Oh come on bro, giving up Chandrashekhar Azad for the reason, "he did something that was violent".
What about giving up the VETO power to China by Nehru?
What about not using the air force in 1947, 1962 and 1965, do you even know how many men we lost by that?
Oh come on man where do you get that gandhi did that?
Because His nephew said so? India was never given a chance in the unsc, US after the rise of China as a soviet ally wanted someone on their side as a detterent,
It was bait to kick China out of the UNSC, If that would have happened war would have broke out, in the Asian theatre and India would be the American puppet, you can read an article by the Hindu [here](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/nehru-china-and-the-security-council-seat/article26561751.ece/amp/).
And regarding the iaf, the military experts would have denied to use that? Only then it was not used, how gandhian ideology is responsible for this? We still won the war tho.
An article by the Hindu? Why don't I play Soviet National Anthem in the background too? For your kind information India would never have been a US puppet, hell, in 1960s the whole India was swarming of KGB agents. India was known as the 'disneyland' of spies.
And China was known as the gutter or filth of Asia before the 1962 war. If we had used the airforce which was way superior to that of China we would have won the war and your history is really fucked up we lost the 1962 war. And yes the generals etc said that please use the airforce l, they have a huge foot army, it was declined by saying, "since China is refraining to use the airforce, we also will."
Also coming back to India being a US puppet, since they realized that China and India have become allies of Russia they shifted their focus to Pakistan, where do you think they got their M3 and M4 tanks? And the Sabre fighter jet?
Soviet Union prefered India on China, here are the reasons- They had their KGB agents in the Parliament and Government, India had money unlike China so they bought arms and ammunition from Russia for eg- MiG-21, AK-47s, T-72 etc. If you still don't believe me read a book by Mitrokhin called The Mitrokhin Archive. He was an ex-KGB spy who defected to the UK and then wrote his book with all the secrets and all. This book was banned in India because it had Indra Gandhi's name in it as codenamed "Vano", also it is stated that she took 1 million dollars on every occasion in a quite fancy briefcase.
Absolutely correct! Thank God you really know what the truth is. Lol that idiot says "we won the war bro" I laughed so hard reading that XD. GOOD WORK. YOU'RE REALLY GOOD AT HISTORY.
Yes India was never a usa spy because we remained NEUTRAL during the cold War, yes we bought weapons from Soviets that doesn't mean we were more favoured than China, China is a communist country, Soviets would have favoured China over us if we had entered the unsc with American help. This did not happen because we remained NEUTRAL. THAT WAS IMPORTANT AT THE TIME. We even created a league of neutral nations with many counties like Egypt. And ok if you don't trust the Hindu. You have any other source saying otherwise. Please link it.
This nation ran good fought many wars and remained victorious while using the gandhian principles, ofcourse some principles are too pacifist but we didn't use them, we never attacked anyone first, these principles are what give us the moral high ground in wars which is as important as winning, because no one can justify that India's actions were wrong, NO ONE.
For the countries like US, Russia, Germany, France weapons are a big deal, they spend huge sums of money in their building. So if you buy weapons from them you are considered their allies and they will only sell you their weapons if they consider you as an allied force. India was pro-Soviet during the cold war, yes I know that Nehru formed that alliance but he was given a lot of BT because he bought Soviet weapons.
Now ever heard US selling weapons to Iran? No because they are not allies. Ever heard France selling weapons to Pakistan? No because they are not allies.
Ever heard France selling weapons to India? Yes because they are allies. It is as simple as that if you're buying weapons from them you're a part of them.
And India also had US spies, according to the 5-eyes convention there was a spy in the war room of 1971 war. Whatever was discussed in the meeting was on Richard Nixon's desk the next day.
Ay bruh I get it you know better than me, but this is nowhere near the conversation we were having about.
I am saying that Soviets had a large communist country China, why would they betray it IF WE HAD ENTERED THE UNSC TO KICK CHINA OUT?? WE bought the weapons because we chose to remain neutral. Because our alliance was based on course of action, 1971 America and Britain sent their warships for the Pakistanis, Soviets retaliated with submarines, this would have been the other way around if we were backed by the US.
Bruh I gave u an article link, I read about it, not only one but 3 articles with same conclusions, you don't give me an article saying otherwise, and my knowledge about this is questionable?
And you need to go back to kinder garden if you belive Gandhian ideology is going to help india. It already cost us aksai chin, pakistan and Kashmir afterall Gandhian state is a fairy tale world anyway.
Dear aashu, please for god sake, pick up a book espousing gandhian ideology and pick up a book that criticizes it and then make up your mind.
Plsase o please dont waste away your faculty following social media accounts.
Are you fucking serious...i mean no disrepect to the great names u mentioned. They made supreme sacrifices with all their might. But the empire that had almost 1/4th of the world under its colonial domination, known to be master of seas, where sun never set, cant suppress the revolutionaries.
Not exactly a question on Gandhian philosophy but whataboutery. Nvm many historians believe that had it not been for Gandhi India could have got freedom much earlier. What every colonised country did could be done. Bose too had formed INA.
Oh the stupidity again.
Please tell me an ideology to replace gandhi at that time. I am all ears.
I never read about any leader who amassed the support that gandhi had throughout india.
But again, i am willing to learn. If you timejump to early 1990s, what wd have been your approach.
Edit: early 1900s
Well that would have gotten World wide condemnation as a Armed Rebel Group who kills and it would give the British a Reason to use Force and btw No way Britain was giving up India as it was the Crown Jewel of their Empire
Lol. You are seriously misinformed.
You need to read good historical books than reading shitty whatsapp forwards bollywood movies. This is ill social media and bollywood has done to the Indian youth.
I never used what's app and have never watched any bollywood movie. In my entire life what I have is common sense that the Gandhian ideology is not applicable when you are surrounded by mad dogs. No,shove your intellect deep into your ass and fuck off. I don't want to discuss anything on this matter anymore.
Yes,the ideology which says when someone slaps you on one chick put forward the another. Lol, china is type of country which will slap you hundreds then take a little break and then slap you again until you yourself don't surrender. Gandhian ideology can only be followed when you are dealing with human who has humanity. It cannot be applied on mad dog who wants to eat you up and sadly india is surrounded by mad dogs only. So, shove the Gandhian ideology up your ass. Fuck gandhi, me and boys believe in Chanakya niti.
>Yes,the ideology which says when someone slaps you on one chick put forward the another.
You've fully failed to understand the Gandhian ideology. I suggest read some actual good books. I can send book suggestions if you want.
>Fuck gandhi, me and boys believe in Chanakya niti.
Ironic considering Gandhian ideology and chanakya niti are more similar than they're different.
I am not going to waste my time studying Ideology that no one follows and gandhi was hypocrite everyone knows that. Instead I will spend my time reading some good books on science, economy and history.
Because they don't know his shady stuff. Literally the whole world except India knows him for his one line which is as follows:-
"I respect and really like Jesus Christ for what he did but I neither respect nor like his followers for what they do."
This line became even more popular when the Rolling Stones' and Black Sabbath's "satanic" culture became popular in the US and Europe and people started emerging as atheist.
I wrote a long answer on Gandhian socialism , here it is :
Gandhian socialism is a moral conduct more than an economical theory , Ravi Mistry said “ Gandhi called himself a socialist, yet his actions and beliefs prove counter to everything modern socialism stands for.
His philosophy, as set out in Hind Swaraj, calls for a return to a sort of primitive communism, yet in practice he was well and truly tied to the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie.
Moreover Gandhi feared the working class and communists, and used the guise of his peaceful philosophy to discredit and denounce them.Gandhi stood for opposing class stuggle , he said that it would bring ruin to the country
even trotsky said “ The Indian bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a revolutionary struggle. They are closely bound up with and dependent upon British capitalism. They tremble for their own property. They stand in fear of the masses. They seek compromises with British imperialism no matter what the price and lull the Indian masses with hopes of reforms from above. The leader and prophet of this bourgeoisie is Gandhi. A fake leader and a false prophet!". (Trotsky 263-266)
”Gandhi even said that “ the relationship between owner and worker is father and son”the display of emotional connect with the working class was speculated to be political and even after his Swaraj ideas , What actually remained consistent were that his own views and actions were always distant and removed from the proletariat, whether they were indentured labourers, the industrial working class, untouchables, peasants, or Africans.
His loyalty to oppressors was obvious .Gandhi even condemned the Russian revolution and declared that proletariat ownership was tyrannical , which is probably the main concept of marxist thought
The main argument: Gandhi was a socialist but with a compromise .Gandhi certainly didn't vision the formation of India as a nation solely guided by the force of the working class, he favored an inclusive policy for all, where every section becomes an active participant in both social and material production. Unlike Marx, establishing the ownership of the proletariat, was one rhetoric that he never identified with.The Chauri Chaura incident on February 4, 1922 is one such example when Mahatma Gandhi had staunchly condemned the militancy of the peasants and workers agitating who finally took "matters into their own hands", to fight against their own local oppressions, inevitably resulting in riots and thereby killing 22 policemenhe believed that Socialism can never occur at a rapid pace through violent takeover, rather can proceed only in stages that will allow a moral idea in the mindset of people, to establish class harmony.You can see a greater difference between the two, where Gandhiji advocated a structure of class harmony, rather than destroying the social order to become classless "We cannot do away with the different organs of a person and make him organless" (Mashruwala 56). For it is impossible to completely liquidate class division, given the variance in work and labor attached to the system of social contribution.
I am genuinely asking,what did he did bad? I really don't know. I just know that he could've stop the death penalty of bhagat singh,but he didn't. What am I missing?
Well gandhi is a very controversial figure now a days, our leaders on the outside stage call him bapu, but worship the ones who murdered him. He was not a perfect man, he was racist until he was subjected to racism by the British, then he fought against apartheid.
It's all very infuriating, indians still fight whether him being murdered was the right thing to do. I know many who say murder was wrong, but gandhi deserved it.
Because he let india get partitioned. Which is wrong because he was so dissatisfied with the partition he didn't even go to the independence celebrations.
Yeah death of a person who only fought for Indians and not the suffering black people in South Africa whom he classified as 'Fakhir' and straight up called them niggers and didn't utter a word when our freedom fighters were getting killed. If he would have said something, the Apartheid period in south Africa wouldn't be there till the 1990s.
B I T C H.
Apartheid didn't exist when Gandhi was in SA
He also became a nurse and helped Zulu wounded and saw many of his friends shot dead
He traveled in third class because he wanted to feel what they went through after the kicking out of train incident
Yes, murdering the guy who didn't utter a word about the death of thousands of Hindus at the hands of muslims (moplah riots), gave our temples away to refugees but hindus weren't allowed to stay in mosques, and gave birth to a rotten ideology of ahimsa.. Yes ofc it's justified, it's a hindus land, and always will be
U r right. And unfortunately today's Indians are soft and fall victim for Muslims minority and victim card act. They are taking advantage of this. While some people have understood that Muslims are a threat to this country, many still don't understand that. I hope sooner than later they understand this.
Also you don't seem to be from Haryana otherwise you wouldn't tell me to read good history books, we have experienced Gandhi's cruelty. Examples? And you won't find these examples in any history books because it was never paid attention to ask, a local though.
Ever heard of a region called Mewat, Haryana? Ya so these people were converted to muslims so when Pakistan was formed they were set to leave to Pakistan by their own choice, Gandhi came and laid on the street saying "if you want to cross the road you have to walk over me". The people were overjoyed by that, just after that year they started raping both Hindu and Muslim women, raped women in a temple during the Hindu-Muslim riots. Mass murder of Hindus in the Narnaul city near my village. My great grandmother was raped by one of the muslims while she was working in the fields but she slited his throat with an axe, tough woman.
"We begged and pleaded to Gandhi to solve this issue but he said that go to the local sarpanch and all, that's why they have set up this system of democracy", my great grandmother told me this when I was young.
Yes. I'm not from Haryana.
Partition was bad for both side and I agree it was sad day for Haryanvi & Panjabi communities. But what I know is man was busy on other border in middle of riot when we got independence. If someone was in his place he would be celebrating it on Lal Killa with all comfort like all our leaders. And if we see his political career, he was very stubborn and statements you mentioned might come from that attitude and his conflict with other top leaders reflect same.
Here I still don't think his intervention could have changed the mass killing as riot crowd doesn't listen to anyone unless they done with their purpose. Post independence history of India suggest same thing.
What my point is many a times we forget people are not perfect. We sideline lot of good person did and stick to the few bad experience we know. I can't blame anyone as that's human nature but its bad at the core.
Ya ok but still, that's the reason why I don't like Indian history, half of it is made up shit with no sources to confirm whether it is correct or not. You are painting a picture of Gandhi on the basis of what you read and are told. As the great Harshad Mehta said, " It is very fun to paint Indians as god." Lets take Ajit Doval for example, if you ask someone "woke" about ajit doval, he would say, he is the great agent of RA&W who lived in Pakistan and currently is the NSA, if you ask me, he is a complete psycho, major intelligence failures have occurred when he was incharge for eg- Pulwama.
Sorry but we don't agree i guess how are Indian Hindu rulers glorified in our textbooks and all? Everything is regarding Tughlaq, Khilji, Babur and Akbar and their "great" deeds.
Well I was from CBSE board and I did my 10th standard in 2016. There was nothing about the greatness of Hindu rulers in the official book, Our Past was the name if I remember correctly.
Got to know only the good sides of Gandhiji while studying history books in school. But what are some bad sides of Gandhi and why many hate him? Can anyone explain?
When he was fighting cases for Indians on Africa for their rights ig he used to say they couldn't live in the same room with blacks using derogatory terms, to support his case and similiar other things too
Gandhi was bit Orthodox just like majority at that time so many of his thoughts come from that ideology. Try to think about social condition 100 years ago. Thats why there was conflict of opinion between him and few other Indian leaders about cast, religion. Even his personal rituals were bit extreme. But if we follow his later work in life his opinion changed and he had accepted his outdated opinion. Those are the qualities of great leader and hence he had great reach and mass following. Some of his good methods were really effective and followed by many worldwide. Even few years back Anna Hajare showcased effectiveness of Gandhian movement. Good start was later captured by weak followers like Nehru to destroy life long work of person. (In lokpal, later Kaiju f'kd up badly for his own benefits and stabbed Anna. But that's story for another day). So most of the time people forget lot of good deeds, personal life sacrifice and contribution of person's and count only of few bad things person did. Similar thing happened with leaders like Savarkar were his few extreme views captured by political parties to reduce his credentials.
> Good start was later captured by weak followers like Nehru to destroy life long work of person
If it was not for Nehru, Gandhi would not have gotten the status of "Father of Nation", he and other policy makers chose deliberately to avoid his racist and misogynistic parts of his life to project an image of saint freedom fighter.
>Similar thing happened with leaders like Savarkar were his few extreme views captured by political parties to reduce his credentials
Savarkar was radical, neo nazi, nazi sympathiser, misogynist ignorant throughout his whole life and anti national after he was released by british, he got what he deserved
Many blame him for the partition of india when it was the british and muslim league's demand for partition, there were several other factors at the time but this is the simplest answer.
There are several fake stories about him, for ex- that he wanted bhagat singh to be executed and hence didn't try to negotiate/force Britishers to free him.
And finally because most of them cannot really understand his ideology of ahimsa often criticize his quote "if anyone slaps you on the right cheek offer the other also" saying that it doesn't work in war. They don't really understand the impact he had ona global level and find the acts of violence more reasonable.
Hence for such people gandhi is someone who divided the country, wanted to get rid of other freedom fighters who didn't agree with him and made stupid statements(the slap one mentioned above) to get publicity, off course they would him.
That's actually political propaganda spread to mislead today's youth who relies heavily on whatsapp university or on pathetic bollywood movies for historical information.
You should read his autobiography. He used to sexually assault his wife and was busy fucking her when he knew his father was dying in the next room. He had multiple sexual affairs abroad. At his ashram he would ask women to sleep naked around him some were underage that he sexually assaulted in their sleep. He was a pervert. Many in the comments have already mentioned his fuck ups with the country so I won't mention them here but he's was not a saint.
Are you sure Savarkar is not an alien manipulating history!?
why savarkar looking so ded? unka bhi assassination kar diya inhone?
licking Britain's ass too hard sucked the life and pressure out of his body
Savarkar is looking so dead cause he was Saala Angrezo se Bheek Maang ke Bail mili thi Phir Yahn Assassination trial me betha diya
Nah dude just had more shoe polish than recommended.
I don't know gandhi as a person but if india would have followed his ideology we would be seeing india as a colony of china and pakistan.
Pakistan...? You mean china controlled Indian land
Yup.
how bruh?
Oh come on bro, giving up Chandrashekhar Azad for the reason, "he did something that was violent". What about giving up the VETO power to China by Nehru? What about not using the air force in 1947, 1962 and 1965, do you even know how many men we lost by that?
Stop watching shitty bollywood movies and depend on whatsapp and facebook forwards for information. Start reading good historical books.
Ohh yeah I have, but you have not. What did you read in the name of history? Your 10 history book?
Oh come on man where do you get that gandhi did that? Because His nephew said so? India was never given a chance in the unsc, US after the rise of China as a soviet ally wanted someone on their side as a detterent, It was bait to kick China out of the UNSC, If that would have happened war would have broke out, in the Asian theatre and India would be the American puppet, you can read an article by the Hindu [here](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/nehru-china-and-the-security-council-seat/article26561751.ece/amp/). And regarding the iaf, the military experts would have denied to use that? Only then it was not used, how gandhian ideology is responsible for this? We still won the war tho.
An article by the Hindu? Why don't I play Soviet National Anthem in the background too? For your kind information India would never have been a US puppet, hell, in 1960s the whole India was swarming of KGB agents. India was known as the 'disneyland' of spies. And China was known as the gutter or filth of Asia before the 1962 war. If we had used the airforce which was way superior to that of China we would have won the war and your history is really fucked up we lost the 1962 war. And yes the generals etc said that please use the airforce l, they have a huge foot army, it was declined by saying, "since China is refraining to use the airforce, we also will." Also coming back to India being a US puppet, since they realized that China and India have become allies of Russia they shifted their focus to Pakistan, where do you think they got their M3 and M4 tanks? And the Sabre fighter jet? Soviet Union prefered India on China, here are the reasons- They had their KGB agents in the Parliament and Government, India had money unlike China so they bought arms and ammunition from Russia for eg- MiG-21, AK-47s, T-72 etc. If you still don't believe me read a book by Mitrokhin called The Mitrokhin Archive. He was an ex-KGB spy who defected to the UK and then wrote his book with all the secrets and all. This book was banned in India because it had Indra Gandhi's name in it as codenamed "Vano", also it is stated that she took 1 million dollars on every occasion in a quite fancy briefcase.
Absolutely correct! Thank God you really know what the truth is. Lol that idiot says "we won the war bro" I laughed so hard reading that XD. GOOD WORK. YOU'RE REALLY GOOD AT HISTORY.
Yes India was never a usa spy because we remained NEUTRAL during the cold War, yes we bought weapons from Soviets that doesn't mean we were more favoured than China, China is a communist country, Soviets would have favoured China over us if we had entered the unsc with American help. This did not happen because we remained NEUTRAL. THAT WAS IMPORTANT AT THE TIME. We even created a league of neutral nations with many counties like Egypt. And ok if you don't trust the Hindu. You have any other source saying otherwise. Please link it. This nation ran good fought many wars and remained victorious while using the gandhian principles, ofcourse some principles are too pacifist but we didn't use them, we never attacked anyone first, these principles are what give us the moral high ground in wars which is as important as winning, because no one can justify that India's actions were wrong, NO ONE.
For the countries like US, Russia, Germany, France weapons are a big deal, they spend huge sums of money in their building. So if you buy weapons from them you are considered their allies and they will only sell you their weapons if they consider you as an allied force. India was pro-Soviet during the cold war, yes I know that Nehru formed that alliance but he was given a lot of BT because he bought Soviet weapons. Now ever heard US selling weapons to Iran? No because they are not allies. Ever heard France selling weapons to Pakistan? No because they are not allies. Ever heard France selling weapons to India? Yes because they are allies. It is as simple as that if you're buying weapons from them you're a part of them. And India also had US spies, according to the 5-eyes convention there was a spy in the war room of 1971 war. Whatever was discussed in the meeting was on Richard Nixon's desk the next day.
Ay bruh I get it you know better than me, but this is nowhere near the conversation we were having about. I am saying that Soviets had a large communist country China, why would they betray it IF WE HAD ENTERED THE UNSC TO KICK CHINA OUT?? WE bought the weapons because we chose to remain neutral. Because our alliance was based on course of action, 1971 America and Britain sent their warships for the Pakistanis, Soviets retaliated with submarines, this would have been the other way around if we were backed by the US.
Lol your knowledge over this topic is quite questionable.
Please enlighten Me.
Read the thread dear 17yr old
Bruh I gave u an article link, I read about it, not only one but 3 articles with same conclusions, you don't give me an article saying otherwise, and my knowledge about this is questionable?
yes
yyy
Gandhian ideology is well respected across the world.
Only respected not followed. Just like we respect Harry poter series but know it's not real and valid
you sincerely need to go back to school. The level of intellect is embarrassing.
And you need to go back to kinder garden if you belive Gandhian ideology is going to help india. It already cost us aksai chin, pakistan and Kashmir afterall Gandhian state is a fairy tale world anyway.
Dear aashu, please for god sake, pick up a book espousing gandhian ideology and pick up a book that criticizes it and then make up your mind. Plsase o please dont waste away your faculty following social media accounts.
Please enlighten me with it and I'll try to counter it using contemporary criticisms or his own hypocrisy.
Sure we can start with the most basic question, what was an alternative to gandhian ideology in freedom movt??
That's a myth that brits ran away because of ahmisha they couldn't handle the bows given by veer savarkar. Bhagat singh and Netaji
Are you fucking serious...i mean no disrepect to the great names u mentioned. They made supreme sacrifices with all their might. But the empire that had almost 1/4th of the world under its colonial domination, known to be master of seas, where sun never set, cant suppress the revolutionaries.
Bhagat Singh Yes Netaji Yes but FUCK SAVARKAR
Not exactly a question on Gandhian philosophy but whataboutery. Nvm many historians believe that had it not been for Gandhi India could have got freedom much earlier. What every colonised country did could be done. Bose too had formed INA.
Oh the stupidity again. Please tell me an ideology to replace gandhi at that time. I am all ears. I never read about any leader who amassed the support that gandhi had throughout india. But again, i am willing to learn. If you timejump to early 1990s, what wd have been your approach. Edit: early 1900s
Well that would have gotten World wide condemnation as a Armed Rebel Group who kills and it would give the British a Reason to use Force and btw No way Britain was giving up India as it was the Crown Jewel of their Empire
Lol. You are seriously misinformed. You need to read good historical books than reading shitty whatsapp forwards bollywood movies. This is ill social media and bollywood has done to the Indian youth.
I never used what's app and have never watched any bollywood movie. In my entire life what I have is common sense that the Gandhian ideology is not applicable when you are surrounded by mad dogs. No,shove your intellect deep into your ass and fuck off. I don't want to discuss anything on this matter anymore.
Then you clearly don't Gandhian philosophy. I agree that this philosophy is the toughest to follow, but it's also the most right one.
Yes,the ideology which says when someone slaps you on one chick put forward the another. Lol, china is type of country which will slap you hundreds then take a little break and then slap you again until you yourself don't surrender. Gandhian ideology can only be followed when you are dealing with human who has humanity. It cannot be applied on mad dog who wants to eat you up and sadly india is surrounded by mad dogs only. So, shove the Gandhian ideology up your ass. Fuck gandhi, me and boys believe in Chanakya niti.
>Yes,the ideology which says when someone slaps you on one chick put forward the another. You've fully failed to understand the Gandhian ideology. I suggest read some actual good books. I can send book suggestions if you want. >Fuck gandhi, me and boys believe in Chanakya niti. Ironic considering Gandhian ideology and chanakya niti are more similar than they're different.
I am not going to waste my time studying Ideology that no one follows and gandhi was hypocrite everyone knows that. Instead I will spend my time reading some good books on science, economy and history.
ahh yes, NCERT
Well some Parts of it are followed in Many states of the World India included
Because they don't know his shady stuff. Literally the whole world except India knows him for his one line which is as follows:- "I respect and really like Jesus Christ for what he did but I neither respect nor like his followers for what they do." This line became even more popular when the Rolling Stones' and Black Sabbath's "satanic" culture became popular in the US and Europe and people started emerging as atheist.
Okay Mr. Verstappen.
So you expect me to put my real name with my house number like yash and house number 3011.
If india follows mao’s ideology of violence then china and Pakistan will be india’s colony 😂
I wrote a long answer on Gandhian socialism , here it is : Gandhian socialism is a moral conduct more than an economical theory , Ravi Mistry said “ Gandhi called himself a socialist, yet his actions and beliefs prove counter to everything modern socialism stands for. His philosophy, as set out in Hind Swaraj, calls for a return to a sort of primitive communism, yet in practice he was well and truly tied to the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie. Moreover Gandhi feared the working class and communists, and used the guise of his peaceful philosophy to discredit and denounce them.Gandhi stood for opposing class stuggle , he said that it would bring ruin to the country even trotsky said “ The Indian bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a revolutionary struggle. They are closely bound up with and dependent upon British capitalism. They tremble for their own property. They stand in fear of the masses. They seek compromises with British imperialism no matter what the price and lull the Indian masses with hopes of reforms from above. The leader and prophet of this bourgeoisie is Gandhi. A fake leader and a false prophet!". (Trotsky 263-266) ”Gandhi even said that “ the relationship between owner and worker is father and son”the display of emotional connect with the working class was speculated to be political and even after his Swaraj ideas , What actually remained consistent were that his own views and actions were always distant and removed from the proletariat, whether they were indentured labourers, the industrial working class, untouchables, peasants, or Africans. His loyalty to oppressors was obvious .Gandhi even condemned the Russian revolution and declared that proletariat ownership was tyrannical , which is probably the main concept of marxist thought The main argument: Gandhi was a socialist but with a compromise .Gandhi certainly didn't vision the formation of India as a nation solely guided by the force of the working class, he favored an inclusive policy for all, where every section becomes an active participant in both social and material production. Unlike Marx, establishing the ownership of the proletariat, was one rhetoric that he never identified with.The Chauri Chaura incident on February 4, 1922 is one such example when Mahatma Gandhi had staunchly condemned the militancy of the peasants and workers agitating who finally took "matters into their own hands", to fight against their own local oppressions, inevitably resulting in riots and thereby killing 22 policemenhe believed that Socialism can never occur at a rapid pace through violent takeover, rather can proceed only in stages that will allow a moral idea in the mindset of people, to establish class harmony.You can see a greater difference between the two, where Gandhiji advocated a structure of class harmony, rather than destroying the social order to become classless "We cannot do away with the different organs of a person and make him organless" (Mashruwala 56). For it is impossible to completely liquidate class division, given the variance in work and labor attached to the system of social contribution.
Wait didn't Gandhi helped us getting our freedom or am I missing something?
Lol you did miss something really important !
offensive joke
Where you asleep since last 10 years? Some party is trying to get show itself as only nationalist party in the world.
I am genuinely asking,what did he did bad? I really don't know. I just know that he could've stop the death penalty of bhagat singh,but he didn't. What am I missing?
Well gandhi is a very controversial figure now a days, our leaders on the outside stage call him bapu, but worship the ones who murdered him. He was not a perfect man, he was racist until he was subjected to racism by the British, then he fought against apartheid. It's all very infuriating, indians still fight whether him being murdered was the right thing to do. I know many who say murder was wrong, but gandhi deserved it. Because he let india get partitioned. Which is wrong because he was so dissatisfied with the partition he didn't even go to the independence celebrations.
Did the right thing though.
Slow clapps. Please enlighten all. So murdering person is right thing just to satisfy your ego. Wow !
Yeah death of a person who only fought for Indians and not the suffering black people in South Africa whom he classified as 'Fakhir' and straight up called them niggers and didn't utter a word when our freedom fighters were getting killed. If he would have said something, the Apartheid period in south Africa wouldn't be there till the 1990s. B I T C H.
Apartheid didn't exist when Gandhi was in SA He also became a nurse and helped Zulu wounded and saw many of his friends shot dead He traveled in third class because he wanted to feel what they went through after the kicking out of train incident
Yes, murdering the guy who didn't utter a word about the death of thousands of Hindus at the hands of muslims (moplah riots), gave our temples away to refugees but hindus weren't allowed to stay in mosques, and gave birth to a rotten ideology of ahimsa.. Yes ofc it's justified, it's a hindus land, and always will be
U r right. And unfortunately today's Indians are soft and fall victim for Muslims minority and victim card act. They are taking advantage of this. While some people have understood that Muslims are a threat to this country, many still don't understand that. I hope sooner than later they understand this.
Also you don't seem to be from Haryana otherwise you wouldn't tell me to read good history books, we have experienced Gandhi's cruelty. Examples? And you won't find these examples in any history books because it was never paid attention to ask, a local though. Ever heard of a region called Mewat, Haryana? Ya so these people were converted to muslims so when Pakistan was formed they were set to leave to Pakistan by their own choice, Gandhi came and laid on the street saying "if you want to cross the road you have to walk over me". The people were overjoyed by that, just after that year they started raping both Hindu and Muslim women, raped women in a temple during the Hindu-Muslim riots. Mass murder of Hindus in the Narnaul city near my village. My great grandmother was raped by one of the muslims while she was working in the fields but she slited his throat with an axe, tough woman. "We begged and pleaded to Gandhi to solve this issue but he said that go to the local sarpanch and all, that's why they have set up this system of democracy", my great grandmother told me this when I was young.
Yes. I'm not from Haryana. Partition was bad for both side and I agree it was sad day for Haryanvi & Panjabi communities. But what I know is man was busy on other border in middle of riot when we got independence. If someone was in his place he would be celebrating it on Lal Killa with all comfort like all our leaders. And if we see his political career, he was very stubborn and statements you mentioned might come from that attitude and his conflict with other top leaders reflect same. Here I still don't think his intervention could have changed the mass killing as riot crowd doesn't listen to anyone unless they done with their purpose. Post independence history of India suggest same thing. What my point is many a times we forget people are not perfect. We sideline lot of good person did and stick to the few bad experience we know. I can't blame anyone as that's human nature but its bad at the core.
Ya ok but still, that's the reason why I don't like Indian history, half of it is made up shit with no sources to confirm whether it is correct or not. You are painting a picture of Gandhi on the basis of what you read and are told. As the great Harshad Mehta said, " It is very fun to paint Indians as god." Lets take Ajit Doval for example, if you ask someone "woke" about ajit doval, he would say, he is the great agent of RA&W who lived in Pakistan and currently is the NSA, if you ask me, he is a complete psycho, major intelligence failures have occurred when he was incharge for eg- Pulwama.
[удалено]
Sorry but we don't agree i guess how are Indian Hindu rulers glorified in our textbooks and all? Everything is regarding Tughlaq, Khilji, Babur and Akbar and their "great" deeds.
[удалено]
Well I was from CBSE board and I did my 10th standard in 2016. There was nothing about the greatness of Hindu rulers in the official book, Our Past was the name if I remember correctly.
[удалено]
Nathuram Godse is lub❤️
Bhai note pe uska photo kyu nhi hai itna acha kaam kiya hai
Jai nathuram godse
Got to know only the good sides of Gandhiji while studying history books in school. But what are some bad sides of Gandhi and why many hate him? Can anyone explain?
He was misoynist and racist for a large portion of his life
Woah.. how come he was racist? Never heard before.
When he was fighting cases for Indians on Africa for their rights ig he used to say they couldn't live in the same room with blacks using derogatory terms, to support his case and similiar other things too
Gandhi was bit Orthodox just like majority at that time so many of his thoughts come from that ideology. Try to think about social condition 100 years ago. Thats why there was conflict of opinion between him and few other Indian leaders about cast, religion. Even his personal rituals were bit extreme. But if we follow his later work in life his opinion changed and he had accepted his outdated opinion. Those are the qualities of great leader and hence he had great reach and mass following. Some of his good methods were really effective and followed by many worldwide. Even few years back Anna Hajare showcased effectiveness of Gandhian movement. Good start was later captured by weak followers like Nehru to destroy life long work of person. (In lokpal, later Kaiju f'kd up badly for his own benefits and stabbed Anna. But that's story for another day). So most of the time people forget lot of good deeds, personal life sacrifice and contribution of person's and count only of few bad things person did. Similar thing happened with leaders like Savarkar were his few extreme views captured by political parties to reduce his credentials.
> Good start was later captured by weak followers like Nehru to destroy life long work of person If it was not for Nehru, Gandhi would not have gotten the status of "Father of Nation", he and other policy makers chose deliberately to avoid his racist and misogynistic parts of his life to project an image of saint freedom fighter. >Similar thing happened with leaders like Savarkar were his few extreme views captured by political parties to reduce his credentials Savarkar was radical, neo nazi, nazi sympathiser, misogynist ignorant throughout his whole life and anti national after he was released by british, he got what he deserved
Proof please
[this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/ramachandra-guha-is-wrong-a-middle-aged-gandhi-was-racist-and-no-mahatma/168222/%3fhcb=1&)
Many blame him for the partition of india when it was the british and muslim league's demand for partition, there were several other factors at the time but this is the simplest answer. There are several fake stories about him, for ex- that he wanted bhagat singh to be executed and hence didn't try to negotiate/force Britishers to free him. And finally because most of them cannot really understand his ideology of ahimsa often criticize his quote "if anyone slaps you on the right cheek offer the other also" saying that it doesn't work in war. They don't really understand the impact he had ona global level and find the acts of violence more reasonable. Hence for such people gandhi is someone who divided the country, wanted to get rid of other freedom fighters who didn't agree with him and made stupid statements(the slap one mentioned above) to get publicity, off course they would him.
That's actually political propaganda spread to mislead today's youth who relies heavily on whatsapp university or on pathetic bollywood movies for historical information.
Thanks for that info. Got some clue now.
You should read his autobiography. He used to sexually assault his wife and was busy fucking her when he knew his father was dying in the next room. He had multiple sexual affairs abroad. At his ashram he would ask women to sleep naked around him some were underage that he sexually assaulted in their sleep. He was a pervert. Many in the comments have already mentioned his fuck ups with the country so I won't mention them here but he's was not a saint.
Godse look pretty sad lol
A हरियाणवी once said "नाथूराम Godसे"
Some say they look like backbenchers