Gandhi is a first example of proving that non-violence is one of the most effective tool for transformation as a society. He wanted equal treatment for Indian people at par with any British citizen. But Britain wasn’t ready to grant full dominion status, then series of incidents moved him to ask for full freedom. In his early years in Africa when he was going through transformation, there were some incidents which reflected some prejudice against native Africans, but subsequently he became a changed man, his greatness lies in constantly reinventing himself as he learns more about life.
Gandhi will be crying in his grave of what India has been turned into, in just 6 years. An intolerant, divided society with complete disdain for rule of law. The concept of reason has gone away completely [1]. Hope the lessons of COVID-19 can turn the tide, hopefully into a plural India which celebrates unity in diversity and again put emphasis on reason, scientific thinking and rule of law.
Considering that his life's work was to ensure that his country wasn't British, Gandhi feels like a strange choice, much as he's an obvious choice of face for the rupee and international accolades and someone that obviously did significantly influence the course of British history. I'm not even sure Gandhi would have wanted to appear on British currency, at least not after the early period in his life when he unsuccessfully tried to earn the respect of the British by encouraging Indian Hindus to volunteer for British war efforts.
Yes, it's a very odd choice. The criterion that the person not be alive makes it a little tricky, but previous research has some good candidates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53547483
Noor Inayat Khan already has a George Cross for war heroism, making her a nice conservative-friendly choice.
Saint George featured on coins previously. He was from what is now modern day Eastern Turkey which I think people who care about white/non-white might consider non-white (I really don't know).
Democracy in India is a rare jewel in a large swathe of non-democratic states in Asia and around the world. That it exists at all, as a democracy, is due to the immense efforts of the British, The Indian National Congress, Mahatma Gandhi and his peers, Nehru and his peers. Indian citizens should be grateful to all of the above groups of people who have given them democracy as it is today. Without them, it would not come to pass.
> That it exists at all, as a democracy, is due to the immense efforts of the British....Indian citizens should be grateful to all of the above groups of people who have given them democracy as it is today
What? Are you serious with this line of thought that Indians should be grateful to the British for democracy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tharoor's arguments here from an Oxford Union debate [0] -
> It's a bit rich to oppress, enslave, kill, torture, maim people for 200 years and then celebrate the fact that they're democratic at the end of it. We were denied democracy sir! We had to snatch it, seize it from you! With the greatest of reluctance it was conceded.
Britain likes to tout its common wealth status. Now having come out of the EU, the "common wealth" becomes even more important.
Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Gandhi was a proper Englishman except his skin colour, highly educated, loyal to the British. Without him the British could have faced a very violent uprising in India.
He was instrumental in planting Nehru, who in turn was very loyal to the British, who continued to be the decision makers post independence. Britain couldn't have had a better man in their citizenery.
For those commenting about Gandhi's past or early life. Gandhi is an idea of non-violence, it is no longer about the person but what he is known for. Just like we do not discus Hitler's art prowess, oratory skills, love of dogs or fidelity, he is associated with violence and evil.
Even as an Indian I do not like Gandhi for all the mess he created and all the credits he takes for India's independence. However, with all things said and done he is an asset for any nation associated with his image. And we can use it positively.
Britain will benefit from using his image as part of its history.
I hear this argument a lot from Indians, that Gandhi was loyal to the British and he helped install a pro British government. I don't know what the proposed better alternative is. The British was ruling the country for the better part of 4 centuries by then, and changing it to something else would take years of effort. Combine this with different princely states not wanting to be part of independent India, the economic realities, and the looming threat from China - you have a recipe for a failed state.
I would have preferred India not colonized at all, but there was no better alternative than this for India to become independent from the British.
Armed uprisings were few and far in-between in India. Subash Chandra Bose was the only one that came any close to having a successful army but even if he was more successful than he really was, it wouldn't last long with him aligning with the Axis in WW2.
> Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen.
Except the British never saw it this way. One can argue that if Britain identified all colonial citizens as their own, the Gandhian movement in India would not have gained a lot of traction at all. One of their first demands was equal treatment.
I agree with the educated part, but you're deluded if you think he was loyal to the UK. The dude lead the "Quit India" movement in 1942 to get the UK out of India -- in the middle of a world war, no less.
One of the great things about Gandhi was that he evolved as a person as he aged. He worked in South Africa as a young(er) man, his views on Black people changed as he grew older.
Regardless, Gandhi's writings about Black people have been taken out of context in many places, and it would be a good idea to read entire letters/articles written by him before jumping to conclusions.
I am Indian living in England, and I'm not sure how I feel about this. In some ways, yes, Gandhi is to be to revered, however in others, he should perhaps be reviled.
For example, he would share his bed with naked nubile girls to "test" his celibacy. Not just girls, but his own grandnieces. Am I the only one that finds that extremely unsettling?
Makes me wonder if he was in fact the great man he is made out to be. Perhaps the political magnetism he possessed meant that politicians absolved him of all his sins, attributing them to mere eccentricities, in order to take advantage of his popularity.
It will be nice If you read bit more and learn, instead of many myths floating around especially from the camp of right wing Hindu nationalist, who killed him and running a sustained campaign to malign his image to boost themselves.
> The reason this is being done is exactly the same reason why he was not given the Nobel Peace Prize and not acknowledged outside India for a very long time.
While I think it's farcial to place him on British currency, largely for the reasons you've outlined, this part of your claim has no basis in fact.
Gandhi did not receive the 1948 Nobel Peace Prize because he was dead and the prize is not awarded posthumously. The diary of a prize committee chair recorded that one member was in favor of awarding the prize posthumously. Instead the 1948 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded because “there was no suitable living candidate”.
Please brush up your history before talking about Gandhi. Gandhi was not Anti-Britain initially, he wanted equal treatment for Indian people at par with any British citizen. But Britain wasn’t ready to grant full dominion status, then series of incidents moved him to ask for full freedom. In his early years in Africa when he was going transformation, there were some incidents which reflected some prejudice against native Africans, but subsequently he became a changed man, his greatness lies in constantly reinventing himself as he learns more about life.
The biggest supporter of Nazi and Hitler philosophy following his footsteps are in power in India today, where gradually every democratic institution is muzzled for their version of Hindu Aryan supremacy.
Gandhi will be crying in his grave of what India has been turned into in just 6 years. An intolerant, divided society with complete disdain for rule of law. The concept of reason has gone away completely [1]. Hope the lessons of COVID-19 can turn the tide, hopefully into a plural India which celebrates unity in diversity and again put emphasis on reason, scientific thinking and rule of law.
It was a different time, with different problems and different challenges. As you say there were no angels and I am sure that you can parse history to find fault with all figures, but Gandi's stances non-violence (but not peaceful and compliant) campaigning seem to me to be admirable and something for everyone to emulate.
You seem to imply that, because he addressed Hitler as "friend", he must be a terrible person?
That's ridiculous. He was addressing the leader of one of the axis of the Great War when the War was just about to start (and then, just after), there was no way to tell how the conflict would develop, and when most of the atrocities Hitler became infamous for had not been committed, or at least were not widely known yet. It's easy to now talk about Hitler as the Devil re-incarnated, but at the time, he was a world leader and addressing him like you probably would like Gandhi to have done, as a despicable human being, would probably only contribute to Hitler's warring inclinations.
If you were to, today, write to a world leader like Putin or Trump, trying to convince them to not start a war that could destroy a large percentage of humanity, would you not want to start your letter in a diplomatic manner in order to maybe be heard and stop an extremely horrific event, despite how undignified they may be as a person in your eyes?
Gandhi's letters you linked to only show how he tried as hard as he could to diplomatically convince Hitler that war was not the only solution... imagine if he had succeeded in that, how much suffering could have been avoided!
As Gandhi said in one of the letters, winning a war doesn't prove you're in the right, it only proves you had greater capability for destruction. But Hitler, of course, thought both that he was in the right AND that nothing could beat his superior army and race. He was wrong in both accounts, but he was right in that his power for destruction was enormous, and the result was the most horrific episode in human history.
He suggested to Hitler that any disputes he had with the UK should be taken to an impartial tribunal - what's so bad about that? Of course, with the benefit of hindsight it may look naive - but that's easy for us to say now.
> you won't find any angels here [0], including Gandhi
I don't understand. If anything, these letters just made me respect the man more. If you had linked examples of the letter of his youth in SA, with racist undertones, maybe it would have been somewhat relevant with the previous sentence "But as always with those with a PC agenda", but those letters to Hitler clearly shows the inner world of a great man, no?
Anyway, thank you for the link, it was extremely interesting.
What exactly is your problem with this letter? He's asking Hitler to be peaceful.
> That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed. I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms. But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian-man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years. We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organization, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through nonviolent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organized violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organized, the German or the British. We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deed, however skilfully planned. I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right. You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar. During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attuned to hearing the dumb millions?
The only reason the Daily Mail (a demonstrably racist publisher of right-leaning lies and propaganda) would publish this is to create anger from those who regularly read it. Since there's are a lot of people wouldn't agree with this decision.
Also, I find it odd that this article is even linked on 'Hacker News'. It has zero value to our community (imho).
[+] [-] dragonsh|5 years ago|reply
Gandhi will be crying in his grave of what India has been turned into, in just 6 years. An intolerant, divided society with complete disdain for rule of law. The concept of reason has gone away completely [1]. Hope the lessons of COVID-19 can turn the tide, hopefully into a plural India which celebrates unity in diversity and again put emphasis on reason, scientific thinking and rule of law.
[1] http://indiatogether.org/dichotomy-rule-of-law-op-ed
[+] [-] notahacker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
Noor Inayat Khan already has a George Cross for war heroism, making her a nice conservative-friendly choice.
[+] [-] fnord123|5 years ago|reply
Saint George featured on coins previously. He was from what is now modern day Eastern Turkey which I think people who care about white/non-white might consider non-white (I really don't know).
[+] [-] rgblambda|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zwirbl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomly123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arrayjumper|5 years ago|reply
What? Are you serious with this line of thought that Indians should be grateful to the British for democracy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tharoor's arguments here from an Oxford Union debate [0] -
> It's a bit rich to oppress, enslave, kill, torture, maim people for 200 years and then celebrate the fact that they're democratic at the end of it. We were denied democracy sir! We had to snatch it, seize it from you! With the greatest of reluctance it was conceded.
[0] - https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722
[+] [-] naruvimama|5 years ago|reply
Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Gandhi was a proper Englishman except his skin colour, highly educated, loyal to the British. Without him the British could have faced a very violent uprising in India.
He was instrumental in planting Nehru, who in turn was very loyal to the British, who continued to be the decision makers post independence. Britain couldn't have had a better man in their citizenery.
For those commenting about Gandhi's past or early life. Gandhi is an idea of non-violence, it is no longer about the person but what he is known for. Just like we do not discus Hitler's art prowess, oratory skills, love of dogs or fidelity, he is associated with violence and evil.
Even as an Indian I do not like Gandhi for all the mess he created and all the credits he takes for India's independence. However, with all things said and done he is an asset for any nation associated with his image. And we can use it positively.
Britain will benefit from using his image as part of its history.
[+] [-] odux|5 years ago|reply
Armed uprisings were few and far in-between in India. Subash Chandra Bose was the only one that came any close to having a successful army but even if he was more successful than he really was, it wouldn't last long with him aligning with the Axis in WW2.
> Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Except the British never saw it this way. One can argue that if Britain identified all colonial citizens as their own, the Gandhian movement in India would not have gained a lot of traction at all. One of their first demands was equal treatment.
[+] [-] blaser-waffle|5 years ago|reply
I agree with the educated part, but you're deluded if you think he was loyal to the UK. The dude lead the "Quit India" movement in 1942 to get the UK out of India -- in the middle of a world war, no less.
[+] [-] notoriousjpg|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genghizkhan|5 years ago|reply
Regardless, Gandhi's writings about Black people have been taken out of context in many places, and it would be a good idea to read entire letters/articles written by him before jumping to conclusions.
[+] [-] nojito|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] person_of_color|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tasogare|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IfOnlyYouKnew|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nojito|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osrec|5 years ago|reply
For example, he would share his bed with naked nubile girls to "test" his celibacy. Not just girls, but his own grandnieces. Am I the only one that finds that extremely unsettling?
Makes me wonder if he was in fact the great man he is made out to be. Perhaps the political magnetism he possessed meant that politicians absolved him of all his sins, attributing them to mere eccentricities, in order to take advantage of his popularity.
[+] [-] dragonsh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no1name|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AntiImperialist|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bhickey|5 years ago|reply
While I think it's farcial to place him on British currency, largely for the reasons you've outlined, this part of your claim has no basis in fact.
Gandhi did not receive the 1948 Nobel Peace Prize because he was dead and the prize is not awarded posthumously. The diary of a prize committee chair recorded that one member was in favor of awarding the prize posthumously. Instead the 1948 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded because “there was no suitable living candidate”.
[+] [-] dragonsh|5 years ago|reply
The biggest supporter of Nazi and Hitler philosophy following his footsteps are in power in India today, where gradually every democratic institution is muzzled for their version of Hindu Aryan supremacy.
Gandhi will be crying in his grave of what India has been turned into in just 6 years. An intolerant, divided society with complete disdain for rule of law. The concept of reason has gone away completely [1]. Hope the lessons of COVID-19 can turn the tide, hopefully into a plural India which celebrates unity in diversity and again put emphasis on reason, scientific thinking and rule of law.
[1] http://indiatogether.org/dichotomy-rule-of-law-op-ed
[+] [-] rvz|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sgt101|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teddyh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brabel|5 years ago|reply
That's ridiculous. He was addressing the leader of one of the axis of the Great War when the War was just about to start (and then, just after), there was no way to tell how the conflict would develop, and when most of the atrocities Hitler became infamous for had not been committed, or at least were not widely known yet. It's easy to now talk about Hitler as the Devil re-incarnated, but at the time, he was a world leader and addressing him like you probably would like Gandhi to have done, as a despicable human being, would probably only contribute to Hitler's warring inclinations.
If you were to, today, write to a world leader like Putin or Trump, trying to convince them to not start a war that could destroy a large percentage of humanity, would you not want to start your letter in a diplomatic manner in order to maybe be heard and stop an extremely horrific event, despite how undignified they may be as a person in your eyes?
Gandhi's letters you linked to only show how he tried as hard as he could to diplomatically convince Hitler that war was not the only solution... imagine if he had succeeded in that, how much suffering could have been avoided!
As Gandhi said in one of the letters, winning a war doesn't prove you're in the right, it only proves you had greater capability for destruction. But Hitler, of course, thought both that he was in the right AND that nothing could beat his superior army and race. He was wrong in both accounts, but he was right in that his power for destruction was enormous, and the result was the most horrific episode in human history.
[+] [-] arethuza|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orwin|5 years ago|reply
I don't understand. If anything, these letters just made me respect the man more. If you had linked examples of the letter of his youth in SA, with racist undertones, maybe it would have been somewhat relevant with the previous sentence "But as always with those with a PC agenda", but those letters to Hitler clearly shows the inner world of a great man, no?
Anyway, thank you for the link, it was extremely interesting.
[+] [-] jkinudsjknds|5 years ago|reply
> That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed. I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have been living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms. But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian-man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years. We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organization, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through nonviolent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organized violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organized, the German or the British. We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In nonviolent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deed, however skilfully planned. I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right. You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar. During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attuned to hearing the dumb millions?
[+] [-] AntiImperialist|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ourcat|5 years ago|reply
Also, I find it odd that this article is even linked on 'Hacker News'. It has zero value to our community (imho).