Gandhism ::The Power

Sometimes I like to make an argument on fresh issues related with MahatmaGandhi and his practices.But it is shame to us that people usually find bravery to make a joke of this Mhatma.In all over the world, his methods were easily misinterpreted by Westerners. In order to fathom what he was about, westerners fluctuated between hyper-difference, in which Gandhi was seen as the inexplicable product of a foreign culture; and over-likeness, in which they found similarities that were not really there. The real Gandhi lay somewhere in between. The concept of non violence and making the country fre is somehow related to some basic experiments what this Mahatma did during the first cycle of our great revolution.it is being explained by some of our modern philosophers that gandhi was somehow a little bit controversial about his experiments can be eventually compared with the hindu religion.Gandhi departed from Hindu orthodoxy in two significant ways: on nonviolence and on caste. Ahimsa, or nonviolence, maintained that all killing should be avoided to accrue spiritual merit. Gandhi, who had encounters with poisonous snakes in South Africa and rabid dogs in India, redefined the concept and mandated killing for humanitarian purposes, as in the euthanasia of rabid dogs. If some Hindus were alienated by his lack of orthodoxy on ahimsa, many more fell out with him over his championing of the untouchables, the lowest of India's castes.in most of the part of our contry we common people still having this disease what we call as a regional old manuscripted thought where the people from lower caste should not be touched. In traditional Hindu belief, an untouchable's contact with the person, food, or drink of a member of a higher caste would defile that person. For orthodox Hindus, it was a scripturally enjoined inequality, a product of individual karma (action) and performance of dharma (dedication to a calling), and a proof of the cycle of sansar (reincarnation). Gandhi never succeeded in justifying his stance against untouchability; in the end, he simply asserted that Hinduism needed to change.Attempting to understand Gandhi fares no better if he is misconstrued as a product of Indian asceticism. Although Gandhi followed various ascetic regimens such as brahmacharya (celibacy), his purpose was to gain the strength for successful worldly action, rather than to accumulate spiritual merit. Just as mistakenly, Gandhian protest can take on the guise of things.it is not a matter a joke when there was a time people started to follow a person just by hearing his speech.in the stories and fairy tales we have heard the youngesters started to follow the witch or fairy because of her hyptonacy.But this was not the case at the time of slavery,where people from our country started to listen a particular person.It was the magic and poer of a mahatma whose theory and style somehow reflects the hope to get the freedom from slavery.Westerners already know well. Attempting to see in Gandhian nonviolence a form of Christian nonresistance glosses over the activist, confrontational element in Gandhism. Gandhi wanted worldly success, the independence of India, not divine martyrdom. He made salt, he burned cloth, he led boycotts, he was thrown in prison, but he never waited around to be thrown to the lions. The concepts of Gandhian nonviolence and pacifism are not at all close. Gandhi did not believe in turning the other cheek in every situation―evil had to be resisted, best done nonviolently, but better by violence than not at all. Passive resistance was the term that Gandhi originally used for his South African protest, but he soon disowned the term in favor of his neo-locution, satyagraha or soul-force. For Gandhi, passive resistance was a weapon of the weak, used expediently, not morally, when violence was impossible or too costly. When Gandhi pondered the case of the British suffragettes and Irish Republican hunger-strikers offering passive resistance in jail, he saw an essential coercive element in the protests, which made them akin to violent resistance. Such passive resistors were perpetrating nonviolence to extract concessions from their enemies. The purpose of India's nonviolent resisters, in Gandhi's terms, was to suffer nonviolently to engender trust and respect in their opponents. Civil disobedience against the state, and the anarchist spirit of protest it represented, was also a departure from the Gandhian concept. Civil disobedience as proposed by Thoreau and practiced by anarchists depended on individual acts. Mass action was suspect because participants might not share the same conviction or some might feel coerced into action.
In Gandhian protest, civil disobedience could begin with individual acts, but only for the purpose of mobilizing mass protest. Otherwise, civil disobedience was an ego trip, not a moral action. Gandhi's truth was not just a product of his Indian tradition; nor was he parroting methods already known in the West. It was a syncretism of Western and Indian practices that drew upon Gandhi's experiences living in England, South Africa, and India. By 1918 Gandhi had put together the three most important elements of his philosophy―namely, morally informed nonviolence, mass civil disobedience, and courageous suffering.
The concept was almost as strange to Indians as it was later to Americans. In the West, Gandhi was perceived as powerful for his ability to hold back threatened violence from the Indian masses. That power was taken as spiritual. Gandhi "suffers himself to be adored," as one New York Times commentator put it. Another commented that Gandhi's penitential fasting for political ends illustrated the "difference between East and West." A Gandhi sanctified in this manner spoke to American social activists only as a saint―which meant that he was heard best by Christian militants, rather than by secular ones, and that his work was taken as prophecy, not politics. Even this depended on seeing Christ like qualities in Gandhi and in tailoring nonviolent resistance to Christian nonresistance and pacifism. This over-likeness grew stronger from the 1920s on as Gandhi's influence over Indian nationalism developed and as more and more American clergymen went to India to meet the Mahatma and bring his ideas home. John Haynes Holmes, a Protestant minister, pacifist, and activist with A. J. Muste's Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) was a major agent of Western over-likeness. He began to preach a Christianized version of Gandhi and Gandhism as early as 1918 and met the Mahatma in 1931. In a 1922 sermon, Holmes said that "Gandhi is thus undertaking to do exactly what Jesus did when He proclaimed the kingdom of God on earth." For many U.S. activists in the 1930s, even Christian ones, a Christ-like Gandhi gave no political direction. A. J. Muste remembered the period with regret: "In the thirties . . . we faced a terrible situation . . . .I did not know how to apply nonviolent methods effectively to the situation. The effort to apply Gandhian methods to American conditions had scarcely begun. Pacifism was mostly a middle-class and individualistic phenomenon." Rejecting Christ and a Christ-like Gandhi, Muste turned to Trotsky and Communism for a period.

Hanging Kasab............

Hanging the Kasab the topic is very Argumentative and need much more mature knowledge and dimension.Justice is not just hanging a person.It serves to set an example so that in future no onewould try to do the crime again.By delivering a death sentence to Kasab we cannot root out terrorism.How will a person who does not fear death he will be forced to be moved to realise that what he has done was wrong?So many people are daily killed day by day and the count is still going on.The very fact that you say he has killed many so deserves death brings out the very “emotional” argument . If you were to rationally think about this you would not say this.Indians were killed,We were attacked.Obviously a lot of incidents was flowing.the count and the happenings are going on.In times of crisis more than the enemy we need to fight with our own bodies.we as a human being we are reponsible for producing terror and terrorist in our society.we never think about the root cause and always try to find the shortCut solutionStill the second argument occurs Death of Kasab will make him a martyr in the eyes of other jehadis and the jehadis and Kasab himself will believe that he will reach Jannat. So the punishment won’t serve any purpose.this is the general thought what terrorist think before going to do attacks.Then about the money.Many thoughts were crossing my mind while reading people’s views on Kasab.In your rebuttal to this point ,you have kind of accepted the validity of the argument and your argument in effect proves mine.the incidents which are happening now days are we ever bother about these why it happened and who is the main culprit as a wholeWhat is terror?Why are we so enraged with just Kasab?What about the terror within?Militant groups? Religious fundamentalists, political parties….all are tacitly trying to break the fabric of this nation.We should be vocal about them too!Humlog yaha kuchh jyada conservative ho jate hain bahut sare cases aise bhi hain jaha killing hoti hai but we just neglect them. A Hindu terrorist killed a Christian missionary 12 years ago and is running Scot free!No body cares! He is a terrorist too.He too threats the country!why does no one speak about him? A group of people break down a heritage mosque in the nation!it takes 19 years for the verdict to come,no one cares!25 years on victims of riots get no justice!no one talks about them,this is definitely a rare case.But the incidents i mentioned were terrorizing too.About this case.Yes he deserves a harsh punishment.I never had any difference of opinion on that.But death is not that punishment.The burden of life is much heavier to carry for these men who were on a mission of death.just tell me if we are going to hang Kasab will this incidents will be removed ,it might be possible more of our people will be killed in blasts and etc.there should be some permanent solution about this.Moreover corollaries with Kandahar incident seem futile.that incident was an example of ineptitude and inefficiency on part of the erstwhile government in power.Speculating on that is a futile exercise.Moreover we have no right to take lives.Kasab killed cause he was blinded by faith.We want him hanged cause we are blinded by vengeance,in the end if we demand his hanging why we sink to the same lowliness that he is in now.Now we come on main root does our religion anytime says he is bullshit person because he is from a specific religion,we should not live at a particular city or town because that is filled with the people of a specific religion.we worship our holy book without reading or knowing about this .because there is no habit in our family to know the truth and the root reason.we are following whatever our old species followed.If believing in a god or gods is good, then why is so much pain and suffering caused by religion--like the crusades, suicide bombings,etc?If believing in a god or gods is good, then why is so much pain and suffering caused by religion--like the crusades, suicide bombings, etc., etc?This is a question we hear very often, and there are a number of ways of approaching the issue. meri baatein bahut hi odd aur behisab lag rahi hongi but just think about this.I'd like to try a scientific approach.The position is that religion causes war. Just like, say, alcohol causes inebriation and sunlight makes things grow.If we wanted to test the alcohol/inebriation or sun/growth hypotheses scientifically, what would we do? Quite simple: Remove the alcohol from whatever drinks we are serving and see if our clients are still inebriated. Same with the sun/growth theory: Remove the sunlight and see if things still grow.With the religion/war hypothesis, we don't have to actually make a clinical study--it's already been done for us. In the 20th century, we saw the most disastrous wars of history, both in Europe and in the Far East. Tell me, which of these were centered around religious disputes?I can't speak on behalf of other religions, but I can tell you that many of the great prophets of Judaism spoke of the value of peace even in a time when war was the accepted state of affairs. Isaiah's words are inscribed on the wall of the United Nations: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword upon nation, neither shall they learn war any more."This is not the first case when it is happening the world has seen a very cruel incidents in the form of holocaust and still the count is going on in the form of terrorist attacks in all over the world.i know jo bhi log mare hain mumbai blast me unko dilasa dena bahut muskil hai lekin kasab ko just latkane se kuchh nahi hoga usko ya fir is theory ko hi hatana hoga which is producing a lot of kasabs in the society......

fight on the name of religion

Most people who believe in a certain religion, won't actually say that their religion is better than yours, however, there's not a doubt in my mind that at one point in their life, they actually thought it.I have so many people in my friend list who does argument always that their religion is better than any of the religion why this is like this?Just the actual thought of somebody thinking that their religion is better than yours, probably separates them from their own religious beliefs. I can't think of one religion that doesn't imply that their religion is the only way to salvation or to the promised land.No religion gives u permission to do violence but it is almost rived regularly on the name of religion.Once this thought becomes dominant in your mind, and you actually believe that your religion truly is better than all others and it is the only way to salvation or to the promised land, you're probably in too deep. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this simple statement or been able to read it on someone else's face like a glaring red beacon flashing over an airportst of the people in my family too deoes not know the history of their religion to.oo ,in spite of thisype about u t they worship sculptures and argue faltu type about religions.If you don't believe that some people think that their religion is better than others, I would like to challenge you to put it to a test. Simply ask someone if they are thinking about switching over to a different religion.

You're rarely going to hear someone tell you that they are, you're probably going to see a puzzled look on their face, providing you with the answer, without even opening up their mouths. There's a good chance that these people will tell you," No, they have never even thought about joining another religion." The problem is, they've probably never even spent the time to think about whether their religion is right or wrong.

I can't tell you how many people, that I meet on a regular basis, believe that their religious views are right and all others are now wrong. I can however tell you, that most of these people haven't took the time to study the origins of their beliefs thoroughly.

How can you judge another religion, when you don't really understand your own? If you have studied early hinduaism, like I have, there's a good chance that you won't ever again go around telling someone or even thinking it silently to your self, that your religion is actually better than someone else's.

Atheism part two

Atheism is not a belief that there is no God—it is the absence of belief in God. I am an atheist not because I am 100% sure that there is no God—how does one prove the negative anyway?—but because I see as little evidence around me for God as for flying fairies or invisible spiritual power. I’m open to evidence that any of those exist, but in the absence of such evidence, I will not believe in them.

God didn't create people, but you, religious people, created God in an effort to explain your fears, the unknown, the fear of death and a promised life after death, you fear death, you people need someone to take care of you, someone to protect you when you feel weak, the sum of what we don't know.. God is a creature of human thinking: you people created God because you needed something to believe in..

Look at it.. you people created Judaism, Christianity and finally Islam.. These religions preach the same lie, but they are full of contradictions.. you could not even agree on one religion or sect! Human nature at its best!

Religion is an idea.. worshiping something, a "super power", is a human need. Look at your history, you started worshiping small statuettes, then you evolved into worshiping one "super power": the sun (Akhenaten), then the idea of one almighty God came.. then version one of monotheism, Judaism, appeared, then a new upgraded version took control, finally appeared with Islam.. and who knows what is going appear next. Evolutions applies to human nature also, it applies to religion.

Aligarh Muslim University exam Part two

As I have stated,we were traveling in the train with somehow in difficult but exiting situation.The incident happened with the girl was also memorable.but the connection was only for two hours.Somehow the train reached at its destination at 10 o clock in the night.There was a huge crowd gathered at the station claiming to provide best accommodation for one night stay for upcoming exam.as we had heard only about the city but not experienced before ,we were hesitating to take a room.My nephew was hungry and it was his first time to come to Delhi (outside without his parents)it was my responsibility to arrange the things in proper manner.well, let me say, its not easy to move. when it happens, its sad. you loose a lot of friends. you have to change you habits. you have to talk to new people. and that's hard. because you have to try to trust the new ones. yes, you can stay in contact with your contacts, but it Nieveslast's long. you lose contact after a while. then when you reach the new town you have to learn all the areas, or you will get lost.The most dangerous situation was that it was the situation of communal riot there.we were not aware of the heat and effects of riot in the daily life(lack of experience).the real issue in explaining riots, I argue, is not which local political or sociological factors increase the likelihood of violence, but whether the level of government responsible for law and order (the 28 states, in India’s federal system) chooses to prevent violence or intervene quickly to stop it when it does break out. Rioters are not heroes and the state police and paramilitary forces – even in states like Bihar where the general quality of administration is far from high – have shown themselves capable of preventing communal riots when given the right direction by their ministers.Now here is the discussion arises about Communal riots we should try to talk Communal riots are a dangerous and a frightful phenomena and a curse for our society. Not only does a communal riot ends up in loss of lives and property, it divides and polarizes the society and gives rise to vicious political debates.Now in 21st century People are so much civilized and scholar then why we are gatting and facing the problem like this,when prople are killed by people just on the basis of ruthles theological matters.A lot of literature has been written and studies conducted on the issue of communal riots in India. But author of these studies are often labelled as ideologically colored rendering their work unacceptable by 'other' ideological camp. Hence, it'll be an informative and revealing exercise to see, direct from newspaper reports, that what causes these communal riots?Two things should be followed.First, the cause of a communal riot should be seen and understood direct from the newitems in the newspaper. Understanding and reconstructing the chain of event from political commentators and inquery commissions will reduce the truth element. The newspaper report can also be politically motived and biased but the likelihood of ideology contaminating the truth in a credible way is much less in case of newsitems as compared to reports of inquiry commisions and political commentators. One can always refer to multiple newspaper and reasonably filter out the truth.Second, the news of communal riot should be studied and analyzed at the time of its occurance itself. Analyzing such an event after lapse of time makes it more difficult to sift facts from ideologically-motived fiction. Since we, unfortunately, have so many communal riots, the sample size is not a problem in such a study and we have enough number of instances of communal riots where such a study can be done.Let us take the latest riot happened in one of the popular state ,I am not blaiming to any body ,but it can not be lied the role of state government in that situation.the state complicity by delineating a wider shift in Indian politics. The state government’s delay in calling in the army established beyond doubt that the anti-minority pogrom was being carried out with the involvement of not only the politicians but the state machinery as well. As in most riots in the country before and after Independence, minorities suffered disproportionately in Gujarat. He argues that ethnic riots are far from being spontaneous eruptions for a clear electoral purpose. Subsequently, it then follows these very political agenda. Instrumental political explanations for violence have been labeled ‘unsatisfactory’ not only by Wilkinson but also by other theorists. The second major problem identified by Wilkinson, with many political explanations for ethnic violence is that they fail to account for the variation in patterns of violence within states. In order to clear any confusion arising out of the critics made against the existing theories, Wilkinson posits three possible explanations for the differences in state performance. First, decades of corruption, criminalization, politicization and a general lack of state capacity have left Indian state governments too weak to prevent riots. Second, Indian state governments are unable or unwilling to protect minorities because they systematically under-represent them within their governments, police forces and local administration. Lastly and most importantly, the degree of party competition affects the value governments place on attracting ‘Muslim swing voters’, which effects whether or not the government will order the respective administrations to protect the minorities. He focuses on state and town level electoral incentives which remain important even if we assume various other factors, socio-economic and otherwise to be constant and controlled. Wilkinson argues that to win an election it is not necessary to appeal to each and every voter but to the voters who fear the consequences of not taking a defensive stand against the members of the other community.Three kinds of situations may develop which prove that as electoral competition increases, the level of riots goes down. First, the existence of three or more parties provides a security blanket to the minorities as the importance of swing votes increases provided the majority party is not trying to attract the fringe Hindu votes. A bi-polar state party system creates a potentially dangerous situation for the minorities, especially when the majoritarian party, which owns the anti-minority issues, tries to foment violence. The third situation can be exemplified by Gujarat and the events that unfolded in that state in the year 2002. The number of elections that are preceded by communal killings has taken an upswing over the years, especially since the Hindu nationalist BJP gained political prominence.The Way to Communal Harmony is a compilation of Gandhi's reflections on certain problems which divide mankind. Though they deal immediately with India, their validity extends beyond the circumstances of our country. Everywhere in the world, individuals and groups are divided because of fear, suspicion and hatred. It depends on local conditions whether the division expresses itself along religious, economic, political, caste or colour lines. Whatever be the form, insecurity is perhaps the major cause of individual and social dissensions. A person who. is integrated and sure of himself fears none and consequently provokes no fear. We have occasional examples of such heroic individuals, but we have not till now had instances, of societies or communities that are fully integrated and therefore fearless.Now we came on the scenario.we are standing on the station and waiting somebody who was providing a room..

Kashmir Issue Part1

In 1947, when the British granted India its independence, Mohammed Ali Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslim majority ares of India. So the erstwhile British Empire of India was split into West Paksitan, India and East Pakistan. There were around five hundred princely states in India that were given the choice of joining the Paksitani union or the Indian union. Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu King of the dogra dynasty, and was given a choice to join either state.While he was dithering between joining India or becoming an independent country, the Pakistani army attacked Kashmir from the west, thinking it would be a quick battle. But the King of Kashmir asked India for help. India agreed to help on the condition that Kashmir would be part of the Indian Republic. The king hastily signed a document agreeing to join the union of India. The Pakistanis felt that he had no right to do that since the majority of his subjects were Muslim and would have sided with Pakistan and appealed to the international community to restore Kashmir to Pakistan, or let the people have their say. However, in the eyes of the world, Pakistan had forfeited any moral high ground because of their treacherous attack on an unguarded kingdom. So though they tried hard to get the United Nations involved later, they never mustered any international backing to thier cause. IT left them feeling bitter and frustrated and they felt the whole world was against them and had unfairly sided with India.
After the 1947 war, India controlled the best parts of the Kashmir valley (Jammu and Kashmir) and Pakistan occupied the rest, which is mostly uninhabitable. The recent devastating earthquakes in 2006 were almost entirely on the Pakistani side of Kashmir.Pakistan's founding politicians were so bitter that they swore a 'thousand year struggle' to get Kashmir 'back' from the Indians. Though, in the intervening sixty years, most Pakistanis have lost any hope of getting it 'back', and also have lost all fervor to get Kashmir to join Pakistan, no politician can openly say it is time they gave up and moved on.It is analogous to the US-Cuba situation. But in case of Paksitan the cost of this unending quarrel with India is enormous. They are forced to invest horrendous amounts of money in a fight with an enemy who is many times larger in terms of population, many times larger in terms of land and has grown into an economic powerhouse many times larger than Paksitan. In their desperation to harm India the Pakistani military tried twice to invade India (1965 and 1999) and was beaten back.This obsession with Kashmir and India has had serious and crippling consequenses to Pakistan's democracy. Military coups became a common place in Pakistan and democratically elected rulers were murdered, or usurped and put in prison by the military generals. The military became the dominanat institution in the country and destroyed democratic institutions and encouraged religious fanaticism. In 1971, to add insult to injury East Pakistan broke away from West Pakistan to become Bangladesh.In the ensuing years, Paksitanis have invested Billions in a nuclear bomb, untold amounts in a vast Military machine and also spawned various 'Jihad' outfits which have come back to haunt Pakistan in the form of uncontrolled domestic terrorism.The western countries try to get the Kashmir issue solved in the hope that Pakistan will then focus on the terrorists that have made Pakistan their home. But the hatred of Hindus runs deep in the Pakistani establishment and there is no end in sight to this issue.
(TAKEN FROM A POPULAR WEBSITE) in next part I will write my opinion about this.

Religion

Today the world is facing a great problem widely used as a term of Extreme religion.This is the term which is defined and measured when a human being does some nontolerable activities on the name of... religious faith. Extreme religion is where a religious concept and belief is taken and intensified using drastic and unreasonable measures, to enforce a particular belief whilst keeping the basis for faith.I am not blaiming any particular religion or community to produce extremities in front of the society on the basis of its theory and concept.The situations and running time is the main culprit which is being utilised by some group of people for their personal benefit. Creating a strict and sever religion which goes far beyond what is reasonable, moderate and normal. Extreme religion is very dangerous because followers do not comprehend societies normality as they believe and have tremendous faith in what is believed to be a wonderful religion, as they genuinely believe they are doing the work of God and creating a better world to live in.As a result what is happening The world is seeing too many accidents (in reality murders) being executed by these people. Not understanding the extremities to what is happening, unaware of the dangers inflicted upon others using such irrational behaviour and belief.Think back to your childhood. When you were a kid did you ever try to convince somebody you were really telling the truth? Did you ever say, "I swear to God?" how abut th...is one, "I swear on a stack of a particular holy book either Gita Kuran or Bible," you said it, sure you did. how about this one, "Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye," I said that a few times.we as a human being we hear the voice and directions from our parents that we have to follow this particular thory or we have to obey that particular guru or master but at the same time te second thing arises dont be in touch of that person he is from different caste or he is from different religion.Does A religious theory ever say hate a particular people from a particular caste or from a particular religion. promising things and wanting people to believe we were really telling the truth sometimes demanded that we swear because they were not used to us telling the truth. And all of that kind of swearing and giving oaths is really a device of man based upon his basic dishonesty. We invent those oaths and even in some cases curses imposed upon ourselves before God if we lie because basically we have learned that man can't be trusted to keep his word. Sometimes it's as simple as those silly childlike oaths, or sometimes it's as complx as things like swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God, which we're required to say in a court of law. Religions today no longer serve the purpose for which they came into existence. The very basic theme of each relgion was to teach, how to love each other and bring us closer to ourselves and to God. Today the opposite is happening, Religions are not uniting but dividing us.The world is seeing so many incidents ,who is culprit of this you me or entire society,the system or the theology the philosophy or the personal thinking??? Forget the differences from religion to religion, each now has so many divisions. The biggst problem Religions are bringing in is Fundamentalism and in-tolerance, giving birth to Fanatics, who are ready to destroy our freedom,As i have said it is giving the birth to extreme religion whose effect is well known in all over the world, just in the name of religion.Love is not something which can be given by force, but Religions as they stand today are given by force, by parents to children. Anything given by force can never have fruitful results. Love is realized from within, with loving actions, loving emotions and loving feelings, and the results are always fruitful. On the other hand, Religions given by force, can turn us into what we are not, and take us miles away from God and Humanity.It is about time, to rectify our vision, rectify our way of life, and mould them to what the various religions originally desired. Humanity is the religion which all religions preach, so why not follow it as such.i am not blaiming the people who believe in particular religion but i would like to say dont believe blindly try to study the theory and cancept through which it is built Gita or Kuran has not been made to keep it in front of you to wprship daily but it is built to study ,it is built to think about the statements written in it and follow it in your life style.every religion is supporter of non-violence then why people kill each other on the name of religion .this is the reason it is notworthy to state"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."