Varanasi Explodes

Dear Majumdar...

The advantages you list would have been doubly so in a Dominion like situation ... which would have come into existence between 1925-1935.

(But I also realise that just like the British introduced Gandhi into India just when an armed resistance akin to US revolutionary war would have driven them out and/or the parliamentarians would have forced their hand with the Dominion status (thereby Gandhiji helped delay dominion status and/or independence by no less than 25-30 years).... )

Manto,

Nothing of that sort would have happened. Indians as a rule (the settled people of the plains in particular) are too cowardly a people to indulge in armed resistance for any period of time. In fact India got independence because of the armed struggle of the true blue Indo-Germanic people, the Nazis.

Anyhow it was good that British dominion lasted till 1947. It allowed the English language and constitutionalism to seep into South Asia and enabled at least one of the successor entities of British Raj to benefit out of it- through a reasonably democratic polity and billions of dollars of IT/BPO revenues.

A little short on specifics. But (with a little work) can be adapted to most contexts.

#563 by Mantolives

[The point is that there should be no nuclear weapons... ]


An original and powerful statement. Takes your breath away. Wow!

Now why can`t WE think like that?

Pakistani intellectuals are light-years ahead in their thinking.....

ylh #563 I will agree with you on your concluding sentence that there should be no nuclear bombs.

I do think we should draw a sharp distinction between governments elected through some reasonable process vs. those that are not. There is no denying your point that democratically elected governments can do some very stupid things, but there are checks and balances that ensure they dont go too far off their rockers, since they can be removed and since the other branches of government - courts, legislature - provide checks and balances. So, I think there is nothing wrong in having two sets of standards - one for democratic governments, and one for dictatorial ones. Since these external compensate to some extent for the lack of internal checks and balances . But ultimately I agree - the world would be a lot better off if there were no nukes in any country.

Dear tahmed,

Gandhi`s views on black people find no expression amongst his Indian contemporaries... so if they held these views they certainly did not act on them as Gandhi did. At the very least he could have distanced himself from these ideas... as he had done so with other things...
Furthermore I suggest you read the ``Gandhi or Gandhiism`` by Dr Ambedkar- the real father of Indian democracy- to learn the other side of the story on Gandhi`s so called altruistic patronising views on untouchables..

Now coming to the issue you have raised ... I think no nation should have nukes- least of all the Mullahs of Iran ... but this logic will not stop there. Besides... the evangelical United States is sounding more and more like the Islamic Iran... and you yourself know what BJP is capable of when it comes to power. So this logic of democracy doesn`t work? I mean to be fair to this logic... would a Hamas run democratic Palestine be allowed nukes? or an Ikhwan-run Egypt?

The point is that there should be no nuclear weapons...

#560 ylh: thanks for providing references to Gandhi`s view about the african blacks (i.e. kaffirs, as they were called by the boer settlers). I wasnt aware of this aspect, but I really think that you are giving it far, far more importance than its relevance to any practical issues merits. After all, a hundred years ago attitudes to race were very different world-wide, among europeans but also among other people of the world. And what gandhi was doing was petitioning for better conditions for indians (whom he represented), and not persecuting african blacks per se. So, I think you are attaching too much importance to this aspect of his personality which was largely irrelevant to events taking place in south africa even back then (those events being driven by the boer-british conflict - which, despite boer ``defeats`` in the boer war ultimately resulted in the introduction of apartheid and that impacted south africa much more than anything gandhi did or said when he lived there).

#561 ylh: coming to the more substantive question of ``non-violence`` (i.e. moving the discussion to ideas, rather than to personalities), that is certainly an issue that merits some discussion. You say that ``the US wants the supposedly Gandhian idea of non-violence to take root in the Islamic and third world so that no balance of power exists in the world...`` It is true that the US would not like to see Iran have the nuclear bomb - and i think that is good. Do you really want to see mullahs have control over nuclear bombs?

Do you really think mullahs (i.e. would-be spokesmen for God, and would-be khalifas and kings who would impose their will on society through ``sharia`` laws) ``deserve`` to be tolerated and treated as being at par with a democratic nation like the US or even India? I dont think so.

And now coming to your final point...

``This is an idea of increasing relevance as every tom, dick and harrynadijdad develops the means to destroy the world with nuclear weapons.``

I actually agree with this statement. But for very different reasons... The supposedly Gandhian idea of non-violence is an important tool even today for those with global imperial designs as it was in the 1920s for the British Empire. You know I hate nuclear weapons and I hate Iranian mullahs even more. I think A Q Khan was an idiot..

But I also realise that just like the British introduced Gandhi into India just when an armed resistance akin to US revolutionary war would have driven them out and/or the parliamentarians would have forced their hand with the Dominion status (thereby Gandhiji helped delay dominion status and/or independence by no less than 25-30 years).... the US wants the supposedly Gandhian idea of non-violence to take root in the Islamic and third world so that no balance of power exists in the world... and the US can continue as the lone super power in the world unfettered by any ideas of `non-violence`.

Here is some evidence....

Read the entire post... note ``Kaffirs`` is a term used for Blacks.

Gandhi snobbishly refused to accept classification with `aboriginal` looking `savages`:


...A reference to Hunter`s `Indian Empire`, chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock. ...Notes on Test Case, CWOMG, Vol. 3, pg 8


Now read on:


(I have put this up in my ilogs

---

so the delete private etc)


On What Gandhi wanted

The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs

Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (3)

CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES

The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could…But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.

Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (2)

INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS

There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.

It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (1)

I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so.
Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.

Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149

On What Gandhi wanted (9)

Gandhi`s disdain for black people continues:

It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered

What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (8)

The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets

Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (7)

More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (6)

More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (5)

It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.

Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423

On What Gandhi wanted (14)

On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children

Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

private delete

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (12)

What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements

Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (11)

Ah… and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad…

Well here is Gandhi with his theory of ``Separate and Unequal``

...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?

The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (10)

More on Gandhi`s theory of ``separate and unequal``

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly

Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131

Dear Tahmed,

I am aware of all these myths but I am relying wholely solely on Gandhi himself says. Not only did he use this term ``Indo-germanic`` but he never went back on his comments about black people. It is there and I have quoted from his letters and collected works many times. If indeed you want me to quote again- I`ll be happy to repeat it... Please let me know. The first time I heard of the term ``Indo-Germanic`` was in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi... and I quoted it as is on chowk.

Furthermore... the untouchable leader and principal author of Indian constitution Dr B R Ambedkar dedicated volumes after volumes to Gandhi`s casteist bigotry. Ambedkar considered the term ``harijan`` an absolute insult for his people ... Gandhi believed that caste system was the ``organisation of humanity`` and that the untouchables were the lowest of the low and so they were harijans (children of god)... he stood for the status quo and tried to sweeten it up with his patronising remarks... the brilliant man that Ambedkar was he saw through what he described as nothing but Hindu bigotry... Infact Ambedkar called Gandhi a manipulative and blue blooded Hindu fanatic.

ylh #556 the idea commonly associated with gandhi is non-violence. not racism. as for the caste system, gandhi is associated in a positive sense (as indicated by his popularizing the term harijan i.e. ``children of God`` for the untouchables of hindu society, and by doing untouchable work like cleaning latrines himself - and correct me if I have my facts wrong here). As for ``indo-germanic superiority``, this is the first time i am hearing this term - i think you are mixing up different terms here (i.e. the bs about indo-aryan ``superiority`` over the dravidians; the bs about the ``aryan races`` by nazis which for all practical purposes applied to north european blonde types only).

As I said, I am open to being educated on facts - but not open to accepting conclusions that do not logically follow from the facts. So: I would be interested in knowing whether or not you agree that what I mention above are facts, and if not why not.

Look: I am not saying gandhi was a saint. Thus, the ``Quit India`` movement that he supported I think was plain stupid (since it would have merely have replaced brits who were departing anyway, with japs as the colonial masters of india - and the japs would have turned the sub-continent into a slave colony; and which the brits no doubt saw as treachery and thus turned more amenable to jinnah who correctly supported the brits during what they consider their ``darkest hour``).

What I am saying is that gandhi the man is not relevant today - the man is dead, and any debate on him is academic. To be of practical relevance, one must focus on the great idea that he is correctly associated with - namely non-violence. This is an idea of increasing relevance as every tom, dick and harrynadijdad develops the means to destroy the world with nuclear weapons.

ramanjunan: that is very clever indeed. did you eat badaam this morning??

So in other words... Gandhi doesn`t matter... his ideas of ``Indo-germanic`` superiority, black inferiority and his casteist bigotry matter...

#550 by tahmed32

[..as the saying goes, small minds discuss personalities, big minds discuss ideas...]

EXACTLY!

If Jack The Ripper had anything to say about women`s rights or family values, only small minds would ENDLESSLY (and needlessly) keep harping on the character traits of Jack the Ripper.

The great minds would discuss his ideas on women`s emancipation, what should be considered right and wrong by society, etc.



Because it is the ideas that matter, at the end of the day.

Rsridhar...

So now its not even Ismailism ... its sunnism... Wah wah. Or do you think Ismailism is Sunnism?

Either way... no wonder you think Harish hyd ``Defended`` Gandhi by taking up the issue of my religious allegiance.

There is no other way of defending that racist casteist Hindu fundamentalist... except attacking me personally.

-YLH

re:#510 by harish_hyd
I am proud of u and many Indians here who defend Gandhiji, not that he needs any defense from scums like Manto.
Keep up the good work. I have to say one thing about Manto: his indoctrination must have been in a madrassa. How else can anybody explain such hatred for Gandhi, a noble soul who has not harmed anybody in his life.
Sridhar