Posted on 06/17/2004 3:24:49 AM PDT by razoroccam
Beware of Gandhi
Mohandas Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi, would have been celebrating his birthday on October 2nd. The American reader may well ask, so what? Read on.
First some background. Gandhi was a practicing attorney in South Africa when racism led him to return to British India around 1915. He immersed himself in efforts to win India’s independence from Britain by non-violent methods. Along the way, he helped emancipate millions suffering under the caste system, and by his conduct exemplified promptness and austerity. He also laid the foundations of socialism and indirectly contributed to the creation of Pakistan.
Lets start with India’s freedom struggle. With terrorism and war on everyone’s minds, doubtlessly there are some who pine for non-violence. However, before we start adopting non-violence as course 101 in military school, we should examine its track record. Except for the civil rights movement in US, non-violence has never worked. One of the biggest misconceptions is that India gained independence because of Mohandas Gandhi. Far from it – it was World War II’s violence that exhausted the British to the point that they could not sustain an empire anymore. India would have become independent, Gandhi or no Gandhi. Even if one were to assume that India obtained independence courtesy Gandhi, consider that it took him 32 years. Contrast that with the five years it took America under Washington’s army to achieve the same goal. Another unappreciated facet is that for non-violence to work, the opponent has to respect it. The British, despite all their colonial faults, did that. Can you imagine how long Mohandas Gandhi would have lasted in front of Hitler, Mao, or Saddam Hussein?
So on Gandhi’s birthday, as we wage a war on terrorism, let us not forget that by and large, non-violence does not work and when it does, it is under special circumstances. The war on terrorism is not one of those special circumstances and we have to be resolute and determined.
Another aspect of Gandhi was his concept of self-sufficiency. His theory was that if Indians made everything themselves, they would not have to import anything from Britain, thus depriving the English of trade and tax revenue. The problem is that no country is completely proficient in goods and services. Free trade allows each country to excel in an aspect and to leverage its expertise. But Gandhi did not see it that way, and his vision was further propagated by his anointed successor, Nehru. India thus embarked on a socialist path after independence. To judge its effect, it would suffice to point out that South Korea, a country that took the capitalistic route, had a per capita income lower than India in 1947. It is eight times that of India today.
So on Gandhi’s birthday, as Americans loose jobs in this global economy and start considering erecting trade barriers, remember India’s failed experiment with economic populism and socialism. Free trade does not mean unequal trade, such as that we have with China that has artificially kept its currency low. Free trade does mean honest and fair trade and we have to enforce all aspects of it.
Finally, let us address the creation of Pakistan. Despite Gandhi’s assertions that British India would be divided over his dead body, the opposite took place. This at the behest of Mohammad Jinnah, the father of Pakistan, and Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India. The former was also a lawyer in India who disagreed with Gandhi’s method and detested the personality cult surrounding him. He was particularly infuriated with Gandhi’s blind affection for Nehru. Jinnah came to the conclusion that the partiality shown to Nehru was due to the fact that Gandhi and Nehru were both Hindus, whereas he, Jinnah, was Muslim. He decided that Muslims could not get fair and equal treatment in largely Hindu India, and that a new Muslim country would have to be created. The rest, as they say, is history.
The American reader should be well aware that India and Pakistan are belligerent nuclear neighbors quite capable of annihilating large portions of each other. With nuclear proliferation and nuclear winter important concepts, surely the reader will appreciate the importance of the dispute between the two countries.
So as we approach the anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, let’s remember his policies and their consequences. And as our own elections approach, let us pay attention to the policies of candidates and stay away from personality cults and false patriotism. After all, eternal vigilance and freedom of expression is the hallmark of democracy.
Author Germs of War (Booksurge.com)
.../sarcasm/humor
If you will read the entire chapter you quoted, you will see it ends with an eloquent explanation of why, despite the dangers inherent to liberty, D'Sousa has concluded America is the best place on earth for him to raise that daughter.
Excellent article. But for God's sake, isn't there anyone left on FR who knows the difference between "loose" and "lose"?
When are people going to realize that this kind of error detracts from their over all message. Spelling counts, and when an author makes an error like this, it discredits the author and therefore the legitimacy of his article.
For the record: L-O-S-E is what heppens when you once had something and no longer do. L-O-O-S-E is what your belt becomes after you L-O-S-E a few pounds.
Please try to be better.
But great article, just the same.
Three points:
My grandfather (who sadly died before I was born) guarded Gandhi. According to my mother my grandfather developed enormous respect for him - the scenes in the Attenborough film showing Gandhi's solicitousness to the squaddies guarding him (a 14 year old Irish immigrant runaway in my grandfather's case) are authentic.
Agree with him or not, Gandhi's response to the question "what do you think about British civilisation" from the adoring press during his 30s visit to london was a classic: "it would be a good idea".
Bose.
I thought people might need reminding that the Indian national movement did have its insurrectionary wing - Bose (my third one word point) backed the Japanese in WWII - bit like Irish ambivalence towards Hitler is the Brit perspective (I know there was a recent thread touching this area).
Personally, I think that much debate regarding the colonial legacy is one-dimensional. I think that it is perfectly possible to recognise that the British (and the Moghuls, come to that) left some things of lasting value but that overall the balance sheet is negative.
India is top of my must visit list - care to recommend a month's schedule? Always liked the look of Kerala myself, but would hate to miss the mountains.
Sure has to be...but I haven't read the book.You seem to know better, and I'd like you to know that I acknowledge that.
Wow! Thanks. I wish there were more true Christian FReepers like you.
Yet as D'Sousa points out, the response was rather hypothetical as his whole strategy depended on the morality of british civilization. Gandhi shamed them into giving India it's independence.
If the civilization was so bad, why does India retain so many british cultural characteristics after fifty years? (D'Sousa's question, not mine)
hypothetical=hypocritical
Forgive me if I defer to D'Sousa who IS Indian, born and raised, and whose credentials are impeccable.
He notes that Indian businessmen still wear western suits to work, even though such attire is wholly inappropriate for the climate.
Come on Woahhs, don't defer to anyone. Use your own head.
By the way, I am as Indian born and raised as Dinesh D, and migrated to the US at the same age as him. And my credentials are just as impeccable as his (in fact more so in degrees and less in publications), so at least I am not going to defer to him. Haven't been as politically active as him, but that is changing.
Regarding dress, as I mentioned, it is the US influence, not British. Indian businessmen dressed in what is called "bush shirts" till the economic liberalization of 1990's and increasing contact with the US. That is when suits started to spring up.
cheers
Please provide details.
I am aware of martyrs, even today, but they would not desribe themselves as pacifists. Where are these pacifist soldiers ?
I always try to ;o) though I don't quite see any intellectual failure on my part in assuming D.D. can speak authoritatively on this subject.
Sorry, I'm not speaking ill, I just learned a whole lot about Ghandi after I kept running into pacifists that also (that's me also) only knew one thing about him. There's a lot more to him than just passive resistance!
I'll go along with some of your "love" talk, but I don't believe that evil can be conquered. Maybe subdued, but it's always there, rising up again. Isn't that the test of men, to overcome their own evil? Heaven wouldn't be much of a reward if it was easy to get in, eh?
I can't believe that Jesus or any other reasonable being would want someone like Saddam in charge of millions, be it people or dollars. I don't think "love" is understood by some in that part of the world, as they've been clearly under evil influences for too long. How can we demonstrate "love" without removing or subduing the evil that exists, especially when that evil is willing to kill us before said message gets out?
The whole love thing with no ambition really breaks down once you pro-create, anyway, and become proud of your offspring. Pride is a sin, is it not?
Maybe we should've all drowned in the last world flood, and saved God and Jesus a pile of trouble.
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.