Mahatma Gandhi is set to become the first non-white person on British currency | Hacker News Reader

Mahatma Gandhi is set to become the first non-white person on British currency

dailymail.co.uk

31 pointsseesawtron49 comments

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

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.

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

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

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...

> 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).

Eastern Turkey in that time was predominantly Roman/Greek. On Wikipedia at least Saint George is described as a soldier of Greek origin.

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

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.

> 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

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.

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.

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.

>> 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.

> highly educated, loyal to the British

I agree with the educated part, but you're deluded if you think he was loyal to the UK. The dude lead the "Quit India" movement in 1942 to get the UK out of India -- in the middle of a world war, no less.

For all we know he might have been a British project to be used as a safety valve.

Much of Indian history and textbooks has been written by people who are at best "coconuts", brown on the outside and white on the inside. So we might never know.

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

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.

Byproduct of colonialism which was magnified by the caste system.

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

He was an anglophile to the point of Stockholm Syndrome.

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

Honestly could care less if he loved or hated queen and country. I'm American, but Freddie's a legend and should be on currency. His voice was amazing.

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

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

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.

I believe there's a statue of George Washington in London.

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.

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.

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/...

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...

[2] https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/my-...

I was brought up being told that Gandhi was great. I read a bit, and thus formed my current opinion.

What more do you want from me?

Not to judge somebody who is long gone, but to learn from their lives, their beliefs, their failings and their way of seeing things.

Far too often, we spend a lot of time judging people of the past, forgetting how the future will judge us.

Let go of the need to judge others, learn what you can from their lives, try to live yours with balance and pass it on.

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com