Case Reopened: Killing Father of India

[Lurker]

That exactly is what I emphasized. The blood thirsty pathans were converted to the Gandhian way which was essentially a "Hindu" thought. Non violence is a nuclear aspect of Indian/Hindu thought and these people including Khan were more or less converted to our thought. But this doesnt change the fact that muslims historically had been using force and violence for their goals and ends. Only for the cause of freedom they were united under Mahatma Gandhi ( largely due to Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) ' date=' but when it came to Hindu muslim violence, Gandhi could not convince them in pakistan to stop violence or even in the cause of partition based on a theocratic state. The roots lie in certain behavioral patterns of Muslims when religion is concerned.[/quote'] And that is exactly as I expected. You are quick to write, and I quote - This exactly is the reason why his fast unto death moves worked wonders with the Hindu masses, and had little or no effect on Muslims - and when your bluff is caught, instead of admitting your mistake you will try to swing it as Khan Ghaffar Khan being a convert yada yada. Straight question to you- Did ahmisa and Satyagraha work with Pathan Muslims or not. Give me a straight yes and no. xxxx

[Guest HariSampath]

And that is exactly as I expected. You are quick to write, and I quote - This exactly is the reason why his fast unto death moves worked wonders with the Hindu masses, and had little or no effect on Muslims - and when your bluff is caught, instead of admitting your mistake you will try to swing it as Khan Ghaffar Khan being a convert yada yada. Straight question to you- Did ahmisa and Satyagraha work with Pathan Muslims or not. Give me a straight yes and no. xxxx

Let me explain to you as 6 year old. mahatma gandhi never offered sathyagraha against muslims. I had mentioned very clearly that his "fasts unto death" were never directed at muslims, had no effect on them and would never have any effect on them, as they gave two hoots for Gandhi when it came to their religion/theocrtatic state. Only Hindus cared for Gandhi and hence he always directed these at them.

[Guest HariSampath]

Ahimsa and sathyagraha worked with Pathan muslims when it was against britishers but NOT against Hindus clear ???

[Lurker]

Let me explain to you as 6 year old.

It took you 3 posts to get to personal insults? Man you must be making progress.

mahatma gandhi never offered sathyagraha against muslims.

So what was Mahatma Gandhi doing in a Muslim dominated area at Noakholi in 1947 riots? What was an aged man with no weapons doing in an area where Hindus had been butchered and Hindu Mahasabha leaders had ran with tails between their legs.

I had mentioned very clearly that his "fasts unto death" were never directed at muslims, had no effect on them and would never have any effect on them, as they gave two hoots for Gandhi when it came to their religion/theocrtatic state.

Mental, moral and intellectual bankruptcy at bay. Muslim Pathans of NWFP descended down at Peshawar to save Hindus when they were being butchered by Muslims. Muslim Pathans of NWFP faced guns and rampaging British officers in a show of non-violence at Kissa Khawani Bazaar(look it up if you want to rid yourself of bitterness) leading a british officer to claim - The only thing worse than a Pathan is a non-violent Pathan. So yes Muslim Pathans came hugely under gandhi's influence. Something that folks like you dont understand, realize or admit. But hey its out there, just look for it. Now start acting your age and stop insinuating my age. Fair? xxx

[CC1981]

Sad that the fundamentalist psycophants who'd murdered one of the greatest men of the 20th century are now succeeding in brainwashing the public in their hinduvta superiority claptrap. Hari- your idea that hindus never engaged in violence to get their way is PATENTLY INCORRECT. Sure, they havn't been as bloodthirsty as muslims in historic sense but they have had their own share of religious warfare, genocides and ethnic cleansing throughout history. Decline of Buddhism in north India was largely due to Islamic invasions and genocide but the second biggest cause were hindu fascists usurping power and terrorizing the monks. Since the last great North Indian empire was a Bengali empire ( Pal empire) and their fascist hindu usurpers also 'naturalized Bengalis' ( the Sen dynasty,who were originally from Karnataka), there is extensive documentation of this in early Bengali literature. if i were to draw a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is barbarian and 10 is civilized, i'd rank Islam at 1, Hinduism at 6 and Buddhism/Jainism at 9.5 Ahimsa is NOT a concept in ancient hinduism- where there is no categoric example of ahimsa in the mahabharat or ramayan. Ahimsa was incorporated in Hinduism due to the pacifist influence of Jains and Buddhists on hinduism and those two religions growing in popularity to become more than 50% of subcontinent population between 300 BC and 900 AD.

[Guest HariSampath]

Ahimsa is NOT a concept in ancient hinduism- where there is no categoric example of ahimsa in the mahabharat or ramayan

Hindu thought is MUCH more ancient than the Ramayana era and mahabharat era, respect for human life, divinity of everything in nature never to harm others and most importantly "ananya chintana"..that is think of everyone else as yourself is fundamental to hinduism and therein is Ahimsa defined...moreover the only religion that discusses the nature of karma and the karmic retribution clearly outlines what is done to others will have repurcussions and so Ahimsa is a very fundamental concept. Also, the ancient sages, rishis had all exponded the theory of desisting from cruelty for spiritual practices. mahabharata is replete with stories of cruelty and its punishments. And finally, Ramayana being written by Valmiki itself was a result of this. Valmiki a hunter, sees two birds , and kills one of them and laughs in delight at the wailing pitiful agony of its partner. Sage Narada sees this and asks him if he were aware what awaited him in his next birth for such mindless cruelty, and intructs valmiki to repeat "Ma Ra"....and that beacomes the chant Rama, transforming Valmiki into a great sage who later writes the Ramayan

[CC1981]

Hindu thought is MUCH more ancient than the Ramayana era and mahabharat era

Again, based on what ? Pure claim and conjecture ? There isn't even proper dates or enough historicity in the ramayana & mahabharata to even BEGIN postulating how old the vedic culture is/was. Ramayana/Mahabharata events could easily predate the creation of Vedas for all you know. There is NO CLEAR heirarchy in hindu scriptures, except for linguistic analysis-which is very shaky on archaic sanskrit & proto-sanskrit due to lack of material evidence. And even then linguistic analysis points to 1500 BC period for the vedas and the mahabharatas/ramayanas, if they have even one shred of historic credibility,have to be older.

moreover the only religion that discusses the nature of karma and the karmic retribution clearly outlines what is done to others will have repurcussions and so Ahimsa is a very fundamental concept.

Err no, not the ONLY religion. Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism all have the concept of KARMA in it. And FYI, Jainism has no dates on its foundation either- so who knows, Jainism could be the mother of all religions.

Also, the ancient sages, rishis had all exponded the theory of desisting from cruelty for spiritual practices. mahabharata is replete with stories of cruelty and its punishments.

Dude, 'do not be cruel' is NOT ahimsa in its concept- otherwise, almost every religion in the world, including tribal practices would have ahimsa in it,since they ALL pretty much mention 'dont be cruel' in their tenets.

And finally, Ramayana being written by Valmiki itself was a result of this. Valmiki a hunter, sees two birds , and kills one of them and laughs in delight at the wailing pitiful agony of its partner. Sage Narada sees this and asks him if he were aware what awaited him in his next birth for such mindless cruelty, and intructs valmiki to repeat "Ma Ra"....and that beacomes the chant Rama, transforming Valmiki into a great sage who later writes the Ramayan

Again, a nice story, with very little historicity in it. Could easily have been the author's embellishments to enhance his own reputation- a feat not unknown amongst authors of ALL types. Anyways, i can accept that hinduism had a deeper connection to pacifism than most other religions but i think its concept of Ahmisa is developed more of less by interaction with Jainism and Buddhism. One thing that is a trademark of the arrogant/ignorant hindu is to completely write off Buddhism and Jainism as 'same as Hinduism' when infact they are NOT, as well as totally disregard the phenomenon of thought-exchange and philsophy exchange between major religions such as Jainism,Buddhism & Hinduism.

[Guest HariSampath]

Jainism and Buddhism are millenia behind the Vedas and even Ramayana and Mahabharata have mentions of Veda, Vedic rituals etc . So Vedas predate the Ramayan era and Mahabharat era comfortably. Gautama Buddha and mahavira were largely influenced by Hindu Dharma and that is a purely Vedic concept, and yes "dont be cruel" is as old as Vedas, and no way it was started after Buddhism and jainism which are basically flavored aspects of Hinduism

[Guest HariSampath]

Just check astronomical dating of the Mahabharata era based on astronmical positions in the narration and events like eclipses etc, it has been a mostly accepted guess it could have been in the 3300 BCE period.

[CC1981]

Jainism and Buddhism are millenia behind the Vedas and even Ramayana and Mahabharata have mentions of Veda, Vedic rituals etc .

That again, is hindu twist to the tale. Fact is, the Ramayana & Mahabharata WE know are hindu versions, due to hindu resurgence coinciding with Islamic invasions while the Hindus were already aggressive towards Buddhists and Jains. How hard is it for you to wrap your mind around the FACT that for nearly 1000 years, Hinduism was NOT even 50% of India's religious following ? Besides, the Ramayanas and Mahabharatas are mentioned in Buddhist and Jain versions too- with certain diffrences. One version quotes Laxmana as the third brother and Bharata as 2nd brother to Ram. Your version of Ramayana & Mahabharata are not the last say in the matter, since Mahabharata and Ramayana in Buddhist and Jain version exist as well. While you can claim that the Buddhist version is more recent and thus MAY be altered from the original (though it doesnt necessarily have to be so), that claim falls FLAT against Jainism, because as i said, Jainism is also another indic religion that cannot be dated to a founder and is equally ancient.

Gautama Buddha and mahavira were largely influenced by Hindu Dharma and that is a purely Vedic concept, and yes "dont be cruel" is as old as Vedas, and no way it was started after Buddhism and jainism which are basically flavored aspects of Hinduism

You have zero idea of Buddhism or Jainism, which is why you say it to be a flavour of Hinduism, along with your arrogant and totally baseless FAITH in Hinduism (not facts). Buddhism for example, flat out says GOD IS IRRELEVANT, while Hinduism does NOT reject the concept of God in its FUNDAMENTAL works. Furthermore, Buddhism is a far more concise and consistent core of philosophies than Hinduism is. Not to mention, EVERY single Buddhist text points out that Siddharta achieved enlightenment only after REJECTING all prevailing concepts- so it obviously rules out Hinduism from its core too. This is not just a claim- there are many Buddhist texts(which i suspect you have very little understanding of, really) where these differences and why Siddharta REJECTED those vedic concepts are reasoned out. You cannot claim that 'he is influenced by it' when he is rejecting it and demonstrating the reasons for his rejection! Furthermore, Hinduism purely invented the story of Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu in its age-old attempt to swallow another religion/philosophy and keep limping around, since Both Jain & Buddhist texts record that Buddha categorically said that he is not an incarnation of any being. Secondly, Jainism was not founded by Mahavira, he was the last Tirthankar of Jainism. Jainism's founder too, is unknown and even Buddhist texts mention that Jainism is 'as old as India itself' in its commentary about Jainism. There is HISTORIC evidence of Jain tirthankars before Mahavira too-atleast one that i know of. So, this whole 'Jainism is an offshoot of hinduism' is just hindu superiorist arrogance and ignorance. As per Buddhism- yes, it can also be argued that it was influenced by Hinduism but it was also heavily influenced by Jainism - more than it was in Hinduism and all Buddhist philosophies are far more consistent with Jain philosophies than Hindu philosophies. But i have no problems saying Hinduism influenced Buddhism- or rather, Buddha took Dharma to a higher level of definition, clarity and preciseness, thus essentially being a more evolved product than Hinduism. Ie, if Hinduism is the WWII fighter, Buddhism is the F-16: a leaner,more efficient, more evolved product.

Just check astronomical dating of the Mahabharata era based on astronmical positions in the narration and events like eclipses etc, it has been a mostly accepted guess it could have been in the 3300 BCE period.

Those dates, are by no means, cast in stone or authentic- there are already a host of dates proposed from such imprecise 'astronomical positioning' -1900 BC and 5000+ BC are another two dates computed through the same old method. Not to mention, the particular method is not very robust in its scientific analysis or logical method. Not to mention, it still leaves a rather large loophole into the situation, since it can be argued easily that hindu fanatics post-scripted those dates in the last 1500 years, when astronomy was already a highly evolved science in India and hinduism was making its comeback. PS: I invite you to debate Buddhism with me- i have been reading into it for years now and i can easily hold my own in a discusson about Buddhist philosophy. I want this debate with you, since i am not yet willing to write you off as an 'arrogant hinduvta superiorist' and give you the chance to demonstrate that you actually KNOW something about Buddhism before you glibly (and quite laughably) dismissed it as a 'flavour' of Hinduism. And if you want to find reason why there are hindu-buddhist clashes in India and have been in the past, take into consideration that such arrogant hinduvta attitudes doesn't sit well with us Buddhists. Also realize that by aleanating us Buddhists, you are not only alienating a Dharma out of India ( YES, it is a seperate Dharma, NOT a part of HInduism), you are also alienating the ONLY Indian dharma to have a significant presence globally (outside of desi immigrant communities i mean). Good job, really. Well played!

[Guest HariSampath]

Ok, CC, I shall accept your invitation to debate Buddhism, but only in the context of how similar it is to Hindu thought in its evolution. I am unprepared to engage in any discussion of "religion" by your definition as these definitions are at best subjective and ambiguous; I always refer to the ideas/concepts , that is why I always refer to "Hindu thought"...since your concept of Hinduism appears to be a textbook of 15th century and later definition and mine is based on something called Sanathana Dharma which is the undiluted and original form of Hinduism as it is called in recent centuries.. Start a religious thread and I shall take it up there.

[CC1981]

Ok, CC, I shall accept your invitation to debate Buddhism, but only in the context of how similar it is to Hindu thought in its evolution.

Ofcourse it is similar.But simillar and same are two very different things. Not to mention, there has been a lot of inter-exchange of ideas leading to a growth of similarity in the classc age.

.since your concept of Hinduism appears to be a textbook of 15th century and later definition and mine is based on something called Sanathana Dharma which is the undiluted and original form of Hinduism as it is called in recent centuries..

Eh ? no, your definition is based on dismissal of other Indic religions and clubbing them together with Hinduism. A bit like a jew showing up and saying christianity and islam being just a little different flavour of Judaism.

[Lurker]

Ahimsa is NOT a concept in ancient hinduism- where there is no categoric example of ahimsa in the mahabharat or ramayan. Ahimsa was incorporated in Hinduism due to the pacifist influence of Jains and Buddhists on hinduism and those two religions growing in popularity to become more than 50% of subcontinent population between 300 BC and 900 AD.

CC, It would be impossible to say with any sense of confidence if ahimsa is a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jain "invention". The reason is rather straight forward, Indian history is very limited when it comes to being written down. So it is not at all plausible to say Buddhist invented ahmisa, just as it would be impossible to say Hindus invented it. However what we can say with enough conviction is that ahmisa is certainly a philosphy that all the three religions have incorporated and pound for pound Jainism and Buddhism have been lot more influnced by it than Hinduism. You bring out a good point about India was Buddhist majority at one time. This is indeed true, though much to the dislike of Hindutva brigade. What is also interesting to note is that most of India's account of ancient era is down to Buddhist travellers, or travellers from Buddhist country(mainly China), who came to India to learn. They would return back with treasure drove of knowledge and write it down. This written down texts form a vital cog in understanding Indian history. Who is to say that if the Buddhist influence was not there(and say Hinduism was) there would be same level of interaction between the two countries? Maybe we would have never known how India was in say 5th century! xxx

[head coach]

That exactly is what I emphasized. The blood thirsty pathans were converted to the Gandhian way which was essentially a "Hindu" thought. Non violence is a nuclear aspect of Indian/Hindu thought and these people including Khan were more or less converted to our thought. But this doesnt change the fact that muslims historically had been using force and violence for their goals and ends. Only for the cause of freedom they were united under Mahatma Gandhi ( largely due to Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) ' date=' but when it came to Hindu muslim violence, Gandhi could not convince them in pakistan to stop violence or even in the cause of partition based on a theocratic state. The roots lie in certain behavioral patterns of Muslims when religion is concerned.[/quote'] Religious compatibilities (being a Hindu) alone do not explain Gandhi’s success in India. Lurker's example of Pathan's in Northern frontier or British India is one example. Martin Luther King Jr. lead this in America in civil righs movement. Even in totalitarian systems, there have been instances of similar resistance 1. Norwegian resistance during the Nazi occupation 2. there was a massive nonviolent defiance which included women in Jena sitting down in front of Russian tanks 3. strikes in political prisoners’ camps in the Soviet Union 1953, which are credited with being a major influence for improving the lot of prisoners; 4. and the major aspects of the Hungarian revolution, 1956-57, in which in addition to the military battles there was demonstrated the power of the general strike, the large-scale popular nonviolent defiance. Hari, these examples above offer ample proof that nonviolent action is possible, not only beyond a Hindu cultural context but also against totalitarian systems that pay little heed to the niceties of democratic procedures. So your stand of non-violence as a Hindu thought is bogus!

[head coach]

That being the case I am sure RSS people will completely understand if one of these days a Muslim who has lost his family in Gujarat riot shoots Narendra Modi dead publicly. On the topic of Nathuram Godse why is this effer getting a thread in himself? The man shot the ONLY Indian freedom fighter who stood his ground when the whole country was in flame(1947). How many Indian freedom herors - from Nehru to Rajendra Prasad, Jinnah to Suhrawardi - stood their ground and fought(non-violently at that!) to bring down thr riots in the country? And which other Hindu leader did Muslims listen to at this time? Gandhi was the greatest son of India of 19th/20th century and I have no remote respect for a effer who had the galls to shoot an elderly 70ish unarmed greatest son of India. xxx

Lurker, this thread is not to highlight Godse or his misdeeds rather to show to the world that how Hindu Mahasabha headed by Savarkar orchestrated the killing of a genuine leader who worked for the unity of Hindu-Muslim Communities. The Sangh Parivar has, after long years of public silence on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar - the originator of the concept of "Hindutva", a `freedom fighter' who repeatedly gave undertakings and apologies to the British Raj to get out of harsh incarceration, and a conspirator in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination - brought him out of the closet as one of its heroes, as the original `Hindu nationalist'. Savarkar's photo was unveiled in Parliament hall by previous Government. This type of actions are a shame. Young generation is unaware and hears half truth from the new set of leaders and go behind them.

[CC1981]

What is also interesting to note is that most of India's account of ancient era is down to Buddhist travellers, or travellers from Buddhist country(mainly China), who came to India to learn.

Chinese travellers ( Xuan Zeng, Fa Hsing, etc) were the best source of information from 200 BC-600 AD period, primarily because little or nothing of Persian empire's writings survive from the Sassanid Era, due to Islamization of Persia. However, there is extremely rich (though as of today, very little explored and largely unknown to desi scholars) source of Indian history in the malaccan archipelago (ie, the zillions of islands strewn between Sumatra and Phillipnes),not to mention, Indo-China region. There is also fragments of Indian history/culture from pre-Sassanid Perisa, primarily from the Achaemenid and Selucid eras, where they etched stuff in stone as a memorandum. Recently, i discovered a bit of 'forgotten Indian history' - i have a few Filipino friends here and they told me that the word for 'foreigner' in Tagalog is 'Kaling'. This perked my curiosity and i went info-hunting through the vast Vancouver Public Library system. ( where there are lakhs and lakhs of books- from all topics, engineering & astrophysics to literature, basically, to use a Kolkata analogy, it is College Street + Book fair in a library system) Turns out that the word 'Kaling' is a direct derivative of the word 'Kalinga' and that Kalinga was a great ancient power before Ashoka reduced it to rubble. Its republican framework of government is atleast as old as greek republican city-states in the greek classical age and its location (more or less where modern day state of Orissa is) giving it prime control over the Bay of Bengal and India-to-east trade. The Kalingans traded extensively and there is little information on them but what jot of information there is,potrays Kalinga as the 'Carthage of India' - modest land forces and significant land holdings but the ruler of the seas. Or atleast, Bay of Bengal all the way to the Thai/South-China coast. Their excellent naval tradition and trade-heavy society meant that Kalingans went far and wide into east and south-east asia, so much so that the word for 'foreigner' became 'Kaling' in some of these languages. This little bit of history got confirmed (for me) when i saw architectural evidence- ie, many of the temples and palaces of Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc. showing the distinct 'Kalingan style architecture', the prime example of which in India is the Konarak Temple. However, it must be said that the height of Kalingan architecture, atleast that we know of, is not in India but in Indonesia, where the Prambanan temple complex resides. The conquest of Kalinga shattered the Kalingan power once and for all but after a brief gap, they resumed their trade activities to the eastern seas under the Mauryan, Guptan etc. dynasties, since the Kalingans were still the most knowledgable about the eastern seas and the customs of the people living in that part of the world. Not until the rise of Chola naval power, somewhere in the 900-1000 AD period, did the Kalingans take a back seat to this scene of trade & cultural contact.

[Lurker]

Recently, i discovered a bit of 'forgotten Indian history' - i have a few Filipino friends here and they told me that the word for 'foreigner' in Tagalog is 'Kaling'.

Wow that is interesting. I suppose it is similar to the way foreigners(specially white skinned) were called firangis in India. The term - Kaling - obviously means a good connection between India and that part of the world. Kalinga of course being modern Orissa in India.