Yes Thiru. I read about this a few months back. The Assassination part - I dont remember, but what I remember is, it was rejected continuously based on the fact that, many a times his actions led to blood shed in the form of Hindu-muslim riots. So though he was against violence, his actions resulted in violence and hence he didnt get the noble peace prize.
whereas the common men thro out the world and even in england viewed him as a saint the politician who were at the receiving end of his ahimsa and nonviolent methods often resented him. churchill and jinnah though his strategy was a put on show meant to discredit the majority who depended on other methods. in fact in retrospect some of gandhis actions were sure shot political strategies to show his enemies in extremely bad light.
he went the extra mile running a show of good ness which eventually triumphs over evil his salt sathyagraha was a typical example. salt had been taxed from roman times. but he challenged it for the first time in history.
'perhaps' the nobel comitee stocked with war weary europeans saw in gandhi a shrewd politician rather than an apostle of peace. perhaps if alfred nobel himself had been on the deciding comitee of the prize that was named after him things would have been different.
Venkat, I agree with you on the last point - that Alfred Nobel being on the commitee would have changed things. I am not sure at all about other issues. Whom do we learn about Gandhi from - a racist bigot like Churchill or hypocrite/religious fundamentalist like Jinnah? Surely one has to qualify even to comment on Gandhi.
Whatever we like or do not like about Gandhi, nobody can really question his integrity or purity of intent, or putting it differently perhaps - nobody came close to that degree of integrity as Einstein said. In truth Gandhi had no 'enemies' he only opposed in principle what they did - he did not oppose the tax on salt per se, he opposed the fact that the British held monopoly to selling tax, not paying that tax was a criminal offence and tax was available for free, the poorest of the poor only eat fish or rice with salt which could not be possible if they had to pay for it.
Gandhi's actions lead to violence and bloodshed, well perhaps. Perhaps if Gandhi had been a saint like Ramakrishna or Gautama Buddha he could have just practised his principles spiritually and there would have been no bloodshed. But then there would have been no Martin Luther Kings or Mandelas either.
The point we can award the British for essentialy is their sense of fairness which was an important part of why Gandhi's principles worked against them. Whether Gandhi would be effective against Hitler or Bin Laden is questionable, although the deep rooted principle of non violence and compassion is essentially something that will sustain over time and inspire millions, as it still is with Dalai Lama. Gandhi does not just deserve Nobel prize for that, He deserves every credit the universe can possibly provide even several years after his death.
> Venkat, I agree with you on the last point - that Alfred Nobel being on the commitee would have changed things. I am not sure at all about other issues. Whom do we learn about Gandhi from - a racist bigot like Churchill or hypocrite/religious fundamentalist like Jinnah? Surely one has to qualify even to comment on Gandhi.
surely Malathi
the point was that gandhi was a politician with lofty personal purity. that irked most. and his non violent methods did prove effective against the british well. to rephrase your words 'he chose his weapons wisely.'
whereas mandela or aung san suyki gets a nobel for fighting for freedom in gandhian methods i guess it was a bit too early for the world not to see him as 'only a' freedom fighter. venketesh
> > Whatever we like or do not like about Gandhi, nobody can really question his integrity or purity of intent, or putting it differently perhaps - nobody came close to that degree of integrity as Einstein said. In truth Gandhi had no 'enemies' he only opposed in principle what they did - he did not oppose the tax on salt per se, he opposed the fact that the British held monopoly to selling tax, not paying that tax was a criminal offence and tax was available for free, the poorest of the poor only eat fish or rice with salt which could not be possible if they had to pay for it. > > Gandhi's actions lead to violence and bloodshed, well perhaps. Perhaps if Gandhi had been a saint like Ramakrishna or Gautama Buddha he could have just practised his principles spiritually and there would have been no bloodshed. But then there would have been no Martin Luther Kings or Mandelas either. > > The point we can award the British for essentialy is their sense of fairness which was an important part of why Gandhi's principles worked against them. Whether Gandhi would be effective against Hitler or Bin Laden is questionable, although the deep rooted principle of non violence and compassion is essentially something that will sustain over time and inspire millions, as it still is with Dalai Lama. Gandhi does not just deserve Nobel prize for that, He deserves every credit the universe can possibly provide even several years after his death. > > Malathi >
But we also know GANDHI is such a huge " concept " (though the name ttself a burden as you mentioned in ealier occasion) the Whites find difficult to recognise and reconcile.
There was a mail some time back in the group. what we know about Veera pandiya kattabomman from the film is different from the actuals. He had been paying the tax to British for some time.
In the same way what we learn about Gandhi from the text books or film is different from the actuals.
Due to Gandhi-Nehru's lopsided policy of appeasing minoriies, even now the country is facing problems and good part of our energy is spent on solving communal disputes/riots
Yes. He has also overshadowed contribution from many freedom fighters; and his adamence is responsible for many of today's ills especially - communal politics. Jinna wanted to establish a theacratic state and Gandhi wanted him to become India's PM. Less said the better; this issue will also open up a intemperate debate.
Sampath, Gandhi was not a good politician, it is a fact admitted to by several people including his grandson. Saints or in other words very principled people do not make good politicians. There are many tibetans who feel that way about the Dalai Lama now.
He grossly misjudged Jinnah and tried to over compromise. Granted. As far as overshadowing other freedom fighters I think that is silly and happens everywhere.
Public opinion and credit always goes with what is prominent, unless you can prove someone did something intentionaly to keep others down (like MGR did in movies).
Good that everyone are in same line of thought. Though some actions of Gandhi backfired, it takes super human effort to make such decisions and gandhi alone could do it. No one can match gandhi...
During my college days, when I read 'Freedom at Midnight' and was lamenting about Gandhi and his greatness, people around me started teasing me by name 'pseudo gandhi' for fun. (till date some of my friends call me by that name). I think everyone who even tries to understand gandhi (like me) will be impressed by his character.
If someone is saying that gandhi should be awarded a Noble prize, I would say they have not understood his values. As most of the group members say, he deserves more than that. Its something like Indian cinema fighting for Oscar. As Kamal used to say, Oscar is for English movies and Indian movies competing to get one do not make sense.
Hi Gandhiji has deliberately tried to pin down Netaji because he was becoming very popular in the congress. He saw him as potential threat to Nehru, who would toe the line of Gandhiji, but not Bose. He openly supported Pattabhi Seetharamiya in one of the Congess presidential elections against Bose (he was supposed tobe a neutral player). Inspite of that Netaji won the elections hands down and Gandhiji declared that 'Pattabhi's defeat is my defeat'. Netaji promptly resigned as the congress president which finally led to his quitting the INC and starting the Forward Bloc. Even Gandhiji was not an exception to favouritism and oppurtunistic politics.
Lol Satish, ennappa neenga, ellaam correcta sollittu do you have to end with another kamal blooper? Oscars *do* have a foreign film category and many films do qualify. The indian films nominated were mother india, lagaan and water. Water was made in Canada though, not strictly an indian nomination.
I have seen many *dumb* east european and chinese movies win oscars!! Some are really good too like 'wonderful life' the italian movie a few years ago that was widely televised. In fact there were even reviews in AV and magazines that Kamal would have played the lead better than the italian actor!
Anyway, completely outside the subject. Right on with Gandhi.
There are many forums where pro and anti Gandhi groups exchange passionate postings. This is not the place for such discussions.
One thing can be said: India would have got the freedom without Gandhi; both internal and external environments were favourable for India's freedom from foreign yoke.
But without RRC, the big temple would not have been built.
I am sorry Sampath, that is a very ungrateful thing to say for someone who gave his life towards a bigger cause and perhaps the only human being who never held an office and yet had his funeral attended by dignitaries the world over. Gandhi's impact was not just the freedom struggle it is world over, the principle of non violence and passive resistance is too valuable to be throw under the foot as nothing.
I dont' have any problem discussing Gandhi but we do so with respect - say I don't understand this and that of what he did. Fine. But to say we could have done it without him is downright ungrateful and simplistic. Simply because you cannot rewrite history to see what it would have been without any major figure.We could have had software without Bill Gates (poor poor Steve Jobs), we could have had someone else invent theory of relativity if Einstein did not (because Einsteins personal life sucked you know so toss him aside as well), we could have had tamil cinema without Sivaji and MGR (oh well you they dominated and suppressed so many others so who cares)..where do we stop with this?
Also dont know which part of the world you live in but to most people foreigners India is still Gandhi and Gandhi is India. It would be best to discuss with respect, and not trivialise what he did even if you do not agree.
Yes Sampath, i completely agree with what Malathi's views are. It would never have been possible to get freedom without Gandhi. To my knowledge Britishers were very versatile in doing Divide and Rule. The mandatory quality to break it was a disciplined and selfless person to bring mass together with the aligned motto. Only Gandhi was able to do it. Ofcourse there were extremist factions who tried the best, which everytime backfired as Britishers had more advanced arms than the factions had.
Unfortunately Britishers were dumb and helpless in front of Ahimsa were they had no arms up against and had to abide by our rules. Only because of Gandhi we were able to make it.
As malathi rightly said, let us not go into Pros and Cons of Gandhi, but accept the reality.
He infact gave a very true definition to what heights a human can go by selfless service and still give the universal meaning to his actions, instead of leaving the meaning to individual's interpretation.
P.S: ONE MORE SMALL REQUEST, A FEW DAYS BACK I HAD REQUESTED THE GROUP TO HELP ME WITH THE LINK TO DOWNLOAD KALKI's PARTHIBAN KANAVU, AS BEING A DIE HARD FAN WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT MOVIE. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE.
May I suggest you keep your replies impersonal without reference to my location or personality. This type of response will derail the topic and will escalate to unwanted areas. Tahanks. Sampath
I disagree. What you has to do with you and your personality, it is not possible to delink the two. I did not attack you I just said what you said sounded ungrateful that is all. And if you live abroad you develop certain perspectives that people living in India don't.
What exactly is wrong with that? Venkat, I am very much hurt and disappointed with your response. I have made my subscription to read from the site and am not sure want to write any more. I hope you don't mind reading what is knowledgable here. If not let me know, no problem.