Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Mahatma Gandhi
Noticed a strong discussion in the Infosys BB on the Mahatma on his death anniversary. Itz unfortunate that Einstein's words have come true.....ppl not just cannot believe that such a person lived, but also cannot recognise his greatness :-(
The greatness of Gandhiji was not in the fact that he was instrumental in India obtaining freedom. It was the way he lead his life. It was in the way he moulded his life - from the same beginings same as of billions of us - into one that showed the world a new way to lead life, a new way towards true civilization. It was in his conviction to the absolute truth (satya-agraha) that provided him the courage to stick to his principles even under enormous pressure. It was in the way he lead by example in all aspects of his life - from freedom struggle to service towards humanity, from satya-agraha to propagation of hygiene, from vegetarianism to ahimsa, from running charitable institutions to leading of 300 million ppl in their pursuit for freedom.
The greatness of Gandhiji was that he followed the dictum "means are more important than the end". Whether it be cancelling the non-cooperation movement, or it be his dispute with Subhash Chadra Bose, or it be his insistence on making the payment to Pak.....this trait is something which very few ppl could (and still dont) appreciate....certainly not the Godses and the Boses. Imagine the pressure on the Mahatma when he had to call-off the non-cooperation movement.....any lesser mortal could have been tempted to keep the momentum going and compromise on his principles.
If America had followed the dictum "means are more important than the end", it would not have had to endure the "war against terror' today....after all weren't Saddam Hussein and Taliban the creation of America itself? If Israel had followed the dictum "means are more important than the end", it would not have had to endure the Hamas! Can somebody confidently deny that Bose's support to the fascist forces would not have troubled India later? I have read writings by Bose's close confidents and they assure that Bose was no sympathiser of the Nazi cause. But, neither was Reagan a sympathiser of fudamentalist Islamic movement!
And if (as mentioned in another post) Godse was not driven to kill Gandhiji after partition, if Godse was not driven to kill Gandhiji after he over-rode popular support to install Nehru as the PM, but was driven to assassinate Gandhiji because he asked for the payment to be made to Pak, that shows the short-sightedness of Godse and his coterie.
On should read the autobiography of the Mahatma to appreciate his greatness. One little appreciated aspect of the Mahatma was his demands on the same ppl he was fighting for. I strongly believe that for any fight (social/political) to be successful, not just should you demand your rights, you also need to do self-introspection to correct your own shortcomings. Mahatma was one (and in my knowledge only one) who recognised this. This was something Gandhiji demanded from the Indians in South Africa during his fight for their rights, from Indians in India during the freedom movement, during his work with the depressed classes, and finally during his movement to heal the wounds of partition. What a difference from the politicians of today and their vote bank politics. (This is another big difference I find in the fight of Martin Luther King for the rights of blacks in US)
To say that India's freedom was totally due to British compulsions after WW-II is belittling the efforts of not just Gandhiji, but of all freedom fighters since 1857. Agreed tons of other countries recieved independence about the same time as India, agreed WW-II advanced the inevitable. But then, wasnt the 1935 elections the first step towards freedom??? Did the British experience such pressure from any other country? Pls do not fall to this simplistic theory that the freedom was due to British compulsions. World war or no world war, freedom to India was in the making. Also, it would be interesting to read the plight today of several countries that recieved freedom along with India with no strong freedom movement!
If you are not convinced of the relevance of ahimsa in the modern context, you need not look beyond the Israel-Palestine struggle. Do you think the agressive policies of either is helping the cause of peace? In fact Gandhiji had the strength and conviction to preach non-violence to Jews at a time when they were presecuted by Hitler in one of the most heinous carnages of history.
We had patriots like Godse, we had leaders of men like Bose, we had thinkers like Savarkar, we had visionaries like Patel, we had intellectuals like Nehru......and then there was the Mahatma. I alwayz felt that the best appreciation of the Mahatma was in that statement by Einstein.....he - considered the most intelligent person of that century - described the Mahatma in the most beautiful, apt and appropriate words one could ever get. "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood."!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: KRISHNAN
Sent: Fri 1/30/2004 4:56 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Agreed.
War is fought for establishment of justice.
Violence is an expression of hate in any form that causes any injury to the receiver.
-----Original Message-----
From: joye_r
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:43 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: Violent examples
I guess there is a differnce between War and violence!
-----Original Message-----
From: Puspendra Kumar
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:33 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: Violent examples
Violence fetched results in American war of independence,french revolution,World War,gulf war,indo-pak war,kargil war,ramayana & mahabharata.....
list continues.....
pls give one example in history..."On the other hand, non-violence has fetched
results consistently!" which prooves ur point...(pls exclude the famous example of our independence,give some other example...)
-----Original Message-----
From: joye_r
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:11 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: so called father of nation
Ghandhi is the father of the nation and there was/is no one near his level.
Some people think that violence can fetch results. If that is the case, then LTTE would have got a seperate
country by now or soon they will be getting... Same applies to Palestine, Kashimir etc. If violence can fetch
results, why there is talking in kashmir now?
Again and again it is proved that violence can not fetch results. On the other hand, non-violence has fetched
results consistently!
Ghandhi is the greatest leader who brought together different cultures and languages (people belonging to
different kingdoms before British rule) and created a united India. Nobody else did that! That is why Ghandhi is the
father of the nation.
The pakistan split could not be avoided by Ghandhi. No body else could avoid that too! So do not blame Gandhi
for the split. There could have been more violence created by some (again violence!) if there was no split! Think
of the situation where the whole of Pakistan is with India and it is acting like today's Kashmir. You can compare
that situation with todays Srilanka and LTTE.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-Mahatma Gandhi
Noticed a strong discussion in the Infosys BB on the Mahatma on his death anniversary. Itz unfortunate that Einstein's words have come true.....ppl not just cannot believe that such a person lived, but also cannot recognise his greatness :-(
The greatness of Gandhiji was not in the fact that he was instrumental in India obtaining freedom. It was the way he lead his life. It was in the way he moulded his life - from the same beginings same as of billions of us - into one that showed the world a new way to lead life, a new way towards true civilization. It was in his conviction to the absolute truth (satya-agraha) that provided him the courage to stick to his principles even under enormous pressure. It was in the way he lead by example in all aspects of his life - from freedom struggle to service towards humanity, from satya-agraha to propagation of hygiene, from vegetarianism to ahimsa, from running charitable institutions to leading of 300 million ppl in their pursuit for freedom.
The greatness of Gandhiji was that he followed the dictum "means are more important than the end". Whether it be cancelling the non-cooperation movement, or it be his dispute with Subhash Chadra Bose, or it be his insistence on making the payment to Pak.....this trait is something which very few ppl could (and still dont) appreciate....certainly not the Godses and the Boses. Imagine the pressure on the Mahatma when he had to call-off the non-cooperation movement.....any lesser mortal could have been tempted to keep the momentum going and compromise on his principles.
If America had followed the dictum "means are more important than the end", it would not have had to endure the "war against terror' today....after all weren't Saddam Hussein and Taliban the creation of America itself? If Israel had followed the dictum "means are more important than the end", it would not have had to endure the Hamas! Can somebody confidently deny that Bose's support to the fascist forces would not have troubled India later? I have read writings by Bose's close confidents and they assure that Bose was no sympathiser of the Nazi cause. But, neither was Reagan a sympathiser of fudamentalist Islamic movement!
And if (as mentioned in another post) Godse was not driven to kill Gandhiji after partition, if Godse was not driven to kill Gandhiji after he over-rode popular support to install Nehru as the PM, but was driven to assassinate Gandhiji because he asked for the payment to be made to Pak, that shows the short-sightedness of Godse and his coterie.
On should read the autobiography of the Mahatma to appreciate his greatness. One little appreciated aspect of the Mahatma was his demands on the same ppl he was fighting for. I strongly believe that for any fight (social/political) to be successful, not just should you demand your rights, you also need to do self-introspection to correct your own shortcomings. Mahatma was one (and in my knowledge only one) who recognised this. This was something Gandhiji demanded from the Indians in South Africa during his fight for their rights, from Indians in India during the freedom movement, during his work with the depressed classes, and finally during his movement to heal the wounds of partition. What a difference from the politicians of today and their vote bank politics. (This is another big difference I find in the fight of Martin Luther King for the rights of blacks in US)
To say that India's freedom was totally due to British compulsions after WW-II is belittling the efforts of not just Gandhiji, but of all freedom fighters since 1857. Agreed tons of other countries recieved independence about the same time as India, agreed WW-II advanced the inevitable. But then, wasnt the 1935 elections the first step towards freedom??? Did the British experience such pressure from any other country? Pls do not fall to this simplistic theory that the freedom was due to British compulsions. World war or no world war, freedom to India was in the making. Also, it would be interesting to read the plight today of several countries that recieved freedom along with India with no strong freedom movement!
If you are not convinced of the relevance of ahimsa in the modern context, you need not look beyond the Israel-Palestine struggle. Do you think the agressive policies of either is helping the cause of peace? In fact Gandhiji had the strength and conviction to preach non-violence to Jews at a time when they were presecuted by Hitler in one of the most heinous carnages of history.
We had patriots like Godse, we had leaders of men like Bose, we had thinkers like Savarkar, we had visionaries like Patel, we had intellectuals like Nehru......and then there was the Mahatma. I alwayz felt that the best appreciation of the Mahatma was in that statement by Einstein.....he - considered the most intelligent person of that century - described the Mahatma in the most beautiful, apt and appropriate words one could ever get. "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood."!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: KRISHNAN
Sent: Fri 1/30/2004 4:56 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Agreed.
War is fought for establishment of justice.
Violence is an expression of hate in any form that causes any injury to the receiver.
-----Original Message-----
From: joye_r
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:43 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: Violent examples
I guess there is a differnce between War and violence!
-----Original Message-----
From: Puspendra Kumar
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:33 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: Violent examples
Violence fetched results in American war of independence,french revolution,World War,gulf war,indo-pak war,kargil war,ramayana & mahabharata.....
list continues.....
pls give one example in history..."On the other hand, non-violence has fetched
results consistently!" which prooves ur point...(pls exclude the famous example of our independence,give some other example...)
-----Original Message-----
From: joye_r
Posted At: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:11 PM
Posted To: KEC General
Conversation: ***Will we observe 2 minutes of silence today ?***
Subject: so called father of nation
Ghandhi is the father of the nation and there was/is no one near his level.
Some people think that violence can fetch results. If that is the case, then LTTE would have got a seperate
country by now or soon they will be getting... Same applies to Palestine, Kashimir etc. If violence can fetch
results, why there is talking in kashmir now?
Again and again it is proved that violence can not fetch results. On the other hand, non-violence has fetched
results consistently!
Ghandhi is the greatest leader who brought together different cultures and languages (people belonging to
different kingdoms before British rule) and created a united India. Nobody else did that! That is why Ghandhi is the
father of the nation.
The pakistan split could not be avoided by Ghandhi. No body else could avoid that too! So do not blame Gandhi
for the split. There could have been more violence created by some (again violence!) if there was no split! Think
of the situation where the whole of Pakistan is with India and it is acting like today's Kashmir. You can compare
that situation with todays Srilanka and LTTE.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-Mahatma Gandhi
You are visitor number
since May 1, 2005