KUMASI—A statue of an Indian independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, was unveiled at the University of Ghana in June by the Indian president, Pranab Mukherjee, who had delivered a speech calling on students to “emulate and concretize” Gandhi’s ideals. What ideals, one might ask? What ideals should our students who we support through our tax payer cedis emulate other than our unique Ghanaian ideals? Or do we not have any? Worse, Gandhi happens to be the only statue in the university’s long colonial—and now its so-called independent—history as the premier university in our modern collective imagination.
Imagination here is key. It is a point demonstrably overlooked by our scrofulous classes who call themselves elites. Thousands of ordinary Ghanaians who cared to know about the Gandhi monomania have since signed petitions and launched awareness movements, calling for the statue to be torn down. Why? The main argument has been, and continues to be, that not only was Gandhi racist towards Black South Africans when he lived there from 1893 to 1914, but that he campaigned for the maintenance of the caste system in his own country, India.
Certainly, in Ghana, a country that is still emerging from the haunting of three hundred years of slave raiding on our coasts, a nation that is still dusting off more than a century of British colonial occupation and meddling, and a people still grappling with the imperialism of neoliberalism on a daily basis, the rise of a racist statue in a public space, let alone on the campus of one of the highest institutions of learning in the land, is six of a slap in the face for every step we have taken towards total emancipation and half a dozen of a gross disrespect by the Indian president. Although Mukherjee should know better, the blame lies elsewhere.
Under these circumstances, the debate about the statue of a racist foreigner newly erected in our country continues to stupefy most people. How can a public university adopt a foreign hero for its campus? How can our tax payer money be used in feeding a diet of a Gandhi monomania to our own children? Abena Maanu situates this illusion of freedom carefully within the context of the larger paradigm of cultural hegemonic neoliberal ambitions of foreign nations in Ghana today. “Why does the burden of honoring everyone fall on us? We have to honor other people’s leaders on our campuses. We have to honor other people’s tomatoes in our stores. We have to honor other people’s books in our classrooms. We have to honor other people’s automobiles on our roads. Meanwhile, who assumes the burden of honoring us?”
Most baffling is the persistent confrontation that has ensued since some of the collective works of Gandhi about race, caste and class came to light. Although the evidence of Gandhi’s racism, his classism, his sexism and his love for imperialist warfare stick up high against his supposed “nonviolent” rectitude, Gandhi’s supporters remain largely resolute in their defense of the belief systems about a man whose image and ideas they have come to solely recall through a selectively fed propaganda. So it looks.
So captivating has the notion of nonviolent action for political change been attributed to Gandhi that it is well-nigh impossible to separate Nii Kwabena Bonne’s January 1948 organized boycott of all European imports in the Gold Coast from Gandhi’s influence. At this rate, if Gandhi’s statue stays long enough at the University of Ghana every single one of our children will learn to reflect on the Accra Riots of 1948 not in the light of the bloody murders of Sergeant Adjetey, Corporal Attipoe and Private Odartey Lamptey by Colonial Police, but in the illusory miasma of a supposed nonviolent Gandhi monomania.
Consequently, Gandhi remains a hero nonetheless—a hero to a globalist neoliberal ideology, which inherits its mantra from neocolonialism, and which prescribes the quest for political change for the greater good only through monkish nonviolence. It is easy to see how Gandhi stands tall among those who seek only to maintain the culture of “primitive accumulation,” and who would provide or allow wiggle-room only for negotiating kangaroo limits via the illusory slow churning wheels of nonviolent protest. Specifically, in his own home, Gandhi remains the hero for the select few of upper-caste Hindu Indians while the Gandhi monomania continues to maintain that “equality is of souls and not [of] bodies.”
What has all this to do with Ghana? It is only of particular interest to the few government officials in Ghana and at the University of Ghana who seem, at least in every respect, to be the newly emerging adulterous fat-cats of elitism in our country, and who have yet to delineate the effects of the monomania of Gandhi (Gandhism) on the collective aspirations of Ghanaians as to warrant erecting a racist statue on the premier public university campus of our land.
What is the import of Gandhism to our fat-cats? What are the ideals that the president of India and our government officials want students to emulate about Gandhi? Is it perhaps the need to entrench a general and collective revulsion for seeking political change by any means necessary? Is it perhaps to emasculate the political will of the people and to castrate every verve, every courage and every bravura the people might need to muster, in difficult times, in order to effect political and revolutionary change in their own country? Or is it to train a new generation that will sit and stand timid in their monkish and sheepish regard for higher authority? Which, is it?
But there’s more to this detrimental influence that a statue of Gandhi brings to the collective consciousness of our continuing struggle for self-assertive manhood in nation building. Identically, the essence of Gandhi, which his collective works show, represents the paradox of our struggle against ourselves and our humanity as Africans, as Ghanaians.
Gandhi, Race, Class and Caste.
Few can debate the true meaning of the monomania as Gandhi’s collective works show. Gandhi signifies the tussle of his upper caste and his “superior race” of Indians, spurred on by the “superior races of whiteness,” against attempts “to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.” Gandhi embodies a racist ideology against which “persistent ill-treatment [of] Indians [by whites] cannot but degenerate [them], so much so that from their civilized habits they would be degraded to the habits of Africans… [that is] a large portion of Her Majesty’s subjects instead of being raised in the scale of civilization, will be actually lowered [to the scale of Africans].”
More succinctly, Gandhi represents a bigoted “struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon Indians by the Europeans, who desire to degrade the Indian to the level of the African whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”
That is the Gandhi ideal. That is the Gandhi monomania. That is his sheer inhumanity; that is his pure disrespect for Africans and his steep arrogance with which he dispatched his statements about us. That the president of India, with the help of a bunch of brainless professors at the University of Ghana and their equally retarded counterparts dare to impose this nincompoop of a person and of an ideal on the collective consciousness of Ghanaians, is itself testament of the depths to which we have allowed an escharotic bunch to define the state of our self-esteem.
No doubt, to most people in South Africa and across Africa and the diaspora, Gandhi remains a man who unashamedly and unapologetically constructed a legacy of racism against Blacks; who supported racial segregation in South Africa; who cheered and participated in British colonial wars of conquest; whose insensitive and racist remarks about mass murders in Nazi Germany remain barbarous; whose disturbing amiability towards Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini confound any objective reading of his collected works; and whose shocking disregard for the psychological well-being of his own grandnieces and consistent belittlement of Indian minorities such as Dalits and Sikhs, continue to baffle the decision by university administrators in Ghana to receive his statue and erect it as the first and still the only statue on that campus.
Yet, amidst this uncomfortable historicity, Gandhi’s supporters abound in Ghana. They have railed against those who dared to challenge the university decision to erect the statue of a racist foreigner on their public campus without permission. Some of these supporters even point to Gandhi’s record. A record of a nonviolent ideology for social change, but which when examined, when the real collective works of Gandhi are examined, they stand in stark contrast to what he has been portrayed to be in text books and in the media the world over.
The simple facts upset his supporters. More troubling, we have yet to even understand why the concerted effort, albeit pitiful, by Gandhi’s supporters in Ghana to scour through the collected works of Gandhi to “find traces of bits and pieces of information to show how much Gandhi may have loved; how much he may have sympathized with and how much he may have cared for Africans.” A petition that rose against another petition asking for the removal of the statue failed to “show in any definitive statement from Gandhi himself where he openly recanted his offensively prejudiced insulting remarks against Blacks in South Africa or where he apologized honorably for them.”
The extraordinary lengths to which some of these Ghanaians have gone to express, without proof—of how those who choose to be racist actually loved Africans—unveils a deeper festering virus in our collective national psyche. An issue worth inoculating ourselves against: That some Ghanaians are, in fact, only capable of below average human dignity; they partly despise and partly hate themselves. The pathology remains fascinating and fashionably idiotic precisely in the face of this Gandhi monomania.
Even Gandhi’s own grandson and biographer, Rajmohan Gandhi, acknowledged that his grandfather was “undoubtedly” ignorant and supremely prejudiced about Blacks in South Africa. And in the same vein, like the supporters of the statue in Ghana, he seems to think that Gandhi actually and invariably helped Blacks in South Africa through his racism. The argument is mind-boggling when Rajmohan maintains that his grandfather’s “struggle for Indian rights in South Africa [actually] paved the way for the struggle for Black rights.”
Indeed, such cockamamie works and interpretations are what abound in the collective deliberations of Gandhi and what constitute the ideals of Gandhi—what the Indian president wishes our Ghanaian students to emulate—a pathological hatred for themselves, a compulsive hatred for their kind, and a neurotic love and admiration for any other human, other than themselves, who must be raised above Blacks, even on their own godforsaken campus.
The retardation is not without the venal government backing of our land. A few politicians in Ghana have come to support this Rajmohan view—which explains the official decision to allow the statue to still stand even after several protests. In a measure to profess their astute political prowess and awareness and perhaps even the sociological understanding of the implications of Gandhi’s racism, these government officials have cited the benefits to Ghana of the “kind gift” of the Indian President. But hell, no matter, let’s understand it.
The “Kind Gift” of a Racist Statue.
Government reports concerning the nature of this “kind gift” continue to confuse and befuddle. However, the following is our general knowledge. In return for erecting the statue in Ghana, the Indian government has promised to increase trade between the two nations from its current one billion dollars to a new “economic interaction” worth over five billion dollars by 2020. Indians in Ghana have also pledged to register more businesses in Ghana to augment the over seven hundred businesses they already own in Ghana. On the other hand, the number of businesses opened by Ghanaians in India is not clear. Some analysts put the number at three although the President of Ghana has no plans to facilitate a reciprocal relationship in this regard.
Further, those who support the “kind” Indian gesture of a statue cite numerous economic projects that both governments of Ghana and India are undertaking. One such project involves the import of India’s TATA heavy duty busses (on account of TATA and Ashok Leyland vehicle manufacturing) to “improve public transportation in Ghana.” This flies in the face of the fact that Ghana actually has a car manufacturer in Kantanka that the government has since refused to work with to improve Ghana’s public transportation.
Another project involves a 35 million dollar Komenda Sugar Factory and a 24 million dollar sugarcane farm to feed the factory. Still more, President Mahama stated that India also wishes to finance a 30 million dollar fish processing project in Ghana and another unrevealed sum that India has promised to put up to modify the Yendi Water project in the Northern Region.
These “reparations” to Ghana for Gandhi’s crimes against Blackness specifically committed in South Africa are entrenched in the Rajmohan worldview held by our elected officials in the shamelessness with which they cite “kind gifts” as if they are evidence of Gandhi’s benevolence to Africans. Some of them assert circuitously that Gandhi’s racism was actually “good” for Blacks in South Africa. That Gandhi’s racism actually helped ease the plight of Blacks in apartheid South Africa. That without Gandhi’s racism, Blacks in South Africa could have never found the inspiration to fight for their own independence from racist whites.
The current narrative in Ghana, in support of the statue, is shaped exactly by this Rajmohan worldview. Some students of Gandhi in Ghana even believe that without the influence of Gandhi’s ideals in independence struggles in Ghana, we could not have [adequately] achieved our independence from Britain. So careful has this argument been honed over the years that even the Civil Rights movements of African Americans in the United States has the Gandhi monomania sprinkled into every crevice for its “tasty” success. To reiterate my previous point, it now seems completely difficult to separate the self-assertive bloody and violent struggle for freedom in America by Blacks from the influence of Gandhi’s bloodless sermons in that struggle.
It is in this light that the one sided-relationship between Ghana and India must be examined.
The monomania together with the Rajmohan worldview remain the bulwark argument for supporting a donation of Gandhi’s statue to the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research at the University of Ghana. India’s “reparatory” projects continue to remain the examples on which supporters fall to buttress Ghana’s “meaningful” relationship with India in contradistinction from India’s relationship with Britain in case the government of England were to donate a statue of Col. Reginald Dyer to a university in India. How would the Indians feel? Dyer was the British officer responsible for the Amritsar massacre in 1919.
But let us re-consider the facts. Let’s go deeper to see what’s really happening here.
Currently, India’s GDP per capita stands at 1,582 dollars whereas Ghana’s GDP per capita stands at 1,381 dollars, according to World Bank 2015 data. In every respect the difference between Ghana’s ability to take care of its population and India’s remain statistically insignificant. Ghana has more to benefit from investing in Kantanka Automobile Company than its investment in TATA. Ghana has far more to benefit from Ghana-Nigeria relations (Nigeria’s GDP per capita is 2,640 dollars) than it does with India. Ghana has more to benefit from Botswana (6,368 dollars per capita) than it does with India.
Undoubtedly, if the political argument on bilateral economic relations is examined, Ghana has nothing to lose by refusing a statue of Gandhi that insults the very essence of the constitution of our nation. If the statue remains the means by which a bilateral relationship must be forged and maintained, Ghana stands less to benefit from it. The Rajmonhan worldview is also nonsensical since none of the investments that Ghana is making, ala India, can be shown to become beneficial to the masses of Ghanaians, ever, now or in the future.
Even more, the idea that the contribution to Ghana’s GDP by Indian immigrants might falter is particularly lame if not totally ludicrous. There are two parts to this foolishness: (1) The mindset assumes that all Indian business persons domiciling in Ghana are so depraved that they would accept the sanctimony of the Gandhi monomania and (2) that Indians are only in Ghana to dictate how Ghana manages its public spaces. Or, are they?
How then does a country like India that is barely managing to feed its population, carefully succeeding in convincing Ghana’s educated administrators to accept its investments in Ghana, up to and including a statue of a racist? There are several facets to this issue and I will illustrate three incredible parts for clarifying the illusion of independence among Ghana’s ruling class.
The first is that, like Gandhi, the Indian political elite are only interested in facilitating the business opportunities in the rest of the world for India’s business class. This is pragmatic. No one can fault them. Second. Or, that India is actually interested in improving the economic situation of all Indians and sees investments in Ghana and across the Africa continent (India plans a 10 billion dollar spending spree in Africa since the India-African business forum in New Delhi, October, 2015) as the particular means to achieving this goal. This is also self-interest and no one can fault their maneuvers.
The third is salient, which is a means to achieving the first two goals. India recognizes the importance of culture and outlook in staging wide acceptance for its products in Ghana and the rest of the world. The “kind gift” of a statue of Gandhi is the Trojan horse necessary to prop up wide acceptance of Indian economic exploitation. Gandhi’s statue, together with its elevated propaganda of nonviolence, is then a form of cultural exploitation to achieving its goal of economic exploitation in Ghana without trouble—in peace.
Whatever the reading one might consider to be the Ghana-India relationship, the above points about business or economic outlook do not auger well for the well-being of Ghanaians, except, if one feels the need to predict the profits that could possibly be accrued to Ghana’s economy through Indian “reparatory” aid. As a student of aid, however, this argument can rarely be made. From wherever aid has come, one can show that more often it has come to hurt than to advance the economic ambitions of Ghanaians. In like manner it is not a farfetched feeling that the aid of a racist statue comes not to build, but only to tear down.
Why Haven’t We Removed the Statue Already?
In the same coin, the argument that removing Gandhi’s statue from Ghana’s premier university will upset Indian aid to Ghana and definitely hurt the Ghanaian economy is an argument that has only been fabricated in hell. There’s no merit to it. The debate then must shift focus. What do Ghanaians stand to gain from a statue of Gandhi? A racist ideal? Quite frankly, absolutely nothing more than what has been fed the venal Ghanaian elite about Gandhi’s nonviolent movements against oppression.
The irony of this is not lost on the University of Ghana, the government of Ghana and the people. While administrators embark on the campaign to keep the statue of a foreigner, a “hero of India,” in a public space, and in the psyche of Ghanaians, in a bid to foster the very essence of a “nonviolent freedom fighter” against imperialism (although the facts do not bear out this reading of Gandhi), they also seek to entrench on Ghanaians, against the will of the people, the false impression of a doctored Gandhism. That is oppression.
The nature of this tyranny in Ghana is also not lost on the ordinary Ghanaian. Few mistake the appeal of nonviolence to achieving political and economic freedom for reality. Although most people recognize that freedom in Ghana was achieved through bloodshed. In fact, it is no accident that the first color in Ghana’s flag remains Red—a color symbolizing the blood our ancestors poured in obtaining our freedoms.
Accordingly, the idea of nonviolence in the independence struggles across the African continent and indeed even in India remains untrue. On the contrary, freedom has come to Ghana and the rest of the Saharan world through bloodshed and violence. That Gandhi himself, once a soldier in the colonizer’s army, supported violence in his admiration of the apartheid regime in South Africa and in his admiration of Adolf Hitler and Mussolini are no secrets.
Against this backdrop the neoliberal idea of selling the “emasculated propaganda” of Gandhism as the means by which citizens of the “third world” (see Narmer’s article on removing Gandhi’s statue) must navigate the boundaries of their freedoms, either from brutal dictators, or from western stooges, or now from newly emerging Asian stooges in Africa, continue to be an effective scheme of mitigating forceful collective revolutions that check the balance and abuse of power in our own nations.
But it seems that the people of Ghana understand the complexity of the war being launched against our well-being. We recognize that the war is both economic and mental. It is staged in two parts: (1) Ghanaians must accept Gandhi and his idealism if we want to improve our economic situation, ala India. Which is false! Or worse, (2) that Ghanaians must accept Gandhi and his monomania if they ever feel the need, at any point in their lives, to demonstrate or stand against imperialism. This is also false.
Both hypocritical ways of resolving the plight of the down-trodden in Ghana are illusions. Such an ideology situates the acceptance of Gandhi’s statue within the paradigm of a contained revolutionary verve that oppressed people must demonstrate, if at all they are conscious enough to launch a campaign for their own self-assertive nationhood.
That is, to carefully analyze the extent and impact of the delusion that is independence and sovereignty festering in the minds of the people and those who claim to be their administrators in the government of Ghana and the University of Ghana, vis-à-vis the message the monomania of Gandhism, one only needs to observe the careful petitioning (through nonviolence protest) still ongoing to remove a statue (an idea) imposed violently (by force) on the people, against their will, without their consent, since June of this year.
When these facts are strongly considered in light of the newly advancing cultural hegemonic tendencies of India’s ruling class, not only do we gain a deeper understanding of why the administrators at the University of Ghana have been misled, even out-smarted, by the elite of one of the poorest nations in the world, but we begin to unearth the deeper problem of the putrid Ghanaian ruling class. They live in the squalor of an illusion of independence. They are capable only of below average human dignity. They could be expected to care less about the well-being of their own people. The elite of our country partly despise and partly hate themselves.
Indeed we begin to also comprehend why the illusion of Gandhi’s worldwide monomania of a nonviolent appeal to change has also been applauded by western nations. These very nations that applaud and support ideological movements such as Gandhism at every place else in the world, but in the corridors of their own power, are quite invariably the same perpetrators of violent regime change the world over.
Within this mummery, the people’s country that is the Republic of Ghana has administrators who deride and chastise voices within the country calling for a vulpine invidious statue that has only come to divide Ghanaians, to stop asking for change—to stop asking for the removal of a statue that has been forced upon them.
Even more, to remove this imposition, the duty has been turned inside out and impressed upon the oppressed—the duty of those of us who were minding our own business in the first place before the statue rose in our backyard—to seek not the equal violent means to remove it by which it was erected. On the contrary, we must seek quite the opposite means to violence, that is, dialogue. This captures the very essence of Gandhism vast undermining the revolutionary dynamism of our country to effect change when we want it, how we want it and where we want it. The whole goal is to restrain our freedoms within the careful curtailed prescriptions of Gandhi’s nonviolent struggle.
What Statues Must We Raise From the Dust?
Before Gandhi, the statues of Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first president; of Yaa Asantewaa, an Ejisu revolutionary Queenmother who fought against British occupation; and even more noteworthy, the statues of various Traditional African priests, like Komfo Anokye, the mettlesome Chief Priest of the erstwhile Asante Kingdom, graced the collective consciousness, if not for all Ghanaians, but a significant number in maintaining sovereign awareness about our country, our culture and our history—where we have come from, who we are and what we shall yet become.
Out of this awareness, no matter how implicit, the need to rise against tyranny wherever we see it in Ghana has been of utmost importance to the collective makeup of the mentality of our country. To this point alone, the message of Komfo Anokye is most striking. The Komfo “conjured” the Golden Stool that embodies the soul of the Asantes. More, he brought to nation building what most had come to forget in the Gold Coast. That a nation’s soul resides in its symbols and that precisely how it imagines itself is manifested in its symbolic representations. The Komfo of Asante warned that a “nation can never surrender its stool or it ceases to exist.” No matter who defeated Asante in battle, and there are very few that did, she has never surrendered her Golden Stool. Asante has never surrendered her soul. Never!
If in 1695, without much literature to consult—during these Pale Ages we had abandoned much of our writing cultures—on the importance of the symbols of nationhood, Komfo Anokye together with Osei Tutu could forge a powerful unity that transcended the particularism of Ashanti tribes and clans, and Anokye could employ not only the political influence of his priesthood but also the spiritual ties it engendered to transform a loose Ashanti alliance into a national union, what excuse have the leaders of our dear country today?
This consciousness rather than seep into the collective sentience of the university administrators and the government officials of our country has remarkably escaped them or rather it has extraordinarily never seeped into their anencephalous heads. Obviously. So Gandhi’s statue and the kind of timid message it sends to the generations to come, the generations that it will nonetheless terrorize, if it was allowed to stand, marches on to change, diminish, belittle and erase the few remnants of the political will of this part of West Africa in a so-called “nonviolent” manner. What is nonviolent about an imposition?
Now, with a Gandhi statue carefully lodged within the minds and hearts of the future of our nation, by force, and which is notoriously killing the voices of dissent against cultural imperialism, Ghana is on the brink of losing her soul. We are on the precipice of losing our “Golden Stool.” With the death of the idealism of our own Ancestors, with the loss of our own Gods, the demise of our own heroes, brought on by the onset, it seems, of a culture of erecting foreigners on our lands as “our heroes,” one can only fathom where the future of a country like Ghana heads.
The persistent perfection of the ideology that is now Gandhi, against the truth, entrenched through an unrelenting propaganda war by India’s ruling classes and a colluding neoliberal western class in Ghana, brings to our motherland a whole new state of mind, and consequently of our awareness. We are the image that we see in Gandhi. We are the viewer and the viewed. There is no other distracting presence from the statue of Gandhi for the Ghanaian elite we wish to train and fashion in our own universities. There’s no counter narrative but a so-called “nonviolent” approach to “asking” for freedom from our oppressors. Our freedom is now negotiable. It’s taken from us first, through violence, and we must seek nonviolent means to regaining it. In fact, racism which refuses our equal humanity is posed as a benefit to the race.
The image of Gandhi hence, standing at the University of Ghana, in our premier university space, has all the Godly powers that our people must now emulate. It kills us at will. Kills effortlessly. Kills beautifully. In the Rajmohan worldview, we must hate ourselves in order to love it. It dispenses morality and judges endlessly those who seek to challenge and to remove the ideology, the statue, the image, by force. The image of Gandhi as the world’s leading nonviolent change giver and the ritual involved in pleading for the change we want to see in our own country leads us not anymore to a mysterious imperial power abroad, but back to ourselves. We are now the only source of our oppression because the image of Gandhi cannot help but return the expression of fear proper to emasculated societies that refuse to fight for their own freedom.
The illusion of our independence which is pervasive among the Ghanaian elite facilitates the use of the imagery that is Gandhi as propaganda by whoever can control some part of it to continue to enslave, oppress and trick the rest of us—to trick those who remain intransigent in seeing the light. James Baldwin describes what happens to people who gloss over such deeper meanings: “People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.”
Our Ghanaian elite have shut their eyes to the reality that is cultural hegemony. They invite our destruction with the elevation of other people’s heroes and their emasculating ideologies into our lands. And they insist on remaining in their state of innocence although in the twenty-first century that innocence can hardly be justified. Our ruling class have become the monsters we sought to eradicate. Until Gandhi’s statue is removed, the intellect of the Ghanaian, let alone his bravery, together with his history, will forever remain in doubt.
Our Gbetohemaa Akosua Abeka leaves me speechlessly ecstatic with this profoundly wise, excellently stellar-luminous and heart-mind-and-soul-stirring expression of the dazzling Beauty of our true Afrikan Warrior-Queens! There is so far no better, crystal-clearly comprehensive and most persuasive making of the case against what fits aptly into Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah’s exposition of the Reactionary Violence yterrorising Afrikan people that the criminal imposition of the statue of Mohandas Gandhi on Afrikan soil at the University of Ghana, Legon, amounts to! Yes, we the men must learn to rise towards the expected dignified heights of our true Afrikan Manhood again from the inspiring awesome beauty of the tremendous mental and physical efforts our women are more boldly making to demonstrate the overpowering strength of their Afrikan Womanhood! Yes, we must make way for our New Breed of Nana Yaa Asantewaas and their vanguard Adontensafo of the new Gbeto to move into the leadership frontranks of our Freedommarch in order to better steer us through The Fire Next Time to definitive Pan-Afrikan Victory! Oseyieee Ohemaa Akosua Abeka wayawayaaa! Wayayeee! Akpe ga nawo!
It depends on which camp you belong to on this long debate about the statue of Gandhi that has newly been erected on the University of Ghana campus. Whatever side it is you take, indulge me, for I have no other reason but to enlighten myself or any other on what path we must take as Ghanaians to achieve our collective dreams – if we have any.
Enjoy!
Finally a multi-faceted argument rooted in the pure mastery of Ghanaian culture, history and politics! How can I thank you Akosua M. Abeka? Jesus!
Akosua satisfies the desires of those who prefer a multi-course meal over multiple sound bites. I will have to set aside sometime to fully digest the article but I appreciate the sustenance.
This is a beautiful article. Everybody should read it carefully. Time has dawned upon us to research the real Gandhi and learn how he damaged our sense of humanity. Earlier I had written the following comment along side my petition in favor of bringing down the statue:
Dear Administration of the University of Ghana:
I have authored three critical books on Gandhi. To date I have spent 33 years of active research on this man. Let me say a few important points:
1. Just about everything good you know of him is false.
2. Just about all the bad things you have heard of him from Hindu Right is also false.
3. Gandhi was a full blooded racist. If your skin color is dark, he does not like you.
4. If you are of a Negro race, just forget any closeness from Gandhi. He hated Black people.
5. Gandhi had participated in four wars. His war of 1906 when as Sergeant Major Gandhi, he went after the Blacks and promoted & justified even killings of Blacks.
6. Never once he regretted his anti-Black actions. He died in 1948. In fact while in India (1915-1948) he never once told the truth of his anti-black activities to Indians. He covered it by a false narrative.
7. Gandhi was a staunch believer of the Caste System.
8. Gandhi was also a criminal. Please read his direct involvement in the cover up of murder of William F. Doherty.
9. Gandhi also fabricated his history. For example: the famous racial train incidents of 1893 that Gandhi allegedly suffered in South Africa never actually happened. Its all lies upon lies. His two books, Autobiography and Satyagraha in South Africa, authored while in India, are essentially not historical and therefore pious lies.
10. His pathological habit of sleeping naked with young girls as well as with wives of his disciples left a bad taste to many and ruined their healthy family lives.
11. Gandhi advocated the idea of “collective suicide” to the Jewish people facing Adolf Hitler. This is nonviolence at its best from Gandhi.
12. His famous doctrine of Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance) has holes all over. For example: The very founding of Satyagraha in 1906 was also rooted in its hatred of Black people.
13. Independence to India in 1947 has nothing to do with Gandhi. It has to do with Second World War and its terrible impacts on British.
14. Honestly I can go on and on. Please read my books and feel free to reach me if you have any question(s).
15. Please take the right action: Send a clear loud message to all those who falsely promote Gandhi. Bring down his statue now. We the citizens of Mother Earth have a moral responsibility to uphold the truth, justice, and above all never promote anyone who has a history of virulent racism, especially against our Negro brothers and sisters.
Thanks. GB Singh, Colonel (Retired) US Army
Akosua M. Abeka that is a lengthy passage, but must say, most of your deduction within the spirit of your wonderful textual construction……I disagree because, they are opinion fueled instead of evidential based argument.
You further reacted by saying the counter-petition lack evidences to support their claim, that I am surprise, if such is the case, then the petitioners has no case, may be it will be better to use this your paper to replaced the petitioners draft before the council.
We only responded per their strength, if they raise the bar so we will counter by equally raising our bar
Please consult my book “Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity.” There is a chapter devoted to Gandhi while in India (1915-1948) as to what he told the Indians (and others) about his South African period (1893-1914). You can use the contents of this chapter and draft a response to those who have written a counter-petition.
I have read the counter-petition and i find its arguments as weak.
Funny that India goes about promoting this fiction of a nonviolent Ghandi while she herself continues to develop nuclear weapons and is even prepared to use it against Pakistan. Funny this contradiction escapes our systememically stupid educated elite.
Yaa Asantewaa, Akosua Yaa Asantewaa Abeka kokro’oko! Wukum apem a, apem beba iron lady! Eish! Don’t mess with this Yaa Asantewaa. Do not, I shall repeat, mess with this Yaa. Wu nu nu! What thesis! What clarity. What sense! What logic! What wisdom! What knowledge. I rest my case.
A deeply impassioned essay. The hyperbole aside, you are mostly on point. ( Athough your talk of “crimes against Blackness” is patently absurd — one cannot commit a crime against an abstraction)
The statue should never have been erected and must come down.
I will be interested in Tweneboah Senzu’s response.
The unequivocal passionate baring of the awesomely powerful, beautiful and dazzling brilliance of the mind, heart and soul of a true Ohemaa Yaa Asantewaa indeed! My gratitude to you, dearest Sister Akosua Abeka, cannot be expressed in mere words for this illustrious courageous service to the masses of our Afrikan people and Humanity in and beyond our homeland of Ghana! There is so far no better, crystal-clearly comprehensive and most persuasive making of the case against what fits aptly into Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah’s exposition of the Reactionary Violence terrorising Afrikan people that the criminal imposition of the statue of Mohandas Gandhi on Afrikan soil at the University of Ghana, Legon, amounts to!
The brilliant about this whole narration is the logic imbued into it… “Could we have resistance but non violence in a realism world” and still get your expected result from the equation . It a matrix, I sort to reconsider and think deeply about. The rest are trivial issues exaggerated. Anything beyond this… I have chosen to take my rest with the alchemist.
Good day to all in Ghana time.
Akosua’s call to question of “what statues must we raise from the dust” is something that the university should consider. Why not erect statues of our own leaders and influential people? Surely there is no shortage of eligible Ghanaians who are worthy of veneration on the campus.
It is still a shock to me that the first statue on University of Ghana’s public soil would be a foreigner’s statue. If superman is a superhero in American folklore, does that make him a hero in Ghanaian folklore as well? With this statue, we are commingling our history with that of Indians. Despite this argument that we are in a globalized world, we do not have the same heroes. As Akosua suggests, only the acceptance of cultural imperialism would allow us to think that foreign figures have the same influence on our shores as in their own homelands.
Abena Maanu, you are asking the correct question. You are raising the right amount of dust. You are more, questioning the collective intellect of those who have been entrenched on us buy colonialists as our leaders. I am not quite sure if any of the university admins and our government officials who signed off on the statue can actually defend themselves in the way and manner in which Akosua M. Abeka has artfully dispatched their actions. That says something. What it says is that our leaders act before they think. They act before they understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, they act without knowing what it is they act on. They, and we, are men stuck with, if I may borrow Akosua’s words, “anencephalous heads.” Literally and figuratively, respectfully. This is correct. What statues must we raise from the dust? How can an idiot, educated by colonialists, and within a colonial system, under colonial mentoring, with colonial books and forms of thought, comprehend how he might elevate the people over whom he has been lauded? Do not expect a man to do something when his pay check depends on his not doing it!
Thanks Abena Maanu for chiming in. The question I am sure has never crossed the minds of our ruling classes. You see, they spend most of their time reading junk, colonial junk I should say, about the world and how it should work forgetting that the junk is all in favor of the west pouring the junk in their junky heads! I am really fascinated by Akosua M. Abeka use of the term, “Venal Illusion Of Independence.” This alone is a thesis. It speaks volumes about the nature of our “Independence,” the nature of the illusion that we call independence and the state of our minds! I really wonder what others make of it?
What I make of it is that our independence is no independence at all. In fact it is an illusion of independence. This illusion is created by buying up the brains of our elite so they have none left but to stoke our interests to “rise up and join the rest of the global world”(as Patrick Awuah would say!) Yes, I read his noneresponse – or was it a response? – to Akosua M. Abeka’s first essay about Ashesi. It seems to me that our elite are only interested in becoming what they see in the western elite. Only they forget that that imagery involves the oppression of themselves and of other peoples! We’ve had idiots in Africa for a long time. The path to eradicating them is the problem. But eradicating them we must or the illusion of our independence will persist. The venal nature of it will become even more deleterious, more virulent and more oppressive.
So to speak, it captures so eloquently the nature of our republic with respect to the colonialists. Well said brother!
Dade Afre Akufu I agree that the title itself deserves further dissection. I admit, I had to look up the term venal (as I do with many of Akosua’s essays and introductions) and found the idea of corruption and bribery entwined with the illusion of independence. This raises this issue that Solomon highlighted, that our “independence” is not genuine freedom but only the illusion of freedom. We are merely puppets with invisible strings attached and the handlers shielded from view. Also “our elites” themselves are equally an illusion. Through bribery and corruption, with the visuals of their fancy positions and massive homes, they have usurped the everyday imagination to assume the title of “elites.” But who are they really without this venal illusion, without the facade erected by rampant corruption and bribery?
Solomon Azumah-Gomez, with reference to Ohemaa Akosua M. Abeka’s excellent stating of our case in the Debate on the Gandhi statue on the University of Ghana, Legon campus, tells it as the TERRIBLY DISGRACEFUL TRAGEDY OF OUR AFRIKAN SITUATION IS IN GHANA TODAY: “What it says is that our leaders act before they think. They act before they understand the consequences of their actions. In fact, they act without knowing what it is they act on. They, and we, are men stuck with, if I may borrow Akosua’s words, “anencephalous heads.” Literally and figuratively, respectfully. This is correct. What statues must we raise from the dust? How can an idiot, educated by colonialists, and within a colonial system, under colonial mentoring, with colonial books and forms of thought, comprehend how he might elevate the people over whom he has been lauded? Do not expect a man to do something when his pay check depends on his not doing it!”
Sister Abena Maanu points to a most important issue we must all thoroughly reason out critically to gain the necessary clarity on: “This raises this issue that Solomon highlighted, that our “independence” is not genuine freedom but only the illusion of freedom. We are merely puppets with invisible strings attached and the handlers shielded from view. Also “our elites” themselves are equally an illusion. Through bribery and corruption, with the visuals of their fancy positions and massive homes, they have usurped the everyday imagination to assume the title of “elites.” But who are they really without this venal illusion, without the facade erected by rampant corruption and bribery?” I DARE SAY OUR BLACK-SKIN-WHITE-MASKED ELITE IN GHANA AND ALL OVER AFRIKA TODAY IS NOT OUR “RULING CLASS”! They are simply the zombified puppet quislings of the Euro-Amerikkkan ruling classes! Those who actually rule us are the White Supremacy racist oligarchy of Euro-Amerikkka! They dictate who serves them in the administrative apparatuses of what is essentially still their own designed, controlled and manipulated state machinery of the Coloniality of Power in Ghana and Afrika today! The Elite puppets in the administrative structures and institutions of this state machinery of the Euro-Amerikkkan Coloniality of Power in Afrika now do not think, they do not exert any reasonable effort by brain or brawn, they do no work at all because they are actually put in place to do nothing sensible; they simply occupy positions in organs of state (the executive, legislature, judiciary, civil service, armed forces, police, security agencies), other public institutions (schools, colleges, universities, etc) and all sorts of other governmental and even non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in order to ensure that the masses of our Afrikan people do nothing to obstruct the work being done in their name by predatory foreign mercenaries to plunder, maldevelop and devastate our homelands towards the physical extinction of Afrikans as homo sapiens so as to get our wealth completely into the thieving claws of alien armed robbers! The bureaucratic petty-bourgeoisie supposedly administering Ghana and most other countries of Afrika today are in position and therefore earn their pay, benefits and privileges actually for doing nothing, for not even thinking! Solomon is absolutely correct: they are being paid by their master-puppeteers not to think nor act in the best interests of even their own selves, let alone of the masses of our Afrikan people at home and abroad! The earlier we understood/”overstood” the glaring fact that the proclamation of our independence has become absolutely meaningless and that those pretending to be administering our countries are only puppet decoys to hoodwink us into not recognising our actual ruling classes, the White Supremacy racist oligarchy of Euro-Amerikkkan Imperialism, the better for us!
Tweneboah Senzu, you keep saying that the content of arguments in your petition to keep the statue was based on “scholarly sources” or “works.” As opposed to the content of the Collected Works of Gandhi, which Akosua used in this essay? Can you explain the difference? You’ve been making the argument for quite sometime and I want to be clear I thoroughly understand you.
We quoted reference of not Gandhi writings solely but other writings that refer to the exact incidence, on a gazzeted records.
This essay profiled-in here, managed to drive it content on opinion media report.
Narmer Amenuti point to the easy, on any cited quote based on credible reference source coming from the library of a historian specialised in Gandhi biography studies.
The best this team could and has done it, is to embark on selective historical methodology: but that is not bad, such is to strengthen their stand of conviction and package their argument attractive for the target market.
I am OK with it. Understanding where Akosua is coming from as she succinctly put it at the introduction level of this essay, the outcome should not be a surprise.
And I am cool with it….
Will you agree with me-at least a little bit-that this comment sounds patronizing and emulative of colonial framing and narrative of credible critiques?
Hahahahahaha Eish Audu but that is not a question or a rhetoric one
Senzu, in as much as I respect your views, l think your critique is very much misplaced. That my niece Afia wore a sudductive dress to e party is not an invitation for sex starve folks like ogyampa to suddenly think he has a license to forcefully erect his ungodly gadgets into her. Granted even that Akosua’s master piece manuscript was not sourced from ghandi’s writings (which in all fairness is not e case), is it by your logic that we dismiss the substance? Yes, Akosua is pan-africanist, n I hope she likes short skirts. Surely, she does not deserve to be raped by your kinds, just by her introduction. In short, e underlining question is what. She is saying factual? To me n I believe majority of pp. It is.
Tweneboah Senzu, I have posted the references I used from “The Collected Works of Gandhi” on Grandmother Africa Scholars forum. Please download at your convenience. Let me know when you have any questions or reservations. Thanks!
Will cross check, thanks!
Senzu, in as much as I respect your views, l think your critique is very much misplaced. That my niece Afia wore a sudductive dress to e party is not an invitation for sex starve folks like ogyampa to suddenly think he has a license to forcefully erect his ungodly gadgets into her. Granted even that Akosua’s master piece manuscript was not sourced from ghandi’s writings (which in all fairness is not e case), is it by your logic that we dismiss the substance? Yes, Akosua is pan-africanist, n I hope she likes short skirts. Surely, she does not deserve to be raped by your kinds, just by her introduction. In short, e underlining question is what. She is saying factual? To me n I believe majority of pp. It is.
Is not just the depth of the analysis, is the precisional logic, the conceptual framing of issues, and above all, brain work that went into the writing. Akos woy3 few wati. I would recommend it be published and distributed in all afrocentric universities libraries. The University of Ghana should definitely be the first.
Interesting, you heard a choir singing and you just jump into the tune with no head or tail to dable with minor grammar.
You are not serious Kwame , upon critical studying into all your text posted here on this platform.
Will not further any comments on you and your post.
This is Akosua M. Abeka paper and I reserve my right to respond to her solely. If you are hear to debate go straight to your point and argue your case out and stop unnecessary seductive advertisement, we are beyond that level of mediocre thinking.
As I earlier said will present my findings on the problems associated with your references.
However since I am performing multi task, working on the conceptual framework of my paper for an economic conference with a limited time before me, my response will be delayed , but it shall surely come.
Senzu, forgive me. I am of a novice mind. I think Ghanaians have coned a new term for my kind of pp. “We can’t think far” not
even on trivial issues like this. I find it problematic though, that tough economic, smart and functional brains like yours still do not see the big picture. With your kind permission let this non-serious guy walk u through some basic psychonomics history. It started with casual greetings (after all, there ought to be good neighbourliness, right?). That was what they thought. Then the freebies fellowed. Drinks and tobaccos among its related undesirables. What did we offer in return? Your guess is good as mine. Well, Senzu, for those of us who are not so privilege like your good self to present economic manuscripts at prestigious conferences we worry. Not least, for the fact that our non serious brains (that is even if we have any, especially, at a time all e big brains are set for a big conference) appear more astute than yours. Ask yourself this simple question, what benefit does University of Ghana, and e nation at large gain in mountain that races statute. By the way you appear to be mistaken, is not between u n Akosua. In anyway, Akosua is projecting a social cause, not for herself but for humanity. If i see a comment as unfair to her work i reserve the right to comment. Same way, u have a right not to response to this post. So much for intellectual brains, I guess. Have a great presentation bro.
Generally I am not a ‘soft, sensitive, cry baby, naive person’ but I do feel my sensitivities evaded and slighted when I have to read a posting from intelligent people who choose to use abusive words to make a point, instead of using equally refined words that could easily be effective … is it really just me or are there others who feel the same way????
I understand your sentiment Roselyn Byrne. Although I prefer the impassioned way to say it. Even by the tendentious standards of “abusive” or “unrefined” words this impassioned way of understanding our world is more defensible than the accusations used to defame whole nations and races of people. The most deplorable acts of “abuse” and “unrefined” behaviour actually germinate in so-called high society. Many genocides have been glorified (or planned) around dinner tables adorned with shiny forks and knives made from actual silver, without a single inappropriate or illegitimate act or abusive speech having occurred.
This is where the seriousness of discussion on matters affecting Africa – and Ghana for that matter – to lift us from the ‘bottom’ fails to materialise; in that if we really mean to be taken seriously then I think a more ‘mature’, scholarly approach in dealing with the subject will help a great deal instead of firing salvos of abuse at one another. And Narmer Amenuti, a lot more good has come from discussions “around dinner tables adorned with shiny forks and knives made from actual silver’ …. my kind of company ….yolo !!!!
I understand. On this subject however I actually prefer the frank angst with our ruling class. This is pure energy. Sometimes I feel there’s a place for it. But you know, you sentiment is well understood. Don’t get me wrong.
Thanks for sharing.
I understand where the sentiments of the likes of Roselyn Byrne and Johnson Tunu are coming from! I refuse to put myself in that sort of wannabewhitemiddleclassbubble of a comfort zone and rather position myself at the grassroots heart of the Communities of Resistance of our impoverished Afrikan, Black and other Wretched of the Earth who are compelled to learn to live with the deluge of BULLSHIT from the Black-Skin-White-Masked Elite! Like Frantz Fanon, some of us join the revolt of the Wretched of the Earth simply because we cannot breathe inside the repugnant cesspit stench of the flatulently pompous but stupid, yes absolutely stupid and stupefying Elite, who are trying to drown us all in their murderous deluge of BULLSHIT! I am angry, yes very outrageously angry because of the millions of innocent lives of our fellow human beings that are being wasted callously by such criminal Desk Killers in and beyond Afrika!
This is a masterful crescendo to a brilliantly crafted article:
“Out of this awareness, no matter how implicit, the need to rise against tyranny wherever we see it in Ghana has been of utmost importance to the collective makeup of the mentality of our country. To this point alone, the message of Kɔmfo Anɔkye is most striking. The Kɔmfo ‘conjured’ the Golden Stool that embodies the soul of the Asantes. More, he brought to nation building what most had come to forget in the Gold Coast. That a nation’s soul resides in its symbols and that precisely how it imagines itself is manifested in its symbolic representations. The Kɔmfo of Asante warned that a ‘nation can never surrender its stool or it ceases to exist.’ No matter who defeated Asante in battle, and there are very few that did, she has never surrendered her Golden Stool. Asante has never surrendered her soul. Never!”
What happens when a nation’s symbols are those shoved down its throat via ignorance mixed with Indo-Aryan lies and a heavy dose of anti-African (im-)propaganda? What happens when our enemies select our heroes for us? Especially when our heroes are their enemies and our enemies are their heroes. Kra pa te sɛ ɔkra, ɔkyiri fi ‘a good soul is like a cat, it despises filth.’ As articulated in the ancient African philosophical tale of “A Dispute Between a Man and His Ba,” indeed, in the midst of filth, one’s soul can choose to depart from one–leaving a void which any malignant entity can come to possess. Enter Gandhi.
@Akosua Abeka, meda wo ase. Thank you for sharing this with me. You and the 1,700+ others who have signed the petition on the side of Ma’at (specifically the truth and righteousness aspects) encourage and inspire me with the knowledge that — despite the constant onslaught over the past 3,000+ years and the duplicitous machinations of the pro-Indo-Aryan anti-African cheerleading squad, there are still Africans left who stand on principle and that not everyone is willing to sell their soul to the lowest bidder.
#GandhiMustFall because #AfricaMustRise
https://www.change.org/p/the-members-of-the-university-of-ghana-council-gandhi-s-statue-at-the-university-of-ghana-must-come-down
Adding to Dade Afre Akufu and Solomon Azumah-Gomez’s dissection of the first part of the title: “The Venal Illusion of Independence,” the second part of the title: “Ghana vs. Gandhi” is also of interest. It marks a realization that we cannot have both. It’s either the image of Ghana that recognizes a people or the image of Gandhi that disrupts our sovereignty. This is a choice that the nation has to make. It is precisely the choice that someone like Trump, despite his belligerence, raises in the U.S when he asks “Are we going to build a wall or not? Are we going to have a country or not?” It is also the argument made by the Brexiters who did not want the European Union to dismantle their country. Now I would not advocate for building any wall in West Africa. Our ethnic group solidarities transcend these artificial borders and we understand the country lines themselves to be only balkanized versions of how foreigners would like us divided. But in our quest for true African independence, the choice between Ghana or Gandhi should be clear. With merely the illusion of independence, the choice is deeply convoluted.
Abena, I prefer the former to the latter; image of Ghana that recognizes a people…Definitely, the lines ought to be delineated.
A painstakingly write up, but critically insufficient to defeat the Gandhi must stand arguments. It fails to date the wrongs of Gandhi for one to think over it in the whole life of Gandhi to agree or disagree. It calls for honour of our ancestors. But doesn’t qualify which of them. Shall we honour our ancestors who sold our own kinds into slavery? What of the tribes in our land who took other tribes as slaves? If we see those who took us as slaves now, shall we destroy any good relations we have them because of revelation of the past? And shall we then say all Africans are not one as against all Africans everywhere are one people by Nkrumah? The write up also seem to wrongly portray non-violence resistance as cowardly as against the brevity Gandhi, King, etc showed in the face of the brutality of their oppressors. Adela, you also imposes Gandhism on Gandhi even though Gandhi himself unequivocally denied any such things as Gandhism in 1936!!! The overuse of pathos in the write
Boss, be informed that not all our ancestors participated in the undignified trade. At least, am yet to cite one piece of evidence to that effect. To generalize that we cant find any ancestor to honour bcoz they were involved in the uncivilized trade is quiet alarming. Now to the substantive case of Ghadhi, we all agree we cannot have a faultless human being, and Ghandhi is no exception. Unless, u can prove to me that Gandhi’s psychopathic trait of kaffer (a world of class society) aligns with his seemingly moral predisposition. For what is worth, no where is respect for humanity more important than in the fight for independence. If I were to juxtapose the whippings by lord Lugard on my forefathers in a Brazilian plantation to someone am on the same level of predicament with chanting a racial abuse on me, which one would I find more offensive? Am not in anyway endorsing one at the expense of the other. I just want to drive and point to those pro-Ghandhi activists. We have a lot of potential replacements. We just need to search deep. #Ghandhimustfall.
Why should there even be a “Gandhi Must stand” argument? To point out how learned and democratic we are? For what reason?
Which reason for “Gandhi Must Stand” is good enough to match the fact that our collective interest lies in “Gandhi Must Fall”?
Kwame did l say all of our ancestors are unworthy? Give me an act of Gandhi that humiliates blacks after 1936, and l will join you in Gandhi must fall camping. If not, Gandhi is better than you who have history to guide you to commit the same crime you accuse Gandhi of! The debate shouldn’t be emotional but rather rational one based on principles that are timeless!!!!
I knew this argument would come up. Perhaps, I should have preempted this question in my write up. U queried e author on which of our ancestors merit honour as she didn’t make it clear. U proceeded to ask whether our ancestors who were active in slave trade deserve honour. You didn’t need to say it, your premises for your argument gave u away. For your argument to be valid, our ancestors must not be honoured since they themselves were e architects of the slave trade. Am only illuminating the flaws in your arguments.
Audi the argument in the petition for Gandhi must fall is too weak for any critical mind to accept . The argument for Gandhi stands is superior. No emotions please.
I am waiting for any action of Gandhi after 1936 which makes him a racist.
Koame Armachie. Is your argument that we have evidence Gandhi was racist until 1936 but that he wasn’t after 1936, so he must be a great man? If I misunderstood you, remake your case.
Or, if I understood you, since you’ve made up your arbitrary threshold for when it’s actually “decent” for a person to be racist, why don’t you provide us why this “threshold” is scientific?
The general argument in Akosua M. Abeka article points to the racist remarks of Gandhi. Nowhere did he apologize, repent, recant any of it.
After 1936, while he was at in in India, he was a pusher of elite rights over Dalits and Sikhs. He was even sexually molesting his grandnieces in his old age. Gandhi was a pervert. That much we know after 1936.
But answer my question: What makes the threshold of 1936 vital in making the case for the statue to stay in Ghana?
Solo, as l wouldn’t show scientific methodology for 1936, isn’t it fair to judge me with my whole life? Shouldn’t l be taken seriously for action in my mature life than the immature? The greatest lesson from Gandhi comes in 1936 when he tells the world that there is nothing called Gandhism and that the conclusions he had formed may be changed because it is the truth he seeks. That he did not discover non-violence resistance. It has always been there.
Kwame amachi, I’m aware that you really believe in your “strong argent” as proponent of this absurd idea. There’s no way any effort to patronize me on your part will stick. And if that is not the case and you seriously mean this “no emotions please”, then there’s no need for us engage each other.
I’ll prefer to wait for the next post and take Tzwenboa on. Because I can be sure that even if he disagrees with me, he wouldn’t consider an idea of a collective African interest as an emotional plea.
I knew this argument would come up Armachie. Perhaps, I should have preempted this question in my write up. U queried e author on which of our ancestors merit honour as she didn’t make it clear. U proceeded to ask whether our ancestors who were active in slave trade deserve honour. You didn’t need to say it, your premises for your argument gave u away. For your argument to be valid, our ancestors must not be honoured since they themselves were e architects of the slave trade. Am only illuminating the flaws in your arguments.
Again, Armachie I Admire your personality and the passion with which u drive home your points. Sorry, am not a fan of your logic. That we should erase Gandhi pre-1936 n glorify post Ghandhi1936 reminds me of e popular “I can’t think madness phrase”. Granted that we, are even “thinking madness” who told u post- 1936 Gandhi was all sacrosanct. Indeed, post 1936 was the peak of Gandhi’s races era as he executed his cast system in a masterful piece, amidst his so-called non-violence campaign. Perhaps, u need to revisit your history books.
In a masterful piece? Then give us at least two lines of this piece you know of and help me and better still some reference for us to strengthen our stands for him to fall.
Please, Koame Armachie and Tweneboah Senzu, consult this book “Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity.” There is a chapter devoted to Gandhi while in India (1915-1948) as to what he told the Indians (and others) about his South African period (1893-1914). Notice that this account runs until 1948, not up to 1936, which is what Koame thinks marks Gandhi’s baptism. Come back and let me know if you feel the same way about Gandhi post 1936. Thanks!
Gandhi was clearly a believer in the stratification of humanity–caste,class and race. He was in fact the ultimate racist. No doubt. Removing the statue of an ultimate racist can be construed as a sort of decolonization. Sure. More it is a cleansing from gross immorality!
You’d have to remove every statue on the planet !They all have blemished pasts
His legacy is a philosophical one -graven images are relatively not that important
I think it was a gift of friendship between two nations
That is utter baloney-that line of argument. We all have faults? “They all have blemished pasts?” If you want to accept the statue of a racist to your bedroom, it’s your god-given right as a Ghanaian. Go ahead. Do not impose the statue of a racist on me however. UG is a public university. Thank you very much!
Ela Gandhi, his grand daughter, has long seen why Africans cant tolerate that. But many Africans still playing second fiddle, want to keep it like that; they want to remain in their intimidated stature, that’s fine with me. Ela said “We ask why should we be critical of others to establish our own stature. There can be no justification for that… If they do not want his statue, then by all means remove it”.
But what is sad is that we are not debating Indians.
I am sorry, I have utterly lost my patience! My goodness. While at it, why don’t we erect the statue of Queen Elizadeath on UG campus? Because, come to think of it, that Queen has contributed more to the Ghanaian identity than Gandhi ever could have. Right? While we are celebrating other racist heroes!
Now you see the move to privatize higher institutions of learning? Narmer Amenuti. This kind of cultural imperialism is going to get worse! Mark this on any wall.
Kari; if gift of two nations, I would have loved it somewhere else where the impact of the Indian society and community in Ghana is very relevant and not Legon campus… I personally have NOTHING against Gandhi in Ghana but the current location… I am an Indian TRAINED and with much love for what he has done for his people… Is there no landmark feature aside the FLAGSTAFF HO– USE where Indian impact is felt in Ghana and not Legon??? I want to be more real…
At least removing every statue on the planet will create meaningful jobs for the unemployed
This is not normal, at all! Normal is to say: “I dont agree with all the arguments of those who want it to go down, but its in the collective interest of Africa to let it go down… that is what the Indians do on this matter and all other matters. So do whites and all others.
It’s a gift from a friendly nation .Just relocate it
The whole idea of “Gandhi” is the fight against imposition of foreign rule and identity. He never used whiteman’s clothes and foreign name. He fought for the physical and mental liberation of his people with visual aids such as dressing and non-violent protest. So in the spirit of Gandhi, remove the statue from Legon. Did it have to take this for Ghanaians to realize the importance of visual aids such as statues in our mental liberation? Have we even started the mental liberation of the future generation? The attempt to use this protest as a fight against all Indians and their presence in Ghana is pathetic. The statue should go so should most of our textbooks and churches. If they still want it in Ghana, they should place it at grounds of the Indian High Commission. When we visit the embassy we will learn about Indians and their history.
O how I’d love to see statues of influencial Afrikan personalities like Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X etc in non Afrikan countries. Unfortunately this will never be because of who they are, their colour and the humanitarian facts and truths they stood for, although without a shred of a doubt, these great Afrikan men have in one way or the other, influenced the world. In all spheres of life, each one teaches one. Whether we know it, accept it or not, every nation on this planet has heard of these mentioned personalities, and their people and leaders have quietly learned from their influences and used them for the benefit of their nations. Yet none of these caucasian nations will openly acknowledge the influence of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, by raising their statues in gesture, however important these Afrikan personalities’ knowledge and positive actions have impacted on them. Sadly some of our reactions to Ghandi’s effigy is a classic demonstration of the mental subservience we’ve usually exhibited towards Caucasians. I am aware of Mahatma Ghandi and admire him for taking the stand he took.. but the stark truth is, he did it for himself and his kind of look- alike Indians. Because in this 21st century, his country stands to be one of the most discriminating and racist, especially with their caste system on this planet. For me, the caste system in India is a sad cultural affair and Ghandi was part of this stinking game. The devaluation and maltreatment of darker skinned Indians in their own country is despicable yet this has been accepted as part of their culture before, during and after Mahatma Ghandi. I know because I’ve stayed in India a few times and witnessed it. Some of us Ghanaians are unwisely protesting the present situation yet would not even acknowledge the selfless Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah who painstakingly laid down his life for our liberation and independence.. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP FROM YOUR SLUMBER, FOR GOONESS SAKE?!!
Kofi Mawuli Klu i promised to reply to this post because you have tagged me.
I have learn to appreciate all argument and it style of presentation. In mathematics the angle of elevation and depression are not the same, hence depending on one’s position, the likelihood of interpretation will be different from the other
The best i could do, as a learned fellow is to appreciate all opinions and argument contrarily to mine since we may not enter to agreement zone or attain into the bracket of consensus.
However during this exercise 3 questions came to mind. i asked myself critically the following
1. Who is responsible to make the final verdict on the statue demolition or preservation at the UG-campus
2. Who permitted the statue to be erected at the campus
3. Do the petitioners really think the statue will go down in their deeper most spirit.
With all the debate, we had with the petitioners nothing really proved, they had a purposive action but it was obvious they had an agenda that seem to have been back fired.
Infact throughout the debate exercise with the petitioners , I realised facebook folks debate was very rigourious and proved more of academic exercise than what the petitioners seek to project. Nothing shows the petitioners really believed that the statue will go down.
Because if they were expecting it to go down they have to remove NDC/ NPP out of power, if not the option will appear before Supreme Court which I knew, the petitioners will fail woeful in the court litigation because the mission character is more of political than academic exercise. Hence realised that this whole exercise was rather serving to promote Gandhi statue rather than defaming the statue.
When i saw the game theory, i just have to go back to bed and sleep. So I am in bed now relaxing.
————————————————
I want to extend the irony and sarcasm employed by the writer. Lol thank you
Nkrumah and Martin Luther King acknowledged Gandhis influence .It was a gift from a friendly nation India so don’t demolish it -it’s like a friend giving you a birthday present and then you throwing it in their face because you don’t like it
Re locate it and let’s get back to providing good healthcare for eg for all !
Demolishing it 1)will not demolish Gandhis philosophy of non violent protest
2)Nor his racist tendencies anyway :))
As for him being a catalyst for a caste system in India with a history centuries old I doubt it
This is a graven image an effigy
Kari do you think, they do not know by now, the fact you seek to outline….. Infact they know the hardcore fact, personally I have quoted onto my facebook page with peer review references but the fact is that they have chosen a stand hence no need to debate them but to either ignore or strengthen your stand through your conviction
Tweneboah my stand with all things African is that we try to build bridges .The boat we have to keep afloat is African Rennaisance
But you find often there are differing opinions on issues from which instead of each side ‘feeling ‘ the other side in that potential unity and compromise we become polarised .Each side can’t see the other side -accusations of ‘sell out ‘ ‘ colonial mentality ‘ and we march as African into our futures polarised !
We must keep the goal of African Rennaisance firmly in our sites and learn to compromise-divided we falln
Senior, are they not aware of the diplomatic relation? Did Johnson Tunu never raised such concern? It was debunked with a new statistics of economic data of India: did not know how it was carved to create an impression of a poor country like Indian to colonised Africa especially Ghana, now from history to political economy….. to macroeconomic analysis.
Sir we are done with this exercise. Both “petitions” are with the University council who erected the statue.
Whatever they will do is their own cup of tea, we just assisted them to maintain their public omnipotence and seek to correct the biased and fallacious argument raised by the petition through their selective historic methodology.
Anything beyond this, I am gone
It’s a matter of if the statue of Ghandi is appropriate where it is. For example, if a Ghandi foundation or the Indian government has created an endowment that will help fund scholarship in Legon or support the Balme library, then one can understand the statue there. Maybe such is so. The argument that Osagyefo has taken inspiration from him doesn’t wash. We take inspiration from many sources, our parents, siblings, friends, teachers, philosophers, artists etc., we don’t make statues to all of them. Unless, of course, it is the position that in Osagyefo’s case, the defining inspiration was from Ghandi? Two statues: in 1995, as part of a Religious Youth Service delegation, we paid a courtesy call on Saraswati Ghananand, at the Hindu Monastery of Africa and there, in surprising serenity of Kaneshie, Accra, was a statue of Ghandi. And it seemed to be in the right place. When Mandela unveiled his statue in London’s parliament square, I was privileged to be present. There, among other doyens of democracy: Lincoln, Churchill, Palmerston etc was also Jan Smuts. Mandela referenced Smuts’ statue by saying when he and Albert Luthuli were in that very square during the early days of the struggle, they wondered if one day, they too would have their statues there
Kari, correction. I did not mention Ghandi as being a catalyst for the caste system. If you read my contents carefully, I sighted a system that was before, during and after Ghandi. Meaning if he really and unhypocritically stood for human equality, he’d have done everything in his power to eradicate this dehumanising problem.
Difficult for one man to remove all major inequalities in society. Many now unfairly accuse Mandela similarly of inadequacies in his struggle.
We separate home based struggles with those induced with imperialist/mercantile ambitions. Yes we do have issues with Mandela but it will be inappropriate to put is here. simply because the latter figure one of our own, and I think its about time we dont have to point out that distinction to each other.
In the global village, struggles have far-reaching effects. The foreign Lenin and Castro have had profound effect on African developments than many black activists’! The Moslem question of peaceful coexistence, over which Gandhi was assassinated, has become even more acute and global. Let’s align with forces active everywhere for peace, cooperation and development!
All you just said is part of the problem. Its only black people that so open to the idea of “global bla bla” to the extent that it blinds them seeing where the lines of their collective interest with their own kind starts and stops!
Others are also aware all these global gimmicks but they clearly know that their loyalty lies with their kind. Why is this so difficult for us to grasp?
Audu Salisu’s idiots like Johnson Tunu actually transcend racial bounds. My type are to be found in all racial groups, who never want to see issues exclusively in nationalistic or racially narrow interests! We are glad to be such fools! The slavery abolitionists were such fools, too!
Lol, Johnson, you really believe what you just said? So a black person fights for his freedom from slavery and then they make movies showing a white dude as an abolitionist and you eat that up and even boast with it?
By the way, here is a reality check: I have lived in the alps of central Europe so u can be sure I know a thing or two about whites, right? THEY WILL NEVER GO TO THIS EXTENT OF FORFEITING COLLECTIVE INTEREST LIKE YOU AND SOME BLACKS DO. And please stop the sarcasm of calling yourself an idiot as my portrait of who you are, its too cheap!
So, there were only black abolitionists? And all African NGO’s risking their lives in Africa are manned only by blacks? Thanks!
You are amazing. You have yet again brought in another complex issue into the debate. But I can understand that for your mindset, those things are completely reconcilable.
To me, the NGO industrial complex is a tool of the propagation and promotion of the poverty porn, development porn or whatever they are called these days
Only I am amazing, your mindset is very normal and is incapable of amazing others! Only you express correct views!!! Thanks again for never sounding condescending!
I like how inspite of the many immoral acts perpetuated worldwide historically Tunu tries to keep universal truths in his focus
Whose “universal truths”? Please study the concept of PLURIVERSALITY! You may start with Professor Walter Mignolo!
That really there is only one human race ,for starters
The categories are tools for analysis ,but have been used maliciously for economic exploitation
There ARE universal Truths
We live on ONE Earth .You destroy the Ecology anywhere ,you destroy the whole
Kofi Mawuli !You cant ask whose ?They are Universal
You want to remove the term from linguistic use??
Stop being insular just because there is a battle for Africa’s Rennaisance!
I should put my music down and go and study some new idea of Universality Plural
Great idea .What for ?To engender more breaking down of whole entities for analysis ?
Abusing universal truths does not negate those truths! Thanks Kari Bannerman for your intellectual objectivity!
I hope another intellectual doesn’t build on Universality and imagine a concept called MultiUniversality and bamboozle poor Kofi with it
Genuine upholders of intellectual honesty check out developments in Knowledge before passing misjudgements like those Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah loved to hate: the forever Know-it-alls who cover their fear of learning new things with self-indulgence in Obscurantism!
Cheers! Johnson Tunu. With me you’ve made the 100% mark.
You’ve distinguished being ‘nationalistic’ from being ‘nationalist’. So also have you distinguished being ‘internationalistic’ from being ‘internationalist’.
These are all beautifully implied in your positions here. Excellent!
Those who do not make such distinctions have difficulties in understanding why Gandhi Must Stand!
They need to go to the FORECOURT of the Martin Luther King Jr. Centre in the USA to remove a similar statue of Gandhi from there before they attend to the one BEHIND the Balm Library of the University of Ghana in Ghana.
Inward-looking nationalistic activists may remain with their parochialism and leave the nationalist in pursuit of their internationalist duties to humanity.
Let the internationalistic also remain negligent of their nationalist duties to their nation, the African Nation.
May the nationalist, imbued with their internationalist duties, flourish across the world to the elevation of the spirit of co-operativeness for harmonization of relations among people of different colours living as one.
In that same spirit may the nationalistic and internationalistic dwindle in number across the continents for the eradication of the forces of separatism and narrow-mindedness to expedite the process of evolving a world of ‘Different Colours One People’.
Johnson Tunu, on this issue, I salute you! Yes, Sir!
The issues with black global eccentrics is that there is too much suffering on their doorstep, and its clearly burdening to their conscience.
But they always want to pretend they care about the differences and similarities between “listics” and “lists”.
This is an extreme form of procrastination and an internalized feeling of being intimidated by Europeans.-it is an awesome form of neocolonialism, a psychological condition that when caught up in, is difficult to let go.
As an Akan adage says: If the forest is just full of snails and tortoises, why will a hunter worry about having a bullet in his gun? All he will do is walk comfortably through the forest and pick as much as he wants.
Indeed Africa is such a forest, and all the Gandhis can come…
Some one said on this thread this morning that there is a certain mentality that since we have to live with, there is no way such a thing can be “reasonably” dealt with.
If we are not careful, the actions of the proponent of Let The Statue Fall become PR for this global eccentrics.
Kofi obscurantism is going a bit too far with me !I can only dip my feet into these waters and be as honest as I can .In fact I think Nkrumah used to bamboozle his ministers with his ‘Hegel this or that’
mish mashing his Marxism with African communalism,I think .I think sometimes we go to far ,keep splitting problems up ,conceptualising on and on .Its never ending ,electrons can be divided into multi parts on and on Multi Universes etc
At the end of the day Humans on this one planet must find ways to engender cooperation and co exist in peace
A friendly nation gives a gift find a way ,be forward looking and accept ,even if it’s not the Xmas present we desire -relocate don’t demolish like some feel
Kofi when you have time teach me ( in simple terms about PluralUniversality ?
Am serious
:)Sorry I wasn’t actually answering directly to your post !Youre not the only person who would have made a similar point .Just my personal opinion that this has been blown out of proportion,dividing /polarising the different voices for an African Rennaisance.We are not building BRIDGES
Its become a chance for Pan African intellectuals to challenge each other prove their credentials !and for names like ‘neo colonialists ‘ to be hurled back and forth ?
But if you see Gandhi at the time he was an emaciated man ,fasting for long periods with only goal in mind ‘Indian independence ‘
Enuff said -Paps giving you a call on a different matter
It is indeed baffling that Ghandi could not see from the get-go that non-violence is incompatible with the caste system or racism, for aren’t they in themselves violence against the person?
If an act of diplomacy is creating national discontent is it still to be considered diplomacy?
Koame Armachie why bordering to right script to an argument that will not be analyze based on logics but on the grounds of emotional twisted fact by some of the figures around. My brother Solomon Azumah-Gomez, where could I get the book, however let me know the writer, I will easily derive it biography to authenticate the publication. I promise Akosua to be responding soon, per the biographies used.
GENERAL OBSERVATION
Let me make certain correction clear in brief.
1. Akosua paper lack reference-evidence to the quote used. Some of the quote reverence lack credibility if triangulated to original source. Sorry can’t go through the whole manuscript to extract such to place them in parentheses and equate the error because I am not marking thesis here, as well as it will take my time.
2. She has submitted the biographies used, I promise to reply and state clearly both the major and minor errors from the used of the secondary data report for it argument.
Thank you.
Tweneboah Senzu. Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity Hardcover – April 1, 2004, by G. B. Singh (Author). Plus, are you saying that the Collected Works of Gandhi is NOT a primary source? What are your sources my dear Senzu because so far I hear crickets – I see none.
Please will refer and get back to you. Go through my text above critical , I think you are misinterpreting per your later conclusion of your current post Solomon Azumah-Gomez
Will revert to you soon. Thanks
My dear Senzu, some of us have never stepped into a University corridor, let alone a Phd viva. Please tow down on your “Phd borofosem”. For what is worth, the arguments advanced by Akosua, and, many of her advocates like myself, are way beyond the emotional threshold, we do not need mean values to validate our arguments. Of course, in academia, sweeping statements are abhorred especially where they lack authentic sources. In this same academia, and don’t get me wrong in even 3 to 5 star rated journals, anecdotal evidence (i.e., summary of website information) are referenced as permissible source. To make it sound like is a crime to provide only your standard of a reference which only, God, knows how to do is am afraid absurd, to say the least. As usual, bro, more vim for your presentation
” I considered myself a citizen of Natal, being intimately connected with it. So I wrote to the Governor, expressing my readiness, if necessary, to form an Indian Ambulance Corps. He replied immediately accepting the offer. I had not expected such prompt acceptance…. I went to Durban and appealed for men. A big contingent was not necessary. We were a party of twenty-four, of whom, besides me, four were Gujaratis. The rest were ex-indentured men from South India, excepting one who was a free Pagan. In order to give me a status and to facilitate work, as also in accordance with the existing convention, the Chief Medical Officer appointed me to the temporary rank of Sergeant Major and three men selected by me to the rank of sergeants and one to that of corporal….At any rate my heart was with the Zulus, and I was delighted, on reaching headquarters, to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus. The Medical Officer in charge welcomed us. He said the white people were not willing nurses for the wounded Zulus, that their wounds were festering, and that he was at his word’s end. ” – (The Story of My Experiment with Truth, An Autobiography of Mahatma K. Ghandi, 1957, Beulahland Publications, page 313-314)
Tell me Gandhi didn’t change from his early opinions? How many people admit changing opinion?
Koame Armachie: “At any rate my heart was with the Zulus, and I was delighted, on reaching headquarters, to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus.” This is what you need to be happy Gandhi loved Black people?
We have provided countless text to the effect that Gandhi was racist and that he attempted to clean up his mess, a portray a pious man to the world later in his life while still holding unto racist beliefs. But this is the recant of his “earlier” convictions? This is what you need to erect the statue of a man who just called you subhuman? He changed ha? Interesting. I will actually followup later. I am yawning.
Absolute! Audacious observation Solo! He was and saw it bad! So he cleaned up! Isn’t it worth emulating? Yet we are being what he moved away from and yet we are unable to see that mistake! Bravo! I argue no more. You have found what l sought to put across.
Koame Armachie, that is a patent lie! This shows how you do not grasp the history well. You read an autobiography as evidence of a man’s behavior? Really?
Let me put this straight. The truth goes more like this: Gandhi actually actively encouraged the British, for over a period of six months, to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Zulus. Gandhi eagerly pursued a chance for military service. His campaign began in late 1905, when he wrote “An Indian Volunteer Corps” for the Indian Opinion, saying, “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”
Gandhi expressed his frustration that the British had not yet raised an Indian regiment in his Mar. 17, 1906 “A Plea for Indian Volunteering.” He sounded almost desperate to participate in the war on Black South Africans when he wrote: “The Natal Native trouble is dragging on a slow existence…. There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war…. Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?”
You have no idea the about the historicity of those times. Spare us your sheer ignorance. Please.
Armachie, you didn’t pay attention to my counsel. Go and revisit your history books, and believe our Phd man should do same.
Let me leave Koame Armachie and co. with another invidious truth. In 1906 Gandhi actually wrote a propaganda for war on Blacks calling on Indians living in South Africa to enlist in the British Army and go and kill Kaffirs!
As a last touch before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published “Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?” on June 30, 1906, in the Indian Opinion. He passionately urged Indians to volunteer, saying: “There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.”
Again, if you don’t know the history, spare us your ignorance. Please!
I am still waiting on Tweneboah Senzu to provide his so-called evidence!
I was wondering when you might jump in. I was tired!
I have been watching and reading, waiting for their evidence. But now I realize they have nothing. My goodness, all this time wasted.
Although years later Gandhi claimed in his autobiography, which is claimed to have been written in the 1920s, his military work consisted “only” of nursing wounded blacks, his earlier writings tell a completely different story. His main work was caring for British troops wounded during the war against Blacks.
People need to start reading widely and wildly and stop allowing others to tell them to go read this or that. My goodness. I am real peeved. How can facts dodge people this good?
How can facts dodge people this good?, love this expression Amenuti.
So it’s still in the 1900s actions which can be used not 1930s and above! Even that, the autobiography tries to tidy up. Good. A man who saw his mistakes moved from them and being pinned to it because he did that.
Can I plead for no more comments on Armachie’s post. It may appear highly unfair, but, until he research for himself he can can back and engage in a real intellectual discourse. Am sorry, Armachie but this has to be done.
You are not reading Koame Armachie! You cannot unwrite or rewrite what you wrote! Gandhi tried to rewrite his South African history in his 1920s autobiography. He lied! I have given you the facts and where to find them.
To fight for the British as a Sgt. Major and kill Blacks and attend to injured whites in the war against Zulus and then later turn around in your life to write that: “I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the ‘rebellion’ itself.” And also claim that “My heart was with the Zulus,” is a lie! Big fat lie! This is different from saying that he was sorry for the war. No he didn’t do that. He said, he actually helped the Zulus not fight them. A big fat lie!
Please, if you are not in the business for evidence. I have no business with you. You can read and change or you can read and remain impervious to common sense.
Narmer Amenuti i am least to be quick in my response to argument that perceived to be a banter but do not per exuberant mistake your style of historic interpretation as supreme and a fact ok. Look at your style of referencing even at this page…. what did you quote from “Indian Opinion” hmmmm i told you…..you people are here for opinion business that is ok….go on with it. But do not mark/assess my post here with simplistic grammar a quote from Prof. Akosua Perbi. Let me also help you with some of your ignorance
1. The subject you are dealing with, is some one autobiography which has been scrutinized over years and set-up bodies to authenticate published materials of the figure in context. Such body is WMCB to oversee and analysed the credibility of a paper about the auto-biography of the figure in context. So do not go about extracting open on-line papers for deduction.
Just as every research paper published go through peer review process before published for credibility which Narmer you know about this process very well. So quoting from sources has to be guided by some frameworks of authenticity of the material source. Hence why behave in the manner you are going about it.
Oh Boy!
Oh Boy! again!, n again. We are in for a real treat today. Ain’t we?..
I tell ya! The fact that my own brother from another mother is rising to defend that son of b… liar, racist, sexist, rapist Gandhi and we have to fight over that old lanky statue is what pains me the most. But well, brothers must broil some times. Right?
Sanzu, I have reviewed scholarly works for professors and accepted in reputable journals before. Not once, twice but multiple times. Don’t scare us with your reference ideology. Tell us, the style you want and maybe my sister can “sought u out”.
Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma (former Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa) exquisitely states these during a Round Table Discussion on the First International Day of Non-Violence on 2nd October, 2007 in New York. She states that “we are proud to claim Mahatma Gandhi as our own because it is in our country where he developed and fashioned Satyagraha (Truth Force) as a tool of liberation.
A cruel and despicable act of racism in 1893 – in which a young barrister was thrown off a train from Pietermaritzburg, simply because of the colour of his skin, produced the Mahatma Gandhi that the entire world today claim as theirs. Indeed as history teaches us, heroes are not born but are products of their own conditions.
His philosophy on non-violence characterised many of the struggles waged by our people against the system of apartheid. Consequently, for many years our people resorted to the non-violent forms as opposition to apartheid as weapon of struggle.
As late Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC noted, “The story of this dignified, disciplined and peaceful campaign of Satyagraha is well known. It won many friends for the African cause in South Africa and abroad and served to focus the attention of influential sectors of world opinion on the South Africa political scene”.
Returning to the country of his birthplace, India, Gandhi continued to use the philosophy of non-violence. As he himself noted, “I wanted to acquaint India with the method I tried in South Africa and I desired to test in India to the extent to which its application might be possible”.
He continued to be an inspiration among the people of our country long after his departure. He was aptly described by Nelson Mandela as a “sacred warrior whose philosophy contributed in no small measure to bringing about the peaceful transformation in South Africa and healing the destructive human divisions that has been spawned by the abhorrent practice of apartheid.
Facing with current global challenges, we must necessarily pause and ask the question, ‘What is the relevance of Gandhi’s philosophy in addressing current challenges facing humanity today?’ We want to assert that Gandhi’s philosophy is as relevant today in addressing current challenges facing humanity today including poverty and under-development, as it was yesterday. We therefore agree with Louis Skweyiya ,a SA Constitutional Court Judge, that Gandhi is a “universal man, timeless in impact, as relevant today, as he was yesterday, as he will be tomorrow”.
Accordingly, Mahatma Gandhi, would have encouraged all of us to resolve all conflicts through peaceful and non-violent means as has been proven that violence simply leads to counter violence. Gandhi to whom we owe our presence today, would have warned against the resort to attacks on unarmed and defenceless civilian populations including women and children to advance whatever political objectives”. (Discussing the Mahatma, Round Table Discussion on 1st International Day of Non-Violence, October 2007, pg 48 -50) #GandhiMustStand Sign this counter-petition.
Sanzu, I have reviewed scholarly works for professors that have been accepted in reputable journals before. Not once, twice but multiple times. Don’t scare us with your reference ideology. Tell us, the style you want and maybe my sister can “sought u out”.
Is it the page no’s, APA, AGLC, AMA, AMJ, u name it. Which one do u prefer?
Kwame Owusu-ansah I have given you that respect of not taking this kind of behaviour and style of argument to the next level. I remember, I ask you debate straight forward without tagging me. I have people I relate in arguments with based on my own reasons. Let leave this here do not prolong this steps any more further, I am not interested.
Thanks have a good day and continue your peer review.
I would respect your wish. I would also appreciate that you don’t scare people any longer with your over-flooded reference critique. At, least, if you expect someone to reference in certain way, the least, you could do is to lay some parameters or signpost them on the best practice. None of your post appear to do that. I see u do is t take a swipe at peoples material sources, without thinking for a minute as to whether what they appear to project offer some merit. I would try and desist from tagging you in my conversation.Once again, all the best in you presentation.
I have read a few of the above comments. Here is my reply:
1. Regarding Gandhi’s alleged racial incidents of 1893, it never actually took place. Please read my book: Gandhi Under Criss-examination (2009).
2. One person kept referring to 1936 as if Gandhi was reborn. Go back to my first book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004) and you will see that Gandhi turned more deadly after 1936.
3. With respect to Gandhi’s Autobiography, please recognize this piece as Unhistorical. In his preface (or introduction) to the book, Gandhi told us that this is not his real autobiography or words to that effect. In other words he lied and still called it Autobiography!
BSERVATION
—————————-
Who is Singh G. B. : He is a Punjab mostly located at Northern Indian, my statement in brief, it has one of it boundary with Pakistan. A famous painter. (Ed. 2016) Wikipedia foundation
Who is M. K. Gandhi he is a Gujarati in brief located at West Indian…through history Gujaratis have earned a reputation as being Indian’s greatest merchants, industrialists and Entrepreneurs and noted for decisive victory of the 1947 Indian Independence. (Gujarati – J. K Mohanlal(ed.)2003 History and Culture: Cosmo publication.
Who killed Gandhi, what tribe of Indian did the assassin comes from and why?
This is to give a conceptual framework to guide deduction from further studies and below listed thematics
Home work
……………………
2. Analysed historic relationship between this two bloc to define your logic conclusions.
3. Define the speciality of the expert in context to analysed the credibility of work place out there. I do even sometime restrain myself on some level of historic debate or exercise extra caution to the extent of the debate to some limits because I hold no authority in history faculty therefore regularly has to cross-check figures.
4. His works are not certified by WMCB why? it lack scientific authentication. Because the certify body has a criteria to authenticate works of scholars. And if he is around as old as he is, I will challenge him with only 5 questions that addresses the pre-gathering of study material, content and post analysis of his work
5. From Amazon check, i wonder why such a famous man has his book of this nature not patronised by many. So sad, statistics from Amazon indicate not even 2.
6. Every quote I have made on my wall and article published, comes from renowned Professors with authority in history and certified by WMCB as well as Oxford University academic board.
However I blame non of you because we are all not historians to appreciate what goes into the credibility of their work. We are only seeking to wear their lens to analyse the situation.
For now I will reserve my decision as well as you reserve your own and let Grandmother bring a new subject. Because with this subject, our disagreement will never come to agreement.
Thanks to you all
Dear Tweneboah Senzu,
I invite you to take one step further, at least. Invite any historian of your liking who can defend Gandhi on this forum.
Trust me I have gone through all this many years ago while researching Gandhi. I met historians, authors, and a number of family members of Gandhi. Not one withstood the evidence against Gandhi.
All the best to you.
Dear Narmer: Earlier you wrote this comment:
“Gandhi was clearly a believer in the stratification of humanity–caste,class and race. He was in fact the ultimate racist. No doubt. Removing the statue of an ultimate racist can be construed as a sort of decolonization. Sure. More it is a cleansing from gross immorality!”
You captured Gandhi’s true essence: ‘ULTIMATE RACIST.” I salute you.
I salute you too for all your work on Gandhi. We’ll not be discussing this issue with this depth without much of your candid and objective research. Thanks M. Singh!
Is this thread over ? I seem 2 years late.
I would say directionally it is correct but calling Gandhi just a racist is really being way too polite. He is an imperial stooge and Empire loyalist, and this difference is crucial and then leads to a whole series of other shocking things that neither this article nor GB Singh’s interesting (and many correct points) 1-15 have listed. GB Singh’s point 2 is totally wrong, and requires a long explanation of both Hindu and “Right”. Gandhi has been criticised by Hindus right from the beginning and even before his return to India in 1915, by innumerable people including native legends such as Aurobindo, Tilak. Also the amount of negative critical analysis on Gandhi is abundant in India and it is the so called “left” (a false description mostly) comprising the dynasty party Congress (Nehru and his descendants who have last name Gandhi all the way to today) + the Communists and their Marxist Historians + the empire loyalist westernized journalists (who are sometimes referred to as Hindu liberals, but they are Hindu in name and appearance only) who perpetuate this narrative. The ones who are most Hindu and tend to (but not all) vote for the current ruling party (BJP) are heavily critical of Gandhi, Nehru and his descendant “Gandhi” dynasty that rules the Congress. It is that the BJP so far does not address the specific Gandhi issue for political reasons and focuses instead of the Nehru and family.
So yes, do take down that statue of that “non-violent” imperial war recruiter Gandhi. And have some empathy for us in India. We have to live with main roads in cities, statues, stadiums, airports being named after this gang.
I will elaborate more once i read all the comments here as I have only read this article & Narmer’s article.
You are missing the Theological and Historical basis for the anti-black and anti-African bias of the Hindoo. Gandhi is just 1 man.
Hindoos and Indians, by extension , are anti-black anti-african, by genetic, ideological and theological design.
The Southern Indians – also called Sudroids,are offspringed from the Negroids of Africa..Indian History records that several Abyssinian sunni slaves,from Nigeria and Ethiopia,came to India as slaves and then became soldiers,and thereafter became kings who ruled over Bengal,The Deccan and Central India for centuries.dindooohindoo
The Indians are ashamed about this – when they see Africans in their nation – as this part of their history is not taught,in any Indian History – Educational Book !
Abyssinian Muslim slave kings also trained “so called gurerilla fighters”, who later became kings – like Shivaji.This is also a fact that Hindoos refuse to acknowledge -as it shames them.
Hindoos state that Rama of Ramayana was a fair skinned blue eyed god.In reality,as per the Ramayana, Rama was a black skinned man (as stated below) whose wife ran off and was in love with another african,who was the king of Lanka – called Ravana.
Book II : Ayodhya Kanda – Book Of Ayodhya
Chapter[Sarga] 2
तेषामायाचितं देव त्वत्प्रसादा त्समृद्ध्यताम् |
राममिन्दीवरश्यामं सर्वशत्रुनिबर्हणम् || २-२-५३
पश्यामो यौवराज्यस्थं तव राजोत्तमाऽअत्मजम् |
“Oh best of kings, Dasaratha ! We shall see Rama adorned with princely kingdom. Your son Rama has the complexion of a black lotus flower and annihilates all his enemies. Let the wish of the people be fulfilled by your grace.
Rama’s wife spent 12 years with Ravana – and produced 2 kids – Luv and Kush.The Kushites of Africa claim lineage from Kush (Ravana was a Black man and Kush was Black)
This is a source of acute discomfort to the Hindoos !
The fair skinned Indians are the offspring of the Scythians, Sakas, Greeks,Mongols,Mughals,Persians etc who pillaged Indian women, and some stayed back in Hindoosthan and settled with Hindoos,and their own breed.So they are,at best. a mongrel race.
These fair skinned people wrote the Rig Veda and other vedas, wherein “hate of the black skin” and their “extermination is rationalised,justified,eulogised and celebrated”.Black skinned inhabitants of India in the era of the Rig Veda were called “Dasyus”.
The Theological Proof
Black Colour
“He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows.The mighty thunderer with his “fair-complexioned friends” won the land, the sunlight, and the waters.” (Rig Veda I:100:18.Rg.V.III.34.9)
The ancient singer praises the god who “destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour.”
Indra is praised for “killing thousands” of the “abject tribes of Dasas”, with his arrow and taking great vengeance,with “murdering weapons.” (Rig Veda IV:28:3-4)
The sacrificer poured out thanks to his god for “scattering the slave bands of black descent”, and for stamping out ” the vile Dasyan colour.” (Rg.V. II.20.7, II.12.4 ] Rg.V.I.130.8)
As per the Rig Veda, the Dasyus are “fit to be killed” anytime and any where. Sample the Rigveda , as under :
1.8.65 Mantra 65 – Indra (Author: Pragatha Kanva)
Indra, both worlds complained to thee when uttering thy fearful roar, What time thou “smotest Dasyus dead”.
1.8.87 Mantra 87 – Indra (Authors: Krsna Angiras, Dyumnika Vasistha, Priyamedha Angiras)
For thou art he, O Indra, wiio stormeth all castles of the foe,”Slayer of Dasyus”, man’s Supporter, Lord of Heaven.
1.8.66 Mantra 66 – Indra (Author: Kali Pragatha)
The Vrtra-slayer smote them all as “spokes are hammered” into naves:The Dasyu-killer waxed in might
1.5.29 Mantra 29 – Agni (Author: Gauriviti Saktya)
Thou slewest “noseless Dasyus”, with thy weapon, and in their home hostile speakers.