Talk:Gandhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.

[edit] admirers

I think the "notable admirers" section should name Einstein as well.

[edit] 'supposedly'?

heya,

under the "criticisms" section is the following:

"Gandhi's rigid ahimsa has been translated as pacifism, thus a source of criticism from political conservatives and nationalists. His supposed view that one should not resist even an armed invasion of one's country, and his supposed comments that the British people should have offered no resistance to Nazi Germany and that the people victimized in the holocaust should have committed mass suicide to prevent Nazis from committing the sin of killing them, and to protest the evil they were committing have been viewed as grossly extreme and impractical, and outrightly insulting to the victims of the holocaust and the peoples subjected to the attacks of Nazi forces." (emphasis mine)

Given that the article itself has a quote supporting the former, and that a quote for the latter can be found at Wikiquote, I really don't see any need for "supposedly" to be placed there, save as an attempt to save face on Gandhi's behalf.

While it's improved on past revisions the article still feels more like a "welcome to Gandhism" magazine article than an encyclopaedia entry.

Have edited the criticisms section according to the above - changed "political conservatives and nationalists, removed use of "supposed" and gave sources for quotes mentioned. --Black Butterfly 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhism and Rwanda?

An encyclopaedic article should just state the facts. It should not be a scenario analysis of what Mahatma Gandhi would have said had he been still alive etc. While I may agree with the author's contentions if it were a magazine article, I would not accept it as a part of encyclopaedia. ---Gurubrahma 08:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Paragraph after paragraph speculates on Gandhi's possible reactions to current events. I don't see how this article should be more than a short definition of "Ghandism", which should probalby simply be a section of the Ghandi biography. -Willmcw 17:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Should be written in NPOV. Perhaps the article could expand on the section from his biography called Principles. There are other principles he was noted for, such as the importance of a strong work ethic, serving others and cleanliness. --nirvana2013 17:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defence of the Article

I understand your desire to keep it entirely factual.

There are so many people everywhere who construe Gandhi's opposition to wars around the world, etc. They happily forget that he died in 1948.

SO WHY DO WE STILL SAY HE INSPIRED DR. KING, LECH WALESA AND NELSON MANDELA, if he died in 1948 and that's that?

Obviously people would like to know how Gandhi would approach new world events, and expound his core beliefs to obtain guidance and a sense of right and wrong.

Wikipedia must make the facts absolutely clear, by using modern literary techniques WITHOUT deviating from the facts. Other encyclopedias have obviously failed to elucidate the reality about Gandhi if he has become a poster-boy for the anti-war, anti-US pacifists. WHY SHOULD WIKIPEDIA MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES?

This is about what people learn from articles here. I hope you understand that it is necessary to EXPOUND to develop the correct attitude.

I want to make the point that Gandhi was never hypocritical in his approach to peace, nor politically biased himself. I offered clear examples of his thinking by building on the way he analyzed events of his lifetime.

To add, the neutrality' of this article is absolute. It conflicts with no differing points of view, and walks a strict factual line.

As I understand it the essence of Gandhism is looking within ourselves, listening to our own "inner voice" and changing ourselves. Through changing ourselves, we will change the world. Rather than the more common attitude of an individual or leader trying to change the world but never having the humility to change himself. Gandhi made these changes by learning from his own mistakes (he made many during his life but always tried to learn from them), embracing simple living (or lowering himself to zero, as he called it), and overcoming his own personal fears and insecurities. This included such things as adopting a simple vegetarian diet. What Gandhi did we can all do, but the problem is not many people want to walk that road, as it would mean changing their own lives and attitudes. As Gandhi's friend Leo Tolstoy said, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself". As I see it, this article should provide a reference document to anyone who wants to copy the simple principles that Gandhi held to with utmost conviction, and walk that road. --nirvana2013 22:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nirvana2013 absolutely. I cannot agree with Nirav.Maurya (Hi Nirav.Maurya, please sign your edits on talkpages with 4 ~'s, else it becomes difficult to follow who is saying what) as it depends on what exactly Gandhiji's prescription to the victims of Rwanda would be. He suggested that while non-violence is paramount, violence may be preferable to silence many a time and he also expressed a view that sometimes, it may be better to leave a place if you cannot fight the injustice there. Also, when we say that Gandhiji inspired Lech Walesa, we do so because Lech Walesa himself said that he was inspired. ---Gurubrahma 09:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, Gandhi believed in nonviolence whatever the situation (unlike Nelson Mandela, for example). He believed nonresistance took incredible inner strength to achieve, more so than being a warrior of war, as you not only have to overcome your own personal fear of dying but also the fear of being killed with no plan for self-defence. Maybe you were referring to the following quote he made to illustrate the importance of having courage in pacifism/nonviolence: "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." --nirvana2013 11:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV notice

I do not think it is fair to remove the POV notice, when the discussion is still going on. On the talk-page, 3 people believe it is POV while one doesn't believe so, and he is the original contributor of the article. The original contributor of the article should not remove that notice when the discussion is still on-going, especially since the POV tag would attract people to the discussion page. Also, the edit history should reflect what has been done to the page. let's observe some wikiquette. --- Gurubrahma 09:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition for Solution

Dear All,

I apologize for the temp removal of the POV thing. I have a proposition for y'all: why don't y'all pick a passage which contains the info objectionable to you, and re-jig it to meet your viewpoint, and put it up for discussion?

Bear in mind, its important all the same to have some form of direct and explicit reference of Gandhi in relation to world events, such as the Rwanda and Sudan tragedies. We can't remove Gandhi's relevance to such events, as its beyond our power to do so.

My desire is to make an article as explicitly true to Gandhi as possible. I can't tolerate the anti-Gandhi freaks who screw up his words and present false criticism, or those who don't do any real research before putting up stuff based on newspaper op-eds.

Nirav, I have an alternative proposition. I do not want to delete your work. Why don't you make some rewording yourself in NPOV? Just write as if you are a neutral third party or a good neutral journalist. I think you know what most of us are after. I agree that the article has to get into the soul of Gandhi and as he documented so many of his ideas, it should not be that difficult to achieve. Any reference to how Gandhi would have reacted to events after his death is speculative and therefore open to widely different viewpoints/interpretations. This is more suited to your own blog or website (you can always link to it from the article). --nirvana2013 10:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

I've gone over the article and removed direct references to Rwanda and Sudan w/o compromising the point I was making.

I've also re-organized the article: its purpose is to explain the thinking of Gandhi, how it has been applied around the world, and how what most of us understand to be Gandhi's teachings are actually different from Gandhi's own approach.

Gandhi's autobiography gives an excellent, direct contact with the mind of Mahatma Gandhi.

If there are any other questions/problems, its all open for discussion. But I would like to take down the neutrality sign in 24 hours. Its bad enough a man of peace had to be killed by violence. We don't need to argue over this for eternity.

Amen to that. --nirvana2013 12:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Dear All,

I would like to apologize for any rudeness or arrogance I've demonstrated in the past couple of days. Being passionate about this subject, I had temporarily forgotten that I don't own this article, the legacy of Gandhiji or Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Nirav Maurya

God bless you Nirav --nirvana2013 12:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is much better now that it focuses only on Ghandi's beliefs. The speculation on what he might have thought about current events was unencyclopedic. Thanks for improving it. -Willmcw 23:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fancruft notice

An anon IP has been removing it without discussing it on the talk page. I think he should discuss it here before repeatedly deleting it. I've also left a message on the anon IP's talk page. Gurubrahma 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification and Apology

Hello Gurubrahma,

I'm writing this to say that you were right - it was me giving you a little headache with the Purushottam Das Tandon article. And yes, I didn't have the stomach to get through the edit wars on Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhism. Furthermore, it was me removing your fancruft notice on the Gandhism article.

Its true that I've had my problems with you. I wasn't man enough to admit that your spirited and aggressive participation in Wikipedia was actually scaring me, as if there was something mentally wrong with me and my outlook on the world, and ability to communicate with other people. I think I got into Wikipedia totally for the wrong reasons.

I actually hate bitching, so I want to just say that you've been a good teacher - you've helped me understand my faults, and understand the hidden mistakes in my edits on various articles.

I wish you good luck on Wikipedia and your life.

Har Har Mahadev!

Nirav Maurya.

Hi, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Rgds., --Gurubrahma 13:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Revisions

I've made some new revisions to the article, bringing its size within the preferable limit, eliminating long passages of repetitive material and several biased and judgemental assertions.

I've also made corrections to bring the article closer to NPOV, judgementalism and eliminate fancruft within the passages and conclusions.

Bear in mind, this is Gandhism, and all about Gandhi, so the latter job is quite difficult to judge and complete. - Nirav.

Your addition and deletion of a lot of material over a short period of time makes it difficult for others to judge the changes. Also, frequent edits with non-usage of edit summaries makes it difficult for other editors to keep track. I believe this is what happened on Mahatma Gandhi till someone raised a hue and cry abt several sections being POV. An anon IP's edits are generally viewed more suspiciously than those of a registered user. Many users have a policy of not responding to anon IPs on their talk pages. I don't think it would be difficult for you to sign with 4 tildes as I've seen you do so on Nichalp's talk page. Hence, do consider using your username for editing - I don't think I'm alone in making this observation, your talkpage shows atleast two other users mentioning the same. --Gurubrahma 14:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fancruft

Over the past week, I've done much to erase those statements carrying bias and favoritism of Gandhi. At this point, I can't find any more statements that are judgmental about Gandhi, his views or any other people. Plus, I've added info on the points Gandhi is criticized and blamed about. Criticism is an important element of Gandhism.

I'm thus removing the fancruft notice. If anybody objects to this, I'd like to point out two things - (1) there are no judgmental statements or passages left, (2) there is a long passage containing points of criticism and (3) This is an article about Gandhi, and he was a great man.

However it is all open to discussion by future Wikiusers.

Jai Sri Rama! - Nirav Maurya.

[edit] Added the cleanup-tone template

I just added the cleanup-tone template to the article. I do think that the article is quite good, but I think that it does require some additional rewriting to have a formal style suitable for an encyclopedia article, and to remove some statements that are opinions rather than facts. I see from some of the comments here that these issues have been raised here before. Let's continue to improve this good and important article! -- 201.78.233.162 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic tone cleaned up, and general thoughts

I've just completed a major re-edit of the article to try to make its tone more encyclopedic and less like an essay, and have consequently removed the cleanup template. I'm aware that Gandhism is a topic about which many people feel very strongly, but please remember that you do your position more justice by a fair and neutral assessment of the facts than by launching into one-sided passionate eulogies or, for that matter, furious rants. For what it's worth, I'm sure Gandhi would have agreed... :-)

I've done my best to remove the emotive language and extensive tautologies in this piece, but several sections still need extensive attention from experienced and neutral editors. The sections "Brahmacharya and Ahimsa" and "Religion" are little more than unsourced collections of quotes. These need to be rewritten as proper encyclopedic sections.

The section "Criticism and controversy" makes some important points, but desperately needs sources. Please read Wikipedia's guide to writing great articles: it is much more powerful to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than constantly reiterating how great Gandhi is. Readers will work out their own opinions. In particular, emotive language must be excised, as it often becomes offensive or ridiculous. Referring to Aung San Suu Kyi as "a small young woman", for instance, is deeply demeaning: she is a Nobel Prize winner, an internationally respected political leader, and almost sixty years of age! In any case, her size, age and sex have no bearing on her position as a Gandhian.

The section "Without truth, nothing" seems to be completely out of place and probably needs to have its salient facts redistributed more logically throughout the article, before being deleted.

This article is in need of restructuring. Presently, it is more a collection of miscelleaneous facts than a coherent introduction to the topic - especially in the later sections. There is, however, some very important material here, and it is a highly important subject. -- TinaSparkle 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct - thanks for doing this. Rama's arrow 14:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tagore a critic?

he had philosophical debates with gandhi.. --ti 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved article to Gandhianism

I have moved the article from Gandhism to Gandhianism. The term Gandhian is in far greater use than Gandhism. nirvana2013 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this isn't true at all. "Gandhism" and "Gandhian" are both terms in current use; "Gandhianism" is clumsy and I have never seen it used in an academic piece. A google search brings up 964 pages for Gandhianism against 42,400 for Gandhism. I propose strongly that we move the page back to Gandhism. -- TinaSparkle 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tina - the term "Gandhism" is the conventional usage - see all the reference books. "Gandhianism" is not a conventional term. D X-Rama's arrow (are u ready) 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. nirvana2013 09:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back, Nirvana2013. :) -- TinaSparkle 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)