How many have ghandi as your hero?

[godsent 0]

Out of interest?

[barney 0]

His thoughts and action inspired me. Ahimsa is what the world needs now. Compassion and respect for all was his wisdom to peace. He was spritual in thought and action which qualities are rare thiese days in our life. So, in short Gandhi Ji is my mentor and Guru. Albert Einstein said of Gandhi: "Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this ever walked upon this earth in flesh and blood". Although he is not with us now but the world remembers him well for his noble action. Most of all it is the west that remembers Gandhi now as Hollywod directors have used Gandhi's phrase and mentions his name often. It shows how Gandhi has influnced the world.

[Guest guest]

If you havent come across Gandhi's autobiography.. it is online at:-

 

http://www.forget-me.net/en/Gandhi/autobiography.pdf

 

You can also get the book for a very cheap rate either online or in stores. Read it and you decide for urself whether he is hero or not! /images/graemlins/smile.gif simple.

[maadhav 0]

to all them i say:

re-think about your choice,

realize that we need to think of krishna, not gandhi.

 

[Guest guest]

In childhood, I was thinking Gandhi was the only person reason to get independance for India. But when grow, I understand he was in the front row - but adamant to implement what he thinks, either in personal or political career.

 

This posting is not to find fault or diminish his name, but to tell the facts which I know only from boooks.

 

He wanted to sideline Sardhar Patel, who was also veteran patriot - know still better than nehru, has constructive ideas to make India as a most prosperous India, but as a nature of Gujrarthi fever, he doesn't another gujarthi occupies his place and made Nehru as PM. This Nehru did make a blunter mistake on Kashmir Issue, which India suffers a lot and continue to suffer with this issye.

 

Thousands of people sacrificed their individual life, family life, wealth and health - suffered more than in hell for the independance of India -

 

There was one great sentence that I read in a book, wrote on Freedom fighters of south India - it says,

 

IF RAMA IS NOT THERE, THERE IS NO RAMAYANAM,

BUT DOESN'T MEAN, RAMA IS ONLY RAMAYANAM.

 

 

Same manner, without Gandhi, there is no Independance to India, but doesnot mean Gandhi is only the reason for Independance India.

 

Because everyone Praise Gandhi, 99% people also, without knowing truth or do not want to talk too much supports, yes, Gandhi is Mahatma ,,,, but one if read the other side of history, will know the factual messages.

 

[Guest guest]

I stand 180 degrees to people who say gandhi is a hero. I would say that subhashji is a true hero in every aspect. Gandhi is a no no at any point of time

[maadhav 0]

Dear guest,

 

please use a good user name.

it helps. we need many more hindus

who tell the truth about gandhi.

 

[narayanadasa 0]

Hope this interests... I dont say Gandhi did not fight for freedom, nor that he was'nt a great man.. but a great man for wrong things... too

 

Namaste,

This interview took place a few years ago but still lends serious light on the reasons why Nathuram Godse took part in the assasination of Mahatma Gandhi. When Gandhi was first assasinated, the media immediately placed blame on the RSS, since Godse had been a member years earlier. However, he had also been a member or supporter of the Congress party, which the media easily overlooked.

However, in this interview with Gopal Godse, Nathuram's brother, we find insights as to why it actually took place, at least in the minds of the Godse brothers. It is interesting and provides additional light on what many have come to understand as some of the misleading aspects of Gandhi's motivations.

TIME (FEBRUARY 14, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 6)

 

W E B - O N L Y I N T E R V I E W

"His Principle of Peace Was Bogus"

 

Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi's assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger--and without regret

 

Fifty-two years ago, on Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. Godse believed that the Mahatma, or great

soul, was responsible for the 1947 partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. Godse and his friend Narayan Apte were hanged. His brother Gopal

and two others were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in the conspiracy. Gopal Godse remained in jail for 18 years and now, at 80, lives

with his wife in a small apartment in Pune. He is still proud of his role in the murder. Although Godse is largely ignored in India and rarely talks to

journalists, he agreed to speak with TIME Delhi correspondent Meenakshi Ganguly.

 

TIME: What happened in January 1948?

Godse: On Jan. 20, Madanlal Pahwa exploded a bomb at Gandhi's prayer meeting in Delhi. It was 50 m away from Gandhi. [The other conspirators] all ran away from the place. Madanlal was caught there. Then there was a tension in our minds that we had to finish the task before the police caught us. Then Nathuram [Gopal's brother] took it on himself to do the thing. We only wanted destiny to help us -- meaning we should not be caught on the spot before he acted.

 

TIME: Why did you want to kill Gandhi?

Godse: Gandhi was a hypocrite. Even after the massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims, he was happy. The more the massacres of the Hindus, the taller his flag of secularism.

 

TIME: Did you ever see Gandhi?

Godse: Yes.

 

TIME: Did you attend his meetings?

Godse: Yes.

 

TIME: Can you explain how he created his mass following?

Godse: The credit goes to him for maneuvering the media. He captured the press. That was essential. How Gandhi walked, when he smiled, how he waved -- all these minor details that the people did not require were imposed upon them to create an atmosphere around Gandhi. And the more ignorant the masses, the more popular was Gandhi. So they always tried to keep the masses ignorant.

 

TIME: But surely it takes more than good publicity to create a Gandhi?

Godse: There is another thing. Generally in the Indian masses, people are attracted toward saintism. Gandhi was shrewd to use his saintdom for politics. After his death the government used him. The government knew that he was an enemy of Hindus, but they wanted to show that he was a staunch Hindu. So the first act they did was to put "Hey Ram" into Gandhi's dead mouth.

 

TIME: You mean that he did not say "Hey Ram" as he died?

Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength.

 

When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, "Hey Ram." I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama.

 

TIME: Many people think Gandhi deserved to be nominated TIME's Person of the Century. [He was one of two runners-up, after Albert Einstein.]

Godse: I name him the most cruel person for Hindus in India. The most cruel person! That is how I term him.

 

TIME: Is that why Gandhi had to die?

Godse: Yes. For months he was advising Hindus that they must never be angry with the Muslims. What sort of ahimsa (non-violence) is this? His principle of peace was bogus. In any free country, a person like him would be shot dead officially because he was encouraging the Muslims to kill Hindus.

 

TIME: But his philosophy was of turning the other cheek. He felt one person had to stop the cycle of violence...

Godse: The world does not work that way.

 

TIME: Is there anything that you admire about Gandhi?

Godse: Firstly, the mass awakening that Gandhi did. In our school days

Gandhi was our idol. Secondly, he removed the fear of prison. He said it is

different to go into prison for a theft and different to go in for

satyagraha (civil disobedience). As youngsters, we had our enthusiasm, but

we needed some channel. We took Gandhi to be our channel. We don't repent

for that.

 

TIME: Did you not admire his principles of non-violence?

Godse: Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In

politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every

moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in

hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was

in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed

anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere.

 

TIME: What was the most difficult thing about killing Gandhi?

Godse: The greatest hurdle before us was not that of giving up our lives or

going to the gallows. It was that we would be condemned both by the

government and by the public. Because the public had been kept in the dark

about what harm Gandhi had done to the nation. How he had fooled them!

 

TIME: Did the people condemn you?

Godse: Yes. People in general did. Because they had been kept ignorant.

 

[jayan008 0]

Who is Godse?

 

He is just one of those religious fanatics who was crazy about hindu religion whilst not understanding the true meaning of it. Ahimsa, is imbibed in Hinduism.

 

If muslims killed hindus, hindus did the same thing. So, why blame the muslims alone. Gandhi fought for India and not any particular religion. How can a person, who revered Bhagwad Gita, compare people on religion.

 

People who object to Gandhi are biased and ignorant of the fact that human being and its welfare comes first than any religion. Religion is a man made thing, which is twisted and changed to suite the selfish men for their own benefit.

 

Gandhi was afterall a human being, he was told as stubborn, because he want all the people to follow this prinicple of loving all human beings equally, irrespective of their caste or creed. One person cannot change the viewpoint of a billion, hence his ideas were revered by a section of people and looked down by a few others.

 

War is never the final solution. It can only kill. It only brings grief. It should be used only as a last option, if all attempt for peace fails.

[Guest guest]

To jayan008,

 

Before you paint such a rosy picture of Gandhi you should actually look at some of the ridiculous thing he said and did that even Nehru and Patel were shocked by his actions.

 

He tried to pacify muslims, he crept to Jinnah and even said he would make him prime minister of India if he gives up the demand for Pakistan. He told the british the put down their weapons and let the Nazis take over. He told his Hindu followers that if their wife was being raped by a muslim they must force themselves inbetween the wife and rapist, but they must not fight back! Now you can see why some Hindus hate him.

 

I used to like Gandhi but when I found out more about him, that not even you would like to acknowledge I no longer see him as a hero. Still, he was the last freedom fighter of prominence who got India free and maybe it was a good India to split with Pakistan (Imagine the problems we'd be having now, if there was no split).

 

And no, I don't like Godse either. And Gandhi was also crazy about the Hindu religion in his own way but he himself didn't understand the true meaning either. They were both at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[maadhav 0]

thanks guest 2, for the post.

 

here is some not so perfect comparision:

 

shalya wnted to fight along with pandavas,

but was tricked by duryodhan to fight against them.

 

so, he became chariteer of karna, and commented while driving, in such a way that discouraged karna to fight.

 

gandi (who was a jain at heart and never studied koran, and did not understood hindusim in full), leading hindus, discouraged the hindus to fight against the adharmi invader ideology followers, and could not make the Muslims give up himsa, aggresive and destructive attitudes, and anti-hindu stance.

 

krishna admired bhishma as a great personality and warrior,

but he said arjun to kill him also.

 

gandhi's qualities and strength were used in adharmic way against the hindus from where he came (considering jainism an imperfect offshoot of hinduism.) it was not only he as the cause why india got independence. there were many other causes besides him.

 

hope the readers understand this.

again, the hindus need to think of and look up to krishna, not gandhi.

 

[narayanadasa 0]

The last thing Vaishnivites should do is to have hatred even of facts are startlingly opposite to our previous opinion (or our current understanding of Gita etc) whether it be with Gandhi or Mother Theresa etc.

 

But, please clarify one doubt of mine. I have'nt been able to see any literature (may be I have'nt attempted to really study yet) why Gandhi wanted to fight for freedom? Was it purely because he was thrown out of the train in South Africa? Or was it because India was not supposed to be ruled by a foreigner?

 

He fought an excellent fight with non-violence. Now we got freedom (let us for now assume that it was only because of Gandhi). Now the question is, is there any mention about what Ram Rajya was as per Gandhi? Anybody has any thoughts on this? I am also not aware that once we got freedom, did he have a clear plan (or did he atleast attempt?) on how to form our constitution? Did he want to base it on Sanatana Dharma? or Islam? or Christianity? or rather a much better religion of how he wanted it that beats all other philosphies.

 

I still have no hatred for Gandhi because from the beginning I did not have that much love too. To me Godse really had a clear picture of what he wanted India to be... this was surely based on Sanatana Dharma - the universal Dharma for all.

 

Jai Sriman Narayana.

[Guest guest]

"It should be used only as a last option, if all attempt for peace fails. "

 

Agreed, but who will determine which is the last attempt?

 

Why can't we say that Gandhi's effort was the last and it failed?

[narayanadasa 0]

Even before britishers others also came to India and they were eventually thrown out (as per Dharma). The only difference is unlike the others, the Britishers instead of doing just physical harm to rule-over they infiltered into the society and brainwashed people to have western taste (by closing the Gurukulas as a 1st step, so that brahmins cant teach others anymore). So the fight for freedom was to free foreign rule and then to get our true culture back. I certainly dont see any such reasoning in Gandhi's fight. But I do certainly see this type of reasoning in the other freedom figthers (including Godse). Remember, King Shivaji too fought numerous battles and successfully restored culture on numerous occasions (converted Muslims back to Hinduism).

 

We cant assume Gandhi's attempt was the last and it failed because it succeeded in getting us the so-called independence.... the only problem however is nobody knows why Gandhi especially wanted independence. At that time, there were indeed a lot of people who were happy with the British rule.

 

Lastly, as someone already said "Gandhi's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is nothing great becasue he was not an Acharya".

 

As of now, I know these facts but certainly cant decide whether was Gandhi was good or bad (I dont care really!). But, inspite of having so much literature on Gandhi and his life, no one knows why he wanted freedom although he fought for one.

 

Jai Sriman Narayan

[maadhav 0]

<< why Gandhi wanted to fight for freedom? Was it purely because he was thrown out of the train in South Africa? >>

 

yes. initially he had no thougt of getting the brits out of india. he actually stuided law in London.

 

<< Or was it because India was not supposed to be ruled by a foreigner? >>

 

no one is suppoded to be ruled (unjustly) by another in the god conscious society.

 

 

<<.. is there any mention about what Ram Rajya was as per Gandhi? >>

 

no. his concept just was that muslim and hindu live together and like loving brothers. Hindus tried hard like that for 1000 years, and no result.

 

the concept of ram rajya - a vedic government on the vedic land - is from ramayana which shows how rama ruled.

 

<< Anybody has any thoughts on this? I am also not aware that once we got freedom, did he have a clear plan (or did he atleast attempt?) on how to form our constitution? >>

 

no. he just did not want physical fights, (and at the cost of the hindus).

 

<< Did he want to base it on Sanatana Dharma? or Islam? or Christianity? or rather a much better religion of how he wanted it that beats all other philosphies. >>

 

not xianity. but he just wanted indians to live in peace.

as they were living prior to the coming of the brits.

 

<< I still have no hatred for Gandhi because from the beginning I did not have that much love too. >>

 

actually i do not hate him. he did have some saintly qualities. but he failed to help the hindus in hindustan.

he jsut favord the invader ideology followers muslims.

i cannot find reason to live him as i love krishna

and many other hindu saints who really were mahatmas.

 

<< To me Godse really had a clear picture of what he wanted India to be... this was surely based on Sanatana Dharma - the universal Dharma for all. >>

 

i think so. after independece gandhi knew/realized he will not be able to keep peace between hindus and muslims. he almost resigned from politics. just became passive.

 

he did not think of spreading bhagavat dharma

even when prabhuoada invirted him for it.

no hamatma does that.

 

my only wish/prayer is that we hindus think more of krishna than gandhi.

 

[narayanadasa 0]

Yep, thats where the problem is: How can anybody expect to live in peace without proper religious foundation.. unless Gandhi wanted to establish his own which according to him was much better than the one given by God.. I would have been happier if he did create a religion than rather than doing something and calling it Hinduism. I think peace for him meant "Allow have butcher shops next to our houses, allow Mosques next to our houses, pray to God the way they wanted us to pray, forget Pancharatra system of worship, do whatever they say" but still be a so-called hindu.. very peaceful indeed.

 

On the positive side, I believe Gandhi was NOT offered the Noble prize because he did not get converted to christianity. But still, I dont think he seriously followed / embraced any religion but just manipulated various statements in all religions to gain public support. At his time, any writer who wrote against Gandhi was called "Controversial writer" and was banned. These writings are now being published. This tends to show that the "against Gandhi" attitude was nothing new, it only remained hidden due to hypocracy.

 

Someone also said that Godse was a fundamentalist. I disagree here, he was an extremely well educated and well disciplined man. His only fault - he started disagreeing with Gandhi as time went by and he truly believed and loved Sanatana Dharma which Gandhi failed to really understand and embrace.

 

Importantly, I would still place Gandhi among all other freedom fighters, nothing higher. Professionally, he was an excellent statesman.

 

Anyway, it doesnt matter to us, but just to remain in our old mindsets about Gandhi doesnt make sense.. ofcourse it hurts to realize this now, but better to realize now than later.

 

Jai Sriman Narayan

[jayan008 0]

So, how did we gain independence? By violence.

 

As far as we all know, India is the only country which gained independence through non-violence, which was the doctrine advocated by Gandhi. So, how did he fail?

 

Which history book do you refer, The French Revolution?

[narayanadasa 0]

Jai Sriman Narayan:

 

We call it independence, no doubt but I would call it so-called independence and there are very few people who know what independence really means. There are very few people who really love their motherland because they dont know anything else but Gandhi. If we have idependence, why is there a restriction on singing hindu prayers in hindu schools although christians / muslims can sing their own prayers? Why is an attempt being made to construct a church in Tirumala Tirupati? Why Muslims are against Uniform Civil code? What Sanatana-Dharma have we really had *freedom* to implement in Independent India.

 

It is difficult because the constitution was not framed on the basis of Sanatana-Dharma. It was framed as per Britishism... is that really independence?

 

Why are people voting Sonia Gandhi who doesnt know one bit of Sanatana-Dharma? It is only because they are ignorant and that is because the path to make them aware was very very difficult as per the current constitution.But, if she has contested and won the elections then why cant she become the PM? Anyway, Sanatana-Dharma was not re-established.

 

I certainly dont accept that if no Gandhi, then no independence and that we would still be under British rule. Does it make a difference now, we are still talking about secular. Clear Archeological proofs have been hidden for years about earlier invasions.

 

If muslims / christians cannot appreciate the truth but we have to remain peaceful at the cost of truth, then what is the independence we are talking about? Remember, Sanatana-Dharma is universal for all, infact Christians and Muslims will be happier following that. Independent India must have been a clear platform and creating such a platform is independence.

 

Will you please be more precise about what is your opinion about independence rather than just use the term. Try and compare how different we are before and after independence.

 

Jai Sriman Narayan

[Guest guest]

Independence is over and now we are referring to the fight with muslims, in which Gandhi had failed.

 

How did Sri lanka gained independence, how did all the African countries gained independence, how did China gained independence?

 

British empire was weakened heavily by the end of the World War II that they were not able to maintain an empire anymore, also the new super powers USA and USSR didn't want british to have colonies, that is the primay reason. Gandhi was (one of the ) secondary reasons.

[jayan008 0]

If you really used to like Gandhi, you would have atleast tried to do a background check on whether all the allegations are true. There are lots of things written about him by lots of people. Some praised and made him the Mahatma, some were totally opposite to his ideas. He never claimed himself to be a Mahatma. If you read his autobiography, you will realise this. You will never find a true autobiography of any other person than his. He always advocated restraint, which people have always misinterpreted, and one such thing is about rape. He never mentioned only Hindus to practice restraint, he advocated it to all Indians and the whole world in general. The theory of rape by a muslim of a hindu women is something which came up only to show that he was biased and supportive of muslims and enrage hindus to gain their support. We all know how well writers and journalist can create sensationalism of a simple quote. The context in which a statement was made is never shown or written.

 

You tell that he has crept to Jinnah, didn&#8217;t Krishna go to the Kauravas with a proposal. Does that belittle him? He never advocated war/violence as a solution. You can see for yourself what the split to make Pakistan has resulted - a continuous headache to India with militancy and violence on the border. Will there ever be an end to the sufferings of people in Kashmir? People who support the split don&#8217;t realise that it wasn&#8217;t only the Hindus who fought for the freedom, but Muslims and other religious communities were equally involved in it. It was only people like Jinnah, who had selfish motives of gaining power and wearing the mask of saving the minority Muslim community from the tension that will arise if the Hindus dominate the political circle of independent India, that created the rift among the common people, who fell prey to it.

 

Isn&#8217;t the same thing happening today, people are killed in the name of religion, by power hungry people, who will misinterpret the religious scriptures / following to confuse common people and twist the political scenario to suit their own needs.

 

Gandhi advocated non-violence, he fought for the unity among Indian people, he never wanted nor used people for his own benefit. He was not a self-proclaimed Mahatma, like the ones we see nowadays, faking to be the saviour of religion and humanity.

 

[jayan008 0]

British had its major presence in India and South Africa, and only few colonies in China and other countries most of which were annexed and gained control by Nazis and Japanese...and hence left those.

 

However, they held on to India and South Africa, but along with the weakening of resources with the war and the pressure of the independence struggle in India on the Empire finally forced them to give up India. This struggle of independence led by indians was in majority of non-violence, which gained international attention and making powerful nations to pressurise Britan to free India.

 

But, that didn't happen in the case of South Africa, which was finally free of British empire many years after, because the freedom movement in SA during that period was not forceful, and failed to create any international response.

 

Politicians are responsible for hindu-muslim or for that matter any religious fights all over the world, and not Gandhi. If people realise the importance of non-violence and restraint they will never fall prey to the petty political tactics and there will be no further bloodshed.

 

 

[Guest guest]

---This struggle of independence led by indians was in majority of non-violence, which gained international attention and making powerful nations to pressurise Britan to free India.----

 

So you are tactially admitting that Gandhi was not the major force, but the "powerful nations", your statement is partially true, the powerful nations didn't pressurise Britian due to international attention but because of their own economic and political agenda,

 

Now why the "powerful nations" are not pressurisng Pakistan to stop its Jihadi warfare (it is because of the same economic and political agenda)

 

 

--If people realise the importance of non-violence and restraint they will never fall prey to the petty political tactics and there will be no further bloodshed---

 

Highly wishful thinking, if a politician is not petty then he has very slim chance of getting elected

 

[jayan008 0]

The problems with us all is that we always look matter with a religious point of view. The hindus says they are sidelined, the muslim say they are and so do others....

 

Infact it is nothing, but dirty politics, which the politicians play for their own benefit.

 

Our Constitution was made in such a way that the best of all world order was put together so that people with various religious and cultural background could stay together and is not biased.

 

However, the politicians have twisted it for their own benefit. The Constitutional policies since its inception has been amended by all the political parties to suit their own benefit.

 

If one religious group is unhappy on a certain thing (eg. Uniform Civil Code), the political leaders will not see the relevance of that thing to the society, but whether making these people unhappy would invite trouble for themselves and would they be voted out in the next election. So, to keep their vote-banks intact, they would cave into their objections.

 

The people in turn too have used this as a tool to achieve their purpose by electing people who support their selfish causes.

 

Hence, we have a Sonia Gandhi as PM, because people are symphathetic towards Nehru family and whether she is capable or not, the Congress Party appoints her as their candidate, because the bottomline is to 'be in power'.

 

Her not becoming the PM was her own will, atleast she acknowledged that Manmohan Singh is better dealing with the PM's job.

 

Sanathana Dharma is the best, but it can never be followed, because if politicians will use it, others will oppose it, saying it is against their religion.

 

The politicians who oppose are not just muslims / christians, but majority of them are hindus, who use this as a platform to gain support of the minority community and get elected.

 

My view of independence is freedom from all kinds of slavery, whether political or religious. Human being all over the world are one and should unite. Politics & religions, which are man-made things and made for betterment the society, have only been misused.

 

[jayan008 0]

It is a fact that the pressure of war coupled with the pressure of struggle of Indian independence movement created in the international circle led to the freedom of India. Gandhi is primarily responsible for that struggle who united the whole of India on the doctrine of non-violence.

 

Why is Pakistan not stopped? If you are in the U.S., please ask this to the President. They very well know. The presence of U.S. in Pakistan is of very strategic and grave importance to US, which it uses to monitor China and Russia. It cannot risk going all out against Pakistan, which will result in losing its strategic defence base position in important border regions of Pakistan, near to China and Russia.

 

Absolutely no, politicans can never be petty, it is the general public, who never understand the real intentions of these power hungry politicians and their intentions, and elect them.

 

To know the real politics, you should leave the comfort of your room and check the reality.

 

May be it is a wishful thinking that people will one day realise their ignorance and boot out these politicians, but am positive, because all bad things comes to an end.

 

[Guest guest]

1.Gandhi is primarily responsible for that struggle who united the whole of India on the doctrine of non-violence.

 

Wrong may be 70% of India at the maximum

 

2. Great logic so you are saying that Hindus should suffer for the strategic advantage of USA?

 

3. Absolutely no, politicans can never be petty, it is the general public, who never understand the real intentions of these power hungry politicians and their intentions, and elect them.

 

Too many nevers and intentions here. Bad people and Bad politicians are like the two sides of the same coin, one can't thrive without the another.

 

4.because all bad things comes to an end.

 

Good things or Bad things does not start or comes to end by itself, it depends on the effort of good people and bad people (and also on the "neutral" people like you whom do you support out of ignorance)

 

5. To know the real politics

 

I dont want to know the real politics , I just want to know the real truth