Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

== Some vandals have removed the part on Gandhi's experiments with brahmacharya. Citation required

Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women.[37][38] He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as "nature cure". Later in his life he started experimenting with brahmacharya in order to test his self control. His letter to Birla in April, 1945 referring to "women or girls who have been naked with me' indicates that several women were part of his experiments.[39] Sex became the most talked about subject matter by Gandhi after ahimsa (non-violence) and increasingly so in his later years. He devoted five full editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of brahmacharya.[40]

As part of these experiments, he initially slept with his women associates in the same room but at a distance. Afterwards he started to lie in the same bed with his women disciples and later took to sleeping naked alongside them .[39] According to Gandhi active-celibacy meant perfect self control in the presence of opposite sex. Gandhi conducted his experiments with a number of women such as Abha, the sixteen year old wife of his grand-nephew Kanu Gandhi. Gandhi acknowledged "that this experiment is very dangerous indeed" , but thought "that it was capable of yielding great results" .[41] His nineteen year old grand-niece, Manu Gandhi, too was part of his experiments. Gandhi had earlier written to her father, Jaisukhlal Gandhi, that Manu had started to share his bed so that he may "correct her sleeping posture".[41] In Gandhi's view experiment of sleeping naked with Manu in Noakhali would help him in contemplating upon Hindu-Muslim unity in India before partition and ease communal tensions. Gandhi saw himself as a mother to these women and would refer to Abha and Manu as "my walking sticks" .

Gandhi called Sarladevi, a married woman with children and a devout follower, his "spiritual wife" . He later said that he had come close to having sexual relations with her.[42] He had told a correspondent in March, 1945 that "sleeping together came with my taking up of bramhacharya or even before that" ; he said he had experimented with his wife "but that was not enough" .[41] Gandhi felt satisfied with his experiments and wrote to Manu that "I have successfully practiced the eleven vows taken by me. This is the culmination of my striving for last thirty six years. In this yajna I got a glimpse of the ideal truth and purity for which I have been striving" .

Gandhi had to take criticism for his experiments by many of his followers and opponents. His stenographer, R. P. Parasuram, resigned when he saw Gandhi sleeping naked with Manu.[43] Gandhi insisted that he never felt aroused while he slept beside her, or with Sushila or Abha. "I am sorry" Gandhi said to Parasuram, "you are at liberty to leave me today." Nirmal Kumar Bose, another close associate of Gandhi, parted company with him in April, 1947 post Gandhi's tour of Noakhali, where some sort of altercation had taken place between Gandhi and Sushila Nayar in his bedroom at midnight that caused Gandhi to slap his forehead. Bose had stated that the nature of his experiments in bramhacharya still remained unknown and unstated.[43][44]

N. K. Bose, who stayed close to Gandhi during his Noakhali tour, testified that "there was no immorality on part of Gandhi. Moreover Gandhi tried to conquer the feeling of sex by consciously endeavouring to convert himself into a mother of those who were under his case, whether men or women" . Dattatreya Balkrishna Kalelkar, a revolutionary turned disciple of Gandhi, used to say that Gandhi's "relationships with women were, from beginning to end, as pure as mother's milk" .[45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.151.213 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

37 ^ Birkett, Dea; Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Lloyd I Rudolph. Gandhi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma. Orient Longman, 56. ISBN 0002160056.

38 ^ Caplan, Pat; Patricia Caplan (1987). The Cultural construction of sexuality. Routledge, 278. ISBN 0415040132.

39 ^ a b Parekh, Bhikhu C. (1999). Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi's Political Discourse. Sage, 210. ISBN 0761993835.

40 ^ Kumar, Girja (1997). The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India. Har-Anand Publications, 98. ISBN 8124105251.

41 ^ a b c Tidrick, Kathryn (2007). Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life. I.B.Tauris, 302–304. ISBN 1845111664.

42 ^ Tidrick, Kathryn (2007). Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life. I.B.Tauris, 160. ISBN 1845111664.

43 ^ a b Wolpert, Stanley (2001). Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford University Press, 226–227. ISBN 019515634X.

44 ^ Kumar, Girja (1997). The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India. Har-Anand Publishers, 73-107. ISBN 8124105251.

45 ^ Ghose, Sankar (1991). Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers, 356. ISBN 8170232058. Gandhi student2 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems particularly important, with biographic pages under lock and Ghandi being on the front page of Google, that this particular gem be restored. It seems curious this is missing with a lock in place anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.78.254 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion should be included. I would do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.235.148 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Role in World War I

I believe a new section should be started detailing Gandhi's recruitment role in WWI. Unfortunately it is a blemish on his life of nonviolence, but it should be noted [1][2][3][4]. Any suggestions? nirvana2013 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Added section. Please feel free to expand. nirvana2013 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence

Shreevatsa, I am reverting your change. I do not see how WP:UNDUE works here. These are not minority point of view. Gandhi was always truthful and explicit about what he was doing. I do not like to indulge in an edit-war, please explain the if you like to change further.

Also some important information about saraladevi, (Gandhi himself admitted to have come close to have sex with her) etc has been removed by your "trimming".

Also the paragraph fits well in criticism section, as it has been explicitly stated that people (including some followers) criticize Gandhi for sleeping naked with young women.

The paragraph has indeed been copy pasted from an older source and needs cleaning.

Some part of it may fit better to "Brahmacharya" section, as you have done. However, it should not be done in the expense of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's undue weight, but I'll leave it to others to wrangle over this. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that including these experiments of Gandhi are not out of place in the article, but I do think that the length to which they are discussed is undue. My suggestion is that the material be condensed to include the first paragraph, the fourth paragraph (Gandhi had to take criticism for ....) and perhaps a briefer version of the final paragraph. The other material is unnecessary detail for an encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the matter here is not verifiability but due weight. There are over 8000 books and article that have been written on Gandhi, so there is a lot of sourced content that we can add to this article, but we should avoid main article fixation. It is fair and proper to briefly describe Gandhi's experiment with abstinence in this article and note that those practices were criticized. However the current length and detail of the section is not in proportion to the notability of these issues. Also, the section needs to be merged with the earlier Brahmacharya section, since there is absolutely no justification for segregating the praiseworthy and critical aspects of Gandhi's practice of abstinence into two different sections. A single section should cover his philosophy, practice and related commentary.

In fact, why does this article even have separate sections on Gandhi's Principles and Ideals and criticism ? Creating sections according to POV, rather than topic content, is mark of poor writing. For example, reported weaknesses of Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence (as it applied to Jews under the Nazis) should be discussed in the main Nonviolence section, and not separated out into a Rejection of violent resistance. Any volunteers to perform the merges and required trimmings ? Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should not be a separate criticism section. However that goes for all type of criticism. It is better if somebody can merge the criticism on the main body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the Ideals and criticism into the main article and moved the numerous statue photos of Gandhi into List of artistic depictions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. nirvana2013 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove link to father

The link to his father needs to be removed. It redirects back to him. I would change this myself, but the page is protected, so I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guta5807 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Guta for your sharp eyes and for pointing that out! I have removed the wikilink, and you'll be able to make such edits yourself in a few days. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Early South African Articles

I think this section needs work. Evidence is put forth for why Gandhi was racist, such as quotes, and later this is countered by that according to Bhana and Vahed Gandhi mellowed in his views. This however is only the conclusion of their argument. Where is their argument itself, or the evidence that they use to come to that conclusion? Either more text needs to be cited or Bhana and Vahed's work needs to be elaborated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.52 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The part from "They continue by referring ..." to "... guilty of distortion" provides very little valuable information. Moreover, the article provides no evidence that Bhana and Vahed are particularly notable scholars, so it is not clear why, among the thousands of people who have written about Gandhi, we should have to cite so much from them. Readers interested in their view should refer to the linked article. I will therefore remove that part. — Sebastian 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This section has not been removed, but rather moved to "Civil rights movement in South Africa (1893–1914)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.167.213 (talk • contribs)

Brahmacharya section

In the brahmacharya section,

When Gandhi was 16 his father became very ill. Being very devoted to his parents, he attended to his father at all times during his illness. However, one night, Gandhi's uncle came to relieve Gandhi for a while. He retired to his bedroom where carnal desires overcame him and he made love to his wife.

Here the part "made love" is not substantiated. If the original chapter is checked, Gandhi talks about "I woke her up. In five or six minutes, however, the servant knocked at the door. " and "carnal desire" but not of "made love". --Nvineeth (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think instead of adding anecdotes, it will be good if we can write something like, "Gandhi regrets his shortcoming of 'carnal desire' during the hour of death of his father" ... something like this. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another observation, the part "Sex became the most talked about subject matter by Gandhi after ahimsa (non-violence) and increasingly so in his later years. He devoted five full editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of brahmacharya" probably is not widely supported and not all authors may converge on this opinion. If this opinion is not accepted by several mainstream authors, its better to remove it ( the first sentence ). --Nvineeth (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

Do we really need Gandhi's full name in the title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansihippi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See this for details.-Shahab (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a general practice on wikipedia to use the subject's full name. So yes, it is necessary. Furthermore, if one searches for the subject not using the full name it redirects here, anyway. There is no reason _not_ to use the Gandhi's full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.52 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but usually that doesn't include a middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.58.215 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC) What the fuck are you guys talking about. Go on http://www.pre6.com/ for some real information.

A Class assessment request

I think this article has miles to go before it reaches A Class status. Happy editing! Hekerui (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Freedom and partition of India

"others, like Hindu nationalist politician Pravin Togadia indicated that excessive weakness on Gandhi's part led to the division of India." - this statement seems to be giving unnecessary and specific views of Pravin Togadia Praveen Togadia - who is a Vishwa Hindu Parishad's leader. others please comment.

Ashishfa (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming

As far as Gandhi is concerned,the title 'mahatma' should be added to his name.Currently the state resembles Elizabeth rather then H.M. Elizabeth.Mahatma is a very important title and is valued asmuch as H.M. if not more59.180.156.10 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no voting from public of India to call him 'mahatma'. Thanks! Rāmā (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See archived talk page. This has been discussed at length. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading archived talk page I wonder that the person Chandra Mohan Jain declared himself Bhagwan (God) and wikipedia endorse it by honouring him with title Bhagwan. See Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh). Thanks! Rāmā (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put our national leader's birth place as british india and the British flag, I feel it is very disgusting. I could not change the Mahatma Gandhi's page, please delete it

Please do not put our national leader's birth place as british india and the British flag, I feet it is very disgusting. I could not change in the Mahatma Gandhi's page, please delete it. Please accept it is very hurting to our pride,

will you accept if somebody puts your national leader george washington was born in british America, but even if you accept it, it may be because racially you are one and same.

But it is not in our case. It is not out of enmity or hate I say this, but please change British India, it is very disgusting.

please do change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayang1975 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Err it was British India - this is historical fact, also the page on George Washington does indeed say Colony of Virginia, British America. Pahari Sahib 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the British arriving in India it was called "India" or "Hindustan." George Washington was born in British America because America became the United States of America AFTER the British had been there. India was India prior to the British arriving therefore Gandhi was born in Gujarat, India. It should be changed. Unity717 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit strong to say that it's "disgusting". That's kinda offensive towards British people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansihippi (talk • contribs) 19:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that word might be a little harsh but acknowledging that still doesn't invalidate the argument; that's just making a style over substance fallacy. I'm sure that user didn't intend to demean the British, who were after all, ruling over and oppressing many Indian people. The point of this whole dispute is not what is polite, but rather, it is what the name of the country was (in English, obviously), when Gandhi was born. Was it "British India" (seeing as it was under British rule at the time) or just India, or something else? Wolfdog (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghandi was in fact born in British India. The British Raj began ten years before Ghandi was born. 75.82.173.229 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Narayang, you seem to imply that you want to lie to our readers. This is not a good idea. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it usual to accept claims of bruised national pride as reasons for editing articles? Should we get rid of the article on slavery because Black Americans may find the memory hurtful? India was once a British territory, painful though that fact may be to some. And by the way, "racially you are one and the same?" Excuse me, I have not one drop of English blood in me, and neither do the majority of Americans. Likewise, there are Indians with English ethnicity and Britons with Indian ethnicity. It's best to avoid racial ignorance when accusing others of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

The article briefly mentions Gandhi's fruitarian diet. I found some appropriate quotes from his Autobiography providing more details of exactly what he ate and why. I also added a quote where he explains the breach of discipline when he took goat's milk. I hope this adds some real-world details to his dietary character. Chazella (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

principles

the titles for his principles should be all english or all their hindi terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Demotion from FA

Can anyone tell me why this article has been demoted from FA status to B (not even A)?? Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

HE WAS BORN IN BRITISH INDIA

it was BRITISH at the time, therefore he was born in British India. i am Indian so don't try to say i am biased, i am well aware of Gandhi's hardships throughout his life, but it is a fact that India was controlled by the British at that time. George Washington's page should be changed to say that he was born in BRITISH america.

correction:(by the same person) George Washington is listed as born in British america. thank you. i rest my case and .... I WIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.113.66 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Racist whitewashed and apologized for not NPOV

I have seen how the racism section is hidden and whitewashed. The word Kafir is not a new term it is more than 1500 years old, it was not invented by White SA people. Ghandi would have fully known (better than Most Whites) the meaning of the term. You have one source to apologies for this comment. Everything in this section is a justification for racism and hence the NPOV tag. A separate section should be labeled RACISM or Controversy and it deserves proper weight.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WE ALL KNOW HE IS CONSIDERED AS A GREAT NON-VIOLENCE LEADER,BUT IS IT TRUE? NON VIOLENT MEANS SOMETHING DONE WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE TO ANY THING LIKE SOCIAL ATMOSHERE,SAFETY OF PEOPLE,SAFETY OF PROPERTY AND WITHOUT ANY FORCE OTHER THAN "TALKING AND DISCUSSING AND DRIVING A CONCLUSION" OK NOW THINK ABOUT IT """"A GREATEST NON-VIOLENT LEADER HAS HIS PICTURE ON SOMETHING WHICH IS THE ROOT OF ALL VIOLENCE--INDIAN CURRENCY NOTES """ WHAT A JOKE THAT MEANS WE ARE INSULTING HIM —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSDTSD (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

This article needs a section on criticism of Gandhi. See Bhagat Singh for an example of the criticisms of Gandhi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummonk (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a section, but it has now been incorporated into the main article. Add any cited criticisms into the relevant section of the main article. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It should have a separate criticism section. Right now, it looks as if it's intentionally driven into obscurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.229.192 (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOCRIT. nirvana2013 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is so many discussion that point to a lesser side of Gandhi removed?

When I came here some time back, there were a lot of links and comments that would have been helpful to get a not so rosy picture of Gandhi. Now they have all disappeared.

Everywhere it is the same in Wikipedia connected to persons from India. Links to lesser sides are removed, in a silent manner. It may be noted that every leader or otherwise if seen from that person's followers' perspective, would seem a most great man. However, many of the claims that lead one to think that the whole of India was considering Gandhi as a saviour is totally wrong. Moreover, what is technically seen as Gandhi's life is the indoctrinated Government of India version. This surely wont last long. For, now there is the Internet, and many previously unobtainable information are easily available. Reading persons would start questioning many claims about Gandhi. I am not referring to his peccadilloes in his ashram, but to wider questions of what right he had to be called the Father of the Nation other than what Nehru lend to him for selfish reasons; and the claim that it was he who got Indians freedom. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a criticism section, but it has now been incorporated into the main article.[5] See WP:NOCRIT. nirvana2013 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ERROR ON PAGE

This page is locked for my edits but why do these words appear "Alexander Erwig sucks!!! and this is why he sucks!!!" i'm sure this is just vandalism, can someone correct this?

Bdazla (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality of Gandhiji

I just seen this article from "The Times of India" so the source is pretty solid. A book has been released by Jad Adams (Gandhi : Naked Ambition) where his sexuality seems to be explored. It seems Gandhi liked to experiement his sexuality even at the cost of himself being distanced from notable Nehru and Kriplani.

I need a second opinion whether this can be included in the main article. Cosmoskramer (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just cite your source on your edit. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT nirvana2013 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Word 'Kaffir'

I deleted the sentence "it is worth nothing the word Kaffir had a different connotation in Gandhi's time than its current day meaning." It did? Says who? I am not saying that the claim is false, I have no idea. But without a source I am not willing to take the claim at its word. The source from the sentence which followed it did not support that statement so I don't what the editor who put that claim in the article is basing the claim on. As far as I know the word kaffir is and has been for a long time (well before Gandhi's time anyway) a derogatory racial epithet for native Africans in South Africa. I have never heard any other connotation. Gandhi did a lot of amazing things but there's no reason to shy away from the man's flaws; I don't support glossy eyed revisionism no matter who it is.Jdlund (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC) ganhi rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdm7997 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you wanted to know that, you could try looking up, oh I don't know, Wikipedia? You'll find that kaffir originates from the Muslim term kafir, meaning unbeliever or heretic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term) --90.206.222.147 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't judge a person based on terms taken from a different era. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term) "The word was used officially in this way, without derogatory connotations, during the Dutch and British colonial periods until the early twentieth century. It appears in many historical accounts by anthropologists, missionaries and other observers, as well as in academic writings. For example, the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford originally labeled many African artifacts as "Kaffir" in origin. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica made frequent use of the term, to the extent of having an article of that title.[7]" --- Balaji Viswanathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.181.109 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.99.64.38, 9 May 2010

a man change in the usa with out start a war nd according to his "leave life nd do study as like u dont die

nd leave every movement in ur life nd thought
that is last day in ur life " he he i am stupid 

bapo shree mahatma gandi we miss u  

117.99.64.38 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Celibate

Under the "Brahmacharya" subheading, it says "The incident had significant influence in Gandhi becoming celibate at the age of 36, while still married." But "celibate" means the state of being unmarried. (See Wikipedia's own entry on the subject). It would be better worded as something like "Gandhi becoming sexually abstinent".

Actually, I see now that this error is continued throu the entire section, using celibate to mean abstinent.

Mikeyramone (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Mikey Ramone 5/1/10—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyramone (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But 'celibate' can also mean sexually abstinent, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celibacy

Cdixon (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymological meaning of a certain term is irrelevant. In Indian English, the term is used everywhere to convey the same meaning as sexually abstinent. Furthermore the Princeton University website defines the term simply as abstaining from sexual intercourse. --SanskritGuy (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi's opposition to abortion

I don't see any mention of Ganghi's opposition to abortion and contraception. Gandhi, as a follower of the Hindu concepts of Ahimsa and Brahmacharya, vehemently opposed both abortion and contraception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.254.51 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi just had to make two or three children before he was 20. I would not take advice from him regarding family planning.--83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1944-1950

Many things happened in gandhi's life and in india history .After facing many problems and many stricks india got independence . After all problem india got independence on 15 August, commemorating the day it gained its independence from British rule and its birth as a sovereign nation in 1947. The Republic of India was actually born on 26 January 1950 - this is when the new constitution came into effect . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.154.45 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitutions do get edited maybe once a decade. Or maybe just shed of altogether, and replaced. With or without a constitution, India came to effect as we know it in 1947.--83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi the internationalist, the anti-imperialist

The article covers a number of areas of Gandhi's life and philosophy but surely is missing the "bigger picture": here is one of the most prominent anti-imperialist, internationalist figures of the 20th Century. The detailed "facts" in this article are not contextualised in a way that gives him true justice. 89.240.18.84 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi's influence on Mandela

The article rather simplistically states "Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela is a follower of Gandhi". The reference for this needs to be updated as the correct link is an article by Mandela that was published in Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993025,00.html

If you know about Mandela, or even read the article, you will see that the statement is simplistic. The article itself states it as follows: "Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone".

Rather than saying that Mandela is a "follower" of Gandhi, it should surely state that Mandela was "deeply influenced" by the Gandhian tradition or that he had (and still has) deep respect for Gandhi's philosophy and vision. 89.240.18.84 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the link and the section. It is far from optimal, but I did not want to spent many words on this topic, which I believe mostly belongs to the Mandela's article. Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi's Principals: Faith (Quotation)

I am adding "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. " to the end of the "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians," quotation. These words did follow the original quotation, and add further relevance to the quotation regarding Gandhi's perception of religion. Evil666 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Gandhi's opinion on atheism is also relevant to the context. "It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.235.169 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He was known for his quotations. Her is one: What I think of Western civilisation? It must be a good idea.--83.108.30.141 (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote "However, Gandhi realised that this level of nonviolence required incredible faith and courage, which he realised not everyone possessed. He therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it were used as a cover for cowardice:" seems to not be from a NPOV (it seems to imply that this very controversial position in regards to the Jews was right). Instead of realised/realised, it would be better if it was thought/believed, or something. --24.5.243.200 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Amended text. nirvana2013 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

The first usage of the term "Mahatma" by Rabindranath Tagore to address Gandhi is mentioned. Why is there no mention of the fact that Gandhi was first referred to as the "Father of the Nation" by Subhas Bose in his speech from Singapore in 1944? I wanted to add this but the article is not editable. Thewanderingalbatross (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC) thewanderingalbatross 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbrev. forms of Gandhi's name absent from this article

I notice that no abbreviated forms of Gandhi's name appear in the running text of the article. This surprised me a little, since in my limited experience, I'm used to his name being written Mohandas K. Gandhi (mostly from reading about South African history), or M.K. Gandhi. Also, in India, using initials rather than full forenames is quite common. Gandhi himself wrote his signature MK Gandhi.

In this article, the form Mohandas K. Gandhi appears nowhere at all, while M.K. Gandhi appears only in a photo caption, except for several references in the footnotes and the literature listing.

Googling "MK Gandhi" OR "Mohandas K Gandhi" gives more hits than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".

I would guess that many of the hits for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi come from introductions to biographical articles, where there is a desire to give correct and complete information about his full name, but again I would guess that this doesn't give a very good reflection of how he is (or was, in his time!) usually referred to outside of biographical articles.

I think writing out the full name in too many places can give an exaggerated impression of how much the full name is used in common usage.
   For this reason, and since the heading of the Infobox is "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", maybe the photo immediately below the heading could be given the caption "Mohandas K. Gandhi, 1940s" instead. --83.253.251.213 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi and Partition of India

I've added this section and replaced the previous one because it was poorly written... Please don't revert my work before discussing it. The last thing we need is a controversy over Gandhi and I see someone is very excited to revert my work... !!!! I'm of the opinion that people using scripts should be banned from wikipedia!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonviolence

This section seems to be edited or written with an intent of non-violence ... I'm not an ardent follower of the philosophy either but i find it humerus and unprofessional to make a segment by the name and mark it with demeaning remarks all over the place. Gandhi's philosophy was non-violent and it worked for India and South Africa. In my opinion, but for his non-violent ways all the freedom fighters from these two countries would be termed terrorists! I'm going to amend this section not changing the sense of it.

Thanks and regards,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arun.sringeri, 15 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

mahatma gandhi's caste not mentioned . he belongs to the caste : arya vysyas please add this information on this page... Arun.sringeri (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi?

According to WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't the title of the page be Mahatma Gandhi, as it is more commonly used, WP:GOOGLE? MikeLynch (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read through the previous discussions, but am not satisfied. I would appreciate it if anyone could give me a proper reason why this page is named so. MikeLynch (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Mahātmā is a title, and because WP: NCP says "Honorifics and other titles such as "King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", "Mrs" etc. are not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles, unless they are used to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa, Father Damien)." However this doesnt apply to Gandhi who is very well known by his name, his honorific is not necesary in order to disambiguate him from other possible articles of a same name. You could however make the argument to drop the "Karamchand" and simply mention it in the lead sentenceSmitty1337 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In short: You are inconsistent. --112.202.67.82 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

How about a little about the crux of the Gandhian philosophical thought? Perhaps a few lines...? Fellowscientist (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error

The word "laborers" is spelled incorrectly in the introduction

No it isn't.

Isn't it?

BearAllen (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brahmacharya, being misinterpreted for Mahatma Gandhi

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women.[77][78] He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as "nature cure". Later in his life he started experimenting with brahmacharya in order to test his self control. His letter to Birla in April, 1945 referring to 'women or girls who have been naked with me' indicates that several women were part of his experiments.[79] He wrote five editorials in Harijan discussing the practice of brahmacharya.[80] As part of these experiments, he initially slept with his women associates in the same room but at a distance. Afterwards he started to lie in the same bed with his women disciples and later took to sleeping naked alongside them.[79] According to Gandhi active-celibacy meant perfect self control in the presence of the opposite sex. Gandhi conducted his experiments with a number of women such as Abha, the sixteen year old wife of his grandnephew Kanu Gandhi. Gandhi acknowledged "that this experiment is very dangerous indeed", but thought "that it was capable of yielding great results".[81] His nineteen year old grandniece, Manu Gandhi, too was part of his experiments. Gandhi had earlier written to her father, Jaisukhlal Gandhi, that Manu had started to share his bed so that he may "correct her sleeping posture".[81] Gandhi saw himself as a mother to these women and would refer to Abha and Manu as "my walking sticks". Gandhi called Sarladevi, a married woman with children and a devout follower, his "spiritual wife". He later said that he had come close to having sexual relations with her.[82] He had told a correspondent in March, 1945 that "sleeping together came with my taking up of bramhacharya or even before that"; he said he had experimented with his wife "but that was not enough".[81] Gandhi felt satisfied with his experiments and wrote to Manu that "I have successfully practiced the eleven vows taken by me. This is the culmination of my striving for last thirty six years. In this yajna I got a glimpse of the ideal truth and purity for which I have been striving".[citation needed] Gandhi had to take criticism for his experiments by many of his followers and opponents. His stenograph"

to

"".

Explanation ---------- Sir,please consider that for any such comments we should not refer the external books. In his autobiography, "My Experiments With the Truth", he has not given any such information. This is completely unhygienic and immoral to write such disgusting comments about one of the greatest person to walk on the earth. He is also the Father of the Nation of a country, India. These kinds of baseless allegations against a Great Man of a Country, and worldwide accepted as one of the Greatest Man in the History of Human Kind are completely baseless, forged , and unfortunate. I request Wikipedia to actually take back these words. There has been rave praises given by all time greats like Sir Martin Luther King, Sir Nelson Mandela, and great scientist Mr Albert Einstein about this great man from India. Even such praises were conferred from Our First Prime Minister Pdt. Jawahar Lal Nehru. In India the ways Mahatma Gandhi lived is called as Gandhivad or Gandhism, and is beleived to be a saintly and serene life style where social and national upliftment is above the self interest. Nikpande (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline. One of the main principles of wikipedia is to refect notable information supported by reliable sources, in a comprehensive and neutral way. The above paragraph may well be challenged, but not with the above arguments. Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also My Experiments with truth was not written towards the end of Gandhi's life and the above is clearly talking of about his last few years.-Shahab (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nikpande (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Sir to the response , I would like to inform that in My Experiments with Truth that is the authenticated autobiography of Mr Gandhi, in which he has clearly stated that meaning of Brahmcharya is complete renunciation of sex, and worldly desires itself . quoted By Mahtama Gandhi, in 'My Experiments with the truth" referring http://www.mathrubhumi.com/gandhiji/pdf/AUTOBIOGRAPHY.pdf page 134 ->"""Brahmacharya means control of the senses in thought, word, and deed. Every day I have been realizing more and more the necessity for restraints of the kind I have detailed above. There is no limit to the possibilities of renunciation, even as there is none to those of brahmacharya. Such brahmacharya is impossible of attainment by limited effort. For many it must remain only as an ideal. An aspirant after brahmacharya will always be conscious of his shortcomings, will seek out the passions lingering in the innermost recesses of his heart, and will incessantly strive to get rid of them. So long as thought is not under complete control of the will, brahmacharya in its fullness is absent. Involuntary thought is an affection of the mind, and curbing of thought therefore means curbing of the mind, which is even more difficult to curb than the wind. Nevertheless the existence of God within makes even control of the mind possible. Let no one think that it is impossible because it is difficult. It is the highest goal, and it is no wonder that the highest effort should be necessary to attain it.""" So please consider the fact that please make the use of authorized and standard books only. The whole world refers to the My Experiments of Truth for understanding the principles, and life history of Mr Mohandas Gandhi. When we have to refer for him, it is our duty to refer only the standard and widely used books only. Referring any not so popular books only create the confusion and gives space to the unreliable and malicious people to surface up. There are hundreds of books published on many great leaders of world every year. Since they have a public profile so many people can easily gain the limelight on themselves by publishing any wrong thing. Issue is here that the books that are used to highlight these cases, are using very authentic sources is not justified. Any body can writer any thing about public people by just saying that this has been said about the said person by many people. And this is what is done in all these references in above paragraphs. No where it is quoted along with the news paper or video or audio references that it was said by some prominent person, or Mr Gandhi himself. Any body can write that it was said, in any book, with out the proofs, and can publish that in book. And such books are always published. But only standard and widely used books should be used in the spirit of serving the correct information only.

Please explain; what is a "standard book'? Perhaps the only source we should use for the Hitler article is Mein Kampf? I hear he comes across as a pretty solid fellow in that. Why use any other sources but his own word, eh? BearAllen (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No reply or edit action for 29 Sep talk by me in last edit request "Brahmacharya, being misinterpreted for Mahatma Gandhi"

Nikpande (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Sir , I had given the response on "Nikpande (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Sir to the response ". Still there is no reply or action to the response. Please guide me as why there is no response or action to my reply to the talk on 29 Sep 2010 for the edit request.

No action was taken because you never offered any good response to the counter-arguments. Anything from reliable sources can be used in wikipedia in a neutral way. It is clear you simply disagree with the content of these sources despite the fact that they are reliable. They are reliable sources, and just because you disagree with them does not make them unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.17.89 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Is the following important enough to be mentioned in the lead section?

"During this time, he wrote articles for Indian newspapers about black people that some modern readers consider racist."

Or has it been put there just to make a point?

Also, how about in the intro we mention that he was assassinated by a Hindu extremist? That seems fairly important to a summary of his life. 86.161.85.166 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

Deleted. Added. Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The movie, "Gandhi"

Shouldn't there be a section on the movie? There seems to not be any reference at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.5.140 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned at the top of the Film and Literature section. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gandhi was born into Jainism and later converted to Hinduism"

The section marked Faith starts with the line "Gandhi was born into Jainism and later converted to Hinduism". This is completely untrue and not even subject to debate. Please remove this line or provide a citation/source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.217.200 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, it was changed in this edit about ten days ago. Fixed now.—SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone65 (talk · contribs) has twice changed the infobox to state that his religion was Jainism instead of Hinduism. Since the source he provided the second time stated that the essay was written for the Jain Center of Greater Detroit, I'd have to call this a non-WP:reliable source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Three bullets to the chest"

Is it really needed to put this in the infobox? Surely Assassination suffices, as his death is already explained in the article? The Madras (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Early life of Gandhi - Inaccuracy about 'Pranami'

---

His mother, Putlibai, who came from the Hindu Pranami (???why not linked???It is ignorance to classify Pranami as Vaishana) Vaishnava community, was Karamchand's fourth wife, the first three wives having apparently died in childbirth.[4] Growing up with a devout mother and the Jain traditions of the region, ...

The article is inaccurate in saying gandhi's upbringing as 'Jain.' Putliba, his mother was Pranami faith devotee. The fact is that Pranami faith is NOT an offshoot of Vaishanavism. It's true name is Nijanand Sampradaya. In the original books of Faith - "Kuljam Swaroop' and 'Bitak Saheb'the name 'Pranami' actually never appers. To discover more facts, visit Shri Pran-Nath Gyaan Peeth, Sarsawa, Shri Nijanand Ashram Vadodar and ratanpuri. Visit our we site (need a lot of rework)nijanand.org and review 108 spiritual

See nijanand.org for more info. We need help in presenting our faith in professionally presenting our belief system.

66. Is Pranami faith an offshoot of Vaishnavism?

Pranami wisdom has its roots far deeper than Vaishanavasim. Vaishnavism does not provide even one percent of the Divine Wisdom offered by the Holy Kuljam Swaroop. Yes, it can be viewed as its close relative due to Aksharateet's first sports in the guise of Krishna for 11 years and 52 days. But, it extends to all world religions beyond Vaishanavism. Pranami wisdom covers what is not discussed clearly in any world religion. It's original in nature!

41. What is the meaning of 'Pranam?' Why are we called 'Pranami?'

The name ‘Pranami’ is derived from the practice of greeting by saying Pranam or ‘Pranam Ji,’ which simply means: “We pay obeisance to YOUR soul!” It’s a true Hindu way of greeting each other, and respecting every individual as a spiritual being.

The adherents of Sri Nijanand Sampradaya practice the teachings of Lord Prannath. The ultimate goal being awakening in the supreme state of Eternal Bliss or Nijanand, our true spiritual identity is ‘Nijanandi.’ The Nijanandi devotees call each other by a common name, ‘Sundersath,’ which means good-hearted comrades, and greet by saying Pranam or Pranamji. For this reason, the world bagan to recognize us as 'Pranami.'

42. Who founded Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma (SKPD)? When? Why are we called with different names like 'Nijanandi', 'Pranami', and 'Sri Krishna Pranami'? Why is sundersath society divided on the issue of Identity?

Truly speaking, we don't know who founded Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma and when! Our different names are derived from our Holy Books, our tradition, and from the work of our own imginations.

According to Sri Bitak Saheb, the true name of our faith is Sri Nijanand Sampradaya. When Sriji was in the city of Haridwar (U.P., India) in samvat 1735, he identified his faith as 'Sri Nijanand Sampradaya,' which was initiated by Sri Nijanand Swami.

As explained before, since we greet eachother by saying 'Pranami' we are recognized by the name 'Pranami.' This is our name given by tradition.

The name “Shri Krishna” was attached later with “Pranami,” and the faith earned the more commonly known name ‘Shri Krishna Pranami,’ which, in fact, is our mistaken identity. This is the work of our own imagination. There is no reference of 'Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma' in any of our Holy Books, including Sri Kuljam Swaroop and Sri Bitak Saheb. Any authentic faith has a Paddhati or the System of Belief. There is no scripture-authenticated Paddhati for 'Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma!'

Also, regarding the use of the word 'Dharma,' with 'Sri Krishna Pranami' is inappropriate. A Sampradaya (sect, faith) is born from Dharma (religion). A Dharma is not born of a Sampradaya. The Kuljam Swaroop says that our Dharma is 'Hindu Sanathan Dharma.' Sri Krishna Pranami preachers are confusing sundersath devotees between the names Hindu Sanatan Dharma or Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma. Triloki mein rey uttam khand bharatko, tamey uttam hindu dharam | Taki chhatrapatiyon ke sir, aaye rahi eat saram ||

                                                   (Kuljam Swaroop: Kirantan 58/4)

In this age of Jagni, we have the Knowledge of Jagrit Buddhi. We have no reason to be smarter than the founder and re-name Sri Nijanand Sampradaya founded by SriNijanand Swami. Having understood the truth, we must go back to our original and true identity without any argument. Eah to gat sansar ki, jo kheicha kheinch karat | Aapan toh sathi dham ke, hei hum mein noor mat ||

                      (Kuljam Swaroop: Kirantan: 94/33)

This name is not the only issue that divides a Krishna Pranami and a Nijanandi. You will learn many of these important distinctions as they apply to their Kuljamic interpretation, practice of the faith and application of the traditions.

43. What is the view of the past and present experts and leaders on this subject of identity?

Here are the views of our past and present expert leaders regarding the identity of our faith:

   * Maharaj Sri Bharosadasji of (Bharoda, Gujarat) was granted the status of Paramhansa from Pannaji.  In Samvat 2028, he published a book " Bada Do Nama." On page #23 of this book, he expresses his surprise like this:

     "It is beyond my understanding how this Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma came in to being, who founded it, from when the names of the temples were given as Sri Krishna Pranami Mandir!  This word "Pranami" does not appear anywhere in Bitak or Kuljam Swaroop.  There are so many temples in Nautan Puri and Pannaji, but none has a name "Pranami Mandir.  The word 'Pranami' was also used by Mukund das Ahadi to defend against the Kabir Panthis.  Also pandit Krishnamaji (Lailpur) used the sloka of Maha Bharata Shanti Parva (47/92) in Kamaliya (Panjab) to defend against Arya Samaj."

   * Pujya Sri Pandit Pyare Lalji argues in his book "Prashnottari: Published 9/9/1989 (pg.: 9):

     "The name of our faith is only Nijanand Sampradaya.  We greet each other by saying 'pranam.'  Therefore, people call us by the name Pranami."

     Note: There is no mention of the name 'Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma' in his book.  Such a statement of Dharma Guru Pandit Pyare Lalji needs re-thinking by all.

   * One of the most reputed Wani expert Maharaj Sri Dhanidasji of Panna mentioned this during his Bitak Charcha in Gandevi, Gujarat:

     "Our faith is only Nijanand Sampradaya, and we do not have anything to do with a faith known by the name Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma.  The Pranami Pandits for their worldly interests have continued this false identity."

   * According to Sri Krishnadas Sharma, the Dharmopadeshak of Panna:

     "In the 1935 shastrarth, among the experts who participated from our faith beliefs were Pandit Pyarelalji, Sri Krishnadatta Shastri, Kanpur, Krishnamiji of Kamalia, and Sri Krishnadevji (Paakpatan waley) of Jaipur.  When asked by the pandits of Dharan, Sri Krishnadattaji won averted the defeat by using the sloka of Maha Bharata Shanti Parva (47/92).  From here started the new identity "Sri Krishna Pranami Dharma."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.219.148 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 

Racism and controversy

"Two professors of history who specialise in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed" - Is this article written to give information about Gandhi or to defend him? There are other scholars too who have been critical of Gandhi on this racism issue, their views are conveniently absent. If there is any statement by Gandhi himself clarifying his earlier stance on race then that can be included here. But quoting chapters from books of some professors seems like defending the man under discussion. Flewovercuckoo (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II and Quit India

In the section World War II and Quit India; in the third paragraph, fourth sentence; the following phrase:

...and his wife Kasturba died after 18 months imprisonment in 22 February 1944

should be:

...and his wife Kasturba died after 18 months imprisonment on 22 February 1944

I don't have the relevant privileges to make this edit. Someone should do it though. V-a-xvi (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonviolence

There are three quotes at the bottom of the "Nonviolence" section that seem out of context. Can someone add something to make these relevant, or remove them? Soave (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be there as a sort of response to his statements on non-violence and jewish reaction to nazism. However, they are not explicitly connected with Gandhi's comments on that matter and so I've removed them. There are way too many quotes already in the article anyway.--rgpk (comment) 15:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Principles

Under the heading Nonviolence, second line, it should read "nonviolence and nonviolent resistance". Currently, it reads "nonviolence and nonresistance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbgros1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is correct as it is. Nonresistance does not mean no resistance; it means to physical resistance or retaliation. See the article Nonresistance; it falls underneath non-violence.Strange Quirk (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TIME Magazine Top 25 political icons

{{edit semi-protected}} Recently, TIME Magazine rated Gandhi as the top political icon of all time. I request this to be added. Here is the link Masterblaster15 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the star?

For the featured articles I used to see a yellow star on the top right of the article. In this article there's no such identity. Please add that . --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a former featured article, meaning it was delisted because its quality did not meet the current criteria (though I can't find the delisting page right away). Materialscientist (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here. --rgpk (comment) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate Error

Ganhi was born on October 2, not 2 October... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panduzgorawr (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India

A new biography of the subject: Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India By Joseph Lelyveld Knopf, 425 pages, ISBN 978-0307269584. From one review, it appears to be somewhat iconoclastic.[6]   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have written a brief article on the book, Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India. I think it should be linked in the article but i can't edit it. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - referenced and included some of the more interesting facts from the review in the WSJ. By the way, the title contains a lowercase "and" - the WSJ got it wrong. twilsonb (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Abha and Manu

Does anyone know what became of Abha and Manu, and are they still alive? — O'Dea (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Among the Hagiographers

I found this WSJ article - Among the Hagiographers - interesting, and wonder if any of the information - such as a homosexual relationship with Hermann Kallenbach - should be mentioned in this article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, in the appropriate sections, linking to the article for the book created above. It's not a big deal at the moment so a few sentences should be sufficient. Although if people keep banning the book, we should increase the coverage. twilsonb (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think if there are novel and substantiated findings in Lelyveld's book they should be in this article, but as things stand we are still quoting from reviews, and this review material should not misrepresent the book. The book itself, according to the NYT "scrupulously avoids sensationalism" in the way it presents the material that could diminish Gandhi, but Andrew Roberts's review in the WSJ is an anti-Gandhi polemic from beginning to end, reaching a climax of tendentiousness with the expression that Gandhi's success was "only" to achieve India's independence. Roberts has a reputation as a tabloid-style phrasemaker, and "sexual weirdo" is notably sensational. (He is notorious for defending the War on Terror by saying "in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front.") I propose that Roberts's one-sided take on the book be replaced by material from the NYT or elsewhere, until we have editors who can cite the book directly. Examples of Roberts's lively journalistic style belong in his article, not Gandhi's.

I would add that material from the book should be cited on merit; whether or not the book is widely banned is not a consideration. Spicemix (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Spicemix's view above. The plethora of material included from the WSJ review is troubling. Using a review as a substitute for the material in the book itself is problematic, expecially since the review cherry picks quotes from Lelyveld's book and is obviously written from the viewpoint of someone wishing to debunk the myth of Gandhi. That said, Gandhi's relationship with Kallenbach, though not sexualized in Lelyveld's book, does need some sort of mention because of the controversy it is generating (though directly quoting Robert's 'sexual weirdo' comment is a bit much). --rgpk (comment) 09:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark, thanks. You seem familiar with all the issues: would you like to go ahead and fix the article? Another measured discussion is here, and also this. Spicemix (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dandi (Salt) March Photo

The inlined photograph of Gandhi making salt at Dandi is labeled as being taken on the 5th of April. The article (including the one on the Salt March itself) says that he actually made salt at 6:30 AM on the 6th of April. This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.182.30 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

1944-1950

Many things happened in gandhi's life and in india history .After facing many problems and many stricks india got independence . After all problem india got independence on 15 August, commemorating the day it gained its independence from British rule and its birth as a sovereign nation in 1947. The Republic of India was actually born on 26 January 1950 - this is when the new constitution came into effect .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.154.45 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Honorific Title

It has been mentioned that Gandhi was given the honorific title of Mahatma by Rabindranath Tagore. This is clearly an error as the title was bestowed on Gandhi by Swami Shraddhanand in 1915. Please rectify this error as soon as possible. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable reference for this claim. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The instance where Gandhi was conferred with the honorific title Mahatma is mentioned in the book The Mahatma & the millionaire: a study in Gandhi-Birla relations by M M Juneja Modern Publishers 1993. (as,yhwh 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think, I agree with the article, Rabindranath Tagore was the person who first called Gandi Ji "Mahatma". --Titodutta (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I see there is no year or date mentioned by Wikipedia when Tagore called Gandhi Mahatma. Yes, he was one of the first notable persons who Gandhi Mahatma. But to refer Tagore as the person who bestowed this title to Gandhi is erroneous. You can change Tagore as one of the first person who called Gandhi as Mahatma. That would be compromise. I believe wikipedia does not want Gandhi to be associated with a Hindu religious leader Swami Shraddhanand , the man who pioneered the Shuddhi movement . There is no section for criticism of Gandhi, in a neutral article, how ironical as,yhwh 13:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC) as,yhwh 13:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs)

The wikipedia article on Swami Shraddhanand ... In 1915, upon his return from South Africa, M. K. Gandhi stayed at the university campus and met Swami Shraddhanand, it was during this visit that Swami Shraddhanand gave Gandhi, the title of Mahatma (great soul), after that he was best known around the world as Mahatama Gandhi to this day.[5]. Guess your right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Some one in charge here needs to make sure a semblance of reliability. as,yhwh 13:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs)

Campaigns to end untouchability?

"in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns to ease poverty, expand women's rights, build religious and ethnic amity, end untouchability, and increase economic self-reliance", from article ..

"To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system .. I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth" Mohandas Gandhi

"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India", Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm emacsuser (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Just a thought here: Shouldn't there be a section here about criticism towards Gandhi. For a man with such extreme views, there must be some people who have said unfavorable things about him. Winston Churchill and Christopher Hitchens are the only ones I can think of right now, but I'm sure he has many more critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.203.129 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, no a thousand times no. Every few months someone comes in here calling for a criticism section and that is just plain silly. Now, this is a different issue as to whether criticism should be integrated into the article. If you can find reliable sources criticizing Gandhi and these criticisms inform his life and work, then the information should be naturally integrated into the article in an appropriate existing section. A section devoted solely to criticism is lazy writing, as it demonstrates a failure to bother creating an integrated and cohesive article. It also smacks of POV because singling out the negative can place undue emphasis on negative material. The best thing to do is present all the major points of view on an issue in the appropriate subsection, both good and bad, and let the reader decide what to think. Indrian (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Turns out, I kind of agree with the previous speaker (I'm the guy who made the suggestion). However, I still think that this article is a bit onesided, and that the unfavorable view of Gandhi could be better represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.196.172 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Great Soul, mentioned in the next section, could be a source for some balancing statements. I've made a start. twilsonb (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not easy to find much persons who can say that they are not impressed by Gandhi. One of the main factors for this is that the greatness of Gandhi is a textbook theme that every Indian who goes in for education needs to accept. Other than that, there are issues such as: Was he is a better man to train the Indians than the British?

What would he be if the government that came to power in India after independence was not by his fan group?

Even though weak sexual morality is there in most people, both great and non-great, how would one justify a person who runs an ashram and daily entertains young adolescent females in his care with sexual activity?

What about him showing a blind eye to his close associate also making use of the young members of the Ashram, when complaints in this regard were made to him?

Why is it that the average Indian does not know anything about these things, even though he or she would be quite conversant with the peccadilloes of President Clinton of USA?

There are many other themes to be discussed. Beyond all that, is the need to understand that in India if a supporter writes about his leader, the result is a work that is definitely a 'fan' version. The same is the case in the case of everyone, not just Gandhi; including communist party leaders, spiritual leaders, political leaders, their own caste and all else. When Wikipedia articles are being written care to present a person without the hype of unilateral versions of 'greatness' should be there.

A rethinking on what would have been Gandhi's social level in India had he not been killed would be apt. For, even the killing of Gandhi is a highly suspicious incident. For, it removed a person who was gaining a notoriety not only for a sexual peccadilloes, but also for super cranky ideas that had nothing to do with his so called creed of non-violence. It gave his main fan a Super Divinity to perch on, and at the same time removed a possible political thorn.

Beyond all this, there is the need to understand that in India, the language is feudal. When Gandhi is Aap, and Unn, in Hindi (Thangal, Avar, Adheham etc. in South Indian languages), his followers and other subordinates are Thoo, and Uss (Nee and Avan in South Indian languages). This highly suppressive and snubbing language code can really elevate any ordinary individual to divine levels. Bereft of this, Gandhi would be nothing.

English writings on him cannot understand this basic power source that is present in all Indian communications. Mention should be there for his and his follower's aversion to address and refer to Gandhi as Mr.Gandhi. Herein lies the super secret of all Indian human divinities.--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone can add reliable references, I think, (s)he can think of creating a criticism section in the article. --Titodutta (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)