Mahatama Gandhi as a Hindu Nationalist - Sitaram Goel

Discussion in 'Religion & Culture' started by LurkerBaba, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Goel was a famous RSS guy with a positive opinion on Gandhi. We could have a good debate since its Gandhi Jayanti :stirpot:

    Perversion Of India's Political Parlance - Chapter 7 - The Place of Mahatma Gandhi
     
    Singh and Phenom like this.
  2.  
  3. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    The Pakistani elite hold Gandhi in contempt. Some of their grievances:

    1. Gandhi communalized Indian politics .
    2. He stole the mantle of 'Khilafat Movement'
    3. When he supported Khilafat, a section of Jamaat reciprocated by banning cow slaughter. This rattled some of the Muslim elite
    4. His "Ishwar, Allah tero naam" was seen as proselytization
    5. By sending Muslims to Afghanistan, Gandhi got rid of a lot of Mullahs and extremists. Clever baniya :p
     
    blank_quest likes this.
  4. spikey360

    spikey360 Crusader Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,285
    Likes Received:
    2,116
    Location:
    The Republic of India
    Gandhi and Hindu Nationalist, these words do not go well in one sentence.
     
    maomao likes this.
  5. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    Explain this point please, when did Gandhi ji do that ?
     
  6. ashdoc

    ashdoc Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    965
    gandhi also started the tradition of making the congress party bow down before every demand of muslims . its another matter that muslims did not reciprocate and continued to hate gandhi as a allegedly ' hindu ' leader .

    just because the muslims had a problem with him does not make him a hindu nationalist . it shows the unrelenting character of islam---that anyone who even mollycoddled them was still an enemy if he did not convert .

    maulana muhammad ali made a telling comment after the khilafat agitation was over . he said that he had enormous respect for gandhi but still to him gandhi was worse than the most low class muslim because gandhi was nonmuslim !! even the most low class muslim was better than gandhi because after all he was a muslim !!
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
    parijataka and maomao like this.
  7. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Gandhi advised Subcontinental Muslims to take refugee in Afghanistan and declare Jihad against the British.

    Its a different story that Afghans didn't take subcontinentals seriously and treated them with contempt
     
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Gandhi a Hindu nationalist?

    Look, on his birthday, I would not like to say anything.

    All I will say is that he was a good apple!

    A piece of rhyme in The New Statesman And Nation (circa 1935) by ‘Sagittarius’:

    A piece of rhyme in The New Statesman And Nation (circa 1935) by ‘Sagittarius’:

    “De Valera and his Green Shirts with their back to the wall,
    Hitler with his Brown Shirts riding for a fall,
    Mussolini with his Black Shirts lording over it all,

    Three Cheers for Mahatma Gandhi with no shirt at all!”
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
    drkrn likes this.
  9. ashdoc

    ashdoc Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    965
    because the british had declared that they would depose the khalifa of islam that is the sultan of turkey after the world war one the indian muslims felt that living under british rule was taboo . hence they began to move to afghanistan which was one of the few independent islamic states at that time . gandhi supported them in this .
     
    parijataka likes this.
  10. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    Gandhi was very well perceived as Hindu Nationalist not just within country but also abroad. Ask Roosevelt's grave
     
    Singh likes this.
  11. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    Or VS Naipaul :p
     
  12. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Mahatma is a Hindu nationalist not Brahmin nationalist
     
  13. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    And wadafaq is Brahmin Nationalist ? :wat:
     
  14. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    The now defunct Hindu Mahasabha and the uber secular regards like the Bengali Jholawallahs and Tambrahms
     
  15. nrj

    nrj Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    9,252
    Likes Received:
    3,347
    Location:
    Brussels
    They are too unorganized & unrecognized to be related to brahmins as a caste in whole.
     
  16. KS

    KS Bye bye DFI Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    8,008
    Likes Received:
    5,718
    Location:
    irrelevant
    A Hindu Nationalist who addressed the Moplas (after their massacre of Hindus in Kerala). "My dear brave mopla brothers..."

    A Hindu nationalist who said to the migrating Lahori Hindus "If Lahore is dying, die with it..."

    Anyway I cant wrap my head around the assertion Gandhi was a Hindu nationalist.

    But I agree with the second para though, how the lefties and Muslims utilize Gandhi.
     
    parijataka and Virendra like this.
  17. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    His unnecessary owning of Turkish business i.e. Khilaafat far off in India is something I don't understand, if I were to see him as a Hindu nationalist.
    That step only emboldened the Ummah fantasies across the sub continent.
    By the way SitaRam Goel himself was a bit critical of RSS, that it would do more harm to the Hindu society than good.
     
  18. panduranghari

    panduranghari Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,790
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Gandhi resisted ‘digestion’ by the West; we must too | Firstpost


    In my recent book, Being Different – An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism (HarperCollins India, 2011), I discuss the phenomenon of the Western appropriation of the cultural and civilisational fruits of non-Western cultures, plucking these from their context and feeding them into the West’s own grand narrative, strengthening it, while leaving the former uprooted or disabled.

    This process, one that I term “digestion,” might start out innocuously enough, but once a cultural artifact has been digested its contours and intent may bear no resemblance to the original. The culture that bears those fruits is denied not just credit but also the potential to produce future harvests. Collectively, the world is denied the diversity of intelligence and the evolution of new paradigms.

    Take the example of yoga in American popular culture and its complete severance from its Hindu roots. The insistence on viewing yoga as merely a physical practice with some spiritual/mental benefits by the vast majority of Americans, or even refashioning it into “Christian Yoga”, is the “digestion” that I’m referring to. While all yoga practitioners derive many of its benefits, neglecting the distinct and rich metaphysics that undergirds yoga asanas is a rejection of the real prize – the spiritual union of human consciousness with the divine. To deem yoga as Christian is to miss the point altogether, given how fundamentally at odds mainstream Christian and Hindu philosophies are. (In a previous blog, I’ve described what these differences are).

    2 October being Gandhi’s birthday, it would be worth reflecting on his courageous quest to retain his cultural distinctiveness. AP
    Attempts to clarify and assert the Hindu roots of yoga in recent blogs have been met with resistance and animosity by many ardent American yoga practitioners. This resistance points to the “Western Universalism” that I also discuss in my book: a deeply ingrained view that the entire world system’s nature and evolution is shaped by the West’s experience and worldview. Along with geographically and historically derived cultural memes, Western Universalism is deeply intertwined with the Judeo-Christian narrative. To embrace yoga’s Hindu roots would fundamentally challenge Western identity. “Digestion” – keeping yoga but dumping Hinduism – is the means of containing that challenge.

    If yoga’s Hindu roots create such anxiety by challenging Western religious pre-eminence, then how might Gandhi, who successfully challenged Western Universalism, leading and winning India’s fight for independence non-violently, fare in the West? Already we see attempts to co-opt Gandhi. A recent bizarre incident uncovering Gandhi’s posthumous baptism by the Mormon Church is an example of one such attempt of laying claim to him. (Gandhi himself deplored the practice of conversion by Christian missionaries in India).

    Most Western authors on Gandhi will emphasise the influence of the New Testament on Gandhi. Indeed Gandhi spoke favourably of many passages in the New Testament and of Jesus, but never as passionately or as extensively as he did of the faith to which he belonged. In fact, Gandhi was being entirely true to his pluralistic Hindu beliefs in his respect for all faiths and not just his own.

    In Peace Education studies in American universities, Gandhi’s success is attributed largely to the “context” – the apparent benevolence of British colonists in providing the fertile field on which he could exercise his non-violent agitation. (Gandhi himself had said that non-violent resistance could work in most situations, albeit with great sacrifice). Gandhi is routinely discussed in virtual isolation from his followers, the large and diverse group of eminent thinkers, and the Indian masses who very early embraced Gandhi’s non-violent practices spontaneously.

    If Gandhi led, then millions of Indians, similarly inspired, agreed wholeheartedly and followed. Keeping Gandhi, but dumping his Hindu influences is already being attempted in Western scholarship.

    Fortunately, Gandhi, a prolific writer documented his own life and struggles quite extensively. Moreover, as his writings record, he dove deep into Indian culture, drawing upon it to frame the Indian independence struggle in terms that would resonate with his countrymen. His autobiography reveals that his moral life was anchored in his Hindu faith. In my view, Gandhi (and his ideas) resisted digestion because, quite cannily, he used Sanskrit words to give voice to India’s struggle and demands. Words like satyagraha, swadeshi, swaraj, ahimsa, sva-dharma became an integral part of the lexicon of the Indian freedom struggle. By using these words and not their English equivalents, Gandhi preserved the complete range of their complex meanings, their dharmic origins and their cultural context.

    Even as the West refers to Gandhi’s methods as non-violent, Gandhi himself used the words ahimsa, and satyagraha as the character of his movement. The term ahimsa is more than non-violence. Himsa translates to “harm” and ahimsa is not just non-violence, a narrow and incomplete translation, but more accurately “non-harming”. “Non-harming,” therefore, precluded all forms of harm – cultural genocide, environmental degradation and animal slaughter.

    Satya-graha or “truth-struggle” implied that India’s freedom fight would have to be conducted in a manner that befits the bearers of truth. Holding on to the Sanskrit terms became his way of resisting colonisation and safeguarding dharmic knowledge.

    2 October being Gandhi’s birthday, it would be worth reflecting on his courageous quest to retain his cultural distinctiveness. How might Western scholarship on Gandhi affect his legacy? How is Gandhi studied in Indian universities? What could be the implications for a multipolar world today? To consider these and other questions is one way of paying tribute to the father of our nation on Gandhi Jayanti.

    Rajiv Malhotra’s journey started in physics in St Stephens College and went to computer science in the USA, and further on to telecom, corporate strategy, management consulting and entrepreneurship. He took early retirement, and for the past 20 years has reinvented himself as writer, speaker and public intellectual in philosophy, international relations and current affairs.

    Edited by Kaajal Ahuja
     
    LurkerBaba likes this.
  19. panduranghari

    panduranghari Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,790
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Mahatma Gandhi’s True Legacy
    October 4, 2012
    By Sandeep


    E
    xactly one refrain emanating from the 1970s generation encapsulates the significance of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday: a complaint that October 2nd is a Dry Day.

    That’s what Gandhi has been reduced to after 65 years: a symbol of Prohibition that middle class India must vocally protest against. Of course, not with malice because somewhere deep down, Gandhi still commands respect.

    I picked the 1970s generation because this generation has benefitted the most from liberalization and the reforms that followed during the NDA regime. Among other things, these benefits have included exposure to various cultures across the globe, which has shaped and changed its worldview. One of the most significant of these changes is the casting away of the irrational taboo—rooted in fear—against alcohol, a taboo to which Gandhi contributed in great measure. Contrary to what Bapu claimed, middle class India has discovered the immensely liberating effects of alcohol. Put another way, today’s middle class India has definitively discarded Mahatma Gandhi. Quite long ago. And most certainly not under influence.

    However, while it lasted, Gandhi’s influence was enormous and almost all-pervasive. So much so that even a fine mind like Sita Ram Goel’s developed temporary opaqueness when it came to the subject of Mahatma Gandhi. The harshest criticism Goel reserves for Gandhi is a mild rebuke on the subject of the latter’s inordinate Muslim appeasement.

    Now, don’t believe anybody who talks about how “complex” it is to write about Gandhi’s legacy. They’re either ignorant or hypocritical. There’s no third explanation. If not for any reason but for the simple fact that Gandhi happens to be perhaps the earliest and the most successful PR exercise—an exercise that still endures in the West. It’s as if there was no other contemporary leader in India who could effectively fight the British. It’s as if India had to await the Mahatma who came from South Africa, and in a few years, take over the Congress party and deliver freedom to the nation. Not characteristically very different from say, Jesus Christ and Mohammad.

    But let’s cut the PR props.

    Consider this: a sample of Gandhi’s “legacy” occurred in his own lifetime when the actual worth of the force of his “moral” and whatever other purity and force that supposedly made the mighty British tremble in their knees was put to test. The same throngs of Congress stalwarts who slaved for years at Gandhi’s feet simply bypassed him when the British announced that they wanted to finally quit. And then we have the well-known story of how the claim of “Partition over my dead body” was violently shattered. In both cases, he was left alone. Fasting. Only this time, nobody cared whether he lived or died at the end of the fast.

    Bereft of all frills, Gandhi’s actual legacy is just twofold. One, he killed the spirit of free, fearless and robust intellectual discourse, which was thriving until the time of Balagangadhar Tilak and later, briefly, Aurobindo Ghosh. It is worth recalling what D.V. Gundappa wrote (which I’ve translated earlier) in this connection as early as 1928.

    Newspapers prior to Gandhi’s time freely carried writings and debates on a broad range of diverse topics. It was commonly accepted by all readers that every question or issue had two, three, or even four alternative or differing perspectives. It was also equally accepted that it was essential to objectively examine each of these perspectives. Thus, Gokhale had his own path carved out, Tilak had his, Lala Lajpat Rai had his, and Surendranath Banerjee had his. Public discourse freely and gladly welcomed and allowed space for everybody. People examined the merits and deficiencies of disparate opinions.

    After Gandhi entered the scene, people lost this practice of critically examining any topic or issue and approaching it from multiple perspectives. The emphasis suddenly shifted in favour of a unilateral political voice which therefore meant that no obstacle should hinder the Mahatma’s leadership. The impression sought to be conveyed to the British as well as the international community was that India had spoken if Gandhi had spoken and that he had no opposition. Gradually, a situation arose where people began to believe that unless this impression was convincingly made, we wouldn’t achieve Independence. No public gathering or speech was complete without the slogan of Gandhiji ki Jai! Slowly, this escalated to the level of thought—nobody could even think about Gandhi without the mandatory Mahatma prefix.

    Our newspapers and opinion-makers quickly followed suit. Their stance was that perchance somebody found something to disagree with even one thing that Gandhi said, he or she had to compulsorily suppress its expression. Thus the national atmosphere of discourse quickly became one where nobody could ever think of something different from what Gandhi thought. The minds of the general public—both literate and otherwise—soon became habituated to conformity, which then turned to blind loyalty towards a partisan idea.

    In this light, is it any wonder that a sub-standard mind like Nehru so easily became the first Prime Minister? And is it any surprise that people with original thought and spotless conduct were shunted out of the Indian National Congress barely years after we achieved Independence?

    Two, Gandhi castrated India—I use that word with caution. Historically, the one thing that enabled India to withstand and successfully repulse the Islamic and other alien onslaughts for nearly a thousand years was the Kshatra or the warrior spirit. The native kingdoms were badly beaten and subdued but they were never fully conquered. They rebounded with double the vigour and reclaimed their ancestral homeland. In fact, as long as the Marathas and Ranjit Singh were around, the British found it really tough to take control of the entire country. And to their credit, praise is due to the British strategy: they spotted that this spirit of Kshatra was one of the biggest obstacles they had to overcome. Which they did. Indeed, from the 1857 revolt till the founding of the INA, there was not a single instance of a nationwide armed uprising against the British. Of these 85 years, Gandhi hogged the freedom struggle for a precious, ruinous 27 years (I’m counting from 1920 when he took over the Congress party’s leadership) and injected liberal doses of toxic non-violence into an already-oppressed nation. Christopher Hitchens, in a damning but highly accurate assessment, observes that Gandhi’s was not a “struggle for India, but with it.” (Italics in the original)

    And because he is painted as the man who got us freedom, the logical question arises: did he really get us freedom? Put another way, did India really fight to obtain freedom? If we had really fought for freedom—if we had shed the blood of our own people and that of the British, there’s no way—and this has to be said again—we would have allowed a clueless person like Nehru to become Prime Minister. The maximum hardship that the leading non-violent lights of the freedom struggle had known were a few beatings and spells in jail—our first Prime Minister was fashionable even as a prisoner. Those who actually shed blood were few in number and mostly disorganized and fought in individual capacity and were therefore easily vanquished. Worse, they were chastised by that Apostle of non-violence who had patented the definitions of freedom struggle and patriotism. India didn’t really fight—with sweat and blood—for freedom. India blindly followed the personal prescriptions of right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral of one man. Barring the Dandi March, everything Gandhi touched turned to ashes. Pick any major failed epoch of the freedom struggle and you will see the Mahatma’s non-violent imprint of doom on it.

    Gandhi’s heady potions of ahimsa and satyagraha robbed Indians of the incentive to put up a fierce resistance, the kind that actually made the British tremble in their knees, the kind that Subash Bose inspired. The idea of a violent freedom struggle is not the fact of using violence as an end in itself. Violent freedom struggle is effective when it is used as a brutal, fatal, and the ultimate weapon aimed at making it prohibitively expensive for the colonizer to remain for a minute longer in his ill-gotten empire. Indeed, the British couldn’t have asked for a better boon than Gandhi whose idea of a non-violent resistance must have amused them to no end. While they were merely beating up thousands of Gandhi’s minions, they meted out a different sort of treatment to the hapless millions in their other empires in various parts of Africa (it’d be instructive to find out if Gandhi had read Conrad’s heart-rending Heart of Darkness).

    An even uglier facet of Gandhi’s legacy is hypocrisy. For a Mahatma who waxed eloquent about leading a moral and virtuous life, it boggles the mind how and why he was unable to instil these values into the heart and head of his blue-eyed boy. Nehru was as anti-Gandhi as it could get in these matters. While the Mahatma preached the evils of alcohol to the whole country, the blue-eyed boy showed no compunction in enjoying his favourite scotch or whatever other drink. While the Mahatma used the poor Manuben among other women as experiments to test the strength (or weakness depending on how you look at it) of his…err…passions, Nehru’s amorous exploits were as legendary as they were public knowledge. A truly moral and ethical person would’ve disowned a guy like Nehru the moment he was caught with his pan…errr…going wayward. Not only did he not disown him, he gifted the Prime Minister’s chair to the blue-eyed boy.

    The result of this stifling of the intellect and castration has been disastrous. Even today, even the puniest of nations would’ve given a bloody reply to something like 26/11. What are we still doing? Let’s hear it from the mouth of S.M. Krishna, just 16 hours ago:

    “In a difficult relationship like the one we have had with Pakistan, one should have lots of patience. India is known for its patience and perseverance. Patiently we will move in the direction in which we want,” Krishna said.

    In other words, the perfect Gandhian approach. Not too different from what Gandhi wrote to Hitler addressing him as “My friend” (sic) :

    It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to a savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success? Any way I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you.

    In other words: moving a foe, barbarian, and tyrant through kindness and purity of heart and universal love and appeal to peace. Coming from a lesser mortal, this can be accurately described in one word: delusion.

    Belated Gandhi Jayanti.

    Mahatma Gandhi’s True Legacy | The Rediscovery of India
     
    parijataka likes this.
  20. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Gandhi in many ways broke the will of the people by preaching pacifism. This brought
    suffering to untold millions who believed their suffering will ultimately lead to reward.
    This theory was not accepted by the muslims and sikhs and great many hindus from
    the start. Many people believe if there was a violent overthrow of the British it may have
    kept the subcontinent together? It may sound radical but take a nation like Vietnam which
    fought and defeated French,US and China is still in tact as one country. Gandhi's stubborn fasting
    is viewed as achieving victory but it did not achieve any victory because it still brought
    division of the subcontinent and permanent enmity.
     
    Raj30 likes this.
  21. Das ka das

    Das ka das Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    896
    Likes Received:
    447
    Location:
    Redneckistan
    Would you honestly want to live in a country that is 46 percent Muslim (the percentage of muslims in Pak/India/Bdesh)?
     

Share This Page