Why was Gandhi killed?

[Guynextdoor2]

Holy Moly. Gandhi sidelined Bose when he was still in India and WW2 had not even started. Get back to the timeline.
I am from Kashmir and there was NOT one Kashmiri in the freedom struggle(worth mentioning).

Bose shifted from the German theater to the Japanese theater in 1943. He knew Germans were losing and switched off Madagascar from a German submarine to a Japanese one. The Indian forces in Germany were part of the Indische Legion aka Infanterie Regiment Nr.950 later transferred to the Waffen SS. The forces in Malaya were organized into the Azad Hind.

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Gandhi considered Bose a volatile person bent on using the congress organization to further kooky ideas. That's why he get Bose off the top. Bose's later alliance with the Germans probably proved his judgement right.

You know what?
If I had to rank the factors that led to India's independence then
1) World War II- It had a profound effect on the British economy.Britain left not only India but many other countries around the same time like Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952.
2) Netaji - INA
3) Gandhiji.

In short we were destined to get independence in 1947...

Just a humble reminder : you did not give your opinion on my acquaintance's theory

We were not 'destined' to get anything. All the commissions on the self-rule question indicated that Brits had absolutely no intention of conceding it, even during the round table conference they decided to play the hindu/ muslim card to show how their administration mattered. As I also pointed out to Sarthak, as late as 1945 Churchill had sent John Keyenes to Bretton woods with a schematic of the world order where Britains colonies, including the exclusive rights to trade were maintained.

You wanna know how independence was gained? It was not by protests and dharnas (tthey too were important), but by building a parallel government where people went, without recognizing the british governments. You go to 'National Schools' and Colleges, go to Panchayats instead of British Courts, you make sure that people who work for British govt pay a heavy price- their families are boycotted, no shop near a policeman's house will sell him any food, no one will marry your daughter and so on. That is what erodes their power, and that is what the independence movement finally achieved. Quit India movement destroyed their institutions and demolished their administration- no one obeyed their laws, once people filled the jails their criminal system collapsed- jail a 1000, another 2000 will be on the streets tomorrow-your jails are full what will you do? The policemen you deployed to control the crowds can't feed their families so they stop coming to work. This is how independence was gained. Bose's army that would 'invade India' and remove the Brits was not needed, and would probably have created more problems than solutions.

 

[Levina]

You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Gandhi considered Bose a volatile person bent on using the congress organization to further kooky ideas. That's why he get Bose off the top. Bose's later alliance with the Germans probably proved his judgement right.



We were not 'destined' to get anything. All the commissions on the self-rule question indicated that Brits had absolutely no intention of conceding it, even during the round table conference they decided to play the hindu/ muslim card to show how their administration mattered. As I also pointed out to Sarthak, as late as 1945 Churchill had sent John Keyenes to Bretton woods with a schematic of the world order where Britains colonies, including the exclusive rights to trade were maintained.

You wanna know how independence was gained? It was not by protests and dharnas (tthey too were important), but by building a parallel government where people went, without recognizing the british governments. You go to 'National Schools' and Colleges, go to Panchayats instead of British Courts, you make sure that people who work for British govt pay a heavy price- their families are boycotted, no shop near a policeman's house will sell him any food, no one will marry your daughter and so on. That is what erodes their power, and that is what the independence movement finally achieved. Quit India movement destroyed their institutions and demolished their administration- no one obeyed their laws, once people filled the jails their criminal system collapsed- jail a 1000, another 2000 will be on the streets tomorrow-your jails are full what will you do? The policemen you deployed to control the crowds can't feed their families so they stop coming to work. This is how independence was gained. Bose's army that would 'invade India' and remove the Brits was not needed, and would probably have created more problems than solutions.

Ohhhwwww
so all the other countries I mentioned must also have had their versions of Mahatma Gandhi isnt it???

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Ohhhwwww
so all the other countries I mentioned must also have had their versions of Mahatma Gandhi isnt it???

No small contribution from him. Like I said, it was Gandhi who made Independence inevitable and it set off a domino effect- they had no choice.

 

[Levina]

No small contribution from him. Like I said, it was Gandhi who made Independence inevitable and it set off a domino effect- they had no choice.

I disagree...
It's the damages suffered during wwII which gave India, Jodan, Palestiniane, SL and Myanmar its freedom.
And then ofcourse Netaji's and INA.
Gandhiji's satyagraha had lil impact on Britishers, albeit it united Indians.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I disagree...
It's the damages suffered during wwII which gave India, Jodan, Palestiniane, SL and Myanmar its freedom.
And then ofcourse Netaji's and INA.
Gandhiji's satyagraha had lil impact on Britishers, albeit it united Indians.

Netaji's INA was a small force of 50 K strong (compared to the bigger players). Plus Brits did retain some of it's crown jewels like Hong Kong and Faulklands for long. Even in the case of piddly Portugal we had to invade Goa, shows how much a colonial power is ready to hold to its colonies.

 

[Levina]

Netaji's INA was a small force of 50 K strong (compared to the bigger players). Plus Brits did retain some of it's crown jewels like Hong Kong and Faulklands for long. Even in the case of piddly Portugal we had to invade Goa, shows how much a colonial power is ready to hold to its colonies.

And what did MK Gandhi achieve??
A divided India???

 

[Guynextdoor2]

And what did MK Gandhi achieve??
A divided India???

So you think a divied india is a problem? Fair enough, Hindu Mahasabha also wanted a united India, nice idea but their thoughts were to keep muslims under the bootheels of their workers. Do you think that is fair? MK Gandhi stood for the only fair solution possible- a united India where both relegions lived together on equal terms. Hindu right wing alienated that idea and Jinnah's popularity soared. The way the right talks about it Jinnah was some piddly nobody, he has his flaws, especially a lack of historical imagination, but make no mistake- he was the leader of millions and when the call had to be taken, he took it. When you wak abot MK Gandhi, you are assuming that Jinnah is some nobody whose influence can be 'schemed' away. That would never have worked.

 

[doppelganger]

Lol. The British empire was scared of the INA? And the size of the INA was 2.5 mil?
Where do you get your "information" from?

Do feel free to read my posts again. I distinctly remember one clearly mentioning the BIA, which after the war rose as one in support of their countrymen of the INA, refusing to let them be tried and hung.

Bose ignited that spark. Militarily the INA failed. Politically it achieved what a weak Gandhi never could.

Most sources put the BIA at a 2 million strong "volunteer" army. You and me both know why the "volunteer" bit is in quotes .....

50K was what remained of the INA.

Gandhi was a joke. Someone the British knew exactly how to handle and humor and string along.

2.5 million battle hardened armed men in no mood to be strung along anymore were not a joke. They rang the death knell of the Empire.

You clearly buy into the glorious uncle Slim, evil Japanese cannibals western propaganda. Not really interested in wasting my time helping you see the light by educating you. Read more.

 

[axisofevil]

Do feel free to read my posts again. I distinctly remember one clearly mentioning the BIA, which after the war rose as one in support of their countrymen of the INA, refusing to let them be tried and hung.

Bose ignited that spark. Militarily the INA failed. Politically it achieved what a weak Gandhi never could.

Most sources put the BIA at a 2 million strong "volunteer" army. You and me both know why the "volunteer" bit is in quotes .....

50K was what remained of the INA.

Gandhi was a joke. Someone the British knew exactly how to handle and humor and string along.

2.5 million battle hardened armed men in no mood to be strung along anymore were not a joke. They rang the death knell of the Empire.

You clearly buy into the glorious uncle Slim, evil Japanese cannibals western propaganda. Not really interested in wasting my time helping you see the light by educating you. Read more.

INA had no chance. Lack of weapons, logisitics and manpower were major issues. If Gandhi had agreed with Bose, we would have beat the British with force and won our freedom. However, Germany and Japan winning would not be in our interest as well.

 

[doppelganger]

INA had no chance. Lack of weapons, logisitics and manpower were major issues. If Gandhi had agreed with Bose, we would have beat the British with force and won our freedom. However, Germany and Japan winning would not be in our interest as well.

The Russians beat the Germans. Not the British.

The Americans beat the Japanese. Not the British.

These two were the ONLY real victors of the world war, and went on to take their rightful place in the new world order as superpowers. Hard fought, well deserved.

The British have run piggy back since then. What did we achieve by helping the British in their fight? Simply put, we saved British lives. We saved the British army. Which won on Indian blood.

If we had refused to fight for the British, the British empire would have died there and then.

Sure some say the Japanese would have come in, and been more brutal than the British ever were.

But the Japanese were defeated. They were already spread thin by their China campaign. An Indian occupation would have been logistically near impossible. And this was before the Americans would have come in.

 

[Prajapati]

I hope people realize that Gandh was the LAST leader for our Independence struggle, NOT the FIRST.

The Last one gets the credit for the hard work of generations of leaders before him. Gandhi is Tall because he stood on the shoulders of Giants.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Gandhi during and after Partition was almost like a criminal -
Noakhali riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - See his 'Peace Mission'. Read yourself. From any source.

Some glorious quotes from the Father of the Nation -
“I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. … You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain.”

“I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore.”

"Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence."

"They (Hindus) should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers".

"I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another"

'I would, in a sense certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if he waged a war against the British government.' - (Inviting the Afghan ruler to invade and conquer India, re-establishing Islamic rule)

'The Hindus have written to me complaining that I was responsible for unifying and awakening the Mussalmans and giving prestige to the Moulvis which they never had before. Now that the Khilafat question is over the awakened Mussalmans have proclaimed a kind of Jehad against the Hindus... The tales that are reported from Bengal of outrages upon Hindu women are the most disquieting if they are even half-true. My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies... But as a Hindu, I am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying.'

'The Moplah rebels are a brave, God-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they considered religious.'

'....Even if Musalmans refuse to make approaches and even if the Hindus of Kohat may have to lose their all, I should still say that they must not think of returning to Kohat till there is complete reconciliation between them and the Musalmans, and until they feel that they are able to live at peace with the latter without the protection of the British bayonet. This is a counsel of perfection. I can tender no other advice. For me, it is the only practical advice I can give. Hindus in Kohat were not nationalists. They want to return not as nationalists but for the purpose of regaining their possessions.'

'Sometimes Muslims kidnap a woman and make her embrace Islam. I do not understand how, in this manner, she can become a Muslim. She does not know the Koran. Alas! She knows very little even of her own religion. I cannot understand how she can become a Muslim. ... Our true wealth is not money, land or gold. They can be pillaged. But our true wealth is religion. When we abandon that we can be said to have pillaged our homes. You Hindus are losing much through love of wealth and life.'
Gandhi also almost engineered the Moplah riots - and his paper Congress gave this statement -
'The Working Committee places on record its sense of deep regret over the deeds of violence done by Moplahs in certain areas of Malabar, these deeds being evidence of the fact that there are still people in India who have not understood the message of the Congress and the Central Khilafat Committee, and calls upon every Congress and Khilafat worker to spread the message of non-violence even under the gravest provocation throughout the length and breadth of India.'

Also let's see the great Muhammad Ali said about him -
In 1924, Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi showed such affection said, : "However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." In 1925 he emphasized: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi".

Ambedkar says about Gandhi -
'Gandhi has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shudhi Movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans. The leading Muslims never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs.... This attitude of the Muslims is understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.'

Anne Besant on Gandhi -
'It would be well if Mr. M K Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his 'loved brothers' Muhommad and Shaukat Ali. The Khilafat Raj is established there; on 1 August, 1921, sharp to the date first announced by Gandhi for the beginning of Swaraj and the vanishing of British Rule, a Police Inspector was surrounded by Moplahs, revolting against that Rule. From that date onwards thousands of the forbidden war knives were secretly made and hidden away and on 20 August, the rebellion broke out. Khilafat flags were hoisted on Police Stations and Government Offices. .... Eyes full of appeal, and agonized despair, of hopeless entreaty of helpless anguish, thousands of them camp after camp which I visited. Mr. Gandhi says 'Shameful Inhumanity'. Shameful inhumanity indeed, wrought by the Moplahs, and these are the victims saved from extermination by British and Indian Swords. For be it remembered the Moplahs began the whole horrible business; the Government intervened to save their victims and these thousands have been saved. Mr. Gandhi would have hostilities suspended so that the Moplahs may swoop down on the refugee camps and finish their work! - Mahatma Gandhi was least concerned about the Hindu victims of Moplah violence in Malabar at that time.'

'Words fail to express my feelings of indignation and abhorrence which I experienced when I came to know of an instance of rape, committed by the rebels under Chembrasseri Thangal. A respectable Nair lady at Melathur was stripped naked by the rebels in the presence of her husband and brothers who were made to stand close by with their hands tied behind. When they shut their eyes in abhorrence, they were compelled at the point of a sword to open their eyes and witness the rape committed by the brute in their presence. I loathe even to write of such a mean action. This instance of rape was communicated to me by one of her brothers confidentially. There are several instances of such mean atrocities which are not revealed by people....'

'Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India. How sympathy with the Moplahs is felt by the Muslims outside Malabar has been proved by the defence raised by them for their fellow believers and by Mr. Gandhi himself who has stated that the Moplah rebels had acted as they believed that their religion taught them to act. I feel that this is true; but there is no place in a civilized land for people who drive away out of the country those like Hindus who refuse to apostatize for their time honoured and ancestral faiths.'
Gandhi was a criminal and insulted Sri Raam when he took the name.

 

[Indo-guy]

I have wondered if Godse gets so many sympathisers because Gandhi ji had a soft corners for muslims?
At the same time I feel Gandhi is unfairly idiolized....Netaji still remains my hero. (oops! )

I do not think that Gandhiji had soft corner for muslims . It is true that he tried to reach out to them . and it is also true that he tried lot of concessions for them so they will not feel treated differently . He did that to the dalits and harijans also . We have to nderstand Gadhiji's policies towards Muslims through prism of the then socio -political situation .
The seeds of communa dichotomy between Hindus and muslims were already sown by British after 1857 .

Hindus and muslims united in First war of Independence which had deep impact over British policies towards Indians . In order to prevent th e repeat of such situation they decided to create a permanent rift within Hindus and muslims . Although Bengal partition that happened in 1905 was done under grpuse of administrative reasons . It's main reason was as above mentioned . and it succeededexceedingly well . Muslims had been given separate voting representation long time back . The Hindu -Muslim politoical discord is British gift !
They attempted to advance their intentions further by offering same to the dalits . It was fierce stand takenby Gandhiji whi culminatedin Ambedakr -Gadhiji accord which prevented further disintegration of Indian nation along these lines .

British lost their largest colony in 17'th century that was america . By turn of the 19'th century erstwhile America had emerged as one of the powers that UK was forced to give equal staus and infact UK wasforced to seek its help .
British did not want the repeat of History - large nation such as India could pose same danger . Indian independence was a forgone conclusion - it was only matter of time and British had long thought of the situation . as a result plan to divide India along communal lines was well thought and planned in advance . British wanted to leave weak India divided along multiple lines.

This is how seeds for partition of India were right before Gandhiji even arrived on political scene in India .

Gandhiji singlehandedly prevented further disintegration of Indian society by forcing Dr Ambedkar to give up demad for separate constituency for millions of dalits on lines of separate constituencies for muslims .
Gandhi could not bridge the Hindu -muslim division because the process hadbegun to early . He did his best to stretch hindus to reach out to muslims . His actions should be seen in this context .

I am not surprised to see so many admirers for Nathuram Godse !
There are so many supporters for OBL even today ..so many for ISIS ...so what ?

number of supporters and admirers does not prove much beyond certain point .

Nehru, Gandhi, Netaji , Tilak, Lala LajpatRai, Maulana Zad etc werte all giants .

Each of them had some flaws and failings . we should admire their greatness in light of their failings . I will not compare one hero to another . because it is very much like comparing apples to oranges ...or roses to Jasmines ...

 

[Levina]

Nehru, Gandhi, Netaji , Tilak, Lala LajpatRai, Maulana Zad etc werte all giants .

Each of them had some flaws and failings . we should admire their greatness in light of their failings . I will not compare one hero to another . because it is very much like comparing apples to oranges ...or roses to Jasmines ...

Yes I agree they were all behemoths in their own right.
And yes we should stop comparing 'em.
May be my line of thinking aligns with what Netaji had said and done ergo I call him a hero.
MK Gandhi and his non violent ways of protesting definitely has many followers around the world, but Netaji was never given the credit he deserved is what I felt.

Rgds