« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
March 14, 2002 - 01:51 AM
|
|
Yup, first credits to the guy who thinks I am irrational and misguided.
Preddy is not sure of what kind of a person I am and thinks that Gandhi has achieved more than what he or myself have achieved.
In my case, I am not responsible for the poverty in my nation, I am not responsible for tearing apart united India into its today’s condition, where we have an independent India and an independent Pakistan thirsty of each others blood, I am not responsible for the turn this Kashmir issue has taken, I am not responsible for not just delaying India’s freedom but also making future generations ashamed of the way we achieved it, I am not responsible for massacring my own peace loving people at the hands of barbarians.
I think I have I have significant achievements over Gandhi. Donno about you though. Maybe you could be even worse.
And to delila, who thinks I should respect the guy though I don’t advocate his tactics. Would you respect someone who did all this to you? And as far as talking good about someone who is dead is concerned, I’d say, he is dead and that’s good.
Donno why but the people in India as well as abroad are under the impression that India achieved its freedom due to the able leadership of Gandhi.
So, all you rational guys out there, what do you think, britishers come to india as invaders. They loot india for about 170 years, they kill and plunder unopposed. Then some guy called Gandhi pops up. Says you can beat me up as much as you want but I will only peacefully demonstrate against you. All of a sudden the britishers have mercy, and with due respect to Gandhi, leave india peacefully.
The fact is, India’s achievement of freedom was purely circumstantial. after the 2nd WW, britan was a very tattered nation. It wasn’t possible for them to administer a huge country like india. They were in no position to administer properly the situation in britan.
As it is, after looting india for more than 200 years and collecting something like 2/3rd of peoples income as tax and sending the money as it is to britan, very was very little left in india for the british.
To put it more properly, britishers were like parasites who sucked as much blood as they could out of our bodies. They left us coz they didn’t want to hang around with the bones.
So... they were going to leave as it is. The only influential incident which occurred due to which they felt the urge to do at the time they did it was coz britan was badly wounded after the 2nd WW.
I think if there is anyone whome we have to thank for our freedom, it would be Hitler. Coz only because he broke the back of English administration back home that they felt like urgency of making india free and concentrating on rebuilding britan.
(Hitler wasn’t all that bad mind you, the only thing he did bad was to get religion involved in his actions and kill jews in the name of superiority of the Aryan race)
Lets start of with Gandhiyan style of peaceful protests.
Peaceful protests are good and they do achieve goals. But only when both the sides are peaceful, or atleast, the other side is listening. You don’t do a peaceful protest against someone who is here with the intention of invading your country or plundering you.
Infact, the britishers were pleased to have someone like Gandhi to protest against them. They actually supported him. Because then, no matter what they do, like, rape a woman, kill her husband, loot someones house, massacure a crowd, they would just get away with a peaceful which they can conveniently lathi charge (hit mercilessly with sticks till either the people are dead or fainted or so badly wounded that they cant utter a word or stand on their feet).
To give you just one example, there was this protest rally being held at the jalian wala baug (a play ground in amritsar which still exists), where there were peaceful demonstration against the british going on. There was a huge mob and the ground was filled with people. All of a sudden, the british forces entered the premises and started firing at the mob. 10,000 people were killed in the firing. Women jumped into the near by well and commited suicide because if by chance they stay alive, the brishers should not rape them and they should die with dignity.
Later on a committee was launched. The main british officer responsible for this incident (I don’t exactly remember the name) was questioned. The bluntly said that “I stopped firing because the ammunition was over. Had I been carrying more ammunition, I would have killed more people.
As a protest to this, Gandhi did a 5 day hunger strike, people did satyagraha, some people launched a protest march till the police station, again which was lathi charged, in which, again a 1000 people died.
This is the kind of history we are learning. You still think Gandhi was respectable?
This is just one incident. I can tell you 10 more. To just name a few very briefly, calling back of the non-cooperation movement, firstly, agreeing to the british that we will accept the reforms you give us after the first world war (india would have achieved it freedom back in 1930’s had Gandhi not existed at all), calling back the quit india movement, shutting up his face and doing nothing but protesting peacefully when the britishers increased taxes on Indian industries and burnt down many industries and cut the hands of artists and workers working there openly, in public (my great grand fathers hands were cut). Gandhi did nothing but a peaceful demonstration, in which again more people were killed.
Somehow, when I go through our history, I get the feeling that is our blood cheap?
Maybe your of the view that the casualties of a peaceful protest, where one side is the oppressor and other is oppressed, is less than a violent protest. Yup, the casualties are less for the oppressors. Infact, they love it.
Had Indians been a little violent by nature, or atleast aggressive, we wouldn’t have any british rule in india.
Do you know that the britishers could never capture a backward and tribal nation like Afghanistan. Why? Cause when they entered into Afghanistan with their army, afghans fought back fiercely, killing almost all of the britishers.
Somehow, it was just a cakewalk for the british into a prosperous and peace loving country like India.
Coming back to Gandhi, okay, now india achieved freedom and since the cunning britishers knew that an united india could be a formidable enemy in the future, they decided to break it by giving every region and princely state, the right to choose if it wanted to be a part of independent india or wanted to stay alone, independent.
Then, we had the stupidest of our leaders, Nehru and Jinnah, squabbling over who will become the prime minister of india. As a result of which, jinnah started communalizing the issue instigating muslims against hindus to achieve his goal, (ofcourse with british support) and thus leading to communal frenzy, leading to killing of many hindus and muslims.
Solution to this problem - divide the nation. Form a separate nation for the muslims and call it Pakistan. And as for india, I was to stay secular. Once the boundries decided, the muslims would wipe out all hindus in their areas while the hindus would do the same to muslims.
Result – we have a two torn away nations, thirsty of each others blood due to the bad memories of the partition, fighting till today.
Couldn’t we just hang around like that? I think all the communal tension would have been temporary. After a while, a feeling of patriotism and sharing of values would bind us again. I mean, forming of two nations is permanent. And more than the memories of communal frenzy, we have bad memories of the partition.
And to break a nation apart just because there are 2 guys contending for the prime ministers post, is this any sort of a justifiable logic? What kind of a leader was he?
Later, Gandhi decided to give away almost half of the money from Indian treasurery to paksitan. For development purposes of cource. But Pakistan already had a treasury of its own. Was there any need? And what did Pakistan do with the money? Used it all up (yes all of it) to infiltrate its troops into Kashmir, which was an independent nation at that time. That’s where the Kashmir issue started.
The mistakes that Gandhi made during his time still cast very big shadows till today.
As for the westerners who think it’s a great idea, well ofcouce, coz all this time they have been the aggressors. Peace is a new concept to them.
But as for us, we have been looted away due to our peace-loving culture.
I am not an advocator of violence or a supporter of war. But sometimes, violence is the answer. You gotto make decisions about whome you should deal with peacefully and with whome by violence. Somehow, i feel, gandhi failed to do that.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Not all that Bad?
March 17, 2002 - 02:12 AM
|
|
I do not think that the Russians would agree that Hitler was not all that bad. 20 million gave up their lives to stop him. You may be interested in the book "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." It documents Hitler offering Stalin INDIA in exchange for east European territory (Stalin did not accept because they had no historical tie or interest in India). Hitler's ambitions essentially destroyed most of Europe and cost millions of lives to stop. He used industrial methods to commit genocide against not only Jews, but Gypsies, Slavs, and many other who he considered inferior. In fact, a larger percentage of Europe's Gypsy population was destroyed than the Jewish population.
While Gandhi was a controversial figure (usually non-controversial figures are not assasinated), Hitler was certainly one of the most maniacal and evil leaders the world faced. Certailnly the destruction of Hitler by military means was justified. Gandhi's methods would not have worked against Hitler.
[As an aside, my understanding is that Gandhi's assertion that Pakistan should receive the aid money was the "final straw" that caused his assasin to strike.]
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
To the nutty one in the corner.
March 18, 2002 - 07:23 AM
|
|
Vivek.
Im going to have to try working through the english/indian problems here - so give me a little leeway.
Preddy is not sure of what kind of a person I am and thinks that Gandhi has achieved more than what he or myself have achieved.
Firstly, im not sure what you mean. Ghandhi has surely achieved more than you have, if thats what you mean, and hands down - he beats my impact on global history/peaceful demonstrations hands down.
I think what you were trying to get at is that Ghandhi was somehow overrated. Perhaps from your perspective that seems so, but from a Western, educated, balanced view - it seems that whether or not Ghandi's true object and resulting accomplishment was in fact as giant as it is made out to be - still does not outweight the notion of peaceful protest overthrowing a system where those in authority believe those they have power over are lesser human beings, the notion that it was not Ghanhi's achievements, it was the way he achieved it, which outweighs any critical opinion todays generation of world-shakers such as you or I may have.
The story you put forward may be irratic and hard to decipher, but the general theme is that the British conceived a grave injustice against your people.
True.
I believe you, the indigenous people of my country suffered from this too. Institutionalised Genocide I think they call it.
I believe that you will not be persuaded into believing that the British oppression of the peoples of India should have been peacefully resisted instead of violently countered.
My counter to that is, to what extent do you think a movement against the British rule at the time succeeded. At most, it would have created seperatist states run by inter-warring rulers.
Ghandhi found strength in unity, a peaceful unity.
To illustrate my point further, the German workers of the Ruhr during the turbelent 1920's, after being occupied by France seeking reparations from Germany tried 'passive resistance' which wasnt passive resistance at all. Their efforts failed completely, the riots and uprisings against the French were all crushed. But when the government of the time negotiated with France, the French got up and left the region. (i think it was Gustav Stresemann who brokered the deal, but i may be wrong)
I shant ever agree with you Vivek if you believe that violence is anything but a last resort. It is most certainly something that should be employed when ALL OTHER MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. No matter how long it may take.
There are a number of countries in existence today that should learn from that before its too late.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
March 18, 2002 - 09:27 AM
|
|
I agree that had an Indian leader arose who could unite the various groups into violent resistence, India would have been independent sooner. Wars bring about QUICK solutions, but often not the best solutions.
My understanding is that Gandhi was the leader who was able to bring the various groups together to resist the British. Certainly, WWII finished off the British Empire, however Indian resistance set the stage similar to that in the Phillipines.
There, the US had fought a long guerilla war and finally started the process of granting independence. The war with Japan interrupted the process, however it had already gone into motion before the war. By the way, this guerilla war took decades, just as Gandhi's efforts did.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Joanna Frizzell
Joined: Dec 12, 2001
Posts: 13 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 26
Country: United States
Province/State: Iowa
City: Allerton
|
Vivek.....
March 18, 2002 - 10:51 AM
|
|
When I think of Ghandi I see an unbreakable spirit. What was so amazing about Ghandi is that he rose above hate and violence. You talk like violence was the honorable and right thing to do, when it will only degrade the soul of your country. Your country is strong because even with every bad, horrible, evil, and cruel thing that has been done to India, Ghandi and his followers proved that love and peace is in India's heart. Ghandi would not be made to hate, he would not be made to kill. And what Ghandi did was more heard and more view-changing around the world than any act of violence. Love is always stronger than hate.
I understand that you are mad about all the people that died, all the corrupt and all the sad things that happened. It sounds like you are mad because you think it never should've happened, that it didn't have to happen. And that so many horrible events could've been prevented and stopped. I feel the same way about the Vietnam War. It just didn't have to happen, so many of our young boys didn't have to die. And all these boys and young men seemed to have died just because of some stupid and corrupt politicians who had ulterior motives. Or when we bombed Hiroshima, we didn't have to do that. And all the generations of diseased people from the radiation. What kind of people would make such a bomb? What kind of people would want to hurt so many people so badly? But, we can't go back and change the past. We can only try and do better in the future. I really hear the anger in your voice when you talk of all the events in your country and what the British did to your people. I understand your anger, but I fear that you will let it grow into a hatred in your heart, or hamper your understanding.
About Hitler all I have to say is that he was truly sick. He was a man who hungered for power and achievement and he didn't care who he brainwashed, tortured, starved, or killed in the process. Think about all the sadness you have for your people who died. Now think about all the people who died at his hands, all of the people. Do you still want to tell me that he was not that bad? Have you ever seen Schindler's List, the movie? Have you ever read Anne Frank? He deliberately killed thousands and thousands of people, and tortured them, degraded them, took away any dignity they had. He is definitely bad.
That is all for now. Smiles, hugs, and all my love to everyone!!! 
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Hitler...Again
March 30, 2002 - 01:37 AM
|
|
Vivek -
You are correct that over the several hundred years of colonialism, the British and the other European empires, more peoples were killed. However, Hitler's destruction took place over a very short time span and over a large land area. Also, Hitler used killing factories (e.g. Auschwitz and Treblinka) to kill millions over a short time in a highly planned manner. He even sacrificed winning WWII to devote resources to his nightmarish vision. If he had won, the world would be a MUCH worse place to live.
I fully agree that Churchill was a racist imperialist, however, even the architect of Gallipoli would never dream of constructing factories for the sole purpose of killing millions of people.
If you are interested in reading about Hitler's offer of India to the Russians it is discussed in William Shirer's book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I was just as surprised as you when I saw it. I do not believe Gandhi would have lasted long if India were ruled by Stalin, Hitler, or Tojo.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
March 30, 2002 - 05:17 AM
|
|
1st post of rsmarg.
Hitler was bad you say. Okay, I think I’ll agree that many people were killed fighting Hitler and et all. So were many germans killed at the hands of the allied forces (England, America, france and Russia). Somehow, history is the kind of thing that whoever is victorious is glorified and then we take him as a hero. Had Hitler won, we would be looking at Hitler as the creator of the modern world. Somehow it didn’t work out for him.
Racism and genocide part is bad. But it was something that britishers had started. Hitler just carried it forward. Everything else that you are talking about, the statistics you are giving, I can guarantee you that if you study England’s history more properly, the British have killed atleast a 100 times of the number of people that Hitler had. Even they promoted racism, colored people are discriminated against till today. And it all started in England. How come they don’t get into any one’s bad books? Why do you look at England differently than Hitler. If Hitler was bad, British were worse.
Pred
Okay mister western, educated, balanced view, somehow I get a feeling that you are under the impression that I am not educated or balanced since I am not western.
I’ll tell you something, you are a dumb guy.
I am not advocating senseless violence. Either you gotto improve upon your interpretation skills or you gotto get your brain scanned.
Anyways, don’t want to increase the length of my post, so I won’t comment on what you wrote.
But…. All other means have been exhausted…. Now you know what you get out of peace. Get all your means exhausted first and then repent violently.
BTW, how do you come to know if all your means have been exhausted or you still have anything left? Can you measure it?
And plzz don’t be under the impression that there were inter-warring groups in India and Gandhi united us. India is not a tribal place. Nor was it in those days. Infact, due to all the delays, britishers were able to create inter-warring groups, that’s how Pakistan was born.
Rsmargs 2nd post.
Actually, Indians did protest violently on two occasions. 1st time during the 1857 uprising. It was more of a sepoy mutiny than of a national movement. All the Indian troops working under british came together to fight them and throw them out of India. It didn’t work coz they were not well organized (lacked leadership) and british forces were better armed. (swords Vs guns sort of fight).
And then we had leaders like Veer Savarkar and Netji Subhash Chandra Bose who tried to form parallel govts.
Infact, the fact that you gave of how Hitler offered India to Stalin surprises me, coz netaji had a sizable support in Japan and was helped by the Japanese king then, in the way of providing arms and technology to fight the british.
Sadly, Netaji Bose died quite early in his life in a plane crash. Otherwise, just possible that we could have our freedom differently.
But the phillipines example you gave isint appropriate. Philippines were just a handful of people, so they had to go for a gurellia war. In case of India, India has the kind of population that if you get together entire Europe and add to it the population of America, you still cant outnumber us. We could have easily gone for a direct siege. 1857 uprising lasted barely 6 months, but it almost uprooted the british from India.
Now, delila.
I think everybody famous had unbreakable spirit (except for Homer Simpson I guess). Michael Jackson, Muhammad Ali, Veer Savarkar, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Bismarck, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Alexander The Great, Jesus Christ, Galileo, Michael Angelo, Archimedes, Moses, Isaac Newton, Etc Etc. even Genghis Khan had unbreakable spirit. He belonged to some nomadic tribe in a deserted place like Mongolia and managed to invade a place like Persia and the holy Roman Empire. He did have unbreakable spirit.
But I’ll agree to you when you said Gandhi was more heard and view changing in the west. The reason being that India has had this tradition of peace for very long. But in the west, it’s a new concept. That’s why view changing. Otherwise, his ways got us only more suffering from the british, delay in our independence and a torn nation whose people are eager to kill each other forgetting about the common enemy, the british.
Love is always stronger than hate if you are dealing with lovely people. I don’t think britishers were that lovely or deserved it.
And about the Vietnam war, I really don’t understand how can Americans justify their killing of 100s of 1000s of people in some other country just because they wanted to be communist. What’s it like, America is ruling the world and we are supposed to take orders? This attitude of America to go out of its way to oppose Russia and communism in every possible way is what is behind the creation of taleiban.
But… don’t worry, I know whats past and whats present and whome to hate and whome not to. And my understanding is perfectly all right. I am not a promoter of hate and war. Its just that sometimes what we think is a peaceful solution, can turn out to be the worst possible way we could have handled the situation. Why did Americans not protest peacefully against Japanese when they attacked pearl harbor? Just that then you would have an America, which was a Japanese colony. Nuclear bomb and that too twice wasant the best thing to do, but atleast it ended the war and avoided so many other people from being killed. So… not the worst solution.
As far as Hitler is concerned, I think I’ve said already, you can’t hate Hitler and like the British. If Hitler was bad, British were evil. For every genocide Hitler did, britishers have made a larger genocide. Just that it’s not a part of your history.
Anymore comments…. Always welcome.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
vivek . . .
March 30, 2002 - 08:50 AM
|
|
Quote: Okay mister western, educated, balanced view, somehow I get a feeling that you are under the impression that I am not educated or balanced since I am not western.
I’ll tell you something, you are a dumb guy.
I am not advocating senseless violence. Either you gotto improve upon your interpretation skills or you gotto get your brain scanned.
Anyways, don’t want to increase the length of my post, so I won’t comment on what you wrote.
But…. All other means have been exhausted…. Now you know what you get out of peace. Get all your means exhausted first and then repent violently.
BTW, how do you come to know if all your means have been exhausted or you still have anything left? Can you measure it?
And plzz don’t be under the impression that there were inter-warring groups in India and Gandhi united us. India is not a tribal place. Nor was it in those days. Infact, due to all the delays, britishers were able to create inter-warring groups, that’s how Pakistan was born.
Im not sure where you got the idea that I was implying that because you aren't "western" you cant have a balanced view. Indeed, many would argue the populations of the "east" have a better way of comprehending that which goes on in the world. If you can prove that i was implying the opposite of what i just wrote, quote it for all to see.
Where you say I am not advocating senseless violence.i must remind you of some of your previous posts. You seemed quite positive in the powers of violent force rather than a diplomatic approach. I would suggest you not turn on yourself so quickly, or you might fall on your own sword.
I think i can remember a thread you started a while ago about the India and Pakistan situation, where you claimed violence was the only way - and diplomatic solutions had no place.
The point is, regardless, that violence is senseless, no matter what the cause.
I must agree with Rob on the point of Hitler however. He had succeeded in only 7 and a bit years in transforming his nation into a military powerhouse, able to conquer entire European nations in a matter of only a few months. His ability to revitalise Germany would be the same as Ehtiopia developing a military force twice the size and power of todays United States military, in a timespan of less than 5 years.
Nevertheless, it must be said that there was a point in the war where the annhiliation of the Jews (and many other groups) was not known by the allies, and they were only opposing Hitler and Nazi Germany on the merits of fighting an aggressor who had the ability to overrun Europe, in a timespan that would have Alexander the Great turning in his grave.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Gerald Derome
Joined: Oct 23, 2001
Posts: 168 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 55
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
PBS U.S. Education reforms.
March 30, 2002 - 09:11 AM
|
|
Just watched some of that last night. The purpose was to show how the development of testing methods and questions used for high school graduating purposes.
Of course what they taught or emphasised was "American" content for it is the educationals system duty to ensure the strenghtening of the country.
What has this got to do with the discussion here, well everything. Mankind should have one agreed upon history for future generations. Someone named "Lee" in world historical perspective has no bearing on the why we have become who we are today. Where as Hitler, J.C. and Ghandi did influence wolrd events.
One history, one mankind for one future together.
Mankinds true evil is our insistance on keeping a segregated past. With this we always have opposing views depending on what side of the fence you were on at the time of the event or where your teachers and texts came from.
All religions and countries have a right to a page in world history as do great people. Canada being so young does not really have anyone or event of worldly mention yet what we learn here (what is taught) tries to instill in us great pride. Ya, sure who in Fiji really cares about some guy named "Puddle of Water". fuddle duddle!
I cannot point a finger as is who is to blame when and why that is the historians and the politicians task. there to protect their ass sets.
Good thread....
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
March 31, 2002 - 02:24 AM
|
|
I agree with Vivek on two points. First, WWII was nto a war between good and evil. The majority of the casualties were on the Eastern front and Stalin was not exactly Mr. Nice Guy. WWII was a trade-off between the greater evil (stopping Nazism and its rapid spead of destruction) and the lesser evil of Stalin. One good thing about WWII is that it finally forced the west to accelerate the dismantlement of their colonial empires. Your mention of hating the British more because they were in your country is well taken. In Korea, I was asked about the Holocaust when Koreans saw Schindler's List. I did not have to explain the destruction of Nanjing since they were VERY familiar with the atrocities committed by Imperial Japan.
The second point of agreement is that Gandhi's methods DO take longer. Gandhi's contention (I realize that you disagree with him on this) is that the victory will be longer lasting than one brought by violence.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
March 31, 2002 - 05:14 AM
|
|
preddy, i think its just the way u put things, like when you said, western educated balanced view, it does make me think what you ment by that. thats the kind of sterotype you've made in my mind.
as far as hitler being bad is concerned, i am not disagreeing, but if he was bad, the british were even more bad. thats all. 2nd WW wasn't a victory of good over evil in any way at all.
you find him evil because his offences were against you'll and i find the british bad coz their offences were against us.
as far as gandhi is concerned, i think his ways are good for dealing with domestic issues, not international.
and as for peaceful solutions, you need 2 peaceful sides for that. you cant clap with just one hand. something gandhi didnt understand all his life, and made my people die mercilessly at the hands of barbarians.
the best possible solution in those days would have been for every indian to have a aim in his life, to kill atleast one englishman. we would have got our freedom in a matter of months and with much fewer casualties.
the reason why you cant see casualties in gandhi's ways was beacuse they werent on your side. had an equal no. of britishers died, then maybe we would have been taken more seriously.
as for current affairs, going peacefully means doing nothing. for example, UN is dealing with palestine issue PEACEFULLY or the UN had dealt with blowing up of bamian buddha statue by taleiban PEACEFULLY, India dealing with the kashmir issue PEACEFULLY.
why didnt you go about nuking japan peacefully or dealing peacefully with osama.
falling on my own sword... i got my freedom of speech dude.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
for gods sake - they are called britons!!!
April 2, 2002 - 04:10 AM
|
|
Vivek - for the love of whatever god you choose to believe in - they are called britons! not f%#(#g 'britishers!!!'
British people can be called Britons (plural form!!!)
To the extent of you saying the British were worse than Hitler, i think you are exaggerating. Somehow i think the British acted more in disrespect to India's population. Something Hitler never did, instead, Hitler devised policies that were directly anti-German.
Hitler saw all other people, of all other races and citizenship as less-worthy than the 'superior german race'
What im saying is, dont credit your people as having the same order of suffering as those were were victims of the calculated, mass-murder of millions of people in Nazi concetration camps.
What happened in the holocaust was more than injustice, it was cold blooded murder. What happened to India's people, and the people of many colonies - was a blatant disregard of respect and entitlement you rightfully deserved.
I think your pushing by claiming ending the war with Japan through a nuclear solution wasnt a wise idea. Firstly - it wasnt me. It wasnt the generation of past either. It was the United States administration, the military elite that got the say on whether or not to nuke japan, or face a bloody massacre of troops rivalling the losses of the forces that overran the beaches of France.
You have to understand there was no democratic decision in whether or not it was a good idea or not to use nuke's to end the war.
At best, it was severely biased - American generals and the President weighing up the cost of at least 150 thousand soldiers killed in an invasionary force, or 100 thousand *enemy* (they knew they'd be killing civilians).
Of course, the authority chose the nuclear version. But remember they didnt know the effects radiation had on a country and its population.
That said, i suggest you find another example in trying to convey your point than the ridiculous notion of the nuclear question in world war II.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Marcel Strbak
Joined: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 9 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: Slovakia
Province/State: Bratislava
City: Bratislava
|
Hitler is not bad ?
April 2, 2002 - 04:14 AM
|
|
JESUS ! HITLER IS NOT THAT BAD ???????
Do you know what are you promoting ?
I fully understand one thing:
India, just like all other colonies, gained independence
thanks to WWII. I quess for India, WWII was just a
stupid war between stupid Europen countries. England and France had shamelessly looted their colonies for ages, so why should India bother if England would go to hell or not ? Right, I understand. India had right to hate England. So, conclusion is, that for India was WWII kind of helpful. Just like for USA.
Wheather it sounds nice or not, USA profited from WWII.
British and French empires were dead, England and France were wrecked by war. The war didn't enter the territory of USA (except for Pearl Harbor, but that was different). While economies of European countries were destructed, economy of USA experienced great boom. And helping Western European countries after WWII pledged these countries to "obey" USA in future. But still I don't think that any intelligent American would say: "Thanks God for WWII and Hitler, we are having such a great time now ! Mr. Hitler we love you !"
WWII caused the falldown of British empire and made India free. That much I understand; but for Jesus Chirst, don't say: "Hitler was not that bad". I don't believe you understand, that if Germany conquered India, NONE of you, and I say *NONE* of you, would be alive. He would have killed you all. Gypsies came to Europe from India
and Hitler killed as much of them as he could. Hitler did not hated only Jews. He hated everyone who was not Aryan.
6,000,000 dead Jews, 10,000,000 (or 20 ?) dead Russians, millions people from other nations were killed by Germans. Hitler was Satan himself.
You say: "Hey, England killed more Indians than you can imagine and nobody seems to blame them." Maybe you're right, but there is difference between WWII and occupation od India. Britons came to India to steal your wealth. Germany came to Eastern Europe to KILL everyone. Hitler's only objective was to kill ALL Gypsies, Jews and Slavs. And I, being a Slav, take it personally. If he had enough time, he would kill ALL Indians and Africans as well. Believe me.
Please, don't ever say "Hitler was not that bad". You can: India profited from WWII, instead.
At one point, I must agree with you. Nobody seems to point
fingers at England for killing Indians and Africans. Americans killed millions of native Americans in the largest "legal genocide" in the history. Now they say: "we are sorry", but they don't seem to understand that they came to a foreign land, and murdered inocent people for the gold and the land. They had absolutely no right to kill natives. Millions of Vietnam people died for no reason. Stalin killed 10,000,000 Russians who seemed to be "dangereous" for USSR, Mao C'Tung sent to death
20,000,000 Chinese. Racism was official policy of England, France and USA for centuries. You're right Hitler was not the only "bad guy". But Hitler was the cruelest one.
Don't forget.
You also say that: "Well, Hitler was bad, but after being
conquered by Russians, Germans suffered as much as the other nations during German occupation." Well, it is truth that the Russians killed innocent Germans and raped their wives. But are surprised ? 10 million Russians died in the war. That is much much much more than Germans. Don't forget, that the Nazis did start the war. Not the Russians, English or French. If you kill 20 million people and
rape thousand, maybe millions women, for the only reason: He/she is a Slav, you must realise, that the massacred nation will show no mercy if the aggressor lose. And Germany was the aggressor.
Did WWII help India ? Alright, be glad. For most of the
European nations, WWII was a horrible genocide. But never ever say: "thanks to Hitler". It is a terrible insult for all dead people who died because they were considered to be "inferior race". And Indians were as much "inferior" as Jews, in the eyes of Hitler.
As for Gandhi, I don't want to argue, because I don't know
enough about him to do so. But I definitely AM pacifist.
You are probably right, that Indians should have driven
Britons out of India as soon as they came. When facing aggression, there is no place for pacifism. If England and France had stopped Hitler while they could, WWII would have never taken place. If Indians had fouhgt Britons at the begining there might have been no occupation. But remember, that British army was the strongest army force in the world. Maybe many many thousands of people died because of Gandhi's peace policy, but I think that if he had provoked a war, maybe half of Indians would be dead by now. It is too late to judge. I'm not expert on history of India, but I'm pretty sure, that you should change your opinion on Hitler.
Marcel
PS: You said one intersting thing: "If Hitler won the war,
we would celebrate him, and hate England and USA instead."
Well, I live in a country that was under Soviet influence for 40 years; when I was 8 years old I was taught to hate "imperialist capitalist swines (meaning Americans [hello guys ! ] and Western Europe). I know
how it is to study history from two sides. But if Hitler won, I would not study history at all, because I would be dead (although I'm a blonde, but I'm Slav).
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
April 2, 2002 - 11:44 AM
|
|
you talk australian english, i talk indian english.
britishers is the right word.
thats all i think was worth repling.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Gandhi: a man without whome world would have been a much better place to live.
April 3, 2002 - 01:03 AM
|
|
It was a really nice post marcel. I’d love to reply.
1st thing, I thik this thread has drifted a bit, away from Gandhi and into the WW2. Anyways, would love to clarify you about what I have trying to say all this time.
You got me rite when you said India did profit from WW2. In fact, WW2 is the reason for our independence. And about America, America is a super power today and is in a position to dictate the world only due to the 2nd WW.
But that’s not relevant here.
1st thing, Indians belong to the Aryan race. I belong to the Aryan race. But that’s not the point I will be stressing here, coz then we will be missing the whole issue.
Racism is bad. I am not promoting it. But to tell you the fact, Winston Churchill was a big racist himself.
Hitler’s objective wasn’t to kill everyone; he wanted a share of the world as greman colonies. You see, germany in those days was as advanced as England. But most of the world was already a british or French colony. That was also the main reason for Bismark starting the 1st WW also. Hitler massacred Jews coz somehow he was under the impression that jews were not loyal and were the main cause of Germany’s defeat in the 1st WW.
And as far as the difference you’re trying to show me between Hitler’s aggression and aggression by British, I think you are being a little biased here or you are not aware of what britishers used to do in India.
Telling you a true story of our family here. Told to me by my grand father.
Back in our village, we were one of the prosperous families. My great-grandfather was a skilled craftsman and we owned a handloom unit, manufacturing cloth.
So, the kind of tax on us was, we were supposed to give away 3/4th of our income to the brithshers as our tax. (britishers used to levy taxes for any funny reason).
One day, my great-grandpa was fed up. He refused to pay the taxes when the british officials visited our house to collect taxes. So… he was dragged on the street, his arms were cut (yes its true) in public, with the whole village watching it. When my grandfather’s elder brother tried to intervene, he was hit so badly on his ear that his ear bled for 2 days after which he was deaf from one ear for the rest of his life.
The britishers looted our house and our 3 stored house was burnt down.
My grand father spent all his life (and my dad spent half of his life) in the burnt single stored ruins of what used to be among the more prosperous houses in the village.
I’ve seen my grandfather telling me how big our house was and then how it was burnt down. I have seen the bricks in the walls of our old house which had turned black because of burning.
Now do you think I am going to have any consideration at all if Hitler killed british.
You hate Hitler coz he killed you’ll, I hate british coz they killed us. Its as simple as that.
I am not saying Hitler was good by any chance. All that I am saying is that britishers weren’t any good either. And I have seen it quite closely.
World war 2 was the best thing to happen on this planet. (except for the development of nuclear bomb) Because in world war 2 one evil fought the other and both killed themselves.
Somehow I think you are under the impression that brithsers were too strong for us to handle and that they took over India due to a direct siege. Its not so my dear. Britishers were very cunning people. They captured India not by a direct siege, but they used to bribe the unsatisfied and corrupt generals serving for all the maharajas and nizams and instigate them to fight amongst themselves. Never ever did british fight a big battle on Indian soil. They were weak and heavily out numbered. But they were cunning and people in India were stupid, involving themselves in petty internal conflicts.
About Gandhi and pacifism… I am not a pacifist and I got my own reasons for it.
Pacifism works when you have a peaceful opponent, otherwise you end up being a failure like Gandhi who is later on jubilitated for something he doesn’t deserve.
But… found you remark on Mao a bit perplexing. Agreed Mao was a very aggressive person and crushed his opponents using non-peaceful ways. (he had very few opponents and the figure you gave, 20,000,000 isn’t correct. Infact, none of your figures are correct.) But as far as china is concerned, they consider Mao to be a saint. Mao’s policy was that of aggressive communalism and that everyone should live as a part of the community.
He was unrealistic and his policies had pitfalls, but he brought up china from a poor developing nation up into an economic, technological and military super power. Infact, if today there is any nation, which can challenge America’s supremacy, its china.
Mao is the kind of people’s representative I love. Otherwise in India, all the politicians are corrupt, inefficient, incompetent and are only interested in manipulating the public to get votes and get elected again. And when it comes to real issues (like Kashmir) they turn into gandhian pacifists. I hate the politicians in my country.
I am not a supporter of communalism (after seeing what it did to Russia) but I am an admirer of Mao. Wish we had a Mao in India.
Anyways, everyone who wants to reply, plzz stick to Gandhi. Coz this thread is abt Gandhi, not mao or Hitler or stalin.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
