Sunder,
Thanks for correcting me. I didnt completely realise this. I have always thought that the mission was to go tell Ravana from a position of strength - "Return Sita and you will be spared". And still somehow MKG thinks that once Rama is realized..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the glow of my ahimsa will spread all around<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
K. Ram,
Thanks for posting that link. I am still half way through reading it.
Here is MKG's version of partnership.. Somehow missing in this is what Mohammedans should yield to Hindus.. What is mutual about this ???
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As a man of <b>truth</b> I honestly believe that Hindus should yield up to the Mohammedans <b>whatever the latter desire</b>, and that they should rejoice in so doing. We can expect unity only if such <b>mutual large-heartedness</b> is displayed."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is what Sri Aurobindo had to say about MKG's religiosity..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->... Gandhi is a European â truly a Russian Christian in an Indian body. ... When Europeans say that he is more Christian than many Christians (some even say he is "Christ of our times") they are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and though the garb is Indian the essential spirit is Christian. He may not be Christ, but at any rate he comes in continuation of the same impulsion in him. He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible and has a strong Jain tinge in his teachings; at any rate more than by the Indian scriptures â the Upanishads or the Gita which he interprets in the light of his own ideas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MKG on the Khilafat situation..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To the Musalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India's ability to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. ... It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude. ... I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what the heck does Khilafat mean to hindus and mussalmans ????
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with the Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the knife of the Mussalman.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excuse me ? I am confused should I laugh my guts out or should i puke ???????
BTW K Ram is this your writing ??
One more ques..
The author of the essay quotes a lot from Sankaran Nair's <i>Gandhi and Anarchy</i> . Sorry can somebody educate me regarding Sankaran Nair and his works ??
TIA
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 10 2004, 12:13 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 10 2004, 12:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
BTW K Ram is this your writing ?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. I would not have been so kind to Gandhi <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
This is so depressing.. Altho not related to Gandhi, a sidenote from the same essay..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(This was also the case in 1962 when China attacked India. The country rose as one, prepared to fight the Chinese, but Nehru - an effete though voluble 'leader' with no tradition or even comprehension of the military - completely lost his nerve. When his emissary went to see Kennedy, begging for help, Kennedy asked the hapless man: "The British were able to stand up to the Germans for three years before we came to their help, and you couldn't hold out for three days?" This undeserved humiliation was heaped on the country entirely because of Nehru's failure of nerve.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was well known that the Congress leaders took no decision in vital matters without consulting him and, in general, it may be said that his was in the last resort the will of the Congress. The author of the official history of the Congress expressed the bare truth when he said that Gandhi, "though not a member of the Congress, was still the power behind the throne." Nehru conveyed the same idea when he described Gandhi as the "permanent super-President of the Congress," and remarked that the "Congress at present meant Gandhiji."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Renamed the topic. Used to be "Gandhi destroyed hindu colonisation". Made it more generic.
Great find Rajesh.
Aurobindo was talking about Gandhi being influenced by christian ideas.
Now compare what Gandhi said about "ahimsa,sacrifice, and giving-up-your-lives" to what people saw in "Passion of Christ" film....so similar...
Perhaps with the luxury of I class Jails , it would be easy for Gandhi to be a christ , but not the poor folk of India...It indeed is spiritual imperialism to impose ones spiritual ideas on another , esp a whole nation.
I guess people who "followed" him share a little blame too.I cannot forget what Gandhi did for NSC Bose,Bhagat Singh and likes of Lala Lajpati Rai and a hundred others who died because of him.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Oct 8 2004, 09:09 PM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Oct 8 2004, 09:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Before we start dissing Gandhi, I would like to draw your attention to his Quotes on COWARDICE... I think Gandhi's Ahimsa has been selectively projected by the politicians to make a weakling out of the indian population. Here are some Quotes from MK.Gandhi.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Non-violence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Non-violence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. Non-violence springs from love, cowardice from hate. Non-violence always suffers, cowardice would always inflict suffering. Perfect non-violence is the highest bravery. Non-violent conduct is never demoralising, cowardice always is. "<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would risk violence a thousand times than the emasculation of a whole race.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.mkgandhi.org/amabrothers/chap04.htm <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Before we start dissing Gandhi, I would like to draw your attention to his Quotes on COWARDICE... I think Gandhi's Ahimsa has been selectively projected by the politicians to make a weakling out of the indian population. Here are some Quotes from MK.Gandhi."
Sunder, you have no idea. Just be patient though, you will soon see just how much of a coward Gandhi was.
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> But why o why and where did this fanatical concept of Ahimsa ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am certainly no apologist for the appeasement aspect of Gandhiji, but his insistence on ahimsa stems possibly from a misundertanding of the reverence for life that the Dharmiks have had since time immemorial. But the Mahabharata makes it clear that there comes a time when it is necessary to cleanse the land of evil and that oneshould not negotiate with 'evil' when it means abandoning one's principles.
As for giving up one's life in the name of ahimsa, that is ithe most foolish thing i have ever heard. I am with general Patton, it makes more sense for the antagonist to be killed than for one to give up ones own life.
Among the major misjudgements he made ( himalayan blunders to use his own term)was not to ask from the Indian Muslim the same standard of behavior as he demanded of the Hindu. So, the process of appeasement started and has continued unabated till today, when the Indian Muslim expects as a foregone conclusion, the status of a privileged community which goes against the fundamental definition of a republic.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->am certainly no apologist for the appeasement aspect of Gandhiji, but his insistence on ahimsa stems possibly from a misundertanding of the reverence for life that the Dharmiks have had since time immemorial<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it was because he was a follower of Jesus Christ, and he called Christ's masochistic view as ahimsa, which is more applicable as "non-maliciousness"
after all, what is wrong with some necessary violence from the Hindu view. The soul never dies, therefore death of the physical body is just a temporary thing. So for Hindu's/Jains to have such an attachment to the physical body ("ahimsa") shows a lack of understanding of the original intent.
That intent being not being unnecessarily violent, as opposed to not being violent at all.
I wonder if any member feels a little "bad" about discussing Gandhi.
Very well , I should say he was one of the prime reasons why British left India. All due credit to him.And that stops there.He is not somebody to whom the rules of our mortal world does not apply.
It is important to study and learn from things in the past.
" I wonder if any member feels a little "bad" about discussing Gandhi.
Very well , I should say he was one of the prime reasons why British left India. All due credit to him.And that stops there.He is not somebody to whom the rules of our mortal world does not apply.
It is important to study and learn from things in the past."
He did very little. Read the following intelligence reports. I will put in bold the most important points.
Gandhi -- It is perhaps worth noting here, in view of the great fame, which at one time was attached to Gandhi as a political leader,<b> that during the past year he has entirely lost all influence in Indian politics. He has himself more than once publicly stated that he realises this. There are probably several reasons for this. One is that everyone realises that his scheme of securing Swaraj by means of spinning and non-resistance was a mad one.</b> And a more potent cause is that he has managed in one way or another to offend all classes and religions. In the summer of this year, after he had been some weeks in Bengal, all parties in the province disowned him. Now the All-India Congress Committee has cut out his spinning nostrum from the Congress faith, and left him to form a Spinning Association of his own. It was time something of this kind was done; for even by April of this year his insistence on the production of some hanks of homespun yarn as the qualification for the Congress franchise had reduced the number of members from 2,500,000 to 11,000.
www.sulekha.com/hopper/unrest.pdf
Of exceptional interest are the B.P.C.C's replies to the questionnaire set by the A.I.C.C and a note on the difficulties experienced by Congressmen in Bengal, which was given to Mrs. Sarojini Naidu for delivery to Gandhi when she was in Calcutta in September. It is stated in the note that the Hindu Mahasabha had flourished as a result of the communal conflict and at the expense of the Congress; the Forward Bloc had fallen back, especially since Bose's disappearance, but without any corresponding increase in the popularity of the Congress. The Hindu Mahasabha had captured the imagination of the entire middle class. As to the young men and students, they had been won over by communism and to a much smaller extent by the Forward Bloc, whereas the Congress efforts to recruit them had failed. In short the Hindu Mahasabha with its communal cry, the Forward Bloc with its provincial cry (whatever that means!) and communism with its slogans of no rent and no-payment of debts and taxes and its preaching of class hatred, had a great advantage over Congress, which called for patient suffering and sacrifice and gave no promise of immediate gain. <b>...Regarding Satyagraha, an egregious failure in Bengal,</b> it stated that the spirits of the public and the satyagrahis had been dampened by the Government's policy of not arresting the latter. This cannot, however, be the complete reason for the failure. <b>In reality, the public was never interested, and when the Congress leaders themselves were lukewarm</b> and the Jugantar leaders of the Congress were more concerned with the maintenance and strengthening of their own secret party rather than carrying out Congress policy... The picture thus presented is of an enfeebled Hindu Congress losing its popularity to the Hindu Mahasabha, and desiring the revival of Congress committees in order to check its decline and to recover contact with the masses.
www.sulekha.com/hopper/revo.pdf
-Gandhi had little effect on the independence effort.
The Naval mutiny was the most important reason for independence.
A Mahatma he may have been, but he had serious flaws as a politician. This is a point made by independent thinking leaders even in pre-Independence india when he was already iconized. I will post an excellent piece by C Y Chintamani the editor ofo the Leader in Allahabad. In addition the British themelves in private dismissed the notion that Ganadhiji had anything to dowth tthe timing of the grant of independence as is noted by Penderel Moon. The real clincher as far as the brits were concerned was the substantial defection of indians soldiers to the INA and the revolt of the Indian navy in 1944/45. Without the danda( the army) there was no hope of keeping India. I will post more on this later. It must be understood throughout that it was with the substantial help of the Indians that the british were capable of keeping control over india.
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 9 2004, 11:59 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 9 2004, 11:59 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> One more ques..
The author of the essay quotes a lot from Sankaran Nair's <i>Gandhi and Anarchy</i> . Sorry can somebody educate me regarding Sankaran Nair and his works ??
TIA <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Friendly reminder. Anyone has more details on Sankaran Nair ??
Sir C Sankaran Nair was an important personality in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th, see for instance. My grandfather,who was also a judge in the Madras High court, knew him quite well.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9065528
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/person...ID=mp60514
From the twilight years
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF C. SANKARAN NAIR: M. P. Sreekumaran Nair - Editor; Chettur Sankaran Nair Foundation, Ottappalam, Kerala.
Rs. 600 (deluxe), Rs. 530 (Paperback).
ONE OF the illustrious personalities of his time, Sir C. Sankaran Nair (1857-1934) played his part in the national life in different capacities. He presided over the 13th session of the Indian National Congress in 1897, was appointed a permanent judge of the Madras High Court in 1907, and became a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council in 1915. He quit the government in protest against the martial law atrocities in the Punjab. Later he served in the State Council as a member of the British Secretary. He returned home as Gandhiji was establishing himself as the country's tallest leader through unconventional campaigns. A firm believer in constitutional means, he did not approve of the Mahatma's means. His book Gandhi and Anarchy annoyed the nationalists and provoked the Punjab Governor Sir Michael O'Dwyer to sue him for libel.
This autobiography, which he wrote in the loneliness of his twilight years to vindicate himself, was first published more than three decades after his death in 1934. More than three decades later the second edition has appeared.
B.R.P. BHASKAR
|
