Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

movie?

any info on media? - samphex i also wanted to see his quotes and what they mean.....like "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"....

Pop Culture

I'd like to add some stuff to the pop culture section, but you can't edit. We need this delisted. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.146.200.97 (talk • contribs) .

There is no pop culture section on this page. Please add your inputs to the relevant page ramit 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have been mistaken, anyway, if someone wants to add a pop coulture section, please do so. I only have one thing to add to it.

A bit too much text

I'm doing a project on Gandhi and it seems I have to finish it all in one day. Could it be possible to compress the article. Gandhi in a nutshell would help. Thx

Hi, this is an encyclopedia for everybody! We can't just shorten for you. You don't have to use the English Wikipedia as your only source. You can go here or try other websites (search with Google). Also what is your project specifically on? Don't plagiarise. But what you really should do is to read the this page about three times, highlight in your head and then write the project. DaGizza Chat (c) 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is insanely long. I came to this page looking to make some suggestions as to which sections could have their own pages, but I'm not even sure I want to enter this debate. In any case, this article flaunts a number of wikipedia style guidelines aimed at making article more readable, including those concerning length, so maybe you should lay off the anonymous reader. Oh yeah, and it's a joke that this article is featured, informative as it may be. Nothing with this much ongoing NPOV debate should be featured. --djrobgordon 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just doing a very urgent 3 page essay (me slow at typing). I was a bit desperate. But still, heres so much text that it is hard to get an outline of the stuff and you end up getting too much text to read.

Do you have suggestions on how to better summarize or section, organize, etc. the article? Are there any particular areas where you would recommend material be moved to a sub-article? El_C 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The history section is quite large and the sub article is basically a copy and paste. We should first outline the main points then elaborate as that is how I do a lot of things but it is actually quite hard to do so in some areas due to the bulk of text. Transfering it into a microsoft Word document and using the summarise tool might not help either.

They have a "simple English" Wikipedia that usually have shortened versions of articles, usually meant for ESL students. Maybe that can help? Charlene Copley 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Solution to Fix Length Problem

Dear All,

I have a solution to propose to fix the problem of the huge length of this article.

  • We could UNITE the section concerning Gandhi's principles with Gandhism

This would be a big move, but would protect the RICHNESS and INTEGRITY of the size, content and diverse features of Wikipedia's coverage of Mahatma Gandhi.

Such a move was made about prophet Muhammad of Islam, creating separate articles to discuss specific subjects concerning his life and leadership.

I think this is a very good idea, so I'm putting it up for a debate.

Jai Sri Rama! - Rama's Arrow.

Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

I've created the article that will be the best solution, so you can judge whether it is appropriate or not. I personally think its a great idea and got a bit restless, but we can always delete it if it is felt that its not a good idea.

- Rama's Arrow.

Sub-Article

From the debate before I proposed my solution, it seems there is no objection to a possible sub-article. Previously Gurubrahma and some others hinted to a sub-article as well.

I hope nobody considers this particularly arbitrary, but I will proceed to move sections 6-11 to the article: The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Obviously if a consensus disagree, they may revert the changes. - Rama's Arrow

I agree Rama/Nirav the article was overly long and needed to be split up. I am pleased you have kept the "Principles" section on the main page, as this gives readers a quick insight into his practices and beliefs. Just a word of warning, by pruning the article down this should not mean there is room to add more large sections of text, otherwise we will be back where we started. --nirvana2013 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Nirav, what happened to some of the sections? Modern criticism, for example. We don't want to go down the NPOV edit war route again. Also, if there is an article called Non-Cooperation Movement, then there should be little text on the main page, certainly no more than a couple of paragraphs. The text is only there to give readers an introduction to the sub-article. --nirvana2013 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Modern criticism is in the Leadership article. One can fine-tune the NCM section, but I think we need it proper on this article. - User:Rama's Arrow.

New additions

Hello All,

I'm sorry if my new additions are contrary to the desire to reduce the length of this article. I'm sure that we can re-organize further; a net drop of 10kbs has already been achieved.

I've made the additions because I feel that a clearer picture of Gandhi's personal life and post-Independence activities was necessary. There was an awkward gap between the partition of India and his assassination.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Obscene Text

Hello everyone,

This is my first edit, first contribution, and first discussion, so I hope I did it right. Despite this being a featured article, I noticed some obscene text towards the beginning, so I felt it appropriate to remove it. User:JeremyS779


I have noticed throughout the entire article that someone has added in Joke text, such as I Like Cheese under it's own heading, or "Me and gandhi were tight" and such. However, I have not read enough regarding how to edit and update articles to feel comfortable making any changes, and Hope someone sees this statement soon and removes the offending text. Caris42 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That appears to have been fixed. If some of it remains or reappears, please feel free to report it again. Next time, if you provide a quoted string that we can search for to easily check whether the vandalism has been removed, that would be helpful. —Wookipedian 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh Come on

'realized not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

I've changed this to

'finally decided not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

btw. this article is POV it is untrue, but I'll content myself with just this minor change 81.110.202.57 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed my mind

"After lengthy deliberations with colleagues in the Congress, he declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied in India herself"

The war was not fought for 'democratic freedom', onstensibly or otherwise, it was fought to resist the murderous forces of Japan and Germany.

Look, I can see why you're embaressed about Gandhi's reaction to WW2, he'd obviously lost it a bit by then, but I can't understand the dishonesty of the left in trying to censor their heroes when they simply got in wrong on a couple of issues. 81.110.202.57 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Its not the left, its just a cult-of-personality phenemenon, a minor deification. You find the same thing with Reagan. Anyways, I agree, Ghandi wasn't perfect, and your first change was a good one. But its not about left vs. right. --Brentt 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Throughout his life?

I'm not sure the following statement in the opening paragraph is accurate:

Throughout his life he opposed any form of terrorism or violence.

I seem to recall that he worked as a recruiter for the British Army in WWI. Albeit for the ambulance corps, but nonetheless he was helping the war effort. --Brentt 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have re-worded that line. --nirvana2013 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Nirvana2013's wording simply introduces the wording adult as if Gandhi wasn't an adult till the end of WWI.

Secondly, the statement describes his personal opposition to war, not his views on the British effort in WWI. In his autobiography, he repeatedly talks of the terrible devastation of the war.

He only describes it as his duty to help in defence of the Empire, if he wanted equal citizenship in it.

I don't feel there need be any change. However I will wait before eliminating the word adult.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Mahatma title

I've read many a place that Rabindranath Tagore conferred the title of Mahatma on Gandhiji while Gandhiji returned the compliment with the title Gurudev. The article mentions someone else giving the title of Mahatma. Can someone please check and make the necessary corrections, if any? --Gurubrahma 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to have been omitted completely. Think the source of the title must be included. The name seems to have been conferred by Tagore in 1915, while Gandi in turn conferred the title Gurudev.Arunk17 10:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all sources on the topic credit Tagore. I added Tagore's name and the following reference - Dutta, Krishna and Andrew Robinson. Rabindranath Tagore: An Anthology, p. 2. -Classicfilms 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White

While Bourke-White was the last person to photograph Gandhi, it was not the one which shows him at the spinning wheel. There are plenty of references which indicate that this photo was taken in 1946. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc. I seem to remember that the last one was one that had Manu and Abha as well, but I am not at all sure about that. Tintin Talk 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, according to an NYT article, there is some doubt whether it was Bourke-White who took his last picture. I'll raise that in her article. Tintin Talk 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Faith??

I'm not sure what this has to do with Gandhi's principle of faith. It needs to be changed, added to, or explained: Faith In spite of their deep reverence to each other, Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore got involved in protracted debates more than once. These debates exemplify the philosophical differences between the two most famous Indians at the time. On January 15, 1934, an earthquake hit Bihar and caused extensive damage and loss of life. Gandhi maintained this was because of the sin committed by upper caste Hindus by not letting untouchables in their temples (Gandhi was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna). Tagore vehemently opposed Gandhi's stance, maintaining that an earthquake can only be caused by natural forces, not moral reasons, however repugnant the practice of untouchability may be. TheTruth12 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhiji

At present, the term Gandhiji is once used as a label under a picture. I don't think that name should be used in a caption if it's not explained in the text. As I understand it, the -ji in Gandhiji is some sort of respectful suffix. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/Ghandi.html points out that, since Mahatma is a honorific title too, Mahatma Gandhiji would be honorific overkill. Can someone confirm this? - Adhemar, January 23, 2006

Yes, it is either Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji but never Mahatma Gandhiji. -ji is a commonly used suffix in Hindi language to show respect to elderly. The closest equivalent in English is probably "Sir." --Gurubrahma 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that "Gandhiji" is NPOV. — goethean

15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither is "The Rth Hon. Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill". However, wikipedia refers to the article on this particular specimen of white man by his full honorific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill%2C_Winston). God forbid that a minimum of courtesy be extended to a singular man like the Mahatma because he's just a "silly negro" in the eyes of the occidental racist idealogue, eh? User: Subhash bose
Please refer to WP:NPA. Such incivility is not accepted at Wikipedia. You have no right to level personal accusations against other users who are merely raising a procedural question. As a matter of fact, I consider the Mahatma one of my greatest heroes, but it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to call him "Gandhiji" itself, without indicating that this is how he is known to his admirers. The difference is that Churchill was a Lord of Great Britain as well as a Knight of the Order of the Garter. These are political distinctions which are recognized by everyone, even those who do not admire or respect Churchill. There is no "Order of Ji"; Gandhi is simply called "Gandhiji" by his admirers. Wikipedia is not an admirer.
And to reiterate: Please deep-six the personal attacks pronto. Thanks, Kasreyn 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Your point about the explanation stands, and I agree that the accusation of racism was not necessary, but that was not a personal attack. He was questioning the institutional racism of Wpedia, which refers to a white man by his full title and (possibly) does not do the same for Gandhi. Subhas Bose was not calling you racist, and that was not an ad hominem attack. 128.12.185.226 04:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

incident?

Which incident does this line refer to?: "This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria." It's not at all clear, as the previous line mentions recurring incidences.

South Africa changed him dramatically as he faced the humiliation and oppression that was commonly directed at Indians in that country. One day in court in the city of Durban, the magistrate asked him to remove his turban, which he refused to do, and Gandhi stormed out of the courtroom. He was also literally thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg after refusing to move from first class to a third class compartment, normally used by coloured peoples, while travelling on a valid first class ticket. Later, travelling further on by stagecoach, he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the footboard to make room for a European passenger. He suffered other hardships on the journey as well, including being barred from many hotels on account of his race. This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria. This experience led him to more closely examine the hardships his people suffered in South Africa during his time in Pretoria.
i believe it's a confusion due to several editors inserting sentences in between previously existing text: the incident is the one of getting thrown off train: deleting the line "suffered other hardships" or shifting it after the mentioned line wouldn't be ok: also unclear which biography/biographies identifies the incident as turning point. --Pournami 07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Assassination not death

Assassination is the appropriate term here, considering the nature of death and the stature of the person involved.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To assassinate means to attack to kill by surprise, for instance, due to political reasons - Gandhi's case appeals to both criteria - ofcourse, it can apply to any person, though it is generally used for prominent political/social leaders.
Pizzadeliveryboy 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

you people have a lot of time on your hands. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.20.240 (talk • contribs) .

{{sprotect}} tags dont work

Apparently, the {{sprotect}} tags dont work!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the article first needs to be semi-protected or protected as the case may be, by an admin. Only then, the tags would be inserted and give an impression of the tags working. The insertion of tags does not help in protecting an article. --Gurubrahma 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Source citation : regarding Patel a life

Patel A life is only a secondary/tertiary source of bio information on gandhi: biography of patel, is it not: when primary/better sources are available, is that necessary? CWMG and autobio by Gandhi himself, famous biographies of gandhi himself (not his associates and comrades like patel), writings of close assistants, like desai, etc, and then, writings on gandhi himself, --Pournami 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is "Patel A"? Is that the author/source? -- (posted on February 12, 2006 by 24.89.26.226 : Info added by User:Writtenonsand)

Patel: A Life, by Rajmohan Gandhi
http://indiaclub.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=3463
- Writtenonsand 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Rajmohan Gandhi includes a lot of information about Gandhi and his philosophy as a way of explaining Patel's own life in the freedom struggle. This book is a very comprehensive one - I've got a lot of info on numerous historical events from this, including Political integration of India in it's entirety.
If you are so concerned about a Patel bio being the primary reference, please obtain a good Gandhi bio and add cited material from it. As far as I'm concerned a resource is a resource. Rama's Arrow 20:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
you're right about "a resource is a resource". since you added the cited info yourself and the book was your primary source, i thought it better to undo [6]a change i made to the source citation section. anyway, having a source is better than not having a source at all(-which is the case with most of the article, esp the priciples section which would be much better if inlinecited properly). i made a couple of changes in the references, wasn't sure if what i did was ok, which is why i posted above question. i'm not concerned about patel bio being a reference, sry if i gave that impression-Pournami 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my tone was standoffish. Note - I plan on adding in-line citations this coming week for Gandhi's early life, principles and South Africa times from his autobio, which is a good primary source. Rama's Arrow 06:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic article

I just wanted to congratulate all concerned on this great article. It's clear, well-written, and interesting throughout. I thought there was a great balance between putting material here and linking to other pages: there were several things I followed up on out of interest, but I never felt that I had to look up something just to understand this article. I'll certainly use it as inspiration in my more humble efforts. Thanks to the many editors who made this happen! -- William Pietri 14:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

religious agenda

did gandhi have any religious agenda or were his goals mainly political ? Hhnnrr 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


No, Gandhi never advocated one religion over another, nor a religion as a solution to socio-political problems. His activities were for "Swaraj," for which he felt that combating untouchability, socio-religious discrimination, poverty and socio-economic ills was essential. Rama's Arrow 03:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ghandi was a great man and is still remembered today because of his philosophy of non-violence.

I removed

I removed these two sentences:

The wide acceptance of this title outside India may in part reflect the complexities of the relationship between India and Britain during Gandhi's lifetime. Such acceptance is consistent with the widespread perception of his deeply held religious beliefs and commitment to non-violence.

There is no source for these and they are most likely original research/speculation. "The complexities of the relationship between India and Britain during Gandhi's lifetime" is about as vague as one can get. The second sentence is more speculative than the first. The first setence in the Mahatma subsection states (with a source) that the use of the term internationally is due to the confusion that it is his first name. Therefore, its not really appropriate to say, as the second sentence implies, that it is due to the perception of his beliefs or non-violence. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Gandhi

Hi All,

Yesterday I added text under "Criticism", specifically right after this paragraph:

Gandhi has also been criticized by various historians and commentators for his attitudes regarding Hitler and Nazism. Gandhi apparently believed that Hitler's hatred could be transformed by the application of non-violent resistance. Gandhi has come under fire in particular for statements to the effect that the Jews would win God's love if they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs [22] [23].

This is the text I had added:

<start> Similarly, many have criticized Gandhi's anti-Zionism stance as political appeasement for India's Muslims. On November 26, 1938, he explained his opposition to Zionism in an article published in Harijan:

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. [7]" </end>

Yet it was promptly removed by someone. It is a verifiable fact that Gandhi was an anti-Zionist and that many criticize him because of it, so why was my addition removed? Unless my actions were incorrect, I request that my addition be reinstated and protected from vandalism. If I was wrong to make that addition I request an explanation of why I was wrong, so that I can understand my mistake and refrain from making similar mistakes in the future. Thanks.

--Amirw 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See talk archive 4 above and raise the issue here if your concerns have not been adequately addressed there. btw, I doubt if it is a verifiable fact that Gandhi was an anti-Zionist - Albert Einstein was one of the strongest admirers of Gandhi. --Gurubrahma 13:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Gurubrahma. I have just read talk archive 4, and it seems that someone accused Gandhi of being an anti-Semite and that the discussion was concluded by agreement that Gandhi was not anti-Semitic but rather ultra-pacifist and anti-zionist (for this opinion please read comment by treesmill 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)). Unfortunately, many people falsely equate anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, and Gandhi is a good example of why such an equation is false.
Also, if you follow the link I have provided, and read the collection of articles, letters, speeches, and interviews by Gandhi on Jews and Palestine, his opinion regarding Zionism will become quite clear because he is very straight forward about it. In particular, you may want to read 'The Jews', by Gandhi - From Harijan, November 26, 1938 and also 'The Jew and the Arab: Discussion with Mr. Silverman and Mr. Honick', March 1946, report by Pyarelal - From Louis Fischer papers; however, if possible, I recommend that you read all of the pieces as he reiterates his position on Zionism on many other occasions as well. All these pieces have verfiably been written by Gandhi. Here is the link again: http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html
As for Albert Einstein; he was obviously a very intelligent man, so perhaps he was capable of not allowing his disagreement with Gandhi's position on Zionism to overcloud his admiration for Gandhi's many great achievements. Additionally, Albert Einstein probably understood that anti-Zionism does not necessarily equate anti-Semitism (something which the poster in talk archive 4 apparently did not), but these are simply my predictions and I do not have any proof of why Einstein admired Gandhi in spite of Gandhi's opposition to Zionism.
I understand that this is a touchy subject for some, but it is the truth, and to supress it would go against everything Gandhi stood for. In fact, Gandhi wrote a follow-up to his 'The Jews' article, which I had originally quoted above: "Nor did I write the article only for today. I flatter myself with the belief that some of my writings will survive me and will be of service to the causes for which they have been written. I have no sense of disappointment that my writing had not to my knowledge converted a single Jew." (The Jewish Question, by Gandhi - From Harijan, May 22, 1939) (you may find the complete article in the link I have provided).
I look forward to your response.--Amirw 17:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It refers to him being against Jews imposing their new nation on Palestine - I did not know till now that it is anti-Zionism. As it is a value-laden term, it is better not to use it. Instead, say something like "Gandhi was against creation of Israel from Plaestine" or some such thing. Also, Gandhi's anti-Zionism stance as political appeasement for India's Muslims is unverified POV and it should not stay in the article. --Gurubrahma 07:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
After this sentence "Gandhi has come under fire in particular for statements to the effect that the Jews would win God's love if they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs [22] [23]." what do you think about adding the following:
"Gandhi has also been criticized by some proponents of Israel because he was against the forceful creation of an Israeli state in Palestine. [8]"
I added the 'forceful' qualifier based on his following writing: "But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart." ('The Jews' Harijan) So he wasn't completely against the creation of an Israeli state in Palestine, just not one that was created by force. Here is a link of a relatively famous Israel proponent, Martin Buber, criticizing Gandhi's stance on Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/buber1.html --Amirw 04:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You state above that my comment, now archived, provides support for the view that 'Gandhi was not anti-Semitic but rather ultra-pacifist and anti-zionist'. The last of these is not supported by the comment. Nothing I have seen provides justification for calling Gandhi an anti-zionist, except insofar as his ultra-pacifist position inevitably contrasts strongly with that of a movement which is certainly not pacifist. A parallel would be to say that Gandhi was anti-Indian because India maintained and used a military force, but this would be a nonsense. Available evidence suggests that Gandhi was supportive of the establishment of a state of Israel, if it could be done by entirely peaceful means. treesmill 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi treesmill. I apologize for my mistake. It was actually a poster right below you, AMbroodEY, who made the following comment: "Gandhi was against the idea of Zionism but why would he hate Jews???".
Now that we have that out the way, let me explain to you why I believe Gandhi was an anti-Zionist. First, let's define Zionism:
Zionism is a political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history.
Here is an excerpt from 'The Jews', Harijan:
The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?
The last sentence of the above paragraph is what made me think that he was against Zionism, or creating a new homeland in the land of Israel, and proposed that Jews continued living where they were born instead of looking for a new homeland. However, although I do not agree with your analogy, I did come to the same conclusion as you did, which is that Gandhi was not against the peaceful creation of Israel, although I have already discussed this in my previous post. Also, I have addressed this issue in my revised proposed text by removing the 'anti-Zionist' term and adding the 'forceful' qualifier. For the new proposed text please review my previous post. Again, I apologize for mistakenly attributing AMbroodEY's archived comment to you. --Amirw 06:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I tried to add an NPOV dispute to the criticism section. I don't dispute the facts in that section. However, I ask that the tone of the article be neutralized and the (apparently) antisemetic quotes be provided with complete context. Bearing in mind that there is a significant amount of support for Israel in the Hindu community, as evidenced by the Likud party's positive relationship with the BJP and Sharon's visit to India in 2003, with which he was also very pleased. In addition, I'd also like to point out that Indians sympathize with the problem that the great Jewish nation faces in the West Bank, given that we have a similar problem with radical Islamists in Kashmir, and treacherous elements in our own government who disparage and denigrate our nation and her people in favor of our enemies. Many of us would be greatly troubled as Indians and long standing supporters of the Israeli nation state to see any rift created between Hindus and Jews (in those parts of the world where we now live in close proximity and work together or in friendly competition in businesses) if either side misinterprets these quotes. This would provide our mutual enemies with the propaganda they need to divide us and serve their agenda of fear and terror. At this point, the article looks like propaganda written by an anti-hindu Islamist and/or a white supremacist Neo-Nazi/Klansman with a political agenda of gaining sympathy by aggravating preexisting hatred against Indians in the west. I urge wikipedia moderators to review this article thoroughly and place the quotes in a more neutral context.--Subhash Bose 09:14, 23 March 2006 (CST)
Wow, first of all it is not wikipedia's job to make sure it does not publish any articles that might dampen Indo-Israeli relations. If you have any specific complains then post it here. It is not that long of a section and can easily be rectified without throwing a npov tag.--Blacksun 08:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my position. The Indo-Israeli relations thing was merely an attempt to explain my concerns regarding the bias in the article in a modern political context. I am aware that wikipedia's goal is to be dispassionate and neutral and not get involved in contemporary politics. However, wikipedia mods have been known to correct other articles with ethnocentric bias in their tone (not necessarily content). I have no issues with content in this particular article, just that the tone is demeaning and disparaging to a historical figure, and is an attempt to INTRODUCE a political bias into a wikipedia article (Which wikipedia is not supposed to allow). It does not present a balance view of the Mahatmas attitude towards the Third Reich. The references provided in the article mostly point to the websites of racist and ethnocentric organizations, and only a few to any legitimate scholarly ones (one of the references demeans the Mahatma as a cannibal and a subhuman creature, not very scholarly, is it?) On several occasions, not only has he condemned the NSDAP party in Germany, but has also been censured by conservative elements in the BRITISH government who were admirers of National Socialism. If I edit the article, then the risk is there of it being tagged again by a Hindu-hater on some obscure excuse and this talk page will resort to a torrent of their ad-hominem attacks and anal-retentive dialectic, something which you should not desire. To that end, I suggest you read the following article by Koenraad Elst (http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/fascism/gandhihitler.html) which poresents a more complete view of the Gandhi-Hitler situation (bear in mind that this article is also critical of the Mahatma at times, but in a less malicious way and with no political aganda against India).[Subhash Bose]

On Mahatma's criticisms, has anything been mentioned on his hatred for low class indians and the indigenous peoples of South Africa? If not, would any of the contributors bother to read the article: http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Kemp184-186.html Fatima Gandhi

Still too long

This article is still really long. I'm finding it hard to get through in one sitting. Whether or not it's too long is up for discussion, i suppose. --Torgo 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Article an Alternative

Looks like I’m alone in feeling this way, but I found this article unusually informative, not “too long.” Still, for a quick and dirty alternative to the full-article text, readers can always drop by the simple English article first. It’s much shorter and a decent jumping-off point. --Hamishofangus 14:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hind Swaraj (anti-Western, anti-modern, anti-education, etc)

Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like Gandhi's core ideas, outlined in his 1909 work, Hind Swaraj, are not mentioned here. If some of these things have been mentioned, it is a testament to my groggy state and lack of reading skills, which I will freely admit to. Anyway, Hind Swaraj outlines Gandhi's hatred of all things Western, his insistance that India is the best civilization in the world and needs no outside assistance, his description of the British parliamentary system as being like a sterile woman and a whore, etc. Other favourites include his abhorence of modern technology, and his belief that just about any form of education aside from language and religious teachings holds no purpose. Before anybody points to 1909 as an outlandish date, the man himself reaffirmed his belief in Hind Swaraj in 1938 ("I have seen nothing to make me alter the view expounded in it") and again in 1946 ("My experience has confirmed the truth of what I wrote in 1909"). You can see those reaffirmations in the 1938 edition of Hind Swaraj, the Indian government's hundred-volume "Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi" v. 81, p. 319, or check out "Gandhi's Dilemma" by Manfred Steger.

You appear to have completely misunderstood the point of Hind Swaraj. Nowhere does it 'outline Gandhi's hatred of all things Western'. Gandhi's criticises some (not all) apects of modern civilisation, only incidentally Western. He welcomes some of its developments, civil liberty, universal suffrage, equality of rights, the prospect of improvement in conditions of life, liberation of women from tradition and religious toleration. In his autobiography he speaks of his admiration for the British constitution. This is not 'hatred of all things Western'. treesmill 19:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When was he anti-western? He had a western education and for part of his life he supported the English and liked their lifestyle from what I know.

It is absolutely putrid to suggest that Gandhi "hated" anything. It is also entirely nonsense to suggest he even remotely hated anything British - the whole idea of peaceful disobedience was to point out to the British the evil of their practices, and not kill them for weaknesses shared by all human beings. As for his views on education, he only emphasized that Indian languages and Indian culture must run an institution, not British-style curriculums that diminish the value of Indian traditions. Gandhi was never an opponent of science - he advised people to burn British clothes only because of the dependence and poverty it was creating in India, by putting millions of people out of work. The man himself practiced natural medicine and therapies. Gandhi encouraged people to understand the wealth of Indian knowledge before converting to all things Western. That is all. Rama's Arrow 10:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with Ambedkar (Dalit activist) will know about Gandhi's confusing insistence that doing away with the caste system would do away with Hinduism itself. He connects varna and caste and says caste IS varna, and varna cannot be done away with. Check out "Caste and World Conference against Racism, Durban, 2001: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste", which is edited by G.S. Thind and includes large segments of the Ambedkar-Gandhi debate via the Indian press. Gandhi also said that primary and "higher" education was unnecessary. Please see: Hind Swaraj. In his chapter on education he also seems to hint that English-style education and the spread of the English language in India has led to a drop in morality. As for Gandhi being for or against science, he felt it was a useless thing to learn, along with mathematics and the like. A choice quote from an online version of Hind Swaraj (I don't have my 1930-ish copy handy): "It is worth noting that, by receiving English education, we have enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, tyranny, etc., have increased; English-knowing Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror into the people." Perhaps "hatred" is too strong a word, but I would hardly call him a universalist, or a progressive.
And if you'll excuse the random way in which I cobbled together this comment, see also this quote: "This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England alone are laboring under trying circumstances in factories or similar institutions. This awful act is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement. This civilization is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mohammed this would be considered a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it a Black Age. I cannot give you an adequate conception of it. It is eating into the vitals of the English nation. It must be shunned. Parliaments are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently think over this, you will entertain the same opinion and cease to to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I therefore respect them. Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English are at present afflicted by it."
I understand you getting confused on your perspective from the Hindu Swaraj quote: Gandhi was referring to the facts that at the time, British-design curriculum was heavily biased against Indian history and culture. A lot of English-educated Indians acted with a superiority complex - the Congress was considered an elitist body before Tilak and Gandhi showed up. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a strong opponent of this British system, and he was an amateur astromer and mathematician. Gandhi himself spent his days in the Yeravda Jail from 1932 to 1934 learning astronomy. Rama's Arrow 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Gandhi criticized the vagaries of industrialized society in England - those were days without social security or worker's rights. And he was attacked England's expenditure, human and material, on building large empires of subjugation of close to a billion people, without seeking remedy to the problems of England's farmers, factory workers, laborers, etc.
As to Ambedkar - Gandhi, please note that Gandhi personally campaign against untouchability from the very beginning, and yet was a Hindu who prayed and consistently read the Gita and other Hindu texts till the day he died. See Vaikom Satyagraha. During the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Yeravda Pact, it was Gandhi who was responsible for orthodox leaders across India ending the practice of untouchability in many parts. In his autobiography, it is Gandhi who expresses disgust at an orthodox Hindu's belief that the caste system was an inalienable part of Hinduism. Gandhi never believed in the caste system. Rama's Arrow 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Amritsar massacre

Right now the article says that only 379 civilians were killed at the massacre of Amristar, this number is most certainly higher. I believe that 379 was the 'official' number released by the British, but many other reports put this number over 1,000.

Any references? --Siva1979Talk to me 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre / Amritsar Massacre goes into a little more detail and has some sources. -- Writtenonsand 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller? Please...

The primary spokespeople for criticism of Gandhi cannot, cannot be a couple of later-20th century comedian/magicians. Penn and Teller should not be in this article at all. Let's talk about Orwell. (Ethan Mitchell, not logged in)

Yes, sound reasoning. Orwell's criticism was that Gandhi carried religiousness to the extent of being almost inhuman (in personal life). Include that? Orwell said much more in praise? Especially an explanation on controversial stance on jews
Yeah, I would go ahead and delete the penn and teller reference, but if some former objectors return and restart a word war on the talk page.. (really cannot rule out possibility) I don't know why so many people are so angry at the Gandhi article on wiki. Vandalism, it might be; but why so much? -Pournami 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If it's ok with all editors interested in article, in light of the fact that Penn and Teller cannot be considered serious criticism, as Ethan says above, let's delete the line on Penn and Teller and include Orwell? -Pournami 05:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Languages

There were a boat load of translations of Gandhi's name in the lead and I don't know what we were trying to convey with that. He was a Gujarati, so let's just keep it simple. Otherwise we'd be spending the rest of our lives translating his name into all of India's national languages. AreJay 14:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

False assertions about Vegeterianism

As depicted in the article vegeterianism is NOT prevalant in any part of India.. Less than 6% of the hindu population is vegeterians. Rest eat meat. Hindus in general eat chicken, goat, lamb, different kinds of small birds and all kinds of edible seafood. However there might be a higher percentage of hindu population that does not specifically eat a Cow which is a scared animal. And some of the hindus does not eat Cow for religious reasons, eat Beef(buffalo, ox etc).

To represent most of the hindus as vegetarians in this article is pure propaganda. Thx

Actually I heard about a third are lacto vegetarians, another third eat a little meat, and the remaining third eat Western diets, are fruitarians, and whatever. All depends on the statistics and reports you read. Charlene Copley
For purposes of the Wikipedia, it depends on the sources we cite.  :-) WP:VERIFY -- Writtenonsand 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi on the place of English language in India and the World

From * Early Gandhi and the Language policy of the Indian National Congress by M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.:

CAN ENGLISH BECOME OUR NATIONAL LANGUAGE?

Raising the question "whether English can become our national language," Gandhi listed the following criteria for any language to become "our national language," in his presidential address at the Second Gujarat Educational Conference at Broach in 1917 (Gandhi 1956:3).

  1. It should be easy to learn for Government officials.
  2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic and political intercourse throughout India.
  3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India.
  4. It should be easy to learn for the whole of the country.
  5. In choosing this language considerations of temporary or passing interest should not count.

Gandhi concluded that

English does not fulfill any of these requirements …... We shall have to admit that it is Hindi..… There, now remains the question of script. For the present, Muslims will certainly use the Urdu script and Hindus will mostly write in Devanagari.…. No other language can compete with Hindi in satisfying these five requirements.…. Thus, we see that Hindi alone can become the national language. No doubt it presents some difficulty to the educated classes of Madras. …. If Hindi attains to its due status then it will be introduced in every school in Madras and Madras will thus be in a position to cultivate acquaintance with other province….. In general, however, the ways, which have been suggested for the promotion of the Mother tongue, may with suitable modifications be applied to the national language. The responsibility of making Gujarati the medium of instruction will have to be shouldered mainly by us but in the movement to popularize the national language the whole country must play its part (Gandhi 1956: 3-7).

This was in 1917, and the Indian National Congress was not yet fully Gandhi-bound.

On the same site, we can read an interesting article on the progression of English in India and the competition it gives to Indian languages:

In the French version of the Wikipedia article on Gandhi, we can read the following quotes:

  • "Donner à des millions une connaissance de l'anglais, c'est les rendre esclaves". (Hind Swarâj, ch. 18)
  • "Je suis pour un même calendrier pour le monde entier, comme je suis pour une même monnaie pour tous les peuples et pour une langue auxiliaire mondiale comme l'espéranto pour tous les peuples".

Which in English translates to:

  • "To give millions the knowledge of English is to render them slaves". (Hind Swarâj, ch. 18)
  • "I am for a world calendar, as I am for a world currency for all peoples as well as an auxiliary language such as esperanto ".

Can someone help me confirm that those quotes are 1) authentic 2) acceptable French translations of the originals? I cannot find them anywhere else than in Wikipedia and I'd like to find more sources on this, ideally some original sources I can read (in French or English). -- Mathieugp 03:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have just found a primary English language source for the first quote in Wikisource (I really should have looked there first. That was not too bright... :-)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj#CHAPTER_XVIII:_EDUCATION
Reader: Do I then understand that you do not consider English education necessary for obtaining Home Rule ?
Editor: My answer is yes and no. To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them. The foundation that Macaulay laid of education has enslaved us. I do not suggest that he has any such intention, but that has been the result. Is it not a sad commentary that we should have to speak of Home Rule in a foreign tongue?
Now I only need to find the source for the second quote. -- Mathieugp 04:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not good!


Vandalism

This page keeps getting vandalised too often. The last dozen or so edits are only reverting vandalism. Can we make it protected? ramit 19:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone know offhand what's the vandalism level that a page has to reach before it's protected? I count roughly 70 vandalism reverts in the first 17 days of May. Nearly all the vandalism was anonymous, so just protecting from anonymous edits would do the trick. The problem here is that there are too many instances of insults. I think the tolerance level should be lower when vandals are repeatedly insulting someone who is so revered by the world, and a spiritual leader of the second most populous country in the world. ॐ Priyanath 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the page to deal with the sudden increase in vandalism. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Can anybody explain why there are so many stamps out there..is it necessary?

To me, it gives the message that he was considered a very important personality by many countries... After all how many personalities (whether leaders/ politicians/ actors/ sportstars/ celebrities) have so many countries issue stamps after them. ramit 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Somnath Temple

Gandhi, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Kanaiya Lal Munshi and Dr. Rajedra Prasad, all these have openly supported for the construction of Somnath temple and Indian Political Party BJP (Bhartiya Janta Party) have started their Rath Yatras from Somnath also.
(My Opinion : The Somnath Temple is monument for Indian Caste based system and there is little hope for scientific progress and eradication of povery from Indian subcontinet.)
vkvora 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello VKVora, I advise you to go through the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia ramit 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
From vkvora to Ramitmahajan : I have separated my opinion and put it in bracket. vkvora 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I dont see the relevance of putting Somnath temple on Mahatma Gandhi's page and therefore I had reverted it before. I am leaving it to other users' judgement as I dont want to approach the three revert rule. ramit 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I too find it totally irrelevant, or at best far too tiny a detail to belong in this article. I advocate removing it again. —johndburger 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I also find this irrelevant and will remove it by the end of the week if no serious objection arises from someone other than vkvora. Indrian 18:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discovered Truth

Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He named his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth.
( Comments from vkvora : MK Gandhi was interested in construction of Somnath Temple and he proposed to collect the fund from Citizens. When many citizens were involved including political leaders Sardar Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Kanaiyalal M. Munshi and there is no reference or word in the Article of Mahatma Gandhi, we are trying to supress the TRUTH. Somnath Temple is the monumnet of Indian Caste based system. Now for discussion : God is Truth or Truth is God ) vkvora 03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

protection

The page has remained protected for quite some time now. IMO, it should be unprotected. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, considering his opinions that may cause confusion among users, it should remain protected. It seems quite difficult for people to grasp his views on anti-violence and so they equate that with anti-something else. A race, religion or country for example. This page has been reviewed and meets quality standards, and so any relevant changes can be made/added by moderators. CassiusBilbao 22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the semi-protection maintained. Most of the vandalism was of the juvenile sort, but was often lewd, and/or extremely disrespectful. I think it will start right up again if the protection is taken away. Any registered WP user can still edit the article. ॐ Priyanath 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The page was unprotected on June 11. As soon as the first vandal noticed the next day that it was open season on Mahatma Gandhi, there were 15 cases of vandalism in less than 24 hours, before it was semi-protected again. Please take note of this before unprotecting it again. ॐ Priyanath 15:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image removal

According to Indian Copyright Act, copyright protection of photographs finishes sixty years after they were created. The images here obviously date older than that. I think we should reinsert the images recently removed from the article. -- Lost 13:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Badshah Khan

Is there any chance of greater mention of Badshah Khan? --Zak 14:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that it's appropriate in Gandhi's bio, sure. What kind of additional content would you propose? And also - I assume you know this but the article is yours to modify, expand or change as much as anyone else's. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol yeah Ryan I know...wasn't sure if could edit a featured article though..any suggestions where it would best fit in? --Zak 14:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

South Africans quote

Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

Now, I'm able to read this as Gandhi referring to an, if you wish, European understanding of the "raw kaffir"; that is, that he himself does not see South Africans as simple-minded savages, but is in fact stating (in a kind of a "And the Europeans were, like, 'Those raw kaffirs pass their lives in indolence and nakedness'" -way) that the Europeans in South Africa do. Does anyone else see my point? I could be wrong, of course. Does anyone know any sources to support this one way or the other? 82.181.57.153 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it as a form of Uncle Tomism from a black Asian. He clearly (like Indians all over the world do) wants to pick on the natives to appease the whites. He was hoping that if they could not be equal with whites, they would at least get treated better than the natives. I cannot say blacks as the natives because the natives in South Africa are ligher than the Indians from Asia. Indians are black Asians. After native rule was set up in South Africa, all of a sudden Indians started saying things such as "we blacks." Once again, band wagoning. to get ahead. This si why they get no respect from people. You have to stand for something and stick with it, not try and manipulate the white mind by trying to find others to put down. [9]

Say what?!?

2nd October and 30th January. Holiday

In Pakistan there are two holidays on Mohammad Ali Jinha whereas in India there is only one holiday on 2nd October and no holiday on 30th January.
vkvora 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In India we already have so many holidays..why do you want any more..

Edit to Vegetarian section

I have taken the liberty of removing a statement suggesting Gandhi ate eggs. I have just finished reading his autobiography and feel very confident that he never ate eggs and would never have done so. It was contrary to his vow. He did, on at least one occasion, permit himself to take goat's milk to help him recuperate from an illness under pressure from friends and doctors and after a long while of refusing any milk products. Afterwards he considered it was against the spirit albeit not the letter of his vow (which extended only to the milk of cows and buffalo). He seemed to regret doing it but said he was motivated by his will to live and continue satyagraha. It was unclear to me whether he ever again consumed a dairy product made from non-cow's milk.

The statement I removed referred to an article published in the Telegraph which did not suggest that Gandhi himself ever ate eggs, only that he considered eating *sterilised* eggs as equivalent to taking milk, neither of which he himself would do but which he did not condemn generally.

Images

Two images have recently been commented out of the article, saying that they are not photographs but cartoons. IMO this is not so, but even if it were so, there is nothing in Wikipedia that precludes the inclusion of cartoons/sketches/drawings/representations/child art/whatever. Where is it said that only photos be included? I am therefore restituting those images. ImpuMozhi 18:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt even realise the images had been removed. Guess too many edits in a single day hid the removal. There has been enough discussion about those images, I think we should not be removing images without discussing at this page first -- Lost 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

double shame

It has been documented that Gandhi slept with his wife the night his father died and that he felt guilty about it. This was one of the contributing factors to his celibacy. I think this is relevant and important as it gives further insight into his spirituality and his views on sexuality.Muntuwandi 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn & Teller

While I read this article, I was shocked that Penn & Teller was in this article for a criticism. I noticed earlier on this talk page that other people agreed, and no one saw a need to keep this section up. Here's what I removed:

Gandhi believed that the mind of an oppressor or a bigot could be changed by love and non-violent rejection of wrong actions, while accepting full responsibility for the consequences of the actions. However, Penn and Teller, in an episode of their Showtime program Bullshit! ("Holier than Thou"), attacked Gandhi for, amongst other things, hypocrisy for perceived inconsistent stands on nonviolence, alleged inappropriate behaviour with women and apparent racist statements against Africans. The last allegation is based on an incident in Bombay in 1896. On addressing a public meeting in Bombay on September 26 1896 (cf. Collected Works Volume II) following his return from South Africa, Gandhi said:
Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

I hope this is alright with everyone. RyanEberhart 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. P&T is not an encyclopedic source. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Furthermore, P&T make the typical mistake of judging someone outside the context of their historical time and place. No one is claiming Gandhi revolutionized relations between men and women, so it's disingenuous to bash him for a perceived lack of effort towards women's rights. Gandhi's fight was on another front. If he was a hypocrite, so was everyone else in his day. Big deal. Not notable here. Kasreyn 03:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and besides, in Sept. 1896 Gandhi was only 26, so he may well have altered his views, were they somehow racist. Or, maybe he didn't, but presenting a single statement, out of context, made at a young age as evidence of him being racist does not seem entirely reasonable. 194.157.147.34 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And that means we should take the quote out and not discuss it at all? -Iopq 10:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no. Please feel free to state your views on the quote. 194.157.147.49 07:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If they have evidence maybe it should be in the article, even if only a sentence or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.131 (talkcontribs) 7 Sept 2006.

Help wanted for a Mahatma Gandhi link spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http: //www angelfire com/me2/sutras/mg html A Selection of Mahatma Gandhi Quotes]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 05:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Gandhi's killer a Hindi radical?

I'm not sure, but as far as I remember (and my father, and a friend), Gandhi's killer was a Muslim radical.

I just don't want to change it before I'm 100% sure.

Was Gandhi's murder a Hindu radical?

I'm not sure, but as far as I remember (and my father, and a friend), Gandhi's killer was a Muslim radical. I don't want to change it before I'm 100% sure.

Please see Nathuram Godse for information -- Lost 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation of the name is in IPA according to Wikipedia's policies. Please dont make it your own whimsical one. Cygnus_hansa 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mediocre student"

I've just started reading his autobiography and though he says he was nothing special in his early years of schooling, he mentions receiving scholarships in secondary school, though he modestly says that he did not think he deserved them. He was among the top of his class and was an introverted student who spent much of his time in his books. 67.161.26.190

A rare picture

Check this and this out. Presumably in public domain as is K. B. Sundarambal. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The first image is already uploaded here, but the second is not. The Second image is claimed to have been shot at Wardha in 1937, but it features a sea-shore; I have often seen this image in other places, generally in association with the Dandi march of 1929. Regards, ImpuMozhi 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I noticed the first image in the article after I left this message. :p No idea about the second one. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

I of course see the point in putting Gandhi's name in his native Gujarati, but what is the point in also showing the Hindi (I know I should just say "Devanagari" since it's not just Hindi)? Isn't this a little overboard? I feel that just because Hindi one of the official languages of India doesn't mean it needs to be added to all articles about Indian people. However, I'm quite open to discussion about this. --SameerKhan 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi is not "just" one of the official languages of India. It is the NATIONAL language.Also Pls understand the difference between a script and a language.-RegardsBharatveer 05:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bharatveer I think that I'm quite aware of the difference between a language and a script (I teach this fact almost everyday to students in introductory linguistics classes). That's exactly why I wrote "I should just say Devanagari", even though the actual article on Gandhi mistakenly writes just "Hindi" as if that is the only language that would spell Gandhi's name that way.

And I know this is picky, but since you put it in all capitals, I feel like I should remind you that Hindi is not the "national language" of India. Even the article on Official_languages_of_India reiterates that "Neither the constitution nor the laws of India accord the status of "National Language" to any language in India", although of course I know that Hindi and English are the "official languages" of the federal government. Anyhow, if people like the Hindi on this page, that's fine by me. --SameerKhan 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindi the National language? That'll be news to the millions of Tamils! It could probably cause the collapse of the ruling coalision in Delhi caused by the withdrawal of the Tamil nationalistic DMK! - Parthi 05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'Oh" did i hurt some very sensitive people here by using the word "National". maybe I should have used "official".

And pls note ONLY HINDI is considered as the OFFICIAL language . See Article 343-Official language of the Union. Parthy, Pls dont entertain such vain hopes. Even the great anna was not able to do that .Indians have successfully solved the Tamil issue FOREVER.So rest in peace in OOZ land.Bharatveer 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, no personal attacks. - Parthi 06:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read clause 2 of Article 343? Hindi is not the only official language. - Parthi 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Clause 2 says English may be used for the official purposes; but it does not say It is considered as an Official language. Your comments about collapse of Government of India is also a PERSONAL attack.Hope you will not repeat it again.Bharatveer 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How does my comment on a hypothetical political scenario in India is a personal attack on you? Whereas by adivsing me to rest in peace in 'OOZ land' you are commenting on me personally, and that makes it a personal attack. - Parthi 06:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not interested in this bickering anymore. I consider your comments to be very personal when it is from a foreigner like you .Bharatveer 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack number 2 - Parthi 07:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Bharatveer, I don't think that you "hurt" any "sensitive" people with your mistake. I can at least say that I was not hurt in any way. The point was just that you were using the wrong word; now, normally I don't care at all whether you say "national" or "official", except that in this case you were the one who first make it seem like it made a very important difference! You wrote "Hindi is not "just" one of the official languages of India. It is the NATIONAL language." As it looked like you were making a very important distinction there, I thought it important to correct you.

As a side point, please help keep this site friendly and professional. I think it's pretty clear from the text I've just read above that you're making what could be considered personal attacks here. Let's just end the discussion where it is, before it gets any messier. Thanks! --SameerKhan 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How come Gandhi's name is only written in Gujarati? He wasn't just a Gujarati figure, but a national figure. And due to Hindi's national importance his name shouldb e written in Devanagari. I'm not saying that all Indian nationla figures should be written in DV, but at least Gandhi should (THE national figure). Tuncrypt 02:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, as Sameerkhan very correctly put, this is not about sensitivity but propriety. And to clarify further (and this bears repeatition since it is a very common mis-conception that Hindi is the National Language, or in some other manner has precedence over other official languages), the difference between 'official language of the federal government' and 'National Language' is much more than mere semantics - it is as important as the difference between 'government' and 'nation' itself (whcih as any profesor of constitutional law or political science would tell you, is quite significant). Hindi being an official language of the government means that government business would be carried out in hindi, and gazette of india would be published in hindi (and english) etc... It does not mean that the nation as a whole has to acknowledge the suzerainty of hindi as the pre-eminent language of the Indian people - thus adding to western (and certain north indian) stereotypes that all indians are (or should be) hindi speakers. And even froom a de facto point of view, hindi is not a pan-indian language - hindi is the native language of about 40% of indian people, mainly in 4-5 states in the north (and that includes disparate dialects which dont sound anything like the 'official' government hindi)...true many people, especially in urban melting pots use hindi to communicate with ppl from other communities, but so do ppl use english or french internationally (are we suggesting that these are the official languages of the world merely because of this, or because they are the official languages of the UN; or maybe chinese, because it is the most spoken??)... i think it is important to remember that the whole premise of the Indian identity was founded on the principle of 'unity through diversity', whcih means being able to retain ones linguistic and cultural background and still being part of the Indian consciousness; and runs counter to any claims of hegemony of one cultural or linguistic experiance'. And i think regional languages all over India are suffering enough neglect as it is... your claims about devnagiri script not necessarily denoting hindi are correct; but gujrati is not written in this script, as aren't many other indian languages [in fact, unlike commonly believed, even sanskrit wasn't always written in this script, and many scripts were used to write classical sanskrit in different times. many bengali intellectuals like Vidyasaga and Bankim Chandra learnt and wrote sanskrit in the bengali script(not to be confused with their more popular classicial bengali writings which is only simialr to sanskrit). Lastly, Turncrypt's comments about Gandhi being a national figure is fair; however, i still think his name should only be spelt out in gujrati to iterate the native spelling of given name. if the point about him being a national figure is correct, his name should be written in all indian languages, since he is a hero in every part of the country - many of whom don't read the devnagiri. Even more, he is more than a national figure, he is an inspriration and hero of an international level (someone whom every poll would have as one of the most important/ influential/ unforgettable men of the century or millenium; so do we therefore tell ppl of every language how to write his name in their language?

Mahatma at Midnight

Every year at the stroke of midnight on Independence Day’s eve I think about Gandhiji. Of course, because of my sincere reverence towards the architect of our Freedom but equally so because of my curiosity about the fact that what exactly was our Mahatma doing at that moment when the entire nation was busy rejoicing in its first real Freedom?

Was he alone and lonely? Was he sitting, standing, meditating, praying or simply pretending to be asleep at the dawn of history? Was he angry and ashamed of our then countrymen; feeling abandoned and betrayed by the same set of people for whom he had fought a principled battle against the British? Was he devastated at the shattering of his glorious dream of “One India”: a free India, a sovereign India, a secular India, and a secure India for all? …Was he crying?

Shouldn’t the "Father of the Nation" have been sitting in the Central Hall, listening to Nehruji’s "A Tryst with Destiny" speech on that 14th night? Shouldn’t he have been proudly witnessing the rising of the Indian tricolour up the flagpole on the Constituent Assembly's (now Parliament) rooftop the next day on 15th? Shouldn’t he have been present at the Red Fort and enjoying with great pride and peace that momentous moment of unfurling of our national flag by Pandit Nehru on 16th August?

If the answers to all the above questions are in YES, then why did we leave the Mahatma, who was magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and humility, who had kept aloft the torch of Freedom of India, the “Inventor of India’s Independence”, all alone and lonely at Haidari Mansion in Beliaghata in Calcutta on that fateful midnight of 14th August 1947 ??? …

Anju Chandel

Recent edits re: Sikhism

I cleaned up a bunch of vandalism today but left some edits that were made on Aug 18 before and after the vandalism. I don't know enough to judge whether they should be kept, reverted, or modified. Can someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Clayoquot Sound 05:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment?

User:Vikrant Phadkay made some changes. I have some issues with this in particular:

"He spent his final years fighting for communal harmony."

to

"However, mainly due to his ideas, India had to pay a heavy price for freedom. Several thousand Indians led by him were killed in clashes with the Britons, and thousands more died in Hindu-Muslim riots once Pakistan was formed. Gandhi did practically nothing to save the latter " [10]

I agree with the first, but not the second - particularly the line "Gandhi did practically nothing to save the latter". Leading up to that is a rather contentious statement, in my view - that Ghandi's ideas were responsible for many deaths - how do we know if there wouldn't have been many more deaths there would have been if a different approach was taken, perhaps a more militant/violent approach? Also, shouldn't we give the people themselves a bit of credit - they weren't all "puppets on a string"? Camillus (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)