Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

Pakisthani's have no right to talk about Gandhi.Till date a lot of worst crime is practiced in your country

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/opinion/29kris.html?_r=1&oref=s login

So stop spreading the wrong message without having a base to support your idea.Look into your land & correct the mistakes carried by them

I haven't gone through your entire article because I understood the tone and the general contents. The evil of feminism has indeed crept into every nook and corner of this world and feminists want a world where men do all the dirty and dangerous jobs while women get all the cosy and powerful jobs. This is called "Gender Equality". Freedom of women or men comes with responsibility. Feminists talk only about the rights of women and are silent and even oppose their responsibility. In the next few decades, we would be witness to men's rights and liberation making headway because men would realise this stupid concept of feminism which in effect wants to push for female domination in the guise of equality. When you talk about female liberation, understand that men are not liberated either. So, where is the question of female liberation? Further, women have enjoyed various benefits under tradition. Today, women want the advantages of tradition and modernity and create more and more metrosexual, hen-pecked, spineless "Men". Its time for men to unite and kick out male feminists and other women feminists. Hell with feminists.

Hello folks. I have had certain admiration for Gandhi. Reading about him being a wife-beater, is quite curious to me. In reading through some of the interacts, I discover a lot of opinions, but I have no concrete facts of him ``beating,`` whatever that means, his wife. Are there any of you who are able to send me such information, so that I, if I chose, may comment regarding the same.

Of course, I am sure that most of you know that in evaluating a person`s actions, character, etc., one must oppose imposing our own, private, or current values on a segment of culture, in a different generation and or a different culture. It is OK to give an opinion, as long as one qualifies the opinion by stating that it is such, and as such, it may not suit endeavouring to evaluate another by it without clearly articulating the gap between the A of one culture/time period and the B of another culture/time period. If such is not done, I believe that the analysis often ends up in nebulism - something that we as educated persons, need not to be entangled in - such can only leave a query wanting.

I would appreciate your assistance if you are able to afford it to me.

Thank you,

Darrell Hall, April 25, 2007.

REVIEWS: Gandhi’s still alive in Gujarat




Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.

Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”

About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.

The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”

As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.

When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.

On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.

Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.

Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.

Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.

When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.

Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.

Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.

Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.

The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).

Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?

---

Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250

Re: # 1192

Thanks HP. Hope my previous post is also an eye opener.

Regards,

Aisha Sarwari

M.Gandhi on caste and related matters:

If the Shudras (low castes) leave their ancestral profession and take up
others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be
spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed. (Hind Swaraj).

I don`t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has
its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it.
(Harijan, 1933).

I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law
of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of
energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? (Harijan,
3-6-1947).

He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste),
though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth.
And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to
which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility. (Young India,
11-24-1927).

According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not
belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded
being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth. (Young India,
11-14-1927).

As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste)
is the law of man`s being, and therefore, caste is necessary for
Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been
its saving grace. (Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches),
Ramanath Suman (1932)).

I would resist with my life the separation of ``Untouchables`` from the
caste Hindus. The problem of the ``Untouchable`` community is of
comparatively little importance. (London Round Table Conference 1931.)

I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system.
(Dharma Manthan, p 4).

I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste
division lies in birth. (Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77).

The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by
birth alone. (Dharma Manthan, p 5).

Caste means the predetermination of a man`s profession. Caste implies that
a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his
livelihood. (Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68).

Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who
will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him.
(Varna Vyavastha, p 15).

I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely
shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. (Dharma
Manthan, p 65).

How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to
enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has
the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter
every temple is a thing that is not possible today. (Gandhi Sikshan, Vol.
11, p 132).

There are I am sorry to say, many Hindu temples in our midst in this
country, which are no better than brothels. The caste system can`t be
said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages
in different castes. (Gandhi by Shiru, p129).


The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not
revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral
restraint - I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is
to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma
(caste system). I don`t believe the caste system to be an odious and
vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing
sinful about it. (Harijan, 1933).

Coffee Break: Jailhouse Rocks….

It feels great to be free!

Let me just say that one more time – “It feels GREAT to be free!!!” – and little else!

So I will (at least for now) withhold any strong comments on the cavalier attitude displayed by these self-appointed keepers of the copyright laws – these henchmen and these goons masquerading as “technical” individuals (yes, all of them – with the exception of the innocent chowk “volunteers” – those being among the humblest of the humblest in the totem-pole hierarchy and perhaps the only sane individuals in that lousy den of creeps – and who get so callously crushed in the cruel clutches of the rest of those crooks).

I refuse to say anything negative about how such “chowk staff” individuals, in reality, are little more than bouncer babies for the chowks ladies and “ledaas” of easy virtue – those puffed-up liars of lawyers and those little looneys and lurid outliers who fancy themselves as legitimate lekhaks – not to mention those bungling baboons who imagine themselves to be legitimate editors but whose job consists of simply waving on the lousiest of the lousiest of verbal diarrhea which no sane individual will confuse with an article – even when it is amply evident that the writer probable spends more effort straining to relieve herself in the loo than pondering over that OTHER crap relieved through her keyboard.

And I refuse to criticize all their cohorts located on this pathetic excuse of a web site, including the so-called “liberals” who consider themselves above it all – too far above it all to be concerned with such basic characteristics as common sense and decency – but invariably and unfailingly side with the devil nevertheless by poking “jokes” – har, har, har…!

And I will withhold criticism of those smarty-pants who consider themselves experts on copyright laws – at least when it comes to posting the Mahatma’s pictures – while handing over green passes (yes, you heard it GREEN!) left and right to all others – and having orgasm after orgasm as the dead Mahatma’s memories are desecrated again and again – and whose sense of decency is a casualty to their GREEN land of dreams while they gobble up all the green stuff that the foreign countries provide them – then turn around and relieve themselves ungratefully by crapping all over the values espoused by those same sane countries!

Again and again, I refuse to say anything negative regarding that gang of nameless, faceless buffoons hiding behind such non-descript terms like “chowk-staff” – a term perhaps accurately describing the physical state of individuals who may have a flagpole staff stuck in vulnerable spots – that gang which assumes the quadruple role of accuser, jury, judge, and hangman – all in one breath – and the “culprit” learns of the charges only AFTER the sentence is executed.

I refuse to condemn this gang of moronic and pathetic liars and self-delusioners!

And I refuse to say anything negative about all of those curious specimens from the land of the purest of the pure – who are so fully attuned to dictatorship – so, so fully attuned that it is second nature to them – they probably do not drool over dictatorship deliberately – it is merely a reflex action!

I refuse to say a single strong word regarding all those lousy, impotent, effete namoonas and dregs of humanity – sans a few basic characteristics – like humanity!

It is fully understandable how the strong, brave pillars of chowk can easily start peeing in their pants when they imagine that the keepers of the Mahatma.org site – a site which does everything in its power to make it EASY to download those pictures – would be coming after THEM, with the Mahatma’s lathi ready to do its lathi-work!

The prison was really no big deal! What is a “couple of days” (not that the Chowk staff can count!) in jail when the Mahatma did more than his share!

It was for a good cause!

More about life in karawas at a later time, after I have enjoyed the fresh breath of freedom. For now –

LET FREEDOM RING!

Sincerely,
Beej.

PS:

(1) I would like to add a quick note to thank all those who supported me – especially my self-appointed lawyer who shares my name with the all-important difference that he adds an A.Y. (as in all yellow!) to it.

(2) While in karawas, I informed the mahatma.org.in site that I intended to use those photos – and that they should let me know if they had objections. It has been over a week and they have not objected yet – so I am going to assume they are okay with it. (Copyright “enforcers” – you can start crying NOW!)

(3) Those who asked questions regarding the story of the Mahatma project, a question I was unable to answer when the cruel creeps of chowk callously cut me off – please refer to their web site at http://www.mahatma.org.in/aboutus/aboutus.jsp?link=ab

Re: # 1217

``Should we assume that you are a pathetic liar? ``

its already confirmed.

Re: # 1217

``Should we assume that you are a pathetic liar? ``

its already confirmed.

Re: # 1217

``Should we assume that you are a pathetic liar? ``

its already confirmed.

Beej
Good work man..

Behram mian
I gave you a list of prominent jews and Parsis. You have still not given any proof of jews or parsis commenting against Gandhi. Should we assume that you are a pathetic liar?

Re#1138 Chowk-Staff

I am forwarding this petition from my “live-in client” – this guy all of you keep referring to. Chowk staff kindly take note and process the request therein promptly – before he goes berserk and creates some REAL trouble!

---

“Dear Chowk staff:”

“Sorry, I did not mean to make you ‘chownk stiff’ (startled to death thingie) with those large number of images. It was like this – once I got going, the thing took a life and speed of its own!”

“I admit – 456 pictures represent an overwhelming number – even though this article perhaps deserved it! The next time, I will obtain a suitable copyright clearance first – and knowing the fact that the source site is non-commercial in nature (like this site (isn’t it?)) and the intent in posting (the IMG links to) those images here was noble, it is doubtful that they would have refused.”

“Or (minus such clearance) perhaps a simple link to each image would have sufficed – I doubt that the issues that concern you would then have come up – but the punch would have been a lot less, too.”

“However, these postings should not be considered SPAM – each posting was unique – it was not sent to multiple recipients – and many of the images contained individual comments! Also, you know that including an image link does not overload or slow down YOUR site – the image comes from the source site and perhaps slows that one and the browser workstation.”

“But look at the overall scene, though, from the viewpoint of the interactors!”

“Okay, so the images are no more there – but every one knows now that they exist! The thing about the truth is – once it has been shown, it is extremely difficult even for the most hardened liers to pretend that it is not there. Of course, such people will continue to bad mouth Gandhi – but with an increasing hollow ring in the voice!”

“I am compiling (while doing karawas in the dog-house) an album of the original images that were (temporarily) posted here – minus the comments, but including the titles where available. If and when I complete it, I intend to send it to the source site to consider posting. I am hoping that the album (if they do decide to post it) will provide the “one stop viewing” that some in this crowd so enjoyed.”

“For those who got turned off by the Mahatma’s naked brown skin – what can I say? So is the skin for most of us. You have it too – ask yourself what you find so despicable about it and why – THAT problem is not the Mahatma’s.”

“And by the way, can somebody get me out of this dog-house?”

“How long two days really are? Are the days being calculated by using the Kumbh-Karan method (each day of being awake followed by six months of sleep)?”

“Sincerely,
Beej.”

Beej
chowk staff is saying that it is `a picture is worth a 1000 words`, not `a 1000 pictures are better than words`
Thanks, though.

Re: # 1212 ana

Well - Behram Mian has already crossed over to the dark side.... He has made his pact with that Angra Mainyu [the bad dude].... He is a disgrace to Parsi community.....

. . . .(some of them are. but i believe behram is a tad bit unfamiliar with qualifiers. . . .)

addendum: as are quite a few indians here at chowk. :)

mohar #1195

ahura mazda is the ``big boss`` rey. *sigh* from what i understand it is a misnomer to call him a fire god. but my knowledge of the zoroastrian faith is minimal. hopefully the link will help you out. or behram can help you out if he`s not too busy truly believing that indians are idiots. (some of them are. but i believe behram is a tad bit unfamiliar with qualifiers)

...30 years down the line...dost-mittar will still be around...scary...

.....3 years down to line , the patriotic Parsi from Pakistan and an ardent qaid admirer in his own right , Mr.Behram , will move in with Yasser....

``unadulterated jealousy due to his world wide popularity (#1).``

Pardesi, there may be other reasons. One can`t be sure. From what one knows of Gandhi, he himself would have advised patience.

(Although, one wonders if that kind of patience is possible for most normal human beings ...that`s why few of us are Gandhians)

---

Soysauce, I have known some pretty khoosat (do you know that word?) brahmin village folks (all thankfully dead now). The only thing that ever made them ashamed of their casteism, and practically tied their tongues, was Gandhi`s name. None of them ever allied themselves with `Hindu`` parties (BJP/Jansangh), all because the RSS had killed ``Gandhi Mahatma.``

Those old men, sadly traditional and casteist, but still essentially good, are all gone now, as has the magic of Gandhi`s name in shaping our behaviors and our thoughts.

Nehru, Gandhi`s protege par excellence, was the first to reject many of Gandhi`s views as `unreal.` And we - the proud inhabitants of the Modern India for which Nehru worked so tirelessly - have ourselves moved along far enought to have rejected (or begun to reject) even Nehru as archaic.

Thus, for many Indians old man Gandhi is at least two intellectual and moral iterations `out-of-date.`

So much so that his name now moves more people outside of India than it does within the boundaries of his own land. But that`s because there are individuals who strongly believe that, for all our wisdom and all our sciences, in many key ways, we as humans still haven`t progressed too far ahead of that irrational and archaic old fool Gandhi.

Were he alive today, that other giant of the times, that great critic of Gandhi, that most important maker of India`s constitution, Babasahed Ambedkar, one suspects, would have agreed with that latter assessment.

.......ten years down the line , Yasser will still be exposing Gandhi on internet message boards....

``Couple years down the line - YLH will come around preening like a fool he is and saying ``Oh, I was young then, I made mistakes``..... and people here will break into a big applause....Dost-Mitter will have tears in his eyes.... everybody will have a big hug.....``

Couple of years down the line...I`ll have a job in IBM or MS , and Yasser will continue to be `aspiring lawyer , trained economist and part-time journalist`...and needless to say , full time future leader of Pakistan.

Gandhi was a giant and we mortals are like blind little fellows trying to figure out an elephant. He has to be viewed from a distance to see the total picture. Here are my two cents on various dimensions of his personality:

1. A world class moral leader with innovative approach to issues - A+
The world sees and respects this dimension.

2. A great Hindu reformer (e.g. untouchables) – A+
All Hindus appreciate his contributions.

3. Pre-independence Political leadership to win independence – A+
No Indian or intellectually honest Pakistani can question that.

4. Develop a sense of religious tolerance amongst Indians - A+
All minorities and broad minded Hindus respect him for this.

5. Provide leadership to deal with Muslim league / Jinnah’s divisive agenda – F

My family suffered from the partition. We were uprooted and had to start from scratch in 47 and therefore we were no fans of him. However as I grew up and was able to understand Gandhi’s tremendous overall contribution, I am in awe of his personality.

Why young Pakistanis need to tear him down after all these years when he has not hurt them, Muslims or Pakistan at all?

My guess - unadulterated jealousy due to his world wide popularity (#1).

Re: # 1204 net
//....This article has ended up as a shouting match and I don’t think anything is going to change further. ....//

Actually - a shouting match is the minimum you need for any change to occur anywhere..... You need to apply force to change anything .... and stagnant gutter that paki mentality is - it needs super force to budge .... shouting match is just the beginning....

But pakis will come around.... I mean - earlier it used to be Kashmir, but you don`t see pakis holding forth on that topic any more, do you? [except for Behram, the Dhimmi] ..... Now pakis have got Gandhi to beat up on..... that will pass too..... all in good time.....

Couple years down the line - YLH will come around preening like a fool he is and saying ``Oh, I was young then, I made mistakes``..... and people here will break into a big applause....Dost-Mitter will have tears in his eyes.... everybody will have a big hug.....

And then YLH will go back and pick up another ``contentious`` topic.... The cycle will continue.... Chowk will stay afloat....

To all indians:

It’s for certain that this article has unearthed a lot of misgivings. Participants have come with a fixed state of mind to pursue their own agenda and beliefs.

The myth of educated, liberal Muslims/Pakis just remained that. This article on Gandhi was not a critical study of him but a malicious campaign to deride and mock at him and subsequently Hindus and India. People came with selective quotes and flimsy reasons like his nakedness to his butt-ugliness to laugh at him. Many had not even read him but were sure that he was anti-women! Some even dragged India’s internal issues like Kashmir, Nagaland to buttress their opinion. Many thought that it would be a great tribute to Jinnah and would greatly enhance his value and contribution to Pakistan and safety of minorities in Pakistan. Many were irked by the title “Mahatma” as he was called by people as varied as Rabindranath Tagore to a common peasant. For them he was just a failed lawyer, fascist Hindu, a castiest and an exotic personality which the west propped up.

Gandhi once said that his life is an open book. It is open to everyone to criticize or learn from his experiences. Gandhi’s method of opposing suppression was not accepted by all and is still questioned by many. Many of his thoughts regarding various issues are considered passé but he is still considered a giant for his contribution to the Civil Disobedience Movement and humanism.

What I observed about Indians was the pride and unity with which they stood for Gandhi’s principles against the Muslim/Paki attack. Even a hardliner like Gujju who has often spoken against Gandhian principles /Congress could not sit idle as the country’s icon was spit at.

This article has ended up as a shouting match and I don’t think anything is going to change further. It seems the poison in the minds of people will take a long time to recede.

In the end I think, Savarkar/Gowalkar has a better understanding of Muslims than Gandhi had. The Mahatma who died seeking rights for the Muslims has himself has become their victim.

Re: # 1198 HP
//...Why be so upset over a m0r0n?....//

Well - for one, it generates 1000+ odd posts and breaks chowk record ..... and it`s fun to see you pakis do the monkey-dance with ``gandhi bad, gandhi bad`` rants.... everytime somebody says ``Mahatma Rocks`` - you pakis give out a collective high-pitch shrill as if somebody pushed a hot-rod right thru your back-sides.........

+++

//....I would talk about Gandhi’s politics...//

Gandhi’s politics? What politics? Didn`t I tell you that the guy was a m0r0n?.....

Anycase - who cares? What difference does it make? .....To indians or people around the world?...... Somebody called him ``Mahatma`` and people around the world went ga-ga over it....[even his opponents, I heard that even jinnah called him Mahatma].... so why should we complain? I mean - India gets free publicity....

Except you pakis, of course.... ``Mahatma`` title has given you pakis a big burn up your collective a$$es - you got to find a cure.....Like I said - we would like to help, but not much .... we can release some more water via baglighar - would that help?

Re: # 1185
D-M ji,
lifelong mission of non-violence and hindu-muslim unity ended in one of the bloodiest communal chapters in history

Don`t you mean ended with? Even then, you could make the statement you made only if you were seeking miracles. Gandhiji was ultimately reconciled to Partition something that has taken most other politicians several more decades.
His legacy endures in India, notwithstanding ``modern`` indians who consider it fashionable to deride him. More than any dalit leader could, Gandhiji sensitized indians to the caste problem. In villages there were high-minded individuals who followed Gandhiji and dined with lower castes/dalits as a renunciation of caste divisions. Some married widows removing some of the taboo associated with widowhood. Anti-caste and gender equality laws have everything to do with Gandhiji.
The greatest thing about him was he tried to live by example rather than by diktat. And he went through a very public life where he shared every thought he had and every (absurd) thing he had attempted. He believed in airing his dirty laundry in public. It takes enormous moral courage to do that - something that the other gentlemen in your list could not claim to have done.
He is an inspiration because he showed that you need not fear your self - that you can follow the inner voice wherever it may lead. Public exposure acts as a corrective. He also showed how an ordinary person can transform oneself (in public view).
He is out there for his critics to criticize and his students to praise but none can claim to have discovered anything new about him. It`s all a matter of interpretation.

#1178

``Hurray for Shakuntala!``

the Motorola CTO`s name is Padmashree Warrier, she is an IIT-D and Cornell grad.

http://www.siliconindia.com/tech/tech_pgtwo.asp?newsno=18034&newscat=Technology

thanks aisha for opening HPs eyes.

behram:

this is what i wrote in #1158

``so it seems according to you the only problem you see with gandhi is his anti-women stance.

now the burden falls on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it. ``

then you write in # 1166

``Respectfully, how am I suppose to prove anything when this whole article on this site was unable to do that? ``

then later in the post you write:

``I did however call him anti-women, which you have not, as of yet disproved. ``

---

so in short, you say that the entire article has not been able to prove that gandhi was anti-women. but you still call him anti-women (without any facts) and want me to prove that he was not anti-women.

does it make any sense to you?

1194 by mohar11

“All Indians, hereby declare that Gandhi was a m0r0n, NOT a Mahatma”

Accepted. Why be so upset over a m0r0n?

“Apple will continue to raise huge-a$$ billboards with ``think different`` and all that.... what are you going to do about that?”

Nothing! All Apple was showing that if you take your clothes off, you will look “different” like your favorite m0r0n in dhoti tried to look.

I feel sorry for you that you think it is an honor when in reality Apple was making fun of Gandhi. Reading between the lines clearly is not your forte. Stop being such a poor sod your love for a m0r0n notwithstanding!

If I were you, I would talk about Gandhi’s politics and not attempt to bamboozle anyone with ignorance and incense.

Re: # 1187 YLH
//.... Indians like you would resort to abuses having no argument...//

``Abuses`` are for your own good son :) - you don`t like the Indian Abuse now - but later you would realize it was for your own benefit.....

See - Gandhi needs no argument, no defence..... He is all set... he has already made it in his life[and death]..... He has booked his place in history for all times to come - as a person who thought different, did different, made a huge contribution to human civilization and evolution .... he invented the power of non-violence ....

Or so the world thinks and accepts..... I know it`s bullsh!t, you know it`s bullsh!t.... but there ain`t a damn thing you can do about it....Gandhi is too big for you... you can`t dent him, destroy him, defile him.... he is beyond your reach....

Son - You have to understand that and accept that .... that`s the way life is.... it will be hard but you have to do it..... The Indian Abuse is for that purpose - so that you may finally lump it and move on and do something in your miserable life.....

It`s all for your own good.... believe me....

behram:

``I did however call him anti-women, which you have not, as of yet disproved. ``

why do you call him anti-women. give me facts.

Re: # 1188 ana

So Ahura Mazda is the good guy.... How does he relate to the Fire god, supposed to be the big boss as far as parsi religion is concerned....

Re: # 1192 HP
//it is time for Indians to....accept that Gandhi was no ``Mahatma`` and he was a politician with all the trappings of a flawed human being....//

Done..... All Indians, hereby declare that Gandhi was a m0r0n, NOT a Mahatma..... Do you want this declaration duly signed on legal papers? We can do that too.... And then we will petition the entire world to stop calling him Mahatma Gandhi.... bring down his statues all over the world... burn all his books, speeches etc.....

We can do all that, if that`s what it takes to cool the perpetual burn in collective paki-a$$es ... will that be sufficient or do we need to call some heavy-duty fire-brigrade to hose down the ``mahatma burn`` that you pakis are nursing for last 70 odd years?.......

I mean - what`s wrong with you pakis? [well, never mind I asked the question]..... Right from the beginning Indians have been telling you - Gandhi was no Mahatma... he was a jack-a$$ in many ways.... In modern India - he is nobody`s hero .... he is a laughing stock, for all practical purposes....

Morevoer - even if indians disown Gandhi - the world will not .... he is darling of people around the world..... what are you pakis going to do about that? Apple will continue to raise huge-a$$ billboards with ``think different`` and all that.... what are you going to do about that?

You can`t fight gandhi - he si too big for you .... we indians would like to help but we can only do so much....

Aisha

Pakistanis, as a people, are not branded as violent/chaotic/unjust/bigoted/anti-feminist people. And when they are so accused, it is not because of Gandhi.

Consider Pakistan`s reputation abroad up until the 1960s. If anyone was going to link Pakistan`s external reputation to Gandhi, that was the time to do it. And Pakistan, as a nation, then, had a better reputation in world capitals, and with various think-tanks, than it does in 2005.

For all Gandhi loving wuss!

This article has been a great learning experience. The article was not about Gandhi’s politics. It was all about what his thoughts were about women in general and how much he was beholden to some really obnoxious thoughts. This was also apparent in his politics when he talked about khadi and taking the India back to medieval times. Ideologically, he probably was the most ridiculous person ever to lead a nation. If he were to take over India after the independence, Indian would still be spinning khadi in dhoti and all the people defending him now would have been making salt by the ocean and catching fish in the dirty waters of Ganges.

OTOH, politically he struck upon an idea for people to distinguish him from the rest of the suit wearing crowd in politics. By just being different, he caught the fancy of the people. Afterwards whatever he said became the gospel truth. The act of putting a dhoti on him made him the genius that he never was. Once he had the public attention, many people helped him with public image. Politically, Gandhi made several mistakes and they are all documented but most of his mistakes can be attributed to the simple fact that most of the Indian politicians at that time were not experienced and it was still the first generation of Indian politicians that struggled or was able to win freedom or was “Given” freedom.

People here have referred to MLK and other politicians who certainly had skeletons everywhere. Having skeletons hasn’t diminished their status as people are able to understand their political contribution to some cause.

The fact is that there were people out there who showed those skeletons and people accepted those skeletons as part of a leader’s life.

True to their hero-worship nature, Indians here are showing that Mediocre minds resist challenges to prevailing orthodoxies.

Most of the Pakistani’s like me were not aware of this side of Gandhi. I am glad that Ms. Sarwari took the time to inform us that what we have always been taught about Gandhi had huge holes. Holes so big that mere ranting of Indians on this site won’t fill.

So far, No Indian has denied or contradicted or shown us that what Ms. Sarwari has quoted is incorrect. In fact, it is time for Indians to come off the high horses and accept that Gandhi was no ``Mahatma`` and he was a politician with all the trappings of a flawed human being.

How mighty fall!

Thank you Ms. Sarwari and look forward to more of these eye opening articles.

Re: # 1189

They already have a room .... but looks like things are not working out too well these days ....

Dost Mittar, 1185,

Well said, but you are wasting your time on Manto and Aisha, eyes wide shut thats how you can describe them. Notice that Manto has nothing to say abt your post.

Ayesa your response, 1178, to ZahraJ post is pathetic.

#1179 by Mantolives on October 11, 2005 1:35am PT


Dear Aisha,


Enough already....get a room you too....

hi mohar:

Ahura Mazda is the abstract and transcendant god of Zoroastrianism. Ahura is the adversary of Angra Mainyu, the Zoroastrian representation of evil. Ahura has no image and cannot be represented in any form (See also: faravahar).

Ahura Mazda, derived from the Old Persian Aura-Mazda (``Aura`` - Lord, ``Mazda`` - Wisdom) symbolizes the supreme deity of Zoroastrian and Mazdean religions.

Ahura Mazda is referred to as Ormazd in modern Persian.

from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

Satyamwada,

I can see how Indians like you would resort to abuses having no argument.

You keep abusing Ayesha Jalal for telling the truth... but H M Seervai was NOT Pakistani my friend.. he was your very own and he used transfer of power papers as his sources as well as the writings of some of your finest ...

So there... please get a grip on yourself man.

-YLH

Re: # 1172 behram
//...By the Grace of Ahura Mazda...//

Who is Ahura mazda?

Dear Aisha:

Congratulations on breaking all records of Interacts with your article. For the sake of chowk, I hope you keep writing more provocative article.

Personally, I think that Gandhi`s aura would have shone a little less if he had not been assasinated. At independece, he was a defeated man who had lost his battle to save the country, whose lifelong mission of non-violence and hindu-muslim unity ended in one of the bloodiest communal chapters in history. He had already lost all political influence in his own party, which refused to disband as per his wishes. His daily prayer meetings were attended by just a few old ladies. Ironically, at the end of his life, he finally got the love of the people he craved all his life, India`s Muslims, but at that time he was probably at the nadir of his popularity among the Hindus who had bestowed upon him the title of the Mahatma and only his assasination restored his aura.

I think that the problem you -and Manto- face is that you are working under a flawed assumption, which is that Gandhi is popular in the world because no one knows about the skeletons in his closet. I do not think that this is true. People like him despite his shortcomings and, more so, because he never tried to use any closets to hide them. His life is an open book, always was, and he never tried to hide even the most embarassing details about himself.

Gandhi is not an exception in this regard. Let us look at the other great icons of the twentieth century. Churchill`s shortcomings were well known and he was, indeed, thrown out of office soon after he accomplished the war mission. John F. Kennedy`s skeletons were well hidden during his time, but even after they have come to light, he is still regarded as a great leader, despite the fact that he presided over the Bay of Pigs, his falling prey to Mafia plants and all that, and not passing a single significant bill in the Congress during his time. Martin Luther King`s skeletons had been constantly leaked by the FBI but this has not prevented him from being an icon for the Blacks. Even in Canada, Trudeau accomplished very little in terms of real achievements but he lives on as a most potent icon of this country.

What all these people had in common was charisma, the ability to articulate the feelings of their followers and make them believe in them and themselves. Gandhi had that in him. After a while in history, the man is forgotten but the image remains.

Aisha Sarwari`s note below (#1178) shows the dishonesty of YLH and his spouse:

Poor Mahatma is to be attacked for just some of his mere thoughts when
his whole life he acted and lived in the most forthright and open manner !!
The Mahatma himeself acknowledges his weaknesses.
On the other hand, the scumbag like Jinnah whose every action was filled
with hatred and violence.
It is said, a mere speck on a white shirt stands out, whereas a whole dirty shirt
is just what it is - a dirty shirt.

---

a) Gandhi was a leader of the Subcontinent, who if read accurately (re: Seervai, Jalal etc) bears some significant brunt of the partition. The fact is relatively unknown.
Gandhi bore no brunt. It is Jinnah and his religious goons who bear the brunth.
Nothwithstanding the lies of Ayesha Jalal. The results of Jinnah`s actions are there
for everyone to see.


b) Gandhi was a flawed man, and like all flawed men, he must deserve the dignity that all mortal men deserve, but, unfortunately he`s made out to be someone he is not. Hence dignity now calls for the man to be rediscovered holistically.
Mahatma himself acknowledges his weaknesses and frailties So little twerps like you
and ylh can do no more than bark.

Was he the champion of:
-Non Violence (given his dictates to kill out of wedlock babies, to beat wives and to sexually abuse minors)
Huh !! The mahatma acknowledges his weakness when he was young. To say he
give dictates to kill out of wedlock babies is your spin (shows how you are the liar).


-Political non-Violence, (He introduced religion into South Asian politics, spitting the movement and snatching it from leaders of Jinnah, Ghokle and Tilak`s standards)
Ha...so you are angry that Gandhi ``snatched`` leadership from Jinnah eh ?
About introducing religion - You want to know what the mullahs were saying ?
Who gave the call to Pakistan ? who wanted to invite the Amirs of Afghanistan to
invade India and make it dar-ul-islam ? Who wanted veto powers based on religion ?
You are just a liar, blaming Gandhi for introducing religion.


-Peace and Justice (His concept of peace was selective, and he wanted justice only for his own people, not for all underdogs)
Yeah. this line is so worthless and false that one can only laugh.

-Equality (He was racist against blacks, and fought against apartheid because he didn`t want himself or other Indians to mingle with the lowly blacks, as a born African I detest this)
Oh yes...he should also have fought against arms smuggling, he should fought against
female infanticide, he should also have fought against polygamy, he did not fight
against smoking, he did not fight against child-marriages, he did not fight against
illiteracy !!
The Mahatma was comparitively young when he started off in South Africa. So he
did not do so many other things.
What did Jinnah do ? - you bozo.

-He was an emancipator of women (He couldn`t even stand women walking with him)
huh ? you fool - Did you see the many writings that were posted on this list ?


c) Gandhi popularly stood for one thing, Truth, and that is the exact thing missing from his image of the world. It’s a reading of selective history that causes these parts of him to remain hidden.
What is obvious - is your ( really Ayesha Jalal`s) selective writing. She will hopefully
be exposed for what she is, a manipulative person.

d) The danger here is that we, Pakistanis as a people, because we once had a conflict of interest with the man, are branded as a) The Violent b) The Politically Violent c) The chaotic and unjust d) The Bigoted e) The Anti-feminist
...once had a conflict ?
Are you blind or just plain stupid. Pakistan ka matlab kya ?
Your whole country is geared up for terrorism, people trained in your country are
killing people around the world, the laws of your country are all prejudiced,
your whole social and govt systems are soaked in bigotry and you are blaming
the Mahatma ?

You, ylh and Ayesha Jalal are all beneath contempt. The problem may indeed
be that the educated folks in Pakiland are all like you. Your hatred and anger for
Hindus has deluded you and you can only think in terms of being ``not-Indian``
and so you pay the price - that is your karma.

Correction #1182
Replace ``frequently`` by ``frequently to virtually every other individual``.

And this one is for Ana, whom I consider a very special interactor!

Ana, I must admit that “other” activities have kept me from keeping track of individual i-logs. However, I must point out to you that you should not let verbal lashings from individual no-name interactors (especially those who do it frequently) get you down – most of such stuff is harmless and it is usually done in the heat of the moment and without any malice intended whatsoever (some individuals can be more fiercely vocal than others) – and its intensity is usually proportionately higher to the amount of expectations one may have from others! I wish you a cheerful frame of mind and the resilience to continue to demonstrate the high quality class in dealing with issues – both inside chowk and outside of this little world – that you have displayed in your own responses. Therefore, cheer up!

Thanks.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Re#1179 Manto
Cheer up, will you! (Also, what is a “treasury bench” and can I get some?)

Re#1178
Dear Aisha (and Manto),
In fairness, the two of you must be commended (not for this article or most of your interacts here, unfortunately) but for your courage under fire. You have taken some rough ammunition – and continue to tick. That’s a good quality and someday it might indeed come handy to you in helping get to that vision of “Modern Democratic Liberal Progressive Pakistan, where everyone has equal rights regardless of religion, caste, creed, gender”. That goal is highly commendable, especially considering that most countries of the world (including of the “first” world) are still trying to get there. I sincerely wish you luck toward that objective. In my opinion, its chances would improve if you focus on the REAL problems of today, not made-up ones after scanty research, as you yourself indicated in #1178 – part (A). Also, this interactor is a strong believer in artistic (including literary) freedoms of all kinds – not a shred of doubt about that – however, a subject as vast as Gandhi – done on the basis of a mere one-hour of research – is unlikely to build the necessary level of nation-wide credibility, or even to boost your readers’ confidence in you – therefore, it’s NOT a good idea to “cook up” an article with the proficiency level in cooking that you have elsewhere admitted having! Also, “blind” prejudice is just as bad as “blind” love – with the important difference that indeed the former can be addressed to some extent! If Mr. Manto did not beforehand review it and suggest improvements along those lines – he has been remiss in his duty toward whom he lists as his number one favorite author on his interactor page – please consider firing him (from the job of a reviewer, I hasten to add – not from his legally-bonded status)! Thanks.

Chowk Staff:

Kindly note that in #1176, the term “chowk-stuff” is to be treated as an article – not as an act! Also, can you do something about the links on the right – they do not seem to work! Has someone been messing with them (not YOU, by any chance?)

Notes for “navigation-challenged” interactors on THIS board:

(1) If you have a high-speed connection, this link will let you see all the comments on a single page – to make life a LITTLE easier (navigation wise).

(2) If you have a low-speed connection – follow the following sub-steps

(a) curse loudly (suggested words: “I have been chowk-stuffed!”),
(b) smack head (use your own – and be gentle, or it might get damaged (if it already is not (which is unlikely since you DID visit this web site, after all (on second thoughts, cancel this sub-step)))), and
(c) get a high-speed connection, then return to step 1.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Dear Chowkstaff,

I wish to register protest at how some of chowk`s finest have resorted to abuse and insults aimed at Aisha, Behram, Godot and Hamidm for disagreeing with the Indian point of view.
It is a matter of great concern that the citizens of the world`s greatest democracy act like quite the fascists when things are not to their liking.

It must be remembered that the whole chowk ideology is pre-disposed to pro-Indian stance since within the collective imagination of chowk staff and chowk cosmos, the Pakistani narrative is at best a well meaning but misguided separatist strand and at worst an outright unreasonable communal narrative. Therefore the Pakistanis here are already forced to argue from a position of weakness which has more to do with the implied ideological bias on the website than the reasonableness of Indian claims.

Therefore, any abuse on part of the ``Treasury benches`` of chowk should be taken note of and made example of by the Chowkstaff, which acts after all in the same capacity as a speaker would in a democratic parliamentary body.

Sincerely

YLH

Dear Aisha,

You wasted your time....

Zahraj`s objective was to tell us that she attended some Indian sponsored ``South Asian Women LEADERS`` seminar.

Well more power to her.

Re: # 703

Zarahj

A) ``This is the most stupid article published on Chowk.``

Thanks for honoring it with such a long post. I wrote it in an hour, browsing Gandhi`s works and just putting it together for kicks. I`ll put in more time on the topic in the future.


B) ``This also reflects the regressive mentality and thought process of certain Pakistanis who have nothing good to do but research on finding the good and bad in the leaders who have left this world way back.``

Gandhi, had he left this world way back, would really not be the problem that he is now. I don`t think you should jump to conclusions about who`s progressive and who`s regressive based on one sourced article on a dead man who in your opinion, ``left this world way back.`` That`s not even an argument, it’s a personal attack.


C) ``What`s the gist of this nonsense? Gandhi did not treat women equally or consider them worthy of anything?``

Yes, this along with his other inconsistencies and bigotry and/or racism.


D) ``Is the purpose to tell hindus on Chowk that their leader had weird policies towards women?``

Actually I think most Hindus know where he stands, this article is for intellectual frigids like you who are too dry to let the touch of Historical truth telling release you from the shackles of propaganda. You are dime a dozen of the famished minds which would rather go with the consensus flow though media and cultural indoctrination rather than formulate an opinion independently.


E) ``Is it a cover-up to hide the bad publicity Pakistan is receiving on the treatment of its women folk?``

It`s a relevant article I think, given the Pakistani context.


F) ``The writer needs to wake up.``

Vague, no real message. Learn to ask intelligent questions.


G) ``Regardless of what Gandhi believed in and did to his wife, all Indian women and men do not follow the same thought process.``

So we shouldn`t talk about what he did to his wife and thought of women?


H) ``Yes, the fact that Indian Culture kicks in every other thing is very true.``

You`re digressing. So what, if Indian Culture kicks in?


I) ``I detest involving culture in my life barring a few items close to my heart - saints/sufis, shawls and select poetry.``

Narcissist. Too much info, go and fill this info in on a shadi.com profile page for Desparado`s Inc.


J)``Just recently, I attended a day long seminar in Chicago where over 100 South Asian Women Leaders were present.``

Yawn


K) ``The participants included CTOs, attorneys, magistrates, physicians, engineers, business women, educationists and technologists.``

And what, you felt inferior?


L) ``There were only 9-10 muslim women in that crowd. Out of those 9-10 muslim women, only 3-4 had Pakistani background.``

Very scientific sample. I await the conclusion.


M) ``The rest were Indian muslims. None of the participants (mainly hindu women) had any issues in terms of where they were in their respective careers.``

You go girls!


N) ``One of the panelists was a very impressive, articulate and brilliant woman in her 40s, the CTO of Motorola - a chemical engineer by background. Despite her international engagements, she was able to attend the event on a weekend just to show her solidarity with women from her part of the world. Not only that, the woman was dressed in a very pretty turquoise eastern dress with beautifully put together matching jewelry.``

Hurray for Shakuntala!


O) ``In my past 10 years or so in Corporate America, I have hardly worked with ikka dukka Indians here and there but I have never attended something like this before where so many ambitious and accomplished south asian women(mostly hindus) were under one roof.``

Wah Wah. Consider turning this into an article, because you`re really boring me here.


P) ``Interestingly, it was evident that they believed in having the cultural affinity. This was a very different environment for me.``

Ya you self-exiled morone who couldn`t make it in her own country.

Q) ``I am not into culture shulture at all and rarely attend any cultural stuff anymore.``

Okkkk....


R) ``I did not see anyone wearing anything on her forehead with any complexes on how her leader, Gandhi Jee, thought of women.``

No kidding???!! Shuks, this whole article, I was trying to prove just that. You got me there! *ashamed*


S) ``I had a strong impression that majority of the women took pride in being of Indian Origin regardless of their bygone leaders’ leanings.``

I salute all woman who stand by their nation and serve their people.


T) ``Based on my 1st hand experience, I am not sure where is this writer coming from?``

God, please go marry Sadna or something. Get to the point!


U) ``Probably, she needs more worldly exposure. Worldly exposure does not come from being a cyber activist or flipping through history books.``

First of all, I am no cyber activist, in fact I hardly write, I wrote an article on Chowk after 2 years or so. And History books, I really can`t read them all, unlike my husband here, who is a walking library.

Oh wait, your post is done. And I still have nothing substantial to respond to.

Let me try explaining the point again.

a) Gandhi was a leader of the Subcontinent, who if read accurately (re: Seervai, Jalal etc) bears some significant brunt of the partition. The fact is relatively unknown.

b) Gandhi was a flawed man, and like all flawed men, he must deserve the dignity that all mortal men deserve, but, unfortunately he`s made out to be someone he is not. Hence dignity now calls for the man to be rediscovered holistically.

Was he the champion of:

-Non Violence (given his dictates to kill out of wedlock babies, to beat wives and to sexually abuse minors)

-Political non-Violence, (He introduced religion into South Asian politics, spitting the movement and snatching it from leaders of Jinnah, Ghokle and Tilak`s standards)

-Peace and Justice (His concept of peace was selective, and he wanted justice only for his own people, not for all underdogs)

-Equality (He was racist against blacks, and fought against apartheid because he didn`t want himself or other Indians to mingle with the lowly blacks, as a born African I detest this)

-He was an emancipator of women (He couldn`t even stand women walking with him)

Let’s dig him up and give him a decent burial.

c) Gandhi popularly stood for one thing, Truth, and that is the exact thing missing from his image of the world. It’s a reading of selective history that causes these parts of him to remain hidden.

d) The danger here is that we, Pakistanis as a people, because we once had a conflict of interest with the man, are branded as a) The Violent b) The Politically Violent c) The chaotic and unjust d) The Bigoted e) The Anti-feminist


MY POINT: It’s high time we get reviewed for facts independently of Gandhi and with the world keeping Gandhi`s holistic life in perspective.

MY POINT: Our narrative deserves a showing in the heritage of the world. Gandhi is overplayed for the wrong reasons and any fair minded person should recognize this fact.

With the threat of being simplistic, I must say there are two kinds of people in this world: Those who have the ability to see it from the underdog’s perspective, and those who don`t.

The latter category cannot be leadership material! Whatever circumstances made him one at the time should be reviewed and not covered up.


Aisha F. Sarwari

#1171 by behram1

[So what is happening in South India between Tamil Nadus and Sri Lanka. Oh, yes....these damn Pakistanis, once again.]

So the Tamils in Sri Lanka are Buddhists? What are you smoking Behram Sahib?

FYI, the Tamils in Sri Lanka are either Hindus or Christians (and may be a sprinkling of Muslims too), but never Buddhists.

There are so many holes in your other posts too that I`m tempted to respond to them, but then, you seem so convinced of your arguments that it is pointless to point it out to someone who actually believes in them in the first place.

Respectfully submitted,
Harish

Re#1175

For those who don`t know

``KK`` stands for Kumbh-Karan. For information regarding that legendary individual, kindly refer to Tulsidas` Ramcharitmanas. In the chowk world, s/he is called ``chowk-staff`` (occasionally referred as ``chowk-stuff``.)

Humbly, respectfully, sobbingly, cryinggly submitted
BeeJay.

Re#1173 Kaalchakra

Looks like my ``absence`` from this site seems to have deprived me of a few interesting goings-on. Also looks like KK has finally become arisen (or is that aroused (there is no implied reference to any body organs, however (Uie, Allah! (Tauba, Tauba!!!!)))).

For now, however, it is probably the ``nice`` thing to do to watch and enjoy (I feel compelled to respect KK`s maryada). Because of certain unknown reasons, I feel a LITTLE tired.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Also,


Dear Mr. Kaalchakra,

Who were you gracing with your visit for this evening? And what was on the menu?

Humbly, respectfully, and obediently submitted and lapped up,
BeeJay

Re: # 1173

Dear kaalchakrabhai:

Ok. Your wish is my command.

With love and humility,

I respectfully submit,

Behram B. Atashband

Behrambhai

You are worrying too much about the yester-year thoughts of Indians and about the backwardness of their icon Gandhi.

Please take a break. Really.

Love and regards

Re: # 1151

Dear mohar11:

By the Grace of Ahura Mazda I have done fine wherever I have been
[Of course you do - your anti-gandhi ``performance`` here has been spectacular - you kicked some serious gandhi-lover a$$es - so you will be just fine in pakiland.....] Remember to love the truth and only the absolute truth which resides only in you.

Thank you for the compliment.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 1164

Dear Ranger:

Your name is really powerful. Let me see if your intellect is as powerful.

[About Gandhi - whether he slept with his grand-daughters or not , whether he hated niggers/women/untouchables is based on hearsay and debatable , but frankly immaterial] and this is all the article is all about.

[and as a sin pales in comparison to his treacherous act of blackmailing the free Indian nation into giving away 1/3rd of its treasury to Pakistan by threatening to fast unto death , at a time when an India was engaged in a crucial war with Pakistan over Kashmir.] Okay, then you should consider yourself as a ``Gandhi hater``. Do you? Or you are just too much passionate to think straight right now?

[The reason 1 million soldiers are stationed in Kashmir is to prevent the 5 million Kashmiri muslims to give in to their innate Islamic fundamentalist terrorist inclinations which saw them ethnically cleanse or chase away the entire hindu kufr populations away from the valley , which they did in 1989-91. Also , the 2000 odd hardcore terrorists are not scattered all over the valley , mingling with the local populace. So the only way to deal with such a situation is to have a significantly large army- classic military strategy...something US has not done in Iraq and is consequently suffering.] Is this what you consider as a highly efficient army? To put one (1) million to get 2000. Wow! What a genius you are, Ranger.

[If all the terrorists get together in one place and attack as a conventional force, we wont need more than a couple of thousand soldiers to finish them off.] Yes, and you might just one, if all of them come to you and bow their head to be slughtered. You are just so genius. Unbelieveable.

[You only display your ignorance and foolishness with your ridiculous claims about Indian soldiers fighting buddhists and so on.] So what is happening in South India between Tamil Nadus and Sri Lanka. Oh, yes....these damn Pakistanis, once again.

[Needless to say , India has faced insurgent movements through out its independent history , and won everytime. Unlike Pakistan which lost half of its country , India hasn`t lost an inch so far.] Yes, you are correct, it was the insurgency when you grabbed Muslim Hyderabad. It was the insurgency when you grabbed newly independent Goa. And all along you remained a democracy. And also a society full of non-violent philosophy.

What a load of hog wash? Yesteryear thoughts. Get off your high horse, Ranger, and see the reality. India should act mature on its own, if it wants to be, or even if it is. Your response just shows how despicable India is like it has always been.

Kindly think before you ink,

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Behram1

It`s ok. Everyone has a bad day. You will feel better tomorrow.

You forgot to extend your respect to me this time :(

Re: # 1163

Dear kaalchakra:

That is exactly what I have been thinking all along. What sort of humans are we?

[All this anger, this `Nagaland and Bangladesh,` this `Hindoos and Buddhists,` this `Kashmiris and (their?) namak harami,` this `religious India and undivided India, all undoubtedly delightful talk.... just because that poor old fellow Gandhi was not good to women? :)]

And that is all the writer was talking about.

You figure out the personality that has developed since partition. And that could be your next article.

Thank you for your contribution.

I remain humbled by your thoughts,

Behram B. Atashband

``What is a most respected Parsi from our great neighboring country gonna do about it?``

Well, he can talk.

Also...democracy means honoring the aspiration of the numerical majority. As long as the majority of the people of India want India to hold on to Kashmir and Nagaland and so on , India will continue to do so , using brute force or otherwise , shamelessly and even proudly and at the same time annouce our democratic ans secular credentials at the top of our voice to anybody who cares to listen.

So what is an effete neutred paris from pakistan gonna do about it ?

Re: # 1158

Dear Netizen:

It seems that once again, our Karma is working. I started laughing when I read [now the burden falls on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it.] Respectfully, how am I suppose to prove anything when this whole article on this site was unable to do that? We are in the peanut gallery section remember. We provide comments to the article. Not dissertation on life`s philosophy.

[so go ahead and start your argument. thats what i have been waiting for since yesterday.] And you still did not get it! What makes you so sure that another 24 hours will make any difference? You really believe in miracles that somehow your intellect will function differently. I don`t.

[but somehow the topic got digressed when you started calling him anti-jew and ``with no integrity because satyagraha won`t work against hitler``.] I never said that he was anti-jew. That is your interpretation. I did however call him anti-women, which you have not, as of yet disproved.

[lets see how much dirt we can get on this guy] Even dirt should be valuable for such hates which I have already confessed that I do not have for anybody.

[you keep posting i will reply tommorrow] Why, you have no work to do. You work on promoting Gandhi`s values instead of your employer`s. Now that is what is called a hard working Indian.

Netizen, thank you for your contribution, and please keep the conversation going forward.

Again I will continue to promote harmony and love and would respectfully submit,

Behram B. Atashband

*Also , the 2000 odd hardcore terrorists are scattered all over the valley , mingling with the local populace.*

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Behram

All this anger, this `Nagaland and Bangladesh,` this `Hindoos and Buddhists,` this `Kashmiris and (their?) namak harami,` this `religious India and undivided India,`

---

all undoubtedly delightful talk.... just because that poor old fellow Gandhi was not good to women? :)

Re: # 1160

Dear harimau:

[Would that include the Hindus and the Sikhs or just the Muslim vermin?]

First those human killers (read Indian solders) must learn to respect human life. Obviosly you don`t.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 1149

Dear Edge:

I must ask you this question: How did you know that Sam Manekshaw was not a neutered Parsi? Did you check it out yourself?

You, being a patriotic Indian, should know the answers to the main basic question to why is it relevant for Pakistanis to discuss Gandhi? Well, other than to provide an opportunity for Indians to come across as idiots, there could be no other reason. Right?

Wrong? When it comes to history, I know Indians are idiots.

You, being a patriotic Indian, should evaluate the efficacy of Indian troops. One estimate is that there are over one (1) million Indian troops in a population of five (5) million. Now, that comes to twenty (read 20%) percent of the population. Is that considered effective soldering? That is one (1) in five (5). Okay, those who suggested that it takes one (1) Pakistani soldier for ten (10) hindoos were off base by a factor of two (2). I grant you that. But, that is not the issue. Kashmir is supposedly your province. How come we see a drag in your efficiency?

Oh, and your soldiers are working double shifts in Nagaland, I suppose. Or other places fighting with the Buddhists. You have fighting all across your own country. Except for Kashmir, nobody has any claim on your territories. And you Indians boldy call yourself a democracy. You have no shame.

Oh, BTW, we forgot about Bangla Desh? Being a patriotic Indian, you must consider them really ``namak haram``. These damn Bengalis

---

Help them get independence and they hate us now.

Please enlighten as to what you would like to be called, just to make a distinction for these purposes only. Give any name for the length of these dabates only. But, it should be befitting to your thoughts, your words, and your deeds. Remind us what do you consider yourself to be? a Gandhi (hater?)

[actually hate Gandhi for his silly jesuit non-violence , `show-the-other-cheek-to-the-enemy` , muslim appeasement and acts like blackmailing the free Indian nation into giving away 1/3rd of its treasury to Pakistan by threatening to fast unto death , at a time when an India was engaged in a crucial war with Pakistan over Kashmir]. So why are we not saying the same thing. It seems that your hyperbole is for your self-esteem. Is that so?

[We hate Gandhi and we hate Gandhians] Good for you.

[- but because we love India. But when paki mongrels attack Gandhi , they do so to run down India or to project that evil genocidal maniac Jinnah in a better light.] Or is it that you love a religious India?

[Gandhi was a moron , but he is OUR moron]. KEEP HIM. We were talking about his inadequecies regarding women. Then, of course, as usual, we digressed and continued with seeing that Jews did not particularly cared for Gandhi. We learnt that he is seen hanging around his grand daughters (did you see the movie Gandhi). This was actually written in a Jewish magazine that I read back in 1983 (?) when the movie Gandhi came out.

[Its like having a alcoholic in the family. The family members feel free to curse him all they want , but will not tolerate any abuse from the neighbors, After all , he is OUR alcoholic.] Okay. Then why have this discussion at all. Keep you Gandhi and we`ll keep our Jinnah, and heck with Undivided India.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Ref behram1 #1144

[..... Stop the killings of innocent Kashmiris.]

Would that include the Hindus and the Sikhs or just the Muslim vermin?

HP

He was arrested. But he flew out of jail on an invisible horse, and none dared question him again :)

behram:

so it seems according to you the only problem you see with gandhi is his anti-women stance.

now the burden falls on you to prove that, not on me to disprove it.

so go ahead and start your argument. thats what i have been waiting for since yesterday.

but somehow the topic got digressed when you started calling him anti-jew and ``with no integrity because satyagraha won`t work against hitler``.

lets see how much dirt we can get on this guy.

you keep posting i will reply tommorrow.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 1148

``Right now we should be discussing about Gandhi`s inherent problem with women.``

to cut the chase short, did you read kamat articel that i posted? what are your views on them?

you are saying gandhis inherent problem with women, isn`t?

please specify.


``Again, your use of the word we....would bring my response of you, and then you will cry foul play. ``

the alphabet ``w`` was a typo. there is no ``we`` there.

``How does Jinnah come into picture in India``

to mantos rantings about gandhi being a fascist hindu and jinnah being a secular person. even today gandhis principle of secularism is invoked for protection of minorities not jinnah. just look at pak, even shiah-sunnis are killing each other forget about the other communities.

``Secular India, yeah right! I would like to see the day when I see most of the untouchables given human dignity. `

so would i. but its better than a decade back and will only improve. atleast we don`t have a youhana being ``helped`` by his teammates to convert to islam.


``No, of course not. ``

thats the problem. go and read them.

``I do not call Gandhi or anybody else anything. I do respond, however, to the air of superiority. ``

you did call him despicable, foulmouthed person. now don`t deny it. or else you would be lying, which parsis don`t do, isn`t?

``I have always felt safe in Pakistan. ``

good for you. whats the point?

``But, nevertheless, it was you who wanted to turn my arguments upside down. Was it not? ``

yes, and i did. have you forgotten your response about how jinnah had integrity, then lost it and then got it back?

I have heard Gandhi being described in many other ways but none so colorful as the ``alcoholic in the family.``

LOL

Re: # 1153

Not really... Hate-Gandhi party is just starting... Come on in :)

Re: # 1075


dude i didn`t even look at the pictures, did i miss somethng

correction: The right phrase is: ``La ilaha illallah`` - ``There is no lord worthy of worship except Allah``....

The big0try has been built into the system... from the very beginning.... it has seeped iinto even naive souls like Behram.... No wonder pakis are the way they are....

Re: # 1148
//....I have always felt safe in Pakistan....//

Of course you do - your anti-gandhi ``performance`` here has been spectacular - you kicked some serious gandhi-lover a$$es - so you will be just fine in pakiland.....

Pakistan ka matlab kya - la hilaya ila illaya [paraphrased]....

Regarding Gandhi`s views on em`niggers , WHO CARES !! The stupid f_uck made us give away 1/3rd of our money to our hated enemy !!

Its funny to be called `Gandhi lovers`..for patriotic Indians like me actually hate Gandhi for his silly jesuit non-violence , `show-the-other-cheek-to-the-enemy` , muslim appeasement and acts like blackmailing the free Indian nation into giving away 1/3rd of its treasury to Pakistan by threatening to fast unto death , at a time when an India was engaged in a crucial war with Pakistan over Kashmir .

`Gandhi lovers` are actually India hating leftists like Arundhati Roy , Sandeep Pandey etc.

We hate Gandhi and we hate Gandhians , who are basically anti-India leftist anarchists - but because we love India. But when paki mongrels attack Gandhi , they do so to run down India or to project that evil genocidal maniac Jinnah in a better light.

Gandhi was a moron , but he is OUR moron. Its like having a alcoholic in the family. The family members feel free to curse him all they want , but will not tolerate any abuse from the neighbors, After all , he is OUR alcoholic. Nasty neighbors keep out.

Re: # 1135

Dear Netizen:

I am sorry. I must clarify this [where have i degraded your sacred fire?]. It was not you. It was that other Gandhi lover, who is supposedly a failure as a Doctor who suggested degrading words towards Atash Behram. You, somehow, got involved in the firing line.

[how many more lies] If you know anything about Parsis, we never lie. I certainly never lie. So, please accept my sincere apologies.

[do you have reading comprehension problems?] No, I have no reading comprehension problems? It seems that you want to figure out what problems others have first. Is that how you advance conversations? Right now we should be discussing about Gandhi`s inherent problem with women. That`s it. And not me.

[mor am i claiming that.] Then, why did you bring up the first Zoroastrian who landed at Surat. What is his relevance to Gandhi`s subject matter?

[i am just frustated with your imbecile responses.] Now, you are calling me imbecile. Do you know English?

[i don`t know whats going on in your mind. calling gandhi woman-hater, in-authentic, with no integrity is questioning hatred w for a community?] Again, your use of the word we....would bring my response of you, and then you will cry foul play.

Make up your mind? Who is this we? You (singular) or you (plural).

I never consider Gandhi as a male chauvinist. Heck, he did not have sex with his wife from the age 36. Now, that can not be a sexually active person. I still wonder why he slept with his grand daughters on the same bed. In the western society, they suggest that even infants should not sleep with their parents on the same bed.

[does calling gandhi names makes pakistan a better place for minorities.] No, absolutely not. Heck, Pakistan is not a safe place for most Pakistanis.

[secular india is a legacy of gandhi not jinnah] How does Jinnah come into picture in India? Secular India, yeah right! I would like to see the day when I see most of the untouchables given human dignity.

[gandhis view on dalits, women, jew have you read any of them.] No, of course not. Here I have to deal with so many idiotic posts, and continue responding to them. I have already spent over 5 hours on this utter nonsense.

[do you think by calling gandhi names, minorities will be safe in pak?] Why are you asking me the same question twice? I have already answered this once.

[you go ahead call gandhi whatever you want that will definitely leave you safe in pakistan.] I do not call Gandhi or anybody else anything. I do respond, however, to the air of superiority. I have always felt safe in Pakistan.

But, nevertheless, it was you who wanted to turn my arguments upside down. Was it not?

Continue the conversation. I enjoy responding to your post because I am laughing at the way we seem to be connected. Karma I suppose?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 1142

Kaalbhai:

there is no point discussing/deabting with pakis. they are either of urstrulu type of manto/behram type.
for me it was a great eye opener. i thought that gandhi if not reverant wouldn`t be a despicable, foulmouthed, dhoti-wearing ugly-faced for an upforward moving paki middle class.
what i came across here was a horror story.
just to prove that jinnah was better than gandhi, manto and family started throwing abuses at him, calling it the other side of mahatma. behram too joined in with sole aim to tarnish gandhi do that jinnah will get the right place in history, which he has been denied so far.

you must have noticed that behram has not responded to even one of the articles i have posted. it seems he has no views on them, still he will call gandhi anti-woman, anti-jew and ``in-authentic``. I went on to say that satyagraha has limitaions and hence gandhi had no integrity?

can you imagine how much hatred has blinded them? he his doing all this to raise jinnah, may be to accord him a very high place in pak/world history. but i still don`t understand how by calling gandhi anti-woman etc. without any basis in can raise jinnahs stature.

i am more close to right wing politics than with congress, but took part in these discussions to examine gandhi. but people had came here with baggage to look at things from there perspective. unknowingly i have read a lot about gandhi and have a far better understanding of him as a person. but still won`t vote for congress :)

anyway i think we are just going in circles and the animosity we have between us will make it very difficult to come close as was shown when mushy rejected indian aid.

i will see you around. just leave manto and behram to their fate.

Dear Behram1

I have nothing more to add, except one thing.

You are letting your emotions do your thinking for you. You hate no one but you see hatred written on the face of every Indian. There is a problem there :)

You want to go after Gandhi`s reputation because you have a particular dislike (not hate, since you hate none :)) for ``Gandhi lovers.``

Behram1 ji, educate yourself on India (if you care to understand them). ``Gandhi lovers`` are the ONLY ones in India who have had any use for Jinnah. Only ones who have made a conscious effort to keep Jinnah`s humanity intact in India. Just like Gandhi was the only major leader in India who maintained any sympathy for Pakistan for 1947.

And now, you want to go after his very name because he ``did not care for women`` (as much apparently as most leaders of the Muslim League did). There are many people in India who are not your friends who would have happily paid you to destroy Gandhi`s reputation.

But if this is what will bring you emotional satisfaction, or do your great country some good, don`t let anyone stop you. :)

Dear Behram...difference is , General Sam was an Indian parsi. You remain an effete neutred parsi from pakiland.

And in Kashmir , we only kill Islamic terrorists.No regrets.

Re: # 1137

Dear Edge,

[Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.] under the able leadership of Field Marshall Sam Maneckshaw, a Parsi. Was he neutered?

Time to grow up, is it not? Stop the killings of innocent Kashmiris.

Just the same,

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 1142

Dear kaalchakra:

Thank you for your kind words. There is already so much hate around this world.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Behram1

And all this while I thought you were determined to destroy Gandhi`s reputation because you felt hurt when Indians didn`t respect Mr. Jinnah. I guess I misread you!

:)

Jinnah with his lover ..(do notice the coy post-coital grin on the lover`s face)..

Behram....so you are a neutred effete parsi from Pakistan in love with the qaid and the effed up country. No big deal.

Re: # 1131

Dear kaalchakra:

Thank you for such a long worded post. Please rest assured, as I have stated in my previous posts, I have never found any Pakistani who starts a discussion about India`s partition. It has always been the Indians.

Whether it is Pakistani securalists or not is a question not for outsiders to contemplate. I admit, Pakistan, has a lot of problems internally. But we certainly do not need some Indian agent in the US educating us. I am well aware of the donations being asked around the US in Indian temple for the betterment of political parties in India. May be I am not a good writer, but I am well read.

You are absolutely right that people`s mind cannot be changed easily, and no body is suggesting that. All we were arguing about is that Gandhi had problems with women. And now suddenly I have talk about my overall political philosophy regarding India/Pakistan. I am old enough to understand when to keep quiet.

Some Gandhi lovers are trying to be benevolent in guidance, when none is needed. When I see an Indian, I see hatred written all over his face. He is dumbfounded that there are Parsis in Pakistan. And then, a Pakistan loving Parsi.

It appears by your writing skills that you are in the academic world. If correct, you are too theoretical.

[But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism] There is no new wave of anti-Gandhism. You might consider a new wave of pro-nationalism, but never a new of anti-Gandhism. Frankly, Gandhi or for that matter most Indians, have always been very insignificant in my life.

Thank you for [I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial)]. Then, should we expect a behavior modifications in your subsequent postings?

[More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.] Jinnah, has always been a shining star abroad. He is the only freedom fighter who never went to jail. That speaks volumes on his political suaveness. Not to mention his professional attire, mannerism, and no nonsense behavior.

Your concern [this new anti-Gandhism] is elusive. There is no new anything regarding Gandhi, or Indian leaders. The only newness is for Advani to speak highly of Jinnah.

You are correct in asserting [Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.] As for me, I hate nobody. I will however reserve the right to defend my integrity.

Words are not needed, please continue showing by action [No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can].

---

[This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders.] Your argument is similar to Anil`s in one of his earlier post, which I rejected. Older generation must be and will be held responsible for everything. And that is a fact.

[But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.] [Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.]

Practice what you preach. When you live in a glass house don`t throw stones at other house. Gandhi lovers have no idea of what is happening in the international political arena, and are just realizing the outcome of their hate filled agenda.

[Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.] for whom?

Is it some sort of a hidden threat to knowledge, to truthfulness?

[It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.]

---

[Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.] I have always known that. You are repeating my vocabulary to me. Wah reh wah. Ulti ganga behe rahi hai kiya..... It is your Indian Gandhi lovers who must understand that.

I am trying to understand as I go along with your post

[To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding.] Agreed.

[That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions.] Okay.

[More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.] okay.

[That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.]

[I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.] Then, please don`t be a part of this carelessness.

[It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault.] Great.

[It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.] So?

[The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair] and that is what I have been arguing.

[but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason]. Then, why do you contribute to it?

[In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons.] Well, Gandhi is the subject of this post and not Jinnah. Nevertheless, keep up your theoretical post.

[To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.] What has this got to do with Gandhi not liking women?

[I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.] And that is all the more reason to see what Yasser`s effort has been all along.

[Jinnah was a great man.] Yes, agreed. Thank you.

[But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself]. Yes, agreed. We need to clear the outside rubbish first and then work inside or work form inside to outside. Pakistanis are quite capable of doing that. Thank you very much.

[It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness]. Then, please practice what you preach on the greatness of your own icon. And don`t bring Jinnah, as soon as any topic on Indian intellectual decay shows up.

[As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.] Thank you. Then, please help us in this journey. Would you?

Thank you for pontificating eloquently on the issue of relationship between Gandhi and Jinnah, etc. But we still have the main subject article at hand.

Can you help us get back to the article? Or am I going to be subjected yet with another academic talk?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

An interactor by the name of Beej spammed this article with over 500 replies all containing links to images on a single website. This is a gross misuse of Chowk space and possibly violation of the website from which the images were linked.

We have removed these replies/interacts from this article and apologize for the inconvenience caused to those who were accessing this page. Removal of these replies may cause irregular numbering of the remaining replies which will be fixed.

While Chowk allows html to share a image within context but misuse of this kind is a outright violation of Interact guidelines.


Sincerely,
Chowk Staff

Poor Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : ``Your troops are only apt in killing unarmed Kashmiris, and that is a fact.``

Yeah...right. Are you by chance a believer in the theory that was prevalent in Pakistan that `1 Pakistani soldier = 10 hindooo bania soldiers` ?

Remember 1971 ? Just to refresh your memory >


(Pakistan Army Officers lay down their side-arms as a formal act of surrender to the Indian Army in East Pakistan. )

Indian Army easily broke Jinnah`s dreamland into 2 equal parts , taking as POWs 100,000 Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan Army is a bunch of chakkas - like you and your friend the Cuckolded Fool , Hamdani.

Here is a gandhi-lover helping out pakis in their time of need.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/international/asia/10cnd-quake.html?hp

And then - we have pakis who are bad-mouthing the same gandhi-lovers....

so sad!!!

Re: # 1132

``So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram? ``

how many more lies, behram. where have i degraded your sacred fire?

``Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.``

mor am i claiming that. do you have reading comprehension problems?

``Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting. ``

behram, i don`t know whats going on in your mind. calling gandhi woman-hater, in-authentic, with no integrity is questioning hatred w for a community? who is promoting hatred towards a community, we are asking for the facts about gandhi being a male chauvinist, racist, castiest.

``If my comments, hurts you,``
i am just frustated with your imbecile responses.

``but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along.``

good for you and him but that doesn`t mean you call gandhi a despicabl foulmouthed person and question his integrity without any facts. does calling gandhi names makes pakistan a better place for minorities. you are yourself blinded by hatred for gandhi even claiming that he is not relevant today without knowing that secular india is a legacy of gandhi not jinnah. i have posted seceral articels about gandhis view on dalits, women, jew have you read any of them.
do you think by calling gandhi names, minorities will be safe in pak?

``but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment. ``

whatever behram. you go ahead call gandhi whatever you want that will definitely leave you safe in pakistan.

Re: # 1133

Dear Edge:

Finally, I am getting around responding to your snipes. Please don`t allow this to depress you, since I know that most Gandhi lovers have self-esteem problems. One has even developed Atish-e-Gaand. I recommended a Persian sugar cane or maybe bawajis.

So, let us see what your thought provoking or conversation advancing argument is
[Behram...respectfully...that is the land where you wear bangles and dance , extolling the virtues of the place and its Qaed.....] Oh, really I would not have recognized that, last time around when the thunderous Advani brought a million troops on its borders. Your troops are only apt in killing unarmed Kashmiris, and that is a fact.

But, pure common sense is surely a hard commodity available to Gandhi lovers these days.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram...respectfully...that is the land where you wear bangles and dance , extolling the virtues of the place and its Qaed.....

Re: # 1126

Dear Netizen:

You write [this holiest of the holy fire would have extinguished long time back if it were not for the land of gandhi who gave refuge to your people and allowed them to practise their religion and traditions.] Agreed. So, somehow you feel alright to degrade our sacred Atash Behram?

And respectfully this is also Jinnah`s land, and my land, and manto`s land, and Aisha Sarwari`s land.

And, yet, we never talk bad about the hindoo religion. Gandhi lovers did, and do.

[now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed?] Jadav rana promised that we will be like sugar and that we will mix with the society at large. He never promised to give away Zarathushtra`s cherished ``Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds`` principle. He never gave away the main principle of fighting evil away from life.

Hatred of one community is what I am questioning, and that is what Gandhi lovers are always promoting.

If my comments, hurts you, I would apologize only on one condition for you and all those gandhi lovers to see how it hurts all of us.

Yes, I realize that [remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire], but you have to see that Jinnah never wanted this type of Pakistan [and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation?], and that is what Yasser has been fighting all along. Do you not see that?

I might be [you are disgrace to your community.] but I would never scoop to such levels of intellectual bankruptcy that you are in at the moment.

Continuing to be respectful

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Behram1

A little late and long reply - long, because this, IMHO, is an important issue. And because I genuinely reciprocate your kind regards. I am under no illusions that people`s minds can be easily changed. Yet, if you will patiently read, I will share my very personal point of view.

I am just quite alarmed at this new, viciously anti-Gandhi turn that a segment of Pakistani secularism (I think I can count you in that group of secularists, at least loosely) is taking.

I fully and enthusiastically share and for what it`s worth, endorse, the goal of Pakistani secularists (in fact, or in name, is immaterial). You have mentioned the burden of unfair reputation that Mr. Jinnah carries. More than most Indians, I realize that Jinnah deserves a fairer deal in terms of his reputation in India and abroad.

But I am fearful of the ultimate effectiveness of this new anti-Gandhism - what it may bring and what it may not bring. I am apprehensive of the difficulty and uncertainty of its intentional goals, and the ease and certainty of its unintentional consequences. I am almost certain that it will perpetrate a huge amount of immediate harm, while its actual benefits will remain a mirage.

The basic reason for that is how we humans are built: Love and respect are very difficult sentiments to generate among us. Hatred and contempt come to us most naturally, almost uninvited.

No one has to agree, but I will try to explain the best I can.

---

The opposition is not to anyone`s right to (or wisdom in) criticizing anybody else, including Gandhi.

Like all others, Gandhi is a candidate for criticism. As has been mentioned here frequently, many Indians reject his views on a number of subjects. Many now question whether he could have done some things differently. To call him an old stupid fool is now almost a badge of honor among India`s new youth.

This honor we must endow on everyone, even our dearest elders. Children grow and mature only after they have claimed that their parents were old stupid fools. This ritual serves to establish the integrity of our own identity, and our own authenticity.

So, fairly and wisely done, creating a common understanding of Gandhi`s mistakes and shortcomings can be a useful endeavor. I agree that it will help reduce the generally-found hostility to Jinnah that rankles (and should rankle) many proud Pakistanis. Together, Indians and Pakistanis may even achieve other positive goals for themselves and for each other.

But there is a huge danger in moving beyond the defense of one`s own icon, into the territory of destroying someone else`s.

Every child may think that his or her parents are fools, but few will sit by listening to other people launch similar ad-hominem attacks on their parents. Particularly, if their own overall evaluation has been positive. Foolishness and smarts are not the only dimensions on which we evaluate our elders.

Almost all Indians, including those who totally reject his views as archaic, maintain as high an evaluation of Gandhi as ``a human being,`` as one can assume Pakistanis do of Mr. Jinnah. Therefore, unwarnished and one-sided hostility to the memory of Gandhi, or the declared goal of solely establishing that Gandhi was not a Mahatma is a prescription for much trouble.

It will re-create the unfortunate, unwise, and probably unreal binaries that many Indians and Pakistanis have been working to erase. The response of Indians on this board, I respectully submit, offers a telling insight. Even young Gujju (I was very pleasantly surprised) put aside his pure capitalism to make his stand clear.

---

Comparisons have been suggested with the criticism levelled at Prophet Muhammad. I submit that there would be NO NEED, and it would be FOOLISH to call Prophet Muhammad names, were more of his followers (able) to openly question Prophet Muhammad`s follies. Or if fewer people thought it ideal to live and behave like him.

So long as that is not the case, so long as Prophet Muhammad`s life and his ideas continue to be forcefully projected, his ancient follies present a clear and active danger, while Gandhi`s stupidities and follies, in the very fact that they have been rejected, and that people are allowed to openly reject them, have been neutralized.

Focusing solely on appreciating someone`s good side is sheer stupidity if it also necessitates the perpetration of, and inability to reject, their mistakes (as we see them - that is the only commonly accepted measure we have). However, once we have neutralized someone`s follies, one can (and to be fair, should) move on to appreciating their good sides.

That`s why, in ultimately deciding the overall, current worth of a human being, the most important element becomes the person`s lagacy of prevailing ideas and practices.

Hopefully, you will see why Gandhi`s and Prophet Muhammad`s case is not identical.

---

In general, people who do not claim prophethood should only be evaluated by the standards of those others who too do not claim prophethood. By the same reasoning, it may be quite fair to evaluate Gandhi by the standards of those who have been awarded sainthood in our quite unsaintly world.

---

To re-iterate my major concerns, a lot of work has been recently done (on Chowk and elsewhere) toward developing better Indo-Pak mutual understanding. That enterprize has required a lot of people to grow in many directions. More than anything else, it has required us to grow spiritually. People have had to open their hearts to the desirability of going the extra mile to see things from OTHERS` point of view. So they could put themselves in the shoes of OTHER people. So they could convince themselves (never an easy job) that one can give others the same benefit of doubt that we so give to ourselves and to our own.

That spiritual growth, along with the new understanding it has wrought, has been a collective victory for everyone.

I fear that in our new carelessness, all that mutual work, common achievements, will go down the drain. I am apprehensive about old pettinesses, and closed-heartedness coming back.

It took a lot of genuine effort to recognize that Mr. Jinnah may not be entirely or solely at fault. It will take very little spiritual work to conclude that after all all those old prejudices against him were right on target, that he was indeed the evil incarnate many people have argued he was.

The reputation Mr. Jinnah enjoys in India is unfair, but Indian bigotry or failure to understand history is not the only reason. In fact, I humbly submit, those are not by any means the main reasons. To get a perspective on the difficulties involved, consider the views Pakistanis themselves hold of him.

I suspect that Jinnah is viewed no more fairly and accurately in Pakistan - the country he himself created - than in India - a country that has fewer reasons to think highly or accurately of him.

Jinnah was a great man. But that greatness can be established on a firm footing only by generating a particular mindset, first and foremost, within Pakistani itself. It cannot be established by using a legalistic play of arguments to question Gandhi`s (or anyone else`s) greatness. That approach is bound to frustrate the work done on behalf of promoting goodwill for Jinnah`s memory.

Proof through legal hair-splitting does not endows greatness, nor does greatness ever need such effort. Most great people and their admirers are not lawyers. They neither act nor care to think like lawyers. Lawyers want to prove. Great men and women seek to inspire.

Please help Jinnah`s memory inspire great things, and good behavior. That is the only way to `prove` his greatness. It will give the only proof that matters. It will also make it irrational for the rest of the world NOT to respect the man.

As always, Pakistani secularists have my best wishes.

Re: # 1124

``When Jinnah wanted hindu-muslim unity he was 100% authentic because that is exactly what he wanted. When Gandhi did not want the breakup of India, he was 100% authentic up untill August 14, 1947; because India was united. Gandhi became inauthentic after that. ``

so as i understand, jinnah had integrity for some time, then he lost it and then after getting pakistan he once again had integrity. wooo..... you must have studied jinnah even more than the cheer-leader.

regardign you, all along you were saying that jinnah had no blot so you had integrity but now you accept that he had no integrity some time in his life so that maked you also inauthentic, as your stand is different than what it was until 2 hours earlier.
that means you have no integrity.

WOOOF... at last i have become an expert on the sciences of integrity.


``Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder``
c`mon, this is a stupid statement

``And when the corrupt thought of Gandhi lovers started comparing Gandhi with the Prophet of Islam continued unrestricted that I decided to really get involved.``

please tell me what did you bring in? unsubstantiated conclusions? To maligh gandhi


``And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity. ``

we would appreciate if you gives some examples from gandhis life as i have given several view-points.

Behram..you realise you are just a Neutered Effete Paki Parsi , right ?

Albert Einstein : `` Gandhi was the greatest human being ever to walk the face of the earth``

Nelson Mandela , Martin Luther King JNR - both heavily inspired by Gandhi and his philosophy , which they used in their own struggles in their own countries , against apartheid and for equal rights for colored people.

Cuckolded Fool , Potty Mouthed Wife and their friend the Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : `` Gandhi was ugly , racist , evil , misogynist hypocrite , and oh yeah , Ambedkar once called Gandhi a hindu fanatic , and Ambedkar`s word is the word of the Lord. ``

But ultimately .....it doesn`t matter what any of the above luminaries have to say , for there is only one God in today`s world and that is $$$ and the Market is the prophet ....atleast that is what we new age hindooo fanatics worship.

MK Gandhi , along with Albert Einstein and perhaps JFK is one of the greatest brand names in history. That is why Fortune-50 companies with $100 billion turnover like Apple, HP and IBM use him to sell their productS....

Consider this...

No matter what The Cuckolded Fool and his Potty Mouthed Wife say about Gandhi , he shall remain one of the most globally recognisable names - respected and famous , known to every 8-9 year old school kid in Boston as well as in Rome , in Barcelona and in Sydney.

Your Jinnah , no matter how hard you try to push him , is a minor provincial or local leader famous in a little third world country called Pakistan and infamous in the rival country , India. Bascally only known to third world subcontinental types. Jinnah is the Pakistani actress Meera compared to Gandhi`s Marlyn Monroe....

Meanwhile , The Cuckolded Fool , his Potty Mouthed Wife and their Neutred Effete Paki Parsi friend continue behaving like famished ugly street dogs drenched with drainage water and barking at the stars..

Dear Chowstaffers,

I don`t know how this works but keep your main page up for another month or so before it slides off to oblivion.

We are determined to crush the goons of Gandhi lovers.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 1122

behram:

``Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us? ``

this holiest of the holy fire would have extinguished long time back if it were not for the land of gandhi who gave refuge to your people and allowed them to practise their religion and traditions.

``You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was?``

and now you acknowledge the deed of jadav rana by calling gandhi despicable, foul-mouthed? i challenge you to show how foul-mouthed gandhi was. what you are saying about gandhi doesn`t make you a despicable liar?

remember, your forefathers ran away from getting killed in a islamic country to preserve the holy fire and now you are singing peans about a person who founded a islamic nation? you are disgrace to your community.

Beej:
these are wonderful pictures!. could you elaborate on the people behind this project? There seems to be a narrative flow throughout these photographs which is kind of remarkable thing to pull off given the turbulent times that these were made.

many thanks.

Re: # 1104


Dear Netizen:

Again, with due respects. Integrity to me is to do what I say I will do.

When Jinnah wanted hindu-muslim unity he was 100% authentic because that is exactly what he wanted. When Gandhi did not want the breakup of India, he was 100% authentic up untill August 14, 1947; because India was united. Gandhi became inauthentic after that.

When, on the other hand, Jinnah was forced out of his hindu-muslim unity dream then of course momentarily he could be considered out of integrity. He regained his integrity with his determination to get Pakistan. And that is where he is 100% full of integrity.

Besides, we never consider Jinnah to be a Mahatama.

Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder [earlier i thought you really have some scoop on gandhi and will defend it intelligently as you have done in case romair]

[you are a silly debator and have no grasp of topic at hand]

Knowledge is just like love, it is in the eyes of the beholder

[you jumped in the bandwagon claiming gandhi was anti-women solely on the basis of the article and 300+ posts.]

This is false here is my very first post:

#44 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 8:52pm PT

Dear Aisha,

Thank you for an excellent article.

Several of my Parsi friends from India did not have high regards for Gandhi, although he was from Gujrat. Those who were well read always admired Jinnah because he was the most emancipated person of his time.

Keep up the good work.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

---

And here is my first post critical of a Gandhi lover


#46 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 9:45pm PT
Re: # 40

Dear Anil:

With your permission I like to respond to your post #40 to Aisha.

You suggest that all men of Gandhi’s generation had similar views regarding women. If this logic is true, then in today’s world all men should have similar views regarding women. And you would agree that they do not.

I have always condemned and written-off certain aspects of our previous society. It is not what Gandhi has said or not said that I would like to debate. You must agree that when there is a discussion regarding India with non-Indians (read westerners, mainly Americans), there is a certain amount of pride that Gandhi-lovers exude, whilst Pakistanis and/or Jinnah are mentioned as a jest.

As you have rightly suggested, Gandhi is dead physically. But his values and those who get political mileage out of his values are still around and that is exactly what is being discussed.

Aisha, has shown no malice towards the dead Gandhi. She has only enlightened another view about the political Gandhi, which some of us would like to observe and understand.

You are absolutely correct that this person was a failed lawyer, and until very late in his life he was a failed politician as well. I am amazed that his values does not fit today’s world that is barely 60 years after his death. And some Gandhi lovers have deflected the topic at hand and tried to articulate the happenings of the world some 200 years ago.

By your own assertion, you who have lived in the US since 1970, should know this well by now that those who desire public life expose their values and views about everything, from early childhood. With such a standard, why should Gandhi be an exception?

Anil, your assertion that Indians have moved on and left August 15 behind is completely bogus and cannot be validated. Your effort, nevertheless, is admirable.

Personally I believe that Aisha has done an excellent service by highlighting the inadequacies of a corrupt politician. If you have moved on, thank you. Please don`t waste your time here.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

---

And when the corrupt thought of Gandhi lovers started comparing Gandhi with the Prophet of Islam continued unrestricted that I decided to really get involved.

And here is where I really jumped in I provided some criteria between values and authenticity.

---

#267 by behram1 on October 6, 2005 9:29am PT

Dear Yasser and all,

Thank you very much for all the efforts that you have taken in disseminating the voluminous information regarding the subject matter. This should create the enhanced value of our lives as we go forward. Forward-looking individuals (or groups) would normally want the world to be a better place while exiting the world. Almost all thoughts and values are evaluated against a barometer of how are we contributing to the conversation going forward to make the future a better place. As a society we provide integrity to almost all our values. (My definition of integrity is I do what I say that I will do).

We discard values that are not in congruence with the prevailing norms of our society, whether these are today’s values or values of yesteryears. If these values are not in conformance with the actual inner-self value then the world recognizes the in-authenticity of the proposed value. Regardless of how popular the individual or the group may be, it is the complete (read 100%) value that is authenticated.

It appears Gandhi continued his struggle with this in-authenticity. What he projected for public discourse, what he preached was not what he practiced. As an individual he was not an authentic person.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

---

So you see, I have remained values oriented and consistent with my integrity.

I am sorry if Gandhi had no integrity from time to time.

As always respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Sri-paiye

tch tch...foaming at the mouth and forgetting your manners and etiquettes, eh! Go gargle with Listerine and brush your teeth. Your breath stinks and everyone at Chowk can smell it.


Behram – give this guy a break. He’s in a frenzy. He needs help, not admonitions. His blood-pressure has shot through the roof. He can get a stroke. Get him a glass of brandy to calm him down. And while you are at it, can I have a martini, please, shaken, not stirred.

Re: # 1118

Dear rsridhar:

We are still OK. We don`t call other`s holiest of holy name names. Did you not know that Behram is the holiest fire of the Zoroastrians. Did you not know that Atash is sacred to us?

No, of course not. You are as foul mouthed as your despicable Gandhi was? Show me one great Parsi leader as astute as Sir Dadabhoy Navroji, the champion of India`s freedom to support Gandhi and his despicable qualities of leadership.

[What have they done to u in Pukistan man?] We see love and respect where ever we are and that is a fact. Unfortunately for you, it is only religiosity.

Respectfully submitting,

re:#1115 by godot
looks like u are having a fit there. or perhaps somebody did something to your rear end.
Sridhar

Re: # 1114

Dear rsridhar:

Did you get that pakistani sugar cane to quelch the ``Atash`` in your ``gaand``. Or may be you need a bawa jis? Or do you want persian`s?

Stop your rubbish and learn how to be dignified.

Is it not true that Gandhi used to sleep with her grand daughters on the same bed? Whatever happened to his wife?

Utterly disguted with Gandhi lovers, but still will continue to submit respectfully,

Chowkidars, please consider going back to the old system of displaying only a limited number of interacts per page. Under your present system, this page takes forever to load even with a 6MB cable modem connection.

re:#928 by behram1
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar

The pictures tell you that the men and women around Gandhiji were there of their own free will and that this was no cult - there was no dress code and you could wear whatever you wanted. Whether Gandhiji was autocratic or not, he didn`t brainwash people into doing what they otherwise would not do. What distinguishes him from every other ordinary person is that deliberately and methodically transcended that ordinaryness. He didn`t have an imposing personality nor was he physically attractive as some astute pakistanis have observed. And yet people congretated around him because he was a natural leader. They trusted him to make hard decisions which he did. He also saw the freedom struggle as something bigger than simply exchanging one set of rulers for another. He wanted the individuals, the villages, the communities to be free in being able to determine their economic and social terms, and he wanted to congress party disbanded.
Even as intellectuals such as Nehru were eyeing socialism and big public projects as salvation for a poor and depleted nation, Gandhiji sought to revitalize self-governance at the local level and build a nation from the ground up. He was for decentralization whereas, in the aftermath of the Partition, pretty much every other bigwig wanted a strong, authoritarian central government.

re:#928 by behram1
Abey Berahm Aatish-e-gaand,
What have they done to u in Pukistan man?
You guys were O.K as long as u were in India.
Sridhar

Re: # 1113

``It is a pity that we even have to defend one of the greatest human beings who ever lived in the 20th century and that too with the Puki crowd of half witted morons.``

hehehehe....hoo hoo hoo hoo...haa haa haa haa...!!!!

re:#1017 by friend
Behram whaterver is a total nutcase. That happens to minorities if they live in Puki land.
Sridhar

re:#1065 by Beej
It is a pity that we even have to defend one of the greatest human beings who ever lived in the 20th century and that too with the Puki crowd of half witted morons. YLH belongs to a special category. May be Jinnah will one day resurface from the grave just to pat him on his back!
Sridhar

re:#1061 by Beej
Thanks again for those beautiful pictures. This one is particularly precious (i do not know what your sources are but they are fabulous). Lapierre mentions the words in his tribute to the Mahatma in his book Freedom at midnight. In case Indians on chowk did not read it, here is the version again in bigger print (written in the editorial page soon after Gandhiji`s death; the whole page except the tribute, was left blank):

Gandhi has been killed….
This second crucifixion in the history of the world
Has been enected on a Friday- the same day Jesus
Was done to death, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen years ago.
Father, forgive us!
Sridhar

Re: # 1096


``Also Gandhi was naive in his belief that Hitler could be transformed were the latter to really read the Bible. You are being similarly naive in believing that a person who has chosen to be what he is can be turned into a human being were he or she to actually read Gandhi`s words. ``

I have realised that manto and behram are just the product of paks identity as are hamidm, godot.

it was interesting to listen to their view-points and arguments.

manto wouldn`t go beyond certain quotes and behram would arrive at unsubstantiated conclusions and then ask others to disprove them.

at least it has exposed the ``open-mindedness`` of the highly-educated ``liberal`` pakis. it has more to do than just gandhi, i think it is about the hatred they harbour for hindus.

re:#1067 by Mantolives
Regarding pix posted by Beej, here is my answer to your question:
There is none. Do u have a picture that shows jinnah was sleeping with his own sister. There is none. That does not mean it did not happen. The guy was a sex starved lunatic after his wife`s death.
Sridhar

Re: # 1067

manto:

i thought you knew better. gandhis satyagraha was for the rights of indians, it didn`t involve africans. was it that the africans came to him and he kicked them out?

anyway, have you seen ``seculsr`` jinnah with africans or addressing hindu mobs?

To Pakistanis in Pakistan: Please go and do something for your countrymen in need. Collect food, volunteer your time for some relief work away from your home if you are not impacted.

To Pakistanis away from Pakistan: Go collect funds from your own folks or from general public at malls or whatever.

Your people need real help. Gandhi is not going anywhere, wherever he is. You can always argue with indians later. This match will never be over and you wont loose face if you dont respond.

Take care.

1067 expresses a historical query...

The wonderful picture show Beej subjected us to... shows Gandhi doing everything from going to the bathroom to leading prayer meetings...

As I have not seen the whole thing ... is there any picture which shows him standing next to a person of African origin? We know there were several of those in India ... This is a historical query because such a claim has been made... and I want to verify it.

Ordinarily it would be of no significance... but given his views on racial purity and sub-human status of the Black race, gandhi`s picture assumes immense importance...

Re: # 1098

dude manto:

i don`t take your rantings seriously anymore.

you carry on with you one-line gems.

you are a wasted talent

Re: # 1101

``Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity.``

ask your cheer-leader whether jinnah wanted pakistan or it was forced on him by congress/gandhi.

you will come out with a big surprise, isn`t manto miya ;)

Re: # 1099

``With due respects this is exactly why I have been suggesting that Gandhi was inauthentic. These days we call it being flaky. Without insulting any body, I repeat your words...
[gandhi was wrong wrt hitler.] [moreover when asked later would he defend the country by satyagraha if hitler invaded``

behram:

it is my undrstanding that you have no clue about gandhi or jinnah. you just landed on this thread when you saw anti-gandhi lines in the article.
earlier i thought you really have some scoop on gandhi and will defend it intelligently as you have done in case romair. but your posts have confirmed that you are a silly debator and have no grasp of topic at hand. you are jumping from one argument to another just to prove that gandhi was ``inauthentic`` without substantiating anything.
you jumped in the bandwagon claiming gandhi was anti-women solely on the basis of the article and 300+ posts.
then you started calling gandhi anti-jew
now you are saying gandhi was ``inauthentic`` because he said that saytagraha won`t work against hitler.
my understanding of your ``inauthentic``-ness is that a person should cling to his/her beliefs and not modify/change if the belief is useless/doesn`t suit the current scenario. and even if it causes suffereing. Well, from where i come it is called, stubborness, adamant

i have realised that you still havn`t replied to my jinnahs question.
let me rewrite it :

initially jinnah was an ambassodor of hindu-muslim unity but later said ``hindu and muslims are two separate nations``

hence acoording to ``your`` definition won`t it make him ``in-authentic``.
if yes.

you were initially saying that jinnah was ``authentic`` but now after conming to the above conclusion you will also turn out to be ``inautheticate``, isn`t?

---

also, no one was discussing that gandhis satyagraha was an all-weather movement. the discussion was about manto and family calling him racist/casteist/male chavunist. its seems that in order to prove gandhis ``in-authenitic``-ness you lost track of the discussion itself.

---

``Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women``

i am still waiting for your arguments on this. once again manto and family`s arguments are disbarred on the basis of shallowness.

---

``and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits. ``

yet again, it was never a part of the discussion. no one has so far claimed that gandhis non-violent strategy is applicable is all scenarios.

Re: # 1100

Dear kaalchakra:

I am sorry that I got to you so late. You have always been my favorite. I was just stuck explaining your other Gandhi lovers regarding their views. I hope that you have the the forgiveness that Gandhi so eloquently suggeted that an ``eye for an eye`` would make the whole world blind. How anti-jewish that could be? But, of course that argument is for another day another site, please stay tuned.

Right now we just have to deal with Gandhi`s inauthenticity and his integrity regarding women.

Please rest assured I am no where close to shaping [Nothing personal, but one sincerely hopes that you do not have any role in shaping the destiny of even a mouse, let alone the whole of Pakistan.] anything. I have a hard enough time working with my own growth. You see like Gandhi I am always a work-in-progress. Unlike him though, I am a Zoroastrian, and have to always remain a subdued member of the minority community.

I submit, respectfully

``Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity.``

Does Jinnah need such friends and admirers? People of such fine logical skills and highly developed sense of morality and fair play?

Re: # 1095

Dear Netizen:

Please do turn [my attempt is to turn behram arguments upside down. just stay tuned.]

I will be a very happy camper to see Gandhi`s authenticity validated at this site.

The question still remains that Gandhi was inauthentic. The fact is obviously missing out on you. Read this article. Would it not be better to discuss about the article? then dignifying my posts. I thank you for that, and Oh yes. Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity. You do what you say you do, and you do it. Got it.

I remain, humbled by the knowledge I develop by your interaction, and I submit respectfully,

``We have two (2) strikes against Gandhi. Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women, and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits.``

Respected Behramji

Nothing personal, but one sincerely hopes that you do not have any role in shaping the destiny of even a mouse, let alone the whole of Pakistan.

As usual, glad to see you still alive and so full of respect for everyone.

Re: # 1088

Dear Netizen:

With due respects this is exactly why I have been suggesting that Gandhi was inauthentic. These days we call it being flaky. Without insulting any body, I repeat your words...
[gandhi was wrong wrt hitler.] [moreover when asked later would he defend the country by satyagraha if hitler invaded india, he said no.] Obviously, his non-violent strategy had limitations. Do you agree?

If you agree, then we have two (2) strikes against Gandhi. Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women, and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits.

I submit, with utmost respect and humility

Dear netizen...

Your posts have been typical hagiographic nonsense... which have not contradicted my claims about Gandhi...

You are welcome to take up the issue in 1067... or should I repeat it?

Behram,

Even though you did not ask for advice, I am forced to give it to you.

Do yourself a huge favor. Please STOP posting on this thread and topic. Move on.

It is quite obvious that you have no leg to stand on. You have painted yourself into a corner and are desperately clutching at straws. You are babbling. I am telling you that it is pathetic.

In future, please think before you leap. For now, please move on...there is always another thread ...and an another day....

Mantolives

You find Behram`s arguments cogent?

---

Dear Netizen

To say that you are casting pearls before swine will be unfair to the swine.

Also Gandhi was naive in his belief that Hitler could be transformed were the latter to really read the Bible. You are being similarly naive in believing that a person who has chosen to be what he is can be turned into a human being were he or she to actually read Gandhi`s words.

But then evil cannot always be destroyed. Sometimes one just hopes it will be reformed.

Re: # 1092

manto miya:

i am not trying to belittle jinnah to uplift gandhi

my attempt is to turn behram arguments upside down. just stay tuned.

also, it would help you if you read all the posts and try to make sense of them.

Behram akalband

``Gandhi who recommended his nonsensical ``non-violence`` strategy against Hitler`s aggression is why most Jews hate Gandhi``

Man! can you answer one straight question? Who are these ``most jews``? Can you quote some?

Re: # 1089

manto miya:

still no replies.

it is pathetic to still a fiery ``debator`` turning into a docile cheer-leader.

The oldest trick in the book... can`t defend Gandhi attack Jinnah... well Jinnah`s integrity was admitted by even his doughtiest opponents... but he is not the topic of discussion... Gandhi is...

So let us see you defend Gandhi against Behram`s cogent arguments...

Re: # 1084

behram:

you havn`t got back with your ``facts`` regarding gandhis views on women. are you ever going to?

also, i asked you about jinnahs ``integrity``. waiting for your reply

Re: # 1065

Dear Beej:

It is disconcerting that you chose to show your gibberish thought. In truth telling one has to remain laconic. Being from Bihar, you may not have known that we also have a saying in Persian. We use the term “thookme-shaitan” for the evil seed or Beej. You did an excellent job to prove that you have a “thookhm”, of what? That is what we have to decide. I just hope that this “thookhm” is not shaitaan’s. But again, I am not familiar with your leanings, since I have so far seen just gibberish thoughts, gibberish words, and indeed gibberish deeds.

And I expect that you will work towards Good thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds.

No, Beej, it is only your [These are a couple of final janitorial comments on this board.] thoughts that need janitorial work done to it.

If you see my first few queries on this site, I have always been a seeker, and I am still a seeker of truth. Thanks to your behavior I remain a seeker about Gandhi’s greatness, if any.

And that is all the reason that you should just shut up [which I honestly do not buy – I know I have a tough time coming up with a thousand of ANYTHING] Those pictures showed absolutely nothing about Gandhi not hating women, which obviously he did. And that is the discussion at this site.

Beej, what is the real story, you got out from those picture [The pictures tell a different story – they tell the real story] Why don’t you tell us the real story.

You are once again wrong [One needs pictures to counter pictures – and guess what – there just aren’t any!] If this is about validation then look at Mother Theresa’s contribution to humanity, which is widely recognized and we don’t need pictures to validate that. So, why do we need Gandhis?

I agree with you that Gandhi was a work in progress [He was always trying to better himself and always trying to identify faults in himself to correct] And that is what we see a Gandhi with inadequacies when it came to women. That is all what this article is all about. Even you can now accept that. Can you? Would you?

Beej, the dilemma is that you love Gandhi and I respect that. By this very notion, I will refrain from encouraging you to participate further on this subject. Please Beej move on, and may God help your soul.

I will not recognize the rest of your post.

With due respect,

I submit,

Behram B. Atashband

Behram Atashband,

I salute your courage in standing for the truth in wake of some of the most horrible abuse and insults by our Indian friends, who obviously can`t handle disagreement.

Re: # 1085

``Allow me to explain the basic principle of the Zoroastrian doctrine. It is to destroy evil regardless of where they are found, and not to surrender to it. ``

what has Zoroastrian to do with gandhis philisophy? anyway, if you are too bent to teach it, go and tell this to your irani brethen who enmasse surrenderred to the invaders faith.

``It is an established fact that Gandhi suggested the Jews should not resist Hitler`s evil, because Gandhi thought his non-violent strategy is better.``

behram,

gandhi believed in his philisophy and as per #1087 advised jews for non-violent struggle against hitler. this was before the mass killings and Auswitch. the most you can say is gandhi was wrong wrt hitler. hitler proved to be a far greater maniac than it was thought initially. moreover when asked later would he defend the country by satyagraha if hitler invaded india, he said no. even the allies didn`t enter war to protect jews, they had their own territories to defend. havn`t you heard of how americans didn`t bomb the railway lines ferrying the jews to the slaughter house, as they had more important job at hand? so what it makes the americans now? anti-semitic?

Re: # 1085

Gandhi on Jews & Middle-East


A Non-Violent Look at Conflict & Violence

Article Written on November 20, 1938
Published in Harijan on November 26, 1938
This Web Page Last Updated: October 09,2005

It is of utmost importance to remember the time of this writing. It is 1938, Hitler is ruling Germany, and the clouds of a terrible conflict have begun to form. Gandhi`s article shows his incredible sense of right and wrong, his blind faith in his methodology, and his profound vision of things to come. -Ed.

by Mohandas K. Gandhi

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question.

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

But the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which many inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.

But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both? Or is England drifting towards armed dictatorship and all it means?

Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living God need feel helpless or forlorn. Jehovah of the Jews is a God more personal than the God of the Christians, the Musalmans or the Hindus, though, as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all the one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to God and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment . And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the god fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is easier for the Jews than for the Czechs to follow my prescription. And they have in the Indian satyagraha campaign in South Africa an exact parallel. There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany. The persecution had also a religious tinge. President Kruger used to say that the white Christians were the chosen of God and Indians were inferior beings created to serve the whites. A fundamental clause in the Transvaal constitution was that there should be no equality between the whites and colored races including Asia tics. There too the Indians were consigned to ghettos described as locations. The other disabilities were almost of the same type as those of the Jews in Germany. The Indians, a mere handful, resorted to satyagraha without any backing from the world outside or the Indian Government. Indeed the British officials tried to dissuade the satyagrahis (soldiers of non-violence) from their contemplated step. World opinion and the Indian Government came to their aid after eight years of fighting. And that too was by way of diplomatic pressure not of a threat of war.

But the Jews of Germany can offer satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than Indians of South Africa. The Jews are a compact, homogeneous community in Germany. they are far more gifted than the Indians of South Africa. And they have organized world opinion behind them. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in nonviolent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned in to a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanized man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted that latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in the their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them.

I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine, not by aggression but by loving service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the word`s Literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jews can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.

© 1987 Navajivan Trust.

Dear Respected Mr. Behram1

Allow me to explain a basic fact of humanism.

It is sufficient that you pit yourself against Gandhi. One of the two is certainly a great failure as a human being. But please don`t pit Zoroastrianism against Gandhism. Why spread the harm to other good Parsi people?

Returning your respect to you, and sending you best wishes

Glad to see you harmed neither by nature nor by neighbor.

Re: # 1081

Dear friend:

Allow me to explain the basic principle of the Zoroastrian doctrine. It is to destroy evil regardless of where they are found, and not to surrender to it. Gandhi with his non-violent strategy was wrong in this basic philosophy. It is an established fact that Gandhi suggested the Jews should not resist Hitler`s evil, because Gandhi thought his non-violent strategy is better. This is where he should be in ``cookoo land`` with the rest of his lovers. Besides he never cared for women anyway!

As always,

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Gandhi lovers:

Of course, you have a right to love your leader. Of course, you have a right to consider him a saint. This is the best you can do.

But, political Gandhi was a complete failure. And some of you did acknowledge that. Gandhi who recommended his nonsensical ``non-violence`` strategy against Hitler`s aggression is why most Jews hate Gandhi. Then of course by now most people on this site do recognize that Gandhi was also a ``women hater``. Oh, yes, the facts. Can you handle the facts?

As always respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 1079

`Well I did not see that he was Khalistani``

well you don`t see many things ....

Re: # 1079

i saw you replied to 1078, i hope you were not blind to 1077. Read it and reply back.

Behram akalband
you wrote about `almost universal hate` of Jews and Parsis towards Gandhi
Here is list of famous Jews
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-famousjewslist.html

and here is a list of Parsis
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_zor.html

Can you quote few instances of such hate from members of this list?

Godot #1075
Who will you look at if choice is between Count Dracula and that `barrel chested rock`?

Acha- Well I did not see that he was Khalistani.. he is a US Army officer... though.


1067 has another question. Please feel free to post a reply either way. Historical query.

Re: # 1067

``G B Singh makes in his now famous book ``Gandhi-behind the mask of divinity``.``

hahahaha
famous among whom, the khalistanis in exile?

Re: # 1064

``Manto miya still doesn`t see despite 600+ posts by Beej with Gandhi in pictures... how any of this proves anything otherwise... ``

manto,

refer to my posts. it seems you are conveniently turning a blind eye to them. Didn`t i post replies wrt blacks and dalits. if you have any shame left, reply on those posts first rather than parroting the same sentences over and over.

regarding behram, after i posted about gandhi legacy for indian women, he has shifted the goal posts. he is know talking about gandhi being inauthentic because he said that he won`t let partition happen but still lived so see it. look at my recent post to him, i am just waiting for his reply.

moreover, behram came to the debate already concluding many things but once some facts were asked he hasn`t provided any.

regarding convincing you, theres no point and need. its like

bhaise (buffalo) ke aage been (flute (?)) bajana.

#1074 by scout

[my computer just suffered a massive stroke when i made the badkismat choice of clicking on this article]

Looks like you`re using a 486. There are newer models in the market and you must consider buying one.

Re: # 1074

Scout

Unfortunately, I had lunch before I saw those pictures. It rocked alright...my stomach, that is. Needless to say, I had to buy a new keyboard and five bottles of Fantastik for the cleanup. What a mess.

Warning: Don’t eat for four hours before you click to see that barrel-chested Rock.

chowk staff,

my computer just suffered a massive stroke when i made the badkismat choice of clicking on this article

kindly remove all the diarrhea by beej or remove the seed itself

this twit has turned chowk into a kabarkhana

Beej,

Waiting for your response for 1067...

Is it that your pics really say more than words could ever?

Like I said... unlike Dr King, Mandela and Einstein, B R Ambedkar experienced Gandhi`s wrath first hand..


Harish Hyd,

Anyone who reads Mahatma Gandhi`s collected works is free to come to his or her own conclusions.. I don`t know about Pakis and what they think... The fact of the matter is that this is my opinion and I believe in it wholeheartedly.

-YLH

Just have 20 Indian Army divisions posted along the Pak border and rattle the nuclear saber. You will find our dear boy Yasser and his wife bemoaning the fact that India has abandoned the Great Mahatma Gandhi and his principles of non-violence!

Ayesha Sarwari and our dear boy Yasser have to reconcile themselves to the fact that nobody in India fell for Jinnah`s traps and that Jinnah was such a fool that he painted himself into a corner regarding Pakistan. That particular corner is also occupied by the worst of the mullah crowd and they are busy repainting their corner a deeper shade of green as days go by. All Yasser can do is to somehow pretend that the mullahs don`t exist. This leads to his schizophrenic rantings against Gandhi, Nehru, Patel & Co.

Yasser, dear boy, learn to hug your local mullahs despite what such actions might lead to.

Beej!
Back to chowk after a long time
If it werent for the no of interacts I wouldnt have bothered to visit the article.
And Im glad I did. Cant thank you enough for this one stop visual resource on the mahatma.
The comments make it an even better treat
I cant appreciate the effort enough.
Thank you!

Albert Einstein : `` Gandhi was the greatest human being ever to walk the face of the earth``

Nelson Mandela , Martin Luther King JNR - both heavily inspired by Gandhi and his philosophy , which they used in their own struggles in their own countries , against apartheid and for equal rights for colored people.

Cuckolded Fool , Potty Mouthed Wife and their friend the Neutred Effete Paki Parsi : `` Gandhi was ugly , racist , evil , misogynist hypocrite , and oh yeah , Ambedkar once called Gandhi a hindu fanatic , and Ambedkar`s word is the word of the Lord. ``

But ultimately .....it doesn`t matter what any of the above luminaries have to say , for there is only one God in today`s world and that is $$$ and the Market is the prophet ....atleast that is what we new age hindooo fanatics worship.

MK Gandhi , along with Albert Einstein and perhaps JFK is one of the greatest brand names in history. That is why Fortune-50 companies with $100 billion turnover like Apple, HP and IBM use him to sell their productS....

Consider this...

No matter what The Cuckolded Fool and his Potty Mouthed Wife say about Gandhi , he shall remain one of the most globally recognisable names - respected and famous , known to every 8-9 year old school kid in Boston as well as in Rome , in Barcelona and in Sydney.

Your Jinnah , no matter how hard you try to push him , is a minor provincial or local leader famous in a little third world country called Pakistan and infamous in the rival country , India. Bascally only known to third world subcontinental types. Jinnah is the Pakistani actress Meera compared to Gandhi`s Marlyn Monroe....

Meanwhile , The Cuckolded Fool , his Potty Mouthed Wife and their Neutred Effete Paki Parsi friend continue behaving like famished ugly street dogs drenched with drainage water and barking at the stars...

#1066 by Mantolives

[This article has nothing to do with Pakistan or its problems... neither Ms Sarwari nor I have claimed this... this is about Gandhi, a World Icon, and his reality. Nothing posted in your pictures all 500 of them disproves any of the points made here... by Behram Atashband, a Pakistani who happens to be a non-Muslim, nor Ms Sarwari.]

Yaar Yasser, now I`m seriously beginning to doubt your mental state. Of the hundreds of Pakis on Chowk, how many revile the Mahatma? Only one, Behram. And based on what research has he claimed this? Going by his posts, it seems none.

So you see, not even Pakis buy your (and your wife`s) BS. OTOH, there are enough Indians who call Gandhi names. But they do this for his eccentricities, impracticalities, and weird ways, not because they doubt his integrity.

[These 500 posts by you have proved that you never had an argument... that you are just another mullah who can`t accept disagreement and who gets violent, like Gandhi got violent, when things don`t go your way.]

Replace Gandhi with Jinnah and this paragraph could aptly describe you. Because the only violence Gandhi committed was on himself, unlike Jinnah, who sought to satisfy his ego by crowning himself the unquestioned monarch of Pakistan over the bodies of millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs and many others.

And on another note... out of historical interest ... I haven`t seen all the pictures you have
posted but is there any picture out of the 500 pictures you posted where Gandhi is seen with a person of African origin?

Please point out if there is because that is a claim that G B Singh makes in his now famous book ``Gandhi-behind the mask of divinity``.

Beej,

Honestly you are one person who is full of it. This article has nothing to do with Pakistan or its problems... neither Ms Sarwari nor I have claimed this... this is about Gandhi, a World Icon, and his reality. Nothing posted in your pictures all 500 of them disproves any of the points made here... by Behram Atashband, a Pakistani who happens to be a non-Muslim, nor Ms Sarwari.

These 500 posts by you have proved that you never had an argument... that you are just another mullah who can`t accept disagreement and who gets violent, like Gandhi got violent, when things don`t go your way.

All interactors:

These are a couple of final janitorial comments on this board.

First the pictures are from the public domain, and a simple link would have been sufficient to direct the seekers to the source.

But we are talking the chowk crowds – not seekers. They need to have the facts brought face-to-face – and they need those pictures right here – not selected ones – but ALL the pictures – staring right into the face!

This crowd is good with words – the strength of a picture is not that it is worth a thousand words (which I honestly do not buy – I know I have a tough time coming up with a thousand of ANYTHING) but that the pictures are much more difficult to weasel out of by using fast talking techniques and lubricious words.

So let the article tell whatever its author wishes to tell – those pictures will be there – these are unable to be countered through selective misuse of available information or with made-up information from the wackiest of sources. The pictures tell a different story – they tell the real story – and perhaps it is because the pictures can not be countered that some of those people appear so frustrated. One needs pictures to counter pictures – and guess what – there just aren’t any!

The picture forces you to look at the truth – straight in the face – and that can be disconcerting for some – if it runs counter to a life-time of conditioning. I understand that!

The question on whether Gandhi was made-up or genuine, woman basher, and all those choice expletives – are not new ones – the Mahatma was very open with his thoughts and always discussed them out loud. He was always trying to better himself and always trying to identify faults in himself to correct – so as to touch the OTHER person – sacrificing himself if necessary – so the OTHER person would feel something inside himself. Impractical idea perhaps, but it seemed to work at the time – at least for a while!

The Mahatma is dead – he does not care any more!. Godse took care of him – had he not, the one sharing the first three letters of that name would surely have by now!

The Mahatma indeed rocked when he was around. The world knows it. It is immaterial what a couple of individuals or any “behind the scene” individuals – for all of whom the objectivity is highly suspect and motives very suspicious – would say on that count

And the Mahatma indeed rocked when he was around. It is well-documented. Not through these pictures alone – but in countless other ways – the most concrete being some of his results! Like with everything else in life when all is said and done – only the results count!

He is no more around and no more rocking!

Can we rock like he did? Somehow, I doubt it.

First of all, we are the type of people that specializes in talking – not rocking!

Secondly, we need to have the desire to accept the truth – a desire that is highly lacking in our culture in general – but especially so on the Pakistani side (sorry Pakistanis, the janitor always calls it like he sees it)! The various manifestations of that problem have been the subject of countless discussions – and in keeping with our cultural traits – are likely to stay exactly that and little else!

So, we will always be looking for a scapegoat! We would rather find a scapegoat than a solution!

Therefore, if we are NOT rocking, we will always find somebody else to blame! The Pakistani crowds have become EXTREMELY well-versed at that game at the national level! The Indian crowds are only recently starting to catch up – trying to make up for the lost time using a regional approach! The trend is not going away any time soon – and certainly not through using underhanded sneaky manoeuvres.

Accordingly, let us leave the merits/demerits of this pathetic article or even this writing pair aside for a minute – if this pair (or perhaps the trio) needs a dead Mahatma to help pull it out of a quandary or its country out of the hole it has willingly climbed down into – let it!

I’m sure the Mahatma would have happily made himself available for that! That’s the type of person he was and that’s why he used to rock!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Netizen,

Manto miya still doesn`t see despite 600+ posts by Beej with Gandhi in pictures... how any of this proves anything otherwise...

Thanks for looking at the pictures!

Sincerely,
Beej.

Re: # 1016

kaalchakra:

behram, unfortunately, has made his conclusion even before looking at the facts

i initially thought he was ignorant but now realise he just hates gandhi. he has not come back with his views on jyostnas article.

i don`t think there is any point discussing with him.

Re: # 932

jinnah from being an ambassodor of hindu-muslim unity to ``hindus and muslims are two different nations``

according to your definition, jinnah too is out of integrity, isn`t?

#932 by behram1

``Just as an example, he suggested that India would not be partitioned, yet he lived to see its parttion. Now according to my definition this put Gandhi out of integrity.``

Behram akalband
Are you a complete idiot? Did Gandhi partition India? Gandhi tried his best to avoid partition. What were you expecting? That he should kill himself? And what was guarantee that your Jinnah would have stopped demanding his sultanate even after that.

Can I cite an example? Jinnah stated that Kashmir will fell into his lap as a ripe fruit. That didn`t happen. So that puts Jinnah out of integrity.

Behram baba, do you really know what integrity is? When you are trying to attribute those ``jews hated Gandhi`` and ``parsis hated gandhi`` statements, can you quote even one example? I will be able to quote 5 times examples to the contrary and then will check if you have any integrity left.

Man, if Richard Attenborough knew you had all these pictures, he would have saved himself all that trouble!

You may want to hold some for a later date. Or, are you punishing Chowk editors for publishing this article? :)

Consider saving some pictures, in case Chowk editors don`t learn from this experience. LOL

Beej

Even a vegetarian cat likes to play a little with an authentic little mouse.

I am almost done, for a while anyway :)

---

Where on earth did you get those pictures?! That`s authentic (in the world of men, not mice)!

Dear Respectable Mr. Behram1

Did everyone miss your answers, or has some inauthentic enemy of yours gotten hold of your computer?

I was concerned about your physical safety. But this is spiritual harakiri :(

Hopefully, you will regain your very authentic cool. (Is it still overly hot in your nook of the woods?). I am disappointed that you let inauthentic scum of the earth Gandhi and his minions spoil your loveable mood. Don`t allow that to happen again.

Your most respectful friend

P.S.: You are using up even my share of respect! You have to start earning at least a part of your share.

Dear Respectable Mr. Behram1

In our obviously-not-great country love is given to friends and respect is given to respectable people. I assume you are both a friend and respectable.

First you assigned Gandhi divine powers to look into the future. Then you opined that he possessed magical abilities to single-handedly prevent India`s partition. Now you are suggesting his Jesus-like Resurrection!

Do you know what some of your countrymen (and women) may do to you if your opinion of Gandhi`s prophethood spreads in your friendly neighborhood?

Kindly don`t delay the answers too long. As a friend, I obviously wish you a long life, but life is inherently hazardous.

Respectfully sending you some dark dresses that may come in handy should you have to suddenly leave your home and hide from your neighbors.

Your deeply worried but still curious friend

PS.: Do you neighbors respect you enough to pardon your authentic words of blasphemy?

Re: # 952

Dear kaalchakra:

Now that it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Gandhi was inauthentic. Bringing Parsis into the conversation, or jain, or kathiawari, or any other ethnic background shows how corrupt your thought is.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Re: # 946

Dear kaalchakra:

Please allow me to answer your last para first..
[It`s probably too soon to inquire if you need addtional bags of respect for yourself. But as a friend, I would be remiss in not asking. Do you?]

I wonder if your people in India sell bags of respect. If you do then why don`t you get some for yourself, and some for sridhar, and of course some for beej. His picture posting is asking for bags of respect.

As for myself, I would never buy Indian respect.

All of the questions you ask is for Gandhi to answer before his stupid actions.
No, the world does not call him a saint [The world calls the man a saint].

Most of us on this site called him a failed politician. I called him an inauthentic person.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear (hopefully still) Respectable Mr. Behram1

A man as deeply authentic as you must have authentic explanations of his valued opinions. We are eagerly awaiting your answers. Do you have some private information that Gandhi went around calling Parsis ``Parsee idiots.`` May be when he was a little kid in Gujrat? For many people that should be proof enough. (Not that I would have strong opinions regarding the alleged idiocy of Parsees, but you are not me - you are an authentic man.)

Don`t let the scum of earth, Gandhi and his minions, get to you. You focus on following better leaders, so you can remain full of self respect and respectable (you would agree, you do have some distance to cover).

As respectful as ever,

I remain your alarmed friend

P.S.: It`s not just respect, I can also send some medicine, if you have the Doctor`s prescription. Or, we can call Dr. Sridhar`s office.

Re: # 930

Dear kaalchakra:

Thank you for being kind and using the word ``respect`` constantly in your posts. It appears that someday you will like it and will make yourself available for people to show you some respect.

Since you chose to be Sridhar`s minion, please convey my best wishes and check to see if a good paki sugar cane has reduced the [atash] in his [gaand]. Maybe we could ask a ``jarrah`` to help diagnose his other diseases.

Please be assured, I know how to deal with scums.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Respected Behram1 Ji

``(Gandhi) suggested that India would not be partitioned, yet he lived to see its parttion. Now according to my definition this put Gandhi out of integrity.``

Much appreciate your perceptive words. Are you suggesting that were Gandhi an authentic man he would have committed suicide when India was going to be partitioned (so he would not have lived to see it)? Or that he should not have suggested that India would not be partitioned? The world calls the man a saint, but you are also giving him divine power to see the future? Or that he should have invoked some strange power to frustrate the designs of those who wanted to partition India?

It`s probably too soon to inquire if you need addtional bags of respect for yourself. But as a friend, I would be remiss in not asking. Do you?

Respectfully and lovingly waiting to learn your opinions.

Re: # 927

Dear kaalchakra:

My reasoning for suggesting Gandhi as a person out of integrity is from my definition of integrity. To me integrity is to do what I say. Obviously Gandhi remained out of integrity most of his lfe. As such, he is not authentic.

Just as an example, he suggested that India would not be partitioned, yet he lived to see its parttion. Now according to my definition this put Gandhi out of integrity.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

``Thank you for following exactly in the footsteps of Gandhi, calling me [Hey Parsee idiot]``

Dear Respected Behram1 Ji

It is respectfully requested that you respectfully explain your obviously wise and respectful words.

You, a truly authentic man, must not lose your highly respected temper. And don`t let Mr. Sridhar get under your skin. He is just a doctor. Diagnosing serious diseases of body and mind is his professional obligation.

Urgently sending you much love and additional amounts of respect. Call me on my cell phone if your supplies of (self) respect are running short.

Respectfully awaiting your explanations.

I remain your highly concerned friend

re:#785 by Mantolives
You have fallen so low in my eyes that i think if i were to meet u in person, i would spit on you. What happened to all that intellectual integrity that was so promising when u were in Rutgers?
Does Einstein have to live with Gandhi in person (he did meet him i think) to know what latter is?
Sridhar

Re: # 925

Dear rsridhar:

Thank you for following exactly in the footsteps of Gandhi, calling me [Hey Parsee idiot]
You must be a very respectful person, and this was just an out burst of passion. Frankly, I do not know what [Do u know you are FOS.]

No I am not ignorant of Gandhi, I just think he had no integrity. And that is that.

Can you start behaving as Gandhi wants you to behave? Obviously not. And here is yet another example of how inauthentic Gandhi was.

[What has clothes and looks got to do with the man?] Absolutely nothing. You have taken a post out of context.

All I know about [Atash in Gaand] is a sense of burning that you all must be feeling because there are some people in this world (including me) who thinks Gandhi was inauthentic. This is all I can recommend: Have someone`s sugar-cane up your ``gaand`` to cool it.

To someone`s chagrin,

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Dear Respected Mr. Behram1

Labeling you as `akalband,` and associating an innocent and useful mangoes with you, based on little more than what you have written here, seems hasty. One does have, however, every reason to be confident that you will continue to volunteer additional information at a good clip.

You stated earlier that you were a little ignorant regarding matters related to Gandhi. Your interact (# 905) to equally dear and equally respected Mr. Netizen seems to suggest that you don`t know what Gandhi preached about women (or do you?).

Yet you, an authentic man, have unambiguously labeled Gandhi as inauthentic (based merely on what you read in Ms Sarwari`s article? What do you think of Ms Jyotsna Kamat`s article as presented in # 924?).

We will be thankful for any authentic explanation that you may send our way. And don`t you forget a fresh supply of respect.

As always, returning your last bag of respect with gratitude and with interest (should you need more, don`t hesitate to ask),

I remain your friend

KC

P.S.: Your bag had big holes in it. Please don`t avoid authentic brands just because you find them ugly. The delivery man is convinced that you are a racist :(

re:#826 by Beej
Thanks for absolutely fascinating pictures of Gandhiji. The ones about the 3 proverbial monkeys, his personal effects i saved to my computer.
The reason why some so called intellectuals from Pakiland infesting this Chowk can`t appreciate Gandhiji is because of plain prejudice. YLH tops that list closely followed by his wife whom he has no doubt tutored. Other Pakis are not far behind.
It is a national obsesseion with Pakis to prove that they are better than Indians. Who is better than Gandhi with his bad looks and ugly clothes to prove that point.
That God most people who care do not see it that way.
Thank God the free world lead by USA does not see it that way.
Sridhar

re:#874 by behram1
Hey Parsee idiot,
Stop respectfully submitting your crap. It has become an annoying habit with u.
Do u know you are FOS. If u live in US, u will know what that means.
If u are ignorant about Gandhi, start with his autobiography. It is a good place to start. And, keep out the prejudices. What has clothes and looks got to do with the man?
What a loser you are Mr Atash in Gaand.
Sridhar

Re: # 905

``See what you did. Now, I have to work hard to prove Gandhi was inauthentic. ``

hahaha... you asked for it ;)

``I thought the article has all along suggested that when it came to women Gandhi was out of integrity. ``

trust me, manto and family have said a lot of things which only they believe. this article is no different. the idea is not about discussing gandhi or his actions but to malign him by selective quoting. manto & family think that they have perfected this art of skullduggery. to give you an ex. this is also from the article:

``However, Gandhi was a clever man, for every crude comment against women, he had 10 that supported women to go out and campaign, suggesting empowerment. ``

this article is nothing but a third grade gossip don`t read much from it.


``Regarding women, did he preach anything? ``

Gandhi and Status of Women


by Jyotsna Kamat
Page Last Updated: October 09,2005

Article on how Mahatma Gandhi`s experiments with truth involved and affected women`s status in the 20th century in India.

Excerpts from a lecture given at the Gandhi Peace Foundation in December 1998

Women`s status at the time
When Gandhiji assumed India`s leadership the average life span of an Indian woman was only twenty seven years. Babies and the pregnant women ran a high risk of dying young. Child marriage was very common and widows were in very large number. Only 2% of the women had any kind of education and women did not have an identity of their own. In North India, they practiced the purdah (veil) system. Women could not go out of the house unless accompanied by men and the face covered with cloth. The fortunate ones who could go to school had to commute in covered carts (tangas).
It is in this context that we have to recognize the miracle of Gandhi`s work. Gandhiji claimed that a woman is completely equal to a man and practiced it in strict sense. Thousands and millions of women, educated and illiterate, house wives and widows, students and elderly participated in the India`s freedom movement because his influence. For Gandhiji, the freedom fight was not political alone; it was also an economic and social reform of a national proportion. After a couple of decades, this equality became very natural in India. After India`s freedom (in1947) and adoption of constitution (1950), emphasized equality of women, when Hindu code was formulated, the population was not even impressed. They said -``Of course, it had to be done.``

Woman and Progress
Gandhiji always advocated a complete reform which he called ``Sarvodaya`` meaning comprehensive progress. He believed that the difference between men and women was only physical and has expressed several times in his writings that in many matters especially those of tolerance, patience, and sacrifice the Indian woman is superior to the male. You will discover this when you read his articles from ``Young India`` and ``Harijan``. During the 40 years of his political career, he only found more reasons to deepen his faith in what he wrote. He never had a specific program for women, but women had a integral role to play in all his programs. I feel that this is one of the reasons why women participated in his programs so overwhelmingly.
Gandhiji declared that there is no school better than home and there is no teacher better than parents. He said men and women are equal, but not identical. ``Intellectually, mentally, and spiritually, woman is equivalent to a male and she can participate in every activity.``

Indian society is a male dominated one. Gandhiji has illustrated in his autobiography (The stories of my experiments with truth) how early in his marriage he too wanted to dominate his wife. He often said that paternal society is the root cause of inequality. In his book, there is a very touching chapter about when he asked his wife to clean a public toilet and the resulting conflict between him and his wife. He has written how ashamed he was of himself, and how he took care not to hurt her anymore for the rest of his life. Even though there was big gap between him and his wife intellectually, it did not affect their family life. He has said that Kasturba followed her husband more than was expected of her. Gandhiji followed Bramacharya (strict discipline of food, drinks, and of celibacy) from a very young age, but when his wife passed away, Gandhi grieved that without Ba, his life would have been meaningless. That was the bondage of his 62 years of marriage.

Woman and Social Service
Gandhiji struggled very hard to understand a woman`s physical and mental pain. From a young age he introduced his wife and children to social sacrifice and service. He believed that service has to be performed for self-fulfillment, not for public consumption or exhibition. He believed that the publicity given to one`s social service actually decrements the value of the service. He tried very hard to eliminate job indignity and bias based on caste system. He tried to do the work of a barber, dhobi (washer man), and janitor to understand them and demonstrate that the work one does has no impact on one`s status in the society. For me, the fact that he contributed a great deal in raising his children is very modern concept. On one occasion the white midwife would not show up for his wife`s delivery and Gandhiji himself delivered his child. He helped wife with feeding, bathing, and toiletries of the infant. In western countries these days men are encouraged to be with their wives during the delivery and the men are supposed to pitch in with diaper changing, etc. Gandhiji practiced this very modern concept 90 years ago in his own family.

Role of Women
``Womanhood is not restricted to the kitchen``, he opined and felt that ``Only when the woman is liberated from the slavery of the kitchen, that her true spirit may be discovered``. It does not mean that women should not cook, but only that household responsibilities be shared among men, women and children. He wanted women to outgrow the traditional responsibilities and participate in the affairs of nation. He criticized Indian`s passion for male progeny. He said that as long as we don`t consider girls as natural as our boys our nation will be in a dark eclipse.

Legacy
Today, if Gandhi`s agenda has fallen apart, it is due to Indian politics. The continued exploitation of women can be attributed to the degradation in moral values of the society, and utter poverty of our nation. We ignored the role of social service, job dignity, and self reliance. Once in a while we run into true volunteers (like Sushilamma - see visit to an ashram) who believe in Gandhiji`s ideals and have implemented his programs. I hope that at least a few of the younger generation take up Gandhiji`s unfinished manifesto and work to eliminate social barriers facing women.

Dear friend:

My post was in response to another post, and it meant to suggest that people usually care about the integrity of a politicain. And when it came to women, Gandhi was out of integrity. And this is exactly what this article is all about.

However, thank you for a new name [akalband]. I have already learnt that I can be a deaf mango in Bihar.

The rest of your post is very passionate which does not deserve a response.

---

Dear Netizen:

See what you did. Now, I have to work hard to prove Gandhi was inauthentic.

I thought the article has all along suggested that when it came to women Gandhi was out of integrity. Can you provide data that when it came to women he practiced what he preached. Regarding women, did he preach anything?

And that is why I consider Gandhi as inauthentic?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

behram1 #861
``Much more than being an idiot who wears dhoti, much more than being a failed lawyer, and much more than an ugly face, Gandhi was out of integrity, in relation to the women in his life. He did not practice what he preached. ``

My dear Behram akalband,
May I respectfully know what do you wear, and what your face looks like, and what you do for earning your bread? So you judge people by what they wear and what they look like. What is your definition of a proper dress? You have shown yourself to be a complete idiot. I wonder if you also wear a dhoti and are extrapolating that.

Gandhi emerged as a leader to `billions` of people. Even 58 years after his death, he is remembered by billions. To you he was a failed person. May I respectfully know what you, your dad, or your grand-dad could achieve in their life? I also suspect you assume your self to be very `handsome`, or is that `pretty`? Can we have a look at your `beautiful face`?

Your `friend`

Re: # 861


thats what i have been asking you for. please provide instances. his life is as widely open as book. i don`t agree with all his thoughts. but for you to say that he didn`t practised what he preached give me some material.

Re: # 863

Dear Beej:

Thank you for the knowledge [Did I ever tell you that your name sounds like ``Behra - aam``, as in deaf mango - a Bihar specialty which is quite sweet in taste - but has an extremely small size - REALLY limited in its growth potential.]

Do you have any picture that shows Gandhi had any integrity regarding women?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Haha...I was under the impression that behram the effete parsi was Indian...he is a paki actually.....so guess one can empathise with his efforts to run down Gandhi -an Indian icon. Another famished street dog barking at the stars , this parsee. Just like the cuckolded fool and his potty mouthed wife....

Re: # 819

Dear Netizen:

It is said that a picture is thousands of words. We should not need thousand pictures for Gandhi`s integrity. What Beej is doing on this site shows the intellectual decay of the arguments. He can continue to provide (thousands!!!!) pictures regarding Gandhi`s life. But can he provide an iota of truth to indicate Gandhi`s integrity.

Much more than being an idiot who wears dhoti, much more than being a failed lawyer, and much more than an ugly face, Gandhi was out of integrity, in relation to the women in his life. He did not practice what he preached.

Respectfully submitted,

BBA

Beej
Yaar take some rest now..

You won`t be able to convince Hamidms, Aisha and Yaseers. These guys can not believe that a person can really renounce worldly possessions and contribute to mankind without any selfish reasons. They have been brought up with an image of that person as a hero who married his boss to acquire his property, married his son`s wife, and kept marrying to acquire more and more worldy possessions.

re: 702

kaalchakra:

``Come on, guys! You have taken godot and hamidm too literally. Seemingly, many Indians here are too new to Chowk to have been exposed to the duo`s posts over a period of many years.

Neither hamidm nor godot is remotely the person some of you appear to have concluded both of them to be. ``

what is surprising to me is the kind of dislike for gandhi by the open-minided/liberal paki chowkies on gandhi.

these posts deriding gandhi are not by jihadis. may be they don`t know/are not interested or care about gandhi. but people like manto, hamidm, godot, behram

manto, with his family backgroud is expected to be biased

but hamidm, behram, godot ????

in the matter of dislikes too, they think gandhi is an idiot because he wears a dhoti, was a failed lawyer and/or was ugly faced ????

behram thinks that he wa ``in-authentic`` ???

they didn`t say what pf his principles they disagree on. definitely gandhi had flaws in him. but they didn`t care to discuss that point. for them he was just a creation of west for some kind of exotism.

i think in pak thats what is taught about gandhi.

Re: # 805

manto:

``The mess that we`ve made of things after 1947 has nothing to do with India or Hindus... or Mohandas Gandhi... sorry if that impression was conveyed... ``

wasn`t it your wife you said that the shiah-sunni violence is a legacy of gandhis introduction of religion in public life?

Re: # 801

if the aim is to convince mantio miya to open his eyes that i am afraid that it will take infinite posts, as manto is not asleep he is just pretending to be.

Re: # 785

hahahaha....


manto is now shooting using khalistanis shoulders

marta marta, kya nahin karta....

Re: # 776

i think it was related to gandhis oopposition of jewish violence/occupation against the paliestinians. that was the basis of jewish hatred for gandhi as he didn`t support their cause.

Re: # 776

i think it was related to gandhis oopposition of jewish violence/occupation against the paliestinians. that was the basis of jewish hatred for gandhi as he didn`t support their cause.

yasser:

*temporarily breaking agreement again*

your post is an example of why we are in this pact to begin with, but allow me to say just a few things:

one: there is enough evidence here on chowk to contradict your claim that i am incapable of discussing/interacting with anyone who is in disagreement with me. unless you think that you, your wife, kaurasach and mr. chauhan and a couple of others who needn`t be mentioned are everybody.

two: rather than being incapable, again as you put it, i choose (unfortunately not always) to walk away from discussions that turn into vicious cycles. i am fully capable of expressing disagreement and then not continuing with the discussion any further (because what pray tell is the bloody point when x stands by what x feels or believes and i stand by what i feel and believe). i chose not to do that here, to clarify further, where you and aisha are in agreement about gandhi. now if that renders me incapable of engaging in a discussion with anyone then so be it.

if it pains you to be in agreement with me on something, then i apologize. at least i can be confident in saying that if i was to agree with your reaction to something, or a point that you made, that i would not mention the fact that it pains me. why should it if i believe what you`re saying is right? i realize that you and i do not think very highly of each other, but i had never expressed that feeling towards aisha even if i choose to be silent on certain issues such as the jinnah/gandhi ones. remember that yasser. and you might think about why i am choosing to give you time now inspite of our pact. it is not because i think you unworthy of a response. nor is it because i feel i must at all costs defend myself. and if you choose not to think about why responding to you is important to me, then that`s okay too. :) keep well.

*resuming the pact. this agreement will not be broken on this board again*

Ana,

To temporarily undo the unspoken pact... I thought it was just me... I didn`t know that you were incapable of discussing/interacting with anyone who was in disagreement with you...

But thanks for clarifying...

Unspoken pact resumed.



Sadna...

You write the first post you try to be honest in and you still bash me... quite sad if you ask me... I merely questioned your methodology and your final conclusion. I have the right to do so... and I still maintain my position.

This is a vicious cycle of abuse that we are all caught up in... who started it... where was act 1 scene 1... people can decide... but I think asking or attributing to Ms Sarwari a positon she has never held is hardly fair. The mess that we`ve made of things after 1947 has nothing to do with India or Hindus... or Mohandas Gandhi... sorry if that impression was conveyed...

Ms Sarwari seems to have picked a few quotes (often irrelevant to Gandhi`s attitude to women), left out a whole set of quotes(relevant to Gandhi`s attitude to women). Ms Sarwari left out my biggest problem with Gandhi that in her final illness he refused to let Kasturba be administered modern drugs which might have prolonged her life.

As far as I know, Indian women viewed Gandhi as Indian men did, as someone who was exhorting them to do their own little rebellion against injustices of the prevailing order. I really doubt this timeless part of legacy of Gandhi can be wholly obscured by the historic part such as his bad family relations with his sons, his illiberal stances in some matters, his weirdness or eccentricities in others.

I personally have never heard Gandhi being called an emancipator of women, nor have I seen Gandhi being held up as role model in his treatment of women. Where gods can have flaws, mahatmas are also subject to critical scrutiny, as are mahatma`s critics.

In this context I exhort Pakistanis like Ms Sarwari to take a long look at the situation of Pakistani women and stop blindly assuming that the absence of evil Hindus and their evil leaders is sufficient for the well-being of Muslims.

For instance, one reason why Jinnah created Pakistan was so that Pakistani Muslims could be educated free of competition from and discrimination by Hindus, NOT to make it easier for Pakistani elite to lie and fudge 58 years later about their higher illiteracy rate.

Manto`s worried about Gandhi`s popularity when the Ahmedi mosques being shot up in Pakiland are being called Ahmedi places of worship by the paki media...apparently because calling them mosques would be against the law...

I wonder if Yaseer and his bivi can get some corporate donor that gives a penny for each of their articles on dead leaders. Pakistan`s external debt issues will be resolved in a month.

And Yaseer`s unemployment issue will also get resolved. He hasn`t been able to find a job since he was sacked from his teaching job.

Ana#800
Good work. and congratulations for 800th post. This achievement will be recorded in your noble price citation.

I am sure that this scholarly work will get 1000+ posts. I have already contributed .4% towards that effort.

and the eight-hundredth poster wins a gift certificate from ben and jerry`s -- unlimited cherry garcias.

oh please let it be me. please!

gujjubania:

did you say something?

yasser:

okay, a break just this once. . . i didn`t mean ``by extension`` to say that aisha is an extension of you. obviously aisha has a mind of her own, and i have agreed with certain points she`s made on other topics, just not whatever was attempted here. i regret if she would feel she`s being discriminated against, but when both of you are in total agreement with one another, and i disagree with both of you i feel it is best for me to ``extend`` my silence towards her as i do with you. we think differently. chowk gives us space to air those different thoughts. or to remain silent and move on. and i am now moving on, theek hai?

*mutual ``unspoken`` agreement resumed*

The Quit India speech by Mahatma Gandhi
August 8th 1942


Before you discuss the resolution, let me place before you one or two things, I want you to understand two things very clearly and to consider them from the same point of view from which I am placing them before you. I ask you to consider it from my point of view, because if you approve of it, you will be enjoined to carry out all I say. It will be a great responsibility. There are people who ask me whether I am the same man that I was in 1920, or whether there has been any change in me. You are right in asking that question.
Let me, however, hasten to assure that I am the same Gandhi as I was in 1920. I have not changed in any fundamental respect. I attach the same importance to non-violence that I did then. If at all, my emphasis on it has grown stronger. There is no real contradiction between the present resolution and my previous writings and utterances.
Occasions like the present do not occur in everybody’s and but rarely in anybody’s life. I want you to know and feel that there is nothing but purest Ahimsa1 in all that I am saying and doing today. The draft resolution of the Working Committee is based on Ahimsa, the contemplated struggle similarly has its roots in Ahimsa. If, therefore, there is any among you who has lost faith in Ahimsa or is wearied of it, let him not vote for this resolution.
Let me explain my position clearly. God has vouchsafed to me a priceless gift in the weapon of Ahimsa. I and my Ahimsa are on our trail today. If in the present crisis, when the earth is being scorched by the flames of Himsa2 and crying for deliverance, I failed to make use of the God given talent, God will not forgive me and I shall be judged un-wrongly of the great gift. I must act now. I may not hesitate and merely look on, when Russia and China are threatened.
Ours is not a drive for power, but purely a non-violent fight for India’s independence. In a violent struggle, a successful general has been often known to effect a military coup and to set up a dictatorship. But under the Congress scheme of things, essentially non-violent as it is, there can be no room for dictatorship. A non-violent soldier of freedom will covet nothing for himself, he fights only for the freedom of his country. The Congress is unconcerned as to who will rule, when freedom is attained. The power, when it comes, will belong to the people of India, and it will be for them to decide to whom it placed in the entrusted. May be that the reins will be placed in the hands of the Parsis, for instance-as I would love to see happen-or they may be handed to some others whose names are not heard in the Congress today. It will not be for you then to object saying, “This community is microscopic. That party did not play its due part in the freedom’s struggle; why should it have all the power?” Ever since its inception the Congress has kept itself meticulously free of the communal taint. It has thought always in terms of the whole nation and has acted accordingly. . .
I know how imperfect our Ahimsa is and how far away we are still from the ideal, but in Ahimsa there is no final failure or defeat. I have faith, therefore, that if, in spite of our shortcomings, the big thing does happen, it will be because God wanted to help us by crowning with success our silent, unremitting Sadhana1 for the last twenty-two years.
I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours. I read Carlyle’s French Resolution while I was in prison, and Pandit Jawaharlal has told me something about the Russian revolution. But it is my conviction that inasmuch as these struggles were fought with the weapon of violence they failed to realize the democratic ideal. In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence, there will be equal freedom for all. Everybody will be his own master. It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I invite you today. Once you realize this you will forget the differences between the Hindus and Muslims, and think of yourselves as Indians only, engaged in the common struggle for independence.
Then, there is the question of your attitude towards the British. I have noticed that there is hatred towards the British among the people. The people say they are disgusted with their behaviour. The people make no distinction between British imperialism and the British people. To them, the two are one This hatred would even make them welcome the Japanese. It is most dangerous. It means that they will exchange one slavery for another. We must get rid of this feeling. Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism. The proposal for the withdrawal of British power did not come out of anger. It came to enable India to play its due part at the present critical juncture It is not a happy position for a big country like India to be merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war. We cannot evoke the true spirit of sacrifice and velour, so long as we are not free. I know the British Government will not be able to withhold freedom from us, when we have made enough self-sacrifice. We must, therefore, purge ourselves of hatred. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have never felt any hatred. As a matter of fact, I feel myself to be a greater friend of the British now than ever before. One reason is that they are today in distress. My very friendship, therefore, demands that I should try to save them from their mistakes. As I view the situation, they are on the brink of an abyss. It, therefore, becomes my duty to warn them of their danger even though it may, for the time being, anger them to the point of cutting off the friendly hand that is stretched out to help them. People may laugh, nevertheless that is my claim. At a time when I may have to launch the biggest struggle of my life, I may not harbour hatred against anybody.

Re: # 789 YLH
//.... by people taking advantage of the fact that I am preoccupied by other things....//

That is really bad of these hinud mullhas ..... how dare they do that? ..... But you never worry son - we will retaliate and take of these hinuds soon..... we will succeed - we will destroy this false god Gandhi that hinuds worship..... these hinud mullahs - they are so hypocrites.....

ana,

Sorry to break our mutual unspoken agreement momentarily.. but just because Aisha is my wife doesn`t mean she is my extension.

She might agree with me on Gandhi... but I doubt that she`d be too pleased to hear that she is being discriminated against - vis a vis communication- just because she is my wife.

ana you are soo boring

beej:

fusst of all: i haven`t been posting here because i didn`t like this article and i don`t have to respond to every stinking article i don`t like, baat aayi samajh maiN? plus there are mutual unspoken agreements (either one-sided or not) not to interact with certain interactors. . . yasser being one of them -- and aisha by extension. i am sure that given your rage and venom we could enter a similar agreement.

second: i don`t revere either jinnah or gandhi, and both of these men had feet of clay, as do we all. i don`t believe in trashing one to praise another. so kindly use your wiseass brain next time you talk about me slurping up to anyone`s view of either of these men, baat aayi samajh maiN? yes, beej, i do have a mind of my very own, and i can use it any which way i choose. and if i choose to admire certain aspects of both gandhi and jinnah`s life i don`t have to defend myself, or attack those who don`t agree with me.

third: you can call me a hypocrite all you want because i have never denied being one, unlike some people. and you can attack my ``feminism`` and my ``christian righteousness`` as well. but the truth is mr. clean, that what i wrote about inaams for annoying interactors was a lameass joke because i don`t believe this article deserved all the attention it got. unfortunately, you didn`t see it as one. oh well. . . . aur haaN mr. saaf sutra, mera garebaan tau kaafi maela hai, par aap ko apne garebaaN maiN jhank kar dekhtay huay kitnay saal beetay haiN?!

finally: i am quite happy being in san jose, thank you very much, but why on god`s green earth should i return to seattle when i never even lived there???!!!

``Ofcourse... it is precisely because my respect for the grave human disaster in Pakistan that has stopped me so far from retaliating and rubbishing all the BS arguments posted here by people taking advantage of the fact that I am preoccupied by other things``

Haha...the Cuckolded Fool is sooo funny..too bad he doesn`t realise it... :))

Its amazing...

400 Mullah-like posts by Beej.. and I sit down and post 10 minutes ... and Indians are already screaming about the disaster in Pakistan...

Ofcourse... it is precisely because my respect for the grave human disaster in Pakistan that has stopped me so far from retaliating and rubbishing all the BS arguments posted here by people taking advantage of the fact that I am preoccupied by other things.

Manto...I dont care about what Ambedkar or even Einstein said about Gandhi , good or bad...

This is what my God , the only God - the market has to say >>

Behram
Another proof of universal hatered of Jews against Gandhi

David Ben-Gurion`s Negev

In David Ben Gurion`s bedroom, hangs a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi (the only picture in the room), under it is a plaque with Ben Gurion`s words:

``The moral strength of the East is perhaps embodied most of all in the great Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, the outstanding man who is heading the war for independence and the weapon of this commander is non-violence.``

Gujju...


Unlike Albert Einstein, M L King and Mr Mandela, Ambedkar actually experienced Mahatma Gandhi`s love first hand...


But here is a guy who has an interesting take on Dr King`s admiration for Gandhi:

Since you love sikhs you`d love this...

SikhSpectrum.com Quarterly Issue No. 17, August 2004

Interview with Colonel G.B. Singh


Manbir Singh Chowdhary

---

In post 9/11 America, where imagery of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban has sadly, for some members of American society, led to the association of turbans with Islamic fundamentalism - the onus has fallen on the Sikh community to take a more proactive role in humbly disseminating the significance of the Articles of their Faith, their belief in One Creator of humanity, and the egalitarian message of the Sikh Gurus.

Being a member of the Sikh-American community, news of a Sikh colonel in the ranks of the United States Armed Services caught me with a great sense of awe and pride. The powerful imagery of a turbaned Sikh officer, clad in a U.S. Military colonel`s uniform undoubtedly serves to promote awareness about Sikhs in mainstream America, and portrays the turban in a positive light.

Colonel G.B. Singh, holds the distinction of being one of the few high ranking Sikh officers in the U.S. Military. He comes across as a man that stands defiant of the odds against him, and unafraid to speak out against commonly accepted thought and practice.

SikhSpectrum.com had the opportunity to talk to the Colonel Singh about life in the U.S. Military and his new book published by Prometheus Books: Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity.

Question: Colonel Singh is it true that you are only one of two high ranking turbaned Sikh officers in the U.S. Armed Services?

I think you are correct. As I recall the other individual is LTC (Retired) Gopal Singh. I believe he was a military intelligence officer.

Question: What exactly is your responsibility, as a Colonel, within the US Army?

By profession, I am a Periodontist. I am a part of the US Army Medical Department.

Question: How many years have you been in the military?

For about 25 years.

Question: Where around the world have you been stationed?

Just about all over. Twice I was stationed in Korea. In the United States, I have traveled and lived in many parts of our country.

Question: Have you ever met the Commander in Chief or visited the Pentagon?

Yes, I have met the President while in Korea. I have visited the PENTAGON on numerous occasions and once worked there.

Question: Have you met any other high-profile leaders of our nation? (And if so, please relate stories.)

Yes, some.

Question: Did you face any adversity during your military career being part of a visible minority?

Yes and it shouldn`t be unexpected. In the military career, facing an adversity is quite common and you learn a whole lot of life`s lessons facing such adversities.

Question: What inspires you?

Many things and one that particularly stands out are the contents of Guru Granth.

Question: Post 9/11, what should the Sikh-American community be doing in order to promote awareness of itself?

Sikhs must learn the art of public debate. Sikhs must project themselves on the radios, TV screens, and other modes of news delivery. Before they get on these channels, Sikhs must get familiar with public issues being discussed. In other words, get ready by proper training. As a start they should cultivate the habit of reading which is so essential to move higher. Without acquiring reading habits, you simply cannot acquire other skills that are often necessary in public debates.

Question: Is it true that the turbaned Sikhs who serve in high-ranking positions in the U.S. Army do so by way of special exemptions, but are still not allowed to serve in combat units?

Yes you are correct.

Question: Turbaned Sikhs can serve in all military regiments in Britain, and also as police officers. In Canada, a major breakthrough occurred for Sikhs, in 1995, as they won the right to serve in the prestigious Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Canadian Sikhs also serve as fighter pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force. What is it going to take for similar recognition in the United States?

This is a good question and it only shows how different is the United States from other countries. The US military is altogether a different breed from its inception. Look at the case of African-Americans and see how long it took them to be accepted within the military. What I have seen and experienced in the US military for the last 25 years, I can say: there are changes taking place and I have no doubt positive changes will continue to take shape in future.

Question: Strong opposition to the recruitment of Sikhs in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was based on the argument that Sikhs wearing turbans would violate the traditions of the RCMP and traditional uniform codes. Canadian Sikhs overcame this argument through successful legal challenges and political lobbying. Isn`t a similar argument being raised in the US by the Armed Services in preventing turbaned Sikhs from joining combat units and also by the New York Police Administration in preventing turbaned Sikhs from joining the NYPD?

You are correct. Political lobbying is necessary. I am aware of the case in NYPD. As I recall, the Sikh gentleman won his case. We need many more victories.

Question: As a high ranking established figure within the US Army, what have you done to facilitate the full participation of turbaned Sikhs into the combat units of the Armed Services?

As one individual, the best that I can offer is the visibility and I have that. If a question is ever asked to me I am there to answer.

Question: In your opinion, what is it going to take for the Armed Services and other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to realize that Sikhs can excel in their respective fields with their turban and beards?

As you have said and I agree: Political lobbying and successful legal challenges. I can`t think of any other ways.

Question: Colonel Singh, you have used your Sikh heritage as a foundation to accomplish your life`s goals. What is your advice to young Sikh-Americans who aspire to become Colonels and Generals in the U.S. Military?

In spite of the unparalleled leadership traits of Guru Gobind Singh, we Sikhs lack leaders and leadership skills. Military has been instrumental in developing leaders, especially the US military. My advice to young Sikh-Americans is that they must fill the leadership gaps that exist in our Sikh institutions. And to achieve that goal, US military service can provide the training and plant seeds of growth that are so necessary among Sikhs. Only then we can move forward and develop an adequate political philosophy based upon and consistent with the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. It is a long process. Becoming Colonels and Generals are all wonderful in the process of learning and imparting that knowledge to our youngsters.

Question: Your interest in scholarship. How did this start?

Perhaps I was born with an inquisitive mind. Once I joined the US Army, it provided me an incredible opportunity to learn and excel. One thing that handicapped me early on was my intuitive recognizing the fact that the things I learned in India were mainly false or not entirely true and had to be expunged out of me. As my interest began to grow in scholarship, it was certainly no easy task to unlearn what I had learned in India. In 1979, I was given a copy of the New Testament to read and as I began to read I recognized so many holes in the story of Jesus Christ. I think, in a formal sense, that`s where my scholarship began and it diversified to so many avenues of research. Today I pursue active research into the Bible, Koran, Hindu scriptures, Buddha; their true historical values; and their political impacts.

Question: What prompted your interest in Hinduism and Gandhi?

Born and raised in post-British India I always knew Hinduism, at least that`s what I thought. In 1982, I was a political science student at the University of Oklahoma and one incident relating to a curriculum dealing with communism opened my deep held ideas of Hinduism to a careful scrutiny. That`s how my formal journey in studying Hinduism started. With Gandhi, however, the story is somewhat different. Again while growing in India, Gandhi was our hero and to many others he was a god.

And in February 1983, I saw the film Gandhi which reinforced the story of Gandhi I had learned in India. In March 1983, I read the article, The Gandhi Nobody Knows by Richard Grenier. This article brought about fundamental changes in me especially dealing with asking probing questions and there I started to pay more critical attention to Gandhi while at the same time I was actively pursuing research into Hinduism.

These two areas of research eventually converged. The tragic events of 1984 in India against the Sikhs, painful that they were, were no surprise to me. Just following the attack on Golden Temple and other gurdwaras, Mrs. Indira Gandhi justified her bloody actions by invoking one of Mahatma Gandhi`s teachings-that event in itself forced me to conduct a thorough research on our mahatma.

Question: Your new book, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity has caused quite a stir in South Africa. What happened exactly?

Here is what happened before the book was released in April 2004. In Fall of 2002, AAH Newsletter (publication of African Americans for Humanism) published my article, ``Would the Real Gandhi Please Stand Up,`` and this article was posted on the internet. One active black group in South Africa read this article and became sensitive to the issue of Gandhi`s racism against the black people. Unknown to the Johannesburg officials, and it caught them by surprise, the issue erupted in the public arena following the unveiling of Gandhi`s statue in central Johannesburg in October 2003.

Question: Your book seeks to expose the truth relating to a man so many revere as a symbol of peace and piety in Western society. The book is filled with surprising revelations about Gandhi, calling him a racist who was pro-apartheid, and anti-black. What sources have you relied upon for such an argument?

During my research of Gandhi, I recognized that there is a huge Gandhi propaganda machine and this machine has filled our libraries with Gandhi stories that we have come to accept them as true. Once I recognized that these ``histories`` are essentially false, I began to look for authentic sources of information. I was more concerned with what Gandhi had done to the blacks when he lived in South Africa from 1893 to 1914. Luckily for me, I was able to lay my hands on the early authentic documents and from there on I was able to rebuild the true history. This is all explained in details in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity.

Question: As you know, many people in India also regard Gandhi as a god-like figure. Aren`t you concerned about the backlash you might face from activist Hindu groups?

You are correct. Having acknowledged that, I also believe that we all are victims of Gandhi propaganda machine; Hindus (it may come as a surprise to them) being the biggest victims of this machine. So my book should open eyes of everyone including my Hindu brothers and sisters. The Sikhs too must open their eyes and for them in particular I have attached a few words under the heading, ``What Gandhi Has Done to the Sikhs & Sikhism: A Plea for Skeptical Inquiry.``

Question: The book further states that Gandhi himself was involved in the cover-up of a murder of an American citizen, William Francis Doherty. What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

This issue came to my attention in 1992 literally out of the blue. I was researching Katherine Mayo`s Mother India (1927) and how it caused uproar among the caste Hindus. While researching that I came across a sworn deposition of Mrs. Doherty which stated Gandhi`s racism against whites in India and how Gandhi`s followers murdered her husband in 1921 and then how Gandhi himself tried to cover up that murder. I investigated this matter and many years later reached the conclusion that Mrs. Doherty`s deposition to be correct. I have devoted a whole chapter to this murder case in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. Plus there is more: I asked myself if Gandhi could be involved in a cover up of one white murder, could there be more? This is all well addressed in my book-much more shocking information.

Question: If predominant belief about Gandhi in the West is truly a misconception and false, as you say it is, what benefit would members of the American Christian clergy draw from writing about his life and promoting his ideals? Why did other American leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. adopt Gandhi`s concept of `Ahimsa` or Non-violence?

Christian clergy hold a special honor: They were the first group of people to promote Gandhi. Of course they had their own motives and I have tried to bring that into focus in my book. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., being raised in the Christian heritage, fell victim when he learned about Gandhi while enrolled at the seminary located outside Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. There is more to the story: Once Reverend King visited India in 1959, he seems to have distanced away from Gandhi. Something happened in India and his visit needs to be critically investigated rather than what the propaganda says. I believe Dr. King`s concept of nonviolence has nothing to do with Gandhi. It was an historical accident for two to be connected via nonviolence and this accident has been fully exploited by the Gandhi propaganda machine.


What Gandhi Has Done to the Sikhs & Sikhism
A Plea for Skeptical Inquiry
Since the British annexation of Punjab and its absorption in the rest of British India in mid 1800s, two interconnected movements had far-reaching devastating impacts on the Sikhs and Sikhism. The first was the introduction of modern Hinduism in Punjab and the second was the introduction of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, a focus of this paper today.

Born just about 400 years after the birth of Guru Nanak, M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948) exercised a tremendous influence on the first-half of the 20th century Sikhs and in the process hijacked them. The Sikhs in the second half of the 20th century couldn`t come to grips as to what hit them and still behave as if living in Gandhi`s shadows. All you have to do is witness the pathetic state of affairs of Akali Dal, SGPC, and poor leadership abilities of the Sikh ``leaders.`` What went so wrong?

The answer lies underneath once you answer: What Gandhi has done to the Sikhs and Sikhism? To date not a single Sikh scholar has taken a skeptical look into the Gandhi literature. In 1983 circumstances brought me to probe into Gandhi and that inquiry accelerated further with the terrible events of 1984. While investigating Gandhi on the issues of racism against the black people, I couldn`t help but notice his imprints on the Sikhs and Sikhism following the 1919 Jalianwallah Bagh tragedy. Sometimes in November/December 1919, Gandhi held a four-hour meeting with the ``un-named`` Sikhs (I believe our future leaders) inside the Golden Temple premises. From hereon Sikhs fell under his spell and he manipulated them into a series of chaos by injecting Satyagraha tactics into their psyche. Beyond that he controlled who the Sikh leaders would be. In my investigation, early on I reached an uncomfortable conclusion: Both the Akali Dal and the SGPC were formed by Gandhi. Both of these organizations are essentially Gandhian in ideology and practice the tenets of modern Hinduism. Even today, after so many Sikhs have been murdered by the Gandhian State, they haven`t changed a bit nor do they have the capabilities to evaluate the matters critically.

I hope, in months to come, I can organize a small group of dedicated Sikhs and hand over to them the original documents in my possession. The purpose here is simple: To conduct a thorough skeptical inquiry into the history especially following Gandhi induction into Punjab in 1919 and the consequences thereafter. Once we have come to grips with the truth, only then can we begin to take measures to reverse the present state of affairs.

The cuckolded fool has lost it. 30,000 killed in his country in one of the biggest disasters over a century and he is gettiing all heated about proving how gandhi was a racist , evil , bigoted etc. etc. on an internet message board. Great.

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

By G. B. Singh

Reviewed by Baldev Singh

``Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress`` is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu. The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism - have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.

The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French. The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – ``The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama,`` proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie ``Gandhi`` for the portrayal of Gandhi as ``an absolute pacifist.``

The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?

Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India - slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life. He was horrified when he was lodged with ``natives`` in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label ``N`` born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. `` Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal.``

He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race. According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.

He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a ``criminal folly`` if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War. He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.

He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.

The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The ``apostle of peace`` urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, `` One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries.``

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations. Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London - who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system. ``I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.``

In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.

It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire. Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!

The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.

The ``apostle of peace,`` who counseled a Jewish delegation`` to oppose the evil of Nazism by ``soul force`` - by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.

He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India - a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the ``absolute pacifist`` and the nation that calls him ``father.`` After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata ``Victory is truth.``

Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.

G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.

The tale of a simple Mahatma...

lived in Birla house...

jailed in Agha Khan`s palace....


``Millions are spent to keep Gandhi in poverty`` Sarojini Naidu, close confidante of Mr Gandhi.

Yeah ...Gandhi was such a racist that he was a role model to Martin Luther King JNR and Nelson Mandela....

Behram akalmand
You stated
``
#152 by behram1 on October 4, 2005 8:22pm PT

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 ``


I also wonder about same
Famous palestian muslim Simon Peres of Israel stated
When I ask him to nominate the world leader he most admires Peres cites Gandhi. ``I think there are two outstanding leaders in the last 2-300 years. There was Napoleon and there was Gandhi. One had the military strength and the other, the moral strength. Gandhi didn`t have armies, he didn`t have nations, he went to fight single handedly; naked with his moral conscience. And I think he did better than Napoleon did. So between the two, I believe that Gandhi exemplifies the future and Napoleon, the unfortunate past.``

``Meanwhile Harijan leader Ambedkar: Gandhi is the worst enemy of the untouchables.``



And at around the same time , Albert Einstein claimed Gandhi was the `greatest man ever to walk the face of the earth`.....

A little later , young men such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King JNR , took inspiration from MK Gandhi and led movements for rights of colored people in their respective countries...

Moral of the story: Gandhi was not racist because he did his own spinning.

Yes...

The hypocrite Mahatma also tried to help Afghanistan make a claim on NWFP after

If we are not going to get it... you are not either...

Gandhi in ``Harijan`` colony


Meanwhile Harijan leader Ambedkar: Gandhi is the worst enemy of the untouchables.

Mantooo.....there is only one god in today`s world and that is $$$ and the market is the prophet ..that is what we new age hindooo fanatics worship.

MK Gandhi , along with Albert Einstein and perhaps JFK is one of the greatest brand names in history. That is why Fortune-50 companies with $100 billion turnover like Apple and HP use him to sell their productS....

Consider this...

No matter what you and your potty mouthed wife say about Gandhi , he shall remain one of the most globally recognisable names - respected and famous , known to every 8-9 year old school kid in Boston as well as in Rome , in Barcelona and in Sydney.

Your Jinnah , no matter how hard you try to push him , is a minor provincial or local leader famous in a little third world country called Pakistan and infamous in the rival country , India. Bascally only known to third world subcontinental types. Jinnah is the Pakistani actress Meera compared to Gandhi`s Marlyn Monroe....:))

Meanwhile , you and your potty mouthed wife can continue behaving like famished neutered street dogs barking at the stars...

Ofcourse he would kiss her ... after denying her modern medical treatment, which he willingly accepted for himself.

And ofcourse any brown-nosing post by any Pakistani is also welcome to be ``reposted``...

and ofcourse... these pictures show his gradual transformation from ``common man`` to a ``Mahatma``... whatever that means... but yes... bravo.

Re: # 750 YLH
//.....I am not starting now with the Hindu Mullahs....//

Good .... Why don`t you take a break and focus on some relief activities in wake of the killer quake...... 30,000 are dead in pakistan - and you are ranting against hindu mullhas???.....

Go do some relief work...... Hindus will be still here when you come back.....

ZahraJ

You post deserves reposting..

``#703 by ZahraJ on October 8, 2005 9:09pm PT
This is the most stupid article published on Chowk. This also reflects the regressive mentality and thought process of certain Pakistanis who have nothing good to do but research on finding the good and bad in the leaders who have left this world way back.

What`s the gist of this nonsense? Gandhi did not treat women equally or consider them worthy of anything? Is the purpose to tell hindus on Chowk that their leader had weird policies towards women? Is it a cover-up to hide the bad publicity Pakistan is receiving on the treatment of its women folk?

The writer needs to wake up. Regarless of what Gandhi believed in and did to his wife, all Indian women and men do not follow the same thought process. Yes, the fact that Indian Culture kicks in every other thing is very true. I detest involving culture in my life barring a few items close to my heart - saints/sufis, shawls and select poetry.

Just recently, I attended a day long seminar in Chicago where over 100 South Asian Women Leaders were present. The participants included CTOs, attorneys, magistrates, physicians, engineers, business women, educationists and technologists. There were only 9-10 muslim women in that crowd. Out of those 9-10 muslim women, only 3-4 had Pakistani background. The rest were Indian muslims. None of the participants (mainly hindu women) had any issues in terms of where they were in their respective careers.

One of the panelists was a very impressive, articulate and brilliant woman in her 40s, the CTO of Motorola - a chemical engineer by background. Despite her international engagements, she was able to attend the event on a weekend just to show her solidarity with women from her part of the world. Not only that, the woman was dressed in a very pretty turquoise eastern dress with beautifully put together matching jewelry.

In my past 10 years or so in Corporate America, I have hardly worked with ikka dukka Indians here and there but I have never attended something like this before where so many ambitious and accomplished south asian women(mostly hindus) were under one roof. Interestingly, it was evident that they believed in having the cultural affinity. This was a very different environment for me. I am not into culture shulture at all and rarely attend any cultural stuff anymore. I did not see anyone wearing anything on her forehead with any complexes on how her leader, Gandhi Jee, thought of women. I had a strong impression that majority of the women took pride in being of Indian Origin regardless of their bygone leaders’ leanings.

Based on my 1st hand experience, I am not sure where is this writer coming from? Probably, she needs more worldly exposure. Worldly exposure does not come from being a cyber activist or flipping through history books.``

Beej
Thanks for posting these pictures. Each of these is worth 1000 words and show gradual transformation of a common man to a ``mahatma``.

Thanks again

YLH,

It is you who is the bi-got and lying hypocrite. You were dishonest in even
telling the truth about ahmedi, pakistan and mullahs. Ayesha Jalal and you
are the manipulative liars.

We know the mahatma too well ... we know both his contributions and weaknesses
and he has been discussed and dissected more in India than anywhere else. As your
own cut-paste showed.

That is why he is the Mahatma - but a puny paki brain like you can
never comprehend that. Try to get out of the Paki training about always being PR and
manipulations - learn to tell the truth.

Yawn,

Beej tell me when you are done because I am not done yet. I have never given into the Mullahs who start throwing Quranic ayahs in your face every time their lack of logic is revealed... I am not starting now with the Hindu Mullahs... so tell me when you are done so that I can continue to write about the racist, hypocrite the world knows as Mahatma Gandhi

and the award for the most annoying interactor on this board goes to:

beejay!!!!


taaliyaaN, phir gaaliyaaN!

p.s. oh and to the rest of y`all, fik`r not, your day will come.

Mark’s Gandhi Page | Mark’s Home Page
Search | New | Contact

---

Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths
Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World
By Mark Shepard
Reproduced in full from the book published by Shepard Publications, Los Angeles, 2002

---

For more resources, visit Mark Shepard’s Gandhi Page at
www.markshep.com/nonviolence

Copyright © 1990, 1996, 2001, 2002 Mark Shepard. May be freely copied and shared for any noncommercial purpose as long as no text is altered or omitted.

---

This is the text of the 1990 Annual Gandhi Lecture for the International Association of Gandhian Studies, delivered at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville on October 2.

There are many myths about Gandhi. I’d like to point out a few of them and hopefully get rid of them for you.

First, a quick one: Gandhi was not a scrawny little man. Yes, his legs were scrawny—and bowed—but he had a barrel chest, and a deep, booming voice to match it. In pictures, you just don’t notice his chest, because he usually had a cloth draped around it.

That was an easy one. Let’s try another.

One of the most common and most dangerous myths about Gandhi is that he was a saint. The name—or rather, the title—Mahatma itself means “Great Soul.” That’s somewhere between a saint and a Messiah. Gandhi tried to avoid the title, but the people of India ignored his protests. Now I see that even the Library of Congress has begun to classify him under “Gandhi, Mahatma,” so I guess he’s lost that battle.

I’ve heard it argued that Gandhi indeed was a saint, since he was a master of meditation. Well, I must tell you that in all my readings of and about Gandhi, I’ve never come across anything to say that Gandhi was a master of meditation, or that he meditated at all—aside from observing a minute of silence at the beginning of his prayer meetings, a practice he said he borrowed from the Quakers.

Gandhi objected when people called him “a saint trying to be a politician.” He said he was instead “a politician trying to be a saint.” Personally, I go along with Gandhi’s judgment on this.

Not that Gandhi’s spiritual efforts and achievements shouldn’t be honored. They’ve certainly inspired me. But if we label Gandhi a perfected being, we lose our chance to view his life and career critically and to learn from his mistakes.

Besides, if people see Gandhi as a saint, they’ll think he’s “too good for the world,” and they won’t take his example seriously as a model for concrete social change. I’m constantly annoyed at finding books on Gandhi in bookstore sections marked “Religious,” or even “Occult.” If his books are stashed away like that, how will the hard-boiled political scientists ever run across him?

* * *

Another myth about Gandhi is the idea that India’s political leaders, beginning with Nehru, are the inheritors of his tradition and have carried it on.

I wish they had. But really, India’s leaders have rejected much more of Gandhi than they’ve adopted.

They abandoned nonviolent action as soon as they attained power. India now sports the world’s fourth largest armed force, and the leaders haven’t seemed at all reluctant to use it to settle conflicts, either inside or outside the country. No thought is given to possible Gandhi-style alternatives.

Maybe even worse, India’s leaders have done their best to imitate Western countries by building an economy based on large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture.

Gandhi fought this kind of development. He warned that it would economically ruin India’s villages, where 80% of India’s people lived and still live. And Gandhi has proved correct.

Yes, India is now overall a much richer country—but it has more desperately poor people than ever. As many as half of its people can’t afford enough food to sustain health. India prides itself now on growing enough grain so it doesn’t need to import any—but the surplus rots in storage while people starve who can’t afford to buy it!

Gandhi promoted a different kind of development. He stressed efforts based right in the villages, building on the villagers’ own strengths and resources. Not many people here realize it, but Gandhi may be this century’s greatest advocate of decentralism—basing economic and political power at the local level.

You may remember in the movie Gandhi seeing Gandhi spin cotton yarn on a compact spinning wheel. Gandhi and his colleagues were the ones who developed this wheel and introduced it into the villages. It’s the first case of what’s now called “appropriate technology” or “intermediate technology.” Of course, E. F. Schumacher, the author of Small is Beautiful, later introduced the terms themselves. Schumacher was strongly influenced by Gandhi, calling him “the most important economic teacher today.”

Gandhi set up a number of organizations to help carry out village development. He sent many workers to live in and among the villages.

Since his death, thousands have carried on this work. Now, though, the workers often combine development with campaigns against local injustice. Probably the closest thing in the United States to what they are doing is what we call “community organizing.”

The people carrying on this work in India are among the true successors of Gandhi. Other modern-day Gandhians are in programs like the Chipko—“Hug the Trees”—Movement, which blocks irresponsible logging in the Himalayas; or Shanti Sena, the “Peace Army,” which intervenes nonviolently in urban riots. My book Gandhi Today describes a number of the Gandhians’ programs.

By the way, here’s a quick bust of another myth concerning Gandhi and India’s leaders: Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv, the current prime minister, are no relation to the Mahatma. Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Nehru. The name “Gandhi” is common in India, and came to her by marriage. The name means “grocer.”

* * *

I suspect, though, that most of the myths and misconceptions surrounding Gandhi have to do with nonviolence. For instance, it’s surprising how many people still have the idea that nonviolent action is passive.

It’s important for us to be clear about this: There is nothing passive about Gandhian nonviolent action.

I’m afraid Gandhi himself helped create this confusion by referring to his method at first as “passive resistance,” because it was in some ways like techniques bearing that label. But he soon changed his mind and rejected the term.

Gandhi’s nonviolent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.

But wasn’t Gandhi’s nonviolent action designed to avoid violence? Yes and no. Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers.

Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.

The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.

But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.

* * *

Another of the biggest myths about nonviolent action is the idea that Gandhi invented it.

Gandhi is often called “the father of nonviolence.” Well, he did raise nonviolent action to a level never before achieved. Still, it wasn’t at all his invention.

Gene Sharp of Harvard University, in his book Gandhi as a Political Strategist, shows that Gandhi and his Indian colleagues in South Africa were well aware of other nonviolent struggles before they adopted such methods themselves. That was in 1906. In the couple of years before that, they’d been impressed by mass nonviolent actions in India, China, Russia, and among blacks in South Africa itself.

In another of his books, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp cites over 200 cases of mass nonviolent struggle throughout history. And he assures us that many more will be found if historians take the trouble to look.

Curiously, some of the best earlier examples come from right here in the United States, in the years leading up to the American Revolution. To oppose British rule, the colonists used many tactics amazingly like Gandhi’s—and according to Sharp, they used these techniques with more skill and sophistication than anyone else before the time of Gandhi.

For instance, to resist the British Stamp Act, the colonists widely refused to pay for the official stamp required to appear on publications and legal documents—a case of civil disobedience and tax refusal, both used later by Gandhi. Boycotts of British imports were organized to protest the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts, and the so-called Intolerable Acts. The campaign against the latter was organized by the First Continental Congress, which was really a nonviolent action organization.

Almost two centuries later, a boycott of British imports played a pivotal role in Gandhi’s own struggle against colonial rule.

The colonists used another strategy later adopted by Gandhi—setting up parallel institutions to take over functions of government—and had far greater success with it than Gandhi ever did. In fact, according to Sharp, colonial organizations had largely taken over control from the British in most of the colonies before a shot was fired.

* * *

Why aren’t we more aware of such cases—including those in our own history? I think it’s because of something we could call “filtering.”

Probably most of you who’ve worked with cameras know about the kind of filter I mean. The filter fits over the camera lens and blocks out portions of the light—usually certain colors—and lets the remainder pass through to the lens. In effect, the filter selects the portion of light that the camera will “see.”

Each of us too sees the world through our own “filter”—a filter made up of our assumptions, our motivations, and the categories we use to sort out and organize our experience. This filter determines how we see the world.

When we come across something that doesn’t match our assumptions, motivations, and categories, our filter blocks it out. It’s not that we choose to reject it. Consciously, we don’t even perceive it. Or else we perceive it in a partial, distorted form.

It seems that nonviolence has a particularly hard time passing through many people’s filters.

To know about current and past events, we depend a great deal on journalists and historians. Now, one thing that journalists and historians understand is military power. They know what comes from many people being shot or imprisoned. It’s obvious when such power is being used, and a journalist or historian can feel professionally safe in describing and analyzing it.

But most of them do not deal so well with subtle, nonviolent forms of power. They don’t understand how such power operates; or even how it could operate; or even that such a form of power could exist.

So, as often as not, they don’t notice it at all. Or if they do notice it, they don’t grasp what they’ve seen. Or they don’t connect it with its effects.

For example, say that a Third World country undergoes a spontaneous, country-wide, mass noncooperation campaign against its dictator, lasting weeks or even months. Tens of thousands march in the streets, newspapers and radio stations defy the censors, whole cities are shut down for days at a time as people go on strike. Noted citizens call for the dictator’s resignation, no one follows his orders, he has completely lost control.

Finally, four or five military officers, carrying out the obvious will of the people, march nearly unopposed into the presidential palace, arrest the dictator, and escort him out of office.

Chances are that our news media and history books will thereafter attribute the dictator’s downfall, purely and simply, to “a military coup.”

Watch the media closely, and you will find this is not at all an uncommon pattern. One classic example is in regard to the 1963 overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. An almost anti-climactic military coup followed a half year of intensive public actions led by Buddhist monks, in a campaign that destroyed Diem’s base of support. Yet all three of the almanacs on my shelves ascribe Diem’s downfall to the coup, and only one even mentions the popular campaign as a factor.

(By the way, for details on that popular movement, I refer you to what is probably the best overview of the worldwide nonviolence movement, The Struggle for Humanity, by Marjorie Hope and James Young.)

The fact is, even in revolutions that are primarily violent, the successful ones usually include nonviolent civilian actions not so different from the ones Gandhi used. And nearly every time, you will find these actions curiously downplayed or ignored by most journalists and historians.

As Indira Gandhi put it, “The meek may one day inherit the earth, but not the headlines.”

* * *

So, Gandhi was definitely not “the father of nonviolence” in the sense of having invented it. But we might still grant him the title in something of the sense in which we say Isaac Newton “discovered” gravity.

Isaac Newton, of course, was not the first person to see an apple fall out of a tree. But Newton was the first person to notice that fall and grasp its significance, and provide us with a general concept so that we could do the same.

Newton, in other words, altered our filters so we could perceive the working of gravity.

The same with Gandhi. He seems to have been the first person to have the general concept of nonviolent action, to declare it, and then to consciously apply it on a large scale. In this way, he gave us all a way to perceive what he was up to.

Of course, some people still didn’t get the point, because even when Gandhi laid it out for them, the concept of nonviolent action couldn’t begin to pass through their clouded filters.

It’s fun to read what’s been written about Gandhi by his political opponents in England, or by Marxists in India and elsewhere, or by recent slanderers nipping at the heels of the movie Gandhi. What they’ve written doesn’t reveal much about Gandhi, but it reveals a good deal about the writers.

Gandhi’s most bitter critics have called him a charlatan—a deceiving, malicious fraud. After all, who could say the things Gandhi said and really mean them? Well, surely these critics couldn’t!

Other, “kinder” critics have felt Gandhi was simply an idealistic fool, with no conception of how power works in the real world. Translated, this means that these critics can’t understand how Gandhi’s methods worked.

Let’s look at these methods of Gandhi’s and see if we can spot where their power might come from. And maybe we can clear up some other myths along the way.

* * *

Gandhi called his overall method of nonviolent action Satyagraha. This translates roughly as “Truth-force.” A fuller rendering, though, would be “the force that is generated through adherence to Truth.”

Nowadays, it’s usually called nonviolence. But for Gandhi, nonviolence was the word for a different, broader concept—namely, “a way of life based on love and compassion.” In Gandhi’s terminology, Satyagraha—Truth-force—was an outgrowth of nonviolence.

It may also help to keep in mind that the terms Satyagraha and nonviolent action, though often used one for the other, don’t actually refer to the exact same thing. Satyagraha is really one special form of nonviolent action—Gandhi’s own version of it. Much of what’s called nonviolent action wouldn’t qualify as Satyagraha. But we’ll come back to that later.

Gandhi practiced two types of Satyagraha in his mass campaigns. The first was civil disobedience, which entailed breaking a law and courting arrest. When we today hear this term, our minds tend to stress the “disobedience” part of it. But for Gandhi, “civil” was just as important. He used “civil” here not just in its meaning of “relating to citizenship and government” but also in its meaning of “civilized” or “polite.” And that’s exactly what Gandhi strove for.

We also tend to lay stress differently than Gandhi on the phases of civil disobedience. We tend to think breaking the law is the core of it. But to Gandhi, the core of it was going to prison. Breaking the law was mostly just a way to get there.

Now, why was that? Was Gandhi trying to fill the jails? Overwhelm and embarrass his captors? Make them “give in” through force of numbers?

Not at all. He just wanted to make a statement. He wanted to say, “I care so deeply about this matter that I’m willing to take on the legal penalties, to sit in this prison cell, to sacrifice my freedom, in order to show you how deeply I care. Because when you see the depth of my concern, and how ‘civil’ I am in going about this, you’re bound to change your mind about me, to abandon your rigid, unjust position, and to let me help you see the truth of my cause.”

In other words, Gandhi’s method aimed to win not by overwhelming but by converting his opponent—or as the Gandhians say, by bringing about a “change of heart.”

Now, to many people, that sounds pretty naive. Well, I’ll let you in on a secret. It was naive. The belief that civil disobedience succeeded by converting the opponent happened to be a myth held by Gandhi himself. And it’s shared by most of his admirers, who take his word for it without bothering to check it out.

As far as I can tell, no civil disobedience campaign of Gandhi’s ever succeeded chiefly through a change of heart in his opponents.

But this doesn’t mean civil disobedience didn’t work. As a matter of fact, it did work. The only thing off-kilter was Gandhi’s explanation of how and why it worked.

Let me give a general description of what seems really to have happened when Gandhi and his followers committed civil disobedience:

Gandhi and followers break a law—politely. Public leader has them arrested, tried, put in prison. Gandhi and followers cheerfully accept it all. Members of the public are impressed by the protest, public sympathy is aroused for the protesters and their cause. Members of the public put pressure on public leader to negotiate with Gandhi. As cycles of civil disobedience recur, public pressure grows stronger. Finally, public leader gives in to pressure from his constituency, negotiates with Gandhi.

That’s the general outline. Notice that there is a “change of heart,” but it’s more in the public than in the opponent. And notice too that there’s an element of coercion, though it’s indirect, coming from the public, rather than directly from Gandhi’s camp.

Some campaigns of Gandhi’s show a variation on this model. Sometimes Gandhi’s opponents had superiors who wound up pressuring them or even ordering them to negotiate with Gandhi. These superiors might have been influenced by Gandhi’s campaign, or by pressure from their own public—for instance, when British citizens pressured government leaders in Britain to intervene in affairs of their colonial government in India.

But the basic principle was the same: Gandhi’s most decisive influence on his opponents was more indirect than direct.

Gandhi set out a number of rules for the practice of civil disobedience. These rules often baffle his critics, and often even his admirers set them aside as nonessential. But once you understand that civil disobedience, for Gandhi, was aimed at working a change of heart—whether in the opponent or the public—then it’s easy to make sense of them.

One rule was that only specific, unjust laws were to be broken. Civil disobedience didn’t mean flouting all law.

In fact, Gandhi said that only people with a high regard for the law were qualified for civil disobedience. Only action by such people could convey the depth of their concern and win respect. No one thinks much of it when the law is broken by those who care nothing for it anyway.

Other rules: Gandhi ruled out direct coercion, such as trying to physically block someone. Hostile language was banned. Destroying property was forbidden. Not even secrecy was allowed.

All these were ruled out because any of them would undercut the empathy and trust Gandhi was trying to build, and would hinder that “change of heart.”

* * *

The second form of mass Satyagraha was noncooperation.

This is just what it sounds like. Noncooperation meant refusing to cooperate with the opponent, refusing to submit to the injustice being fought. It took such forms as strikes, economic boycotts, and tax refusals.

Of course, noncooperation and civil disobedience overlapped. Noncooperation too was to be carried out in a “civil” manner. Here too, Gandhi’s followers had to cheerfully face beating, imprisonment, confiscation of their property—and it was hoped that this willing suffering would cause a “change of heart.”

But noncooperation also had a dynamic of its own, a dynamic that didn’t at all depend on converting the opponent or even molding public opinion. It was a dynamic based not on appeals but on the power of the people themselves.

Gandhi saw that the power of any tyrant depends entirely on people being willing to obey. The tyrant may get people to obey by threatening to throw them in prison, or by holding guns to their heads. But the power still resides in the obedience, not in the prison or the guns.

Now, what happens if those people begin to say, “We’re not afraid of prison. We’re even willing to die. But we’re not willing to obey you any longer.”

It’s very simple. The tyrant has no power. He may rant and scream and hurt and destroy—but if the people hold to it, he’s finished.

Gandhi said, “I believe that no government can exist for a single moment without the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the government will come to a standstill.”

That was Gandhi’s concept of power—the one he’s accused of not having. It’s a hard one to grasp, for those used to seeing power in the barrel of a gun. Their filters do not pass it. And so they call Gandhi idealistic, impractical.

* * *

Then there are the critics who say nonviolent action worked fine in India, but they don’t think it would make sense to use it elsewhere. These critics believe that Indians are particularly suited to nonviolent action, because of the ethic of nonviolence built into their religion.

This is a very interesting myth, and those who believe in it certainly possess a very selective filter. Personally, I don’t think you can follow the news from India for long and still believe Indians are less violent than other people.

Besides, Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence seems to have been consciously inspired first by the New Testament—the Sermon on the Mount. Only later, it seems, did he find similar ideas in Hindu scriptures.

It’s surprising how easy it is to forget that we too have an ethic of nonviolence built into our society’s chief religion. We just don’t happen to follow it. Just as the Indians don’t normally follow theirs.

But really, the easiest way to see that nonviolent action is suitable outside India is simply to look at all the cases of nonviolent action outside India. Unless your filter is pretty murky, you can hardly miss them. It certainly can’t be easy to ignore the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., or to forget the Solidarity movement in Poland, or to overlook the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

Then there’s the cousin of the “only-in-India” argument. This one says that nonviolent action can work only against “easy” enemies like the British, and not against, say, the Soviets, or Central American dictators, or those villains of last resort, the Nazis.

Here again, filters are in place, because nonviolent action has been used with some success against all these.

In 1968, Czechoslovakian civilians nonviolently held Soviet armed forces at bay for a full week and stopped the Soviet leaders from ever subjugating that country to the degree they had intended. In 1944, military dictators were ousted nonviolently in both El Salvador and Guatemala. And during World War II, Norway nonviolently and successfully resisted Nazi attempts to reorganize its society along fascist lines.

(In case you missed any of these, you can find details, again, in Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, among other sources.)

One of the interesting things about the many instances of nonviolent struggle around the world is that, even today, it is often by people who know nothing or next to nothing about Gandhi. After you look at a number of these, you have to conclude that people in many situations just naturally turn to such methods.

On the other hand, if you look closely at so-called popular liberation movements, you’ll find that they’re seldom started by the peasants or workers they’re supposed to benefit. These armed struggles may gradually build wider support—but in almost every case, they’re launched by students or other intellectuals in the name of the people.

* * *

Still another group of Gandhi’s critics says: Maybe nonviolent action does work—but it’s just too slow. People are suffering injustice, slavery, starvation, murder. How can you ask them to be patient and work nonviolently?

Somehow people have developed the myth that nonviolent action is slow, while violence is quick. But I don’t believe you can find evidence for this in history.

Now, I’m not going to try to prove my point by comparing cases of violent and nonviolent struggles. There are so many variables that comparisons from one situation to another really don’t mean anything.

But we can still rid ourselves of the idea that violence is necessarily quick. If we look at the Chinese Revolution, for instance, we find that Mao Tse-Tung and his Communist forces were engaged in combat over a period of 22 years. Vietnam was embattled for an even longer period: 35 years. These are not swift victories.

We can also dispel the notion that nonviolent action has to be slow. The nonviolent overthrow of Marcos in the Philippines—measured from the assassination of Benigno Aquino—took only three years.

Where does the idea come from, then, that violence is quick and nonviolence is slow? Well, violence feels quicker, because time passes rapidly when you’re dodging bullets. Nonviolent action, on the other hand, requires more patience because the action is less thrilling.

Theodore Roszak once commented on the impatience of some of these critics. He said, “People try nonviolence for a week, and when it ‘doesn’t work,’ they go back to violence, which hasn’t worked for centuries.”

Now, what does Roszak mean, that violence “hasn’t worked for centuries”? Is he ignoring the success of so many violent revolutions? I think Roszak means that violence, even when it succeeds, has major negative side-effects—side-effects that nonviolent action mostly avoids.

First of all, a violent struggle will tend to bring about much more destruction of life, property, and environment.

Of course, there can be destruction in nonviolent struggles, too. Just because you’re nonviolent doesn’t mean your opponent will be. As I said before, Gandhi’s campaigns in India saw hundreds of Indians killed by the British. Still, this doesn’t compare with the tens or hundreds of thousands, or even millions, killed in some violent revolutions.

The difference, by the way, doesn’t arise because nonviolent struggles are aimed at “nice” enemies. After all, the British aren’t so much nicer than the French, who killed 800,000 Algerians—that’s one out of every thirteen—during Algeria’s war of independence.

No, the difference arises because, in a violent struggle, the violence of each side goads the other to greater violence. Also, each side uses the violence of the other side to justify its own violence. A nonviolent struggle, on the other hand, doesn’t so much encourage the violence of the opponent.

Other negative side-effects of violence come into view once the struggle comes to an end. For instance, violence generally leaves the two sides as long-standing enemies.

Maybe the most amazing thing about Gandhi’s nonviolent revolution is, not that the British left, but that they left as friends, and that Britain and India became partners in the British Commonwealth.

Gandhi noted also that violent revolutions almost always end in repressive dictatorships. Once the rebel troops gain control, they naturally keep acting as they’re used to—in other words, they start running the country like a military camp. And of course, there are lots of bitter enemies within the country who still need to be put down and kept down. Gandhi hoped that a nonviolent revolution, led by civilians, would avoid all this.

Now, India today is not a paradise. It is afflicted by widespread injustice, civil violence, and authoritarian trends. Still, it is one of the few Third World countries where democracy in any form has survived continuously. There has never been a military coup in India.

When you look at the side-effects of violent struggle, you really have to ask yourself, just who is being practical here, and who is not.

* * *

Now, maybe you think from all I’ve said that I believe nonviolent action would work anywhere, if people just gave it a try. Actually, I don’t. I believe there are cases in which nonviolent action wouldn’t stand a chance, and where any attempt at it is futile. In some of these cases, violence might succeed—in its own fashion.

On the other hand, the cases in which nonviolent action wouldn’t work are often just the cases in which violence as well would prove pointless or worse.

The belief that violence will work wherever nonviolent action wouldn’t is a very puzzling myth. The opposite case is likely more common: Where violent efforts would be easily contained or instantly crushed, nonviolent action may be the only realistic choice.

Then there are other cases, I believe, in which violence would work, but so would nonviolent action—with much less harm.

If exponents of armed struggle were less concerned with proving their manliness and more concerned with the welfare of the people they claim to stand up for, they might discover that nonviolent forms of struggle, everything considered, work better.

* * *

I’d like to bust one more myth about Gandhi’s nonviolent action. This one is held both by many of Gandhi’s critics and by many of his admirers. In fact, the misunderstanding is so common and so basic that I have to say that many—maybe most—admirers of Gandhi’s methods really miss the point.

Just as I did when I began my study of Gandhi.

Prior to that study, most of my experience with political activism had been with Marxists, and I had pretty well absorbed their worldview. But later, after exploring several spiritual traditions, I felt I could no longer endorse the Marxists’ methods.

How then to oppose injustice and reform society? I hoped that Gandhi held the answer. It seemed to me he had meant to work out just what I was looking for: a way of defeating and overthrowing the oppressors of the world, but by moral means.

That was my myth about Gandhi; that was my filter. I had to read an entire book and a half about Gandhi before it struck me—and it struck me hard—that Gandhi was not talking about defeating or overthrowing anyone.

Satyagraha—Gandhi’s nonviolent action—was not a way for one group to seize what it wanted from another. It was not a weapon of class struggle, or of any other kind of division. Satyagraha was instead an instrument of unity. It was a way to remove injustice and restore social harmony, to the benefit of both sides.

Satyagraha, strange as it seems, was for the opponent’s sake as well. When Satyagraha worked, both sides won.

That concept did not pass at all easily through my filter, and I understand why so many others miss it entirely. But it is, really, the essential difference between Gandhi’s Satyagraha and so much of the nonviolent action practiced by others.

You may wonder, how did Gandhi himself come to this amazing attitude? He said it this way: “All my actions have their source in my inalienable love of humankind.”

You see, love for the victim demanded struggle, while love for the opponent ruled out doing harm. But in fact, love for the opponent likewise demanded struggle.

Why? Because by hurting others, the oppressor also hurts himself.

Of course, the oppressor isn’t likely to be aware of that. He may be thoroughly enjoying his power and wealth. But beneath all that, his injustice is cutting him off from his fellow humans and from his own deeper self. And when that happens, his spirit can only wither and deform.

Now, that’s not obvious, and if you don’t believe it, I don’t know any way I might convince you.

But if that does pass through your filter, you may be well on your way to understanding Gandhi.

Want a free ebook? Click here for a special offer.

---

Bibliography
Mohandas K. Gandhi, Nonviolent Resistance, Schocken, New York, 1967. A collection of writings on nonviolence.

Marjorie Hope and James Young, The Struggle for Humanity: Agents of Nonviolent Change in a Violent World, Orbis, Maryknoll, New York, 1977. Portraits of important leaders and groups in the worldwide nonviolence movement.

Mark Shepard, Gandhi Today, Simple Productions, Arcata, California, and Seven Locks Press, Washington, D.C., 1987. On successors of Gandhi in India and around the world.

Gene Sharp, Gandhi as a Political Strategist, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1979. A collection of Sharp’s articles on Gandhi and nonviolence.

———, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1973. An extensive look at methods and historical examples of nonviolence. The paperback edition is in three volumes.

The book!
Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths
Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World
By Mark Shepard

---

Mark’s Gandhi Page | Mark’s Home Page
Search | New | Contact

Register to the site Shopping Bazaar Find Practitioner Wallpapers Fortune Cookie Daily Inspiration Magazine
MAKING OF A MAHATMA BACK TO HOME


By Nishtha Shukla

It must take tremendous strength of conviction and intelligence to influence the mind of one such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Here`s a look at a few who contributed to shaping the ideals that were to have a radical impact on the world

Certainly no other influential Indian intellectual was as steeped as Gandhi was… in the religious and philosophical texts of the classical Indian tradition as well as the writings of daring western moralists of 19th century,`` wrote Gandhi scholar Raghavan Iyer.

This explains why the autobiography of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is a series of explorations of various complementary as well as contradictory ideas. Early western interpreters thought that Indian `intellectuals` at that time were being exposed to ideas both from the West and India.

Antony Copley, author of Gandhi Against the Tide, holds: ``Indians are seeking the source of modernity within their own traditions. Although Gandhi can be said to forge his philosophies on these lines, there is room to explore whether western influences overpowered his Indian ideas.``

As Gandhi encountered new ideas, he evolved in thought to work towards national freedom.

In Harijan, Gandhi has said: ``In my search after truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things… I am concerned with my readiness to obey the call of truth... when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine... he would do well to choose the latter of the two.``

Gandhi must be understood in the context of identifying with the self first. His revelations about his influences suggest that he never took anything at face value. ``He builds an autonomous view of his own political philosophy,`` feels Prof Subroto Mukherjee of Delhi University.

Gandhi even called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments With Truth, as he experimented with various ideologies to derive the best conclusion.

``His life rooted in Indian traditions was a passionate search for truth,`` Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan mentions in All Men Are Brothers.

It has been stated that Gandhi was influenced by Karl Marx, although Marxists have traditionally denied this because of his `bourgeoise` outlook.

When Gandhi read Marx, he told his biographer Louis Fischer: ``I could write better.``

Mukherjee believes it was because Gandhi was against any form of determinism. Gandhi`s mother Putali Bai exercised great influence on him as a little boy. It is from her that he imbibed the principles of bridging the Hindu-Muslim divide, condemning idolatry and abstinence from wine and meat.

Also, her association with Jainism had a perceptible influence on him. Ahimsa explains the basis of Jain philosophy, a religion that emphasises the relevance of nonviolence because it believes that the densest karmic defilement of the soul takes place when one hurts another creature.

Ahimsa for Gandhi meant active love, the opposite of violence, as Stephen Murphy points out in his book, Why Gandhi is Relevant in Modern India.

Referring to last Jain Tirthankar Mahavira, Gandhi had said: ``If anybody developed the doctrine of nonviolence, it was Lord Mahavira.``

Gandhi referred to Shrimad Rajchandra, a Jain householder-ascetic, as his spiritual mentor. Rajchandra asked Gandhi to look within himself when he expressed the desire to change his religion.

It changed his life. He said: ``I have since met many a religious leader, no one else ever made on me the impression that Rajchandrabhai did.``

Gandhi has mentioned Rajchandra as being one of the three biggest influences in his life. It is believed that Indian texts influenced Gandhi more than western ideas.

His major convictions such as truth, nonviolence and satyagraha were inspired by Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. In times of crisis, Gandhi sought refuge in the Bhagawad Gita. He read it for the first time in England, while working as a Sanskrit translator for friends from the Theosophical Society.

It provided him with perfect knowledge of truth and selfless action. He derived inspiration from Krishna`s message that a man must not be diverted from seeking the truth. Gandhi`s personal philosophy about duty and service combined with social justice coincided with this aspect of Hinduism.

He also read the New Testament. In particular, the Sermon on the Mount, which appealed to him because of its activist philosophy. Rabindranath Tagore`s correspondence with Gandhi also brought about a change in the latter`s thoughts.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya points out in her introduction to The Mahatma and the Poet that although they had differences over fundamental philosophical questions, each respe-cted the other`s right to opinion.
According to author Stephen Murphy, Gandhi`s adherence to reason has evolved out of western influences. This began with his contact with the Vegetarian Society in London where he was convinced to turn vegetarian.

He was also introduced to two thinkers who were to greatly influence his life: John Ruskin, one of the great Victorian moralists and social thinkers and Leo Tolstoy, Russian aristocrat and moralist.

Gandhi read Ruskin`s Unto this Last while on a journey. He later mentioned: ``I could not get any sleep that night. I was determined to change my life in accordance with the ideals of the book.``

He later translated the book into Gujarati and called it Sarvodaya (the well-being of all).

Ruskin`s book influenced Gandhi`s concept of soul-force as a substitute for physical force and changed him as a person.

It brought ``an instantaneous and practical transformation`` in his life. From Ruskin, Gandhi learnt that the good of the individual is contained in the good of all. That the lawyer`s work has the same value as the barber`s, all have the same right of earning their livelihood. That the life of labour as a tiller of soil or the handicraftsman, is the life worth living.

Of these he said: ``The first I knew, the second I had dimly realised. The third had never occurred to me. I arose with the dawn, ready to reduce these principles to practice.``

Refinement of ideas before consuming them was quintessential to Gandhi. He distilled Ruskin`s concepts to develop his own, to realise that with creation of wealth, its consumption has to be limited.

Post-Ruskin, he developed the Phoenix Farm at Natal, an experiential community of Indians and Europeans, a precedent to the Tolstoy Farm. Gandhi read Tolstoy`s The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1894 and turned his attention to the concept of nonviolence. At the age of 25, it made a deep impression on him.

Commenting on its impact, he said: ``Before the... profound morality and the truthfulness of this book, all the books... seemed to pale into insignificance.``

Gandhi and Tolstoy had much in common. They were no philosophers, but were teachers of humanity and practised what they preached. While Tolstoy is considered a prophet of the latter half of the 19th century, Gandhi belongs to the first half of the 20th century.

Tolstoy manifested independent thinking, profound morality and truthfulness. The ideals of `resist not evil` and nonviolence struck deep chords with Gandhi. He began to mould his life according to the ideas of Tolstoy. It was not blind following though. He did not share Tolstoy`s intense dislike for organized government.

Contrasting the two `saints`, George Bernard Shaw said: ``Tolstoy was of sacrifice, yielding and weakness-of passive resistance or non-resistance to evil. Gandhi was of strength and severity-of satyagraha or firmness in truth.``

Gandhi founded the Tolstoy Farm at Johannesburg that afforded him ``spiritual purification and penance`` in the winning phase of the satyagraha campaign in South Africa (1908-1914).

Gandhi read Thoreau as a student in London, and learnt civil disobedience from him. But, while Thoreau believed in individual action and protests, Gandhi considered civil disobedience the last resort, and conveyed his respect for law.

Like Thoreau, he believed people had the right to disobey unjust laws. But that they should gladly go to jail when they break such laws. Studying various philosophies, religions as well as contemporary history, Gandhi was exposed to numerous influences.

While he never shied from accepting them, he was not over-awed either. From here developed Gandhi`s concepts that gave a nation the power to fight for its freedom.


Life Positive Plus, Oct-Dec 2002 Top




Archives Art Gallery About Us Advertise With Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Site Map

©Lifepositive.com Inc.

Now ..what are the chances of Apple using Jinnah in one of their ads ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

gandhi was no pitchman




Apple clicked on the wrong icon for its ``think different`` ad campaign.

BY BILL McKIBBEN | I`m writing this on a Macintosh, which is the only kind of computer I`ve ever owned. But if I ever need another one (and I may not -- I just use it as a glorified typewriter, and so it has oceans more power than I require), I`m going to buy a PC. And all because of an ad.

I was leafing through some magazine at the library when the back cover caught my eye: Mahatma Gandhi, cross-legged in front of his loom, wire-rim glasses perched down his nose, wearing only a loincloth that he had doubtless made himself. And in one corner, the Apple logo and the words ``Think Different.``

Despite its wounded grammar, this ad is not very difficult to decode. Gandhi has great power as an icon (in the archaic meaning of the word). One look at him and you think, ``simplicity,`` ``calm,`` ``rebellion without violence.`` The associations come as quickly and as powerfully as they do in an ad with, say, Pamela Anderson Lee, where you immediately think, ``sex on a beach.`` And for Apple, of course, it`s important to endow its box of chips with those associations. Fairly or not, Apple has long since lost the battle for ``efficiency,`` which is the chief virtue of the data age. It`s stuck defending a few niche markets -- design, education, certain kinds of media -- where rebellion remains a nostalgic touchstone. So Gandhi makes a certain kind of mercenary sense.

But Gandhi is different. While it is ignoble to use Albert Einstein (another of Apple`s icons) as a pitchman, it is not perhaps immoral in quite the same way. Einstein was more or less a part of his century; his magnificent mind did not take him outside the flow of recent history.

Gandhi really is different, far more different than the copywriter seems to have understood.

He was the eruption in this century, and in some ways this millennium, of a venerable idea, an idea that stretches back at least to the Buddha -- the idea that by leaving yourself behind you find yourself, that by renunciation you conquer. So it is bizarre to use him to sell products. When he died, all his belongings -- toothbrush, Bhagavad Gita, loincloth -- fit inside a couple of shoe boxes.

But that`s not the real degradation. Were Apple merely selling computers it would only be grubby to use Gandhi`s picture. Instead, of course, they`re trying to sell each of us an image of ourselves. Which is precisely what Gandhi spent his life trying to help people strip away. In the fight for Indian independence (against the biggest brand name of his era, the British Empire), he succeeded in helping a nation shrug off its own internalized sense of subjugation, its own sense that Britishness, like Appleness, was superior. And he did it without trying to substitute the usual nationalist passions.

He went well beyond that, too -- his battle against the caste system was in reality a battle against even more insidious self-labeling, against identities ingrained in the unconscious of an entire subcontinent. And though he was a devout man, he even tried to fight against the religious brands -- his prayers each night came not just from the Hindu scriptures, but from the Gospels, from the Koran. He was assassinated by a fanatic Hindu precisely for his lack of brand loyalty.

Gandhi believed there was something sacred and lovely at the center of people, and that to get to it each of us needed to cut through the various lusts and fears of everyday life. That was hard enough to do in village India; how much harder in our time and place, when we live amid a hurricane of messages and symbols all designed to overlay our own identity. Gandhi, in other words, was the chief spokesman against the consumer mentality since Christ -- against the idea that the ownership of a particular kind of computer might free you, make you more creative or rebellious or attractive.

Trying to sell a Macintosh with Gandhi`s image is every bit as ironic as selling cigarettes with a picture of healthy, sexy young bodies. (Or as ironic as the Land Rover ad some years ago that said: ``Celebrate Thoreau`s Birthday. Drive Through a Pond.``)
Eknath Easwaran, the California meditation teacher whose book ``Gandhi the Man`` is the simplest, and therefore loveliest, of the many Gandhi biographies, describes seeing Gandhi meditate during the evening prayer service in the last years of his life. The text that evening was from the second chapter of the Gita. As the sonorous verses were read, you could see him completely absorbed, his mind growing calm and still. His concentration was so complete that it was no longer the second chapter you were listening to, it was the second chapter you were seeing, witnessing for yourself the transformation it describes:

They are forever free who have broken
Out of the ego-cage I and mine
To be united with the Lord of Love.
This is the supreme state. Attain thou this
And pass from death to immortality.

On the other hand, you could have 1.6 Gb, a 10xCD-ROM, 128 MB RAM and a smug dose of superiority.
SALON | Nov. 4, 1997

Bill McKibben is a Methodist Sunday School teacher in upstate New York and the author of ``The End of Nature.`` Simon and Schuster will publish his new book, ``Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single Child Families,`` next spring.

jeez..so many typos...guess thats what happens whenever i get emotionally distressed... :((

I`m think i am adopted...

Beej....what I dont get it , how come a guy born in 1869 had so many photographs taken of him ? I mean , I was born just under 120 years later but , even with 3-4 cameras in the family nobody bothered to take as many photos of mine......I know Gandhi was slightly more famous and all that...but this is giving me a complex.....

This is the most stupid article published on Chowk. This also reflects the regressive mentality and thought process of certain Pakistanis who have nothing good to do but research on finding the good and bad in the leaders who have left this world way back.

What`s the gist of this nonsense? Gandhi did not treat women equally or consider them worthy of anything? Is the purpose to tell hindus on Chowk that their leader had weird policies towards women? Is it a cover-up to hide the bad publicity Pakistan is receiving on the treatment of its women folk?

The writer needs to wake up. Regarless of what Gandhi believed in and did to his wife, all Indian women and men do not follow the same thought process. Yes, the fact that Indian Culture kicks in every other thing is very true. I detest involving culture in my life barring a few items close to my heart - saints/sufis, shawls and select poetry.

Just recently, I attended a day long seminar in Chicago where over 100 South Asian Women Leaders were present. The participants included CTOs, attorneys, magistrates, physicians, engineers, business women, educationists and technologists. There were only 9-10 muslim women in that crowd. Out of those 9-10 muslim women, only 3-4 had Pakistani background. The rest were Indian muslims. None of the participants (mainly hindu women) had any issues in terms of where they were in their respective careers.

One of the panelists was a very impressive, articulate and brilliant woman in her 40s, the CTO of Motorola - a chemical engineer by background. Despite her international engagements, she was able to attend the event on a weekend just to show her solidarity with women from her part of the world. Not only that, the woman was dressed in a very pretty turquoise eastern dress with beautifully put together matching jewelry.

In my past 10 years or so in Corporate America, I have hardly worked with ikka dukka Indians here and there but I have never attended something like this before where so many ambitious and accomplished south asian women(mostly hindus) were under one roof. Interestingly, it was evident that they believed in having the cultural affinity. This was a very different environment for me. I am not into culture shulture at all and rarely attend any cultural stuff anymore. I did not see anyone wearing anything on her forehead with any complexes on how her leader, Gandhi Jee, thought of women. I had a strong impression that majority of the women took pride in being of Indian Origin regardless of their bygone leaders’ leanings.

Based on my 1st hand experience, I am not sure where is this writer coming from? Probably, she needs more worldly exposure. Worldly exposure does not come from being a cyber activist or flipping through history books.

Come on, guys! You have taken godot and hamidm too literally. Seemingly, many Indians here are too new to Chowk to have been exposed to the duo`s posts over a period of many years.

Neither hamidm nor godot is remotely the person some of you appear to have concluded both of them to be.

---

And if someone doesn`t want to respect Gandhi, so what? Perhaps people are just different, and value different things in life. That`s what diversity is all about! Don`t many of us ourselves curse the old man ten times a day? I myself never miss a chance to beat up on the dead Mr Gandhi whenever I can.

On the other hand, the Behram approach is fundamentally unethical and patently wrong. If it becomes fashionable among educated Pakistanis, it will do neither Pakistan`s moral compass nor Jinnah`s memory any good. It certainly will not promote the cause of secularism in Pakistan by half an inch. Some things work, some things just don`t.

---

Beej, you are a horrible man. You left me so wishing that my grandparents and my uncle were alive. They would have given everything to see the pictures you have posted.

. . . Netaji Subhash, Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru, Sri Rajgopalachari, Sarojani Naidu, Maulana Azad, Pandit M.M. Malviya, Abbas Tayabji, Jamnalal Bajaj, Acharya kripalani, Frontier Gandhi khan Abdul Gaffar Khan himself - what people! And with them, in their middle, Gandhi - irrational, eccentric, not the sharpest pleader around town, nor the sharpest dressed - but the one and only Bapu to everyone of them. The small, not particularly gifted man, who rose above all by rising above himself.

If his story is not an inspiration (to an Indian) then one doesn`t quite know what else would be.

Beej,

Thanks a bunch for the photos.

Godot (#575)


``..... And, yes, I`m waiting for the collision. You and I will draw the sword sooner or later. No ifs and buts about it. Let the best man win.

Pssst, I`ll let you in on a secret...Jinnah beats that half-naked fakir hands down (to that fakir`s talent!) ..... ``

With kind of your bias, and sharp divide between Indians (of all hues and color) and Pakistanis (of all hues and colors), I make the prediction:

1. you will win in pre-dominantly Pakistani audience, and shouted down in Predominantly Indian audience. Beej will will win in pre-dominantly India audience, and you will be shouted down.

and let you in on a secret:

2. Neither of you will change anyone`s mind, that could hardly define the winning.

Probably two of you won`t even agree on the rules that define winning - so ``let the best man win`` is out of question. The hatred is still too deep to see each others viewpoints.

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 614

``people wearing dhotis are idiots``

Viola!!!

Re: # 613

ok ok i get it now

based on that article i conclude that gandhi was a racist, castiest /butt ugly failed lawyer and jinnah was dressed in suit because people wearing dhotis are idiots and jinnah asked for pakistan because gandhi/congress forced him to.

Re: # 608

Netizen -

Literature and subtlety is not exactly your forte. Stay happy in your mediocrity and ignorance.

Re: # 603

``Manto and Beej have ``exposed`` him enough already!!! ``

godot dude,

don`t pull mantos leg. he just blindly loves jinnah

As I said , I dont respond to behenjees.

gujjubania:

perhaps because you lack the wherewithal to give such a response. koi baat nahiN. we`ve seen more than enough of your ``wherewithal``. :)

vaisay when you make absolutist generalizing statements with words like ``absolutely``, ``nobody``, ``everybody``, you should be able to back those up, child.

behenjee ka lekchar khat`m.

goodnight.

This guy gets dumber and dumber...

How old are you Godot , 5 ? 6 ?

595

i read that article, what i got about jinnah is:

he like to be around physically strong people because he was himself weak

he liked to dress good and wanted people around him to dress equally better

he gave rs. 100 for dinner preparation and was fine if the servants took whatever was left of it

he got a rude jolt when his daughter married a non-muslim even though he married a non-muslim

he ate little

he helped his sister (?)

also, azad was a very strong guy

did i miss anything else?

Re: # 605

Edge -

``Star``

Dude, you make me laugh!!! Okay, a dead star sucked-in by a black hole!!!

Ana...you are too `behenjee` type to elicit a response from me.

``Manto and Beej have ``exposed`` him enough already!!! ``

Yeah....neutered street dogs barking at the stars...

``Follow thy leader``

Godot......Americans are perhaps the most fervent followers of Jesus. Jesus said `love thy enemy`. However you wont find too many of his followers saying that... rather `nuke the enemy` is the popular refrain.

Re: #599 & 600:

Suit yourselves! Follow your leader! The dude with no clothes on and with a great ``philosophy``!!! Manto and Beej have ``exposed`` him enough already!!!

edge a.k.a gujjubania

now you wouldn`t happen to be that nobody would you? hahahahaha

Godot , you dont get it , do you ? Jinnah-Gandhi discussion may be relevant on chowk or in a classroom or madrassa in Lahore/Karachi . In the rest of the world , nobody has even heard of a guy called `Jinnah`. Gandhi on the other hand , is universally famous and popular.

A better duel for Jinnah would be with Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan - also called `Frontier Gandhi`. He is perhaps the only Pakistani Indians love and respect. A great man and a great leader of the brave tribesmen of the north-west frontiers , who despite being muslims , voted to join a secular India rather than Jinnah`s Islamic Pakistan in 1947.....and ultimately paid the price for it - unjustly denied their right to determine their own future and later, humiliated and incarcerated by Jinnah`s henchmen.

#591
Being a Hindu, whom Jinnah had no time or space for, Jinnah was never a viable choice.

Besides I think Indian poor people are equal to well-off Indians in importance as humans and do not deserve to be pushed out of sight and mind - I am grateful for the extent that Gandhi`s clothing choice gave them some visibility.

Godot : ``Gandhi was a failed lawyer, was disgusting, a racist, not to mention butt ugly.``

Still...Gandhi was the only guy who mobilised hundreds of millions of poor , underprivileged Indians in the quest for freedom. Was heralded by a certain Albert Einstein as the `greatest man ever to walk on the face of the earth`. An inspiration to Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jnr. One of the most famous and respected and loved human beings in the history of planet earth....

Not bad for a failed lawyer , considered disgusting , racist and butt ugly...

guddu:

arrey, i apologize if my sarcasm wasn`t effective enough. :)

Re: # 596

ana -

kaam ki baat? On Jinnah-Gandhi discussion? Which planet are you from?

yahaaN koi kaam ki baat bhi ho rahi hai, or are y`all trying to break a record?!

Re: # 593

I meant ``Character,`` with a capital C.

Re: # 592

Talking about characters, read My Sahib

Re: # 591

you mean in character, isn`t? or clothing? or both?

Re: # 587

Follow the leader you relate to!!!

Re: # 586

i meant just a plastic, worn out ruler, nothing more. sorry to disappoint you.

580

we were looking at the aspects that manto was ranting about.

manto was given explanations and gandhi was debated but manto being manto, has nothing much to say. hes like an adamant kid who closes his eyes and ears and keeps repeating what he believes in.
manto still hasn`t answered a few of my queries and his sidekick, Behram is missing in action since yesterday.

if you have something nasty about gandhi please let me know i would too like to read on that.

Re: # 585

these goras have too much money to waste on the pigeons, in our countries even humans cannot relieve comfortably :)

er two nation theory
Many Indians respect Gandhi for not wearing a coat and trousers and instead wearing the clothes of a typical poor Indian. Many Pakistanis have contempt for Gandhi for not wearing a coat and trousers and instead wearing the clothes of a typical poor Indian.

Re: # 584

``based on 337 are you calling jinnah a 3-foot ruler?``

I never thought you were that bright. Thank you for proving me right!

Re: # 581

``many have seen his statutes around``

I know, they`re meant for the pigeons to relieve themselves comfortably!