On Oct 5, 10:27 am, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Mirza Ghalib" <mghali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > > > ----------------------------- > > this problem is too sensitive to be trying to win an argument, and i am not > trying to do that. actually, i am as unhappy as the next guy with gandhiji > handling the problem of islam. so, i do not and can not disagree with your > comments. the only difference it seems to me is that you want to judge > gandhi only by his liberal atttiude toward islam; i am willing to judge him > with his overall role which was very necessary to an india which was > divested of hindu rule over a millenium. i am urging reality check, that's > all, which many are not willing to do because they don't like the reality. > > so, i don't have any trouble agreeing with you on this, and i think i have > said as much. it is simply impractical to expect a man to change in his last > years, decades after his life mission of peace which most pepole in his > time -and now - regard as tremendous success. > > clearly, he wasn't the man to lead on this tragedy of partition. to be sure, > the killings were done hugely on both sides nevertheless, gandhi or no > gandhi; more so in punjab which knew islam too well, and less so in bengal > because it was by then in firm grips of arindam's friends, the anti-hindu > commi propagandists (who had let it be kown, among many many other things, > that islam in bengal happened because of fair trading with arabs:):):)!!! ). > so, gandhi's so-called peace mission in bengal suited arindam's commie > friends just too well. they did not speak out against it, which they would > have if they had not agreed, being an accomplished propagandists that they > were and still are. so, i guess you can fault gandhi for not taking on > commies. > > about the only point where i would probably defer is that i don't think he > was doing it with any motive to be christ or any political ambition. he did > not even celebrate the independence nor cared for power. clearly, he did not > understand islam - or understood too late; he did call muslims the ever > bullies. he did understand the missionaries quite well, and said he would > ban them if he had the power just for a day. > > the viewpoint i have about the mahatma is pretty much the one konrad elst > has expressed in his wonderful book. > > let's face it: the hindus did not know how to rule, and still do not know > how to rule. isn't that obvious? > nehru is on record having admitted that fact quite frankly to mt. batter, > isn't he, and retained the mount as the governor general even after > independence exactly because of that hindu incapacity to rule. but let's be > kind and say it was natural, for the hindus were out of power for way too > long. the incapacity still shows, look who is ruling india today. (you > gotta admit the weakness if you are to solve the problem, wouldn't you > agree?) > > however, not-so-bright arindama has still not _unlearned_ nothing, > slobbering at islamic "brotherhood" for no reason than a clumsy cuwali > night. is it any wonder hindus in bagladesh still run away to india? and > they need visas for that!!!!!! > > but let's recap in earnest: are you saying that mahatma's role in its > totality, not limiting to partition and islam, was irrelevant to india's > aspirations? if you do, let's hear it.
I appreciate your point. To my firm conviction partition was inevitable, and for Gandhi to beg of and cajole Jinnah was absolutely fruitless. The so-called Hindu-Muslim unity that congress leaders used to sing while blaming the "temporary" alienation of Muslims on the British was fictional. The Muslims and Hindus of India co-existed, but tell me when was there an intermarriage, or even sharing of meals.
Gandhi had plenty of pointers telling him about the shape of things to come, back in the early forties. First, by 1940 the Pakistan resolution had already been passed in Lahore, with a firm demand for a sovereign Pakistan. Second, the League boycotted the "Quit India Movement" en masse (that is, about 80 percent of Muslims). Third, the guiding philosophy of Muslims is in stark opposition to Hindus', which Patel realized early on, and this wise man saw the impossibility of bridging it. However, congress which was run by Gandhi did not take any kind of action to protect the lives of the minorities who would fall on the wrong side of the partition line, whenever it came.
Even more eccentric was Gandhi's behavior post-partition, but the big wrong had been already done with a loss of two million lives, and what is even more important, destruction of the Punjabi Hindu culture, and serious damage the Bengalis'. I doubt Gandhi even understood the harm he had done.
Gandhi started his lifelong work with the right motives. It does take courage to mobilize a serious economic boycott against then the strongest power in the world. But Gandhi also hijacked the contributions of all those past and contemporary patriots who had done the groundwork towards freedom. His treatment of Bose and Bhulabhai Desai was shameful.