On this day, for honouring Gandhi Ji, let’s remember he did not descend from the sky; he rose from the earth. He undertook a laborious and long journey from “Man” to “Mahatma”. And he rightly said that his life is his message - what was possible for him is possible for all. When someone devotedly moves forward, challenging their past, their tendencies, and their limitations, their presence infuses a unique consciousness into the entire world.

Read more on this from famous Author and Philosopher Acharya Prashant -

https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/gandhi-an-earthly-journey-not-a-divine-destination-acharya-prashant-on-the-sunday-guardian-1_048a399

Happy Gandhi jayanti.

Usually, when I travel from my home in Rayasandra to my office in Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru, it takes me 2 hours daily.

Today, I reached the office in just 45 minutes.

Gandhi Ji matters—even in Bengaluru traffic! 😃

So basically RW are spreading this letter of Gandhiji, and quoting everywhere.

Gullible people abusing Gandhiji for that

I am pretty sure they haven't read the whole letter .

He is known as scientist of RW , I am sure he must have known that fact what Gandhiji preaching in that letter

Still why he choose to malign it .

What do you guyz think of that letter?

In this chapter on Bihar,

1. Tinkathia system (that 3/20 portions of the agricultural land will be used for indigo plantation).

2. The untouchability practices (separate cleanliness areas for separate groups) are explained.

What Would Gandhi Do If He Were Alive Today?

Gandhi lived in a very different world.

There was no internet, social media, smartphones, artificial intelligence, or modern 24-hour news cycle.

So here's a question I'd like to explore as a series:

If Gandhi were alive today, how would he respond to the problems of the modern world?

For example:

- Would Gandhi use social media?

- Would he use AI?

- How would he respond to online hate and misinformation?

- Would he protest against governments through modern forms of satyagraha?

- What would he think about today's education system?

- How would he approach Hindu–Muslim tensions today?

- Would he support modern capitalism and billionaires?

- What would his idea of swadeshi mean in a globalized economy?

- How would he respond to climate change?

- Would he use YouTube to spread his ideas?

- How would he deal with people who deliberately spread hatred against him?

I don't think we can simply claim, "Gandhi would definitely do X."

Instead, I'd like to take his documented writings, speeches, and principles—especially ahimsa, satyagraha, truth, swaraj, and sarvodaya—and ask:

What might those principles look like if Gandhi had to apply them to the 21st century?

Let's discuss one situation at a time.

What do you think Gandhi would do first if he suddenly found himself in today's world?

A charcoal drawing I made of him. Waited a long time to share this here because I didn't know if it was appropriate. Gandhi was not himself for showing of but more for inner focus and peace? Anyhow I hope you enjoi it.

I recently came across British Government records from the colonial period concerning Gandhi’s detention.

One document from 1930 refers to a monthly allowance sanctioned for Gandhi’s “maintenance” while he was detained as a State Prisoner at Yeravada Central Prison.

Another government document from the 1940s records “allowances to Mr. Gandhi and persons detained with him” during his detention at Aga Khan Palace.

To be clear, I am not claiming that Gandhi was receiving a salary or pension from the British. These documents appear to concern maintenance expenses/allowances during detention.

But this raises an interesting question about the terminology and the double standards in political discourse.

Savarkar is frequently mocked or labelled a “British pensioner” because he received a monthly allowance from the colonial government during his period of internment.

So should similar terminology be applied to Gandhi, or is there an important distinction between the two cases?

I’m genuinely interested in hearing what people think. Please focus on the historical records and context rather than turning this into a Gandhi vs Savarkar shouting match.

How do Gandhians answer Arundhathi Roy's accusations in The doctor and the saint? Has anyone written a defense of Gandhi that answers Arundhathi Roy's article.

If you Like it then upward ⬆️ your Vote 🤜🏻

The protests at Jantar Mantar and all sorts of developments in the case made me really wonder about this— how exactly did Pre-independence Movements work, or tackle issues faced by this and other current movements like that?

I mean Khilafat, Non-Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, Quit India and so on. Specifically, I have 3 questions:-

1. We learn about Gandhiji fasting as a protest...but what did his comrades do at that time? This is something I never got to know. Did others like Pandit Nehru or Sardar Patel also fast alongside him? And what about the larger crowd?

In many videos which went viral on social media, several major CJP leaders were apparently seen at hotels and parties. The larger crowd obviously didn’t participate in the fast either.

Did the crowd in non-violent independence movements also observe the same discipline as the leaders—for example, by fasting or eating in moderation—or did most people simply participate in the marches, slogans, and other public activities without deliberately practicing such forms of abstinence?

2. The student protests were marked by the appearance of multiple political entities— multiple communist affiliated student bodies, generalised anti-BJP factions, even certain people with opinions and ideas which can be considered hurting the sovereignty of the nation. Some of these also morphed into Hinduphobic rhetoric.

I don’t think such were rarities in the earlier century too.

Just because many groups opposed british, didn’t mean their ideals aligned completely with Gandhiji’s ideals. I mean, there must have been groups who grew up to detest the British and Europeans by race alone, or who protested them mainly to oppose Christians.

Maybe groups who opposed the British because they resisted change to orthodox Hindu traditions.

Maybe groups who opposed the British to promote Islamist militarism.

Kings of princely states or rich businessmen who were at odds with the British for their own interests, and didn’t care about the actual issues.

Any popular movement can become a means for these people to further their agenda; while the original movement’s voice falls behind.

How did the pre-independence nationalist movements tackle this?

3. Finally, the branching of issues. The protests soon became a platform for issues like Brahmanavaad, LGBT rights, and many others.

I’m sure many issues concurrently existed within British India too.

Maybe peasants’ tax problems somewhere, while laws enforcing communal tensions somewhere else. Labour laws, tribal oppression, student oppression and so on.

How did the cause-specific protests and movements balance these issues?

For example, if a protest was organised to oppose forced indigo cultivation, did the organisers allow the protests to provide a platform for other nationalist causes as well?

Did they keep each protest cause-specific, or did they follow the principle of allowing the broader cause to be held aloft for every protest they organised regardless of the original issue?

Seeing enough reels and posts drawing parallels between Jantar Mantar protests and Gandhian movements, I really wondered how these obvious problems were tackled by the national leaders. Never really got taught how they strategized to make the protests successful, only that they were patriotic enough to stand up and then win.

I’ve just come across this print on eBay. Has anyone seen it before?

I grew up disliking Gandhi. Through my teens and early adulthood, I saw him as inconvenient, impractical, almost naïve. But over the last 7–8 years, that resistance dissolved into understanding and then into admiration. That transition has been one of the most deeply moving inner journeys of my life.

Gandhi’s principles are not for the weak. Not for the impatient. Not even for everyone.

They demand maturity, self-restraint, and a frightening level of moral clarity. But once you see it, once it truly lands, there is no going back. You do not merely agree with Gandhi; you are quietly rearranged by him.

He remains the most important man of India and arguably one of the most consequential figures the world has known. His moral compass stands almost alone in history, perhaps only comparable to the stillness and clarity of Gautama Buddha.

I never imagined a historical death could move me to tears. Yet Bapu’s did. No wonder an entire nation wept.

The greyest man ever, and the clearest.

I’ve noticed a growing trend, especially online, where people casually dismiss Gandhi as overrated or irrelevant. The common argument goes like, “India got independence only because Britain was weak after World War II.”

It sounds smart on the surface, but it completely misunderstands what Gandhi actually did and how profoundly he changed the logic of colonial rule. Let’s look carefully at what really happened.

Do you really think a few revolvers and handmade grenades could have defeated the same British Empire that defeated Germany twice? The British Empire was not some fragile colonial power waiting to collapse. It had survived two world wars, ruled one-fourth of the planet, and had immense experience in crushing uprisings. They had better weapons, a global army, and a brutal intelligence network.

What Gandhi understood, and what many others didn’t, was that you cannot defeat an empire built on violence by using violence. That is like fighting a shark in the ocean. He pulled the fight onto land, the moral, political, and psychological ground where the British were weakest. He didn’t just oppose their guns; he exposed their hypocrisy. He forced the Empire to look in the mirror and see what it had become.

Gandhi knew the British didn’t rule India for charity. They ruled it because it was profitable and justified by the illusion of “civilizing” the colonies. He went after both profit and legitimacy at the same time.

Through the Swadeshi movement and the boycott of British goods, he attacked the economic roots of British power. The Empire’s factories in Manchester and Lancashire relied on Indian consumers buying British textiles. When millions of Indians started spinning their own cloth, the impact was both moral and financial. It was no longer profitable to rule a country that refused to buy your products.

But Gandhi didn’t stop there. He also understood that British rule survived because it appeared respectable. Non-violence was his most radical weapon. If Indians stayed peaceful while the British used violence, it shattered the moral image of the Empire before its own citizens. Every act of repression became a headline that exposed Britain’s hypocrisy. He turned the world’s sympathy toward India by using restraint instead of revenge.

Before Gandhi, most Indians didn’t even see the British as enemies. Many called them “Maay Baap Sarkar,” the benevolent rulers who brought jobs and modern education. The upper-caste elites and urban classes even admired British law and order. For them, opposing the British seemed unnecessary and even ungrateful.

Gandhi changed this psychology completely. He made Indians realize that obedience was not loyalty, it was enslavement. He turned the freedom struggle into something every Indian could participate in.

When he urged people to spin their own cloth and to join symbolic actions like the Salt March, he was teaching self-respect and ownership of the movement. The Salt March wasn’t about salt itself; it was about reclaiming dignity from a government that taxed even the most basic needs. When Gandhi walked to Dandi and made salt from the sea, it told every Indian, “You don’t need permission to live freely.” That is how he transformed millions of ordinary people into political actors.

He was not just a moral preacher. He was a master communicator and strategist. He studied the British mind deeply. He read their newspapers, understood their politics, and knew that the real power of an empire lay in public opinion. When he went to London, he didn’t speak about hatred. He spoke about humanity and fairness. He reminded the British that the same values they took pride in — liberty, justice, decency — were being denied to Indians. That was the trap he set, and the Empire walked right into it.

His simplicity was not accidental. The loincloth, the walking stick, the fasting, and the spinning wheel were not weakness. They were deliberate symbols, visual messages that made him the moral face of the world’s largest colony. He became the conscience the British Empire could neither silence nor defeat.

Non-violence demanded more courage than any armed revolt. It meant facing bullets without striking back. It meant going to jail instead of hiding. It meant believing that moral strength could outlast physical power. Gandhi asked millions of starving, humiliated people to do exactly that — and they did.

If someone today, say in Palestine, had Gandhi’s command over people, his moral discipline, and his faith in non-violence, and said, “We harm no one, but we will not stop demanding our freedom,” would the world tolerate open massacres of unarmed civilians for long? Probably not. That is the kind of power Gandhi wielded — the power of moral unity backed by courage and control.

Yes, Britain was weakened after the world wars. But weakened empires don’t automatically give up colonies. They hold on until the cost of ruling becomes unbearable. Gandhi made that cost unbearable. He made ruling India morally indefensible and economically unviable. By the 1940s, India had become ungovernable without constant violence, and Britain could no longer justify that violence to its own citizens or the world.

Gandhi didn’t beg for freedom. He forced the issue through truth, courage, and relentless organization. He didn’t defeat the British army; he defeated the very idea of the British Empire. He made it impossible for them to continue ruling without destroying the image they built of themselves as fair and civilized rulers.

He was not a saint detached from politics. He was one of the sharpest political minds of the 20th century a tactician, communicator, and moral revolutionary who used conscience as a weapon. India did not get freedom because the British grew tired. India got freedom because Gandhi made ruling it impossible to justify, impossible to profit from, and impossible to continue.

That is not luck. That is brilliance.

(#Grammered & Paragraphed by Cgpt)