What do people of Pakistan think about Gandhi

[Raja.Pakistani]

How, in your opinion did we become independent ?

You did became independent mostly because of aftermath effect of WW1, WW2 on british Raj as these world wars had bad impact on their economy and there was civil unrest so queen started to leave these countries under british Raj one b one in systematic manner

 

[nForce]

You did became independent mostly because of aftermath effect of WW1, WW2 on british Raj as these world wars had bad impact on their economy and there was civil unrest so queen started to leave these countries under british Raj one b one in systematic manner

1. If ww2 emptied the treasury then that's all the more reason to stay back in India, isn't it ? That's why they had come to India in first place.

2. If what you are saying is correct, then why didn't the British leave other commonwealth countries ? A whole lot is there which got their independence in the 60s and some in the 70s.
Bahamas, Bahrain, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, UAE, Yemen, Kenya (they used ground attack fighters against rebels in Kenya) etc. etc.. a lot many more are there..

3. Who do you think was creating the civil disobedience ?

Hint : Civil disobedience
Salt March
Quit India

 

[my2cents]

I don't want to comment based on the little knowledge I have about that person as I don't want to start a troll fest here, but I'll say that Gandhi was not what he was/is purported to be.

Very diplomatic post!

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

1. If ww2 emptied the treasury then that's all the more reason to stay back in India, isn't it ? That's why they had come to India in first place.

2. If what you are saying is correct, then why didn't the British leave other commonwealth countries ? A whole lot is there which got their independence in the 60s and some in the 70s.
Bahamas, Bahrain, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, UAE, Yemen, Kenya (they used ground attack fighters against rebels in Kenya) etc. etc.. a lot many more are there..

3. Who do you think was creating the civil disobedience ?

Hint : Civil disobedience
Salt March
Quit India

Credit should be given to Hitler for independence of India. Read this

Hitler, NOT Gandhi Was the Reason for the 1947 Indian Independence

• The economic condition of Britain after world war 2 was not very good. The impact was so profound that once a mighty empire, received loan emergency loan of $3.75 billion (not counted as a part of Marshall plan) and $3297 million from 1948-1951. Due to its economic condtion, primarily, British also left Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952. It was not at all in a position to support it military operations in India to crush the independence movement.
• India was no longer a profitable for British. At the end of World War I, India was asked to pay a large sum in order to help Britain repair it's finances but conditions were different from the very start of World War II. By the start of WWII mass taxation became almost impossible. Instead of asking for money British has to pay India for its men and food which India provided during the war. British paid in terms of sterling balances which piled up to huge sum frequently. Thus World War II converted India from a debtor to a creditor with over one billion pounds in sterling balances.
• Britain's strategy of a gradual devolution of power, its representation to Indians through successive constitutional acts and a deliberate 'Indianisation' of the administration, gathered a momentum of its own. As a result, India moved inexorably towards self-government. In fact by the end of World War II there were more Indians in civil services than British.
• The Labour party had a tradition of supporting Indian claims for self-rule, and was elected to power in 1945. George Orwell, one of the greatest literary figures of the 20th century and more of a critic of Gandhi, has raised this question: "On the other hand, this (freedom to India) was done by a Labour government, and it is certain that a Conservative government, especially a government headed by Churchill, would have acted differently. But if, by 1945, there had grown up in Britain a large body of opinion sympathetic to Indian independence, how far was this due to Gandhi's personal influence?".
• Hitler declared war against the English in Europe and its ally, Japan, in the East. British were defeated in Burma and Singapore and imperial army was soon at Indian borders. Hence British has to expand Indian army. As a result of fast expansion, this army was not fully indoctrinated in the essence of the value of the British Raj. At about this time Subash Chandra Bose began to appeal to the soldiers Indian army to desert and join him in his "Delhi Chalo" mission. Though very few percent of Indian soldiers changed side but this was enough to spark the thought that army is not reliable. Hence after the war the British put the INA officers on trial in the Red fort which spread unrest in the army. At about the same time there was a mutiny in Indian Royal Navy. It was evident to them that the basic instrument that once helped them rule is no longer reliable.
• With US foreign policy pressurising the end of western imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gained its freedom. US was the main ally of Britain in the war and helping it post war time also.

 

[nForce]

Credit should be given to Hitler for independence of India. Read this

Hitler, NOT Gandhi Was the Reason for the 1947 Indian Independence

• The economic condition of Britain after world war 2 was not very good. The impact was so profound that once a mighty empire, received loan emergency loan of $3.75 billion (not counted as a part of Marshall plan) and $3297 million from 1948-1951. Due to its economic condtion, primarily, British also left Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952. It was not at all in a position to support it military operations in India to crush the independence movement.
• India was no longer a profitable for British. At the end of World War I, India was asked to pay a large sum in order to help Britain repair it's finances but conditions were different from the very start of World War II. By the start of WWII mass taxation became almost impossible. Instead of asking for money British has to pay India for its men and food which India provided during the war. British paid in terms of sterling balances which piled up to huge sum frequently. Thus World War II converted India from a debtor to a creditor with over one billion pounds in sterling balances.
• Britain's strategy of a gradual devolution of power, its representation to Indians through successive constitutional acts and a deliberate 'Indianisation' of the administration, gathered a momentum of its own. As a result, India moved inexorably towards self-government. In fact by the end of World War II there were more Indians in civil services than British.
• The Labour party had a tradition of supporting Indian claims for self-rule, and was elected to power in 1945. George Orwell, one of the greatest literary figures of the 20th century and more of a critic of Gandhi, has raised this question: "On the other hand, this (freedom to India) was done by a Labour government, and it is certain that a Conservative government, especially a government headed by Churchill, would have acted differently. But if, by 1945, there had grown up in Britain a large body of opinion sympathetic to Indian independence, how far was this due to Gandhi's personal influence?".
• Hitler declared war against the English in Europe and its ally, Japan, in the East. British were defeated in Burma and Singapore and imperial army was soon at Indian borders. Hence British has to expand Indian army. As a result of fast expansion, this army was not fully indoctrinated in the essence of the value of the British Raj. At about this time Subash Chandra Bose began to appeal to the soldiers Indian army to desert and join him in his "Delhi Chalo" mission. Though very few percent of Indian soldiers changed side but this was enough to spark the thought that army is not reliable. Hence after the war the British put the INA officers on trial in the Red fort which spread unrest in the army. At about the same time there was a mutiny in Indian Royal Navy. It was evident to them that the basic instrument that once helped them rule is no longer reliable.
• With US foreign policy pressurising the end of western imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gained its freedom. US was the main ally of Britain in the war and helping it post war time also.

1. If ww2 emptied the treasury then that's all the more reason to stay back in India, isn't it ? That's why they had come to India in first place.

2. If what you are saying is correct, then why didn't the British leave other commonwealth countries ? A whole lot is there which got their independence in the 60s and some in the 70s.
Bahamas, Bahrain, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, UAE, Yemen, Kenya (they used ground attack fighters against rebels in Kenya) etc. etc.. a lot many more are there..

3. Who do you think was creating the civil disobedience ?

Hint : Civil disobedience
Salt March
Quit India

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

@nForce You did not even bother to read it as answer of all your questions are in there

 

[nForce]

@nForce You did not even bother to read it as answer of all your questions are in there

I have gone through it. It cannot be any more far from reality. It would be a crime to believe in such writings. Unfortunately many ignorant people do.

Take this for example :

• India was no longer a profitable for British. At the end of World War I, India was asked to pay a large sum in order to help Britain repair it's finances but conditions were different from the very start of World War II. By the start of WWII mass taxation became almost impossible. Instead of asking for money British has to pay India for its men and food which India provided during the war. British paid in terms of sterling balances which piled up to huge sum frequently. Thus World War II converted India from a debtor to a creditor with over one billion pounds in sterling balances.

The bold part that's the idea the article you have shared is based around..rest is just a verbose layering over that-Why ? had there been a nation-wide famine in India ? Or as if the British cared if there had been one for real. There had been a famine in Bengal in 1943-44. But if you look at the statistics you will find out agricultural production had actually increased even those times.

Another example :

Hitler declared war against the English in Europe and its ally, Japan in the East. British were defeated in Burma and Singapore and imperial army was soon at Indian borders.

Yes, Hitler declared war in Europe and not in South Asia. Japan was an ally not because of common goal, but for common enemy.
Now, if Japan threatens India's eastern borders, why on Earth credit goes to Hitler ?

Another example :

The economic condition of Britain after world war 2 was not very good. The impact was so profound that once a mighty empire, received loan emergency loan of $3.75 billion (not counted as a part of Marshall plan) and $3297 million from 1948-1951. Due to its economic condtion, primarily, British also left Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952. It was not at all in a position to support it military operations in India to crush the independence movement.

1. What your article carefully does not mention is there were a whole lot other countries which became independent in the 60s and 70s. So, why was India the expensive proposition ? The reason is Gandhi.

2. Indian freedom struggle was mainly nonviolent in nature, apart from Bengal. So, why was a military required in the first place ? How many instances do you find in which military was used to crush freedom movement in India ?


This article basically has more hole than a sieve. I thought you understood that and yet posted it just for the sake of argument.

And yes, one more thing. The British did regain control of Burma and Singapore, eventually.

 

[livingdead]

How he gave you freedom? do you believe that those British gave you this freedom because of non violence philosophy of gandhi?

comprehension fail?

 

[My-Analogous]

Don't be fooled by his words..he expelled his son for converting to Islam(of course his son later reverted to Hinduism though)...they were just the words to gain popularity and votes from Muslims...he was the first pseudo secularist in India.

Indian hypocrisy at its best and their ego don't digest and even they are deny their father of nation. By the way he never run for election. You must first read about him and then we discussed.

 

[Spring Onion]

Things are not good between India and Pakistan is an understatement, However one thing we had common in b/w us was our glorious struggle for Independence. Not withstanding the bitterness that was our partition, I think we can look back with a sense of shared reverence for the Freedom Fighters from both sides who sacrificed so much to give us our freedom.

In this respect I am curious about how Gandhi and Bhagat Singh are perceived in Pakistan and I would be welcome views from fellow Indians on Jinnah.

Please note this thread is not intended to give offense and just meant to take stock of respect these freedom fighters gather today with close to 68 years of history behind us.

Regards

First of all common people in Pakistan do not know much about Gandhi but those who know they RESPECT him even in many cases they respect him more than the Indian . This include older generation of Pakistanis who grew in the shadow of independence movement.

Those Pakistanis who are more interested in politics and current affairs and many on forums they indeed know him so among them those who value individuals' personality and abilities irrespective of nationality they respect him a lot ,and those who are staunch anti-India and on a par with safrron brigade well they do not respect him.

The most important thing is Jinnah really respected Gandhi.

As far as Bhagat Singh is concerned well only people in Punjab that too who are interested in history know him and Pakistani literary circles every years hold functions in memory of Bhagat Singh.

The rest of Pakistan does not know him

 

[nForce]

Indian hypocrisy at its best and their ego don't digest and even they are deny their father of nation. By the way he never run for election. You must first read about him and then we discussed.

He had his candidates, for example Pattabhi Sitaramayya or Nehru. You must first know a thing or two before opening your mouth.

 

[denel]

i heard he was racist towards africans... called em "kaffirs" is that true or bs.

this is first time i am hearing of this.

Racial policies ended globally much sooner than SA. Do you think the hostility created by Gandhi amongst the racists contributed to delaying its defeat.

No, it had no bearing. Remember in South Africa, UK had no control on how the affairs were run internally in South Africa unlike in South/North Rhodesia where they had same racial policies which were dismantled prior to independence.

 

[jamahir]

As far as Bhagat Singh is concerned well only people in Punjab that too who are interested in history know him and Pakistani literary circles every years hold functions in memory of Bhagat Singh.

while pakistani progressive circles celebrate shaheed bhagat singh every year, his activism is largely unknown in india and ironical is that the saffron brigade uses his name to project its obscene agenda... bhagat must surely roll in his grave seeing his name used by the same traitors who collaborated whole-sale with the british imperialists.

 

[My-Analogous]

He had his candidates, for example Pattabhi Sitaramayya or Nehru. You must first know a thing or two before opening your mouth.

When this election was held? please enlighten us.

 

[nForce]

When this election was held? please enlighten us.

Let's take the example of this case only.
It was Congress Presidential election of 1939, in the Tripuri session. and Gandhi supported Nehru as Presidential candidate. Nehru, on the other hand, declined and suggested Maulana Azad's name. But Maulana Azad declined too. They had his reasons of course, one of the main reason among them was the person they were up against.
It was then that Gandhi suggested the name of the political leader from Hyderabad region, Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya.

He was pitted against Subhash Chandra Bose. Bose won the elections with significant margin and became the Congress President.