Gandhi was the greatest exponent of non violence? Yeah right!!! 
And then there is Martin Luther King Jr.'s opinion on gays. Why do so many on the left, especially OWS types, admire such people? 
Sorry, I donât see the connection with âOWS typesâ here.
Both MLK and Gandhi were geniuses and heroes in a way, but as any other person they were imperfect. It would be nor surprise to find flaws in them.
But you havenât really done a solid job of showing that.
Your article quotes someone as saying Gandhi admired Hitler. Do you have any Gandhi quotes,including the context of the conversation? Or second sources? Your sourcing and context seem a bit thin to me.
The statements about the Bhagavad Gita seem a bit weird, too. The book is not about killing, it is about destroying oneâs connections to worldly desires as a way of of becoming spiritually free.This book is not just admired by Gandhi but by hundreds of millions - if not billions - of people. It is set in a war, but is about a conversation between Anjuna and Krishna.
MLK lived back in the 50âs, a time when homosexuality was looked at it in a very narrow way. His attitudes were not visionary but far from drastic for his time.
[quote=âBigJohnâ]
Your article quotes someone as saying Gandhi admired Hitler. Do you have any Gandhi quotes,including the context of the conversation? Or second sources? Your sourcing and context seem a bit thin to me. [/quote]
I think Lord Desai of St. Clement Danes is a pretty credible source on India-related matters and even somewhat on economics these days (he went from being a Marxist in the 70s to endorsing globalization and New Labour).
But to answer your sourcing question, the letter he wrote to Hitler is in the India Office Records in folders R/3/1/289-334. Hope that is precise enough for you! 
Another one is on display in Mani Bhavan in Mumbai.
Both of Gandhiâs letters to Hitler are addressed to âmy friendâ.
He also said âWe have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.â
Gandhi admired Hitler? Hardly.
The first letter, in July 1939, was basically a plea for Hitler not to go to war.
The second, in December 1940 said the following.
[quote=âcfimagesâ]Gandhi admired Hitler? Hardly.
The first letter, in July 1939, was basically a plea for Hitler not to go to war.
The second, in December 1940 said the following.
Go and read the other parts that Lord Desai refers to. Admiring Hitler as an unclouded intellectual with no vices, clean character, a non-vegetarian?Addressed him as âmy friendâ. And worse of all in my opinion (and a clear slam at the British), he says "nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents." This was after the ânight of the long knivesâ and all the anti-Semitism that became apparent from the mid 30s onwards! :no-no: :no-no:
Gandhi referred to everyone as âmy friendâ. He was also a lifelong vegetarian so Iâm not sure why youâre making a big deal out of the non-veg comment.
If youâre going to send someone a letter (which incidentally was never sent) pleading with them not to start a war, should you say âI think youâre a vile monster. Oh and BTW, donât go to war.â Or do you shroud the same appeal in more diplomatic language that plays to oneâs ego? Which do you think is likely to get the better response?
Omg, look at this image. Pope John Paul II bowing slightly and tenderly holding Castroâs hand. Chew, as a Catholic can you defend your leader embracing and legitimizing the rule of this murderer and oppressor? I am appalled, appalled.
Just when I think you have completely redecorated the underside of your bridge⌠POP⌠another amazing little piece of trollabilia appears. :bravo: Gandhi admired Hitler!!! Spectacular. Who could have foretold the coming of that important little nugget?
I canât wait forâŚ
John Lennon ghost wrote Fritzl diary.
Dahmer essay claims he loved the pope.
9/11 masterminded by Dalai Lama.
And other trolltacular nuggets of truthâŚ
Iâd love to see pictures of the calluses on your two index fingers, CD. 
[quote=âMucha Manâ]Omg, look at this image. Pope John Paul II bowing slightly and tenderly holding Castroâs hand. Chew, as a Catholic can you defend your leader embracing and legitimizing the rule of this murderer and oppressor? I am appalled, appalled.
[/quote]
Not sure if that is a good comparison. Pope John Paul II was a staunch anti-Communist since his days as a priest in Poland. As part of having these important positions throughout his life, he had to, at times, conduct dialogue with Communist officials or visited Communist countries with lots of Catholics (such as Cuba when Pope) which required him to shake hands/conduct other formalities with leaders he despised on an ideological level. But would he have said Castro had a âclean characterâ or said that he wasnât âthe monster that opponents thought he was?â Hell no. He was stubborn with his beliefs.
I understand tact and diplomatic language in letters between governments and leaders (political or religious) and that you have to sometimes conduct it with unsavory people. But saying that a mass murderer has a âclean characterâ or that he doesnât believe what this Colonial masters are saying about Hitler is going a lot further. 
JP II also turned a blind eye to the gross abuses of priests and bishops against young boys. Iâd say his record is much spottier than Ghandiâs. Yet you have no problem seeing the good he did. How about you stop pretending that a man has to be perfect, and perfect in hindsight, to be considered exemplary?
I would agree.
Can you provide me with a post where Iâve lauded PJPII? Iâm a lapsed Catholic! I think he did a pretty good job in opposing totalitarianism (Thatcher-Reagan-PJPII all deserve credit here), in visiting Israel/apologizing for anti-Semitism over the centuries, but I certainly donât agree with the churchâs position on contraception or its blind eye on the abuse.
I donât expect heroes or admired people to be perfect. But I donât expect them to have the poor judgement to believe that a âmass murdererâ had âclean characterâ or that he âdidnât believe what other people were saying about Hitlerâ. 
Superking, Iâm commenting on a speech given by a famous academic/UK Labour peer that questions Gandhiâs belief in non-violence and gives two specific examples. Hardly trolling! Any useful commentary? Didnât think so. 
If a centre-left Labour Party peer can question Gandhi why shouldnât we comment?
Am pretty sure thatâs a typo in the Indian Express article. Both Hitler and Gandhi were vegetarians so the letter was lauding Hitlerâs diet as well.
[quote=âChewDawgâ]
Superking, Iâm commenting on a speech given by a famous academic/UK Labour peer that questions Gandhiâs belief in non-violence and gives two specific examples. Hardly trolling! Any useful commentary? Didnât think so. If a centre-left Labour Party peer can question Gandhi why shouldnât we comment?[/quote]
He ainât famous. He ainât from the UK. He is a life peer, so a Tony Crony in other words. My mate said some shit about something or other last week day. He even wrote it on the internet, so does that mean it is worthy of discussion? Probably not. Did Gandhi specifically know about the Holocaust? Hmm⌠probably not. Did Desai himself award a dodgy thesis to a major contributor to the LSE who also happens to have a father who recently died in a sewer pipe⌠Hmm, yes. Hypocrite? Most likely. Courting attention after failing to become speaker of the house (a job which he was passed over for in favour of a lunatic with a media savvy fishwife)⌠possibly.
If a squirrel farts in a forest do we need to talk about it?
You go ahead and call this sort of nonsense worthy of comment if you like, but I hold my opinion that this is utter balderdash and that you have no more clue about the full details of the Gandhi/Hitler relationship than a cursory glance at a provocative headline. However, you do have the right to post about this and to deem it important if you like. Maybe I am wrong and you have a vast wealth of knowledge and interest in this topic. Or maybe you really want to discuss the issue openly and without bias in a forum of your peers. Only your future responses will tell if you really want to openly debate this topic or if you just want to stab away at other people to get some Sunday afternoon kicks. Lets just see how your posts unfold. Iâm not telling you off, or having a pop, lord knows I am an utter twat of a human , but I do have my Spidey senses tingling on this one.
Not solely himself. I donât think he came out of that Libya scandal looking all that bad. What did Desai do? He accepted the thesis on the second attempt as did the other reviewers. Big deal. He was not involved with the donations and he commented on Saidâs bad behaviour later on.
Was he as clean as some academics that opposed it from the very beginning (the late Fred Halliday)? No. But he wasnât lobbying to accept the donation as many were.
[quote]
In 2007 Desai was asked by the University of London to serve with Tony McGrew of the University of Southampton as one of the two external examiners of the PhD thesis of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the leader of Libya. They did not immediately accept the thesis, as it was found to be weak. It was subjected to an oral examination for two and a half hours and Gaddafi was asked to revise and re-submit it. The revised version was subsequently accepted.
As Desai had already retired from the LSE he had no involvement with the donation from Saif Gaddafiâs charity to LSE. Learning from the press of these links between LSE and Libya, Desai demanded that the money be returned to the people of Libya. He expressed disappointment at a speech Saif Gaddafi subsequently made on Libyan state television declaring the Gaddafi familyâs willingness to âfight to the last bulletâ, observing that âhe was not behaving as if he had had an LSE education.â [/quote]
Youâve got to be very careful about putting anyone on a pedestal. Gandhi, MLK Jr., Mother Theresa? Even Tiger Woods had his faults. :neutral:
[quote=âzenderâ]Youâve got to be very careful about putting anyone on a pedestal. Gandhi, MLK Jr., Mother Theresa? Even Tiger Woods had his faults. :neutral:
[/quote]
But sleeping with little kids and supporting the Apartheid is super duper cool right.
Nobodyâs perfect. Even the most admirable people have their flaws. Even Jesus (assuming he actually existed) was a flawed human being.
That doesnât mean we should disregard good messages that these people put out, or discount their contributions to the betterment of mankind. That is a form of ad hominem fallacy.
[quote=âcyborg_ninjaâ] supporting the Apartheid is super duper cool right.
[/quote]
That one is especially impressive seeing as Gandhi died before apartheid started.
Mahatma "no frigginâ underpantsâ Gandhi was a dangerous manâŚ
I can speak to the part about his Bhagavadgita commentaries. In the Bhagavadgita, the hero Arjuna decides not to fight a just war, since his relatives and teachers are numbered among the enemy, and he cannot bear to slay them. However, he is uncertain, and consults his charioteer Krishna, who fortunately is also an Indian god. The bulk of the poem consists of Krishnaâs answer, which boils down to this: Arjuna must fight, because it is his duty as a member of the warrior caste to fight just wars such as this. Negative karma associated with killing will not accrue to him so long as he is motivated by this sense of duty (or, devotes the fruits of his actions to Krishna). Faced with a pretty clear-cut endorsement of war in a basic scriptural text, whatâs a non-violent activist to do? Gandhiâs interpretation has real difficulties with the text, but boils down to the proposition that nonviolence is best, but it is better to fight than to refuse out of cowardice (a familiar Gandhian teaching), and this is what Krishna meant.
On the Hitler issue, it would have been easy for Gandhi to have timed an Indian uprising to coincide with Germanyâs attacks on Britain. He pointedly did not do this, but waited until after the war to continue his independence campaign.