01-24-2006, 05:41 AM
<b>Aryawan,</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Excolonizers remarked about Aurobindo 'as the most dangerous man to be dealt with'. Surely he didnot support Eng as claimed by you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course Auronindo opposed the British and I know they called him the most dangerous man in India. Which he was, he was their foremost enemy and his words had it in them to seed the desire for Independence in all of the Hindu population.
However, because Aurobindo realised the immense dangers of nazism and its form of imperialism, he decided that India must in this particular case act against nazism. This happened to be the position that the evil British empire had also taken. So Aurobindo wasn't in any way "supporting England", it just happened that the right course of action for India in this case was to side with the Allied forces (which unfortunately included colonial Britain) in order to fight the great evil that was nazism. Aurobindo realised that nazism was a very large threat to the entire world.
By the way, I did not claim that Aurobindo advocated joining in the fight against the Allied forces. The excerpt I pasted was from Koenraad Elst's http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...varkarnazi.html
<b>Ben Ami,</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i really couldnt care less how many men/soldiers of colonial powers died in his hands.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where did I even mention colonial powers dying at the hands of Hitler? I was talking about the genocide of <i>innocent</i> people, of civilians. I.e. the Jewish, Romany and homosexual people of Europe.
Really, in war soldiers are going to die. I <i>am</i> sorry Russia lost so many people (Germans who fought in WWII always state that Russia won the war, not the rest of the Allied forces*) and yet this is barely remembered. Russians died in the many millions, while the US and Britain whined on about how many men they lost.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you are just trying to take a higher moral ground, a very gandhian sort of gimmick.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although you didn't want me to, I have to reply, after all I'm accused of being "Gandhian". I'm not Gandhian, I'm no pacifist. I don't believe that ahimsa means doing nothing and let others walk all over you. Ahimsa means preventing harm, and sometimes that means fighting to prevent greater evil from befalling.
My opinion on Netaji is not about "taking the higher moral ground" (I am sure if I hadn't noticed this thread someone else would have come over and written the same). There is only one right position on Hitler and nazism. As incredibly evil as the British empire was, Hitler was even more evil. Besides, if you look at it only from India's point of view and ignore the rest of the world, Hitler and his men were talking about going back to Central Asia where their imaginary "Aryans" supposedly came from. They were not planning to go there for a pleasant picnic. They were going there to take the land (the nazi concept of "Lebensraum" - creating "living space" for the evolutionary detour that was the nazi species). From Central Asia, India isn't such a long way off. It would be naive to think that Hitler was in any way sympathetic to India's plight under Britain. Hitler advocated sterner measures against India's desires for Independence than even Britain was willing to take. Trust me, if Hitler had been the imperialistic power in India instead of Britain, he'd have had no qualms about crushing us all. Netaji was wrong to side with him. He made his bed with a greater enemy than colonial Britain (hard to imagine such a thing, but it's true), so let Netaji lie in it then. I do not think he deserves any respect for his lack of vision or sense. He just jumped at any opportunity to oppose the British, even though this happened to be the most idiotic path of all. Instead of revering his blind patriotism (if I must be complimentary - although supporting an imperialist Germany is just as bad as supporting the British empire and I can't see the patriotism there), we must recognise that he made a serious error of judgement in his foolish eagerness. <i>Choosing friends and identifying enemies is a very serious business.</i> Netaji didn't give this enough thought. Or if he did, then his case is far worse than I thought.
In order to fight adharma, it does not mean we can apply any and all methods. Right action is required. Netaji chose the ultimate wrong action in this case. Let's stop congratulating him for it.
*German officers had often stated that if it weren't for their impossible losses on the Eastern front, they'd have won on the Western end (they considered the opposition from Britain and the US an impediment but not a threat). Yet, every English-language war movie makes it look like either the US won or the British. To be PC we might have to say it was a joint effort of all the Allieds. But I hate being PC, so factually it wasn't. Russia practically won the war single-handedly. Germany had already lost when it lost on the Russian front - as indicated by the reports that went back to nazi headquarters in Germany about the losses on the Eastern front. Nazi Germany became demoralised, they lost the war and still had a battle on their hands in the west. They lost that too.
<b>Bharatvarsh,</b>
I just read your post now. Thanks for the excerpts from Aurobindo's speeches.
What a foresighted man Aurobindo was. I wonder how he was like that. I suppose it must be because he was a man of destiny, a man whose actions were led by God. Whenever I read his work, I am so proud that he was Indian and Hindu. Well, such a man couldn't be other than Hindu. Aurobindo is my hero - well, among my heroes.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Excolonizers remarked about Aurobindo 'as the most dangerous man to be dealt with'. Surely he didnot support Eng as claimed by you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course Auronindo opposed the British and I know they called him the most dangerous man in India. Which he was, he was their foremost enemy and his words had it in them to seed the desire for Independence in all of the Hindu population.
However, because Aurobindo realised the immense dangers of nazism and its form of imperialism, he decided that India must in this particular case act against nazism. This happened to be the position that the evil British empire had also taken. So Aurobindo wasn't in any way "supporting England", it just happened that the right course of action for India in this case was to side with the Allied forces (which unfortunately included colonial Britain) in order to fight the great evil that was nazism. Aurobindo realised that nazism was a very large threat to the entire world.
By the way, I did not claim that Aurobindo advocated joining in the fight against the Allied forces. The excerpt I pasted was from Koenraad Elst's http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...varkarnazi.html
<b>Ben Ami,</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i really couldnt care less how many men/soldiers of colonial powers died in his hands.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Where did I even mention colonial powers dying at the hands of Hitler? I was talking about the genocide of <i>innocent</i> people, of civilians. I.e. the Jewish, Romany and homosexual people of Europe.
Really, in war soldiers are going to die. I <i>am</i> sorry Russia lost so many people (Germans who fought in WWII always state that Russia won the war, not the rest of the Allied forces*) and yet this is barely remembered. Russians died in the many millions, while the US and Britain whined on about how many men they lost.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->you are just trying to take a higher moral ground, a very gandhian sort of gimmick.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although you didn't want me to, I have to reply, after all I'm accused of being "Gandhian". I'm not Gandhian, I'm no pacifist. I don't believe that ahimsa means doing nothing and let others walk all over you. Ahimsa means preventing harm, and sometimes that means fighting to prevent greater evil from befalling.
My opinion on Netaji is not about "taking the higher moral ground" (I am sure if I hadn't noticed this thread someone else would have come over and written the same). There is only one right position on Hitler and nazism. As incredibly evil as the British empire was, Hitler was even more evil. Besides, if you look at it only from India's point of view and ignore the rest of the world, Hitler and his men were talking about going back to Central Asia where their imaginary "Aryans" supposedly came from. They were not planning to go there for a pleasant picnic. They were going there to take the land (the nazi concept of "Lebensraum" - creating "living space" for the evolutionary detour that was the nazi species). From Central Asia, India isn't such a long way off. It would be naive to think that Hitler was in any way sympathetic to India's plight under Britain. Hitler advocated sterner measures against India's desires for Independence than even Britain was willing to take. Trust me, if Hitler had been the imperialistic power in India instead of Britain, he'd have had no qualms about crushing us all. Netaji was wrong to side with him. He made his bed with a greater enemy than colonial Britain (hard to imagine such a thing, but it's true), so let Netaji lie in it then. I do not think he deserves any respect for his lack of vision or sense. He just jumped at any opportunity to oppose the British, even though this happened to be the most idiotic path of all. Instead of revering his blind patriotism (if I must be complimentary - although supporting an imperialist Germany is just as bad as supporting the British empire and I can't see the patriotism there), we must recognise that he made a serious error of judgement in his foolish eagerness. <i>Choosing friends and identifying enemies is a very serious business.</i> Netaji didn't give this enough thought. Or if he did, then his case is far worse than I thought.
In order to fight adharma, it does not mean we can apply any and all methods. Right action is required. Netaji chose the ultimate wrong action in this case. Let's stop congratulating him for it.
*German officers had often stated that if it weren't for their impossible losses on the Eastern front, they'd have won on the Western end (they considered the opposition from Britain and the US an impediment but not a threat). Yet, every English-language war movie makes it look like either the US won or the British. To be PC we might have to say it was a joint effort of all the Allieds. But I hate being PC, so factually it wasn't. Russia practically won the war single-handedly. Germany had already lost when it lost on the Russian front - as indicated by the reports that went back to nazi headquarters in Germany about the losses on the Eastern front. Nazi Germany became demoralised, they lost the war and still had a battle on their hands in the west. They lost that too.
<b>Bharatvarsh,</b>
I just read your post now. Thanks for the excerpts from Aurobindo's speeches.
What a foresighted man Aurobindo was. I wonder how he was like that. I suppose it must be because he was a man of destiny, a man whose actions were led by God. Whenever I read his work, I am so proud that he was Indian and Hindu. Well, such a man couldn't be other than Hindu. Aurobindo is my hero - well, among my heroes.