Gandhi On Jews And Hitler

[Sashan]

It is because of Gandhi's support to the corrupt Nehru that so many Indians are starving, malnourished, and living in slums.

Sardar enjoyed the majority in the Congress party compared with Nehru. Gandhi interfered with that and we saw what happened with the foolish Nehru bringing in Socialism, losing the China war and messing up with Kashmir.

 

[Bang Galore]

Gandhi may have been great in his own way, but his understanding of Indic philosophy was deficient.

For example, the concept of Ahimsa is there in Indic philosophy but its meaning is quite different from Gandhi's (mis)understanding of the term.

Gandhi didn't claim merely following whatever you call Indic philosophy, he was far more open to other ideas which he assimilated to call sathyagraha.

It is because of Gandhi's support to the corrupt Nehru that so many Indians are starving, malnourished, and living in slums.

Standard garbage talk, without Nehru, India would probably not be strong, united,secular state as we see it today.

Sardar enjoyed the majority in the Congress party compared with Nehru. Gandhi interfered with that and we saw what happened with the foolish Nehru bringing in Socialism, losing the China war and messing up with Kashmir.

Not possible. Sardar Patel died in 1950, so he wouldn't have been able to do much to change India's destiny & while he had support,it would be foolish to believe that Nehru didn't command any.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Gandhi didn't claim merely following whatever you call Indic philosophy, he was far more open to other ideas which he assimilated to call sathyagraha.

Well if somebody wants to follow a confused mish-mash of foolish ideas, collected from various quarters, its up to them. But others have every right to critique it. And please don't give it a name like "Satyagraha" lest somebody think that gibberish has anything to do with India.

Standard garbage talk,

Try some logic for a change.

without Nehru, India would probably not be strong, united,secular state as we see it today.

We are a nation in which half the children are malnourished, people have neither enough food nor proper shelter nor education, where hundreds of thousands of farmers are driven to suicide. We are a nation led by a political party which refers to Osama bin Laden as "Osama ji". We are the highest spender in the world on defense imports, with most of the money being looted by our leaders, while the Army is starved for Ammo.

My dear fellow, stop living in delusion.

Sardar enjoyed the majority in the Congress party compared with Nehru. Gandhi interfered with that and we saw what happened with the foolish Nehru bringing in Socialism, losing the China war and messing up with Kashmir.

Gandhi torpedoed not only Patel but also Subhash Chandra Bose. The disastrous results are there for everybody to see.

Nehru started looting with a vengeance early on. His first scam was the jeep import scam, for which he rewarded Krishna Menon with the Defense Minister post. That lead to the 1962 debacle, in which Nehru sent soldiers to fight on the frontier without clothes and equipment.

 

[Sashan]

Not possible. Sardar Patel died in 1950, so he wouldn't have been able to do much to change India's destiny & while he had support,it would be foolish to believe that Nehru didn't command any.

Nehru screwed up the Kashmir problem by taking it to UN in 1948 - Sardar died in 1950. Sardar was against Nehru taking the Kashmir issue to UN. If Sardar was the prime minister it wouldn't have happened. I said Sardar commanded "majority" which would mean Nehru commanded "some". Again Gandhi died in 1948 which would mean by the time Sardar has passed away, who knows there might be someone else taking over from Sardar instead of Nehru(as there was no Gandhi to support this guy) and we would have seen history happened differently instead of Socialism and the army being unprepared for the Chinese aggression or political will would have been there to unleash the airforce against the Chinese.

 

[Bang Galore]

You can crticise all you want but you were the one claiming that Gandhi didn't understand a particular piece of "indic" philosophy, I merely pointed out that he wasn't claiming his as being the same as any other.

As for calling Nehru corrupt, prove it if you can. Plenty of scams during MMS & Vajpayee's terms, no one has yet called the PM's corrupt on that score.

As for Gandhi "torpedoing" anyone, nothing stopped anyone from charting their own course & being successful at it. Their failures to do so can't be laid at Gandhi's door. Funny how every one else's followers wanted Gandhi's support & not having gotten it hold him responsible for their chosen one's failures.

 

[Sashan]

Gandhi torpedoed not only Patel but also Subhash Chandra Bose. The disastrous results are there for everybody to see.

Nehru started looting with a vengeance early on. His first scam was the jeep import scam, for which he rewarded Krishna Menon with the Defense Minister post. That lead to the 1962 debacle, in which Nehru sent soldiers to fight on the frontier without clothes and equipment.

Gandhi supported Pattabhi Seetharamiah against Bose for the Congress Presidentship and he lost. Gandhi disassociated himself from Congress due to that. Again if he had respect for democracy should he have valued the people's opinion? So Gandhi is not flawless as folks here try to depict. Again he made the same mistake with Sardar.

You can crticise all you want but you were the one claiming that Gandhi didn't understand a particular piece of "indic" philosophy, I merely pointed out that he wasn't claiming his as being the same as any other.

As for calling Nehru corrupt, prove it if you can. Plenty of scams during MMS & Vajpayee's terms, no one has yet called the PM's corrupt on that score.

As for Gandhi "torpedoing" anyone, nothing stopped anyone from charting their own course & being successful at it. Their failures to do so can't be laid at Gandhi's door. Funny how every one else's followers wanted Gandhi's support & not having gotten it hold him responsible for their chosen one's failures.

Not sure where are you plucking those words from - No one is calling Nehru corrupt - whether in my posting or anyone's posting here(or I missed it). Instead of calling someone's failures why don't you understand the decency exhibited by that someone?(Sardar in this case).

 

[Bang Galore]

Nehru screwed up the Kashmir problem by taking it to UN in 1948 - Sardar died in 1950. Sardar was against Nehru taking the Kashmir issue to UN. If Sardar was the prime minister it wouldn't have happened. I said Sardar commanded "majority" which would mean Nehru commanded "some". Again Gandhi died in 1948 which would mean by the time Sardar has passed away, who knows there might be someone else taking over from Sardar instead of Nehru(as there was no Gandhi to support this guy) and we would have seen history happened differently instead of Socialism and the army being unprepared for the Chinese aggression.

Except that Sardar Patel was not very interested in Kashmir, if Nehru was not interested there would have been no Kashmir & therefore no problem in the first place. You are however right about the taking to the UN issue, one of Nehru's many bad calls. However in totality, Nehru did far more good than bad. Nehru was an idealist & some of those dreams were bound to fail, however socialism was not discredited then & millions of Indians had not fought so hard only to be slaves of the feudal's which would have been what would have happened had India adopted any other course then. The fact that we are able to make that transition now does not mean we would have been able to do it in 1947. Time for everything.

As I have said before, Gandhi had more clout & more support than anyone else. There is little evidence to suggest that Nehru was less popular than Sardar Patel & again the complaint is that Gandhi did not come down in support of Sardar instead of Nehru, inherent in that, an acknowledgement of Gandhi's popularity. As far as 1950 & Sardar's death that year goes, Nehru would still have been around & would have been still the tallest leader of the party. So, no real change anyways.

 

[Rig Vedic]

As for calling Nehru corrupt, prove it if you can. Plenty of scams during MMS & Vajpayee's terms, no one has yet called the PM's corrupt on that score.

Even Kalmadi and Raja have not been proven to be corrupt.

India almost never convicts anybody for corruption.

Nehru stands on the same pedestal as Kalmadi and Raja.

Except that Sardar Patel was not very interested in Kashmir

Your ignorance is astounding.

Had it not been for Patel there would have been no Kashmir.

Read this interview of Maneckshaw -
'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

 

[pari.mehta]

you should know that it was this precise question that he struggled with most. The utter barbaric nature of the war on the eastern front in the west and the rape of nanking and mass murder of chineses around '37.
His initial position was that of , jews should rush to their own deaths but HIS POSITION EVOLVED( SOMETHING THE MAHASABHA AND MUSLIM LEAGUE FORGET TO MENTION)
It was about this precise topic that he said "My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes"

If any of you who criticize him actually read 'The Story of My Experiments with Truth' it would bring out the scale of the individual and his struggles. No wonder MLK said to understand christ i had to understand gandhi first, and EVERY velvet revolution since had his methods imprinted in them.

To be honest this attempt to demonize him from the extreme Hindu right and the Muslim right is funny because he was the most devout hindu, and frankly more christian than those who killed people in 1919 in punjab and embodied the spirit of islam (killl 1 man kill all mankind type, not the weak ideology that uses hate as a crutch) than some pork and bacon eating law who did the biddings of the UP Bihar nawabs and the british.

 

[shelly]

It is because of Gandhi's support to the corrupt Nehru that so many Indians are starving, malnourished, and living in slums.

it would have been worse, if nehru had not established the institutions. remember that we were completely hollowed out by the muslims and then british. and non one in the west expected india to survive w/o breaking up. credit to the congress on that , i mean the congress from 1900 to 1960

 

[Sashan]

As I have said before, Gandhi had more clout & more support than anyone else. There is little evidence to suggest that Nehru was less popular than Sardar Patel & again the complaint is that Gandhi did not come down in support of Sardar instead of Nehru, inherent in that, an acknowledgement of Gandhi's popularity. As far as 1950 & Sardar's death that year goes, Nehru would still have been around & would have been still the tallest leader of the party. So, no real change anyways.

Gandhi did not command the clout when it came to voting either in 1939 Congress Presidential elections or later. It is because Gandhi felt that Nehru will cause disunity and Sardar being the disciple of Gandhi, it would be easier to pacify Sardar than Nehru and he was right - Sardar was an obedient disciple. If Gandhi had been silent who knows - Nehru would have shown dissent and who knows how history would have turned.

Also let me understand what good he had done which offsets some of his failures I highlighted.

 

[Sashan]

it would have been worse, if nehru had not established the institutions. remember that we were completely hollowed out by the muslims and then british. and non one in the west expected india to survive w/o breaking up. credit to the congress on that , i mean the congress from 1900 to 1960

If not for Nehru we would be a permanent member of the security council as USSR and USA were vying to offer us the security council position(a credible article was published in Washington post though if you google you will come across articles supporting my claim here) when the UN SC was being formed. Nehru, being an idiological fool turned it down and started the Non-Aligned movement. Let me understand what institutions he formed which someone else would not have formed? We inherited the ICS officers which later became IAS who were managing various institutions leftover by the British.

 

[Bang Galore]

Even Kalmadi and Raja have not been proven to be corrupt.

India almost never convicts anybody for corruption.

Nehru stands on the same pedestal as Kalmadi and Raja.



Your ignorance is astounding.

Had it not been for Patel there would have been no Kashmir.

Read this interview of Maneckshaw -
'Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?'

It is your ignorance as well as your reveling in it that is astounding. Even in the conversation mentioned, Patel is asking a question even if a rhetorical one. How would a Kashmir with a muslim majority be of any absolute interest to Sardar Patel when he had problems like Junagadh & Hyderabad? Maybe you should read more before you offer up comments.

Meanwhile, the Sardar had sent a back channel offer to Pakistan to swap Hyderabad for Kashmir. Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan, a Pakistani politician who carried the message, later recorded that rulers in Karachi told him not to worry about the “rocks that would come to Pakistan anyhow”

The horses that led Operation Polo - Indian Express

 

[Rig Vedic]

Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.

I agree Gandhi was not in favour of what he called "cowardly flight". But Gandhi's main point was that being killed without resisting is far better than violence.

To be honest this attempt to demonize him from the extreme Hindu right and the Muslim right is funny because he was the most devout hindu, and frankly more christian than those who killed people in 1919 in punjab and embodied the spirit of islam

The problem is that he was misusing Indic terms like "Ahimsa" and "Satyagraha". His harebrained ideas have nothing to do with Indic traditions. I don't know by what logic he can be called a "devout Hindu" when he clearly did not understand the ABCs of Dharma.

 

[shelly]

It is your ignorance as well as your reveling in it that is astounding. Even in the conversation mentioned, Patel is asking a question even if a rhetorical one. How would a Kashmir with a muslim majority be of any absolute interest to Sardar Patel when he had problems like Junagadh & Hyderabad? Maybe you should read more before you offer up comments.


The horses that led Operation Polo - Indian Express

hyderabd was always india.. all borders within india and 80% hindu population. no way pak could have touched it LOL