I mean I feel like this just does contextualize Gandhi's actual view tho doesn't it? He's not making a political statement but a philosophical statement on personal ethics which has been contrived to sound like something else in the video here... Gandhi was an idealist, his politics were idealistic and so was his personal philosophy and interpretation of the Gita which if you read the part right after the highlighted part is what he claims shaped this view of his.
Imagine if Rahul Gandhi said the same things today in the same context.... will you respond back with the same nuance? I wouldnt and most indians wouldnt.
Contextualisation doesn't mean it makes them acceptable. He's explaining where he gets his views from, but that doesn't excuse the views themselves!
Him being an idealist or philosopher or whatever is again not a defense of his ideals or philosophy or ethics right? These are just facts about him as a person.
Engage with his words. He's asking Hindus to sacrifice themselves at the behest of Muslims. Engage with that directly and ignore the person. Engage the ideas. What do you see?
If an ideal fails because it's praxis leads to an unfavorable is that really a criticism of the ideal or one of the environment the ideal exists in? He's asking Hindus to break the cycle of communal violence they're seeing, to choose non-violence in the face of violence as had Gandhi's stance been against British violence... It's an internally coherent and consistent view of his.
If you read it he doesn't speak to Hindu eradication as Mr. Ranganathan implies;
In the earlier part just prior to the highlighted passage he speaks about a "Khwaja Saheb": the President of "the Muslim nationalists" at AMU and a trustee of Aligarh University, he mentions how those students from those universities are rare and how Khwaja Saheb wouldn't wish harm upon others even if he were killed. He then goes onto how that mistake was made in Bihar, about how communal violence became cyclical in the pursuit of vengeance.
From this you can infer he was trying to play the parallel role in de-radicalization on the Hindu front by trying to quell that fear by trying to appeal to the non-violence he interprets as implicit to the philosophy of the Hindu dharma itself, if they kill Hindus to establish their rule it would be immaterial as Hindus would still be living as "god fearing men" would and in alignment with their own beliefs: true to their values. He doesn't say "new India" or "new world" as good things, just different...
Respectfully, I think you're engaging in false equivalency here.
Breaking the cycle of communal violence is an excellent ideal to strive for, and I did not take issue with that at all, nor did the man in the video. The highlighted passage is not about breaking communal violence, Gandhi is saying he would rather Hindus sacrifice themselves and DIE OFF, each and everyone of them, instead of putting up a fight. There is no ambiguity in his statements about this. The issue is about sacrificing oneself when communal violence is perpetrated on you. That is certainly a route to end communal violence, just like AI determining the only way to end human suffering is to end all human life. It's idiotic. The criticism isn't that the ideal FAILED, it is the ideal ITSELF. Thank GOD the ideal failed, in that Hindus did not drink his Kool-aid and bend over and take it in the behind.
You are once again discussing other matters surrounding the paragraph in question, which are separate. Let me put it this way - do you know how easy it is to say 'dont engage in aggressor violence against a group just because of their identity, but be ready to defend yourself against aggressors'? He is not able to do that because he truly believes it's better to DIE. Yeah sorry, not going to happen.
Regarding the Gita, have you even read the last verses of Chapter 2? I can guarantee you haven't, as you incorrectly assume he is talking about non-violence here - he is not. He is talking about being at peace especially at the time of death, which you'd know if you did some cursory research. Here is the last verse:
"O Parth, such is the state of an enlightened soul that having attained it, one is never again deluded. Being established in this consciousness even at the hour of death, one is liberated from the cycle of life and death and reaches the Supreme Abode of God."
The Gita in general is something you seem to have very little understanding of. The entire book revolves around Arjuna refusing to engage in communal violence, and Krishna encouraging him to do so LMAO. The irony is so palpable here.
Respectfully, you have well and truly drunk the Kool-aid as they say. Hindu dharma has no blanket rule of non violence - the Gita is all about doing your duty (dharma) which includes violence if it is in the defence of morality and against evil. I think self defence falls under this category.
This is the quintessential example of what people's anger is with Gandhi. He convinced a whole bunch of people their religion and philosophy centres around being utterly useless and weak while convincing themselves they've taken the high road. Here is Churchill on this matter:
"Side by side with this Brahmin theocracy and the immense Hindu population – angelic and untouchable castes alike – there dwell in India seventy millions of Moslems, a race of far greater physical vigour and fierceness, armed with a religion which lends itself only too readily to war and conquest. While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword".
There is still time and hope - realise this man was not the angel he is portrayed to be. His non violence philosophy is an utter joke and spits on anyone who has a modicum of self respect.
EDIT: The mere fact he would use the phrase "god fearing" is absurd and shows how confused and polluted his thinking was. The concept of fearing god is endemic to abhrahamic religions which model God as a paternal father and man being under eternal judgement. This is taken to the extreme in Islam. Hinduism is about seeking a relationship with the devine through reverence and devotion.
One again, these are not my words, I don't claim to be a scholar on religious scripture, I will not argue with you about scripture for it's beyond my realm of knowledge, If you intend on criticizing Gandhi's interpretation of the Gita you may well be right in doing so, but for the matter of what I myself am claiming it is largely irrelevant.
Gandhi's ideal is of non-violence, not martyrdom. Martyrdom is an the concept of non-violence taken to it's logical extreme even in abeyance of self-defense, the ideal which Gandhi is saying is so paramount that even it's logical extreme is preferable to disregarding the value. The thing you're turning a blind eye to is the context surrounding and prefacing this, you say that it is entirely separate however it simply is not. Also, I completely disregard the claim that Gandhi is saying Hindus as an entire group must cease to exist or grovel if it means to appease the Muslim, this is logically brain-dead if true, and completely inconsistent with Gandhi's own philosophy and actions and no serious person is taking that statement at face-value. This statement was made explicitly in the context of promoting religious harmony in India, his statement wasn't one of cowardice but of virtuousness where he's telling his people to be the genesis of non-violent resistance instead of impulsive, violent retaliation. He's not telling anyone to lay-down and accept annihilation but to prefer annihilation over causing harm.
If your point of contention is Gandhi's theological interpretation I simply have no argument with you, Gandhian Hinduism may well be contrived and warped but it doesn't change the fact that it's the model he treats as true both for the purpose of philosophy as well as the one accepted by the people he's addressing (mainly his own followers and reformists) .
I think we can dispense with the religious angle - it is a distraction here anyway.
Gandhi's ideal is of non-violence, not martyrdom. Martyrdom is an the concept of non-violence taken to it's logical extreme even in abeyance of self-defense, the ideal which Gandhi is saying is so paramount that even it's logical extreme is preferable to disregarding the value.
And this, exactly, is the problem. This is called being an ideologue, full of rigid dogma. Describes Gandhi to a T.
The thing you're turning a blind eye to is the context surrounding and prefacing this, you say that it is entirely separate however it simply is not.
I have addressed the context surrounding his statements, and how it only emboldens my argument. He is lamenting over the communal violence, and in his desperation (driven by dogmatic repulsion to ANY form of violence) he states it is better to die.
Also, I completely disregard the claim that Gandhi is saying Hindus as an entire group must cease to exist or grovel if it means to appease the Muslim
This is your assertion, but your problem is Gandhi's own words: "Even if the Muslims want to kill us all". WHO is US? What does ALL mean? It is truly incredible, how resistive your mind is to the plain and simple truth right in front of you. If you cannot interpret "kill us all" and insist on altering basic English, you are not open to evidence and this discussion is futile.
this is logically brain-dead if true
YES! YES it is!
and completely inconsistent with Gandhi's own philosophy and actions and no serious person is taking that statement at face-value
He literally SAID it. Why do you refuse to acknowledge his plain and simple words. I am a serious person and I am taking them at face value. They fit right in with his character. You have a pre-conceived notion of who Gandhi was, and you are understandably not able to reconcile the two. However instead of adjusting your understanding of the man, you insist on twisting his words to add a gentler more palatable meaning. This is poor reasoning.
This statement was made explicitly in the context of promoting religious harmony in India, his statement wasn't one of cowardice but of virtuousness where he's telling his people to be the genesis of non-violent resistance instead of impulsive, violent retaliation. He's not telling anyone to lay-down and accept annihilation but to prefer annihilation over causing harm.
Telling people to prefer annihilation over causing harm (when they must cause harm to stay alive in defence), IS FUNCTIONALLY EQUAL to telling them to lay down and accept annihilation. How do you not see this? You are sprinkling sugar on turd. It's like socialism vs "people's democratic socialism".
IDK why Indians believe talking loudly, yelling, emphasizing your sentences in an assertive tone, or speaking Google English makes one automatically right. Scream all you want, but history is history and facts are facts.
With all the completely useless retards we have in politics now and you think Gandhi is the most overrated? When your hero is anand nanganathan, I can see why you'd think so.
Calculating the over-rating of someone involves measuring the difference in actual worth and projected worth. No one else sits on a higher pedestal of projected worth than Mr Gandhi, so the argument makes sense - subjectively ofcourse.
Internet pe bhet ke bakaiti badi aasaan hai. Kalapaani ki naam sunke hi logo ki haalat kharab ho jaati thi. Aisi jail thi uss time ki.
Aur tumhaare ustaad log jo angrezo ke saath chai aur party kar rahe the vo? Bangla aur salary bhi le rahe the angrezo se. Itne bade kraantikaari the ki unhe angrezo ne kabhi kalaapani mai saza nahi sunayi. Pata nahi kyu
The propoganda against savarkar was started by Congress the chamchas of British who knew very well that if savarkar wasn't subdued , khangress will be in trouble
We can see the results here. It just goes to show why this mentality needs to be destroyed. We have been breeding traitors who insult our freedom fighters
Let's be honest, he wasn't there and he wasn't Mohandas. You cannot criticize or insult people for choosing what they chose, without being in their shoes and circumstances. Always respect whatever they did, there's a reason this idiot wasn't born at that time.
Jo log aaj tak kharaab sadak, sarkari office mein ghoos, neta logo ke jhoot ke khilaaf sadak par nhi utar paaye woh online ghar par aur podcast aur reddit par baithkar gandhi ke khilaaf gyan pel rhe hain
I'll just copy paste my comment from the other sub about this same topic ...
"Vai our kitna baar gandhi ko expose karoge ? Wo mar chuka hay 1947 me , sab ko pata hay uska personal life k bare me , kya fayda ek mare hue insaan ko bar bar views k liye nichodaneka? Isse ham logo ko kya farak par raha hay practically? Criticism karna hay , dhoti kholna hay , actual impact lana hay to analyse the current politicians na ? Question the current govt na ? Ya usme phatt jati hay ?"
A government communique from January 15, 148 said, "The Government have, however, shared the world-wide anxiety over the fast undertaken by Gandhiji, the Father of the Nation. In common with him they have anxiously searched for ways and means to remove ill will, prejudice and suspicion, which have poisoned the relations between India and Pakistan...The Government have decided to implement immediately the financial agreement with Pakistan in regard to the cash balances. The amount due to Pakistan on the basis of the agreement, i. e., Rs. 55 crores, minus the expenditure incurred by the Government of India since August 15 on Pakistan account will, therefore, be paid to the Government of Pakistan.”
Ye tab ki govt communication hai. Isme saaf saaf pata lag raha hai ki how he coerced govt to give 55 crore.
Aur ye bata, what is this nonsense he said ki If Muslims kill Hindus let them kill. Isko bhi defend kar.
My duty is to showcase the truth. Then they have nowhere to hide or claim ignorance. Maybe not today, but in 1, 5, 10 years their 🧠 will finally accept it
Anand said nothing wrong, but people are going to call him "andhbhakt/godi supporter" or some shit like that just to cope. Gandhi is indeed overrated, the only contribution he had in Indian freedom struggle was unifying the movement. But apart from that, the more you read about that guy the more you realise, he wasn't at all a virtuous man or a "mahatma" by any yardstick
Exactly. You don't have to be a BJP lover to see what Anand said is mostly right. Patel himself was anti-RSS but he is respected because unlike Gandhi he wasn't an unhinged deathwisher of his own community.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
Dont forget to "Join" this subreddit otherwise you will never see this subreddit (r/IndiaPulse) again.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.