy adapted for fighting his special opponent, which is certainly a wise thing to do.

[Dr Strangelove]

there are those in India however who feel that Chandra Bose, not Mahatma Ghandi should be th4e national hero. Chandra Bose was a revolutionasry who escaped internement by the British, found asylum in Nazis Germany, then eventually collaborated with the Japanese. With Japanese support he founded the "Indian National Army" composed of Indian volunteers. He fought beside the Japanese in Assam and Burma. It is believed that he died in Indochina presumably when a transport plane he was supposed to be on was shot down.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Palestinians did have their non-violent phase too, and they accomplished more in terms of gaining recognition for their cause than they ever have.

The Palestinians have tried peaceful several times. The only time it worked was because of someone else's violence, namely, Hussein's and the 1st U.S. Iraq War. Previously it got them thumped.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Probably mass genocide. They constitued around 10% of the population in the 1950s-1960s. If they would have staged widespread violent insurrection, I imagine that there would have been an incredibly violent reaction.

But they aren't widespread throughout American socierty, but concentrated in several small areas, where they tend to be a majority or a significant minority. Ironically enough, change happened fastest when civil rights movements were more militant. Dr. King couldn't have succeeded without Malcom X and the Black Panthers. Before X and the BPSD, King was seen as a dangerous radical. They made him seem like a sane moderate, and someone with whom the powers that be could deal with.

Of course, King was far more radical than most people think he is today. His antiwar speeches are rarely mentioned. His poor people's movement is completely forgotten. And it generally is ignored that he was killed when he intervened in a strike. The man was a hard core socialist, just one committed to non violence.

[Admiral]

The fact is, you cannot definitely state that in violent or nonviolent resistance is always the most effective approach. However:

Let's examine the end of the cold war. The imbalance of power between the state and the solidarity movement, among others, was absurd. Had the movements resorted to violence, they would have been crushed. In fact, we can generalize a bit here. In order to be a state, you essentially have to have a monopoly on the use of violent force. In other words, the state will always possess the upper hand in such a situation. Moreover, by resorting to violence, you automatically justify the state's use of violence against you. Look at Iraq. No one has a problem with the US bombing insurgency strongholds, because they blow up our caravans (to simplify matters).

But to consciously choose not to use violence, it is possible to completely circumvent the state. The state can choose to use violence against you, but this time, you no longer sanction the violence. In this paradigm, the state actually loses power the more violence it uses. On the other hand, the state can resort to nonviolent means to counteract your movement, but in the case of totalitarian/authoritarian states, the entire state structure is founded on violence, and by moving the field of contention outside the realm of violence, the movement can begin to unravel the the state's power.

Let's return to the end of the cold war. Just by existing outside of the state structure, Solidarity called into question the power of the state. Once the USSR and Warsaw Pact governments proved unable to quell the popular movements with violence, these governments began to collapse, because violence was all they had.

[aneeshm]

Re: My beef with Gandhi

Originally posted by Pekka

Ok, did he have an influence with his non-violent resistance and basically India was free? Sure.

IT was only because of him that India gained her freedom the peaceful way she did . We did not really earn our freedom - it was given to us on a platter thanks to the political and spiritual genius of one man .

Originally posted by Pekka

But would India still be under UK if it wasn't for Gandhi. No, they'd be free. Granted, few more years but still less than a decade. So what? I know it's still a big accomplishment, but let's not get excited.. when we weigh in the negative sides, you will quite happily agree that he was a bad man. A loser who got lucky in one thing. So what. Means nothing.

My dear fellow ! Firstly , Gandhi was the only person who understood the Indian psyche well enough to mobilise the whole of India as one people ( if we exclude for a moment the Muslims ) . Without him , it might have taken many more decades . Before Gandhi , movements for independence were fringe groups . Gandhi brought them to the mainstream .

And even if we assume that India would have gained her freedom anyway , it would have cost us a hell of a lot of blood and tears . It would have involved brutalising an entire nation .

Not only that , but regressive forces might have taken over the polity . It was only because of the stability Gandhi brought that democracy and democratic institutions took root in and survived in India .

Originally posted by Pekka

Now, first off, his non-violent resistance was OK in this case, however he left his people in GRAVE DANGER. What if the Brits would have just slaughtered everyone? Hey, thanks Gandhi for leaving us here... #1 thing, you take care of your people. You don't take risks like that, doing hippie crap. If you want to play it like that, do it with your own little group of friends in some little community where you can get bashed by locals, but don't take risks like that with the entire people. That's just crazy.

He did not blindly say : "Non-violent Resistance !" . He tested his ideas thoroughly before implementing them on a nationwide level .

His years in South Africa were the time his political ideology solidified and took its fulfilled shape . The politics of the Indian community in South Africa was both his training ground and his laboratory . He tried his ideas of Satyagraha there . Even after coming to India , he did not suddenly declare that everyone was to resist non-violently . He first tried it on an individual level in a small region .

It was a staring contest between him and his British adversaries - who would blink first ? When he found that the British had certain limits which they would not and could not cross , he exploited that to the maximum . That is how he came to the conclusion - which later justified itself - that non-violent "Insistence on Truth" ( Satyagraha , सत्याग्रह ) was the way to go when freeing India .

Originally posted by Pekka

He also thought, that Hitler could be changed with non-violent resistance. Did I say he got lucky the first time? Second time he would have gotten his ass handed, plus all his fellows.

He also thought that Jewish people should 'accept' the fate, so they'd win God's love. That's NUTS!!!! They were playing it nice for a long time and look what happened idiot Gandhi? They were TOO nice already.

Agree partially here . His assumption that the opponent was a human with a normal conscience certainly did not apply to the Nazis . But we can excuse him for getting carried away a bit by his own ideas .

Originally posted by Pekka

No, when you're defending, you must be vigilant, kill and maim. Not some 'let's sing songs and hold hands and get crushed by this tank. It will be an inspiration to other hand holders!!!'.

The assumption is that the people driving the tank share some values with you , which will shame them into stopping the tank .

Originally posted by Pekka

Oh, did I mention he also was supporting the commies, plus he was also a vegan. Can you come up with any other big name, leader of big magnitude who was vegan?

He did not support any political ideology but his own . And he was not vegan , but vegetarian .

Originally posted by Pekka

And I think I don't even have to mention the whole pedophile thing, since there's stuff condemning his crazy ways here without bringing it up. So there. He got lucky, and if I have to go to hell, I'll kick his silly ass for all the misery he cost to the world.

What paedophile thing ? This is a blatant lie .

And what misery , precisely , did he cost the world ? He saved the Indians from a lot of misery by giving us independence peacefully .

Originally posted by Pekka

He also is party responsible for the mess in Pakistan now.

You are blaming Gandhi for the way fundamentalist Muslims behave ? WTF ?

He was actually against partition . He was told that the Muslims would riot ( Jinnah's "Direct Action" doctrine ) and kill and rampage if they were not granted Pakistan . He said that if rivers of blood had to flow for us to live together , then let them flow . When the saint non-violence says that if it takes rivers of blood for Hindus and Muslims to live together then they must flow , we know that he is absolutely against the idea of Partition . But nobody listened to him , unfortunately .













Pekka - I'll make the same request I did of you last time - please read his autobiography . It is available for free on this website . It is called "The Story of my Expereiments with Truth" . You'll realise who he really was if you do so . He's been brutally honest about himself in those pages .

[Flip McWho]

The Soviet Union failed because of economics.

Because they inherited such a modern state to start with.

It woulda been bloody interesting if communism had started in Britain, like Marx wanted it too.

[VetLegion]

About Gandhi it's not that he was a paedofile that's weird, it's that he wasn't . Why? Well, supposedly he would sleep naked with women only to prove his restraint. Even young women. So either he had superhuman vegeterian resistance, or he indeed did grab 'em under the sheets.

[Pekka]

Sloww seems to be the only one getting it

Imran, for a lawyer you make weird arguments

First of all, pacisfism works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't. When you're going with a .. civil movement type of thing, especially inside democracy (modern), pacifism should work. But we can't compare different situations and generalize like that. Like we know, against Nazis it wouldn't have worked. Gandhi was explicit in supporting non-violence against Hitler. Maybe he changed his views when it was obvious he wasn't going to stop, however, if he had been born in state under Hitler's attacks, he should have been hanged as a traitor who lead masses of peopel to their deaths with his ideology.

It was just a coincidence he was in India, and it happened to work there. I have complemented Gandhi saying he had an impact in India, and it was good for India and he deserves credit.

But as praised as he is, that's crap. He wasn't the be all end all of solutions, he was a one trick pony. It's easy to say 'peace' to everyone. It's a whole lot tougher to defend everyone when you are facing an enemy that is overwhelming. Yeah, it's easier to just quit and say peace and come on let's stop fighting. It's even easier to die in those circumstances than survive.

He took a hell of a risk to play his games. He risked everyones lives.

And SU thing, this is laughable. They fell because of economy, just like Sloww points out. This is too obvious, protests had no part in the real desctruction. They were an outcome, not the catalyst, they were a sideshow, not the reason.

"IT was only because of him that India gained her freedom the peaceful way she did . We did not really earn our freedom - it was given to us on a platter thanks to the political and spiritual genius of one man ."

At that day, yes. In a wide range of events, unlikely. Just becuase someone said something first doesn't make them thje only one to say it or intend it. Spiritual genius? So he was a cult leader according to this statement?

"And even if we assume that India would have gained her freedom anyway , it would have cost us a hell of a lot of blood and tears . It would have involved brutalising an entire nation ."

This we don't know. It's a fair guess, however, this defies the argument that Gandhi was the ONLY way. He wasn't. Just like the bloodless movement of his succeeding, it was also a coin toss. It might have resulted into blood and tears. I never said what he did was horrible and not succesful. I said, he took a huge risk with all of your people. A cult leader taking such risks and playing with the lives of so many, I don't think it's worth a praise. I would say good for him and spit. Just to be sure.

"
He did not blindly say : "Non-violent Resistance !" . He tested his ideas thoroughly before implementing them on a nationwide level ."

I'm sure these included empirical testing on imperialist mindset and the labs were supported by the vegetarist movement of the animal lovers.

Which makes no sense either. He was all about let's not eat animals too. So what do we do with cows? Do you see cows running in the wild? Now, in India, I knwo cow is a sacred animal. I know you guys dont' eat them. That's cool. However, outside India, in western part of the world, we eat these buggers plus milk them. So... if we don't abuse these animals, we have no race of cows. So in a way, Gandhi was contributing to the fact that cows have no right to live. They have a right to serve our cause and breed and make sure they get fat and milky.

"It was a staring contest between him and his British adversaries - who would blink first ? "

Wow, a staring contest"!!!!!! You see, when you're in a staring contest, the whole idea is that both can back it up. So if Gandhi would lose, he would run like a little girl, getting beat up by Brits in every single step. Staring contest 0, sticks 100.

"Agree partially here . His assumption that the opponent was a human with a normal conscience certainly did not apply to the Nazis . But we can excuse him for getting carried away a bit by his own ideas ."

Listen, I'm ready to give this argument away and put it as his mistake of thinking people were inherently good and would make decisions based on humanity and stuff. I think this won't carry a person far, however, it's still a view of a patient person trying to see some good in everyone. However, this is the corner stone of my 'he got lucky' argument so it's attached to that claim, nto so much as pleasing nazis, that's not my point.

"
The assumption is that the people driving the tank share some values with you , which will shame them into stopping the tank .
"

Yeah, that's called propaganda, you'll try it first and if it don't work, you strike the tanks from the air and kill them all. That's plan 1. No strikes doesn't include plan 2, it includes 'didn't work, now let's get ready to be crushed by the tanks'. The only thing they can do is get naked, so they can do something out of the ordinary and hopefully shock the tank people. Seems like a bad plan to me.

"He did not support any political ideology but his own ."

Yes, a cult leader.

"And what misery , precisely , did he cost the world ? He saved the Indians from a lot of misery by giving us independence peacefully ."

Yes, this was a by-product (a GOOD one), but the real product was mess.

"What paedophile thing ? This is a blatant lie ."

I didn't bring this up. I spesifically left this argument out of this thread, I did point out not bringing it to the table. So now when you are calling these things lies, I think it is you who needs to prove it. If I had said this was so and this is my argument, I woudl have had to prove it but ... I didn't.

"Pekka - I'll make the same request I did of you last time - please read his autobiography . It is available for free on this website . It is called "The Story of my Expereiments with Truth" . You'll realise who he really was if you do so . He's been brutally honest about himself in those pages ."

THis is the same argument as 'read my autobiography' and you'd get to read how awesome I am.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by VetLegion
About Gandhi it's not that he was a paedofile that's weird, it's that he wasn't . Why? Well, supposedly he would sleep naked with women only to prove his restraint. Even young women. So either he had superhuman vegeterian resistance, or he indeed did grab 'em under the sheets.

Or a man who loved underaged boys. That would sure explain his ways of sleeping with women and not doing anything.

This shouldn't be the point of this thread, I wouldn't bring this up in the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Pekka]Imran, for a lawyer you make correct arguments[/q]

Fixed.

First of all, pacisfism works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't.

And it worked brilliantly in India, without much bloodshed at all. It wasn't 'luck', it was a wonderful strategy that paid off handsomely. He knew his enemy.

There is a reason he spoke in such ways about the Nazis. Look at the example, pointed out above, at Chandra Bose. A lot of Indians were under the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But at the same time, Gandhi did not want to piss off the British so much that they thought the INC had Nazi sympathies.

I have complemented Gandhi saying he had an impact in India, and it was good for India and he deserves credit.

No you haven't. You only will grudgingly admit it worked well in India... but what about the US, and other protest movements? You don't give him credit for much of anything. You call it all luck!

He took a hell of a risk to play his games. He risked everyones lives.

And armed revolutions aren't risky to people's lives

And SU thing, this is laughable. They fell because of economy, just like Sloww points out. This is too obvious, protests had no part in the real desctruction. They were an outcome, not the catalyst, they were a sideshow, not the reason.

So, if the economy collapses, the authoritarian state will collapse? Explain North Korea then.

The fact of the matter was through brute force, the USSR could have survived, even with a crumbling economy. But the people said no more. They marched into the streets and said this is over. And the military couldn't stand in the way, even though they were trying to take over.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Pekka


Or a man who loved underaged boys. That would sure explain his ways of sleeping with women and not doing anything.

This shouldn't be the point of this thread, I wouldn't bring this up in the future.

You know , Pekka , this comes from your complete lack of knowledge about Hinduism . According to the Gita , the seeker after enlightenment is supposed to have full control over his senses . Gandhi's sleeping with women without doing anything was supposed to be a test he set himself . If he passed the test , nothing would happen . If he failed the test , then he would get an erection and get aroused .

There is an incident in his life when once , after taking the vov of brahmacharya ( celibacy or abstinence ) , he had an erection , and this shocked him quite a bit . He was horrified .

[LordShiva]

Re: Re: My beef with Gandhi

Originally posted by aneeshm
Firstly , Gandhi was the only person who understood the Indian psyche well enough to mobilise the whole of India as one people ( if we exclude for a moment the Muslims )

Are you saying that there were no Muslims involved in the Indian freedom movement??