09-05-2005, 01:28 PM
Well Mr Bharatvarsha your approach and my approach is different. You believe that a war has to be fought brutally. I believe that the war will be fought slowly(and a just war has to be fought, like dharmayudh) so that india as a nation does not drown down the aisle. Muslims constitute 15% of indian population, so they are an integral part of india, i accept it. There are several problems inside islam and with islamists and they have to be handled forcefully and the true problem shown out.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have not been able to see what is Hindu about Gandhi so far, all his ideas were of Christian persuation which he cloaked in Hindu garb to fool the masses and what does being religious have anything to do with not being able to see the problem with Islam?, are you saying that true Hindus should not see anything wrong with Islam. Sri Aurobindo a much more religious person and perhaps the greatest Hindu of the last century saw the problem with Islam and here is what he had to say about Islam:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aurobindo was a great hindu and a great scholar, i have read several of his readings and have been very impressed. Regarding gandhi. He cloaked christian values. Wow. He had firm belief in indian social system. He stopped the partition of hindu society. The person you guys may respect a lot like ambedkar was going to break hindu society and we dont know if we would have a dalistan in subcontinent along with pakistan during indian independence. Gandhi brought the whole hindu society together and made them a fighting unit. Gandhi developed methods of satyagraha(satya ke liye agraha) from the most basic principles of ahimsa which are the most basic tenets of hinduism. I can start a discussion on hinduism and it will never finish. Your hinduism and my hinduism maybe different. I belief in gandhi's hinduism. Gandhi was a rambhakt and died saying hey ram. He embodied all the values of hinduism and definitely he imbibed several values of christanity and it is in the true principles of hinduism.
Svetasvatara upanishad quotes the description of rudra. The origin of god and the ruler of all, the greatest seer which describes rudra as one supreme entity who can be realised by any path(again you will say equal equal) but this is hinduism for me. Gandhi believed in learning and being a true hindu he imbibed those values. His methods of ansan and penance are all hindu methods. I can keep on going on this thing and it will become too long.
I understand you dont consider gandhi as a role model or oppose him or maybe even hate him for partition(which strangely was not his fault, this notion that gandhi did not do anything is wrong, what did any of your below mentioned people did, if they had the nationalism in them why did they not stop it). You have your view. But to say that gandhi was not a hindu is like talking like islamists who at the drop at the hat call other people kafir who donot agree with them. Lets agree to disagree on gandhi. You dont like him you are welcome. But to call gandhi's methods as some kind of copying seems going way beyond the curve, atleast accept the person's contribution.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are wrong again, there were plenty of leaders who fought the British and were at the same time aware of the problem of Islam, some of them were:
1) Veer Savarkar
2) Lala Lajapati Rai
3) Lala Hardayal
4) Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya
5) Sri Aurobindo
6) Swami Shraddananda
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry in your list i dont know anything about lala hardayal and swami shraddananda.(have not ever heard about them, now you will talk about indian history writing and its congress centric approach) About savarkar i know about him and lala lajpat rai was a great nationalist.
Sri Aurobindo worked a lot and had great devotion but he did not explicitly work towards political movement. His effort was more directed towards working with hindu society.
As for knowing the problem with islam as you say then what did they do???. Gandhi knew the problem of western imperialism and worked against them and became successful. If these people as you claim knew the problem then why were they not able to create public opinion against islamists. Veer Savarkar knew the problem always. What did he do???. Where was he in 1947. Where was he ??? Gandhi failed. Did not Veer savarkar fail. Why did he not launch a movement???. Blaming gandhi is way too easy. Where were all these people.
Gandhi worked against britishers and made them piss in there paints. Within 10 years of his start of movement india was out of control from british. By 1935 india virtually had everything in its control. He made them come to table with concrete proposals. Where were all the leaders who were opposing muslims league. Why were they not able to create public opinion and make islamists piss in there pants.
I can go on and on, on the total failure of hindu right to arrest the developments of partitions. The hindu right did not do anything to create public opinion. It could not bring pressure on congress party or on britishers or anything like that. So shall i put the blame on veer savarkar also, for not stopping the partition. He clearly knew the problem and indeed asked hindus to join the indian army also during second world war knowing what jinnah was doing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sania Mirza is not a true Muslim because she wears immodest clothes when playing tennis and does not wear the Hijab. Abdul Kalam is a vegeterian and reads the Bhagavad Gita so he is also not a Muslim (infact he would probably get death penalty for reading the Gita in an Islamic country), sharukh khan is married to a Hindu woman whom he did not convert and according to Islam a kaffir must convert before marrying a Muslim so he is also not a true Muslim according to the Quran.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this is a classic case of making an image in your mind about islam and then when that description does not fit somebody like sania mirza then just tell that she is not muslim. Where does sania mirza go. She is neither muslim for the islamists and nor for those who are opposing the islamists.
If you will say to our president that he is not muslim enough how hurt he will feel i dont know. That man gave all his life for the nation, did not even marry and he is a devout muslim.
Anyways. I know that we are on very different plane. I am a coward. Definitely when it comes to violence i am one. But when it will come to opposing hatred and especially hatred by islamists i am not and will never be, to accept hatred is something that i can never do.
I know that you will not accept my points, like i will not accept your points. So just lets agree to disagree. You have your views. I have mine. I gave my response just to put the point that i am not a hit and run guy. I believe in certain things and can back it up as you also can. I understand the position from where you come. Maybe i can make you understand my view of hinduism and hindu way of life. I am a proud hindu and believe in my religion.
As regarding somebody's assertion that i convert to religion of peace. I already am in the religion of peace. Hinduism is the greatest religion which has always talked about happiness, meditation and peace.
As regards the main topic of this thread. people are talking about the fight that has to be given to islamists and i am also talking about the fight. Ya the difference is in the method.
Abhishek
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have not been able to see what is Hindu about Gandhi so far, all his ideas were of Christian persuation which he cloaked in Hindu garb to fool the masses and what does being religious have anything to do with not being able to see the problem with Islam?, are you saying that true Hindus should not see anything wrong with Islam. Sri Aurobindo a much more religious person and perhaps the greatest Hindu of the last century saw the problem with Islam and here is what he had to say about Islam:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aurobindo was a great hindu and a great scholar, i have read several of his readings and have been very impressed. Regarding gandhi. He cloaked christian values. Wow. He had firm belief in indian social system. He stopped the partition of hindu society. The person you guys may respect a lot like ambedkar was going to break hindu society and we dont know if we would have a dalistan in subcontinent along with pakistan during indian independence. Gandhi brought the whole hindu society together and made them a fighting unit. Gandhi developed methods of satyagraha(satya ke liye agraha) from the most basic principles of ahimsa which are the most basic tenets of hinduism. I can start a discussion on hinduism and it will never finish. Your hinduism and my hinduism maybe different. I belief in gandhi's hinduism. Gandhi was a rambhakt and died saying hey ram. He embodied all the values of hinduism and definitely he imbibed several values of christanity and it is in the true principles of hinduism.
Svetasvatara upanishad quotes the description of rudra. The origin of god and the ruler of all, the greatest seer which describes rudra as one supreme entity who can be realised by any path(again you will say equal equal) but this is hinduism for me. Gandhi believed in learning and being a true hindu he imbibed those values. His methods of ansan and penance are all hindu methods. I can keep on going on this thing and it will become too long.
I understand you dont consider gandhi as a role model or oppose him or maybe even hate him for partition(which strangely was not his fault, this notion that gandhi did not do anything is wrong, what did any of your below mentioned people did, if they had the nationalism in them why did they not stop it). You have your view. But to say that gandhi was not a hindu is like talking like islamists who at the drop at the hat call other people kafir who donot agree with them. Lets agree to disagree on gandhi. You dont like him you are welcome. But to call gandhi's methods as some kind of copying seems going way beyond the curve, atleast accept the person's contribution.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are wrong again, there were plenty of leaders who fought the British and were at the same time aware of the problem of Islam, some of them were:
1) Veer Savarkar
2) Lala Lajapati Rai
3) Lala Hardayal
4) Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya
5) Sri Aurobindo
6) Swami Shraddananda
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry in your list i dont know anything about lala hardayal and swami shraddananda.(have not ever heard about them, now you will talk about indian history writing and its congress centric approach) About savarkar i know about him and lala lajpat rai was a great nationalist.
Sri Aurobindo worked a lot and had great devotion but he did not explicitly work towards political movement. His effort was more directed towards working with hindu society.
As for knowing the problem with islam as you say then what did they do???. Gandhi knew the problem of western imperialism and worked against them and became successful. If these people as you claim knew the problem then why were they not able to create public opinion against islamists. Veer Savarkar knew the problem always. What did he do???. Where was he in 1947. Where was he ??? Gandhi failed. Did not Veer savarkar fail. Why did he not launch a movement???. Blaming gandhi is way too easy. Where were all these people.
Gandhi worked against britishers and made them piss in there paints. Within 10 years of his start of movement india was out of control from british. By 1935 india virtually had everything in its control. He made them come to table with concrete proposals. Where were all the leaders who were opposing muslims league. Why were they not able to create public opinion and make islamists piss in there pants.
I can go on and on, on the total failure of hindu right to arrest the developments of partitions. The hindu right did not do anything to create public opinion. It could not bring pressure on congress party or on britishers or anything like that. So shall i put the blame on veer savarkar also, for not stopping the partition. He clearly knew the problem and indeed asked hindus to join the indian army also during second world war knowing what jinnah was doing.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sania Mirza is not a true Muslim because she wears immodest clothes when playing tennis and does not wear the Hijab. Abdul Kalam is a vegeterian and reads the Bhagavad Gita so he is also not a Muslim (infact he would probably get death penalty for reading the Gita in an Islamic country), sharukh khan is married to a Hindu woman whom he did not convert and according to Islam a kaffir must convert before marrying a Muslim so he is also not a true Muslim according to the Quran.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this is a classic case of making an image in your mind about islam and then when that description does not fit somebody like sania mirza then just tell that she is not muslim. Where does sania mirza go. She is neither muslim for the islamists and nor for those who are opposing the islamists.
If you will say to our president that he is not muslim enough how hurt he will feel i dont know. That man gave all his life for the nation, did not even marry and he is a devout muslim.
Anyways. I know that we are on very different plane. I am a coward. Definitely when it comes to violence i am one. But when it will come to opposing hatred and especially hatred by islamists i am not and will never be, to accept hatred is something that i can never do.
I know that you will not accept my points, like i will not accept your points. So just lets agree to disagree. You have your views. I have mine. I gave my response just to put the point that i am not a hit and run guy. I believe in certain things and can back it up as you also can. I understand the position from where you come. Maybe i can make you understand my view of hinduism and hindu way of life. I am a proud hindu and believe in my religion.
As regarding somebody's assertion that i convert to religion of peace. I already am in the religion of peace. Hinduism is the greatest religion which has always talked about happiness, meditation and peace.
As regards the main topic of this thread. people are talking about the fight that has to be given to islamists and i am also talking about the fight. Ya the difference is in the method.
Abhishek