A clear well-written read on Gandhi’s political philosophy. Shepard defines Gandhi’s doctrine of nonviolence as breaking of a law which is unjust and doing so in a very polite (civil) way; being willing to be imprisoned or even killed for your cause but not willing to kill in return. Nonviolence means no violence against the government it means but very often there is violence against the actor, so the whole situation should be mistaken as completely violence free.

Next he shows how not ... (show more)

A clear well-written read on Gandhi’s political philosophy. Shepard defines Gandhi’s doctrine of nonviolence as breaking of a law which is unjust and doing so in a very polite (civil) way; being willing to be imprisoned or even killed for your cause but not willing to kill in return. Nonviolence means no violence against the government it means but very often there is violence against the actor, so the whole situation should be mistaken as completely violence free.

Next he shows how not esoteric this principal is. Martin Luther King practiced Satyagraha and so did Rosa Parks when she refused to move to the back of the bus. The American forefathers were Satyagraha disciples when they boycotted the Stamp Act, the Townshed Act and others. Also the American’s replaced governmental functions with their own created agencies, which is another principal of nonviolent action. Plus, Gandhi’s views were inspired by the same principles which inspired these other examples, The New Testament or Sermon on the Mount. Only later does he find credibility in the Hindu scripture.

Originally, Gandhi thought his polite way of disagreeing would inspire a change of heart in the rulers. But the author points out the effectiveness is not in a change of heart but grasping the hearts of the public which then puts pressure on the authorities to change. Gandhi doesn’t believe that his actions should be used to overthrow anybody only to bring unity to a place by showing solidarity towards justice by which everyone, even those in power benefit. It’s all very kum-by-ya, however in practice it is effective. One outcome of changing power in this way, which certainly took place in India’s independence, is that the two parties end almost amicably. Usually the terror created by wars for independence results with both parties being mortal enemies. Satyagraha aims to bring the parties into a harmonious understanding and partnership. (show less)

The dude was the MAN, and maybe a little gay but not flaming. He started India’s longest ruling sea-to-sea empire and that was his back-up plan! The book reads like if GI-Joe was X-Rated and loved poetry. He slaughters so many people it’s unthinkable. One of his favorite antidotes is having someone “hacked to pieces.” But he’s a poetry lover, writing constantly and snobby about those with poor diction.
As part of the Genghis-Timur lineage his birthright was Samarkand. But it’s a rough ... (show more)

The dude was the MAN, and maybe a little gay but not flaming. He started India’s longest ruling sea-to-sea empire and that was his back-up plan! The book reads like if GI-Joe was X-Rated and loved poetry. He slaughters so many people it’s unthinkable. One of his favorite antidotes is having someone “hacked to pieces.” But he’s a poetry lover, writing constantly and snobby about those with poor diction.
As part of the Genghis-Timur lineage his birthright was Samarkand. But it’s a rough family to be from. Constantly they were killing each other and taking each other’s land. Babur actually wins Samarkand and loses it twice. So he moves East. India had been invaded by Muslims for a couple hundred years at this point by the Delhi Sultanates and Muhammad Ghazni , but they were more pillage and plunder types instead of rulers. He thinks he’ll have better luck in India than fending off his war-crazed family and he’s kind of too much of a failure to do anything but conquer in exile.

His army size is staggering – Sometimes over 100,000 warriors that number doesn’t include slaves, cooks, entertainers, women and children or military campaigns with allied armies. It’s like one guy commanding the city of New Jersey into battle at a time without electric communication. And he must have done it well since the Mughal Empire lasted until the British.

GI-Joe in a major way, the book shows the harsh conditions when crossing Hindu-Kush they had no clue what they were doing but there was nowhere else to go. Every step they thought they may fall off a snow covered cliff. When there was only a small shelter he slept outside with his men. He was rigid about his military dedication and never satisfied to stay still. His army’s path is marked with “piles of heads” made to warn villages they pass though. He keeps order in his army by “slitting soldiers’ noses” for minor infractions and severed heads are a currency for which the solider is rewarded after battle. Incomparably brutal, he believes in fate “If the sword of the world moves from its place, it will not sever a vein unless God wills it.” Yet he posits no value on the individual human life.

The book is his diary of sorts. Like the nosey old lady down the street he has a candid opinion of EVERYONE. His two pet peeves are people who talk too much and write bad poetry. But he’s so focused on military pursuits; his personal trials are sadly short. One such is his religious pledge to stop drinking at 40. He’s anxious all through his late 30’s thinking about it afterwards he writes about it like losing a friend. Though he still allows himself to drink Ma’jun (a mildly psychedelic substance) almost every day it seems. So you’re not feeling too bad. However you do feel bad for his isolation. He doesn’t seem close to many people except his top soldiers and they die frequently. His mother passes early on and his son is off on military campaigns. He drinks with a woman once and hates it, besides that the only mention of women are in a poetry line as “useless, with a hole as large as a cow’s.” Keeping catamites (anal sex receivers) was popular in his homeland and though he calls it a disgusting habit he admits to falling in love with a boy when he was younger. Yet, that is the only mention of love in 460 pages.

It’s a struggle to piece him together: sick massacring war monger and pious humble poetry lover. He’s the bridge. He comes from an upbringing where cruelty was an undisputed good qualitiy. As a very religious and humble man, he quarrels with god over his honor “If I die with good repute, it is well. / I must have a good name, for the body belongs to death.” But he never questions his brutality. (show less)