NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask this question because I was talking to a friend who was explained that Ghandi does not get the respect attributed to him in the West as he does in India. This statement surprised me because he's the 'father of the nation' and his likeness is printed on currency, etc...

She explained that Ghandi is viewed as having pushed for independence too early - before India was ready to become an independent state. Thus racial tensions, that had be sparked by the British, were exacerbated as Ghandi slowly fought for Indian independence. Muslims were worried that they would be underrepresented in the new Indian state and began to call for an independent Muslim state (East and West Pakistan). This in turn sparked huge migrations of Muslims to the proposed Pakistan state and of Sikhs and Hindus to the new Indian state. This has in turn resulted in increasing monocultures across South Asia, less exposure to other religions and thus less tolerance. Ultimately leading to the distrust between Pakistan and India, the many wars between these two states and their nuclearisation. Hence Ghandi is not afforded much respect.

I think that was the reasoning - though I may have added supplementary infomation to aid my understanding.

Possible attributing factors to her opinion could be that her family are Sikhs and are from Punjab (which was split in two when Pakistan was granted independence).

The same analogy could be used for the Queen, as her likeness is used on the Australian Currency but most don't give a hoot and few don't recognize her.

All I can add is to say that the Ghandi family plot is the nicest part of New Delhi.

The same analogy could be used for the Queen, as her likeness is used on the Australian Currency but most don't give a hoot and few don't recognize her.Of course, because we all know the Queen is disliked for having sparked the animosity between the Sydneyites and the Melbournites. you convicts should have never been granted independence so early. :p

All I can add is to say that the Ghandi family plot is the nicest part of New Delhi.Ah, what happened to the pleasures of a simple life as espoused by Mahatma Ghandi. Bah.

so they attribute the problems that came from indipendence to him?

shame. its easy to say that kind of thing with hindsight

so they attribute the problems that came from indipendence to him?

shame. its easy to say that kind of thing with hindsightNot just to him, but if India had remained a colony for 50 more years then she/her family speculate that India would have been better equiped to remain as one state.

maybe he is, maybe he's not.

maybe he is, maybe he's not.Your input is highly appreciated. Thank you.

Well... they did kill him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4573152.stm

The Brits didn't seem to be too fond of him.

I don't know many of the historical details about it, but I respect Ghandi for what he stood for and how he went about his mission.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4573152.stm

The Brits didn't seem to be too fond of him.

I'm pretty sure this thread is about the modern day situation.

Your input is highly appreciated. Thank you.

glad I could help.

I ask this question because I was talking to a friend who was explained that Ghandi does not get the respect attributed to him in the West as he does in India. This statement surprised me because he's the 'father of the nation' and his likeness is printed on currency, etc...

She explained that Ghandi is viewed as having pushed for independence too early - before India was ready to become an independent state. Thus racial tensions, that had be sparked by the British, were exacerbated as Ghandi slowly fought for Indian independence. Muslims were worried that they would be underrepresented in the new Indian state and began to call for an independent Muslim state (East and West Pakistan). This in turn sparked huge migrations of Muslims to the proposed Pakistan state and of Sikhs and Hindus to the new Indian state. This has in turn resulted in increasing monocultures across South Asia, less exposure to other religions and thus less tolerance. Ultimately leading to the distrust between Pakistan and India, the many wars between these two states and their nuclearisation. Hence Ghandi is not afforded much respect.

I think that was the reasoning - though I may have added supplementary infomation to aid my understanding.

Possible attributing factors to her opinion could be that her family are Sikhs and are from Punjab (which was split in two when Pakistan was granted independence).

My parents are from India. They think Gandhi talked more than he did. Or at least, that's the impression I get.

My parents are from India. They think Gandhi talked more than he did. Or at least, that's the impression I get.

I think that's where he gets his respect from: While others tried using actions, he used words.

Who, in the end, was the winner?

He kinda proved that words can do more than actions, which a lot of people in the west want to be true and, with Gandhi, we have a basis for it.

My parents are from India. They think Gandhi talked more than he did. Or at least, that's the impression I get.So that's now two Indian families who aren't too keen on Ghandi. Intruiging.

Well... they did kill him.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4573152.stm

The Brits didn't seem to be too fond of him.Woah, do I ever feel stupid. I didn't know hindu extremists assasinated him... :eek: :(

So that's now two Indian families who aren't too keen on Ghandi. Intruiging.

Woah, do I ever feel stupid. I didn't know hindu extremists assasinated him... :eek: :(

Yeah. He gave the Untouchables a new title, but did very little for their situation. If you want to see who's respected, there is a man called Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4573152.stm

The Brits didn't seem to be too fond of him.

Please don't compare us all to that fat old genocidal dickweed.

I think that's where he gets his respect from: While others tried using actions, he used words.

Who, in the end, was the winner?

He kinda proved that words can do more than actions, which a lot of people in the west want to be true and, with Gandhi, we have a basis for it.

Tell that to the Untouchables. He was a great man in some respects, but despite his rhetoric, the Harijans (people of god), as he called the untouchables, lived (and in many cases still do) in squalor.

Tell that to the Untouchables. He was a great man in some respects, but despite his rhetoric, the Harijans (people of god), as he called the untouchables, lived (and in many cases still do) in squalor.

And is that his fault or that of the people since him who have done nothing to fix it. After all there are still racial inequalities in the US, but I wouldn't say that that made MLK Jr. any less of a great man.

And is that his fault or that of the people since him who have done nothing to fix it. After all there are still racial inequalities in the US, but I wouldn't say that that made MLK Jr. any less of a great man.

MLK inspired people. Gandhi couldn't. He was too godly, too high up there, for the ordinary to reach. The black people managed to rise above their situation. The untouchables are having so much trouble doing that. My mom covered a huge massacre in the 70s (she worked in a newspaper). Even today, many untouchables work in the sewers with no protection whatsoever, and die because of it. Many of them are still abused, more so than the black community. I read in National Geographic, that two untouchables fished in a pond used by the kshatriyas and brahmins (higher class snobs). They were tortured and burned with acid. I would like to see you refute that.

Do you mean Gandhi?

Not just to him, but if India had remained a colony for 50 more years then she/her family speculate that India would have been better equiped to remain as one state.
hmm...
And is that his fault or that of the people since him who have done nothing to fix it...

it does seem a bit childish that a man can lead a successful, relatively peaceful move for indipendence, and then for the nation to turn round with the benefit of hindsight and say "too soon!" :rolleyes:


however, i guess in the west the thing he is most noted for is not necessarily what he did, but the way in which he did it. and, for us, that message is more important and inspiring than what he did - or did not - achieve.


edit: I would like to see you refute that.

wait, you have to prove it first. that's how this kind of thing works.

i don't doubt that great inequality exists in india today, and that the untouchable class is still evident in some way, but in this thread, and elsewhere, i have seen no evidence that correlates this with it being Gandhi's fault. the man inspired and lead a revolution, but i doubt he can fix all the countries' problems. certainly not since he's been dead 50 years or so....

MLK inspired people. Gandhi couldn't. He was too godly, too high up there, for the ordinary to reach. The black people managed to rise above their situation. The untouchables are having so much trouble doing that. My mom covered a huge massacre in the 70s (she worked in a newspaper). Even today, many untouchables work in the sewers with no protection whatsoever, and die because of it. Many of them are still abused, more so than the black community. I read in National Geographic, that two untouchables fished in a pond used by the kshatriyas and brahmins (higher class snobs). They were tortured and burned with acid. I would like to see you refute that.I still fail to see how that is his fault and not that of those who refuse to follow his example. He had a message the fact that others refused to listen to it is their fault.

Yeah. He gave the Untouchables a new title, but did very little for their situation. If you want to see who's respected, there is a man called Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar.

And Rabhindranath (sp?) Tagore. I think.

I ask this question because I was talking to a friend who was explained that Ghandi does not get the respect attributed to him in the West as he does in India. This statement surprised me because he's the 'father of the nation' and his likeness is printed on currency, etc...

Some people respect him, some people call him "Mahatma" (great soul), some people hate him, some people criticize some parts and praise some parts....it is difficult to quantify "respect".

Mostly people have good opinion of him and his name still gets votes (Sonia Gandhi of congress party).

The latest hindi blockbuster "Lage Raho Munnabhai" has Gandhi playing as a spirit and it was a megahit movie. So yeah, I guess, people respect him.

I do. Hence my sig.


She explained that Ghandi is viewed as having pushed for independence too early - before India was ready to become an independent state. Thus racial tensions, that had be sparked by the British, were exacerbated as Ghandi slowly fought for Indian independence. Muslims were worried that they would be underrepresented in the new Indian state and began to call for an independent Muslim state (East and West Pakistan). This in turn sparked huge migrations of Muslims to the proposed Pakistan state and of Sikhs and Hindus to the new Indian state. This has in turn resulted in increasing monocultures across South Asia, less exposure to other religions and thus less tolerance. Ultimately leading to the distrust between Pakistan and India, the many wars between these two states and their nuclearisation. Hence Ghandi is not afforded much respect.

Sorry, that's BS.

First off, there was a full fledged independence movement before Gandhi even came to India. There were many capable leaders leading the movement before Gandhi and with Gandhi. There is a misconception about Gandhi's role in India's freedom. Some actually think that Gandhi got India freedom (people who get history from watching the movie "Gandhi"). He played a pivotal part and was its face, but to say that without him freedom could not have been attained is nonsense.

Muslims were worried that they would be underrepresented in the new Indian state and began to call for an independent Muslim state (East and West Pakistan).

You have to be careful when you use the term muslim. Muslims are not monolithic. Ironically you yourselves use "increasing monocultures"...lol...

Up until 1930s when the independence movement was gathering momentum, there was no calls for partition. It was Iqbal who first voiced a desire for a federation of muslim majority states (still as a part of India). When it was getting clear that an independent India would become democratic with universal franchise, the muslim elite (salaried class, landed aristocracy, political leaders) got the jitters. The salaried class knew they cannot compete with the hindu community which had taken to english oriented western styled education much earlier and better than muslims still shackled by mullah obscurantism. The landed aristocracy knew that congress would implement land reforms taking away their lands. The political leaders knew that they cannot get into power due to the demographics.

Hence the muslim league roped in Jinnah (who was in congress at that time), made the call for Pakistan - citing fears of hindu domination.

If you care to look up the history, you will find what I said is true. The areas that are now Pakistan did not vote for Pakistan, The Union party won in Punjab defeating Muslim League. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, the popular leader of Pathans was in the Congress party. He was even called 'frontier Gandhi'. The areas that voted for Pakistan were Uttar Pradesh of India and Bengal and the landed elites of muslim Punjab and Sindh.

This is corroborated by the facts that most of the migrants to Pakistan from India were the muslim salaries class. They are called mohajirs. They still dominate the bureaucracy in Pakistan. Land reforms were legislated but not enforced. Around half of the arable land is owned by < 50 families. And Jinnah crowned himself as governor-general instead of Prime Minister.

So, the idea that the state of Pakistan was a demand by the people is factually wrong. It was created as a country for the elites and as a rentier state for the British who needed a pliant state in the region. It still behaves that way.

This in turn sparked huge migrations of Muslims to the proposed Pakistan state and of Sikhs and Hindus to the new Indian state

Mass migrations started after the partition was agreed to.

This has in turn resulted in increasing monocultures across South Asia, less exposure to other religions and thus less tolerance.

Not across "south asia". Just Pakistan and Bangladesh which has seen a reduction of non-muslim population from ~30 to ~3 percent and ~30 to ~20 percent respectively. Indian muslim population is increasing in percentage and India has retained its multicultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious character. Only east Punjab saw a violent cleansing of muslims. Rest of the country has more or less the same mix.


Ultimately leading to the distrust between Pakistan and India

There was no trust to begin with. Hence the partition. It only went downhill from there.

It is the nature of the two ideological foundations of the modern states of India and Pakistan. It is irreconcilable....even more than the communism vs capitalism ideological struggle. People who think that it is the kashmir issue which is causing trouble between Pak and India and if not for that everything would be peachy are ...to put it mildly...clueless.

Possible attributing factors to her opinion could be that her family are Sikhs and are from Punjab

Yes, some Sikhs, especially those who were forced to migrate from their ancestral lands in west Punjab don't like Gandhi. To them, partition was a disaster and they tend to blame leaders who they see as causing it.

I still fail to see how that is his fault and not that of those who refuse to follow his example. He had a message the fact that others refused to listen to it is their fault.

His policies and his beliefs did very little for the plight of Untouchables. He may have been all for Indian Independence from the British, but he still wanted to maintain the status quo.

So that's now two Indian families who aren't too keen on Ghandi. Intruiging.

Woah, do I ever feel stupid. I didn't know hindu extremists assasinated him... :eek: :(

Yep. They killed him because of the fact that his bid for independence resulted in the splitting up of India into India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh)

Not just to him, but if India had remained a colony for 50 more years then she/her family speculate that India would have been better equiped to remain as one state.

Funny, because it was the British (Churchill especially) who midwifed the birth of Pakistan.

I am all too familiar with this nostalgic talk about the British Raj by certain Indians who benefited by the Raj (especially the landed elites - Zamindars etc).

Fact remains that the British found India rich and looted and sucked India dry and left it poor. The sooner that curse was lifted, the better.

MLK inspired people. Gandhi couldn't.

Gandhi inspired MLK. :p

Gandhi inspired MLK. :p

I wasn't going to say it.

His policies and his beliefs did very little for the plight of Untouchables. He may have been all for Indian Independence from the British, but he still wanted to maintain the status quo.

Not really. He used to clean his own toilets and mend his slippers etc, not using the 'harijans' for that as commonly done in those days. He wanted to bring them into the political movement. He constantly embraced them in public to take away the stigma of 'untouchable' etc.

Gandhi had his faults, but this was not one of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4573152.stm

The Brits didn't seem to be too fond of him.

Churchill hated Ghandi and the threat he posed to The Empire. Churchill was highly dedicated to the idea of Empire and British Greatness, etc. Being that my grandma was a war bride from Cambridgeshire, Churchill is one of my heroes. Ghandi is another, leading to a bit of cognitive dissonance for my dad as I attempted to explain this.