Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Reasons Why I hate Gandhi

main reasons why we hate gandhi

1. Mishandling Khilafat movement

2. Mishandling Mopla riots where thousands of Hindu women were raped and double number of men were killed.

3. Mishandling Swami Shraddananda's murder by a muslim fanatic. (He called that muslim killer a patriot).

4. Forcibly removing Netaji from his post as congress president.

5. Ushering in socialist (sucker) Nehru instead of Patel for the leadership.

6. Calling Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj, Maharana Pratap, Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots.

7. Mishandling the Bhagat Singh case.

8. Calling Sardar Udham Singh, who shot that General O'Dwyer, as an insane person.

9. Mishandling 1946 Noakhali riots where tens of thousands of Hindus were looted raped and killed. Gandhi came immediately on spot to save the muslims from retaliation. He even called Suhrawardy who led these riots as Shaheed.

10. Greatest blunders during partition - always rushing and fasting to save muslims from Hindu retaliation but forgetting to save Hindus when they were first attacked.

11.Thousands of Hindu refugees had come to Delhi after being looted of all their property, raped or watching their beloved ones getting raped, injured or watching thier beloved ones getting killed. RSS evacuated the mosques in Delhi for these refugees to stay. The dirty dog gandhi fasted to make these people come out to the streets to let the muslims back in.

12. Granting 55 crores to Pakistan

13. He Was responsible For Killing For More Than thousand of
hindu in WB In Direct Action Day Called By Muslim League

14. His Policy Destoyed The Hindu Culture In Kashmir and
Alls Parts OF Western india Which IS Know As Pakistan

15. Due To Him The East Bengal Was Lost And Today is Know as
Bangladesh

16. There was Need For Khilafat Movement PreIndependce
But He Followed The Suite And United Muslim
and Demand Pakistan

17. He Was Person Who Brought So Called " ScukLuasim " Secularism
in these Country.

18. Todays Most Powerful Person Of these Country is not and Indian
but an Itallian(Christan) who is One The Name Of Congress
On Our head.

19. The Biggest Mistake He Had Not Dilluted The Congress

20. If he had wished, INDIA would have been liberated from British more then 15 years before the indipendance.
Gandhi himself was responsible for partion of INDIA, that is too based on religon where he was very much secular.

21.Ignoring Revolutionaries and condemning their violence....and not accepting them as matyrs to the nation

22.Not making Vallabhai Patel the PM instead of Nehru

43 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yuga said...

Dear frens, I hope you get to see my comment and reply to me whoever you r. I am a singaporean here, indian and proud to be. Although singaporean i love india and pray to die there. okay forget sentimental patrotism. I want to post a blog article in my blog to let some of my frens here noe why i hate gandhi. My main reason is the partition, creation of pakistan. But I have searching all wires to get solid ways to explain seems like no websites availble. if someone could help me give brief explainations on maybe 5 major reaosn why that fucker is a fucker it would be useful. like the partition of pakistan, bhagat sing case, religious matter, dalit case.

yuga316@hotmail.com

plss email me

raj said...

Oh.....I think you all have one common charcterstic....i.e. none of you ever made an attempt to read history before you made an attempt to talk about it...You are abusing Gandhi for mistakes he did.....mistakes...some of which he never did....some which he did due to compelleing circumstances..some which he did becuase he couldnt kill his principles....Ok before i set your facts correct...i ask you one question...name all four sons of gandhi....dont worry my freind i noe 90% Indians cant do that...but u noe about nehru's kids....his fukin whole family till date...he never did anything for his sons, for his wife...becuase he was yes we have to agree he was selfless...Now...to set your facts rite....before Gandhi came to India...teh poitica; party which was majorly leading Indian Freedom struggle i.e.e Congress if would have continued without Gandhi...would never have been able to get you the freedomw hich you have right now or even next 100 years....the reason bieng they were a party of elites....farmers, cobblers, barbers, shop keepers...i mean people from sall income group were never part of their movement...they belived the rich and comfortable calss of india could conduct meetings and set India Free....when they called Gandhi to india...he refused to join the party before he could make the masses part of one common intention that is freedom...he went to every nook and corner fo this country to bring masses into main stream..then he joined hands with congress...not joined teh party...for freedom movement...Bhagat SIngh (i respect him a lot)for hwom you blame Gandhi...was able to dream of enlighting the country about freedom...could think of the worrd country..because long before he dreamt of doing such thing...it was gandhi who united this into one country...bringing every one into the main stream....so go readmore histpry before you talk about Gandhi...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DKY said...

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html

Learning from Mahatma Gandhi�s mistakes


Dr. Koenraad Elst





Mahatma Gandhi is often praised as the man who defeated British imperialism with non-violent agitation. It is still a delicate and unfashionable thing to discuss his mistakes and failures, a criticism hitherto mostly confined to Communist and Hindutva publications. But at this distance in time, we shouldn�t be inhibited by a taboo on criticizing official India�s patron saint.


Gandhiji�s mistakes


Without attempting to approach completeness, we may sum up as Gandhi�s biggest political failures the following events:


(1) Recruiting Indian soldiers for the British war effort in 1914-18 without setting any conditions, in the vain hope that this unilateral gift to Britain would bring about sufficient goodwill in London for conceding to India the status of a self-ruling dominion within the British Empire, on a par with Canada or Australia. While it was already off line for a pacifist to cooperate in such a wasteful war (as contrasted with World War 2, to both sides a kind of holy war where fundamental principles were at stake), Gandhiji�s stance was also a glaring failure of political skill, since he neglected to extract any tangible gains for India in return for the thousands of Indian lives which he sacrificed to British imperial interests.

(2) Committing the mobilisation potential of the freedom movement to the Khil�fat agitation in 1920-22, again a non-negotiated unilateral gift. The Khilafat movement was a tragicomical mistake, aiming at the restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate against which the Arabs had risen in revolt and which the Turks were dissolving, a process completed with the final abolition of the institution of the Caliphate in 1924. It was a purely retrograde and reactionary movement, and more importantly for Indian nationalism, it was an intrinsically anti-nationalist movement pitting specifically Islamic interests against secular and non-Muslim interests. Gandhi made the mistake of hubris by thinking he could reconcile Khilafatism and Indian nationalism, and he also offended his Muslim allies (who didn�t share his commitment to non-violence) by calling off the agitation when it turned violent. The result was even more violence, with massive Hindu-Muslim riots replacing the limited instances of anti-British attacks, just as many level-headed freedom fighters had predicted. Gandhiji failed to take the Khilafat movement seriously whether at the level of principle or of practical politics, and substituted his own imagined and idealized reading of the Khilafat doctrine for reality.

(3) His autocratic decision to call off the mass agitation for complete independence in 1931, imposed upon his mass following and his close lieutenants against their wishes and better judgment, in exchange for a few puny British concessions falling far short of the movement�s demands. His reputation abroad didn�t suffer, but to informed observers, he had thrown away his aura as an idealist leader standing above petty politics; the Pact between Gandhi and Viceroy Lord Irwin amounted to the sacrifice of a high national goal in favour of a petty rise in status for the Congress. Also, every delay in the declaration of Independence gave the emerging separatist forces the time to organize and to strengthen their position.

(4) Taking a confused and wavering position vis-�-vis India�s involvement in World War 2. His initial refusal to commit India to the war effort could have been justified on grounds of pacifist principle as well as national pride (the Viceroy had committed India without consulting the native leadership), but it was a failure because his followers weren�t following. Indian recruits and business suppliers of the Army eagerly joined hands with the British rulers, thus sidelining Gandhi into political irrelevance. By contrast, the Muslim League greatly improved its bargaining positions by joining the war effort, an effect not counterbalanced by the small Hindu Mahasabha�s similar strategy. The pro-Partition case which the Muslim League advocated was bolstered while Gandhi�s opposition to the imminent Partition was badly weakened. Gandhi was humiliated by his impotence before the degeneration of his �Quit India� agitation into violence and by ultimately having to come around to a collaborationist position himself.

(5) Taking a confused and wavering position vis-�-vis the Partition plan, including false promises to the Hindus of the designated Pakistani areas to prevent Partition or at least to prevent their violent expulsion. He chose not to use his weapon of a fast unto death to force Mohammed Ali Jinnah into backing down from Partition, a move which cast doubt on the much-touted bravery of all his other fasts �unto death� performed to pressurize more malleable opponents. If acquiescing in the Partition could still be justified as a matter of inevitability, there was no excuse for his insistence on half measures, viz. his rejecting plans for an organized exchange of population, certainly a lesser evil when compared to the bloody religious cleansing that actually took place. Gentle surgeons make stinking wounds.

(6) Refusing to acknowledge that Pakistan had become an enemy state after its invasion of Kashmir, by undertaking a fast unto death in order to force the Indian government to pay Pakistan 55 crore rupees from the British-Indian treasury. Pakistan was entitled to this money, but given its aggression, it would have been normal to set the termination of its aggression, including the withdrawal of its invading troops, as a condition for the payment. Indeed, that would have been a sterling contribution to the cause of enduring peace, saving the lives of the many thousands who fell in subsequent decades because of the festering wound which Kashmir has remained under partial Pakistani occupation. Coming on top of Gandhi�s abandonment of the Hindus trapped in Pakistan in August 1947, it was this pro-Pakistani demand, as well as his use of his choice moral weapon (left unused to save India�s unity or the persecuted Hindus in Pakistan) in the service of an enemy state�s treasury, that angered a few Hindu activists to the point of plotting his murder.


Problems with pacifism


The common denominator in all these costly mistakes was a lack of realism. Gandhi refused to see the realities of human nature; of Islamic doctrine with its ambition of domination; of the modern mentality with its resentment of autocratic impositions; of people�s daily needs making them willing to collaborate with the rulers in exchange for career and business opportunities; of the nationalism of the Hindus who would oppose the partition of their Motherland tooth and nail; of the nature of the Pakistani state as intrinsically anti-India and anti-Hindu.


In most of these cases, Gandhi�s mistake was not his pacifism per se. In the case of his recruiting efforts for World War 1, there wasn�t even any pacifism involved, but loyalty to the Empire whether in peace or in war. The Khilafat pogroms revealed one of the real problems with his pacifism: all while riding a high horse and imposing strict conformity with the pacifist principle, he indirectly provoked far more violence than was in his power to control. Other leaders of the freedom movement, such as Annie Besant and Lala Lajpat Rai, had warned him that he was playing with fire, but he preferred to obey his suprarational �inner voice�.


The fundamental problem with Gandhi�s pacifism, not in the initial stages but when he had become the world-famous leader of India�s freedom movement (1920-47), was his increasing extremism. All sense of proportion had vanished when he advocated non-violence not as a technique of moral pressure by a weaker on a stronger party, but as a form of masochistic surrender. Elsewhere (Elst: Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, Delhi 2001, p.120-121) I have cited four instances of his advice to the victims of communal violence which is simply breathtaking for its callousness in the face of human suffering. Two more instances follow.


During his prayer meeting on 1 May 1947, he prepared the Hindus and Sikhs for the anticipated massacres of their kind in the upcoming state of Pakistan with these words: �I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. (�) You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain.� (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5) It is left unexplained what purpose would be served by this senseless and avoidable surrender to murder.


Even when the killing had started, Gandhi refused to take pity on the Hindu victims, much less to point fingers at the Pakistani aggressors. More importantly for the principle of non-violence, he failed to offer them a non-violent technique of countering and dissuading the murderers. Instead, he told the Hindu refugees from Pakistan to go back and die. On 6 August 1947, Gandhiji commented to Congress workers on the incipient communal conflagration in Lahore thus: �I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. (�) When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men. (�) I cannot be forced to salute any flag. If in that act I am murdered I would bear no ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons who murder me.� (Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947, CWoMG, vol. LXXXIX, p.11).


So, he was dismissing as cowards those who saved their lives fleeing the massacre by a vastly stronger enemy, viz. the Pakistani population and security forces. But is it cowardice to flee a no-win situation, so as to live and perhaps to fight another day? There can be a come-back from exile, not from death. Is it not better to continue life as a non-Lahorite than to cling to one�s location in Lahore even if it has to be as a corpse? Why should staying in a mere location be so superior to staying alive? To be sure, it would have been even better if Hindus could have continued to live with honour in Lahore, but Gandhi himself had refused to use his power in that cause, viz. averting Partition. He probably would have found that, like the butchered or fleeing Hindus, he was no match for the determination of the Muslim League, but at least he could have tried. In the advice he now gave, the whole idea of non-violent struggle got perverted.


Originally, in Gandhi�s struggle for the Indians� rights in South Africa, non-violent agitation was tried out as a weapon of the weak who wouldn�t stand a chance in an armed confrontation. It was a method to achieve a political goal, and a method which could boast of some successes. In the hands of a capable agitator, it could be victorious. It was designed to snatch victory from the jaws of powerlessness and surrender. By contrast, the �non-violent� surrender to the enemy and to butchery which Gandhi advocated in 1947 had nothing victorious or successful about it.


During the anti-colonial struggle, Gandhi had often said that oppression was only possible with a certain cooperation or complicity from the oppressed people. The genius of the non-violent technique, not applicable in all situations but proven successful in some, was to create a third way between violent confrontation between the oppressed and the oppressor, fatally ending in the defeat of the weak, and the passive resignation of the oppressed in their state of oppression. Rather than surrendering to the superior power of the oppressor, the oppressed were given a method to exercise slow pressure on their oppressor, to wrest concessions from him and to work on his conscience. No such third way was left to the minorities in Pakistan: Gandhi�s only advice to them was to surrender, to become accomplices in their extermination by meekly offering their necks to the executioner�s sword.


My point is not that Gandhi could and should have given them a third way, a non-violent technique that would defeat the perpetrators of Partition and religious cleansing. More realistically, he should have accepted that this was the kind of situation where no such third option was available. Once the sacrifice of a large part of India�s territory to a Muslim state had been conceded, and given previous experiences with Muslim violence against non-Muslims during the time of Gandhi�s own leadership, he should have realized that an exchange of population was the only remaining bloodless solution. The Partition crisis was simply beyond the capacity of Gandhian non-violence to control. If he had had the modesty to face his powerlessness and accept that alternatives to his own preferred solution would have to be tried, many lives could have been saved.


Robust pacifism


It cannot be denied that Gandhian non-violence has a few successes to its credit. But these were achieved under particularly favourable circumstances: the stakes weren�t very high and the opponents weren�t too foreign to Gandhi�s ethical standards. In South Africa, he had to deal with liberal British authorities who weren�t affected too seriously in their power and authority by conceding Gandhi�s demands. Upgrading the status of the small Indian minority from equality with the Blacks to an in-between status approaching that of the Whites made no real difference to the ruling class, so Gandhi�s agitation was rewarded with some concessions. Even in India, the stakes were never really high. Gandhi�s Salt March made the British rescind the Salt Tax, a limited financial price to pay for restoring native acquiescence in British paramountcy, but he never made them concede Independence or even Home Rule with a non-violent agitation. The one time he had started such an agitation, viz. in 1930-31, he himself stopped it in exchange for a few small concessions.


It is simply not true that India�s Independence was the fruit of Gandhian non-violent agitation. He was close to the British in terms of culture and shared ethical values, which is why sometimes he could successfully bargain with them, but even they stood firm against his pressure when their vital interests were at stake. It is only Britain�s bankruptcy due to World War 2 and the emergence of the anti-colonial United States and Soviet Union as the dominant world powers that forced Clement Attlee�s government into decolonising India. Even then, the trigger events in 1945-47 that demonstrated how the Indian people would not tolerate British rule for much longer, had to do with armed struggle rather than with non-violence: the naval mutiny of Indian troops and the ostentatious nationwide support for the officers of Subhas Bose�s Axis-collaborationist Indian National Army when they stood trial for treason in the Red Fort.


So, non-violence need not be written off as a Quixotic experiment, for it can be an appropriate and successful technique in particular circumstances; but it has its limitations. In many serious confrontations, it is simply better, and on balance more just as well as more bloodless, to observe an �economy of violence�: using a small amount of armed force, or even only the threat of armed force, in order to avoid a larger and bloodier armed confrontation. This is the principle of �peace through strength� followed by most modern governments with standing armies. It was applied, for example, in the containment of Communism: though relatively minor wars between Communist and anti-Communist forces were fought in several Third World countries, both the feared Communist world conquest and the equally feared World War 3 with its anticipated nuclear holocaust were averted.


The ethical framework limiting the use of force to a minimum is known as �just war theory�, developed by European thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius between the 13th and 18th century, but in essence already present in the Mahabharata as well. Thus, waging war can be a just enterprise when it is done in self-defence, when all non-violent means of achieving the just objective have been tried, when non-combatants are respected as such, when the means used are in proportion to the objective aimed for, etc.


One of the less well-known criteria for just warfare which deserves to be mentioned here in the light of Gandhi�s advice to the Hindus in Pakistan is that there should be a reasonable chance of success. No matter how just your cause, it is wrong to commit your community to a course of action that only promises to be suicidal. Of course, once a group of soldiers is trapped in a situation from which the only exit is an honourable death, fighting on may be the best course remaining, but whenever possible, such suicide should be avoided. This criterion is just as valid in non-armed as in armed struggle: it was wrong to make the Hindus stay among their Pakistani persecutors when this course of action had no chance of saving lives nor even of achieving certain political objectives.


As the Buddha, Aristotle, Confucius and other ethical guides already taught, virtue is a middle term between two extremes. In this case, we have to sail between the two extremes of blindness to human fellow-feeling and blindness to strategic ground realities. It is wrong to say that might makes right and that anything goes when it comes to achieving victory, no matter what amount of suffering is inflicted on the enemy, on bystanders or even on one�s own camp. It is equally wrong to strike a high moral posture which haughtily disregards, and hence refuses to contain or subdue, the potential for violence in human confrontations and the real pain it causes. In between these two extremes, the mature and virtuous attitude is one which desires and maintains peace but is able and prepared to fight the aggressor.


Limiting the use of force to a minimum is generally agreed to be the correct position. In this case, disagreeing with Gandhi is not an instance of Communist or Hindu-chauvinist extremism, but of the accumulated wisdom of civilized humanity. Excluding the use of force entirely, by contrast, may simply whet the aggressor�s appetite and provoke far more violence than the achievable minimum. This is a mistake which an overenthusiastic and inexperienced beginner can forgivably make, but in an experienced leader like Mahatma Gandhi during his time at the head of the freedom movement, it was a serious failure of judgment. The silver lining in the massacres which his mistakes provoked, is that they have reminded us of the eternal wisdom of �the golden mean�, the need for a balanced policy vis-�-vis the ever-present challenge of violence and aggression. It has been known all along, and it is crystal-clear once more, that we should avoid both extremes, Jinnah�s self-righteousness and Gandhi�s sentimentalism.

Anonymous said...

You have really a bunch of imbeciles, except you Raj, he rest have no idea of the history of your country, if you wan to bitch about someone, bitch about Nehru at least. And oh yes, using such words cock sucker, bitch, faggot oh sorry fucking gay faggot and so forth does not make you a better man. True idiots you are, you are the reason why India is the state it is in, not Gandhi, not Congress, do you really believe that India would be a better place with a BJP ran goverment. Open yours eyes and realise that both are bad.

Anonymous said...

please read this you imbeciles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi
or maybe you shouldn't it might be propaganda from Congress, the Imperialist British, Pakistan...

ISL said...

Fifth Anonymous, you're right about those bad words not making anyone people. But you were insulting them. Therefore, it doesn't make you better than them. If you don't people insulting others, then you shouldn't do the same.

But for some of you people who hate, I admire for doing that because I never liked his pacifism. Why? 'Cuz I find pacifism to be hypocrisy.

However, I'm not fond of every Gandhi hater in this thread because of how some of them express their hatred for him.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mohammad Rafi said...

Dear Indians,

I feel pity about most of the above comments. I am remembering.... when my mother she sacrifice her life for me even she don't think about her life...but I never appreciate her, when she is no more.. Not once every now, I am thinking about her, " Kaash ek pal ke liye maa vapas aathe tho, main uska pair dooke peerahatha" .....

Similarly, when we are child, our role model is our father, after teen age we just giving suggestion to him, our younger age, we just refusing, arguing with his opinions and some times we tells that, he don't know any thing and when his older age we hate him and want to be not with us.... But when our children are grow up and become young... they use to do the same with us,... that time we realize that, How my father did his job? He is really great.... but to appreciate him, he is no more.....

Dear my brothers and sisters, Mahathma Gandhi, is our national Father and he is every thing for Indians... We are keep on dialoguing and blogging that, "if M. Gandhi is not there we could have freedom before 25 years than 1947". Big Jock....
Just imagine if we are in the time of freedom fighting... how many of us will fight against British???
Those freedom fighter, they lose there whole life to get the freedom for us... but we now teasing them that, we could get before 25 yrs if they didn’t fight. Same like a immature son, teasing his father!!!!
Now we are in Democratic India, did we really full fill our grand fathers' dreams??
India now having 2- Major Political Parties... U.P.A and N.D.A. I am not explaining more... every body knows that, why these politicians want ruling?? How many politicians really thinking about India’s future?? Indian's future??
"At least now we are not thank full to our National Father then we never"
Dear brothers and sisters don’t listen to some people one who compromise with British to come out from the jail. Always be with them one who sacrifice there life, there happy and not compromises until get the freedom. Be with them one who know the values of fathers and mothers, and hate them one who kick out there fathers and mothers to the road. One who neglect our National Father, it is same to neglect our father. JAI HIND

Mohammad Rafi Bellare

Shafieq Ahmad said...

cheers Muhammad... Well said...
But i feel still it wont be enough to make those ill hearted to THINK...lets pray for them
...LONG LIVE INDIA...

Tony said...

I hate Gandhi for the simple reason that he hampered growth.After doing so much for the country gandhi had no reason to oppose the british raj.The british did so much for this country.They established cities,universities,ports etc.Very few people would agree with me,especially Indians.The main reason is that our history books are fabricated.History books say India got freedom.But freedom from what?More than half the people in India still lives in poverty.Do we have good infrastructure?Is there a certain standard of living?Do we have good leaders?Had the British stayed here this country would have been like US,Australia,South Africa etc.The freedom we got is useless.Gandhi may have been a gr8 man,but he failed.

Anonymous said...

Gandhi was a great man, who freed us from the British Bastards, rule! While many of you traitors, still wish to keep sucking those British Bastards cocks, if it weren't for Gandhi, all you bastards saying bad things about gandhi would be slaves today!

Learn to appreciate Gandhi, you British coconuts!

Otherwise go suck those British bastards cocks, who killed millions of our brothers and sisters, fuckin traitors!

Long live India, Long live Gandhi, Long live Bhagat Singh! Inquilab Zindabad, Inquilab Zindabad, Inquilab Zindabad!

Sai said...

TONY -- I really appreaciate your feelings as i too feel the same had the britishers been here in India it would have been a Highly Developed Nation. Our politicians are real Bastards , they care for the ill wealth rather than the nation's growth. I truly admire how the Britishers has the vision for everything.

Anonymous said...

Gandhi wan't a freedom fighter at all.

Hindu said...

Gandhi!he was not gandhi!gandoo,itz perfect for him.he was showered with laks of hindus blood.he encurreged muslim gundas,like you muhammad,you are killing indian history.there was a big indipendent war in 1847.there was no gandhi or nehru.there was only tantiy tope,kumvar simha,nana saheb etc.then tilak,gokhale,lala lajapatha ray faught 4 us.then some lions who called as bhagth sing,chandrashekhar azad,saligram shukla killed by brithish dogs.so our indian history is very huge.so muhammad,reed it carefully,deeply.i salute you nathuram vinayak 'god'se!

Anonymous said...

hindhu ji...jai sriram....the first indipendent war is in 1857...

harshil said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
saurabh said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Great post. Anticipating the next one.

ISL said...

Dang! I forgot to to add "want" between "don't and "people."

Anyway, I'm back to type these things to these people:

1. @the Anonymous who posted on September 5, 2009:

"You're an excuse for a Gandhi hater because you badmouthed Christians. How closed-minded you are. Honestly, are you prejudiced or something? If so, then go ask lots of Christians to beat you up."

2. @the Anonymous who posted on May 29, 2010:

"You're freakin' blind and self-righteous! Do you not know that Gandhi was a hypocrite?

You complain about us sucking up to British yet you suck up to Gandhi?! Screw you, you delusional and hypocritical cunt!

And big 'fuck you' to you for typing "Long live Gandhi!" He was such a goody-two-shoes, which I'm not.

I'll never be a pacifist they're just a bunch of narrow-minded goody-goodies who think in terms of black and white.

You have no right to make us appreciate Gandhi. We can hate him all we want.

You also have no right to make people worship that pacifist bastard. It's sick to worship humans because they're not gods.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who's a traitor since you're shoving your opinion down other people's throats. How would you like it others forced their opinions down your throat?

I'm glad that Gandhi's dead. If you love him so much, then why don't you go join him in death? That way, me and my fellow Gandhi haters won't have to read your crybaby comments."

Muhammad sucks said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Actually gandhi is not father of india
he is father of pakistan .
bcoz of him hindu's of india has suffered a lot.

v said...

Some of the post made by some guys suggest Gandhi as a great man..i ask u guys a simple question?do u feel independent, well many of will say yeah its cool these days...time has changed nobody has time to think abt nation and they are least bothered abt gandhi..For me gandhi was guy because of him i get 2nd oct as holiday..its waste of time to discuss abt him..there is no difference between him and Britishers...motive was to fool normal people(aam adami)..the only difference was he was indian....because of this guy our political system is disaarrya...his initial thought was to dismantel congress on attaining independence...but he was not having balls to supress nehru..he was such a asshole that he could not support his son...now he is just mockery of subject..every other day some corrupt politician will compare himself with gandhi

v said...

Some of the post made by some guys suggest Gandhi as a great man..i ask u guys a simple question?do u feel independent, well many of will say yeah its cool these days...time has changed nobody has time to think abt nation and they are least bothered abt gandhi..For me gandhi was guy because of him i get 2nd oct as holiday..its waste of time to discuss abt him..there is no difference between him and Britishers...motive was to fool normal people(aam adami)..the only difference was he was indian....because of this guy our political system is disaarrya...his initial thought was to dismantel congress on attaining independence...but he was not having balls to supress nehru..he was such a asshole that he could not support his son...now he is just mockery of subject..every other day some corrupt politician will compare himself with gandhi

neelam said...

According to Shri Gopal Godse , "Gandhi was the cruelest to the Hindu people in the history of Bharat."

neelam said...

Gandhi was brought to United India by the British to sabotage the Hindu Nationalism.

neelam said...

The British knew that an independent United India would become a super power because of it's strong Hindu Nationalism because Muslims in India lacked the basic nationalist principles. An evil and perverted soul named Gandhi was the perfect British weapon to misguide the Hindu society

neelam said...

A small list of Indian matyrdom:-
1. Guru Arjun Dev(killed by Mughal Jahangir)
2. Guru Teg Bahadur(killed by Mughal Aurangzeb)
3. Guru Gobind Singh's children(killed by Mughal Aurangzeb)
4. Sambhaji who was Shivaji's son(killed by Mughal Aurangzeb)
5. Madan Lal Dhingra(killed by the British)
6. Sardar Bhagat Singh, Shri Rajguru, Shri Sukhdev(killed by the British and Gandhi)
Not a single prominent Muslim ever sacrificed his life for Bharat.
Yet, Gandhi called an evil cold-blooded criminal Abdul Rashid(who murdered Swami Shradhdhananda) to be a patriot

Jayesh said...

Hi Everyone,
thanks to blog writer.
Many pages of History are hidden by congress. So many peoples dont know the dark side of gandhi. He was a politician running congress party.
he was not a patriot like veer savarkar, bhagat singh and many more.
In 1940, british was in bad situation due to second world war. Netaji subhashchandra bose and other congress leaders was asking to gandhi for taking a new movement at that time when britishers was in bad situation. But Gandhi refused that demand and he told "I will not take movement when my enemy is weak."
In 1941 At the outset of the war, Netaji left India, travelling to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, seeking an alliance with each of them to attack the British government in India. He did very good job there.
In 1942 when gandhi got news that bose is going to attack on british company and gandhi took "The Quit India Movement".
My Point is Why gandhi took a movement in 1942? That time also Britishers was in war and bad situation.
I think, he was scared of Netaji Bose's popularity. He knew that If Netaji attack British in India and if win the battle then Congress and Mahatma will no more.

neelam said...

Q:-How Gandhi created fresh Islamic terrorism in the 20th century?
Ans:-
1. Gandhi called Hindus and Muslims to be brothers of each other knowing very well that Islam preaches hatred towards non-muslims.
2. Gandhi ignored all the murder, rape, torture, forceful conversion to Islam of Hindus in the hands of Muslims for 700 years before the British rule
3. Gandhi called muslims to be patriots and nationalists although he knew that a muslim would live and die for Islam and not India.
4. Gandhi legalized rape of Hindu women by muslims by saying that a Hindu woman should not protest when she is being raped by a muslim.
5. Gandhi legalized murder of Hindus in the hands of muslims by saying that the Moplah rebellion was a part of the Indian Freedom movement.
6. Gandhi gave fiery speeches saying that Indian muslims had special rights and justified their need for a separate muslim state in United India.
7. Gandhi was the founding father of Pakistan(including Bangladesh) which is the MOTHER OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

neelam said...

Gandhi was totally a self-centered creature.
Gandhi only cared for his own life, ego and fame.
Gandhi didn't even care for his wife and children or their future existence.
So how could Gandhi care for the Hindu community or perhaps any community?
According to Shri Gopal Godse "The more was the blood-shed of Hindus in the hands of muslims, the higher would fly Gandhi's flag of secularism."

Nachiket said...

why so much hatred guys.... lets live peacefully...

NARENDRA KUMAR said...

We have crossed 63 Years after Gandhi. May I know what are the developments we people have done to the country after Gandhi. Agreed Gandhi is a hypocrite, but what are we? Are we people having the guts to fight corrupt politicans. Gandhi didn't blame anyone he took front, he is a real hero. We people just blame others and took heels when problem arises. My humble request study Gandhi and then speak.

Anonymous said...

idhi ayye pani kaadhu le lite theeskondi

Arindam Saha said...

Why Gandhi never allowed Netaji
Bose to preside over as a president of congress ? This one was the biggest blunder he made in fact.This was like initiating chain reactions of blunders.

Anonymous said...

On the 65th Independance day which I feel should have been 80th or 90th, I feel bitter that Indian Independance is considered a legacy of one man who according to me has all the selfish motives to become a mahatma.

Even today the west praises him and his ideology but can never follow his path coz it is unrealistic and utter nonsense to practise Ahimsa. They just want to laud us for our patience and keep on taking us back to the Ahimsa so that we as Indians practice tolerance and patience for all the injust happening to the country while they can carry on veiled attacks on other countries in the pretext of safeguarding their people.

Let's get back to what happened and what should have happened in our independance struggle.

A guy was slapped and thrown out of a train in South Africa. If he was a mahatma he wouldnt have felt insult at this. Mahatma is somebody who is detached from all emotions. Well this guy could not fight back as he wanted to coz he was physically incapable. He was too soft a man. So what does he do he says i will fight force with Ahimsa. Now, when I try to go through pages in history I dn't see a single incident where independance was won by peaceful manner. It is utter rubbish.

Most of the time human instincts are made to protect the human from any kind of opressive behavior. If somebody slaps me i will slap him back. I don't see a point why I should put the other cheek in front of him. There is a country where if u kill the president it's like waging war against the state. And here if u attack a person you are suppose to let the attack happen?? Mr Gandhi tried to curb human nature and instincts. In his political career I failed to understand why he was never beaten up or tortured while people following him were slaughtered. The people who died without fight for their mother land...didn't they have the right to fight for their land, didnt ehy have the right to hit back at the opressive forces.

I believe people followed him just because we Indians are too lazy to do anything radical. In the last 65 years there has been no revolution just for the reason we are too selfish and busy with our lives to think or see the big picture. Indians at that time had a choice either to join armed revolution or sit on hunger strike. And guess what they chose. We chose the easy way out of sitting it out even if somebody canes us to death. The whole non violence movement was a farce and looked like we are begging the British to give us freedom based on pity. People still believe that we earned our freedom as one man's agitation but they fail to understand that in the modern world that was emerging after the world war 2, countries were forced to leave control over their colonies. British couldnt have managed their image keeping India as its colony in a new world.

I fail to understand how the potent mantra of 'tum mujhe khoon do ..main tumhe azaadi dunga' couldnt have got us freedom within two years. A country of billion and a handful of British army. Really??? couldnt we have done it?? Gandhi didnt create Pakistan but Pakistan was created because of the collective weak leadership of India led by Gandhi and Nehru. Nehru because he has to appease Gandhi who was crying like a kid for his long lost brother Jinnah. Who was Gandhi to decide a country's fate. The tone of a country or a team is set by its leadership. A weak leadership was the result of the deabcle called Pakistan.

Gandhi is worse than Hitler. Hitler was blatant in his actions and did whatever he did without hiding anything. Gandhi did all this just to become Mahatma. He killed more people than Hitler killed Jews.

Summary, I feel we Indians are lazy and we made Gandhi a Mahatma coz we decided not to revolt.

The legacy of lathargy and unwillingness to do something radical is still so alive in this modern society.

IRespectHSRA said...

All the Gandi lovers here. know this fact for sure.
Gandhi is/was a self proclaimed freedom fighter.... He used to fast(on weekends).

Dont U ppl know any history....

He was outside India singing all queen all his life.Worked for the Brits. And comes to India after his retirement.(no wonder we have the old vultures as our political leaders who follow his footpath)

He called of so many freedom movements at his personal interest. Does 1 person decide if the country is ready for freedom??

Don't let me get started on the Hindu-Muslim riots he initiated..

Why was Subhash Chandra Bose against his Ideas.
Sardar vallab Bhai Patel was against the money given to the Pakistanis...

21,22 yr old people sacrificed their lives.Dont U have any courtesy towards those Martyrs?
Jatin Das
Bhagat Singh
ChandraShekar Azad
Sukhdev Thappar
Rajguru
Ramprasad Bismil
Udham Singh
Kartar Singh Sarabha

There are so many.....

Why do U ppl keep sucking to gandhi?

All the freedom fighters should be given equal respect and take off this damn bald face off the currencies and stuffs.

Else

Be happy about the corruption and say nothing againts it.



Ps:- Bhagat singh and his friends fasted for more than 60 days and gandhi used to fast on weekends then caressed by girls.(maybe thats why you think he's father of nation)


There's load of them to tell.....
But you ppl are my Indian brothers and sisters. I just have to say this......

Stop worshiping one person and respect everyone equally.
Lets not forget the sacrifices be overshadowed for one man's fame.

Aniket Junnare said...

Martyr Nathuraam Godse is the Saviour.......

Anonymous said...

Recently an Independence day of India completed..and the number is counting 64, 65 and so on...my mom on my childhood said some words about gandhi, netaji, nehru and all as they are just like gods coz they got independence for us.. I think so and be proud of them upto some age...then after seeing the fame that created or had...by publishing them on currency notes. But as an adult now I came to know what all happened on the scene of independence and this fucking politics killed many REAL PATRIOTS for their selfish and idiotic idealogies. I never understand the word Non-violence part in our freedom struggle. Many guys said the best. We are super power here. Why we had begged to leave our country. I really hate Gandhi.. Thanks to Godse orelse some more blood sheds might had happen..!!!

Jai Hind ...

Anonymous said...

I strongly agree with this...Gandhi is selfish giant who killed many of our honourable fighters.He loves fame that why treated hindus as Lamb.
1>If he is really mahatma then what is the reason which made him fight when he was not allowed to travel in train?
2>Why he partitioned pakistanis...?
3>Why he is opposing Bose then?
All he need is to develop fame and want to be worshipped,read history clearly and comment guys...Jai Hind!!!

Indian By Heart said...

lets worship the souls of all those honorable Indian patriots whose name are either recorded in history in golden letters or esle forgotten in time, who sacrificed their lives or devoted it entirely for freeing our country and giving us all the right to be the biggest democratic nation. Lets vow upon honesty and eradicate corruption for all and once as sure it wasn't their idea of a free India with so much of scams ruling on her chest.
Jai Hind, Jay Sahid.....