Gandhi was a fool. His stupid policy of non-violence played into the hands of the Brits. No wonder they were happy to hold him up as a shining example of Indian heroism. Ugh, to think that Indian schoolchildren even today are brainwashed on a steady diet of pro-Gandhi propaganda.

I don't espouse violence for the sake of it, but Gandhi's espousal of turning the other cheek is just insulting to millions of people throughout history who have had to fight and die in order to overthrow oppression.

Thanks Vinod for shedding light on the foolishness of Gandhi!
Can you please work on exposing the naivete of Martin Luther King. As they say, if the US Government were the Nazis then Martin Luther King would end up as a burnt toast.

Well, I think part of the reason Gandhi's policy of ahimsa is so all-pervasive in his world-view is because it ties into his sprituality.

For somebody who believes that violence is morally wrong no matter the cause, ahimsa is not just a moral high ground, it is bad karma in the rebirth cycle. If death is not something to be avoided or to be afraid of, and this life decides what happens after death, it would be the logical conclusion to make this life the best lived-life you can.

I believe that would be very hard to do consistently and require tremendous courage.

Well, what exactly were the peace protesters protesting? Going after OBL or the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq? My guess is the latter. Thompson again lumps the two together.
Thompson asks, "At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?"

The point at which it is ok to fight them is when they pose a real, credible threat, which Iraq never did.

The point at which it is ok to fight them is when they pose a real, credible threat, which Iraq never did.

We are fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them here.

Tough one - I agree that Gandhi benefitted greatly from the nature of his opponents. Leave aside the Nazis, even the Belgians had bloody hands in the Congo. The Japanese were barbaric in China, the Philippines, and Korea.

Just as protestors can understandably ask, "What gives one man the right to order thousands of others into battle?" you could also ask, "What gives one man the right to order thousands to commit collective suicide?" as would have been the case if the Jews heeded his advice. Just as Gandhi argued that Britain had no place in India, so Gandhi's pacifism had no place in Europe.

While Gandhi was able to use shame against the British, and benefitted from British exhaustion after WWII, he had zero luck with Jinnah. Jinnah saw a goal, and was not won over by appeals to Hindu-Muslim amity. Same tactic, different opponent, different result.

As a good Bengali and Netaji supporter, I can't agree with GandhiJI about the higher morality of self-sacrifice but I'm with the skinny guy on his ideas about sleeping naked with the girls. (Wait till the DA hears about that!)

It's one thing to acknowledge how puny Satyagraha seems in the face of the concentration camps, but it's quite another to suggest that Mohandas Gandhi is of a class with Mel Gibson and Michael Richards. The comparison is simply bizarre, and seems to be more about your anger at Gandhi than about anything substantive.

Gandhi, The Jews And Palestine

Another guy who was also likely surprised by Gandhi’s determination to prescribe his strategy to the bitter end (well, for the Jews at least) was one Louis Fisher. He asked Gandhi to clarify his position which he did rather unequivocally - Louis Fisher, Gandhi’s biographer asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” Gandhi responded, “Yes, that would have been heroism.”

Well, the Jews have been there, done that, so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada

Oh yeah. Let the Gestapo torture & kill you but refuse to owe them allegiance. That’ll show ‘em. Needless to say, you can put me on Fred Thompson’s side on this particular debate.

"Well, the Jews have been there, done that, so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada"

slightly off-topic, but "masada" was one of the best tv mini-series, in my opinion.

I don't get the mandatory ji suffix and the Mahatma prefix. Gandhi was a man, not a God. Call him Mohandas Gandhi and let's leave it at that.

Sorry, messed up my blockquote tags.

Pish posh. Of course you didn't. ;)

Just as protestors can understandably ask, "What gives one man the right to order thousands of others into battle?" you could also ask, "What gives one man the right to order thousands to commit collective suicide?" as would have been the case if the Jews heeded his advice.

I agree with Mr. Kobayashi. Gandhi's ideas of non-violence may not have applied to conventional wisdom in the case of European Jews. But then what you're witnessing here is a conservative hit job in progress. Take a few ambigious quotes and quote them out of context and implicitly suggest he is an anti-Semite. He did not preach anything different to the Jews than what he preached to the Indian people.

Pssst. “Gandhi was a fool” belongs to Nas Uncle. Biters make him grumpy.

I think Gandhi's point was that showing allegiance to the oppressor = taking action on their behalf.

These quotes go to show that Gandhi was a philosopher in addition to being a human rights activist. Philosophers don't always take into account the reality of the day because they are talking about metaphysical ideas that are spiritual goals that can't be grounded in reality. We are all therefore free to reject this philosophy just as we are free to reject existentialism or any other philosophical outlook. Rejecting Gandhi's philosophy, or parts of it any way, is not inconsistent with accepting his accomplishments as a human rights activist.

Whatever the merits of the arguments for or against Gandhi's position on the Nazis, it has exactly zero relevance to the so-called "war on terror". As people have pointed out above, the Nazis were a real threat, at least after their invasion of Poland.I think even linking the Gandhi position to Fred Thompson's speech is a huge logical boo boo. We can expect the likes of Fred 'greatness of America' Thompson commit such elementary errors (indeed one can argue that politicians literally depend on such willful errors for their bread and butter) but to fall for it ourselves would be abandoning independent thought and letting others frame the issues.

Typo: should be likes of Fred 'greatness of America' Thompson to commit such elementary errors (indeed one can argue that politicians literally depend on such willful errors for their bread and butter)

I hate these typos, (this is what happens when you try to type while watching cricket): should be it has exactly zero relevance for the so-called "war on terror"

Gandhi is really just a straw man in Thompson's argument. Even for Gandhi to be relevant in such a discussion, the terms would have to be reversed -- not what would Gandhi suggest Americans do to tin pot dictators abroad, but what should the Iraqis do in the face of American occupation? Ol' Fred should stick to his day job, offering up pithy bourbon-soaked bits of Tennessee wisdom on Law & Order.

As a good Bengali and Netaji supporter, I can't agree with GandhiJI about the higher morality of self-sacrifice but I'm with the skinny guy on his ideas about sleeping naked with the girls. (Wait till the DA hears about that!)

Gandhi was a fool

Gandhi had a certain worldview as a philosopher, and the opinions he expressed were completely consistent with his philosophy. I think it is too much to expect a certain philosophy to be applicable without change in every context.

I do not think anyone who puts up a poster saying 'what would Gandhi do' means that the US should dismantle their border security mechanisms and invite the Al Qaeda to come over and blow things up. That would be an absurdly literalist interpretation. But the US can certainly take something from Gandhi's philosophy of treating the enemy with love and dignity by cutting down on the demonization of the Islamic world and offering better treatment to the prisoners at Gitmo.

As for accusing Gandhi of anti-semitism based on these remarks, well, what can I say: if the gun don't fire, you just hit him with the butt.

"If Gandhi was a fool then Bose was a coward. Gandhi was way more courageous and intelligent than any of his contemporaries."

both were flawed and sometimes naive men who had good intentions and different thoughts about how to achieve their goals. there's no need to devalue either of their contributions (or those of others of that era) because they chose different routes. for bose, the british were the reality, not hitler, hence his misguided attempts to seek help from germany. for gandhi, the british were the reality, not hitler. for the jews, hitler was the reality, not the british (except in Palestine). i think gandhi's attitudes towards palestine should also be seen in light of the ground realities of india and his attempts to prevent a split of india. same with his advice to indians in general and hindus in particular. it stemmed from a mix of belief in ahimsa and being philosophical and a down-to-earth practicality and reality. whether you agree with it or not, is another matter.

I think the point hasn't been emphasized adequately enough that Gandhi held these views all-round and not just with respect to the Jews. One time someone asked him if he would ever, under any circumstances, commit violence – like say if someone was about to rape his niece or something. Gandhi's response was that under those circumstances he would have no choice but to kill his niece! (Since he had to show compassion towards the wrongdoer). This is about the only time as far as I can recall that he agreed he might have to commit a violent act. I don't think it is out of line to call this type of thinking utter foolishness, in fact, evil. Any ideology pursued in the extreme is evil and this is no exception. Many lives were actually lost because of Gandhi's stubborn insistence on non-violence. Of course, he was interesting and unique and inspiring in many other ways.

Before asking, "what would Gandhi do", I would like someone to explain why the question is relevant in this context. I think Preston is right. Iraqis should be asking themselves this question (at least those participating in armed resistance). I also think that a non-violent resistance against the occupation along with non-cooperation is a far better and indeed, moral method. In fact it can be argued that it was the non-violent protests led by grand ayatollah Sistani that compelled the U.S. to hold elections in the first place (I'm not going to go through the details here).

I think the survival of the fittest applies here to some degree.
Before independence, there were a lot of different kind of Independence movements in fashion. Some people were trying to use armed rebellion and had very limited success (they did provide a lot of stimulus though, like Bhagat Singh), some were working with English in government, considering themselves as opposition, but English hardly gave them anything substantial.

Gandhi had its own way of opposing British , just like others. But it was more suitable for Indian independence movement because of the nature of his opponent as well as number and position of Indians in British Rule. And it worked beautifully, despite some stupid decisions (like taking back andolen after Chauri Chaura) he still was very instrumental in getting us Independence. He made us pay a big price for it in terms of partition (which a lot of people believe was actually good for India in log run), but he gets the MVP for independence movement nonetheless.

Does it make him universally applicable, hell no! Specially if your oppressors think that you are vermins.

If he was doing the same thing in Nazi Germany, he would have been nipped in the bud and converted into soap long time before he could become a great man, just like Bhagat Sing was killed before he can become a great leader (he was already a legend though).

On the side note I have a feeling if he was alive at the time of later wars with Pakistan, he might have caused India a lot of grief.

some quickie responses...

if the US Government were the Nazis then Martin Luther King would end up as a burnt toast

I think Gandhi's point was that showing allegiance to the oppressor = taking action on their behalf. Laying down and dying with no allegiance means at least you don't actually collude with your oppressor.

what you're witnessing here is a conservative hit job in progress. Take a few ambigious quotes and quote them out of context

Philosophers don't always take into account the reality of the day because they are talking about metaphysical ideas that are spiritual goals that can't be grounded in reality.

Whatever the merits of the arguments for or against Gandhi's position on the Nazis, it has exactly zero relevance to the so-called "war on terror"....I think even linking the Gandhi position to Fred Thompson's speech is a huge logical boo boo.

I have a hard time believing that regardless of which society one is in, the "suffering is good for the soul" mentality is positive.

As a good Bengali and Netaji supporter, I can't agree with GandhiJI about the higher morality of self-sacrifice but I'm with the skinny guy on his ideas about sleeping naked with the girls. (Wait till the DA hears about that!)

Didn't Subash Chandra Bose (I refuse to call him Netaji) beg Hitler for help. Besides he was always on the run, which implies that he didn't have balls.

Gandhi was a fool

If Gandhi was a fool then Bose was a coward. Gandhi was way more courageous and intelligent than any of his contemporaries.

Because I am a bengali, my parochial sentiments urge me to not converse with you but do something physical. Sometimes, actions speak louder than words (that's giving away my biases).

Whoever engages in the tired debate of Gandhi/Netaji fail to see the positive things in either of them. It is neither Gandhi's nor Bose's fault, it's our jaundiced eye. Both gave up their lives for the country.

But what do I know? My guess is both of you are way better than Gandhi and/or Bose. Show us the path. Should Indians run away to Amrika?

Gandhi was a humanist. Yes, he used shame and guilt of his opponents. But he could connect to the masses, and Indians could see him as one of their own, and he was used by other politicians. His ideas were incongruent with the self-interest inherent in the idea of nation-states (which got reified afer World War II; we have hindsight bias). The idea of India is far greater the narrow notion of a nation-sate.

I think it was Gandhi who said, "If Bose was here, this partition wouldn't have happened."

He made us pay a big price for it in terms of partition

Fred Thomspon et. al. didn't introduce Gandhi into the debate, the anti-war activists did

If they did, then it was a mistake. But Fred's response is equally a mistake. As Preston said (and I am inclined to agree), the question is far more relevantly asked of the Iraqi's who are fighting the occupation (not the one's fighting each other).

naiverealist's assertion that many of India's freedom-fighters were cosmopolitan humanists at heart applies more to Nehru than Gandhi (not that it does not apply to Gandhi), note the italicized part in Nehru's "tryst with destiny" speech:
Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.

He did not, on the contrary he was opposed to partition. Gandhi being responsible for partiion is an RSS/Hindutva propaganda,

We might go a little tangential here, so wouldn't argue too much on it. I am not saying he was an outright supporter of partition, but considering the amount of power he had over Indian masses, he didn't do enough. He concentrated more on stopping violence and riots, but got played nicely by Jinnah.

Please read history. If not for Gandhi and Nehru, India would have been broken in to tens of small countries.

Hmm..I think it is Vallab Bhai Patel you should thank.

If they did, then it was a mistake. But Fred's response is equally a mistake.

the question is far more relevantly asked of the Iraqi's who are fighting

the quotes are neither ambiguous ("offer themselves to the butcher's knife") nor out of context (Follow the links and see for yourself.)

Louis Fisher, Gandhi’s biographer asked him: “You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” Gandhi responded, “Yes, that would have been heroism.”

According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence."

How about not laying down in the first place?

They did. And Fred has all the right in the world to respond

You missed my point. I did not say that Fred had no right to respond, but that his response was logically mistaken (as was the original argument of the activists; and sure, they also had the right to link Gandhi with "the war on terror").

There’s an old saying that had the Brits been Nazi’s, Gandhi would’ve been a lampshade.

Harry Turtledove's alternate history tale "The Last Article" describes a Nazi invasion of India and the reaction of the Germans to the non-violent resistance and pacifism of Gandhi and his followers.

I was reading by and saw this comment by Divya. I thought I should respond to it. It is not true that Gandhiji would have killed the person who was about to rape his neice. In his book "My Experiments with truth", Gandhiji has specifically stated that violence in any form cannot be justified, even at times when not involving in violence may cost us our lives. So the statement that someone raping his/her neice was justified by Gandhiji in resorting to violence is just plain lies. Please do not fool us here.

Divya Said:

I think the point hasn't been emphasized adequately enough that Gandhi held these views all-round and not just with respect to the Jews. One time someone asked him if he would ever, under any circumstances, commit violence – like say if someone was about to rape his niece or something. Gandhi's response was that under those circumstances he would have no choice but to kill his niece! (Since he had to show compassion towards the wrongdoer). This is about the only time as far as I can recall that he agreed he might have to commit a violent act. I don't think it is out of line to call this type of thinking utter foolishness, in fact, evil. Any ideology pursued in the extreme is evil and this is no exception. Many lives were actually lost because of Gandhi's stubborn insistence on non-violence. Of course, he was interesting and unique and inspiring in many other ways.

I don't understand all the hate and bitterness directed towards Gandhi. He may not have been perfect, but how many other leaders (historical or current) can anyone name besides Mandela to be in his leauge.

I don't understand all the hate and bitterness directed towards Gandhi.

1. RSS/Hindutva propaganda.
2. His ideology fly in the face of neocons/right-wing hawks ideas.
3. He was eccentric, his ideas largely impractical and not a perfect human being. Oh the horror of it all!

Divya sez:

One time someone asked him if he would ever, under any circumstances, commit violence – like say if someone was about to rape his niece or something. Gandhi's response was that under those circumstances he would have no choice but to kill his niece! (Since he had to show compassion towards the wrongdoer). This is about the only time as far as I can recall that he agreed he might have to commit a violent act. I don't think it is out of line to call this type of thinking utter foolishness, in fact, evil.

Divya, do you have a link to a refernce where Gandhiji's (Dr. C, the -ji is a sign of respect, not a sign of Godhood, and I don't think anybody is forced to do it) response to rape? It seems very different from what I understand of his world view. His stand was ahimsa at all times. I can see Gandhi placing himself between his neice and the rapist allowing her to escape or something like that.

Philosphy/Sprituality is only foolishness if you subscribe to it without believing. Gandhi believed in his philosphy and advocated it, but if you didnt belive in the spritual concept, it would be wrong to follow it.

Gandhiji has specifically stated that violence in any form cannot be justified, even at times when not involving in violence may cost us our lives. So the statement that someone raping his/her neice was justified by Gandhiji in resorting to violence is just plain lies. Please do not fool us here.

Vikram – Please do not assume that I am out to fool anyone. There's no need for malice. Besides I can just as easily accuse you of not only foolishly treating his biography like the gospel truth but also trying to fool us into believing it.

So your comment was based on a reading of My Experiments with Truth? Dig around some more and you will find a lot of stuff that doesn't gel with his autobiography. There is a very interesting collection of letters between Gandhi and a bunch of people he sought advice from around the time he was in a dilemma whether he should kill this baby calf that was in great agony and had no hope for survival. He mulled it over for several days while the calf lay in great pain and eventually did kill it. I respect him for that.

RSS/Hindutva propaganda on Gandhi is quite successful, its the same with anti-Muslim propaganda. I think anti-Gandhi, anti-Muslim propaganda was part of larger hindutva ideology followed by RSS/BJP/VHP etc. At one point I myself believed it and voted for BJP in 98 parliament elections.

Vikram,
I would like to add further that Gandhi was honest to himself and he was honest about his opinions on Jews, Nazis, violence etc. Anybody who read his Autobiography will know that.

Gandhi's policies are very powerful IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT. I advocate violence as a form of getting rid of terrorism and the Red threat in India. A Superior battleforce is the best way of getting rid of unwanted elements who have no fear of the system.

However, the PALESTINIANS COULD USE A GANDHI. I support Israel in its actions in Gaza to root out Mortar Launching Militants and this gives them the moral high ground, just like Munich did for "Wrath of God" operations. However if the Palestinians did the whole non violence thing and Israel supposedly being a civilized nation would have no excuse whatsover for military operations and hence would come under scathing criticism which would "hypothetically and hopefully" force it to vacate areas and give it to the Palestinians. The one thing that they claim stops them now is the fear that militants could use it as an attack base.

Venu - I spent 10 minutes searching for the link to reply to Vikram, before even reading your comment, but couldn't find it. In any case that was just meant to highlight the ridiculous heights he went to with his belief in ahimsa and there is plenty of evidence of that even without that example.

Som I've been reading all the New York Times news items and statements on Gandhi from 1940 to 1946. It gets with Vinod's points. At one point, he even criticises the US for fighting the Japanese. There is clearly a break within the Congress party vis-a-vis Gandhi's policies, with a lot of senior leaders endorsing the British stance. Interesting times.

You can access the NY Times archives from you local library site. e.g. this one from the Santa Clara County.

Gandhi's espousal of turning the other cheek is just insulting to millions of people throughout history who have had to fight and die in order to overthrow oppression.

"I don't understand all the hate and bitterness directed towards Gandhi. He may not have been perfect, but how many other leaders (historical or current) can anyone name besides Mandela to be in his league."

Ah but you have to understand the Ayn Rand Brigade, Gandhi does not gel with their view of "rational egoism and individualism" so hence the hit piece.

Fred Thompson deserves to be discredited for making this statement - although it will probably appeal to the bulk of the American public and shows he's a smart politician.

I'm willing to bet you can find evidence on both sides of the issue. Both showing that Gandhi meant this in a literal sense and that he meant it in some figurative sense.

At the end of the day, Gandhi is credit with accomplishing much. Pretty silly on Mr. Thompson's part to try to make him a caricature of the anti-war crowd. (Even outside of the appropriateness of using him as a symbol and using his quote, Thompson's underlying message lacks precision. Of course, he's using a straw man.)

Ayn Rand Brigade, the hit piece, neocons/right-wing hawks ideas, conservative hit job in progress

Signs of hitting against the intellectual wall, eh!
Analyzing Mahatma Gandhi is never easy. But please do not trot out the trite phrases to gain support from the 65,000 readers!

some stupid decisions (like taking back andolen after Chauri Chaura)

Gandhi was particular about the means, not only the end. This is why he stopped agitating after the Chauri Chaura incident.

In contrast, compare Jinnah's Direct Action Day statement. Jinnah was ambiguous about the means. Direction Action Day quickly degenerated into the Calcutta riots.

This link suggests that many preparations had been done long before the Calcutta riots actually began--see, in particular, the paragraph titled "Comparison with Earlier Riots". Surely, Jinnah had a suspicion that these preparations were on. Yet he made an ambiguous statement---he failed to insist Muslims' direct action would be nonviolent.

Aye P.G. Wodehouse, well said
see that's the problem with people not knowing their own history. Commenting on Sepia Mutiny without knowing anything about Sepoy Mutiny/Indian Rebellion of 1857 and its brutal suppression. Please do click that link to know how well British kicked Indian ass.

BTW, Indian leaders did try violence, well it didn't work out well with their heads hanging at the doors of their own palaces/forts.

On a lighter note, here is a conversation between Irish peeps
Son: Dad, my teacher told me that the sun never used to set on the British empire.
Dad: That's because God would never trust the British in the dark

I think that to give the context that this article is coming from a libertarian is hardly hitting a intellectual wall. It provides context for someone who was asking why Gandhi is being called out. Ideologies/perspectives do offer context.

it requires more strength and tolerance to live every day, under circumstances as miserable as those at concentration camps, than to commit collective suicide.

collective suicide only feeds statistics but accounts of those who survived the camps tell the real story, they arouse the world to take action.

and yes, the world does occasionally need gandhi- more specifically we all need a bit of gandhi in ourselves (not the 'turn the other cheek' part :)

That essay by Orwell, "Reflections on Gandhi," is worth reading in full. It's the last thing Orwell completed before his death. Here's a link: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/898/

Highlights:

Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. In Gandhi's case the questions on feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity - by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power - and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud?

There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which - I think - most people would give to the word, it is inhuman.

And if, as may happen, India and Britain finally settle down into a decent and friendly relationship, will this be partly because Gandhi, by keeping up his struggle obstinately and without hatred, disinfected the political air? That one even thinks of asking such questions indicates his stature. One may feel, as I do, a sort of aesthetic distaste for Gandhi, one may reject the claims of sainthood made on his behalf (he never made any such claim himself, by the way), one may also reject sainthood as an ideal and therefore feel that Gandhi's basic aims were anti-human and reactionary: but regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!

Orwell is one of my personal heroes-- even if you disagreed with him, his commitment to absolute intellectual honesty was inspiring. Anyway, read the essay. It's really good.

Speedy

Protestors carry signs and have short amounts of message bandwidth. Their missions live and die by brief slogans and attention-grabbing antics. Personally this genre of discourse does little for either my aesthetic or my mind, but it's very American and very important to some people, and one might as well complain about professional sports or sugary soda. Their slogans are not meant to be taken point blank literally so much as to signify a larger, archetypal train of thought. As long as they're not blatantly offensive ("Kill all the ---") I they deserve a little room for reasoanble interpreation.

Nobody knows what Gandhi would do any better than anybody knows what Jesus would do; furthermore it is widely accepted type of hyperbole. It is a stand-in abbreviation for a much larger set of ideas. (I presume that Fred Thompson does not write scathing NR articles everytime he sees a WWJD mood ring; I look forward to his next Matthew-despising screed against all the Christians who want Americans to visit the imprisoned, clothe the homeless, or feed the starving, citing the lonely prisoners, 1.44 million food-insecure househollds with children, and dozens of exposure-related homeless deaths each year as an integral part of The American Dream.)

You can take an eduated guess about what Gandhi would do in this case, and I grant you that Thompson is probably right--Gandhi would not have gone to war. I even grant you that Gandhi's fundamental philosophy for not going to war is one that Thompson is basically assessing correctly, and which I, in fact do oppose because I am not a pacifist. Thompson's tonal implication, however, is that this philosophy is particularly anti-Semitic and particularly unAmerican, when it is not. Gandhi's philosophy had nothing to do with it being Jews who were being killed, and it was not a unique thought to Gandhi. Nonviolent martyrdom has been glorified by pacifist schools of thought at least since the early days of the Christian church, and any Christian who worships in a church of St. Denis or St. Stephen or St. Paul (just the martyrdoms I'm more familiar with) or, you know, Jesus of Nazareth, has accepted that sometimes yielding one's life without violent opposition to an unjust and merciless killing can have a lasting and valuable impact on the world, and that such martyrs are worth glorifying and learning from. It's not exactly a totally new idea. It wasn't until Constantine became a Christian that you had Christians fighting instead of being sacrificed on a wide scale.

This is not about "Gandhi and THE JEWS," it's about "Gandhi and Oppression." I find recasting this strain in Gandhi's thought as being bout "Gandhi and the Jews" to be distastefully close to calling wolf and baselessly playing the anti-Semitism card. Given the trend of jingoistically pitting Judeo-Christian culture against other belief-systems, and constantly referring to the "war of civilization" that we find ourselves in, I find that particularly troubling. Gandhi is consistent about his principals as a function of race---you can argue against their practicality, as I do, but this is not about THE JEWS. It is not enough to grudgingly acknowledge this while mentioning Mel Gibson in the same breath and emphasizing, in the post-title, a spin that is entirely irrelevent.

When a protestor carries a sign "What would Gandhi do?" that does not embody the sum and total of the anti-war movement. That singifies that particular group's main touchstone of ideology--the image with which they wish to chasten the wealthy and the comfortable who make expenditure and deployment decisions well-insulated from dead and wounded soldiers, dead and wounded Iraqis, and a bleeding treasury. Protestors are reminding those comfortable people that there are other ways to live one's life. This man, this "half naked fakir", exhibited focus and self-sacrifice and sheer physical dedication to his cause that the winers and diners and schmoozers who claim the label "leader" cannot even conceive of taking on. If Thompson respectfully disagreed with the full implications of Gandhi's pacifist philosophy, that would be one thing. But his contemptuous "swinging" language at the end gives away the fact that he is intentionally dismissing all that dedication, courage, and focus. His target is not the impracticality of Gandhi's pacifism but the force of his dedication. He wants you to laugh at Gandhi. He wants you to stop taking this khadhi-wearing man seriously. He wants readers to stop taking idealism and peace seriously. I can't respect that.

When I am confronted with a "What Would Gandhi Do" sign, I don't mentallly set up a GandhiSimulation2000 XP emulator based on his every action and comment. Instead there are some basic tools and ideas that spring up in my mind:

--a moral, important cause is worth suffering and sacrificing for
--forcing your opponent to directly confront the harm they are causing can
set off their conscience
--one's entire life and set of habits have moral and economic consequences for others
--nonviolence can work
--believing the best of people can sometimes make it real

These are the principals and ideals that I, as an Indian-American, an American, and a human being am proud of and draw inspiration and strength from. I guarantee you that if you did a survey of all Americans who claim to admire Gandhi and then interviewed them as to why they admire Gandhi, their reasons would basically average out to these. I guarantee you that these are the things most reasonable people think of when they think of "Gandhian" ideals. There is nothing unAmerican about any of this. For all that I disagree with it, for that matter, there is nothing unAmerican about pacifism itself. QUAKERS anyone? Thoreau? I mean, come on. Implying that these things aren't a part of the American condition, are not part of the American way, is prima facie absurd. This is not about Gandhi's specific ideas in foreign policy. This is about Gandhi's habit of leading a considered, deliberate life. "What would Gandhi do" means that---would Gandhi think about the full economic implications of his policies and lifestyle? Would Gandhi give full weight to the death and violence his actions might cause? Would Gandhi hold morals above practical gain or a desire for revenge or a violent aesthetic? Are our leaders doing enough of these things? Can you honestly say me these values are necessarily unAmerican? No, and Thompson cannot, and so he reaches for the most absurd interpretation of the sign and then tries to make a lifetime of work and effort and accomplishment seem dismissively, laughably stupid. I can't respect that.

Code Pink could have come up with a better slogan, but capitalizing on their inarticulate methods to imply that Gandhi was an anti-Semite and that anyone who draws on his work for inspiration is unAmerican is just cheap. It's a strawman argument instead of addressing the serious critics of the war. One does not need to accept Gandhi's ideas 100% or even 25% to draw inspiration from his life, ideas, and works. I know it's an amazing concept but people don't need to perfectly embody their ideas and methods, or even be totally agreeable, to still be worth citing. Another amazing idea--people don't need to be pacifists to oppose a a specific war. Another amazing idea: there are other ways to be a hero besides kill people or die while trying to kill people.

Regarding the minimal acknowledgement of the idea that peace might be a good thing: Iraqis are the best people to go around trying to convince "those people" that they should be more like Gandhi. They also seem to think it would help if we left.

I'm sorry for the long, scroll-requiring comment but the title of this post deeply upset me. The back-handed compliment about "best friends being Jews" and totaly dysfunnctional parallel with Gibson and Richards was also upsetting. So it's not a very funny comment, and if anyone wants to lend me some wit, I'd be grateful.

Thanks,
Saheli

it underscores a key reason for Gandhi’s success with passive, non-violent resistance - it depends on your opponent’s moral code as much as your own.

An aside:

I think many miss out on this part. The strategy worked for those particular set of circumstances, as it did for MLK here and others who have adopted non violent resistance against somewhat civilized power structures. This type of passive aggressive strategy attacks the center of gravity of the powerful they are fighting. In the case of the Brits, it made them reflect on their moral code and it's target was the public support for keeping India colonized. Without civil cooperation, Brits had no chance of controlling a country as vast as India.

Strategies involved in conflict (violent or not) are diverse and need to be fluid. Taking a linear predictable approach to conflict only gives those who won't play by those rules an opportunity to exploit the rules of the game. Each situation has it's own dynamic that will result in a strategy fit for the scenario. Sometimes violences works, sometimes it doesn't, at times it's a combination of it, other times one uses methods of deception.

ou can take an eduated guess about what Gandhi would do in this case, and I grant you that Thompson is probably right--Gandhi would not have gone to war. I even grant you that Gandhi's fundamental philosophy for not going to war is one that Thompson is basically assessing correctly, and which I, in fact do oppose because I am not a pacifist. Thompson's tonal implication, however, is that this philosophy is particularly anti-Semitic and particularly unAmerican, when it is not. Gandhi's philosophy had nothing to do with it being Jews who were being killed, and it was not a unique thought to Gandhi. Nonviolent martyrdom has been glorified by pacifist schools of thought at least since the early days of the Christian church, and any Christian who worships in a church of St. Denis or St. Stephen or St. Paul (just the martyrdoms I'm more familiar with) or, you know, Jesus of Nazareth, has accepted that sometimes yielding one's life without violent opposition to an unjust and merciless killing can have a lasting and valuable impact on the world, and that such martyrs are worth glorifying and learning from. It's not exactly a totally new idea. It wasn't until Constantine became a Christian that you had Christians fighting instead of being sacrificed on a wide scale.

Well said.

And I think the side by side picture (Gandhi and Fred) is especially silly (just my aesthetic preference, I realize, so feel free to disagree).

Wow. Well said, Saheli.

Gandhi was a moron,
whose followers have no neurons
Just like the followers of
A din I like to slam
with the name thats not glam
Many who rote it
say that indeed he wrote it
They say he was prophetic
Indeed thats pathetic
for he was illetrate eplileptic

One of his wife had a good behind
her name was Hind.
In the land of Hind
there was fellow whose said to be a

Mahatma

atma

The man had had a tiny schtik(Well had to have a jewish connection somewhere)
who learned that his wife faked it.

His anger was with kaama
and he let go of his pajama
He heard of a temple
where sensuality was in ample
He gave his blessings to those who wanted to deface it
But they only wanted to hammer off the breasts and penises

Not that unlike the blessings given
by Hinds husband for butshikani
for butparasti is shaitani.

Didnt know Michael Richards antisemite but the anti dentite Jerry was there to lend support on letterman.

PS Gandhi engaged in calling South African Blacks Kafir(he did not even realise etymology of the word and how it applied to him)

Gandhi is a very smart man who used the right strategy for the right time against the right opponent. Maybe just for consistency's sake he advocated the same solution for all the world's problems. There is no "one solution fits all" for all problems.

Ayn Rand Brigade, the hit piece, neocons/right-wing hawks ideas, conservative hit job in progress

ooh ooh ooh, let me try.

sardar patel and bush
tecumseh and ann coulter
shivaji and rush
vivekananda and rove

Well said, Saheli.

People forget Gandhi was a whole iconoclast package - warts and all - some of his closest followers disagreed with him all the time (Nehru, Tagore, Patel, etc) yet looked him as their inspiration - but none of them doubted his dedication to a certain set of beliefs - as Orwell's article linked earlier also implies.

He rationalized a lot of things - some made sense, some didn't but he was one of the few people who "practiced what their preached", and was willing walk to the end of the earth for his cause - it was certainly not hate.

Although it's been mentioned already, well said Saheli.

Putting Gandhi in the same category as Mel Gibson and Michael Richards is completely ridiculous.

is british occupation in india comparable to american's occupation in iraq?
did indian's fight among themselves killing atleast 60 ppl a day ever in the 200 year history?
did they kill british 4/day for 4 continuous years?
is the purpose of british in india same as the purpose of usa in iraq?
i think it is apples vs oranges. fred thompson can be equated to an idiot for not understanding the what gandhi preached. but we can't really blame these ppl..they are educated by Fox News!

some of his closest followers disagreed with him all the time (Nehru, Tagore, Patel, etc) yet looked him as their inspiration

Well, from the little history that I have read, I disagree with the names thrown in within the bracket. I don't know who else belongs to 'etc', but I know Tagore was not Gandhi's follower by any stretch of imagination. Tagore started calling him the Mahatma and I think it was Gandhi who called Tagore Gurudev. That mutual admiration apart, they had different motivations altogether.

And yes, Jawahar Nehru was Gandhi's follower. No, a more accurate term would be 'user'.

I know Tagore was not Gandhi's follower by any stretch of imagination.

Sure, if you want to nitpick then Tagore was not Gandhi's follower, but they both respected each other, and, yet openly disagreed on many issues.

So be it, use "friends/ confidant/ admirer/ your favorite word". Ok, not follower.

etc........= long list but we are going tangential to Mr. Vinod's post.

Great post Saheli!!!
Accusing Gandhi of being anti-semite is beyond cheap. Why is "semite" only used for Jewish people anyways?? If you go by the dictionary meaning of the word, it would include some muslims too. Anyways, calling someone anti-semite is probably the cheapest way to get attention in the US.
Gandhi was above all a spiritual leader and NOT a political leader and that is why as Kush points out, Nehru and Patel disagreed with him frequently.

And I am sick of this self congratulating "American Way" people. For example, UPI reporter Pamela Hess was on C-SPAN describing the Iraq war and she said: "Iraqi society has higher acceptance for violence" ..... and I went WTF WTF out of my chair !!!! I guess killing 100,000 people from 30,000 feet using 500 tonne clusetr bombs is not violent enough for Ms Hess. WTF !!!

This is the kind of delusion Americans are about "their way".

I'm sure Mr. Thompson is a "good" Christian. What would Jesus do? Is Jesus' way the American way? Stupid hypocrit.

Hehe Saheli, kicked some brown ass with your comment.

Others on this board have read/know more about Gandhi's philosophies and how they changed over time than I do, and unfortunately I don't have a year for these quotes. I found them in Walter Wink's book on non-violent resistance 'The Powers That Be' (based in Christianity and Jesus - I'm not Christian, but I really loved it).

From Wink (p. 118):
"Gandhi was adamant that nothing could be done with a coward, but from a violent person one could make a nonviolent one. Even though he believed that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, Gandhi argued that 'where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.' He even went so far as to say, 'At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before.'"

That sure doesn't sound like his advice to WWII-era Great Britain and the Jewish people. I'm not sure what to make of the contradiction. Maybe he was holding out for an ideal, or putting forth a radical alternative to the violence of WWII to try and get folks to ponder their choices?

And yeah, Saheli gets a cyber-"right on!" from me too.

Absolutes in any philosophy or religion are often difficult to deal with. We can say that we would never do this or that. "I would never lie." "I would never steal." etc.

The reality is that we are human, and humans are imperfect and frail.

It's always easier to deal with hypothetical possibilities rather than realities. I also cannot help but wonder if some of Gandhi's points were allegorical or if he were using hyperbole in order to emphasize his philosophy regarding non-violence. Jesus didn't really mean for you to pull an actual plank of wood out of your own eye when he tried to make his point about looking inward before criticizing others.

Just some thoughts.

"We're all gonna be like a bunch of little Fonzies right now, and Yolanda, what's Fonzie like?"
"He's cool?"
"Correct-a-mundo!"

As a card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy, I was thrilled to see Thompson hit piece on Gandhi even before Vinod’s excellent post. After all, critical, non-fawning, and non-patronizing views of Gandhi are so hard to find in the West these days.

That Gandhi’s philosophy would never liberate Iraq from a dictator who tortured children is obvious, to say the least. As Vinod wisely notes, “success with passive, non-violent resistance …depends on your opponent’s moral code…” King understood this, and pleaded America to live up to her own creed. If only the Palestinians understood this, but of course, if they did the Israelis wouldn’t have to isolate them in the first place.

As for the charges of anti-Semitism, Thomson clearly comes up short of labeling Gandhi one, though he cleverly associates the two, not unlike those who conflate neo-colonialism with colonialism itself, or anti-illegal immigration policies with being anti-immigrant. Turnaround is fair play, and has useful purposes, such as revealing to Mutineers the absurdity of liberally labeling views one disagrees with as bigotry.

Those who saw the Rand influence in Vinod’s post are right. Rand abhorred self-sacrifice and rejected the other-worldly asceticism of both Gandhi and Jesus. That these two giants are rarely attacked by serious thinkers who clearly disagree with their respective philosophies is a great shame. After all, neither represents the American Way.

Gandhi was adamant that nothing could be done with a coward, but from a violent person one could make a nonviolent one.

It's clear that when considering the age old problem of mind-body duality, Gandhi entirely favors the mind at the expense of recklessly discarding the body.

And yet, when Jatin Das became a convert to non-violence, and fasted for more than sixty days till his death (age 25), Gandhi had no words for him, or for that fearless mind.

Such was his politics, and adamant attitude. Read this excellent piece by Balbir Punj. Bhagat Singh (lived till he was 24) did write a letter to the Home Member, Government of India. More about that incident here.

So, Gandhi is now a complete racist. His anti-black remarks are fairly well documented. And now here is coming off as an anti-semite. I wonder how long before his idols are pulled down from north american public places.

It is interesting to note that a lot of people study / analyze / discuss people like Gandhi (and Netaji) without shedding any of their prejudices and with a closed mind regarding what they want to hear and learn. Thus people like Gandhi are either heroes or stupid and moronic.

Gandhi had somethings that made him extraordinary and also some weaknesses which made him come across as someone completely out of touch with reality. He was a great man to many (and thus the 'Mahatma', someone here did not like calling that), a man with a very strong belief in his principles and also a man of very strong character. It takes a lot of character to follow what he preached and he did in fact do it a lot better than most men. If he believed what he was doing was right and throughout his later life his attempt was always to do what was right, he would do it undeterred and at the same time despite everything he never wavered from what he called the path of truth (I don't know enough about this and quite possibly may be wrong, but I suspect what he called Truth would be akin to Dharma in Hindu philosophy?) Unfortunately, when people start disparaging him, they totally ignore these qualities of his which made him nothing less than great.

On the other hand, he had weaknesses too. The very things that made him great also made him weak in other ways. His statements about a moral high ground are a classic example of that. He so strongly believed in the path of ahimsa that nothing else mattered. Similarly, he was quite inflexible in his views at times and quite impractical. Thus the disagreements with his colleagues. Unfortunately when people deify him, he becomes this totally flawless human being and we forget to consider that he was a one just as prone and capable of mistakes.

As for his being racist or anti-semitic, thats just a load of BS not worth discussing!

That Gandhi’s philosophy would never liberate Iraq from a dictator who tortured children is obvious, to say the least.

Naiverealist:

And yet, when Jatin Das became a convert to non-violence, and fasted for more than sixty days till his death (age 25), Gandhi had no words for him, or for that fearless mind.

Gandhi(like Jesus) suffered from some kind of messiah complex: he believed he was in some way chosen to lead India to independence. He demanded complete submission to his will, and was uncharitable with anyone whose views differed from his own.

This is interesting. The British with their 'divine burden to reign God's empire on earth' certainly had a God complex. Who could bring them to their knees except someone with an even greater God complex. Ser ko sava ser ;) .

Gandhi may have been a fool, he obviously wasn't, but I basically agree with Vinods crtitism of him. An even biger fool was Subash Chandra Bose, and I say that as a Bengali. He rolled out the red carpet for the Japaneese and if he would have succeeded some of us indeed would have been lampshades. What a bloody idiot.

Why are people focusing only on the Holocaust? We have an example much closer to home...the Partition. Gandhi actually asked the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan to peacefully allow themselves to be slaughtered rather than fight back against Muslims. Fortunately they ignored him. He also called Guru Gobind Singh a 'misguided patriot'. I think it was rather unfair to ask those upon whom he (Gandhi) had some influence (Hindus and to a lesser extent Sikhs) to be annihilated, whereas to those upon whom he had little to no influence (Muslims in the 1930s and 1940s) he said nothing. His hunger fasts were just immature, manipulative tricks to get his worshipping followers (who unfortunately were a big portion of Indians in those days) to capitulate to his demands.

Another question to ask is how much India's independance actually owes itself to Gandhi. How about the possibility that a post-war Britain, in a changing world (where colonialism was becoming a bad word), no longer had the will/desire to hold on to a far-flung Empire, especially a nation like India where a new, educated, aware generation was not likely to allow them to remain for long?

I will grant that he was amazing in many ways, he walked the talk, and he did prevent India from becoming a war zone or a country run by warlords. He had a lot of lofty ideals. He was a good person. But as people have said, impractical and inflexible...and if his directives were carried out to there logical conclusion, then only his own followers would suffer.

Well said , Saheli . Lucid .

That Gandhi’s philosophy would never liberate Iraq from a dictator who tortured children is obvious, to say the least.

The question is would Gandhi's philosophy liberate Iraq from a brutal occupation, one that flattens an entire city as revenge for the brutal deaths of three contractors? It surely did not liberate Vietnam from a brutal occupation (perhaps more brutal than the Iraqi one, this one killed between 2-3 million Vietnamese and practically destroyed a whole country and basically poisoned acres of land). I guess supporters of Gandhi would argue that the occupation would not have been that barbaric and uncivilized if the Vietnamese had not reacted violently. Perhaps appeal could have been made to the occupiers' better natures. Perhaps Ho chi Minh could have pointed out that the occupiers were not living up to their proclaimed ideals (but I think he did, after all Thomas Jefferson was one of Ho chi Minh's heroes, but I digress).

And as for moral compass, I think it is unheard of for an an oppressor to acknowledge that he/she is one. The cognitive dissonance would be too much. Powerful oppressors therefore invariably justify their deeds in high sounding moral language. You merely have to read the speeches of the imperial Japanese (which I highly recommend, especially in the original Japanese) to realize this; remember that they were creating an Asian "co-prosperity sphere", and unfortunately had to slaughter those Chinese who would not see their own interest in being in such a sphere). Same with Andrew Jackson who thought he was doing the noblest thing in the world while slaughtering native American women and children in Florida. Now in all these cases a Gandhian would argue that the oppressor should be confronted with the inconsistency between proclaimed principles and deeds, so that the cognitive dissonance becomes manifest. Will this work, and if it does, under what conditions? These questions are worth debating and I think, in Gandhi's case, the evidence is inconclusive.

Gandhi may have been a fool, he obviously wasn't, but I basically agree with Vinods crtitism of him. An even biger fool was Subash Chandra Bose