Was Gandhi a saint or sexual predator?

[crankthatskunk]

I think you're just jealous of a world renowned figure.(Maybe because he belongs to India?) Anyway, you can continue hating him and calling him worst human being lol.

hehehe. I just cannot take smile of my face reading comments from the Indians. It takes lots of stupidity to be so rigid in your mind and thinking. Even if the evidence stare in their face, they still deny it.

Gandhi lived in South Africa for over two decades, from 1893 to 1914, working as a lawyer and fighting for the rights of Indians—and only Indians. To him, as he expressed quite plainly, black South Africans were barely human. He referred to them using the derogatory South African slur k__affir. He lamented that Indians were considered "little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa." In 1903, he declared that the "white race in South Africa should be the predominating race."

Try telling a Black South African or any Black African for that matter that calling them "barely human", "Kaffirs" "lamenting that Indians treated little better, if at all, than savages or the Native of Africa", "White Race in South Africa should be predominating race" is kosher.

 

[Gadkari]

Try telling a Black South African or any Black African for that matter that calling them "barely human", "Kaffirs" "lamenting that Indians treated little better, if at all, than savages or the Native of Africa", "White Race in South Africa should be predominating race" is kosher.

Back then he was a young man in his early 20's just back from Racist London and into an even more Racist South Africa.

So his racist overview is quite understandable. His evolution over time is what made him into an icon.

Gandhi is inspiration to many many many frauds who claim to be great people and sleep with vulnerable women.
Gandhi's life is like text book to them...

To be fair many of those women were quite proud to sleep with Gandhi. Such is the nature of "Fame".

Its only much later regret creeps in along with depression.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Try telling a Black South African or any Black African for that matter that calling them "barely human", "Kaffirs" "lamenting that Indians treated little better, if at all, than savages or the Native of Africa", "White Race in South Africa should be predominating race" is kosher.

I know about these accusations of him but he was very young at that time.

This is @Krptonite's post from another thread. I hope people read this.

"The father of our nation would prefer if we defended his ideals rather than his person.

He was a man, with his own faults. He grew as he experienced what was thrust upon him and through that journey he developed his creed. A unique one unmatched by anything else before it, for that he will always have our respect and admiration.

The negatives of a person do not impinge upon his positive attributes, only their effects do. The contributions he made will not be diminished by those who oppose him. Mahatma Gandhi doesn't need defending on the internet so long as we practice his ideals in real life."

 

[crankthatskunk]

Those who need to understand why Gandhi had been "built up" by the British, should read this two paragraphs from a book written by two South Africans of "Indian descent" .

1- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi marshalled a group of mostly South African–born Indian 1 stretcher-bearers and marched into the war zone to support fallen British troops. Gandhi saw the war as an opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty to Empire.
2- Even with ample evidence of mounting contempt towards Indians by the new British overlords of South Africa, when the Zulus rose up against crippling taxes in Natal in 1906, Gandhi marched once again to war as a stretcher-bearer of Empire.

It continues, the following paragraph rips apart of the false narrative and persona built for Gandhi of non-violence and a man who stood against the British. He was indeed a pawn and agent of British Empire.

There were almost no British casualties. As artillery met assegai, three thousand five hundred Zulu were killed, seven thousand huts were burnt, and thirty thousand people were left homeless (Guy 2006: 170). Gandhi and his coolie Ambulance Corps carried the injured of the marauding white colonial militia and tended the bodies of the native victims of British retribution. At the height of this war, Empire Day was celebrated on 24 May 1906 to commemorate the reign of Queen Victoria who had died in 1901. Gandhi used the occasion to reflect on Empire:

As the years roll on, the memory of that noble lady remains as fresh as ever. Her interest in India and its people was intense, and in return, she received the whole-hearted affection of India’s millions.... The great British Empire has not risen to its present proud position by methods of oppression, nor is it possible to hold that position by unfair treatment of its loyal subjects. British Indians have always been most devoted to their Sovereign, and the Empire has lost nothing by including them among its subjects.... We venture to suggest that, if there were more of Queen Victoria’s spirit of enlightenment put into the affairs of the Empire, we should be worthier followers of so great an Empire-builder (IO: 26 May 1906; CWMG 5: 228).

Despite Gandhi's own writings, the Indians would still deny it.

 

[Old School]

Gandhi was a passive agressive lumpen who later also became an imperialist puppet. He was the first western funded NGO in the sub- continent.

 

[Gadkari]

Those who need to understand why Gandhi had been "built up" by the British, should read this two paragraphs from a book written by two South Africans of "Indian descent" .

In SA, Gandhi saw himself as a British citizen and was fighting for "equal rights" for Indians as a british citizen.

He wanted to prove his loyalty and make a solid case for equal rights.

He was Naive.

In any case , I don't think the British wanted to "built up" ANY Indian.

But they certainly did not find Gandhi dangerous enough to send to "KaalaPani" unlike other seriously dangerous freedom fighters.

 

[Gadkari]

Gandhi was a passive agressive lumpen who later also became an imperialist puppet. He was the first western funded NGO in the sub- continent.

He was funded by the Birlas.

It would be fair to call him a friend of "Crony capitalism".

Which is why Sarojini Naidu, then president of the Indian National Congress, famously remarked about Gandhi that "it costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty."

 

[crankthatskunk]

In SA, Gandhi saw himself as a British citizen and was fighting for "equal rights" for Indians as a british citizen.

He wanted to prove his loyalty and make a solid case for equal rights.

He was Naive.

In any case , I don't think the British wanted to "built up" ANY Indian.

But they certainly did not find Gandhi dangerous enough to send to "KaalaPani" unlike other seriously dangerous freedom fighters.

Oh for heaven sake. Stop it.

What kind of man would say "don't treat Indians as blacks" to fight for "Equal rights" for Indians, as you put it!!

Like I said, Indians would always be hypocrites of greatest order, period.

 

[Gadkari]

Oh for heaven sake. Stop it.

What kind of man would say "don't treat Indians as blacks" to fight for "Equal rights" for Indians, as you put it!!

Like I said, Indians would always be hypocrites of greatest order, period.

Like I said, he was fighting for INDIAN RIGHTS in SA.

Not for Black rights.

He wanted the British to treat Indians the same as White citizens. Back then did not see the blacks as equal.

In fact, till Ambedkar came around, Gandhi did not even find anything wrong with dalits.

Like I said, he was all too human and had to fight his own prejudices and social programming all through his life. But he DID FIGHT. and that is what makes him a hero. (for better or for worse).

 

[Sharma Ji]

Chatur baniya

bilkul

chalaak lomdi too.

 

[Gadkari]

bilkul

chalaak lomdi too.

He needed to be one to outfox the british and inspire popular belief and courage.

People talk about "Savarkar mercy petition" but funnily no one mentions the "Gandhi mercy petitions".

This is what Gandhiji wrote in Young India dated 26-5-1920 (Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol 20; Page 368). Gandhi

“Thanks to the action of the Government of India and the Provincial Governments, many of those who were undergoing imprisonment at the time have received the benefit of the Royal clemency. But there are some notable ‘political offenders’ who have not yet been discharged. Among these I count the Savarkar brothers. They are political offenders in the same sense as men, for instance, who have been discharged in the Punjab. And yet these two brothers have not received their liberty although five months have gone by after the publication of the Proclamation,”

“The other brother (Veer Savarkar) was born in 1884, and is better known for his career in London. His sensational attempt to escape the custody of the police and his jumping through a porthole in French waters, are still fresh in the public mind. He was educated at the Fergusson College, finished off in London and became a barrister. He is the author of the proscribed history of the Sepoy Revolt of 1857. He was tried in 1910, and received the same sentence as his brother on 24th December, 1910. He was charged also in 1911 with abetment of murder. No act of violence was proved against him either. He too is married, had a son in 1909. His wife is still alive.”

“Both these brothers have declared their political opinions and both have stated that they do not entertain any revolutionary ideas and that if they were set free they would like to work under the Reforms Act (Government of India Act, 1919), for they consider that the Reforms enable one to work there under so as to achieve political responsibility for India.”

“What is more, I think, it may be safely stated that the cult of violence has, at the present moment, no following in India. Now the only reason for still further restricting the liberty of the two brothers can be ‘danger to public safety’, for the Viceroy has been charged by His Majesty to exercise the Royal clemency to political offenders in the fullest manner which in his judgment is compatible with public safety,”

“I hold therefore that unless there is absolute proof that the discharge of the two brothers who have already suffered long enough terms of imprisonment, who have lost considerably in body-weight and who have declared their political opinions, can be proved to be a danger to the State, the Viceroy is bound to give them their liberty. The obligation to discharge them, on the one condition of public safety being fulfilled, is, in the Viceroy’s political capacity, just as imperative as it was for the Judges in their judicial capacity to impose on the two brothers the minimum penalty allowed by law. If they are to be kept under detention any longer, a full statement justifying it is due to the public,”

“This case is no better and no worse than that of Bhai Parmanand who, thanks to the Punjab Government, has after a long term of imprisonment received his discharge. Nor need his case be distinguished from that of the Savarkar brothers in the sense that Bhai Parmanand pleaded absolute innocence. So far as the Government are concerned, all were alike guilty because all were convicted. And the Royal clemency is due not merely to doubtful cases but equally to all cases of offences proved up to the hilt. The conditions are that the offence must be political and the exercise of Royal clemency should not, in the opinion of the Viceroy, endanger public safety. There is no question about the brothers being political offenders. And so far the public are aware there is no danger to public safety. In answer to a question in the Viceregal Council in connection with such cases the reply given was that they were under consideration. But their brother has received from the Bombay Government a reply to the effect that no further memorials regarding them will be received and Mr. Montagu has stated in the House of Commons that in the opinion of the Government of India they cannot be released. The case however cannot be so easily shelved. The public are entitled to know the precise grounds upon which the liberty of the brothers is being restrained in spite of the Royal Proclamation which to them is as good as a royal charter having the force of law,”

 

[crankthatskunk]

Like I said, he was fighting for INDIAN RIGHTS in SA.

Not for Black rights.

He wanted the British to treat Indians the same as White citizens. Back then did not see the blacks as equal.

In fact, till Ambedkar came around, Gandhi did not even find anything wrong with dalits.

Like I said, he was all too human and had to fight his own prejudices and social programming all through his life. But he DID FIGHT. and that is what makes him a hero. (for better or for worse).

I did say to you to stop. But being an Indian, you have no limits of ................... I can add as many superlatives as I want in the dotted space.

“A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 193

The champion of "Equal Rights" for Indians is calling other human beings as "Savages" and "Kaffir", just because they are black Africans. Only Indians would call it just struggle for "Equal Rights". Where not all humans are equal.

This is from the writings of Gandhi himself, right from the horse's mouth.
Now I awaits for the Indians to call it a propaganda against Gandhi.

Yeah, it is propaganda against Gandhi.
By

Gandhi himself.

 

[Gadkari]

I did say to you to stop. But being an Indian, you have no limits of ................... I can add as many superlatives in the dotted space.

“A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 193

This is from the writings of Gandhi himself, right from the horse's mouth.
Now I awaits for the Indians to call it a propaganda against Gandhi.

Yeah, it is propaganda against Gandhi.
By

Gandhi himself.

I am aware of what he wrote and have read the originals more than once.

Which is why I said he fought for INDIAN RIGHTS and not for BLACK rights. He did not see the blacks as equals when he was young in SA.

 

[crankthatskunk]

I am aware of what he wrote and have read the originals more than once.

Which is why I said he fought for INDIAN RIGHTS and not for BLACK rights. He did not see the blacks as equals when he was young in SA.

Good. So what do you call such man!!

 

[Gadkari]

Good. So what do you call such man!!

I call him Gandhi. Maybe even Mahatma Gandhi since it was what Rabindranath Tagore called him and that name stuck.

I certainly don't call him a "saint". I call him a shrewd politician and someone who knew the heart and soul of India.