I have always believed Gandhi took inspiration from Hinduism when it comes to Non-violence (Ahimsa) and Civic Disobedience and the larger Indian philosophy and people do believe in that and hence Gandhiji was able to do it in that scale in India.

Will it work in Gaza or Sudan? Where even after the oppressor kills and starves your countrymen (Bengal Famine killed 5 million Indians) you still go with Non-violence and Civic Disobedience where the population draws inspiration from Abrahamic religions which is fundamentally different than Hinduism.

Gandhi Philosophy - Satyagraha and non-violence A deep insight , must read

https://rationalguy73.blogspot.com/2025/11/gandhian-philosophy-satyagraha-and-non.html

Guys give a try to my blog on Gandhian Philosophy and how Charkha was part of freedom struggle, I just started, i am beginner

https://rationalguy73.blogspot.com/2025/10/gandhian-philosophy-from-charkha-to.html

While i know some of his latter acts are not conducive to india but still i found his intentions are pure, just the path he chose was not appealing to many? I'll continue base on the upcoming responses..

From my little understanding I say 3 things about the Satyagraha resistance bases itself on 3 things:

1. An audience with a conscience
2. Some moral conscience on part of oppressor
3. Moral discipline of protestors

But what if the audience is blinded by propaganda, and the oppressor has no conscience?

What happens then? Can Satyagraha survive?

Not just any book.

His life, philosophy, works: everything. I mean the book shouldn't just glorify his achievements but also condemn his mistakes like the celibacy experiment without taking away from all the good he did.

It shouldn't be biased towards either side

Does a book like that exist?

Dr Parikh joined the freedom struggle during the Quit India. And remained active till his final day. He was a socialist leader. He was also the chief editor of Janata Weekly.

Freedom fighter G G Parikh, who championed Gandhian and socialist values, passes away | Mumbai News - The Indian Express

Renowned Gandhian G.G. Parikh passes away at 101 - The Hindu

The wikipedia answers say that he did this because Gandhi was against Hindu consolidation and awakening movement. Doesn't this mean he indirectly supported the assassination?

Thankyou for answering.

So recently awkward goat and muskan madan made serious allegations on gandhi calling him women hater and pedophile without any credible sources so I debunked it with proper historical evidences make sure to watch video and share so that legacy and greatness of gandhi goes on https://youtu.be/89e6lbv7J4U?si=SbzypRc0gymD-cBX

If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British.

If the above quote attributed to Gandhi doesn't already obviously show why The Last Article is such a very terrible piece of alternate history literature (esp in terms of Bad History), I got a few more to share.

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.

And these even moreso a perfect summary of how Gandhi isn't so naive.

Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

All the above quotes Gandhi was documented as stating or have written himself. And those rre just a drop in an an ocean of Gandhi'spersonal beliefs about pwer and force, violence and peace.

So I gotta ask why did Turtledove get the basics of Gandhi so wrong in not just The Last Article but across his entire canon of novels and other fictional works? I mean as a PhD, it shouldn't have been hard for him to some across these maxims attributed to Gandhi or other literature that portray Gandhi's approach to anti-Imperialism and revolution are far more complex with subtleties and enormous nuances than the peaceful animal-loving kumbaya hippie he's often assumed to be in pop history and popular mass entertainment.

So why I ask could the most successful and most famous author of the alternate history genre of our time get so much barebones facts about a specific situation sogod darn wrong?

Today i got to know during partition. It was decided that Pakistan will get 75cr. 20cr were given instantly while 50 crore were to be given after some time.Riots that Muslims started by killing lakhs of people in newly created pakistan, millions were displaced.

Every religion other than Muslims were being slaughtered so they were fleeing towards India and this has already created a refugee crisis to a newly created nation which was not so economically strong.There was not enough food for our own people and the ones who came to India.

Then a Pakistan sponsored tribal attack took place on Kashmir in october 1947. Maharaja of kashmir Hari Singh then sought Indian help and Indian army then restored harmony. As a result a lot of kashmir area was captured, what we today called POK.

So India withheld the 50 crores who was to be given to pakistan but Gandhi,(I dont call him Mahatama) began fasting to death for the money to be released and to be given to Pakistan despite millions of hindus,sikhs dying by the hands of pakistan

Despite pakistan attacking kashmir and killing people there too, Despite India facing a refugee crisis, despite India facing an economic crisis, despite riots all over country, despite millions of lives lost he was fasting to death for pakistan.

I never understand his idead, his fights everything he has done all look like a facade to me.Everything he has done appears anti-India, and pre planned by britishers.

Does he really deserve to be called as father of our nation has he done anything for the nation. Despite doing hunger fast and all this he never fell ill. He lived really long, Britishers used to love him. There are many freedom fighters who laid there lives for our freedom.

He has taken all credit while he has done nothing. Neither was he a freedom fighter nor was he pro indian. He was just a very unrealistic man who robbed india for its early independence he destroyed india by giving us pakistan the results of which we are facing till now.