reality of Mhatma ... - Page 10

Originally posted by: Pratamesh

if u cant make out the difference between criticism and hater's and m very sorry i cant help u
m nt a gandhi hater i hav given the link in context of the title of the thread which is opened and not to degrade the character of gandhi
he was,is and will be a freedom fighter but i dont agree with the title mahatma given to him,all said thats my view its upto u to agree or not.
If i say nehru was responsible for india's defeat in 1962 not becoz just that he was the PM no one would agree i could well give the facts to u but the large majority of people in india dnt knw that n consider him a great person,same goes with gandhi the facts have been hidden from public preview so how can u debate when people are not able to believe only what is the otherside of the story (i hav given here facts stating that if u hav read earlier posts)

What facts? where? 😕 Stories and and rumours cannot be called facts.Godse's views were his views  not facts. For instance if I hold the view that whoever hits" like" indiscriminately on every post by the OP however non sensical it may be is a hater of Gandhi and not merely a criticiser - then it remains my view and does not become a fact.

Originally posted by: zorrro

What facts? where? [:s]0„2Stories and and rumours cannot be called facts.Godse's views were his0„2views 0„2not0„2facts. For instance if I hold the view that whoever hits" like" indiscriminately on every post by the OP however non sensical it may be is a hater of Gandhi and not merely a criticiser - then it remains my view and does not become a fact.

i dont want to get into a debate about who is a hater or who is a critic coming to the topic abt him being a mahatma or not http://www.imrajeev.com/2009/01/why-godse-killed-gandhi/ here are a few instances how gandhi forced the than government whose PM was nehru to give 50-55 crore to pakistan by sitting on a fast for the same cause when we had more important issues like killing of refugees occuring around border areas is it worth i would ask u?? Secondly what u are saying is their way when u refer to bhagat singh(extremist)is the way which got us freedom and not the ahimsa of gandhi and this is stated by the british PM of the than labour party itself and thats a fact not a rumour i would ask u how could we get independence by non-violent way when gandhi has withdrawn almost every movement which has started due to some reason,it was the mutiny within the british navy and army which was major cause of our freedom and i hope u know gandhi hadnt told them to do it but it was due to sentences being passed against INA member's. Going by gandhi's method v would never get independence, u may also know that gandhi always had a better say in congress and whoever was against his view had to bow or get out from the party but jinnah on other hand was so adamant that he never listened to gandhi and gandhi always bowed to him,take for instance formation of muslim league or equal rights based on religion(same gandhi had opposed dr.ambedkar threatening to go on fast)

Originally posted by: zorrro

I am sure anyone who has tried it knows the futility very well.

If people did not force him to they neither stopped him when they could have.  In hind sight it is very easy to blame anyone.

Every  person acts according to his beliefs. Gandhi did what he felt best at that time and enjoyed the support of the majority of Indians.

Now who said anything about Gandhi gaining from the massacres? That is your own assumption.  What  I meant was to say was that Gandhi does not seem to have had any personal gain in mind when he took up cudgels on behalf of the Indians who were being oppressed under the British regime. Anyone who took on the British at that time did so with a risk factor. Criticising the freedom fighters from the comforts of their home in  Free India sitting  with our laptops  is the easiest thing to do.

If you go through the post that prompted me to make the comparison between a state and India it will be very clear to you. It wasnt just one incident that was cited from a particular state . All examples quoted and the leaders quoted in that post belonged to that particular state thereby conveying a state centric focus. However the later post cleared some of that and I stated so in my earlier post.

I would still like to know your reasons, why you think it is futile.

Blaming/ criticising is always done in hindsight, atleast as far as I'm aware. Please do let me know if someone has devised a method to blame/ criticise a person even before knowing the outcome of his actions.

Whether Gandhi started his movement with selfish/ altruistic motives, how much altruism, how much selfishness, which weighed more heavily, etc. all of them are debatable.
However, it's not his involvement in the freedom movement and his personal motive that is in question at present. If you want, you can debate that as well separately over here or in a new thread. Right now, it's his decisions, his methods and their efficacy that are being scrutinised. Scrutiny and criticism always happens at a later date, whether it's about Gandhi or Gautam Buddha or Alexander. That at present India is free and we have laptops has nothing to do with it. Please do let me know if I'm wrong and if you have established that laptop owners in a free country shouldn't criticise.

I'm quoting Tannistha's post to show the extent of mention of Bengal and a Bengali leader in her post:

Originally posted by: Tannistha

... he did nothing to prevent the atrocities of surahbardi and let bengal suffer, he indulged jinnah and  stoked Ego of Nehru, he marginalised subhas bose and forced  him to give up his right ful position as congress president to satisfy Nehru, else things would have different...

@Bold in your post:
All examples - since when did one example become all examples?
The leaders - since when did one leader become a bunch of leaders? Or do you consider Jinnah and Nehru to be Bengalis?
If I cite the example of Gandhi and the Dandi march, will you say I'm only interested about Gujarat?

I hope you'll agree that partition was an event of immense significance for India; and Subhas Chandra Bose was a leader of national importance in India.
Congress, which was the prime political party at that time, failed to see Suhrawardi's intentions and failed to protect the Hindus in Calcutta from being butchered.
Earlier, Gandhi had forced Subhas Chandra Bose to leave Congress.

Therefore, Congress failed to protect the interests of the people they were governing.
Congress failed to protect the interest of it's own member who had won the presidential elections by fair means.
Gandhi = most prominent leader of Congress at that time and therefore had the most influence in Congress
Failings of Congress = Failings of it's leaders
Since the most prominent leader was Gandhi, therefore, he should share the major part of the blame for the failings of Congress at that time.
It can't be one way. You can't attribute success of India's independence 100% to Gandhi and yet in case of failings remove Gandhi's name from it absolutely.
Edited by souro - 12 years ago

Originally posted by: Pratamesh

i dont want to get into a debate about who is a hater or who is a critic coming to the topic abt him being a mahatma or not http://www.imrajeev.com/2009/01/why-godse-killed-gandhi/ here are a few instances how gandhi forced the than government whose PM was nehru to give 50-55 crore to pakistan by sitting on a fast for the same cause when we had more important issues like killing of refugees occuring around border areas is it worth i would ask u?? Secondly what u are saying is their way when u refer to bhagat singh(extremist)is the way which got us freedom and not the ahimsa of gandhi and this is stated by the british PM of the than labour party itself and thats a fact not a rumour i would ask u how could we get independence by non-violent way when gandhi has withdrawn almost every movement which has started due to some reason,it was the mutiny within the british navy and army which was major cause of our freedom and i hope u know gandhi hadnt told them to do it but it was due to sentences being passed against INA member's. Going by gandhi's method v would never get independence, u may also know that gandhi always had a better say in congress and whoever was against his view had to bow or get out from the party but jinnah on other hand was so adamant that he never listened to gandhi and gandhi always bowed to him,take for instance formation of muslim league or equal rights based on religion(same gandhi had opposed dr.ambedkar threatening to go on fast)

Originally posted by: Knowcrow69

LET'S SEE...

1498: the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama reaches India
1508: the Portuguese found Bom Bahia (Bombay/Mumbai) in territory held by the sultan of Gujarat
1509: Portugal conquers Diu and Goa in India
1537: Afghan warlord Sher Khan Sur invades Bengal
1539: Viswanatha founds the Nayak dynasty with capital in Madurai (south India)
1558: the Mogul conquer Ajmer in Rajastan and Gwalior
1561: The Mogul conquer the kingdom of Malwa
1562: Akbar marries Padmini, a Hindu princess of the Rajaputana kingdom
1564: The Mogul conquer the kingdom of Gondwana/ Garha-Katanga
1638: Holland intervenes in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to defend the king of Kandy, Raja Singa, against Portugal
1639: Britain acquires Madras from the raja of Chandragiri
1672: France settles Pondicherry
1738: Persian general Nader Shah invades India and captures Delhi
1757: at the battle of Plassey in Bengal the East India company defeats France and installs a puppet ruler
Goes on and on...😲



...ahh...😕...😡!!

Don't know what to believe anymore...books, politicians, my neighbor...All I know is that I'm pretty damn sore right now!😵 Somebody get me some damn ice!!😭

Don't know what the hell I am and why I change colors fifteen times a day.


ALRIGHT:  

Can't slap a billion people every time they step over the line. Be proactive and things will go smoothly. We're engineered and told what to eat, read and...

One of my co-workers, a second year student (very intelligent) in micro biology quit because he was frustrated by what was being taught. He wanted to concentrate on prevention of cancers rather than fighting them. It turns out he was wrong because there is no money in prevention.




WHISTLEBLOWERS, THREATS, AND BRIBES
 

A Short History of Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone
by Jeffrey Smith


In 2004, the Tillamook County Creamery Association in Oregon, the nation's second largest producer of chunk cheese, told their members not to give recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) to their cows to boost milk production. Soon after, Monsanto, which markets rbGH under the name Posilac, applied pressure on Tillamook's 147 farmers, trying to reverse the decision. The Association described Monsanto's actions as "an aggressive intrusion." For those familiar with the history of this controversial drug, this is no surprise. Efforts to promote the genetically engineered growth hormone have been aggressive ' or worse ' starting with its evaluation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the late 1980's.

Veterinarian Richard Burroughs, who had a lead role in the review process, was shocked at how few tests the agency was requiring. Burroughs ordered more tests, but was soon fired. He said, "I was told that I was slowing down the approval process."[1] Burroughs says that the science in the studies was well outside the expertise of FDA employees, but officials "suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence."[2] Alexander Apostolou, director of the FDA's Division of Toxicology, says, "Sound scientific procedures for evaluating human food safety of veterinary drugs have been disregarded." When he expressed his concerns at the agency, he was pressured to leave."[3] Chemist Joseph Settepani testified at a public hearing about "a systematic human food-safety breakdown at the Center for Veterinary Medicine." Prior to his testimony, he was in charge of quality control for veterinary drug approvals. Soon after, he was stripped of his duties as a supervisor and sent to work in a trailer at an experimental farm. [4]

Retaliations against whistle-blowers did not go unnoticed. On March 16, 1994, others at the FDA resorted to writing an anonymous letter to members of Congress, saying they were "afraid to speak openly about the situation because of retribution from our director, Dr. Robert Livingston." They wrote, "The basis of our concern is that Dr. Margaret Miller, Dr. Livingston's assistant and, from all indications, extremely 'close friend,' wrote the FDA's opinion on why milk from [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However, before coming to the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as a researcher on [rbGH]."[5]

It's a messed up world

Whats this   itna bhi long cut nahi bola tha   itna padhte padhte toh mai budha ho jaoonga

Originally posted by: souro

I would still like to know your reasons, why you think it is futile.

 

Because most people like to stay glued to their own views. It would be very rare to come across a person who is open to even consider a different view much less accept one. So I consider it a futile exercise to argue with anyone other than to kill time when you have too much of it on your hands, which I have at present. 😆 So here goes…


Blaming/ criticising is always done in hindsight, atleast as far as I'm aware. Please do let me know if someone has devised a method to blame/ criticise a person even before knowing the outcome of his actions.

It would have been better or more productive to have taken the required steps themselves than to criticise someone else who did .I am referring to those who passed down the criticism and not the present day arm chair criticisers.

Whether Gandhi started his movement with selfish/ altruistic motives, how much altruism, how much selfishness, which weighed more heavily, etc. all of them are debatable.
However, it's not his involvement in the freedom movement and his personal motive that is in question at present. If you want, you can debate that as well separately over here or in a new thread.

Oh really 😲 

Right now, it's his decisions, his methods and their efficacy that are being scrutinised.

 

And who granted you the right to decide what is to be scrutinised and when ! 😲 😕 As far as I know it was a lot more things about Gandhi that were under scrutiny in the OP! Need to check back…

Back again… To jog your memory here is the gist  ..

1.who Gandhi slept with,

2.Gandhi joining freedom struggle  due to failure in earning money

3. Gandhi misappropriating funds

4.Gandhi sending army to fight from England's side though he supported non violence

5.Gandhi being a hypocrite

6. Gandhi as a womanizer

7. Gandhi being anti untouchables

8..Gandhi forsaking Bose

9. Gandhi being nervous due to Bhagat singh's popularity

10. Gandhi responsible for creation of Pakistan

11.Gandhi as a cheater

12.Gandhi withdrawing Andolans

13.Gandhi coming to earth to fulfill laws of caste (whatever that's supposed to mean)

And also under scrutiny is whether Gandhi was a mahatma.

 

 

Scrutiny and criticism always happens at a later date, whether it's about Gandhi or Gautam Buddha or Alexander. That at present India is free and we have laptops has nothing to do with it.

 

On the contrary  it has everything to do with it. The fact that India made enough economic progress , had an IT revolution and enjoy the freedom of expression and the right to criticise and mock any one they wish to is because it attained its freedom and established a democracy thanks to the sacrifices of its freedom fighters. There are countries which do not have those luxuries even today. We are able to sit in the comforts of our home and access the net to criticize a a person whose contribution to freedom was more than any of us can lay claim to.

 

Please do let me know if I'm wrong and if you have established that laptop owners in a free country shouldn't criticise.

I'm quoting Tannistha's post to show the extent of mention of Bengal and a Bengali leader in her post:

@Bold in your post:
All examples - since when did one example become all examples?
The leaders - since when did one leader become a bunch of leaders? Or do you consider Jinnah and Nehru to be Bengalis?
If I cite the example of Gandhi and the Dandi march, will you say I'm only interested about Gujarat?

I hope you'll agree that partition was an event of immense significance for India; and Subhas Chandra Bose was a leader of national importance in India.
Congress, which was the prime political party at that time, failed to see Suhrawardi's intentions and failed to protect the Hindus in Calcutta from being butchered.
Earlier, Gandhi had forced Subhas Chandra Bose to leave Congress.

Therefore, Congress failed to protect the interests of the people they were governing.
Congress failed to protect the interest of it's own member who had won the presidential elections by fair means.
Gandhi = most prominent leader of Congress at that time and therefore had the most influence in Congress
Failings of Congress = Failings of it's leaders
Since the most prominent leader was Gandhi, therefore, he should share the major part of the blame for the failings of Congress at that time.
It can't be one way. You can't attribute success of India's independence 100% to Gandhi and yet in case of failings remove Gandhi's name from it absolutely.

 

Where have I attributed 100% success of India's freedom to Gandhi? 😕 You need to read more carefully before jumping to conclusions. If anything I have said that freedom was achieved due to contribution of several people. I have not tried to belittle any of the freedom fighters unlike some posters who have been posting every conceivable crime they can think of against Gandhi. He is being made out to be the worst human being anyone could have come across on the face of the earth. If a person is incapable of respecting someone is there a need to insult ?