"It is better to be violent..." Ghandi.

He wanted Indian independece. He got Indian independence. Pretty realistic imo.

He wanted Indian independece. He got Indian independence. Pretty realistic imo.

He wanted a United India. D'oh.

He wanted India to return to rural farming and shun technology. D'oh.

He wanted India to be isolationist and not trade with foreign powers. D'oh.

He had a lot of nice notions and sure you can like him for that. But people who hold him up as a man with answers are deluded. Even the politicians at the time saw this.

The unification required violence.

Huh?

what about these?

The one I cited is far more interesting than yours because it reflects both a side of Ghandi most people did not know about and that he his ideas were not just peace and love but something more complex and ambiguous.

I don't think Hyderabad and Goa would have just willingly joined the Union if war hadn't been declared by the Indian Government. Arguably Maharashtra too.

I'm talking about the Pakistan - India split tbh. I think we're at crossed wires.

No - it isn't about Pakistan. Hyderabad was an Islamic state at the time of independence in 1947 and refused to join the Union. The Indian Government couldn't tolerate that in the centre of it's territory, especially if it was reinforced by Western/Pakistani forces so it was invaded and the Nizam was exiled (see Operation Polo).

Likewise many coastal territories were still under Western control in 1947 (Diu, Daman, Mahé, Karaikal, Yanam, Pondicherry etc.). Some of these were surrendered to the Indian Government in the 1950s with no violence. Portugal did not hand over Goa and the Indian Government could not tolerate such a large area under Western control so it was invaded and taken (see Operation Vijay).

you said "violence is never the answer" an i gave an example where is IS the answer...

i don't really see how "violence is never the answer" can be misinterpreted/have deeper meaning, it is a pretty straightforward sentence.

Just because it's Ghandi who said that doesn't mean he is right

violence is never the answer

Are you SURE it was Ghandi that said that?

I believe it. I know, you wouldn't expect it, and I always assumed Ghandi was quite peace-loving. But you would really be surprised at the number of anti-semitic quotes you could find on him. Seemingly very out of character from most people's perceptions.

He wanted a United India. D'oh.

He wanted India to return to rural farming and shun technology. D'oh.

He wanted India to be isolationist and not trade with foreign powers. D'oh.

He had a lot of nice notions and sure you can like him for that. But people who hold him up as a man with answers are deluded. Even the politicians at the time saw this.

I concede that he did want a United India, and that did not happen, but I don't think that it was an unrealistic expectation. At the time, putting aside religious differences for the freedom of your people, doesn't seem too unreasonable.

The second paragraph is bull****. He believed in that people should lead a simple life free from excess, I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say he wanted them to shun technology. With the rural farming bit, I don't really have a clue about that one, although I could perhaps see that as being a metaphor for the return to Indian culture pre-colonisation?

With the isolationism, can you really blame him? For hundreds of years India was divided up under the rule of these foriegn powers, it's hardly fair to say, "oh forgive and forget, come trade with us now". Besides, trading with the European powers was not necessarily in India's best interests.

He was an idealist. There is no question about that. But I think it's impossible to criticise him for being one. So much of what he was able to bring about, even if compromise had to be reached, was far beyond the imagination of most of the Indian populace at the time.