did India move away from Gandhism? - Page 4

Thank you --arti--.😊 You are making very good points as well.

Sorry for confusing between the IDs, but it may happen sometime. I hope you dont think I mean to offend 😒

OK, white man's burden is maybe bad poem. But I am white woman, not man 😆. Kipling was British and he was member of the ruling people in India. So maybe he defended his position. But it is responsibility of British to give better security and economic welfare to India as India was their colony and in their custody. If British did not do so, then they were wrong. But many Indians love to talk more in English and love everything Western. This always makes me feel they actually find more good than bad with the English.

Poles on the other hand are very opposite. It is rare for Polish people to speak Russian, Turkish or even English, unless we studied some foreign languages. We do trade easily, and we also have our own music bands. Overall picture is that we are developing with consistency on our own history, with no conquerors influence 😊. Polish dresses, professional or casual, are all very Polish and not English.

I felt Gandhi tried same for India, and give it its own unique identity. But seem to me that he is not that successful in India, other than the fact that it gave India independence. There are theories that India could never get independence through violence due to superior British military. The British had Indian troops and Indian spies for their empire. They used money too from India. Many things that made India a colony are rare in the world. Do you know that India was the only developed civilization which became a colony for British, rest were from Africa and new lands they discovered.

USA is a headache to Poland too . Many demonstrations happen in Warsaw and Cracow. They want to build a missile defense shied in Poland to threaten Russia. This is very dangerous for Poland as Russia warns that if it wishes it can attack Poland to destroy the defense shield 😕. But USA dont want to listen. We are in mess for that. But this is how global politics is and we all need to survive in it.

Someone mentioned about Pakistan and Bangladesh being different to India. Is it something you belief? You all are same people and now divided. Gandhi wanted to prevent this. Very sad episode. Same with North and South Korea. Why you became to weak to your colonizers? Other countries were colonized too, but all of them fought to protect their identity.

As for Jungle book, its just a book. I wish my son to know more of his father's land just as he will obviously know of his mother's land. We live in Poland, so he will grow up here mostly. He will visit his grandparents in India. I hope he will speak Hindi too 😊. He is very small now, 5+ months 😊

Originally posted by: Polki_Zofi

I dont think you quite getting me 😊. But its OK. You are right that inventions and research are a global asset, but as long as the world exist, name like Einstein the German Scientist and Kopernicus the Pole, or Newton the English will remain forever. So will Gandhi the Indian's name. No one can dissociate or belittle it. Infact, these minds brought pride to their nations and gave the world gifts which have made it better.

 

 

 

I wish you best of luck, but remember that India still is best known for Gandhi. More than even Taj Mahal. A wonderful soul to have touched humanity. We hope we can learn much from him.

Edited by sub_rosa - 11 years ago

I don't dream of Maharaja and rope trick anymore 😊. But I saw much beggers (small children), and I think there are many tiger and snakes in India (according to all the channels and books). Tajmahal is there in India, and Gandhi is more universal than just Indian. I think everything we think is not so wrong is it? 😉😊

I admit that my statement was generalized and hyperbolic. Surely there are many Westerners who know and love India more than the Indians. Yes, of course there is some truth in these stereotypes. But the problem is that these stereotypes overtly simplify a complex phenomenon. It gets really annoying after a point. The process of acculturation is not the same as copying other cultures and becoming like them. Acculturation means the exchange of ideas between cultures and then developing those ideas/features in their own distinctive ways. It has happened everywhere. Indian culture is one of the oldest and most vibrant cultures in the world. And it has survived till date because it was able to change itself with time, enriching and strengthening itself with all that the other civilizations had to offer, never losing its own essence. And let me tell you again, this is the exact same way the other cultures of the world have evolved too. There were always cities in India throughout the length and breadth of history, the extant ones being nearly 4000 years old. So it is not factually correct to say that only the villages represent India or that the cities were established due to Western influences. The city-culture is (and always was) also an integral part of India. And in this age of globalization, most big cities around the world look pretty much the same, the youngsters wear pretty much the same clothes, and speak in pretty much the same language. That is how the world has evolved. The Indian cities still have a lot of cultural particularities though (apart from the beggars, the garbage and the bullock-carts😆) that set them apart from other metros of the world. Edited by sub_rosa - 11 years ago

Would like to clarify a few facts regarding indian independence struggle and role of gandhi people said gandhi used non-violence,its was gandhi who told indian soldier's to fight alongside british during WW2 how was he supposed to be non-violent when he is sending his countrymen to die for another country secondly it was nt gandhi's so called non-violent movements which forced england to leave india bt it was the mutiny in the indian navy and army which happend becoz the prisoner's of war from Subhash chandra bose's army wer nt given fair trail n sentenced to death which angered the indian army soldier's who used to work for british in india. This has been stated by the then prime minister of england in his official interview that gandhi's role was minimal in independence,n it was the mutiny in bombay from which england realised that without the help of indian soldier's they wont b able to control india Edited by Pratamesh - 11 years ago

Gandhi was a racist, castist pawn of the British empire. He shot into prominence after attacks on British properties became rampant. The British knew that if the Indians kept attacking their properties, they would lose control. Enter Gandhi, a British loyalist.

The fake mahatma was nothing but an imposter used by the British to control India.

If people do want to idolize someone there's a lot of greats like Bhagat Singh, Azad, Ambedkar, Bose etc to choose from.

At his point in debate, I think it would be safe to conclude that top 3 believers in Gandhism are following Edited by King-Anu - 11 years ago

Mahatma Gandhi is still referred as Mahatma or Bapu by us, even when we are criticising him, so he is still revered. But he is human, so he has done a lot of mistakes, some of which he accepted in his lifetime only. So he is not above criticism. And other freedome fighters are equally  respected in India, their sacrifice, their contribution revered . You know it now, after 60 yrs simply because the world is a smaller place now with information at the tip of your finger.

Originally posted by: sub_rosa

 

 

@Green: Thank you. All the best to you as well. It was nice talking to you. I know that the Western countries nurture certain stereotypical ideas about India, Taj Mahal, Gandhi, beggars, elephants, tigers, snakes, Maharajas and rope-tricks. I find it quite amusing.😆