Political Ideology Poll

It's all a matter of changing the rules of the game so that the Nash equilibrium settles in everyone's best interest.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Except that even in non-violent transitions, it still takes the threat of violence, implicit or explicit, to achieve the desired effects.

The capitalist elite aren't going to give up power just because we ask nicely and for long enough. You won't see real change until there are riots in the streets, or until they know a shitstorm is coming.

Take MLK, for example. The only reason his Mr. Nice Guy routine worked in bringing about civil rights is because white racists knew that if they didn't do business with guys like him, they would be doing "business" with Malcolm X, and other black activists who really meant it.

If you don't use force, it has to be at least an implied thread.

Memento Mori

What about Gandhi's successes? You don't exactly need to threaten to bleed them, you just need to threaten to let them starve. When people assume food and clothing and electricity "just happen", and that money is all that matters, it can come as a surprise when others suddenly tell them "Your Money Is No Good Here" and "make your food yourself".

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Britain was flat broke after the war and was going to lose India for financial reasons anyway. I don't really regard it as a major success, given that Ghandi was a religious fanatic whose fanaticism turned the independence movement into a bloody sectarian conflict that tore India apart. We're still living eith the consequences of that partition today.

Omnia India in partes tres divisa est.

Anyway, with or without Ghandi, the British empire was clearly over, Ghandi just exacerbated what was already in the cards to start with, and managed to trifurcate the country in the process.

He's one of India and history's most overrated and misunderstood figures. One of the worst things to happen to the subcontinent in a very long time.

edited 27th Apr '12 1:53:10 PM by Sarkastique

Memento Mori

Well that's certainly a novel point of view.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Not, really.

After all, Ghandi was assassinated by another Hindu fanatic for not being fanatical enough.

He took a quest for India's independence and turned it into a religious exercise and, now that it's over, the biggest chance we have today of a nuclear confrontation is between India and Pakistan. The result of an India torn apart by Ghandi's religious bullshit.

Memento Mori

Gandhi once met a Hindu man whose son had been killed by a crowd of Muslims in a riot. The man had been overcome with fury and killed a young Muslim boy in revenge. He asked Gandhi what he should do to be able to life with himself, and Gandhi told him to adopt a homeless Muslim boy and bring him up as his own - except that the boy should be brought up to be a Muslim.

Gandhi wanted India to be united and was willing to make concessions to Muslims. He wanted a nation without a state religion.

Read his articles and interviews. You'll find that he had a very favourable opinion of Muslims in general, though he genuinely was bigoted towards some other groups of people. Gandhi didn't want to impose a Hindu society on all of India, and he wasn't willing to persecute any group.

When riots broke out and there was violence against the Muslims, Gandhi went on a hunger strike until the violence stopped. Later, he did the same thing again.

I disagree strongly with his religious views, but I will defend him against insults he doesn't deserve.

edited 27th Apr '12 2:46:30 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

He obviously didn't want India united enough to not make independence a sectarian issue in the first place.

All the concessions and healing in the world ring hollow when it's your fault those problems exist in the first place. Without Ghandi, India would be whole.

Memento Mori

Gandhi isn't a god. Believe it or not, the actions and politics of others also had an effect on what happened in the formation of India and Pakistan.

And while Gandhi was wrong about things (sticking to an rural agrarian society wasn't going to do shit about the caste system that he was opposed to, and it continues to show in India, since the caste system is strongest in rural areas) and he was essentially trying to return to the past rather than move into the future, he was a hell of a good man and tried to accomplish a lot of positive things.

The fact that things didn't turn out that way doesn't mean that he's a monstrous fanatic.

| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

He didn't really make it a sectarian issue. He wanted Jinnah, who is now considered the "father of Pakistan," to be the first President of India so that the first government would have a Muslim President and a Hindu Prime Minister.

It simply isn't true that Gandhi wanted a state where Muslims and Hindus were segregated or considered anything other than equal.

That said, this is again off-topic.

edited 27th Apr '12 3:35:49 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Ah, if only Cleopatra's nose...

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Yeah, I could say more about this topic but it's really a derail so since everyone obviously knows what I think I'll leave it at that.

Memento Mori

No, not really, not at all.

In essence, Gandhi was just the figurehead of the Indian independance movements. Others, like Nehru and Jinnah, did the actual political work. And after WW 2, the entire British Empire was dismantled. India did not win independence specifically because of Gandhi.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Socially conservative, economically centrist with some forays to the center-right. Generally conservative in the Burkean sense of the word, though not universally.