Gandhi a racist?

[Toppa]

I've heard it been mentioned before so I decided to look it up and came across these excerpts.

How much does this detract from his 'legacy'?

Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on Sept. 26 1896 (CW II p. 74), 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.

In 1904, he wrote (CW. IV p. 193):

It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting -to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges.

In its editorial on the Natal Municipal Corporation Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 18 1905 wrote:

Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races (meaning the local Africans), resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much? (Italic portion is added)

The Indian Opinion published an editorial on September 9 1905 under the heading, "The relative Value of the Natives and the Indians in Natal". In it Gandhi referred to a speech made by Rev. Dube, a most accomplished African, who said that an African had the capacity for improvement, if only the Colonials would look upon him as better than dirt, and give him a chance to develop self-respect. Gandhi suggested that "A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year." Then he added:

Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.

In the Government Gazette of Natal for Feb. 28 1905, a Bill was published regulating the use of fire-arms by the natives and Asiatics. Commenting on the Bill, the Indian Opinion of March 25 1905 stated:

In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?

Commenting on the petition, the Indian Opinion of March 24 1906, declaring that "British Indians have, in order that they may never be misunderstood, made it clear that they do not aspire to any political power," added:

It seems that the petition is being widely circulated, and signatures are being taken of all coloured people in the three colonies named. The petition is non-Indian in character, although British Indians, being coloured people, are very largely affected by it. We consider that it was a wise policy on the part of the British Indians throughout South Africa, to have kept themselves apart and distinct from the other coloured communities in this country.

In a statement made in 1906 to the Constitution Committee, the British Indian Association led by Gandhi (CW. V p.335) said:

The British Indian Association has always admitted the principle of white domination and has, therefore, no desire, on behalf of the community it represents, for any political rights just for the sake of them.

Commenting on a court case, the Indian Opinion of June 2 1906, in its Gujrati section, stated:

You say that the magistrate's decision is unsatisfactory because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram, and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the magistrate's decision is quite different. The Court declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by tram. And according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court's decision, only clean Indians (meaning upper caste Hindu Indians) or coloured people other than Kaffirs, can now travel in the trams. (Italic portion is added)

[Toppa]

Though Gandhi was strongly opposed to the comingling of races, the working-class Indians did not share his distaste. There were many areas where Indians, Chinese, Coloured, Africans and poor whites lived together. On February 15 1905, Gandhi wrote to Dr. Porter, the Medical Officer of Health, Johannesburg (CW. IV p.244, and "Indian Opinion" 9 April 1904):

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.

Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.

Dr. Porter replied that it was the Indians who sub-let to Africans.

Commenting on the White League's agitation, Gandhi wrote in his Indian Opinion of September 24 1903:

We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.

Again, on December 24 1903, Indian Opinion stated:

The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.

In his farewell speech at a meeting held in the house of Dr. Gool in Capetown, which was reported in the Indian Opinion of July 1 1914, Gandhi said:

The Indians knew perfectly well which was the dominant and governing race. They aspired to no social equality with Europeans. They felt that the path of their development was separate. They did not even aspire to the franchise, or, if the aspiration exists, it was with no idea of its having a present effect.

[Deeks]

Ghandi was no saint. he was a man of the times. EVERYBODY had disdain for Africans. No one wanted to be acquaited with them. He grew into the non-violence theme after years of experience in South Africa. He saw what the Brits did to South Africa and was determined not to let it happened in India. So flip a coin. Hero or racist? Or look at the man who drew on life experience. I will take the latter.

[Toppa]

Ghandi was no saint. he was a man of the times. EVERYBODY had disdain for Africans. No one wanted to be acquaited with them. He grew into the non-violence theme after years of experience in South Africa. He saw what the Brits did to South Africa and was determined not to let it happened in India. So flip a coin. Hero or racist? Or look at the man who drew on life experience. I will take the latter.

But there is nothing that indicates that his sentiments had changed. I for one am not going to laud him.

[ribbit]

Toppa, in response to the question posed about legacy, at the end of the day Gandhi set out to do for Indians and succeeded. That's why he's in the history books. We can evaluate his contribution on other criteria (I.e. Whether he was a racist) but this is tangential to why he's remembered in the first place (I.e. His historical impact).

Just an aside: I don't think Obama could be considered a Gandhian figure for Blacks in america because he never set out to do anything for Blacks from the get go. History will remember him for his healthcare bill and being a Nobel Prize winner but not for doing anything for Blacks. Legacy.

[Bakes]

But there is nothing that indicates that his sentiments had changed. I for one am not going to laud him.

I discovered this side to him about a year or two ago and I have to say that my mind was changed as far as his 'legacy'.  I'd already been kinda lukewarm towards him anyways. The one thing that may offer mitigation is the fact that much of this took place relatively early in his life.  We are all complicated beings, even the most revered among us.

[truetrini]

But there is nothing that indicates that his sentiments had changed. I for one am not going to laud him.

I discovered this side to him about a year or two ago and I have to say that my mind was changed as far as his 'legacy'.  I'd already been kinda lukewarm towards him anyways. The one thing that may offer mitigation is the fact that much of this took place relatively early in his life.  We are all complicated beings, even the most revered among us.

Don't think he ever changed his views really.  I am unsure that the Civil Rights warriors in the US were even aware of his feelings towards blacks.

[just cool]

Heard this ah few yrs ago, but i didn't give ah sh!t anyway.  who don't hate naygers??  stuepssss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG8Lonynl04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O25WWySyRO0

[Andre]

them look like racist statements to me.

me eh think ghandhi was nobody special though. IMHO he was a pussy...and he followers too.

look at he whole methodology (which he ironically tief from a white man name thoreau) to get independence...leh mih lie dong an let yuh beat mih. eventually u go get fed up.

a truly great leader and a real man would organize his followers to pick up arms and use them to take back what is rightfully theirs.

who doh like it loss.

[Daft Trini]

India for the Indians

[Observer]

I would venture to say that almost everyone from that time period was racist in one form, or the other.
The World was very different and even though it is not an excuse it is understandable.

[Deeks]

them look like racist statements to me.

me eh think ghandhi was nobody special though. IMHO he was a pussy...and he followers too.

look at he whole methodology (which he ironically tief from a white man name thoreau) to get independence...leh mih lie dong an let yuh beat mih. eventually u go get fed up.

a truly great leader and a real man would organize his followers to pick up arms and use them to take back what is rightfully theirs.

who doh like it loss.

Andre, I understand your logic, but there are always exceptions to the rules. Yes, most independent movements had resort to arm confrontation to achieve liberation. But Ghandi use of massive people protests, coupled with non-violent theme was succesful for the Indians.  They got back what was rightfully theirs. Imagine if he had started an arm struggle. Plenty people would have died. The irony of all of this, is lot of people did die during the partition. Martin Luther King use the same no-violent theme and look where it got us. But there were also massive riots. A combination of both may solve the problem

[truetrini]

I would venture to say that almost everyone from that time period was racist in one form, or the other.
The World was very different and even though it is not an excuse it is understandable.

NOPE and NOPE!  Ghandi was tainted by the believe that Indians were superior to blacks and that Indians were just under whites..Inferirority and racist.  He was a nationalist, but he never sought to improve blackman's lot, calling them indolent and savage..f**k he asa  person, as an advocate for "ruth force"..what the white man called passive resistance..he is a pioneer.

[truetrini]

Ghandi was brilliant, he knew that terrible lossses would be his lot with violence against the Brits.  nah...he was right, beat them to submission by being peaceful

[Andre]

them look like racist statements to me.

me eh think ghandhi was nobody special though. IMHO he was a pussy...and he followers too.

look at he whole methodology (which he ironically tief from a white man name thoreau) to get independence...leh mih lie dong an let yuh beat mih. eventually u go get fed up.

a truly great leader and a real man would organize his followers to pick up arms and use them to take back what is rightfully theirs.

who doh like it loss.

Andre, I understand your logic, but there are always exceptions to the rules. Yes, most independent movements had resort to arm confrontation to achieve liberation. But Ghandi use of massive people protests, coupled with non-violent theme was succesful for the Indians.  They got back what was rightfully theirs. Imagine if he had started an arm struggle. Plenty people would have died. The irony of all of this, is lot of people did die during the partition. Martin Luther King use the same no-violent theme and look where it got us. But there were also massive riots. A combination of both may solve the problem

i see your point deeks but i would rather die on mih feet than live on mih knees.

casualty inevitable in any war. if de indians did fight, they mighta earn some respect instead of the "beat mih massa" bull they do.

[Trinimassive]

I would venture to say that almost everyone from that time period was racist in one form, or the other.
The World was very different and even though it is not an excuse it is understandable.

SMH

No way shape or form could that be understandable.

[Observer]

Trinimassive I say "understandable" not "acceptable."  TT is right, people (Ghandi etc) were brought up (indoctrinated) in a certain way. They were not educated on the subject matter from a global perspective (at the time) as we now are. Look at what happened in more recent history in the Balkans, Rawanda etc. Almost every culture believe that they were / are superior. When I was In Soweto and sat with Zulu elders in a discussion, I was not surprised to learn that Zulu's still tend to pride themselves as being warriors and superior to the other tribes in SA. Again understandable.

[truetrini]

I understand Observer's point, but there is a little query that I have.  Ghandi saw his own Indians being discriminated against, yet he saw to denigrate another race as indolent and savage?

I know that he was a well traveled and educated man, studied law in England, worked in South Africa etc.  yet he CHOSE to be racist, comparing Indians to blacks saying that one was superior to the other.

I will say this for the man, apart from lying naked in bed with naked young girls (yeah some say he was also a pedophile)and his racism, he was a genuine Indian liberator, but seriously, he was not non violent and was perhaps big uprising that lead to the deaths of foreign workers (white Brits) in India.

[Bakes]

I would venture to say that almost everyone from that time period was racist in one form, or the other.
The World was very different and even though it is not an excuse it is understandable.

NOPE and NOPE!  Ghandi was tainted by the believe that Indians were superior to blacks and that Indians were just under whites..Inferirority and racist.  He was a nationalist, but he never sought to improve blackman's lot, calling them indolent and savage..f**k he asa  person, as an advocate for "ruth force"..what the white man called passive resistance..he is a pioneer.

Nothing you say refutes Observer's point... so easy with the "NOPE and NOPE" talk.  You just fail to see Gandhi's comments in the same context as Observer.

[truetrini]

I would venture to say that almost everyone from that time period was racist in one form, or the other.
The World was very different and even though it is not an excuse it is understandable.

NOPE and NOPE!  Ghandi was tainted by the believe that Indians were superior to blacks and that Indians were just under whites..Inferirority and racist.  He was a nationalist, but he never sought to improve blackman's lot, calling them indolent and savage..f**k he asa  person, as an advocate for "ruth force"..what the white man called passive resistance..he is a pioneer.

Nothing you say refutes Observer's point... so easy with the "NOPE and NOPE" talk.  You just fail to see Gandhi's comments in the same context as Observer.

Hence the reason I said nope and nope!

Ghandi knew what he was doing, and had his reasons.  He delibrately made blacks the mud sill to elevate his own people, for that he is seen as a savior of his people, good for him and them...but he was an unapologetic racist.  To me there is nothing understandable aout Ghani's racism except that it was rooted in disdain for black people that had its Genesis in his Hindu religion!  Ghandi loved and embraced the caste system.

His hypocricy knew no bounds,  There he was advocating for freedom of his beloved Indians, yet he placed the African in their own land as nothing!


He wrote:

Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.

He cared little for Native Africans and was in strong favor of keeping them in servitude and subjugation:

In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?

For Observer's view to be valid, Ghandi's views must have been common place with other Indians.  History shows that was NOT the case.  As Indians, blacks, "coloreds," and poor whites all lived, worked and ate together.


Ghandi observed:

We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.

The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.

Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.

Ghandi was a confirmed racist, his time had nothing to do with it, maybe his religion and his love for caste did.

[Bakes]

Hence the reason I said nope and nope!

Ghandi knew what he was doing, and had his reasons.  He delibrately made blacks the mud sill to elevate his own people, for that he is seen as a savior of his people, good for him and them...but he was an unapologetic racist.  To me there is nothing understandable aout Ghani's racism except that it was rooted in disdain for black people that had its Genesis in his Hindu religion!  Ghandi loved and embraced the caste system.

For beginners... a lot of what you state here is opinion and speculation, not fact.

His hypocricy knew no bounds,  There he was advocating for freedom of his beloved Indians, yet he placed the African in their own land as nothing!


He wrote:

Now let us turn our attention to another and entirely unrepresented community-the Indian. He is in striking contrast with the native. While the native has been of little benefit to the State, it owes its prosperity largely to the Indians. While native loafers abound on every side, that species of humanity is almost unknown among Indians here.

He cared little for Native Africans and was in strong favor of keeping them in servitude and subjugation:

In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?

All of this was from his early years as a lawyer in South Africa... which I've already mentioned, to which you responded that you don't think he ever changed his view.  He never espoused anything like this later on in his life when he became the Gandhi that we know today.  You say you have no evidence that he changed his mind, but you also don't have any evidence that he did NOT... in fact his abandonment of this thinking in the public domain mitigates in favor of the argument that he no longer espoused these views.

For Observer's view to be valid, Ghandi's views must have been common place with other Indians.  History shows that was NOT the case.  As Indians, blacks, "coloreds," and poor whites all lived, worked and ate together.

No.  I'll let Observer speak for himself, but his "understandable" comment as I read it, wasn't localized to just India, but the world that we live in as it existed back then.  For Observer's comments to be valid all that one has to do is to look at other examples of oppression, hate and prejudice that were meted out to underprivileged classes world wide.  Much of this was borne of ignorance, to wit, a lack of understanding of/appreciation for those who were different from ourselves.  This attitude was prevalent in Europe, North and South America, Asia... Africa... even among Africans against fellow Africans.  The world was still largely an unenlightened place when it came to race relations.  As Observer said, it doesn't excuse Gandhi's statements/position, but it is understandable why he held such a belief at the time... context is key.  People say and do a lot of dumb shit because they didn't know any better.... even smart people.

Ghandi observed:

We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.

The petition dwells upon `the comingling of the coloured and white races'. May we inform the members of the Conference that so far as British Indians are concerned, such a thing is particularly unknown. If there is one thing which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type.

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension.

Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.

A bunch of shit from his early years in South Africa.

Ghandi was a confirmed racist, his time had nothing to do with it, maybe his religion and his love for caste did.

Your penchant for speaking in a dismissively authoritarian manner is hardly a sufficient enough reason to convince the reader that what you are saying is correct.  You call him a "confirmed racist" based on statements he made as a twenty- or thirty-something. The man lived into his 50s (60s?).  "confirm" that he was racist by pulling a quote from his later years and then you might have a leg to stand on.

[truetrini]

Did Ghandi ever once in his 79 years of life apologize for his racist rants?  He happened to leave South AFrica when he was already 45 years old!

Anyone can argue that his racism ended when he left South Africa, then I can logically claim that he was no longer around blacks so he ahd no reason to deal with them again!

Gandhi’s anti-black sentiments (which invloved accusations of indolence and calls for greater taxation on the black population) occurred at the same time the black South Africans were nonviolently resisting British occupation through work slowdowns and refusal to pay taxes.

Similarly, when the British arrested a man called Bhagat Singh, who was an iconic indian freedom fighter, Singh went on a hunger strik in prison, Ghandi's response?  The British “had the right to hang” him. Singh was a Sikh who was jailed in 1931 for opposing British occupation.

Ghandi was 45...not some young man as you suggest when he left South Africa, check what the life expectancy in South Africa was for Indians and black men then..a whopping 49 years old.  He also knew the sturggle for freedom well as I said, from an Indian perspective and an african point...no amount of guessing that he was young so he ahd malformed ideas will hold water.  He was NOT naive, he claimed personal exposure to racism.

To prove that I was not speculating against Ghandi's continued racism, look at how he treated Jews, Dalits, Sikhs and eve muslims in India.

Ghandi did not invent non violent opposition, way back in Trinidad we had blacks doing the same in the 1830's.  Hell Jews in Roman-occupied Jerusalem used nonviolent protests against the erection of images of Caesar.  In fact think about it, how the hell can he be considered a proponent of nonviolent resistance when he OPENLY supported every war in his life time???


Ghandi lent his support to the Second Boer War,  He joined the British Army during the Bambatha Uprising to fight against blacks. He supported WWI, WWII and he gave his blessings to the forcible annexation of Hyderabad and Kashmir, to this day Kashmir is still bleeding! 

SO much for a legacy of nonviolence.

Ram Singh (not the fella with de tyre shop on Diego Martin main Road) had begun a movement of nonviolent resistance to the British occupation of India since 1872!

AS A FULL GROWN MAN, way past the folly of his youth Ghandi defended Hitler and condemned the Jews for not surrendering to the Holocaust.  He then regularly slept naked with young teenage girls, including his own niece, to “prove” his celibacy.  What a learned and progressive man!

Gandhi set back minorities everywhere in S. Africa and india.   The man fasted to deny representation for the black Dalits and destroyed their protests for equality.   Mayawati, a contemporary Dalit leader, blames Gandhi for India’s current caste problems, saying, “Gandhi divided the country on caste lines.”  While addressing a meeting of MPs and legislators of her Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Mayawati called the Father of the Nation a "natakbaaz" (fake). She also distributed pamphlets condemning both Mahatma Gandhi and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi for being insincere about the improvement in socio-economic status of Dalits.

Thanks to Ghandi, millions of Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains suffer because of he tried to legislate their conversion to Hinduism with the pen using article 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Those of you who decide to drink the Kool Aid on Ghandi feel free.

[pecan]

let me lighten things up a bit ...

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet.

He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath.

All of these attributes made him.....

A super callused fragile racist hexed by halitosis.

[truetrini]

let me lighten things up a bit ...

Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet.

He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath.

All of these attributes made him.....

A super callused fragile racist hexed by halitosis.

I actually find this funny.
Thanks for the innovation.

I prefer to call him by his name:  Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.  He lives on in Sat Maharaj

[Dutty]

A super callused fragile racist hexed by halitosis.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! ................................... ok ah lie..dat was good

Oh gorm TT stop trying to apply 2012 mindset to 1930’s conventional wisdom… even abolitionists use to own slaves at some point

His views on the holocaust are a little eye opening however, I eh familiar with that one….sen mih ah link
Nobody eh overly lionizing de man on here but like observer  say yuh hadda take tings in context

I sure as a young trinity lad , you had some  soceital viewpoints that have been completely reversed now that you are a more umm mature adult
Ent Ramsing tyre shop close dong?

[truetrini]

A super callused fragile racist hexed by halitosis.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! ................................... ok ah lie..dat was good

Oh gorm TT stop trying to apply 2012 mindset to 1930’s conventional wisdom… even abolitionists use to own slaves at some point

Dutty, I greatly admire Abe Lincoln and he too had a change of heart, his views evolved parly through listenting to his wife and her father and friendships with prominent black persons.  I am not willing to give Ghandi a pass though.  He was in his 50’s when he covered up the racially motivated murder of William Doherty by Gandhians, in his 60’s when he fasted to deny fair political representation to the Dalit, and in his 70’s when he wrote letters defending Hitler and condemned the Jews for not surrendering to the Holocaust.

His views on the holocaust are a little eye opening however, I eh familiar with that one….sen mih ah link
Nobody eh overly lionizing de man on here but like observer  say yuh hadda take tings in context

I am taking things in context. 


I sure as a young trinity lad , you had some  soceital viewpoints that have been completely reversed now that you are a more umm mature adult
Ent Ramsing tyre shop close dong?

Even if his viewpoints had changed, the damage was already completely done!You do realize that there is a great difference between holding racist views and actively acting on and promoting same right?  Ghandi spoke it,a cted on it, promoted it and demanded it.  he went as far as joining the British army to fight against blacks  he was a suck ass.

[Toppa]

I do not think that the sentiments he held and expressed should be mitigated by the time-period he lived in, especially since he never recanted. He was clearly a racist and had a selective view on who was deserving of this 'liberation'.

[ribbit]

I do not think that the sentiments he held and expressed should be mitigated by the time-period he lived in, especially since he never recanted. He was clearly a racist and had a selective view on who was deserving of this 'liberation'.

that's an odd statement for a fella that spent the last months of his life actively trying to save lives during the Partition and was killed before he had a chance to kick back in retirement and muse on an issue he could no longer speak to. is like taking mao and aksing whether he was a racist with him sitting in china for all de impact it have.

A super callused fragile racist hexed by halitosis.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! ................................... ok ah lie..dat was good

Oh gorm TT stop trying to apply 2012 mindset to 1930’s conventional wisdom… even abolitionists use to own slaves at some point

His views on the holocaust are a little eye opening however, I eh familiar with that one….sen mih ah link
Nobody eh overly lionizing de man on here but like observer  say yuh hadda take tings in context

I sure as a young trinity lad , you had some  soceital viewpoints that have been completely reversed now that you are a more umm mature adult
Ent Ramsing tyre shop close dong?

dutty, that had to be the most controversial statement from gandhi. fact is non-violent resistance is NOT a one-size-fits-all solution. it would not have worked in europe after versailles. mandela found it did not work in south africa. against the british empire, non-violence was the right tactic for the time and it work for india, more or less.