Martin L. King & Mahatma Gandhi

[happyheart]

^ You can type the same thing again & again on this forum, but that does not change the way the world perceives Gandhi :D

You can type the same thing again & again on this forum, but that does not change the way the world perceives Gandhi, and how they perceive gandi that you have read it in the article and its not a good picture they point of him. :)

[ravage]

Gandhi's methods are not novel. That was the path many others had tread including Buddha, Jesus et al.

Gandhi was also influenced by many writers prominent among them being Leo Tolstoy. But, the greatness of Gandhi was he took the theory of those great thinkers and converted the idealogy into applicable format called Satyagraha.

Alrite, lets see if you can back that up. What was inapplicable about the philosophy of Thoreau (which he himself applied a fair bit) and what changes did Gandhi make to make it applicable?

He was an effective political leader no doubt, but people try to exagerrate his accomplishments beyond that.

[Punjabee_in_USA]

Alrite, lets see if you can back that up. What was inapplicable about the philosophy of Thoreau (which he himself applied a fair bit) and what changes did Gandhi make to make it applicable?

He was an effective political leader no doubt, but people try to exagerrate his accomplishments beyond that.

There is a difference between formulating an idea or a theory and actually applying it in the face of stiff resistance to come up with great results. Gandhi was exceptional because he did the latter. Not only did he practice non-violent methods for the freedom struggle himself, but he influenced millions of common men & women across un-divided India to do the same. And he did all of this without any personal ambitions or political desire.

[Victory]

@happyheart

You can type the same thing again & again on this forum, but that does not change the way the world perceives Gandhi, and how they perceive gandi that you have read it in the article and its not a good picture they point of him.

Let’s read what people thought about him and on his death:

M.A.Jinnah to Devdas Gandhi
Telegram, F111-GG/4

Please accept my most sincere condolences on the tragic death of your revered father. Your loss is the loss of humanity. Pakistan joins you in mourning this loss.

M A Jinnah
Chowk: Personal: Jinnah’s private telegram of condolence to Devdas Gandhi regarding the assassination of Gandhi..

Reason for his death:

the immediate reason for Gandhi’s death
was his effort to save Pakistan from financial ruin by exerting moral
pressure, through a fast unto death, on the Indian government to
deliver to Pakistan the withheld amount of Rs 55 crore on account of
the division of assets shortly after partition.

Liaquat Ali Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, in his statement
said, ‘He was a great figure of our times and was trying unceasingly
to bring back sanity to the people and to establish communal
harmony… His recent efforts for communal harmony will be remembered
with gratitude.’ Khwaja Nazimuddin, the premier of East Bengal, said,
‘The greatest tragedy is that when Mahatma Gandhi was most needed he
has been taken away from us.’ Both of them realised the importance of
Gandhi’s mission after independence and unhesitatingly acknowledged
his greatness with the risk of differing with their leader. On the
other hand, the last Muslim prime minister of undivided Bengal, Huseyn
Shaheed Suhrawardi, then living in Kolkata carrying out Gandhi’s
mission of establishing communal harmony, made an emotionally charged
statement, ‘Weep India weep, if you have tears, shed them now.’

Tajuddin Ahmed, who as a
Muslim nationalist took active part in the Pakistan movement since
1943 and little over two decades later after partition became the
first prime minister of the exile government of Bangladesh in 1971.
One does not know if Tajuddin had ever met Gandhi who stayed in
Noakhali, an East Bengal district, from November 7 to March 2 in 1947.
Walking barefoot Gandhi covered 116 miles, visiting 47 villages
‘cursed by blood and bitterness,’ during the communal carnage there
which followed the Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946. Politicians
of various stature, newspaper correspondents, Gandhi’s disciples and
Congress volunteers, Muslim League supporters rushed to Noakhali. But
none of the young Muslim nationalists, including Tajuddin, whom we
mention in this essay, visited Gandhi in Noakhali. But there was an
instant and extensive reaction that we read in Tajuddin’s diary
written hours after he received the news of Gandhi’s assassination.
Grief overwhelmed him and abundantly flowed in the pages of his diary.

Expression of grief has no necessary correspondence with language.
Silence, crying, hurting oneself, even hitting others are the known
modes of expression of grief among the people.
Expression of grief often is loud and episodic remembrance,
interrupted by outbursts of cries, of all the lost moments of
happiness and unfulfilled desires involving the deceased. The reason
and subject of grief often determine the mode of expression of
mourning. But when grief is expressed through writing, the subject and
object of grief merge in a text that opens up multiple possibilities
of interpretations. Thus a written text expressing grief is always
both private and public with the potentiality of entering into the
domain of historical discourse. Through mourning Tajuddin was not only
connecting with his political past, he, in fact, questioned the long-
held basis of his anti-Gandhi public stand. Tajuddin’s grief thus
opens up the possibility of reversing or re-establishing his
relationship with a martyred Gandhi in a fresh review of politics. To
do this, the only mode he adopts which is sustainable is to express
his grief in writing. Thus inscribed in the pages of his diary, his
grief transcends the boundary of the private and enters into the
domain of the public where politics determines the language of his
grief, especially so, when it is all about Gandhi.

Tajuddin’s diary entry on Gandhi’s death, which was about three and
half pages, was much longer than his entry of any other day including
even August 15, the day of independence from the British. From this
the intensity of pain that Gandhi’s death inflicted on him becomes
clear. He titled his diary page on January 30 as ‘Sad day (Friday) Sad
news.’ His first reaction after hearing the news was, ‘I was puzzled
for about 3 minutes I remained in nervousness - at the first utterance
of news a peculiar harsh cry-like voice came out…’ To make sense of
the impact of Gandhi’s death, Tajuddin mentioned that he took his
father’s and brother’s death very normally, but he became very much
heartbroken with Gandhi’s death. He further wrote that ‘for the first
time I got shock from human death which I always take for very usual
thing to happen. To me death is a common and natural thing. I never
mourn anybody’s death.’ When his father died in 1947, only a few days
short of a year before Gandhi’s death, Tajuddin was in Calcutta and
had his ‘normal’ dinner after receiving his father’s death news. The
following night he went on to have a ‘sound sleep’ at his village home
‘in the very place where [his father] breathed his last.’ But he could
not sleep after receiving the news of Gandhi’s death. He mentioned his
calmness after his father’s death and wrote that he ate four paratas
and one bowl of meat only fifteen minutes after receiving his father’s
death news. ‘But the case is different with me at the death of
Gandhiji. I wanted to shake off the melancholy in me as weakness. I
took my night meal at 12 pm…But I could not sleep well against my
will. While I was awake I was [absorbed] in Gandhiji, when slumber
caught me due to numbness it took me to Gandhiji.’ Tajuddin uses the
examples of personal loss to measure the intensity of his mourning in
the absence of any other measure. In his diary he mentions Gandhi as a
‘great sage.’

Another Muslim nationalist, Kamruddin Ahmad wrote, ‘that night (30 January) I dreamt
of Gandhiji - in his Asram (hermitage), he was smiling showing his
toothless gum and said “future history will decide whether I am a
hypocrite or not. I will certainly not stop going to Noakhali
persuaded by you. When I decided to go there, at that time there was
no riot in Bihar.” We were dissatisfied and came out disgusted. But
after waking up I realised that I did not apologise to him while he
was alive. I will suffer and my conscience will bite me rest of my
life.’ This he wrote in his vernacular autobiography more than two
decades and a half later.

(from google archive pages Mahatma Gandhi In The Eyes Of East Pakistanis)

The Azad, the only vernacular daily till then
published from Dacca, in its editorial recognised the fact that his
fast unto death in his frail health to save Muslim lives from the
Hindu communalist attacks successfully turned the tide of communal
tension in Delhi and made the Hindus, Sikhs and the Muslims embrace
each other in harmony. Thus, Gandhi posed a huge question mark through
his death to the nationalist Muslims of East Bengal. This
extraordinarily tragic incident made the latter look small before
Gandhi’s greatness; they were all absorbed in guilt feelings.

Tajuddin wrote self-critically, ‘In the past the same I spoke
against this Great Soul for political achievement.’ He confessed that
he believed, as other Muslim nationalists did, that the only way to
make the Muslim League powerful was by making the Congress weaker; and
to undermine the Congress the easiest way was to undermine Mahatma who
was the soul of that organisation. In his reactions, Tajuddin thus
exposed the inability of somebody trained in colonial liberal politics
to make sense of Gandhi’s politics which derived its legitimacy from a
particular reading of Hinduism - his experiment with truth, his
politics of Ahimsa and finally his idea of Swaraj. Understandably,
this reading was culturally and historically inaccessible to Tajuddin
and others of his kind. Reviewing the past from the changed context of
January 1948, they could realise Gandhi’s greatness considering the
future safety of the Indian Muslims and the security of the Muslim
homeland.

Happy heart, someday when you realise the greatness of Gandhi, you will feel the guilt that Tajuddin felt. May allah help you to open up your heart.

[happyheart]

@Victory

Let’s read what people thought about him and on his death:

M.A.Jinnah to Devdas Gandhi
Telegram, F111-GG/4

Please accept my most sincere condolences on the tragic death of your revered father. Your loss is the loss of humanity. Pakistan joins you in mourning this loss.

M A Jinnah
Chowk: Personal: Jinnah’s private telegram of condolence to Devdas Gandhi regarding the assassination of Gandhi..

Reason for his death:

the immediate reason for Gandhi’s death
was his effort to save Pakistan from financial ruin by exerting moral
pressure, through a fast unto death, on the Indian government to
deliver to Pakistan the withheld amount of Rs 55 crore on account of
the division of assets shortly after partition.

Liaquat Ali Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, in his statement
said, ‘He was a great figure of our times and was trying unceasingly
to bring back sanity to the people and to establish communal
harmony… His recent efforts for communal harmony will be remembered
with gratitude.’ Khwaja Nazimuddin, the premier of East Bengal, said,
‘The greatest tragedy is that when Mahatma Gandhi was most needed he
has been taken away from us.’ Both of them realised the importance of
Gandhi’s mission after independence and unhesitatingly acknowledged
his greatness with the risk of differing with their leader. On the
other hand, the last Muslim prime minister of undivided Bengal, Huseyn
Shaheed Suhrawardi, then living in Kolkata carrying out Gandhi’s
mission of establishing communal harmony, made an emotionally charged
statement, ‘Weep India weep, if you have tears, shed them now.’

Tajuddin Ahmed, who as a
Muslim nationalist took active part in the Pakistan movement since
1943 and little over two decades later after partition became the
first prime minister of the exile government of Bangladesh in 1971.
One does not know if Tajuddin had ever met Gandhi who stayed in
Noakhali, an East Bengal district, from November 7 to March 2 in 1947.
Walking barefoot Gandhi covered 116 miles, visiting 47 villages
‘cursed by blood and bitterness,’ during the communal carnage there
which followed the Great Calcutta Killing of August 1946. Politicians
of various stature, newspaper correspondents, Gandhi’s disciples and
Congress volunteers, Muslim League supporters rushed to Noakhali. But
none of the young Muslim nationalists, including Tajuddin, whom we
mention in this essay, visited Gandhi in Noakhali. But there was an
instant and extensive reaction that we read in Tajuddin’s diary
written hours after he received the news of Gandhi’s assassination.
Grief overwhelmed him and abundantly flowed in the pages of his diary.

Expression of grief has no necessary correspondence with language.
Silence, crying, hurting oneself, even hitting others are the known
modes of expression of grief among the people.
Expression of grief often is loud and episodic remembrance,
interrupted by outbursts of cries, of all the lost moments of
happiness and unfulfilled desires involving the deceased. The reason
and subject of grief often determine the mode of expression of
mourning. But when grief is expressed through writing, the subject and
object of grief merge in a text that opens up multiple possibilities
of interpretations. Thus a written text expressing grief is always
both private and public with the potentiality of entering into the
domain of historical discourse. Through mourning Tajuddin was not only
connecting with his political past, he, in fact, questioned the long-
held basis of his anti-Gandhi public stand. Tajuddin’s grief thus
opens up the possibility of reversing or re-establishing his
relationship with a martyred Gandhi in a fresh review of politics. To
do this, the only mode he adopts which is sustainable is to express
his grief in writing. Thus inscribed in the pages of his diary, his
grief transcends the boundary of the private and enters into the
domain of the public where politics determines the language of his
grief, especially so, when it is all about Gandhi.

Tajuddin’s diary entry on Gandhi’s death, which was about three and
half pages, was much longer than his entry of any other day including
even August 15, the day of independence from the British. From this
the intensity of pain that Gandhi’s death inflicted on him becomes
clear. He titled his diary page on January 30 as ‘Sad day (Friday) Sad
news.’ His first reaction after hearing the news was, ‘I was puzzled
for about 3 minutes I remained in nervousness - at the first utterance
of news a peculiar harsh cry-like voice came out…’ To make sense of
the impact of Gandhi’s death, Tajuddin mentioned that he took his
father’s and brother’s death very normally, but he became very much
heartbroken with Gandhi’s death. He further wrote that ‘for the first
time I got shock from human death which I always take for very usual
thing to happen. To me death is a common and natural thing. I never
mourn anybody’s death.’ When his father died in 1947, only a few days
short of a year before Gandhi’s death, Tajuddin was in Calcutta and
had his ‘normal’ dinner after receiving his father’s death news. The
following night he went on to have a ‘sound sleep’ at his village home
‘in the very place where [his father] breathed his last.’ But he could
not sleep after receiving the news of Gandhi’s death. He mentioned his
calmness after his father’s death and wrote that he ate four paratas
and one bowl of meat only fifteen minutes after receiving his father’s
death news. ‘But the case is different with me at the death of
Gandhiji. I wanted to shake off the melancholy in me as weakness. I
took my night meal at 12 pm…But I could not sleep well against my
will. While I was awake I was [absorbed] in Gandhiji, when slumber
caught me due to numbness it took me to Gandhiji.’ Tajuddin uses the
examples of personal loss to measure the intensity of his mourning in
the absence of any other measure. In his diary he mentions Gandhi as a
‘great sage.’

Another Muslim nationalist, Kamruddin Ahmad wrote, ‘that night (30 January) I dreamt
of Gandhiji - in his Asram (hermitage), he was smiling showing his
toothless gum and said “future history will decide whether I am a
hypocrite or not. I will certainly not stop going to Noakhali
persuaded by you. When I decided to go there, at that time there was
no riot in Bihar.” We were dissatisfied and came out disgusted. But
after waking up I realised that I did not apologise to him while he
was alive. I will suffer and my conscience will bite me rest of my
life.’ This he wrote in his vernacular autobiography more than two
decades and a half later.

(from google archive pages Mahatma Gandhi In The Eyes Of East Pakistanis)

The Azad, the only vernacular daily till then
published from Dacca, in its editorial recognised the fact that his
fast unto death in his frail health to save Muslim lives from the
Hindu communalist attacks successfully turned the tide of communal
tension in Delhi and made the Hindus, Sikhs and the Muslims embrace
each other in harmony. Thus, Gandhi posed a huge question mark through
his death to the nationalist Muslims of East Bengal. This
extraordinarily tragic incident made the latter look small before
Gandhi’s greatness; they were all absorbed in guilt feelings.

Tajuddin wrote self-critically, ‘In the past the same I spoke
against this Great Soul for political achievement.’ He confessed that
he believed, as other Muslim nationalists did, that the only way to
make the Muslim League powerful was by making the Congress weaker; and
to undermine the Congress the easiest way was to undermine Mahatma who
was the soul of that organisation. In his reactions, Tajuddin thus
exposed the inability of somebody trained in colonial liberal politics
to make sense of Gandhi’s politics which derived its legitimacy from a
particular reading of Hinduism - his experiment with truth, his
politics of Ahimsa and finally his idea of Swaraj. Understandably,
this reading was culturally and historically inaccessible to Tajuddin
and others of his kind. Reviewing the past from the changed context of
January 1948, they could realise Gandhi’s greatness considering the
future safety of the Indian Muslims and the security of the Muslim
homeland.

Happy heart, someday when you realise the greatness of Gandhi, you will feel the guilt that Tajuddin felt. May allah help you to open up your heart.

Well don’t tell me that
tell that to mr. Singh please.

Gandhi did nothing to me.

But u cannot deny what his thoughts were

and this u cannot deny

[Punjabee_in_USA]

@happyheart

Well don’t tell me that
tell that to mr. Singh please.

Gandhi did nothing to me.

But u cannot deny what his thoughts were

and this u cannot deny

Happyheart mere bhai, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Its one thing to argue when you know what you are arguing about, but its a completely different thing to argue for the sake of arguing.

As I have told you multiple times, I can show you negative thoughts & words and criticism about everything - but that does not make all of them true. Think about it

[happyheart]

Happyheart mere bhai, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Its one thing to argue when you know what you are arguing about, but its a completely different thing to argue for the sake of arguing. Think about it ;)

Well HAVING knowledge and not using it or denying it is more dangerous i think
what you say?

[Punjabee_in_USA]

Well HAVING knowledge and not using it or denying it is more dangerous i think what you say?

What can I say ? You know more about not using the "little" knowledge that you have ;)

[happyheart]

@Punjabee_in_USA

What can I say ? You know more about not using the "little" knowledge that you have ;)

yeah and what is your point u wanna make?

what has my knowledge got to do with the fact that
Gandi was a racist?

[Punjabee_in_USA]

@happyheart

yeah and what is your point u wanna make?

After 49 posts you are asking this question ? Pls read the earlier posts again.

Gandhi did not become "Mahatma" for the time he spent in SA or for what he said or did there. He became known as "Mahatma" for what he learnt in SA and how he applied it in his life post SA.

Its not a very difficult concept to understand. Try it !!

[happyheart]

@Punjabee_in_USA

After 49 posts you are asking this question ? Pls read the earlier posts again.

Gandhi did not become "Mahatma" for the time he spent in SA or for what he said or did there. He became known as "Mahatma" for what he learnt in SA and how he applied it in his life post SA.

Its not a very difficult concept to understand. Try it !!

Hindu extremists made him mahatma shehzaday not those about whom Gandhi thought were the scum of the earth.
tauba tauba tauba

[Arleitter]

Re: Martin L. King & Mahatma Gandhi

^He was called by `Mahatma' not by Hindu extremists.He was first called by that label by Mr.Tagore.

Pindi information and propaganda system is becoming too bleak day by day

[Punjabee_in_USA]

@Arleitter

Pindi information and propaganda system is becoming too bleak day by day

[aam_bandha]

@happyheart

You can type the same thing again & again on this forum, but that does not change the way the world perceives Gandhi, and how they perceive gandi that you have read it in the article and its not a good picture they point of him.

The world has called saints and prophets as pedophilles … does that make it true

So if you really want to know about Gandhi’s influence on Dr Martin Luther King Jr. then it would make sense to read what Dr. King has written … right. So have you done that … you and your friends can write again and again … but that is not going to change the world . (If you want i will post a list of articles and books by Dr. King Jr. and what he had to say about Gandhi)

Here will leave you with another famous person touched by Gandhi … Barak Hussanin Obama

"The America of today has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent social action movement for Indian independence which he led.

President Barack Obama leads Mahatma Gandhi birthday tributes - Telegraph

October 2 is celebrated by UN as International day of non-violence …

International Day of Non-Violence - 2 October 2009

So you see how he is percived in OUR world … maybe you are talking about your world … snowhite

[happyheart]

@aam_bandha

The world has called saints and prophets as pedophilles … does that make it true

So if you really want to know about Gandhi’s influence on Dr Martin Luther King Jr. then it would make sense to read what Dr. King has written … right. So have you done that … you and your friends can write again and again … but that is not going to change the world . (If you want i will post a list of articles and books by Dr. King Jr. and what he had to say about Gandhi)

Here will leave you with another famous person touched by Gandhi … Barak Hussanin Obama

"The America of today has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent social action movement for Indian independence which he led.

President Barack Obama leads Mahatma Gandhi birthday tributes - Telegraph

October 2 is celebrated by UN as International day of non-violence …

International Day of Non-Violence - 2 October 2009

So you see how he is percived in OUR world … maybe you are talking about your world … snowhite

First of all you are referring to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in your first sentence, that i know.

But then what is your problem when others call Gandhi a racist and someone who supports

discrimination againsts blacks and Dalits??

[Arleitter]

Re: Martin L. King & Mahatma Gandhi

^Where did he mention abt Mohammed?

[happyheart]

^Where did he mention abt Mohammed?

First sentence he did insinuate it.
and look at his laugh
evil evil laugh full with evil intentions.

[Arleitter]

Re: Martin L. King & Mahatma Gandhi

But how come you figured it that way?He did not mention Mohammad's name anywhere.

[happyheart]

Re: Martin L. King & Mahatma Gandhi

meri jaan
one does not have to mention a name
to figure out what someone insinuate
u are intelligent enough Aleitter to figure that out ji

[aam_bandha]

But then what is your problem when others call Gandhi a racist and someone who supports

discrimination againsts blacks and Dalits??

I haev no problem with anyone saying anyting against Gandhi !!!!! Hey it is a free world ... it is not that i am going to strap myself and blow up ...... not my style .

I was just pointing out to you about your statement "how the the world percives Gandhi" ...... Just wanted to show how the "world" percives Gandhi ...... in reality ..... again we might not be talking about the same world .... right :D