reality of Mhatma ... - Page 6

Originally posted by: anu_luv_maan

hahahhahaha jst tok of morality and all blah blah ... i bliv in rational thinking i din choose to hate him cuz i read such things abt him on this or that site like ...ppl praise him after reading his some so called great deeds ...bcuz of him soem real great freedom fighters are ignored ...i dont judge a book by its cover that is why i dont praise him only after reading hisw some this or that great sotries ...i use my brain for rational and right thinking ...his those so called great deeds r given importance but the only point here is He is not a MHATMA 

Babe you have serious reading problems. Ignoring what school teaches is perhaps is the reason? 😛 Who talked of MORALITY here? Are'nt you bit too touchy about this issue? You deduced this on whatever you have claimed to have read. Fine. Like you others also have read about him, from THEIR reading they deduced he is indeed a Great man. Like how you have used your brain, others also have used theirs and reached their own conclusion. You chose to go with the one's that highlighted his wrongs.This is a subjective issue. So don't term every post that goes against your theory as irrational.

As for me,I am not a fan but I do think he is a great man but not perfect or ideal human being.He was far from it.I'm not blind enough to call him flawless. He is a flawed man and committed some grave mistakes specially during partition (Your original post was more of a 'dope on Gandhi' than pointing his genuine mistakes.Partition was a HUGE one.Still debated.) We are still suffering the results of some of his decisions.  But his contribution, to me, exceed his wrong-doings by a margin. So I respect him.Some of the world leaders/thinkers I admire most have been his ardent followers. There must be something in the man that inspires people. If you read auto-bio of Luther king Jr and quotes of Einstein, mandela etc you can see the kind of influence the man has. Will you call these people irrational too? It's this side of Gandhi they've chosen to take inspiration in their lives.And none of them are ignorant to his faults either. It's just what they CHOSE to think of him.

As for some leaders not getting their due... it was not just Gandhi who is responsible. throughout the history there have been many unsung heroes and there will be. Some chose to stay in the back and direct, while others come into limelight. Even today, Lokpal is a huge movement in India now but the whole drafting of it is done by not just the main four but also by a group of Civil servants who work in the background. Who would all recognize their contribution?


If you want to jump guns at my post, please go ahead. But you prolly won't get any response from me...unless this veers into a logical discussion on his faults (which were many) than just mudslinging and gossip on Gandhi.

http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=86
here are a few facts any1 interested can read
how india got its independence and what wer the major reasons,and not becoz of gandhi only
also a few facts about what gandhi really was u could read his letter's to hitler contrary to his ahimsa ideology totally

Originally posted by: Pratamesh

reservation isnt a good idea?? For untouchables at that time??what dr.ambedkar was doing and gandhi sat on fast so that ther wernt be discrimination into society
wher was gandhi when untouchables wer suffering??
In order to remove reservation 1st get the society at same level than v will talk,what gandhi did was wrong and it was only after his death that reservation and recognition to untouchables and poor came in our society
abt WWII and independence interlinkage,after WWII the new govt of england which came tabled the bill to give independence to india and at that time ther wer no lobbyist to put infront indias claim to the new govt so that was a major reason if u know
the freedom struggle being the second
bt what if that government hadnt come we could wait another 10-20yr's doing ahimsa what diff would that make isnt that true??

I am not in favour of any discrimination based on caste or class but doubt the society can ever get to same level. If not caste people will discriminate on the basis of religion, language or sexual orientation. how many types of reservation will have to be there to bring society at the same level?

Originally posted by: Tannistha

I am personally not a big follower of Mahatma Gandhi. He committed a lot of political mistakes, his ideology was a large utopian idea with no practicality, 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.

As a man he had his failings, and because of the influence he had, his failings have had bigger impacts.

However it is not wise to bring his personal life here according to me. His personal life is rife with controversies and there can be an altogether different topic and i rather not discuss anyones private and personal life.

All said and done, we cannot ignore his contributions , he definitely set a separate and different path. Although now , when i am no longer an innocent school child, i can not say he is the father of the nation.

TO those who say things are not mentioned in school text book, please do not trust them blindly.

Gandhi ji's focus must have been the whole of India and not west Bengal or Paschim Banga. I dont think he had anything against that state.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I'm not a fan of Mahatma Gandhi myself. As a leader and human being he was by no means perfect and we can have a very interesting debate on his flaws, missteps and mistakes. However, such a discussion has to be balanced and well founded in facts. Unverified conspiracy theories in some books not backed by history are interesting gossip but not valuable for a factual discussion.

@ Souro - I think in the case of Bhagat Singh, it seems kind of contradictory for a man who was so strongly in favor of 'non-violence' and against British rule in India would easily allow a death penalty. At the same time perhaps there was nothing Gandhi could do and we just expect too much out of him.

I dare say there is any human being who can be called perfect and Gandhi was no exception. 

Originally posted by: zorrro

I am not in favour of any discrimination0„2based on caste or class but0„2doubt the society can ever get to same level. If not caste people will discriminate on the basis of religion, language or sexual orientation. how many types of reservation will have to be there to bring society at the same level? I have nowhere0„2 denied the contribution of WWII towards independence but only your claim that refutes gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle. I see that you at least acknowledged the role off the freedom struggle in this post. It is very difficult to say how much contribution each event had on an outcome. Instead of demeaning our freedom fighters0„2I would rather be grateful to all0„2 who sacrificed a lot0„2as0„2 I could be born in a free India. I dont care who they slept with and how many they slept with. That they cared enough to fight for our freedom is sufficient for me to respect them.

m not against gandhi,but the title mhatma and a non-violent being doesnt go with that thats all this topic doesnt undermine his contribution towards the struggle,but questions his title mahatma,which i would say a based on baised foundation our history books not giving due importance to other and stating critical events,the same holds true for nehru the indian history depicts him as a brave and great man who happened during 1962 and what he did is still hidden by public thats why m saying its our history which is not depicted properly and baised towards contribution of few people abt reservation even i dont agree with it,bt at that time the untouchables and dalits wer in very poor state of living if dr.ambedkar was fighting for them why did gandhi stop him,same holds true with what gandhi did to bose after S.C.BOSE won elections and become prominent and go against gandhi's ideology(bose wanted freedom at earliest and wanted to give 6 months ultimatum to british bt gandhi didnt support him what for??god knws)

Originally posted by: zorrro

Gandhi ji's focus must have been the whole of India and not west Bengal or Paschim Banga. I dont think he had anything against that state.

Edited by Tannistha - 12 years ago

WHY I KILLED GANDHI - Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court,
read it to know what gandhi had been doing and why he isnt a mahatma
http://smileosmile.com/celebrities/why-i-killed-gandhi-nathuram-godses-final-address-to-the-court/

Don't know about the other points there, have never really researched or heard about them but Gandhi could save Bhagat Singh which he never did, and I know that for a fact. That just ruined his whole "mahaan" image for me..

Originally posted by: Tannistha

Tell that to those unfortunate people who were the sufferers and who were promised safety and relief by him . This is how politicians talk.

That is a lame excuse, specially when whole of India was quite stable  compared to bengal and punjab.

edited to add: FYI, Bengal pre partition was not just  paschim banga or west bengal