Assasination Of Mahatma Gandhi

[acharya]

From another forum


The whole current debate about Ahimsa is invalid if you examine the larger cultural context in which ideas like these have evolved.

If you consider the Vedic scripture as the fountain-head of Ahimsa, you will be disappointed to find many references to "violent" practices in it. What the Vedas preach is how to live in harmony, cognizant of our place as an insignificant race on a small planet with finite resources. The Vedas preach kinship, love and worship, but do not condemn violence.

If you consider "essential Indian/Hindu culture" as the source of Ahimsa, again you will be disappointed to note that Indian/Hindu society has never hesitated to take up the sword when absolutely necessary. Just consider that Lord Krishna preached armageddon - not Ahimsa!

So, what is the place of himsa or violence in society?

It was neither glorified nor reviled. Ahimsa, or non-violence, was the supreme Dharma of only those seekers on the spiritual path who were on their way to sainthood. For the monk or shaven headed one, he is NEVER permitted to raise his hand in violence – even though he may be SLAUGHTERED by a mightily-armed enemy. In the Hindu Dharma Sastras 'ahimsa paramo dharma' - ahimsa or non-violence is the Supreme Dharma is NOT AN ABSOLUTE for non-monastics. Householders can and on occasion are REQUIERD to use force. The Kshatriyas were born warriors and violence (to protect Dharma – not mindless rape and slaughter) was their stated duty. Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.

Ahimsa Paramo Dharma was NOT – repeat NOT – enjoined upon the masses. It was meant ONLY for monks that chose to abandon the world, and through austerities, hoped to attain the Supreme. For them killing is ABSOLUTELY prohibited. Sri Sankara was supremely gentle, while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it. Clear enough?
<b>
Gandhi (I will skip the ji) suffered from an incorrect understanding of Hindu Dharma. His writings on the subject of Ahimsa demonstrate his immature and incomplete understanding on such a crucial cultural issue. His writings in Young India, urging Hindus to get slaughtered by Mussalmans, and Hindu husbands to watch their wives and mothers get raped and not defend them, reflect the criminal idiocy of the man trusted by millions. Gandhi DID NOT UNDERSTAND INDIAN/HINDU THOUGHT AT ALL. For a man who probably meant well for everybody, he will go down as one man who managed to completely screw up an entire nation’s thinking about its own cultural realities. Gandhi can never be forgiven for peddling criminal inaction and passivity when the need of the hour was all-out action. It was Gandhi whose half-arsed support to Khilafat movement resultd in so many foul atrocities on Hindus. The less we talk about this false hero the better.


</b>

[Guest]

Material pasted in #81:
Merely lodging disagreement with use of a word. I take exception to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Armageddon has a very specific meaning. It is a term that is entirely biblical, where its meaning is complete destruction of everything and all life forms: all plants, all animals, all children, all women, all old men, all men - <i>all over the world</i>.
(But it has nothing to do with Kala - Time - destroying everything. Armageddon is a particular, defined event the bible alludes to. One can't find an equivalent in Hindu Dharma, it's like comparing cannonballs and apples.)

Krishna did not even tell the Pandavas that war must be, <i>until</i> all other options were tried and exhausted. He went as emissary to the Kauravas to talk them out of their obstinacy in denying the Pandavas even the smallest, token portion of their share.
When all attempts to avoid a confrontation had come to nothing, then and only then did the war start. And it is during the war - when Arjuna throws down Gandiva and sits dejectedly on the battlefield of Kurukshetra - that Krishna tells him why he must continue in this war, even though it is so destructive and will end with the deaths of all his family and beloved elders and teachers arrayed on the other side.
Where in the world does Krishna 'preach armageddon'?

Even Parashurama, in killing Kshatriyas, did not kill all men let alone all people, or all creatures. No armageddon there either.

Hindus must be careful not to use terms - worse, attribute them to our heroes and Gods - when we do not know their meanings. (I probably use words in the wrong contexts myself, which, unless someone sees fit to correct me, I won't know about.) But attaching 'armageddon' to Krishna in the Gita is inexplicable. Hindus who are trying to make a point ought to be more careful to explain what they mean correctly. Any important statement that uses terms that don't belong can and <i>will</i> be used against us.
People who know about armageddon, but don't know anything about the Gita and Mahabharatam, will use unintended mistakes like the above against Hinduism: 'See here's a Hindoo explaining how Krishna preached armageddon. So that makes their Gods no different from jihadis. Compare that with jeebus, who preached love <i>and</i> armageddon.'


Pointing out something else in post 81 again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It's true that they were allowed to eat meat obtained from hunting (specific animals).

But this was usually done only before battle. Outside of this, their diet (in earlier ages) was more strictly vegetarian than it has been in the last millennium. I do not have the source for this, and cannot remember where to find it, so take it as an opinion until if/when I am able to back up my position with more than my own words.


Not disagreeing on the explanation contained in #81 of why Gandhi's 'total ahimsa' was flawed and not in keeping with Hindu Dharma of the ages.

Being prepared for war was always a part of Hindu life. We even had an entire class of people trained for that (class as in class of specialists, not as in British class system), all over the country. None of them shrank from this duty or ever thought it evil; because they realised it was a necessity sometimes. Not being prepared to defend oneself - or on larger scale: to defend one's civilisation - means that everything can be lost (which in our case includes Dharma which is the essence of Hindu civilisation).

There was no drivel then like there is today: the modern movement of 'pacificism at any cost' even if it means destruction of all that is good and wholesome. Pacifism at any cost, even if it means handing over the world to tyrants and monsters to blight the world after they've destroyed those that could have defended it.

Wendy Doniger can say whatever her miniscule mind can conjure up from the safety of her comfortable residence. But let's see if she would declare her loudly-advertised pacifism to oncoming Changeez Khan or the Huns. Or whether she will try and draw blood before letting herself or any kids she may have get murdered. Some enemies can not be reasoned with, so sermonising to them about 'Can't we all just live in peace' will be nothing more than a waste of oxygen.

Unreasonable insistence on others' pacifism is worse than cowardice. At least the coward does not insist everyone else be a coward too and get murdered in a dreadful manner. But the uppity modern thought of being pacifist-at-all-times will rob everyone of the natural instincts of self-, family-, village-, nation- and civilisation-preservation. In our case the last is Dharma. All the ideals of Hindu civilisation are enshrined in that. So if any Dharmic person were to speak of defending 'our civilisation', it is ultimately Dharma which we seek to protect: it defines our principles formed over countless generations.

[ramana]

Book Review from Pioneer, 13 May 2007

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Gestures of greatness </b>

Kamath brings out several lesser known stories of Gandhi's spiritual journey from the plague-infested Indian ghetto in Johannesburg to Birla House where he was shot dead, writes Lata Jagtiani

Type "Books on Mahatma Gandhi" on an Internet search engine and the response throws up no less than 1,500,000 sites! It's anybody's guess how many books there might be on offer at each site. Does the world need yet another book on a subject? Surprising as this might sound, the answer is yes. The book, <b>Gandhi: A Spiritual Journey, by MV Kamath</b>, might well occupy pride of place on my bookcase for a long time to come. While the book cover, the paper quality, the friendly font, the price and the presentation are all attractive, the selection of Gandhi's own writings on the subject of spirituality is indeed a treasure.

MV Kamath's simple style of expression demystifies the colossus that was Gandhi and brings him across as a flesh-and-blood human being, attempting to go beyond the flesh and its desires.

<b>Kamath's study is in a tone that is neither obsequious nor harsh. He delivers his blows with gentleness and his appreciation with restraint.</b> His study is made all the more significant as he saw history unfold right before his eyes. In fact, as a young newspaper reporter, Kamath was present in the courtroom to cover the trial of Nathuram Godse and heard both sides present their case.

This book explores, through various excerpts and quotes, how Gandhi's spirituality lay at the base of his every thought, word and deed. Kamath observes, "It is a validation of Gandhi's philosophy that across the world social activists and leaders have chosen to follow his principle of militant non-violence. Martin Luther King Jr was greatly influenced by Gandhi's ideology of non-violent social protest. The Dalai Lama has acknowledged the inspiration he has received from Gandhi's teachings. Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi have fought oppressive regimes drawing upon Gandhi's legacy."

On the issue of spirituality versus sexuality, Kamath cannot fathom why Gandhi needed to go to such extremes. "Can spiritualism be attained through a total separation of woman from man? Our gods have their consorts and even many of our saints and prophets were married or had women disciples. There is no reason why that should be considered a sin or an impediment to spiritualism. But Gandhi apparently had his qualms, which distract from his committed desire for spiritualism."

Kamath further reveals Gandhi's relationship with Saraladevi Chaudharani, a married woman whom he wanted as his "spiritual wife" and who paid the price of going with Gandhi. Later, she admitted, "(I) had put in one pan all the joys and pleasures of this world, and in the other Bapu and his laws and committed the folly of choosing the latter."

Gandhi's spirituality left no room for untouchability. Kamath writes that Gandhi was "so strongly against untouchability that he said that if untouchability lives, Hinduism must die and that he would far rather that Hinduism died than that untouchability lived. He did not believe in caste. As he saw it, caste had nothing to do with religion... his understanding of god and untouchability sometimes went to unacceptable lengths.

When there was a terrible earthquake in Bihar, Gandhi made a statement that even elicited a strong censure from Rabindranath Tagore. Gandhi said, "Visitations like droughts, floods, earthquakes, and the like, though they seem to have only physical origins, are, for me, somehow connected with man's morals. Therefore, I instinctively felt that the earthquake was a visitation for the sin of untouchability."

Having said that, Gandhi "was transparency personified". While spirituality underpinned his every activity, he was rational first; "every ideology had to submit to the acid test of reason before being accepted".

How did Gandhi become spiritual, what were the influences in his life that shaped him and made him the colossus he later was to become? <b>One learns that his early influences were Shravana as a devoted son, Harishchandra as the ideal truthful human being. Kamath reveals, "Every fresh reading of their stories moved him to tears." Later Ruskin's Unto This Last and Leo Tolstoy all came to influence his mind. Then came the maid Rambha who instilled in young Gandhi the faith in the "Ramanama" (Rama's name) to ward off his fear of ghosts. Gandhi wrote, "The good seed sown in childhood was not sown in vain. I think it is due to the seed sown by that good woman Rambha that today Ramanama is an infallible remedy for me."</b>

As he grew up, Gandhi cultivated a distaste for conversion. He wrote, "Suppose a Christian came to me and said he was captivated by reading the Bhagavat and so wanted to declare himself a Hindu, I should say to him, 'No, what the Bhagavat offers, the Bible also offers. You have not made the attempt to find out. Make the attempt and be a good Christian'." To him, religion meant, "adhering to values, not to a brand name".

Kamath shares with us a story that brings out Gandhi's spiritual depth right from the time he was in Johannesburg and plague had broken out in the Indian ghetto. Then, the sick and dying were taken to a quarantined building where a heroic English nurse was tending to them. "One evening, at the height of the epidemic, she saw a small figure standing at the door." Get out, this is plague," shouted the nurse. But the man standing there was Gandhi whom the nurse recognised as a leader of the Indian community. He was not about to leave. He told the nurse, "It's alright; I've come to help you." And he went straight to the sick. One man was literally covered with vermin and the nurse again shouted a warning. She told Gandhi, "Leave him." But Gandhi would not. He merely told the nurse, "He is my brother." And he stayed all night long until relief came.

Finally, one <b>would have liked the English translation of the prayer, "Vaisnava jana to tene kahiye"</b>, printed on the back cover of the book followed by a note sharing with the non-Hindi reading reader what the prayer signified for Gandhi.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Can our members provide the original and the translation please?

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->VAISHNAVA JANATO
Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye je
PeeD paraayi jaaNe re
Par-dukhkhe upkaar kare toye
Man abhimaan na aaNe re
Vaishnav...
        SakaL lok maan sahune vande
        Nindaa na kare keni re
        Vaach kaachh man nishchaL raakhe
        Dhan-dhan janani teni re
        Vaishnav...
        Sam-drishti ne trishna tyaagi
        Par-stree jene maat re
        Jivha thaki asatya na bole
        Par-dhan nav jhaalee haath re
        Vaishnav...

        Moh-maaya vyaape nahi jene
        DriDh vairaagya jena man maan re
        Ram naam shoon taaLi laagi
        SakaL tirath tena tan maan re
        Vaishnav...

        VaN-lobhi ne kapaT-rahit chhe
        Kaam-krodh nivaarya re
        BhaNe Narsaiyyo tenun darshan karta
        KuL ekoter taarya re
        Vaishnav...
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Translation –
One who is a vaishnav
Knows the pain of others
Does good to others, esp. to those ones who are in misery
Does not let pride enter his mind

A Vaishnav, Tolerates and praises the the entire world
Does not say bad things about anyone
Keeps his/her words, actions and thoughts pure
O Vaishnav, your mother is blessed (dhanya-dhanya)

A Vaishnav sees everything equally, rejects greed and avarice
Considers some one else's wife/daughter as his mother
The toungue may get tired, but will never speak lies
Does not even touch someone else's property

A Vaishnav does not succumb to worldly attachments
Who has devoted himself to stauch detachment to worldly pleasures
Who has been edicted to the elixir coming by the name of Ram
For whom all the religious sites are in the mind

Who has no greed and deciet
Who has renounced lust of all types and anger
The poet Narsi will like to see such a person
By who's virtue, the entire family gets salvation

http://www.geocities.com/vijay_p_mani/slok...ava_janato.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> No need to buy Gandhi article

Second opinion: KR Phanda

<b>There are reports in the newspapers that the Government, through its High Commission in London, has communicated its interest to Christie's that it would participate in the bidding process for acquisition of an article written by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi just 19 days before his assassination in 1948. The article urges Hindus not to oppress the Muslims of India.</b>

<b>The acquisition of the letter would be a waste of taxpayers' money. It is well known that most of the problems that India faces today are the legacy of Gandhi, who had spent half his life pandering to Muslim demands. Every satyagraha that he launched had resulted in the death of innocent Hindus. It is they who paid the price for his follies.</b>

Insofar as Muslims are concerned, they always treated Gandhi as a kafir. In this context, this is what Prof M Mujeeb, Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, has written in his book The Indian Muslims: "They objected to any form of cultural and social assimilation, and even till the first decades of the 20th century, the more strict among them would wash their hands if they had by chance greeted a Hindu with a handshake. Maulvi Abdul Bari of Farangi Mahal had objected to Gandhi wearing a dhoti that did not cover his knees."

In another instance, Maulana Mohammed Ali had made the following statement about Gandhi in 1924: "However pure Mr Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character." Some time later, in Lucknow, he had reiterated similar sentiments in more eloquent terms: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi."

Indian Muslims were never convinced of Gandhi's sincerity. They extracted their pound of flesh as and when the British rulers embarked on the process of constitutional reforms. Gandhi's last attempt to appease the Muslims was when he suggested to Lord Mountbatten that Mohammed Ali Jinnah be made the Prime Minister of undivided India and he should have the freedom to select his own Cabinet.

<b>I remember that our relatives had to live in a refugee camp in Purana Quila as Gandhi would not allow Hindu refugees to occupy houses of Muslims in Delhi who had left for Pakistan. Why should we waste our money for his manuscript?</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> The Relevance of Gandhian Priniciples

-by G Swaminathan Monday, July 09, 2007

This story has been read 410 times.
Blog this story



There was a news items that India has become the land of 100,000 millionaires recently. Also the list of some of the world’s top ranking rich persons carries the names of some of the Indian giants. In these circumstances and thirst for globalization of every activity of our life, I get the genuine question in my mind: To be honest to one’s conscience can anyone say whether Mahatma Gandhi’s values are still relevant to the present day India ?



Everyone keeps blaming the politicians and political system for all the ills and evils of the society. But, a country which boasts to be having the largest democracy notwithstanding its diversity, the corrupt leaders is the choice of the public through the democratic election procedure. The population in India seems to be inwardly happy and patronize corruption and that is the reason why such politics and politicians thrive.



I am afraid the present generation may not and will not support the ‘Gandhian ideals’ with the innumerable gadgets, entertainment, material comforts and above all means to earn money. Entertainment and food industries are the two which are doing whopping business next to IT sector. The younger as well as older generation prefers jobs only in these areas than even working for process industries. Who will prefer the ‘simple ways of life’ Gandhi preached or followed? I am sure even the old timers are interested in city life with comforts and keep flying to foreign lands where their wards are and avoid villages and austere life altogether. No doubt they enjoy the comforts of modern living.



The so called ‘Indian poor’ in my opinion is an enigma. Indian public many times chooses to be ‘poor’ for different reasons and liked to be branded ‘backward’ for certain benefits. So it is really difficult to eradicate. Undoubtedly, the galloping economy of India in recent times is puzzling and threatening to a few, but pleasing and beneficial to many. After all life is for today and this hour; none knows what will happen tomorrow. Let us be frank; Gandhi is now an obsolete icon who can be enjoyed only in movies like ‘Lage Raho Munnabai’ but sorry, not for practical life.

[Guest]

"<i>You have no idea as to what it costs us to keep this man in poverty</i>"
-Lord Mountbatten

"Us" was of course the Brits who believed that they funded everything in India. And the man he's talking about, no prizes for guessing.

[ramana]

X-Post of AnandK in BRF

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have had it with this argument "Ooh Mohandas Gandhi was soo totally stupid, naa? His Gandootva wouldn't have worked in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia...."  <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->:

Satyagraha was  MASS movement. A national movement. You need numbers and a distributed organizational structure, heavy doses of training and institutionalized indoctrination to get it off successfully. What could a 8% Jewish Population do against the 90-92% Jerry's high on the heady draught of National Socialism.... and in a state of perpetual high after the Nuremberg Rallies. A state of mass euphoria that subsided only after a (much maligned) Arthur Harris decided to bomb Germany back to the age of Arminius.

Were the Jews organized politically, did the Zionist movement have an INC like loose-org structure or even a JS type Cadre structure.... at least in respective countries if not spreading across Europe? Was there any Jewish leader who had followers cutting across boundaries? Can you name ONE Jewish leader of the stature of M.L.King or Mandela if not the Mahatma? All you had was relatively minor operatives like Ben Gurion or shady cloak-and-dagger type folks who would later found the Irgun and Hagnah. Heck, did any of the Rosenthals of America organise a sustained political movement during the Pre-Holocaust/Final Solution phase? Their best moment was when Golda Meir came shopping AFTER the war.

Satyagraha worked where the satyagrahis were in a minority, facing a rabid govt too.... in South Africa. Fcuk... that's were the story began! It worked against a Govt that was willing to trample down whole processions with cavalry. A perverse racist Govt that was second only to the Fascist horrors on the Axis..... and an apparatus that surrendered ONLY AFTER THE COLD WAR when the West didn't need it any more. It took Gandhiji many years to turn the illiterate, feral Indians there to a political force capable of bravely facing police hit-squads. He was nearly killed by his own people in the early stages (1894-1906) and subjected to much ridicule. Still, he built up an organization that even defeated someone like General Smuts, a racist who always wanted to hang Gandhiji. {PS: After Gandhiji presented him with a pair of Sandals he made himself (after the emancipation) Smuts publicly remarked remarked he finds himself not worthy to wear the footwear made by a Saint.}

Forget a Jewish leadership, if there were at least a dozen more Sophie Scholls among the German populace, brave folks who would have stood up when the Nazi bullies ascended, the Holocaust would not have happened. It was the gradual development of the Satyagraha method by the Black Civil Rights movements (and not the tactics of immature Black Panthers or the NOI) that won the emancipation proclamation. It was the iconic picture of the passive face of an unknown black man in Tennesse attacked by Police Dogs that set Kennedy (and hence Johnson) against the Jim Crow state. Satyagraha is simply, THE POWER OF THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH. When millions are shouting the truth, nobody can stop them.

Satyagraha, manifested in mass-scale Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience by the populace throws a Mach 14 missile at the tyrant. You can't shoot them all (the South Africans tried), you can't jail them all (the Brits tried) and you can't distract/buy them all (the white Americans tried).... you have no option but to surrender. And to launch such a large movement is no simple task.... it is no rush job. The NCM was launched after 3 years of careful planning and consideration.... the CDM took off after half a decade of simmering discontent... and we all know what India was like before the QIM. Without a political structure, seething AND united masses, politicalised masses you can't launch the Gandhian method.

Now someone pleej tell us how the heck can one argue "Oh, it ain't gonna work in the World of Warcraft or the Wizarding War of 1997" or something.... it doesn't make any friggin sense! The very issue of a Satyagraha happening in a Nazified Germany or a traditionally undemocratic/cloistered/genuine-leaderless Russia or China out of the blue doesn't arise. And if there was ever a real Satyagraha there, no NKVD/Gestapo would be able to stop it. 
(PS: I am waiting for someone to compare the INM with Tiananmen or Hungarian Uprising <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> )

Brave new Ch@ddiwaalas please keep this in mind before p1ssing on Gandhiji's grave and ridiculing him.... at least Godse bowed to Gandhiji (for all the good things Gandhi had done so far, he claimed) before murdering him. Criticizing him is ok, I have major problems with him too.... but this j@cking-off (I can't find any other term for whats being said by some people in this regard) is immature and downright stupid!
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

British left because after two world wars they were nearly bankrupt plus within hundred years they successfully destroyed local Indian industry. At that time India was not feeding British or its other colonies or trade routes but was a big burden. It took British hundred years to destroy India but Indian Communists are more successful, they are able to achieve same in 15 years.
Hitler would have killed Gandhi on his B'day. British kept Gandhi because they were using him.

What my father and grand father told me, whether you like Gandhi or not , but during those days whenever people will hear Gandhi is coming near by, people will walk miles to see him. My father was in hostel and he decided to skip school to see him, he along with his friends walked more than day to reach Harayana. But during partition whole thing changed, people started spitting on Gandhi picture. Kids will walk and slap Gandhi posters with slippers.
During Godse trial my dad hides days to capture Godse pictures during his trial in Shimla. We still have his pictures along with 7-8 police man.
Gandhi was stubborn person; He was at right place, at right time. British were using west educated Indians (Elite) to delay freedom movement. Some says Gandhi and Nehru actually delayed India's freedom.
India could have achieved freedom after World War-1.

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jul 30 2007, 06:53 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jul 30 2007, 06:53 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->  British were using west educated Indians (Elite) to delay freedom movement. Some says Gandhi and Nehru actually delayed India's freedom.
India could have achieved freedom after World War-1.
[right][snapback]71710[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


This is true.
British were bankcrupt after WWI but they used the Muslim League to delay the freedom and sow the seeds of conflict in India.

[Guest]

After World war-1, Hindu - Muslim riots in north India, Jaliawala genocide, mass forced conversion by Muslim supported by British would have delivered Freedom, but West educated Elite and paid Princely states delayed whole process.
Think about, PM Moron Singh thanked and praised British rule, jerk completely forgot Jalianwala.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have had it with this argument "Ooh Mohandas Gandhi was soo totally stupid, naa? His Gandootva wouldn't have worked in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia...."  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why look far into distant Germany or Russia when all recycled <i>ahimsa </i>and <i>satyagraha </i>talks in world could not prevent our own Indians from butchering about half million of their own brethren? And what's the cost being father of the entire country when own flesh-n-blood son has disowned you?

The problem's not with either <i>ahimsa </i>and <i>satyagraha </i> or even Gandhi for that matter. It's our own pseudo scholars twisting arguments to prove their uber-secularism.

[Guest]

So, what is the Gandhian way of fighting terror? I think the Gandhian way is by means of appeasement. If we give each Jihadi 72 virgins in earth itself, probably they will not seek martyrdom!! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> Unfortunately the Italian does not spell it out!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'Fight terror the Gandhian way'
25 Aug 2007, 2336 hrs IST,TNN
  Print  Save  EMail  Write to Editor
NEW DELHI: While recognising terrorism as the worst form of conflict propelled in the name of religion and ethnicity, Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi has said the civilised world could by no means lower its yardsticks in combating the menace.

Delivering the inaugural Mahatma Gandhi Lecture Series at Cape Town University on the continuing relevance of Gandhian philosophy earlier this week, Sonia Gandhi delineated the risk posed by terrorism, saying that it had inflicted "untold suffering on innocent women, men and children".

She, however, cautioned against attempting extra-legal measures. "If democracies are going to wage a war against terrorism, the measures that are adopted should be consistent with and not contrary to the values of democracy," she said. She pointed out that the essence of the Gandhian value-system lay in the coherence of ends and means.
"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for, but no causes that I am prepared to kill for," she quoted the Mahatma as having said.

Her note of caution coincides with the intense debate in democracies on how to combat terrorists without violating the fundamental rights of citizens. In an oblique critique of the West’s war on terror, she said in the Gandhian worldview there was no space for a so-called clash of civilisations. "Actually, Mahatma Gandhi would straightway and summarily reject the very idea of such a clash; he never accepted the exclusivist approach to religion, culture or civilisation," Sonia Gandhi said.

Explaining the Mahatma’s understanding of religion, she said, "Mahatma Gandhi fervently believed in the pivotal role of religion in every-day life; he saw it as an ethical and moral mooring to all our actions — private and public — but his was a faith that drew from every religion, a faith that was all-inclusive." She said that confronted with a host of intractable problems one would perhaps wonder at the validity of Gandhian ideology in the 21st century. "Whichever challenge we confront, you can be sure that the Gandhian way is a real, live option, an option that informs and illuminates," she said.

Sonia Gandhi even added that though colonialism and racial discrimination of Gandhi’s time had been effectively fought and overpowered, the 21st century faced a new specturm of conflicts. "Whether it is ethnic nationalism or religious chauvinism, economic inequality or military might — all of them have powerful drivers of conflict in today’s world," she said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

रामनाम मेरे लिये अमोघ शक्ति है!
आत्मार्थी के लिये रामनाम और रामकृपा ही अंतिम साधन है!
रामायण-श्रवण, रामायण के प्रति मेरे अत्यधिक प्रेम की बुनियाद है!
मै तुलसीदास की रामायण को भक्तिमार्ग का सर्वोत्तम ग्रंथ मानता हूँ!


डा. सर्वपल्लि राधाकृष्णन ने बापू से एक बार तीन प्रश्न किये:
- आपका धर्म क्या है?
- आपके जीवन मे धर्म का क्या प्रभाव है?
- सामाजिक जीवन मे इसकी क्या भूमिका है?

बापू ने कहा:
मेरा धर्म है हिन्दुत्व, यह मेरे लिये मानवता का धर्म है और मै जिन भी धर्मो को जानता हूँ, उनमे सर्वोत्तम है!

दूसरे प्रश्न के सन्दर्भ मे बोले, कि सत्य और अहिंसा के माध्यम से मै अपने धर्म से जुडा हुआ हूँ. मै अक्सर अपने धर्म को सत्य का धर्म कहता आया हूँ. यहाँ तक, कि ईश्वर सत्य है के बजाए सत्य ही ईश्वर है कहता हूँ.

तीसरे प्रश्न पर उनका उत्तर था, इस धर्म का सामाजिक जीवन पर प्रभाव दैनिक सामाजिक व्यवहार मे परिलक्षित होता है. ऐसे धर्म के प्रति सत्यनिष्ठ होने के लिये, जीवन पर्यंत अपने अहँ को त्यागना होता है. इसलिये मेरे लिये तो समाज सेवा से बचने का कोई रास्ता है ही नहीँ.

जितनी गहराई से मै हिन्दुत्व का अध्ययन करता हूँ, उतना ही मुझमे विश्वास गहरा होता जाता है, कि हिन्दुत्व ब्रम्हाण्ड जितना ही व्याप्त है. मेरे भीतर से कोई मुझे बताता है कि मैँ एक हिन्दू हूँ और बस.

तीर्थोँ के विषय मे एक बार उनसे किसी ने पूछा. ये बोले, हमारे पूर्वज बहुत गहन दृष्टि रखते थे. यूँ ही तीर्थ पूरे भारत के हर कोने मे नहीँ बना दिये गये. भला यदि अर्चना ही इनका उद्देश्य होता, तो वह तो घर बैठे भी हो सकती थी. इसके लिये दक्षिण मे रामेश्वर, पूर्व मे जगन्नाथ उत्तर मे हरिद्वार इत्यादि जाने की क्या आवश्यकता थी? किंतु हमारे पूर्वज मनीषी थे, दूरदर्शी थे. ये सभी सुदूर तीर्थ इसलिये ताकि हम, भारतवासी, अपने पूरे देश को एक समान आदर और पूजनीय दृष्टि से देख सकेँ. ये तीर्थ हमे यही याद दिलाते हैँ.

(महात्मा गान्धी की आत्मकथा तथा वांग़्मय से)
http://ramasetu.blogspot.com/

recd in e-mail:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Portrait of Gandhi as a Hindu
By Jagmohan
Former Governor of J&K and Minister of India

It has not been sufficiently noticed in our country that Hinduism, as viewed by Gandhi, is nothing but spiritual secularism and a service-oriented way of life based upon the highest principles of ethics and morality. That was why he was able to assert without any hesitation that his devotion to truth had drawn him to politics and those who believed that religion had nothing to do with politics did not understand what religion meant.

Gandhi's interpretation of Hinduism becomes clear from his reply to the three questions from Dr. Radhakrishnan. The questions were: What is your religion? How are you led to it? What is its bearing on social life? Gandhi's answer to the first question: ``My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is the religion of humanity and includes the best of all religions known to me.''

To the second question, he said: ``I take it that the present tense in this question has been purposely used, instead of the past. I am led to my religion through truth and
Non-violence. I often describe my religion as religion of truth. Of late, instead of saying God is Truth. I have been saying Truth is God. We are all sparks of truth. The sum total of these sparks is indescribable, as-yet unknown truth, which is God. I am daily led nearer to it by constant prayer.''

To the third question, Gandhi replied: ``The bearing of this religion on social life is, or has to be, seen in one's daily social contact. To be true to such religion, one has to lose oneself in continuous and continuing service of all in life. Realization of truth is impossible without a complete merging of oneself in and identification with this limitless ocean of life. Hence, for me, there is no escape from social service; there is no happiness on earth beyond or apart from it. In this scheme, there is nothing low, nothing high. For all is one, though we seem to be many.''

Gandhi elaborated: ``The deeper I study Hinduism; the stronger becomes the belief in me that Hinduism is as broad as the universe. Something within me tells me that, for all the deep veneration I show to several religions, I am all the more a Hindu, nonetheless for it.''
On the Mahatma's 128th birthday, it seems necessary to bring home these fundamentals of his beliefs to the people of India, particularly to those who go on condemning Hinduism without even studying it and also to those members of the ruling elite whose attachment to fake and fraudulent `gods' have made the country a den of corruption, callousness, confusion and criminality. They call Gandhi the Father of the Nation. And yet, in practice, they do everything to negate all his beliefs.

While religion has its influence in every country, it is more so in India. As Swami Vivekananda said, ``in India, religious life forms the centre, the keynote of the whole music of national life. Take away religion from India; nothing would be left.'' The need for building a healthy India demands that Hinduism, as seen by Gandhi, should not be ignored as an instrument of state policy.

Power can corrupt. But it can also ennoble. It can elevate the wielder to a higher pedestal and transform him into a nobler creature. The tragedy of contemporary India has been that power has largely remained in the hands of those who were seldom inspired by a nobler purpose. And those who have that purpose do not get the opportunity; rather, the system denies it. It is unfortunate that the ethical foundation of Hinduism, as interpreted by Gandhi, which could provide ``an awakened conscience'' to an individual and make him an honest, just and compassionate component of society, has been destroyed partly by the stink and slush of our past degeneration and partly by the type of spurious secularism which has been exploited in the post-Independence India.

Hinduism, as made clear by Gandhi, sees all human beings as ``sparks of truth/divinity''. It doesn't go against any other religion. Nor is it incompatible with the constitutional goals of equality, fraternity, liberty and justice. If the same divinity constitutes the core of all individuals, they cannot but be equal. And divinity in one person cannot be unjust to the same divinity in another person.

(Article by Shri Jagmohan and a letter in response by Shri Nani Palkhivala)

The article "Portrait of Gandhi as a Hindu" by Mr. Jagmohan, MP and former
Governor of J & K (IE, Oct. 2), is a one which every Indian should
wholeheartedly agree with, irrespective of whether he is a Hindu or a
Muslim, a Christian or a Jew, a Zoroastrian or a Buddhist. Hinduism is the
only religion in the world which was not founded by any identifiable
person. It is a universal, eternal religion and the credit for having
evolved that religion goes to India.

I wish more Indians would realize what this universal, eternal religion of
India is. Gandhiji was right when he said, "My religion is Hinduism which,
for me, is the, religion of humanity and includes the best of all religions
known to me." Even if one per cent of the Indian people realize the truth
of that statement, we could say that we deserved to have Gandhiji as our
national leader. It is because Gandhiji had the right attitude to religion
that he became the leader of the entire nation which has followers of all
known religions of the world. And it is because of this fact that
Gandhiji, diminutive as he was, still continues to be regarded as the most
towering figure that India ever produced.

Mr. Jagmohan's article deserves to be read by every school child in India. I
was so touched by it that my first impulse was to write to you and tell you
that the article should be most widely circulated among students in every
school and college. I wish the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan would undertake this
task. I am willing to defray the entire expense involved in the
nation-building project.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tadepalligudem, Nov 14:

An Advocate by name Shyam prasad mukherjee from Tadepalligudem of
West Godavari Distt of AP has created sensation through installing a
Statue of Nathuram Godse, who assassinated the 'Father of the Nation'
MK Gandhi. Not stopping at that, He is even worshipping that statue
everyday. Shyam prasad Mukherjee who worked in RSS said that the
intention behind installing the statue was to popularise the
greatness of Godse.

Local 'Gandhi Mandapam Association' members protested against this
and demolished the statue while complaining against the advocate in
the local police station. They demanded for immediately arresting the
advocate and taking back the Law degree of the Advocate.

On the otherside, Mukherjee has made another controversial statement
that Had Godse killed MK Gandhi atleast a year before, 20 lakh lifes
could have been saved.

(End of the translation of the News in Telugu at the above URL.)

http://www.andhrajyothy.com/mainshow.asp?q...2007/nov/14new7

The above said Statue has been installed in the private land owned by
the said lawyer and spending his personal money. He claims to be
having the support of the people who sympathise with his ideology. He
also said that if not the death anniversary of Godse, He shall
celebrate and worship Godse on the Jan 30 the day MKGandhi was killed
or in May Next on the occasion of Godse's Birthday.

He also ridiculed that the claimants of Gandhism have violated their
own Ideology by Breaking the Statue of Nathuram Godse installed thru
his personal expenses.

TV9 Anchor also asked if the Advocate has any plans to install
atleast One statue per town where there are 100s of MKGandhi's
statues. But, The Telephone Link with the advocate failed before he
answered.

Before that the Advocate said that every citizen of India today has
the right and the need to know the true history of India. He said,
The History of Partition of India must be well understood by today's
youth, so that, the secessions in our times can be better understood
in advance and prevented.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

This Marathi play
Me Nathuram Godse Boltoy (translated loosely as: <i>I Nathuram Godse speaking</i>) has been banned in India. Parts available on YouTube.

Also,
found a 30 year old copy of Stanely Wolpert's (CA textbook super buddy of Witzel) book "<b>Nine Hours to Rama</b>". This book is banned in India and deals with the nine hours of Godse's life leading up to the Gandhi's assassination. Ban by GoI must have helped a otherwise lousy book. Will write review on it someday.

[ramana]

One thing I feel about Gandhijis assasination and the linking of Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha was it killed the nationalist spirit and made the movement yield space to the seculars.The India we see now is a result of the removal/ banning of the Hindutva folks who had an alternate vision to the secular vision of syncretic India that is Bharat versus Hindutva's Hindusthan from Attock to Indian Ocean. The secular vision is also narrow in scope geographically and keeps out large areas of greater India and is thus a defensive posture versus and expansive posture of the Hindutva folks.

[Pandyan]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the otherside, Mukherjee has made another controversial statement
that Had Godse killed MK Gandhi atleast a year before, 20 lakh lifes
could have been saved.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I agree. That waste of oxygen should have kicked the bucket a long time before Godseji came along.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Local 'Gandhi Mandapam Association' members protested against this
and demolished the statue while complaining against the advocate in
the local police station. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What hypocrites, just like their hero. Instead, I propose that every Gandhi statue in India should have one of Godse installed next to it pointing a gun at Gandhi's head. It will celebrate the deed of Godse in ridding India of Gandhi and at the same time metaphorically imply the death of Gandhi's worthless ideas.