The Naked Fakir

Nowhere during the process of casting slurs at Gandhi do we think of him as a human being.Some of us tend to find scapegoats for the failures experienced by us as a nation today, some of us do not even think that far and just think of his policies as the signs of an old man`s impotence. I too believe that Gandhi was not a Mahatma, because I do not believe in the sanctity of the word, and I too agree that Gandhi had no place in the India of today surrounded by hostile neighbours and arms races, he would have been a burden on the national decision makers, but for what it`s worth, I do think that Gandhi was a great man, he was one of the greatest contributors to forge a movement from a random motion, and he was true to his principles, besides being one of the greatest leader of men.If you can find one more person of that kind in Indian history, that would be the time to rewrite history.Gandhi bashing has become a sort of idle passtime for us, like swatting flies, cursing the government, we want blood, we want grenades, we want to hear of the bloody firangis being crushed like flies in the thundering rush of a charge led by the likes of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose, but great men as they were, India did not, and does not have the power of self control necessary to sustain a violent freedom struggle, and even as we plagiarise Gandhi today, I see scrawled on the walls of my college slogans like `Netaji Subhash will return to save the nation` written by a band of boys high on mescaline, I am forced to think, is that the height of impotence and cowardice or not ? Subhash Chandra Bose did his bit, he is probably dead and ash now, he was a normal man and not Jesus to be resurrected, he will return to save the country, what are we doing meanwhile, are we some sort of passengers who do not have to pay for the ride ? Pick from your favourite freedom fighters, pick Bhagat Singh or Subhash Chandra Bose for their (imagined) bloodthirst and dialogue delivery, leave your judgement to the likes of RajKumar Santoshi, ask Leo Mattel to produce mass manufactured action figures for Khudiram Bose or Ram Prasad Bismil, and make Gandhi the butt of all our jokes. That is what we are reduced to today.

no where in your article you mention the reason behind `` Gandi`s esape from south africa``

if he was so non violent type of guy then why didn`t he protest and protected black africans of south africa just like nelson mandela or coz he was selfish and wanted the power of HIS people

I am trying to understand the real reason for knee jerk anger at Gandhi shown by some of the mentally challenged posters on this board. Is it due to your feeling that Gandhi`s strategy of non-violent opposition is an ineffective approach or are there some other reasons for your anger at him. If it is the former, then I cannot tell you how retarded that line of thinking is. There are two major examples in modern history that show the effectiveness of his approach. I am talking of course about Civil rights movement in US and ANC struggle in south africa. How in the world would you guys miss these facts. For his given circumstances, Gandhi followed a very effective way to achieve his ``objectives``.

Now I agree that his tactics wouldn`t have worked against enemies such as Nazis or hordes of Muhammadan army running across hindu kush mountains.... and he himself admitted that fact in an interview. But his was definitely an effective technique against a less than maniacal enemies.

I only wish that idiotic jehadis take a cue from history`s examples and follow a pragmatic approach in Palestine and Iraq. But given the idiotic psuedo-macho culture and self induced semi-retardedness I know that will never happen. How sad.

He accepted it? Like, was there a crowning ceremony of sorts? :)

May be, you mean that he stopped protesting against it after a while.

Re: # 224

did you know, i found out that when tagore gave him that title he refused to acknowledge it, but later in 47 did accept it and all the problems associated with it.

Re: # 224

what happened to those fiery replies and cut&paste ?

you are entitled to your views. fine with me.

anyway, did you find anything from naidu on gandhi (about women)

also, did you explain what see meant by ``millions spent to keep..``, just curious

Don`t need to ...

There was NO Mahatma.. only Gandhi.

Re: # 222

manto

read 221, now you understand the difference in gandhi and mahatma.

Yes.. Soyasauce... more personal attacks because you can`t defend indefensible.

Re: # 218

GANDHI THE PRISONER
A comparison of prison experiences and conditions of
Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela in South Africa(1)
by Nelson Mandela



During his imprisonment in Pretoria, all his fellow prisoners were Africans (Natives as they were then referred to, even by ourselves), and they, seeing him so different from them, were curious to know what he was doing in prison. Had he stolen, or dealt in liquor?

He explained that he had refused to carry a pass. They understood that perfectly well. ``Quite right,`` they said to him, ``the white people are bad.`` Gandhi had been initially shocked that Indians were classified with Natives in prison; his prejudices were quite obvious, but he was reacting not to ``Natives``, but criminalised Natives.

He believed that Indians should have been kept separately. However, there was an ambivalence in his attitude for he stated,

``It was, however, as well that we were classed with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to see the treatment meted out to Natives, their conditions (of life in gaol), and their habits.``

All in all, Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and the circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice, save that in favour of truth and justice.

Re: # 218

manto:

can you produce gandhis racist attitude on blacks after he became mahatma, mind you he wasn`t one in 1908.
as specified previously, gandhi in africa was different than gandhi later, in india. thats what you are not comprehending (knowingly).
as several have told you gandhi evolved, his thought process changed. If he was not thrown out may be he would have never returned to india.

Re: # 218
Correction - foulmouthed, misogynist :)
Another correction - it was NOT a comparison
Are you going to be arguing in Urdu whe you pass the bar? I hope so. English doesn`t seem to serve you well.

Still no comparison between a 19 year old foul mouthed kid and a 40 year old Mahatma Barrister

Re: # 216
Yasser, I`m reminding you to see how you were/are a product of your environment. That goes for pretty much everyone.
On the racism charge, if you put the interests of your group ahead of everyone else`s that`s implied racism. I grant you that Gandhiji was blind to the sufferings of the native South Africans. He was attached to the indians there and saw himself as belonging to a quasi- ruling class by virtue of his educational and financial status. He got a rude lesson in how wrong he was when he was thrown out of the train compartment as a blackie.
Where he changed was in recognizing the common humanity of us all. Despite what Ambedkar had to say - and I can cite a lot of dalit leaders who agreed with Gandhiji - he was the most influential uppercaste hindu to militate against the oppression of the dalits. Could he have gone further? Surely. Did he go far? Certainly.

PS: God forbid... I`d rather die than be compared to gandhi...

Please read the post again... I am arguing that since you are unwilling (quite justifiably) to forget that at age 19, I, no Mahatma, abused Hamidm`s wife... you infact want to debate it ...

And yet you ask me to forget that Gandhi espoused the most racist views at age 40, and views which he clearly did not dissociate himself from... and not discuss that?

You see the hypocrisy?

Soyasauce....

So now it is a personal attack on me because you can`t defend Gandhi ? Its not about a 19 year old (here even 40 year old Indians abuse my entire family so lets not go there)... and what he said to Hamidm 6 years ago....

If Gandhi evolved... we have no evidence of that.. lets leave it at that.

Re: # 209

Gandhiji did evolve/change over time. He, however, was the product of his time and quite a traditionalist on some matters and way ahead of his time and a revolutionary on some other matters. His recognition that civil disobedience is a powerful weapon in the hands of the powerless is, no matter how you slice it, is still revolutionary although in trying to be consistent he was led into some absurd positions.
[He didn`t do a very good job as a father in his personal life. Ironically, there was book written by one of his female associates - ``Bapu - my mother``.]
Coming back to your own folly, I am in no way comparing you to Gandhiji - I wouldn`t even dream of it so rest assured ;)
However, if you and hamidm are in cordial terms now, it`s to his credit not to yours. Moreover, whereas I can understand a 19-year old being ``foulmouthed``, I still cannot understand why you brought his wife into the picture. Did you grow up in an environment where it was common to abuse women as a matter of course? How did this come about?
This was more than being foulmouthed, this was misogynic, a malady common in our part of the world and alas, not even modern education could cure you of it.
Think about poor Gandhiji, a success by the European standards, and yet no better than the ``kafirs``* that the Europeans held in contempt. What was he to do other than aspire to be like them?
(*kafir is an interesting term to describe someone not your own - I wonder why he chose that one)

Manto, Ambedkar`s or dalits` case is entirely different. They have suffered so much that he had a full right to take an entirely casteist view of Hinduism and even Gandhi. That can`t be the case with the rest of the world.

Why Gandhi said things or did things with regard to race is not so very important for me, for reasons I have described. Still (and don`t think of it as a challenge!), what logical repercussions do you see of a lawyer representing only his client who legally hires the lawyer and pays his bills? Can we say that Gandhi acted in South Africa only as most lawyers do (even as a bad one)?

One would think that most lawyers did not achieve as much in South Africa as he did.

Ironic...

That this is the line of argument that you have been forced to take. That gandhi was there only as a lawyer... representing the Indian community... please do consider the logical repercussions of this.

BTW Ambedkar held in 1946 that Gandhi was the worst enemy of untouchables in India...

I will continue to post the other half of the truth...

Mantolives

Yours and Gandhi`s growth years were very different. Most importantly, he did not have the Internet for people like us to teach him (kidding you, my friend).

And in sheer IQ, Nehru probably beat him. Neither could Gandhi ever become as modern as Nehru naturally was.

But Gandhi the conservative did choose Nehru the liberal as his heir. Gandhi also saved Nehru`s rear from assault by Nehru`s more conservative opponents many times.

That`s one of the things that made the man that he was.

Entire South African existence, including its constitution, revolved around racial gradations. One`s rights flowed from where one stood on racial totem pole. Gandhi went there *explicity* to act as the lawyer for the Indian community. It was his *explicit* charge to get Indians a better deal. He was probably paid for it (some one please confirm).

He *should* have acted for the Africans too. He *should not* made have some of the arguments he placed before the authorities, for whom in South Africa, race mattered so much. But to take him to task for those shortcomings in hindsight seems a stretch.

---

I avoid pasting long articles here, but the following article may yet change minds. It comes from the African National Congress website (the Internet has become more a trash can than a library. One should be very careful in using it for reference).

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/1.html

Eighty years ago, on January 9, 1915, M.K. Gandhi returned to Bombay after 21 years in exile, wearing a loin cloth and travelling from London in the lowest class of the ship. He was acclaimed by the whole nation which was inspired by his struggle and sacrifice in South Africa for the honour of the ``Motherland``. As he went around the country with Kasturba, the heroine of the last phase of the South African struggle, huge receptions were held and addresses presented to him in every city. ``Moderates`` welcomed him as much as ``extremists``, Muslims and Parsis as much as Hindus.

This Gandhi had little relation to the M.K. Gandhi, the 23-year-old barrister in a suit, who had sailed from Bombay in April 1893 by first class in the hope of finding opportunity in a new land.

In later years, Gandhiji said that he was born in India but ``made`` in South Africa;

``it was after I went to South Africa that I became what I am now``.

He told the Kanpur Congress in 1925 that ``Indians of South Africa claim that they have given me to you. I accept that claim. It is perfectly true that whatever service I have been able to render... to India, comes from South Africa.``

To understand the evolution and transformation of Gandhiji in South Africa, it is necessary to note, as he himself stressed on several occasions, that he was not a born saint and had not had an extraordinary childhood or youth.

He said in a speech in 1925:

``I never had a brilliant career. I was all my life a plodder. When I went to England... I couldn`t put together two sentences correctly. On the steamer I was a drone... I finished my three years in England as a drone.``

---

One can read rest of the article on the ANC website. Please do look it up. It`s not long. It also has some comments regarding women.

soya,

I accept that view... people do change their views over time.
Did Gandhi change his views? According to Dr B R Ambedkar he didn`t.
But lets say he did... do his earlier choices become irrelevant in toto?

Despite the fact that hamidm and I are on cordial terms... I don`t hear the end of it from people like you and I was an foul mouthed teenager unlike Gandhi the 35 year old barrister...

Seriously you can`t have both ways.

Re: # 203
The point is people grow up/change. It`s more than likely you`ll discredit/disown some of your current opinions 5 years from now. Even more likely if you were to put down every thought that occurs to you unconcerned about propreity.
Gandhiji was a successful lawyer working for rich businessmen in SA. To be treated on par with natives instead of being considered as equal to the ruling classes was indeed a shock to him. His views on the superiority of the Europeans and the inferiority of the natives underwent considerable change with time.

``he declared Hindus worshipped the cow while Muslims ate it, etc. ``

Yes... that is equal to Gandhi saying ``Black people are subhuman``.

If Gandhi`s exclusivist bigotry, despite his overt claim to speak for everyone, is not clear to people from his statements like ``I am true Hindu, therefore an Indian`` ... then I am afraid nothing will explain it better. It was this experience... the experience of being called the ``gentleman from the minority Muslim community`` that turned people like Jinnah away from the cause they dedicated their entire lives to... the exclusivism starts with Gandhi...
whose casteism, racism and bigotry is on ample display and who was called the worst enemy of the untouchables by none other than Ambedkar...


I suppose by the logic that Sadna uses even Ambedkar was racist... because his writings are full of ``hate`` against Hindus (and yes Muslims too) ... and his words are infinitely harsher than Jinnah`s...

Dear Sadna,

I have already replied to your lies about Jinnah in posts 177, 189, 195... you have nothing new to offer ... It seems to me that you believe in the Old Gandhian theory that the more you repeat something, the more it becomes the truth.

I will however respond to the part about Gandhiji- the original topic of discussion

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)

This date is not South Africa... In 1927 Gandhi was NOT in South Africa. He had already usurped the Indian Independence movement, he already encouraged the Mullahs in the Khilafat movement, he had already communalised the environment. Sanghtan it must be recalled was a movement to re-convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism/Arya Samaj.

Furthermore you write:

``you would be unable to find any later occasion or later instance when Gandhi, as a political activist in India excluded any community from his life, his politics or his party``

Let us consider some of his other more famous statements:

1- ``I am a true Hindu and therefore an Indian``

2- ``The rule of a Musalman is that of a Bully``

3-(`` (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system. Gandhi in 1922- also India)


4-In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925:

The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four Varnas.


5-((1) I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth.
(2) There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offense or defense. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of learning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of learning his living.]

(3) The Varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other Varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.

(4) The object of the Varna is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.

(5) Varna means the determination of a man`s occupation before he is born.

(6) In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.`` )


More later...

-YLH

Mantolives #203
You still don`t point out where did Gandhi practise exclusion - did he discriminate against people on basis of castes or religions. No. Did he exclude any community from membership of his party. No. Did he claim to represent only one community? No. Jinnah did.

Jinnah`s policies towards and hate speech against Hindus were pretty racist. He demanded that Hindus must not be granted a majority, he stated that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike Muslims, he declared Hindus would destroy Muslims and Islam in India, he declared Hindus worshipped the cow while Muslims ate it, etc.

As for deep Muslim alienation - the solution demanded by Muslims for their deep alienation was a sovereign state Pakistan which was created 58 years ago. It is quite clear that the solution didn`t work as Jinnah claimed it would, because today Pakistani Muslims who are now in 97% majority still declare themselves victims, don`t take responsibility for they do and blame Gandhi, Nehru and Hindus for ongoing events in Pakistan.

I go cold thinking that if Pakistani Muslims declare themselves victims of Hindus when they are in 97% majority and existing in a separate state, what they would have termed themselves as a 25% minority existing with Hindus in the same state- the whole of India would have been in flames of a Muslim jihad all these last 58 years. Instead of hearing daily ranting about J&K, we would be hearing of the sufferings of Muslims of undivided India and their ``freedom`` from Hindus would have become a world cause like Palestine. Best that those Muslims got their freedom in 1947 and do their victimhood tamashas by themselves in their own Pakistani territory without disrupting the rest of the subcontinent.

The inability of Pakistani Muslims to cease being victims even at 97% majority also makes clear that they are a group of people in a permanent state of alienation. If Gandhi and Nehru did alienate them back then, then Gandhi and Nehru did a big favor to all the succeeding generations of Indians by saving these Indians from the inevitable blame of `alienating the Muslims`.

soyasauce,

Is 19 the same as 40?


Sadna,

What a cop out... Gandhi`s views on caste didn`t go through any radical change ... Ambedkar called him a caste Hindu fanatic even in the 1940s... and called him the biggest enemy of scheduled castes and minorities. I think Gandhian politics, despite its overt displays of goody goodiness, was in the end a deeply Hindu focused politics... which alienated the Muslims. So you might not see 199 as examples of Gandhi`s exclusivism... but then you always had weird logic.


Refer to 199 and read it carefuly... to see Gandhi`s exclusivism.

Yasser
Aren`t you the same guy that insinuated you had slept with hamidm`s wife? Are you the same guy still? Were you not old enough when you made that brilliant claim?

People grow and change.
Gandhiji never denied anything about himself.
His was an open book where he wrote about everything uninhibited and unhindered by political considerations. If what he wrote makes him look ``racist`` then so be it.
You should also read Ved Mehta`s book on Gandhiji where he mentions that Gandhiji didn`t mind the presence of others in the communal latrine when he was going about his duties and would carry on conversations. Contrast that with Jinnah who probably had imported special, noise-masking Japanese toilets. One more blot on Gandhiji.

Mantolives #199
Gandhi`s views on caste/varna evolved with time as you well know. You also fail to point out where did he practice exclusion in his life, his politics and his party?

DM#192
Ok, and I understand that post.

When racist ``Mahatma``, rather than trying to save his own hindu race, was fasting in Calcutta trying to save ``muslims``, astute constitutionalists were instigating direct action days, and planning to become all powerful governor generals.

Dear Sadna,

I have already replied to your lies about Jinnah in posts 177, 189, 195... you have nothing new to offer ... It seems to me that you believe in the Old Gandhian theory that the more you repeat something, the more it becomes the truth.

I will however respond to the part about Gandhiji- the original topic of discussion

`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)

This date is not South Africa... In 1927 Gandhi was NOT in South Africa. He had already usurped the Indian Independence movement, he already encouraged the Mullahs in the Khilafat movement, he had already communalised the environment. Sanghtan it must be recalled was a movement to re-convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism/Arya Samaj.

Furthermore you write:

``you would be unable to find any later occasion or later instance when Gandhi, as a political activist in India excluded any community from his life, his politics or his party``

Let us consider some of his other more famous statements:

1- ``I am a true Hindu and therefore an Indian``

2- ``The rule of a Musalman is that of a Bully``

3-(`` (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system. Gandhi in 1922- also India)


4-In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925:

The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four Varnas.


5-((1) I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth.
(2) There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offense or defense. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of learning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of learning his living.]

(3) The Varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other Varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.

(4) The object of the Varna is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.

(5) Varna means the determination of a man`s occupation before he is born.

(6) In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.`` )


More later...

-YLH

Yasser Hamdani : ``If you think you can tire me out by your lies, think again. First you`ll give up, then I`ll start my replies... and you will go through another 10 months of hell.``

Threats of an impotent eunuch.

But `10 months of hell` ? Thats exactly what the high school boys gave to Manto when he was ateacher at their school. Suffices to say long blunt rods were used for penetrative purposes....manto is still hurting.....

gssingh,
this is called samudra-mathan.. churning of the oceans as per hindu mythology.
it throws up some jewels and some poison ..

Mantolives #195
Er again it was not Jinnah`s membership which was the question, it was nonMuslim Pakistanis membership and Jinnah kindly explained the Muslim League`s position to the BBC correspondent on their behalf when he had been out of the party for only two days.

You are denying Jinnah`s political isolation of millions of nonMuslim Pakistanis for a long period before and even after independence while making a big deal about Gandhi`s earliest political activism in S. Africa. The reason for your apparent fixation on that earliest period is that is you would be unable to find any later occasion or later instance when Gandhi, as a political activist in India excluded any community from his life, his politics or his party. In this Gandhi was as unlike Jinnah as was possible.

Poor Sadna...

How pathetic... defending racist Gandhi by twisting Jinnah`s words...

No Jinnah was simply stating the facts- that the Muslim League had voted against making it a national party (which it did on December 17th) and accordingly Jinnah had resigned from the party.... but he believed that in future this situation maybe reversed.

However... it was something Gandhi had forcefuly said earlier:


`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)

If this is racism (though race =A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.) then Gandhi is doubly racist.

-YLH

PS If you think you can tire me out by your lies, think again. First you`ll give up, then I`ll start my replies... and you will go through another 10 months of hell.

gsinghh # 191

Welcome. You are already ahead of where I was when I first came to Chowk.

Mantolives#189
Pl. understand what Jinnah was saying. He was saying even eminent and talented Pakistanis like Jogendranath Mandal and the guy who wrote the national anthem could not be members of the Muslim League at that time. Nor would Muslim League seek their votes. The party which created their country would not seek their votes because they happened to be nonMuslims.

How would a Pakistani American like it if it is decreed that a white Christian guy standing for election in his neighbourhood does not need to seek his vote? I am guessing that Pakistani American would howl discrimination, not secularism.

friend#190:

The original post was #30.

this is really ggreat time pass. one person write up the article. people jump up on it to interact-or head on collision.
since I am a new on the this. I am surprisingly enjoying this. keep it up. may be lot of people like me learn from hare about so much stuff they use to read in their school time in the history books and what they are finding out today.

dost-mittar #144

``After reading these articles, I stick to what I said in my original post. It is quite clear that while Gandhi learnt of the large-scale slaughter of hindu men and their widows being forced to convert and marry their husbands` killers at Noakhali, he went back to Delhi without ameliorating the situation and then chose to go to Calcutta instead where he knew he had a better chance of ``STOPPING`` marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims. ``

DM
Now I am confused. Are you suggesting that Gandhi should have done something else to satisfy you of his credentials?
Please summarize what you said in your ``original`` post. There are too many of them.

Sadna

Still railing on horrible Jinnah because you can`t defend that racist casteist Mahatma?


Talk about specious arguments... and outright lying.

What religion was Jinnah`s law minister? Was he appointed on a Muslim League seat in the interim Government?
A Hindu. and yes he was...

Who wrote Pakistan`s first national anthem?
A Hindu


There goes your argument flat on the road.

I am afraid your argument is stretching it-as usual you are twisting history because thats all you are capable of doing...

About the Muslim League ... remember it is the Muslim League ... remember it is the party that Jinnah had left 2 days earlier because it had Unlike Gandhi, Jinnah didn`t say that any of this was irrevocable... he said clearly that with time progress would be made... So Jinnah says that public opinion is not ready to open the ``Muslim`` league up to non-Muslims, a party he himself had quit 2 days earlier... that is morally equivalent to Gandhi calling all Black people racist.

Shame Sadna shame for being a liar... a deceitful gandhian indeed.

Mantolives #177
Jinnah did not want nonMuslims in the Muslim League at that time. He wanted to continue the political isolation of the Pakistani minorities from the majority Muslims, an isolation which he had imposed on them from before independence..

This was totally inconsistent with the principles of secular governance which you keep claiming Jinnah espoused and you would be howling if it had been Gandhi or Nehru instead who ever decreed in similar fashion `no nonHindus in Congress at this time`. And they never did ever. Even Vallahbhai Patel when speaking to the Cabinet Mission refused to accept that only Jinnah must have the eternal right to appoint Muslims to office because he said that would mean that Congress Muslims would have to leave the Congress.

Let us just admit that you have a huge double standard - one standard for Muslims and another for nonMuslims.

As for your shameless misinterpretations about myself and `Hindu cultural life`- well, the existence of Hindu cultural life is not inconsistent with secular governance. It is a mystery why Muslims could demand and receive their own sovereign state because Jinnah argued it was needed to preserve their religion and their cultural life, but an Indian must not assume that Hindu cultural life will find a place among other elements of cultural and national life in India.

Let us just admit that you have a huge double standard - one standard for Muslims and another for nonMuslims.

I agree with you in entirety my dear Sunlight... though Jinnah, unlike Nehru, was not born in a terribly affluent family. His family was quite traditional gujrati Ismaili Muslim...

However... one must not gloss over Gandhi`s flaws... hence the attempt by me to show the other side of the story.

Please refer to 34.

#174 by Mantolives
The only thing one can conclude is that at different times Gandhi was given to saying different things... which made him an unreliable operator.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Manto

Let me give my perspective on this, and since Jinnah has already been dragged into this debate, contrast with Jinnah (and Nehru).

Both Jinnah and Nehru were born in Westernized families and learnt their notions of equality, etc from Western books. They were essentially intellectuals and to a large extent theorists. But this also defined their limitations; neither of them was able to beyond Western theories such as nation state and Marxism; neither of them is considered the originator of a original and radical theory like non-violence.

Mahatma Gandhi, on the other hand was born into a traditional (casteist) family. Such people also generally accepted the racial superiority of the British, so it is not surprising that these were also Mahatma Gandhi`s early beliefs.

However, unlike both Jinnah and Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi was not a bookish person, though he was a voracious reader. It is notable that his autobiography is called My Experiments with Truth. The basic difference is that for Mahatma Gandhi, Truth is something to be found by experience, not read in a book, which is merely a source of ideas.

Given this difference, it would be surprising if one day at the age of 20 (or something like that) Mahatma Gandhi were to wake up and repudiate all the beliefs he had been born with. Instead, what we find is a steady evolution of his thought.

Mahatma Gandhi`s legacy is his belief in non-violence and his unending quest to find The Truth through experience. This is why he is admired in spite of his inconsistencies (due to the evolution of his thought).

A slightly different view of Gandhi and untouchables:

Gandhi & The Black Untouchables

---

Chapter 2
Mahatma Gandhi Unveiled
by
Naresh Majhi

---

As opposed to the popular perceptions, here you will see Gandhi`s image from the eyes of a very famous untouchable leader, named, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1893-1956). Born and raised as an untouchable, Dr. Ambedkar received his masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University, which later on also conferred upon him the Doctor of Law. Dr. Ambedkar also received a D.Sc. degree from London School of Economics, and the Bar-at-Law from the Grays Inn, London. Suffice to say, Dr. Ambedkar`s sharp intellect has provided us an insight into Gandhi, some of which we will like to share with you all. We recommend the following:

1. Nichols, Beverley. Verdict on India. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1944.

A book we highly recommend. Beverley Nichols, a famous novelist, musician, playwright, essayist, reporter, and a journalist visited British India. During this visit, he met Dr. Ambedkar, who told him:


``Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India.``
So what did Ambedkar mean? Mr. Nichols explained it as follows:


[We can best explain it by a parallel. Take Ambedkar`s remark, and for the word ``untouchable`` substitute the word ``peace.`` Now imagine that a great champion of peace, like Lord Cecil, said, ``Gandhi is the greatest enemy of peace the world has ever had.`` What would he mean, using these words of the most spectacular pacifist of modern times? He would mean that passive resistance--which is Gandhi`s form of pacifism--could only lead to chaos and the eventual triumph of brute force; that to lie down and let people trample on you (which was Gandhi`s recipe for dealing with the Japanese) is a temptation to the aggressor rather than an example to the aggressed; and that in order to have peace you must organize, you must be strong, and that you must be prepared to use force. Mutatis mutandis, that is precisely what Ambedkar meant about the untouchables. He wanted them to be recognized and he wanted them to be strong. He rightly considered that the best way of gaining his object was by granting them separate electorates; a solid block of 60 million would be in a position to dictate terms to its oppressors. Gandhi fiercely opposed this scheme. ``Give the untouchables separate electorates,`` he cried, ``and you only perpetuate their status for all time.`` It was a queer argument, and those who were not bemused by the Mahatma`s charm considered it a phoney one. They suspected that Gandhi was a little afraid that 60 million untouchables might join up with the 100 million Muslims--(as they nearly did)--and challenge the dictatorship of the 180 million orthodox Hindus. With such irreverent criticisms were made to him, Gandhi resorted to his usual tactics: he began to fast unto death. (As if that altered the situation by a comma or proved anything but his own obstinacy!) There was a frenzy of excitement, ending in a compromise on the seventh day of the fast. The untouchables still vote in the same constituencies as the caste Hindus, but a substantial number of seats are now reserved for them in the provincial legislatures. It is better than nothing, but it is not nearly so good as it would have been if Gandhi had not interfered. That is what Doctor Ambedkar meant. And I think that he was right.]
2. Ambedkar, B.R. `What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables,` Bombay: Thacker & Co., Ltd, 2nd edition, 1946. Excerpts from this book were published in: Gandhi: Maker of Modern India? Edited by Martin Deming Lewis. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1965. Here is the report which you must read in its entirety:

Mr. Gandhi`s views on the caste system--which constitutes the main social problem in India--were fully elaborated by him in 1921-22 in a Gujrati journal called Nava-Jivan. The article is written in Gujrati. I give below an English translation of his views as near as possible in his own words. Says Mr. Gandhi:


`` (1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.

In 1922, Mr. Gandhi was a defender of the caste system. Pursuing the inquiry, one comes across a somewhat critical view of the caste system by Mr. Gandhi in the year 1925. This is what Mr. Gandhi said on 3rd February 1925:


I gave support to caste because it stands for restraint. But at present caste does not mean restraint, it means limitations. Restraint is glorious and helps to achieve freedom. But limitation is like chain. It binds. There is nothing commendable in castes as they exist to-day. They are contrary to the tenets of the Shastras. The number of castes is infinite and there is a bar against intermarriage. This is not a condition of elevation. It is a state of fall.
In reply to the question: What is the way out? Mr. Gandhi said:

The best remedy is that small castes should fuse themselves into one big caste. There should be four big castes so that we may reproduce the old system of four Varnas.
In short, in 1925 Mr. Gandhi became an upholder of the Varna system.

The old Varna system prevalent in ancient India had the society divided into four orders: (1) Brahmins,whose occupation was learning; (2) Kshatriyas, whose occupation was warfare; (3) Vaishyas, whose occupation was trade and (4) Shudras,whose occupation was service of the other classes. Is Mr. Gandhi`s Varna system the same as this old Varna system of the orthodox Hindus? Mr. Gandhi explained his Varna system in the following terms:


`` (1) I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth.
(2) There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offense or defense. Contra it is open to a Kshatriya to serve. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. Nor will a Kshatriya adopt service as a way of learning a living. [Similarly a Brahmin may learn the art of war or trade. But he must not make them a way of earning his living. Contra a Vaishya may acquire learning or may cultivate the art of war. But he must not make them a way of learning his living.]

(3) The Varna system is connected with the way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other Varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers.

(4) The object of the Varna is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.

(5) Varna means the determination of a man`s occupation before he is born.

(6) In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.``

---

The social life of Gandhism is either caste or Varna.Though it may be difficult to say which, there can be no doubt that the social ideal of Gandhism is not democracy. For, whether one takes for comparison caste or Varnaboth are fundamentally opposed to democracy....

That Mr. Gandhi changed over from the caste system to the Varna system does not make the slightest difference to the charge that Gandhism is opposed to democracy. In the first place, the idea of Varna is the parent of the idea of caste. If the idea of caste is a pernicious idea it is entirely because of the viciousness of the idea of Varna. Both are evil ideas and it matters very little whether one believes in Varna or in caste.

---

*
Turning to the field of economic life, Mr. Gandhi stands for two ideals. One of these is the opposition to machinery... evidenced by his idolization of charkha (the spinning wheel) and by insistence upon hand-spinning and hand-weaving. His opposition to machinery and his love for charkha are not matter of accident. They are a matter of his philosophy of life....

The second ideal of Mr. Gandhi is the elimination of class war and even class struggle in the relationship between employers and employees and between landlords and tenants....Mr. Gandhi does not wish to hurt the propertied class. He is even opposed to a campaign against them. He has no passion for economic equality. Referring to the propertied class Mr. Gandhi said quite recently that he does not wish to destroy the hen that lays the golden egg. His solution for the economic conflict between the owners and the workers, between the rich and the poor, between the landlords and the tenants and between the employers and the employees is very simple. The owners need not deprive themselves of their property. All they need do is to declare themselves trustees for the poor. Of course, the trust is to be a voluntary one carrying only a spiritual obligation.

Is there anything new in the Gandhian analysis of economic ills? Are the economics of Gandhism sound? What hope does Gandhism hold out to the common man, to the down and out? Does it promise him a better life, a life of joy and culture, a life of freedom, not merely freedom from want but freedom to rise, to grow to the full stature which his capacities can reach?

There is nothing new in the Gandhian analysis of economic ills, insofar as it attributes them to machinery and the civilization that is built upon it. That machinery and modern civilization help to concentrate management and control into relatively few hands, and with the aid of banking and credit facilitate the transfer into still fewer hands of all materials and factories and mills in which millions are bled white in order to support huge industries thousands of miles away from their cottages, maimings and cripplings far in excess of the corresponding injuries by war, and are responsible for disease and physical deterioration due directly and indirectly to the development of large cities with their smoke, dirt, noise, foul air, lack of sunshine and outdoor life, slums, prostitution and unnatural living which they bring about, are all old and worn-out arguments. There is nothing new in them. Gandhism is merely repeating the views of Rousseau, Ruskin, Tolstoy and their school.

The ideas which go to make up Gandhism are just primitive. It is a return to nature, to animal life. The only merit is their simplicity. As there is always a large corps of simple people who are attracted by them, such simple ideas do not die, and there is always some simpleton to preach them. There is, however, no doubt that the practical instincts of men--which seldom go wrong--have found them unfruitful and which society in search of progress has thought it best to reject.

The economics of Gandhism are hopelessly fallacious. The fact that machinery and modern civilization have produced many evils may be admitted. But these evils are no argument against them. For the evils are not due to machinery and modern civilization. They are due to wrong social organization, which has made private property and pursuit of personal gain, matters of absolute sanctity. If machinery and civilization have not benefited everybody, the remedy is not to condemn machinery and civilization but to alter the organization of society so that the benefits will not be usurped by the few but will accrue to all.

In Gandhism, the common man has no hope. It treats man as an animal and no more. It is true that man shares the constitution and functions of animals, nutritive, reproductive, etc. But these are not distinctively human functions. The distinctively human function is reason, the purpose of which is to enable man to observe, meditate, cogitate, study and discover the beauties of the Universe and enrich his life and control the animal elements in his life. Man thus occupies the highest place in the scheme of animate existence. If this is true what is the conclusion that follows: The conclusion that follows is that while the ultimate goal of a brute`s life is reached once his physical appetites are satisfied, the ultimate goal of man`s existence is not reached unless and until he has fully cultivated his mind. In short, what divides the brute from man is culture. Culture is not possible for the brute, but it is essential for man. That being so, the aim of human society must be to enable every person to lead a life of culture, which means the cultivation of mind as distinguished from the satisfaction of mere physical wants. How can this happen?

Both for society as well as for individual[s] there is always a gulf between merely living and living worthily. In order that one may live worthily one must first live. The time and energy spent upon mere life, upon gaining of subsistence detracts from that available for activities of a distinctively human nature and which go to make up a life of culture. How then can a life of culture be made possible? It is not possible unless there is sufficient leisure. For, it is only when there is leisure that a person is free to devote himself to a life of culture. The problem of all problems, which human society has to face, is how to provide leisure to every individual. What does leisure mean? Leisure means the lessening of the toil and effort necessary for satisfying the physical wants of life. How can leisure be made possible? Leisure is quite impossible unless some means are found whereby the toil required for producing goods necessary to satisfy human needs is lessened. What can lessen such toil? Only when machine takes the place of man. There is no other means of producing leisure. Machinery and modern civilization are thus indispensable for emancipating man from leading the life of a brute, and for providing him with leisure and for making a life of culture possible. The man who condemns machinery and modern civilization simply does not understand their purpose and the ultimate aim which human society must strive to achieve.

Gandhism may well be well suited to a society which does not accept democracy as its ideal. A society which does not believe in democracy may be indifferent to machinery and the civilization based upon it. But a democratic society cannot. The former may well content itself with a life of leisure and culture for the few and a life of toil and drudgery for the many. But a democratic society must assure a life of leisure and culture to each one of its citizens. If the above analysis is correct then the slogan of a democratic society must be machinery, and more machinery, civilization and more civilization. Under Gandhism the common man must keep on toiling ceaselessly for a pittance and remain a brute. In short, Gandhism with its call of back to nature, means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty and back to ignorance for the vast mass of the people....

Gandhism insists upon class structure. It regards the class structure of society and also the income structure as sacrosanct with the consequent distinctions of rich and poor, high and low, owners and workers, as permanent parts of social organization. From the point of view of social consequences, nothing can be more pernicious.... It is not enough to say that Gandhism believes in a class structure. Gandhism stands for more than that. A class structure which is a faded, jejune, effete thing--a mere sentimentality, a mere skeleton is not what Gandhism wants. It wants class structure to function as a living faith. In this there is nothing to be surprised at. For, class structure in Gandhism is not a mere accident. It is its official doctrine.

The idea of trusteeship, which Gandhism proposes as a panacea and by which the moneyed classes will hold their properties in trust for the poor, is the most ridiculous part of it. All that one can say about it is that if anybody else had propounded it the author would have been laughed at as a silly fool, who had not known the hard realities of life and was deceiving the servile classes by telling them that a little dose of moral rearmament to the propertied classes--those who by their insatiable cupidity and indomitable arrogance have made and will always make this world a vale of tears for the toiling millions--will recondition them to such an extent that they will be able to withstand the temptation to misuse the tremendous powers which the class structure gives them over servile classes....

Mr. Gandhi sometimes speaks on social and economic subjects as though he was a blushing Red. Those who will study Gandhism will not be deceived by the occasional aberrations of Mr. Gandhi in favor of democracy and against capitalism. For, Gandhism is in no sense a revolutionary creed. It is conservatism in excelsis. So far as India is concerned, it is a reactionary creed blazoning on its banner the call of Return to Antiquity. Gandhism aims at the resuscitation and reanimating of India`s dread, dying past.

Gandhism is a paradox. It stands for freedom from foreign domination, which means the destruction of the existing political structure of the country. At the same time, it seeks to maintain intact a social structure which permits the domination of one class by another on a hereditary basis which means a perpetual domination of one class by another....

The first special feature of Gandhism is that its philosophy helps those who want to keep what they have and to prevent those who have not from getting what they have a right to get. No one who examines the Gandhian attitude to strikes, the Gandhian reverence for caste and the Gandhian doctrine of Trusteeship by the rich for the benefit of the poor can deny that this is an upshot of Gandhism. Whether this is the calculated result of a deliberate design or whether it is a matter of accident may be open to argument. But the fact remains that Gandhism is the philosophy of the well-to-do and the leisure class.

The second special feature of Gandhism is to delude people into accepting their misfortunes by presenting them as best of good fortunes. One or two illustrations will suffice to bring out the truth of this statement.

The Hindu sacred law penalized the Shudras (Hindus of the fourth class) from acquiring wealth. It is a law of enforced poverty unknown in any other part of the world. What does Gandhism do? It does not lift the ban. It blesses the Shudra for his moral courage to give up property. It is well worth quoting Mr. Gandhi`s own words. Here they are:


``The Shudra who only serves (the higher caste) as a matter of religious duty, and who will never own any property, who indeed has not even the ambition to own anything, is deserving of thousand obeisance...The very Gods will shower flowers on him.``
Another illustration in support is the attitude of Gandhism towards the scavenger. The sacred law of the Hindus lays down that a scavenger`s progeny shall live by scavenging. Under Hinduism scavenging was not a matter of choice, it was a matter of force. What does Gandhism do? It seeks to perpetuate this system by praising scavenging as the noblest service to society! Let me quote Mr. Gandhi: As a President of a Conference of the Untouchables, Mr. Gandhi said:


`` I do not want to attain Moksha. I do not want to be reborn. But if I have to be reborn, I should be born an untouchable, so that I may share their sorrows, sufferings and the affronts levelled at them, in order that I endeavor to free myself and them from that miserable condition. I, therefore prayed that if I should be born again, I should do so not as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or Shudra, but as an Atishudra.... I love scavenging. In my ashram, an eighteen-years-old Brahmin lad is doing the scavenger`s work in order to teach the ashram scavenger cleanliness. The lad is no reformer. He was born and bred in orthodoxy.... But he felt that his accomplishments were incomplete until he had become also a perfect sweeper, and that, if he wanted the ashram sweeper to do his work well, he must do it himself and set an example. You should realize that you are cleaning Hindu Society. ``
Can there be a worse example of false propaganda than this attempt of Gandhism to perpetuate evils which have been deliberately imposed by one class over another? If Gandhism preached the rule of poverty for all and not merely for the Shudra the worst that could be said about it is that it is mistaken idea. But why preach it as good for one class only?... In India a man is not a scavenger because of his work. He is a scavenger because of his birth irrespective of the question whether he does scavenging or not. If Gandhism preached that scavenging is a noble profession with the object of inducing those who refuse to engage in it, one could understand it. But why appeal to the scavenger`s pride and vanity in order to induce him and him only to keep on to scavenging by telling him that scavenging is a noble profession and that he need not be ashamed of it? To preach that poverty is good for the Shudra and for none else, to preach that scavenging is good for the Untouchables and for none else and to make them accept these onerous impositions as voluntary purposes of life, by appeal to their failings is an outrage and a cruel joke on the helpless classes which none but Mr. Gandhi can perpetrate with equanimity and impunity....

Criticism apart, this is the technique of Gandhism to make wrongs done appear to the very victim as though they were his privileges. If there is an ``ism`` which has made full use of religion as an opium to lull the people into false beliefs and false security, it is Gandhism. Following Shakespeare, one can well say: Plausibility! Ingenuity! Thy name is Gandhism.

Such is Gandhism. Having known what is Gandhism the answer to the question, ``Should Gandhism become the law of the land what would be the lot of the Untouchables under it?`` cannot require much scratching of the brain.... In India even the lowest man among the caste Hindus--why even the aboriginal and the Hill Tribe man--though educationally and economically not very much above the Untouchables. The Hindu society accepts him claim to superiority over the Untouchables. The Untouchable will therefore continue to suffer the worst fate as he does now namely, in prosperity he will be the last to be employed and in depression the first to be fired.

What does Gandhism do to relieve the Untouchables from this fate? Gandhism professes to abolish Untouchability. That is hailed as the greatest virtue of Gandhism. But what does this virtue amount to in actual life? To assess the value of this anti-Untouchability which is regarded as a very big element in Gandhism, it is necessary to understand fully the scope of Mr. Gandhi`s programme for the removal of Untouchability. Does it mean anything more than that the Hindus will not mind touching the Untouchables? Does it mean the removal of the ban on the right of the Untouchables to education? It would be better to take the two questions separately.

To start wit the first question. Mr. Gandhi does not say that a Hindu should not take a bath after touching the Untouchables. If Mr. Gandhi does not object to it as a purification of pollution then it is difficult to see how Untouchability can be said to vanish by touching the Untouchables. Untouchability centers round the idea of pollution by contact and purification by bath to remove the pollution. Does it mean social assimilation of the Untouchables with the Hindus? Mr. Gandhi has most categorically stated that removal of Untouchability does not mean interdining or intermarriage between the Hindus and the Untouchables. Mr. Gandhi`s anti-Untouchability means that the Untouchables will be classes as Shudras instead of being classed as Atishudras [i.e., ``beyond Shudras``]. There is nothing more in it. Mr. Gandhi has not considered whether the old Shudras will accept the new Shudras into their fold. If they don`t then the removal of Untouchability is a senseless proposition for it will still keep the Untouchables as a separate social category. Mr. Gandhi probably knows that the abolition of Untouchability will not bring about the assimilation of the Untouchables by the Shudras.That seems to be the reason why Mr. Gandhi himself has given a new and a different name to the Untouchables. The new name registers by anticipation what is likely to be the fact. By calling the Untouchables Harijans, Mr. Gandhi has killed two birds with one stone. He has shown that assimilation of the Untouchables by the Shudras is not possible. He has also by his new name counteracted assimilation and made it impossible.

Regarding the second question, it is true that Gandhism is prepared to remove the old ban placed by the Hindu Shastras on the right of the Untouchables to education and permit them to acquire knowledge and learning. Under Gandhism the Untouchables may study law, they may study medicine, they may study engineering or anything else they may fancy. So far so good. But will the Untouchables be free to make use of their knowledge and learning? Will they have the right to choose their profession? Can they adopt the career of lawyer, doctor or engineer? To these questions the answer which Gandhism gives is an emphatic ``no.`` The untouchables must follow their hereditary professions. That those occupations are unclean is no excuse. That before the occupation became hereditary it was the result of force and not volition does not matter. The argument of Gandhism is that what is once settled is settled forever even it was wrongly settled. Under Gandhism the Untouchables are to be eternal scavengers. There is no doubt that the Untouchables would much prefer the orthodox system of Untouchability. A compulsory state of ignorance imposed upon the Untouchables by the Hindu Shastras made scavenging bearable. But Gandhism which compels an educated Untouchable to do scavenging is nothing short of cruelty. The grace in Gandhism is a curse in its worst form. The virtue of the anti-Untouchability plant in Gandhism is quite illusory. There is no substance in it.

What else is there in Gandhism which the Untouchables can accept as opening a way for their ultimate salvation? Barring this illusory campaign against Untouchability, Gandhism is simply another form of Sanatanism which is the ancient name for militant orthodox Hinduism. What is there in Gandhism which is not to be found in orthodox Hinduism? There is caste in Hinduism, there is caste in Gandhism. Hinduism believes in the law of hereditary profession, so does Gandhism. Hinduism enjoins cow-worship. So does Gandhism. Hinduism upholds the law of karma, predestination of man`s condition in this world, so does Gandhism. Hinduism accepts the authority of the Shastras. So does Gandhism. Hinduism believes in idols. So does Gandhism. All that Gandhism has done is to find a philosophic justification for Hinduism and its dogmas. Hinduism is bald in the sense that it is just a set of rules which bear on their face the appearance of a crude and cruel system. Gandhism supplies the philosophy which smoothens its surface and gives it the appearance of decency and respectability and so alters it and embellishes it as to make it even more attractive....

What hope can Gandhism offer to the Untouchables? To the Untouchables, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the Untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against the Untouchables. These very instruments which have mutilated, blasted and blighted the life of the Untouchables are to be found intact and untarnished in the bosom of Gandhism. How can the Untouchables say that Gandhism is a heaven and not a chamber of horrors as Hinduism has been? The only reaction and a very natural reaction of the Untouchables would be to run away from Gandhism.

Gandhists may say that what I have stated applies to the old type of Gandhism. There is a new Gandhism, Gandhism without caste. This has reference to the recent statement of Mr. Gandhi that caste is an anachronism. Reformers were naturally gladdened by this declaration of Mr. Gandhi. And who would not be glad to see that a man like Mr. Gandhi having such terrible influence over the Hindus, after having played the most mischievous part of a social reactionary, after having stood out as the protagonist of the caste system, after having beguiled and befooled the unthinking Hindus with arguments which made no distinction between what is fair and foul should have come out with this recantation? But is this really a matter for jubilation? Does it change the nature of Gandhism? Does it make Gandhism a new and a better ``ism`` than it was before? Those who are carried away by this recantation of Mr. Gandhi, forget two things. In the first place, all that Mr. Gandhi has said is that caste is an anachronism. He does not say it is an evil. He does not say it is anathema. Mr. Gandhi may be taken to be not in favor of caste. but Mr. Gandhi does not say that he is against the Varna system. And what is Mr. Gandhi`s Varna system? It is simply a new name for the caste system and retains all the worst features of the caste system.

The declaration of Mr. Gandhi cannot be taken to mean any fundamental change in Gandhism. It cannot make Gandhism acceptable to the Untouchables. The untouchables will still have ground to say: ``Good God! Is this man Gandhi our Savior?``

When talking about Mahatma Gandhi`s views on caste, we can consider three questions:

(1) Is the caste system sanctioned by Hinduism?
(2) Inheritance of occupations
(3) Untouchability: should there be restrictions on intermarriage or dining together?

As with many other questions, Mahatma Gandhi`s views on these also evolved with time. To avoid another very long article, I would just talk about (3). Mahatma Gandhi`s views seem to have evolved from the belief that untouchability is bad to the belief that inter-caste marriage was essential. Quotations are from ``HOW GANDHI CAME TO BELIEVE CASTE MUST BE DISMANTLED BY INTERMARRIAGE`` by Mark Lindley http://www.bfg-muenchen.de/caste.htm

1915: ``In his [Gandhi`s] ashram, interdining with ``untouchables`` was a corellary to their acceptance in 1915 as members. ``

1919: ``Interdining [and] intermarrying, I hold, are not essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy.... But as time goes forward and new necessities and occasions arise, the custom regarding... interdining and intermarrying will require cautious modifications or rearrangements.``

1931: ``When Hindus were seized with inertia, abuse of varna [caste] resulted in... unnecessary and harmful restrictions as to intermarriage and interdining. .... People of different varnas may intermarry and interdine. ... But a Brahmin who marries a Shudra girl or vice versa commits no offence against the law of varna.``

1935: ``It must be left to the unfettered choice of the individual as to where he or she will marry or dine. ``

1936: ``If caste and varna are convertible terms and if varna is an integral part of the shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects caste i.e. varna can call himself a Hindu. [Yet] if the shastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu, since I have no scruples about interdining or intermarriage.``

In 1940 he publicly approved of a high-caste Hindu lad who married a Harijan [Dalit] girl after overcoming the reluctance of their parents: ``I congratulate Shri Radhamadhab on his courage in breaking through the rock of caste superstition. I hope his example will be copied by other young men. May the union prove happy. I would advise Shri Radhamadhab to arrange for proper education of his wife, who, I understand, has not received any scholastic training.``

1945: ``If the marriage is in the same community (caste) do not ask for my blessings, however deserving the girl may be. I send my blessings if she is from another community.``

1946: [Q.] ``Does the Congress program for the abolition of untouchability include interdining and intermarriage with Harijans [Dalits]?``
[A.] ``So far as I know the Congress mind today, there is no opposition to dining with Harijans. But speaking for myself, I have said that we have all to become Harijans today or we will not be able to purge ourselves completely of the taint of untouchability. I, therefore, tell all boys and girls who want to marry that they cannot be married at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties is a Harijan.``

1946: ``It is certainly desirable that [high] caste Hindu girls should select Harijan [Dalit] husbands. I hesitate to say that it is better. That would imply that women are inferior to men. I know that such [an] inferiority complex is there today. For this reason I would agree that at present the marriage of a caste girl to a Harijan is better than that of a Harijan girl to a caste Hindu. If I had my way I would persuade all caste Hindu girls coming under my influence to select Harijan husbands.``

Re: # 13
that`s a point to be elaborated. in fact, many have worked on that.

Re: # 27
u r right. but can u judge a man by his so-called followers. he need to be understood by what he stood for.

Trying the recall the names of some of the geniuses who appear on Chowk from time to time -

Subhash Gatade

Udaykumar

Revathy Gopal

and above all Arvind Gaur and sanguine (or was it Penguin?)

Do these people have any opinions, or are they just cowardly scum?

Aren`t these the very men and women who use Gandhi`s name to spread all kinds of ``wisdom`` in India?

Re: # 5
i though the same years back. but no more. let years go and u too will veer my way.

Re: # 4
how true are your words? it took me nearly 30 years to understand him. i always had the feeling that marxists were right.

Also this statement:

The question of racial purity

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

In this case there is no ``revocability`` ... no ``progress`` ...

Sadna,

Consider this statement from Gandhi:


`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)


That is the most nonsensical argument I have come across... goes to show that you have totally lost your mind. Ofcourse Jinnah had himself resigned from the Muslim League two days before he made the said statement - saying that as the governor general he couldn`t head a communal organisation.

Your laughable claim is soundly defeated when one considers that he appointed a Hindu, scheduled caste at that, on a Muslim League seat in the interim government and made the same Hindu the first Law Minister of Pakistan... The pressure as Jinnah said came from within the party to keep it a communal organisation. So Jinnah quit the party as he didn`t think the governor general of a country could continue to head a community based party.

So Jinnah as the non-member telling a foreign correspondent that time is not right for the Muslim League to change into the Pakistan League but that it could happen in the future is ``racism``... only you Sadna... only you can come up with such specious arguments....
I already listed other such arguments... ``Sadna`s fraudulent tricks`` post...

Yes... saying that the public opinion was not ready for a completely national organisation... but it could happen in the future.... is of NO COMPARISON to Gandhi`s views:


Gandhi`s views

1) Black people are subhuman
2) White race should be superior
3) Black people are savages
4) Women should be closed up in their homes.
5) Women should not have the right to vote

Shame on you sadna... for being you.

Now what next? hindu cultural life is secular.

sunlight #173 has already been posted by me in sadna #69

Mantolives #161

Nice try but the issue was never Jinnah`s own membership of the Muslim League(Jinnah was not the one who needed representation in national affairs, the nonMuslims of Pakistan did).

The issue was the inclusion of nonMuslim members by Muslims in Muslim League or another Muslim-majority organization which would then seek to represent nonMuslims as well. Jinnah clearly says that the time had not come for that.

So not only that he didn`t want the Congress to have any Indian Muslim members, even in a Muslim-majority situation he did not think it was appropriate at that time to include Pakistani nonMuslims in the Muslim League. By advocating total political isolation of the beleagured minority from the majority in Pakistan at that time, Jinnah was certainly in effect, promoting racism.

And Jinnah did so as head of state affecting 10s of millions - there is absolutely no comparison with Gandhi`s efforts as a mere ordinary citizen in S. Africa.

I would love to hear the views of India`s liberals who have destroyed India`s soul, including Rajmohan Gandhi and that gaggle of Gandhi`s descendants who go around the world making absolute asses of themselves, and living off of Gandhi`s name.

It will be great payback to establish that Gandhi was corrupt, a racist, a misogynist, a Muslim-hater, and probably a killer too.

I am all for doing away with Gandhi`s legacy from India. It`s in the fitness of things that the effort is being spearheaded by our talented Pakistani friends. :)

Let Jinnah`s legacy live in Pakistan AND India.

Dear Sunlight...

Thanks for posting these pieces up. They are an important, albeit selective, part of the puzzle.

However Gandhi`s racism is too blatant (as shown in direct quotes from his CW) to be apologised for like this. Nor can his later statements white wash his out racial bigotry.

Please look at the some of the stuff he said... he believed in racial purity, dominance of the white people and that all black people were subhuman.

The only thing one can conclude is that at different times Gandhi was given to saying different things... which made him an unreliable operator.

A wealth of information on this topic is on the African National Congress website (the ANC is the ruling party of South Africa). http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/

A particularly good essay is ``Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa`` by James D. Hunt. The summary :
``Gandhi began as a perfectly ordinary intelligent lawyer trying to establish a career. In time he transformed himself into something else. It is that transformation which should interest us.``

Some excerpts:
``Gandhi began as a very conventional Victorian Indian, seeking accomodation and personal success within the British Empire. He shared the prejudices of his class concerning Black people, and his lifestyle and work kept him isolated from them. ``

However, he soon developed close relations with some Colored and Black leaders.

Dr. Abdurrehman: ``Gandhi was in the Strangers` Gallery of the House of Lords the night the South African Bill was under debate, along with Abdurrahman, Schreiner and Jabavu. After the failure to alter the Act, Gandhi recommended that Abdurrahman take up passive resistance and invited him to lunch to talk it over. ... A few weeks later Abdurrahman suggested in his newspaper that the Coloureds adopt the Indian strategy of passive resistance, and Gandhi wrote an article for The APO. ...Gandhi stayed closer in touch with Abdurrahman than with any other leader. Indian Opinion frequently reprinted news from The APO, and they corresponded on issues of mutual concern.``

Dube: ``The one African leader with whom Gandhi and his associates are known to have had some close contact was his neighbor at Phoenix, John L. Dube, the first President of the South African Native National Congress (ANC). ... Dube, ... established his own school in 1901, the Ohlange Institute. It was the first African-controlled industrial school in South Africa. Two years later, Gandhi established his own rural settlement at Phoenix, only a mile or two from Ohlange. Dube began a Zulu newspaper, Ilanga Lase Natal (Light of Natal) in 1903, printing the first copies at the International Printing Press, controlled by Gandhi, which also printed Indian Opinion when it was launched a year later.``

``There is also evidence that Dube respected Gandhi. When Gandhi`s active ``passive resistance`` began in Johannesburg, Dube praisted it in Ilanga, and when Gandhi brought to South Africa his political mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a member of the Viceroy`s Council, he was taken to Ohlange Institute to meet Dube, where they ``spent some time discussing the Native question``. Dube reported on the meeting in Ilanga, telling his readers that ``We have seen and heard a great man whose knowledge is equal to that of the foremost statesmen of our day, and he is a black man.````

These contacts did not deepen because Indians and Blacks did not have any interests in common (apart from enemity with the Whites).

Gandhi: ``This Association of Coloured People does not include Indians .... We believe that the Indian community has been wise in doing so. For, though the hardships suffered by those people and the Indians are almost of the same kind, the remedies are not identical. ... We can cite the Proclamation of 1857 in our favour, which the Coloured people cannot. They can use the powerful argument that they are the children of the soil. ....``

From http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/162-199.htm ``INTERVIEW TO THE REV. S.S. TEMA, JANUARY 1, 1939``

``T: Of late there has been some talk of forming an Indo-African united non-white front in South Africa. What do you think about it?

G: It will be a mistake. You will be pooling together not strength but weakness. You will best help one another by each standing on his own legs. The two cases are different. The Indians are a microscopic minority. They can never be a menace to the white population. You, on the other hand, are the sons of the soil who are being robbed of your inheritance. You are bound to resist that. Yours is a far bigger issue. It ought not to be mixed up with that of the Indian. This does not preclude the establishment of the friendliest relations between the two races. The Indians can cooperate with you in a number of ways. They can help you by always acting on the square towards you. They may not put themselves in opposition to your legitimate aspirations, or run you down as ``savages`` while exalting themselves as cultured people in order to secure concessions for themselves at your expense. ``

Finally, as James Hunt sums up,
``None of these should be surprising, except for the tendency to wish that our heroes would have been consistently heroic throughout their lives. Gandhi began as a perfectly ordinary intelligent lawyer trying to establish a career. In time he transformed himself into something else. It is that transformation which should interest us. He did fail to change South Africa very much, but in the attempt he learned a great deal, grew in personal stature, and left behind a legacy of resistance to injustice.``
...
``Instead of enlisting the support of 440,000 Coloured people and 3.4 million Blacks, Gandhi chose to begin his final, and amazingly successful, campaign with 4 women and 12 men. ... Satyagraha, he believed, depended on committed individuals, not on great numbers. ... If the South African Blacks learned that, he believed they could not fail. The demonstration of satyagraha was the greatest gift he had to offer to both the Indian and the Black people of South Africa.``

Thank you...

As a citizen of the world, I am fascinated by this universal icon of humanity, Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi... and therefore I seek to learn more about him and to see for myself if truth is stranger than fiction.

Please refer to #34 for a better over-view of my humble efforts to study this mountain of humanity.

Manto uncle u r taking this personal. If you dont like the man why spend so much time reading him. I say you compile all the things u written and any indian or phoren univ will give u phd in gandhian studies.. :)))

Vagabond

Nothing at all... except that Sadna claimed in her posts denouncing lowly Jinnah (in reaction to imagined affronts to Mahatma Gandhi) that any such position would be racist...

I just wanted to quote Mahatma Gandhi on the issue as well.

#167,

What`s wrong in that statement?

Mahatma Gandhi`s views on Caste system:

A translation of a Gujrati essay he wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan.


(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.

Moving on from Gandhi`s racism that was just point 1 of the issues framed in post 34

Much is being made of pygmy and lowly Jinnah`s late in life conversion (and perhaps only temporary) to the two nation theory... but let us consider what the great Mahatma Gandhi, the icon of humanity and civilisation said.


`Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity` : Mahatma Gandhi

(Young India January 6th 1927)


It must be noted that Sanghtan was a Hindu revivalist movement.

Anil...

To bolster that ``weak`` argument...

Jinnah told his sister something to the effect that the English voters discriminated against Dadabhoy because of the color of his skin... then he proceeded to tell his sister that color of the skin was not all but race for after all if ``Dadabhoy Naoroji was a darkie than I was darker, how could I not be moved to support him``

Compare this to Gandhi`s statements given between 70-120 interacts.

The problem Anil here is the nature of argument which is suspect. Gandhi made horrible racist statements calling Black people subhuman. You are trying to create a moral equivalence by saying that Jinnah made no statements either way... that he should have. Please forgive me for thinking that you are stretching all limits in your argument.

At the end of the day what matter is whether a person maintained his dignity or not... did Jinnah make any statements remotely akin to Gandhi`s views?

Re: # 161

Dear yasser:

I am not making any arguments against Jinnah. In my previous post I have made it clear that he is an abandoned Indian hero, and needs to be restored. I hate the thought that Advani of all Indians had taken the lead. I am merely saying that his silence cannot be interpreted and his involvement and involvement of many other Indian students of the time, with Dadabhoy Naoroji cannot be interepreted in one and only one way. If that is the case then you must accept that it is a weak arugment, plausible, but weak. Another, plausible argument I have presented.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 40

Dear Yasser:

``I am afraid you are wrong on this one- Gandhi`s racist views did not reflect the views of his contemporaries and certainly not Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

I never hesitate to learn, but I tried to find the specific words that Jinnah spoke or wrote on African colonialism and racism against Africans.

I am sorry for missing out your question earlier... I would have loved to pounce on it if you forgive it... ironic that now you are claiming that the fact Jinnah never made any such statements despite your digging them is also indicative... but the fact is that Jinnah denounced racism in clear terms... (and this was not the only unpopular position he took- Jinnah alarmed people by supporting women`s right to vote- something to which Gandhi remained hostile till much later. )

There is nothing ironic about my desire, I honestly did not find Jinnah`s owns words spooken or written.

[Why did Jinnah support Dadabhoy Naoroji and on what agenda. If you read what Jinnah told his sister... he spoke about English racism and how it was sickening that English did not consider other races as their equals... which is why he supported Dadabhoy Naoroji.]

This deduction is not fool proof. There can be more corollaries to it. Dadabhoy Naoroji was a very senior leader, and a guiding light to the Indian students who went to study there. I have seen the Indian YMCA (in 70s it was still called Indian YMCA), where Indian students studying in London had been staying eversince. W. C. (?) Banerjee, Dadabhoy Naoroji, Madam Cama, and Hume (?) founded indian national congress. It was not unnatural for Indian students to bond together for the national cause. Even Bertrand Russell had written about these Indian students being so nationalistic.

[You forget that Jinnah was not a product of casteism per se but Islam`s history no doubt instilled a deep sense of racial equality in him. But it was not just Islam and its first muezin...]

but also British legal tradition which had stood against slavery a 100 years before America stood against slavery... unlike Gandhi, Jinnah derived his morality completely from this tradition.

I have read alos invetigate much about the British hypocracy on abolition of slavery. It was a joke, at the very best. African slaves in the West Indies, Indian indentured labor in Africa speaks volume about the 100 years of punctured lead on the abolition of slavery on the British Islands. Do you know they had banned slavery only Liverpool first, and then they confined it to the port of Liverpool so that ships with African slaves would not touch the British soil. Bermuda and other British owned Islands in Atlantic were more convenient ports for ships to embark and disembark. Do you know that the biggest supporter of South African trade, and South Rodhesia were British as late as 1960s? American businesses were not the largest investors in these two countries where apartheid survived the longest. As late as, Margaret Thatcher`s time, she had insulted senior leaders from then independent African countries in Common Wealth conferences. Do you know that it was only because of England`s insistance, all white South African cricket team could survive thumbing their noses to Pakistan, India and the West Indies. I remember it quite well. I was an avid cricket fan by then, and it was 60 and 70s.

It is quite easy to glorify or beat down things on emotional basis. I always believed that if my views on relgion can be compared to Jinnah or Gandhi. I would stand up and say that they are closer to Jinnah`s. However, when you say ``Islam`s histroy``. I get as much chuckle as when some hindutvawadi says ``Hindu history of fair play`` they forget that India`s worst nightmare - the caste system, needs to be dismantle.

As a liberal thinker you may have to see it thru non-muslim eyes too. I am sure Jinnah must have done that, before deciding to against its tenats to start eating pork etc. Just as many others had to do with Hinduism, before they defined their own space and role of religion in it. Even the written history of Islam by the most liberal of the non-muslim does not say that Islam as practiced was (or is) egalitarian or democratic. After all african slavery was first started by Arabs, and that too from Islamic West Africa.

I have read Jinnah`s involvement with Dadabhoy Naoroji and Madam Cama. But there is nothing in it that I found where he spoke about Africans, or Africa or African racism.

BTW, the Gandhi had also spoken against English racism. You are beating Gandhi with his spoken and written words about his views on Africans, Africa and racism aganst Africans. To be fair you must written or spoken words of Jinnah as well, otherwise you cannot isolate Gandhi and beat him.

Other than Karl Marx, I can assure you no one spoke against racism against Africans. I have some interesting write up in my libarary of dispatches of Karl Marx on this subject as a correspondent of New York paper, wihle he was in exile and living in London. He also wrote against exploitation of Indian peasants in Bihar, Zamindari and forced Neel plantaton and Trade. No one before that ever spoke against this subject. If Jinnah had himself said something contemporaneous to Marx or shortly thereafter Marx, I am very interested in bringing in my library.

In those days one has to be that far to the left to see it. This is and was my conclusion, during my students days in England when I was your age, some 30 years ago, when I had studied it. The leaders of South African movements - Desmond Tutu, Rodhesian movement, Bishop Muzorewa (?) , and leaders of Mozambique`s, and Angola`s freedom movement were frequent lunch speakers on English University circuit.

The issue of racism against African - American (first) and African - African (later) came to the front and center only in 1960s through Dr. King, and above mentioned African leaders. Kwame Nkruma, the Ghanian Leader, and Patrice Lubumba (Congo) were others. Patrice Lubumba was killed by Belgian and CIA.

[It must be remembered that Jinnah`s criticism in Viceroy`s council of South Africa was not limited to South Africa`s treatment of Indians but also of Africans... an irony given that Gandhi`s south africa connection today is unfairly and unjustly portrayed so much.]

As I recall, South Africa issue in Indian politics was first brought by Gandhi himeself. Can you please show me his spoken or written words on Africans? Jinnah was present, and if my memory sevres right he introduced Gandhi as the speaker, in that Congress meeting. I am unable to find Jinnah`s speech in that Congress, whether Jinnah spoke anything or not about racism against Africans, or he limited himself the issues and problems faced by Indians in South Africa, as Gandhi did.

[One must give credit where its due...]

Not just credit, I would work to with you to bring out Jinnah`s views on racism. I have always held the belief that he is an abandoned Indian hero.

Anil Kapuria

Dear Harishhyd

I am afraid I disagree with your post in entirety and I think enough of this has been discussed including Jinnah`s conversion to Muslim separatism... on my previous articles i.e. 1) South Asia`s Clarence Darrow 2) Remembering H M Seervai ... I think a balanced perspective would strike a very different note from the one sided blame that you are putting on the man.

That said, let us for a moment say that it exactly how you say it is.. well then how does it have anything to do with Mahatma Gandhi`s racism and casteism, of which he is NOT accused by any Pakistanis... let me make your mind absolutely clear. Gandhi is largely viewed as a great leader by Pakistanis... 3 days Pakistan Radio played nothing but songs about Gandhi, when Gandhi was shot dead... Pakistan had official mourning... this was under Jinnah... Gandhi is accused of being all that-racist, casteist- by the one man who I think can be credited for South Asia`s greatest success a secular Indian constitution ... Dr B R Ambedkar.

Please refer to post 34 to see where this discussion about Gandhi`s racism started.

#158 by Mantolives

[1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...]

But it is racism, isn`t it? Please note that the operating word here is ``WAS``. Gandhi was a racist and Jinnah wasn`t. But both transformed into what they were not to begin with. Only, Jinnah changed for the worse.

If Gandhi could clean his and other`s toilets and eat with untouchables and yet remain a racist in your definition, why shouldn`t Jinnah be called a racist despite having been the ``best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity`` at one time?

[2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.]

You are welcome to your beliefs, but please note that no single person`s life can be studied in isolation. I remember even when we were discussing Jinnah on other boards, Gandhi inevitably crept in.

[why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?]

I`m not sure who started this Jinnah vs. Gandhi thing but I`m asking this question because it is YOU (even Urstruly posted an excellent interact) who started posting stuff about Gandhi`s racism when the fact is that your hero is not free of it as well. Gandhi`s life and later conduct amply prove that though he WAS racist in his earlier days, he outgrew it. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Jinnah, who may have started off as the best thing to have happened to the subcontinent, but transformed into a megalomaniac who was out to divide India to crown himself the monarch of Pakistan. In the processs, he was responsible for the murder of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs because he believed in the bogus hypothesis that Hindus and Muslims couldn`t live together. If the past 60-odd years of independent India are any indication, barring the odd riots, Hindus and Muslims have more than co-existed peacefully, contributing to and enriching each others` lives, and that is more than what can be said about Jinnah`s Pakistan.

Anil,

Let us recap here. I told you that Jinnah was a product of British Liberalism ala Morley... there is no chance of him being racist. Also his support for Dadabhoy... he did condemn very clearly the politics of color being used against Dadabhoy...

Now let me for now accept that Jinnah did not make any statement at all. He was completely silent. Are you telling me that you are going to infer that Jinnah, a product of British Liberalism ala Morley and as a Muslim (especially when the Moorish Science Temple had already emerged) might have had the same views as Gandhi because Jinnah was silent?

Do you see how bankrupt that argument is... especially when JINNAH is NOT the topic of discussion..

Let me ask you this: why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?




Sadna,

You are the most dishonest person I have come across and you just seem to prove it every single day. You are denying history.

Read both my posts again... I have not disowned Jinnah`s own words. I am giving you the context. Pick up the Jinnah papers ``Pakistan Struggling against all odds`` volume and look at it.

Jinnah DIDNOT own the Muslim League. He had furthered the thesis of having a Pakistan League and there are letters after letters, some from such respectable people as Suhrawardy, speaking against the dissolution of the Muslim League. On December 17th the All India Muslim League met for the last time. Jinnah dissolved the All India Muslim League. Instead two new parties were formed : Pakistan Muslim League and Indian Union Muslim League. Jinnah refused to become a member of the Pakistan Muslim League stating that as the governor general he could not be part of a purely Muslim organisation. The decision not to go ahead with the Pakistan League plan was his.. he abandoned his earlier idea in wake of opposition... which is why he said that public opinion is not ready for it.

I am sure Jinnah`s decision to quit the Muslim League and that quote that you put up is in your fantasy world as bad as Gandhi saying that Black people were subhuman but to normal people it is just laughable.


-YLH

Re: # 51

Dear Yasser:

Truly, I would really like to purchase or have a copy of in my library every literature that you have found, where Jinnah has expressed his views on racism, and his dealings with Africans, and Africa. My email address is: anilkapuria@yahoo.com .

If you will agree then I will make these available to Chowk readers to review and debate too. If in reality there was such a contrast in Jinnah views on race and he has articulated them, with his eloquency, I want people to know it, even ig they are made from the elitist England. Mind you in England after Liverpool in 1849, slavery and slave trade was abolished. I am looking for some he spoke, and wrote rather than deductions, and interpretations.

Anil Kapuria


Anil

Mantolives #157
Get a grip. Earlier you were disowning my post quoting Durga Das on Gandhi and Bhagat Singh though Durga Das was present in the Central Assembly when Bhagat Singh carried out an attack and was arrested. How do you know better than an actual witness to the event?

Now you are disowning Jinnah`s own words. He does not state a fact about Muslim League`s decision made in opposition to his own views, he takes ownership of not including other communities and explains that there can be no such national organization at that time until certain other things happen. How many million nonMuslims were in Pakistan at that time is my question. Oh well.

Harish Hyd,

You know why not...

Two points:

1) Saying Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations (something that he had fought against and reluctantly accepted at age 65 after trying most of his life to deny it) is not the same as saying that Black people are savages and subhuman...

2) This article is about Gandhi not Jinnah... by attacking Jinnah as you guys are you are proving that there is no argument to defend Gandhi.


Let me ask the question :

why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here?

Yes- thanks for quoting it... and making a fool out of yourself.

As usual it does not prove what you are saying Sadna. Your claim was that he was suspicious. Infact this is exact

Refer to ``Sadna`s fradulent tricks`` post again

``But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place``

The facts you missed out:

1) By December 19th Jinnah had ALREADY resigned from the Muslim League leadership stating that he could not continue at the head of an avowedly communal organisation and be the governor general at the same time.

2) That he was responding to a question as to why Jinnah had not turned the Muslim League into a non-communal secular organisation called the Pakistan League as he had himself hinted through his papers Dawn and Pakistan Times...

Your claim was that he stopped non-muslims from entering the ``Muslim`` League... infact he had himself left the Muslim League because he saw that the Muslim League was unable to transform itself into a national body.

-YLH

Yasser,

Why is Gandhi (when he was between 30-40 years of age) who called blacks sub-human a racist, and why is Jinnah (when he was over 50), who said Hindus and Muslims were two different nations who could never live together and gave his insidious idea a physical shape in the form of Pakistan (over the bodies of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs), not a racist and a murderer?

er, statement by Jinnah himself.
Interview to Robert Stimson, Correspondent of BBC, Karachi, Dec 19 1947
``Pakistan League
Asked whether the Muslim League of Pakistan would eventually transform itself into a national organization open to members of all religious communities, the Quaid-i-Azam said the time had not yet come for a national organization of that kind. Public opinion among Muslims of Pakistan is not yet ready for it. We must not be dazzled by democratic slogans that have no foundation in reality.

The Muslims have only just won their own Muslim homeland, and they still have to build a structure that will suit conditions and developments that will take place. But the decision to form a purely Muslim organization in Pakistan is not irrevocable. It may be altered as and when necessary to suit changing conditions. Nothing is static in politics. It all depends upon what progress we make and further developments that may take place..``

`Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid e Azam`, ed Khurshid Yusufi

Sadna`s Fradulent tricks

153 is the first post by Sadna which can be considered objective...however it is her attempt to run away after claiming nonsense. I think we are not fooled by her late acceptance of the facts... the truth is that Gandhi did not inspire much confidence ... not just Ambedkar but several other people were apprehensive. However thats not even the issue.

Its her old style. Sadna takes a nugget of fact out of context- and adds to it her own interpretation of the events surrounding it, usually false in toto. Then she claims it to be history - look at my ilogs she says. Her ilogs are speculations that don`t stand the test of history and she was made to eat her words on the CMP debate. She might fool the naive... and those who are willing to believe her, but with reasonable men and women her stock is exceptionally low.

Now... let me give you example... Sadna comes up with information that Muslim League did not open its doors to Non-Muslims after partition. So she claims, no doubt some Indian polemicist was at the back of her claim as she is never original, that Jinnah stopped them... She omits the fact that the whole idea of transforming the Muslim League into Pakistan League was originally Jinnah`s, that there was opposition to this idea within the party, that Jinnah quit the Muslim League on 17th December 1947 stating that he could not continue as the head of avowedly communal organisation and be an impartial head of state as well, that Jinnah had appointed a Hindu on a Muslim League seat even when his strategy rested completely on the two nation theory and that Jinnah appointed a Hindu as the law minister... but no ... she operates with that first nugget and claims a whole lot of nonsense.
You see... the term half truth is no where more fittingly applied than on our dear Sadna... except in her case half truth is really a small 1% of the truth... Her entire case rests on this... and when she is called for her lies she retreats from her position. She had famously and falsely claimed that Cabinet Mission Plan was bad because it gave Muslims 50 50 parity with the Hindus which was undemocratic... when shown otherwise she claimed that the problem with the Cabinet Mission plan was that it allowed communal vote on communal matters and then when asked how that could be an issue for the majority... she came up with a hair brained scheme that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...

We are used to this nonsense from her... but why here and now on an article about Gandhi? My stated objective in 34 was to present the otherside of Gandhi as he is an icon of humanity... we are all in agreement that Gandhi is celebrated world over as a great world icon... and that we should investigate his life from that angle... that whether he stood the test of modernity, racial equality, women`s rights etc.

Instead of dealing with Gandhi, Sadna has attacked Jinnah- who all here, self-included, accept that is a forgotten figure but in my opinion a figure to whom a great deal is falsely attributed- but a forgotten figure nevertheless... why must an investigation into the character of the great Mahatma of Humanity- celebrated as the greatest man to ever walk the earth , the man who inspired 5 out of 6 of the great movements of 20th century, evoke a knee jerk response about Jinnah- a ``pygmy`` by the standards championed here? Why?... that his allegedly communal positions become all of a sudden the reason to acquit Gandhi of his flaws?

So let us frame the issues again:

1) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s racism
2) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s social conservatism
3) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s bigotry against Muslims and untouchables.
4) ``Mahatma`` Gandhi`s role in supporting/perpetuating British imperialism

Sincerely

YLH

harimau #150
Despite my retorts on this board, I think value judgements get in the way of understanding.

Let me point out that at that time there was no way for anyone to predict much less depend or bet on what Hindus and Muslims (and the British) would actually end up doing in succeeding years. Jinnah was not the only sceptical one about future treatment by Hindus, Dr Ambedkar was another such skeptic. But Dr. Ambedkar in contrast didn`t (1)gratuitously villify his political opponents (2)demand an extra larger disproportionate share of pie as `safeguard`. Jinnah did because the British were willing to listen.

Re: # 129

Dear Yasser,

I have high regards of your knowledge and understanding on these (Jinnah/Gandhi) debates. And that is why I would like to read your thoughts on why the Jews were so vehemently against Gandhi.

Some years ago, when the movie Gandhi came out in the US, one of my co-workers, a Jewish person, got me some reading materials (almost 23 pages long) that was totally anti-Gandhi. Today, I do not remember all the details of that article.

I remain curious to know the reasons behind this almost universal hatred of the Jews towards Gandhi.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

The only racist in today`s America speaks -

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104994/

Ref sadna #134

[....He said repeatedly that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike the egalitarian Muslims for whom democracy was a natural impulse.]

Did Jinnahbhai actually say this?!!

Yasser, dear boy, can you verify this?

And Yasser, dear boy, can you tell us poor benighted Hindus how many naturally, instinctively democratic Islamic countries there are in the world? The CIA Worldbook needs updating!

three dates and two slogans

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - January 30, 1948

Mohammed Ali Jinnah - Sept 11, 1948

Mahatma Gandi ki Ja’aye

Quaid e Azam Zindabad

October 04, 2005

I know this about myself - I have often held (if not articulated) racist views about blacks.

At least on one occasion, I clearly discriminated against a black person, and in favor of a white person. I keep feeling guilty about it, but discriminate I did.


An interesting debate -

Is Huck Finn a Racist Book?

http://salwen.com/mtrace.html

Re: # 40

Yasser:

Please give me the reference or buy it for me and send it to me for my library. I like to collect my books. I will certainly pay for anything that you can buy and send me on Jinnah, race and Africa and Africans, because I could not find anything myself.

Thank you.
Anil

#144:

``where he knew he had a better chance of marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims``

should read:

``where he knew he had a better chance of STOPPING marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims``

mohar11 #143
It is a lot of stuff - starting from page 16 to page 3 if you are interested. The basic intention of the first set was to understand the constitutional settlement sought by all(including the British) sides during Cabinet Mission proceedings, a settlement which was to define the fundamentals of the state(s) and was to outlast and outlive all personalities involved.

Later ilogs are about understanding political stances before that period, again not necessarily about the personalities. I believe Jinnah`s tactics were calculated to achieve a desired result which was a sovereign Pakistan, which was indeed achieved. He was quite straightfoward about his position that it was the only way to safeguard Muslims. IMO, it is best for people to read and reach these or any other conclusions on their own if they choose.

I posted here because I couldn`t stand the blatant lies about Gandhi re Bhagat Singh.

friend#141, 142 & hindvi:

Thanks, friend, for those references. I found the Seminar references particularly useful as that magazine`s secular credentials are impeccable to a fault (i.e., of the virulently anti-saffron variety).

After reading these articles, I stick to what I said in my original post. It is quite clear that while Gandhi learnt of the large-scale slaughter of hindu men and their widows being forced to convert and marry their husbands` killers at Noakhali, he went back to Delhi without ameliorating the situation and then chose to go to Calcutta instead where he knew he had a better chance of marauding hindus on rampage against hapless muslims.

The team he sent to Noakhali had all hindus volunteers and a muslim govt. official. All they could do was to offer solace to the victims and had no impact whatsoever on Muslims.

Re: # 140 sadna
//....Check out my ilogs where I quote Jinnah`s exact words...//

Why don`t you reproduce them here - let everybody see and enjoy the pearls of wisdom from the man :)

DM#various
And in case you doubt other sources, here is an excerpt from Begum Suhrawardy herself

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/suhrawardy/joining_gandhi.html

And following is from dawn
http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/23/op.htm

Hope all these references satisfy your appetite.

DM#various
When has politics been free of religion? Is it free of religion in USA where church and pastor of current supreme court nominee is being discussed quite actively? Is it free of religion in UK, or even in Canada?

Of concern is when a politician has an exclusivist agenda based on religion. Gandhi emphasis was to include all. It was in stark contrast to that of Syed Ahmed Khan, Jinnah or Tilak.


You also asked questions about Noakhali
Here are some links for you
http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/510/510%20ashoka%20gupta-noakhali.htm
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0597/0194.html
http://www.rediff.com/freedom/gandhi.htm

Also read excerpts from Wolperts book at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wolpert-gandhi.html

Even Wolpert acknowledges who were the instigators of Noakhali (``the supreme leader``) who called for this direct action day. Do note contrast of the actions of these great leaders with what Gandhi did.

Do let me know if you need more info on Noakhali.

HP the wife beater#138
``Assume for a second that Jinnah actually did all those things and said all those nasty things``

Check out my ilogs where I quote Jinnah`s exact words from
1. Her Majesty`s Government published documents - `The Transfer of Power`,
2. `Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution`, Maurie Gwyer and Appadorai, Oxford University Press,
3. Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid e Azam`, Collected and Edited by Khurshid Ahmad Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore.
4. Ayesha Jalal, Sarvepalli Gopal and Stanley Wolpert , Durga Das

#132 by Romair on October 4, 2005 2:06pm PT


South Indians being the most intelligent group. But, lets just say, not quite in the Tom Cruise category, to say the least.......Rajnikant is


Umm...Rajnikant is, well, not south Indian....

#137 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna ( loog mujahe main na maanoo bhi kahtay hain! And-I lie- too)

I did not cannonball you. I merely stated the facts and now you are putting a crude spin on what I wrote.

Read this again “ASSUME” and admit that you have no argument left and as usual you are back to twisting posts. After all Yasser’s disappointment in your ability to argue is genuine!

``There was only a very fine line separating communalism and racism``

Another hackneyed theory...the same “main-na-maanoo” approach...

HP the wife-beater #136
Good, you admit Jinnah was a communalist. There was only a very fine line separating communalism and racism once the first was adopted as ideology, as East Pakistanis found out.

#134 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna ( loog mujahe main na maanoo bhi kahtay hain!)

You see here is the problem. In your fits you begin to mix up so many issues that eventually you lose handle on rationality!
Anybody who would read your post would assume that you were knocking your head on walls while writing that. My advice to you; always sit back, think and then write because haste makes waste. I know you wouldn’t disagree with that:)

I don’t even know how to respond to some completely incoherent arguments that span over decades of politics in the undivided India.
With all due respect, even if we ASSUME and please remember my emphasis on assume, for a second that Jinnah actually did all those things and said all those nasty things; they would all fall under communalism and NOT racism.

Now I am beginning to wonder if you even know the difference between racism and communalism.
Based on your arguments some in the RSS would claim that he was probably a communalist but nobody would dare call him a racist.

Do you see the differences between Gandhi’s comments about Blacks in Africa and Jinnah’s rhetoric in India? I mean wouldn’t yours would be the biggest stretch ever in the history of Chowk? Nobody would call this a seventh inning stretch anyway:)

“He said Muslims deserved a separate state because Hindus refused to dine with him and washed their hands after shaking hands with him”

Didn’t they?

#134
PS : I am not sure of what class Gandhi travelled.

HP the wife beater#133
``He never said that Muslims are superior or better looking than hindus.``

He demanded in every major speech or statement or demand for 9 years that Hindus to be denied a majority because they would destroy Muslims and Islam otherwise. He said repeatedly that Hindus were unfit for democracy unlike the egalitarian Muslims for whom democracy was a natural impulse.

He even said at one point in time that Muslims were the natural rulers of the subcontinent and that since the British had taken over from Muslims, they must hand back power to Muslims. He said Pakistan came into being when the first Indian converted to Islam. He said Muslims deserved a separate state because Hindus refused to dine with him and washed their hands after shaking hands with him - this after many years of Gandhi, Nehru, Bose and others making tracks to his house in Bombay to hold discussions with him (Gandhi travelled third class from Wardha coming out of his self-imposed political exile simply to visit Jinnah at his home to hear what he had to say). I don`t remember reading that Jinnah took any particular pains to meet any of them anywhere.

Of course to argue that travelling around an entire subcontinent rousing a hatred of Hindus is not racism is par for the course on chowk.com, since this is basically Pakistani nationalism in essence.

The real racism however lies in the fact that it is/was considered necessary to poison the communal waters for Indian Muslims as well by insisting on a similar isolation for them within divided India, when it was clear to Jinnah and all other heroic champions of Muslims subsequently that all Indians Muslims couldn`t escape the horrible hindoos to Pakistan and many would be left behind.

#127 by Hello-mera-naam-RSS-sadna

There is no reason to be so offended by the facts that I presented. You are mixing way too many things to argue one simple point and that was: While Gandhi’s racism is documented and undeniable, what you claim to be Jinnah’s racism would only qualify for political brinkmanship.

He never said that Muslims are superior or better looking than hindus.

Most of the points that you make show his or Muslim league’s perception that they cannot work with the congress or may be his attempt to ensure that the coalition governments failed so that he could prove his point that Muslims and Hindus have reached an impasse.
There is a difference in brinkmanship and racism.

Why Jinnah insisted on “no nonMuslim League Muslim” was fairly obvious. It went to the heart of his or ML claim that the Muslim League represented Muslims and if there was going to be a muslim representative in the cabinet, he/she must be from the Muslim League.

This was unfortunate and I hope undivided India should never have reached that point but you cannot deny the polarization that existed at that time. In Jinnah’s opinion, conceding on this issue could have possibly impacted his claim of Muslim leadership. It may be a question of fragile ego or political obstinacy but it can never reach the heights of racism.

Condi and Colin example is irrelevant for the simple reason that Bush cabinet is not a coalition of the Blacks and Whites. If it was, then, within the confines of the race politics, Condi and Colin could have separate meetings to highlight the blacks inability to work with the whites. Since Bush cabinet is not selected on the bases of a coalition or even on the racial representation bases, the analogy is not appropriate.

“Pakistanis like to think they are the only Muslims in the world and represent all Muslims of the world for perpetuity.”

This is a completely irrelevant and unnecessary comment as you are again generalizing some thing about 150 million people where most of them differ on many things. The reality is that a good 75% Pakistani have no idea of history and have no connection with the ideological and political struggles that take place in the world. It is almost like saying ALL Hindus believe in killing Muslims whereas only some—the RSS types-- do.


#126,#131

Urstruly and Dost mittar. The race Hierarchy debate is older than Sir Syed. Sir Syed most likely picked up Urdu translation of this debate and repeated that verbatim. Gandhi too may have been influenced by it, is not outside the realm of possiblity as this debate raged in the 19th century.

Dost-mittar #131: ``His hypothesis is that blacks have the lowest IQ and the Chinese the highest, with Caucascians falling in between.``

.........My hypothesis on this issue is more original, and tends to pre-date Professor Rushton`s.........

Where exactly does Rushton rank Punjabi speakers? I have always wondered. My theory is that Punjabi speakers have amongst the lowest IQ. Other than Dr. Salam, I cannot think of too many intelligent minds coming from this region. If one starts from the East, with the Sardarjis (Bhatti Saab excluded, of course) at the bottom, the IQ tends to move slightly upwards as one moves West through Punjab, and then into Kashmir. But not by much......

I tested my theory in Onatario, as well. And it proved accurate. If you go to the Walmart in Scarborough (an area with South Indians and Sri Lankans), it takes five minutes for the cashier to clear you.......As you move to Mississauga (an area dominated by West Punjabis), the number goes up to ten minutes. And if you are in Brampton (an area dominated by Sardarjis), you could be stuck in the line for the whole day........

Slightly lower on the totem pole, than Punjabi speakers, would be Pushto speakers. Pathan being a state of mind and not an ethnicity.....

However, Pathans tend to be amongst the best looking, having produced the most film stars of any group in South Asia. Punjabis seem to be second in the looks department. As one moves South, this ratio tends to reverse. South Indians being the most intelligent group. But, lets just say, not quite in the Tom Cruise category, to say the least.......Rajnikant is, after all, no Shahrukh or Dilip or even Ajab Gul..........

I guess God, or nature, never gives looks, brains and brawn, all, to the same group of people.........

Urstruly#126:

The debate has been resusicated by a controversial Canadian academic, Professor Rushton. His hypothesis is that blacks have the lowest IQ and the Chinese the highest, with Caucascians falling in between. He argues that the differences are due to genetics and not due to environmental factors alone. Here is one link to his ideas:
http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/wahlsten.html

if ``they`` blast the bamian buddha, should ``we`` blast mohammed (ghori)? no..for one it wont look good on 60-minutes.

Sadna is putting up nonsense because she has no feet to stand on. Now her claims about CMP have gone another radical change... after her lie was caught earlier on this board. Because Gandhi is indefensible Sadna is now resorting to stretching all sorts of arguments...
There is no comparison or relevance of the Cabinet Mission Plan here to Gandhi`s racism... especially since the CMP was the brain child of the Congress President Azad...

In any event this article is ABOUT GANDHI.... beating up on Jinnah with same old accusations which have been proved to be nonsense is not going to help...

hindvi:

While Noakhali is invariably mentioned as one of the places where Gandhi tried to stop communal riots, I have never read anything concrete regarding what he did, who were the victims and how successful he was. I would appreciate it if you could please provide me with a link that provides such details. Thanks.

HP #114
Pakistanis like to think they are the only Muslims in the world and represent all Muslims of the world for perpetuity. That is not true and it was not true when Jinnah was insisting he must be the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims. He insisted on this total separation of Muslims from others being accepted as a principle.

He insisted on this principle - in essence that the 30% Muslims in the Hindustan group A must make no common cause with any other political party at a point in time when the Constitution of Hindustan group A was going to be written (as distinct from his precious Pakistan group, which he insisted must have a totally separate constitution and must be free to secede). He also insisted that this no nonMuslim League Muslim principle ne accepted in the formation of the 1946 interim government.

The Congress finally agreed to no nonMuslim League Muslim in that interim government only when Viceroy Wavell assured them that Jinnah`s demand would not be accepted as principle for perpetuity, but only as a one time exception.

And we know how well the interim government worked on this two separate communal nations principle of Jinnah`s because the Muslim League refused to sit together with the others in the Cabinet to thrash out decisions together or take collective responsibility as a combined cabinet despite Wavell`s pleas to Jinnah to the contrary. The Muslim League first made their own decision separately on basis of Jinnah`s racist `communal separation` leaving the rest of the Cabinet to take it or leave it.

It is like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice forcibly sitting together to make a separate decision because they are `black` and Bush and other `whites` sitting separately making their own decision because they are white and the hispanics ditto and then all sitting together to only to take a straw poll to count to see what was decided.

It is hard to believe people are actually discussing the racism of asking for separate jail cells in a subdivision of S. Africa while ignoring the racism of Jinnah who insisted on an enforced division/separation at the highest level of governance, the national Union cabinet, in decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people.

Lets not signgle out Gandhi for his racist views. The reason for the racism among desis of Gandhis` time is unique to his time alone. As a matter of fact being a racist at that time was a hip, a fad and a kind of enlightened thing to do. Not just Gandhi but among Muslims, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was also a staunch proponent of heirarchy of races. According to him, as he puts it in his monthly journal, tehzib-ul-Ikhlaque, the civility and civilization of a race is directly proportional to the color of the skin of that nation. So he makes an argument that White Europeans are culturally the most advanced civilization (this he presents as a proof of his thesis), at second come the yellow Japanese and Chineses etc., at third there are brown people e.g Indians, Arabs etc. and at the lowest in this heirarchy its the African blacks. Then he extends his thesis and stipulates in no uncertain terms that those nations that are low in heirarchy should obey and serve those above them.

Muslims in general found his ideas quite repugnant even in those days. The underlying ideas that drove Sir Syed to those conclusions was the new emerging ``science`` of Naturalism; which derived its basic ideas from the works of people like Charles Darwin and others. As a matter of fact the ideas like ``survival of the fittest`` and evolution and that coupled with his inventions and conquest all around the globe had put the white man in awe of himself. From animal world to plant world and to the humans everything testified to his ideas of evolution and survival of fittest.

A great many people of not so fair skin got infected by hacks like Darwin and his psuedo-sciences too; sir syed among them. The people who used to propound this pseudo-science were called ``Naturalists`` and in debates among Muslims in those days they were condescendingly referred to as ``Naturee``.

What happened to that science? Today White man himself is the greatest proponent of equality of races (in their countries at least in words). So along with them all those pips called ``Naturee`` have changed their kaaba as well. Where are they now? Well they are alive and well and they are more convinced than white man himself - do I need to point out their names?

There are always people in any society, especially among desis, who are convinced that whiteman has all the answers. The new psuedo-science of this era is ``secularism``; it is being propounded as an elixir that will cure all the ills in the wolrd. (Whereas whiteman himself is slowly changing towards being unsecular, but that is another debate). In todays world this new pseudo science is being shoved down our throats by the mental vassals of white man in the garb of ``enlightened moderation``.

So lets leave the Gandi alone and start worrying about our own racism first.

By the way , Gandhi died in 1948. Black people were given voting rights , a rudimentary step towards their acceptance as equal citizens , by US of A , world`s greatest democracy , in 1965. So much for date of birth/death.

Calling black people names == RACIST.

Having sexual relations with 6 year old children == PEDOPHILE.

Which is worse ?

#121 ,

Calling black people names.

Enjoying sexual intercourse with 6 year old girls.

Which is worse ? And how does date of birth/date affect the same ?

Continuing on the subject ,

how old were the high school boys who penetrated their young teacher Yasser Latif Hamdani ?

Yes supposedly...

But here is what we know for certain...

Prophet Muhammad died in 632

Gandhi died in 1948

How old was Prophet Mohammad when he married a 6 year old child ? 55.

How old was Prophet Mohammad when he first had sexual intercourse with that child ? 58.

Those interactors claiming Gandhi was a child when he made this statements:

A Simple Math Problem:

1908-1869=?

1904-1869=?

1901-1869=?

A word about the historical sources posted here:

1) Posts 72-77, 92, 96-97, 99-100, 102-103, 105, 108-110, 112, 115 are all taken direct quotes from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi... I take full responsibility for any misquotes that maybe found.

2) Each citation has a date and page number.

3) I have tried to be very respectful to Mr Gandhi, despite provocation by people like Sadna. My aim is as explained in post 34... to give the otherside of the story.

This concludes our ``Racist Gandhi`` posts.

We shall continue Gandhi`s relations with other Indian religions and castes soon enough.

All interactors:

In keeping with my own advice, let me provide the dates for the two items from which I quoted earlier:

(1) AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY or The story of my experiments with truth, by Mohandas K. Gandhi (original publication date 1928).

(2) Satyagraha in South-Africa, by Mohandas K. Gandhi, Original editor & publisher – Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad (original publication date 1928)

Please keep the difference in dates in mind when you compare with quotation from such years as 1903, 1904, etc.

For those who are mathematically challenged (Mantolies, for example) the difference is approximately 20 - 25 years – or about what would be considered a gap of a generation length!

In other words, enough length of time to – GROW UP!!!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Harimau , actually that was a shallow hasty analysis on my part. I think to understand Manto`s mentality , one has to focus on the lingering effects of the serious assaults , even of the sexual kind , perpetrated on him by the high school boys that he taught a few months back....

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

#93 by Hello-I-am-the-RSS-rep-here-sadna

“Did Gandhi ask for a separate nation because Indians couldn`t live with blacks and were totally separate civilizations?”

Unfortunately he almost did! He advocated that it is okay to keep blacks in ghettos as long as Indians are not kept there. He asked that Indians should travel in separate cars in trains and objected to Indians being huddled in the same cars in a train with blacks.

““A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa.” Gandhi

He really believed that Indians are better than blacks and should not live with them. Btw, he also believed that whites are better than Indians.

You are fighting a losing battle again. Gandhi espoused and supported racist causes in South Africa and there is no denying that. The best course is to accept his not-so-thoughtful thoughts and take a stand on his some political achievements.

“Till independence, he also refused to concede ever that any other party except his Muslim League could represent Muslims of India - even the 30%?”

At least after 1945 it was accurate. There was no party in India except the ML that could have possibly claimed any representation of Muslims. The Congress allied with the most regressive section of Muslims –the mullah- was not able to capture Muslim votes and thus effectively ceded Muslim representation mantle to the Muslim league.

Jinnah had a valid political argument. You can whine as much as you want but that was the fact accepted by Muslims, Congress and the British.

You are misrepresenting about the 30% left behind. Till independence, he had the most votes from the 30% in the pre-independence India. After the partition, he never made any such claim for Muslims left behind.

Ref Ranger #87

[That idiot Yasser Hamdani is repeating as usual his `Gandhi=Racist` rants. The idea is to build up on his pet Jinnah by crapping on Gandhi.]

Wow! That explains Yasser`s role in life.

He is the city pigeon with a particular fondness for the statue of Mahatma Gandhi!

Another Gandhi classic... for Baoo Beej...


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

Does it still hurt Yasser ? Poor little you. Is that why it is so hard to talk about it ? Do you still feel humiliated Yasser ? You dont have to feel embarassed my boy. After all , we are your friends. You can tell us.

I understand this is difficult for you. So why dont you begin by filling up with the little unneccessary details , then we can go on to the heart of the matter. As they say , little tiny drops made up the ocean. So what was the radius of the rod they used to penetrate you ?

This one is a classic... classic Gandhi that is:

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

A pause before I continue...

Kulharee...

For once I agree with you.. Did you know the biggest fan of Gandhiji in Pakistan is Dr Israr Ahmed... he is of the view that Gandhi was a true genius... that Jinnah was a kafir and that Christians in Pakistan should be second class citizens...

Don`t believe me... go and check for yourself...

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

Re: # 100

We in Pakistan have a lot to thank Gandhi Ji for, in the way we treat our own Kalay people. In Pakistan 99% of the toilet cleaners are Kalay Hisai (dark Christians). I have yet to see a bearded Wahabi Hafiz-e-Quran cleaning toilets. Thank you Gandhi Ji for showing us the light on how to treat our own niggers.

Ref arjun_m #56

[{#51 by Mantolives on October 4, 2005 8:09am PT


I am happy to be the follower of a man who always sided with justice and fairplay...}


A man whose philosophy is largely irrelevant and ignored in today`s theocratic Pakistan... ]

I think our dear boy Yasser was referring to Prophet Mohammad rather than Jinnahbhai.

Separate and unequal... how dare you call us black: Gandhi



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

Manto , hiding behind Gandhi wont solve anything. You cannot let those little high school bullies win. First step to healing is conversation. Tell us what they did to you.

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

On why we are not Kaffirs... says Gandhiji...


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

Its okay to talk Yasser. I know its difficult. But talking is good. Dont let them keep you down. Tell us what they did to you. We are your friends Yasser. You can tell us. Its okay.

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

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

Again for the blind man Beej: CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

Manto , we can talk about Gandhi/Jinnah later. Now pray tell us in detail about the bullying meted out to you by your own young students in the high school that you taught. How serious was it ? Did it involve any insertion of long blunt objects into your system ?

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

To be read in conjunction with posts 72-79 and 91

Returning to Gandhi ...

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

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT GANDHI not JINNAH.

Sadna has now started another lie ... as usual if one goes to the source of her lie about Jinnah ... one will find that Jinnah had himself initiated the idea of a ``Pakistan League`` which he had abandoned choosing to resign instead as the President of Muslim League.
She claims the opposite ofcourse... when had she read the Jinnah papers she would see that Jinnah was pretty much arguing that Muslim League had lost its purpose. Ironic... but the same Jinnah is saying that the idea of having a national organisation is not irrevocable.

Ironic that this liar is claiming that he stopped non-muslims from joining the ``Muslim`` League because he suspected them when

a) Jogindranath Mandal was appointed by Jinnah on a Muslim League seat in the interim Government

b) Jogindranath Mandal was the FIRST LAW MINISTER of Pakistan in the Muslim League government by Jinnah...

Ofcourse... it was expected that Sadna would lose all balance ... because like Gandhi, she too is without dignity. Sadna as usual has farted ladies and gentlemen... and she shall pay for stinking up the place.

First of all , Manto , you must tell us what the school children did to you. That might explain a lot.

Gandhi`s `racist` stances are despicable in any context and I condemn them, without reservation or qualification.

Did Gandhi ask for a separate nation because Indians couldn`t live with blacks and were totally separate civilizations? I am not aware that he did. Jinnah did, however.

So I condemn Jinnah for his sustained campaign from 1938-1947 about how either Hindus must be denied a majority over Muslims or a separate state should be granted to Muslims because Hindus were a people who would destroy Muslims and Islam in India.

It was not a territorial nationalism that he was advocating - he insisted to Gandhi in Jinnah-Gandhi talks in 1944 that the (30%) nonMuslims in regions likely to go to Pakistan must have no say in whether Pakistan must come into being or not.

Till independence, he also refused to concede ever that any other party except his Muslim League could represent Muslims of India - even the 30%? odd Muslims who were to be inevitably be left behind in divided India were to have no common representation with fellow Indians in the Indian constitution-making group A according to his nonnegotiable stance on this issue.

After independence he refused to allow Pakistani nonMuslims to join the Muslim League because he apprehended conspiracies and threats via nonMuslims to the very existence of Pakistan.

I condemn those who are highly selective in calling Gandhi racist for his stances and Jinnah not racist, for his stances.

To be read in conjunction with posts 72-78

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


For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Before I continue (and continue I shall) I must put to rest this Sadna woman and her claims. One thing that must be noted about her style... she operates on omissions... more often than not the source she points to proves to misquoted or wrong. Her dishonesty was on full display in the CMP discussion a few months back. She started off by claiming that CMP provided Muslims `` 50-50 parity`` ... a claim that she had to eat soon thereafter... after which she came up with a hairbrained idea that federations with 3 subjects can`t be federations... when shown that there was no such legal definition... she
smoved away and claimed that Foreign Affairs were a communal issue...

So it is not a surprise that she thinks everyone acts like her.




Beej,

What a cop out...

I have given you the page numbers ... go read for yourselves. A casteist bigot and a racist bigot arguing for white supremacy and Indo-Germanic stalk can have no other context....

My posts addressed to you are there... each of them has a citation. Please feel free to check them... I have been told that Gandhi`s works are online now... on some website... surely it can`t be that hard given that you are quite an expert at providing absolute nonsense... why don`t you go and check.


Now... I shall start from where I left off..

Sincerely

YLH

Jang....I dont know how it was when you were a kid in India , but through out my school years, all kids used to hate Gandhi. Not because of the reasons given by that idiot Manto (`Gandhi=Racist`) , but because of the intense dislike for Gandhi`s non-violence and `turn the other cheek to the enemy when slapped` philosophy. On the other hand , Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was everybody`s favorite historic figure.

So funnily enough , Gandhi is held with contempt today in the country he brought freedom to -India , and idolised and admired by the people in the ex-Imperialist West. So Gandhi is today much more of a global western icon than an Indian political leader.

what is most interesting is how pakistanis are missing out on legacies and their markting values. some prophets and saints have good marketing value, and some have bad. e.g. buddha and gandhi have very +ve value. however, pakistan has been associated with talibanic bombing of buddha statues. manto is doing something similar. he is completely missing out on an apportunity for his nation.

over next 12 months i expect an article from Thomas Friedman about his stay in Lahore and him lamenting how pakistanis hate their freedom fighter, mahatma gandhi and bhagat singh, but love the movie Gadar. manto will get a special mention in a box, exemplifying this hatred. then there will be a 60-minutes special where haroon will be quoted describing gandhis racism to an amused ed bradley.

so, get some bania style and do the right thing.. latch on the +ve. gandhi, buddha good. gandhar civilization good. dictators bad. taliban bad. ...you get the idea.

All interactors;

It is recommended that when quoting excerpts, please provide the following:

(1) the complete section content – not just individual sentences lifted from here or there – so that the overall intent is not (inadvertently or otherwise) misrepresented.

(2) the accurate date – since most individuals evolve over time (except those who are already dead (intellectually speaking)) so that archaic statements which were eventually disowned as people grew intellectually (except those who were already dead (intellectually speaking)) do not get (inadvertently or otherwise) misused.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Beej.

---

Re: #74 Man-to-li(v)es

Are you talking to ME?
Are you TALKING to me?
Are YOU talking to me?

Hindvi......if Gandhi was a `social conservative` , how does that explain his getting up at 4 am in the morning , picking up the broom and helping out the so-called untouchable janitors in cleaning up the community toilets ? Infact , one of the strictest rules in Gandhi`s ashram was that everybody cleaned their own toilets - regardless of their caste or birth. Inter-caste marriages were also encouraged.

I am no admirer of Gandhi and hate him for fasting to blackmail the newly formed Indian nation to give away 1/3rd of its treasury to Pakistan , at a time when India and Pakistan were fighting a war over Kashmir. I think Gandhi put his beliefs , and his ideals ,noble as they were , before national interest .

But Gandhi was no racist. Gandhi was in many ways a naive fool , but a good kindly saintly man. A true follower of Jesus , Gandhi`s views are relevant in a perfect world , a world without vices , without evil. Show the other cheek when slapped ain`t really an attractive concept anymore. Just doesn`t work.

---

That idiot Yasser Hamdani is repeating as usual his `Gandhi=Racist` rants. The idea is to build up on his pet Jinnah by crapping on Gandhi. Silly really. Nobody apart from the subcontinent types have heard of a guy called `Jinnah` ....while every 10 year old child from Barcelona to San Francisco has heard of a modern day saint called Gandhi.

As another equally famous man Albert Einstein said , Gandhi was , ``Greatest man ever who walked on the earth...``

What a puny little insecure fool like Hamdani thinks is immatereal really. As per reliable sources , the fool was bullied by his own students in the high school where he worked as a teacher for a while .

Somehow Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. missed that one out and now a community college educated Pakistani has taken it upon himself to educate the world about how racist Gandhi ji was.

Re: # 82
//....I seriously doubt that he at anytime was emotionally taken over by the extreme fanaticism ...//

Well - jinnah ordered ``direct action day`` - which was basically an open call to create mayhem and spill blood.... That`s as extreme as it gets....

CINEMA & HISTORY

A tale of two Bhagat Singhs

Two recent films on the legendary revolutionary draw attention - one for its inaccurate rendering of history and another for its largely objective narration of facts.

SUDHANVA DESHPANDE


THIS monsoon, it is raining Bhagat Singh in Mumbai. There are five films on the revolutionary in various stages of completion. Two or three have been released.

This event has been greeted with considerable cynicism. Far from signifying an upsurge of Left ideas in the commercial film industry, the five films are seen as examples of the cannibalisation of an authentic, anti-colonial people`s hero for the sake of profit and jingoism. Two of these films come with the prestige and money power of big banners attached to them. One, Shaheed: 23 March 1931, is produced by Dharmendra and features his younger son Bobby Deol as Bhagat Singh, while elder son Sunny Deol plays Chandrashekhar Azad. The other, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, comes from Tips Films with Ajay Devgan playing the lead under Rajkumar Santoshi`s direction.

THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY
Bhagat Singh.

There is more than enough reason to look at both films sceptically. Sunny Deol starred in the biggest box office success of 2001, Gadar, one of the most communal and jingoistic films in recent times. Subsequent- ly, he evolved a brand identity around a potent combination of anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan rhetoric in films such as Maa Tujhe Salaam and Indian. Getting younger brother Bobby Deol to do Bhagat Singh is clearly an effort to cash in on the brand image.

Rajkumar Santoshi`s films, on the other hand, have been a mixed bag. His early hits included Damini, where a rape victim is defended by an alcoholic lawyer (played by Sunny Deol), and Ghayal, where a youth (Sunny Deol again) is caught in the vortex of mafia violence. While in these films Santoshi displayed touches of sensitivity normally absent in commercial directors, his recent films have included Pukar, a jingoistic, rabidly anti-Pakistan film, for which its hero Anil Kapoor received the National Award for the Best Actor from a jury that included the editor of the mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The Deol version of the cinematic life of Bhagat Singh has been entirely predictable: historically inaccurate, loud, tasteless and pop-patriotic. The other, the Rajkumar Santoshi version, has sprung a surprise: contrary to the fears of sceptics including this writer, it has turned out to be well-made, historically more or less accurate, sober, and, in the context of commercial cinema, politically progressive.

Bhagat Singh, of course, is one of the most enduringly charismatic figures of the Indian anti-colonial struggle. A martyr at the age of 23, his life and struggles have passed into countless folk songs, plays and films. In popular perception, Bhagat Singh is seen as a fearless patriot who did not hesitate to sacrifice his life at the altar of freedom for his country. If all that one had as evidence of Bhagat Singh`s life was the first of these two films, Shaheed: 23 March 1931, one would not be faulted for thinking that he was just a romantic, raving and ranting, nearly jingoistic youth. He wears designer jackets as an ethereal Aishwarya Rai not only sings and dances for him, but even presses his legs. Worse, he seems perpetually to wear an expression that says, ``Look at me, I`m so cool.`` In a recent interview to a film magazine, when asked how he had prepared for the challenging role, Bobby Deol claimed that while he did not read a single word on Bhagat Singh, he was told stories of the hero by his grandmother. Hence Bobby Deol knew that Bhagat Singh loved his mother a lot, but also that he loved his country more. Fittingly, then, Bobby Deol`s Bhagat Singh looks thoroughly moronic throughout the film.

The film is full of inaccuracies. For instance, Lala Lajpat Rai, the Congress leader who later went with the Hindu Mahasabha, is shown to be a Ghadar Party leader! Even the basic chronology is sometimes unclear, as is the location of several scenes. The film is a typical product of the Mumbai film industry, where the market and its perceived preferences overrule all else. As a result, none of the comrades of Bhagat Singh, played as they are by lesser-known actors, register. Forget about Bhagwati Charan Vohra or Phanindranath Ghosh, even Sukhdev and Rajguru appear merely as appendages to the hero. As one leaves the film hall, one is hard-pressed to remember even what Rajguru looked like. However, his is probably a better fate than that which befalls poor Sukhdev, who is played by a glamorous model and is remembered only for that reason.

The film, like any Mumbai potboiler, showcases the hero, Bobby Deol, at the expense of all else. Except, of course, elder brother Sunny Deol, who appears as Chandrashekhar Azad, the legendary revolutionary who, when cornered by the British police, preferred to shoot himself than be captured alive. In fact, initial reports had indicated that Sunny Deol was going to direct the film. When it became clear that Santoshi`s film was going to be released in June, Sunny Deol, hard-pressed for time, handed over the direction to his cousin Guddu Dhanoa. Sunny Deol himself stepped into the role of Azad to boost the star value of the film. Sunny Deol merely repeats his by now well-known film persona - a loud, jingoistic, what some call earthy but is, in fact, merely an uncouth he-man with rippling biceps. Expectedly, Bobby Bhagat and Sunny Azad monopolise screen time. And on screen, the two brothers seem merely to play out their real life relationship - kid brother forever deferential, forever hoping to match the achievements of big brother. In the event, the film becomes a love story between two brothers.

There is not a single scene or dialogue in the film that tells us anything about Bhagat Singh`s ideology. But what is most unforgivable is that he is turned into a theist and a Hindu nationalist. Early in the film, we see Bhagat Singh singing a patriotic song at a function where the backdrop on the stage has an image of `mother` India, a woman`s picture rising out of the suitably saffron map of the country. This, of course, is an image one sees everywhere, and is systematically disseminated by the RSS. And in the RSS image, as in the film, the country is seen in its original, undivided state, which is also the fascist fantasy of the future akhand Hindu rashtra. In the Dushehra bomb scene, Bobby Bhagat metomorphosises into a Ram-like figure, setting the effigy of Ravan on fire with a shot from his pistol. Later in the film, when his mother comes to meet him one final time, Bhagat Singh asks her not to be morose, for he will be born again. When asked the perfectly reasonable question of how she is to recognise him in his future birth, she is told to look for the mark of the hanging on his neck. And later still, when the prison official comes to him pleading that at least now, in his final hour, he should recall God, Bobby Bhagat refuses because, first, he does not want people to think he is afraid of death, and second, recalling God is only an external act: God resides in each one of us!

COURTESY: TIPS FILMS
From The Legend of Bhagat Singh, in which Ajay Devgan plays the lead role.

This comes from the mouth of the man who, awaiting death in the condemned cell, wrote thus in that famously spirited celebration of atheism, `Why I am an atheist`: ``I know in the present circumstances my faith in God would have made my life easier, my burden lighter, and my disbelief in Him has turned all the circumstances too dry, and the situation may assume too harsh a shape. A little bit of mysticism can make it poetical. But I do not want the help of any intoxication to meet my fate. I am a realist.`` And a socialist, he may have added. For Bhagat Singh`s atheism was not a matter of personal vanity, as he was at pains to point out. He embraced atheism because he was fighting for a just social order. ``British rule is here not because God wills it, but because they possess power and we do not dare oppose them. Not that it is with the help of God that they are keeping us under their subjection, but it is with the help of guns and rifles, bomb and bullets, police and militia, and our apathy, that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin against society - the outrageous exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is he doing? Is he enjoying all these woes of human race? A Nero, a Changez: Down with him.``

His atheism was not a mechanical subscription to a conspiracy theory, but actually quite nuanced. He wrote: ``Unlike certain of the radicals I would not attribute [the] origin [of the idea of God] to the ingenuity of the exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjection by preaching the existence of a supreme being and then claiming an authority and sanction from him for their privileged positions, though I do not differ with them on the essential point that all faiths, religions, creeds and such other institutions became in turn the mere supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against the king is always a sin, according to every religion.``

To turn this militant atheist into a believer and a Hindu nationalist: a greater insult to the memory of a revolutionary can scarcely be imagined.

For that is what he was, a true revolutionary, not a romantic terrorist. He, along with his comrades, was clearly moving towards socialism and Marxism when his life was brutally snubbed out by the colonial regime. Two of his comrades were Shiv Verma, who helped found the Communist Consolidation at the Andaman Cellular Jail, and went on to become the Uttar Pradesh State secretary of the undivided Communist Party of India, and Ajoy Ghosh, who became the general secretary of the undivided party. This aspect, that Bhagat Singh was not a lone hero, but a part of a remarkable group of revolutionaries, is something that the Santoshi film, The Legend of Bhagat Singh, brings out quite admirably. Not only does Ajay Devgan bring passion and maturity to his portrayal in the lead role, his supporting cast - Sushant Singh as Sukhdev, D. Santosh as Rajguru, Akhilendra Mishra as Chandrashekhar Azad, Raj Babbar as Bhagat Singh`s father Sardar Kishan Singh and Farida Jalal as his mother - are all superb. The other revolutionaries, Jatin Das (who died on the 63rd day of the epic group hunger strike undertaken by the revolutionaries in jail for better living conditions), Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Shiv Verma, Ajoy Ghosh and Phanindranath Ghosh are not only mentioned but their faces and personalities linger in the mind long after the film is over. Particularly powerful is the hunger strike sequence. The camera moves slowly from face to emaciated face, revealing for the viewers both the tremendous hardship undertaken and their iron resolve.

Much of the politics of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) is also brought out in the film. In fact, in a powerful speech at the historic Phirozeshah Kotla conference of the organisation (where the word `socialist` was added to the original name of Hindustan Republican Association), Bhagat Singh outlines his vision of freedom. According to him, freedom cannot mean merely the replacement of the white man by the brown man while exploitation of the masses, the workers and the peasants continues. Freedom must stand for freedom from want, hunger, poverty, and oppression; in a word, socialism. This is a theme that runs through the film. Early on, as students, when Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Bhagwati Charan Vohra are first introduced to the idea of socialism by their teacher Vidyalankar, in the background pictures of Marx and Lenin; through the film, Bhagat Singh stresses the need to reach out to the workers and peasants; visuals of striking workers in Bombay being lathi-charged are shown as a prelude to the revolutionaries deciding to protest the Trade Disputes Bill and the Public Safety Bill; when they are asked in court if they even understand what their slogan means, we see each of the revolutionaries spell out the meaning of revolution in a stirring sequence of pithy one-liners; and finally, as the jail staff come to march Bhagat Singh to his death, we find him reading Lenin. Shockingly, if press reports are to be believed, the Board of Film Certification intervened to have some more references to Lenin and the Communist Party edited out.

COURTESY: TIPS FILMS
To his right D. Santosh, in the role of Rajguru, and to his left is Sushant Singh, as Sukhdev.

What also comes out is the revolutionaries` commitment to secularism. This is brought out in songs and in many scenes, but what is perhaps most significant is when, early in the film, we hear the revolutionaries disapproving of Lala Lajpat Rai`s flirting with the Hindu Mahasabha. That the film actually criticises Lala Lajpat Rai is significant, not simply because he is a nationalist icon, but because it is his death that the revolutionaries avenged by killing the police officer Saunders. Nor is Bhagat Singh`s atheism concealed. His mother makes a reference to it fairly early in the film, and finally, as he mounts the steps of the gallows, he says to the prison official who implores him to remember God: ``I have neither fear of death, nor belief in God.``

THE other nationalist figure who comes in for severe criticism in the film is Gandhi. This is cause for some uneasiness, given the RSS antipathy to the Mahatma. Yet, the fact remains that Gandhi`s role in the whole episode was questionable. It may be recalled that talks between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, began on February 17, 1931, and culminated on March 5 with the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Bhagat Singh and his comrades were hung on March 23. What did Gandhi do in these 18 days? Certainly, he did not make the commutation of death sentences to life terms a condition for signing the pact. Although he later claimed he tried his best to save the young revolutionaries` lives, is it entirely true? For a balanced answer to this question, one can turn to A.G. Noorani`s excellent study, The Trial of Bhagat Singh (Konark Publishers, New Delhi, 1996). Noorani says: ``Gandhi alone could have intervened effectively to save Bhagat Singh`s life. He did not, till the very last. Later claims... are belied by the record which came to light four decades later. In this tragic episode, Gandhi was not candid either to the nation or even to his closest colleagues about his talks with the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, on saving Bhagat Singh`s life.`` What the film also brings out is that it is the growing influence of the revolutionaries that forced the Congress, which had until then been asking for dominion status, to adopt purna swaraj as its slogan.

THIS is, of course, not to say that the Santoshi version is flawless, cinematically or politically. For instance, one would have liked to see more of the substance of Bhagat Singh`s brilliant defence in court, not just its rhetoric, or to find some reference to his fierce opposition to the caste system. Moreover, Bhagat Singh`s intellectual calibre is not fully apparent, nor is his voracious reading. His love of poetry is, likewise, absent. Even more jarring is the absence of Ashfaqullah, one of the main architects of the Kakori action, from the film. The British, particularly Lord Irwin, come across as somewhat dull in the head, as does Nehru. And the romantic angle could have been avoided. Lastly, while Ajay Devgan performs with dignity and fire, there is some merit in the argument against casting an established star in such a role: you keep seeing the star, not the revolutionary.

What is interesting, however, is that a film like this has actually been made in the times we live in, when the commercial film industry has been virtually taken over by the saffron brigade. Not being an insider, one can only hazard a guess - more than Rajkumar Santoshi, perhaps the credit for this should go to Anjum Rajabali and Piyush Mishra, who have written the script and dialogues for the film. While Rajabali is known to have a progressive background, and has in the past taken public positions on a range of social issues, Mishra, a National School of Drama graduate, has been associated with a progressive theatre group in Delhi. (In fact, a play by this group on Bhagat Singh scripted by Mishra has been acknowledged for having provided some of the background for the film.) Even if infrequently, then, the fortress of commercial Hindi cinema can be breached. Regardless of the fate of the film at the box office, that surely is cause for a small celebration

Mantolives #72
I did not mention the Gandhi-Irwin pact in #63, I quoted and cited Durga Das on Gandhi meeting personally with Irwin to appeal for clemency and commutation of death sentences of Bhagat Singh and his colleagues. And btw, Durga Das was himself present in the Central Assembly during the attack as anyone who reads the link for himself will know.

But I don`t think a majority of chowkies are honest enough to read that link (or the African National Congress one of AlephNull`s in #69) so I encourage you to keep ranting and they will continue to believe your lies.

Both Jinnah and Gandhi were not sexy and that should be counted against them.

Other than that they were a product of their own environments and acted that way. If Gandhi was a racist then at least he was honest enough to come out and state whatever he believed in. That to me is a qualification when we look at Gandhi’s persona overall. He never denied what he wrote in SA and he never repeated his politics from South Africa to India and adjusted to Indian realities of several religions and respect for every religion while following his own beliefs the way he saw them.

Jinnah was more of a constitutionalist and he adopted western thoughts readily. However, he too respected all religions without probably subscribing to any. He took up the Muslim case and fought like an honest lawyer and did justice to his client. I seriously doubt that he at anytime was emotionally taken over by the extreme fanaticism that is often part of religious politics.

Strangely, Godse was possibly, more liberal in his religious outlook than Gandhi but Godse ended up being known as a religious big0t and fanatic and Gandhi held the secular flag firm.

Jinnah probably an agnostic led the struggle for a homeland for Muslims that ended up in the hands of obnoxious religionists and heavily influenced by fanatics. Gandhi led to create a nation of many faiths and his country too is drifting towards the religious fanaticism.

Let them both rest in peace…They both were beaten by the countries they created.

Mantolives popular opinion is not the same as academic inquiry. Every historian worth his salt knows Gandhi`s biggest weakness was his social conservatism, it was inevitable in a soul that was religious, for the caste system was an integral and living part of hinduism. But still gandhi is a positive icon on the whole, just as the majority of the muslims follow the good teachings of mohd. so do Indians follow Gandhi`s positive aspects. His ``maun vrats`` may look disingenuous, since he took one also on the day of final partition negotiations, but the thinking behind them was well thought out just as Mohd.`s revelations were.

dost mittar

In interact 30 u are right on the whole but here you are again unconciously revealing anti muslim bias in this statement ``or to stop anti-muslim riots in Calcutta, he never used the same weapon in Lahore or to force Muslims to give up their demand for Pakistan, because he knew that his weapon would not work with the Muslims. ``

Gandhi used his `` weapon `` to stop anti hindu rioting in a pedominantly muslim district of Noakhali as well, he used to use it where he felt the demonstration effect would be maximum and where he had a chance. Gandhi didnt use his weapon in Lahore, but then he didnt use it in Ferozpur or Patiala or Jullunder either, even in Delhi he was ineffictive.

#60 by Mantolives on October 4, 2005 8:47am PT

As far as their legacy is concerned, Gandhi is a universally recognized symbol of goodness and Jinnah is a virtual unknown...Pasting 2 MB of information won`t change that...When you close your eyes, just cause it gets dark, it doesn`t mean the sun has set...

But what really bugs you ? Maybe it`s not really Jinnah`s ideals you care about...maybe you care about a Pakiland in which ahmedis aren`t non-muslims...if using jinnah`s ideals helps your argument, than you`ll that...

in essence, you`re using jinnah as a straw to hold on to save yourself from drowning...


Ironic fact about Gandhi... his statue in San Fransisco is sponsored by Pepsico... so much for his simplicity and village life theories..


Funny thing is, most Americans will know who gandhi street(ln/way?) in chicago is named after...Pakis pulled a me-too stunt and got a street named after jinnah but ask anyone who jinnah was and they`ll come up blank...

As far as I`m concerned, both gandhi and jinnah are dead and irrelevant...

Here are excerpts of my post from the same board that MS. I-never-keep-my-word- and I-hold-a- brief-from-the-RSS Sadna referred to on the same issue.

#79 by HP on March 20, 2005 7:34pm PT

How people become elitists or non-elitist by wearing different types of cloths is beyond me.
Why an act of cleaning bathroom would make one a non-elitist and drinking sherry and wearing suits makes another elitist is also beyond me. Only stupid would come up with these definitions of the elitism.


There were two Gandhi: One was a racist who always wore three piece suits in south Africa and who was writing long letters to the white rulers in South Africa about putting INDIANS and KAFIRs(black Africans) in the same residential areas. He was objecting to Kafir in close proximity of Indians and begging the whites to send Blacks in different areas. He vehemently was objecting to putting Indians and Blacks in the same schools and he objected to the idea that Blacks and Indian could share a car in a train. He wanted blacks to use different cars. He actually actively subscribed to apartheid and was never shy of displaying his anger with the whites for treating Indians and Kafirs(blacks) as one.

At this point I can very well say that when Gandhi lived in South Africa, he was not only an elitist but a racist too. He was elitist because in the dead heat of summer in Africa he never took off his “three-piece Savile Row suit.”

Some Quotes from Gandhi ji’s different petitions to white rulers

“A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”
“If the whole objection to the Indian proceeds from sanitary grounds, the following restrictions are entirely unintelligible:
1. The Indians, like the Kaffirs, cannot become owners of fixed property.
2. The Indians must be registered, the fee being 3 pounds 10S.
3. In passing through the Republic, like the Natives, they must be able to produce passes unless they have the registration ticket.
4. They cannot travel first or second-class on the railways. They are huddled together in the same compartment with the Natives.
So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.”

“Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of a raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness”

Can India find a better spokesperson for racism?

Need more quotes: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305995

We all know how Gandhi Ji changed in India. He was cleaning bathrooms and wearing dhoti. He was a politician and politicians are like actors they change with the passage of time. From hero to character actor to minor rules at the end of the career.

Jinnah and Gandhi were politicians/actors. They changed when they had to and there is no need to look beyond that.

More later... And there are MANY more mind you...

Gandhiji rules: His views on PURITY of race and predominance of the white race only in South Africa though...


``We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race

Indian Opinion 24-9-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 453

Gandhi`s wonderful statement no 4


``Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of a raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.``

Address in Bombay, CWOMG, Vol. 2, pg 74

Gandhi continued:

Wonderful statement no 2:

``If the whole objection to the Indian proceeds from sanitary grounds, the following restrictions are entirely unintelligible:

1. The Indians, like the Kaffirs, cannot become owners of fixed property.
2. The Indians must be registered, the fee being 3 pounds 10S.
3. In passing through the Republic, like the Natives, they must be able to produce passes unless they have the registration ticket.
4. They cannot travel first or second-class on the railways. They are huddled together in the same compartment with the Natives.

So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir``


( Petition to Lord Ripon, CWOMG, Vol. 1, pg 199-200)

Beej

For all your glossing here is a statement... I`ll post more as the night progresses..


Gandhi`s wonderful statement no 1:

A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.

Collected works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 1, pg 150-151

Dost Mitter,

But he is not on stronger footing because there is no such statement... furthermore Jinnah`s statement praising British Liberalism and British legal tradition in form of John Morley is also there... We also know that the position he took in favor of Dadabhoy was completely influenced by his view that racism needs to be defeated.

Please let us learn to be honest... saying Jinnah might have been because his contemporaries were is rather sad... especially since Jinnah is on the record condemning it... Meanwhile every Indian and his mother in law is ready to extol Gandhi, despite his clear bigotry and racism.

What I find ironic is that Sadna has come on the FP and is claiming that Gandhi`s famous pact with Irwin was actually Gandhi pleading for Bhagat Singh...

Yet no statement proving this was ever released and Gandhi signed the pact with Irwin... Gandhi`s antipathy to Bhagat Singh is well known...

Its not that Jinnah liked Bhagat Singh... but that he stood for principle.

anil:

In a sense, one can say that religion was introduced in politics when Sir Syed said that Muslims of India were a separate nation. However, I would prefer to call it communalisation. I do not consider Gandhi`s mention of Ram Rajya as introdution of religion as it was merely symbolic of a just society for those familiar with hindu mythology, just an expression like Adl-e-Jehangir.

However, his support of khilafat - an islamist movement - was certainly introducing religion into politics, and this was the first significant breaking point between Jinnah and Gandhi.

You may be on a stronger footing wrt racism and Jinnah. We have a tendency to judge the past by the current value system. People during Jinnah`s time accepted racism and casteism as a matter of fact; Muslims practised untouchability towards their sweepers just as rigidly as did their Hindu brethren. When Indians talked about anti-racism back then, and even now, they complained about the racism of the whites directed at them. As far as racism against blacks by Indians is concerned, I am unaware of any major leaders talking about it.

Beej:
That was quite an informative piece about Gandhi`s views about black Africans. Thanks.

All interactors:
(now, where did we hear that before?!)

As a follow-up to interact #65, here are Gandhi’s own words on the Zulu war – taken from his autobiography. Thanks for reading!

---

Chapter 101

THE ZULU `REBELLION`

Even after I thought I had settled down in Johannesburg, there was to be no settled life for me. Just when I felt that I should be breathing in peace, an unexpected event happened. The papers brought the news of the out break of the Zulu `rebellion` in Natal. I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the `rebellion` itself. But I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire. The rightness or otherwise of the `rebellion` was therefore not likely to affect my decision. Natal had a Volunteer Defence Force, and it was open to it to recruit more men. I read that this force had already been mobilized to quell the `rebellion`.

I considered myself a citizen of Natal, being intimately connected with it. So I wrote to the Governor, expressing my readiness, if necessary, to form an Indian Ambulance Corps. He replied immediately accepting the offer.

I had not expected such prompt acceptance. Fortunately I had made all the necessary arrangements even before writing the letter. If my offer was accepted, I had decided to break up the Johannesburg home. Polak was to have a smaller house, and my wife was to go and settle at Phoenix. I had her full consent to this decision. I do not remember her having ever stood in my way in matters like this. As soon, therefore, as I got the reply from the Governor, I gave the landlord the usual month`s notice of vacating the house, sent some of the things to Phoenix and left some with Polak.

I went to Durban and appealed for men. A big contingent was not necessary. We were a party of twenty-four, of whom, besides me, four were Gujaratis. The rest were ex-indentured men from South India, excepting one who was a free Pathan.

In order to give me a status and to facilitate work, as also in accordance with the existing convention, the Chief Medical Officer appointed me to the temporary rank of Sergeant Major and three men selected by me to the rank of sergeants and one to that of corporal. We also received our uniforms from the Government. Our Corps was on active service for nearly six weeks. On reaching the scene of the `rebellion`, I saw that there was nothing there to justify the name of `rebellion`. There was no resistance that one could see. The reason why the disturbance had been magnified into a rebellion was that a Zulu chief had advised non-payment of a new tax imposed on his people, and had assagaied a sergeant who had gone to collect the tax. At any rate my heart was with the Zulus, and I was delighted, on reaching headquarters, to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus. The Medical Officer in charge welcomed us. He said the white people were not willing nurses for the wounded Zulus, that their wounds were festering, and that he was at his wits` end. He hailed our arrival as a godsend for those innocent people, and he equipped us with bandages, disinfectants, etc., and took us to the improvised hospital. The Zulus were delighted to see us. The white soldiers used to peep through the railing that separated us from them and tried to dissuade us from attending to the wounds. And as we would not heed them, they became enraged and poured unspeakable abuse on the Zulus.

Gradually I came into closer touch with these soldiers, and they ceased to interfere. Among the commanding officers were Col. Sparks and Col. Wylie, who had bitterly opposed me in 1896. They were surprised at my attitude and specially called and thanked me. They introduced me to General Mackenzie. Let not the reader think that these were professional soldiers. Col. Wylie was a well-known Durban lawyer. Col. Sparks was well known as the owner of a butcher`s shop in Durban. Gereral Mackenzie was a noted Natal farmer. All these gentlemen were volunteers, and as such had received military training and experience.

The wounded in our charge were not wounded in battle. A section of them had been taken prisoners as suspects. The General had sentenced them to be flogged. The flogging had caused severe sores. These, being unattended to, were festering. The others were Zulu friendlies. Although these had badges given them to distinguish them from the `enemy`, they had been shot at by the soldiers by mistake.

Besides this work I had to compound and dispense prescriptions for the white soldiers. This was easy enough for me as I had received a year`s training in Dr. Booth`s little hospital. This work brought me in close contact with many Europeans.

We were attached to a swift-moving column. It had orders to march wherever danger was reported. It was for the most part mounted infantry. As soon as our camp was moved, we had to follow on foot with our stretchers on our shoulders. Twice or thrice we had to march forty miles a day. But wherever we went, I am thankful that we had God`s good work to do, having to carry to the camp on our stretchers those Zulu friendlies who had been inadvertently wounded, and to attend upon them as nurses.

In a past interact

here

AlephNull had posted this article from the African National Congress website which discusses Gandhi and blacks.

Gandhi and the Black People of South Africa

Re: # 60
//...Jinnah stood for Indian Unity for 35 out of his 41 year career ...//

Looks like our man wasted 35 years of his ``career``.... In just 6 years, the man created a whole new country - can you imagine how much he could have done if he would have started earlier :)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi: Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up?

By G.B. SINGH
G.B. Singh is a Colonel in the U.S. Army and author of the forthcoming Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (Prometheus Books, April 1, 2004). He may be reached via email at gb7495@hotmail.com

African Americans for Humanism Examiner, Sep. 1, 2002 (Fall, 2002; Vol. 12, No. 3)


Photo: G.B. Singh

Almost everyone knows of Mahatma Gandhi. Barring few exceptions within the ranks of fundamentalist Hindus, Gandhi is universally recognized for his nonviolent crusades to seek justice, liberty and equality, and applauded for bringing independence to India from British colonialism. Some Hindu fundamentalists do not think much of Gandhi because they believe that he harbored excessive pro-Muslim views, which went against the general welfare of the Hindus. The validity of such views has never been openly debated, and those who hold such anti-Gandhi views have never examined their views critically. If other Indians outside the small circle of Hindu fundamentalists held anti-Gandhi opinions, I am not aware of them. Moreover, the public has been told that the vast majority of Indians do respect Gandhi. Some even go so far as to literally worship him.

I was raised in India and taught to follow in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi. After coming to the United States, I was amazed to see how popular Gandhi was in Western society - more so than in India, in some respects. Even more amazing was his popularity among Black Americans.

The release of the film Gandhi in 1982 increased his popularity, and young Black Americans went to the theaters to see the movie as part of their school curriculum. Now those Black Americans are adults, and many of them happen to meet me on a daily basis. Talking to them, I have recognized that Gandhi is a far more famous figure among African Americans. Many of them associate the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. with Gandhi. They believe that Dr. King followed in the footsteps of Gandhi and thus modeled his civil rights movement after him. Therefore, the successes of the movement are attributed to Gandhi. This view is even shared by the senior officials of the National Park Service that installed Gandhi`s statue at the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1998.

Because I enjoy my conversations with African Americans, I often get them thinking radically differently by asking them: `What was Gandhi`s relationship to Black people?`

They answer back: `The relationship had to be a good one.` This is supported, as they point out unhesitatingly, by the example of Dr. King, who, of course, followed him.

I then will ask: `Do you know that Dr. King never met Gandhi?`

Many of them are not aware that King and Gandhi had never met. I then repeat my earlier question: `What was Gandhi`s relationship to Black people?`

I get no answers.

Many Blacks are not cognizant of the fact that Gandhi lived in South Africa from 1893 to 1914. He then lived in India from 1915 to 1948. My question to them pertains to Gandhi`s relationship with Blacks precisely at the time when he lived in South Africa for 21 years. One cannot help but discern that there is not a single Black person anywhere in any of the photos of Gandhi during that time. With Black people in the great majority, there is no way that Gandhi had missed noticing them.

Why is this? The answer is very simple: Gandhi hated Black people. Only a few scholars are aware of this background. For all practical purposes, the burden of unraveling this mystery fell upon my shoulders. Here are some of the highlights:

In 1906 Gandhi had participated in a war against Blacks. The Gandhian literature either keeps quiet on the subject or tries to paint him as a great humanitarian who actually helped Blacks by rendering to them urgent medical care. Had he not done so, we are told, many Blacks would have died. While researching the historical documents, however, I found that Gandhi`s participation had nothing to do with `humanitarian concerns` for Black people. He was more concerned with `allying relationships` with the colonial Whites living in Natal colony. Driven by his racial outlook, he went out of his way to enlist Indians to join the army under him to fight for his cause against the Blacks. He also considered Indians living in South Africa to be `fellow colonists` along with the White colonists, over the indigenous Blacks.

We accredit Gandhi with inventing the great technique of satyagraha, the nonviolent resistance movement to redress wrongs. Satyagraha had its birth in South Africa, and the popular history books laud Gandhi`s successes in his struggles for his people against the system of apartheid. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. We need to ask: If Gandhi`s technique was so good and was of such tremendous importance to the suffering Blacks of South Africa, then why is it that not a single Black newspaper ever mentioned Gandhi`s satyagraha?

Again, as my research led me to delve more deeply into the historical records, I learned that the inception of Gandhi`s satyagraha had the underpinnings of anti-Black racism. This especially came to light after Gandhi was convicted for breaking the law in 1908, and then sentenced. To his surprise, as he walked into the prison, he noticed `niggers,` and had to live among them. This was bad news to him and it fortified his racist resolve which formed the very foundation of his satyagraha struggle. Here is one excerpt from my book that Gandhi wrote himself:

The cell was situated in the native quarters and we were housed in one that was labelled `For Colured 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, it was well that we were classed with the natives. We would now be able to study the life of native prisoners, their customs and manners.


I felt, too, that passive resistance had not been undertaken too soon by the Indian community. 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 fault did not lie with the gaol authorities. It was the fault of the law that has made no provision for the special treatment of Asiatic prisoners. Indeed, the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could within the regulations. The chief warder, as also the head warder, who was in immediate charge of us, completely fell in with the spirit that actuated the Governor. 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 among themselves in their cells. The Governor could not separate the very few Indian prisoners (it speaks volumes for Indians that among several hundred there were hardly half a dozen Indian prisoners) from the cells occupied by native prisoners. And yet it is quite clear that separation is a physical necessity. So much was the classification of Indians and other Asiatics with the natives insisted upon that our jumpers, which being new were not fully marked, had to be labelled `N,` meaning natives. How this thoughtless classification has resulted in the Indians being partly starved will be clearer when we come to consider the question of food.


A number of Black American leaders in the late 1930s went to India and met Gandhi. Their encounters with Gandhi have never been critically analyzed. The propaganda channels have tried to describe these visits as highly educational, claiming that they brought new vigor to the Blacks` fight against racism in America, using Gandhi`s example. The truth, however, is that two of these Black leaders, Benjamin E. Mays and Howard Thurman, who had such a profound influence on the Rev. King, never mentioned a word about Gandhi to the young adult King.

The Untouchable (the Black people) population of India should catch our attention. The history books tell us that Gandhi brought about revolutionary changes in the Hindu society to the point that prejudices against the Untouchables had just about evaporated. Is this at all accurate? Even Dr. King believed that Gandhi brought about the miracle in his following words:

One day Mahatma Gandhi stood before his people and said: `You are exploiting these Untouchables. Even though we are fighting with all that we have of our bodies and our souls to break loose from the bondage of the British Empire, we are exploiting these people and we are taking from them their selfhood and their self-respect.` He said, `I will refuse to eat until the leaders of the caste system will come to me with the leaders of the Untouchables and say that there will be an end to Untouchability and the Hindu temples of India will open their doors to the untouchables.`


And he refused to eat, and days passed. Finally when Gandhi was about to breathe his last breath, and his body was all but gone, a group from the Untouchables and a group from the Brahmin caste came to him and signed a statement that they would no longer adhere to the caste system. The priest of the temple came to him and said, `Now the temples will be opened to the Untouchables.` That afternoon, Untouchables from all over India went into the temples and all of these thousands and millions of people put their arms around the Brahmins and people of other castes. Hundreds of millions of people who had never touched each other for two thousand years were now singing and praising all together. This was a great contribution that Mahatma Gandhi brought about.


My research into Gandhi and what he actually did to the Untouchables is radically different from what the Rev. King uttered. In a nutshell, Gandhi made sure that the vast Untouchable population would be willingly subjugated forever under the oppression of the higher castes. Dr. King was off by a mile.

India was a British colony until 1947. We accredit Gandhi with launching satyagraha movements against the British, which ultimately forced the British out of India. This story has been told repeatedly to Black people all over the world, and there has always been an underlying point emphasizing that Blacks should emulate Gandhi. He is the messiah that will free us all from racial oppression. Critical scrutiny of the literature, however, suggests that Blacks should avoid Gandhi rather than emulate him.

In post-British India the Indian leaders proclaim themselves the followers of the peaceful Gandhi. Yet they are all seeking to build weapons of mass destruction. Did we miss something important here?

I am very well aware of the fact that my findings on Gandhi`s racism will incite a whole lot of controversy. Be that as it may, I am of the view that the facts speak for themselves. I have exhausted the last 18 years of my life critically analyzing these hidden documents, and I have no doubt that Gandhi harbored anti-Black views and forced his racial views on his fellow Indian countrymen while living in South Africa.

For other Indians on this list:

Mantolives is basically a front for Ayesha Jalal. The references he has provided
are ridiculois !!.
The excerpts are all opinions and there is hardly any information
about actual actions that the Mahatma took.
In the case of Jinnah of course - it is all about one or two statements he made -
nothing about tha actual actions.

All interactors,

Again, since an issue has earlier been made over Gandhi’s participation in the Boer war, it is again worthwhile to produce his complete chapter on that topic from his autobiography. Again, thanks for reading!

---

Chapter 64

THE BOER WAR

I must skip many other experiences of the period between 1897 and 1899 and come straight to the Boer War.

When the war was declared, my personal sympathies were all with the Boers, but I believed then that I had yet no right, in such cases, to enforce my individual convictions. I have minutely dealt with the inner struggle regarding this in my history of the Satyagraha in South Africa, and I must not repeat the argument here. I invite the curious to turn to those pages. Suffice it to say that my loyalty to the British rule drove me to participation with the British in that war. I felt that, if I demanded rights as a British citizen, it was also my duty, as such, to participate in the defence of the British Empire. I held then that India could achieve her complete emancipation only within and through the British Empire. So I collected to gather as many comrades as possible, and with very great difficulty got their services accepted as an ambulance corps.

The average Englishman believed that the Indian was a coward, incapable of taking risks or looking beyond his immediate self-interest. Many English friends, therefore, threw cold water on my plan. But Dr. Booth supported it whole-heartedly. He trained us in ambulance work. We secured medical certificates of fitness for service. Mr. Laughton and the late Mr. Escombe enthusiastically supported the plan, and we applied at last for service at the front. The Government thankfully acknowledged our application, but said that our services were not then needed.

I would not rest satisfied, however with this refusal. Through the introduction of Dr. Booth, I called on the Bishop of Natal. There were many Christian Indians in our corps. The Bishop was delighted with my proposal and promised to help us in getting our services accepted. Time too was working with us. The Beer had shown more pluck, determination and bravery than had been expected ; and our services were ultimately needed. Our corps was 1,100 strong, with nearly 40 leaders, About three hundred were free Indians, and the rest indentured. Dr. Booth was also with us, The corps acquitted itself well. Though our work was to be outside the firing line, and though we had the protection of the Red Cross, we were asked at a critical moment to serve within the firing line. The reservation had not been of our seeking. The authorities did not want us to be within the range of fire. The situation, however, was changed after the repulse at Spion Kop, and General Buller sent the message that, though we were not bound to take the risk, Government would be thankful if we would do so and fetch the wounded from the field. We had no hesitation, and so the action at Spion Kop found us working within the firing line. During these days we had to march from twenty to twenty-five miles a day, bearing the wounded on stretchers. Amongst the wounded we had the honour of carrying soldiers like General Woodgate.

The corps was disbanded after six weeks` service. After the reverses at Spion Kop and Vaalkranz, the British Commander-in-Chief abandoned the attempt to relieve Ladysmith and other places by summary procedure, and decided to proceed slowly, awaiting reinforcements from England and India.

Our humble work was at the moment much applauded, and the Indians` prestige was enhanced. The newspapers published laudatory rhymes with the refrain, `We are sons of Empire after all.`

General Buller mentioned with appreciation the work of the corps in his despatch, and the leaders were awarded the War Medal.

The Indian community became better organized. I got into closer touch with the indentured Indians. There came a greater awakening amongst them, and the feeling that Hindus, Musalmans, Christians, Tamilians, Gujaratis and Sindhis were all Indians and children of the same motherland took deep root amongst them. Everyone believed that the Indians` grievances were now sure to be redressed. At the moment the white man`s attitude seemed to be distinctly changed. The relations formed with the whites during the war were of the sweetest. We had come in contact with thousands of tommies. They were friendly with us and thankful for being there to serve them. I cannot forbear from recording a sweet reminiscence of how human nature shows itself at its best in moments of trial. We were marching towards Chievely Camp where Lieutenant Roberts, the son of Lord Roberts, had received a mortal wound. Our corps had the honour of carrying the body from the field. It was a sultry day -- the day of our march. Everyone was thirsting for water. There was a tiny brook on the way where we could slake our thirst. But who was to drink first? We had proposed to come in after the tommies had finished. But they would not begin first and urged us to do so, and for a while a pleasant competition went on for giving precedence to one another.

Beej,

Thanks for posting the exceprts.

Mantolives and his ilk are just into select excerpts and manipulation. He probably
learnt it from Ayesha Jalal.

Mantolives - again lies - he says Jinnah was for Indian unity ? but he fails to
disclose any details about the so called ``unity`` - the actual demands that were
part of being `united` matters. Without knowing anything about Jinnah`s demands
then using the word `unity` is meaningless.
This is just like how the Nazis wanted Austria all in the name of peace.
Of course, Jinnah wanted ``unity`` - but on his bigoted terms of course.

Partition was the best thing that happened. India.
All reasonable Indians must be grateful to Nehru, Patel and others for agreeing to
the partition.

``Gandhi didn`t do anything about Bhagat Singh only Jinnah did``.

Gandhi not only met Irwin personally to appeal to him for clemency and commutation of the death sentences, he wrote about it in the journal/newspaper Young India appealing to Irwin to show charity as a `great Christian`. Many other leaders across the political spectrum also appealed for clemency and commutation and after the executions, a number of (nonCongress) Indian members of the Imperial Council also walked out in protest.

Durga Das`s mention of the incidents are excerpted here(there is more in the book on the subject):
http://www.sulekha.com/weblogs/weblogdesc.asp?cid=24194


My advice ( if anyone cares for honest discussion, in other words, don`t bother if you are one of the majority here who don`t), is - don`t take the integrity or truthfulness of `debators` here for granted - always always check their assertions for yourself.

1. Grenier, Richard. The Gandhi Nobody Knows published in Commentary March 1983; pages 59 to 72. This is the best article on Gandhi briefly outlining his war activities against the blacks.

2. Kapur, Sudarshan. Raising up a Prophet: The African-American Encounter with Gandhi; Boston: Beacon Press, 1992
Excellent research book into the perspective of distant American blacks with respect to their new hero, Gandhi. However, this book has one major flaw: The author seems to be unaware of Gandhi`s anti-black activities in South Africa.

3. Huq, Fazlul. Gandhi: Saint or Sinner? Bangalore: Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1992.
Superb book. Really gets into the Gandhi`s anti-black ideology with a sense of history setting intact. This book can be purchased from the International Dalit Support Group, P.O Box 842066, Houston, Tx 77284-2066.

This book`s second chapteróGandhi`s Anti-African Racismóis a superb analysis of Gandhi`s anti-black thinking. We bring to you the whole chapter for your review:

Gandhi was not a whit less racist than the white racists of South Africa. When Gandhi formed the Natal Indian Congress on August 22, 1894, the no. 1 objective he declared was: ``To promote concord and harmony among the Indians and Europeans in the Colony.`` [Collected Works (CW)1 pp. 132-33]

He launched his Indian Opinion on June 4 1904: ``The object of Indian Opinion was to bring the European and the Indian subjects of the King Edward closer together.`` (CW. IV P. 320)

What was the harm in making an effort to bring understanding among all people, irrespective of colour, creed or religion? Did not Gandhi know that a huge population of blacks and coloured lived there? Perhaps to Gandhi they were less than human beings.

Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74), Gandhi said:

Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

In 1904, he wrote (CW. IV p. 193):

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 thingó-and most insultingó-to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.

In its editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 18 1905 wrote:

Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much? (Italic portion is added)

The Indian Opinion published an editorial on September 9 1905 under the heading, ``The relative Value of the Natives and the Indians in Natal``. In it Gandhi referred to a speech made by Rev. Dube, a most accomplished African, who said that an African had the capacity for improvement, if only the Colonials would look upon him as better than dirt, and give him a chance to develop self-respect. Gandhi suggested that ``A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year.`` Then he added:

Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented communityó-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.

Nothing could be further from the truth, that Gandhi fought against Apartheid, which many propagandists in later years wanted people to believe. He was all in favour of continuation of white domination and oppression of the blacks in South Africa.

In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating the use of fire-arms by the natives and Asiatics. Commenting on the Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 25 1905 stated:

In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?

Here is the budding Mahatma telling the white racists how they can perpetuate their Nazi domination over the vast majority of Africans.

In the British imperialist scheme, one important strategy was to divide and rule. Gandhi advised Indians not to align with other political groups in either coloured or African communities. In 1906 the coloured people in the colonies of Good Hope, the Transvaal and the Orange River colony, addressed a petition to the King Emperor demanding franchise rights. The petitioners showed clearly that, in one part of South Africa, namely the Cape of Good Hope, they had enjoyed the franchise ever since the introduction of representative institutions.

Commenting on the petition, the Indian Opinion of March 24 1906, declaring that ``British Indians have, in order that they may never be misunderstood, made it clear that they do not aspire to any political power,`` added:

It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all coloured people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being coloured people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other coloured communities in this country.

In a statement made in 1906 to the Constitution Committee, the British Indian Association led by Gandhi (CW. V p.335) said:

The British Indian Association has always admitted the principle of white domination and has, therefore, no desire, on behalf of the community it represents, for any political rights just for the sake of them.

Commenting on a court case, the Indian Opinion of June 2 1906, in its Gujrati section, stated:

You say that the magistrate`s decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate`s decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court`s decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams. (Italic portion is added)

Apartheid defended: Gandhi accepted racial segregation, not only because it was politically expedient as his Imperial masters had already drawn such a blueprint, it also conformed with his own attitude to the caste system. In his own mind he fitted Apartheid into the caste system: whites in the position of Brahmins, Indian merchants and professionals as Sudras, and all other non-whites as Untouchables.

Though Gandhi was strongly opposed to the comingling of races, the working-class Indians did not share his distaste. There were many areas where Indians, Chinese, Coloured, Africans and poor whites lived together. On February 15 1905, Gandhi wrote to Dr. Porter, the Medical Officer of Health, Johannesburg (CW. IV p.244, and ``Indian Opinion`` 9 April 1904):

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all 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 the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.

Dr. Porter replied that it was the Indians who sub-let to Africans.

Commenting on the White League`s agitation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24 1903:

We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.

Again, on December 24 1903, Indian Opinion stated:

The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races`. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.

In his farewell speech at a meeting held in the house of Dr. Gool in Capetown, which was reported in the Indian Opinion of July 1 1914, Gandhi said:

The Indians knew perfectly well which was the dominant and governing race. They aspired to no social equality with Europeans. They felt that the path of their development was separate. They did not even aspire to the franchise, or, if the aspiration exists, it was with no idea of its having a present effect.

Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. It is essential to discuss the background of the Bambata Rebellion, to place Gandhi`s Nazi war crime in its proper perspective.

The Bambatta Rebellion--Background

The spiritual foundation of Nazism was the superiority of the Aryan race or its modern version, the Anglo-Saxon race. When Disraeli was Prime Minister, Britain enunciated a doctrine, like the Monroe Doctrine, warning other European powers that Africa would be a British preserve, and that from the Cape to the Limpopo, if not to Cairo, only white people would have local political power. Successive British Governments pursued this policy.

In the 1870s, the Zulu Kingdom was by far the most powerful African State of the Limpopo. Cetewayo, who succeeded his father in 1872, was an able and popular ruler. He united the kingdom and built up a most efficient army. He followed a policy of alliance with the British Colony of Natal. The Zulu Kingdom and the Boer Republic of the Transvaal had been feuding for a long time. The Zulus were defeated twice by the Boers, in 1838 and 1840. By 1877 Cetewayo was ready to invade the Transvaal. But the British stepped in and annexed the Transvaal in 1877, only to prevent Cetewayo from doing it first and becoming powerful and a challenge to white supremacy.

Some contemporary reports throw light on the relative strength of the Zulus and their Boer enemies. Colonel A.W. Durnford wrote in a memorandum on July 5 (``The Secret History of South Africa`` by Abercrombe. The Central News Agency Ltd., Johannesburg South Africa. 1951 p.6):

About this time (April 10th) Cetewayo had massed his forces in three corps on the borders, and would undoubtedly have swept the Transvaal, at least up to the Vaal River if not to Pretoria itself, had the country not been taken over by the English. In my opinion he would have cleared the country to Pretoria.

Shepstone, the British Administrator, himself wrote concerning the reality of the danger on Dec. 25 1877:

The Boers are still flying, and I think by this time there must be a belt of more than a hundred miles long and thirty broad in which, with three insignificant exceptions, there is nothing but absolute desolation. This will give some idea of the mischief which Cetewayo`s conduct has caused.(Ibid p.7).

The above facts explode the myth that the British protected the Zulus from the Boers.

British barbarity on Blacks: After annexing the Transvaal, Shepstone turned his attention to destroying all the independent African states in that region, particularly the Zulu Kingdom. Before annexation of the Transvaal, Shepstone sided with the Zulus in their border disputes with the Transvaal. After annexation he made a volte-face and used those disputes as excuses to invade Zululand. The British public was told that the Zulu War was to liberate the Zulu people from a tyrannical ruler, and South Africa from a menace to ``christianity and civilisation``.

In 1879, the British invaded the Zulu Kingdom and defeated Cetawayo. Then they started their complete subjugation. First the army was broken, thus destroying their ability to defend themselves. The country was then split into thirteen separate units under the nominal control of the chiefs, salaried by the Government. The white magistrates supplanted the chiefs as the most powerful men in their districts. Most important of all, the land was partitioned. Before the war, Shepstone had expressed the hope that Cetewayo`s warriors would be ``changed to labourers working for wages``. It makes a sad story, how this was accomplished. In 1902-4, the Land Commission delineated a number of locations for the Zulus, and threw open the rest of the country to white settlement. Out of a total acreage of more than 12 million acres, the Africans held some 2 million acres. They numbered, at the lowest reckoning, over three hundred thousand. The Europeans, who were less than 20,000, owned most of the best land. A large proportion of the African population was forced to live upon land to which it had no legal claim. Where the Africans lived upon private or crown lands, they lived there entirely upon sufferance and without legal title. By this time, other independent African states in that region were also destroyed by the British army. Wheresoever, they marched, in Basutoland, Zululand or Bechuanaland, the Queen`s horses and the Queen`s men were like unto a ``Salvation Army`` ministering to the welfare of the colonists. The sufferers were the Africans.

Gandhi wrote in his Satyagraha in South Africa (p.15):

The Boers are simple, frank and religious. They settle in the midst of extensive farms. We can have no idea of the extent of these farms. A farm with us means generally an acre or two, and sometimes even less. In South Africa, a single farmer has hundreds or thousands of acres of land in his possession. He is not anxious to put all this under cultivation at once, and if any one argues with him he will say, `Let it lie fallow; lands which are now fallow will be cultivated by our children`.

Also in his Indian Opinion (March 15 1913), he wrote:

General Botha has thousands of acres of land ... (there is) a big company in Natal which has hundreds of thousands of acres of land.

Thou shalt not steal but rob.

It did not seem to occur to Gandhi how these people came into possession of thousands of acres of land, whereas Africans were cooped in locations like chicken in pens.

Grabbing the land was not enough: it needed manpower to cultivate that land. The cry of the farmers was for labour. Naturally it found a favourite response from Shepstone, whose dream it was to convert Cetewayo`s warriors into labourers for white men. His native policy was to meet the demands of the European farmers. He agreed that Europeans could not expand or grow in wealth unless they could draw more fully upon the reservoirs of labour in the African reserves.

In the process of European colonisation, the swiftly expanding land-hungry Europeans turned the bulk of the African population into a proletariat. Due to the congestion and landlessness in the reserves, created deliberately by the white rulers, their agricultural return was not sufficient for bare existence. Then there were the taxes on huts, cattle and what not. On the other hand, working for white men did not provide them with adequate sustenance. In Natal, the sugar farmers of the coast relied upon the Indian indentured labour, whereas the stock farmers of the interior relied exclusively on Africans, and regarded the failure of Africans to work for them as a criminal offence. In a report to the Chief Commissioner of Police in 1903, the Police Inspector W.F. Fairley wrote: ``With regard to crime, the principal complaints made by Dutch farmers to patrols was of the refusal to work on the part of the natives.`` (Department Reports 1903 p.67 cited ``Reluctant Rebellion`` by Marks p.17. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970). Complaints about the shortage of African labour were voiced in all parts of the country. The farmers were later joined by the mining industries. The most obvious change was the broadening of the economic base from being entirely agricultural to one in which mining played a more and more important part. Diamond, gold, coal became major industries, and with this development, the deeper involvement of the big finance houses, particularly Rothschilds. So the fate of the Africans as the source of cheap labour, and the fat dividends derived from mining by the British ruling class, became interlinked. This still continues in a modified form. Now it is Anglo-American corporations.

Cheap labour from India: Europeans assumed that Africans lived only to meet their requirements of cheap labour, and as such they had no right to establish themselves as self-sufficient and independent farmers because this conflicted with European interests. Famines in India facilitates the recruitment of indentured Indian labourers for white employers in the Colonies. It was no different in relation to Africans. In a Report of the Native Affairs Commission, (Native Affairs Commission Report 1939-40 cited ``Oxford History of South Africa`` p.182. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1969) it was admitted that ``African reserves were regarded by whites as reservoirs of labour, and congestion, landlessness and crop failure were welcomed as stimulants to the labour supply``. Similar situations among whites were viewed as national calamities. The Government lent millions of pounds to white farmers, gave them tax relief in times of famine, paid subsidies, facilitated the export of their produce, and wrote off their debts. But what about Africans? Famine would be rampant, crops ruined, food exhausted, thousands of Africans and their cattle would starve to death, but the government would not raise a finger.

The whites not only stole the land from the Africans, and used them as cheap labour, but also looked to them for revenue. They drew a relatively large and growing income from the Africans. ``The Native population of Natal``, Shepstone admitted (``Imperial Factor`` by De Kieweit p.193. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970), ``contribute to the revenue annually a sum equal, at least, to that necessary to maintain the whole fixed establishment of the Colony for the government of the whites as well as themselves.`` Taxation is a financial measure to gather revenue to meet the expenditure of the state. But in South Africa it was used to reduce Africans to slavery. The sole motive behind the extra taxation imposed on Africans was to force the Africans to work on terms dictated by the whites.

Always there was resentment against any measure which would allow the Africans to settle in locations instead of keeping them as labourers. It was not only the farmers` conferences, the press owned by the mining magnates joined the outcry of the farmers to enact special laws to compel the Africans to come out of their locations and work for the whites. The press was in the forefront to arouse the sentiments that Africans not in European service were necessarily living in idleness. Gandhi`s Indian Opinion played second fiddle to the white press in this respect. To Gandhi, the imposition of taxes upon the Africans to compel them to work for the white employers was ``gentle persuasion``.

By a stroke of the pen, the major part of the available land was taken away from the Zulus and given to Europeans. Some of the dispossessed Zulus were allotted locations and others remained on the land of European landlords on sufferance. Bambata was one of these unfortunate chiefs. He became Chief in 1890 and he and his people were placed in private locations on very high rents. The land was useless for any agricultural purpose. To make things worse, the Boer farmers suspected Bambata of informing the British about their pro-Boer activities, and naturally they tried to victimise him and his people. But after the war, the British rulers leaned backwards and went out of their way to kiss and hug the Boers. So Bambata was caught in a cleft stick. By 1905 the tension between Bambata and his white landlords reached crisis point. The Assistant Magistrate of Greytown, H. Von Gerard, wrote to the Under Secretary of Native Affairs recommending the allocation of a location for his people. Gerard described how people were being oppressed and squeezed by the landlords, what useless land it was for agricultural purposes, and how summons after summons was being issued against people who were unable to pay high rents. Finally he remarked (``Reluctant Rebellion`` by Marks. P.201):

A most desperate state of affairs, the more so as there seems no remedy for it....My sympathies with Bambata`s people...but I see no way out of the difficulty.

The military and civilian leaders of Natal were consciously developing a picture as if an uprising was imminent. Not that they could foresee one, but they wanted to foresee one because that would give them a golden opportunity to inflict severe punishments on Zulus who, according to the colonists, were growing insolent. They drew up a plan to deal with this imaginary uprising swiftly, and all agreed that was the way they could save not only Natal but North Africa from the ``barbarities which only the savage mind can conceive.`` (Ibid p. Xvii)

Zulu Revolt: But outside Natal, people were not so sure. Styne, President of the Orange Free State, called it ``hysteria``. Smuts, Botha and Merriman expressed concern as to whether the whites of Natal would spur a rebellion. Some churchmen and many radical humanitarians in Natal, as well as England, produced volumes of irrefutable evidence proving that it was a conspiracy to goad the Zulus into rebellion and then massacre them. In this, Hariette Colenso, the famous daughter of a famous father, Bishop Colenso, made the most outstanding contribution. There was a cry of imminent native revolt in the press long before active rebellion broke out.

As far back as 1902, Lieu. G.A. Mills in his report (GH18/02. Cited ``Reluctant Rebellion`` p.158) to the Chief of Staff, Natal, on July 1 informed him:

Every Boer expresses the most bitter hatred of the Zulus. They all express a wish that the Zulus would rise now while the British troops are in the country so that they may be practically wiped out. The Boers all say that in the event of the rising, every one of them would join the British troops in order to have a chance of paying off old scores against the Zulus. When I first came here, I visited farms and asked the Boers what they thought of the advisability of keeping troops here. They all said it was most necessary, as they were afraid of the Kaffirs and it would not be safe to stay on their farms if the troops withdrew.... Taking everything into consideration, I cannot help being forced to the opinion that many Boers intend to provoke a Zulu rising if they can do so.

It was Colonel Mackenzie, the military supremo before the rebellion, who was prophesying a native uprising and cleaning the barrels of his guns to use the ``golden opportunity`` to inflict ``the most drastic punishment`` on leading natives he found guilty of treason, and to ``instill a proper respect for the white man``. (C.O. 179/233/12460. Dispatch 9.3.06 cited ``Reluctant Rebellion`` p. 188).

On June 14, Charles Saunders, Chief Magistrate and Civil Commissioner in Zululand (1899-1909) wrote to C.J. Hignet, the magistrate of Nqutu (``Reluctant Rebellion`` p.241):

I quite agree with your conclusions as to our men trying to goad the whole population into rebellion, and you have no idea of the difficulties we had in Nkandha in trying to protect people one knew perfectly well were faithful to us.

In his communication of July 10 1906 to the Prime Minister, (PM 61/15/66 Governor to PM 10.7.06) the Governor described the ``sweeping actions and the mopping-up operations as continued slaughter. Fred Graham, a permanent civil servant in the Colonial Office, in his Minute of July 10, described it as ``massacre``.

Nazism & racism: The most revealing was the long letter of July 24 1906 (CO 179/236/24787 minute 10-7-06) sent by the Anglican Archdeacon, Charles Johnson, from St. Augustine`s in Nqutu division, to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospels in London. He was a man of the British establishment and not known to have excessive zeal for standing up for the rights of the Africans. He wrote (cited ``Reluctant Rebellion`` p. 241):

Many thinking people have been asking themselves, what are we going to do with his teeming population? Some strong-handed men have thought the time was ripe for solving the great question. They knew that there was a general widespread spirit of disaffection among the natives of Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal, but specially in Natal, and they commenced the suppression of the rebellion in the fierce hope that the rebellion might so spread throughout the land and engender a war of practical extermination. I fully believe that they were imbued with the conviction that this was the only safe way of dealing with the native question, and they are greatly disappointed that the spirit of rebellion was not strong enough to bring more than a moiety of the native peoples under the influence of the rifle. Over and over again it was said, `They are only sitting on the fence, it shall be our endeavour to bring them over`; and again, speaking of the big chiefs, `We must endeavour to bring them in if possible! Yes, they have been honest and outspoken enoughó-the wish being father to the thoughtó-they prophesied the rebellion would spread throughout South Africa; had they been true prophets, no doubt the necessity of solving the native question would have been solved for this generation at least.

John Merriman was a veteran Cape politician. He was one of those so-called liberals who accepted Nazism as a doctrine, or in other words Anglo-Saxon superiority, but regretted its consequent atrocities and thus fumigated their consciences. He wrote to Goldwin Smith (Merriman papers NHo. 202, 16.9.06 cited ``Reluctant Rebellion`` p.246) in September 1906:

We have had a horrible business in Natal with the natives. I suppose the whole truth will never be known, but enough comes out to make us see how thin the crust is that keeps our christian civilisation from the old-fashioned savageryómachine-guns and modern rifles against knobsticks and assagais are heavy odds and do not add much to the glory of the superior race.

In the letter of the Archdeacon the expression ``practical extermination``, and in a letter of Lieutenant Mills ``practically wiped out``, have been used. This was what the German Nazis wanted to do to the Jews: to exterminate them. Does it make any difference whether the victims of racial slaughter are Jews or blacks?

Conspiracy to massacre Blacks: Gandhi was well aware of the conspiracy to massacre the Africans. When there was war hysteria in the colonial press, this prophet of non-violence did not apply his mind as to how to stop such a conflict. On the contrary, he did not want Indians to be left behind, but wanted them to take a full part in this genocide.

In his editorial in the Indian Opinion of Nov. 18 1905, long before the actual rebellion broke out, Gandhi complained that the Government simply did not wish to give Indians an opportunity of showing that they were as capable as any other community of taking their share in the defence of the colony. He suggested that a volunteer corps should be formed from colonial-born Indians, which would be useful in actual service.

Indentured Indians lived in conditions worse than slavery. Gandhi during his 20 years` stay in South Africa, did not raise a finger to ease their sufferings. But he was quick to suggest using them as cannon fodder for racists against Africans.

In his Indian Opinion in Dec. 2 1905 he referred to Law 25 of 1875 which was specially passed to increase ``the maximum strength of the volunteer force in the colony adding thereto a force of Indian immigrant volunteer infantry``. To assure the Europeans that such Indians would only kill Africans, he pointed out that ``section 83 of the Militia Act states that no ordinary member of the coloured contingent shall be armed with weapons of precision, unless such contingent is called to operate against other than Europeans``.

Gandhi defends massacre: Many years later, he wrote (p.233) in his autobiography:

The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the `rebellion` did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers` rifles exploding like crackers in innocent hamlets, and to live in the midst of them, was a trial.

Then to justify his participation in this massacre, he went on (Autobiography p. 231):

I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the `rebellion` itself, but I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire. The righteness or otherwise of the `rebellion` was therefore not likely to affect my decision.

What about the Nazi war criminals? Did they not have a genuine sense of loyalty to Hitler and Nazism?

In Great Britain another storm of protest was raised against the atrocities perpetrated in Natal. The only time Gandhi mentioned the Zulu suppression was on August 4 1906, when he wrote in his Indian Opinion:

A controversy is going on in England about what the Natal Army did during the Kaffir rebellion. The people here believe that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on the Kaffirs. In reply to such critics, the Star has pointed to the doings of the Imperial Army in Egypt. Those among the Egyptian rebels who had been captured were ordered to be flogged. The flogging was continued to the limits of the victim`s endurance; it took place in public and was watched by thousands of people. Those sentenced to death were also hanged at the same time. While those sentenced to death were hanging, the flogging of others was taken up. While the sentences were being executed, the relatives of the victims cried and wept until many of them swooned. If this is true, there is no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against Natal outrages.

One may notice that the article was very cleverly written. First Gandhi stated that people in England believed that the whites of Natal perpetrated great atrocities on Africans, as if he himself did not know what happened, and also gave the impression that it was the local Natal Army and not the Imperial Army which was involved in the atrocities, which is not true. Even at this stage, he was not willing to tell the simple truth, that atrocities were committed. Then he borrowed the description of hanging and flogging in Egypt from the Star as if he did not know about that either. Did or did not Gandhi know that those Egyptians were not common criminals to be flogged and hangedóthat they were the patriots, the flowers of the Egyptian nation?

If Gandhi unequivocally accepted or found out that the Imperial Army committed those atrocities, then he could not claim that he believed the British Empire existed for the welfare of mankind. The last and the vilest of all was the subtle suggestion that if the Imperial Army did what they were accused of doing, then there was no reason why there should be such an outcry in England against the Natal outrage. Why could this Imperialist-manufactured Mahatma not say clearly that both were crimes against humanity?

Mantolives wrote:
``You forget that Jinnah was not a product of casteism per se but Islam`s history no doubt instilled a deep sense of racial equality in him. But it was not just Islam and its first muezin... but also British legal tradition which had stood against slavery a 100 years before America stood against slavery... unlike Gandhi, Jinnah derived his morality completely from this tradition. ``

You pathetic liar. Islam endorses the most brutal forms of slavery. Infact, hundreds
of thousands of hindus were taken back to central asia as slaves. The casteism
in Islam is there for everyone to see. A ahmedi twit like you canot even set foot
in arabia. British Legal tradition did not stand against slavery or anything - infact
all they had done was have legalised slavery in terms of bonded laborers.

Another thing to keep in mind is the era for his time the Mahatma was the most
liberal. Compare the Mahatma views to what was being said by other people of the
time and you will know the difference.
Of course, liars like Mantolives only have opinions, they have nothing to
say on facts - such as actual demands of Jinnah , actual actions taken by Jinnah etc.
All that is to be justified away. Mantolives is displaying his typical paki education of
lying and obfuscation.

The accusation that Mahatma brought in religion into politics is again false. The whole
period of that time was completely about religion. The mullahs in the late 19th century
had even wanted to invite the Amirs of afghanistan to invade India and create a
dar-ul-islam !!! Even today, every action that the pakis take is full of religious dogma,
and justified by religious dogma.
The muslim leadership in that period in India had all kinds of fantasies.
Of course, a dhimmi fool like Dost-Mitter not knowing anything about that - then
accuses the Mahatma of brining in religion !!
Dhimmi Dost-Mitter, pls go to a library and see what the mullahs and brits were doing and
how they were using religion in that period - you will realize that what Mahatma did was
nothing comparable.

Even today to the Paki mind, Kashmir is only the first step and they dream of having
an islamic rule extending all the way from pakiland to bangladesh. Read their urdu
articles and you will know. The Pakis on this site are also pretty devious in the sense
that they dont expose all this. Some naive Indians fall for
the nonsense that the pakis spew.

Yawn... The fact that Jinnah stood for Indian Unity for 35 out of his 41 year career is usually lost on idiots. The fact that he is known in history as the best ambassador of hindu muslim unity. However this article is not about Jinnah...


Arjunm,

He had principles i.e. Equality justice and fairplay for all... it doesn`t matter if they are relevant or not... they are relevant to me.

And if that is the measure of judging a leader... what about Gandhi, whose so called non-violence, finds no reference in India today...

Ironic fact about Gandhi... his statue in San Fransisco is sponsored by Pepsico... so much for his simplicity and village life theories..

All interactors.

With at least one interactor here, it appears to be an article of faith that Gandhi had racist feelings. I am quoting below the first part of the second chapter from his book “Satyagraha in South Africa” where he candidly discusses his thoughts on the black people of South Africa – it provides a much better insight into his thinking than selective excerpts ever would! People should make up their own minds by reading for themselves – and not do so merely by listening to those whose objectivity on such issues may appear highly questionable. Thanks for reading.

(Note: it also appears that some of the terms, e.g., “epithet” were not derogatory terms back then – why else would “handsome” be considered an epithet?)

---

II.

History

The geographical divisions briefly noticed in the first chapter are not at all ancient. It has not been possibly definitely to ascertain who were the inhabitants of South Africa in remote times. When the Europeans settled in South Africa, they found the Negroes there. These Negroes are supposed to have been the descendants of some of the slaves in America who managed to escape from their cruel bondage and migrated to Africa. They are divided into various tribes such as the Zulus, the Swazis, the Basutos, the Bechuanas, etc. They have a number of different languages. These Negroes must be regarded as the original inhabitants of South Africa. But South Africa is such a vast country that it can easily support twenty or thirty times its present population of Negroes. The distance between Cape Town and Durban is about eighteen hundred miles by rail; the distance by sea also is not less than one thousand miles. The combined area of these four colonies is 473,000 square miles. In 1914 the Negro population in this vast region was about five millions, while the Europeans numbered about a million and a quarter.

Among the Negroes, the tallest and the most handsome are the Zulus. I have deliberately
used the epithet “handsome” in connection with Negroes. A fair complexion, and a pointed nose represent our ideal of beauty. If we discard this superstition for a moment, we feel that the Creator did not spare Himself in fashioning the Zulu to perfection. Men and women are both tall and broad-chested in proportion to their height. Their muscles are strong and well set. The calves of the legs and the arms are muscular and always well rounded. You will rarely find a man or woman walking with a stoop or with a hump back. The lips are certainly large and thick, but as they are in perfect symmetry with the entire physique, I for one would not say that they are unshapely. The eyes are round and bright. The nose is flat and large, such as becomes a large face, and the curled hair on the head sets off to advantage the Zulu’s skin which is black and shining like ebony If we ask a Zulu to which of the various races inhabiting South Africa he will award the palm for beauty, he will unhesitatingly decide in favour of his own people, and in this I would not see any want of judgement on his part. The physique of the Zulu is powerfully built and finely shaped by nature without any such effort as is made he Sandow and others in Europe in order to develop the muscles. It is a law of nature that the skin of races living near the equator should be black. And if we believe that there must be beauty. in everything fashioned by nature, we would not only steer clear of all narrow and one-sided conceptions of beauty, but we in India would be free from the improper sense of shame and dislike which we feel for our own complexion if it is anything but fair.

The Negroes live in round huts built of wattle and daub. The huts have a single round wall and are thatched with hay. A pillar inside supports the roof. A low entrance through which one can pass only by bending oneself is the only aperture for the passage of air. The entrance is rarely provided with a door. Like ourselves, the Negroes plaster the walls and the floor with earth and animal dung. It is said the Negroes cannot make anything square in shape. They have trained their eyes to see and make only round things. We never find nature drawing straight lines or rectilinear figures, and these innocent children of nature derive all their knowledge from their experience of her.

The furniture in the but is in keeping with the simplicity of the place. There would be no room for tables, chairs, boxes and such other things, and even now these things are rarely seen in a hut.

Before the advent of European civilisation, the Negroes used to wear animal skins, which also served them as carpets, bed sheets and quilts. Now-a-days they use blankets. Before British rule men as well as women moved about almost in a state of nudity. Even now many do the same in the country. They cover the private parts with a piece of skin. Some dispense even with this. But let not anyone infer from this that these people cannot control their senses. Where a large society follows a particular custom, it is quite possible that the custom is harmless even if it seems highly improper to the members of another society. These Negroes have no time to be staring at one another. When Shukadeva passed by the side of women bathing in a state of nudity, so the author of the Bhagavata tells us, his own mind was quite unruffled; nor were the women at all agitated or affected by a sense of shame. I do not think there is anything supernatural in this account. If in India today, there should be none who would be equally pure on a similar occasion, that does not set a limit to our striving after purity, but only argues our own degradation. It is only vanity which makes us look upon the Negroes as savages. They are not the barbarians we imagine them to be.

The law requires Negro women to cover themselves from the chest to the knees when they go to a town. They are thus obliged to wrap a piece of cloth round their body. Consequently pieces of that size command a large sale in South Africa, and thousands of such blankets or sheets are imported from Europe every year. The men are similarly required to cover themselves from the waist to the knees. Many, therefore, have taken to the practice of wearing second-hand clothing from Europe. Others wear a sort of knickers with a fastening tape. All these clothes are imported from Europe.

The staple food of the Negroes is maize, and meat when available. Fortunately, they know nothing about spices or condiments. If they find spices in their food or even if it is coloured by turmeric, they turn up their noses at it, and those among them who are looked upon as quite uncivilised will not so much as touch it. It is no uncommon thing for a Zulu to take at a time one pound of boiled maize with a little salt. He is quite content to live upon porridge made from crushed mealies boiled in water. Whenever he can get meat, he eats it, raw or cooked, boiled or roasted, with only salt. He does not mind taking the flesh of any animal.

The Negro languages are named after the various tribes. The art of writing was recently introduced by Europeans. There is nothing like a Negro alphabet. The Bible and other books have now been printed in the Negro languages in Roman character. The Zulu language is very sweet. Most words end with the sound of broad “a”; so the language sounds soft and pleasing to the ear. I have heard and read that there is both meaning and poetry in the words. Judging from the few words which I happened to pick up, I think this statement is just. There are for most of the places sweet and poetical Negro names whose European equivalents I have mentioned. I am sorry I do not remember them and so cannot present them here to the reader.

According to the Christian missionaries, the Negroes previously had not, and have not now, any religion at all. But taking the word religion in a wide sense, we can say that the Negroes do believe in and worship a supreme Being beyond human comprehension. They fear this power too. They are dimly conscious of the fact that the dissolution of the body does not mean the utter annihilation of a person. If we acknowledge morality as the basis of religion, the Negroes being moral may be held even to be religious. They have a perfect grasp of the distinction between truth and falsehood. It is doubtful whether Europeans or ourselves practice truthfulness to the same extent as the Negroes in their primitive state do. They have no temples or anything else of that kind. There are many superstitions among them as among other races.

The reader will be surprised to learn, that this race, which is second to none in the world in point of physical strength, is so timid that a Negro is afraid at the sight even of a European child. If some one aims a revolver at him, he will either flee or will be too stupefied to have the power even to move. There is certainly reason for this. The notion is firmly impressed on the Negro mind, that it is only by some magic that a handful of Europeans have been able to subdue such a numerous and savage race as themselves. The Negro was well acquainted with the use of the spear, and the bow and arrows. Of these he has been deprived. He had never seen, never fired, a gun. No match is needed, nothing more has to be done beyond moving a finger and yet a small tube all at once emits a sound, a flash is seen, and a bullet wounds and causes the death of a person in an instant. This is something the Negro cannot understand. So he stands in mortal terror of those who wield such a weapon. He and his forefathers before him have seen that such bullets have taken the lives of many helpless and innocent Negroes. Many do not know even now how this happens.

Re: # 56

Arjun, I agree, his Philosophy went with him, and thank god for that. I don’t know with what face his admirers talk about equality and justice for Pakistan’s minorities when he believed and fought for a separate state on the basis of religion. The mess that he was able to create in 20 years will take some time to clean up.

Re: # 54

Manto, yes, when there are towering ones like me to look upto, they have to stand up on a higher flat to face Karma. You my friend, however, is the thickest there is, and it shows. However, you do try very hard, for which you must be commended.

#51 by Mantolives on October 4, 2005 8:09am PT


I am happy to be the follower of a man who always sided with justice and fairplay...


A man whose philosophy is largely irrelevant and ignored in today`s theocratic Pakistan...

53...

Well the British got away with that... because they had their fluff freedom fighters... Gandhi and co... for cover up for them

52,

I claimed no such thing. I do think however most chowkies possess higher mental faculties than you. Forgive me for thinking that but it is an honest view.

I still can`t get over the fact that they hanged Bhagat Singh even though nobody was killed! Simply unbelievable. Put the man behind bars, yes, but hang him?!

Re: # 50

Manto, your intelligence makes my cat seem like Einstein Since when have you started believing that you are better than other who come to Chowk? Do you really, in all honesty, think that you are very bright? I am serious.

Yes... Kaalchakra..

And only Jinnah had the moral courage to speak against the British for Bhagat Singh and remember Jinnah didn`t even approve Bhagat Singh`s methods... and was present in the assembly when Bhagat pulled the prank.

Only Jinnah had the moral courage to speak against racism... Only Jinnah had the moral courage to speak for Irish Independence while Gandhi condemned them... Only Jinnah had the moral courage to speak for women`s rights... when Gandhi condemned Suffrage as a satanic scheme...

Indians can have their Einsteins, and 5 major movements of the 20th century... I am happy to be the follower of a man who always sided with justice and fairplay...

Sincerely

YLH

Handle the truth? Your entire existence is a lie dear Kulharee. Don`t insult the intelligence of every chowkie... Enough said... I don`t have time to waste on people like you.

Kaura

Gandhi could be an absolute a-hole at times. And they hanged Bhagat Singh even though nobody was killed?!!

Poor little aspiring lawyer can’t handle the truth, nor can he figure out that two extremes of a scale is not exactly a comparison. and pleasure is all mine.

Dear Kaalchakra...

Kulharee`s is not an opinion... please don`t insult me by comparing me to Kulharee Thank you very much.

As for substantive basis.... I think I have provided it and Anil sahab has taken note.

Kulharee, Manto

Clearly, those are divergent opinions. We need some substantive bases for them, if they exist.

Gandhi was the worst kanjar. He couldve intervened on behalf of Bhagat Singh. Jinnah, to his credit, spoke to Bhagat`s cause. The harami gave the excuse that he is on maun (silence). Other excuse is that he didnt want to involve with violence though none was killed in the blasts.

The reality is that the basturds didnt want anyone competing their artifcial limelights so they sidelined every person that they perceived as competition - ie Bose, Bhagat Singh etc.

Jinnah was a bigot and a Grade-A racist. He thought Muslims couldn’t live with Hindus. Now the moron’s own daughter is very happy living with Hindus. He was an egotists. He is single handedly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands at the time of the partition of India. We are lucky that the bastard didn’t live longer than he did. If he had lived 5 more years, he would have liked to break Pakistan further into those who like Scotch vs. those who preferred homebrew. Jinnah was the biggest disgrace ever to have walked this earth. His tomb resembles a dickhead that he was.

My advanced apologies to Bhayas if you felt offended.

Absolutely... I have no problem with that... But lets do it fairly.

It will reinforce the insecurities of many people here...

Anil, Manto

If it`s an important issue, why don`t we actually look at the views of Gandhi and Jinnah side-by-side (on some time line and their places)?

Re: # 39
//...I also share Naipaul`s views that once call for Pakistan or separate state for Muslims, was made in 1900-1910, Paksitan was destined to become a reality...//

I read somewhere - Jinnah said Pakistan was formed when the first person converted to islam.....

SO yes, Naipaul is right.....Paksitan was destined to become a reality, sooner or later.... it`s good that it happened sooner.... I think it happened just at the right time.... Thank god for the mercy :) - Indians now realize how fortunate they have been by discarding these people at the right time....

Anil,

I am afraid you are wrong on this one- Gandhi`s racist views did not reflect the views of his contemporaries and certainly not Mahomed Ali Jinnah.

I am sorry for missing out your question earlier... I would have loved to pounce on it if you forgive it... ironic that now you are claiming that the fact Jinnah never made any such statements despite your digging them is also indicative... but the fact is that Jinnah denounced racism in clear terms... (and this was not the only unpopular position he took- Jinnah alarmed people by supporting women`s right to vote- something to which Gandhi remained hostile till much later. )

Since you asked your question about Jinnah, let me guide you to search in a different direction: Why did Jinnah support Dadabhoy Naoroji and on what agenda. If you read what Jinnah told his sister... he spoke about English racism and how it was sickening that English did not consider other races as their equals... which is why he supported Dadabhoy Naoroji. You forget that Jinnah was not a product of casteism per se but Islam`s history no doubt instilled a deep sense of racial equality in him. But it was not just Islam and its first muezin... but also British legal tradition which had stood against slavery a 100 years before America stood against slavery... unlike Gandhi, Jinnah derived his morality completely from this tradition.

It must be remembered that Jinnah`s criticism in Viceroy`s council of South Africa was not limited to South Africa`s treatment of Indians but also of Africans... an irony given that Gandhi`s south africa connection today is unfairly and unjustly portrayed so much.

One must give credit where its due...

Dost-Mitter and Yasser:

Both of you talk about introduction of religion in politics in pre-indepence India. It would be overly simplistic to say that religion would not have played a role in Indian political scene, had Gandhi not raised it. If you believe it would have played a role, then why so harsh on the vision of Gandhi who recognized and became the first mover, and gained the first mover advantage.

Even according to Yasser, the first call for Pakistan predates Gandhi or atleast contemporaneous, depending upon how you look at it. I accept this position of Yasser. I also share Naipaul`s views that once call for Pakistan or separate state for Muslims, was made in 1900-1910, Paksitan was destined to become a reality. Who would be whose hero and who would be whose villain was all that left to be decided.

Religion in that part of the world is still so ingrained that it plays very important part in everything, politics, to social to economics. In those days, it was even more. The British did not tell my aritocratic great-grandfather, to have separate hand carved silver utensils to entertain his muslim friends, and limit theri access only to his medical practice and baithak next to it. The discrimination he practiced was so subtle, but it was there. My nani gave me one of those beautiful glasses. It was so nice, and I always drank rooh-afza and lassi from it, while growing up. She also told me the story behind these glasses. Much much later I figured it all out, and wondered if the muslims friends of my great-grand father felt elated like I used, or felt bad as I do now. I would never know. This was a liberal and professioal Kashmiri-brahmin family in the U.P. of the time. Let us bring these out of the closet and have courage to discuss them. It is more important to solve such a problem. Pride and prejudices exist together everywhere.

Yasser:
On your last board, I had asked you if you had researched and found anything about Jinnah and race. I did not hear anything from you. I started doing some research and found nothing. I can only conclude that Jinnah`s views were no different than views of other contemporaneous leaders of the time. Since he did not speak (and it is hard to believe that being from trading Ismailie community spread out in Africa he had no relatives or friends there), therefore, silence of a world class leader and lawyer does speak that his mind was no different than the others.

During this research, I found out the majority of the contemporaneous leaders of the world, who had been touched by African colonialism, held view similar to Gandhi`s. Sad but true. Therefore, you cannot beat Gandhi down and ignore the others, including Jinnah. Others include, the U.S. leaders, the European leaders, Japanese and Chinese leaders alike. Amazingly, nothing but silence from Jinnah, but why?

Those were racist times, period. Hinduism in castes had institutionalize apartheid. Gandhi was the product of such apartheid, and so was Jinnah. One spent 20 years in the middle of political apartheid, the other stayed in elite circles of London and Bombay, where these were not overt. I bet if Jinnah was thrown out of the first class compartment in the middle of Africa, he would have spoken too. Some of the most racist Indians, I have met are born are brought up in South Africa and East Africa. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Goans, and Ismailes alike. This is the reality even today, you cannot pick and choose today`s standard to 1940s or let alone to 1890-1900s when Gandhi was in S. Africa. Just as you pointed out about the time of Mohammad to be different than time Gandhi. Unfortunately, we all, even mortals like Mohammad and Gandhi live only one human life that is about 70 or 80 years. The question is what they did with their life. Gandhi had focused in emancipating his people, Indians, and not everyone. Mohammad had chosen to emancipate his people in his own way, and not others. Mohamad could not have cared much about the miseries or injustices of that time, or known about the existence of American Indians in the Americas of that time. The means were not there.

Therefore, by all means form an opposition to Gandhi. I will debate with you, if decency and mutual respect is maintained. But I would certainly request you to define a yardstick, or several yardsticks for measuring each contemporaneous leaders and give me the rules for this debate. Knowing you, the result will surprise you, and probably help you better understand Gandhi.

I have books and speeches written by and on Nelson Mandela in my library, and have reaad them. Nelson Mandela has acknowledged that he was influenced by Gandhi. He even had said that he was aware of Gandhi`s views on race, and that hed had discounted them, beacuase they were contemporaneous. BTW, Nelson Mandela after being jailed, gave up violence. In South Africa all susequent violence was commiteed by the police state machinery. Mandela`s greatness is his contribution to forgive the tormentor, and retain his humility and fairness even after being jailed for 20 or 25 years. Again the aparthied would have been discarded, no one could have stopped it.

Dr. King`s contribution is no less significant. He made the west realized that regarding race, views of others (whites, asians, arabs, etc.) were very primitive, and showed no moral ascendancy or superiority. This touched not the people who were from older generation, but from the younger generation. It is for this reason, the civil rights movement, women`s rights movement spun out. Today the world is much different as a result of this contribution of Dr. King.

This leaves out Chinese revolution of the major events of the last century. That is a different story. Alexander Dubec of Czech acknowledged Gandhi too, as did Lech Welsa of Poland. Five of out six is no mean achievement of the principle of non-violence as a weapon. No wonder, Einstein spoke those words for Gandhi.

You cannot deny Gandhi`s contribution in making non-violence as the weapon, be in majority, even today or tomorrow.

I have suspected too that not only Gandhi-Nehru but Jinnah also, were set up and groomed by the British to handover power on the sub-continent. I had tried to reseach on it, but could not go further than clandestine meetings of Churchill and Jinnah, Nehru-Mrs. Mountbatten affair etc.

Anil

Romair

So Romair, what does `Gandhi introducing religion in politics` mean? Have there been any non-communist, non-violent mass politics/revolutions without religion before, or any non-socialist ones (the acceptable face of communism) after him?

Could someone/anyone give examples of cases where a foreign power was effectively opposed through mass politics without the use of violence, wherein mass leaders also did not invoke the name of God?

Re: # 35

Who is this moron? who do you think u r? Gandhi`s ``laathhi`` up ur ass is going to make all ur concepts and weirdness clear.
Shame on u and ur rotten thoughts and analysis.

Response to 35 (in response to my 34)

Clearly it hasn`t

``His silence on the plight of black south africans.``

If you call blatantly racist statements describing black people as savages silence then I don`t know what I can say... except read the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi`s personal life is hardly objection I have my friend... but to humor you...

You write:

``As for sex life almost as weird as Muhammad``
Whatever comparisons (and I can see differences more) Prophet Muhammad died in 632 AD. Mohandas Gandhi`s experiments with sexuality were conducted in the 1940s...


You write:

``1. He devised a prcoess by which so called weak masses can deal with unjust and cruel rulers. ``

We know of no such process... we know that the masses who followed Gandhi are still weak and they still have unjust and cruel overlords. And Gandhi did not win South Asia its freedom... I am afraid that credit goes to the Europeans who waged a war with each other and we took advantage.

``2.He documented the process. ``

What process? He documented his views racist views, casteist views, male chauvinist views etc.


``3. He demonstrated it beyound any doubt the validity of his methodlogy. ``

Yes it is so valid that India- the country that claims to be inheritor of his legacy- has given up that methodology in toto.

With the exception of Dr King, and there are many question marks about how much King held Gandhi in reverence after his visit to India, I can`t think of any movement that has followed his methodology... Please don`t name Nelson Mandela... Nelson Mandela resorted to an armed struggle- though I am not saying that was better.

Ref#34

Gandhi has been analysed lot more and by lot many people, than any body in the land of one book.

What I feel is the Gandhi`s contribution to the society are
1. He devised a prcoess by which so called weak masses can deal with unjust and cruel rulers.
2.He documented the process.
3. He demonstrated it beyound any doubt the validity of his methodlogy.

Not many people in history we can find who can achive what Gandhi achieved. You can pick up any person in any field and Gandhi surpasses them all. As a person I find Gandhi much higher than Budha, Jesus or Nanak for that reason.

Drawbacks of Gandhi are
1. His silence on the plight of black south africans.
2. His weird sexuality almost as weird as prophet mohammed.

Romair the expert on Gandhi telling us that Congress didn`t listen to Gandhi at partition. BS. Please read H M Seervai`s book... Congress didn`t listen to Azad that was the problem. Gandhi was a virtual dictator... Congress did as he commanded. He deliberately replaced Azad with Nehru so that the Cabinet Mission Plan would fall on its face. Much has been made of Gandhi`s offer of premiership to Pakistan`s founder... I am afraid bones were not what he was looking for.

Now coming to the article:

Gandhi is a world icon. He is celebrated in all continents of the world. It is doubtful that there is another South Asian leader who commands such reverence the world over... this is precisely why we must put Gandhi to test.... This is a very good article... as a summary of just one side of the story... I have always felt that Gandhi is great by omission. This story above omits a significant part of Gandhi`s life...

1) His racism against Black people which is well documented

2) His views on women`s representation and his opposition to the suffrage movement.

3) His views on caste system being a necessary part of humanity to which he was taken to task by Dr Ambedkar.

4) His role in secret wheeling and dealing with the British. There is a view, very academic, that Gandhi was used as a fluff freedom fighter by the British to control the Indians.


In coming days I shall form the opposition on this board by presenting the other side of the story. I think Gandhi as a celebrated icon of the world deserves to be completely analyzed and not partly.

-YLH

Gandhi was a good guy........I like him............If he introduced some religion into politics, so what. BFD......

South Asia would have been a different place, had Congress listened to him, in 1947............

Chowk karta dharta have published this article so they can have fun at our expense as we go chasing our tails yet again :)

Khair, even karta dhartas need a break...

---

dost-mittar ji

When people claim that Gandhi ``introduced religion in politics,`` what do they mean? Has anyone heard of any peaceful non-communist mass movement that did not have religion in it?

What would such a mass movement look like? Any examples in history? Or is it being suggested that Gandhi should not have taken up non-communist peaceful mass politics?

Many people attribute pacifist or docile nature of hindus/Indians as a reason for satyagraha.
I do not think that is true at all as India lost its first war of independence in 1857.
To fight a war with guns and bullets one needs lot of money to finance it. While for satyagraha or fast unto death one need not spend a single paisa. This is an amazing aspect of non violent struggle that India could afford.
It requires lot of bravery and courage to stand up unarmed to british who had guns and tanks and tell them that they were wrong.

One need not look for perfection in Gandhi`s personal life to assess his accomplishments. Buddha`s personal life was not perfect nor was the life of the prophet to end all prophets; yet who can deny their impact on humanity?

Gandhi was an astute observer of human psyche; he understood the psyche of both his clients - the docile hindu masses with their aversion to non-violence as well as the englishman who recoils more at the charge of being ``unfair`` than if someone called him a bastard. He fashioned a tool to suit both. It is interesting that while he used his coercive weapon of fast-unto-death against the British or to coerce the Hindu leaders to giving Rs 55 crores to Pakistan or to stop anti-muslim riots in Calcutta, he never used the same weapon in Lahore or to force Muslims to give up their demand for Pakistan, because he knew that his weapon would not work with the Muslims.

As for his accomplishments in the Indian context, the record must be considered mixed, at best. He certainly brought political consciousness among Indian masses and awakened them to the idea of swadesh and swadeshi. But to do so, he also introduced religion. While the Indian political scene was already communalised when he entered the scene, he introduced an element of religion in it and proudly proclaimed that politics without religon was worthless. The subcontinent is still paying a price for that introduction.

While he certainly turned an elite rotary-type Congress into a mass organization, one cannot say with certainty whether he expedited sovereignty. A case could be made that the constitutional approach would have kept Hindus and Muslims united and would have gradually led to independence sooner than it did and even if it did not, it would have kept the country together and free from the bitterness that we have inherited. There is also evidence that shows that the defection of the POWs to the Azaad Hind Fauj and the rebellion in the Royal Indian Navy made the British realise that they could no longer count on the unshakable loyalty of the Indian soldiers without which they could not hold on to their empire.

The lasting impact of Gandhi`s technique has been more outside India than in his home country where his legacy is limited to some leaders visiting his samadhi on 2nd October and 30th January and a colony or road named after him in every city. This, too, is quite fitting. Although he claimed to derive his inspiration from his Hindu roots, there is nothing in Hindu religion which preaches non-violence as a weapon for seeking justice; he got it more from the prophet who advocated presenting the other cheek when someone slapped you on the first.

(I usually refrain from commenting on Gandhi/Jinnah articles)


both were great men…and have earned their place in history!


without offending anyone i’d say today both are passé ….imho their only lasting legacy is their portrait on the Rs. 500 or Rs. 1000 note which is used by the corrupt and uncorrupt alike…

baqi sub baataiN chest-thumping haiN

kulharee: I heard there was very little of Gandhi jee to go around and I am glad you have that little bit in you.

Re: # 6
``..I was wondering if there are products in India named after Gandhi ji? ..``
I must say plenty! Mahatma Gandhi Road is pretty common.

Other than that Indians have forgotten Mahatma Gandhi. We drink like pigs, eat meat, engage in porno-culture, shoo away poor people like dogs, are corrupt to the core.....

In his own birth places there are murderous thugs and criminals have killed totally innocent Muslims, women and children. - a well state sponsored pogroms by some other Gujarathis! Murderers of Gandhi today are on the rampage. RSS storm troopers, Shiv Sainiks, pot-bellied BJP goondhas...... What else do you wish to hear, my friend?
..

Re: # 6
``..I was wondering if there are products in India named after Gandhi ji? ..``
I must say plenty! Mahatma Gandhi Road is pretty common.

Other than that Indians have forgotten Mahatma Gandhi. We drink like pigs, eat meat, engage in porno-culture, shoo away poor people like dogs, are corrupt to the core.....

In his own birth places there are murderous thugs and criminals have killed totally innocent Muslims, women and children. - a well state sponsored pogroms by some other Gujarathis! Murderers of Gandhi today are on the rampage. RSS storm troopers, Shiv Sainiks, pot-bellied BJP goondhas...... What else do you wish to hear, my friend?
..

Re: # 24

Beej Ji, this is a lovely poem.

I think there’s a little bit of Gandhi Ji in all of us. I wish there was some of him in Jinnah too. No one can say for sure what happened behind the closed doors, but Jinnah Ji came out smiling after every meeting he had with Gandhi Ji. I hope their affection for one another was mutual and they both like giving as much as receiving. May Allah bless their souls.

What Survives!
(by Beej)

How dare it touch?
Our lives
We shall yet fight
The light – that thrives!

That seeks to come
And plant its roots
We shall overcome
And kick – with boots!

Let’s clean the mess
Even today, our mess
And message that rings
So true – so think we less!

And why even try
To fix the thing
That now lives in
The heart, and burns – THAT thing!

And on we press
Hurling down the pit
Bottomless fall
As try to see – how far to spit!

And memories
And songs to pray
And books, and glasses
And slippers, and stuff – will go away!

And fact is such
Not much will stay
But only truth
And only truth – can ever stay!

i do not agree with the fact that India would not have been free if there was no WWII. i think gandhi was able to make british life miserable by his non-violent protests. it was one protest after another that was not very pleasing to the british vultures. what gandhi deserves credit for is the fact that he united indians; both hindus and muslims supported him in his fight against british. Also he understood hindu psyche well; violent actions do not appeal to average hindu, so his non-violence was amicable to the docile hindu nature.

Gandhiji`s greatness lies in the fact that he was able to raise Indians from their centuries long slumber, and made opposition of Raj, a common-place, even fashionable idea. His schemes were populist and his mechanisms simple. We must guage his success by what he set out to do and what he finally achieved.

Before his advent on the political scene in 20th century, Congress was a petition-party. The best politicians coudl think of in the way of freedom was self-rule. The millions of poor, hungry and mal-nutritioned people felt out-of-sync with the methods of constitutionalists, and did not feel they had any stake in freedom movement, whatsoever. People were sick of hearing the same notices served to the Lord Sahib, which then were sent to Queen, for further consideration, if not outrightly rejected by the Gora Sahib.

Gandhiji used a very unconventional method of striking at the enemy - Sathyagraha. His approach appealed to innately pacifist sentiments of the masses, which then started rallying to the cause of freedom, in increasing numbers. The movements, hartals, andolans etc. were organized in each and every part of India, to take as many people aboard as possible. The pursuit of freedom was no longer a chimera, it was within the realm of possibilities. And liberty now had meaning, not only for the elite, but also for the impoverished peasants and hopeless labourers.

He tried to reach out to all sections of society. His mobilization inculcated a national consciousness in our people, hitherto lacking, or forgotten due to centuries of foreign rule. He revitalized our broken spirit and laid the foundation-stones for the India that is.

I don`t think he would have approved of the excessive eulogization done for political benefits by successive Cong regimes. Being the practical man that he was, he would not have taken the catatastrophic path of quota-license Raj economy. Probably the treatment of marginzlized sections of society would have been more humane and pragmatic, if he were there at the helm for some more time.

Ultimately, the sainthood got to him. It killed the practical, insightful and clever leader, and replaced him with an egoist, obsessed with his greatness, and unable to come to terms with the changed realities. Mahatma had died before Nathuram`s bullets killed him.

``but I`d still question the mental faculties of anyone who claims that Gandhi was a ``freedom fighter``.. ``

There is no debate about the fact that he was a freedom fighter. I think what you mean is that his method of fighting for freedom would not have achieved much had WW2 and other circumstances not come along.

Re: # 16
I think your time would be better spent finding a cure for jihadism in muslim societies and other assorted reforms that are urgently needed.....

Gandhi a ``freedom fighter`` or not - that is a moot question at this point of time.... for better or for worse - people across world have accepted him as ``apostle of peace`` ....It may be a hindoo marketing gimmick but it worked :) - can`t do nothing about that....

Re: # 18

On what grounds was Gandhi not a freedom fighter? His freedom struggle is the epitome of all freedom struggles.

kulharee: and your Pakistani ID card has a religion column, yeah sure dude!

Re: # 16

What do you have to be to be a freedom fighter? Bin Laden?

The reality is that India won independence in 1947, and Bangladesh won independence in 1971. This is the decade of independence for Sindh and Pakhtoonabad. Let freedom reign.

#13 ``But gandhi`s greatest contribution was NOT freedom from the colonisers - his greatest contribution was to the reform of a calcified hindu society....``

Good for the Hindu society.... but I`d still question the mental faculties of anyone who claims that Gandhi was a ``freedom fighter``..

All we needed was another round of ``Gandhi - Good or Bad?`` debate! :)

Since when is eating a danda - something to sing about??????? Why do hinjuns wear it as a badge of honor??

Re: # 8
//....Would India have won freedom without a violent struggle a. la. Algeria if there hadn`t bee WWII?...//

Of course NOT!!! That`s true for most colonies - with or without violence struggle.... In case of India - violence struggle may NOT have succeeded either, even though that would have been more gratifying and glorious than the non-violent resistance which makes you look meek and weak....

But gandhi`s greatest contribution was NOT freedom from the colonisers - his greatest contribution was to the reform of a calcified hindu society....

English were not much of colonists, had it been Jews who ruled India, there wont be any India or Pakistan. It will all be Delhi Strip and west bank of Indus. Jews know how to control the uncultured crap. Only a bunch of fuking Desis will look for faults in someone who got them their liberation. If it weren’t for Gandhi Ji, you will all be singing God save the Queen, and by Queen I dont mean Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

#5, #9 Kaura

Therefore, it’s probably safe to assume that it would be an overstatement to say that you are passionately in love with the Mahatma!

Re: # 9
kauRa tun angrez di aulad ain...?

The sick Hinjuns PROUDLY sing of their SHAMEFUL traits.....Instead of commiting suicide, they sing about their cowardess thus,

``Hum Ous Desh kay waasi hain, jahan Gandhi nay Danda khaya tha...``

It should be Choopa tha (of British).... is more true. He chooped and the Hinjuns were sodomized; Alas, they had orgasms from the sodomization....What lowly race. THOO!

Gandhi has been a successful marketing story for Injuns for two reasons:

Firstly, Gora Public is intrigued by the exotic.... why would a leader refuse to clothe, insist that he has to sleep with his nieces and has to keep the family goat in the family room....?!?

Secondly, Gora Sahib loved the non-violent uncle tom who hurt himself rather than hurt the saab, memsaab or baba log. Gora saab loved to ``play`` moralistic/humanistic and loved to display his concern for the well being of the native..... so that all the anglo indians, parsees, ICS brown sahibs and other priviliged hanger ons could clap with teary eyes if some morsel was handed out to the native (all because naked fakir was fasting unto death and gora saab took pity or his heart melted.... yeah sure!)

Would India have won freedom without a violent struggle a. la. Algeria if there hadn`t bee WWII? I think the answer is NO, even if Gandhi had remained naked, milked his nieces and slept with his goat for the rest of his life....... He had performed those stunts after WWI without success.

Re: # 5 kaura

Don`t be so harsh on the old fool :) He wasn`t that bad....

But I understand why you are so mad at him ....

Gandhi ji is my hero.

He would not approve of being referred to as the greatest man ever to have walked the earth. His ideology of non-violence and equality along racial and religious lines is a gift of humanity to God(s). In Pakistan, we name commercial and household products after our heroes: e.g., Iqbal Airport, Iqbal Chawal, Iqbal Mangoes, Iqbal Pakoray, Iqbal Road, Iqbal College, Iqbal Library, Iqbal Town, Iqbal Dhaga, Iqbal Sweets, Iqbal Tobacco, and Iqbal Fans. I was wondering if there are products in India named after Gandhi ji?

Gandhi was a goonh da keera (shi t worm). The colonists bestowed him with honors because their favorite sob (pet) kept injuns docile and colonized. A hijra worshipped by sheep and petted by kanjars.

This author goes over well-trodden ground – for all practical purposes, this type of write-up can be recycled repeatedly and endlessly – few surprises are likely to emerge on the Mahatma now.

It is truly remarkable what Gandhi was able to achieve – considering how impractical some of his basic ideas appear now and how naïve his belief in the basic goodness (and not greed) of the human heart appears to have been! Gandhi’s ideas would only work if the minds that are exposed to it have at least a degree of openness to different ways of looking at things. (Imagine trying to touch the hearts of the current crop of suicide bombers by trying to get them into touch with their “good” selves!)

Like most men who look taller in retrospect, he was a man belonging to his times – he is well-deserving of respect – yet blindly following every little thing he ever said – after all these years – will not work.

He was admittedly imperfect but continued to grope toward where he considered perfection to lie.

And that is the truth!

A wonderful article with nice flow of events and explanation.
There is no doubt that Gandhiji is the greatest man ever who walked on the earth in these modern times.

Greatest man ever who walked on the earth...` said Einstein.



Uh-Oh....Manto`s going to pop an artery...

now why do I get the feeling that mantolives will come out all guns blazing...

Y