An interesting quote by Gandhi on what he considered the worst part of British rule

KingCondanomation

KingCondanomation

New member
I have to admit I was surprised:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." – Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446
 
http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html

This file is linked from the file,
"The Quotes, the Quotes" http://www.potowmack.org/thequotes.html.

A quote advanced to support the armed populace fantasy is from Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His objective of Indedepence was achieved in 1947. Gandhi wrote in Chapter XXVII, "The Recruiting Campaign," in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:

'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
GO TO

"Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.
 
I believe that, unfortunately, Britain never banned private ownership of guns during its rule over India. So the quote doesn't even make sense in Dano's context.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
I believe that, unfortunately, Britain never banned private ownership of guns during its rule over India. So the quote doesn't even make sense in Dano's context.
Click to expand...
So you think it would have been BETTER for oppressed people if the colonial countries that not only took over other countries ALSO forbid them from having firearms?

Basically to you, it doesn't matter how vile a government is so long as they are the only ones with access to firearms, all is good.
 
KingCondanomation said:
So you think it would have been BETTER for oppressed people if the colonial countries that not only took over other countries ALSO forbid them from having firearms?

Basically to you, it doesn't matter how vile a government is so long as they are the only ones with access to firearms, all is good.
Click to expand...

I think that if you were imposing imperial control over another nation, you may as well improve their livelihood while you're at it by doing something noble and righteous like banning firearms.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
I think that if you were imposing imperial control over another nation, you may as well improve their livelihood while you're at it by doing something noble and righteous like banning firearms.
Click to expand...

Uh earth to dork, IF they have firearms then they CAN oppose foreign imperial control.
You place far too much value on security over freedom, freedom is the most important thing a person can have - it's the secret to happiness.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Uh earth to dork, IF they have firearms then they CAN oppose foreign imperial control.
You place far too much value on security over freedom, freedom is the most important thing a person can have - it's the secret to happiness.
Click to expand...

And how exactly did India go about opposing their foreign imperial control? With guns? Is that what Ghandi did? I forgot.
 
Gandhi led a revolution and killed every British person in India, thereby giving India freedom, and then was murdered by someone who considered him too much of a warmonger.
 
ib1yysguy said:
And how exactly did India go about opposing their foreign imperial control? With guns? Is that what Ghandi did? I forgot.
Click to expand...
America got Britain out a LOT earlier WITH guns did they not? Don't assume that Gandhi's way was better.
It's not noble to ban someone's ability to self-defend themselves on equal terms and sure as hell not on a racial basis as the Waterdork advocates.
 
KingCondanomation said:
America got Britain out a LOT earlier WITH guns did they not? Don't assume that Gandhi's way was better.
It's not noble to ban someone's ability to self-defend themselves on equal terms and sure as hell not on a racial basis as the Waterdork advocates.
Click to expand...

lol

For numerous reasons, I don't think an armed uprising in India against the British in the 40's would've been as effective as America's war was, and it probably would have set Indian independence back by decades. Anyway, a wait for political independence is more than acceptable a cost for saving millions of lives (and it's dubious whether or not the violent revolution would've been faster anyway).
 
Watermark said:
http://www.potowmack.org/gandhi.html

This file is linked from the file,
"The Quotes, the Quotes" http://www.potowmack.org/thequotes.html.

A quote advanced to support the armed populace fantasy is from Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His objective of Indedepence was achieved in 1947. Gandhi wrote in Chapter XXVII, "The Recruiting Campaign," in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:

'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
GO TO

"Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.
Click to expand...


But aren't armies composed of individuals with arms?
 
Watermark said:
lol

For numerous reasons, I don't think an armed uprising in India against the British in the 40's would've been as effective as America's war was, and it probably would have set Indian independence back by decades. Anyway, a wait for political independence is more than acceptable a cost for saving millions of lives (and it's dubious whether or not the violent revolution would've been faster anyway).
Click to expand...

So what's your stance on the American Civil War?
 
The trouble with the general public having firearms is that they tend to shoot each other.

You could argue that the general public should have arms to overturn any despotic regime that may take power but in my experience civilians with guns generally come off the worse against a trained military. Have done since the time of Sparticus, and probably beyond.

The best method to overturn a despotic regime is to not allow it to occur, to have a politically aware populus and a citizen military that recognises the sovereignty of the people.

As for Gandhi, he was a polemic, and a pragmatist, and would have done or said whatever was neccesary.
 
For numerous reasons, I don't think an armed uprising in India against the British in the 40's would've been as effective as America's war was, and it probably would have set Indian independence back by decades. Anyway, a wait for political independence is more than acceptable a cost for saving millions of lives (and it's dubious whether or not the violent revolution would've been faster anyway).

America's independence was a result of Imperial over-stretch. The French war stretched our resources too much to deal with the insurrection amongst our colonial kin in the New World. You guys should thank the French. Without them, you'd have to spell colour properly, and you wouldn't whoop as much.
 
AnyOldIron said:
You could argue that the general public should have arms to overturn any despotic regime that may take power but in my experience civilians with guns generally come off the worse against a trained military. Have done since the time of Sparticus, and probably beyond.
Click to expand...


But sometimes, they succeed. With guns, chances of freedom are enhanced. Your "rationale" is just malignant hopelessness and nihilism, wrapped up in a tortilla of common pseudo-sense.
 
AnyOldIron said:
The trouble with the general public having firearms is that they tend to shoot each other.

You could argue that the general public should have arms to overturn any despotic regime that may take power but in my experience civilians with guns generally come off the worse against a trained military. Have done since the time of Sparticus, and probably beyond.

The best method to overturn a despotic regime is to not allow it to occur, to have a politically aware populus and a citizen military that recognises the sovereignty of the people.

As for Gandhi, he was a polemic, and a pragmatist, and would have done or said whatever was neccesary.
Click to expand...

Here in America, that citizen military is all of us. In the words of james madison, that martial spirit that exists in all of us allows us to remain free, provided we hold on to that spirit. As to civilians shooting each other, people have been preying on the weak since time began and it's not going to stop. Firearms are the best tool currently to equalize that balance between weak and strong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top