What"s your View about MAHATMA GANDHI good or Bad.........

Dude, care to reply to me on Post #18?

 

Nope. That's not really a topic I'm interested in arguing.

 

I am not talking with respect to no.of years a country was governed but the way it was governed matters more, a governance can pull down a country from best to worst, which it might fail to recover even after decades

Indian rulers were better off than British they might have had internal issues but they might have sorted them out as the time passed but not under the British regime, the only reason I feel Gandhi was un-harmed by the British is his closer relationships with British journalists who were in India, who could bring down the entire info in the British dailies back home.

India was one of the world's richest nations even before British arrived, (after Mughal invasion too), it was under British regime Indian wealth has turned handicapped, so either way India was better off British, god knows if they stayed much longer if they would have really left any natural resources to the nation or not

 

masterrio:

You may be thinking of the Spanish in the Philippines.

The Spanish were, in general, not the effective and efficient administrators that the British were.

 

I was not dragging phill. into the issue, I just wanted to show it as an example, as a sufferer of British regime I think I much more aware of the British ill governance than the ones been here.

Have you ever heard Kalapani - its the old Guantanamo, freedom fighters and other people who raised their voices against British were pushed into the prison and they rotted in a dark room which had no window where more than 20 were stuffed in each room
they were slaves in general, they couldn't escape as it was an island called Andaman Islands

do u wish to hear any more worse about British governance ?

in simple, we might have been better and we are really much better than the British regime,
we might have been better if we had a tougher National leader as the head rather than Gandhi, I would prefer Subash Chandra Bose r Azad for the matter

 

It's funny you should mention that, I just reread Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of the Four, on my visit to the Maldives last month. Part of that story takes place in that prison.

Why? It's old news. Now you have new lousy governance.

It's impossible to prove either way. Right now, today, Britain is better managed than India.

I'm not sure that "tough" is what the nation of Indian needed or needs. It seems to me that a leader who is economically literate and can communicate a decent economic vision would be better than a military strongman. You need Milton Friedman, not Robert Mugabe.

 

The current British era is different to the one which ruled India, so you can't compare the ideology of the past to the present
India doesn't have a lousy govt. but has lousy politicians
The tougher was the right term needed for India after independence, look at the mess we are going through after separation of Pakistan, these partitioned till today feel all Indian Muslims support Pakistan (which is highly laughable and has been rejected "n" no.of times by Indian muslims). The corruption is a big challenge of the modern day life and if there was a tougher rule, we might have overcome those problems for guaranteed.

Gandhi had nothing to do with Economic reforms nor other freedom fighters, so I think economic reforms is a topic out of the issue for now at least

 

That was kind of my point.

The two are the opposite sides of the same coin.

You might have, but it hasn't worked for most nations that have tried it.

Gandhi's terrible economic policies are still hurting India to this day. It's very sad.

 

Gandhi was never a man of maths and he had nothing to do with economic state of India today, he died even before an govt. began functioning officially, so he is not to be blamed for this economic reforms alone, there are other culprits for that mess not Gandhi for sure

 

Definitely not alone, as Nehru was far worse. But, Gandhian economics influenced much that was actually implemented.

I suppose that I shouldn't be too hard on him, other leaders of that century were far worse. FDR and LBJ both make Gandhi look like an economic genius.

 

Nehru, Gandhi all sucked and their families are still ruling our country.

Keeping the country Illiterate(Literacy rate of India: 65%) using the Media and money power, after wining the election, they start planning How to win the next election using Media and bashing the opposition Like Hell(Who are Nationalists).

Congress Sucks.

 

Yes congress sucks badly. India is very backward in certain areas because of our aged and short visioned politicians and a single family ruling the nation.

 

He is a GODFATHER for INDIA. No question of Good or BAD. But present day politicians forgot him.

 

As you wish.

Hmm, Gandhian economics is too idealistic in my opinion. The current Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has way better economic sense (he ushered the economic reforms as Finance Minister in 1991 thanks to which India has been the second fastest growing economy for the past decade or so). But then Manmohan Singh is too soft a guy to lead a country...I'd have wanted someone tougher to deal with the Mumbai terror attacks. I'll stop before I deviate from the topic.

 

hahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahaha



SAR20 fucking Owned Bill Spencer hahahhahaha .


Noob Bill spencer got powned biiiiiig time man !! he didnt even had the guts to reply looooooooooooooooooool !!


Loser ...next time dont start a topic if u are not interested to continue the debate u lame dandruff of pubic hair !!

 

Somebody's been hitting the silly sauce...

 

Brush up your knowledge. I hate to say this but you are talking like a retard here. India was not a British territory, its was a colony. They didn't give a shit about Indian problems and were only interested in sending wealth back home. They forced farmers to grow cash crops like cotton (for british mills) and opium (to destroy china) which resulted in food shortages and famines which claimed hundreds of millions of lives. I can go on an on or you could just pick up a history book and read it.

Gandhian economics involved production by the masses rather than for the masses, it focused on socialism which is what India needed at that time. Had our leaders followed Gandhian economics for a few decades before shifting to capitalism we would have been an economic super power today..but our government saw the population as a liability rather than an asset.

Look at Russia is transformed from a backward nation having its ass kicked in WWI to a world super in world WWII, all made possible by socialism. Socialism is the best kind of governance you can give to a country with huge economic disparity, capitalism which you advocate would only increase the gap between rich and poor. Capitalism only works for developed countries.

 

Capitalism is what makes developed countries. Great Britain and the United States didn't become developed countries by following the screwhead theories of Karl Marx.

Look at list of nations sorted by per-capita GDP. What do you see? You see "People's Republic of ..." a lot more at the bottom than at the top.

Socialism simply doesn't work to create wealth -- it keeps nations poor.

 

Sigh.
Do I need to remind you what USSR did in 20 years what other countries did in centuries?

Or Do I need to remind you how US accuired its wealth (war profiteering) and UK (stealing wealth of Asia and Africa)? Besides both countries were mixed economies leaning towards socialism for the most part of their history.

 

Killed off 20 million of their own citizens? Does the Ukranian "famine" ring any bells with you?

Not even close to accurate. The U.S. made it's fortune in agriculture and manufacturing. The Brits in both of those combined with trade. And both only came to embrace socialism after they were already developed -- and socialism was responsible for massive destructions of their economies.