15 Jul 05
2 edits
Edit: those smilies inserted themselves in the just the right place I tell you.That's a fair bit of homework you've given me...I'm reading...
Double Edit: By the way, Black Lung, while I'm wading through this stuff, could you make a statement of your own for me to contest? Just tell me in so many words what makes him a prick for you, personally.
in the meantime this might amuse you (from a discussion of the film Ghandi)
I cannot honestly say I had any reasonable expectation that the film would show
scenes of Gandhi's pretty teenage girl followers fighting "hysterically" (the
word was used) for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the
nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was "testing" his vow of chastity in
order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When told
there was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention,
Gandhi might actually be *enjoying* the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi
continued, unperturbed. Nor, frankly, did I expect to see Gandhi giving daily
enemas to all the young girls in his ashrams (his daily greeting was, "Have you
had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?"đ, nor see the girls giving him
*his* daily enema. Although Gandhi seems to have written less about home rule
for India than he did about enemas, and excrement, and latrine cleaning ("The
bathroom is a temple. It should be so clean and inviting that anyone would enjoy
eating there"đ, I confess such scenes might pose problems for a Western
director.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by Black LungI can't think where to start about this article. It is so full of half-truths and opinion , interpreatations .
1st reference, more on the way.
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html
1."Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. "
Well in the beginning Gandhi supported the empire as he feared the anarchy which a collapse might trigger .He certainly did not worship it.He fought for more representation and power for Indian in the Government apparatus and slow translation to self-rule. However the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre changed his view that he went for a sort of direct action policy with his "Quit India " movement and before the "non-cooperation movement
2)" his apathy with regard to the Indian "lower castes", India's indigenous population,"
Actually Gandhi was one of the only leader who could reach out to all the common masses.He had performed various sathyagrahas to allow the lower castes right to enter temples.He fought against discrimination of lower castes. This was the reason the people of India regardless of the complex caste tribe equations followed him in contrast to leaders before him.
3) "During the `Kaffir Wars' in South Africa he was a regular Gunga Din, who volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down the Zulu uprising and was decorated himself for valor under fire."
This was one of those half-truths I was speaking about. He and his brigade of Indians were non-combatants . There were there as medics .He felt that as part of the british empire even though he might not agree with its principles he had to help it in its need . He also beleived in the british policy of fair play and it was only later that he was disillusioned with it.
He strove to modify the existing system from inside rather than establish a new government by violent uprising.
4. " Gandhi was once thrown out of a train compartment which was reserved exclusively for the Whites. It was not that Gandhi was fighting on behalf of the local Africans that he broke the rule in getting into a Whites' compartment. No! that was not the reason. Gandhi was so furious that he and his merchant caste Indians (Banias) were treated on par with the local Africans. This is the real reason for his fighting race discrimination in South Africa, and he had absolutely no concern about the pitiable way the Africans were treated by the Whites"
No where was it that Gandhi was anti-african. It seems to be the writer's conjecture.Certainly he fought for the rights of the Indian community in
Africa and not for the rights of the black .But he also did not fight against whale- hunting , nazism ,communism and zillion issues in the world . But because he did not fight for the africans does it mean he is ant-african?.
If you want to understand Gandhi read from some neutral reputable sources.The author of the article seems to be pained by Hinduism and seems to be clubbing the ills in Hinduism with Gandhi .
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell I have to go to Hindu caste system for this .The Hindus are divided into 4 castes
That author seems hell bent on discrediting Ghandi. I wonder what axe he has to grind.
1. The Brahmins who are the priest class who perform the priestly duties and interpret the vedas the" holy texts"
2. Kshatriyas are the warrior caste
3. Vaishyas the trader class
4 Shudras the servant class
Now in the beginning the caste system was flexible you could jump from one caste to another but later it became fixed and the lower castes and their progency had to stay that way.
Now Gandhi and many of leaders of early India were from the Brahmin class . While Ambedkar was the only person from the lower castes. Now there is a great anti-bhramin feeling among some sections of the society due to ill treatment of past time .So leaders like Gandhi are discredited and Ambedkar is supposedly the only true leader.
Most of the site and its links are written with this propaganda in mind.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo you misunderstood me ,Ambedkar and all the great leaders of freedom struggle were dead. But now there is a sort of vote bank politics going on by some political parties. Like for example a Samajawadhi party claims to represent view points of dalits( a sort of lower castes ) and Muslims .On the opposite end of spectrum is the B.J.P an upper caste party,Then the communist parties ;the atheists etc. It has a become a trend that whenever a lower caste party gets power it renames every airport , important road by Ambedkar's name. These party and some of their propaganda writers are responsible for those articles written .If you read those articles you can see almost all of them are written by some Indians.
So it's reasonable to say that Ambedkar is not an impartial source of information on Ghandi?
Ambedkar was a great leader but there is no sense in denouncing other leaders just because of caste. Actually caste system would have been meaningless right now in India if it was not for those political parties trying for vote-bank politics and their system of giving reservation in jobs and eductional institutes to whomever they claim to represent.
15 Jul 05
OK, I see more clearly now. I must say Ambedkar is a new name to me.
Is Black Lung's link a creditable source of information on Ghandi, or do you think it is politically biased?
Are you Indian or of Indian descent? Can you tell me what Indians view as Ghandi's most positive achievement was, broadly speaking?
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by druidraviExcellent post . Rec'ed . (Thank you)
I can't think where to start about this article. It is so full of half-truths and opinion , interpreatations .
[b]1."Gandhi, for the major part of his life, worshipped British imperialism and too often proudly proclaimed himself a lover of the Empire. "
Well in the beginning Gandhi supported the empire as he feared the anarchy which a coll ...[text shortened]... ticle seems to be pained by Hinduism and seems to be clubbing the ills in Hinduism with Gandhi .[/b]
