Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 1

Opposed to partition?

Err... so, why is it written that he was "vehemently" opposed to partition? He didn't exactly go out of his way to stop it, now did he? Graft 06:47 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

My memory of this is that he worked very hard to stop it (though making some political compromises to, as he felt, prevent greater suffering), and was extremely saddened that it proceeded anyway. I think he thought that Partition was the chief failure of his life. (I'll try to get some more on this Monday.) 09:48, 27 Sep 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure he had a choice. Remember, the whole partition debate - well, confrontation - was happening in 1946-47. These were turbulent times, in which the Muslim League and the Congress Party were fighting over the governance, against a British declaration that whatever happened, they would leave India by August, 1948. Jinnah called for wide-spread riots across India, to demonstrate pro-partition sentiment, leading to terrible Hindu-Muslim riots in many parts of the country. This worsened Hindu-Muslim relations, which was partially responsible for the horrible carnage of Partition.

Incidently, some of the worse of the Partition fighting occured in Calcutta (now Kolkatta). These were eventually quelled by Gandhi taking a fast-unto-death. Gandhi was in Calcutta on August 15, 1947, when India gained independence.

-- Me (again) 00:02, 9 Jan 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that, given Gandhi's pacifism and his inability to match violence with anything other than defeat, he didn't have much of a choice. But Partition was a catastrophe, for Muslims and for Hindus. Many more people died in Partition than in the antecedent riots. You can say he was weak, you can say Jinnah knew how to defeat him - you can't say he had no choice. Hindsight is 20/20, I know, but to submit to Partition because you have a pathological opposition to violence when you have the authority to prevent it... argh, I mean, he must have been a lunatic to choose Partition. Yes, he didn't have a choice within his narrow ideological bounds. Can't I fault him for those when they led to the death of a million? Graft 00:37, 9 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Pacifism

I have heard that applying the term pacifism to gandhi is no accurate. is this true?

-- Me (again)

You seem to be assuming that he could anticipate the death of a million because of the partition - With the Muslim League beginning "direct action," everyone anticipated violence if there were to be no partition. Gandhi struggled hard to prevent the partition, but he probably gave in because he thought his stance might lead to violence - we now know that the partition probably caused more violence, but there was no way Gandhi or anyone else might have anticipated it at that time. As you say, hindsight is 20/20.--ashwatha 22:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A partition was the last thing Gandhi wanted. He wanted everyone to unite for a common good (peace in India and an end to violence for control of India). India at that time was increadibly unstable, because the British control on that contry had slipped. That caused political unrest within the country because without British control, there wasn't really any form of government. Juicyboy 325. 11/17/04.

Satyagraha

I have heard that applying the term pacifism to gandhi is not accurate. is this true?

I don't see how! His non-violence was religious; I don't if that's relevant. Where did you hear this? -- Sam

i heard it from gandhi, who made a big point about the difference. i'm certainly not saying he wasn't non-violent, just that its not the same as pacifism in other fundamental ways. read satyagraha

____________

Perhaps the source of the problem is found in the entry:

Gandhi's principle of satyagraha (Sanskrit: truth + grasping firmly or holding onto it), often roughly translated as "passive resistance"

Roughly translated says it all. How does truth become passive and grasping firmly become resistance. I'll bounce over to satyagraha yet but I'll see what it says. The translation stopped me dead in my tracks.

Satyagraha is possibly a neologism of Ghandi's. I think truth+force is the way it gets translated. I have never seen the movie.

64.229.14.142

For further understanding of Satyagraha see http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/jgarfieldnonviolence.html and http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/sep98/satyagraha.html

In fact mere word by word translation of Sanskrit to English cannot be accurate. For example Dharma is a word/concept that doesn't have one English word/phrase to translate it. Depending on the context it could be translated as: goodness, charity, religion, tradition, rituals, justness etc. They all are manifestations of the same concept that has something to do with things traditionally considered to be "good".

________________________________

Sure. I'm familiar with class of translation problems. I'm familiar the dharma example,too . Is satyagraha a neologism from Ghandi? Because that would make a big difference.

I clipped the first thing at http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/sep98/satyagraha.html

Truth (satya) implies love,

and firmness (agraha)

serves as a synonym for force.

He came to name his movement satyagraha. Is it his word in the sense that he made it. Or did he adopt it from prior use?

Peace out.64.229.14.142

It is something that I'm working on for the pedia: The talk pages have burned with Ghandi for long periods of time about several different articles. If there was a definitive satyagraha article, all those poeple would be free. Could you take a look. Let me know what you think in the talk. ___________________________________

Satyagraha is a neologism, as far as I know, created by Gandhi. Graft

Satyagraha is an active refusal to do violence, often confused with a mistaken definition of pacifism. The common understanding of what pacifism i.e., the refusal to participate in war cannot be eauted with what the west calls non-violence. Besides 'satyagraha' being defined as 'truth force', the principle of it is rooted also in other traditions namely ahimsa or pledging/vowing to do no harm. Politically it means to stand for truthfulness, and to forcefully stand up for social justice without harming whoever may be considered your opponent. Pacifism on the other hand often has been confused for non-action. A more accurate definition of pacifism can be found in the latin roots paci and facia, meaning to make peace. It has been documented that Gandhi at one time replied to a journalist, that if there is a choice between violence and injustice, he would choose violence. Hence when he retorted that he did not advocate pacifism, it was in this context he said it. A western definition which could be considered accurate for satyagraha would be active non-violence.

Mahatma vs Mohandas

Why do we have fr:Mahatma Gandhi, pl:Mahatma Gandhi but en:Mohandas Gandhi? -- Paddu

not quite sure. Its not troubling to me right now: the typical user will simply pump in "gandhi" and get a disambiuation page. Most everyboy knows the term Mahatma means great soul . In conversation I have only had one person question Mohandas Gandhi --- maybe everybodyelse just thought it was his first name :-) During his lifetime, to masses of Indians he was called by the affectionate and familiar Gandhiji. User:Two16

Should this be moved to Mahatma Ghandi? Which version was more common - Mahatma or Mohandas? --Jiang 06:12 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"the title of 'Mahatma' that they have won for me has, therefore, even less. Often the title has deeply pained me, and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me." - M.K. Gandhi, The Ashram, Sabarmati. Autobiography - the story of my experiments with truth, introduction. 1983, Dover publications, inc., New York. Translated by Mahadev Desai. - Jeandré, 2003-08-31t11:31z

I personally feel the edits that were done to convert Mahatma to Mohandas in multiple pages was not necessary. As I had mentioned in Jeandré,'s talk page, the search results in Google show "Mahatma Gandhi" is being searched for a lot more number of times than "Mohandas Gandhi".

Now lets see what Wikipedia is meant for. It's for looking up information. Replacing Mahatma with Mohandas in every page where the text appears, means lesser people are going to find a wikipedia link while they search. Redirection to Mahatma from Mohandas (his official name but not the name by which he is known) is the best approach, which is the way it was till a few days back, not the other way round.

Jay 22:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Jay on the statement that the editing replacing Mahatmas with Mahandas was unnecessary. The titles of Mahatmas and Mahandas are virtually the same thing, and apparently Gandhi went by both titles. The names aren't in dispute with one another, and it's common fact that Gandhi (Mahatmas or Mahandas, whatever you prefer) was a great man. Juicyboy 325

"Lesser people"? RickK 23:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ahh.. lesser number of people i meant. this refers to the google thing where 205,000 results are returned for "Mahatma Gandhi" as opposed to 30,700 for "Mohandas Gandhi". Now with the Mahatma-to-Mohandas rechristening a lesser number of people than before will really find what they're looking for. Jay 23:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The grammatically correct term is "fewer" since people can be counted. --Jiang

Thanks Jiang for that piece of info. Whats the antonym of fewer ? Jay 22:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Google ranks its results based on links, not on what people are searching for. Interestingly wikipedia links for, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mohandas+Gandhi%22&start=7 7th, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mahatma+Gandhi%22&start=59 59th. - Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z

You're right about Google. Google ranks a page based on the number of hyperlinks that exist on the internet that link to it. Regarding the search results you mentioned, what did u want to say ? Jay 08:42, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Be that as it may, "Mahatma" is a nickname and is POV. Not everyone need agree that Gandhi was a mahatma. Graft 13:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense ... Jay 19:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or that spirits/souls exist. - Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z

The Reserve Bank of India calls him Mahatma Gandhi on all the currency notes it produces. Mahatma Gandhi has become more his name than a title, in India. This is reflected ALL over India. Indian text books, magazines, news papers, TV Channels, people, leaders refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi, or even as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and almost never as Mohandas Gandhi. (Further, an average Indian is inclined to think that Mohandas Gandhi is perhaps the name of Mahatma's grand son !! So popular is the name Mahatma, and strange, the name Mohandas Gandhi) So, i guess it is NOT POV. Or atleast this is a special case where the POV rules have to be obviated. - Kesava 05:08, 10 Sep 2003. (UTC)

---

I did a bit of reading on Wikipedia conventions, here are some points, they handle Graft's "Mahatma is just a nickname" opinion, and to an extent the POV one :

"Use the most common name of a person or thing ..." (from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
(from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names))

"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? "

"We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia"

"...search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often.."

The examples the page suggests are William_Clinton redirecting to Bill_Clinton, Samuel_Clemens redirecting to Mark_Twain, etc. The name by which a person is more "commonly" known gets to be the main page, thereby being on the page-title and becoming the target of all other redirects.

Currently we are going against convention in the Mahatma vs Mohandas case.

Also you can have a look at the naming conventions discussion page where the users reached a consensus on usage of the common name as opposed to the "technically correct" or legal name - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(pseudonyms)

This will avoid us going over the discussion again.
Jay 22:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Peter the Great" is titled "Peter I of Russia"; similarly "Ivan the Terrible"; 'place-it-at-the-most-commonly-known' is a convention, not a hard-and-fast rule. Personally I won't be terribly offended if Gandhi lives at Mahatma, but:

Placing the article at "Mohandas" emphasizes that "Mahatma" is not his real name, something that isn't well-known.
Placing it at "Mahatma" creates a bad precedent for other POV titles.

The redirect suffices to take care of those who come looking for Mahatma Gandhi. Graft 23:18, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The names you have mentioned come under a different context. They follow the convention for Royal and Monarchical Titles Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) and in case of Pseudonyms check Wikipedia:Redirect, Section: What do we use redirects for?

For the issue of POV titles, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect
Jay 18:07, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

By Graft's logic 'Mother Teresa' page' title should be changed to 'Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu'.
Astavakra Nov 18, 2003

Well, no need to get snippy, as I said I wouldn't (and am not going to) make a big deal if it got moved... but anyway, the difference is that "Mahatma" is a clear word of praise, e.g. the Indian government likes to pass it around as propaganda, to build up the "Father of the Country" mythos, whereas Mother Teresa is not so obviously laudatory. But whatever. Graft 16:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, how ever you call him, the question remains: Where did he get the name -- or title -- "Mahátmá" from? The main article says it was from Shri Aurobindo Ghose, but then there is a link to the article "Mahatma", and there it says that Gándhí got it from R. Thákur ("Tagore"). Wonder what's right?!

This is valuable info; enough so that both accounts can be mentioned. But in any case, there is much more urgent info than "why Mahatma?" that belongs in the lead 'graph. I'm moving the current language abt that to a short section further down in the article.

The same section would also be a good place to discuss controversy (outside WP!) about the title, e.g., i'll bet the Pakistani gov't (ungratefully) and maybe Hindu fundamentalist/separatists (like his assassin) never use it.

--Jerzy (t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

[unrelated material found here moved to new section below]

'Nov. 30, 2004 -- First, my apologies for moving this article without first consulting the talk page.

But now that I've had a chance to do that, and to look over the naming conventions articles, I still believe that this page should be moved to "Mohandas Gandhi."

It is not common knowledge that "Mahatma" is a title, and to title the article "Mahatma Gandhi" is not only inaccurate, it also confuses the issue of Gandhi's name vs. his title. Indeed, I've found that many people do recognize that both "Mahatma" and "Mohandas" are somehow connected to Gandhi, though they probably couldn't say what the distinction is.

Also, it is not a pseudonym. It is a title, and one that was given to him by someone else, so I don't think the pseudonym naming conventions apply here.

At the end of the day, I believe that Wikiedia, like any encyclopedia, should inform, and not be too eager to default to popular usage; after all, popular usage is often just a starting point, and not always fully accurate. I mean, why bother having redirect pages if we're just going to settle for what uninformed people search for? Aren't they trying to become more informed? If so, then why not redirect them to accurate information?

I'm sidestepping the whole debate about whether Gandhi was a mahatma, or great man. I don't even think that's relevant in this dispute. The real issue seems to be that there's some ambiguity regarding Gandhi's real name and his title, which has mistakenly become his de facto name for most English speakers. But I don't think it's right for an encyclopedia to capitulate to ambiguity when it has the chance to clarify and inform.

Just because something is popularly known as one thing does not necessarily make the popular usage the most accurate one. Am I alone on this? --Dablaze 00:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

No. I still agree with you. Graft 06:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to word your concern here. I personally agree that it should be moved. To be 100% clear, the two reasons I reverted your move were:

Page moves of this kind are often controversial, and therefore consensus should always first be sought on the talk page. In this case there was moreover an existing discussion.
Pages should be renamed using the "move" function instead of cutting and pasting text, to preserve edit histories.

-- Fredrik | talk 16:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peter the Great is an exceptional case because royal names are such a pain that WP chose to standardize them.

Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are exceptional cases where the honorific version of the name is universally recognized as unambiguous as to the person intended; when you want to remove an honorific from other names, the best argument is "they're no Gandhi or Mother Teresa" (in terms of recognizability of alternatives). Whether they deserve the honorific is a PoV question; it is not PoV to admit the facts about its role in recognizability. If you use "Mohandas Gandhi", you confuse the reader more than if you just said "Gandhi": most people know there are relatively minor Gandhis, even if they don't know their given names, and are less likely to follow the link and find the truth. Use [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]] to link, and make sure that both names continue to be mentioned in the lead 'graph, as now (preferably, IMO, as now, mentioning Mohandas first so that the clueless won't skip reading the lead 'graph & getting educated).

BTW, an honorific is not a nickname (as i think someone says in the lost section that i moved above), nor much like one in most cases, but where the nickname or pseudonym is the best known, we use it in titles, e.g. Bill Clinton off the top of my head.
--Jerzy (t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Various Topics

I've removed the following:

Though the committee has remained tightlipped in this matter, independent opinions point to various factors that could have influenced the decisions of not considering Gandhi. Some observers say his struggle was too "nationalistic" and "not a global one" and hence he could not be considered as an apostle of world peace. But, a few others argue that recent laureates like Yasser Arafat and David Trimble fit the same description and the violent background of their struggle makes them less fit than Gandhi to receive the prize.

This counter-argument adds to the suspicion of a number of people who speculate that the process of deciding the winning laureates was biased in the early years, and the committee rarely looked beyond the European and American white community to choose the laureates. Some have even accused the committee of buckling to British pressure against the award to Gandhi.

These are speculations about the Nobel process; they are not about Gandhi. Engaging in speculations that winners in later years were less worthy is unbecoming of Gandhi's memory. ☮ Eclecticology 21:48, 2003 Nov 30 (UTC)

i think this passage should be there. It is better to err on being too skeptical than not, esp when the issue is the establishment. If we are not going to include the above passage, then i believe the whole Noble section should simply be reduced to one single sentence: "Ghandi was never a Nobel laureate.".

Xah P0lyglut 00:33, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

The issue is about relevance, not skepticism. There is nothing constructive to speculating about unprovable conspiracy theories about the establish when there are enough true ones for which they should be held accountable. It's true enough that until Lutuli won in 1960, all the winners were either European or of European ancestry. The implication that Arafat and Trimble were less deserving of the prize is inappropriate. I've read the discussion at the Nobel link where the argument that they were not prepared to issue a posthumous prize is much stronger, but even that would be better discussed at a site about the Nobel Peace Prize. ☮ Eclecticology 02:50, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

I think you have in this page an image with copyright; same in catalan wiki.

Plàcid 22:13, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you say which one? Graham :) 23:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Graham, it looks to me like it's the top image, as that's the only image in the Catalan article. But the image we have is reversed (go to ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi to see what I mean). I don't know whether or not this has anything to do with Placid's question. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well is it worth listing on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements when we're not sure whether it is an infringement or not, and don't know the source for it? -- Graham :) 23:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I sure don't think so. :-) Not unless Placid has something more to tell us, that is. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please note concerning the last sentence of the second paragraph dealing with "Civil Rights Movement in South Africa" that, although the topic of the section is "civil rights," the sentence in question refers to the rites, i.e., the ceremonies, of Christian marriage. 68.89.190.183 05:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Images

I've again removed the image "donated" by ghandiserve. Fair use images is one thing, but when you upload an image, you agree to release it under the GFDL. Having people upload images and then decide not to release them under the GFDL is not acceptable. Anthony DiPierro 13:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd asked User:Gandhiserve to release the image under GFDL, but there has been no response. Jay 15:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to the image page: The GandhiServe Foundation says: "We are the sole copyright representants of this image, and it can be used in this form on Wikipedia. permission granted for use on wikipedia.org only"

I've moved a paragraph on a book by Harry Turtledove here from Pacifism. I didn't want to simply delete real information. On the other hand I'm not sure the paragraph really belongs here either. I think it's become a bit of an orphan looking for the right article. Kim Bruning 18:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User Ghandiserve is not the same (legally, that is) as GhandiServe Foundation. It's entirely possible for user GhandiServe to upload images without GhandiServe Foundation having to release the image as GFDL. It's also not in our interest to compel GFDL releases by rights holders - if we do, we effectively prohibit commercial organisations from indicating their consent to use things here by doing the uploads themselves. In any case, the image is not in violation of copyright policy, so it doesn't need to be removed as a copyright question: if you argue it has to be GFDL, it's ideal; if you argue it's licensed, it's still not infringing, though we do want to find a more free image. If you do disagree, though, I'll upload the same image myself so we can use that version and it's then completely clear that it wasn't a GFDL release by them. Jamesday 22:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey Ram

"Gandhi's dying words being Hey Ram is a myth." says User:Arvindn.

What is the source for this info ? Jay 10:33, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. Its slightly long, but bear with me. In the days before his death, Gandhi was constantly chanting the name of Rama. In fact, he even wrote something like "If I were to be shot in the chest and died with the words Hey Ram on my lips, only then would I be a true Mahatma" shortly before his death! In the light of this, it is no surprise that all press reports of his death attributed those words to him. To do otherwise would have been utter blasphemy!

Gopal Godse says that the government put his words in his mouth to pacify Hindus, since some of his actions had been seen as pandering to the Muslims. While Gopal Godse is as much an extremist as his brother and there is no particular reason to believe him, it is undeniable that the government would have had excellent incentive to act that way.

But the main point is common sense. Is it possible for someone who was shot in the chest, and died immediately, to say anything at all? Such things happen only in films. Gandhi had ended a fast only a few days back, and so even under the unlikely assumption that he did say something no one would have heard him.

I don't remember where I got this from, probably not a single place; I am currently unable to find anything through google, mainly because of the drone of millions of unthinking people mindlessly repeating what the were told without asking the obvious question drowning out the voice of those who do. My rant is clearly useless without a citation, and so if you want you can put the sentence back, but please indicate that it is controversial.

Anyway my reason for objecting to it is not to question is Gandhi's devotion to Rama (which is very well documented) but the inanity of supposing that it was physically possible for him to utter those words.

Arvindn 11:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it at all possible for someone who was shot in the chest, to die immediately?

Someone shot in the chest will definitely die immediately is purely an invention and happens only in movies, where the villain?s men die immediately and the hero lives on to talk. Dear Arvidn, bullets are not magic. The body is a complex sytem and to kill a person, some essential services need to be brought to a halt and this process takes time. Nothing in the entirety of this world ever kills you immediately except cutting your brain off. May I also point out that Gandhiji did not die immediately. He was unconscious and carried away to residential units of Birla House and that is where he died[1] (http://www.kiranbedi.com/gandhifireng.htm). This goes against your premise that Gandhiji died immediately.

During any given day a Hindu speaks those words at least once. It is common for me to say Hey, Bhagvan! (Oh God!) Whenever I am in trouble, expressing a feeling of disgust, have hit something hard, am looking at something that is very beautiful, laughing at someone's stupidity.... etc. Being shot in the chest Gandhiji had enough time to speak just those words that one speaks everyday not only because he is religious but because they have almost become a part of his reflexes. The only words my friend?s father was speaking before his death after an accident were Ram Ram, nothing else, out of shear pain and not just because he was extremely religious.

Even to quote a Hindu extremist like Godse is stupid. That the press was inclined to say that Gandhi's last words were Hey Ram is stupid too. Ever heard of something called Freedom of press? How can you make each and every press report in the world say the same thing if there is no truth to it?

Born and Brought up in India I have never ever come against what you believe to be true. Just because someone makes an attempt to malign Gandhiji does not make a topic controversial. There is no need to add the line that there is any controversy about Ganhiji's last words. AY 05:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn has a point too, and if I found material to the arguments he was talking about, then I would put that in the article. We need to be passionate to a point, but I feel an encyclopedia is more about facts than emotions. (On a related note "Nothing in the entirety of this world ever kills you immediately except cutting your brain off" is also not really true. It has been found that a decapitated person can respond to stimuli till 30 seconds). Jay 07:16, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn has a point too... Can you not smell conspiracy theorey? You are not wrong in accusing me of being passionate, "we need to be passionate to a point..." within bounds but Godse or his brother are the last people you will talk about. No doubt the gov. of India was not justified in sentencing Godse to Death, no doubt being a fundamentalists does not make you a liar, but it does discredit your remarks. Godse's one statement standing against the reaport of the free press of the world. Does Godse's brother even credit the kind of mention? Suppose someone who knew Gandhi were to come and say he way gay should we add that too? (Why gay?!! Saying someone is gay seems to be a lot of people's fav pastime.) Why vilify the sanctity of the greatest man in the last 1000 years [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/millennium/default.stm) based on Sangh Parivar propaganda. Parivar's web pages are filled with filth (about Gandhi or anything Indian) would you collect and post it here? Everyone can speak one thing or the other but the ability to do so does not give you the credentials to get a mention in wikipedia. If I say Maria Callas could not sing as well as she did and that her voice was digitally recreated after her death what do you say to it? Enough evidence exists to the contrary, same here. Those people are long dead if you were to question them years after there death based on a piece of literature you are bringing out conspiracies. Read this line again Gopal Godse says that the government put his words in his mouth to pacify Hindus, clearly lacking logic from one end to the other. Clearly conspiracy theory. Read this now In fact, he even wrote something like "If I were to be shot in the chest and died with the words Hey Ram on my lips, only then would I be a true Mahatma" shortly before his death! In the light of this, it is no surprise that all press reports of his death attributed those words to him. To do otherwise would have been utter blasphemy! Blasphemy - Press!!!, does the free press care about blasphemy. Could the government of India push words into the mouth of the media ever? Someone out there begs to differ. Arvind (his name is not Arvidn) is making assumptions, fine. He is forcing it on us, NOPE, not me sir. Then there is the British press. Who spread the NEWS around those days except of Reuters? Why would the British media, which was bigger and stronger then the whims of gov. of India, do so?!!! Don?t you understand logic when you see it? Or do I have to explain things neatly?

About "Nothing in the..." I wanted to write "... except maybe cutting your brain off" then I thought what the hell, it makes no difference even if you can move without your brain and body being together. But Arvind's main point holds no ground ...my reason for objecting to it is ... the inanity of supposing that it was physically possible for him to utter those words. Well devoid of logic, what say? Inane, No?!! AY 00:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have no intention of continuing this argument, but I will just note that much of my time is/was spent in fighting Sangh Parivar POV, both in real life and in wikipedia. So much for your accusation. Unlike you, if those whom I don't like have something to say, I'm willing to listen to them. -- Arvindn 03:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here is a better discussion on the Hey Ram politics [3] (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/HeRam_gandhi.html) AFAIK, this issue was exposed when Kamal Haasan took his film Hey Ram and the subsequent events that happened especially the interview of Gopal Godse in Time magazine [4] (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1107000221-40525,00.html) [5] (http://ngodse.tripod.com/godse14feb2000.htm).IIRC, the famous Tamil magazine Anandha Vikatan also published another--it's own version of interview with Gopal Godse at that time. Not only this issue, the father of the nation seems to have received opposition from many people [6] (http://wcar.alrc.net/mainfile.php/Documents/77/) [7] (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2004/02/01/stories/2004020100260400.htm)

Anyway, your idea that Gandhi could have died immediately after the shot is new to me. --Rrjanbiah 05:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Hey Ram!" - It was in fact I who added that short bit in the article. I would like to say a couple of things regarding this argument, especially the initial one brought up by Arvind. It is established fact that speech, motion, even involved action, is very much possible after even a well-placed gunshot. As we know, Gandhi lived for many hours after the shooting. Lastly, it was said that before stumbling unconscious he said "Hey Ram!" NPOV is an oft-touted phrase in the wikipedia rooms, and this is for good reason. But carrying it to extreme proportions is something of which we must be wary. As someone before me mentioned, taking every stray comment as another legitimate point of view to be placed on an article is unscrupulous.

If I aver that indeed there is evidence that Roosevelt's apparent crippled nature was actually a big sham done to inspire sympathy from the voters, people would laugh me out of the country. Also, they would never bother to put such a stupid claim in an encyclopedia article, even as an 'alternative view,' since it is not widely held and has no proof or circumstantial evidence or ANY sort of support by legitimate questioners.

Lastly, japa (or repetition) of a mantra is a very well-established and popular Hindu practice geared towards focusing the mind on God. Most Hindus in India know some mantra or the other, and rhe spiritually-inclined or religious ones, constantly repeat the name of their conception of God or a specific mantra, while walking, in their heads, etc. This is not just idle speculation, like theories of the entire Indian newspress (which was markedly influenced by the British, by the way) fabricating a pleasant legend; rather, this is an established Hindu practice which Gandhi was most certainly a believer in. It is often said by Hindus, (Gandhi was not revolutionary in this way) that to die with the name of God on one's lips and in one's ears is the best way to die. For this reason, many North Indians will, at the death bed of a loved one, constantly repeat the name Ram, "Shri Ram, Jai Ram, Jai Jai Ram" or "Hare Ram Hare Ram". Also, other regions or people may use different names. This is common practice, and so it's not at all unprecedented, some incredibly individual habit and incident that Gandhi pioneered. Rather, he was continuing a Hindu tradition that has been familiar to Indians for many many centuries.

Gandhi has been quoted by all surrounding witnesses as saying "Hey Ram!" Fabricating conspiracies theories that could be possible motives in an alternative universe for the propagation of a lie is worthless. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:45, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

The Gandhi nobody knows?

I can understand someone reverting vandalism, but why has User:Arvindn reverted 62.254.64.10 as though it was vandalism. At least put a genuine reason in the comments for the revert. Jay 10:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't aware I had done that. What must have happened is that I probably clicked the revert link by accident (or someone else has my password and did it, but that's far less likely). I've changed it back. Arvindn 11:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ahh... the enticing Rollback link... the sops you get when you get to be a sysop ...

Celibacy

Gandhi would often refrain from sex from the beginning of his puberty.

I don't think this is true. Are there any references ? On the contrary Gandhi says in his autobiography that he had an active sex life as a teenager. Jay 07:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

removed the mentioned line as no clarifications forthcoming. Jay 10:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely remember that in his autobiography... he expresses guilt over the fact that he was not there for his father's death because he was with his wife. But I have also heard rumors of things he did later in life to "test" himself, e.g. sleep with (but not have sex with) young girls. Whether these are true stories or not I can't say. I didn't find them very flattering, anyway. Graft 11:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I too remember so. But other theories are also popular as someone said [8] (http://web.stn.net/icr/gandhi.html) [9] (http://www.triviahalloffame.com/gandhi.htm) --Rrjanbiah 12:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Gandhi's view on caste

Gandhi often voiced for those of the lower castes and promoted a society without castes. I haven't read the hole article, but there didn't seem to be any information on this. I don't know much about this, but somebody else could perhaps write something. Moravice 15:00, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

He definitely did not. He vehemently disagreed with Bhim Rao Ambedkar about the importance of caste in Indian society: Ambedkar wanted recognition of the depressed status of the untouchables at worst, and abolition of the caste system at best. Gandhi repeatedly blocked such reforms, as evidenced in the Poona Pact of 1932. --Deepsix 04:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Churchill's Opinions of Ghandi

I have been having a very interesting discussion withLordSuryaofShropshire about whether the qualifier 'as a subject of the British Empire' should appear on Churchill's opinion of Ghandi in the 'Noble Peace Prize' section, viz;

Throughout his lifetime, Ghandi's activities attracted a wide range of comment and opinion. For example, as a subject of the British Empire, Winston Churchill once referred to Gandhi as a "brown fakir." Conversely, Albert Einstein said of Gandhi, "Generations to come, it may be, will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."

I thought I would reproduce the discussion here, for the record, and in case anyone wishes to contribute/edit...

For:

As for Churchill, I think it's quite important to mention is 'vassalship' to the Crown especially when one considers that his goals for the British Empire were directly conflicted with those of Gandhi for India. The prevailing viewpoint, unfortunately, of Britishers in the colonial era was extremely racist and condescending, and it gives powerful context to the situation...at least Churchill's status as an British subject should be admitted in view of his antipathy towards Gandhi.

Against:

I understand the view that Churchill's vassalship provides relevant context to the reader, but one can still make the argument that it is presenting a POV about the truth-value Churchill's opinion, and privileges Einstein's opinion as being more 'accurate' (like this: the truth-value of Churchill's opinion is compromised in some way by his allegience to the Crown, whereas, Einstein's opinion, being unqualified in the text, is presented as more value-free, neutral and unbiased..?). If it's relevant to qualify Churchill's opinion as a British Empire subject, why is it not relevant to mention that Albert Einstein was a German Jew living in America??? Or that they were both European males?

Mercurius 22:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Churchill and Gandhi

I'm changing "brown fakir" to "half-naked fakir" for the obvious reason. References:

--Rrjanbiah 04:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is probably true that Churchill was racist by our standards. It is also true that the exact quote is:

"It is ... alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well-known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace"

The common misquote of "half-naked fakir" is therefore very misleading, and I am changing it correspondingly.

Source:

http://www.bartleby.com/66/73/12373.html

Thoreau

I have a felling that I read in this article that Gandhi was inspired by Henry David Thoreau and Jesus Christ (apart from Bhagvad Gita). There is no such mention anymore. Was it removed or is it my imagination? Is there some way to find out without going through the entire article history? --Ankur 07:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I found these Thoreau-Gandhi references (http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap4/thoreau.html#gandhi) easily with Google -- several publications are cited regarding the influence of Thoreau on Gandhi. --Ds13 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi Devanagari spelling

I am not in favour of using Devanagari (or gurumukhi or anything) spelling for people from India but while we use them it is better to use the correct spelling. Based on a google and yahoo search on the various ways in which Gandhi is spelt I find the order of (Internet's) preference is गाँधी गांधी <- change made by me गान्धी <- used in wikipedia

The correct spelling is important for articles on Indra Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi (apart from this article and Rahul & Priyanka.) Based on Google search गान्धी is hardly used anywhere. But the difference between गाँधी & गांधी is so little in terms of usage that it its better to consult someone who knows how to spell those names (or is a Gandhi himself.) I remember from my childhood that गाँधी is in fact the correct spelling - I am sorry apart from Internet I have no other way of finding out. So if no one has anything to contribute in a few days I'll make the change on all of those articles. Here is how the names are written in some transliteration scheme (that I do not know the name of): gA.NdhI gA.ndhI gAndhI

There is no single 'correct' spelling, unless you find out what Gandhi himself preferred. In modern written Hindi, words can freely utilize a half 'nah' or resort to the chandra bindu, or just the dot, to denote an 'n' sound. For this reason, Hindi can be written in two perfectly acceptable ways. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:28, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Artistic Depictions

This section is greatly lacking. It could easily be expanded with passing mentions of the satirical takes on Ghandi, such as "Ghandi II" in UHF or that MTV cartoon that caused an uproar...what the hell was that called, Clone High or something? Oh, let's not forget Ghandi's appearance in Hell in the South Park movie. --Feitclub 20:28, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

More Info/hunger strikes

Gandhi went on one hunger strike, and that was during the war between India and Pakistan. saiyanfan13

He also went on one in the early 1930s to pressure Ambedkar into withdrawing his request for a separate electorate for the untouchables. I think he did one in the early 1920s, too, but don't quote me on that.

World War II

The section on World War II gives the impression that India decided not to participate in the war; as a matter of fact, India did, and the Indian Armed Forces were the largest all-volunteer forces to fight in the 2nd world war. See Indian Air Force and World War II casualties.

On another note, should this article be entered for featured article status? --ashwatha 21:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I made a few changes:

Re-named Bibliography to References
Re-arranged a few sections (placing Quotations above References, etc)
linked some of the terms to associated articles

and other minor stuff. --ashwatha 05:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have also nominated the article for featured article status. Please comment on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Mahatma_Gandhi.

Gandhi enema usage

I have been adding information of Gandhi's documented enema usage (in the Misc section) and it seems to unfortunatly find it's way into nonexistence. Could we please have a discussion on the matter? Thanks in advance :) Oh, here's the source: documented by time magazine at : http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/mohandas_gandhi12a.html --Iconoclast 02:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this a couple of times too. I was probably to blame the first time - I think it got accidentally deleted during the re-organization that I was doing. I saw that you put it back, and then it was removed by an anon-IP again.

I suppose it is ok to have it here, since it is corroborated by the TIME article above. However, can you please mention that he had this habit for hygiene/health reasons? That is because (in modern American culture at least), a man having enemas is associated with several subcultures, and that line can be misinterpreted. Also, I couldn't find a reference to Gandhi's statements to his female companions in the TIME article. I found references to it elsewhere on the Internet, but given that the Internet abounds with several not-so-true things about famous personalities, I would suggest leaving that out (unless we have some authentic sources, of course).

It might be just as well to provide the above TIME link right with that sentence, since I expect we might have several reverts otherwise. --ashwatha 05:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image

I replaced the fair use image with one that is in the public domain, in response to one of the concerns in the fac nomination page. This image is from the Dutch wikipedia.

Pun

I noticed this was the featured article today, so I thought I'd note this pun here. <>< tbc 05:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Because Gandhi walked barefoot so much, his feet developed exceptional callouses. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail. His diet also contributed to chronic bad breath. This made him ... a super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Bit of bias at start of article

I feel that this sounds biased against Britain and does not represent what happened properly: "Gandhi helped bring about India's independence from British rule, inspiring other colonial peoples to work for their own independence and ultimately dismantle the British Empire and replace it with the Commonwealth."

It should be "indepence from Britain" or "the end of British rule". And I don't think they dismantled The British Empire, Britain did. And they didn't "replace it with the Commonwealth" they and Britain did.WikiUser 19:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)<p>Just feel when I read the article strong dislike/bias against Britain which I wouldn't get from reading encyclopedia entry. Also:<p>"This was a threat to the British establishment – while Indian workers were often idle due to unemployment, they bought their clothing from foreign English industrial manufacturers – if Indians spun their own clothes, this would leave British industry idle."<p>I think This was a threat to the British establishment is a bit pov. And if Indians spun their own clothes, this would leave British industry idle I don't think this true, even just for clothes.WikiUser 20:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that last part should probobly be rephrased so that it says that it had a "negative impact" on the british economy, or something along those lines. "British establishment" should also probobly be replaced with "British economy."

Sounds fine. One point though; "This was a threat to the British economy" - how big or significant could it be though, compared to whole Empire's markets?18:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, India was "the crown jewel of the British empire." It may not have caused a catastrophe, but even a couple percent negative effect on GDP could have had an impact, and be a "threat" to an extent. Still, I do not actually know how it effected the GDP, so that is only speculation.

Negative Gandhi

This article appears to be mere hagiography; why are there no mentions of such Gandhi stances as "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." and "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."? --Chris Martin 01:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope that some context is offered if those quotations are added. There is a similarly embarrassing quotation about Hitler from Winston Churchhill, of all people. Before he invaded Poland, Hiler was mostly known for rescuing Germany from depression. Without context, the quotation regarding the Jews is more difficult to interpret charitably. --Goethean 02:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Goethean. I remember that Gandhi's above quotation was mainly meant to say that he believed that non-violent resistance from jews would be successful.

That said, the section on the civil rights movement in South Africa does read a bit too much like a eulogy - it was much better a few weeks ago; more to the point, and also included a common criticism of Gandhi's years in South Africa - he was (and still is) criticized for not extending his activism to native Africans and limiting his activities for Indians only. I will try to prune this section and re-add some of the missing statements. --ashwatha 02:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps also there could be some mention of Gandhi's ardent support of the caste system and his remedy for the plight of the Untouchables to merely change their caste title to "Harijan" and allow them to be educated while maintaining the restrictions of the Untouchable caste.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_1"