How Ambedkar helped Hindu and Sikh women.

Although he had no choice but to concentrate on the Dalit cause given where and when he was born (which is an accident isn't it), he wasn't just a Dalit icon. Hindu and Sikh women owe their inheritance rights (parental property) to him. Divorce in Hindu and Sikh society was first allowed because of his work on the Hindu Code Bill.

***Copied and pasted from some website

MulaiAzhagi wrote:Although he had no choice but to concentrate on the Dalit cause given where and when he was born (which is an accident isn't it), he wasn't just a Dalit icon. Hindu and Sikh women owe their inheritance rights (parental property) to him. Divorce in Hindu and Sikh society was first allowed because of his work on the Hindu Code Bill.

***Copied and pasted from some website

vide infra - the rest of the article

The confrontation between Ambedkar and Gandhi was a historic one. It had its beginnings in the Round Table Conferences of 1930-32. Ambedkar had gone for the first, as the prime representative of Dalits, or Untouchables. But when Gandhi finally decided to attend the second conference, he argued fervently that he represented the Untouchables, because they were an integral part of the Hindu fold—which he represented. To Ambedkar, the Untouchables were not a part of the Hindus but “a part apart” (a phrase he had once applied to himself), a uniquely oppressed people. They could accept, even welcome, the coming of independence and its inevitable domination by the Congress (i.e. by caste Hindus), but they needed “safeguards”.

Ambedkar had originally felt that with universal suffrage, reserved seats would be sufficient. But universal suffrage was not given, and the issues at the conference revolved around separate electorates. Gandhi was reconciled to giving this to Muslims; he had already accepted their identity as a separate community. Not so for Dalits. When the Ramsay MacDonald Award gave separate electorates to Dalits, he protested with a fast unto death. And this brought him into direct confrontation with Ambedkar.

For Ambedkar, the problem was simple. If Gandhi died, in villages throughout India there would be pogroms against the Dalits. They would be massacred. Ambedkar surrendered, and the Poona Pact formalised this with reserved seats for Dalits—more than they would have had otherwise, but in constituencies now controlled by caste Hindus.

Ambedkar wrote, many years later, in What Congress and Gandhi have Done to the Untouchables: “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards (which had been awarded to them).” He felt the whole system of reserved seats, then, was useless. For years afterwards, the problem of political representation remained chronic. Ambedkar continued to ask for separate electorates, but futilely. By the end of his life, at the time of writing his Thoughts on Linguistic States in 1953, he gave these up also and looked to something like proportional representation. But the Poona Pact remained a symbol of bitter defeat, and Gandhi from that time on was looked on as one of the strongest enemies of the Untouchables by Ambedkar and his followers.

The Dalits saw the Harijan Sevak Sangh “as a foreign body set up by the Hindus with some ulterior motive”.

Following the fast, Gandhi formed what he called the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Here again, crucial differences arose. Ambedkar argued for a broad civil rights organisation which would focus on gaining civic rights for Dalits—entry into public places, use of public facilities, broad civil liberties—and he wanted it under the control of the Dalits themselves. Instead, Gandhi envisaged a paternalistic organisation, controlled by caste Hindus working for the “uplift” of Untouchables. This flowed from his basic theory, which saw untouchability as a sin of Hinduism—but not a basic part of Hinduism, rather a flaw in it which could be removed; upper-caste Hindus should atone for this, make recompense, and take actions for the cleansing and uplift of the Dalits. This included programmes of going to clean up slums, preaching anti-alcoholism and vegetarianism and so forth. For Ambedkar, all of this was worse than useless. He condemned the Harijan Sevak Sangh in strong language: “The work of the Sangh is of the most inconsequential kind. It does not catch anyone’s imagination. It neglects most urgent purposes for which the Untouchables need help and assistance. The Sangh rigorously excludes the Untouchables from its management. The Untouchables are no more than beggars, mere recipients of charity.” He concluded that the Untouchables see the Sangh “as a foreign body set up by the Hindus with some ulterior motive...the whole object is to create a slave mentality among the Untouchables towards their Hindu masters”. This, to Ambedkar, was the major thrust of paternalism.
This debate on the Sangh had as its background a fundamental difference in the very goals of Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar stood for the annihilation of caste. He saw untouchability as a fundamental result of it, and believed there could be no alleviation, no uplift, no relief without the abolition of caste. Gandhi was not simply a devoted Hindu, but also a fervent believer in his idealised version of “varnashrama dharma”. He felt that what he considered to be the benign aspects of caste—its encouragement of a certain solidarity—could be maintained while removing hierarchy and the evil of untouchability. This was in fact the essence of his reformism.

This was followed by a conflict between Ambedkar and Gandhi over religion. Ambedkar had by now become thoroughly disillusioned with Hinduism. He argued for conversion, and in 1936 made the historic announcement at Yeola that “I was born a Hindu and have suffered the consequences of untouchability. I will not die a Hindu”. Two days later, Gandhi held a press conference, calling Ambedkar’s decision “unbelievable. Religion is not like a house or cloak which can be changed at will”. On August 22, 1936, he wrote in the Harijan (the name given to his newspaper): “One may hope we have seen the last of any bargaining between Dr Ambedkar and savarnas for the transfer to another form of several million dumb Harijans as if they were chattel.” This way of speaking became typical of him; he could not envisage the anger and grief of the millions of Dalits who followed Ambedkar on this issue.

Behind this were different views of humanity. Gandhi did not see untouchables as individuals born into a particular community but rather as somewhat unthinking members of an existing Hindu community; Hinduism he saw as their “natural” religion, their task was to reform it, they should not leave it. Ambedkar, in contrast, put the individual and his/her development at the centre of his vision, and believed this development was impossible without a new, true religion. The confrontation was inevitable.

The feud between Gandhi and Ambedkar did not stop here. The final difference was over India’s path of development itself. Gandhi believed, and argued for, a village-centred model of development, one which would forsake any hard path of industrialism but seek to achieve what he called “Ram rajya”, an idealised, harmonised traditional village community. Ambedkar, in contrast, wanted economic development and with it industrialisation as the basic prerequisite for the abolition of poverty. He insisted always that it should be worker-friendly, not capitalistic, at times arguing for “state socialism” (though he later accepted some forms of private ownership of industry). He remained, basically, to the end of his life a democratic socialist. To him, villages were far from being an ideal; rather they were “cesspools”, a cauldron of backwardness, tradition and bondage. Untouchables had to escape from the villages, and India also had to reject its village past.

In sum, there were important, irreconcilable differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Two great personages of Indian history, posed against one another, giving alternative models of humanity and society. The debate goes on!

(Gail Omvedt is a veteran chronicler of the Dalit movement.)

Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

That is gross trivialization of Gandhi's contributions. Both Ambedkar and Gandhi contributed in their own ways and are both recognized for their efforts. Gandhi's economics did not work but "state socialism" was crap as well.

MulaiAzhagi wrote:Although he had no choice but to concentrate on the Dalit cause given where and when he was born (which is an accident isn't it), he wasn't just a Dalit icon. Hindu and Sikh women owe their inheritance rights (parental property) to him. Divorce in Hindu and Sikh society was first allowed because of his work on the Hindu Code Bill.

***Copied and pasted from some website

He is the father of the Indian constitution. You can pretty much ascribe half the rights (and wrongs) of the people to him.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

yes, even i think so. as far as dalits are concerned ambedkar had a more pragmatic stand than gandhi. i wouldn't write-off gandhi totally though. just that his (invaluable) contributions lay elsewhere -- non-violence, independence movement and communal harmony or indian style "secularism."

ps. now there are theories that gandhi was probably gay. i think ramachandra guha is working on it (he is privy to letters of gandhi recently brought out). that might explain his quirks like sleeping with his niece (or something) to exercise sexual restraint. in the end, the only thing that can be said about gandhi is that he was "very well-intentioned," which in itself is a great quality to find in someone described as "the father of the nation."

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

yes, even i think so. as far as dalits are concerned ambedkar had a more pragmatic stand than gandhi. i wouldn't write-off gandhi totally though. just that his (invaluable) contributions lay elsewhere -- non-violence and communal harmony or indian style "secularism."

ps. now there are theories that gandhi was probably gay. i think ramachandra guha is working on it (he is privy to letters of gandhi recently brought out). that might explain his quirks like sleeping with his niece (or something) to exercise sexual restraint. in the end, the only thing that can be said about gandhi is that he was "very well-intentioned," which in itself is a great quality to find in someone described as "the father of the nation."

in general, i don't care too much for arun shourie but his analysis of Ambedkar seems fairly convincing.

http://www.rediff.com/freedom/29ambed.htm

Rashmun wrote:in general, i don't care too much for arun shourie but his analysis of Ambedkar seems fairly convincing.

http://www.rediff.com/freedom/29ambed.htm

thank you! this puts into perspective the fact that ambedkar was primarily a votary of the untouchables. his involvement in gaining independence can be described, at the best, as a lack of interest. he saw the persecution of the untouchables under britishers or hindus no different. this is frankly bordering on divisive. hindus were NOT outsiders and they had as much a right to india. gandhi tried, theoretically, to court the untouchables by describing them as hindus which ambedkar denied and disputed. while i will agree with ambedkar here, i feel a bit saddened that he did not actively participate in or wish for independence (that gandhi did and succeeded). gandhi wins resoundingly on this score. then again, ambedkar was always in internal strife and in his last years he grew disillusioned with the indian state (*he* had drafted the constitution) and even with his philosophy!

Rashmun wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

yes, even i think so. as far as dalits are concerned ambedkar had a more pragmatic stand than gandhi. i wouldn't write-off gandhi totally though. just that his (invaluable) contributions lay elsewhere -- non-violence and communal harmony or indian style "secularism."

ps. now there are theories that gandhi was probably gay. i think ramachandra guha is working on it (he is privy to letters of gandhi recently brought out). that might explain his quirks like sleeping with his niece (or something) to exercise sexual restraint. in the end, the only thing that can be said about gandhi is that he was "very well-intentioned," which in itself is a great quality to find in someone described as "the father of the nation."

in general, i don't care too much for arun shourie but his analysis of Ambedkar seems fairly convincing.

http://www.rediff.com/freedom/29ambed.htm

It was in fact this book that totally put me off Shourie. Until then, I had a very high regard for him.

I dont blame Ambedkar for steering clear from the high-caste dominated Congress and the freedom movement. He (and the Dalits) had everything to lose with power prematurely moving from the British to the Congress. His only hope of ever getting any genuine concessions for the Dalits was through the Brits, so I don't blame him for the positions he took. His priorities were very clear.

artood2 wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

That is gross trivialization of Gandhi's contributions. Both Ambedkar and Gandhi contributed in their own ways and are both recognized for their efforts. Gandhi's economics did not work but "state socialism" was crap as well.

Ok, what is Gandhi's legacy that is relevant to us in the 21st century? Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Nice writeup. Ambedkar was probably one of the most forward-thinking leaders India was fortunate to have. Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity.

That is gross trivialization of Gandhi's contributions. Both Ambedkar and Gandhi contributed in their own ways and are both recognized for their efforts. Gandhi's economics did not work but "state socialism" was crap as well.

Ok, what is Gandhi's legacy that is relevant to us in the 21st century? Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

Mandela, MLK?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually).

Mandela's journey was from armed struggle to non-violent resistance, not the other way around. And it was quite successful against one of the world's most brutal regimes.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Without the non-violent resistance of the ANC, there would have been no international sanctions to break the apartheid regime's back. The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors. If the ANC had persisted with armed struggle, not many white Americans -- and not many western governments -- would have supported a black group attempting to kill their country's minority white people.

As for the question of choice, non-violence was not the only option. The Palestinians tried something else, and they didn't manage to get the sort of sanctions against their oppressors that the South Africans did.

ok, i got it MD!!! munnabhai mbbs?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ok, i got it MD!!! munnabhai mbbs?

TS too.

ha ha!

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Without the non-violent resistance of the ANC, there would have been no international sanctions to break the apartheid regime's back. The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors. If the ANC had persisted with armed struggle, not many white Americans -- and not many western governments -- would have supported a black group attempting to kill their country's minority white people.

As for the question of choice, non-violence was not the only option. The Palestinians tried something else, and they didn't manage to get the sort of sanctions against their oppressors that the South Africans did.

That's precisely the point I made. For a political movement to attract mainstream support, the only option is non-violence. So why make so much virtue out of that necessity. And for sure, non-violence by itself doesn't get you anywhere. Ask the Dalai Lama.

Non violence would work if the other party in fair. 95% of the cases it will not work. So stop preaching nonviolence to innocent people and get them killed. Remember 1965? How was the nonviolent agitation handled by Hindian gov?

Kayalvizhi wrote:Non violence would work if the other party in fair. 95% of the cases it will not work. So stop preaching nonviolence to innocent people and get them killed. Remember 1965? How was the nonviolent agitation handled by Hindian gov?

yes.. The Sinhalas understood this well and dealt with The Butcher the way you recommend.

Are you sure you are not a Sinhala in disguise?

>> The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors.



You forget that there is a large African American population in US. Without US sanctions South African attrocities (apartheid) against black South Africans would not have ended.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Please don't say non-violence. That has not worked for anyone ever since (assuming that it worked in India in 1947).

lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Without the non-violent resistance of the ANC, there would have been no international sanctions to break the apartheid regime's back. The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors. If the ANC had persisted with armed struggle, not many white Americans -- and not many western governments -- would have supported a black group attempting to kill their country's minority white people.

As for the question of choice, non-violence was not the only option. The Palestinians tried something else, and they didn't manage to get the sort of sanctions against their oppressors that the South Africans did.

That's precisely the point I made. For a political movement to attract mainstream support, the only option is non-violence. So why make so much virtue out of that necessity. And for sure, non-violence by itself doesn't get you anywhere. Ask the Dalai Lama.

So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Here is a photo of arrested peaceful demonstrators

panini press wrote:So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

p.s. had mahatma anna continued to attract large crowds (than god he didn't) things might have turned out differently.

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
lol. nelson mandela? (though he took up arms eventually). aung san suu kyi? anyway, gandhian non-violence has become a "method" now that unnerves authority because of the tacit international support it enjoys (i think).

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Without the non-violent resistance of the ANC, there would have been no international sanctions to break the apartheid regime's back. The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors. If the ANC had persisted with armed struggle, not many white Americans -- and not many western governments -- would have supported a black group attempting to kill their country's minority white people.

As for the question of choice, non-violence was not the only option. The Palestinians tried something else, and they didn't manage to get the sort of sanctions against their oppressors that the South Africans did.

That's precisely the point I made. For a political movement to attract mainstream support, the only option is non-violence. So why make so much virtue out of that necessity. And for sure, non-violence by itself doesn't get you anywhere. Ask the Dalai Lama.

So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

That said, I must say his ingenious technique of emotionally blackmailing political opponents into backing down by threatening to kill himself is quite an original contribution to the art of assymetric warfare. Small-minded people may well say that the threat of violence against self goes against the principle of non-violent resistance, but let us not let such things come in the way of our deification of the great inventor.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

In SA as well as Burma, it is international economic sanctions that really broke the regimes' backs. Non-violence certainly gives the resistance a higher moral standing, but it is not as if a political movement has much choice in that matter and it certainly is not sufficient in itself.

Without the non-violent resistance of the ANC, there would have been no international sanctions to break the apartheid regime's back. The sanctions were a rather direct result of ANC lobbying western governments, and people in those countries sympathizing with the nonviolent protestors. If the ANC had persisted with armed struggle, not many white Americans -- and not many western governments -- would have supported a black group attempting to kill their country's minority white people.

As for the question of choice, non-violence was not the only option. The Palestinians tried something else, and they didn't manage to get the sort of sanctions against their oppressors that the South Africans did.

That's precisely the point I made. For a political movement to attract mainstream support, the only option is non-violence. So why make so much virtue out of that necessity. And for sure, non-violence by itself doesn't get you anywhere. Ask the Dalai Lama.

So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

That said, I must say his ingenious technique of emotionally blackmailing political opponents into backing down by threatening to kill himself is quite an original contribution to the art of assymetric warfare. Small-minded people may well say that the threat of violence against self goes against the principle of non-violent resistance, but let us not let such things come in the way of our deification of the great inventor.

Gandhi did not invent non-violence but non-violent resistance in the 21st century is his legacy.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

As a political method for the oppressed of modern times, yes, Gandhi did invent it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:let us not let such things come in the way of our deification of the great inventor.

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't deify him. Give the man his due credit, although you might be tempted to unduly trivialize his legacy.

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

As a political method for the oppressed of modern times, yes, Gandhi did invent it.

Not true.

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:let us not let such things come in the way of our deification of the great inventor.

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't deify him. Give the man his due credit, although you might be tempted to unduly trivialize his legacy.

I'm sticking to facts. I do resent that the larger-than-life image of a god-like `Father of the Nation', indoctrinated in each of us through propagand(h)ist history textbooks, has resulted in the eclipsing of others' equally substantial (if not intellectually superior) contributions. Deflating that with facts, IMO, is a correction and not an undue trivialization.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

As a political method for the oppressed of modern times, yes, Gandhi did invent it.

Not true.

Aww, come now. Nonviolence was not even mentioned as one of the key principles of that movement. The only references to violence (or lack thereof) in the article you posted are telling:

Although the League discouraged violence, agrarian crimes increased widely.

Landlords' attempts to evict tenants led to violence, but the Land League denounced excessive violence and destruction.

Based on this, who do you want to claim as the Irish inventor of political nonviolence?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I do resent that the larger-than-life image of a god-like `Father of the Nation', indoctrinated in each of us through propagand(h)ist history textbooks,

I am not a fan of epithets like 'Father of the Nation' myself. I agree with you that there has been a lot of deification of Gandhi in Indian history textbooks, and share in your resentment of such propaganda. I approve of attempts to set that record straight with facts, and have done that myself on occasion. But the fact is that Gandhi's legacy is rather important to the 21st century world. As you suggested, the only option for oppressed people is one he is widely credited -- even outside India -- with pioneering!

Gandhi was very popular among indian masses including muslims much before history books ever wrote about him. Many of us learned about him through people who saw him and were inspired by him.
The idea that gandhi is a creation of historical books is a revisionist history.
India before indepence had choice of political opinion. It included congress, muslim league, RSS, communist party, multiple voilent local rebellions, and a do nothing option that many urban educated chose. Indian people chose gandhis civil dis obedience over all others. His non voilent approach, as i have stated many times before, pulled masses from the fartherest corners of society. He created the largest mass base of any peoples movement and sustained it for over decades. Remember that china was also going through a peoples revolt at that time.

Gandhi was an ordinary hindi bania. A little bit book smart but steeped in his gujarati trafitions. History was created by ordinary people raising to match extraordinary historical challenges. Gandhi learned about indian people through his visits all over india. He grasped the belief system, the weakness of masses, their desires, the need for hindu muslim unity, the need for harijan upliftment and the need for a very long struggle. His traditional roots and his observations resulted in his own brand of political philosophy. It looks obvious now but it was unknown in those days.
Gandhi the individual was flawed and was petty on many occassions but he was rock solid in his commitment to nonvoilent civil disobedience. He won the indepence and began the end of western power colonial rule.
gandhi not perfect but great.

truthbetold wrote:It looks obvious now but it was unknown in those days.
Gandhi the individual was flawed and was petty on many occassions but he was rock solid in his commitment to nonvoilent civil disobedience. He won the indepence and began the end of western power colonial rule.
gandhi not perfect but great.

well said. let us not forget that gandhi was inspirational in his times. it might all seem obvious today but it wasn't then. khan abdul gafar khan or the "frontier gandhi" was deeply inspired by gandhi and felt gandhi's non-violent struggle was a more effective instrument than the (repeatedly failed) armed revolts his region was drowning in.

Gafar khan was called sarihad (frontier) gandhi. Extraordinary man. If i am not wrong he
visited India once before he died.
While gandhi drove away the british he failed to move the needle on internal reforms of hindu religion in his life time. He cannot.be faulted.for effort but he never understood how much more work was required to get rid of thousands of years of baggage.

yes, extraordinary man he was. i do not know if he visited india, but gandhi did visit gafar khan in afghanistan. gafar khan was also against the muslim league and partition.

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

panini press wrote:So the man invented the political method that became the only option for the downtrodden in the 21st century, and you still don't think much of his legacy! You, sir, have really high standards.

Gandhi invented non-violent resistance?? Haha. Sir, surely you, the king of search, don't need me to assist you in looking up the rich history of passive resistance long before the father of our nation "invented" it.

As a political method for the oppressed of modern times, yes, Gandhi did invent it.

Not true.

Aww, come now. Nonviolence was not even mentioned as one of the key principles of that movement. The only references to violence (or lack thereof) in the article you posted are telling:

Although the League discouraged violence, agrarian crimes increased widely.

Landlords' attempts to evict tenants led to violence, but the Land League denounced excessive violence and destruction.

Based on this, who do you want to claim as the Irish inventor of political nonviolence?

Tsk. Tsk. So now you are going to pass judgment on Michael Davitt and other leaders of the Irish land reforms movement based on what is NOT mentioned in a Wiki article?? Anyway, Gandhi himself hailed the non-violent path adopted by the Irish movement, translating "Sinn Fein" as "Swadeshi" and advocated their passive resistance as well as the Hungarian nationalists' civil disobedience as tactics worthy of emulation by the Indians of Transvaal in 1907.

He had closely studied all these different tactics and yes, he brought them all together and adapted them uniquely to suit his needs but let us not give more credit than is due.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:So now you are going to pass judgment on Michael Davitt and other leaders of the Irish land reforms movement based on what is NOT mentioned in a Wiki article??

No, let us use Gandhi's words that you cited:

Till now [i.e. September 1907], Irishmen favoured violent action. While theIrish people are tenants, the landlords are British who are foreigners there. As a remedy, the tenants often resorted to violence against their foreign landlords.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Anyway, Gandhi himself hailed the non-violent path adopted by the Irish movement, translating "Sinn Fein" as "Swadeshi" and advocated their passive resistance as well as the Hungarian nationalists' civil disobedience as tactics worthy of emulation by the Indians of Transvaal in 1907.

Gandhi certainly drew influence from a number of sources, from Jesus to John Ruskin and Thoreau to Tolstoy, and he mentions those examples more prominently in his memoirs than the Irish or Hungarian efforts. And the fact is, he had already led the Indians of Transvaal through nonviolent protest against the registration law a full year before he wrote about the Irish example -- an example that is presented as nonviolent in the future, not the past.

Anyway, we are quibbling about details now. You were originally arguing that "Gandhi's legacy on the other hand is a quirky baggage around prohibition, panchayati raj, khadi and a fetish for austerity," that Gandhi's legacy is not relevant in the 21st century, and that nonviolence has not worked for anyone. Acknowledging the influence of others on Gandhi does not take anything away from his 21st century legacy or from the fact that his method actually worked for the oppressed people of the United States and South Africa.