You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed.

Gandalf suicide-bombed his own credibility with that nonsense about not being able to criticise someone if it offends.

For Mantena, Gandhi is a “connected critic” because of the stance he adopted. As a critic of the British Empire, he self-consciously presented himself as a loyal British subject who demanded that the empire make good on its promise to provide political equality and protection for all the subjects and, thus, an end to racial discrimination. Despite the extra-legality of some of his methods, he demonstrated a deep respect for the law in his civil disobedience. Second, as a critic of radical and extremist forms of Indian nationalism, Gandhi acknowledged the unhappiness of militant nationalists but believed their elitist methods, which excluded India’s peasant millions, would achieve merely a change of masters, not a change of rule. Finally, as a critic of inequality in the Hindu social order, in his disputes with Hindu orthodoxy, Gandhi claimed to be the most orthodox of all. According to Mantena’s interpretation of Gandhi, such criticism belongs resolutely to the plane of action and not to the plane of contemplation.

Progressive muslim & pretend muslim 

gud is gwait no ?

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:


Good to see you doing some research on the topic, FD. I see where you’re going with this.

By trying to overturn the caste system, Gandhi was practicing Taqqiya.

Cunning, no?

Karnal wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:


You are preaching intellectually bankrupt spineless apologetics. You have attempted to give it legitimacy by associating it with the views of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, as well as Mandela and Gandhi. You have failed. Again.