India, The Daughter Of The Mahatma

[pizzalot]

"Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." A Einstein.

How true indeed. We can scacely believe what he and more so considering the way he did. It looks as though his life and story were nothing more than a myth. No one after him had lived the life of "half-naked fakir" and yet commanded the love and affection of all the people of the sub-continent. He had not ignored the interest of anyone. A poor farmer could walk into his house cry, laugh or simply chat with him any time of the day. Muslim men and women sat around him and sung praises of Ram. We have not seen another leader yet, to rival his simplicity. Unlike the modern politicians, he never compromised for his self and let down the trust that the people had on him.

Sure, he was no God. Nor was he the best of the breed. There was always a leader more committed to one sect of people. But as a whole they failed to rival his impressions on the people. He was the "Perfect Man" if you consider everything. As a Nation India must be greatful to him not only at birth but for her very existence even today. While North, South, East and West disagreeing on everything, including race, culture and religion, there is one thing that is common to all of us. That is the reverence to Mahatma Gandhi, The Father Of India, in single voice. We had not existed before him. Nothing can ever tarnish the image of our beloved Mahatma from the hearts of the millions in India. for the day that happens, India may not remain as a nation anymore. Atleast for our own selfish reason, if not for anyother reason, we must refrain from desecrating Mahatma.

Only a fool or the cunning will desecrate his name and still acclaim himself as the patriot of India.

[Nakeeran]

Pizzalot

Its sad that today, some of Mahatma’s decisions taken then are being criticized .
I feel , ridiculing Gandhiji has become a habit now
Those who criticize him should better rewind back & go exactly to the prevailed scneraior & then open their mouth

Its not so easy to unite a diversified country, bits & pieces everywhere with multiple languages, interests to bring them together as one unit & fight for a common cause.. Only Mahatma could do it….

There are 2 schools of thought of late that Subash Chandra Bose way of countering the Britishers was better …. I shudder to think about the consequences if we had followed the Netaji way ….India would have had another Hiroshima Nagasaki

The greatness of Mahatma lies from the fact that he was bold enough to admit all his past mistakes ..WHICH LEADER HAD THAT GUTS TO ADMIT HIS FAULTS ??

Another misnomer is the events which led to his assassination…… After independence, Gandhiji had little role to play as he was already sidelined virtually. Only Nehru was listening to him to some extent

ONE FACT IS FOR SURE….. THE FOREIGNERS KNOW MORE ABOUT GANDHIJI THAN OUR THANKLESS INDIANS

[dsath]

Well well Gandhi was a great personality indeed. No denying that. It is not correct to compare Gandhi with other politicians, because he was not a politician at all.
Also we can't credit India's Independence to solely Gandhi's leadership. There are other numerous factors which played a role in attaining our 'Independence'.
What our history books teach us is unending loyalty to Gandhi in the name of 'Father of our Nation', 'Mahatma'. In other words we derive information only from one source. Is it not a coincidence that as India became more open (in terms of information) that criticism about Gandhi’s policies started increasing?
I am neither for the ahmisa Gandhi(did he really believe that the British were going to leave by lining up Indians to be jailed or lathi charged) or the militant Bose (whatever was he thinking by sidelining with Hitler).
So my view is that we had no 'leader' who won us Independence. We are short of leaders, had we had a good one, we would have been a different country now.
One person who got mass following was Gandhi and we should acknowledge that. Anyway every nation needs a leader figure to aspire for and i am glad we got one whatever may be his merits and de-merits.

[Nakeeran]

Dsath

We also had great leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bose , Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Morarjee, Jaiprakash Narayan , Kamaraj , Tilak etc.......

but still we needed someone who could bind the above stalwarts together & voice the sentiments of 30 crore populated country ...

IT WAS MAHATMA

I am damn convinced on one fact....If we had followed the Netaji path, it would have been another LTTE-Srilanka ... a never ending struggle ....Sad .....

Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

By the beginning of the 1940s, the main issue internationally was Adolf Hitler & other issues were secondary....

The Allies needed to join together to eliminate Hitler & it was a wise decision on our leaders for having supported British at this phase. Else it would have been disaster

Several countries in Africa viewed Mahatma as A ROLE MODEL FOR GETTING THEIR FREEDOM.

Ultimately, its ironical that a foreigner had to take a movie on our Mahatma ! no wonder , it swept all awards !

[dsath]

We also had great leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bose , Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Morarjee, Jaiprakash Narayan , Kamaraj , Tilak etc.......

but still we needed someone who could bind the above stalwarts together & voice the sentiments of 30 crore populated country ...

IT WAS MAHATMA

There were many leaders who opted out of Congress - Gandhian policies. One such person whom i have great respect for is the Tamil poet Bharathiar. It would not be correct to call Gandhi the only voice of India.

I am damn convinced on one fact....If we had followed the Netaji path, it would have been another LTTE-Srilanka ... a never ending struggle ....Sad .....

What we would have become is something that we don't know. Just guess thats all.

Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

A country as big as India does not need international help. How on Earth did the Vietnamese chase the Americans out?

By the beginning of the 1940s, the main issue internationally was Adolf Hitler & other issues were secondary....

The Allies needed to join together to eliminate Hitler & it was a wise decision on our leaders for having supported British at this phase. Else it would have been disaster

The british did not ask the Indian leaders for support. They didn't have to. Initially Gandhi and Nehru protested India's participation in the war and later they supported the British only on moral grounds. So it wouldn't have mattered if the Congress opted to do nothing.
India would have been shaped differently had we got our freedom before the war. It should be remembered that we did not 'win' freedom, the British could no longer have the costly jewel on their crown and they simply threw it away(when it became a nuisance). I am intrigued as to why any of our national leaders at that point of time failed to get a better bargain.

Several countries in Africa viewed Mahatma as A ROLE MODEL FOR GETTING THEIR FREEDOM.

Ultimately, its ironical that a foreigner had to take a movie on our Mahatma ! no wonder , it swept all awards !

I am happy we have a ROLE MODEL, something for the younger generation to aspire for. It gives us hope for the future, hope for a great leader who will assure in a glorious India.

[podalangai]

There were many leaders who opted out of Congress - Gandhian policies. One such person whom i have great respect for is the Tamil poet Bharathiar. It would not be correct to call Gandhi the only voice of India.

This was particularly true in the South. Va. Vu. Si. was also an ardent follower of Tilak, rather than being a Gandhian. If you compare Gandhiadikal to the elder generation of stalwarts, he was much closer to Gokhakle than Tilak in the moderates vs extremists split.

I also read that 75% of the INA's soldiers were Tamils, including many who had migrated to Burma.

I think the fact that different ideologies were strong in different regions during the freedom fight cannot be denied. This does not reduce the contribution of Mahatma, but to deny this reduces the contribution of other freedom fighters.

Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

Sari thaan saar, anaal irandaam ulakapporil england muzhusa naasam aakaamal irundhirundhaal 47-il nammakku viduthalai kidaitthirukkuma? It was only the combination of war devastation, a Labour victory (itself caused by war devastation) and the ahimsa that gave it to us. I don't think ahimsa by itself would have borne fruit for decades. What ahimsa gave us was greater international respect for some time after we had independence.

The british did not ask the Indian leaders for support. They didn't have to. Initially Gandhi and Nehru protested India's participation in the war and later they supported the British only on moral grounds.

Gandhiyum porai support pannarkala? I thought that he opposed it even after Singapore had fallen and it seemed that India would be attacked. Isn't it true that the Congress never gave the British formal support for the war?

[pizzalot]

No. Gandhiji did give moral support for the British against Hitler. His support for the Queen was more on ethical grounds than anyother. Britain herself could have refrained from opposing Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was not anti-colonolism but opposite to that. Even worse than colonolism. Lebensraum. Which means "inhabitate the land and eradicate the locals". Not "ruling" them. Britain was again and again re-assured by Hitler that he was not against her colonialism. Yet, Britain and later America declared war, and asked nothing but Hitler's surrender/death because by 1938 Britain's morals about colonialism and human rights had awaken at home. Even before it happened in India.

Japan during WWII was playing the same Hitler band-wagon. Millions of Chinese were massacred (Chinese Holocaust). Any man with moral values should have refrained from supporting the Axis.

Any fight against lebensraum was worth the cause even if it is against our own nation.

Netaji went to Germany but yet could not meet with Hitler. He went to the camp where Indian soldier prisoners were held and asked them to support and die for Germany fighting the British, as they would die anyway in the hands of the Nazis. I wonder where Netaji was taking us. Even if we had obtained freedom through him, I am not sure if we would have seen India as a democracy.

Dsath, the moral support he gave to the British DID matter. It was the headline news in Britain when he announced it.

[Badri]

It should be remembered that we did not 'win' freedom, the British could no longer have the costly jewel on their crown and they simply threw it away(when it became a nuisance). I am intrigued as to why any of our national leaders at that point of time failed to get a better bargain.

Gandhi entered the scene well in advance but nothing happened, as long as the British Gov was strong enough!

If one views the history impartially, one will understand that England's sheer inability to hold all the colonies anymore was the primary reason for our independence.

The independence movement was an irritation. When the wound was already festering, the independence struggle itch was just that final thing that made the British Government give it all up!

This is not to undermine the contribution of all the people who struggled for freedom.

Their persistence was the proverbial last straw that ultimately broke the British camel's back.

We can judge the importance of that one last straw however we want!

[dsath]

Pizza, Gandhi's moral support may well have made it to the headlines, but at the ground political level didn't make any difference (at least that is what I think).
Podalangai you are right that many INA members were Tamilians. My granny's brother was with the British Indian army who later defected to the INA. He lost his hearing in the war. My granny used to tell us stories of waiting for her brother to come home and how he brought some exotic things when he finally came back. But then we were all very young and it was an amusing story to us nothing more.

Badri i certainly agree with you about our independence movement. Even though it was not the only factor, it was also a factor to India becoming free. And as Podalangai said we have to acknowledge the other movements in India as well.
At the end of the day when one looks at the black and white pictures of Gandhi/Nehru/Bose (all the satyagraha pictures, Gandhi spinning his wheel and the INA army marching) we get a sense of pride in being Indian and i think that is the symbol of united India.

[podalangai]

No. Gandhiji did give moral support for the British against Hitler.

He offered conditional non-violent moral support. He did not support the war effort. They are very different things.

Any fight against lebensraum was worth the cause even if it is against our own nation.

But Mahatma and the Congress both refused to join this fight saying that Churchill was being hypocritical. I do not criticise them for it, but it seems like you do.

Even if we had obtained freedom through him, I am not sure if we would have seen India as a democracy.

All we can say is that we will never know.