For me in fact it is clear that Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in stopping the migration of Indians to Surinam en Guyana. This happened between the year 1930 en 1940.
Many HIndus in Surinam and Guyana celebrate the death of Ghandi and they think that he was a great leader, but they do not realize that Ghandi destroyed their future and ended the colonisation of these fresh breeding grounds for strong Hindus.
Nowaday HIndus are a suppressed minority in these countries and must bow everyday for the blacks, who have the political and military power.
I beg all one billion Indians to help us with all these problems. I will publish some articles about the HIndus in the Netherlands also, very soon.
this is my first posting on the india forum.
I find this forum one of the best on the whole billion pages web. We HIndus know what quality means. I will ask my dutch friends to translate some articles to dutch, especially those about the muslim whomp bomb.
Dewanand
Hindu writer of the Netherlands
waldo@wanadoo.nl
How many Hindus are there in The Netherlands? Are they persecuted? Why don't you guys organize yourselves like the Muslims do? Thats been a major failing of us Hindus. We have failed to organize ourselves and speak in one voice.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If in your heart of hearts there is the slightest inclination to regard your non-violence as a mere cloak or a stepping-stone to greater violence as suggested by this friend, nay, unless your are prepared to carry your non-violence to its ultimate logical conclusion and to pray for forgiveness even for a baby-killer and a child-murderer, you cannot sign your Khudai Khidmatgar's pledge of non-violence. To sign that pledge with mental reservations would only bring disgrace upon you, your organization and hurt him who you delight to call the Pride of Afghans.
But what about the classical instance of the defenseless sister or mother who is threatened with molestation by an evil-minded ruffian, you will ask. Is the ruffian in question to be allowed to work his will? Would not the use of violence be permissible in such a case? My reply is 'no'. You will entreat the ruffian. The odds are that in his intoxication he will not listen. But then you will interpose yourself between the intended victim and him. Very probably you will be killed but you will have done your duty. Ten to one, killing you unarmed and unresisting will assuage the assailant's passion and he will leave his victim unmolested. But it has been said to me that tyrants do not act as we want or expect them to. Finding you unresisting he may tie you to a post and make you watch his rape of the victim. If you have the will you will so exert yourself that you will break yourself in the attempt to break the bonds. In either case, you will open the eyes of the wrongdoer. Your armed resistance could do no more, while if you were worsted, the position would likely be much worse than if you died unresisting. There is also the chance of the intended victim copying your calm courage and immolating herself rather than allowing herself to be dishonoured.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My advice is unalterable. They should remain where they are, if they are brave enough to die and even in the act of dying forgive the enemy. If they have not assimilated this truth they should of course come away as soon as they can.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organization. Once he has affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindu be killed at the hands of the Muslims? I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. But why in the first place would a Muslim kill at all when he has been asked not to do it?
But the thing is that they have still to realize that in politics force cannot avail...
As it is, there are too many people in the world who meet force by force. They even talk about killing two for one, let alone one for one. But, I say there will never be any peace even if you kill not ten but a hundred for one. There is nothing brave about dying without killing. It is an illusion of bravery. The true martyr is one who lays down his life without killing.
You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And finally..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am nowhere near realizing Rama yet, but I am striving. When I have the realization, the glow of my ahimsa will spread all around...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi is all within his born right to let himself killed , or see his relatives getting killed....But he has absolutely no right to ask any person of any religion to get killed.That akins to suicide. <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Jaw for a tooth ? Yes i say .<b>Afterall Rama killed He did not stage a satyagraha in Lanka demanding the release of Sita...</b>.
I dont know where Gandhi has gone wrong.I never understand how Rama and Gandhi get together. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I guess , tooo much such "spiritualism" was imposed upon poor Indians ( i will say indians here , not Hindus ) , which only people who are in a altogether different spiritual level can do / go through. Not everyone can be a Buddha...Gandhi never realised that....He must have kept it to himself , i guess he mixed up spirituality and politics. Wonder what Nehru was doing when all this was happening ? <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-amarnath+Oct 8 2004, 03:47 PM-->QUOTE(amarnath @ Oct 8 2004, 03:47 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
I guess , tooo much such "spiritualism" was imposed upon poor Indians ( i will say indians here , not Hindus ) , which only people who are in a altogether different spiritual level can do / go through. Not everyone can be a Buddha...Gandhi never realised that....He must have kept it to himself , i guess he mixed up spirituality and politics. Wonder what Nehru was doing when all this was happening ? <!--emo&:thumbdown--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bhakti movement going out of control and running over Karma...
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-->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-->
Has anyone been following the debate in a leading desi newspaper in US between Prof Ramesh Rao and Gandhi's grandson? Prof Ramesh Rao had written an article about some political actions and comments by MK Gandhi especially around the Mopalla riots which kind of ticked of Gandhi's grandson who offered absolutely zero facts on the incident and spun it to around insinuitating that critisizing Gandhi amounts to blasphemy.
Some people who know the difference between critisizing the political actions/comments of a person versus the spiritual person are two different things had to pitch in to clear the issue.
PS: I found this on list , shld I have asked permission from him ?
First the response by Professor Ramesh Rao
==========================================
==============Reply Start=================
Dear Editor,
I read with dismay Arun Gandhi's rejoinder in the September 24, 2004
issue of India Abroad. He has not only strayed away from responding to
the question I raised originally in my essay "What If?" - which was,
"what if Sardar Patel had become Prime Minister instead of Jawaharlal
Nehru" - but has added to the list of allegations against groups and
individuals about whom he seems to knows little, or whom he wishes to
demonize for his own personal gains - as witnessed from the awards
showered on him by "secular" organizations.
Neither the RSS nor the BJP, as far as I know, have claimed to be the
"true saviors of Dalits and Harijans", as Arun Gandhi asserts. He
blames the conflict and violence between Hindus and Muslims in the
subcontinent only on the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha. He also accuses
the RSS of wanting to "ethnically cleanse the sub-continent" or to
"create hell whatever the consequences and blame it on others". He also
accuses the RSS and the BJP of making "it mandatory for followers to
wear caste affiliations on their sleeves and foreheads". These are
incendiary and false accusations, which I hope the RSS and the BJP will
respond to. Anyone else, who did not have such close affiliations to
the Mahatma, would have been taken to court for slander and libel. It
is unbecoming of Arun Gandhi, who is the president of the M. K. Gandhi
Institute for Nonviolence, to indulge in such malicious lies and
falsehoods and ugly partisanship.
Arun Gandhi raises a number of questions about why the assassination of
Gandhiji could not be thwarted despite the police having information
about plots to kill the Mahatma. He answers them by speculating that
the "...98 percent bureaucrats and politicians who inherited the
government and who belonged to the Brahmin and Kshatriya castes along
with Hindutva cohorts felt threatened by Gandhiji's stand on caste" and
implies that they willed or encouraged the assassination. If this is
the kind of rhetoric that the grandson of the Mahatma seeks to use to
bamboozle readers, I pity him. I only hope that before he writes his
next rejoinder he will contemplate on what his grandfather might have
adviced him on matters as grave as these.
Ramesh Rao
================ Reply End ===================
This must be the article by the HERO OF TRUE INDIANS
===================================================
Gandhi's Dream
I was wrong on the connection between the Moplah
riots and the Khilafat agitation (august 27). I reread my history book
and found the connection between the two. But history is not often an
accurate recording of events. The 9/11 tragedy will go down in history
books in this country as the most dastardly attacked by terrorists. It
will be partly right. But I will be surprised if historians delve in to
circumstances that provoked the 19 terrorists into an action.
The terrorists did not wake up on September 11 and
decide to hijack planes and bring down the world trade center. But, 50
to 100 years from now, that is what people will glean from history
books.
The events that led to the Moplah rebellion were not
recorded by the history. It got pegged to the khilafat, which was the
last straw.
It is erroneously described as Hindu Muslim disunity in
India which implies all Hindus Muslims fight each other. The reality is
there is a small group on either side indulges in this nefarious
activity. Many Hindus Muslims live in peace and harmony. This is what
gandhiji tried to encourage and the Rashtriya Swayaamsevak Sangh-Hindu
Mahasabha nexus tried to destroy.
Gandhiji's stand for unity between communities and
within the community was for moral and practical reasons. If fate
brought Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others together, it makes sense
to live harmony.
Sometimes he bent over backwards to achieve unity. But
he had wisdom and magnanimity to own up his mistakes.
How do you expect to preserve unity of Bharatmata by
fostering enmity between Hindus and Muslims? Many cherish the dream of
seeing India united again.
Gopal Godse showed me the urn containing nathuram's
ashes he hopes to immerse in the Sindhu River on unification. But how
can you achieve if you a foster hate?
Either the RSS expects to ethnically to clean the
subcontinent. Or the parivar is out to create hell whatever the
consequences and blame it on others.
Since the RSS and Bharatiya Janata Party project
themselves as true saviors of the Harijans and Dalits, why is it that
during the five-year tenure in power the BJP did nothing to eliminate
caste system?
Since the thrust of articles, never very subtle, seek
to project the RSS-BJP combine as true saviors of India, why have they
made it mandatory for followers to wear caste affiliations on their
sleeves and foreheads? Isn't caste directly responsible for keeping
Dalits at the bottom of the ladder? Or have they convinced Dalits
rightful place is living in the dust?
Why were eight attempts made on Gandhiji's life, at
least five of them by Godse and Narayan Apte from the late thirties,
soon after he took a firm stand on the Harijans question and denounced
the caste system as it was practiced? At the time Pakistan was not
discussed. The Hindu Muslim question was not a burning issue. Was it the
fear that Gandhi would cause a revolution and destroy the caste system?
How was the assassination allowed to succeed? How could
the police not catch Nathuram Godse and Apte, despite having their names
and addresses for 10 days? Were the British trained police so
inefficient as not able to trace people whose addresses and whereabouts
were provided by their accomplice, Madanlal Pahwa?
What was the nexus between those who master minded the
assassination and the government? Could it be that the 98percent
bureaucrats and politicians who inherited the government and who
belonged to the Brahmin and Kshatriya castes along with Hindutva cohorts
felt threatened by Gandhiji's stand on caste? Everyone concluded that
martyred Gandhi was better than a living Gandhi, whose agenda was
communal unity.
If the RSS Hindu Mahasabha were so committed to saving
Bharatmata in its pristine form, why was Gandhiji abandoned when he was
the lone voice against the partition? Why did the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha
were so committed to saving Bharatmata in its pristine form, why was
Gandhiji abandoned when he was the lone voice against partition? Why did
the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha not stand behind Gandhiji and say:'We are with
you because we too do not want to see our motherland partitioned?'
Why did they seditiously work pre-partition to foster
anger and violence between Hindus and Muslims and slink away when
Partition became a reality?
Arun Gandhi,
I have to agree with Amarnath. I have never understood this - what is the connection between bhakti for Rama and this fanatical non-violence concept ?
Do I see him as a brilliant politician ? yes. Do I see him as a brilliant strategist ? yes. Do I see him as one who brought the whole gamut of Indian population under one banner and popularised the concept of independence ? yes. But why o why and where did this fanatical concept of Ahimsa ?
rajesh:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The present effort is intended to serve as a corrective in this stifling atmosphere. It seeks to initiate a fresh debate about Gandhi and his contributions by focusing on two areas in which his role has remained all but unchallenged over the past fifty years: nationalism and the freedom movement. In reexamining these, I have drawn my material from two little known sources â Gandhi and Anarchy by C. Sankaran Nair, and the three volume History of the Freedom Movement by R.C. Majumdar. The former is a contemporary account by a leading Congressman from an earlier generation, while the latter is a magisterial account by one of modern Indiaâs greatest historians. It is a telling commentary on the intellectual and political climate in independent India that the Congress Government made a serious effort to suppress Majumdarâs great work; Majumdar himself in an Appendix gave an account of it. (Majumdarâs books are published by Firma KLM of Calcutta; Nairâs book is out of print.)
The present work makes no claims to being a scholarly study; it may in fact be seen as an extended summary of the two works cited above, especially Volume III of Majumdarâs trilogy. <b>Several generations of Indians â including my own â have grown up on a diet of history that serves only the interests of a narrow clique. In addition, it ignores the enormous contribution made by the Swadeshi movement before Gandhi arrived on the scene â by leaders like Surendra Nath Bannerji, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, and, above all, Sri Aurobindo and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. It can be argued that this Swadeshi movement was the real national movement, and the Congress after the death of Tilak fell into the hands of careerists and opportunists who happened to reap the benefits of historical events â like World War II and its fallout. </b>Even this they botched with timid policies and unprincipled compromises leading to the holocaust of the Partition and the Kashmir problem. This, even more than independence, is the legacy of the Congress Party; independence would probably have come, but lack of both vision and strength of purpose led to problems that have remained unresolved even after fifty years.
<!--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>All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise. </i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->His âsaintlinessâ was an anachronism â a medieval idea mixing religion and politics. Unlike Sri Aurobindo, who left politics to pursue a spiritual life, Gandhi remained a politician to the last. His saintliness often magnified the sufferings of the innocent while absolving the aggressors of any accountability or even guilt. His moral relativism manifested itself in the slogan of sarva dharma samabhava, which could be, and was, used to equate evil and good â the murderer and the victim. Going by this measure, as an extreme case, Gandhi and Godse were morally equivalent for each being true to his own dharma. As we shall see later, this was the principle applied by Gandhi himself during the Mopla Rebellion, and also in defending the behavior of the Ali brothers when they invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India in defense of Islam. This is hardly consistent with a vision of nationalism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
from A fable agreed upon
It is not only Hindus Gandhi - the spiritual imperialist - misled, he also had choice advice for jews.. In his essay "Zionism and Anti-Semitism", Gandhi suggested that Jews use Satyagraha to oppose Hitler's Nazi regime and its brutal, murderous oppression. Gandhi was well aware that Hitler might use this public opposition to initiate a general massacre of many Jews, including the elderly, women, and children. Yet, he goes to say
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities [Satyagraha]. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imaged could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arun Gandhi says :
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhootnath+Oct 8 2004, 12:48 PM-->QUOTE(Bhootnath @ Oct 8 2004, 12:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Gopal Godse showed me the urn containing nathuram's ashes he hopes to immerse in the Sindhu River on unification. But how can you achieve if you a foster hate?     Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Godses own words
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nathuram told us that his ashes must not be immersed in any river in India -- it must be scattered only in the Sindhu in Pakistan. His explanation was that Gandhi's ashes have been immersed in all the rivers of the world -- even in the Nile, Volga and Thames. <b>But the Pakistan government refused to immerse his ashes in the Sindhu, saying they didn't want to pollute it with the ashes of a kafir. </b>According to Nathuram the Sindhu was the only river which was pure as Gandhi's ashes were not immersed there.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and do kind-of understand how fanatical-ahimsa could become popular (propaganda-wise) but I am sure that the very "fundamental" question raised by Amarnath must have been raised by people . Rama abhorred violence - ok. Rama tried and tried to make Ravana to give up Sita. He sent Angada (son of Bali) on a last minute peace mission. Even there his choice of Angada has interesting logic in it. Krishna also went on a last-ditch attempt to make peace, even after sh1t had hit the fan and spread all over the room. But this fanatical-ahimsa has no parallel in lives of Rama, Krishna or any other big names.
I am sure this question MUST have been raised. What did MKG had to say about this ?
The question was very simply and aptly worded by Amarnath..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Afterall Rama killed He did not stage a satyagraha in Lanka demanding the release of Sita....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 8 2004, 02:01 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 8 2004, 02:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> The question was very simply and aptly worded by Amarnath..
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Afterall Rama killed He did not stage a satyagraha in Lanka demanding the release of Sita....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hey... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay...so did Gandhi ask Indians to support British during World War II or request Chamberline/Churchill to go on a hunger strike around Berlin?
Afterall it wasn't our war, was it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Bhootnath+Oct 8 2004, 11:35 PM-->QUOTE(Bhootnath @ Oct 8 2004, 11:35 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay , any PHD holders in Ghandian studies here ?what is the connection between bhakti for Rama and this fanatical non-violence concept ?
I want to know , how much role BRITISH played in proping up Gandhi, and his virtues.
As for his Mahatma, Yup what he did to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was very Mahatmatic... <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi's in his obsession with non-violent social change used any tool that came along his way, to sell his idea - including Bhakti - to effect social mindset change. <i>Who better than Rama?</i>
Ofcourse his politics were never contextualized in a nation-state framework, and nor did he pay any attention to individual development and/or social development at his/her/their own pace. He was a very simple man with little knowledge of other religions - heck he did not even know hinduism. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> THat is why he is a spiritual imperialist for forcing, nay shoving, his views down the throat of others.
10-09-2004, 01:31 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2004, 01:35 AM by Sunder.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rama abhorred violence - ok. Rama tried and tried to make Ravana to give up Sita. He sent Angada (son of Bali) on a last minute peace mission. Even there his choice of Angada has interesting logic in it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK, Rama did not send Angadha on a Peace talk. Like a True Warrior, Rama did not go back on his battle plans once he had mobilized his troops (like Operation Parakram.)
Angadha, went to Ravana like Havyavahana (Agni) goes with the message, and the gist of the message (not verbtim) was this:
"Oh Ravana, I am telling you this for your own good, please listen carefully. Prepare your own Shraaddha Karya (after-death ceremony), as there will be none left in your clan to give you arghya sesame and water."
There was absolutely no way anyone would have mistaken this for a peace talk. Tulasidas (and perhaps Kambar) had concocted a peace talk in their version of Ramayana. Valmiki Ramayana never did. (although there was a stray mention somewhere when Shri Rama just muses that he *may* grant clemency to Ravana if he was asked refuge.)
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> 
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> THat is why he is a spiritual imperialist for forcing, nay shoving, his views down the throat of others.