Gazzi, I came across your post on religion and I just wanted to explain that buddhism believes that desire in something impermanent causes suffering. Something that has causes or conditions is impermanent. The reason you suffer when you desire something impermanent is that it dies (or changes if it is not a being). Desire for nirvana is wholesome and reliable because nirvana is believed to be uncaused. Nirvana is to be understood to be a realization of your true unconditioned nature. Which you already have. Read the heart sutra (very short) and you can see that buddhism does not believe that there is anything to attain. Which is not to say that we are all Buddhas, because we are trying to grasp after impermanent things which causes us to suffer.
Gandhi is the one that supported the British effort in World War one, and packed off thousands to the war effort to be used as cannon-fodder. Behold the pacifist that sent thousands to kill millions. And he is the one that supported the British in World War 2 and encouraged the Indians to support the British war, thus perpetuating the colonial rule in the Subcontinent and supporting the Empire.
The Nobel Prize rejected the Gandhi nomination because of this war mongering. Why Mohandas Gandhi didn’t win the Nobel Peace prize?
* In his report, Professor Worm-Müller expressed his own doubts as to whether Gandhi’s ideals were meant to be universal or primarily Indian: “One might say that it is significant that his well-known struggle in South Africa was on behalf of the Indians only, and not of the blacks whose living conditions were even worse.“
* Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. …(Mohandas K. Gandhi, Spetember 27th, 1947)
* sharp turns in his policies, which can hardly be satisfactorily explained by his followers. (… He is a freedom fighter and a dictator. Professor Jacob Worm-Müller, who wrote a report on Gandhi
* he Nobel Committee adviser referred to … critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror. This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in 1920-1921, e.g. when a crowd in Chauri Chaura, the United Provinces, attacked a police station, killed many of the policemen and then set fire to the police station.
Behold 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.
Behold Sergeant-Major Gandhi who supported the British during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. Behold the “ahimsa” racist who did not support the Africans in their efforts to get freedoms from the British.
It was Gandhi who worked to stratify the society in South Africa, Whites, Indians and Blacks based on the Hindu Caste system.
For an unsuspecting Westerner, the reading of Gandhi as he is portrayed on these shelves can bring about the intended result. That is understandable.
GANDHI ON NON-VIOLENCE
During a prayer speech: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)
To the British during WWII: “This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if
you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)
In 1906 a Zulu rebellion against British rule took place in the colony of Natal. His alleged pacifist ideals notwithstanding, Gandhi joined up with the British forces and became an ambulance stretcher bearer, helping to suppress the Black rebellion, known as the Bambetta Uprising.
In his memoirs of the campaign to help the British defeat the Blacks, Gandhi wrote of how he saw a "Kaffir who did not wear the loyal badge" - i.e. A Zulu who was not loyal to the British and who had taken part in the uprising against the White British colonial rule.
"As we were struggling along, we met a Kaffir who did not wear the loyal badge. He was armed with an assegai and was hiding himself. However, we safely rejoined the troops on the further hill, whilst they were sweeping with their carbines the bushes below."
Gandhi also remarked on how unreliable these 'loyal' Blacks were, writing that:
"The Natives in our hands proved to be most unreliable and obstinate. Without constant attention, they would as soon have dropped the wounded man as not, and they seemed to bestow no care on their suffering countryman."
The most poignant line in Gandhi's Zulu war memoirs is however this one, which exposes his alleged pacifism as a hoax:
"However, at about 12 o'clock we finished the day's journey, with no Kaffirs to fight."
Contrary to the liberal myth, Gandhi never once tried to help anybody else but Indians, and even then, only upper casts Indians at that. He consistently sought a special position for his people which would be separated from and superior to that of the Blacks.
A good example came when the British colony of Natal took active steps to ensure that the Indians in that colony were deprived of the vote. 'The Franchise Amendment Bill' introduced in 1896, prohibited Indians from registering for the vote, while allowing those already on the rolls to remain.
Within a few years, this eliminated the Indian as a voting factor in Natal, and it was this law which caused the Indian merchants to ask Gandhi to stay in South Africa, and around it was established the Natal Indian Congress, the first Indian political organisation in South Africa.
One of the first achievements of the Natal Indian Congress - which Gandhi established - was the creation of a third separate entrance to the Durban Post Office. The first was for Whites, but previously Indians had to share the second with the Blacks. The third entrance - for Indians alone - satisfied Gandhi.
OK, I did want to move on to Gandhi's life whilst in India but this point seems to be twisted again by Gandhi supporters about he things are taken out of context.
With regards to Black people who Gandhi reffered to as "Kaffirs" whilst in Prison:
His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” Also, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136) - Mar. 7, 1908
Please don't try and sugar coat things. He was as far I can be see from research into him a racist in his early years which cannot just be ignored. Afterall, his supporters have cherry picked what they want the world to know about him. I bet not many members in this forum knew about what I have highlighted here in this thread.
I am here for a fair and honest discussion and would love to here counter points to the issues I have raised to back up my conclusion. The thread is named "the true face of mahatma Gandhi" and I will discuss him here in depth. I am not here to insult or abuse anyone.
If people here do not like what I say then the problem is not with me but with Gandhi whom I am quoting. Clearly if these issues cause concern now to people then clearly there is a huge fault in the person who made them.....Gandhi, not me
“This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man.”(Reference: G.D. Birla’s “In the Shadow of the Mahatma”, p. 276)
And during a prayer: “If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against
the British.” – June 16, 1947 (Reference: Gandhi’s “The Last Phase”, Vol II, p. 326)
Yes he was a man of peace alright.
You spoke about Nelson Mandela honouring Gandhi, read the below report from the US Congress:
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.
When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi’s anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,” said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables’ of India.”
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,” occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India’s rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India’s constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.
Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.” In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?
In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.
Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.
India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.
Mr. Speaker, reporter Rory Carroll of The Guardian wrote an excellent article on the controversy about the Gandhi statue. I would like to place it in the Record at this time.
Much more to follow as many menbers of this forum may or may not have known the facts about Gandhi and this must be bought forward for all to know