Gandhi, Godse and Geeta
Dost Mittar November 10, 2002
#156 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 4:05:40 am
REVIEWS: Gandhi’s still alive in Gujarat
Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari
In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.
Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”
About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.
The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”
As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.
When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.
On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.
Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.
Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.
Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.
When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.
Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.
Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.
Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.
The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).
Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?
Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250
Reviewed by Aisha Fayyazi Sarwari
In Gandhi’s hometown, Gujarat, three years after the religious violence, the Muslim community is still squandering for justice and freedom from fear of Hindu retaliation. The pogrom that left 110,000 Muslims homeless and killed over 2,000, according to the Human Rights Watch still have their violators roaming free. Recently the BBC reported that mass graves were dug out to hide evidence of the depravity. Women and children, physiologists say, are unable to get over the trauma and violence they witnessed.
Despite this, Dalits and other untouchables in Gujarat are “far worse than the Muslims.”
About eight decades ago, it was this alliance of common interest between the Muslims and the untouchables that frightened Gandhi, fictitiously known as the Mahatma, into a series of political manoeuvres to protect not only his adherence to orthodox Hinduism, but also the Congress party’s capitalist interests. If Kamran Shahid, author of Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective, is to be believed, the alliance of the lower caste Hindus and Muslims (who were themselves converts from lower-caste Hindus, escaping the drudgery and humiliation of class), formed a majority of Indian vote bank.
The British planned to leave the colonies and intended to implant the traditions of democracy and fraternity in Indian politics before they did. Recklessly abandoning his spiritual face to the world, Gandhi articulated his worst fears in reaction to safeguards granted to Muslims and untouchables granted by the British Communal Award of 1931, “the Untouchable hooligans would make alliance with the Muslim hooligans and kill upper-caste Hindus.”
As a failed lawyer in South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had fought tooth and nail against perceived discrimination against Indians, but not as popularly believed in the interest of equality. It was for the more privileged treatment of Indians in South Africa as compared to black Africans. He fought to separate and segregate the Indians from the subhuman “savage kafirs” who were not “equal to the Indians”. It is because of this fact, outlined in his volumes of Collected Works and his own personal diaries that prompted countless South Africans to protest his statue in Johannesburg in 2002.
When he returned to India, he did so to restore the traditionalism and social conservatism of status quo. He rejected British plans to distribute power evenly amongst all parties and interests, because it would severely undermine the Congress and its leading upper-caste Hindu interests. He formulated a plan to ensure no power sharing deal with the Muslims and he broke the threat of a lower-caste Hindu and Muslim alliance by reinventing a religiously inspired revolution against the British. He claimed to blur the lines of caste by verbally restoring dignity to the lower caste Hindus or Harijans as he called them, and calling them to unite with all Indians to fight for their independence through satyagraha, however, he never forgot to spell out that their place belonged as servants to the upper caste Brahmins.
On numerous occasions he articulated that the peasant must serve his master at all costs, even if he “suffers in his person” and this usually meant exploitative labour rates. He prohibited inter-dining and intermarriage across castes.
Much to the distaste of the long-term champion of lower-caste Hindu rights, Dr Ambedkar, who is also the principal author of the Indian constitution, Gandhi continued to manipulate the lower caste into overriding any realpolitik plans to broker rights for themselves in the new independent India. Gandhi, instead, marched them to salt fields, made facades of ashrams for them, made their women spin yarn to champion self-rule, coerced the British into imprisoning him and gained mass sympathies in the process.
Winston Churchill refused to give into Gandhi’s hunger strikes, and would rather that Gandhi starve to death but his associates feared that because he has asserted himself as India’s spiritual leader, his death would turn him into a martyr. True to Dr Ambedkar’s prediction, Gandhi’s much flaunted spiritual emancipation of the lower-caste Hindus did not secure them a better future and, even today, they stand as the most marginalized lot of India, a notch below the Muslims.
Having shattered any possibility of a collective vote bank of Muslims and lower-caste Hindus, Gandhi shifted his focus to manufacturing an illusion of poverty. He successfully bought the Congress party a golden choice to back away from any power-sharing deal with the Muslims rejecting the prescience of the Lucknow Pact which secular politicians like Jinnah and Gokhale worked hard to secure the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim communities.
When Gandhi split the movement by his cleverly crafted plan of rallying a majority into religious fervour for independence, politicians like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at first sidelined and shunned, realized that the only way they will not find themselves in the same trap shared by lower-caste Hindus is by demanding a separate state. Used as a bargaining chip, historians such as Ayesha Jalal say that Jinnah till the end tried to give Indian Muslims the best constitutional protection they could get, but at the end, for Gandhi, it had to be all or nothing.
Under no circumstances was the Congress party negotiating, nor did they see any need to, because the British were hastily retreating and the Congress was turning out to be the one with the bigger pie and the more visible forces.
Seeing that the blame would fall on him for being unable to keep the country united, Gandhi made alliances with Islamic religious leadership, distracting Indian Muslims from interest based politics into religious euphoria. This only widened the rift between the Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, his own orientation remained completely Hindu centric — “I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”, he declared.
Jinnah was willing to go as far as accepting the Cabinet Mission plan in 1946, favouring united India rather than Partition. Pakistan came to be because Gandhi and the Congress party found it unpalatable for Muslims to have full autonomy in the majority provinces.
The “new perspective” that Kamran Shahid has articulated in his book is not new, it is one that the Muslim League articulated and that H.M. Seervai, Asiananda and Patrick French wrote in their books. In fact, recently two fascinating books dealing with contradictions of the “great soul” who once was held by Einstein as the greatest man to walk the earth were published. These are Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2001) and the Ungandhian Gandhi (2004).
Certainly established as fact, this perspective the academic circles have now accepted, but where it is new, however, is in the psyche of non-serious activists and upstarts who would rather believe in the myth of Gandhi than read what he wrote and did. Will this myth persevere with time or will a more honest understanding of Gandhi emerge that will give a balanced perspective on the man held by millions as the very icon of non-violence and pluralism that Gandhi’s own actions negated?
Gandhi and the Partition of India: A New Perspective
By Kamran Shahid
Ferozsons, 60
Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore.
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8
UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-02011-0
124pp. Rs250
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#155 Posted by okaab on May 11, 2005 12:07:02 am
Well-written article. But I have a problem with your premise that there is one particular message inscribed in the Geeta or for that matter any religious/cultural text, which is subject to a singular interpretation. In fact, the Geeta has been interpreted in various different ways, towards divergent ends. During the Independence struggle it worked as a handbook for legitimising any kind of action.
Further, ethics and morals are context-sensitive. What is right in one context may not be right in another.
Further, ethics and morals are context-sensitive. What is right in one context may not be right in another.
#154 Posted by sarwar on September 10, 2003 12:24:24 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#153 Posted by arjun_m on November 21, 2002 8:10:48 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#152 Posted by sadna on November 21, 2002 7:15:06 am
Pankaj, hope to get an opportunity soon to know what you had to say.
roohi, I`m curious about what you said on another thread, `a blind beggar in Bihar singing Bhojpuri bhajans`. Someday if you would care to elaborate..?
Meanwhile since this thread is dormant, here is one of the episodes related to avarnas in the Mahabharata.
The story of Utanga quoted largely from C Rajagopalachari( the full text of his Mahabharata in English is available online on a number of websites)
`when the battle was over, Krishna bade farewell to the Pandavas. On his way to Dwaraka, he met his old brahmana friend Utanga. The innocent recluse asked ` do your cousins the Pandavas and the Kauravas love one another as brothers should? Are they well and flourishing?`
Krishna was astounded at this question and explained. Uttanga got angry ` Were you standing by and did you let all this happen? You have indeed failed in your duty. You have surely practiced deceit and led them to destruction. Prepare now to receive my curse!`
Krishna smiled and tried to pacify him, showing him his Vishwarupa. `In whatever body I am born I must act in conformity with the nature of that body. I begged hard of the ignorant Kauravas. They were arrogant and intoxicated by power and paid no heed to my advice. I tried to intimidate them. Therein also I failed. I was in wrath and showed them even my Vishwarupa. Even that failed. They persisted in wrong-doing. They waged war and perished`.
Uttanga recovered his calm. Krishna offered him a boon. Utanga said he didnot desire any boon after seeing him in Vishwarupa, but finally the desert-wandering simple brahmana said `let me find water to drink whenever I might feel thirsty`. Krishna said `Is that all? Have it then` and continued on his journey.
One day when Utanga was very thirsty and unable to find water anywhere in the desert, he thought of his boon. Immediately, there appeared a nishada, clothed in filthy rags; he had five hunting hounds in leash and a water-skin wrapped to his shoulder.
The nishada grinned at Utanga saying `You seem to be thirsty. Here is water for you` and offered the bamboo spout of his water-skin to the brahmana to drink from.
Utanga looking at the man and his dogs and his water skin, said in disgust, `Friend I donot need it, thank you`. Saying this he thought of Krishna and reproached him in his mind `Indeed was this all the boon you gave me?`.
The outcaste nishada pressed Utanga over and over to quench his thirst but it only made Utanga more and more angry. The hunter and his dogs disappeared.
Seeing the sudden disappearance, Utanga reflected `Who was this? He couldnot have been a real nishada. It was certainly a test and I have blundered miserably. My philosophy deserted me. I rejected the water offered to me by the nishada and proved myself to be an arrogant fool`.
While he was pondering thus, Krishna appeared. Utanga said `O Krishna, was it right of you to try me thus - make an untouchable offer unclean water to me, a brahmana, to drink? Was it kind?`
Krishna said ` O Utanga, for your sake, when you put my boon into action, I asked Indra to take amrita[the nector of immortality] to you and give it to you as water. He said he couldnot give a mortal what would give him immortality, while he was willing to do anything else. But I prevailed upon him and he agreed to take amrita and give it to you as water, provided I let him do it as a chandala and tested your understanding and found you willing to take water from a chandala. I accepted the challenge believing you had attained jnana[knowledge] and transcended externals. But you have done this and made me suffer defeat at Indra`s hands.`
Utanga saw his mistake and was ashamed.
roohi, I`m curious about what you said on another thread, `a blind beggar in Bihar singing Bhojpuri bhajans`. Someday if you would care to elaborate..?
Meanwhile since this thread is dormant, here is one of the episodes related to avarnas in the Mahabharata.
The story of Utanga quoted largely from C Rajagopalachari( the full text of his Mahabharata in English is available online on a number of websites)
`when the battle was over, Krishna bade farewell to the Pandavas. On his way to Dwaraka, he met his old brahmana friend Utanga. The innocent recluse asked ` do your cousins the Pandavas and the Kauravas love one another as brothers should? Are they well and flourishing?`
Krishna was astounded at this question and explained. Uttanga got angry ` Were you standing by and did you let all this happen? You have indeed failed in your duty. You have surely practiced deceit and led them to destruction. Prepare now to receive my curse!`
Krishna smiled and tried to pacify him, showing him his Vishwarupa. `In whatever body I am born I must act in conformity with the nature of that body. I begged hard of the ignorant Kauravas. They were arrogant and intoxicated by power and paid no heed to my advice. I tried to intimidate them. Therein also I failed. I was in wrath and showed them even my Vishwarupa. Even that failed. They persisted in wrong-doing. They waged war and perished`.
Uttanga recovered his calm. Krishna offered him a boon. Utanga said he didnot desire any boon after seeing him in Vishwarupa, but finally the desert-wandering simple brahmana said `let me find water to drink whenever I might feel thirsty`. Krishna said `Is that all? Have it then` and continued on his journey.
One day when Utanga was very thirsty and unable to find water anywhere in the desert, he thought of his boon. Immediately, there appeared a nishada, clothed in filthy rags; he had five hunting hounds in leash and a water-skin wrapped to his shoulder.
The nishada grinned at Utanga saying `You seem to be thirsty. Here is water for you` and offered the bamboo spout of his water-skin to the brahmana to drink from.
Utanga looking at the man and his dogs and his water skin, said in disgust, `Friend I donot need it, thank you`. Saying this he thought of Krishna and reproached him in his mind `Indeed was this all the boon you gave me?`.
The outcaste nishada pressed Utanga over and over to quench his thirst but it only made Utanga more and more angry. The hunter and his dogs disappeared.
Seeing the sudden disappearance, Utanga reflected `Who was this? He couldnot have been a real nishada. It was certainly a test and I have blundered miserably. My philosophy deserted me. I rejected the water offered to me by the nishada and proved myself to be an arrogant fool`.
While he was pondering thus, Krishna appeared. Utanga said `O Krishna, was it right of you to try me thus - make an untouchable offer unclean water to me, a brahmana, to drink? Was it kind?`
Krishna said ` O Utanga, for your sake, when you put my boon into action, I asked Indra to take amrita[the nector of immortality] to you and give it to you as water. He said he couldnot give a mortal what would give him immortality, while he was willing to do anything else. But I prevailed upon him and he agreed to take amrita and give it to you as water, provided I let him do it as a chandala and tested your understanding and found you willing to take water from a chandala. I accepted the challenge believing you had attained jnana[knowledge] and transcended externals. But you have done this and made me suffer defeat at Indra`s hands.`
Utanga saw his mistake and was ashamed.
#151 Posted by Studebaker on November 20, 2002 7:13:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#150 Posted by Pankaj on November 19, 2002 4:44:40 pm
Dost-Mittar
Well, I guess this thread is dead. Moreover Sadhana, ,Shridhar, Pardesi and others have not left anything substantial for me to add. May be some other time we will revisit the whole thing.
Well, I guess this thread is dead. Moreover Sadhana, ,Shridhar, Pardesi and others have not left anything substantial for me to add. May be some other time we will revisit the whole thing.
#149 Posted by rsridhar on November 19, 2002 2:38:12 pm
re:#132 by harimau
Mahabharata, like any other Epic, is never static and keeps changing, while maintaining the same plot. K.M. Munshi had written a 7-volume book ``krishnavatara`` in which story of Pandavas is told with SriKrishna as the central character. As per that story (derived from the original epic), Dhritarashtra had lost his ability to be the king, being blind from birth. In those days, common sense still prevailed. The eldest automatically did not become king if he was incapacitated. The mantle fell on his younger brother, Pandu (father of Pandavas, the five brothers). Pandu died young and his eldest son Yudhisthira (who was older than even Duryodhana) became both an automatic and a popular choice. Following attempts on their lives (eg Lac house episodes, several others), the 5 brothers with the help of Krishna set out to create their own empire to rule. From the rubble. Krishna helps them create Khandavaprastha. It was Krishna`s own idea (as per Munshi`s book). Like the proverbial Narada, Krishna has his hand in every pie (and in every intrigue!). Founding of the new city of Indiraprastha sets the stage for future complications with the Kauravas.
Sadna`s narration was not far from truth either. There was indeed a bitter struggle over who will rule Hastinapura and Khandavaprastha was a compromise which the Pandavas accepted magnanimously.
Sridhar
Mahabharata, like any other Epic, is never static and keeps changing, while maintaining the same plot. K.M. Munshi had written a 7-volume book ``krishnavatara`` in which story of Pandavas is told with SriKrishna as the central character. As per that story (derived from the original epic), Dhritarashtra had lost his ability to be the king, being blind from birth. In those days, common sense still prevailed. The eldest automatically did not become king if he was incapacitated. The mantle fell on his younger brother, Pandu (father of Pandavas, the five brothers). Pandu died young and his eldest son Yudhisthira (who was older than even Duryodhana) became both an automatic and a popular choice. Following attempts on their lives (eg Lac house episodes, several others), the 5 brothers with the help of Krishna set out to create their own empire to rule. From the rubble. Krishna helps them create Khandavaprastha. It was Krishna`s own idea (as per Munshi`s book). Like the proverbial Narada, Krishna has his hand in every pie (and in every intrigue!). Founding of the new city of Indiraprastha sets the stage for future complications with the Kauravas.
Sadna`s narration was not far from truth either. There was indeed a bitter struggle over who will rule Hastinapura and Khandavaprastha was a compromise which the Pandavas accepted magnanimously.
Sridhar
#148 Posted by roohi on November 18, 2002 8:52:23 am
Anyone still here ?
Read ``The Crime of Nathuram Godse`` by Chief Justice Khosla ...
http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?id=2&link=ld&book=ld0001&lang=en&cat=books
The first part where he talks about being the Custodian of Evacuee Property in Delhi and dealing with the Punjabi refugees and the Muslim residents in Delhi right after Partition is facinating. Godse`s testimony is intresting too.
Read ``The Crime of Nathuram Godse`` by Chief Justice Khosla ...
http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?id=2&link=ld&book=ld0001&lang=en&cat=books
The first part where he talks about being the Custodian of Evacuee Property in Delhi and dealing with the Punjabi refugees and the Muslim residents in Delhi right after Partition is facinating. Godse`s testimony is intresting too.
#147 Posted by sadna on November 17, 2002 12:31:45 pm
Zafar #144
Good question :). The episode where their destruction is described is about the Yadava warriors in Dwarka. Perhaps the Bhagavatam has more information on what followed.
There are sure to have been Krishna`s Yadava kinsmen in other places too, for instance a few of his grandsons ruling elsewhere presumably survived and there were bound to be Yadavas still living in the Brijbhumi region.
One website has something about how Arjuna visited Dwarka to carry out the obsequies of Balram and Krishna and took the widows, orphans and old people back with him. Then he was ambushed on the way and the survivors were kidnapped. Those kidnapped were absorbed into the clan of their kidnappers (the Abhirs/Ahirs) and descendents of the mix were called Yadavs. But I donot how much supporting evidence from the Puranas, this particular story line has, it could be wishful thinking. btw, the Yadava caste exists in the south too.
Good question :). The episode where their destruction is described is about the Yadava warriors in Dwarka. Perhaps the Bhagavatam has more information on what followed.
There are sure to have been Krishna`s Yadava kinsmen in other places too, for instance a few of his grandsons ruling elsewhere presumably survived and there were bound to be Yadavas still living in the Brijbhumi region.
One website has something about how Arjuna visited Dwarka to carry out the obsequies of Balram and Krishna and took the widows, orphans and old people back with him. Then he was ambushed on the way and the survivors were kidnapped. Those kidnapped were absorbed into the clan of their kidnappers (the Abhirs/Ahirs) and descendents of the mix were called Yadavs. But I donot how much supporting evidence from the Puranas, this particular story line has, it could be wishful thinking. btw, the Yadava caste exists in the south too.
#146 Posted by veeresh on November 17, 2002 10:15:15 am
Nand/dost mittar . . . I think Hindus tend to continue re-evaluating and re-interpreting religion of all sorts (not just ``Hinduism``) at all times and don`t seem to find much wrong in such evolution . . . so debate on religion can proceed with a lot of hot air and good rich heavy food and arts song and dance in the evening . . . but back to Gandhi & Godse, who followed the Geeta ``better``?
I would like to think Godse followed it better. Mainly because he ended up with the greater sacrifice, especially if you read the Geeta along with the Katha Upanishads?
#145 Posted by Maharana on November 17, 2002 10:15:15 am
I wonder how many posters here have actually read Mahabharat and Bhagvad Geeta.
Fisrt of all Dost-Mittar, to be technically correct you should call Geeta as Bhagvad Geeta, coz there are three different Geetas. The word Geeta merely means dialogue in sanskrit. So Bhagvad Geeta is a dialogue between the Godhead(Bhagvad) and Arjun, Ashtavakra Geeta, dialogue between Ashtavakra and Janaka and Uddhava Geeta, dialogue between Uddhava and Sri Krishna.
Pardesi, your comment on intent of action and whether it affected Krishna, is reflexcted in his response to Gndhari after being cursed by her. He goes on to say to her, that in both the victor and the vanquished, he is the one who has suffered as he resides in every living soul. So the pain suffered by the dying and wounded is suffered by him. And he does accept however, that he too is bound by the laws of Karma since he has taken this human body. His own kingdom ends when all the yadavas fight each other to the end, while the sea invades Dwarka (now Bet Dwarka) drowning the city. He is the last one to leave his body among Yadavas afetr going through the pain Gandhari had gone through, seeing her own seeds disappear and the ``vansh`` die.
Moral of the story of Mahabharat is that no one not even God`s own representative gets special treatment. We are all bound by the same laws. There are no miracles which can spare anyone from his/her misdeeds/deeds. This might look very bleak and hopeless to most of the humans, but actually is quite the contrary. It would require an article to be written by someone in defense of Hinduism perhaps. Especially more so, when you consider that the lure of miracles and forgiveness from any crimes is easily accepted by all and sundry, when it applies to there own misdeeds, but when the same principles are applied to anyone else, they call it injustice. Mahbharat perhaps is the only honest scripture ever written in mankind, delineating human character in its best and worst, wihout passing judgements on either. Thats the way reality actually exists.
Adios
Fisrt of all Dost-Mittar, to be technically correct you should call Geeta as Bhagvad Geeta, coz there are three different Geetas. The word Geeta merely means dialogue in sanskrit. So Bhagvad Geeta is a dialogue between the Godhead(Bhagvad) and Arjun, Ashtavakra Geeta, dialogue between Ashtavakra and Janaka and Uddhava Geeta, dialogue between Uddhava and Sri Krishna.
Pardesi, your comment on intent of action and whether it affected Krishna, is reflexcted in his response to Gndhari after being cursed by her. He goes on to say to her, that in both the victor and the vanquished, he is the one who has suffered as he resides in every living soul. So the pain suffered by the dying and wounded is suffered by him. And he does accept however, that he too is bound by the laws of Karma since he has taken this human body. His own kingdom ends when all the yadavas fight each other to the end, while the sea invades Dwarka (now Bet Dwarka) drowning the city. He is the last one to leave his body among Yadavas afetr going through the pain Gandhari had gone through, seeing her own seeds disappear and the ``vansh`` die.
Moral of the story of Mahabharat is that no one not even God`s own representative gets special treatment. We are all bound by the same laws. There are no miracles which can spare anyone from his/her misdeeds/deeds. This might look very bleak and hopeless to most of the humans, but actually is quite the contrary. It would require an article to be written by someone in defense of Hinduism perhaps. Especially more so, when you consider that the lure of miracles and forgiveness from any crimes is easily accepted by all and sundry, when it applies to there own misdeeds, but when the same principles are applied to anyone else, they call it injustice. Mahbharat perhaps is the only honest scripture ever written in mankind, delineating human character in its best and worst, wihout passing judgements on either. Thats the way reality actually exists.
Adios
#144 Posted by sadna on November 17, 2002 8:05:47 am
Pardesi #139
Pardesiji, you are a real expert on the Mahabharata. Re Nobel, we should present a copy of the Mahabharata to the Nobel committee, instead?
btw, I too meant to say Gandhari cursed Krishna for the death of her son(s).
In C Rajagopalachari`s version it was Duryodhana`s thighs that Bhima hit. When the Kauravas tried to disrobe Draupadi in the Assembly Hall, Bhima took a vow to break Duryodhana`s thighs.
Nevertheless, Balram, who returned from his journey just in time to witness the duel, condemned Bhima and almost killed him with his plough till Krishna dissuaded him.
Balram still said `It will be said among men that the son of Pandu broke the laws of war in attacking Duryodhana. It will remain foreever a blot on his name. I hate to stay here any longer` and left for Dwaraka.
Yudhishthira knew of the vow but was upset for another reason `it hurt me to see Bhima leap on cousin Duryodhana`s mortal wounded body and trample on his head. I see the end of the glory of our race. We were wronged by the Kauravas. I know the full measure of grief and anger in Bhima`s heart and don`t wish to blame him beyond reason`. `But when men transgress the law, extenuations and excuses are of no avail in giving satisfaction`.
Arjuna `was silent and didnot show approval of Bhima`s act nor did he say anything by way of detraction`.
Duryodhana who was not yet dead, was full of anger for Krishna `I saw you instigate Bhima to aim his blow to your thigh.... Till then it had been equal battle. ..I go to swarga with my friends and relatives But you and your friends will live on earth to suffer grief. ..Who is more blest, I or you who doomed to linger here, mourning for slaughtered friends in desolate homes, find the long-sought triumph but ashes in your mouth`.
Gods showered flowers and Krishna and the Pandavas felt small. `There is truth` said Krishna, `in what Duryodhana said. You couldnot have defeated him by fair means. This wicked man was invincible in battle.`
Pardesiji, you are a real expert on the Mahabharata. Re Nobel, we should present a copy of the Mahabharata to the Nobel committee, instead?
btw, I too meant to say Gandhari cursed Krishna for the death of her son(s).
In C Rajagopalachari`s version it was Duryodhana`s thighs that Bhima hit. When the Kauravas tried to disrobe Draupadi in the Assembly Hall, Bhima took a vow to break Duryodhana`s thighs.
Nevertheless, Balram, who returned from his journey just in time to witness the duel, condemned Bhima and almost killed him with his plough till Krishna dissuaded him.
Balram still said `It will be said among men that the son of Pandu broke the laws of war in attacking Duryodhana. It will remain foreever a blot on his name. I hate to stay here any longer` and left for Dwaraka.
Yudhishthira knew of the vow but was upset for another reason `it hurt me to see Bhima leap on cousin Duryodhana`s mortal wounded body and trample on his head. I see the end of the glory of our race. We were wronged by the Kauravas. I know the full measure of grief and anger in Bhima`s heart and don`t wish to blame him beyond reason`. `But when men transgress the law, extenuations and excuses are of no avail in giving satisfaction`.
Arjuna `was silent and didnot show approval of Bhima`s act nor did he say anything by way of detraction`.
Duryodhana who was not yet dead, was full of anger for Krishna `I saw you instigate Bhima to aim his blow to your thigh.... Till then it had been equal battle. ..I go to swarga with my friends and relatives But you and your friends will live on earth to suffer grief. ..Who is more blest, I or you who doomed to linger here, mourning for slaughtered friends in desolate homes, find the long-sought triumph but ashes in your mouth`.
Gods showered flowers and Krishna and the Pandavas felt small. `There is truth` said Krishna, `in what Duryodhana said. You couldnot have defeated him by fair means. This wicked man was invincible in battle.`
#143 Posted by ZafarA on November 17, 2002 8:05:47 am
Reply dost-mittar #119
``Hope you are enjoying your stay in Palam Vihar (or is it Ansal Vihar?).``
Ansal`s Palam Vihar :-) and yes, thank you, I am.
Reply Nasah #123
``…why not -- purde ke bahar -- get together in USA when u r in USA``
Absolutely Hasanbhai, but till that happy day…(actually, I think that we should do this in Australia.)
Reply veeresh #124
``. . . yes, it would be good to meet Unkils too?``
I thought that you said I was too old to call you unkil Veereshji?? But yes please, I would be most honoured to meet you. I currently languish in my Ammi Huzoor`s custody in Palam Vihar, but kabhi kabhi parole bhi hotha hai. Please email me at zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com with a contact # if you feel up to it. (Perhaps add to the hamara yeh bahthar hai list - my fist suggestionis traffic.) Salaams.
Reply sadna #136
``… as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.``
And Lalooji?
``Hope you are enjoying your stay in Palam Vihar (or is it Ansal Vihar?).``
Ansal`s Palam Vihar :-) and yes, thank you, I am.
Reply Nasah #123
``…why not -- purde ke bahar -- get together in USA when u r in USA``
Absolutely Hasanbhai, but till that happy day…(actually, I think that we should do this in Australia.)
Reply veeresh #124
``. . . yes, it would be good to meet Unkils too?``
I thought that you said I was too old to call you unkil Veereshji?? But yes please, I would be most honoured to meet you. I currently languish in my Ammi Huzoor`s custody in Palam Vihar, but kabhi kabhi parole bhi hotha hai. Please email me at zafreallyzaf@yahoo.com with a contact # if you feel up to it. (Perhaps add to the hamara yeh bahthar hai list - my fist suggestionis traffic.) Salaams.
Reply sadna #136
``… as all her sons had been wiped out, so would all his kinsmen, the Yadavas. And thats what eventually happened.``
And Lalooji?
#139 Posted by Pardesi on November 16, 2002 12:35:28 pm
Sadna #136
Sadna, I can not resist temptation to correct you on Gandhari. She was not upset at Krishna on what he did to Dronacharya. She cursed him because he got her oldest son Duryodhan (Du) killed through another plot.
You see, after 99 other Kauravs died, and the war left both sides with tremendous losses, it was decided that Du and Bhim (#2 pandav brother) should have a one on one fight with their “Gaddas” and decide the matter once for all. Kauravs had a plan. Their mama (Gandhari) was blessed with a “one time” power – when she takes off her eye cover, the person in front of her will become indestructible rock solid. The reason for this power was due to her voluntary covering of eyes after she married a blind husband.
Krishna got wind of the plan and was worried. He approached Du (an “enemy”, but approachable) and asked about the plan. Du had no worries in talking about it since it was a foolproof plan. Krishna shamed the poor guy into putting some minimum langot over his private parts before appearing naked in front of his mother. When poor Du asked if that would leave him weaker at his “Achilles’ heel” area, Krishna assured him that the rules of the fight do not allow anyone to hit below the belt.
Gandhari, takes off her eye cover and starts crying at seeing the private part cover (she knew some one has left her last son with a weak spot), Bhim hits the poor guy below the belt and like they say rest is Mahabharat.
Gandhari curses destruction of Krishna’s clan.
Do you know Sadna, if posthumously Mahabharat writer can win a noble prize?
Sadna, I can not resist temptation to correct you on Gandhari. She was not upset at Krishna on what he did to Dronacharya. She cursed him because he got her oldest son Duryodhan (Du) killed through another plot.
You see, after 99 other Kauravs died, and the war left both sides with tremendous losses, it was decided that Du and Bhim (#2 pandav brother) should have a one on one fight with their “Gaddas” and decide the matter once for all. Kauravs had a plan. Their mama (Gandhari) was blessed with a “one time” power – when she takes off her eye cover, the person in front of her will become indestructible rock solid. The reason for this power was due to her voluntary covering of eyes after she married a blind husband.
Krishna got wind of the plan and was worried. He approached Du (an “enemy”, but approachable) and asked about the plan. Du had no worries in talking about it since it was a foolproof plan. Krishna shamed the poor guy into putting some minimum langot over his private parts before appearing naked in front of his mother. When poor Du asked if that would leave him weaker at his “Achilles’ heel” area, Krishna assured him that the rules of the fight do not allow anyone to hit below the belt.
Gandhari, takes off her eye cover and starts crying at seeing the private part cover (she knew some one has left her last son with a weak spot), Bhim hits the poor guy below the belt and like they say rest is Mahabharat.
Gandhari curses destruction of Krishna’s clan.
Do you know Sadna, if posthumously Mahabharat writer can win a noble prize?
#138 Posted by sadna on November 16, 2002 11:58:10 am
dost-mittar #134
I want to add, I`m sorry to read about your father being grievously hurt in riots. In that terrible period, Gandhiji must have sounded extremely inhuman when he told people they should not flee the horrible situation, they should die instead. I can fully understand that reason for disliking him intensely, whoever did so.
What confused me was one Punjabi`s argument for disliking Gandhiji which was Godse-like. I wondered about the person and others like her, that if the two communities were so estranged and she hated Muslims and blamed them for the things that happened, how would Gandhiji`s preventing Partition at a given point in time have helped her in any way? Its a difficult question to ask those who suffered in ways I cannot possibly comprehend, so I didnot. Sorry if I hurt you or anyone else by this.
I want to add, I`m sorry to read about your father being grievously hurt in riots. In that terrible period, Gandhiji must have sounded extremely inhuman when he told people they should not flee the horrible situation, they should die instead. I can fully understand that reason for disliking him intensely, whoever did so.
What confused me was one Punjabi`s argument for disliking Gandhiji which was Godse-like. I wondered about the person and others like her, that if the two communities were so estranged and she hated Muslims and blamed them for the things that happened, how would Gandhiji`s preventing Partition at a given point in time have helped her in any way? Its a difficult question to ask those who suffered in ways I cannot possibly comprehend, so I didnot. Sorry if I hurt you or anyone else by this.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun29: Pakiland is the father... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Mohar mian, Nice try but... Living Gandhi and King
- dost_mittar: pinku: I have read parts... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- Abee: Re: # 13 This reminds... Salt N Pepper
- Abee: Re: # 10 Thank you.... Salt N Pepper
- tahmed32: #320 I agree with... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- captainjohann: Mr.Geelani, You are sitting... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- MeiraJ08: #55, what happened Mr.... Fathers and Daughters
