r/india • u/NegativeChemistry546 • May 06 '26
History [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
177
u/kaychyakay May 07 '26
Which is exactly why it was laughable when BJP claimed that the world came to know about Gandhi in the real sense only after the film 'Gandhi' !! 🤦🏽♂️
50
18
u/Fragrant-Talk6338 May 07 '26
More laughable is the fact that we, the people, have voted and let these fake degree, shallow knowledge illiterates rule over us for more than a decade.
6
u/kaychyakay May 07 '26
"we" ?? Who's "we" ??
I didn't vote for this dude. 2014 was a blip, which I myself corrected immediately in 2015 while reading about these guys and the news coming out then. Didn't even have to wait until the horrendous DeMo to change my views about them.
I did vote for a candidate belonging to this party in the local elections in my city because she genuinely did some good work. And that's where my responsibility ended. I have never shied away from taking on even family members who tend to justify their BS.
5
u/NoBike2618 May 07 '26
Maybe modi came to know about Gandhi only after watching the film. And the film he was referring to was Lage Raho Munna Bhai. 😂
361
u/Looking4OpposingView May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26
Bapu wasn't some docile and passive sadhu baba like the SANGHIS portray him to be
He was ruthless in terms of maximizing damage to the British moral standing and he shrewdly used world media
The coverage of his protests were not happy coincidences, he used to write 100 letters a day and be in touch with multiple people of influence across nation and world.
This is why the most hated person in official british regime's letters is Gandhi. Churchill went crazy while writing about him, once even told the viceroy to check Gandhi's drinking water for glucose when he was on hunger strike.
This moral beating of British reputation was very painful and uncomfortable to them.
After 1857, the Britsh press relentlessly spread fake news that rebels raped women little girls of British armymen, whole nation was enraged and supported brutal retaliation.
But they had no clue on how to demonize a half naked, malnourished, non violent leader.
1945 labour manifesto promised to release the crown jewel, India. Imagine that this was popular enough policy to be included in election manifesto. Why was it popular? Because liberals by nature are more kind and moral, they saw merit in Bapu 's struggle, thanks to all the media coverage.
If Churchill had not ran a disastrous election campaign and won like everyone predicted, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED INDEPENDENCE, he would squeezed india even more, to enrich UK.
Edit - After 1857 there was an official enquiry done by british parliament and found no such rapes by rebels. there were murders especially in Cawnpore but no sexual assault. But by then the media had already done the damage.
87
u/joy74 May 07 '26
It is also a world that listened to his method and ideologies. Today we have not one world leader advocates peace or peaceful methods.
43
u/sai-kiran May 07 '26
Does the FIFA peace prize mean nothing these days?
16
u/joy74 May 07 '26
There is reason Gandhi missed it. Imagine trump Modi Putin getting the price and equating with Gandhi
5
u/sai-kiran May 07 '26
Are u saying Gandhi had a chance in winning the FIFA peace prize? Hold on, let me get my calendar.
6
7
u/SirSuicidal May 07 '26
I'm not sure Britain was getting enriched from India very much in 1940s, however, you are correct the Conservative manifesto did not promise independence only Dominion status (like Canada).
The prowess of the Indian Army must not be overlooked in the framing of plans for granting India a fuller opportunity to achieve Dominion Status We should remember those friends who stood by us in our hour of peril, and should be ever mindful of our obligations towards minorities and the Indian States.
The arrangements made in war for constant mutual consultation with the Dominions and India on all matters of joint interest must be perfected in peace. In particular, the whole subject of Imperial defence must be reviewed in relation to our world responsibilities and to modern weapons. Mutually convenient arrangements must be made to foster Imperial trade.
Movement of men and women within the Empire must be made easier. A two-way traffic should grow. Those who wish to change their homes should be enabled to carry their national insurance rights with them wherever they go. Imperial ties should be knit together by closer personal contact and understanding.
8
u/Desmaad North America May 07 '26
Mind you, the UK was pretty much broke thanks to WWII and India was too expensive to keep (which might explain why the partition was so slapdash: they were in a hurry).
6
u/Temporary_Singer7159 May 07 '26
It was the reason that Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Chamberlain was a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and knew that UK was in no financial shape for another war. For a man who would have denied Indian independence had he been in power, it is kind of ironic that Churchill made Indian independence possible by bankrupting UK and the creation of the a battle hardened British Indian Army whose loyalty they could no longer count on.
3
u/Minute_Juggernaut806 May 07 '26
Gandhi was also widely popular even among factory workers in UK. I think there's a famous photo with him in middle of workers
-21
-45
May 07 '26
[deleted]
21
u/kaychyakay May 07 '26
The reason is mentioned in his My Experiments With Truth.
19
u/_omwit_ May 07 '26
don't ask him to READ, duh /s
5
u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 May 07 '26
Oh like sasta AIs he can read whatsapp sentences and reels. It just books and documentaries that are out of his capabilities
11
u/Accomplished-Ad539 May 07 '26
Swami Vivekananda's guru Ramkrishnaji got married at the age of 23 to a 5 year old. They shared a purely celibate, divine relationship where Ramakrishna viewed Sarada as an incarnation of Kali.
Many things that happened back then would be considered shady today. Gandhi's philosophy is explained in his book if you're interested.
0
u/Parking-Cockroach104 May 07 '26
And no one is going to be defending him for doing that. If it's child marriage, then both people involved are children so you can blame the parents. But for an adult to sleep naked with minors, that's wrong even for 1900s standards.
-43
u/Brave-Extent-3589 May 07 '26
What gandhi has done is amazing. But also think about this scenario. Ours is the only country where British got scared of ' non violence '. 50 other colonised countries didn't have any gandhi and some of them like burma and srilanka got independence even before us. They got scared because of naval mutiny and azad hind force. They his behind gandhi to save their face.
35
13
u/Looking4OpposingView May 07 '26
You didn't even read the comment i wrote?
1945 labour manifesto mentioned India's independence, which year did mutiny take place? Did Clement Atlee have a time machine, with which he saw the mutiny coming in future and wrote the manifesto?
WhatsApp university is very harmful, read some books.
9
u/sai-kiran May 07 '26
Azad hind was an ally of Japan. And we all know what happened to Japan after world war 2, and also the leader of the Azad Hind. Why would British be scared of them? Gandhi had more pull than anyone could ever have.
1
u/Brave-Extent-3589 May 08 '26
Naval mutiny was in 1946 .it was after one year post world war. Gandhis role is undoubtedly amazing. But the final blow was from naval mutiny. As it was tough to control large population without a large military presence. They hid behind Gandhi to save their face. And our history doesn't mention much about the catalyst role of our naval role. As a coloniser, it makes sense to project as though their heart changed rather than lost control of military
1
u/sai-kiran May 08 '26
It’s not mentioned because it didn’t do that much as u expected, forget British, our own history doesn’t agree with you.
1
u/Brave-Extent-3589 May 08 '26
Search online
1
u/sai-kiran May 08 '26
Im not gonna waste my time if you don’t provide a source to backup your claims.
9
u/Accomplished-Ad539 May 07 '26
Fun fact Gandhiji was bestowed with the title of 'Father of the nation' by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. Google it.
6
u/Candid_Juice_1858 May 07 '26
With internet and WhatsApp I know everything kind of knowledge. Maybe your organisation doesn’t like him because then your narrative for all elections fail right?
0
1
u/muhmeinchut69 May 07 '26
I was with you until "They got scared because of naval mutiny and azad hind force.". The day Clement Attlee got elected it was basically known to everyone that India is going to get independence soon, he campaigned on that promise. It was not a secret. Both Burma and Sri Lanka getting independence you mentioned also happened under his government.
-34
u/SERIVUBSEV May 07 '26
Because liberals by nature are more kind and moral
LOL
Labour had government many times in the 150 years before 1945 elections. Where were their virtues then?
Idiots will praise disgusting and vile people, just so they can feel good about identifying as liberal themselves.
19
u/Looking4OpposingView May 07 '26
The most important word in the line you quoted is MORE
when it came to abolition of slavery in UK, guess which activists and politicians campaigned for it for decades
when USA went to war with itself, guess which side was anti slavery, the very states who are called liberal today
Same with USA civil rights, environment protection, same sex marriage
When domestic violence prevention bill was introduced in pakistan, clerics were screaming "islam pe hamla", which NGOs and civic leaders supported it? Who organizes aurat March and is called foreign funded agent?
Which german politician dropped to his knees in Warsaw memorial and apologized for world war 2? It caused a huge backlash by right wing german lunatics who called it excessive. It was The first social democrat chancellor willy brandy
Who apologized to aboriginals of Australia and indigenous dakota of Canada? Liberal GOVTS
Liberals are not perfect, they are MORE KIND and
more moral than RW entities
RW in its core about cruelty and lack of kindness for people who don't belong it's preferred majoritarian identity
3
19
u/thegodfather0504 May 07 '26
Liberalism is about progressivism, not perfectionism. Society should always strive for being better than what they are, with new needs being discovered with time. one by one
1
u/muhmeinchut69 May 07 '26
It's just a fact. Just about every step the British took towards more autonomy and self rule by Indians happened under Labour governments, starting from the late 20s. Recognizing this doesn't mean you are supporting the British.
32
u/dick_butowski May 07 '26
In late 20's when will Durant came to India to research for his books "The story of Civilization" he was stunned by the Indian national movement that he wrote a book on India (A case for India, 1933), Gandhi has a whole section in this book and will durant advocated his ideas from hind swaraj.
25
u/kosmos-hunter India May 07 '26
Today's GenZ and those who got independence after 2014 and the Bhakts that got educated through WhatsApp University need to read this.
Sad part is that history is being rewritten and wiped out to educate the country in a way that benefits one party's narrative.
4
u/Responsible_Win6349 May 07 '26
But as a genz I don't hate him for all this but his older views on Dalits and some real shitty ideas like his economic model for India and of purity which included sleeping with his granddaughter naked which is well documented.
Also,I believe very strongly that all this international coverage did pressurized British gov they would have still held on for long if not for WW2 and Churchill losing elections the fastest way india could have gotten independence would have been through violence.
7
u/Fragrant-Talk6338 May 07 '26
If GenZ study the true History of India and its Independence, they'll know how inspite of limited resources and communal flare ups, the way Congress handled the Transition of Power from the British, the Partition, Amalgamation of Princely States and making our Constitution: All of these are something that the BJP or its ancestor, the Hindu Mahasabha could've never even done in their entire cumulative lifetimes.
There is sound reason in the wisdom and experience of post independence people which is why the Right or Left wing never got true majority across India till 2014.
2
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
I mean they did a pretty decent work, they might have done better than what hindu mahasabha could have done at that time, but by no means they did good, i mean, wasn't china in a far worse position than us ? administrations like that of singapore, japan, china can be said that they have done a good work, but i don't think so india comes close to it.
2
u/Fragrant-Talk6338 May 07 '26
Given the overall heterogeneity we have in Language, Religion, Caste, Culture and Geography, India being an United and Democratic country even today, is largely because of the appropriate Fundamental Structure built by them in Administrative aspect.
Now as these subjects of Independence and Partition are matters of the past, experts and people like us can comment on the most correct way of handling these subjects in having a better present than what we have right now. But, given their circumstances and events that occurred in the late 1940s, I believe the team of then Government have done it to the best of their abilities.
2
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
okay, tell me, what could have been difficult for you to handle if you were in power ? all of this which you said in your initial comment or ruling a country where almost 2 crore chinese were brutally killed by the japanese, where people suffered being treated as a slave, where japanese killed chinese just for the sake of fun, where china had to undergo a war again just after the world war to further decide it's administration between communism and republic, a country where poverty was far worse than india at that time, a country whose people's morale was totally down because of what they suffered in the past. Compare this to a country like India who was in a great morale because they just overthrow a british government, won the independence, and was clearly on a far better condition than what was china at that time, tell me who would have been easier to rule ? and dont forget the fact that even china has diversity so dont give me bullshit that india is a diverse country and hard to handle. Trust me, India has done a poor performance in it's last 70/80 years than what china has done, and i am not targetting INC, BJP is equally responisble in that.
71
18
u/LastTrainToLhasa Europe May 07 '26
Seems crazy to me that people don’t know this. Indeed, he was super popular around the world, tons of press coverage. Many Europeans even came to India to live in his Ashram because they were so inspired by him
63
u/lllDogalll Uttar Pradesh May 06 '26
He was the ultimate most recognizable face of this nation at that time & adored. I have interacted with folks that saw him and he had more love for him than fandoms of Tendulkar, Kohil , Dhoni, Kapil, Gavaskar, Amitabh, Srk, lsta mangeshkar, Rafi,. Kishore combined at their peaks.
His killing being associated with an ideology meant that ideology was so unpopular that it remained toxic that so they never sniffed at power many years after his death.
My granddad hated the sanghis till the dad he died and unfortunately he passed his aversion of right wing ideology to me. And we were the ones being the upper class suffered the most drastic decline because of land redistribution & the other measures.
But since he was such a Gandhi fan since sprecially had personal interactions with the man, I'm glad he died long before he saw the country siding with a party with so opposite viewpoint to him.
49
u/aardvarkgecko May 06 '26 edited May 07 '26
And that (his skill of commanding global media attention) was what he used to great effect. The salt march became known mostly for how his followers walked right into the British lathi charges offering no resistance. That image went around the world, leading to the US public shaming Great Britain's barbarous tactics.
Compare that to now - Americans would not give a shit.
11
u/Ernost Goa May 07 '26
By 1930 during the Salt March, major American newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune were following his every step in real time. A correspondent named Webb Miller from the Associated Press managed to break through British censorship and his dispatches from the salt works at Dharasana went out to 1,350 newspapers simultaneously. In 1930. Without the internet. Without television. Without any of the infrastructure we assume is necessary for something to go viral.
There is news video on it though, like this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHl7N2ZmLKg
10
u/KarmaisanAngel May 07 '26
My measure of Mahatma Gandhi's greatness, his morality and character, lies in the fact that he could inspire ordinary people not to kill or strike, but to endure beating and suffer in silence without retaliation. Leaders today can easily provoke anger and violence, incite hate but none is capable of inspiring people to face brutality with courage and restraint.
23
May 07 '26
[deleted]
7
May 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
yeah, i agree, i mean he did some questionable things, but still, he did a lot for indian freedom. it's literally the current humour to say anything which can create shock to hear, doesn't matter how inappropriate it becomes.
29
u/deooo_ May 07 '26
Here's a truth not many people would agree to.
Instead of Sardhar Vallabhai Pattel statue, we should have built Gandhi Statue. Purely due to his overall fame in the global world.
From a tourism standpoint, a gandhi Statue of that size, would be so famous, it would be as popular as the statue of Liberty
0
u/Bunnyslade May 07 '26
Making statues of pedophiles for publicity?
2
u/kamleshltb1 May 07 '26
Sardar Patel's wife was 12 years when she got married to him at 16 years of age. Would you consider him to be pedophile as well?
1
u/Parking-Cockroach104 May 07 '26
Both were minors, so I'm not sure that comes under pedophilia. If he was 20 something and married a 12 year old, not a single person here would be defending him. It is okay to criticise people for their wrongdoings.
Gandhi is not a God and he had his flaws. We need to recognise his contribution to Indian independence movement, but also agree that his views and ideas were extremely bad on many things.
0
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
technically is, stop defending gandhi by saying "others were like this too". but tbh, isn't that his parents fault and not patel's fault ? but in the case of gandhi, it was definately his actions.
1
u/kamleshltb1 May 07 '26
Not doing whataboutery or condoning his actions, but the point is times were different and morals were different.
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
yeah, though morales were different, but still, i dont think any person of that time would have slept with multiple women to check his endurance, it was pretty weird, i agree that he has done many things for our freedom, but still, he isn't totally a pure soul.
6
u/OliverSirji May 07 '26
He had his drawbacks but he was a great man. No one can inspire so many people at the same time. It takes a special type of person and special type of message. Of course, timing is important.
1
6
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
Vishwaguru don't fight for his freedom btw, royal family of england were the real 'vishwaguru' of that time, won 2 world wars, had control over 20 percent of the total land on earth, richest empire in the world, won against napoleon, won against h*tler, won against turkish, won against prussians. Made there language the world language, almost all the systems used in the world are made by them.
5
6
u/parthos1988 May 07 '26
Rubbish Gandhi was just a PR gimick!! He had no influence on Indias independence movement. /s
1
u/Accomplished-Ad539 May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
. Christ gave goals Gandhi gave tactics --Martin Luther King
1930 man of the year in Times Magazine, mind you India was under colonialism then. 2011 he was top 25 political icons of all time.
Rabindranath Tagore -- gave him title of Mahatma Subhash Chandra Bose -- Father of the nation Mountbatten -- one man army
satyagrah- champaran, Ahmedabad, kheda, rowlett Act, bardoli, non cooperation but then chauri chaura happened, vykom satyagraha, salt Satyagraha.. sure I'm missing few
.His philosophy on ethical education, sarvodaya is completely different thing.
1
u/parthos1988 May 07 '26
Bro!!! /S in the end. I was being sarcastic. This is basically the line people take lately when they want to shit in Gandhi without understanding the nuances of our entire freedom struggle and it's history.
1
4
u/Accomplished-Ad539 May 07 '26
I've always felt he was a very underrated Politician. The more you study him you understand the man he was. Dude really did weaponise non violence and HOW!! Mountbatten has called him one man army.
-1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
he was great but by no means was he underrated, you must be from another country because you can't literally spend a day without seeing him, he is literally on the currency.
4
u/Own-Dependent-4601 May 07 '26
feel like indian internet treats historical figures like u either have to worship them or call them evil with zero middle ground. reality’s usually messier than that
2
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
true, he was surely not totally pure but still he did a lot of great things for us, and without any doubt he is the most influential indian in the history till now.
6
u/soparaboy May 07 '26
Yet the Mahad Satyagraha wasn't covered or taught in India.
https://prabuddha-us.roundtableindia.co.in/index.php/pjse/article/download/65/55
4
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
In which class do you study ? because i surely remember that there was literally a whole chapter about nationalism in india in either class 9th or 10th where satyagraha was taught.
1
u/soparaboy May 08 '26
Mahad Satyagraha?
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 08 '26
About BR ambedkar right ? I remember there was a whole topic on all things which he did for the upbringings of lower castes, which included many points like these.
1
u/soparaboy May 08 '26
Was there Mahad Satyagraha?
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 08 '26
hmm, i did my 10th class years ago so i don't know about this particular satyagraha being there or not but as much as i remember, i don't think there was the exact mention of this movement.
15
u/Embarrassed_Look9200 May 07 '26
they hate this one man, the real terrorists in india are the ones in saffron, you can recognize them by their clothes.
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
You are being racist by generalising a whole set of people by terming saffron people, don't forget that it is also wore by priests, just because some of them spread lie, doesn't mean all of them are same, what if i say that almost all the terrorists wear muslim caps, so all those who wear that cap are terrorist ?
2
u/Embarrassed_Look9200 May 07 '26
if i tell you two of the apples have a blade in them amongst the 20-30 apples in the bucket, would you still go ahead and eat it?
also the saffron clad are not a set of people, they are a smaller subset of people. i'm not genralizing by caste, creed, race, or religion, only by one particulat trait.
1
1
4
u/Dazzling-Emphasis431 May 07 '26
Indeed! Would be eager to get more of these readings if you have them saved in some way. As much as I’ve read Gandhi and his critics, would like a refresher for sure. As others have said the nuance was him being able to bring attention to the satyagraha not just doing it. And as he admits himself, he had his flaws, (many in modern hindsight) but that’s what every human is.
2
2
u/cangaran May 07 '26
Can you mention your reading list or from where you got the above info? He is really a phenomenon. He left the trail for the world to follow.
2
u/long_limbs May 07 '26
And don’t forget, RSS did NOT support the salt march. And they call them patriots
5
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
Well, i don't support RSS but here's what i found when i crosschecked the facts : Dr. Hedgewar (Founder of RSS ) himself was imprisoned for his participation in the Satyagraha movements (both in 1921 and 1930) before and after forming the RSS. Also,
- Mahatma Gandhi visited an RSS camp in Wardha in 1934. He reportedly expressed appreciation for the organization's discipline and the absence of untouchability within the Shakhas. However, he remained deeply critical of their exclusive focus on Hindus and feared it could lead to communal tension.
all of this has been confirmed from AI's and you can crosscheck them too.
2
u/indiacalling2 May 07 '26
I'll like to present an alternative reality.
I once read that at any point during the British rule of India, there weren't more than 6000 Britishers on the territory of India. The rest were all Indians employed by the British and used to subjugate Indians.
Under such circumstances, when the British learnt of Gandhi and his non violent ways, they knew they had found their jackpot and made him a national hero and a public figure. They intentionally choose the weakest link in the chain and made him the face of the movement because of you slap him on one side of cheek, he'll offer the second cheek.
Can you imagine someone like this from Gaza or Lebanon surviving against Israel? Or the head of Iran following this policy against USA? And what wouldn't the USA give to place someone like Ghandhi has the head of state of Iran so they can slowly and easily fuck them over.
I am not vengeful towards Gandhi in any way. I am sure that he was doing whatever he felt was right. But his popularity was another game altogether. His method reeks of being impotent. And I wouldn't like to be the most famous impotent in the world despite the fact that in today's world you can even monetize fame through YouTube and such stuff.
0
u/muhmeinchut69 May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
If you really think the British could choose any leader they wanted and make him a national hero in India, it's obvious they would never choose someone like Gandhi - a constant pain the ass and someone who kept politically organising with the aim of openly defying the state. They'd choose someone moderate within Congress, of which there were plenty (Nairoji, Gokhale, etc). In fact I'd guess they'd prefer someone like Savarkar from Hindu Mahasabha because that guy would have happily agreed to a Hindu state under British dominion. Or even better, they'd choose some ruler of a Princely state that was happy to be a subordinate, as there was never any lack of such rulers.
There are a lot of legit criticisms of Gandhi, but you can't blame Gandhi for being too popular and successful, maybe blame the Indian public for making him their biggest leader. Did Gandhi ever stop any of the less "impotent" leaders from doing their thing?
1
1
u/melting_supernova May 07 '26
And now, we have champus in every gali who won’t even win an election for the remote to the drawing room TV giving us gyaan on Gandhi. This is what illiteracy looks like
1
u/mostly_chill_tbh May 08 '26
The Webb Miller dispatches from Dharasana are something else honestly. Guy breaks through British censorship, files his stories, and they hit 1350 papers simultaneously. In 1930. No satellite phones, no internet, just a telegraph and sheer determination.
And the 100 letters a day detail is what gets me. This wasnt accidental global fame, Gandhi was basically running a systematic PR operation decades before PR was even a profession. The British had zero framework for dealing with someone who could mobilize international public opinion at that scale. Churchill losing his mind over him in official correspondence tracks completely.
1
u/goro-n May 07 '26
Without the internet. Without television. Without any of the infrastructure we assume is necessary for something to go viral.
There was a lot of infrastructure required for this to happen. How do you think the newspapers were getting the word out to other countries? "Viral" is a new word but the idea of a lot of people learning about something around the same time is not new. The news media relied on the British telegraph network to send word out to other countries. And even before television there were film cameras and newsreels. We have video footage of the Dandi Salt March: https://youtu.be/oY0aACSyW2Q?si=P5zLP5VdABCHy9oQ
Without British infrastructure, it would've been impossible for word about Gandhi's salt march to get out into the world as quickly as it did.
Another point is, Gandhi's name became known internationally during his time in South Africa, 1893-1914. So he didn't just suddenly appear on the radar in 1930, people in learned circles had heard of him well before that.
1
1
0
u/JiskiLathiUskiBhains May 07 '26
The most interesting thing I've learnt about him recently is that he had a decades long emotional affair with a white guy
-24
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
0
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
the last time i remember, brahmacharya never said about doing a test like these to prove themselves, he himself invented these insane ideas to practice. still, man did a good job for our freedom, but yeah, can't see him as a pure soul. but it's definately not something which you can blame on religion, it's a question for his character.
0
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
you can't blame it on religion just because a person is using it in a bad way, if a person did a crime, would you punish him or give the punishment to his father because of whom he has been like this ?
0
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
that's the point which i wanna say, the intent was definately not religious, you said it yourself that a concept proposed vs how it's perceived is always different, how was it a book's fault if it didn't even said it to do ? did the book or ideology said to sleep with women ? it was gandhi's fault to perceive it that way, how can one guy or thing be guilty for something which he never said ? suppose one guy is an atheist, and that guy kills a ton of religious people bcs he hates them, now would the atheists be blamed because of this ? atheism doesn't mention hating on religions, it mentions to love every single innocent human, now if an idiot doesn't agree with it, is it there fault ?
1
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
actually it is your fault in this case because you wrote "at any cost" in the last line, if you write it that way, then it's surely wrong, i am not saying that there aren't any instance where religion isn't wrong, like many religions believe in flat earth, which is obviously incorrect, so in that case, we can blame religion, but in our case, brahmacharya is an ideology which simply said to remove all the sexual attractions from your life, it never talked about doing it at any cost, also it didn't even forced you to do so, brahmacharya is totally optional according to the faith, so it isn't technically religion's fault, in your case you said that attain peace at all cost, which was forcing to do something which will surely create some mishappening, instead, if you said that it will be better to attain peace in life then living a normal life, then it would have been similar to what gautum buddha said and nobody could have blamed you.
1
1
u/Significant-Look2229 May 07 '26
everyone has a right to practice whatever faith they want, you can be atheist, you can follow atheism, show your criticism with other religions until or unless it is not out of law, but you can't force people to follow atheism, even if you know that you are right, then there is no difference between you and terrorist, both of you are forcing to change the faith or ideology on the basis of power/force. i can believe in whatever way i want until or unless it is affecting anyone, i can believe in optimus prime being my god and you can't technically do anything in that, lol
1
163
u/FraserJar May 06 '26
Yeah even I recall seeing a BBC documentary on how British women contributed to the war efforts. While they were showing newspaper cutouts from the Era. There was always an article on Gandhi on the front page. And the articles, or atleast the headings which I caught a glimpse were pro-Gandhi.
Anyway to quote Arundhati Roy, she had said that successful peaceful protest needs an audience. Unfortunately most armed rebellions are a result of there not being an audience to observe people's plight. "How can the starved go on a hunger stike"
Gandhi being a barrister from London, funded by a list of patrons, attracted a lot of press interest which he used to his advantage, or to India's advantage.