Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ARCHIVED. PLEASE DO NOT ADD OR EDIT. Post comments at the current talk page.

Whether responsible for partition violence: failure-to-prevent logic

Question: Err... so, why is it written that he was "vehemently" opposed to partition? He didn't exactly go out of his way to stop it, now did he? Graft 06:47 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

My memory of this is that he worked very hard to stop it (though making some political compromises to, as he felt, prevent greater suffering), and was extremely saddened that it proceeded anyway. I think he thought that Partition was the chief failure of his life. (I'll try to get some more on this Monday.) (Anon)09:48, 27 Sep 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure he had a choice. Remember, the whole partition debate - well, confrontation - was happening in 1946-47. These were turbulent times, in which the Muslim League and the Congress Party were fighting over the governance, against a British declaration that whatever happened, they would leave India by August, 1948. Jinnah called for wide-spread riots across India, to demonstrate pro-partition sentiment, leading to terrible Hindu-Muslim riots in many parts of the country. This worsened Hindu-Muslim relations, which was partially responsible for the horrible carnage of Partition.

Incidently, some of the worse of the Partition fighting occured in Calcutta (now Kolkatta). These were eventually quelled by Gandhi taking a fast-unto-death. Gandhi was in Calcutta on August 15, 1947, when India gained independence.-- Me (again) 00:02, 9 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that, given Gandhi's pacifism and his inability to match violence with anything other than defeat, he didn't have much of a choice. But Partition was a catastrophe, for Muslims and for Hindus. Many more people died in Partition than in the antecedent riots. You can say he was weak, you can say Jinnah knew how to defeat him - you can't say he had no choice. Hindsight is 20/20, I know, but to submit to Partition because you have a pathological opposition to violence when you have the authority to prevent it... argh, I mean, he must have been a lunatic to choose Partition. Yes, he didn't have a choice within his narrow ideological bounds. Can't I fault him for those when they led to the death of a million? Graft 00:37, 9 Jan 2003 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that he could anticipate the death of a million because of the partition - With the Muslim League beginning "direct action," everyone anticipated violence if there were to be no partition. Gandhi struggled hard to prevent the partition, but he probably gave in because he thought his stance might lead to violence - we now know that the partition probably caused more violence, but there was no way Gandhi or anyone else might have anticipated it at that time. As you say, hindsight is 20/20.--ashwatha 22:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A partition was the last thing Gandhi wanted. He wanted everyone to unite for a common good (peace in India and an end to violence for control of India). India at that time was increadibly unstable, because the British control on that contry had slipped. That caused political unrest within the country because without British control, there wasn't really any form of government. Juicyboy 325. 11/17/04.

Pacifism

User:Plasticlax asked: I have heard that applying the term pacifism to gandhi is no accurate. is this true?

I don't see how! His non-violence was religious; I don't if that's relevant. Where did you hear this? -- Sam

i heard it from gandhi, who made a big point about the difference. i'm certainly not saying he wasn't non-violent, just that its not the same as pacifism in other fundamental ways. read satyagraha, User:Plasticlax replied.

Satyagraha

[The discussion of pacifism spilled over to: ''Satyagraha'':] Perhaps the source of the problem is found in the entry: Gandhi's principle of satyagraha (Sanskrit: truth + grasping firmly or holding onto it), often roughly translated as "passive resistance" Roughly translated says it all. How does truth become passive and grasping firmly become resistance. I'll bounce over to satyagraha yet but I'll see what it says. The translation stopped me dead in my tracks. Satyagraha is possibly a neologism of Ghandi's. I think truth+force is the way it gets translated. 64.229.14.142

Paddu said: For further understanding of Satyagraha see http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/jgarfieldnonviolence.html and http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/sep98/satyagraha.html

In fact mere word by word translation of Sanskrit to English cannot be accurate. For example Dharma is a word/concept that doesn't have one English word/phrase to translate it. Depending on the context it could be translated as: goodness, charity, religion, tradition, rituals, justness etc. They all are manifestations of the same concept that has something to do with things traditionally considered to be "good".

Sure. I'm familiar with class of translation problems. I'm familiar the dharma example,too . Is satyagraha a neologism from Ghandi? Because that would make a big difference.

(Satyagraha is a neologism, as far as I know, created by Gandhi. Graft)

I clipped the first thing at http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/sep98/satyagraha.html

Truth (satya) implies love,

and firmness (agraha)

serves as a synonym for force.

He came to name his movement satyagraha. Is it his word in the sense that he made it. Or did he adopt it from prior use? Peace out.

It is something that I'm working on for the pedia: The talk pages have burned with Ghandi for long periods of time about several different articles. If there was a definitive satyagraha article, all those poeple would be free. Could you take a look. Let me know what you think in the talk.64.229.14.142

Satyagraha is an active refusal to do violence, often confused with a mistaken definition of pacifism. The common understanding of what pacifism i.e., the refusal to participate in war cannot be eauted with what the west calls non-violence. Besides 'satyagraha' being defined as 'truth force', the principle of it is rooted also in other traditions namely ahimsa or pledging/vowing to do no harm. Politically it means to stand for truthfulness, and to forcefully stand up for social justice without harming whoever may be considered your opponent. Pacifism on the other hand often has been confused for non-action. A more accurate definition of pacifism can be found in the latin roots paci and facia, meaning to make peace. It has been documented that Gandhi at one time replied to a journalist, that if there is a choice between violence and injustice, he would choose violence. Hence when he retorted that he did not advocate pacifism, it was in this context he said it. A western definition which could be considered accurate for satyagraha would be active non-violence.

Nobel

I've removed the following:

Though the committee has remained tightlipped in this matter, independent opinions point to various factors that could have influenced the decisions of not considering Gandhi. Some observers say his struggle was too "nationalistic" and "not a global one" and hence he could not be considered as an apostle of world peace. But, a few others argue that recent laureates like Yasser Arafat and David Trimble fit the same description and the violent background of their struggle makes them less fit than Gandhi to receive the prize.

This counter-argument adds to the suspicion of a number of people who speculate that the process of deciding the winning laureates was biased in the early years, and the committee rarely looked beyond the European and American white community to choose the laureates. Some have even accused the committee of buckling to British pressure against the award to Gandhi.

These are speculations about the Nobel process; they are not about Gandhi. Engaging in speculations that winners in later years were less worthy is unbecoming of Gandhi's memory. ☮ Eclecticology 21:48, 2003 Nov 30 (UTC)

i think this passage should be there. It is better to err on being too skeptical than not, esp when the issue is the establishment. If we are not going to include the above passage, then i believe the whole Noble section should simply be reduced to one single sentence: "Ghandi was never a Nobel laureate.".--Xah P0lyglut 00:33, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

The issue is about relevance, not skepticism. There is nothing constructive to speculating about unprovable conspiracy theories about the establish when there are enough true ones for which they should be held accountable. It's true enough that until Lutuli won in 1960, all the winners were either European or of European ancestry. The implication that Arafat and Trimble were less deserving of the prize is inappropriate. I've read the discussion at the Nobel link where the argument that they were not prepared to issue a posthumous prize is much stronger, but even that would be better discussed at a site about the Nobel Peace Prize. ☮ Eclecticology 02:50, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

Image use

I think you have in this page an image with copyright; same in catalan wiki.--Plàcid 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you say which one? Graham  :) 23:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Graham, it looks to me like it's the top image, as that's the only image in the Catalan article. But the image we have is reversed (go to ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi to see what I mean). I don't know whether or not this has anything to do with Placid's question. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well is it worth listing on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements when we're not sure whether it is an infringement or not, and don't know the source for it? -- Graham  :) 23:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sure don't think so. :-) Not unless Placid has something more to tell us, that is. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've again removed the image "donated" by ghandiserve. Fair use images is one thing, but when you upload an image, you agree to release it under the GFDL. Having people upload images and then decide not to release them under the GFDL is not acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 13:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd asked User:Gandhiserve to release the image under GFDL, but there has been no response. Jay 15:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to the image page: The GandhiServe Foundation says: "We are the sole copyright representants of this image, and it can be used in this form on Wikipedia. permission granted for use on wikipedia.org only"--(Anthony)

User Ghandiserve is not the same (legally, that is) as GhandiServe Foundation. It's entirely possible for user GhandiServe to upload images without GhandiServe Foundation having to release the image as GFDL. It's also not in our interest to compel GFDL releases by rights holders - if we do, we effectively prohibit commercial organisations from indicating their consent to use things here by doing the uploads themselves. In any case, the image is not in violation of copyright policy, so it doesn't need to be removed as a copyright question: if you argue it has to be GFDL, it's ideal; if you argue it's licensed, it's still not infringing, though we do want to find a more free image. If you do disagree, though, I'll upload the same image myself so we can use that version and it's then completely clear that it wasn't a GFDL release by them. Jamesday 22:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I replaced the fair use image with one that is in the public domain, in response to one of the concerns in the fac nomination page. This image is from the Dutch wikipedia.--(Ashwatham, 22 Jan 2005)

irrelevant text

Please note concerning the last sentence of the second paragraph dealing with "Civil Rights Movement in South Africa" that, although the topic of the section is "civil rights," the sentence in question refers to the rites, i.e., the ceremonies, of Christian marriage. 68.89.190.183 05:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

paragraph move

I've moved a paragraph on a book by Harry Turtledove here from Pacifism. I didn't want to simply delete real information. On the other hand I'm not sure the paragraph really belongs here either. I think it's become a bit of an orphan looking for the right article. Kim Bruning 18:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

accidental revert

I can understand someone reverting vandalism, but why has User:Arvindn reverted 62.254.64.10 as though it was vandalism. At least put a genuine reason in the comments for the revert. Jay 10:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't aware I had done that. What must have happened is that I probably clicked the revert link by accident (or someone else has my password and did it, but that's far less likely). I've changed it back. Arvindn 11:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ahh... the enticing Rollback link... the sops you get when you get to be a sysop ...

Celibacy

Gandhi would often refrain from sex from the beginning of his puberty. I don't think this is true. Are there any references ? On the contrary Gandhi says in his autobiography that he had an active sex life as a teenager. Jay 07:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

removed the mentioned line as no clarifications forthcoming. Jay 10:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely remember that in his autobiography... he expresses guilt over the fact that he was not there for his father's death because he was with his wife. But I have also heard rumors of things he did later in life to "test" himself, e.g. sleep with (but not have sex with) young girls. Whether these are true stories or not I can't say. I didn't find them very flattering, anyway. Graft 11:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I too remember so. But other theories are also popular as someone said [1] [2] --Rrjanbiah 12:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Gandhi's view on caste

Gandhi often voiced for those of the lower castes and promoted a society without castes. I haven't read the hole article, but there didn't seem to be any information on this. I don't know much about this, but somebody else could perhaps write something. Moravice 15:00, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

He definitely did not. He vehemently disagreed with Bhim Rao Ambedkar about the importance of caste in Indian society: Ambedkar wanted recognition of the depressed status of the untouchables at worst, and abolition of the caste system at best. Gandhi repeatedly blocked such reforms, as evidenced in the Poona Pact of 1932. --Deepsix 04:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Anon comment post-archiving):Perhaps also there could be some mention of Gandhi's ardent support of the caste system and his remedy for the plight of the Untouchables to merely change their caste title to "Harijan" and allow them to be educated while maintaining the restrictions of the Untouchable caste.

Churchill's Opinions of Ghandi

I have been having a very interesting discussion withLordSuryaofShropshire about whether the qualifier 'as a subject of the British Empire' should appear on Churchill's opinion of Ghandi in the 'Noble Peace Prize' section, viz;

Throughout his lifetime, Ghandi's activities attracted a wide range of comment and opinion. For example, as a subject of the British Empire, Winston Churchill once referred to Gandhi as a "brown fakir." Conversely, Albert Einstein said of Gandhi, "Generations to come, it may be, will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."

I thought I would reproduce the discussion here, for the record, and in case anyone wishes to contribute/edit... For:

As for Churchill, I think it's quite important to mention is 'vassalship' to the Crown especially when one considers that his goals for the British Empire were directly conflicted with those of Gandhi for India. The prevailing viewpoint, unfortunately, of Britishers in the colonial era was extremely racist and condescending, and it gives powerful context to the situation...at least Churchill's status as an British subject should be admitted in view of his antipathy towards Gandhi.

Against:

I understand the view that Churchill's vassalship provides relevant context to the reader, but one can still make the argument that it is presenting a POV about the truth-value Churchill's opinion, and privileges Einstein's opinion as being more 'accurate' (like this: the truth-value of Churchill's opinion is compromised in some way by his allegience to the Crown, whereas, Einstein's opinion, being unqualified in the text, is presented as more value-free, neutral and unbiased..?). If it's relevant to qualify Churchill's opinion as a British Empire subject, why is it not relevant to mention that Albert Einstein was a German Jew living in America??? Or that they were both European males?

Mercurius 22:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Churchill and Gandhi

I'm changing "brown fakir" to "half-naked fakir" for the obvious reason. References:

1. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=828
2. http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/mohandas_gandhi12a.html
3. Google Test: http://www.google.com/search?q=winston+churchill+%22half+naked+fakir%22 Vs. http://www.google.com/search?q=winston+churchill+%22brown+fakir%22

--Rrjanbiah 04:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) It is probably true that Churchill was racist by our standards. It is also true that the exact quote is: "It is ... alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace" The common misquote of "half-naked fakir" is therefore very misleading, and I am changing it correspondingly. Source:

1. http://www.bartleby.com/66/73/12373.html

Thoreau

I have a felling that I read in this article that Gandhi was inspired by Henry David Thoreau and Jesus Christ (apart from Bhagvad Gita). There is no such mention anymore. Was it removed or is it my imagination? Is there some way to find out without going through the entire article history? --Ankur 07:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found these Thoreau-Gandhi references easily with Google -- several publications are cited regarding the influence of Thoreau on Gandhi. --Ds13 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi Devanagari spelling

I am not in favour of using Devanagari (or gurumukhi or anything) spelling for people from India but while we use them it is better to use the correct spelling. Based on a google and yahoo search on the various ways in which Gandhi is spelt I find the order of (Internet's) preference is गाँधी गांधी <- change made by me गान्धी <- used in wikipedia The correct spelling is important for articles on Indra Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi (apart from this article and Rahul & Priyanka.) Based on Google search गान्धी is hardly used anywhere. But the difference between गाँधी & गांधी is so little in terms of usage that it its better to consult someone who knows how to spell those names (or is a Gandhi himself.) I remember from my childhood that गाँधी is in fact the correct spelling - I am sorry apart from Internet I have no other way of finding out. So if no one has anything to contribute in a few days I'll make the change on all of those articles. Here is how the names are written in some transliteration scheme (that I do not know the name of): gA.NdhI gA.ndhI gAndhI

There is no single 'correct' spelling, unless you find out what Gandhi himself preferred. In modern written Hindi, words can freely utilize a half 'nah' or resort to the chandra bindu, or just the dot, to denote an 'n' sound. For this reason, Hindi can be written in two perfectly acceptable ways. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:28, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Artistic Depictions

This section is greatly lacking. It could easily be expanded with passing mentions of the satirical takes on Ghandi, such as "Ghandi II" in UHF or that MTV cartoon that caused an uproar...what the hell was that called, Clone High or something? Oh, let's not forget Ghandi's appearance in Hell in the South Park movie. --Feitclub 20:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

More Info/hunger strikes

You should put in more info; like Gandhi's assassination. Juicyboy 325.

At what war with India did Gandhi go on a hunger strike? Did he go on one at all?

Gandhi went on one hunger strike, and that was during the war between India and Pakistan. saiyanfan13

He also went on one in the early 1930s to pressure Ambedkar into withdrawing his request for a separate electorate for the untouchables. I think he did one in the early 1920s, too, but don't quote me on that.

World War II

The section on World War II gives the impression that India decided not to participate in the war; as a matter of fact, India did, and the Indian Armed Forces were the largest all-volunteer forces to fight in the 2nd world war. See Indian Air Force and World War II casualties. On another note, should this article be entered for featured article status? --ashwatha 21:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I made a few changes:

• Re-named Bibliography to References
• Re-arranged a few sections (placing Quotations above References, etc)
• linked some of the terms to associated articles

and other minor stuff. --ashwatha 05:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) I have also nominated the article for featured article status. Please comment on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Mahatma_Gandhi.

Gandhi enema usage

I have been adding information of Gandhi's documented enema usage (in the Misc section) and it seems to unfortunatly find it's way into nonexistence. Could we please have a discussion on the matter? Thanks in advance :) Oh, here's the source: documented by time magazine at : http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/mohandas_gandhi12a.html --Iconoclast 02:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this a couple of times too. I was probably to blame the first time - I think it got accidentally deleted during the re-organization that I was doing. I saw that you put it back, and then it was removed by an anon-IP again.

I suppose it is ok to have it here, since it is corroborated by the TIME article above. However, can you please mention that he had this habit for hygiene/health reasons? That is because (in modern American culture at least), a man having enemas is associated with several subcultures, and that line can be misinterpreted. Also, I couldn't find a reference to Gandhi's statements to his female companions in the TIME article. I found references to it elsewhere on the Internet, but given that the Internet abounds with several not-so-true things about famous personalities, I would suggest leaving that out (unless we have some authentic sources, of course).

It might be just as well to provide the above TIME link right with that sentence, since I expect we might have several reverts otherwise. --ashwatha 05:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pun

I noticed this was the featured article today, so I thought I'd note this pun here. <>< tbc 05:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Because Gandhi walked barefoot so much, his feet developed exceptional callouses. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail. His diet also contributed to chronic bad breath. This made him ... a super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Bit of bias at start of article

I feel that this sounds biased against Britain and does not represent what happened properly: "Gandhi helped bring about India's independence from British rule, inspiring other colonial peoples to work for their own independence and ultimately dismantle the British Empire and replace it with the Commonwealth."

It should be "indepence from Britain" or "the end of British rule". And I don't think they dismantled The British Empire, Britain did. And they didn't "replace it with the Commonwealth" they and Britain did.WikiUser 19:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just feel when I read the article strong dislike/bias against Britain which I wouldn't get from reading encyclopedia entry. Also:

"This was a threat to the British establishment – while Indian workers were often idle due to unemployment, they bought their clothing from foreign English industrial manufacturers – if Indians spun their own clothes, this would leave British industry idle."

I think This was a threat to the British establishment is a bit pov. And if Indians spun their own clothes, this would leave British industry idle I don't think this true, even just for clothes.WikiUser 20:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that last part should probobly be rephrased so that it says that it had a "negative impact" on the british economy, or something along those lines. "British establishment" should also probobly be replaced with "British economy."

Sounds fine. One point though; "This was a threat to the British economy" - how big or significant could it be though, compared to whole Empire's markets?18:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, India was "the crown jewel of the British empire." It may not have caused a catastrophe, but even a couple percent negative effect on GDP could have had an impact, and be a "threat" to an extent. Still, I do not actually know how it effected the GDP, so that is only speculation.

---

Archiving info

Last version of main talk page before archive 1 was detached from it (Revision as of 22:53, 28 February 2005): [3]

Versions of Archive 1: Partly archived on March 29, 2004 by User:Hemanshu: [4]

Full version, User:SqueakBox, 28 Feb 2005: [5]

Later versions: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]