HOME | DD
paxtofettel — Gandhi
Published: 2010-12-04 23:26:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 5740; Favourites: 48; Downloads: 35
Redirect to original
Description
Recently, I have been watching the movie "Gandhi" and so far, I love it.A tribute to a great man
Related content
Comments: 64
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath.. This made him. (Oh, man, this is so bad, it's good). A super-calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't lie, you love it. = )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
if he were still alive..... the face of indian economy would have been different
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And there wouldn't have been so much violence between India and Pakistan
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
u think u can give a better decision ?
u should know that ind-pak thing sprang when JINNAH wanted to be PM and Nehru to wanted to be PM
besides ...east india company agreed to free india only on 1 condition that is
there should be two states INDIA and PAK...
whtever happened Gandhi couldnt stop it...he did it to stop any further lose of life of hundu and muslim community .
sometime i even think that all this could have stopped !!
but after all these years .... IND - PAK are still in fight ... and for what?
read a bio of Indira gandhi and conflicts of inda and pak because of her...
u will surely know some facts....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now lets not get into a discussion here. This is not a place for debates.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A symbol of peace, great one ma'am!
Unfortunately, nearly every peacemaker gets assassinated by warmongerin' faggots. Not cool
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks, but you might not be able to see it soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A visionary for pacifism and a genius for the undecided
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Indeed a great man.
I wonder how he would've fared in the Soviet Union or Maoist China or Cambodia or Viet Nam or Cuba or Iran or Syria...
Oh that's right, we'd never have heard of him because he'd have been killed pretty much a week after he started 'making trouble'...
Pacifism requires a moral opponent or they will simply kill you.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
dear...read a history book!!
"he was a trouble for 'east india company ' sincs he was 23 .....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
um, I've read a few here and there...(most recently 'Dreadnought' by Robert Massie, 'Scipio Africanus - Greater Than Napoleon' by B H Liddell Hart, and 'The First World War' by John Keegan) But I'm sure my library doesn't compare to yours. Perhaps you could recommend a few?
I'm afraid I don't really track how Ghandi's 'trouble' in South Africa prior to 1915 relates. Are you saying the British East India Company was comparable to the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or other brutally repressive totalitarian states?
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it's not much of difference in there ...
in simple words .... East india company torture kill and kill people who opposed them...
some people protested using weapons hence declared as BAD [terrorist]people ,[some peoples's terrorist other peoples freedom fighters] ,
some people...like gandhi followed A peaceful way ...non-violence ... protesting by non-co-operation...
it was not only gandhi .....
the protest was way before the time than gandhi started
rather he finished it....
the protest was going since past 500 years....
people suffered .... people died...no one kept record....
people just drifting with no future....
and a country in chains....
try "Discovery of India" by nehru it says a lot about PRE-independence status of Indian culture...
and eventually u will get a clue....
-bye dear
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wasn't that impressed with Nehru m'self although the book was excellent.
SO out of curiosity, if the East India Company was just torturing and killing all those who opposed him...why did Gandhi survive? They just liked him better? The reason he didn't 'disappear' or suffer a tragic accident was that the Brits were not as brutally evil as you'd like to believe. Were they an upstanding, 21st Century Human-Rights centered Democracy? No, of course not. This was the late 19th Century/early 20th. But they STILL weren't just murdering all those who opposed them as a matter of State policy.
I believe that you are seeing history through a modern filter. The Brits were FAR from evil. Check out the activities of the German, Belgian, or Spanish Empires in their time. Examine the activities of the modern Statist tyrannies - How many hundreds of millions have been killed by those folks?
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
because whole INDIA supported him[gandhi]...They did took him as political prisoner time to time....
and if he would have been killed by east india company....whole non violence thing followed by people would have been vanished [at least thats what east india company thought at that time.]
believe me .... Britishers were cruel , they had no right to just barge in and march over India ... they did it any way.....
and
farmers are back bone of india back then ...and also now...
Britishers squeezed their neck ... which is far more horrible than killing some one....isnt it?
and please ..... google Britishers and cruelty in india...u will know....
and i m also saying that in 18th and 17th century cruelty was way worse than in 20th century !!
and as u go back in time this cruelty increases in intensity and inhumanity
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So...the logic here is that rather than arranging a convenient accident, heart-failure, or murdering him, or simply having him disappear for fear of losing India, they elected to...lose India?
Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
The Empire was quite cruel - not more so than any other at that time and in fact, much less so than most (if not all). At that time, with the ethics and morals of the time, they had every 'right'. We recognize now that is not so and that it was in fact immoral and unethical. But the fact that the Brits did NOT just exterminate Gandhi and everyone who annoyed them (as is the usual methodology in totalitarian regimes, see Tianamen Square, Budapest, et. al.) shows that they WERE more moral than many even today.
Why would I Google Britishers and cruelty in India? I'm well familiar with the brutality that was often exercised there. Shall we discuss the brutality of the Thugee? The cruelty of the Untouchable class (another well-done to Mahatma Gandhi for helping to get rid of THAT!) or the tyranny of the Raja?
We DEFINITELY agree that as you go back in time cruelty increases. That's why it's important to evaluate the actions of individuals and governments in the context of their time.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
have u heard this
"DOGS AND INDIANS ARE NOT ALLOWED"?
one of the warning signs in London itself . can u explain why?
And assassination of gandhi ; they[Britishers] didn't consider gandhi as a threat in the begining ; by the time they knew he was, he had already influenced a hell lot people...
and as far as i know they did beat him to a pulp whenever they wanted...
and he never defended himself.....
non-violence thing u know...
r u justifying that whatever Britishers did ? what r u ? blind?
alright let me put it in this way....
...u live in your own little house,
suppose , some insurance salesman comes in saying he wants to sell insurance to but instead, at the gun-point tells you to do things for him,and makes u his slave...
and at the same time loots your money.
he keeps doing it because he thinks it's easy money and free slave ; stays at ur home, eats your food ...and they calls his fellow thugs to join up !
do u think its right?where is morality in that?
same thing happened in india....r u getting the perspective?
now let me tell u some of the thing u may have forgotten
which u might have read...
Britishers looted india of all the treasures they could...biggest example is kohinoor itself..
which is now a part of Her majesty's Crown [i meant queen]
i can go on and on ....
listen man , i dont hate britin or have grudge against Britishers or anything ;in fact i do respect her majesty , london and all english people ; i just hate what they did in past ; and there is no way u can justify that and say what ever they did was right....
of course there were advantages of british colonialism ; may be because some of the British-governors were not so cruel or may be too soft hearted ; but those things are rare and that didnt change the sufferings of people in india.......
try to comprehend that Britishers cam to india as merchant , to import/export goods;
and they proclaimed India? whats the logic in that?
many many lives were lost
many kings of that time fought to save their land...
i know it is said "when in war both sides are guilty"
but in here the later side was defending their land...
if u think Gandhi was the only reason india is free...
i guess thats completly wrong....many named and unnamed people were behind the freedom
including subash bosh , who tried to fight east india company and started a war ...owned upto rangoon
; east india company declared him as terrorist ....
he, and many others , who tried to free india using guns....
i have heard they still have a prize on his head cause they couldnt find dead body after he is dead...some say he went to nepal/burma to get more help and helped silently in freedom of india...
gandhi is not a name...when we say gandhi , we also personify all the freedom fighters as well
including unnamed .
and about flaw-ness: we are are flawed , we refine ourselves as we grow in age and mature in mind...
so is a country ;
read this book :
"Tales of British cruelty in India "
a more refined version
"The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj" by Denis Judd, Oxford University Press
PS:what ever i told u , a part was from book and a part was passed from generations to generations by telling the facts as a story, so that we will never forget that "FREEDOM COMES WITH A PRICE TAG"
Take care dear...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not sure you are reading my messages - You keep trying to explain British cruelty and behavior to me; behavior that I've already acknowledged occurred and was by today's view immoral and unethical.
I also don't understand why you are finding racism in the 17th-19th centuries (or even into the 20th) to be surprising or unusual. At the time it was ethical, moral, and common, often explained with Noblesse oblige.
If the East India Company had wanted Gandhi to die - and NOT been more moral than many modern totalitarian states, he would have died. There were a wide variety of methods available to them to make it look like an accident. Many empires have done the exact same thing many times throughout history; it's not hard.
The point I am making is that the British Empire was VERY moral - FOR THEIR TIME - and in many ways far more moral than most totalitarian states even today. CONTEXT is important here.
Try reading the message this time, OK?
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
u r saying Britishers are moral and ethical than others of that time,isnt it?
doing right thing out of fear is not considered moral or ethical..
here what i mean is ...Britishers rules plundered india for a long ....
and they knew at the peak that it is time to go ; i guess ; and so they did what they could to stay alive... it has nothing to do with morality....
u r just considering the late part of indian democracy , thats why u think Britishers are moral in their way ...try to think before that time...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not just that the British Empire was more moral than most during it's time, but that Pacifism only works when you are facing a moral opponent. It's *VERY* rare for that tactic to work when your foe doesn't care about morality.
If the Brits had wanted to continue to stay in India and plunder it (which is what Empires did with their colonies, most MUCH worse than the Brits), they surely would have and could have. They had the power to do so had they chosen to. Just like if the United States wanted to make Iraq a US Colony and treat it like we were in the 1700's, we could without much effort. In fact, in terms of (our) blood and treasure, it would be cheaper than doing the right thing and rebuilding them.
The Soviets didn't do that with their colonies er 'client states'. The Chinese are still raping Tibet, the Iraqis devastated Kuwait until we kicked them out, etc.
What I'm saying is again very context dependent. Heck, the behavior of America's founding fathers is in many ways reprehensible when viewed by today's standards.
In answer to your last question, I'm an American.
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
american?
really....?
right....
so...u went through my example ...right?
they had been doing all the worse things that they could....
...didnt i tell u ...u are just considering the late part of the indian democracy..
there were many times when britishers were more brutal than hell itself
one example is
Jallianwala Bagh massacre ...
[link]
indian history is filled with horrible events like that !
some are recorded and some r still lost in time.
no offence to u ...but seek out brutality by east india company before and during democracy
u will get all the ideas ...
ya u can also refer to wikipedia ... u will know what i mean...
quick question... america was under british empire .right?
i mean they conqured it.right?
i m ignorant about that actually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, I'm not denying the many brutalities that occurred - I am putting them in context.
Would you care to hear of some of the massacres by the Soviets, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, or Cubans recently? Shall I list out the various horrors perpetrated by the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, and Germans during their colonial periods around the same time periods?
I think you'll find the British were 'top of the heap' such as it was...Which again, by modern standards was still horrible. But by the standards of the time, not bad at all.
Oh yes - The United States is made up of former British, French, and Spanish colonies, mostly British. We got lucky during our Revolutionary War and they were tied up fighting the French so we were able to become independent. The Brits did indeed conquer this area - first by either buying or bullying Native Americans, then defeating the Spanish and French and absorbing their colonies. Plenty of brutality there as well...
So again - the question is not in today's terms, but comparing them to their own time and similar empires of the times. The Brits at that time by the standards of the time were moral and did better than pretty much any other colonial empire.
By TODAY'S standards, their behavior was appalling. But you can pick almost any standard and get the same result. Can you imagine taking a British student today and placing him in an 1800 school room? I'd love to see how they'd react to the discipline level expected LOL
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It definitely has its down points...
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But it also has its good points.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Agreed - now we just have to make sure that on balance we get more good ones than bad.
Here it is: [link]
Orion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He also proved that you don't have to use weapons to make a change in this world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
and u dont need a peace prize to prove that u r worthy of it..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks, and quamp, I just wanted to say thank you for all the support on the posters, and it pains me to say this, but this is goodbye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
~Noguy reported me to the DA admins and I fear I might get banned fom Deviant art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, you can post your stuff over at [link] .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think they would be accepted there either
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And that you don't get a Peace Nobel Prize being symbol of peace...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and u dont need a peace prize to prove that u r worthy of it..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>