gandhi's friendship and color factor...

Comment

Comment by vikram reddy on November 6, 2011 at 2:41pm

http://www.gandhitopia.org/photo/gandhi-s-new-order-2?xg_source=act...

Comment by Balamurali Balaji on November 6, 2011 at 4:42am

Dear Vikram,

Thanks for coming back to the discussion.

The picture photo you posted here is not Gandhi's new order; everything was changed especially when India became republic in 1950.

Due to his 'MAHATMA'ship and 'Father' figure to the entire nation, Gandhiji was not called for any postings. That had left many to criticise and comment on him.
But, he remained to be a unique and supreme leader and his ideologies being followed by every politician.

Comment by vikram reddy on November 5, 2011 at 8:36pm

balamuraliji

http://www.gandhitopia.org/photo/gandhi-s-new-order

i uploaded this new order statement as picture; source: nobel- page;

 

best regards, peace!

Comment by vikram reddy on November 5, 2011 at 6:28pm

dear balajiji

gandhi admirers are people who admire peace.   peace & progress can never be separated , my personal opinion. where is the necessity for me to be lenient towards admirers of gandhi  as if i am against them? my only problem is gandhi's cunning behavior and exploitation of a noble policy "peace" for his political gains and the misery he brought upon india. my problem is not with gandhi's followers. even gandhi's most noble( they were drawn to gandhi for his peace preaching) European friends distanced him after the first world war. neither i or nor them are haters of peace but, sly behavior.

you may not be a historian but, when you are presenting your view on gandhi you can consider the facts contrary to your opinion when provided. if not there is no meaning of discussion, no progress. either you will not be learning anything neither do i.

i assumed that you read the page for gandhi by nobel committee since you continued the discussion after i posted the link. since we are going nowhere and more than that you are slamming me that i am lenient towards gandhi's admirers as if i have ill-will towards them... better end this. we are talking about gandhi, not about myself! may be i am a villain or whatever may be you are a hero or whatever i did not comment or suggest that you are something but, you are suggesting me as if i am intolerant of of gandhi's followers.

to avoid all this i said better silence especially when we are not willing to go through the facts .

peace!

 

Comment by Balamurali Balaji on November 5, 2011 at 12:40am

Dear Vikram,

I still do not understand why you are linient towards Gandhi admirers. We do know and hail many freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives like Bhagat Singh. But we cant let every one die like this. Some one must stand for, persist to give a lasting leadership until acieving the results.

Moreover I am not a historian to study on all of them but to follow the much larger footprint left by Gandhiji worldwide.

Comment by vikram reddy on November 4, 2011 at 11:18pm

it is not the following a person has matters but, the reality matters

Comment by vikram reddy on November 4, 2011 at 11:09pm

dear balajiji

how can you say bhagat singh was not realistic? so you would say that french revolution should never happened! you will say that america should not have revolted against ... right? bhagat singh did not runaway but,  allowed the cops to take him over  and finally hang him so that indians would be awakened and more bhagat singhs would rise with his death. your gandhi who is silent over jallianwallabag massacre and all the wars british fought and the exploitation they did  and the cruelty with which they ruled ( whenever there was a rebellion) but,found fault with bhagat singh right!

after all what indepedence did gandhi brought ? all the princely states were given the freedom to remain free  or join the union or pakistan. the borders with bangladesh are created in such a way that north east literally had very thin connection to the main land.  after all this it is the sardar vallab bhai patel who took the way of bhagat singh and used force. its not gandhi's  peace crap ( non violence if indians are under attack; war if british were under attack ) that unified india but, the way of bhagat singh finally. you can love gandhi but, do not touch the image of bahagat singh who himself is the meaning of sacrifice. i am not hater of peace, if you preach about peace be like buddha or jesus christ dont be like gandhi!

why did british gave freedom to all those other countries that were under the rule the same time?  did gandhi fcoerced the british to give freedom to them also? british were weakened with war and india has not much left to offer british and good number of indians took arms. when they have nothing to gain why they shall rule? why you ignore all this?

india was divided and united again and again if you check our history. thats the scare story : what will hapen to india-used by gandhi biographers all the time.  anyways i ll  deal with it  in making of mahatma  article later. america would not have formed if gandhi was a contemporary of george washington or they would have accused and punished him as a traitor.   he could have been accused and punished as a traitor  even if he was by birth a british or say russian/german or any nation other than india  in those times and behaved the same way as he did with india.

if you think india was ugly it is because of british rule. just before the british rule columbus and other western sailors  died( as a metaphore to the effort) to find that same india you are calling as dirty. let me clarify there is some good, more than that india became a nation under misery . further british rule was not good for india  means british rule was not good for india not that british people are good or bad. 

 

what bothers me is the fact that you are ignoring the gandhi's sentence new order which is about india having armed forces. the same man who campaigned for all wars lamenting( for the sake of impressing nobel committee)  the fact that india is having an army that too just after supporting india to fight the war with pakistan will just leave the gandhi's character as some thing spineless as the nobel committee inked in their page.

 you don't have any answers when he changed his policy on non-violence again and again. if it was not a policy , let us call it a strategy. let us call gandhi as a politician who used non-violence for the political gains, let us not call  him saint.  

anyway when you re so openly ignoring the facts and comfortably continuing your passion and statements i dont think it will take us anywhere.

i am always open if you can show me proper reason to admire gandhi.   i will update you with my making of mahatma for the last time, and except that i prefer silence than telling something that you do not relish or you tell me something that i treat as ignorance of facts.

nowadays we see swamijis with huge following getting caught with illegal activities. its not the following a person has matters

Comment by Balamurali Balaji on November 4, 2011 at 5:41pm

Dear vikram,

His new order worked well and gave the results. The older tricks and strategies adopted by his predecessors likeTilak or contemporaries like Bhagat Singh were not realistic. Imagine how ugly was India and what power it had a century ago.

In my view Gandhi was right in his direction seeking freedom in true perspective.

Comment by vikram reddy on November 3, 2011 at 9:18pm

and balajiji

1937 and 1947 are the only times gandhi made to the shortlist of nobel prize though he was nominated 5 times.

thank you for referring to the thread. it made me understand further how gandh's ugliness ( new order )is transformed into  praise and elevation by the Gandhi's worshippers.

thank you and regards

vikram

Comment by vikram reddy on November 3, 2011 at 8:48pm

contd balajiji about nobel:

though he was nominated agaian and again he made the short list in 1947

that is when this was with pakistan and gandhi's statement that india should fight war as india had no other choice and that got published with times paper and they used that to deny gandhi nobel and gandhi made that he had no place in the new order

his new order was not about politicians ( nehru and team are gandhi's boys only) but, about the army.

and nobel were not too innocent like you to fall to gandhi's tricks, they gave it Quakers  who are 100% against war.

and if you think quakers are less luminous let it be but they are not tricking and playing around with peace like gandhi  did.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page