The Mahatma’s Progeny

Non Muslim support for the Pakistan Movement:

On the question of `minorities` supporting the Pakistan Movement... Christian Leader and MLA C E Gibbons from Punjab and Diwan Bahadur SP Singha both of them voted for Pakistan in the Punjab legislative assembley. As mentioned earlier Professor Dutta, a Hindu professor of F C College was a campaigner and pleader for Pakistan, and Justice Cornelius was a christian immigrant to Pakistan along with thousands of others, escaping the proespects of a Hindu raj.

-YLH

Isn`t it time to take a break, Mr. Singhal ?

by Amit Sengupta

Instead of a starting a bogus anti-Christ march from Goa, Mr. Ashok Singhal should take a break.

Every shrill word he utters, every grumpy gesture he makes, every sectarian cause he takes up with such diabolical passion, reminds the nation of only one thing - the VHP supremo needs a break.

Instead of the nafrat yatra, Mr. Singhal would do well to withdraw to a quieter beach at any extreme point of the ``free Goa`` map. And if he looks out at the horizon of the Arabian Sea, much to his surprise, he will bnot see any ominous Portuguese ship descending towards the Goan shores with an exclusive agenda of compulsory conversion and mass inquisition. This is because, and unlike what the warped Sangh historians might have told him, the inquisitions happened in the past, like the medieval crusades or Shankaracharya`s campaign against Buddhism or the fall of Constantinople.

That is why Mr. Singhal should stop lying and resurrecting phantoms from the past which are now dead and buried. The Christians of India are not responsible for the atrocities committed by Portuguese and British colonisers or their inheritors. Blaming them for the crimes of colonialism is not only racist, it is wrong history.

Certainly, the Muslims of contemporary India do not hold a brief for Mahmud of Ghazni or Taimur Lane who looted Mathura and Sarnath, and massacred Delhi. Why should Indian Muslims be held accountable for the actions of the barbarians from the past ?

In fact, before burning the churches, disrupting prayer meetings and desecrating the Bible in tribal interiors, before pushing a quiet community to the wall for no fault of theirs, the rabble rousers of the Sangh Parivar should rethink as to what compels the poor to adopt a new religion. The Dalits of Maharashtra adopted neo-Buddhism, because the varna vyavastha of the Hindu caste society had left no space for a basic reform. It was a protest against the stifling Brahminical-upper caste domination, a search for a new cultural, spiritual paradigm, which radical Buddhism provided.

If conversion and reconversion will rectify the distortions of social history, then why doesn`t Mr. Singhal talk of reconverting the Dalits from neo-Buddhism back to the caste society; or even the Sikhs, Muslims and Arya Samajis, large sections of whom collectively chose to shift precisely because they were low caste, humiliated and brutalised by the oppressive, top heavy, orthodox Hindu social system. A different religion gave them an egalitarian cultural space and a semblance of social respect, if not real and tangible economic and political freedom.

Today large sections of Dalits in Bihar have converted to militant Marxism-Leninism. The Dalits have chosen to block upper caste land, retaliate collectively and carve out their own liberated zones because in the changing landscape of post-colonialism, no community will take anything lying down. They will resist and fight back, like the workers resisted in Bombay and the peasants resisted in Chauri Chaura during the freedom movement, despite British might and despite Gandhi.

Why doesn`t Mr. Singhal take a padyatra to Laxmanpur Bathe or Haibaspur in Bihar where the Dalits were massacred and reconvert them to the virtues of caste society ? Is it because of the tacit alliance of the Ranbir Sena withthe BJP ? Every Dalit knows that the upper caste private army is partonised by the BJP (also RJD). Look at the caste division in the recent polls. The Bhumihars do not vote for the communists in Jehanabad or Dhanbad. They vote for BJP.

Mr. Singhal`s conspiracy theory of conversion is bunkum. No forcible mass conversion has taken place in the recent past either in Goa, in Keonjhar, in the Dangs, or in any part of India. And tribals are not Hindus. Mr. Singhal should take a relook at what Hindu `missionaries` have done with tribals in South Bihar. They have destroyed the tribal essence, turned them into `glorified` Dalits. But it does not mean that others should now go and ransack Hindu temples in Chotanagpur, or roast people alive or kill them in cold blood.

In the Dangs, the Sangh Parivar fronts actually want to increase their territorial influence by converting tribals into the caste society. The political against the missionary begins here. The conversion bogey against Christians is being used as a mass phobia to psychologically assimilate the conservative sections of upper caste Hindus and terrorise minorities. No government or media report has proved the existence of mass or partial conversion to Christianity in any of these hot beds of Right wing Hindutva activity.

That is why, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee backtracked after calling for a national debate on conversion when the attacks on Christians in Gujurat had intensified last year. That is why Mr. George Fernandes has chosen a tacit silence on the Wadhwa Commission report though he had earlier sniffing an ``international conspiracy`` behind the killings of Graham Staines and his children.

The Wadhwa Commission found no evidence of international conspiracy because there is no international conspiracy. The conspiracy is being hatched right here, under the nose of a government which has chosen to look the other way while Christians are being hounded, humiliated and attacked. This is the incipient Hindutva version of rabid Talibanisation.

The National Human Rights Commission has pointed out the political affiliation of Dara Singh. The Wadhwa Commission has said that Staines was not doing any conversion work. He was working with leprosy patients. Is it a crime to work with leprosy patients ?

The Srikrishna Commission has documented the deliberate role of the Shiv Sena and its chief in the Bombay pogrom against Muslims in 1992-3 under the then benign Congress regime. The report was dumped with the subtle support of the Vajpayee government. Indeed, will the new Congress-NCP `secular` government have the courage to book the killers ?

As for Mr. Asok Singhal, after he has exorcised the ghosts of the Portuguese, he should go to the condemned town of Tehri in the Garhwal hills of UP. There is an ancient Hindu temple here which will submerged, probably this November. There are several beautiful tempels in this Shiva-Ganga territory which will disappear under a white sheet of water due to the big dam. Why doesn`t Mr. Singhal march to save these temples from the contractor-politician nexus ? Why discriminate against Shiva in favour of Ram Lalla ? Why target the Pope, when the enemy lies within ? And ``within`` means within. In the Hindu sense of the word.

Amen.



There is a very good reason why the Hindutva Parivar is not bothered about the Shiva Temples that are being destroyed by the construction of dams. Indeed, several hundred Shaiva temples have been destroyed in Sri Lanka, yet the supposedly `Hindutva` government of India takes no notice of them. The reason is that the Hindutvadins are actually Vaishava fanatics; they don`t care if Shaiva temples are destroyed. The only ones who give some respect are the Advaitin Shankaracharyites, who however merely seek to destroy Shaivism by submerging it into a whole host of `astik` Brahmanic Gods. As long as Dravidian Shaivism remains a part of Hinduism, there is the very real threat that Shaivism shall go the way of Buddhism : to the dustbin of history. The only solution is the declare Shaivism a separate Dravidian religion !

Author : Deepti Hodlya

Dalitstan Journal,

Volume 1, Issue 3 (Dec. 1999)

__________________________________________________

CORRECTION:

The URL in the earlier posting is:

www.dalitstan.org/books/decline/decline01.html

Please Access it!

__________________________________________________

re:Reply #: 976

sarwari,

Since when has chowk`s clown been decent to others? This guy does not deserve any decency. Go over his recent posts directed at me in this forum and other forums.

There is no frustration involved here. Frustration aganist what? I am not even interacting with this joker and i have no intention of interacting with him. I am glad people like Sadna are feeling the same way.

Sridhar

Chapter 1

Decline and Fall of Buddhism

by

Dr. K. Jamanadas

Depicting Buddha as Hindu



For a last few years, Sangha activists are trying to depict to the international community, that they respect the Buddha. While doing that they use terminology depicting him as a Hindu. About Ambedkar also, similar thing is seen, books are written to show the work of Hegdewar and Ambedkar was same. We find Shankaracharyas garlanding the photo of Dr. Ambedkar. We find Brahmanic dignitaries like Sankaracharya paying a visit to Nagpur Diksha-bhoomi to pay tributes. And the recent incident is well known that RSS supremo Sudarshan garlanded the statue of Ambedkar - the maker of the Indian Constitution - on Deekshabhoomi at Nagpur, and the Ambedkarites have washed and ``purified`` the statue ``poluted`` by touch of someone who condemns the Constitution.

Declaring Buddha as an avatara of god was the beginning

They declared the Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu, some times around eighth century, as a verse to this effect from Matsya Purana is engraved in a monument at Mahabalipuram. The process seems to be completed by the time of Jaydeo writing ``Gita Govind`` in 12th century, including Buddha`s name in it as an ``Avatara``. We are also aware that an average Brahmin takes a great pride that Buddhism was driven away from this land by Adi- Sankara.

How a non-existent religion can die?

Declaring the Buddha as ninth avatara of Vishnu, L. M. Joshi observes, was a ``remarkable cultural feat``, achieved by the Brahmanic Puranas, which later caused confusion in the minds of people with the result that Buddhism came to be treated as a ``heretical`` and ``aesthetic`` branch of Brahmanism. The present scholars like P. V. Kane, Radhakrishnan and even Swami Vivekanand, have pushed this confusion further back to the time of origin of Buddhism, by saying that Upanishadas are the origin of Buddhist thought. To this list must be added the name of B. G. Tilak, who devoted a full chapter in ``Gita Rahashya`` to prove that Buddhism was an off-shoot of Hinduism, (and one more chapter for proving that Christianity arose from Buddhism and hence eventually from Hinduism). Commenting Swami Vivekanada`s statement that the Swami and other Hindus did not understand Buddha`s teachings to be an honest confession, Joshi observes:

``... Not only the ancient and medieval brahmin teachers did not understand Buddhism; modern scholars born into the Brahmanical tradition have not shown any better understanding. Shankara, Kumarila, Udayana, and Sayana- Madhava did not understand Buddhism. This is true also of Tagore, Gandhi, Coomaraswamy and Radhakrishnan. ...`` [L.M.Joshi:1973:12]

Showing a great surprise of Brahmanic scholars claiming both that Buddhism was just a refined ``Hinduism``, and also claiming with pride that Buddhism was driven away by the Brahmanas and it has died down, he sarcastically observes:

``... The causes of the decline of Buddhism in India are attributed either to Tantrika practices or to Muslim invasion, or to both. Nobody even imagines that if Buddhism were only a ``reformed`` or ``refined`` version of ``Hinduism`` how it could be said to have declined and died away while ``Hinduism`` is still flourishing and is the faith of majority of Indians. Buddhism can be said to have declined only when there was evidence for its existence at a certain period in Indian history apart from the existence of ``Hinduism``. If Buddhism did not exist apart from Brahmanism or ``Hinduism`` it did not die at all. A non-existent tradition or way of life does not die. The theory of decline of Buddhism, from the standpoint of ``traditional`` history is a false theory. On the other hand, if the decline of Buddhism in India was a historical fact, the theory of its origin as a ``reformed`` Brahmanism is a false one and must be discarded.`` [Ibid. p.14]

If Buddhism was a sect of ``Hinduism``, then one may well ask the proud supporters of Shankaracharya, what was that religion which was ``driven out by Adi Sankara``, as they claim? Was it also Hinduism?

Buddhism is not a sect of Hinduism

As Swami Dharmatirtha observed, in an answer to those writers, who have treated Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism, that we do not know of any Hinduism having existed before the Buddha and if Hinduism did not exist, Buddhism could not have been a sect of it. There was the Brahman religion of sacrifices, confined to a small Aryan community, and the common people had their ancient religion of some sort of hero worship and ancestor worship and images. Both these were domestic, neither the public yajnyas of Brahmins nor the temples of tribal Indians were in existance. Swamiji feels:

``... Buddhism was a revolt against both the prevailing systems. In fact it was the first organized religion in the modern sense of the term ``religion``. It succeeded in driving out the Brahman religion of sacrifices, but gradually succumbed to the influences of the popular religion. Its final absorption in the primitive religion was due to the fact that the Brahmans favoured the religion of gods and goddesses and rituals, and not the religion of righteousness. [Swami Dharmatirtha:1946:109]

Buddhism was the national Religion of India

Well, inspite of what these elitits say, decline of Buddhism is a historical fact, and was the cause of all ills, India had to face in the past. That the ills of common people of India today are due to the decline and fall of Buddhism in historical times, is not well understood by the masses, and how it affected the life of common people and what kind of miseries the subsequent generations had to suffer, is a subject which not many scholars have given much thought to.

The fact that at one time Buddhism was the national religion of India and was followed by the majority of population, is almost forgotten. There is a feeling in the minds of many, that India is and was a Hindu country having always had a majority of Hindus. This again is a misconception. In historical times the population of India never had majority of Hindus. Swami Vivekananda, estimated Buddhists to be two thirds of population [L.M.Joshi:1977:358] and Dr. Ambedkar says Buddhist were in majority. [W&S,vol.7,p.345] Then there were Jains and Veerashaivas and Tribal religions in addition to Muslims, Sikhs and Christians coming in the later times.

That Buddhism was not only the faith practiced by majority of people but had eclipsed Brahmanism to a great extent and the Brahmins had lost all the respect of masses as well as princely rulers. They were smarting under this defeat. [W&S,vol.7,p.346] They did everything in their power to finish off Buddhism and after Muslim invasion, succeeded in it. Thus Buddhism disappeared to a great extent from the land of its origin. Buddhism was the national religion of India, not only because the Buddha was an Indian, descended from an Indian king of the Sakya clan, but as observed by Swami Dharma Teertha:

``... because Buddhism was the source and inspiration of the national awakening witnessed in the Indian empires and kingdoms which controlled the destinies of the country for over a thousand years; because Buddhism, for the first time, united India in a common cultural synthesis and organization; because unlike Brahmanism, which was the religion of the privileged classes, Buddhism was the first religion of the common people, not forced on them, but accepted by their free will and pleasure; because Buddhism brought out in the fullest measure the immense potentialities of the nation in all its manifold aspects - science and art, literature and religion, commerce and industry, internal progress and international reputation; and lastly, because no other religion has till this day been able to make India a great nation as Buddhism did. [p.76]

Brahmins usurped Buddhism

Brahmans became the leaders of Buddhism because of their learning, and first disfigured it thoroughly with ritualism and images, and then destroyed its separate organization of monasteries and monks with the help of the foreign masters who came into power. But the Buddhism of Harsha and Nagarjuna did not disappear, it formed the nucleus of the later Hinduism, superadded with horrors of caste. To become the sole leaders of the country and to enforce their system of castes, has always been the prime motive of Brahmanism, and if Buddhist order of monks and monasteries had survived, the Brahmins could not have achieved this goal. So they completely destroyed the external institution of Buddhism, the monks and monasteries. Brahmins became the undisputed leaders, and a new popular religion, Hinduism, emerged with important aspect of caste, as Dharmatitha observed:

``... Caste is an entirely independent social order which was neither in the ancient Aryan religion nor in primitive Indian religion nor in Buddhism. It is the unique contribution of the Brahman priests, and none else ever wanted it, until the country lost its national religion and political freedom, and the Brahmans succeeded in imposing the system upon the people almost at the point of the bayonet with of alien masters. [p.110]

Brahmanism does not mean Brahmins alone

Lest there should be any misunderstanding about the term Brahmanism and other derivatives of it, it must be clearly understood, what is meant by this term. Swami Dharma Teertha made it clear:

``British Imperialism does not mean the British people; it symbolizes a vast system and has numerous votaries among Indians also. Brahmanism, similarly, does not signify the Brahmans exclusively, but an ancient order of things of which the Brahmans are the leaders and champions. It stands for the aggregate of ideals, institutions and past history of the socio-religious constitution of the Hindu society. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact that the cause we have to serve is the welfare of the entire nation and not the sentiment of separate classes or castes. If, therefore, some of us Brahmans, or Kshatriyas or others have to accept a larger share of the blame for the disaster which has befallen us all, we should not hesitate to welcome the opportunity. That circumstance should be an incentive to put forth still greater efforts to right the wrong we have done. It is the system which is throttling us all equally, it is that pernicious system that is the subject of our criticisms. [p.11]

A prominent thinker of Maharashtra, Raosaheb Kasbe, has elaborated the subject by saying that, Brahmins are fortunte that, ``Brahmin`` is a name of Caste as well as of a ``Varna``, thereby implying Class, this status being bestowed upon them by Smritis. As a class and as a power structure, Brahmins have developed vested interests. Dalit writers divide the history as Brahmin Vs. non-Brahmin, instead of Vedic Vs. non-Vedic, and when the words having Brahmin as one of their components are used by them to criticise these vested interests, the meaning implied is against the power structure and not agaist the caste. If this is a blameworthy mistake, the mistake is committed by the authors of Smritis, specially ``Yama smriti``, and they and the later authors desrve the blame. [Kasbe Raosaheb:1994:242]

Causes of fall of Buddhism

Before coming to the effects of fall of Buddhism, which is the main subject matter of this tract, we will briefly the discuss the various causes that led to this tragedy which befell on this country. As exclaimed by L. M. Joshi, this ``tragedy`` is mostly ``overlooked or confused``, [L.M.Joshi:1977:xvii] and ignored or distorted by the elite of this land for selfish caste motives.

M. M. Kane`s views

Maha Mahopadhyaya Dr. P. V. Kane summarizes the various reasons for the decline and ultimate fall of Buddhism from the land of its origin. Like all other Brahmanic scholars, he denies the Brahmanic crusade against Buddhism as the main cause. He mentions various reasons important being the following: [Kane:1980:400]

1. The debates in four Buddhist councils one after the other till Kaniska and the resultant differences of opinion within the Buddhist scholars.

2. End of royal patronage after the reign of Harshavardhana.

3. Important scholars of Buddhism left the country.

4. The high moral set up by the Buddha were found to be too cumbersome for the followers. The monasteries of bhikkus and bhikkunis became the places of laziness and immoral behaviour and lowly tantric practices. Sexual intercourse became the part of their `yoga saadhanaa`.

5. To oppose Buddhism and to popularize Hinduism, Brahmins had to make revolutionary changes in the nature and practices of their religion, in the early and later centuries...............

.........................................

__________________________________________________

Very juicy & Eye-opening information ahead.Read complete account,right from those who are the denizens of that NetherWorld called ``DALISTAN``.

Are these the rumblings of the TNT---Three Nation Theory?------Onwards!Onwards! Get the 5/95(The 5% Brahmins who wield 95% power)

www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv000/bgbrabrk.html

RE: Reply #: 981 ylh

``If there was one man who thought of his people as better than British it was Jinnah.. your goody goody nonsense about `equals of british and at the same intellectual level as the british` just doesn`t make sense for Gandhi.``

I am not surprised that you don`t understand this concept because all it takes for Pakistani leaders to bend over for the shaft is a glare from the West. Didn`t realize that it ran in some of it`s citizens too.

More of Sadna`s stupid arguments:

Sadna tells me Ambedkar didn`t mean it in the sense I am taking it..

Kindly explain how many senses one can take of the following statement?

``Mr Gandhi is no exception to this rule. He presents himself to the world as a liberal but his liberalism is only a very thin veneer which sits very lightly on him as dust does on one`s boots. You scratch him and you will find that underneath his liberalism he is a blue blooded Tory. He stands for the cursed caste. He is a fanatic Hindu upholding the Hindu religion``

Not many I am afraid.

Then she says: ``I posted answers to your earlier questions, all you could reply was with a brush off.``

Your replies were `I haven`t read the book`.. Please don`t lie.. I won`t take that as a proper reply.

``A fanatic would be Ayatollah Khomeini who issued a fatwa for the death of Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet.``

I agree. But Did you know Khomeini quoted extensively from Gandhi and Gita in his sermons?

As for the rest of your bizarro post.. the question was not of Gandhi`s opinion of Ambedkar.. after all Ambedkar was an honest man.. but Ambedkar`s opinion of Gandhi ... remember?

``Even in a perfect world, both Gandhi and Ambedkar stand out as shining examples of how to disagree``

Well I agree about Ambedkar.. and it is like him that I wish to denigrate Gandhi.. you know:``He stands for the cursed caste. He is a fanatic Hindu upholding the Hindu religion`` My only regret is that Quaid e Azam actually called Gandhi a great man ...

Now coming to the `Dominion` point.. Once again.. I must explain it in clearer terms for a slow minded individual like yourself:

I spoke of Swaraj Bloc of Jinnah, Motilal Nehru, CR Das etc which was on the verge of attaining Dominion status in the 1920s.. Gandhi`s non-cooperation movement stopped that. My point predates the Muslim league/Congress Rivalry of the 1930s... Yes perhaps the Muslim League in the 1930s asked for complete independence... the question IS not about asking for `Complete Independence`... that was well and good..

My `Dominion` issue deals with early 1920s period, when Gandhi`s chaos blocked the way to dominion self government. It has nothing to do with Muslims` stance of complete independence, because, we are NOT arguing Hindu Muslim constructs of Independence movement, but rather Swaraj Bloc of Political Moderates in the Parliament, and the Khilafatists + non cooperation wallahs under Gandhi. Infact it is quite the opposite.. the Swaraj Bloc of Jinnah, Motilal Nehru and others was dominated by Hindus, while a majority of Muslims were agitating foolishly under the banner of the stupid Khilafat movement and its remnants... led by Gandhi.

So please educate yourself first and then speak. Thankyou very much...

-YLH

Response to saminashah #982

Saminashah falsely accused me of calling Ferzie ``unpatriotic`` and ``disloyal`` and when her lies were called she tried to deflect everyone`s attention by saying she is constipated. After advertising the hapless state of her colon the hag suddenly turned romantic and wanted to know my age! Alas, like her colon, none of her shenanigans has worked. Samina`s reputation as a liar remains as solidly instransigent as the debris wedged up her sphincter.

tantralogician

Tantrum,

This has been a particularly uninspired exchange; I give you credit for namecalling to the end-at least you`ve been consistant, if not enlightening. May I suggest that you stop hanging out with the grownups and sit at the children`s card table next time? And perhaps you should know better than to thana baazi with adults next time?

Chowk Editors,

Is there an age limit/range of the interactors allowed on this website? At least put up a kiddie`s corner board, so that our time is not wasted...

Tvarad,

You have again resorted to mythology and no real facts. Your understanding of partition history seems to based on your own 1+1 theories plus a few hagiographic biographies of Gandhi.

The fact is that the British were ready to give Dominion status in 1925 to India. Gandhi`s movement delayed independence since it disrupted the efforts of Swaraj bloc of Jinnah, Motilal and C R Das... Jinnah by all accounts was not a weathercock. It was after he saw no hope of compromise with the Hindus that he `jumped the ship`. Given that many in India felt that Jinnah was the only incorruptible politician in all of India.. destroys your theory.

If there was one man who thought of his people as better than British it was Jinnah.. your goody goody nonsense about `equals of british and at the same intellectual level as the british` just doesn`t make sense for Gandhi. Gandhi was prototype for the various religious spiritualists who ventured into and destroyed south asian politics for good.

I suggest you read some history instead of hagiography.

Sincerely

YLH

ylh #969
``Since you have only pathetically tried to defend one point about Gandhi`s hindu fanaticism, I will take it that you agree with the rest of the points I have put up...``

ylh, you cannot make sense on even one single point, what is the use of my debating your other points?

I posted answers to your earlier questions, all you could reply was with a brush off. Gandhi`s POVs about the type of Hindu-Muslim unity he wanted to see was covered in that post. (So are some Farzana`s points about Gandhi answered, but I think she is another person who either ignores counter arguments or replies only with more recrimination).

You can keep up this constant mindless recrimination, it doesnot matter to me. It makes no sense to me to debate with someone like you is not listening, much less registering what the other is saying and who keeps parrotting what he says again and again.

I certainly donot agree with your points and Ambedkar certainly makes the case that Hindus were for Dominion and Muslims were for independence. And I certainly donot agree Gandhi was a Hindu fanatic, nor did Ambedkar mean it in the sense you take it.
``fanatic : marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion``
A fanatic would be Ayatollah Khomeini who issued a fatwa for the death of Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet. Here was Gandhi calmly arguing Ambedkar, PURELY ON MERITS and with no hint of the slightest outrage, on the need or otherwise for debunking all of the Hindus` holiest scriptures. He took Ambedkar`s arguments against the Vedas and Upanishads to be honest ones, not mischievously motivated ones, certainly not meant to disrespect cherished tradition. Absolutely never does Gandhi hold Ambedkar`s rancour for Hinduism against him, he considered it not rancour but justified anguish, nor did Ambedkar`s arguments however critical of Hindu tenets, ever make Gandhi consider Ambedkar to put himself(Ambedkar) `outside` the Hindu fold.

Gandhi didnot consider Ambedkar to be `delinquent` for his vehement opposition to Hinduism, and Ambedkars possible adoption of Buddhism was seen by Gandhi as Hindus` and Hinduism`s failure to correct Ambedkar`s injury, not an banishment/ estrangement deserved by Ambedkar for his opposition of the religion Gandhi held so dear. These are not stances of a fanatic, and by all indications Ambedkar knew this. Ambedkar was never so estranged from Hindus that he didnot give his best to what was called in his time Gandhi/Nehru`s India nor did he fail for example to present a fair case for the Hindus in his book Pakistan. Nor yet did he incite Dalits to destructive anger(as he had the power to do) inspite of his anger at Gandhi or inspite of suffering and being witness to the adverse circumstances which Dalits had to contend with.

We live in a world where the Pope is supposed to be `infallible` and the priest who says otherwise is excommunicated, Islamic scriptures are said to be `immutable`, various leaders are exiled outside their countries or jailed for life simply for political dissidence, and people find themselves on death row for only speaking about the Prophet`s parents and hair under the arms of 6th century Arabs. Even in a perfect world, both Gandhi and Ambedkar stand out as shining examples of how to disagree. Try such a debate between any other two influential national leaders anywhere on the basic fundamentals of some other religion, while they are both leading political movements contending for power and see what havoc ensues. Indians are blessed to have had Gandhi and Ambedkar and their sincerity of purpose, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

Thats my last on this, I have absolutely no interest in interacting with you further.

Some of Rsidhar`s respectable posts:

RSIDHAR`S OBSESSION WITH SODOMY:

I am still confused.. how are my Quotes from Ambedkar personally demeaning to Rsidhar... It is precisely these kind of fools who are an insult to humanity at large..

Response to saminashah #971

Saminashah, the most accomplished liar on CHOWK caught red-handed now asks: ``How old are you anyway?``

Stop making these passes at me, you old constipated hag. Find someone of your own 4-legged species.

Samina babe, why must you lie to defend Ferzie?

tantralogician

Chowkstaff,

Rsidhar`s recent post to ylh represents a sort of frustration that is the hallmark of a beaten man who is resorting to vulgarity because he can`t face off in a fair fight. However I feel that chowk staff to should intervene and warn rsidhar was his excessively vulgar language.

Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari

Indians just can`t fight on facts..

Rsidhar,

Why don`t you cut with the crap and start answering the questions that have been posed to you... I wonder how by quoting Ambedkar on Gandhi`s Hindu fanaticism I have `demeaned` you..

It is typical of Indians to resort to such tactics after their lies have been exposed.

Let me Quote Ambedkar again for Rsidhar`s sake:

``Mr Gandhi is no exception to this rule. He presents himself to the world as a liberal but his liberalism is only a very thin veneer which sits very lightly on him as dust does on one`s boots. You scratch him and you will find that underneath his liberalism he is a blue blooded Tory. He stands for the cursed caste. He is a fanatic Hindu upholding the Hindu religion``

Surely such a man is not revered by the WHOLE world. So call me what you want.. this only shows that you can`t fight on facts... that you are a frustrated old man, whose stupid arguments have been defeated.

I will not resort to vulgar and stupid analogies by this ignorant and foolish Indian liar.

-YLH

RE: Reply #: 969 ylh

``3) My `dominion` status issue does sit well with Ambedkar`s book.. what I am talking about the actions of non communal Parliamentary swaraj Bloc in which Jinnah, CR Das and Motilal were involved in 1924 which would have guaranteed independence as a dominion, and not about Hindus and Muslims as groups...``

Until Gandhi stepped into the scene, all these ``independence/dominion`` movements were akin to current day women`s kitty parties. They were afflicted with the quaint socialist egalitarianism that they picked up from their sojourns in Britain which they would discuss in their tea parties and gatherings. None of the leaders had a national following nor the clout nor the charisma to inspire anyone from outside their narrow constituencies. Gandhi was the first leader who claimed independence for ALL Indians as equals to the British and set about it in a systematic fashion. When this movement reached critical mass, Jinnah played the consummate sub-continental politician, jumped ship and started appealing to a narrow constituency.

If the freedom movement had been left to the others, it is a fair bet that the British would have cleverly exploited the egos of the other leaders to divide and rule (the only one who succumbed to it was Jinnah) and delayed indepedence, rather than hasten it.