Every time the political ideals are discussed in India it is assumed that Gandhi is the center and perfection and hence every other character is judged upon the distance between his set of principles to that of the Gandhi. The sphere of political idealism has many sub domains like political, personal, social etc.
The immature tendency of drawing conclusion with no such apparent logic is not new to our media who at best boast a single digit IQ. Now a trillion dollar question? Was Gandhi an example of political perfection? If he is, then Sardar Patel is not. They were 180 degree opposite to each other. Gandhi's political philosophy is totally based upon destiny, whereas Patel's political wisdom was based on a perception that was shaped by the safe-fail theory of a state and thus believed on manipulative action.
Now a single dollar question to our half witted forum members. Was Gandhi's political motive correct and more productive than that of Patel where the later only made it possible to have an unified state from hundreds of princely provinces. If Patel is correct, then Gandhi carried a failed political ideology or may be a political fantasy.
So, drawing the conclusion of whether Godse was wrong or right is an absolute immaturity, particularly shown by illogical dick-heads.
RE:Gandhi and perfection are no synonyms
by Loan Shark on Oct 04, 2007 06:46 AM Permalink
Godse was definitely wrong. There is no place for violence and killing in a civilized society.
Those who wonder if Godse's actions were right or wrong are clearly immature and do not understand the rules of living in a civilized world.
RE:Gandhi and perfection are no synonyms
by Loan Shark on Oct 04, 2007 06:43 AM Permalink
Gandhi, Patel and Nehru were visionaries ... true sons of soil. Being in disagreement and yet being able to work towards a common goal, is what makes them the best leaders to lead independent India.
Thanks to them and several others, India is what it is today - not a failed state like Pakistan or Bangla Desh
RE:RE:Gandhi and perfection are no synonyms
by Rabindra Mishra on Oct 04, 2007 07:12 AM Permalink
Dear toothless SHARK,
I forgot to add. Don't use generalised words like visionaries, sons of the soil (i guess others, including you, don't born from the air) etc. I would suggest you one book. Go through "Freedom at Midnight" -L. Collins & D. Lapierre and then comment. At least one book. Even my son who is of around 8 years does not like when I make some generalised comment. Grow up before it becomes late.
RE:Gandhi and perfection are no synonyms
by Rabindra Mishra on Oct 04, 2007 07:06 AM Permalink
Dear toothless SHARK,
Don't bother, had Gandhi been there for another decade, India would have been a bigger failed state than Pakistan, and Bangladesh would have been East-Pakistan till today. I know certain myopics can not imagine such stuff. It is easy to work in a CALL-CENTER to pick calls regarding toilet and telephone bills, software problem at DELL and Accenture. Better come and see the world and then would get to know that what Bangladeshis who left Bangladesh after the 1971 genocide to Canada and US say. Talk to them and get knowledge.
Any way what's your name? It seems half of all the forum is filled by you. You must be working in some call center or might have taken a leave today. But the question is, is everyday a leave for you?
RE:Gandhi and perfection are no synonyms
by Cynic on Oct 04, 2007 07:27 AM Permalink
Mishra,
The problem with practicing the policies of exclusion is that one always pits one against the other. Be it one religion against another or one leader against another. An obsession with proving one "superior" over the other !! While in the real world it is entirely possible for conflicting ideologists to work together towards a common goal. Therefore to debate whether Gandhi's political philosophy was better or Patels is futile & pointless really.
However, there cannot be much debate ( or rather should not be) whether Godse was right or wrong. He killed a man with whose political philosophies he disagreed. ( Keep aside the fact who he killed) And if someone does not agree with the other in a debate, like in this forum, you start abusing. And if one were facing each other....would physically harming also cross your mind?
