some degree at political pundits because there's a common argument in politics, among pundits that we need more competitive elections and i don't think these elections are very well thought out. part of the problems with these arguments is that they come with the police chief that elections are analogous to markets. we need competition in the markets and, therefore, we need competitive elections. i don't think that analogy holds. i think it's important to think of election as employment mechanisms which is what they are. so essentially the audience for the book, the people that i'm hoping who read it are these people who make these kinds of arguments about the need for competition in a democracy and the idea that elections are comparable to markets which they are not. >> upcoming campaign in 2012, what changes would you like to see, you know, in that election process? >> i'm not sure that there are any major policy changes that i would like to see because i'm

not convinced that any major policy changes would have a dramatic affect on the credibility of the threat to fire incumbents. again, the credibility of that threat depends on the capability and willingness of voters to pose it and carry it out. if they're not willing to do so, then there is nothing we can do by changing electoral law to create that threat. so as far as policy, i have some counterintuitive argument business election law and how election laws should be designed, but ultimately none of those policies will work if voters are unwilling to pose the credible threat to fire incumbents who do a bad job. >> thank you. ..

gandhi was a major part of our collective conscience just as for many of you lincoln's towering persona was the keeper of this nation's consciousness. i am not concerned about comparative history. each time i can template about lincoln, gandhi comes to mind. this connection may appear to be simple. it takes it student of history, a gifted storyteller, scholar, and intellectual to help us with a better appreciation of these two great figures whose legacies

transcend cultural boundaries. we have that kind of person in our midst. professor rajmohan gandhi is a passionate advocate of human rights, the rights of minorities in india in particular and freedom of speech. he let the indian delegation to the united nations human rights commission in geneva in 1990. he also led the moral rearmament movement in india called initiative of change in an effort to battle against corruption and inequality in india. he was chief editor of the newspaper called hima, meaning courage. he led an advance cause of free speech especially during a period when free-speech was under attack in india. in addition to acting agent in public life, rajmohan gandhi is a prolific writer. at one point in his career he was editor of an indian newspaper called indian express.

history is his passion. he is the author of several biographies of mohammed hadi, and several books that advance understanding of history. he is a well sought after speaker all over the world and it is serendipity that brought him here. when we contacted him to speak at the lincoln museum he had released the latest edition of his book titled "a tale of 2 revolts," india and the american civil war. before i hand over the microphone to professor gandhi, a couple of trivia about him. in india we attribute one of the achievements to some degree to one's heritage. rajmohan gandhi's lifelong commitment to fight for equal rights is not surprising, he is

the grandson of mahatma gandhi but his ability to tell a story in beautiful prose with elegant word play is directly attributable to his maternal grandfather, an eminent leader in the freedom struggle of india and contributor to in the literature in english and other languages. president kennedy upon meeting him announced -- commented this meeting had the most civilizing influence on me. seldom have i heard someone presenting with such precision, clarity and elegance of language. after listening to professor gandhi previously and reading small portions of his book, i must say there's something to be said about the fact of lineage. i present to you professor

rajmohan gandhi. [applause] >> after all that, my grandfather must wonder how i perform. thank you so much, president of the india association, and i want to specially to thank and salute director mccavesh. thank you for coming this evening. if i live to be 90 years old i would still be introduced as gandhi's grandchild. it is a blessing on balance.

yes, i am required to behave all the time, to be on the game, to answer questions patiently, to be on duty throughout. but people are friendly and warm when they know i am gandhi's grandson and this outweighs everything else. in part because i am gandhi's grandson but i hope not only because of that, i have been able to meet in the course of my long life, figures like martin luther king jr. john f. kennedy, both -- pope john paul ii, the dalai lama and others. i am a lucky guy. yet to speak here in the abraham lincoln presidential library is an utterly exceptional moment for me. for lincoln has been a hero of mine from my boyhood.

his second inaugural which i read from time to time regularly moved me to my depths each time i read it. at times i asked my class at the university of illinois -- at lincoln's second inaugural, many of my students get embarrassed. i am sure almost everyone here has read it. to those who have not, i say please read it. read it slowly, attentively, two or three times if possible. you will look differently at the world around you if you do. it is a jewel of to me that indians in connected areas are helping in hosting the gandhi exhibit and this talk by me around gandhi's birthday. indians like us who live in the

united states possesses two amazing heritages. their indian heritage and american heritage. in many cases our children or grandchildren are linked by marriage to both heritages. americans who get to know gandhi and indians who get to know lincoln can form a special and rich bond with one another which will benefit the world as all hole. this is why a major part of my talk this evening will be on lincoln and gandhi. the india/america link is why i wrote "a tale of 2 revolts" studying in the's 1857 rebellion and the american civil war. i wanted to know what americans at the time knew of the 1857 revolt and what they thought of it and what people in india at the time thought of the american civil war. i was excited to find the number

of indians in bombay spend money for reunion field hospitals during the civil war. scores of people of indian origin served in the civil war. at least one of them, charles simon serving in company a of the ninth new hampshire infantry received a medal in 1864 from the hands of president lincoln. i discovered that americans at the time knew far more about india's 1857 rebellion than indians at the time knew of the american civil war. today, indians who know about the civil war are more numerous than americans who know about the 1867 revolt. threw out 1857, indian revolt was big news in the united states. indeed in a journal published in philadelphia, it said, quote, the year 1857 will be henceforth

known as the year of the cholt revolt. this was in philadelphia in 1857. in springfield two missionaries returning from india to america, dr. joseph warren and had spent 15 years in india and reverend mr. hays who escaped from the violence of the revolt came well-publicized talks on india and its revolts during the 1857-58 winter. these talks 153 years ago were given in springfield on days during days when as we know from the lincoln log of the president to be was in this city in his hometown. it is possible that lincoln himself attended one or more of these talks. he certainly heard about them. his good friend or will hickman browning who had become a u.s.

senator after lincoln became president tells us in his diary disinformation convinced him -- thanks to the kindness of professor dr. brian at the university. oracle hickman browning tells us in his diary that he heard several of these talks about india 1857 given by these ministers, warren and hayes. not only that but warren lived for stealth in browning's home in springfield and served as ambassador of springfield presbyterian church. the revolt was talked about in lincoln's circle. i could not locate any private or public remarks about 1857 in india that lincoln may have made. i would envy anyone who can locate such a remark and i would

be enormously grateful. this comparative and connective history explores what was similar and dissimilar between india 1857 and the american civil war and how between 2 events influenced india's subsequent history. one clear conclusion that emerges from this connective and comparative study is that india at the time, british india at the time in indian india at the time lacked a lincoln like figure. willing to confront the moral question behind slavery and yet anxious to conciliate southerners, lincoln was able to initiate a healing process in the united states. he also helped americans reflector the second inaugural and other ways on why the civil

war cost so much in life, whim and treasurer. india of his time, the british empire of his time had no lincoln equivalent. and no one in authority who reached out to all sides or look for the deeper meaning of the crash. remote from the scene in any case, the prime minister of england did not bother to do so. his mind refused to acknowledge that there was an indian side. so that is one of the central lessons of my comparison. there is the missing factor in india. a lincoln like figure who was not there. we know that lincoln was born in '89 and gandhi 60 years later. in age lincoln living half a world away was like gandhi's

grandfather. there was a figure in between. one link to both who in age could have been a son to lincoln and a father to gandhi. i wonder who you can guess what i am thinking of? leo. leo tolstoy. born 41 years before gondi was born. he lived in until 1910 when gandhi was 41. he did not meet either lincoln or gandhi. he exchanged several letters with gandhi. let me recall what tolstoy felt about lincoln. in 19008 tolstoy was the guest of a tribal chief in while remote area of the north petition gathering his family and neighbor, the chief of this tribe asked tolstoy to speak of lincoln and the country in which he lived. and tolstoy spoke of his love and admiration for lincoln he saw the faces of the men from

the tribes were all aglow. when he finished his listeners presented him we are told with a wonderful arabian horse. as for gandhi and tolstoy the two drew close to each other through correspondence. in 1909 a 40-year-old gandhi wrote publicly that he had endeavored to follow tolstoy, ferro, anderson and other writers beside the masters of indian philosophy. as we know emerson and for row where lincoln's contemporaries. what gandhi created outside johannesburg, gandhi was in south africa for many years, that center was named tolstoy farm by him. with the russian died in 1910 gandhi's wonderful obituary in his journal in south africa, indian opinion was entitled, quote, the late lamented tolstoy

the greek. before tolstoy's death and only two years after his comments on lincoln russian wrote to sue lynch -- gandhi about the passive resistance that he discussed in his significant 1909 text, indian home rule. tolstoy wrote in that, passive resistance as discussed by gandhi was of the greatest importance not only for india but the whole of humanity. just before he would die, in the last long letter that he wrote, tolstoy wrote again to gandhi and said that the non-violent resistance in south africa supplied most practical proof of what he and edolphus towns told -- what gandhi believed. your work which seems to be far away from the center of our

world is yet the most fundamental and important to us. since i am speaking about my grandfather you should know what he said about his grandfather, lincoln. in these are gandhi's words written in south africa in 1905 when gandhi was 36. in the journal gandhi started in south africa at indian opinion the journal was published in english and also -- here's an english translation of sentences from gandhi's article in the indian opinion, august 26, 1905. these are gandhi's words. it is believed that the greatest and the noblest man of the last century was abraham lincoln. only person who has a clear picture in his mind of the

america of those days can appreciate lincoln's for jews and services. nobody saw anything wrong in openly selling negros and keeping them in slavery. the high and low, the rich and the bourse on nothing strange in owning slaves. religious minded men, pastors and the like saw nothing amiss and did not protest. 7 courage slavery and taught that it was that divine institution and the negro's were born into it. even those who thought that slavery was wrong preferred to remain silent being unable to assert themselves. even today legal gandhi continues in 1905, our hair stand on end to hear the accounts of the atrocities inflicted on slaves. they were tied up and beaten and brandon and handcuffs. lincoln made and put into resolution to change the ideas

of men. ideas which were indelibly carved on their minds. lincoln sacrificed his life in order to put an end to the suffering of others. lincoln can be said to be still alive. the changes he made in the american constitution are still in force and lincoln's name will be known as long as america indoors. referring to lincoln's civil war utterances' gandhi wrote the language of the powerful speeches lincoln delivered during those stormy days is sublime. i can not speak of the lincoln/tolstoy it/gandhi sequence without remembering the next noble link in the chain, martin luther king jr.. i will not in this talk speak about him but i will quote from

him. here is martin luther king jr. speaking in montgomerie be wishful alabama on march 22nd, 1959. the world doesn't like people like gandhi. that is strange, isn't it? we don't like people like lincoln. they killed a gandhi who galvanized 400,000 indians independence. one of his fellow in dues -- hindus' felt he was too favorable. here was a man of love following in the hand of a man with 8. this seems to be the way of history. thank god it never stopped there. the man who shot gandhi only shot him into the hearts of humanity. just as when abraham lincoln was shot, much for the same reason gandhi was shot, the attempt to eagle the wounds of a divided nation. secretary stanton stood by and said now he belongs to the ages.

like lincoln and gandhi, martin luther king when he was shocked frustrated the assassin's intentions. he entered the ages and he entered the hearts of all humanity. let us quickly note though lincoln/gandhi similarities. there are quite obvious. both were assassinated on friday. both were killed for acting and deep convictions. in each case when the railway train bearing lincoln's body or gandhi's earthly remains passed by the nation of each, with grief and reference, both were brilliant lawyers. each was known for an ungainly appearance. awkward, in congress, strange were the words yet generally used for one who was 6 ft. 4, and also for the other, 5 foot 6

and bald. both had arms that were disproportionately long for their bodies and both have large, flapping ears. someone wrote of gandhi that his fat nose pointed downward and his lower lip pushed up immediately. the pilot who was a significant figure in india's freedom story often addressed gandhi as mickey mouse. here is how we in harvard described lincoln after calling on him in washington in 1861. soon afterwards a shambling, irregularly and unsteady gait, tall, lean man over 6 feet in height with stooping shoulders, long arms, terminating in hands of extraordinary dimensions which far exceeded in proportion by the dimensions of his feet.

russell spoke of lincoln's projecting years and the mouth is absolutely prodigious. finos itself a prominent oregon, stand out from the face with an anxious inquiring air as if it were sniffing for some good things in the wind. the eyes dark, full and deeply staff are penetrating but full of an expression which almost amounts to tenderness. this is lincoln at age 52. here is gandhi at age 52 as described in the american monthly in july 1922 by an american writer. gandhi rose from the floor to receive me a spare figure, enveloped in blankets. a man of middle age or so he appeared, bear headed with iron gray hair, very large years, the

sinn fein and clean shaven, expression alert, ice penetrating, glantz direct. he greeted me with a gentle courtesy. his english accent wordperfect. when i was seated he subsided into his blanket again. he was not in the least valuable. his inclination was to give me the lead. then there is humor. often noticed colors in lincoln and gandhi. in each case also ran into an extraordinary capacity to notice others and appreciate life's irony. lincoln of course was a supreme master of the funny story and the witty response. accused of being too faced in politics, replied would i be showing this one? if i had another face? gandhi by contrast sultan told a

joke but he always made those in his company laugh. william shirer reporting to a meeting he had with gandhi in the final year of his life was a pain filled year, in no time at all gandhi had a small laughing and completely -- if in this world of personalities there is a single man even half as charming as gandhi i have not met him. in 1924, not long after a huge gandhi led bid to the world's surprise shook british rule in india but petered out and landed gandhi in prison this is what gandhi said after his release from two years in prison. napoleon learned much and found himself a prisoner in st. helena. the mighty kaiser gained the

crown of europe and reduced to the status of a private gentleman. god has -- let as contemplate such examples and the humble. here while passing on a fundamental truth gandhi is also laughing at life, let himself. he certainly aimed to remove the crown from the british empire. he failed at that time. but he is smiling at life. lincoln must have said something similar. neither gandhi nor lincoln would admit that a defeat is permanent. defeat would only be temporary. only a prelude to the next battle. let me give another instance of gandhi's style in this course which reminds one of lincoln's time. in october of 1947, a few weeks after india was freed but also partitioned the persian warned

gandhi against sheltering, quote, frozen muslims snakes which would bite on revival. this is gandhi's reply. to like and a human being, however degraded he may be, to a snake to justify in human treatment is surely a degrading performance. i have known fanatical muslims using the analogy respect of hindus. lastly let me for the sake of snakekind correct a common error and point out eighty snakes out of every hundred are perfectly harmless. there are less obvious similarities also. the first of these is there strong self believe. will before he ran for president lincoln felt he had something to offer in his words on the great and durable question of the age for america, namely slavery.

gandhi expressed his awareness that his task was to lead his people to independence. offering himself reelection in 1864 lincoln said he could, quote, better serve the nation in its need than any new man. he added that he was fitter than the others available to reunite his bitterly divided people. in 1932 gandhi said that like a pregnant woman who takes care of herself for the sake of the baby in her womb he looked after his own it sickness for the sake of the independence of india that he was carrying inside of him. lincoln and gandhi are similar in their physical proximity to violence and war. both abhored bloodshed but were fated to lots of it. lincoln was critical of america in 1846-48 war with mexico.

felt that americans, quote, greet and mendacity had drawn mexico into that war and suspected the desire for new territories for slavery might have been part of the american motivation. not forgetting that even the revolution in the 1770s and 80s to british rule and independent america to birth had been a cruel and unfair, lincoln road the best revolutionary war, quote, breeze for famine, swam in blood and wrote on fire and long, long after, your fans cried and widows whale continues to break the sad silence that ensued. despite his grasp of the consequences of violence lincoln had to preside over what remains america's bloodiest war to date. despite his passion against

violence and three decades of presenting an alternative to violence, gandhi could not prevent the killings of 1947. the year of india and pakistan's independence which took around half a million lives. this is a reminder of the irony of life and of history. lincoln and gandhi both seen by the world as symbols of reconciliation, sympathy and justice spent the final years of their lives amidst great violence. gandhi and lincoln both fought for national unity. lincoln to preserve the union and gandhi to preserve a single india for christians and others. moreover gandhi struggled with cost in india was comparable to lincoln's struggle over slavery in the u.s. a. if slavery in the union in whatever order were lincoln's chief concerns, gandhi's concerns over national unity, we should also remember gandhi had

a major third concern. indy at's independence. gandhi had three difficult goals compared with lincoln's two difficult goal. if gandhi with the kind of indian lincoln he was also like lincoln in the time of washington. about to play the roles at the same time, the first and sixteenth presidents made. we know of lincoln's insistence the union was older than the constitution. he said it was formed by the articles of association of 1774 continued by the declaration of independence in 1776 and further mature by the articles of consideration -- confederation in 1778. one of the declared object for establishing the constitution was to form a more perfect union. it had to be strengthened but

the union was already there. and illegal question. lincoln believed in a purpose for the united states. critics acknowledge to the almost mystical attachment to a union. was said the only thing like infatuation in the man was the passion for the union of the state's. to gandhi the unity of india matter of great deal. he wanted hindus and muslims to live together in a united india. he also wanted a single india and an end to untouchability as to the notion of high and low. india's question in the 1930s and 40s which was resolved to india's 1947 partition was similar in many ways to the north/south you ride that lincoln and the u.s. a dissolved with the civil war. declaring the south and alliance of rebels lincoln went to war against it, crushed what he saw as rebellion and the union was

preserved. india's hindus and muslims had a great deal in common as was true of the north and south gandhi did not for all his passion educate war or compulsion for keeping india one. before seeing why he did not let me give you a flavor of his argument and passion for indian unity. when at the end of 1939 gandhi heard that a separate moslem homeland since be called pakistan was being demanded because it was claimed, that hindus were two nations, this is what gandhi said. why is india not one nation? was it not one during the mogul.? wildly two. are not christians a third nation? and so on. are the muslims of china a nation separate from other chinese? are the muslims of england did different nation from the other english? how are the muslims here different from the hindus and

sikhs? did they not drink the same water and breathe the same air and derive sustenance from the same soil? what is there to prevent them calling their respective religion? are muslims all world over a separate nation? are other muslims of india alone to be a separate nation distinct from the others? bengali muslims speak the same time as a hindu, eat the same food and have the same amusement. the suggested partition is a way of strife. live and let live or mutual forbearance and coloration is the lot of white. that is the lesson i learned from the koran, and the bible and a guitar. the man who championed the divide for a moslem homeland was the president of the muslim league, brilliant lawyer seven years younger than gandhi and linked to the good iraqi speaking part of the indian

subcontinent. what difficulty gandhi faced was some of the hindu side argued before the muslim league came up with its demand for pakistan that hindus and muslims were two nations. let us look at more of gandhi's passion for a united india. passion joined in the case of lincoln with argument. it is worse than anarchy to partition the country like india whose every corner is populated by hindus and muslims living side by side. is like cutting up living body into pieces. gandhi conceded that separation was possible. if the vast majority of indian muslims feel they're not one nation with their hindu and other brethren who will be able to resist them? i know known non-violent method of compelling obedience of eighty million muslims to the will of the rest of india, however powerful image or if

they may represent. not ready to commerce in the's muslim population gandhi offered the muslim league a source of separation. the muslims must have the same rights of self-determination that the rest of india has. we are at present a joint family. any member may claim a division of independence. during a series of 14 talks in 1944 gandhi proposed autonomy for muslim majority areas after independence if the muslim league work for independence jointly with the indian national congress. they rejected the offer. when this happened gandhi did not lead a march, violent or non-violent or start a fox of death against the creation of pakistan. all his political colleagues including many who worked at his side for 30 plus years looked for partition without which independence would be

indefinitely delayed. the bulk of indian muslims seemed to want partition. after march of 1947 the bulk of in the's hindus and sikhs seemed ready to accept it. in the crucial problems of anjob they demanded partition. gandhi acquiesced. his assassination which took place five months after india and pakistan emerged as free but separate nations cannot at the hands of muslims who demanded pakistan but the hands of a group of hindus who saw him as a friend of the muslims. gandhi's final unsuccessful attempt to prevent partition was actually quite lincoln like. historians have referred to lincoln's quality of softening rivals by giving them the positions and responsibilities. this is just what gandhi wished to try with his great rival. he wanted nothing less than the office of the prime minister of

united india to be offered to gena but gandhi's closest colleagues opposed the idea. as did the british viceroy who had given the task to ending british rule in india and committed to the partition solution. the proposal was never switched enough. at least one leading scholar, stanley will bridge thinks he would have accepted the offer if it had been made. who can know for sure? gandhi did not an end d 5 pakistan in part because public opinion -- in 1947 no mainstream elements in india peterson will not as if gandhi and nonviolence came in a way of a nation of people keen on preventing or undoing pakistan. true, apolitical party known as the hindu massacre who had set in 1937 that hindus and muslims

were two nations opposed partition in strong language but the hindu lacked the strength to implement its issues and in any case what it seems to want was not hindoo muslim equality in a united india but hindu domination. apart from public opinion there was another reason for gandhi not to fight to the death against pakistan. he could not invite the terrible killings that were bound to follow his death in a path to prevent pakistan. when partition seemed inevitable but held by hindu muslim violence recognition between hindus and muslims rather than prevention of pakistan became gandhi's chief goal. in this task his actions and words were again like lincoln. here is what he said in the middle of january of 1948 while announcing a fast that would not end until the rights of the beleaguered muslim minority in india's capital had been

restored. that, he believed, could trigger a restoration of minority rights in india and pakistan. this is gandhi speaking in 1948. the fast begins from the first meal tomorrow. the period is in deficit. it will end when and if i am satisfied that there is a reunion of hearts of all communities brought about without any outside pressure but from an awakened sense of duty. the reward will be the regaining of india's dwindling prestige. i flatter myself with the belief that the loss of a sold by india will mean the loss of the hope of the aching storm and hungry world. let us compare these last two lines with lincoln's famous words proposing the emancipation of slaves in the state of the union address on december 1st,

1862. in giving freedom to the slaves we assure freedom to the free. hon. like in what we give and what we preserve. we shall nobly save or lose the last best hope of arthur -- us. america may be the last best hope said lincoln. let's not destroy that hope. the loss of sold by india would mean the loss of the hope of the aching, storm tossed and hungry world. each is wrestling for his nation's sold. each is fighting for a humanity as all hole. two days later gandhi said delhi is the capital of india. is the heart of india. all hindus, christians and jews who people in this country from karachi -- have an equal right to. there for anyone who seeks to drive out the muslims is delhi's

and me and therefore india's and any. continues gandhi, when i was a young i never even read the newspaper. i could read in english with difficulty. i have had the dream ever since then that if the hindu seeks -- muslims and christians live in amity in the whole of india, they would all have a happy life. if that dream could be realized even now when i'm an old man on the verge of death my heart would dance. children would then sing enjoy. i like this picture of gandhi wanting to dance. it is difficult terms were indeed met. to save gandhi's life people were willing to put aside their anger and gandhi was able to break his fast after six days. in line with gandhi's convictions the constitution india adopted rejected the idea that the new nation would be a

hindu india combating muslim pakistan. though the new india was smaller than gandhi expected was and india for all in habitants and not only for its hindu majority. if lincoln preserve the union, gandhi preserved a union of india. which is india's full and correct name. assuring equal rights to wall in its space. in his second inaugural lincoln said referring to the north and south both read the same bible, freight to the same god, each invokes his aid against the other. likewise gandhi pointed out that although hindus and muslims use a variety of names for the almighty and all compassionate, they are both calling on the same god. i will conclude by trying very quickly to answer two questions. why did indians call gandhi a father of the nation? what was the secret of his

global impact? it was gandhi's political opponent who on july sixth, 1944 first addressed gandhi as the father of his nation. for years from 19009 if not earlier gandhi was attempting to adopt all the people of india into his family wanting to feel their burdens and his own burden. his son's and grandchildren did not always approve of this but many people in india came to feel that in gandhi they had found not merely a leader who stood up to the empire but a friend who wanted to drive their tears. indians of all kinds seemed to feel this. not just the hindus of whom he was one, gandhi's 20 years in south africa when he was lucky enough to find a community of indians from different parts of india were of immense help to him. they spoke different language class and practice different

languages, patiently and skillfully gandhi organized south africa's indians into a community. in south africa he found all of india and not only a lebron red -- laboratory scale. gandhi who at age 45 returned to india in 1915 had already built relationships with indians of all kinds. in the years that followed he found brilliant participants of nonviolent struggles across all of india in one part after another crossing india by train and are often on foot he bonded with for indians and rich indians. with hindus but also muslims. with the so-called untouchables, the children of god as he called them but also with a so-called card hindus with indians in bangle and karachi and every

portion of the land. in the process he has indians of all kinds to find a relationship with one another. indians were strangers to one another or -- were now willing to join hands. it was gandhi's contribution to this consciousness of one this as indians. is feeling of belonging to a family that was recognized in 1944, he called gandhi the father of the indian nation. moral courage, i believe, was the secret of his impact on world. speaking to power to the empire he also spoke truth to his own side and i will give you this example from the year 1919. in the april of that year, april 13, 1919, 380 or more

indians, hindus, muslims, killed in ten minutes in the worst single incident in the annals of british rule in india. there was an english general who ordered the soldiers to shoot without warning at this crowd. it was mass in this space. he and his soldiers occupied the only side. escape was possible. in ten minutes 380 and more people were killed. this was the famous jelly obama blog massacre. a few days before this incident five english men had been killed in the same city. at the end of that year, 1919 the indian national congress, the vehicle of the freedom

movement, held its annual session in the city to take advantage of the strong feeling that had been around. all the prominent indian leaders, gandhi was only back four years from south africa but by now was his own figure. virtually every well-known political figure in india was present at this rally. they're rather famous alley brothers just released from prison and said we came to the return and ready to go back, the great leader -- command who said for raja is my birthright. the irish woman who made in the home and it will life's mission. two years previous to this she had been the first woman president of the indian national

congress. before this session was a resolution which had two parts. the first part spoke of the massacre and said that the governor who presided over the state where the massacre took place should resign. the general who had ordered the massacre should face some punishment. strong criticism of what had happened in that massacre. the second paragraph of that resolution said we also criticize, before the action of the indian crowd that resulted in the killing of five. there was a discussion on this resolution. person after person came to the podium and said we like the first part though we would like to be stronger but we cannot accept the second part. one person came before the crowd, no son of an indian

mother could have drafted the second part of this resolution. the suggestion -- the insinuation was this irish lady might have drafted it. she was white. in those days any white person was regarded as an english person. today any white person is regarded as an american. no son of indian mother could have drafted the second part of the resolution. there with a vote and the second part was defeated first and the first part was defeated. the next day gandhi asked to speak to this great gathering. the chair person said that gandhi wants to speak and there were murmurs. watch he be allowed to speak again. we discussed this question before but they respected gandhi and let him speak. gandhi then said i have been thinking deeply and for long

about this remark that no son of an indian mother could have drafted the second part of this resolution because i had drafted it. then he said after thinking long and deeply about it i came to the conclusion that only the son of an indian mother would have drafted the second part of the resolution. somebody who was present them who later became a well-known political figure and literary giant who was present there wrote that gandhi and spoke as if his whole life depended on the passage of the second part of the resolution. and after he ended his speech all of us were at his feet and the resolution was reconsidered and passed as it had been drafted including the deploring

of the killings by the indians of the five english men. when gandhi did that he gave a stamp of honor to the indian freedom movement that the british found absolutely irresistible. and it was this humility in gandhi to speak the truth to his own side, not just to the side he was fighting that to my mind was the secret of the impact he made on the world. with that i conclude and i thank you very much. [applause] >> professor gandhi will take some questions. for the sake of the tv i request

people who have questions please come to the microphone. >> could you please comment on the commonality between lincoln and gandhi? it would appear that even after pakistan -- gandhi -- the the mission from him that gandhi will go to india and bring back muslims from pakistan back to india who left in the and that would have been much better than his gandhi march so that there's commonality between lincoln and gandhi. i wonder if you would comment on that. >> it is an interesting point. before gandhi was assassinated he had made this plan which

china had accepted as governor general of pakistan. two nations had been created and gandhi was all set to visit pakistan and negotiate this settlement of the deep division between the two countries. that his it never could take place because gandhi was assassinated. he suggested that also was a very lincoln like suggestion of gandhi's part that he would try to find a resolution. >> both your grandfather and abraham lincoln grew as human beings.

they evolve. and reached greater status at the end of their lives. care to comment on the personal growth and challenges they have as human beings? >> absolutely valid and a useful point to make that there was an evolution in gandhi's life. there was an evolution in lincoln's life. it is true in a personal sense of course and also true in some of the great issues they confront the. we all know that lincoln's position on slavery grew and evolve and became more radical with time and the same was true in the case of gandhi's position on sensibility. those are great issues and they need a good discussion but it is absolutely right to make this point is that there was an evolution in the positions that they took over the years and decades. i am glad the point i could not include for lack of time has been made to the discussion.

>> this question focuses on the cultural aspects. i am interested in the relationship or similarity of the difference between god and race, slavery in the u.s. and the untouchables in india and howard gandhi and lincoln dealt with these aspects in similar ways for different ways or is too complex question? >> it is not possible to give a short answer to your important question. as we all know in lincoln's case in his personal opinion slavery was wrong. it was terrible. he was searching for ways and means of ending it but in his

public positions and public statements his remarks on slavery were very mild to begin with and they evolve and ended the second inaugural. we know he identified slavery as a great central sin which was in some way responsible for the terrible killings that took place. in gandhi's case, the practice of and touch ability was concerned his language against it was very radical from the beginning. he always felt it was a tremendous -- and said so again and again -- the greatest blocked as far as indian society was concerned. but in terms of making the removal of untouchableability his sole goal, he had -- just as

lincoln had his union to preserve and slavery to abolish gandhi also wanted to bring equality to india to end the shame of untouchableability but also had the hindu muslim french and freedom of in the as his goal. a great friend of his called c f. andrews, and englishmen who said to him if you give up everything else but only concentrate on this question of untouchable the digital that is your biggest destiny. the great leader from the ranks of the untouchables who was an interesting and remarkable figure also said the same thing to gandhi. he said you seem to be so popular among all the hindus of india i want you to become a hindu dictator. i want you to give up all this talk about independence and muslim unity just to focus on this question of caste.

gandhi said no. i will fight on the cast question but also the independence question and the hindu/muslim question. is also true that just as lincoln radicalized his position as time went on, and listing blacks in the army and other issues gandhi also radicalized his position as far as intermarriage was concerned. gandhi toward the end said the only marriage to which i would give a special blessing would be a marriage between one of the so-called caste hindus and one from the so-called untouchables. there are these changes overtime. ..

>> he was a very loving grandfather. he gave me a warm embrace each time. and sometimes, you know, in the old days indians when they -- children, when they met their grandparents, they bow very deeply before them to receive a blessing, and normally the blessing would be to give a very nice caress to your head. but in this case my grandfather used to give me a big thump on the back. [laughter] and he was quite thin, and he was sometimes fasting, but his thump was quite strong. [laughter]

he was exceedingly warm and affectionate, and he sometimes made jokes, and i made jokes to him. but one thing was there; his grandchildren and his children didn't have too much of his time because he had so much other work to do, he had taken on so many things to do which he felt were necessary things to do. so sometimes his children and grandchildren felt, ah, he is giving so much time to the others, why is he not giving so much time to he? [applause] >> if -- for some americans, perhaps many, the movie "gandhi" was the first opportunity to see a more living record other than print or reading of the life and work of gandhi. there was very much positive

reception to the movie when it came out, but now many years have passed, and i wondered if in your research you have any commentary on the technical accuracy or the historical/philosophical points that the movie endeavored to place before us or any comment that we can know if this remains an accurate record to refer for our children and ourselves. >> thank you for this important question. this is by and large, in my judgment, it reflects gandhi's life and spirit quite well and quite cently. as you know -- correctly. as you know, one movie of two hours or even three hours cannot

show everything that happened in a life of 78 years. so all movies are selective, very selective. and some people will say that crucial parts of his life were left out, others may disagree with that. my assessment, it is, it's a very good summary of gandhi's life. but as you say, that film was made now almost 30 years ago, 25 years ago, and some other films have also been made. i think so far of all the films made, it remains the best, but i think there is great scope for and great likelihood of new movies also being made on gandhi's life. >> thank you so very much, professor. that was an extraordinary talk. [applause] it will live in our memory for a

long time, as will this evening as a whole. [applause] there are sweets to be had and good company for all of us. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> for more on raj ma hon gandhi and his work, visit rajmohan gandhi.com. >> all eight of your books about liberals, is that fair to say?os >> guest: um, yes. bo i mean, the first book was on the grounds for impeachment of bill clinton, slander on thei various ways liberals lie. and the rest are about liberals. actually, the column book, how to talk to a liberal if you must, that covers everything under the sun. >> host: slander, treason,

godless, guilty, demonic. are those fighting words? >> guest: zippy titles, aren't they? gue >> guest: like i said, i was thinking of calling this booking legion, but a small slice of christians would understand what i was talking about, and, yeah, i want people to read my books. i put a lot of work into them, and be i think you'll understani things in a different way.lea so, yeah, we give them zippy titles, we put me on the cover in the black cocktail dressut because it annoys liberals, drives them crazy. >> host: the best of ann court, in your view? >> guest: it's more of a quote book, yeah. >> host: environmentalists' energy plan is the b repudiation of america and christian destiny which is jet skis, hot showers and night skiing.

steven in utah, you're on "in>> depth." good afternoon. >> caller: hi, ann, i'dlike to thank you for all that you've done. i have some comments aboutt yo religion between the christians and liberals. there are principles that areal. conducted with the social,rinc spiritual and economic well being of individuals as well as nations. and these principles came from god himself to moses, and they formed a foundation of civilizes society, and they are commonlyf, referred to as the ten commandments. what the liberals have done isee turn these commandments into thh ten inconvenient truths. and you can go back to lyndon johnson's great society, his welfare program.ck he turned honor thy tower -- father and mother into honor tho mother and big government. wha have you ever read the keynote

dreals by obama? >> guest: no, but i think you need to read my book, "godless," where this point is made more pithily. the platform of the democratic party is breaking each one of the ten commandments one by onef by one. thou shalt not murder, what is the most important issue to theh democratic party? yes, that's right, abortion. thou shalt not steal, their entire tax policy is to generate class envy and steal money, redistrict wealth.ire certainly, put no god before me, they put every god before the real god. i don't think there's a living liberal who wouldn't give up his eternal soul to create carter's "vanituly fair" party to be citd favorably in "the new york times," to have a letter published in the "new yorkty f

times." be cited favorably in ie "new york times." the worshiping of idols is sport for, it's more than sport. it is religion of the left. their religion is breaking each one of the ten commandments one by one. >> host: and from "godless" you write: these pro-choicers treat abortion the way muslims treat mohamed. it's so sacred, it must not be mentioned. the only other practice that was both defended and unspeakable in america like this was slavery. >> guest: uh-huh. that's true. and interestingly, even, um, even in places where slavery was accepted, and it wasn't in many parts of the world, people would not let their children play with slave traders the way i imagine people wouldn't today let their kids -- it's one thing to say, oh, i'm pro-choice and let a woman decide. it's a different thing to let your kids play with a child of a local abortionist of which there

are not very many. it's a repellant practice. but it is peculiar that they'd elevate this and pretend it's a constitutional right, and yet we can't use the word. you don't have, you know, gun rights groups refusing to use the word "gun." it shows you what a hideous thing it is and what a hideous thing they know it is. >> host: now, another recent tweet from ann coulter, why doesn't barack obama tape the same speech and have them run it every night? new berlin, wisconsin, you're on. >> caller: okay. good afternoon, ann. it's wonderful to talk to you. i just finished, i have finished reading your book, and be i love it. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: and, basically, i'm here from the home of joe mccarthy, scott walker, paul ryan and also bass teague days -- bastille days. i just read your book at that time. i asked people why are we celebrating bastille days? so we had a lot of fun with

that. but i want to know one of my main questions, because i do watch all this back and forth and all this stuff. so many times that if we would just follow our constitution, we wouldn't be in this mess. and one of these main things is article i, section 11 of the constitution. you know, basically, all the powers are vested in congress. they are not vested in the bureaucrats. they are not vest candidated. and what are we going to do, to me, to bring back that and make people understand? to get our power back for we, the people -- >> guest: i'm so glad you ask. um, no, this is, this is a very important point. democrat policies are so unpopular that democrats have had to stop promoting them themselves. releasing violent and, you know, child molesting, murdering criminals, for example. so instead they just nominate judges and then assure us that the judges are very moderate and centrist, and they get up to the supreme court and suddenly discover, look, in this 2

200-year-old document, we found one. there's a right to gay marriage and abortion, and we must release 36,000 criminals from the california prisons. a recent united states supreme court ruling, by the way. so now they get the courts to do their dirty work for them and tell us it's a constitutional right. and i think the only way to rein this in, i mean, obviously, we have the method we've been trying for the last 20 years, quarter century, elect a republican president, um, wait for vacancies on the supreme court, get a supreme court nominee who doesn't hallucinate when reading the constitution. um, that really didn't work out so well. we had three, you know, three republican appointees -- sandra day o'connor, david hackett souder, justice kennedy who all voted to uphold the heart of roe v. wade though not the reice holding. as and ally ya said, i don't

know how that's fouling precedent. -- following precedent. in any event, we need to get five at large supreme court justices. this is one of my plans, just for a laugh to start engaging in if conservative activism and to hallucinate the sort of rights equivalent to the rights being hallucinated by the liberal justices so that we'll suddenly have a right to a flat tax, we'll have a right to own a rocket-propelled grenade, we'll have a right to free champagne for blonds. um, all kinds of fantastic rights i can think of. oh, i think we'll declare the withholding tax unconstitutional. and then our justices can all admit it was just a joke because liberals can never understand how heinous their policies are until it's done to them. and the alternative plan to, i can state much more quickly, we need a conservative, a republican executive to say in response to an insane supreme court ruling, for example, some of the guantanamo rulings under president bush, um, i wish he had just said thank you for your

opinion, the constitution makes me the commander in this chief. i am not, i am not giving, you know, special constitutional rights to terrorists grabbed on a battlefield as happened at guantanamo. thanks, supreme court. >> host: first a tweet and then an e-mail. the tweet by scott wagner: i like the way she flings her hair, can she sell a dvd of that while she reads "demonic"? that's the tweet. e-mail, tim johnson. ms. coulter lays it on the line, and all who disagree are, in her words, stupid and demonic. >> guest: um, no. some are misguided. mostly i think it is the worshiping of false idols, however. i think it is this desire to be considered cool and in and be not have to think about anything. >> host: her public appearances are an avalanche of gnarl words, and if serious conservatives want t