Posted on 01/22/2007 5:28:30 PM PST by ventanax5
It is something of an anomaly that Gandhi, held in popular myth to be a pure pacifist (a myth which governments of India have always been at great pains to sustain in the belief that it will reflect credit on India itself, and to which the present movie adheres slavishly), was until fifty not ill-disposed to war at all. As I have already noted, in three wars, no sooner had the bugles sounded than Gandhi not only gave his support, but was clamoring for arms. To form new regiments! To fight! To destroy the enemies of the empire! Regular Indian army units fought in both the Boer War and World War I, but this was not enough for Gandhi. He wanted to raise new troops, even, in the case of the Boer and Kaffir Wars, from the tiny Indian colony in South Africa. British military authorities thought it not really worth the trouble to train such a small body of Indians as soldiers, and were even resistant to training them as an auxiliary medical corps ("stretcher bearers"), but finally yielded to Gandhi's relentless importuning. As first instructed, the Indian Volunteer Corps was not supposed actually to go into combat, but Gandhi, adamant, led his Indian volunteers into the thick of battle. When the British commanding officer was mortally wounded during an engagement in the Kaffir War, Gandhi--though his corps' deputy commander--carried the officer's stretcher himself from the battlefield and for miles over the sun-baked veldt. The British empire's War Medal did not have its name for nothing, and it was generally earned.
(Excerpt) Read more at history.eserver.org ...
Isn't that the guy who ran a gas station? (According to the Hildabeast)
Given his comments on the Jews of nazi Europe, it seems that he was more than willing to let someone else die as pacifists.
That isn't to say that the Indians didn't benefit to some degree from the Empire, or that India has successfully translated Gandhi's ideals into reality. But Indian independence was achieved relatively bloodlessly, thanks in no small part to his leadership.
This story is also deceptive. Gandhi's service was as a non-combatant and he was never an advocate of violence. This story presents Gandhi as a dutiful servant of King and Country.
Ghandi was a sick puppy, obsessed with bowel movements and sleeping with underage, nude girls. He's another example of the media looking the other way.
Read the book The Gandhi Nobody Knows by Richard Grenier (1983) who says "Little do people know about his sheer disregard for his family amid his soaring popularity ."
"SOCIAL LIFE: Little do people know (ok, people in the know know of this one) of his sleeping with pretty teenage girl followers in the buff in the "ashram" who cuddled the nude septuagenarian in their arms. Pretext: he was 'testing' his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah. Meanwhile, his daily morning greeting to his women followers in the morning was "Have you had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?" There's lots more.
I hate to "clast" icons, but he was a sick puppy. Not quite sure I'd want him as a role model or leader figure.
According to Gandhi's own wife, he tried sex once, and it made him physically ill. He never attempted it again.
"Do you really think that a Hindu holy man was diddling nubile teenie girls with the whole world looking on?"
Yes, I do believe it. Most lefty icons have terrible track records highlighted very much by hypocrasy and deliberately hidden by the media.
I'm not sure why Gandhi should be considered a "lefty icon," but you're right, most of them are utter hypocrites and liars. I don't know that Gandhi is any different, but I'd like to believe so.
You're free to believe what you want.
Your ignorance of Indian history is breathtaking. Between 600,000 and 1,000,000 Indians were slaughtered in a matter of months before, during, and after Partition, in large part due to the Partition. Gandhi did nothing to hasten the day that India attained independence, but bowed to the Muslim League’s demand that India be torn in two, which is the reason Pakistan exists today instead of a united India.
Learn your history.
Gandhi not only hastened Indian independence from Britain, he was one of the staunchest opponents of partition, because he foresaw exactly the bloodbath that came to pass. You can hardly blame Jenna's obstinacy on Gandhi, especially when you understand that Gandhi was not the elected representative to the National Congress; Nehru was. The blood from partition is on his and Muhammed Ali Jenna's hands.
One of us needs to learn history, and it ain't me, bro.
You are WRONG! It is YOU who needs to learn your history, not me...Gandhi did nothing to hasten Indian independence. NOTHING! The Indian National Congress was under the spell of Gandhi, whose core convictions “in the innermost recesses of my heart” changed from day to day.
I hold Gandhi personally responsible for the butchery of Partition. The blood of a million people is on his hands.
India won independence in 1947, followed by the
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, and partition of India. Gandhi
said, “Before partitioning India, my body will have to be
cut into two pieces.” About one million people died in the
bloody riots until partition was reluctantly asserted by
Gandhi as the only way to stop the Civil War. He urged the
Congress Party to accept partition, and launched his last
“fast-into-death” campaign in Delhi, calling for a stop to
all violence. Gandhi also called to give Pakistan the
550,000,000 rupees in honor of the partition agreement. He
tried to prevent instability and anger against India.
from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003987/bio
Gandhi did nothing to hasten Indian independence whatsoever, and according to V.S. Naipal, was so erratic and counterproductive to the independence movement, that he probably delayed Indian independence by about 20 years.
By the way, it’s Muhammad Ali Jinnah, not Jennah. And don’t call me “bro”.
Oh, no less an authority than VS Naipal, whoever the hell HE is ... Gandhi served as the nonviolent conscience of Indian independence, and forced the British to relinquish their stranglehold over the subcontinent without a shot being fired (at least in formal revolution). What Indian sects did after independence was not on Gandhi's hands. In fact, he fasted nearly to death to quell the ridiculous internecine squabbling that led to Muslim versus Hindu versus Sikh. He "conceded" to the National Congress only because he had no electoral authority, and Jenna's Muslims would have started a civil war otherwise.
By the way, it’s Muhammad Ali Jinnah, not Jennah.
By the way, it's V.S. Naipaul, not Naipal.
And don’t call me “bro”.
I thought it would be more polite than "idiot."
Good catch on spelling of V.S. Naipaul.
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.
Go ahead and worship Gandhi if you want to, you will have plenty of company, but I won’t join you.
Sic Semper Tyrannus!
Rule Britannia!
I believe in state autonomy. On the other hand, thousands, possibly millions of citizens of Hong Kong would give anything to still be waking up every morning to the sight of the Union Jack flying overhead. I watched the tears roll down their cheeks as God Save the Queen was played for the final time there on June 30, 1997.
I don't recall asking you to.
Bump to the top.
I printed out this 20 page article and finished reading it a couple of weeks ago. I read every single word. I highly recommend it.
In my opinion, Gandhi was a loathesome, despicable, evil man in every way. He is not someone to honor by putting his picture on the Indian money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.