06-05-2005, 02:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2005, 02:53 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
I read the whole review and I disagree with some points of the author which I will highlight below:
"Thus he makes fun of the principle of non-violence, as practiced by Indians in general and Mahatma Gandhi in particular, and tells us that the ahimsa that classical Indian texts talk about is something else than what Indians have understood. He claims that even Mahatma Gandhi did not understand what that ahimsa meant, and what he practiced in the name of ahimsa was âa morbid kind of personal asceticismâ and âpassive masochismâ.
He is absolutely right, ahimsa has been perverted to such a level today that Hindus are not even willing to defend themselves in the name of ahimsa and Gandhi greatly contributed to this perversion. The Gita does not ask us to sing and dance while our women are being raped (like Gandhi advised Hindus to do) it asks us to perform our duty, the highest duty of a person is to uphold Dharma not ahimsa.
"Mahatma Gandhi in fact comes for heavy abuse at the hands of Mr. Elst; he makes the term âGandhianâ sound like an abuse, and devotes two chapters on expounding how the Sangh Parivar has gotten into error by trying to follow Gandhi. Here he also tells us that the ambivalence of Mahatma Gandhi, and perhaps of much of Indian society, about modern technology and science, was decidedly un-Hindu, and Gandhiji had got âhis retro-mania from Christian romantics like Thoreau and Tolstoyâ.
He is absolutely right again, Gandhi's philosophy has screwed us over and caused us to lose 30% of our land and millions of Hindu and Sikh lives. There is nothing rational about Gandhian nonviolence, it's essentially a suicidal policy which will cost us dearly if we don't discard it, Gandhi as Elst said got most of his beliefs after being influenced by Tolstoy and Christianity. If anyone has any doubt they can read the following article:
http://www.sulekha.com/printer.asp?ctid=2000&cid=305975
"He even manages to accuse Gandhiji of being politically ignorant and hints that the Mahatma might have been seeking medals of loyalty from the British. In the process, he betrays lack of real acquaintance with Indian history"
Yet again he is right about Gandhi's ignorance about politics, we can just see this from the fact that Gandhi supported Khilafat movement and giving 50 crores to Pakis after they invaded Kashmir.
Atleast Elst for all his patronising attitude doesn't go around making false claims like Islam being a religion of peace like the Sangh Parivar and BJP do, he speaks the truth about Islam without mincing words. He could have followed the current anti hindu trend and followed the marxist line of history which would have got him a nice academic position but he chose to write truthful history (something even Hindus refuse to do) which i appreciate.
All that said, i agree that there is a patronising attitude from even pro hindu westerners which they could cut out of their writings, but most of the blame lies with us Hindus who refuse to face truth about Islam and Christianity after all these years of slavery (which is what causes westerners to adopt this patronising attitude).
"Thus he makes fun of the principle of non-violence, as practiced by Indians in general and Mahatma Gandhi in particular, and tells us that the ahimsa that classical Indian texts talk about is something else than what Indians have understood. He claims that even Mahatma Gandhi did not understand what that ahimsa meant, and what he practiced in the name of ahimsa was âa morbid kind of personal asceticismâ and âpassive masochismâ.
He is absolutely right, ahimsa has been perverted to such a level today that Hindus are not even willing to defend themselves in the name of ahimsa and Gandhi greatly contributed to this perversion. The Gita does not ask us to sing and dance while our women are being raped (like Gandhi advised Hindus to do) it asks us to perform our duty, the highest duty of a person is to uphold Dharma not ahimsa.
"Mahatma Gandhi in fact comes for heavy abuse at the hands of Mr. Elst; he makes the term âGandhianâ sound like an abuse, and devotes two chapters on expounding how the Sangh Parivar has gotten into error by trying to follow Gandhi. Here he also tells us that the ambivalence of Mahatma Gandhi, and perhaps of much of Indian society, about modern technology and science, was decidedly un-Hindu, and Gandhiji had got âhis retro-mania from Christian romantics like Thoreau and Tolstoyâ.
He is absolutely right again, Gandhi's philosophy has screwed us over and caused us to lose 30% of our land and millions of Hindu and Sikh lives. There is nothing rational about Gandhian nonviolence, it's essentially a suicidal policy which will cost us dearly if we don't discard it, Gandhi as Elst said got most of his beliefs after being influenced by Tolstoy and Christianity. If anyone has any doubt they can read the following article:
http://www.sulekha.com/printer.asp?ctid=2000&cid=305975
"He even manages to accuse Gandhiji of being politically ignorant and hints that the Mahatma might have been seeking medals of loyalty from the British. In the process, he betrays lack of real acquaintance with Indian history"
Yet again he is right about Gandhi's ignorance about politics, we can just see this from the fact that Gandhi supported Khilafat movement and giving 50 crores to Pakis after they invaded Kashmir.
Atleast Elst for all his patronising attitude doesn't go around making false claims like Islam being a religion of peace like the Sangh Parivar and BJP do, he speaks the truth about Islam without mincing words. He could have followed the current anti hindu trend and followed the marxist line of history which would have got him a nice academic position but he chose to write truthful history (something even Hindus refuse to do) which i appreciate.
All that said, i agree that there is a patronising attitude from even pro hindu westerners which they could cut out of their writings, but most of the blame lies with us Hindus who refuse to face truth about Islam and Christianity after all these years of slavery (which is what causes westerners to adopt this patronising attitude).