Nirmala Deshpande - A Truly Great Soul

Just so there is no misunderstanding, in #88...the parantheses are implied in the (a) below:

(a) Socialism was the new kid in town (and was considered the effective counter to the feudalism which prevailed all over the world) and was considered by many of these leaders as the best thing since Baba Adam.

#various

(4) Regarding the economic system…

Yes, Gandhiji’s ideas in this area were isolationist/protectionist etc. He certainly did not believe in the supremacy of the capitalistic system. In that, he was not alone. Most of the freedom fighters of those days were believers in some mild variety of (Fabian) socialism. The reasons are understandable in retrospect:

(a) Socialism was the new kid in town and was considered the effective counter to the feudalism which prevailed all over the world and was considered by many of these leaders as the best thing since Baba Adam. Gandhiji can not be blamed for the decisions made by people who took power and implemented the socialist policies long after his death!

(b) Communism/socialism had not been proven to be a failure at that time. In fact, it was very much in ascendency. In particular, many of the "independence strugglers" were very impressed by how quickly the Reds dethroned the long-entrenched Russian czars! The evil side of communism (especially the dictatorial nature of it) was something that was yet to be experienced. Also remember that because many of the leaders were struggling against the British and the Russians were the counterweight party to the British, it was understandable that many of them looked toward the russians for inspiration.

(c) No, Gandhiji was not a communist or a socialist – but he truly believed in empowering the weakest people and empowering them not through the use of arms – but by changing the heart of their adversaries. One can argue forever if that is practical or not! After all, if your whole premise is that “all human beings have a heart” and will listen to it – well, your ideas will only work if indeed people have heart! If bunch of them refuse to admit that they have a heart then it will not work. Gandhiji firmly believed that if one offers enough sacrifice of one’s own – it will open the eyes of the other side. Perhaps it works (as in many places in the world, including during the US Civil Rights movement) and sometimes it does not (perhaps it would not have worked against Hitler) – but again, that does not make Gandhiji the villain – it only shows that he was well-intentioned – more than any of his contemporaries.

#86 Cheema sahib

I understand and I agree. The kindest thing I can say of the Jinnah is that he never pretended to be a good guy, or a democrat, he was first, foremost and last a "champion of Muslims" - whatever that term means!

As if the Muslim faith were going to disappear without his intervention! Talk about being "khatre meiN!"

I will leave it at that, too!

Re: # 85; bjk

Comparing Jinnah and Gandhiji is not a fair deal; there can be no comparison

I'd leave it at that I reckon; I have said plenty on the subject before in my discussions with Majumdar sahib

#various

(3) Annie Besant was an interesting person with strong convictions. Perhaps what she wrote about Muslim atrocities of those times IS true. But how does that make Gandhiji a villain?

Without casting aspersions on anybody, reality is that a large chunk of pre-partition Muslims did not identify with Gandhiji – perhaps many of the things he said were not things they could connect with. But how can one blame the large body of those illiterates for heeding the cries of “Islam is in danger” when “educated” bigots like the Jinnah believed nothing different?!

But only an absolute hideous hypocrite will – instead of blaming the creeps who stoked communal passions like the Mullahs (AND the Jinnah) did, turn around and start blaming Gandhiji – the one person who was trying to bring sanity back!

Fools, what would you have Gandhiji do? Turn into a Hindu Jinnah of a hypocrite?

Shame on you!

Where were your other leaders? If they felt so strong, well, why did not they push Gandhiji aside and take charge?

Why did they not rile up Hindus like the Jinnah and his gang of crooks riled up the Mussalmans?

I will tell you why. It was not for the lack of trying, for sure! They tried but Gandhiji prevailed always – because in their hearts, the vast majority of Hindustanis of those times – Hindus AND Muslims – knew that Gandhiji was right.

It was the subcontinent’s misfortune that the vast majority of the Muslims of what is now Pakistan followed the other guy – the megalomaniacal demagogue.

They followed him in haste and they and three of their generations repent that act now…

In leisure!!

#various

Jum dada, Eklavya, nkg and all the rest of the other assorted hypocrites!

You guys are so foolish I don’t know if I should even bother to interact here! But being what I am…

Let me pick individual items in random order…

(1) First, it is highly unfair to blame Gandhiji for the endemic ills of the country which we currently call India. Only an utter hypocrite or a lunatic would blame Gandhiji for such things as corruption after the British left. Give me a break! Here is a guy who felt guilty when he ate a bit of goat meat with some friend – you call him a proponent of corruption?! Get real!

Even a simpleton would know what brings around corruption. When public servants are not well-paid they supplement their income from below the table – if they can get away with it. Perhaps the Britishers were tougher on corruption – but more importantly, they set high standards for themselves – except for the early crop of East India Company wallas they were squeaky clean and honest in business dealings. That sets a good example. Corruption always starts from top – so blame the crop of leaders that came in – not Gandhiji.

(2) The same holds for other evils of the society – casteism, etc. Remember Gandhiji used to take turns at cleaning the toilet and other people in the ashram were made to do their turn! Would a casteist do what was called a “bhangee” job?! The reality is – Gandhiji was way ahead of his contemporaries on many of these ideas. For instance, can you imagine your idol – the Jinnah – cleaning his own toilet (what to say of that of others)?! Again, get real!

More points as and when I get around to those.

Re: # 74:
nkg,

"Indira Gandhi, in which sense was better PM?"

Compare 71 vs ABV's performance in 2002. What was prevented from happening does not come in news papers or electronic media. Smart IAS/IFS babus also have a large role to play. But keep it in mind that alternatives to her were leaders like Morarji not only foolish but also are very obstinate about foolishness. Other contempory were wimps. Taking this into consideration the lady was a boon for the time. Her limited intellectual ability was well compensated by her guts ... a real man among the pigmies. Listen how her enemies Kissinger and Nixon talked about her.
Keep it in mind that was the era when Salvodor Allandes and Mujibs were bombed or murdered. There were enough triators within India at that time.

Children drinking hot milk at 7 AM would not know the toil of the mother who got up early in morning at 4 AM and milked the cow in dark.

You must dig up chowk's archives and read posts by Yasser (nicks- Mantiolives/YLH) on MKG. Your eyes will be opened. He has proven beyond doubt that MKG was a Hindu rcaist, casteist, fascist, misogynist bigoted freak.


Are you joking?. I have read Mantolives' cut and paste articles on Gandhi. They are not convincing. Sure, Gandhi had some backward ideas, but to call him such words is a joke. He encouraged inter-caste weddings and arranged for his son to marry out of caste.

Majumder...
I am not fan of Godse...Gandhi was supposed to be killed...Be it Godse or somebody else...

VRV,

(That's a good repartee. I liked it. I am not a Gandhain, btw)

You can appreciate a differing POV and you have a sense of humour, so you can never be a Gandhian. The second sentence above was superfluous!!!

(Behind the veneer of soft Chowky lurks a mini-Godse.)

Your fellow secularist Sadnaji recently described me as a spokesperson for the Taliban and drug peddlers. Maybe the two of you can sort out whether I am a Godesite or a jihadi 'cos I can't be both at the same time.

(We export all anti-Gandhians i.e Godseists )

I am no fan of Godesites either, they oppose my fundamental right to enjoy the sight of my fellow (esp female) citizens indulging in kanjarpana. So we export our Godseites as well to Pak (along with the 3 of the 4 Ms- Marxists/Missionaries/Mullahs, the 4th Macaulayites will be needed for our IT/ITES industry)

(U can join hands with Muslism fundoos; tho u despise each other in public)

I don't despise Islamic fundoos at all. It is just that I want them to leave us Hindoos alone. Apart from that I have no dispute with them. As they say, there is no compulsion in religion, to them their ways, to me mine.

Btw, are you implying that YLH is a Muslim fundoo that wud be a surprise for I dont see how a non-Muslim (YLH) can be a Muslim fundoo.

Regards

#72 Posted by nkg on May 5, 2008 9:18:13 pm

nkg,

I need more time to answer ur points.

Majumdar,

U can invite Yasser to attack Gandhi now. That'd be great i.e. Hindu fundoos and Paakis joining hands (no surprise that Shyaama Prasad Mukherjee joined hands with Muslism fundoos; tho u despise each other in public u are blood bohters).

#71 Posted by majumdar on May 5, 2008 8:28:41 pm

Behind the veneer of soft Chowky lurks a mini-Godse. I am scared now.

OK, What abt this Dada. We export all anti-Gandhians i.e Godseists and they export all liberals.

That'd complete the Partition in spirit.

#70 Posted by majumdar on May 5, 2008 8:26:55 pm

Majumdar,

That's a good repartee. I liked it.

(I am not a Gandhain, btw)

Re: # 72
vengat..

Gandhi was not proponent of peace. He had adopted the path, Indians prefer and Gandhi earned fame.

Re: # 68
Guru...
Ans: PVN was the first decent, educated PM of India. And fortunately, next PMs are also good.(ABV and MMS are also good)...

Re: # 68
Guru...
Ans: I know, L & T was not british company.
When we talk about Konkan Railway and and other nice engineering construction created by L & T, we should remember, we had far better quality ( if you turn your clock back 1/2 century), British owned companies like B & R, Burns Standard used to produce best quality work in Asia...
Indira Gandhi, in which sense was better PM? The process Nehru started (politician & cow belt businessman nexus and resulting corruption), Indira Gandhi had taken that to peak.
In which field she had done good to India?