Mahathma Gandhi and India Today

[Ronnie The Dutch]

... is the subject of a presentation I am currently working on and I have to deliver it at the end of march.

I find a lot of links about Mahathma Gandhi but almost none about how today's Indians, esp. the youth as the new generation and how different castes, clases and gender, are thinking of him. I also would like to know if anything has changed or if Gandhi's goals were achieved in India. Simply, how would Gandhi comment on India, Pakistan and Bangaladesh and their devolopement regarding Humanity, Economy, Poverty, Power and Spiritualism.

No, I was not at all running after this theme but unfortunately it fell on me.

So Ladies and Gentlemen please help me to elaborate it well. I would also like to collect all views, also radical in both ways. As there are over 9000 hubbers I expect atleast the half to partake.

I am studying Philosophy and Politics.

Thanks in advance,
Ronnie v. H.

Last modified:
17. 01. 2006 Regarding the poll options I was a bit careless. Moderators if you could add the following two more options that would be great, thanks.

- only one among others
- A traitor

[Lambretta]

I find a lot of links about Mahathma Gandhi but almost none about how today's Indians, esp. the youth as the new generation and how different castes, clases and gender, are thinking of him.
This brings to me a memory of my schooldays many yrs ago when one of my classmates had a photo of Gandhi in a Diary tat he got......he disfigured it by drawing a goatee & donkey's ears (& if I rem. right a cigarette dangling from the mouth), exulting in displaying his 'modified art' to sum others in class......nor of course were naughty school brats the only ones I knew w/ such 'admiration' for the Mahatma.....so I guess tat says it all.....? :huh:


I also would like to know if anything has changed or if Gandhi's goals were achieved in India.
As Gandhi said Truth alone Triumphs......so the answer from ne TRUTHFUL Indian shud clearly be NO!

[goodsense]

This might be a bit of divergence, but January 26th being an important day for India and for many of us, we ought to think of and remember all those who sacrificed their lives in defending India. Mahatma Ghandi, no doubt should be at the top of the list.

[Lambretta]

This might be a bit of divergence, but January 26th being an important day for India and for many of us, we ought to think of and remember all those who sacrificed their lives in defending India.
Actually I wud rather tat we rem. all those if we were to feel sorry for them, for their very efforts of having 'gifted' us this country r being wasted by our own ppl. today! :(
Incidentally, January 29th is important too for India, as tat was the day Gandhi was assasinated.....

[Sandeep]

If Gandhi's goals were achieved in India.

Goal 1) A Secular united India

Today - A pseudo secular, suspicion driven society.

Explanation - Secularism has today become the most widely misused term, used with brain and not heart to it. Most Hindus, Muslims, Christians dont hate each other but there is great amount of suspicion. And these suspicions are fanned by pseudo seculars as well as religious fanatics.

[Ronnie The Dutch]

Dear hubbers,
I wish to thank you so far.

Please don't hesitate to come up with your own views as well as of others according to you as this also helps me a lot. Hot tempered discussions are also welcome because that would display the reality of the real India Today.

[abbydoss1969]

Ronnie the Dutch


Gandhi's years in South Africa are largely unknown, and I found some black rights web sites which suggest that Gandhi was rascist, and his conduct in S. A. was against the blacks and supporting the white dominion.
Just to play the devil's advocate I post the links here:



.Gandhi lived in South Africa for roughly twenty one years from 1893 to 1914. In 1906, he joined the military with a rank of Sergeant-Major and actively participated in the war against the blacks. Gandhi's racist ideas are also evident in his writings of these periods



Gandhi was not a whit less racist than the white racists of South Africa. When Gandhi formed the Natal Indian Congress on August 22, 1894, the no. 1 objective he declared was: "To promote concord and harmony among the Indians and Europeans in the Colony." [Collected Works (CW)1 pp. 132-33]


He launched his Indian Opinion on June 4 1904: "The object of Indian Opinion was to bring the European and the Indian subjects of the King Edward closer together." (CW. IV P. 320)


What was the harm in making an effort to bring understanding among all people, irrespective of colour, creed or religion? Did not Gandhi know that a huge population of blacks and coloured lived there? Perhaps to Gandhi they were less than human beings



Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74), Gandhi said:

Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.



In its editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 18 1905 wrote:

Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm

[abbydoss1969]

Conspiracy to massacre Blacks: Gandhi was well aware of the conspiracy to massacre the Africans. When there was war hysteria in the colonial press, this prophet of non-violence did not apply his mind as to how to stop such a conflict. On the contrary, he did not want Indians to be left behind, but wanted them to take a full part in this genocide.

In his editorial in the Indian Opinion of Nov. 18 1905, long before the actual rebellion broke out, Gandhi complained that the Government simply did not wish to give Indians an opportunity of showing that they were as capable as any other community of taking their share in the defence of the colony. He suggested that a volunteer corps should be formed from colonial-born Indians, which would be useful in actual service.


Indentured Indians lived in conditions worse than slavery. Gandhi during his 20 years' stay in South Africa, did not raise a finger to ease their sufferings. But he was quick to suggest using them as cannon fodder for racists against Africans.



In his Indian Opinion in Dec. 2 1905 he referred to Law 25 of 1875 which was specially passed to increase "the maximum strength of the volunteer force in the colony adding thereto a force of Indian immigrant volunteer infantry". To assure the Europeans that such Indians would only kill Africans, he pointed out that "section 83 of the Militia Act states that no ordinary member of the coloured contingent shall be armed with weapons of precision, unless such contingent is called to operate against other than Europeans".

Gandhi defends massacre: Many years later, he wrote (p.233) in his autobiography:

The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the `rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers' rifles exploding like crackers in innocent hamlets, and to live in the midst of them, was a trial.

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm

[goodsense]

I have to say I find the opinions about what Ghandi did or failed to do are based on vague statements made by the Africans. These could be all misinterpretations and can we ever prove that such statements were even ever made by Africans or Ghandi himself or are they just "defensive afterthoughts" made by Africans based on the following:

1. To appreciate the interpretation given to 'clause 200" one needs to know exactly what that clause stipulates.

2. Is it the opinion of the Indian people of March 18, 1905 referred to, or Ghandi's opinion?

3. Going back to Canadian History, at the time of the Boer War (between 1899 and 1902), Ghandi did not yet realized what the British was doing, not even to the Indians.

4. Had Ghandi been appointed or elected as a representative of Indians and Africans, then he would have had an obligation to explain his position on "Clause 200 of the provision", made reference to as to how and why it was formulated and implemented before determining the interpretations of it.

5. When Ghandi made the statement about "concord and harmony" was he aware of what the British was doing? If he was, then the first step to resolution of any conflict would be to foster "concord and harmony".

6. Didn't Ghandi had enough to contend with, defending India, the Indians in the colonies and the colonial-born Indians in various parts of the world? Going back to old research, Ghandi did acknowledge both Indian and African slavery in one form or another.


It could well be that the Africans are trying to justify their own failures i.e. that they failed to see what Ghandi saw and failed to take the necessary steps much earlier.

[goodsense]

This article clearly shows at what stage of the Boer War, the Africans were most affected than others.

http://www.icon.co.za/~dup42/abw.htm

How did Ghandi foresee, supported or perpetrated that?

Proof that Ghandi was againts "untouchability" while he was proud of the Indian Civilization and his "Period of Consciousness" can be see here:

http://www.workersforjesus.com/gandhi.htm

This should not be confused or mis-interpreted or taken as contradictory for convenience.

These days, sources of information must be carefully examined. There is a certain class of people who likes to take credit for everything that is good on earth. We have seen it with the Vedas and it is also possible with the "Non-Violence" theory etc. :wink:

[Sandeep]

Gandhiji should be accounted for what he ended up being and not what he started up with.

Like any human being Gandhiji's beliefs developed through his life experiences. As we know his political activism started in SA and one cannot expect perfection from that very moment, because he was human not God. He learned from mistakes and corrected and thats what counts.

[rajraj]

Gandhiji should be accounted for what he ended up being and not what he started up with.

Like any human being Gandhiji's beliefs developed through his life experiences. As we know his political activism started in SA and one cannot expect perfection from that very moment, because he was human not God. He learned from mistakes and corrected and thats what counts.


Good Sandeep! :) That is why they say don't try to find out 'rishi moolam and nadhi moolam'. Even Valmiki was thought to be a decoit before he wrote Ramayanam.

[Sandeep]

Goal 2) A village based economy

Today - A have a city driven, city based economy

Explanation - City based economy sure increased India's GDP and employment prospects but left the majority without tools to utilize this growth. While village economy was reduced to 30% of GDP, 2/3rd humans still depended on it.

To add to this the bad infrastructure development made villages and cities mutually unaccessible. This ment cities had to cope with over crowding, infratructure breakdown, increased crime and a lot of lost soles, while villages had to suffer illitracy and social backwardness.

[Lambretta]

Sandeep,
kudos to ur 2 points on Gandhiji's goals! :thumbsup: :)
Ur 2nd point reg. village driven goals esp. is much worth reflecting on!
Wat u mentioned abt city drievn/city based economy proved true particularly in case of AP where the previous CM had focussed quite a lot on technological development in urban areas (namely Hyderabad), viz. IT/MNCs but in the process tended to neglect village industries/agriculture (mainly resulting in farmers' suicides) & overall rural development!

[Ronnie The Dutch]

Dear moderators,
please do the modifications I have asked for!
Thanks.

Few but good views I am getting, please continue. I was a little bit astonished when I searched for Gandhi here on the hub. There was not a single thread remembering him.

[goodsense]

>>There was not a single thread remembering him.<<

For many of us, he is remembered in our hearts where he lives. If You come to the famous Vishnu Mandir in Richmond Hill, Ontario, you will see a big bronze statute of him. You bet on every occassion such as his birthday, India's independence day etc., he is garland and sang to by us. The famous Bhagan "Hay Andhan Ki Maharani " is often sang. The Maharani (Katurba his wife who suffered too) is remembered just as well as the Maharaja here. For Hindus, like on Diwali, would also make similar tributes to mother Latchmi - also a symbol of lights.

As the head of that temple said "when ever we enter the entrance of this premise, we should feel proud".

I don't know how such celebrations are done in India.

At one time the Conservative government here wanted the statute removed, but didn't find it so easy. The Liberals are great supporters and they even come to ceremonies at the temple from time to time.

You will find links that show that only Hinduism could have given birth to such a soul. Other links reveal that Ghandiji respected "behaviour" more so than "achievement" and given his other principles, you can figure out how he would have reacted to present day circumstances (some of which you have listed), or how contrary or congruent they are to what he would have expected.

Hope this helps too, to answer your questions.

[Eelavar]

Gandhi is seen by the majority as the father of Indian nation, but it's ironic...

Sure he was a Great Atman, preacher of non-violence, but unfortunately it's was his weakness.

Gandhi must better be seen most as a great humanist than a great politician.

Who is the man who offered to the Muslims what they wanted when they represented only about 11 % of Indian population ??

I'm sure without Congress party India will be greater and stronger now.

This party SOLD (and continue to sell) the country to englismen, most of those englished Indian politicans are their coolies ! They work against the benefit of the population !

They are corrupted and work for their benefits, or for western interest.

Without Congress ,no partition of India in one Hindu country (where every religions can live peacefully) and two islamic theocracies (where Islam is the only state religion)..

Congress = Anti-Hindu = Anti-Indian...

Since more than 50 years, this party play with the generation named "Gandhi" to keep the power ... They are power eaters !

It's false too think that Mahatma Gandhi is the father of Indian nationalism, many before him tried to launch a revolution against Britishes, even an armed struggle what Gandhi didn't choiced prefering fight with his practise of non-violence.
In reality as history showed, his humanism failed to make India free without partition..
In this case i too think as Sri Aurobindo that an armed struggle against Britishes must have be better for Indian's interest !!

Britishes made everything to leave the country in the mess..
They forced the partition which was hailed by the fundementalist anti-Indu Indian muslims !!

Politic of Congress is the politic of their master Britishes.
It's a paradox to see how many dumbed Indians continue to support this party.

goodsense,

Are you sure that Gandhi really understood the message of Bhagava gitai ?

Sandeep,


he was human not God

What is your point of view about God ?

Don't you think that everthing is a part of God ?
Don't you know that God is in you ?

[goodsense]

"Sure he was a Great Atman, preacher of non-violence, but unfortunately it's was his weakness."

"It's false too think that Mahatma Gandhi is the father of Indian nationalism, many before him tried to launch a revolution against Britishes, even an armed struggle what Gandhi didn't choiced prefering fight with his practise of non-violence."

*************
Do you mean weaness by no choice? The second statement shows he had a choice and other findings show how he came to that choice.

****************
"Are you sure that Gandhi really understood the message of Bhagava gitai ?"

I have for a long time been reading up on Ghandi's life. What I found is that he had a great undersanding of Hinduism and what is expected of him as a Hindu and closely followed that religion as a main guide.

[goodsense]

Ref: to your question:

1. ... no religion, but Hinduism, could have given birth to Gandhi. ... JK Local Press 19-6-96: Vaidya Vishnu Dutt, Pradesh ... Article 370 is there in the statute book

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Gandhi :

a)In this one you will see the terms "satyagraha" as it relates to Non-Violence. Click on it and you will find some explanations which you can research further.

b)"Gandhi often stated that his principles were simple and drawn from traditional Hindu beliefs: truth (satya) and nonviolence (ahimsa). He said, "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills."

c) Under religion:- "Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being ... When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita".

[Lambretta]

The Seven Sins according to Gandhiji:

1. Wealth without work

2. Pleasure without conscience

3. Knowledge without character

4. Commerce without morality

5. Science without humanity

6. Worship without sacrifice

7. Politics without principle

And every one of these widely exists today in our society!

[goodsense]

Thanks.

I had listed some of these in old hub as Ghandiji's principles, but could not remember all of them or where I got them.

[goodsense]

O, I remember now. They are written on an old wooden placard I had on my wall some 14 to 15 years ago or even a few more than that and I think I have it packed away somewhere :)

Any refererence as to where I can find them or any info as to how they evolved?

[Sandeep]

[tscii:2a75ecb45a]Gandhi’s belief system and their relation to his actions.

Whilst a Hindu, his wide-ranging interests and learning gave him knowledge and an eclectic assimilation of other faiths. He was a "learner" and an experimenter in almost every aspect of his activities, and throughout his life.

His beliefs where central to everything he did. He saw love in Christianity, a direct relationship with one’s God in Islam, and the unity of life in Hinduism. Religion for Gandhi was what one did, not what one believed. Action was everything.

Western doctrine talks of either mind/body, or mind/body/soul, and then adds the mind distinction of the ego and the id. Gandhi however believed in a more complex, multiple layer theory of the human being based on classic Hinduism with his own additions or modifications. Some of Gandhi’s writings are inconsistent with others, but that reflects his learning over time rather intellectual immaturity.

Gandhi saw a four part whole making humanity.

First, there is the body, in the classic Cartesian sense. This splits into two parts - the physical aspects of the body, and then the senses by which we communicate with our surroundings.

Second, there is mind (or "Manas"). As many other thinkers do, Gandhi distinguished between consciousness ("Chetana") and intelligence ("Buddhi").

Third, there in the Spirit (or "Attman"). It is the universal principle or force within us all, and which connects us to the Universe.

This is critical to understanding of Gandhi’s "Satyagraha", as that was designed to rekindle the true spiritual self in all of us. In "Swaraj" he did not just want the independence of India – he wanted the independence of each one of us, in a spiritual rebirth. Going further, Gandhi believed that the Attman within each of us allows us all to have the "charismatic" effect needed to lead others – because it connects everything to everything else.

Fourth, there is the psychological or moral disposition that we all have, which uniquely belongs to each individual (the "Swabhava"). He believed that this was more a product of rebirth and "Karma" than learned characteristics. This is because God in his view is not a person, but is Truth. Thus, by discovering one’s own true dispositions, one reaches one’s own unique spiritual destination (or "Moksha"). Again, spiritual renewal is to Gandhi the key to personal freedom.[/tscii:2a75ecb45a]

[goodsense]

" Religion for Gandhi was what one did, not what one believed. Action was everything. "

Excellent! I was trying to say this in my own way, but it was a struggle :P

[goodsense]

Ronnie,

As a sub topic in this thread of yours, you stated " For Europeans Gandhi is the greatest Son of India. What about you?".

While you are at the moment focusing on specific questions relating to "Mahathma Gandhi and India Today", I have an additional question - i.e. what have European done to show they respect Ghandi? We know that Ghandi's principles are contrary to those of Europeans reflected in what they practiced. By Europeans, I mean the English, Dutch, French, Spanish (the left hand of the British) and Portuguese.

As we know, belief for Ghandi means nothing, it is "action" that means everything. Since the actions of Europeans directly affected the actions of Mahatma Ghandi, don't you not think by answering this "additional" question, answers will be found to your question around "Mahatma Ghandi and India Today"? :twisted:

Or is it for Europeans it is just good enough to say they respected Ghandji because his principles were contrary to theirs and Ghandiji was able to demonstrate that so well? Hih :wink: They said so because its the CHEAPEST way of showing appreciation, otherwsie why did they even bothered :x This is why I think my question is an important and relevant one. Look forward to your response :)

[goodsense]

To be more precise or to rap it up, I guess my question is whether European would repeat their old practices based on principles contrary to those of Ghandiji if they get the opportunity. Secondly, what have they been doing since to present day to procure such old practices or to what extent they are conducting old practices in "restoring" India in showing that they truly respect Mahatma Ghandi? 8-)

India's independence came 56 years ago, and so was the independence of many British colonies in between that period and only the other day, Aparthied was abolished, all of which came with "great struggles". The UK is labelled in the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, as the number one violater of Human Rights. You would also be aware of the riots in France the other day by minorities (non-white people) who were fed up of being kept down and not getting jobs. If you have been around on this hub itself for a little while now, you might be able to answer some of these questions. So tell us about this "respect" you are talking about :roll: :roll: :roll:

As far as I can see it, its their dream to return to the old way and they are very "active" out there working towards this Goal. I hope I helped shedding some light on "Mahatma Ghandi and India Today"...... :wink: :wink: :wink:

I hope you include these in your final research paper due in March :twisted: May I have a read of it too please when you are done? 8-).

[goodsense]

Duplicate deleted.

[Sandeep]

[tscii:925453c40a]Gandhijis values

Swaraj - Independence for India, and personal spiritual renewal of all Indians. Gandhi’s goal was none other than the complete transformation of India and its people.

Satyagraha - truth, love and non-violence.

non-violence
Satyagraha is more than just civil disobedience, as in Gandhi’s view passive resistance could easily change into active resistance, and thus violence. Rather, in his conceptualization, respect for the other party was central, and all kinds of violence were forbidden absolutely. Satyagraha was not just a political method but a moral statement about how to act politically. Unless events were conducted the right way, he would rather not act, and he often called off protests or other actions as a result. Vegetarian was more than a "health" issue. It was a question of morality

Truth
was also connected to humility, cleanliness, celibacy and poverty. It was connected to unity (of religions and beliefs), and to the goodness of humanity. He always believed that people were intrinsically capable of good

Swadeshi - the manufacture and use of indigenous products. He believed in industry and in self reliance. He was skeptical of Modern society, and especially of the breakup of the rural communities as people migrated to industrial cities. Gandhi believed that natural methods were the best way to keep one healthy.

Indias Values today

Swaraj - Independent as a nation but still chained by our ego, needs, supertitious, religions, language and what not

Unity - Forget religious unity we have not missed any excuse to divide and be divided, be it religion, caste, language, economics, politics, morality

Non-violence - Gandhijis non-violence, born out of bravery, has been replaced by Indians non-violence, born out of cowardice.

Respect for the other party - For that first one should have self respect. Today Indians oppose anything that is not theirs and don't care for merit of the case and hence the question of respect for the other party doesn't arise

Swadeshi - In the age of consumerism and Globalization Swadeshi is restricted to the run down Ghadi store.

Truth - I am out of words for this one[/tscii:925453c40a]

[Lambretta]

Today Indians oppose anything that is not theirs and don't care for merit of the case and hence the question of respect for the other party doesn't arise
Acutally i think Indians today realised tat this not rite, so to equalize/balance it, they've begun to oppose nething tat IS theirs too! Esp. our long-standing culture/values/spiritual consciousness (which Indians claimed to be so proud of all along!)


Swadeshi - In the age of consumerism and Globalization Swadeshi is restricted to the run down Ghadi store.
Exactly! :(

[goodsense]

So Lambretta, it seems like you are saying by today Indians opposing anything that is not theirs realizing its not right "is to" oppose what is theirs ... :oops:

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Lambretta]

So Lambretta, it seems like you are saying by today Indians opposing anything that is not theirs realizing its not right "is to" oppose what is theirs ... :oops:

Correct me if I am wrong.
Um..no, goodsense, u seem to've been confused by my post!
U c, I was actually being sarcastic when I said today's Indians "realise tat its not rite to oppose wat is not theirs" so they r "equalizing/balancing" it by opposing even wat is theirs.......tat is to say, they may hav been opposing wat is not theirs- as Sandeep says- but now they've even begun opposing/rejecting wat IS theirs, which is wat's happening now & tat infact doesn't make things better at all! :(
Hope ur able to get me now...?

[goodsense]

Yeah, I think I got ya now :D Good to see some straightforward people around :D :D

[Lambretta]

Yeah, I think I got ya now :D Good to see some straightforward people around :D :D
Glad to know I'm clear! I was astounded tat neone shud think I was commending the attitude of today's Indians who oppose/give up wat is ours! :shock:
Neways, goodsense, I feelbeing straightforward may not always be really welcome! Hence I think it best to switch over to sarcasm/irony, only u've got to be able to read between the lines! :wink: :D

[Sandeep]

My statement:
"Today Indians oppose anything that is not theirs"

Please dont read this as "Indians opposing non Indian consepts". What I ment was a person (who is Indian) opposes everything he doesnt represent himself.

Like the fight between Vijay and Ajith fans :lol:

Any Vijay movie is bad for an Ajith fan and vise versa.

[Lambretta]

Ooohh....ok, got it!
Hmm...nice comparison.... :roll:

[Surya]

I agree! :lol:

That's a comparison that all of us in the Hub can relate to eh? :)

[Sandeep]

That's a comparison that all of us in the Hub can relate to eh? :)

That seemed the most harmless comparison. Other comparisons would have invited "spammers" ;)

[devapriya]

Friends,
Mahatma Gandhi lived the way of Satyagraha and belived in Ahimsa- which actually is the meaning of the word- Hindu-Himsai thu.

He was fully aware of Christianity and fought tooth and nail against Conversions and missionary techniques, and we see why churches scold Gandhi as per links given.
Devapriya.

[SRS]

So Lambretta, it seems like you are saying by today Indians opposing anything that is not theirs realizing its not right "is to" oppose what is theirs ... :oops:

Correct me if I am wrong.
Um..no, goodsense, u seem to've been confused by my post!
U c, I was actually being sarcastic when I said today's Indians "realise tat its not rite to oppose wat is not theirs" so they r "equalizing/balancing" it by opposing even wat is theirs.......tat is to say, they may hav been opposing wat is not theirs- as Sandeep says- but now they've even begun opposing/rejecting wat IS theirs, which is wat's happening now & tat infact doesn't make things better at all! :(
Hope ur able to get me now...?

I think a large part of the problem is that the Indians don't know what "theirs" is. We cannot agree on our own history even (this forum is an excellent example). Where does this apathy come from? Is it an inferiority complex? One need only look at the Chinese to understand my point. Chinese are fully agreed to as their history... Chinese do not fight over "North" and "South." Chinese understand that their achievements in math/science etc. preceded the West by many 1000's of yrs. So why are Indians different? Why do Indians elect a Westerner such as Sonia Gandhi for the highest political office? Is the knowledge of Indian history that much missing? I have specifically mentioned China here given its close proximity to India.

[Sandeep]

SRS,

China has always had visionaries who ensure forceful unification (many times violent). The emperors as well as the later communists. We don't have such a decisive force in India. No one of significance shows the guts to fight regional interests.

As for Sonia, the vote went to congress because they gave hope (false hope) to the poor. But the top reins of congress is in the hands a coterie who can survive only by having Sonia at the helm.

[Ronnie The Dutch]

SRS,
it is the indian spiritualism or better the hinduism is the limbing leg of India. As you for sure know that all religions are too conservative and therefore the reserved progress.

The Christianity tried to sell assumptions as the Truth, like Hinduism, but the Europeans withstanded it,unlike India!


Dear Moderators NOV and Badri,
Thanks for your cooperation regarding the modifications I have begged for in the pms I sent to you both. Nothing happened yet. Very nice of you. Now you don't have to change anything anymore. You can not expect from me to do some public Relations on the Hub's behalf, sorry.

To all the hubbers who wanted to help me through their contributions:
Thank you very much. I expected much more participents and some help from the Hub administration and moderator's side but it seems this hub is not a place for a scientific research.

Thank You all,

Ronnie van H.

[SRS]

SRS,
it is the indian spiritualism or better the hinduism is the limbing leg of India. As you for sure know that all religions are too conservative and therefore the reserved progress.

The Christianity tried to sell assumptions as the Truth, like Hinduism, but the Europeans withstanded it,unlike India!


Dear Moderators NOV and Badri,
Thanks for your cooperation regarding the modifications I have begged for in the pms I sent to you both. Nothing happened yet. Very nice of you. Now you don't have to change anything anymore. You can not expect from me to do some public Relations on the Hub's behalf, sorry.

To all the hubbers who wanted to help me through their contributions:
Thank you very much. I expected much more participents and some help from the Hub administration and moderator's side but it seems this hub is not a place for a scientific research.

Thank You all,

Ronnie van H.

Societies do not survive for 5000 yrs on limping legs. If Hinduism lacked cohesiveness, it would have been wiped out by the Moghuls or Buddhism a long time ago.

[Fire111999]

I find a lot of links about Mahathma Gandhi but almost none about how today's Indians, esp. the youth as the new generation and how different castes, clases and gender, are thinking of him.
This brings to me a memory of my schooldays many yrs ago when one of my classmates had a photo of Gandhi in a Diary tat he got......he disfigured it by drawing a goatee & donkey's ears (& if I rem. right a cigarette dangling from the mouth), exulting in displaying his 'modified art' to sum others in class......nor of course were naughty school brats the only ones I knew w/ such 'admiration' for the Mahatma.....so I guess tat says it all.....? :huh:


I also would like to know if anything has changed or if Gandhi's goals were achieved in India.
As Gandhi said Truth alone Triumphs......so the answer from ne TRUTHFUL Indian shud clearly be NO!

actually, if these school days was when you were being taught bt gandhi, these disfigurations might have been a protest against school and lessons and not against gandhi himself.

there is always a tendency for interest in a certain topic to die out or not be encouraged when one is forced to study abt it for school and exams.

[Fire111999]

Today Indians oppose anything that is not theirs and don't care for merit of the case and hence the question of respect for the other party doesn't arise
Acutally i think Indians today realised tat this not rite, so to equalize/balance it, they've begun to oppose nething tat IS theirs too! Esp. our long-standing culture/values/spiritual consciousness (which Indians claimed to be so proud of all along!)


Swadeshi - In the age of consumerism and Globalization Swadeshi is restricted to the run down Ghadi store.
Exactly! :(

anna, i've seen you express these sentiments over and over again in many threads. and i agree with you. but hopefully, this will change now.

[Fire111999]

Yeah, I think I got ya now :D Good to see some straightforward people around :D :D
Glad to know I'm clear! I was astounded tat neone shud think I was commending the attitude of today's Indians who oppose/give up wat is ours! :shock:
Neways, goodsense, I feelbeing straightforward may not always be really welcome! Hence I think it best to switch over to sarcasm/irony, only u've got to be able to read between the lines! :wink: :D

but not too much, or else you will start imagining double meanings where there are none.

[Fire111999]

SRS,
it is the indian spiritualism or better the hinduism is the limbing leg of India. As you for sure know that all religions are too conservative and therefore the reserved progress.

The Christianity tried to sell assumptions as the Truth, like Hinduism, but the Europeans withstanded it,unlike India!


Dear Moderators NOV and Badri,
Thanks for your cooperation regarding the modifications I have begged for in the pms I sent to you both. Nothing happened yet. Very nice of you. Now you don't have to change anything anymore. You can not expect from me to do some public Relations on the Hub's behalf, sorry.

To all the hubbers who wanted to help me through their contributions:
Thank you very much. I expected much more participents and some help from the Hub administration and moderator's side but it seems this hub is not a place for a scientific research.

Thank You all,

Ronnie van H.

Societies do not survive for 5000 yrs on limping legs. If Hinduism lacked cohesiveness, it would have been wiped out by the Moghuls or Buddhism a long time ago.

although there have been changes in hinduism for the worse cos of misinterpretations and lack of understanding and blind following, there is actually a great deal of good stuff in hinduism. that's why it's still strong today.