The Mahatma’s Progeny

Your explaining away doesn`t work Sadna... the Quote I have already shown... Just admit it... Gandhi was a Hindu fanatic and Dr. Ambedkar said so.. as I have shown you clearly!

Uff ... denial!

Sadna,

Are you accusing me of lying? Because let me assure you .. I am not an Indian. Should I do all the work for you... should you not read for yourself...

Ok maybe I should Go slow for you...

This is the Website:

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/42.%20Mr.%20Gandhi%20and%20The%20Emancipation%20of%20The%20Untouchables.htm

Highlight using your Mouse... then cut it and paste it in the URL space.. then press Enter ..

Then Go down to Chapter X and start reading...

``Every Hindu is a social Tory and political Radical. 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.``

Please acknowledge that Your attempt to lie your way out of this one is indicative of your Indian Mentality. ANYONE CAN READ THE ARTICLE and FIND it... You know do Control F, write Gandhi and you will find it. But no ... You had to lie to discredit me. And maybe little fools like Akash will accept your lie.. but you know you are lying, and I know you are lying...

Instead of attacking `my limited intelligence` may I suggest you explain how the word `Hindu fanatic` can be interpretted differently...

Ofcourse... Sadna has applied the same old strategy.. if you can`t defend something.. declare it doesn`t exist...

-YLH

PS: OK I found it. btw, this quote from Ambedkar`s Pakistan is interesting in this context :

``..The following instances of Muslim intransigence, over which Mr. Gandhi kept mum are recorded by Swami Shradhanand in his weekly journal called the Liberator. Writing in the issue of 30th September 1926 the Swamiji says :
`` As regards the removal of untouchability it has been authoritatively ruled several times that it is the duty ofHindus to expiate for their past sins and non-Hindus should have nothing to do with it But the Mahomedan and the Christian Congressmen have openly revolted against the dictum of Mr. Gandhi at Vaikom and other places. Even such an unbiased leader as Mr. Yakub Hassan, presiding over a meeting called to present an address to me at Madras, openly enjoined upon Musalmans the duty of converting all the untouchables in India to Islam. ``
But Mr. Gandhi said nothing by way of remonstrance either to the Muslims or to the Christians...``

How can the same person saying this call Gandhi a Hindu fanatic in the same context elsewhere..? It was said in anger, not in a considered deliberate way, as has been explained even by Gandhi, and by posters here, again and again.

ylh #949
Can you point me to the exact source of that statement? I couldnot locate it in your references.
btw, you are free to apply your limited understanding on anything you like, you don`t need my permission.

``RE: Reply #: 935 Romair

I would be interested in finding out whether any of the prominent Muslims in India, like Azim Premji, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, etc. have made any public statements about the happenings in Gujrat. Have any of them openly had the courage to come out and criticize the BJP, on this issue?

If any Indians are aware of any such info, I would appreciate it if they could print the URL.``

Romair,

I don`t have any pointers but I think what we have in India now is essentially a mobocracy. Were they to come out and voice their opinion, some saffron brigade leader will use their words to rabble-rouse and as stepping stones to power and they will find themselves buried.

That`s probably the reason why more prominent non-Muslims too haven`t come forward lest they become targets of the saffron brigade themselves.

One of the unwritten rules in our part of the world is if you have it good, don`t rock the boat lest you lose it all.

re:Reply #: 934

Romair,

India has not been protective of BJP. Do not forget BJP does not have a majority of its own in parliament and is in a multi-party coalition with a common agenda.

Nobody wants an election right now. Noone wants to rock the boat so to say. When elections are announced, BJP will find it hard to find a coalition partner. It is trying hard to get back the votes of hardline hindus which it thinks it has lost due to the secular policies of ABV. It is no secret that Gujarat was kind of a test case. If BJP manages to increase its tally in Gujarat, it may conclude (perhaps wrongly)that its communal politics is paying dividends. This is a dangerous thing. That is why BJP has to be thrashed the proper way so it is wiped out of existence. This may take time. Electoral politics is a slow but sure process. It involves realignment of interest groups. Muslims in the past decade or so have been voting intelligently. With the help of secular forces, BJP can and will be defeated.

Sridhar

re:Reply #: 936

Mr Regressive retard,

I should have asked this question before. What is your religion? If you are a hindu, what is your caste. It seems you are very angry with brahmins. What specifically did the brahmins do to you? Did they rape your kinfolks or sodomise you? I mean, what is your problem? Your posting all this trash in a predominantly Pakistani forum must have some meaning. Or else you are just a raving lunatic.

Sridhar

Sadna,

Bottomline is there is no explaining away Ambedkar`s words... He said `Gandhi is a Hindu Fanatic` and I agree with him. Your convoluted explanation and defence of Gandhi just doesn`t work. He was what he was... like Ambedkar said... a Hindu fanatic working to place Hindu interests above all other interests.



Let me remind you of what he said about Gandhi:

``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``

progressive !/ #938

So glad to hear that you have other intellectual mentors other than David Duke. Who are they? Pol Pot? Stalin? Goebbels? Sayid Qutb?

Please enlighten me. Your writings are truly a source of inspiration to the hateful and demented.

Response to #945 saminashah:

After mistakenly imputing to me someone else`s remarks made about Ferzie (``disloyal`` ``unpatriotic``) Saminashah declares that she is severely constipated!

Says Samina: ``But I think we tend to write about what we know...Bran, my sad little friend, lots and lots of bran.``

tantralogician responds: No bran will help you, dear lil Samina. You need some serious treatment to dislodge that piled-up debris. A complete deluxe flush down (aka enema), oil change and tune up - nothing less - is what you need. No mullah prescribed abracadbra (that only works on camels). After this we can put you on a strict bran regimen. But first, you and your proctologist ought to meet and spend some quality time together.

And next time, don`t bring your personal hygiene and scatology to CHOWK. This is a family forum, you idiot.

tantralogician

ylh #943
``Here is what Dr.Ambedkar, the father of Indian constitution, has to say about Gandhi``

A question for you to ponder in your free time, if Gandhi was the Father of the nation, and Mahatma with Godlike status in Indian`s eyes, and a religious fascist in addition, how did Ambedkar who opposed him so bitterly become the father of the Indian Constitution?

btw, apparently Gandhi gave up his problems with interdining/intermarriage later, so your quote in this connection from his earlier statement is void, just like the incomplete one on `Musalman being a bully`.

Re your references :
http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings 42.%20Mr.%20Gandhi%20and%20The%20Emancipation%20of%20The%20Untouchables.htm
and
http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm

Gandhi and Ambedkar had bitter disagreements on essentially two points.
1. The first point was on the spiritual part or Hindu religion and its scriptures wrt untouchability.
(your second reference)
Gandhi felt that Hinduism in its essence didnot condone casteism or oppression or discrimination of high and low, and that the Shastras were witness to this. He felt Hinduism is a religion of spiritual quest for unity with the Absolute, a religion of conscience with ample room in its scriptures to support the dismantling of the caste system. He supported the pursuance of `ancestoral` pursuits based on varna (some elements of these stances like opposition to intermarrying and interdining he gave up on later) and distinguished it from the practice of casteism .

Ambedkar was more radical in his opposition to Hindu social practices. He felt unless the Shastras(the Vedas, the Upanishads,) were comprehensively rejected/disowned by Gandhi and Hindus as a whole, oppressive caste practices would continue with one excuse or another. He also didnot agree with Gandhi that the Shastras didnot support this oppression.

Finally these are two different points of view, a question of which cat can catch the mouse, I don`t see how one can call Gandhi `fascist` for his point of view.

2. The second point was in the practical part of the remedy to untouchability.
(your first reference)

Ambedkar wanted separate electorates for Dalits. Gandhi didnot want Dalits to be so comprehensively separated from the Hindu fold, and went on a fast to oppose it. He ended his fast when an agreement reached that constituencies would be reserved for Dalits in proportion to their population. These would be constituencies in the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies where only Dalits could stand for election, They would represent the entire mixed electorate of untouchables, otehr Hindus, other religious/etc communities in that constitutency. This is enshrined in Art 330 and Art 332 of the Indian Constitution:
http://alfa.nic.in/const/p16.html
The number of seats gets adjusted upward after every census, if required, if I am not mistaken.

Ambedkar argues in the reference you provide that separate electorates would have been better. He thinks because in the reserved constituencies, not only Dalits will vote for the Dalit candidate, but others will too, so Dalits willnot be able to protect their own unalienable rights and interests. Well, this is again a point of view, who was right Gandhi or Ambedkar.

The fact that Gandhi and Ambedkar had these vehement disagreements doesnot reflect poorly on either Ambedkar or Gandhi. If anything I feel proud at the level of their discourse, which was of the calibre that the issues and choices lie clearly before us in all their lucidity for us to understand and make decisions in today`s circumstances, whether regarding Hindu tenets where caste is concerned or regarding oppression of Dalits. IMO, neither Gandhi nor Ambedkar had all the exact answers fitted for eternity for such complex issues involving the dynamics of such huge diverse groups of people, noone human does, but I cannot fault either for that.

I think apart from others on this board, Prem #821 sums up very nicely as does this gentleman:

http://www.ambedkar.org/research/GandhiAmbedkar.htm

A shorter synposis:
http://expressindia.com/ie/daily/19970724/20550283.html
Heroes in their own right -- Gandhi and Ambedkar

Ramachandra Guha


Mahatma Gandhi was not so such the Father of the Nation as the mother of all debates regarding its future. All his life he fought in a friendly spirit with compatriots whose views on this or that topic diverged sharply from his. He disagreed with Communists and bhadraloks on the efficacy and morality of violence as a political strategy. He fought with radical Muslims on the one side and with radical Hindus on the other, both of whom sought to build a state on theological principles. He argued with Nehru and other scientists on whether economic development in a free India should centre on the village or the factory. And with that other giant, Rabindranath Tagore, he disputed the merits of such varied affiliations as the English language, nationalism, and the spinning wheel.

In some ways the most intense, interesting and long-running of these debates was between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Here is the stuff of epic drama, the argument between the Hindu who did most to reform caste and the ex-Hindu who did most to do away with caste altogether. Recent accounts represent it as a fight between a hero and a villain, the writer`s caste position generally determining who gets cast as hero, who as villain. In truth both figures should be seen as heroes, albeit tragic ones.

The tragedy, from Gandhi`s point of view, was that his colleagues in the national movement either did not understand his concern with untouchability or even actively deplored it. Priests and Shankaracharyas thought he was going too fast in his challenge to caste -- and why did he not first take their permission? Communists wondered why he wanted everyone to clean their own latrines when he could be speaking of class struggle. And Congressmen in general thought Harijan work came in the way of an all-out effort for national freedom. Thus Stanley Reid, a former editor of the Times of India, quotes a Indian patriot who complained (in the late thirties) that ``Gandhi is wrapped up in the Harijan movement. He does not care a jot whether we live or die; whether we are bond or free``.

The tragedy, from Ambedkar`s point of view, was that to fight for his people he had to make common cause with the British. In his new book, Worshipping False Gods, Arun Shourie has made much of this. As always, Shourie writes as if there is a singular truth, with him as its repository and guarantor. Time and again, he equates Ambedkar with Jinnah as an ``accomplice of Imperial politics``. He dismisses all that Ambedkar wrote about Hinduism as `caricature` and `calumnies`. Not once does he acknowledge that there was much truth to the criticisms. There is not one admission here of the horrendous and continuing sufferings of Dalits at the hands of caste Hindus, that might explain (and justify) Ambedkar`s rhetoric and political choices. For Shourie the fact that Ambedkar disagreed long and often with Gandhi is proof enough that he was anti-national. He even insinuates that Ambedkar ``pushed Gandhi to the edge of death`` by not interfering with the Mahatma`s decision to fast in captivity.

I think, however, that for Ambedkar to stand up to the uncrowned king and anointed Mahatma of the Indian people required extraordinary courage and will-power. Gandhi thought so too. Speaking at a meeting in Oxford in October 1931, Gandhi said he had ``the highest regard for Dr Ambedkar. He has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our heads is an act of self-restraint on his part``. Writing to an English friend two years later, he said he found ``nothing unnatural`` in Ambedkar`s hostility to the Congress and its supporters. ``He has not only witnessed the inhuman wrongs done to the social pariahs of Hinduism``, reflected this Hindu, ``but in spite of all his culture, all the honours that he has received, he has, when he is in India, still to suffer many insults to which untouchables are exposed``. In June 1936, Gandhi pointed out once again that Dr Ambedkar ``has had to suffer humiliations and insults which should make anyone of us bitter and resentful. Had I been in his place,`` he remarked, ``I would have been as angry``.

Gandhi`s latter-day admirers might question Ambedkar`s patriotism and probity, but the Mahatma had no such suspicion himself. Addressing a bunch of Karachi students in June 1934, he told them that ``the magnitude of (Dr Ambedkar`s) sacrifice is great. He is absorbed in his own work. He leads a simple life. He is capable of earning one to two thousand rupees a month. He is also in a position to settle down in Europe if he so desires. But he doesn`t want to stay there. He is only concerned about the welfare of the Harijans``.

To Gandhi, Ambedkar`s protest held out a lesson to the upper castes. In March 1936, he said that if Ambedkar and his followers were to embrace another religion, ``We deserve such treatment and our task (now) is to wake up to the situation and purify ourselves``. Now many heeded the warning, for towards the end of his life Gandhi spoke with some bitterness about the indifference to Harijan work among his fellow Hindus: ``The tragedy is that those who should have especially devoted themselves to the work of (caste) reform did not put their hearts into it. What wonder that Harijan brethren feel suspicious, and show opposition and bitterness``.

Upper caste Hindus thought that Gandhi moved too fast, but the Dalits of today feel that he was much too slow. The politician Mayawati has, more than once, spoken of the Mahatma as a shallow paternalist who sought only to smooth the path for more effective long-term domination by the Suvarna. Likewise, in his book Why I am Not a Hindu? Kancha Illiah writes of Gandhi as wanting to ``build a modern consent system for the continued maintenance of brahminical hegemony`` -- a judgment as unfair as that of Shourie`s on Ambedkar.

The Kannada critic D.R. Nagaraj once noted that in the narrative of Indian nationalism the ``heroic stature of the caste-Hindu reformer``, Gandhi, `further dwarfed the Harijan personality` of Ambedkar. In the Ramayana there is but one hero but, as Nagaraj points out, Ambedkar was too proud, intelligent and self-respecting a man to settle for the role of Hanuman or Sugreeva. For playwright or mythmaker there can only be one heroic figure, but the historian is bound by no such constraint. The history of Dalit emancipation is unfinished, and for the most part unwritten. It should, and will, find space for many heroes. Ambedkar and Gandhi will do nicely for a start.

The writer is a historian and sociologist

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

I would be interested in finding out whether any of the prominent Muslims in India, like Azim Premji, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan, etc. have made any public statements about the happenings in Gujrat. Have any of them openly had the courage to come out and criticize the BJP, on this issue?

If any Indians are aware of any such info, I would appreciate it if they could print the URL.

Following is an interesting report from BBC:

``British officials in India say the recent widespread violence in the Indian state of Gujarat was pre-planned and carried out with the support of the state government.

In a damning internal report obtained by the BBC, British officials say the violence had all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and that reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims is impossible while the chief minister remains in power.....

It says the violence, far from being spontaneous, was planned, possibly months in advance, carried out by an extremist Hindu organisation with the support of the state government.

The aim, it says, was to purge Muslims from Hindu areas, and it says at least 2,000 people died.

Reconciliation between Hindus and Muslims will be impossible, it concludes, while Gujarat`s chief minister remains in power. (www.bbc.co.uk/urdu)

The figures of death given by BBC are more than twice the official figures given out. India`s largest Muslim English magazine, Milli Gazette, also gives similar figures:

``Thousands of people have been killed during the last one and a half months. Though the government figures have just crossed 800 casualties, the way things are being covered up, people who are working for rehabilitation and relief say that at least 2500 people have been either burnt alive or killed. YA Charkha, an advocate who has been involved in setting up of the relief camp in Godhra, from where the fire started in the first place, says that even the figure of ‘2500’ is not final as there are daily reports of killings coming from various areas, especially villages. He says that Muslims residing in 400 villages in Panchmahal district under which Godhra falls, have been totally destroyed. Women, young and old alike, have been raped and even then not spared by the rapists most of whom are VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS activists.``(http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042002/1504200298.htm)

If these numbers are correct, then these figures are much higher than the Muslims killed by Israel in Palestine, in their recent raids.

I fail to understand why Indian`s have been so protective of the BJP, all these years. I used to regularly quote from the BJP website, and would receive nothing but defensive statements from Indian contributers. I had pointed out that something was going to happen by March 15. Unfortunately, none of the Indians took notice.

What is even more sad is the recent statement given by Vajpayee in Goa, degrading Muslims as the ones who create violence everywhere.

I think Indians have gone overboard in their criticisms of Pakistan. This is good for Pakistan, since it is forcing Pakistan to face the skeletons in its closet. However, Indians need to stop being so defensive, when others (including Pakistanis) point out Indian problems.

``Britain`s views may be received coldly.

As the world`s largest democracy, India bitterly resents what it calls the interference of foreign powers in its affairs - all the more so when the criticisms come from a former colonial power.`` (www.bbc.co.uk/urdu)

Saminasha asks: ``Why are you accusing FV of being disloyal and unpatriotic? Answer the question, yaar.``

``tantralogician responds: I don`t need to, yaar. To understand why, say, I asked you, ``Have you stopped screwing your dad, dearie?`` you wouldn`t need to answer that question either. In other words, dear dimwit, we both don`t have to answer questions based on false premises and/or facts.``

Saminashah says: Actually, my question is quite relevant, which is why you refuse to answer it and instead reply in such a bathameez manner. I have followed your so called argument, and there is none. As you know there is no point having an argument with someone who accuses another countryperson of being disloyal esp. after members of that person`s religious community was attacked in a heinous manner, and said writer addresses it, WHICH IS PERFECTLY WITHIN HER RIGHTS IN A REAL DEMOCRACY. Your posts betray several unattractive and fascistic qualities, tantrumologician, and nothing will disguise it.

Btw, re: the daddy love metaphor; clearly you evoked it to outrage me. But I think we tend to write about what we know. So, tell us, have you stopped screwing your daddy?

Bran, my sad little friend, lots and lots of bran.

I mean`t to say `Credible sources` and not `a credible sources.`

For tvarad, Rsidhar and SADNA:

Unlike you I will quote a credible Sources.. Here is what Dr.Ambedkar, the father of Indian constitution, has to say about Gandhi:

``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``

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/42.%20Mr.%20Gandhi%20and%20The%20Emancipation%20of%20The%20Untouchables.htm

Here are some of the writings of Dr. Ambedkar on the Congress Party and Gandhi...

1)Congress doesn`t represent all of India

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/a14.htm

2)Rejoinder with Gandhi on Caste issue:

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm

3) What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Dalits

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/41A.What%20Congress%20and%20Gandhi%20Preface.htm

4) Gandhi and the lie of Emancipation of the Dalits:

http://www.dr-ambedkar.com/writings/42.%20Mr.%20Gandhi%20and%20The%20Emancipation%20of%20The%20Untouchables.htm

I have many more essays to go... but the fact is that there is no point declaring that there is no historical justification against the Gandhian Nonsense... Gandhi comes across as a fascist Hindu in these writings... No where can you see anyone.. not even Jinnah`s worst opponents, accusing Jinnah of something like this... so .. the facts are infront of you.