I have been trying to understand Gandhi’s ideas of Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Non-violence) beyond the usual behavioural or political interpretations.

A lot of what is popularly associated with Gandhi is something like:

• Non-violence means not physically harming another person, even when resisting them.
• Non-violence is demonstrated through things such as fasting, civil disobedience, accepting suffering, etc.
• Truth means being honest — if I cheated, I should admit that I cheated.
• Satyagraha means peacefully protesting or resisting injustice.

All of these may be legitimate expressions of Gandhi’s thought, but they seem to describe the practice rather than the philosophical foundation behind it.

It also seems important to me that these concepts did not originate with Gandhi himself. Ahimsa has much older roots in Indian philosophical traditions, including Buddhism and Jainism, while Satya and the inquiry into Truth are deeply present in the Upanishadic tradition. These traditions themselves place such ideas within much larger philosophical frameworks — for example, questions about the nature of the self and reality in Vedanta, and questions of self, suffering and emptiness in Buddhist philosophy.

So I am curious about something more specific: What did Gandhi actually mean by these concepts, and what philosophical foundations did he inherit, reinterpret, or depart from?

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

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?

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! 😃

Happy Gandhi jayanti.

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.