i dont like gandhi . in my opinion gandhi betrayed indian people gave us a bad name all over the world.

Destiny and fate are for clowns. Events are the result of planned action in a particular interest. The assertion of Gandhi was deliberate and staged.

Gandhi is regarded as the traitor of True Indian Independence by Indians throughout India. This is supported by all Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis whom have studied the truth of Indian history as written from the Indian viewpoint as opposed to that presented by the west (British) and that written by high government officials whom have somewhat falsified a version of our history to suit their own requirements.

"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British empire in it's dying hour."
The abundant evidence is clear as is presented by Gandhi's autobiography, ("Experiments with Truth"), where he continually contradicts his own varying views. What you observe as good and wholesome is the subjective and heavily biased perception presented forward by British historians and current government endorsed publications. They fail to even mention the failures by the British raj against other freedom fighting parties which played a very large part in the destabilization of colonial rule during the imperialists' dying hour.

Instead they show the British as "peacefully withdrawing" from India as a direct cause of Gandhi's activity. However they completely and very conveniently forgot to mention the losses faced by British troops through rebellion of North West and East India. Destabilization was already afoot. Indian regiments were in rebellion in the south, east and west. The martyrdom of over 500 Indian regiment troops in south India is but one of many examples. It was a matter of; do the British tactfully retreat essentially buying time to withdraw all resources with minimal damage and loss...Or do they face the rising onslaught of their own troops and face being thrown out at the expense of the loss of valuable resource export.Please do not take the British raj for idiots. They executed this plan very well indeed.

Secondly Gandhi was a prime candidate for this course of action. Widely accepted as having an inferiority complex which is further supported by his autobiography; quote:

(Example 1)
"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British empire in it's dying hour"

(Example 2)
"We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilze ourselves first. [like the British]"

Do you think it acceptable to fight for your own captors and exploiters as was done in W.W.II??? Can you logically conclude that we should lay down our lives for the same people that whipped our people, raped our women and pillaged our country? Do you regard Indian philosophy of that era so backward that we should strive to become "British" before we are granted freedom??? Why does Gandhi regard freedom not a right!!! These are just some ridicules of British History and the Gandhi hypocrisy. A preacher of non-violence indeed [sarcasm].He himself recruited troops for the British army during W.W.II. Where was his preaching of non-violence then. His hypocrisy by endorsing so called non-violence for the purpose of suffocating Indian revolt is clearly demonstrated by his sudden change in philosophy to recruit troops for the British army during W.W.II. His values, beliefs and views are clearly hypocritical and ridiculous.

The fundamental and fatal flaws in Gandhi's philosophy can be deduced from his own writings. The content and tone not only in his "Experiments with Truth" autobiography but with his other excerpts also support his inferiority complex. He was taught in Britain from a young age in an open racially discriminating environment. If you are told all your life that you are inferior then this has that affect on your psyche. Such a leader with such a complex is very detrimental for the people of India indeed. We can see the consequences in the poverty and exploitation of our people and the "so-called" democratic system which remains as a dud and legacy from British colonial rule. The constitution of which has not changed since British Imperialism. The rulers of India may have changed, but the system of rape pillage and exploitation of people has not.

I find it infuriating when people quote our History according to British translation or rather, British manufacture. I would suggest that you please read Gandhi's works before before drawing such assumptions of his character and purpose. Indian history at source holds truth. Not historical analysis commissioned by various British organizations or those serving such. You may surprise yourself and the beliefs we have been indoctrined with by the west as well as the powers at large of our divided nation.

Don't even mention his policy of so-called "non-violence". Why the hell did he make the statement above as well as lead a recruitment march for British Army during W.W.I???

Gandhi was a traitorous puppet. A clown by all standards.


post your opinion plzz..

I'm finding it hard to locate any of the aforementioned quotes on the net. They all seem to be only on anti-Gandhi threads...I can't locate them on any reputed sites, eg with domain edu...

Are they simply translations or what?

I thought Gandhi was not in favor of supporting the British until India gained total independance? Or something like "non-violent moral support" only? And so he was put in jail for non-compliance..(?)

I guess I should read his own words, though...thanks for bringing this up.

Hey, are you also known as illest_desi?

every gandhi in india history has been bad

the_illest_punjabi_hunk............

^ Wait, so you're not illest_desi on punjabonline forums, then?

the_illest_punjabi_hunk..........


no.

dude, you copied and pasted that entire thing from illest_desi right?
http://www.punjabonline.com/servlet/commun...&Category=2
I mean that's not exactly your view, ay? You're just projecting it so people can comment on it, yeah?

I hope so cause his view isn't backed up with any proper refs...

i have stoped posting there. this is actually an article of raj dhillon. i got it from here

http://jatt.com/articles/gandhi.asp

Netaji and the INA shook hands with Hitler and was armed by the IJA. Yet they are patriots in India

gandhi.....................he was a pig who had no brains

fu-king nanga fakir gave all indians bad name

I'll read that whole essay later, but I remember Gandhi saying he believed in equality for women and adopted a dalit untouchable girl. That automatically made him good in my book.

^ Agree
I think jatt has just decided to harbour someone else's view without researching into it properly...ay?

some people say he used to fu-k that girl....he also kept one gori "rakheal" and a goat 4 procreation

Jatt just can't stand the fact that a Guju man was the greatest person of the 20th century. kekeke. <3

yaar dont be so ethno centric...even lots of gujus dont like gandhi

Gandhi liberated India from the British, so you have to atleast give him credit.

wasn't ghandi a dravidian? dravidians were hella tight wit tha sumerians. they were like best friends and bros.

india got freedom beause it was not possible for the british to hold on india when all indians were against them. i think gandhi is given undue credit for freedom movement..

Gandhi is too dark and scrawny. He makes us North Indian Aryan warriors look bad.

thats a sarcastic comment...

i hate him because he advocated non violence... while revolutionaries were fighting for freedom he was begging.

moreover he used to remain nanga all time....



now this is the image of indians he propogated all over the world.

The Dravidians are people that speak the South Indian languages. Gandhi isn't a South Indian.

Some old Guju auntie told me Gandhi was quite handsome when he was young.

I doubt that. You are making it sound like Ghandi made no impact in the struggle of India's independence.

Also, you have to take into consideration that India was the most conquered nation in history. Sorry to say, Indians are not known for being warriors and fighters(out of all the Indians, maybe the Punjabi have some fire in them) but generally speaking, the majority of the Indian people are not a warrior-like people.

P.S. wasn't it a Sikh that assinated Ghandi?

not all of india was conquered by outsiders ...actually north eastern states and south india remianed independent most of the time. northern india was conquered because people at that time followed religions like budhism and hinduism which teach peace and harmony. moreover there was not clear boundaried between afghanistan, iran and india.

sikh didnt killed gandhi ... naturam godshay killed him and he was a hindu. a gujrati

Didn't you read my post in the other thread? I gave you a list of warrior groups in India outside of Punjab.

Here's a famous non-Punjabi female fighter. There's more. Other people will be happy to provide you with details.


Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh was probably the bravest of all the leaders who fought for India’s independence against the mighty British. She died in battle as she led the Indian mutiny in 1857, the first armed uprising against British rule.

Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi will always be remembered for her unbreakable patriotism and astonishing courage.

In the early part of 1800, when the British were already well established in India, Manikarnika or Manu (the maiden name of Lakshmibai) was born in the family of a courtier, Moropant, in Bittoor, a place located in Central India.

Manu was very athletic and loved to compete with boys. She was also an avid reader with a love for learning. When Manu reached marriageable age, quite unexpectedly, a marriage proposal came from the Maharaja (king) of Jhansi.

She was married a year later, in
1842. Manu was named Rani or queen Lakshmibai, after the goddess of wealth and victory. After nine years, Lakshmibai gave birth to a son. All of Jhansi celebrated the happy event. Alas, the child died after three months. Both Lakshmibai and the Maharaja were grief stricken.

The Maharaja was also unwell and was worried that he had no successor to the throne. He knew the British would not lose the opportunity to take over the kingdom of Jhansi if it were left without an heir. He quickly arranged to adopt a son in November, 1853.

On the following day, the Maharaja died. The prince was still a minor. Lakshmibai decided to run the kingdom until the adopted son reached maturity. It was not easy for a woman to be the head of state at that time. Rani Lakshmibai faced many difficulties but she ran the kingdom well.

She mastered the martial arts, and inspired Jhansi's women to join the army and take a more active role in defending the country. The British were determined to take over the kingdom Jhansi. So they objected to the adoption.

Lakshmibai wrote a petition to the Governor General, and later sent an envoy to London to plead her case. The British rejected her arguments.

When the Indian soldiers of the Meerut garrison heard the rumor that
their rifle cartridges, which they cut with their teeth, were greased with lard and cow fat, both Muslims and Hindus revolted as eating pork is against the Muslim faith, and eating beef is against the Hindu faith.

On May 9, 1857, British officers were shot and prison inmates were released. The rebelling nationalist soldiers
marched to Delhi and received a warm welcome from the citizens. The aged
ex-emperor, Bahadur Shah, was reinstated to the Mughal throne and Delhi became
the nationalist soldiers' headquarters.

Later they seized Lucknow and Satara and
pushed the British soldiers southwards to Jhansi. The British approached Rani
Lakshmibai for refuge but the Rani refused, saying that she could not betray her fellow Indians.

The British army was totally uprooted and the nationalist soldiers returned to Delhi. The British, however, were shrewd politicians and highly organized. Their soldiers were better equipped and better trained. They recaptured Delhi on September 2, 1857 with the help of their Indian allies.

All but three of the independent states surrendered and their rulers became British puppets. The three exceptions were: The Rani of Jhansi, Tantia Topi and Rao Sahib Peshwa. These three swore that they would jointly fight the British until their last breath.

The Rani of Jhansi warned her people that the British would soon come back. The people of Jhansi unanimously supported their queen and assured her that they would lay down their lives to defend Jhansi. On March 25, 1858, the British attacked Jhansi with a huge army equipped with powerful cannons.

With the help of traitors, they entered the fort at night in overwhelming numbers. Rani Lakshmibai went
underground and the British were disappointed when they captured the fort.

To take out their wrath, they burnt the excellent state library, ransacked the palace and shot Rani Lakshmibai's followers. Rani Lakshmibai escaped to Rao Sahib Peshwa’s camp at Kalpi. The British heard of this and prepared to attack Kalpi.

Rani Lakshmibai was worried that Rao Sahib Peshwa had left himself open to attack from the rear and suggested a change in his battle formations. Rao Sahib Peshwa did not think any woman could teach him how to wage war and ignored her suggestions.

As a result, Kalpi fell into the hands of the British on May 24, 1858.
The rebels then sought shelter at the Gwalior fort. The king of Gwalior was not willing to give up his fort without a fight as he was afraid of the British.
But the soldiers laid down their arms in respect for the Rani of Jhansi. Thus the rebels entered Gwalior without a fight. The British wasted no time in attacking Gwalior. It was the fiercest, bloodiest battle ever fought on Indian soil.
Lakshmibai's courage, strength, and ability, as she valiantly fought the British army's vastly superior forces,
are remembered to this day.

She died fighting and Gwalior was captured. Tantia Topi was hanged and Rao Sahib escaped. India became free in August, 1947, after a long struggle of nearly one hundred years.

rajputs are another non punjabi fierce warriors.

I still think your missing the point, Gandhi and his followers showed the world that you don't need to kill people to fight tyrannical injustice. This is a human achievement beyond comparison. Granted the Brits were more liberal then o say Auragzenbab or whatever his name was.

changing an oppresser's viewpoint through moral superiority > filling graves

Indeed. If the world can adopt India's philosophy of non-violence, the world will be much better off.

This is basically what my Dad had to say about Gandhi...

Gandhi was a supreme man. But all humans make errors. He said he would help the British in their efforts in WWI if they made Indian independant immediately, considering who the British were up against. Churchill said that giving India its independance in the midst of war is not possible, because this would be a set back for victory, as this would give Germany more motivation. Churchill guaranteed India's independance after the war if India would help. Gandhi agreed, but Churchill did not fulfil his promise. He lied.

Why did he lie? Because he lacked morals unlike Gandhi.

My Dad then talked about Gandhi's methods of non-violence to gain independance.
...

so would subhash chandra bose be the true hero of indian independence then?

The state of West Bengal definitely thinks so.

No!!! People like the Martyr Bhagat Singh Jee liberated Bharat.

Commies.


Yeah what a great philosophy. Let your mothers, daughters, sisters, wifes get raped. Let your fathers, brothers, sons get killed, but don't defend yourself.

There's a difference b/w using non-violence as a political tool and defending yourself in everyday life.

You do realize it was Muslims doing the raping and the killing, right?

I thought most Indians respect Gandhi. Am I wrong?

His non-violence was good and all, but he lost us tons of territory.

Guys like Bose are bigger amongst younger Indians because he actually shot at the British. I guess kids like that sort of stuff.

Gandhi was good, but he was too passive. His means would never work in today's time. It's a miracle they worked back then.

What territory you are talking about?

Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Plus the whole conflict in Kashmir was started by his deal with Jinnah saying Muslim majority regions should belong to Pakistan.

The Hindu king of Kashmir didn't want to join Pakistan though.

Maybe Muslims in Pakistan at that time want independence too?

^?
You mean Muslims in India wanted independence, so Pakistan was formed.
But there were some Indian Muslims who wanted unity, eg Tipu Sultan.

Then how did Pakistan form in the first place if they don't want independence.

What are you on about?

Pakistan formed because many Muslims in India wanted a Muslim nation to themselves as they were unable to live peacefully with the Indian Hindus. However some Indian Muslims who were not so staunch and had been influenced by Hindu culture like Tipu Sultan and did not want Pakistan to be formed.

I don't know if the formation of Pakistan is a good or bad thing. Perhaps good, because generally Muslims can't live with anyone in peace.