Do you like Mahatma Gandhi?

[F.O.X]

^^^^
What a bull!! But I don't blame you because history has been taught to you that way..

Jinnah was a lawyer brought to the front by muslim landlords and industrialists who were scared that they will never be able to compete Hindu Baniya Industrialists in Independent India. He was only representing their concern and getting a separate country was last of his wishes. Pakistan formed because Cabinet mission plan failed to get acceptance which caused jitters to the Muslim league ego and hence the call for the fight on the streets was made by Jinnah. So you please throw that devotion piece aside as all that happened was pure business and politics nothing else..


About Gandhi - I don't like him but believe me he is the reason that we have more than 140 million Muslims in India. He was killed because he wanted some 55 crores to be given to Pakistan which many nationalists didn't like.. so yes he was assassined but for helping Pakistan..

the Bold part of your post is the answer to your post.

if you say We know the wrong history , then Read some books not by a Pakistani Author but by your own .

in every book you will see who tried to reconcile & who Tried for power instead of sharing.

 

[Bhairava]

Best quote of Mahatma Gandhi An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Not relevant to today's world.

Today's maxim - An eye for an eye saves your other eye from being blinded too.

the Bold part of your post is the answer to your post.

if you say We know the wrong history , then Read some books not by a Pakistani Author but by your own .

in every book you will see who tried to reconcile & who Tried for power instead of sharing.

I dont know what history book you are reading..but AFAIK Jinnah had two phases in his life - the secular, modern, conciliatory,united India liking Jinnah vs the divisive, inflammatory, cunning, machiavellian one.

 

[Developereo]

This moto is only suitable for the strong

I agree that this concept of nonviolent resistance is a sham promoted by the establishment because they are scared sh*tless of the consequences if the downtrodden should start demanding their rights by force.

Nonviolent resistance is only a sideshow; the results can almost always be attributed to other causes.

In the case of Gandhi, as noted above, all the colonial powers were vacating their colonies anyway.

In South Africa, Desmond Tutu would have achieved nothing were it not for the global media's campaign to put pressure on the apartheid government.

Finally, in the US, MLK was over-hyped by the mainstream media as a safer and nonthreatening alternative to Malcolm X and others because the white establishment wanted to channel black anger into safer avenues. MLK actually achieved nothing; it was the white-dominated media that built pressure onto the establishment, and LBJ who formulated the important legislation.

 

[jbond197]

the Bold part of your post is the answer to your post.

if you say We know the wrong history , then Read some books not by a Pakistani Author but by your own .

in every book you will see who tried to reconcile & who Tried for power instead of sharing.

Dude, I am not implying anywhere that Jinnah did not try to reconcile and his agreement to Cabinet Mission plan was his last ditch effort to keep the entity emerging out of British India as united. But the point is, he agreed to cabinet mission plan as it appeared to be safeguarding interests of those who he was representing (by keeping loose central control over states) . But Congress always wanted a strong centre which was not possible with Cabinet mission plan hence they rejected it. So in all it was conflict of ideologies and I don't think that decision was based on religious hatred or something.

And nothing I have said is wrong, after all there is a reason why land reforms never happened in Pakistan and it happened in India a few years after independence.

 

[F.O.X]

Not relevant to today's world.

I dont know what history book you are reading..but AFAIK Jinnah had two phases in his life - the secular, modern, conciliatory,united India liking Jinnah vs the divisive, inflammatory, cunning, machiavellian one.

Jinnah was in congress first , why do you think he was there ? Why do you this he did not joined Muslim League as soon as it established ? he tried his best to make sure India does not separate but Muslims get their deserving Power share , It was only the attitude of indian Leader Namely , Gandhi & Nehru that changed his views . he knew what will happen if we started living together .

Even today his insight was Right , Look what Happened in Gujrat ? What is Happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir ?

Name one person who is Muslim & is in any Decision Making positing in Indian ? and i am not talking about Figurative Leaders with no Authority .

If you dont believe the history Look at the present , the Clues are in front of you , but if you choose to ignore them then you are just like the pigeon who closes his eyes shut in hopes of every thing is Right .


To Me India was going to get its Independence anyway if not in 1947 then may be 2 years later but British would have left eventually , so Gandhi technically did nothing that would make him a Great leader.

He Never Defeated British , He could not even Stop Jinnah.

So yes Gandhi is just a hype created by Indians to give them a source of inspiration.
a Leader loved by people is not assassinated by them .

 

[Jackdaws]

you like him? or like like him??


thats not myth, it s the truth and the proof is that you are not a British subject

I do not understand the question.

 

[oFFbEAT]

OK.....first of all my forefathers served in INA. Netaji not died in 1945 he resided in Tamilnadu especially in Ramanathapuram district under the supervision of Pasumpon muthuramaliga thevar.He stayed till 1960 in TN then he moved to China. I think you are frm Tamilnadu just watch documentary regarding this in Makkal TV if have a chance. If you think I am fool go ahead.

Your forefathers served in INA????

I highly doubt that.....

I even doubt that you are an Indian......just look at your post below.....

HAHAAA great joke.......We knw lot abt Netaji than any others in India/world . If you think I am fool go ahead.

Who are "WE" here????

You claim that you know better than any Indian.....so you confirm that you are not an Indian....

Indians may be divided in opinion about Gandhiji......BUT they all have same respect for Netaji....

 

[manofwar]

So yes Gandhi is just a hype created by Indians to give them a source of inspiration.
a Leader loved by people is not assassinated by them .

I would like tell you that Nelson Mandela, Luther Martin King Jr., Aung San Suu Kyi, Dalai Lama and millions of South Africans, African-American will whole heartedly disagree wit you..

 

[oFFbEAT]

Ramanathapuram was a INA belt once have u knw tat? so ur point is INA family people lying. Its difficult to argue with fools like you. Have an nice day dear. end of discussions case closed.

It seems that, we have to re-write history based on what some non-Indians in a village have to say....

From your posts....it seems that, INA was real 'pain in the a**' for your 'British foot licking' forefathers

 

[Bhairava]

First of all I think you got me wrongly for a person who wants a United India...No..not at all..as they say,,"over my dead body". I consider Partition as a long overdue detox of "my" land and I thank anyone responsible for it, heartily.

Having cleared that about myself let me come to your post -

Even today his insight was Right , Look what Happened in Gujrat ? What is Happening in Indian Occupied Kashmir ?
.

The single fact nearly 50% of the Muslims rejected his clarion call in '47 says volumes about his "vision". He was nothing but a front for the educated Lakhnavi, Bihari elite and the Punjabi landlords who thought that they will lose their importance in a United India and being afraid of competing in a straight forward way used the divisive agenda of religion to get a country for themselves to rule.

And yeah we are seeing the insight everyday in Pakistan..din Karachi..in Balochistan..in KP..in GB..dont get me started on that..

He Never Defeated British , He could not even Stop Jinnah.

If by the words "he could not even stop Jinnah" you meant, he could not stop Partition...then I thank Lord Almighty that he failed in that.

United India would have been a bigger disaster than anybody could have imagined.

 

[ashokdeiva]

It seems that, we have to re-write history based on what some non-Indians in a village have to say....

I don't think he is not an INDIAN, but an attention seeking INDIAN, with a massive inferiority complex that he has to live today quoting his forEfather as a comrade of the INA just to seek the attention of other bloggers here.

 

[oFFbEAT]

I don't like him for one and only one thing, that he was also one among the other Congress fools who signed the Agrement that if Subash Chandra Boss was caught post Independance, they will hand over him to the British.
Boss was more patriotic than any other leaders of that time.

This proves that, Gandhiji was so desperate to mask the failure of his "non-violent movement" that he was ready to do anything.....even turning his fellow compatriot into the hands of the enemy, against whom thay both were fighting......

Knowing this, the British milked him as much as possible.....and the result is, division of India......

Netaji's views might have been diffetent....BUT he was not Gandhiji's enemy afterall....

I would like to ask one question to the admirers of Gandhiji.......

Which freedom fighter would agree to hand over his fellow freedom fighter into the hands of the common enemy????

 

[anonymus]

When people say whether they like gandhi or not ,they frame the question in term of religion,bhagat singh, partition and harijans.

These questions in my opinion are fringe.

The more central would be his core beliefs and the effect they would have had on India,the best source of which would come from his book hind swaraj.

In nutshell,

He hated machines and modernity.

He wanted gram sabhas and municipalities not individuals to be the basic building block of democracy.This is the most dangerous part of his political philosophy.If allowed to be implemented it would have resulted in a situation where instead of individual people voting for MP,they would have been elected by Gram sabha.It would have lead to a situation where parliament would have become assembly of khaps.This is what that @$$hole anna hazare is demanding.

A gem of a saying: An eye for an eye make world blind.
another one:If someone slaps you turn another cheek.

Let me put this in perspective.
Imagine you are a farmer.A local goon comes and take away half of your produce.What should you do?

Give him another half of your produce also and turn another cheek or take up a sychte and chop off his head?

Gandhi's philosophy is a refuge of coward.It abrogates the responsibility of an individual to resist evil behaviour and is workable only against enemies have inherent good in them ie you were never needed to use it against them.And even if it works you will still be a self-righteous douchebag Pu$$y.

 

[Developereo]

When people say whether they like gandhi or not ,they frame the question in term of religion,bhagat singh, partition and harijans.

I just like him for his humanity and the fact that he genuinely cared for ordinary people of the subcontinent. Whether his solutions were workable or not is another matter.

 

[anonymus]

I just like him for his humanity and the fact that he genuinely cared for ordinary people of the subcontinent. Whether his solutions were workable or not is another matter.

Yes, But his vision would have turned those same people into zombie slaves.