
Mahatma Gandhi is set to become the first non-white person on British currency - seesawtron
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8586361/Mahatma-Gandhi-set-non-white-person-British-currency.html
======
dragonsh
Gandhi is a first example of proving that non-violence is one of the most
effective tool for transformation as a society. He wanted equal treatment for
Indian people at par with any British citizen. But Britain wasn’t ready to
grant full dominion status, then series of incidents moved him to ask for full
freedom. In his early years in Africa when he was going through
transformation, there were some incidents which reflected some prejudice
against native Africans, but subsequently he became a changed man, his
greatness lies in constantly reinventing himself as he learns more about life.

Gandhi will be crying in his grave of what India has been turned into, in just
6 years. An intolerant, divided society with complete disdain for rule of law.
The concept of reason has gone away completely [1]. Hope the lessons of
COVID-19 can turn the tide, hopefully into a plural India which celebrates
unity in diversity and again put emphasis on reason, scientific thinking and
rule of law.

[1] [http://indiatogether.org/dichotomy-rule-of-law-op-
ed](http://indiatogether.org/dichotomy-rule-of-law-op-ed)

------
notahacker
Considering that his life's work was to ensure that his country _wasn 't_
British, Gandhi feels like a strange choice, much as he's an obvious choice of
face for the rupee and international accolades and someone that obviously did
significantly influence the course of British history. I'm not even sure
Gandhi would have _wanted_ to appear on British currency, at least not after
the early period in his life when he unsuccessfully tried to earn the respect
of the British by encouraging Indian Hindus to volunteer for British war
efforts.

~~~
pjc50
Yes, it's a very odd choice. The criterion that the person not be alive makes
it a little tricky, but previous research has some good candidates:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53547483](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53547483)

Noor Inayat Khan already has a George Cross for war heroism, making her a nice
conservative-friendly choice.

~~~
notahacker
Olaudah Equiano and Mary Seacole would be the classic nonwhite choices,
especially considering we've had William Wilberforce and Florence Nightingale
on banknotes for related achievements. I guess having Gandhi cancels out his
longstanding critic Churchill...

------
fnord123
> the first non-white person on British currency

Saint George featured on coins previously. He was from what is now modern day
Eastern Turkey which I think people who care about white/non-white might
consider non-white (I really don't know).

~~~
rgblambda
Saint George was a Greek. Whether the Greeks are to be considered "white"
depends on whatever your definition of white is I suppose.

------
randomly123
Democracy in India is a rare jewel in a large swathe of non-democratic states
in Asia and around the world. That it exists at all, as a democracy, is due to
the immense efforts of the British, The Indian National Congress, Mahatma
Gandhi and his peers, Nehru and his peers. Indian citizens should be grateful
to all of the above groups of people who have given them democracy as it is
today. Without them, it would not come to pass.

~~~
arrayjumper
> That it exists at all, as a democracy, is due to the immense efforts of the
> British....Indian citizens should be grateful to all of the above groups of
> people who have given them democracy as it is today

What? Are you serious with this line of thought that Indians should be
grateful to the British for democracy? I'd like to quote Shashi Tharoor's
arguments here from an Oxford Union debate [0] -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
odux
I hear this argument a lot from Indians, that Gandhi was loyal to the British
and he helped install a pro British government. I don't know what the proposed
better alternative is. The British was ruling the country for the better part
of 4 centuries by then, and changing it to something else would take years of
effort. Combine this with different princely states not wanting to be part of
independent India, the economic realities, and the looming threat from China -
you have a recipe for a failed state. I would have preferred India not
colonized at all, but there was no better alternative than this for India to
become independent from the British.

Armed uprisings were few and far in-between in India. Subash Chandra Bose was
the only one that came any close to having a successful army but even if he
was more successful than he really was, it wouldn't last long with him
aligning with the Axis in WW2.

> Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Except the British
> never saw it this way. One can argue that if Britain identified all colonial
> citizens as their own, the Gandhian movement in India would not have gained
> a lot of traction at all. One of their first demands was equal treatment.

~~~
naruvimama
India is uniquely placed in the world in that it is a civilisational state.
It's culture & religion is evolved over many thousand of years, many systems
have been fine tuned.

Even in Europe or China, Christianity & Buddhism which has had the single most
important influence in these regions were imported.

Even today India runs two parallel systems - the govt & its bureaucracy
inherited from the British and the traditional systems.

Nothing could be worse than try to adapt a bureaucracy, police or military
which was previously meant to suppress the very people who it intends to serve
today.

The apathy and aloofness of the police or bureaucrats can be explained by
this. Granted that it was a smoother transfer of power, and we are starting to
see a great pace of reform, small govt and less of the congress.

~~~
sifar
>> we are starting to see a great pace of reform, small govt and less of the
congress.

I think you are mistaken there. Different people, same set of policies,
ostensibly marketed as reform for the people.

------
notoriousjpg
Gandhi has some interesting history/opinions about black people. It's an
interesting read if you have time.

~~~
genghizkhan
One of the great things about Gandhi was that he evolved as a person as he
aged. He worked in South Africa as a young(er) man, his views on Black people
changed as he grew older.

Regardless, Gandhi's writings about Black people have been taken out of
context in many places, and it would be a good idea to read entire
letters/articles written by him before jumping to conclusions.

------
gremlinsinc
Gandhi's cool, but I'd have picked Freddie Mercury.

~~~
person_of_color
He was an anglophile to the point of Stockholm Syndrome.

~~~
encom
Well, good! That's the kind of person you'd want on your currency. Why pick
someone who hates their country?

------
tasogare
This is very odd for a country to celebrate in this way a foreigner that lead
a revolution which concluded in huge territorial loss.

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
Gandhi was a British citizen, with a law degree from Oxford IIRC.

~~~
blaser-waffle
A law degree does not mean you can't lead rebellions, and being a British
citizen doesn't excuse starting the Quit India movement.

The face on the currency should be someone who contributed something
meaningful to the national consciousness. Gandhi was an impressive figure but
his main contribution to the British Empire was helping break it apart. If
that's what the UK thinks is worth celebrating these days -- their own decline
-- then I look forward to the inevitable Theresa May / BoJo Pound note.

------
osrec
I am Indian living in England, and I'm not sure how I feel about this. In some
ways, yes, Gandhi is to be to revered, however in others, he should perhaps be
reviled.

For example, he would share his bed with naked nubile girls to "test" his
celibacy. Not just girls, but his own grandnieces. Am I the only one that
finds that extremely unsettling?

Makes me wonder if he was in fact the great man he is made out to be. Perhaps
the political magnetism he possessed meant that politicians absolved him of
all his sins, attributing them to mere eccentricities, in order to take
advantage of his popularity.

~~~
dragonsh
It will be nice If you read bit more and learn, instead of many myths floating
around especially from the camp of right wing Hindu nationalist, who killed
him and running a sustained campaign to malign his image to boost themselves.

~~~
yostrovs
But it is true. As were his racist views. And many other unsavory facts that
are better not explained to an audience looking for demigods. How about you
read about those?

[https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/richard-
grenier/...](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/richard-grenier/the-
gandhi-nobody-knows/)

~~~
dragonsh
Not all myths are true and most are twisted to support right wing myths.
Gandhi in his early 20’s has prejudice against Africans, and his greatness lie
in reinventing himself to overcome those prejudice. Indeed it’s one of the
most difficult to transform oneself and that’s what he precisely did again and
again.

Four aspects of Gandhi's legacy remain relevant, not just to India, but to the
world.

1\. First, non-violent resistance to unjust laws and/or authoritarian
governments.

2\. Second, the promotion of inter-faith understanding and religious
tolerance.

3\. Third, an economic model that does not rape or pillage nature.

4\. Fourth, courtesy in public debate and transparency in one's public
dealings.

If you want you can read Ramchandra Guha’s work [1], who wrote about his
racist views and transformation.

Also one another anecdote:

In 1962, when British filmmaker Richard Attenborough began researching what
would become his 1982 Gandhi film, he asked Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first
prime minister, how he should portray his late colleague. Nehru famously
replied that Gandhi was "a great man, but he had his weaknesses, his moods and
his failings." He begged Attenborough not to turn Gandhi into a saint. He was
"much too human," Nehru said.

Martin Luther King [2] who stayed with his wife at Gandhi’s room in spite of
being booked a room in hotel. He went on a path of non violent civil rights
movement with inspiration from Gandhi and his ideology of non-violence.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/04/gandhi-1914-19...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/04/gandhi-1914-1948-ramachandra-
guha-review)

[2] [https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-
papers/documents/my-...](https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-
papers/documents/my-trip-land-gandhi)

------
ourcat
The only reason the Daily Mail (a demonstrably racist publisher of right-
leaning lies and propaganda) would publish this is to create anger from those
who regularly read it. Since there's are a lot of people wouldn't agree with
this decision.

Also, I find it odd that this article is even linked on 'Hacker News'. It has
zero value to our community (imho).

