We are hiring!

[Debate] The Role of Mahatma Gandhi in India's Freedom Struggle is Exaggerated.

edited February 2014 in History & Culture

The motion for the debate today (26th Feb - 9 AM) is -
The Role of Mahatma Gandhi in India's Freedom Struggle is Exaggerated.


Please Note:

1. I will open this thread on 26th Feb at 9 AM and it will remain open for next 24 hours.
2. Please state your position (For or Against) in the first comment.
3. Please refrain from personal attacks.
4. Do go through previous debates Here & Here.

Please Remember:


And be Assured:
“I’m a lover of my own liberty, and so I would do nothing to restrict yours.” -
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


  • Writing against the Motion: The Role of Gandhiji has not been exaggerated

    We need to understand that when a country gets independence from foreign rule like India did from the Britishers in 1947, you need a larger than life persona of a leader who reflect all the virtues and ideals that we value in Life. A young Nation needed a father figure which could be used to erase the hurt and humiliation for exploitative foreign rule. Gandhiji perfectly fit into that role.

    1. Gandhiji's concept of Ahimsha and Satyagrah perfected in South Africa played a big role in bringing the masses into the National movement. His leadership by example and his frugal lifestyle was a deliberate attempt to appeal to the masses and to awaken their conscience.
    2. Our Constitution took care of affirmative action for SCs and STs because there had been consensus reached for the same under Gandhiji's leadership during the National Movement. Remember, it was his fast in Jail against separate electorate which led to the Poona Pact of having reserved seats for depressed classes in the legislature in 1932 but to be elected by a common electorate. You just need to look to the 1990's during the Mandal Agitation, how things turned out as the national consensus had not been built by our leadership.
    3. It was because of Gandhiji's leadership that India became a democracy and did not embrace Communism like Mao's China. The havoc that communism created in China the 1950's with Mao's Great leap forward leading to over 30 million deaths due to starvation is well known. Remember, that Independent India did not have a single famine due to our democratic system.
    4. No one is perfect and Gandhiji himself was acutely aware about his imperfections, that he was a poor father, bad husband and about his eccentric support for Vegetarianism.

    So, the History written of our National Movement for Independence projected Gandhiji as embodiment of all the virtues that the Nation considers dear. This was done for the larger purpose of Nation building and to have a common narration which appeals to all sections of the society especially for a country like India with all its diversity of religion, caste, ethnic and language.

    P.S: Though, I would love to see children learn more about other leaders of our National movement like Gandhiji’s mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadar Tilak, Annie Besant, Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad and Subhas Chandra Bose.
    Chase excellence and success will follow you :)
  • edited February 2014
    If you say Gandhi's role is exaggerated>Then i think every leader is exaggerated in history. Leaders are not prophets with extra-worldly powers. They are human beings and product and manifestation of collective conscience/consciousness/soul of a society at a particular period of time. The social conditions dictate what kind of personality is most likely to succeed and suitable to lead a nation.
    Albeit, criticising great men or hero-worshipping them especially Gandhi have been favourite pastime from times immemorial. For, political reasons too history of great men is often subjected to tug of war.
    I dont find Gandhi's role exaggerated, because
    1)his spiritual, simple and learned persona struck a chord with the whole nation, every strata-Middle class, Madrasi, Punjabi, Industriaist, peasant. He symbolised the Indian Nation.
    2)We owe him a great deal for our present day peace and stability and this opportunity to be able to type on laptops talking about equality, liberty, gandhi and history.
    I doubt the middle class foreign educated leaders of Congress could ever take the wide masses with them without Gandhi. they would have kept on debating every year to their lower middle class urban followers. It was these leaders who for the sake of national movement invited and spread out red-carpet to him not Gandhi who grabbed the political opportunity.
    3)Had the Indian nationalism not be based on peace and non-violence principles of GAndhi, we would have been another Asian country where regionalist, religionists, communits, fighting with each other and millitary taking over. These principles have so great a subtle power that you can hardly imagine. Do you ever tried to know why Pakistan doesn't have the dynamic and forward looking middle-class as it is here. Thanks are owed to Gandhi.
    4)Indian masses could never ever take over Britishers with their lathis and Dandas. Firstly, there was not such revolutionary and violent consciousness and intent ever. For whom they would fight for- their exploitative zamindars or M.A Jinnahs. In fact, primary instruments of Britishers -Indian Army and Bureaucracy were always very loyal to Britishersers.
    5)For thse who criticise Gandhi over World War II - let me tell you - which ignorant world you are living in. Who gave the slogan Do-Or-Die get these firangs fucking out of here and we will defend our nation in 1942. WWII startd in 1939 and continued upto 1944. At those times such savage colonialists as Japan were knocking at the Indian doors. Those were insane times. What would you want? A violent revolution instigated by GAndhi in India against britishers so that Japan and Hitler could fuck us under their authoritarian regimes forever. Britishers were big jerks but not as big as them. Do you remember, that uncool looking Satyagraha could get us provincial rule by elected leaders in 1935. If you compare American Struggle for Independence with India's , you dont know a heck of history.

    In toto, it is indeed fashionable to be excited by the libido of newfound youth vitalit and f**k the history of our forefathers especially Gandhi. But , atleast the criticism must know some limits and rationality - accusing Gandi of personal aggrandisment or such things as 'found under dubious circumstances in Birla Haveli (appatijanak awastha me) is too much.

    PS: It was Gandhi who suggested abolishing of Congress. He knew his limits abou pragmatism. Thts why he chose Nehru. It is insane to argue that e could have imposed anything on us. He was a lil pure selfless fallible man.

    PS: pardon me for some of this excited language but debate me kuch jazba to hona hi chahiye (a bit of passion is a must in debate)
    and Drona asked,"what do you see?","the sparrow's eye!"......and Krishna replied,"Turning their discerning mind to That, directing their whole conscious being to That, making That their whole aim and the sole object of their devotion, they go whence there is no return"
  • Arguments against the motion:

    First a critique of the above set of facts:
    1.) Gandhi was on British Side indeed during Boer War, WW2,WW1 as well may be.At the time of the war Gandhi's position favoring the allies is consistent to the extent that he sided against the aggressor. The above argument assumes that siding on one side automatically implies that he is accepting responsibility for all actions of the allies.It's fallacious to that extent.
    You are also looking at events post facto and giving them logical overtones. It wasn't as clear to people then that it was a war for colonies, and especially not certain that it looked that way to Gandhi.About the famine Gandhi was in prison then when Churchill ordered the transfer of grains; remember that even then British felt Gandhi was a nuisance. Churchill during the transfer suggests to the viceroy that why isn't the famine killing Gandhi.So anachronistic hue of WW2 and Gandhi being in prison reduce the weight of your arguments.

    2.) Gandhi wasn't a democrat, neither did he proclaim to practice democracy...he was not in favor of any state except the state of love and sharing and sacrifice and modesty.He was a theoretical anarchist.His vision for India was for unity and sanctity of its culture and his persuasions were to that extent against violence of any kind.This meant that he disagreed with Bose and Singh and others.The rest is speculation.Bhagat Singh was towards the end of his prison term leaning towards Gandhi's social ideals and Bose too accepted Gandhi for who he was, just that he found it hard.Besides what does this have to do with Gandhi's role? and contribution.

    Point 3 is the most relevant so I will deal with it separately.

    Point 4 is speculative and irrelevant to the debate about his role in Indian freedom struggle.

    Point 5 suggests that if a deed of Gandhi is suppressed all his other deeds must have been exagerated...it neither proves the first point nor provides a regressive line of extrapolation.It jumps from one rumour to a grand conclusion.Perhaps one should consider restating his point.

    Now to the most relevant point, point 3. Here I will agree to the extent that freedom to the geographical territory of India might have come sooner perhaps with other leaders or with alternate paths...but Gandhi's real contribution to India remains his ability to have brought esteem back into our culture, our lives, our women, the untouchables,dalits and tribes.So I am of the belief that without Gandhi's intervening period India would have disintegrated with little self esteem or regard for each other.

    Contribution of Gandhi:
    Mobilisation and methods to make people participate.
    1.Gandhi ensured that people fought without weapons and we're able to take sides.This requirement of very little skill ensured that the poor were able to participate; the rich were able to participate and even the women...those who had no particular feeling of nation or patriotism were now doing things which made them share this greater feeling of oneness.The battle of troops was not going to create this Indian nation, it was only this battle of oneness that helped galvanise us.The largest mobilisation of women happened in India during Gandhi's time and post independence until about 1970 women ceased to participate which highlights Gandhis contribution in mainstreaming women.Dalits and tribals until Gandhi came always fought for themselves. Post Gandhi they began to participate in other struggles which brought the rich poor backward and forward classes into a common struggle.Gandhi and his aura ensured that major splits of Congress in 1923 and 39 were averted.
    2.Re-Indianising our History and Re interpreting our History.
    Gandhi broadcasted that basics of Indian culture as found in our book was not inferior and extremely developed by all standards.His reinterpreting of Gita, Vedas and making the simple truths accessible was a political master stroke. I am not debating here whether his interpretation was correct, but I am talking about unifying India with a sense of pride. His interpretation of Vedas to suggest entry into temples coagulated the diverse lower castes into the nation.Besides, he encouraged most elements which proclaimed our equivalence in development to most religions viz. Indian art and kautilya etc. Also, he strongly contested the right wing Islam and Hinduism which ensured the future of minorities in India and delayed the rampant jingoism of majority right wing. This moderation aligned forces against a common enemy.
    3. As the leader of all the three major moments(even for quit India he gave the Bombay water tank speech) and as someone who brought a degree of difference in each moment, each succeeding one more demanding then the previous will also appear in hindsight(note this is not anachronistic) as a preparatory and progressive building of Indian oneness.

    Gandhi's role might be overstated when when stress on the word freedom in the phrase freedom of India and it is wrong to think that way. His contribution was in giving the term India a unique meaning, a common denominator, an avenue for Co existence of the myriad interest groups in our country.The fact that we did not disintegrate and fall like 9 pins is down to the amazing work of those leaders among whom the tallest was undoubtedly Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
  • edited February 2014
    Arguments against the motion-
    1. While in school, I used to admire Gandhiji. But going ahead i heard a lot of propoganda against him. Surprisingly the right wing accused him of being left wing and vice versa. Majority accused if of being pro-minority while minority accused his for his Hindu way of life. Dalits/Harijan found him against Ambedkar and the revolitonaries against Bhagatsingh. The real achievement of Gandhiji was/is he was 'Father of Nation' and not any faction in diverse country like India. hence He will always bear that criticism of every group of being against them while He stood only for every Indian, every human being and finally the Truth.
    2. One man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary. If people start justifying violence as not morally reprehensible, everything from whats happening in kashmir, northeast, red belt will be justifiable. The myriad problems of India immediately after independence were solved largrly by path shown by Mahatma. Even america had to face a bloody civil war to solve dipute becuase that was the only way they were taught of.
  • Against the Motion

    Most people see Freedom Struggle from a very narrow point of view as in freedom from british rule. In that sense, even I'd agree that freedom was imminent because of decolonization. But Indian freedom struggle, unlike american & others (someone brought it into context), actually meant much more - freedom from zamindars, freedom from untouchability & casteism, freedom from communalism, freedom from linguism & regionalism and above all - a symbol of unity and common struggle. We are yet to attain many of these goals.

    A country where chronic poverty and ignorance used to haunt millions, where people were known for their servility and sycophancy, where satis were burnt as late as 19th century, where certain sections were disallowed in temples, where leaders, although recognized in their respective regions, never had pan-India mass following - here rose a man who was worshipped all over the nation. His fight against britishers might not be his best contribution to freedom struggle. Infact, many admire Bhagat Singh and others more than him for they laid their lives at a young age but might I remind them what Bhagat Singh himself acknowledged -

    "The struggle in India would continue so long as a handful of exploiters go on exploiting the labour of the common people for their own ends. It matters little whether these exploiters are purely British capitalists, or British and Indians in alliance, or even purely Indian"

    I've said this before and even at the cost of repetition I'd say it again - Most people in India go against gandhian philosophy and the man himself just because they want to romanticize of being the "other" and it gets them a different identity in crowd. His ideas are better recognized and valued outside.
  • edited February 2014
    At no point , i was countering your mentioned things here personally. infact the kind of arguments i see here are replete all over the public discourse.

    Look friend, i dont want into too much debate and counter each and every of your counter-points. It would reduce to a history class debate then. but lemme just point out quick chinks
    1)Nehru inherited Gandhi's mantle/legacy. Read someday about his electoral campaigns/talks. Nehru and Indpendent India congress are just the inheritors of Gandhi era nationalist legacy>2nd generation of nationalists.
    2)Dont get me on comparing Gandhi and Subhash, Surya Sen, Bhagat Singh. I will touch many a patriotic raw nerves here. i dont know why you always see it a s zero-sum game. As if realizing Gandhi's contribution would somehow demean other patriots.
    3)Pakistan Army as well as Bangladesh Army was also a British Indian army split-off. So is, I believe many other commonwealth independent nations army. Dont raise British neutrality teaching to such an exalted position.
    4)I knew these peripheral North-East, Kashmir and Punjab would be coming but why drag poor Gandhi in it. He may not have deviced some magic wand philosophy/satyagraha to get rid of these kinda problems but the poor fellow didn't caused them either. In that sense, even partition and so much bloodshed couldn't be stopped by Gandhian philosophy. This doesn't mean Gandhi failed. it smacks of same hero-worshipping/leave it to heroes. I admire him for his national leadership and that is not certainly exagerated, may be his legacy is misused my some parties bu that is not Gandhi's fault.
    5)American revolution>So Indian revolution. It is not Gandhi's fault such revolution didnt happen. American revolutionary leaders were big shots and offshoot of British colonists themselves. How can you impute their capability to violently revolute to Indian masses!
    6)You acusing Gandhi of forgetting depressed classes. And, now if i bring a slight mention of Reservation and most of eyebrows will be raise here. Gandhi ji was not a God. these were sensitive issues. Britishers se lade ki , Brahamano se lade. Should he fight with Britishers or Brahmans.

    I admire him for his national leadership and that is not certainly exagerated, may be his legacy is misused my some parties bu that is not Gandhi's fault.

    Finding faults from every nook and corner possble and projecting every wrong happening/happened in India to person smacks of same hero-worshipping/leave it to heroes.

    If we want to debate just because we want to, and we have to defend our beliefs we can go on.
    and Drona asked,"what do you see?","the sparrow's eye!"......and Krishna replied,"Turning their discerning mind to That, directing their whole conscious being to That, making That their whole aim and the sole object of their devotion, they go whence there is no return"

  • And yet my confusion about Non-violence remain. I fail to understand the relevance of Ahimsa.
    Your confusion remains because instead of focussing on the means (violence or ahimsa) to achieve the end you are focussing only on the end (freedom). This was clear from your analogy of "fruit & tree" in which your attention was only on the fruit. Did you look back for the repercussions?

    Of course you get instant result (fruit) when you shake the tree instead of waiting for the fruit to ripe but you've ignored that not every fruit on the tree matures at the same time. When you try to get fruits by shaking the tree, unripe fruits come down along with the ripen ones which is not the intention.

    Similarly, when you chose violence over ahimsa, you might achieve freedom two decades earlier but at the cost of how many jalianwalabaghs? How many immature youngsters (unripe fruits) you'd sacrifice? Would you be ok if he/she is from your family? Would you agree to wait for freedom which you are going to achieve anyway and save all these lives? Gandhi didn't chose ahimsa because he thought violence is futile and won't achieve purpose but because the cost involved was far greater. This at a time when a mere gathering to felicitate heroes gave the excuse to britishers to unleash violence over us.

    "I think it was quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself."
    -- Gen. Reginald Dyer

    This is the audacity he had and it reflects what competition he expected of indians even if they retaliated. Pls do not make a mockery of the freedom struggle of unarmed fighters of that era by comparing it with the war of independence where americans actually defeated britishers in the combat war.
  • edited February 2014
    @Siddharth bhai , you are too good .. Like the way you present your views .. =D> ..
    I was bit skeptical if I'd presented the same views like others did , I fear it could incite hatred . Since Gandhiji was hailed as man par excellence ..

    Here are my two cents :

    I was reading an article of a speech made by Shivshankar Menon IFS(our NSA ) on IFS probationers farewell day . You like it or not , you are judged by your dress you wear (sic).

    I would like to compare the very same with Gandhiji .. Simple and humble (Half-naked fakir). Dressed according to India's climate . Whats the big thing in it .. ? Right .. ? See Indians were at that time witnessing leaders who would wear Western suit or Indian suit(bandh-gala) . They couldnt see any leaders who they loved the most which reflect their lifestyle . So when they saw a person in a different attire , that too spoke in which words get directly not to their brain but to their heart they concluded Here comes our Messiah .

    They are common people who dont have any formal eduction would wish to succumb to their supreme leader , whom they trust the most , cant be treated with ignominious in any manner. There were even fairy tales or miracles folklore prevailing those era regarding Gandhiji ( source : NCERT new History books).

    What I wish to say is , people can come up with 'n' no.of facts , conspiracy theories etc on Gandhiji but still wish to quote made by Einstein on Gandhi : Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth .

    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi , what a man . ^:)^
    2017--> 8th attempt
  • edited February 2014
    Just to add about Ahimsa to what @Siddharth has already beautifully explained:
    I think we need to read a bit more about Gandhiji’s 21 years in South Africa where he honed his skill on Satyagrah – method of Non-violence protest.
    Do you know he was almost killed twice in South Africa once by the White natives and another time by a fellow Indian, saved only by luck both times. Violence never intimidated him and it was his moral conviction which finally prevailed during his protests even in South Africa.
    His methods of Satyagrah has been extensively used by later leaders including Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement and Nalson Mandela in South Africa and ll continue to inspire common people to fight for their right across the world even in future.

    P.S : Of course, this was applied to the context of British Rule which did follow a façade of some kind of Rule of Law and Gandhiji showed the Britishers the mirror of how hollow it was.
    And yes this Satyagrah type of protest could not have been applied to a Stalin’s USSR- it would have been culled ruthlessly.
    Chase excellence and success will follow you :)
  • I shall write against the motion guys.
    1. The chief contribution of M. K. Gandhi to the freedom struggle was his expertise as an organizer. He had enthusiasm, spirit and courage. When he entered the scene in India, the Congress was disorganized, running three day tamashas which led to internecine squabbles. He controlled this aspect and established it as a pan Indian organization.
    2. He was a pragmatic person. Different classes of people, including industrialists, were willing to contribute to the movement because of his non violent philosophy. no movement is possible without financial support. He was quite innovative in canvassing it.
    3. He made a smart move in creating an ideology which appealed to all but was utopian in character. Any failures could be explained away by the difficulty of adhering to such a high ideal. The British were more willing to negotiate with him for this reason.
    4. Every movement needs a figurehead. In India, we admire tradition and morality. So he became a symbol with these qualities for the participants of the freedom struggle.
    The movement needed a man who could move millions, so Gandhi became one. Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries were young, radical and idealistic. They inspired the youth, but could not establish a mass base otherwise.This all important mass base and support was created by Gandhi. Even internationally, people were impressed by his philosophy. Thus Gandhi's contribution to the freedom struggle is not exaggerated.

    (I'm leaving out anything about his views regarding sex and other controversial issues, because frankly, few people followed his doctrine and anyway it's not relevant to the freedom struggle as such.)
    The horde sees the fish. Arjuna sees the eye.
    I see the possibility of fish pakoras ;)
    fledgling IRS (C&CE)
  • Writing against the Motion: Has Bapu’s role been exaggerated? Absolutely NOT

    Notwithstanding the amount of research that goes in capturing past in history pages and my limited understanding of them, I believe everybody has got their due credit. So has the Mahatma. Deservedly so.

    1. Many think India would have gotten freedom anyway-with or without his leadership-as it was just a matter of time Britain gave up on her colonies. It’s plane speculation. India was Britain’s prized possession and not some stock market traded commodity. They have kept colonies as long as they could. In our case, Gandhiji made that impossible in ways more than one.

    2. After enjoying six decades of free air and free India , it’s very comfortable to scrutinize past. All those “what-if”s are answered very clearly if you read between the lines. Indians had tried everything – from power(1857) to petition (moderates). What did we get?? Were we able to mobilize our masses? No. Let alone independence.
    It was Gandhiji who without having to resort to violence did that. Why not violence? That’s a stupid question that doesn’t merit any debate.
    A. It was who he was
    B. Violence wouldn’t have won Britain over. Few bombs here and there couldn’t have made 150 years of established rule shake her in her boots.
    C. Comparing American vis-à-vis our movement is unjustified. You can’t jump out of skin of the time to make any comparison b/w two different scenarios(size,culture,geography).

    He could mobilize all-from tenants-to-women-to-tribals-to-businessmen-you name it-because he knew how to do that. He recognized nerve of the people. He made them realize it was their fight. People could have chosen the other ways(That of Bhagat, Khudiram et al). Why didn’t they? They were then and there and knew better than us, right??

    3. Many of us like to think of our struggle as a War, It wasn’t. It was a Movement. It takes time. Hyper-aggression was not sustainable. None of NCM,CDM,QIM failed per se. It mobilized more and more Indians to come forward. If you look closely, the NCM brought Muslims in the bandwagon, the CDM women and the QIM whole country.

    4. About less credit to Bhagat , Khudiram et al. Human civilization progresses in peace and maybe we all like peace. So if historians like/liked to present peace-makers who won for us in better light than others(Bhagat et al) , may be they want next generations to choose piece. You might call it an iota of exaggeration or partiality if you will but that’s alright bcz if you look it from their eyes, History should not only tell facts but also educate people for the good.

    P.S. - Bose had scores of differences with Bapu and it was none other than him who called him “Father of the Nation." Doesn't it settle the debate? Do we need question historians?

  • I am against the motion

    First of all, the most important contribution of his stands at uniting the people all over the country at a time when the country was so extensively divided (read caste, class and religion). No other leader did it on such a large scale.

    When it comes to non-violence, I think it was the best way to protest. Not many would be brave enough to support an arm struggle. People would back out. But using non-violence, he ensured a country-wide participation of the people.

    And who cared about Harijans ? Just a couple of social activists here and there, not on a national level.

    He was from a merchant family and well educated. He did not even need to think about the country. But he did.

    Controversial stories and conspiracy theories follow any and every well-known personality. We should not pay much attention to them.

    So exaggerated ? I think not. He deserves the credits given to him by the historians.
  • Thank you @RS86 @AK_CS @Nasela_Batman @Siddharth @Power_of_Shunya @nesh28 @rohan_ias @9dhakep & @yeraditya for sharing your views here.

    I came to know a lot of new and interesting things about Mahatma Gandhi from your comments. (Special thanks to @RS86 - Many of the points that you raised were not known to me.) ^:)^

    As far as my stand is concerned - I would have spoken for the motion. There is no doubt that he played a cardinal role in our freedom struggle and I am sure he will remain a source of inspiration to all for many years to come. In a country known for hero worship, where a cricketer is given the status of God, I think his role has been exaggerated. We Indians (More than a billion people) have the capacity to make anybody a Mahatma. And perhaps due to the long congress rule - History has been deliberately distorted. I have no intention to belittle his sacrifice, but at the same time we must not forget the contribution of other freedom fighters. Unfortunately this has become a zero sum game, his role has been exaggerated by our historians to an extent that it has dwarfed the contribution of others. A cursory glance at the school history text books published in 60s, 70s and 80s is enough to recognize the bias.

    Anyways, thank you all for participating. Will come up with a new topic for debate soon. It was a pleasure reading all your comments. (I wish I could express my views like you all do! :) ).

    P.S. If you have any topic for debate, send me a PM.

    Thank you all once again. \m/
Sign In or Join to comment.
Success Stories from Our Toppers
Minal Karanwal(AIR-35)- CSE 2018
Naveen Reddy(AIR-1)- IFoS 2018
Arushi Mishra(AIR-2) - IFoS 2018
Chirag Jain(AIR-10) - IFoS 2018
Kshitij Saxena(AIR-22) - IFoS 2018
Sumit Rai (AIR-54) - CSE 2018
Anuraj Jain (AIR-24) - CSE 2018

Must Read Articles From Blog
Trend Analysis of UPSC CSE Prelims from 2011-18
How Yo_Yo_Choti_Singh Improved His Writing Speed
How to clear Civil Services with a TOP Rank and AVOID exhausting attempts


We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google