PDA

View Full Version : "Mahatma"!! Gandhis fake nonviolence polics and doulble standards


chirag2000
May 17th, 2001, 09:20 PM
In 1947 india was cut up to make a islamic state known as pakistaan.
Kashmir was not included in either of the countries .
Kashmir maharaja was a hindu and 65% of the poppulation was of muslims
{today hindus comprise of hardly 15% here . KASHMIR IS THE ONLY STATE IN INDIA WHICH HAS A POPPULATION OF HINDUS LESSER THAN THAT OF ANY COMMUNITY}
There goes an interesting story here- Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir. population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderabad where although the bulk of the Population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

Another story relating to this:"mahatma" gandhi was/is known for his satyagraha nad non-violence crap.But when kashmir was attacked by pakistani laandyas HM of kashmir asked the then PM jawaharlal nehru for help.Nehru homeland was kashmir.He went to gandhi for advice whether he should send forces there.Gandhiji replied in affirmative.Nehru agrred to send forces if kashmir could merge in india and it did.
Why did gandhi send forces in kashmir instead od sendid his called satyagrahis and use non violent methiods against pakistani aggressors?
Well he knew that his satyagrahis would be cut up by them.
Why these double standards by a person who is called as the mahatma?

Well his satyagraha and nonviolence policy was all bullshit.There all all fake stories regarding the gandhi.Myths propounded by some selfish peoploe who had vested intrests in something els.Lies taught to us i school for so many years!!

risingsun
May 18th, 2001, 03:03 AM
god knows how much i dont believe in gandhi, but chirag non-voilence doesn't mean never to take up arms, non-voilence in effect means protest against injustice. and sending forces to kashmir was not voilence, it was self defence, so your point does not stand valid there.
i do agree that gandhi was pro muslim, that may be the reason why so many people who really believed in him started hating him when he favoured partitioning. even a person as dedicated as nathuram to the freedom struggle and to gandhi took the drastic step of sending gandhi to his ultimate abode. he even touched gandhis feet before shooting him.