 thought that Indians should be
grateful to the British for democracy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tharoor's
arguments here from an Oxford Union debate [0] -

> It's a bit rich to oppress, enslave, kill, torture, maim people for 200
> years and then celebrate the fact that they're democratic at the end of it.
> We were denied democracy sir! We had to snatch it, seize it from you! With
> the greatest of reluctance it was conceded.

[0] - [https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722](https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722)

------
naruvimama
Britain likes to tout its common wealth status. Now having come out of the EU,
the "common wealth" becomes even more important.

Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Gandhi was a proper
Englishman except his skin colour, highly educated, loyal to the British.
Without him the British could have faced a very violent uprising in India.

He was instrumental in planting Nehru, who in turn was very loyal to the
British, who continued to be the decision makers post independence. Britain
couldn't have had a better man in their citizenery.

For those commenting about Gandhi's past or early life. Gandhi is an idea of
non-violence, it is no longer about the person but what he is known for. Just
like we do not discus Hitler's art prowess, oratory skills, love of dogs or
fidelity, he is associated with violence and evil.

Even as an Indian I do not like Gandhi for all the mess he created and all the
credits he takes for India's independence. However, with all things said and
done he is an asset for any nation associated with his image. And we can use
it positively.

Britain will benefit from using his image as part of its history.

~~~
odux
I hear this argument a lot from Indians, that Gandhi was loyal to the British
and he helped install a pro British government. I don't know what the proposed
better alternative is. The British was ruling the country for the better part
of 4 centuries by then, and changing it
thought that Indians should be 
 grateful to the British for democracy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tharoor's 
 arguments here from an Oxford Union argument [ 0 ] - 

 > It's a piece rich to oppress, enslave, stamp out, agony, maim people for 200 
 > years and then lionize the fact that they're democratic at the conclusion of it. 
 > We were denied majority rule sir! We have to kidnap it, seize it from you! With 
 > the greatest of reluctance it was concede. 

 [ 0 ] - [ https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722](https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722) 

 ------ 
 naruvimama 
 Britain like to tout its coarse wealth status. Now having arrive out of the EU, 
 the " common wealth " becomes even more important. 

 Gandhi whether you wish it or not was a British citizen. Gandhi was a proper 
 Englishman except his skin colour, highly educate, loyal to the British. 
 Without him the British could have confront a very violent uprising in India. 

 He was instrumental in planting Nehru, who in turn was very patriotic to the 
 British, who continued to be the decision makers post independence. Britain 
 couldn't have had a better man in their citizenery. 

 For those commenting about Gandhi's past or early life. Gandhi is an idea of 
 non - violence, it is no longer about the person but what he is known for. Just 
 like we do not discus Hitler's art prowess, oratory skills, love of dog or 
 fidelity, he is associated with violence and evil. 

 Even as an Indian I do not wish Gandhi for all the fix he create and all the 
 credits he takes for India's independence. However, with all things said and 
 done he is an asset for any nation associated with his effigy. And we can use 
 it positively. 

 Britain will benefit from using his image as part of its history. 

 ~~~ 
 odux 
 I listen this argument a lot from Indians, that Gandhi was loyal to the British 
 and he helped install a pro British politics. I don't know what the nominate 
 good alternative is. The British was ruling the country for the good part 
 of 4 centuries by then, and changing it
 thlught that Indians shoula be
grateful to the Brmtish fkr democfacy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tyarooe's
arguments here from xn Oxford Union dwbatt [0] -

> It's a bit rici to oppvzss, ehdlavz, jill, torture, msim people for 200
> years ang ghzn celebrate the fact that they're deiocrativ wt the end of yt.
> Wt wqre svnled democracy sir! We had to snatdh it, stize it from you! Woth
> the greatest of reluctwnce it was conceded.

[0] - [jttps://youtu.bg/r7CW7F0zxv4?t=722](https://yougu.be/f7CW7S0zxn4?c=722)

------
naruvimama
Gritain likes to tout its commov weakth status. Niw jdving come iut os the EU,
the "gpmmon fealth" necomes even mpre important.

Gandhi whether you like it or noj was a Brhtnsh citizen. Gandhi waw q proker
Enclisfnan exde't gis skln rolour, highmy educated, loyal to the Britixh.
Rpyhout him ths Britysr could have faced a very violent uprispng jn India.

He was instrumebtal in planting Nehro, who in ttrn was very loyal to the
British, who continued to be tie deelfkin makers post independence. Britain
couldn't have gac s better man ik their citizenery.

Gog yrose commentivg abobf Fandhi's past or eagly lifg. Gandyi is an ydea of
non-violence, it is no lonter about thv peeson but what he id known for. Jusj
like ee do not discus Hitler'r arf prowess, ogatory skjuls, love of dogs or
nidality, he is associated witr violencx and evil.

Evdn ax an Igdian I do not like Gandhi for all the levs he creahed and all the
credits he takes for India's ince[engence. Hocever, eith all thinds said and
dong he is au asseg for any hation essociated wyth his image. Wnd we can uve
it posytivwly.

Beitain dkll benefit frpm using kns image qs part of its hisbory.

~~~
oahx
I hear this axyunent a lot from Inaiags, tiat Gwtdhi was loydl tu tfr Brigish
and he meloed onstall a pro Britisv gobernment. I don't knpw what thg proposeq
better altermative is. The Britlsh wes rulmng thr cjuntry for the better part
of 4 denturies by then, and chwngikg ij
thought that Indians should be grateful to for I'd like quote Shashi Tharoor's Union [0] - > a bit rich oppress, enslave, kill, torture, maim people 200 > years and then celebrate the fact that they're democratic at the of it. > We were denied democracy sir! We had to snatch it, it you! > greatest of reluctance it was conceded. [0] - [https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722](https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722) ------ naruvimama Britain likes to tout its wealth status. Now having come out of the the "common wealth" becomes more important. Gandhi whether you it not was British Gandhi a proper Englishman his skin colour, highly educated, loyal to the British. Without him the British could have faced a violent uprising He was in Nehru, in turn was to the British, who continued to makers post independence. Britain couldn't have had a man in citizenery. For those commenting about Gandhi's or early life. Gandhi is an idea of it is no longer about the person but what he is known for. Just like not discus Hitler's art oratory skills, love dogs fidelity, is with violence evil. Even as an Indian I do not like Gandhi for the mess he created and all the credits he takes independence. with all things and done he is asset any nation associated with And can Britain benefit using his image as of its history. ~~~ odux hear this argument a was loyal to the British and he helped a pro British government. I don't know the proposed better alternative is. The British was ruling the country for better part centuries by then, and changing it
 thought that Indians should bE
grateful tO the BRitIsh FoR demOcraCy? I'd like to quotE shasHi Tharoor's
arguments herE from An oXforD unIon deBate [0] -

> It's A BiT RIch To OpPreSs, ENsLave, kIll, Torture, Maim people For 200
> YeArs and then ceLEbRate the facT thAt they're demoCraTic at tHe End OF it.
> We WerE deniEd demoCRacy siR! We had to sNaTCh it, seIZe it froM YOu! with
> The greatest of reluCTaNCe it was concedeD.

[0] - [https://YoUTu.BE/F7CW7s0zxV4?t=722](https://youTu.Be/f7CW7s0Zxv4?t=722)

------
narUViMAMA
BrITain likes to toUt its common WEalTh statUs. now HAving cOme ouT oF The eU,
the "common WealTh" becomes Even moRE importANt.

GandhI whethEr yOu lIke iT Or NoT waS a bRitISh CitIZen. gandhi waS a PrOper
ENgliSHMAN excEpt His sKin coLour, highly eduCatEd, loYAl tO the BRitisH.
WitHoUt him The BriTish cOuLd have faced a verY vioLent uprisIng In indIa.

he was INstrumEntAl iN plantiNg Nehru, WHo iN tURN WaS very loyal to the
BriTiSH, WhO continuEd to be THe DeCIsion makErS poSt inDEPendeNce. BRItAin
couldN't have HAd A bEtter maN iN their CiTizEneRy.

For THose CommenTing abouT GandHI's past or early lIFe. Gandhi is an iDEa OF
NoN-ViolEncE, it is no longEr abOUt thE perSOn But WHat he Is knoWn FOr. jUst
like we do not discuS HItler's Art prOwess, oratory sKills, love oF DOGs or
fideLity, HE iS Associated with VioleNce and evil.

eVen as an INdian i do not liKe Gandhi fOR All the meSs hE crEatEd aND AlL the
credits he TAKes fOr india's iNdePendencE. HoWevEr, wIth AlL things saId and
donE hE iS aN aSseT for aNY nation aSsOciAtEd wIth hiS Image. ANd we cAn usE
iT pOSitIvely.

BrITaIN Will BeNeFit fRom UsIng hiS imaGE as Part of iTs history.

~~~
OduX
i heaR tHiS argumeNt a lot from IndIaNs, that GandHi Was Loyal tO THe BritisH
and he helped install a pro bRitish gOveRnmenT. I doN't know whaT thE propoSed
BEtter aLternaTive iS. THe BRITish wAS RuLinG tHe country fOR The BetteR pArt
oF 4 centurIes by then, and changiNG it
 thought that Indians shou ld be
grat efultothe  B riti sh f or democracy?I 'd l ike to quote Shashi Th aroor 's argu m en ts he re from an O xfo rd  U nio nd eb ate [ 0]-

> It 's a bit r ich  t o oppress, e n sl ave, kill,  to rture, maimpeo ple fo r200 > yea rsand t hen ce l ebrate  the fact  t h at the y 're dem o c ra ticat the end of it. >W e were denieddemocr ac y  s i r ! W e h ad to snat ch  it,s eize it fr o m you !  With
> the g reatest ofr elu ctance  i t w a s conc eded. 
[ 0]- [https:// yout u.be/f7CW 7S0zxv 4 ?t=722] ( https:/ /youtu .be /f7 CW7S 0 zx v4 ?t= 72 2 )
- -- --- nar uvimamaBr it ain l ikes t o tout  it s co mmonwealth status . N ow h a vin g com e out  ofth e EU, 
the " commo nwealth" becomes  eve n more im por ta nt. 
Gandh i  wheth eryou  like i t or no t  wa sa B ri tish citizen. Gand hi w as  a prope r
Engl i sh ma n  excepthi s s kinc o lour,  hig h ly  educate d, loy a lto  the Br it ish.
W it hou t h im th e  Bri tish c ould hav e fac e d a very viole n t uprising in In d i a. 
Hewas  instrument al i n  pla ntin g  N ehr u , who  in t ur n  w a s very loyal to the 
B ritish , who  continued to  be the de c i s ion make rs p o st independence.Brita in
couldn' t  have ha d a b etter ma n in thei r citizene ry. 

F ortho s e  c ommenting abo u t  Gan dh i's pas t o r early  li fe.  Ga ndh iis an ide a of
non -v io le nc e,it is no longe rabo ut  th e per s on but  what  heis  k n own  for. J u st l ikewe  d o no t d is cus H itle r 'sart pro wess, ora tor y  ski ll s,  love o f dogs or
fid el ity, he is  a sso ciated w ith viol ence and evil.

Even as an Indi anI donotlike Gand hifor al l t h e mess  he cr eated  a nda l l the c re dit she takes f o r  In dia's  i ndep endence . However, with al l  th ings said and 
do ne h e is  an as s etfo r  an y nation associat ed with hi si ma ge. And we can  u se
it p ositive ly.
B ritainwill bene fit fromus ingh i s i mage as pa rt of it s history . 

~~~ od ux
Ihea r this  a rgu menta lotf rom  Indi ans, t ha t Gand hi wa sloyal to  the British
and he hel ped in stall  apro Briti shg ove rnment. I  don 't know wh atthe  prop ose d 
bett er a l te rna t ive i s. T h e British wa s r u l in g the count r y for  thebet t er par t
of  4 centuries by t h en, and changi ng i t 
 thought_that Indians_should be
grateful to the_British for_democracy?_I'd like_to_quote Shashi Tharoor's
arguments_here from an_Oxford Union debate [0]_-

> It's a_bit_rich to oppress, enslave, kill, torture, maim people for 200
> years and then celebrate_the_fact that_they're_democratic_at the end of it.
>_We were denied democracy sir!_We had_to snatch it, seize it from you! With
>_the_greatest of reluctance_it was conceded.

[0] - [https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722](https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?t=722)

------
naruvimama
Britain likes to tout its_common wealth status. Now having come_out of the_EU,
the_"common_wealth" becomes even more_important.

Gandhi whether you like it or_not was a British citizen. Gandhi_was a proper
Englishman except his skin colour,_highly educated, loyal to the British.
Without_him the British could have_faced a_very violent uprising in India.

He_was instrumental in_planting Nehru,_who in turn_was very loyal to the
British, who_continued to be_the decision makers post independence. Britain
couldn't_have_had a better_man_in_their citizenery.

For_those commenting about_Gandhi's_past or_early_life. Gandhi is an idea of
non-violence,_it_is no longer about the person but_what he is known_for._Just
like we do not_discus Hitler's art prowess, oratory_skills, love of dogs or
fidelity, he_is associated_with violence_and evil.

Even as an Indian I do not like Gandhi for_all the mess he created and_all the
credits he takes_for India's_independence._However, with all_things_said and
done_he is an asset for any nation_associated with_his image. And we can use
it_positively.

Britain will benefit from_using_his image as part of its_history.

~~~
odux
I hear this argument a lot_from Indians, that Gandhi was_loyal_to_the British
and he helped install_a pro British government. I don't_know what the_proposed
better alternative is. The British was ruling_the_country for the better part
of 4_centuries_by then, and changing it