Talk:Mohandas Gandhi

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

British propaganda[edit]

The article is written in a manner which could be easily classified as a classic British propaganda piece. Why the British colonial rule in India is not called murderous? What is the problem with the word "murderous"? Are you suggesting the British colonialists were for good? Are you suggesting the British colonialists were not murderers? On one hand you are criticizing Conservapedia for their pro-America POV and blatant propagandist attitude, on the other hand it looks like you are British Raj apologist. Historian 10:00, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Look, Historian--if that is indeed you're real name--I think there's something you don't quite get here. We are NOT an encyclopedia. That's not what we do. We're here mostly for the purpose of dispelling fundamentalism and religiosity as they turn up in the worlds of science and politics--but we are pretty "liberal" about all that. And goats. Many of us are here for the goats. And the lulz. That's key. If you can combine attacking fundamentalism with lulz and goats, you're totally in. This article gives you room to do that, so go ahead. Knock yourself out. But we;re not an encyclopedia, so if you want an in-depth article that does justice to the history and legacy of European imperilaism in a reasoned and serious manner, this ain't the place....I really can't say enough about the goats.PFoster 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Even given the fact that RW is snarky, non-encylcopedic etc. I think the term "murderous" is far too loaded and weasly. For a start, it means "something/someone who comits murder", and the definition of "murder" is far too malleable and is subject to extreme bias. Leave the inserting of overly emotive terms into articles to the other moonbats and wingnuts out there. You can accuse the collective mob of being "Raj apologists" or whatever, but that's clearly not the case, it's not pro or against anything. RW certainly won't pander to the "colonialism/imperialism is doubleplusungood QED!" crowd just as much as it won't pander to the "colonialism and killing people in foreign countries is ace!" crowd. ArmondikoVpathetic 10:21, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I am undergraduate history student, I pick up the name Historian is a casual manner. There is no need attack me personally only because of my username. If you can call Pinochet a murderer, Pol Pot a murderer, Stalin a murderer, Hitler a murderer, you can also call the British colonialists murderers. When a regime kills some people because of their political belief, that regime is called murderous regime, and it was the British Raj. Disputing this fact is history revisionism. The first sentence in your article on Joseph Stalin is Stalin "was a Georgian revolutionary who murdered and schemed his way to the leadership of the Soviet Union". If this is the main identity of Stalin, then the main identity of the British Raj will be a murderous regime. It is relevant in this article because Gandhi played the role of "protagonist" against the villain. So the identity of the "antagonist" is necessary. Historian 10:47, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Not to put too fine a point on it--then change the fuckin' article. Nobody is stopping you. That's how a wiki works. Sitting on the talk page kvetching about won't do anything. That bad boy isn't going to write itself. PFoster 10:52, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Although I would have supported the word "murderous", I believe the current version which uses the word "self-serving" is fine. Historian 17:19, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Read Niall Ferguson's Empire. Very even-handed view of the British Empire. They did good things and bad things, sometimes it was to serve their own interests, sometimes out of real (though often misplaced) moral concerns... Calling them "murderous" is probably going too far. Yes, they killed people. Would those people have died if they hadn't colonized? Probably. The modern Indian state supports 1 billion people through the systems originally put in place during the Raj. It's not a cut-and-dried thing; they helped and they hurt and they stood by while bad things happened and they made bad things happen. I don't think "murderous" is the best distillation of that, though. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:04, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Nazis also did good things. They constructed the Autobahn, the first freeway system in the world, attempted to reduce unemployment, promoted public health etc. etc. Historian 04:37, 21 November 2008 (EST)
P.S. India is a liberal democracy, not the system of repressive monarchy of the British Raj. Historian 04:39, 21 November 2008 (EST)
I am not disputing the fact that some of the activities of the British colonialists were beneficial for the Indian society. For example they were the first to introduce scientific education, but they did it for themselves, to build an obedient native class, because the cost to maintain British born white servants in Indian soil was too much expensive. The point here is that there bad overwhelms their good. Stalin also did very good job in industrialization of the Soviet Union and his action during the Second World War to save his country from Nazi aggression deserves praise. But this does not justify his killing of innocent people. Certain activities of the British colonialists which were beneficial for the Indian society do not justify or rehabilitate their dark legacy. Anyway I think the current version which mentions the word "imperialist" is fine, so the issue is resolved. Historian 06:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

What the f**k??[edit]

Getting pretty picky, aren't we? I want this, Don't want that.. You get my edits or you don't we can talk about anything but if you edit everything I do to just suit yourself probably neither of us will end up happy. Esp. since i'm doing live radio now typing on a keyboard with few letters left. It could get messy. Carptrash 22:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Are you talkin' to me? Why take it out--it was a good reference. I wasn't even the one who put the salt protest in in the first place, it was that Historian dude. Who shit on your cornflakes this morning, anyways?PFoster 23:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Yeah, white boy, I'm talking to you. I'm prety sure that it was me one who added the salt rebellion and the reference. You are the one shitting in my food and you'll get no more references from me. Carptrash 23:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)
What is going on here? ToastToastand marmite 23:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Watch it or you'll end up burned toast. Carptrash 23:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Verily, my cheese runneth over. ToastToastand marmite 23:38, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Not sure if that's good or bad? 23:45, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Well, it indicates that there's a lot of cheese, some of which is being wasted. Seriously - what's the beef here? ToastToastand marmite 23:47, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not happy about what is being done to me edits her and then when I finaaly think, "Okay. Fine, I'll take 'em back,that gets reverted. I was about to go off find a nice statue of Gandhi, brighten up the place a bit, but, I don't think so. Testy indeed. Carptrash 00:09, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I think there's one outside the train station in Wellington. I'll be going into town next week, get a photo then. Maybe. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 00:12, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Carp: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" it sayeth on the edit page. If'n you don't like it, then I don't know what to suggest. ToastToastand marmite 00:16, 21 November 2008 (EST)
(ecx2)Yes, I'd say "testy" is pretty accurate. It is the nature of a wiki that an individual user's edits get changed, edited, or removed. I'd say it's actually the point of a wiki, really - to refine one user's additions through the amalgamating with the other users' edits. It's not an "all or nothing" scenario. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:16, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Clearly (another word for "my opinion") what you are suggesting is that I might be happier not editing. (see talk:Hinduism ) Carptrash 00:22, 21 November 2008 (EST)
If you can't take the heat ... ToastToastand marmite 00:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)
Just to clarify, that's not what I was suggesting, though maybe you want to take the night off. I do think you're being pretty childish with this "all or nothing", "take my ball and go home" attitude. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:28, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Okay. Fine. You point is well made and well received. I'm eating some cheesy toast (rice cake, actually, but thanks for the idea}, will regroup and proceed. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash 00:54, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry, double post.

Not an encyclopedia, but does that give it a right to give wrong information?[edit]

I get that this article doesn't need to have an in-depth account of reality, but I don't think it means that it is alright for it to support wrong notions. First of all, most schools teach about parallel happenings like Subhas Chandra Bose's INA and the Indian Army mutinies from the 9th grade even. Secondly, I don't see the reason of putting the word 'freedom' in quotation marks. And lastly, Gandhi and the Indian National Congress were staunchly opposed to casteism, Gandhi went about hugging people from the so called "lower" castes to inspire people to denounce this feudal mentality, heck that line "-under the constraints of the caste system of course-" makes the quality of information in this article worthy of the Fun: section.

This article seems to indulge more in the classic ignorance of some westerners who refuse to see European Imperialism for what it really was by covering it behind the veil of "they brought modern technology and infrastructure to the countries they went too" and undermine the freedom movements of the "Third World" countries and hence their present state of freedom, than providing any real information.

Again, I am NOT saying that this article has to have serious and in-depth information, this wiki is not meant for that, but still that doesn't imply that articles on this wiki not dealing with Fundies&Co. should support and propagate false ignorant notions, otherwise this place won't be any better than conservapedia. If you don't want to give real knowledge, don't put up the article at all rather than filling it with ignorant nonsense and utter imbalance. — Unsigned, by: 117.194.101.217 / talk / contribs

Don't forget this is an article about just Gandhi, rather than the whole Raj. Start a Raj article and put all that stuff in. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
RW is lacking people with in depth knowledge of the British Empire, so a few more articles on that sort of thing by someone who actually knows about it would be a massive help. Currently it's far too "Empire is baaaaad m'kay" without giving any proper reasoning or context. There's lots of "they killed this many and that many in these places" but it lacks the wider commentary and context needed to not only say that but explain (by which, I do not mean "excuse") it thoroughly. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we've avoided it because we concentrate so much on the present day - the pros and cons of Empire seem a little historical and academic... I'll give it a go, although I expect fierce criticism from our anonymous friend if i don't equate the Raj with the holodomor. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Niall Ferguson's book Empire gives quite a good assessment (in my opinion, anyway).  Lily Inspirate me. 18:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't got that. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You have completely mistook the point I was trying to make here. I say again, that my issue is with this article purporting wrong information/notions and NOT that this this does not have an elaborate account or context of the Raj, I get that the wiki isn't for the latter as it is in-depth but what I said was that this shouldn't be used as an excuse for articulating utterly incorrect information or having no balance which is exactly what this article does. I pointed out three specific things:-

"First of all, most schools teach about parallel happenings like Subhas Chandra Bose's INA and the Indian Army mutinies from the 9th grade even. Secondly, I don't see the reason of putting the word 'freedom' in quotation marks. And lastly, Gandhi and the Indian National Congress were staunchly opposed to casteism, Gandhi went about hugging people from the so called "lower" castes to inspire people to denounce this feudal mentality, heck that line "-under the constraints of the caste system of course-" makes the quality of information in this article worthy of the Fun: section. "

These are what I have an issue with.

I don't think people misconstrued the point as went off on a very short and sudden tangent, as happens frequently, and sporked off Martin's comment about the Raj, which may or may not have been the best and most thorough response ever. By all means, please update the article. I'm sure whoever inserted the line about schools was speaking from experience, I know I certainly didn't learn it in History and can't find much reference to Ghandi and that time in the UK history curriculum as it stands now; this stuff would probably be only covered in specialist University level modules (if, indeed, the modern history student is actually taught anything Blush.gif). With all articles barely the length of a single screen in size, the root problem isn't usually that it misrepresents facts but that it's not really long enough to give these facts a proper airing and people view this as a misrepresentation when, really, it's a sinful underrepresentation. Unfortunate, yes, but it's the nature of the beast. Anyway, Ghandi's attitude towards a caste system would be interesting to explain more, it'd be certainly interesting to contrast this attitude of equality with his blatant racism, which some have argued comes from his interpretation of the caste system. Scarlet A.pngbomination 06:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

Please provide citations for the "Notable Criticism" section. Talsley (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Learn to read, they're already there. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC) These criticisms of Gandhi were brought up in the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode 'Holier Than Thou'. Are you a communist? Communists have trouble reading, too. Cow...Hammertime! 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
How is that a reliable source? Talsley (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
They aren't you. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism from Orwell and Hitchens[edit]

Prominent criticism of Gandhi comes from none other than George Orwell ("Reflections on Gandhi", Partisan Review, January 1949, available online) and Christopher Hitchens. Might be useful. --84.151.130.200 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Massive claim and addition made to the Gandhi page[edit]

Check it, it doubles what was there before, only sites a wordpress blog, and makes the claim the British Empire ended because Indian soldiers stopped holding it together. --Revolverman (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Several issues with the introduction[edit]

I'm new, so I don't want to make changes and get into an edit war just yet, but I have several corrections to suggest.

1. Not sure why the hunger strikes are singled out as notable. They were a minor aspect of the overall effort, primarily employed when it was necessary to maintain discipline within his own ranks rather than to push the British towards anything. His efforts towards economic self-sufficiency, caste/religious unity, and non-participation in British systems were far more notable.

2. Yes, we are "not sure" what would have happened if history was different, but to suggest the armed insurgency was the straw that broke the camel's back is historically unlikely. The most significant insurgency during British rule occurred in 1857. The second most significant was probably the one in 1915. During the 30-year campaign that Gandhi led to defeat the British, the only meaningfully violent movement was the one led by Nazi sympathizer S.C. Bose. This occurred in 1942, well after most of the movement towards self-rule had already been made and at the point where Indian self-rule appeared inevitable. Bose raised forty thousand Indians to fight alongside Japan in Burma and Assam. They were poorly supplied, performed poorly, and surrendered unconditionally in 1945 having accomplished little. It is true that Indians taking up arms against them led to minor fear among the British, but it is likely that Independence would have proceeded due to the Gandhi-led actions anyway. At most it slightly accelerated the British movement out. Even the Christopher Hitchens quote at the bottom of the page states clearly that independence was already inevitable.

3. Godse was a Hindu Nationalist, not a Hindu Fundamentalist. (Note that the RationalWiki link here goes to Hindu Nationalism, not Hindu Fundamentalism) "As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession." His defense, "Why I killed Gandhi" is quite clearly focused on Hindu nationalism from beginning to end, and only makes the loosest connection to any religious or superstitious tenets of Hinduism. Why I Killed Gandhi

4. Gandhi wasn't killed for not being devout enough - he was far more devout than his assassin. When first asked by a compatriot why he killed Gandhi, Godse replied, "the reason is purely political and political alone." Gandhi was killed for not being pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim enough in his work towards India's future in independence. Saying that Godse was more devout than Gandhi is the logical equivalent of claiming that Donald Trump is more devout than the Pope.— Unsigned, by: Dankster / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gandhi and feminism[edit]

The article states that Gandhi supported "increased freedoms" for women, and yet the author of the section never took the time to list what those "freedoms" he supported were. They were hasty to note he was a sexist irregardless, but I think unless someone actually lists a few examples, preferably in a note, of those "increased freedoms" we should remove that line from the article. Weasel words are not welcome here. Dr. Oxyaena quack specialist 09:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not being a saint does not make you a monster[edit]

I do not like this article. gandhi was not a saint. I get that. ive no issue there. I get that this is not Wikipedia, that we want to focus on the haphazardly applied mission, there is a lot we don't need to focus on. i get that. there is controversy with the guy on things that would seem rw's bread and butter. they'd absolutely need looking at.

I do however take issue with the scatter shot approach to topics broached. I do take issue with weight some of these topics get in the article, and with the conclusions drawn or implied. the cites used to support the more controversial topics only add weight to the slant taken if you don't actually look at them. if you do look at them we see that cites supporting hitler apologism, one doesn't seem to the work, the other contains a simply huge article, whose only relevance is the entirety of the quote in the rw article. its a cautious wait and see on a potential ally at best. it is coupled with a strange assertion about the holocaust and gandhis non violence, were the cite concerns a dispute over the views of his grand son, not him. this comes after a section on the evolution of his racism, and his move away from it, which considering the length of this section, it is strangely shallow. what was the sole positive thing in article is entirely undermined by a spurious 'might be a nazi' claim.

its a sloppy approach taken elsewhere. in the womens rights section, and in the sexual abuse, specific serious claims are made. non specific claims but more damning and far reaching are also made. i'm not disputing what he may have said on these subjects. I am disputing the assertion that his actions and his opinions are directly and significantly responsible for the state of affairs for women and of sexual assaults in indian society when the supporting cites are polemical opinion pieces that are similarly light on fact and make serious allegations not supported by anything in them. this article makes clear and definite judgements throughout, concerning serious allegations, supported only by shallow arguments and cites which are far from the damning evidence claimed. this a rw article not Wikipedia article. we, as people love to keep saying, do not require a neutral point of view. that should not mean unsubstantiated bullshit. we still need context for these claims. we still need something at least hinting at his achievements, his place in the bigger picture, why he has been so enduring. there is nothing here but entirely negative claims. there is no specific evidence for more egregious, damning accusations nor the context or over view necessary to even assess the plausibility of some of them. what we do have makes me distrust it entirely. it all being framed by the opening context free hitchens quote and the overly long polemic from hitchens where he blames Gandhi for everything wrong with india and pakistan before during and after independence, right up present, for not being suitably pro empire, with nothing to support it.

we don't need saints here. we need a realistic appraisal of relevant events supported with proper cites. we make big claims here, ones we didn't originate. there must be more useful cites than the ones we seem to have opted for. its no surprise that we have been left with this dogshit if that's the level effort folk had gone for. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

the more i loook at this, the more awful this article becomes. This is one the most recognisable figures in world history, who played an integral part in events that reshaped the world for millions of people. We have ignored all that though to make spurious claims that in grand scheme of things are either a complete irrelevance or out right bullshit. This not a fringe figure. There is no excuse for display of what can only be wilful ignorance of who he was. This a very poor hatchet job that we all should be embarresed exists.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)