They believe Gandhi is s*x addict or womenizer but keep forgetting all these allegations were made by BBC news paper back then. Gandhi was main figure who was fighting against British Empire. There is high chance for it being propaganda. Even today BBC is full of propaganda against India.
B.S. Gandhi was a great man and united a very diverse divisive India but he did not get India it's independence. Please read some history, please stop being ignorant. World War 2, USA's stance against colonialism (Marshall plan funding for Europe by USA was on the line) , UK's debts from fighting a long war of survival not fully paid until 2007, Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian national army's many victories in Burma /Myanmar and Japanese army's victories denting British forces superiority sense, Feb 1946 Indian navy mutiny of 80,000 soldiers, unpopular Delhi trials of INA heroes, collapse of global colonialism everywhere (UK quit almost all of its colonies in the 15-20 years after world War 2) , got India its freedom!!! Gandhi played a role but its blown out of proportion. PLEASE read history people of India.
Of course MK Gandhi was great personality but He was not the cause of our independence. There's a lot unsaid and unceremoniously buried burnt hidden and deliberately suppress history. Clement Atlee the former pm of England once conceded that it was the after effects of WWII and SC Bose INA. For very long we were taught history the way the English wanted. To show case us a loosing and a defeated nation. We need to rewrite our history the Indian way.
@Rajveer Singha Whats with the use of the word "best" . Is it a list of cartoons , you immature punk ? Can they all not be great ? What have you ever accomplished in this tiny , hateful , childish life of yours ?
Gandhi(1982 film) is required viewing. Else you won't believe this man did what he did. As Albert Einstein said: "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."
the conductor kicked him out. years later, the conductor's generations to come won't be able to buy anything in India without the authentication of Gandhi's picture on the country's currency note. Never look down on anyone
Thanks for this clip I had homework about writing a script on an incident in which Gandhiji fights for the unprivileged, i have been checking for all day and could not find it anywhere
This film was made by a British, and if you see the world without racist eyes, you will find that there are racists among all of us--Racism and prejudice is, ironically, colour-blind. What is surprising though, is that they--the 'Whites'-- have again and again made documentaries, essays, films depicting the injustice they did to the "others"; i wonder how many other sociopolitical entities, be it Indians, Russians, Chinese, etc make films depicting the wrongs they did to "others". Interesting...
You guys quite creatively find new ways to support your bloody inhumane history......You would kill a boar and would quietely say.. "it's your fault you looked tasty."
Well a film made by british.. Had you read the books they teach .. They say that british empires benifitted us. Still you have our wealth in your museums shut up your mouth.. I know how many folks out there are racist ..
There are british movies which imply that India was given independence once the British decided they had learned enough from them - You people use these movies to improve your own image. GTFO
"White people" didn't collectively come together to produce this film. It was written by independent artists, who happened to have certain amount of melanin in their system. They also didn't commit these atrocities. It's unlikely even their forefathers did. At most you can blame them for benefiting them many generations later. Labeling people race this and religion that is how all the violence starts. Acknowledge individuals, not their people. Hate individuals, not their people.
@@MrSamulai I agree so much with this. But it seems we are on the path of punishing people for things that happened in the past, in a time where morals, rules and values were different yet they are judged from a modern perspective.
Who ever r criticising Gandhi ji perhaps they do not know d diversities india was facing that time. The path taken by Mahatma is very intelligent and d british had to give a way. Had we used violent means we would have been utterly defeated as Britan was one of d major military power. So do not degrade d noble Soul. Entire world respect his principles.
What would have happened to India had they violently resisted would greatly depend on when it happened. A little alternative history: Thirty to forty years or more, prior to both World Wars, the British would crushed India as you pointed out. Post World War I but within 15 years of World War II, the British alongside their allies despite being one of the victors, would be licking their wounds but still more than a match, the British still win. World War II starts and in full swing up to before 1941, the garrison in India would likely be committing a good bit of resources to fighting the Japanese since they are geographically closer to China and Japan The British still wins but it would be by no means a stomp. I'd say 60-40 in their favor. Up to 1945, odds shift slightly less to 55-45 in Britain's favor but the margin is narrower. Stalin isn't dead yet, but he would see the opportunities of possibly replacing the British with the Soviets. They'd likely would be sending India Soviet weapons, ammunition, advisors, training, and the means to clandestinely implement, indoctrinate, and the means to reproduce said hardware, as they later did for their nominal allies and later satellite countries. 1946 or later, with the assistance of the Soviets, Chinese or both now, the margin moves to India's favor I'd guess, 75-25. At this point, Britain is in no position to bring anyone to heel by force and they'd too busy helping the U.S. and the Soviets clean up the mess Hitler and company left and created some of their own. So had India chose violent revolution at or after 1946, with Soviet and/or Chinese support, they would have a decent chance of winning. The unfortunate catch is they'd likely would have made it one of if not the largest satellite country under a regime who had no qualms whatsoever to killing thousands to millions in order cower the survivors into obedience and didn't care what the rest of world thought of them. Even if they threw the Soviets and/or Chinese out too, I seriously doubt India want to be the fifth major member of the "Violent Revolution Worked Club", of which there are currently four major power members of that club: France, the U.S. , Tsarist Russia/the USSR/the Russian Federation and Mainland China. I also don't see India adopting Soviet-style Communism, much less an Indian Tito telling Stalin and later Khrushchev what to do with themselves in no uncertain terms. Gandhi was the best possible outcome for India, even with Partitioning. The alternative would be trading one power in charge for one or two powers who were even worse than the British ever thought about being and didn't care about what the world thought of them Even if India won a violent revolution, they still lose. I'm not trying to offend anyone. If I have i apologize in advance. This just my guess if they took the violent road and possible outcomes.
The man tried everything to play by the British rules. Became a lawyer and was a good citizen. Understood Christianity and was principally a good Christian too. All he needed was to be treated as an equal citizen of the empire.
@@allengreene9954 That's too bad and it's not right. I sometimes think that the British "steer" US foreign policy too. Ever heard of the Council of Foreign Relations?
@@jamallabarge2665 Sadly yes. The Commonwealth of Nations is Neo-Colonialism as well along like Françafrique and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
Some of these movies done decades ago were far more realistic then what's produced now with all the special effects. The burning of the passes scene has always been hard to watch.
Sure it wasn't always there. I remember reading about the Sepoy Rebellion. I suspect that quite a few Indian peoples, of all of the nations, were not happy with British 'stewardship'.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ACCENDED MASTER OR SAINT INCARNATES UPON THE EARTH , LIKE THE NAZZERINE WHO WAS NAILED TO A CROSS , OR DR KING ...... HUMANITY IS PRIMITIVE AND ANIMALISTIC, AND THESE ADVANCED SOULS PAY A HIGH PRICE
What is amazing is that if Gandhi had not gone to South Africa for a case (a country he otherwise would never have visited), the entire world-shaping sequence of events would not have occurred.
MY WIFE..... MAMI.... SAYANG KU AKU MENCINTAIMU..... MAMI.... PRINCESS ALEXIA OF NETHERLAND..... MAHATMA GANDHI.... MAHATMA ERWIN DULMIN GANDHIJI......
Gandhi was a great man and united a very diverse and divisive India but he did not get India it's independence. His and his political party Congress are given way too much credit. World War 2, USA's stance against colonialism (Marshall plan funding for Europe by USA was on the line) , UK's debts from fighting a long war of survival not fully paid until 2007, Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian national army's many victories in Burma /Myanmar and Japanese army's victories denting British forces superiority sense, Feb 1946 Indian navy mutiny of 80,000 soldiers, unpopular Delhi trials of INA heroes, collapse of global colonialism everywhere (UK quit almost all of its colonies in the 15-20 years after world War 2) , got India its freedom!!! Gandhi played a role but its blown out of proportion. PLEASE read history people of India.
But without Gandhi .. that is the giant first leap .. India could have been wiped away with violence , British raj .. etc., you can also kindly understand ESSM.. if Gandhi would have thought why should revolt with non violence in SA then so called India would been wiped away in map or India would have become 500 countries...
South Africa was the crucible of racism. Hence, it created the juggernaut that ultimately dismantled not just British India, but most of the British Empire outright.
But it couldn't help the British themselves in doing the right thing, could it? You need an Indian man to educate them on doing the right thing. Why did it take till 1994 for South Africa to do the right thing?
@@Vivenk88. South Africa still isn’t doing the right thing unfortunately. Most of the Land (80 Percent) is still owned by White People and the ANC has lost its Revolutionary Fire and have become Greedy, Shortsighted and Sadly Corrupt. Colonialism in Africa never really ended😢😢😢😢
Hate the hate. Hate not the haters. Nelson Mandela once said that the oppressors are prisoners of their own hate and prejudice. Revenge will generate nothing. Freeing the haters is equally important as freeing the discriminated.
Finding race is easy, how did they find the caste and practice discrimination to this extent? In the 18th century, anyone could've resembled an "upper" caste person.
First, they talked to Nehru, who told them "whatever you do, dont deify him; show him warts and all". Yes, you wouldn't get that from today's generation of leaders OR people,but they were freedom-fighters, remember--they believed in ideas of freedom of speech and opinion; not in the post-modern rhetoric of tribalism. 2nd, Westerners have made countless films and other stuff exploring their prejudices, not just one film funded by India. You are missing my point here, i think, but no matter.
British Army would finish and destroy Netaji's army in 1 hour. That's why, remember: Pen is mightier than the sword. Thats the reason why the whole world remembers Gandhi and not Netaji. Violence will take you nowhere!
There is a lot of fiction in this scene. When you read Gandhi's autobiography there was never a discussion on whether he was an attorney or about the number of colored attorneys in South Africa. No derogatory terms are mentioned in the autobiography in the arguments that followed. He does mention that he refused to buy the bedding ticket required to overnight in first class. He was thrown off because of his stubbornness and not because of his color. He was allowed to carry on with his journey on the next available train after he bought the bedding ticket, if it was about color he would not have been allowed to carry on. Some additional facts. According to various references the railway line between Durban and Pretoria was only completed in 1895, two years after Gandhi claimed to have made this trip. At the time the city where he was thrown off was part of the British Empire. So this scene may very well have happened in the UK or Canada.
Mr. Gandhi was very disrespectful to the staff. It was quite understandable that the gentlemen politely asked him to leave the next station. They even kindly offered help with luggage. At the time good manners were valued.
I think u didn't watched it correctly. Coz what I saw was ghandhi refusing to take away his luggage. There was no clash btw ghandhi or that crew. The problem was with the white crew. And they were disrespectful towards ghandhi.
"Mr. Gandhi was very disrespectful to the staff. " He did refuse to accept his subordinate status, yes. They were probably vexed that he had the "cheek" to ride in the 1st class cabin with "whites". "They even kindly offered help with luggage. At the time good manners were valued." I hope that you're being sarcastic, facetious or ironic. One hundred years before? Irish would have been kept out of 1st class too. Irish were not considered "respectable" people. They were considered animals who drank, procreated and could not control their own impulses. Many died of famine, at about the same time as the Indian famines. The British were just into famines in those days. The British Empire had a Caste system. Their higher caste people, British Nobility, were amongst the most malignant creatures to ever breathe God's clean air. The average British subject? Depended.... some of them were as decent a people as you could find. Others was as unpleasant as British aristocracy.
