怎样评价甘地？
甘地的主要遗产就是非暴力不合作。
非暴力不合作，是一种非常合乎统治阶级胃口的东西。英国人当年就是一手严厉镇压印度的武力革命派，一手扶持甘地的非暴力派。统治阶级宣扬甘地，是因为非暴力不合作非常容易镇压。如果单独出现，对付起来就很简单。如果此时有暴力抵抗运动，则可以打一派拉一派，缓和矛盾，加强统治。如果当时印度没有武装革命派，那么甘地的运动恐怕早就被镇压殆尽了。
除此之外，甘地的思想还符合中产阶级的胃口，因为社会动荡对中产阶级影响最大（有钱人可以往外跑，没钱人反正也没什么可失去的）。因此甘地的思想不断受到推崇，这和我国某流亡宗教人士的思想在西方备受推崇是一个道理。
看清楚推崇这种思想的阶层的利益取向，也就明白了这种思想有多大价值。有一些社会矛盾，没有暴力是难以解决的。这并不是说，这些矛盾的解决必须依赖暴力。而是说，暴力可以作为博弈的最终手段。自行放弃暴力，其实就是主动放弃博弈的一个重要工具，最终只能导致博弈的对手占尽便宜。如果是底层对抗统治阶层，或者是被侵略者对抗侵略者，那么，这种做法差不多就是自己把脖子伸到屠刀下面、自己先自认一个奴隶地位，然后期盼主子能开恩赏口饭吃。
甘地在二战时主张犹太人集体自杀，来唤起德国人和世界其他地方的人对于纳粹暴行的反感。他还建议中国人不要抵抗，让日本人随便杀，杀了两亿还有两亿，日本最后杀的手软了，自然就会“成为中国人的奴隶”。听着这个调调，你就知道谁会喜欢这种思路了。然后看看如今世界上谁在宣扬甘地的思想。
说白了，这思想就和中国古代君君臣臣父父子子的传统观念一样。听上去很漂亮，其实却被强势的一方当作统治工具来利用。所以，不管甘地本人内心有多高尚，他的整个遗产实质上都是在帮助统治阶层。
有人问“如果当年中国出了个甘地，而不是毛泽东，现在会是怎样”。其实看看印度不就明白了么？下层缺乏反抗精神，于是就一直受压迫，形成强大的阶层划分，造成极度低下的阶级流动性。下层不反抗，自然也就没有多少人关心他们的利益。于是底层的科教文卫都差的要命。连合格的产业工人都培养不出来，于是就是制造业发展不起来。所以，如果当年中国出的是甘地而不是毛泽东，那么今天中国恐怕还不如印度——好歹印度当年还有英国留下来的基础设施，中国这方面差得多。当然，一个人的存在与否是不可能把历史改变这么多的，这里只是顺着那个问题说一说。甘地是一个真正能把非暴力当作生活理念来过的人，让诺贝尔“非暴力”奖成为笑话。
无力评价，只能分享一些让我感动的轶事。（还有一些相关故事，在这里：印度被殖民期间，普通印度人过的如何？如果被剥削严重的话，为什么凭英国的兵力可以殖民 300 年？）
----
大约是有个英国人吧，在一次集会上，听了甘地的演讲，一口气讲了两三个小时，荡气回肠。
此人听得相当佩服，去问甘地的秘书，说这演讲是怎么准备的，为什么能如此动人。秘书回答说，因为他真的相信自己所说的。他只是把自己心里想的说出来了。
作为非暴力的生活理念中，人是世界的过客，也要行客人之礼，不能反客为主。都是客人，就是对手，也要尊重，永远给对方成为朋友的机会。
甘地的伟大，在于他把非暴力变成了一种实实在在的政治力量。
----
小时候的甘地，是个胆小的孩子。
他妈妈带他读经，天天读，读到有一天，可以坦然的面对死亡。
----
（这个很可能是编的，但很有他的神韵）
Gandhi 在南非入狱，殖民地首脑 Jan Smuts 去跟他谈判。
两人谈完了，Gandhi 说：你知道，我们是要推翻你们对我们的压迫的。
Smuts：你还有什么要说的。
Gandhi：我们一定会胜利的。
Smuts：靠什么？
Gandhi：靠你的帮助。
要说 Jan Smuts 在当时的哲学界，也是响当当的一人物。被这故事说得如此不堪，也是因为后来甘地果真赢了。
----
甘地在南非一次活动中被捕，进了局子后，警察忘了为什么理由把他抓进来的了，于是要把他放走。
甘地于是告诉了这位警察，自己被抓的理由。
对方诧异之余，甘地又告诉他，告诉你，是为了让你记住，自己都干了啥。
----
甘地从南非得胜回印度，印度殖民地总督发来贺电，感谢他为大英帝国的和平作出的贡献。
第二年两人就要对着干了。
----
有一次甘地开会，殖民地政府照例派了人来守望打探。
甘地停下来，请这些人到前排就座。
他跟大家说，这些人坐近了，才能听清楚我们讲得是什么，才能回去好好汇报，帮助殖民地政府理解我们的诉求。
----
二战时，Gandhi 给 Hitler 写了两封信，都是这样开头：Dear friend
在第二封信里，他上来解释了一下：
That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no
foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the
friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind,
irrespective of race, colour or creed.
这也是非暴力哲学的一个思想：要想和人谈判，先要把对方当成一个人来对待，给对方以基本的尊重。
说起来，两人有的，是共同的敌人。Hitler 在 Mein Kampf 里，曾提到 Gandhi，以此作为证据，说明和英国人没法讲理，只能用武力解决。三十年代，就有印度人专门去德国，支持 Hitler。
不出所料，这信被皇家邮政截杀了。
----
大事小节分得极清。
几次史诗级的绝食，都可以载入史册，大书特书。
看上去，绝食是一种相当冲动，极其冒险独注一掷的行为，但其实都在计算之中。
甘地总结过，绝食作为政治谈判手段，要想成功，有几个必要条件。
一条是，只能向爱你的人施用此招，才能产生撕心裂肺的效果。
恨你的人，巴不得你饿死呢。
甘地自己的绝食，从来没有用来威胁殖民地政府，所以才能屡试不爽。
当年听到这里，只感慨一句，图样图森破，当年的政府一定是这样想的。
以下引用来自几个月前在quora看到的，元问题是《最不为人知的事实 》 Best Kept Secrets: What is the best kept secret?
不翻译了，简言之，甘地的非暴力不合作运动并不是英国给予印度独立的原因，实际上印度能独立和非暴力合作一点关系都没有。
印度人被教育说他们是因为甘地而得到解放的。
实际上，英国人其实认为甘地的出现对他们来说是件好事，这避免了许多英国的伤亡，并延长了英国的统治。
英国之所以放弃印度最要原因是他们失去了对印陆海军的控制。
作者最后指出
If
anything, every single piece of historical fact shows that Gandhi and
his ideas destroyed the very core of India leading it to a path of
eventual mayhem not seen anywhere in the world except Nazi Germany.
历史表明甘地及其思想摧毁了印度的核心（传统，价值观等）并使之走向一条灾难性的道路。
追加：甘地祝福第一波针对巴基斯坦的攻击。他从家里走出给到来的3架印度军机予以祝福。所有的非暴力和其他理念都成了狗屁。
on the contrary, Gandhi himself blessed the first attack on
Pakistan. Three Indian Air Force planes came to receive his blessings
and he came out of his house and blessed the planes. All nonviolence and
all that bullshit talk that he was doing his whole life was forgotten.Arman Suleimenov"s answer to History: What people in history are overrated?
Anonymous
The
best kept secret is most definitely the Indian non violent independence
movement. In fact honestly there is nothing even close to it. Because
it really is a secret of the highest order. What is the secret ? This is
based on partial access to some classified historical documents but I
do not officially claim to have seen anything.
The British
"gave" independence to India for absolutely no reasons connected with
the "non - violent" freedom movement. But 1.25 billion Indians have been
programmed to believe that they got freedom because they fought for it
in some magical peaceful manner. Gandhi has become one of the greatest
icons of modern history. But his efforts were in no way related to
India"s actual freedom. In fact the British found Gandhi the most
convenient man and that is why they kept him alive as long as possible.
Because they realized this was the best way to stretch their stay in
India in a very convenient non violent sort of way. Less than a hundred
targeted killings of British officers and the British would have scooted
within a year. The British knew this a few decades before India"s
actual independence. That is why it was they literally stage managed
Gandhi"s path to becoming the highly revered Mahatma.
Gandhi"s
theory of non violence was almost a God send for the British. When
sporadic violence erupted in British India, the British feared there
would be no way they could control such a large population if they
adopted violent means at the level of the citizen even to a very small
extent. Gandhi was an absolute Savior for the British. In fact with his
help the British got the Indian army to fight World War 2 for them.
What
is there in the historical documents which I officially claim to be
fiction is mainly discussions about the opportunity costs. The British
had access to a land three times the size of India - Australia where
even if they filled their entire population it would still be less. The
economics of Controlling India vs Trading with India purely on a
comparitive basis only marginally favored controlling India and taken
with the risk of possible violence and citizen protests it was simply
not worth it. The best solution for the British was to quit India in the
most non violent friendly fashion so that they could continue to trade
with India and then focus on their other assets like Australia which
were the real future.
In India there is a small section of people
who do understand this but generally it is not very convenient to speak
about this in public as the government would squash down any such
analysis in the public.
You tell me. Could there be a bigger secret in the world ?
PS:
I am updating this answer based on responses in the comments and
requests for evidence beyond secret classified documents. All data below
can be found through simple google searches but I will add relevant
links myself separately later.
UPDATE 1
1. First and
foremost it is important to understand and acknowledge that there is not
a single shred of evidence to prove any causality between the "Non
Violent" freedom movement which was at best sketchy and the actual
decision of the British to leave India. It is important to remember this
as the burden of evidence in history lies in those making the claim
that the non violent movement was a victory and the reason behind
India"s Freedom. I challenge anyone reading this and those in the
comments to provide conclusive evidence in this regard. Indians have
Gandhi and non violence for 10 years in their History school syllabus.
But not a single shred of causal evidence to prove this.
2. The
only part of India"s "movement" which was Non violent was the part faced
by the British. If you look at it from the Indian perspective, they
faced all kinds of violence. Innumerable shootings of Indians are
forgotten and only - "The Jalianwala Massacre" remains in their
conscience. But people were being killed in India for all kinds of
reasons from Hindu-Muslim riots, to British shootings et al. Over 200
people were shot in one such shooting in Calcutta. There is no record of
Gandhi"s statement "Hindus are cowards, Muslims are bullies" in any
history textbook in India though it is proven beyond doubt that he said
it.
3. Continuing separately from the above, anyone who argues
that India was not ready for freedom a few decades ago etc are basically
fooling themselves to keep their dreamy illusion about the human
condition from being exposed by the truth. Over 3 million + people died
of HUNGER because the British stole the food stock in Bengal in the
1940s. Over 1 million died in a hastily organized partition by the
British because it was the most convenient timing suited to THEM not
Indians. There is nothing on Earth that was worse than this eventuality.
In all ways fighting for freedom and getting it on your own terms with a
united Hindu-Muslim India would have been a much better endgame for
India than what actually happened to them. Masturbating on the stupid
ideas of Gandhi cost India their entire country with the first real
division of Hindus and Muslims into two different countries. Again
giving the British time helped them in the game to play the Muslims
against the Hindus. Thousands if not 100s of thousand people died in
simply the Hindu-Muslim riots over many decades culminating in the
partition.
3. The then PM of Britain Aitlee is on record saying
that the main reason for them to grant India freedom other than the
devastation of the Word War was the losing of control on the Indian Army
and Navy. Thanks to the seeds sowed by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and
the frustration of returning soldiers it was completely impossible for
the British to control the Indian Army. This is also the PRIMARY reason
for them to grant freedom to ALL their colonies even those that hardly
had a freedom movement to boot. * Adding this as per the suggestion
of Shailendra Sason - To get a flavor of what exactly was going on to
undermine the actual power of the British in India, Check out the
following wikipedia entry on the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny. The important
thing to emphasize is that this entire revolt of the Indian Navy was
NOT supported by Gandhi or the Indian National Congress.- Royal Indian Navy mutiny *
4.
When asked the importance of Gandhi"s non violent movement had anything
to do with the decision, He is again on record saying "MINIMAL". There
are also other important British officers who have said the same thing.
Again this may not be a sufficient condition but makes it that much
harder to prove the case that the non violent movement had ANY causality
with India being granted freedom.
5. Looked at from an economics
perspective it must be remembered lot of interesting theories of
Economics were being built and international trade becoming more open
was something which was catching on in those times. This was also
another reason the economics of the time showed the cost of controlling
India was not worth the marginal gains over purely trading with India.
6.
All said, I am not implying the fact that Indians wanted freedom did
not matter at all. My thesis is that the "non violent" part was not only
irrelevant but actually extremely harmful to them as the historical
records show. To those who try to say that then the main contribution of
Gandhi was uniting India it is important to remember the concept of
freedom or "Swaraj" was coined mainly by Lokmanya Tilak and mainly the
trio of Lal Bal Pal across the three big regions of India were the ones
who united Indian opinion on the demand of freedom. If anything Gandhi
had for the most amount of time the opinion that the British were needed
in India and India could not be managed by their own. Only later after
more efforts by Bose et al did he finally agree for full freedom.
anything, every single piece of historical fact shows that Gandhi and
his ideas destroyed the very core of India leading it to a path of
eventual mayhem not seen anywhere in the world except Nazi Germany. To
think that 1.25 billion people actually see this history as something to
be proud about is always and everywhere going to be one of the world"s
biggest frauds and hence the truth behind this non violent freedom
movement remains Earth"s greatest ever secrets.
以德报怨，可乎？以德报怨，何以报德？以直报怨，以德报德。
圣经版本好像是：eye for eye, teeth for teeth.
只有印度才能出这么神奇的人，还能被统治者称作圣雄。本来利益诉求截然对立的两派，强势一方大肆宣传某个弱势一方的特定行为，你觉得是脑子进水还是有阴谋？
我要是驯兽师，我也会大肆表扬会跳火圈而且绝不咬人的那只老虎。
我相信人性中的恶会发酵，会壮大，会传染，以德报怨，是以身饲恶，滋养恶，亦是作恶。
把希望放在对手身上，无异缘木求鱼。
自由和权利，从不是乞求来的。
以前的甘地是神，是精神领袖。
现在的甘地也是神，只不过是精神枷锁。
以目前印度的现状，底层都不能给上层社会压力，上层继续沉浸在最大民主国家的光环里不可自拔，印度教、甘地功不可没。就印度农村，要在中国，农民兄弟们早就王侯将相，宁有种乎了。
印度是南亚次大陆唯一的大国、印度洋的”霸主“（地理上）、世界第一人口大国、国际环境一级棒，曾经日不落帝国皇冠上的明珠。真心希望印度高举甘地的旗帜，一人一票、不经工业化，迈入现代化，为广大发展中国家树立榜样。真心希望广大东南亚国家学习下，别和中国争制造业了
甘地，曼德拉，戈尔巴乔夫。并称二十世纪三圣
个人对甘地不甚了解，看到上面的答案都旗帜鲜明地赞美或反对，冒昧地把答案综合一下。
甘地本身是一个伟人，他领导的非暴力不合作运动是一条与印度实际相结合的路线，符合印度底层民众屈服于种姓制度、没有强烈的反抗意识的特点，对印度的独立起到了一定的促进作用。有高尚的品行和慈悲的心灵，是一位悲天悯人的民族独立斗士，印度人民心目中的国父和精神导师。
但甘地获得的过高荣耀，是由于扶持这样一个温和的抗议者，对英国政府来说最为有利。毕竟，随着大英帝国军事实力的下降，印度的独立已成即定的事实，相比暴力反抗而言，非暴力不合作减少了流血事件的发生。
而印独立后对甘地的赞誉，一方面是印度人民对甘地在谋求民族独立中的贡献表示肯定，另一方面是由于上层统治阶级出于维护种性阶级的需要，通过对甘地的赞美给予非暴力行动以积极的反馈。
对历史人物还是应该公正看待，最好还要随意定性。人本来就复杂，世上的事本来就不是非黑即白的。
插句话：当我国某宗教领袖被外媒称为“甘地式的人物”后，甘地在我心中的形象就大打折扣了。同样大打折扣的还有诺贝尔奖、法国等……祖国的主权和领土完整是不容他人置喙的。
以上。
论来论去，有多少人真正理解甘地的思想，真正明白非暴力的立足点是什么？非暴力是一种唤醒方式。在甘地面前，统治阶级本身，并不是其反抗对象，他反抗的是人性的恶。你看到非暴力下被统治阶级的大批死亡，但是以更高的角度看，古今中外，暴力所带来的死亡更大。而且暴力只会生暴力，永远无止境。任何以暴力来换取的解放，在和平一段时间，又会再沦陷于暴力。中国以暴力来取得解放，就目前来看，是可喜的，但就整个生命的历程来看，恶性循环而已。我说的恶性，是邪恶的本性。人心不改，终无解放
人类有史以来最聪明的人，爱因斯坦对甘地评价：“后世的子孙也许很难相信，历史上竟走过这样一幅血肉之躯。”
你们说，甘地仅仅是被英国统治阶级所扶上来，不具攻击性的敌人。然而，看现今印度，种姓制度名亡实存，不只是上层阶级的不作为，甚至有被压迫阶级的配合以及遵守。社会混乱，也是咎由自取。
试想如今被压迫阶级再次发起“非暴力不合作运动”，必定会导致工厂停工。在国内外言论压力下，政府会至少改善这个阶级人民的地位以及权益。我是说，哪里有压迫，哪里边有反抗。虽然常吐槽欧洲人民动不动的罢工行为，但这也是一种为自己争取权益的“血性”。中国人虽然在历史上都有所谓“王侯将相，宁有种乎”的说法，但前几年也常被自己人说奴性未改，都因为是对血性的追求。而在印度，你何曾能在贫民窟听到关于“血性”，“奴性”的讨论？这种社会观念，甚至使人认为，这是印度民族中的劣根性，无法更改了。
然而，世界上没有东西如磐石无转移。印度人刻入骨髓的奴性，在和平时期大家得过且过，忍得一时是一时。既然无力反抗，便只好接受。“不在沉默中爆发，便是在沉默中灭亡”。但这爆发的契机，以我对印度国民神一样的容忍度来看，也只有战争中的革命，才能使他们站直身板。依我浅薄之见，要是当初印度在反抗英国统治时，付出大量血与肉的代价，使他们刻骨铭心，或许才能使这个民族本性更移。
不过，圣雄甘地教会了他们一种温柔却又坚韧的方法。当时，印度人虽然厌恶着英国人的殖民，但却不断地靠近英国，学习他们的礼仪以及文化。而从南非回来的甘地告诉印度人不依附英人，他们也能拥有自己的力量，他们也有自己的尊严。他说，当面对自己无法接受的事情，就不要参与。不同流合污，不助纣为虐，这一个观点，我认为是他最伟大的精神遗产之一。只是今天的底层印度人仍然沉溺于宗教中的种姓制度无法自拔，真是让人惋惜。
又说各种网络小说中，主角一旦受到委屈，被某人瞧不起。那某人通常会在主角直接或间接的举动下，跌入人生低谷。而甘地认为非暴力以及宽恕，才是强者（内心强大的人）的行为。这与各种文明中的“以牙还牙，以眼还眼”不同，有“以德报怨”的意思。“以牙还牙”此举其实是一种比较公平的做法；而“以德报怨”，却也只能是君子间的约定。我觉得二者并没有谁对谁错，应该视情况而为。于万千凡人如你我而言，一定是“以牙还牙”的支持者。但甘地主张“以眼还眼只会让世界瞎了眼”，他希望的理想世界是要一开始就没有需要去报仇的罪过。这是一个好主意，但以人类的原罪而言是无法实现的。
而一开始将甘地与政客隔绝的行为，便是他的以身作则以及政客的表里不一。当初甘地宣布抵制英货，支持自家纺织机产品的国货。他鼓励妇女织布，自己也终生参与织布动。他扬言此生以后不再穿西服，自己便从此土布裹身。甘地的人格魅力不止如此，他曾经搭乘南非火车的头等舱，然而当时头等舱只限白色人种搭乘。值班的检票员只好三请四请，希望甘地移步去三等舱，以免干扰顾客。甘地不为所动。乘务员只好将火车暂停，把甘地连同行李丢出火车去。这是任何一个印度人都不会做的事情，但是留学英国的印度人拥有高于印度人的思维，但却又不被欧洲社会对有色人种的歧视而影响。
至于甘地让犹太人自尽的说法，无可辩解。他认为犹太人的自尽会在世界引起震撼，从而逼迫德国人停止对犹太人的压迫。而且关于死亡的看法，他认为生由死而來。麦子為了萌芽，它的种子必須要死了才行。这是很印度教的看法。在本国，甘地虽然没有用自杀来唤醒印度人，不过他做的也没差很远了，那就是禁食的绝招。此招一出，四海争执皆息，足以见甘地强大的民众基础。他最后一次禁食好像已经七十九岁的高龄了，完全是用生命来逼迫印度教和伊斯兰教放下争执。所以甘地说让犹太人自杀时，颇有点以己度人的意思。不是每个人对生命都如他豁达。
甘地在南非进行不合作运动前，也只是一个门可罗雀的小律师，亦非神圣。在印度以外的国土上，不理解甘地也不用指摘。因为，甘地会在世界各地出现，却也只能在印度萌芽。甘地长期的笔友爱因斯坦又说：“我认为甘地的观点是我们这个时期所有政治家中最高明的。我们应该朝著他的精神方向努力：不是通过暴力达到我们的目的，而是不与你你认为邪恶的势力同流合污。”
Bapu Gandhi，一个精神强大的人，非神非魔。不需要抹黑，也不需要神化。在我这篇答案中一定有自己主观的想法，请看客们跳出我这个框架思考，你们会得到自己心中圣雄的真实评价。
谢谢阅读！请参奥威尔的散文，「甘地随想录」。
——惠——允——引——用——的——分——割——线——
（Reflections on Gandhi, 1st paragraph）
Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent,
but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the
same in all cases. In Gandhi"s case the questions on feels inclined to
ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity — by the
consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a
praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power — and to what
extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which
of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud? To give a
definite answer one would have to study Gandhi"s acts and writings in
immense detail, for his whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which
every act was significant. But this partial autobiography, which ends in
the nineteen-twenties, is strong evidence in his favor, all the more
because it covers what he would have called the unregenerate part of his
life and reminds one that inside the saint, or near-saint, there was a
very shrewd, able person who could, if he had chosen, have been a
brilliant success as a lawyer, an administrator or perhaps even a
businessman.
是：在多大程度上甘地是有虚荣心——由意识到自己是一个坐在祈祷用的席上以单纯的精神力量动摇帝国的谦卑、赤身的老人——所推动的，在多大程度上他参与了
政治而损害了自己的原则，因为政治的本质决定不能脱离胁迫和欺诈。要给一个明确的答案，你必须极其详细地研究一下甘地的行为和著作，因为他的全部生活都是
一种朝圣，其中每一行为都有意义。但是这部写到20年代为止的不完整的自传，却是对他有利的有力证据，尤其是因为它所涉及的是他可能会叫做放荡的生活方
面，而且使你想到，在这位圣人或者半圣人的内心深处是一个非常精明能干的人，如果他本人愿意的话很可能成为一个能获得杰出成就的律师、行政官员，也许甚至
企业家。
甘地的非暴力不合作运动在当时实际上是表达的一种精神诉求，是一种哲学思想。人类的历史无外乎暴力的循环、仇恨的繁衍，古今中外概莫能外；而甘地则企图唤醒人性的忍耐怜悯和友爱来打破这个循环。
后来我们的对甘地的理解都流于政治化，不过这也很正常，从不合作暴力运动后期发展和最终社会影响来看也确实是政治多点，但是我想说的是，如果我们将其还原成人性、精神命题来理解，一点也不可笑。
你的祖国正在被人侵略,你的亲友正在被人奴役,你的家园不复存在,你的文化被人嘲笑
你特么跟我讲非暴力不合作?
印度人真是个神奇的民族,甘地差不多是英国人的奴隶中最杰出的一位
西方奴隶主当然要宣扬甘地的思想和事迹，他们巴不得全世界不发达国家的人跪下来乞求他们，最好再让他们掌握生死大权,嗯,这样的世界就完美了
大家都记得活下来的甘地了，其实背后已经死了成千上万个类似甘地的无名者
当一个人为崇高理想抛头颅洒热血的时候，这个人是高尚的。当这个人要求一群人也这么干的时候，那离暴君不远了。甘地这么做，和达赖唯一的不同是，他是印度人。达赖也宣扬和平，追求本民族独立。
他们没有成为传统意义上的暴君，因为没有领导着一个中央集权的政府，可他们在精神上牢牢得控制着追求者们。孔子的理念很伟大，变成一种控制人民思想的时候，我们就不认为这种思想无可指责。
个人对真理的理解永远要留给自己，受众扩大到人民时，我们就得说，这是一种道德/精神独裁。怎么评价？毛泽东说过：蠢猪式的仁义道德，大概就是甘地这种人
很明智的人，能看清楚印度民族的软弱和无能，采用非暴力不合作这种窝囊但正确的斗争形式。最大限度的乞求到民族独立。
幸好我们的民族有血性，有能力，幸好当时有太祖，大将军和上百万久经战阵的血性军人。让所有人都明白对我们使用武力是不明智甚至不理智的行为，最后做到五大流氓的位置当之无愧。
有的人適合當導師，有的人適合當舵手，有的人適合當領袖，也有極個別人適合一把抓。
甘地是只當導師，不當舵手，更不當領袖的最高境界。
甘地晚年搞孙女还是外孙女的事怎么没人提了。不可否认，甘地是个英雄，但是没必要把他捧到无以复加的地步。
就和曼德拉一样，曼德拉一死，大家把他捧得和神一样，忘了他贪污加出轨的事了。
一个爱好核平的人。
推薦閱讀：