Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale

re:#1065 by Beej
It is a pity that we even have to defend one of the greatest human beings who ever lived in the 20th century and that too with the Puki crowd of half witted morons. YLH belongs to a special category. May be Jinnah will one day resurface from the grave just to pat him on his back!
Sridhar

re:#1061 by Beej
Thanks again for those beautiful pictures. This one is particularly precious (i do not know what your sources are but they are fabulous). Lapierre mentions the words in his tribute to the Mahatma in his book Freedom at midnight. In case Indians on chowk did not read it, here is the version again in bigger print (written in the editorial page soon after Gandhiji`s death; the whole page except the tribute, was left blank):

Gandhi has been killed….
This second crucifixion in the history of the world
Has been enected on a Friday- the same day Jesus
Was done to death, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen years ago.
Father, forgive us!
Sridhar

Re: # 1096


``Also Gandhi was naive in his belief that Hitler could be transformed were the latter to really read the Bible. You are being similarly naive in believing that a person who has chosen to be what he is can be turned into a human being were he or she to actually read Gandhi`s words. ``

I have realised that manto and behram are just the product of paks identity as are hamidm, godot.

it was interesting to listen to their view-points and arguments.

manto wouldn`t go beyond certain quotes and behram would arrive at unsubstantiated conclusions and then ask others to disprove them.

at least it has exposed the ``open-mindedness`` of the highly-educated ``liberal`` pakis. it has more to do than just gandhi, i think it is about the hatred they harbour for hindus.

re:#1067 by Mantolives
Regarding pix posted by Beej, here is my answer to your question:
There is none. Do u have a picture that shows jinnah was sleeping with his own sister. There is none. That does not mean it did not happen. The guy was a sex starved lunatic after his wife`s death.
Sridhar

Re: # 1067

manto:

i thought you knew better. gandhis satyagraha was for the rights of indians, it didn`t involve africans. was it that the africans came to him and he kicked them out?

anyway, have you seen ``seculsr`` jinnah with africans or addressing hindu mobs?

To Pakistanis in Pakistan: Please go and do something for your countrymen in need. Collect food, volunteer your time for some relief work away from your home if you are not impacted.

To Pakistanis away from Pakistan: Go collect funds from your own folks or from general public at malls or whatever.

Your people need real help. Gandhi is not going anywhere, wherever he is. You can always argue with indians later. This match will never be over and you wont loose face if you dont respond.

Take care.

1067 expresses a historical query...

The wonderful picture show Beej subjected us to... shows Gandhi doing everything from going to the bathroom to leading prayer meetings...

As I have not seen the whole thing ... is there any picture which shows him standing next to a person of African origin? We know there were several of those in India ... This is a historical query because such a claim has been made... and I want to verify it.

Ordinarily it would be of no significance... but given his views on racial purity and sub-human status of the Black race, gandhi`s picture assumes immense importance...

Re: # 1098

dude manto:

i don`t take your rantings seriously anymore.

you carry on with you one-line gems.

you are a wasted talent

Re: # 1101

``Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity.``

ask your cheer-leader whether jinnah wanted pakistan or it was forced on him by congress/gandhi.

you will come out with a big surprise, isn`t manto miya ;)

Re: # 1099

``With due respects this is exactly why I have been suggesting that Gandhi was inauthentic. These days we call it being flaky. Without insulting any body, I repeat your words...
[gandhi was wrong wrt hitler.] [moreover when asked later would he defend the country by satyagraha if hitler invaded``

behram:

it is my undrstanding that you have no clue about gandhi or jinnah. you just landed on this thread when you saw anti-gandhi lines in the article.
earlier i thought you really have some scoop on gandhi and will defend it intelligently as you have done in case romair. but your posts have confirmed that you are a silly debator and have no grasp of topic at hand. you are jumping from one argument to another just to prove that gandhi was ``inauthentic`` without substantiating anything.
you jumped in the bandwagon claiming gandhi was anti-women solely on the basis of the article and 300+ posts.
then you started calling gandhi anti-jew
now you are saying gandhi was ``inauthentic`` because he said that saytagraha won`t work against hitler.
my understanding of your ``inauthentic``-ness is that a person should cling to his/her beliefs and not modify/change if the belief is useless/doesn`t suit the current scenario. and even if it causes suffereing. Well, from where i come it is called, stubborness, adamant

i have realised that you still havn`t replied to my jinnahs question.
let me rewrite it :

initially jinnah was an ambassodor of hindu-muslim unity but later said ``hindu and muslims are two separate nations``

hence acoording to ``your`` definition won`t it make him ``in-authentic``.
if yes.

you were initially saying that jinnah was ``authentic`` but now after conming to the above conclusion you will also turn out to be ``inautheticate``, isn`t?

---

also, no one was discussing that gandhis satyagraha was an all-weather movement. the discussion was about manto and family calling him racist/casteist/male chavunist. its seems that in order to prove gandhis ``in-authenitic``-ness you lost track of the discussion itself.

---

``Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women``

i am still waiting for your arguments on this. once again manto and family`s arguments are disbarred on the basis of shallowness.

---

``and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits. ``

yet again, it was never a part of the discussion. no one has so far claimed that gandhis non-violent strategy is applicable is all scenarios.

Re: # 1100

Dear kaalchakra:

I am sorry that I got to you so late. You have always been my favorite. I was just stuck explaining your other Gandhi lovers regarding their views. I hope that you have the the forgiveness that Gandhi so eloquently suggeted that an ``eye for an eye`` would make the whole world blind. How anti-jewish that could be? But, of course that argument is for another day another site, please stay tuned.

Right now we just have to deal with Gandhi`s inauthenticity and his integrity regarding women.

Please rest assured I am no where close to shaping [Nothing personal, but one sincerely hopes that you do not have any role in shaping the destiny of even a mouse, let alone the whole of Pakistan.] anything. I have a hard enough time working with my own growth. You see like Gandhi I am always a work-in-progress. Unlike him though, I am a Zoroastrian, and have to always remain a subdued member of the minority community.

I submit, respectfully

``Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity.``

Does Jinnah need such friends and admirers? People of such fine logical skills and highly developed sense of morality and fair play?

Re: # 1095

Dear Netizen:

Please do turn [my attempt is to turn behram arguments upside down. just stay tuned.]

I will be a very happy camper to see Gandhi`s authenticity validated at this site.

The question still remains that Gandhi was inauthentic. The fact is obviously missing out on you. Read this article. Would it not be better to discuss about the article? then dignifying my posts. I thank you for that, and Oh yes. Jinnah wanted Pakistan and he got it. That is authenticity. That is 100% integrity. You do what you say you do, and you do it. Got it.

I remain, humbled by the knowledge I develop by your interaction, and I submit respectfully,

``We have two (2) strikes against Gandhi. Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women, and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits.``

Respected Behramji

Nothing personal, but one sincerely hopes that you do not have any role in shaping the destiny of even a mouse, let alone the whole of Pakistan.

As usual, glad to see you still alive and so full of respect for everyone.

Re: # 1088

Dear Netizen:

With due respects this is exactly why I have been suggesting that Gandhi was inauthentic. These days we call it being flaky. Without insulting any body, I repeat your words...
[gandhi was wrong wrt hitler.] [moreover when asked later would he defend the country by satyagraha if hitler invaded india, he said no.] Obviously, his non-violent strategy had limitations. Do you agree?

If you agree, then we have two (2) strikes against Gandhi. Strike one (1) is that Gandhi had problem with women, and strike two (2) his non-violent strategy had limits.

I submit, with utmost respect and humility

Dear netizen...

Your posts have been typical hagiographic nonsense... which have not contradicted my claims about Gandhi...

You are welcome to take up the issue in 1067... or should I repeat it?