Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Opinion Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi

Discussion in 'Breaking News' started by Admin Singh, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. Admin Singh

    Admin Singh
    Expand Collapse
    Admin SPNer

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    5,043
    Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi
    An Open Letter to Oprah Winfrey By:
    Baldev Singh

    I am writing this letter because I think of you as an enlightened person. This letter is about the statements you made during the show you dedicated to the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. In one of your statement you said something like “I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s sacrifice.” Oprah, what about those countless unknown and unsung heroes, who preceded Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. They too suffered hardships and sacrificed their lives for freedom and justice for the black people. As a matter of fact, black people revolted against slavery and started struggling for freedom the moment they were captured in Africa and the chains of slavery were put around their necks. Since that moment black people have expressed their suffering, sorrow, helplessness and burning desire for freedom and justice through their songs. That is the reason why black people have contributed so much for the creation and development of new music.
    The mentality or thinking, which was responsible for slavery, made it sure that the history of slavery and their struggle for freedom and justice is not known to the world. And if this story has to be told, then it must be told the way that “mentality” wants it to be told. There are people even today; who think that slavery was benign and slaves were happy and contented with their situation. These people also justify colonial rule by saying, “It was necessary to civilize the uncivilized.” On the contrary, it is our conviction that a civilized man doesn’t deny another man’s humanity. He doesn’t enslave another man or subjugates another man in any form or manner- politically, economically, socially and religiously.

    Deliberate efforts have been made to blot out the history of slavery and black peoples’ struggle for freedom and their contribution to human society in all walks of life. For instance, you go to any major city in the USA, you find all sorts of museums, but you don’t find the one about slavery. The US Congress was very enthusiastic about Jewish holocaust museum in Washington D. C. However, the same Congress has been unwilling so far to establish a museum about slavery. Moreover, what about a holocaust museum of native Americans, the Indians? Whereas Jewish holocaust took place in Europe, the slavery of blacks and the genocide of the native people took place in the USA. I leave up to you to draw your own conclusion. However, I believe that it takes moral courage to look into the eyes of evil, not just empty moral rhetoric.

    The emergence of Independent Africa had a major positive impact on the “black civil rights movement” in the United States and the anti apartheid movement in South Africa. It boosted the morale of these movements and brought worldwide recognition to Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela. That’s why, who knows how many “great men” were lynched in the United States and how many were tortured to death in solitary cells in South Africa before Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela, respectively.

    During that show, you compared Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. I think your information about Mahatma Gandhi is probably based on the writings of European and Hindu “myth makers” (historians). Had you known the truth about Mahatma Gandhi, you wouldn’t have said that Dr. Martin Luther King was following the policy of the great Mahatma Gandhi. I think it is disgraceful to compare Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. For example, whereas Dr. King represented the aspirations of all the black people, Mahatma Gandhi represented the interest of only high caste Hindus who constituted 10-12% of the Indian population. Whereas Dr. King appealed to all Americans to rise above their prejudices of race, religion and gender to form a just society, Mahatma Gandhi was the mastermind behind the partition of India into two nations, one Hindu and the other Muslim. Here are some of the facts about Mahatma Gandhi.

    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in the state of Gujrat in Baniya caste whose occupation is business. After obtaining a law degree from England he returned to India. However, after a short stay he decided to move to South Africa where he thought he could make more money. A large number of Indians from Gujrat State were brought to South Africa as indentured servants. Being a caste conscious Hindu, he looked down upon the natives. He used to say; “I can see why a white man discriminates against an African, but why against us. We Indians have the same values, the white man has.” Besides, his law practice, he worked for the British army recruiting Indians during the Boer War and the Zulu rebellion. He was the commander of an ambulance corps made up of Indians.

    The Bolshevik revolution of 1914 in Russia inspired worldwide nationalist movements against colonialism and dictatorships. To sabotage Indian national movement, the British colonists brought Gandhi to India. What the “myth makers” don’t tell is that the Indian National Congress Party, which was later on controlled by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British Government and it was dominated by high caste Hindus, who constituted only 10-12% of the Indian population. Anybody who was considered a threat to the interest of the British or high caste Hindus was thrown out of the party. The high caste Hindus, who had control over the Indian economy, also wanted to usurp political power after the departure of the British. But there was one formidable obstacle in their path to achieve this objective. And that obstacle was the Muslim majority states of Punjab, Bengal, Sindh, Blouchistan and Northwest Frontier. To exclude these Muslim dominant states from the Indian union, the Hindu leaders of Congress Party headed by Gandhi started making provocative statements to instill doubt and fear in the minds of Muslim population that their future in independent India under the control of Hindu majority was not safe. So the Muslim leaders started asking for constitutional guarantees to safeguard their future, which the Hindu leaders were not willing to provide. Frustrated Muslim leaders asked for partition of the country to create a Muslim state. The Muslim leaders did not see the trap that the “high caste Hindus” have laid for them. They fell into that trap without realizing the impact their demand would have on the future generations of people of the Indian subcontinent. The stage was set for the partition of India into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Gandhi and his associates congratulated each other for accomplishing their objective while holding Muslims responsible for the partition of the country. This is the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi for which future generations of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would pay dearly, God knows far how long!

    The cruel and deceitful nature of Gandhi was revealed when he counseled Hindu and Sikh refugees, who came to see him in April 1947, after they were driven out of their homes following a terrible massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in the Ravalpindi area of Punjab. Gandhi asked them to go back to their homes, as he exhorted them that he wouldn’t accept the partition of the country. He kept repeating like a parrot, “I won’t allow the partition of the country. The country would be partitioned only over his dead body.” You can imagine the level of his depravity, because his Congress Party had already accepted with his blessing the partition of the country as a condition for Independence. And a few months later on August 15,1947, the Indian union was divided, in two nations, one Muslim and the other Hindu.

    The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood is the biggest fabricated lie of the 20th century.
    Up to the start of World War II, the British government categorically rejected the demand for the independence of India in the immediate future. However, the situation changed dramatically after the war. The war was so devastating to the British power that the government found it impossible to build the infra structure and economy of the homeland while coping with the growing national liberation movements in the colonies. The British government wisely decided to grant freedom to the colonies. So it wasn’t Gandhi’s movement which drove the British out of India, it was the impact of second world war, which made it impossible for the British to hold on to their Empire. Shortly after the independence of India, other colonies in Asia, Africa and Caribbean gained their independence peacefully. So what is so unique about India’s independence? Had there been no World War II, India would still be a British colony!

    The other story that the “myth makers” do not tell is that the Independence of India was marked by one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th century. Two Indian states, Punjab and Bengal were partitioned at the time of independence causing untold suffering and loss of life and property. In Punjab all most all the Hindu and Sikh population of about five millions were forced to leave their homes and properties on the Pakistan side where their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years. Similarly, about five million Muslims were forced to vacate their home and properties on the Indian side. In the ensuing communal frenzy and carnage, may be as many as one million people perished and thousands of women were kidnapped and raped. All most one third of the population of Punjab was engulfed in the inferno created by the independence of India. Of the total population of about five and half million Sikhs, about 40% were rendered homeless due to Independence. The population of Bengal was much higher than that of Punjab and you can imagine the human suffering there! The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully is a cruel joke on Punjabis and Bengalis.
    To my knowledge, only in two places, the United States of America and Ireland, the force of arms drove out the British colonists. Everywhere else the British freed the colonies peacefully. So on what ground it is claimed that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood.
    The claim that Gandhi worked for the uplift of Dalits (untouchables) is also a myth.

    Gandhi was a Hindu revivalist, who upheld every aspect of Hinduism including the caste system, which is the essence of Hinduism. His writings, speeches and statements confirm this.

    I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it.
    Harijan, 1933.

    I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one?
    Harijan, 3-6-1947.

    He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility.
    Young India, 11-24-1927.

    According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth.
    Young India, 11-14-1927.

    As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law of man’s being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace.
    Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932).

    I would resist with my life the separation of “Untouchables” from the caste Hindus. The problem of the “Untouchable” community was of comparatively little importance.
    London Round Table Conference 1931.

    I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system.
    Dharma Manthan, p 4.

    I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies in birth.
    Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77.

    The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth alone.
    Dharma Manthan, p 5.

    Caste means the predetermination of a man’s profession. Caste implies that a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood.
    Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68.

    Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him.
    Varna Vyavastha, p 15.

    I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan.
    Dharma Manthan, p 65.

    How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today.
    Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132.

    There are I am sorry to say, many Hindu temples in our midst in this country, which are no better than brothels.
    The caste system can’t be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages in different castes.
    Gandhi by Shiru, p129.

    If the Shudar (low caste) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed.
    Hind Swaraj.

    The superiority of caste and race is deeply embedded in the psyche of upper caste Hindus irrespective of their upbringing or the level of education or the place where they live. For example:

    In the words of a socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, “Nehru practiced both racism and casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook.”
    Telegraph, Calcutta, November 21, 1987.

    In a revealing passage about his “making”, Nehru wrote, “Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may be, generations of Brahmins. I cannot get rid of that past inheritance.”
    Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, (1936), Delhi, 1980, p 596.

    Sir V. S. Naipaul is a Nobel laureate in literature. His Brahmin ancestors were brought as indentured servants to Trinidad long time ago. He grew up in Trinidad and has spent most of his life in England. In his earlier work “An Area of Darkness, 1964” he was very bitter about India, probably, because his ancestors were taken out of India as indentured servants. However, later on the “Brahmin” in him stirred up and came out spewing hatred and venom. He condoned the massacre of thousands of Sikhs in June 1984, when Indra Gandhi ordered a military attack on the Golden Temple complex the very day when thousands of Sikh pilgrims had gathered there to celebrate the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev (A Million Mutinies Now, 1990). In 1992, he justified the destruction of a 400 hundred year old mosque (Babri Masjid) by Hindu mobs lead by Bhartiya Janta Party (a fascist Hindu party) because of the mistreatment of Hindus by Muslim rulers centuries back in the past. He has become the darling of Hindu fascist organizations.


    Mahatma Gandhi, whose Baniya (Vaisha) caste is two steps lower than the uppermost Brahmin caste, was a vigorous defender of the caste system.


    The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. ………Caste creates a social and moral restraint……I can find no reason for their (castes) abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma (caste system). I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it.
    Harijan, 1933.

    Gandhi’s calling “Untouchables”, as Harijans is a cruel joke on the “Untouchables’ by an insensitive and depraved man.
    Harijan literally means “child of God”. However, in India this label is used for the illegitimate children of temple girls (anchoress) fathered by priests. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables vehemently opposed Gandhi’s use of Harijans for Untouchables. Recently, Ms Mayawati, a leader of the Untouchables asked rhetorically, “If we are Harijans then what are the upper castes like Nehru, Gandhi and Patel? Are they *******s?”

    That Gandhi was an “apostle of peace” is not true.
    Gandhi was a “Hindu revivalist” and “Hindu politician” combined in one, who used nonviolence as a tool for political objectives. He used to coerce others to concede to his demands by threats of “going to fast unto death”. He was no pacifist as is shown by his stand on the issue of Kashmir.
    “One naturally thought that he would offer a nonviolent solution to the Kashmir issue and raise his moral stature. But no! He proved to be a false prophet. Seervai has documented that nonviolence with him was a political weapon. (H. M. Seervai, Partition of India, Legend and Reality, Bombay, 1989, p 172-173). He sanctioned the use of armed forces and laid the foundation of Kashmir problem which continues to haunt the subcontinent till today.”
    Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 258.

    According to Seervai, in a meeting with Viceroy, Lord Wavell on August 27 1946, Gandhi thumped the table and said, “If India wants bloodbath, she shall have it and that if bloodbath was necessary, it would come about in spite of nonviolence.” Wavell was dumbfounded at these words coming from the mouth of “apostle” of nonviolence.
    Gandhi was a very cunning man. He was not satisfied with the title of “apostle of peace”, he also wanted to project himself as a holy man, which for a Hindu required the practice of celibacy. He was a married man and proclaimed to be celibate at a relatively young age under forty. However, he used to test his celibacy by asking young girls to lie over him to find out whether he was in full control of his sexual feelings. I leave up to psychologists to analyze what was in Gandhi’s mind and what happened to the emotions of those poor girls! He was always surrounded by women.

    So what is Gandhi’s legacy to mankind? The obvious one is the partition of subcontinent into “Hindu India” and Muslim “Pakistan and Bangladesh”. These three nations are a “living hell” for minorities. For example, India which claims with pride to be the biggest democracy in the world has killed more Indians in the last fifty years than the British colonists killed in 300 hundred years. More than 95% of those killed by Hindu governments and Hindu mobs are Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Dalits (Untouchables). While the populations of these countries are groaning under the weight of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, ignorance and disease, India and Pakistan have built nuclear weapons. The next nuclear war will most probably be fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir in spite of the fact that neither India nor Pakistan has ever asked the Kashmiris what they want.
    That Hindus are peace loving and coexist peacefully with non-Hindus is also not true.

    When Talban destroyed Lord Buddha’s statue in Afghanistan, there were worldwide protests against this heinous crime against humanity. The most vociferous demonstrations and protests were held in India. However, how little did the Hindu mobs realize that the first damage to the statue was done by Hindu rulers of Afghanistan during the frenzy of Hindu revival? Buddhism flourished as a major religion in India for several centuries. However, during the Hindu revival, Buddhists were given two choices like Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition. Either convert or leave the country. Large number of Buddhists fled to neighboring countries. Those who resisted were killed, Buddhist monasteries were destroyed, monks were murdered, and nuns were raped. Buddhist literature was burnt and their religious centers were converted into Hindu centers. The famous place in Bihar State where Lord Buddha is supposed to have received his light (knowledge) is still under the control of Hindus in spite of the protests of international Bhuddist community.
    The “myth makers” keep repeating that Hindus have lived peacefully with Muslims, Christians and others for hundreds of years. What they don’t tell you is that during that period Muslims or the British ruled over the Indian Territory. But look at the attitude of Hindus towards non-Hindus when Hindus were the rulers? During the revival of Hinduism they eradicated Buddhism from the land of its birth. All other progressive movements, which opposed the caste system were either crushed or subverted. Immediately after independence in 1947, the so-called secular and liberal Hindu rulers lead by Jawahar Lal Nehru adopted an Indian Constitution, declaring “Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains” as Hindus with the stroke of a pen. The Sikhs have been protesting against this heinous crime ever since. No Hindu leader worth the name has ever protested against this abominable injustice to the minorities. Imagine! How would the minorities react if the US Congress were to pass a law declaring all minorities to be Christians?

    The word Hindu is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer.

    From my discussions with Americans about the caste system over the years, I have the impression that most of them think that caste system is like segregation or apartheid. Caste system may look like segregation or apartheid on the surface, but if one were to scratch the surface one would find that the Brahmnical caste system is the worst oppressive and exploitative system that exists on planet earth. Slavery and segregation in America and apartheid in South Africa have ended in a relatively short period, but the heinous caste system, which has been practiced in India for thousands of years, is still going strong. It is because the caste system was invented, taught, practiced and ordained by the Brahmnical (Hindu) religion. Under segregation and apartheid the black people were denied their rights and had very few opportunities for advancement in comparison to white people. However, a black person under those circumstances could become a doctor, a teacher, and a minister or choose whatever occupation was available to them. Whereas the caste is stamped on you the moment you are born. There was no escape from this watertight multistory building with no stairs or ladder. You are born and dead in the same caste, no matter how good or bad a person you are. For example, a person born in a scavenger’s family would also be a scavenger in spite of his great intelligence. He couldn’t choose any other occupation. So a scavenger’s descendents remained scavengers for thousands of years. This destroyed the creativity of the Indian population. No wonder the Hindu civilization, which is as old as the Chinese civilization has made insignificant contribution to the development of human society in comparison to the Chinese civilization.
    It is a mistake to think that Nazism was the product of Hitler’s sick mind. The roots of Nazism lie in the Hindu caste system. European colonists were intrigued by the Hindu caste system. They were astonished how Brahmins who formed about 5% of India’s population were able to exploit the rest of Indians for thousands of years by asserting their caste and racial superiority. The British used the same Brahmnical strategy, they proclaimed their racial and intellectual superiority over Indians to control their vast Empire in India. At the pinnacle of British rule, there were only about 200,000 British personnel in India. Who do you think managed the Empire? They were the brown-Englishmen (subjugated Indians) who managed the Empire.

    European writers like Max Muler were also fascinated by the Hindu caste system. They admired the way the Brahmins maintained his caste and racial superiority over thousands of years. Why shouldn’t the Europeans assert their racial and intellectual superiority the same way over black, brown, tan and yellow people? So people like Max Muler planted the seeds of racial superiority on he European soil. Others like him nurtured the seedlings and plants came into full blossom under Hitler. It is no coincidence that the Nazis used swastika, a propitious Brahmin symbol as the emblem of the Nazi party.
    I am willing to debate these issues with any one, anywhere and on any stage.

    With deep regards.

    Baldev Singh
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Martin Luther King: The Story behind His "I have a dream" Speech Interfaith Dialogues Jan 20, 2014
    Opinion Photos: 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech Breaking News Aug 31, 2013
    Canada Businessman, Martin Singh, Running for NDP Leadership Breaking News Oct 19, 2011
    Confucianism Confucious and Martin Buber; Understanding Goodness Interfaith Dialogues Jul 11, 2011
    Martin Luther King: Letter from a Birmingham Jail Interfaith Dialogues Jan 16, 2011

  3. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,989
    I hope there are other Sikhs who can fill into Baldev Singh's shoes because Sikhi needs people like him to continue towards the dawn of Sat- Truth without caring about the circumstances because Sat- Truth itself is the mean to the end.

    Bravo, Baldev Singh! We, Sikhs are indebted to your dedication, foresight, bravura in simplifying the intricacies of life and uncovering and thus sharing the manufactured falsehoods etched as "Truth" in stone in the minds of many.

    I hope and pray that the new crop of Sikhs may be able to fill the void that you have left behind.

    Tejwant Singh
     
  4. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    14,551
    Likes Received:
    19,200
    Yes, we have a long wait for leadership and intellect commensurate with that of Dr. Baldev Singh.

    I am really knocked over by this thread. What an act of pure courage to write such a letter. And that letter is completely reflective of Dr. Baldev Singh's immense grasp of issues, and effort toward supplying many many supporting details as evidence. The letter has his watermark, without a doubt.

    I am curious. Did Ms. Winfrey every acknowledge or respond to this, either publicly or privately. It takes a lot of courage to tear the mask off the face of myth.
     
  5. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    Not that I want to argue with any of his points but I think it would be better for Sikhs and Sikh youth to concentrate on Sikhism and the troubles that it has instead of Hinduism and trouble it has or caused anyone else. I have no problem with the criticism as a debate is a good thing but looking at this board itself, Sikhs have alot of their own issues to solve which need debate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    Aus Desi ji

    I Totaly agree with you on this point.I don't understand why many sikhs are so much concerned about Hinduism and Bashing it left and right.
     
  7. Admin Singh

    Admin Singh
    Expand Collapse
    Admin SPNer

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    5,043
    Being a human, Human Rights violation is matter of grave concern for everybody on this earth, doesn't matter if it happens in the disguise of caste system!! Agreed! Sikhs are in troubled wateres on may issues but that does not mean that we should become blind to such harsh realities of life.

    A Sikh is supposed to be at the forefront of illuminating a social curse like the Caste System but the fact of the matter is, we ourselves indulge in Caste'ism.

    But first solution to any problem is to acknowledge its existence at first place.

    Regards
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    It was acknowledged castecism is a Hindu problem more than 300 or so years ago YET Sikhism still has caste problems. I believe all this research into Hinduism's caste problem is just another way to bash Hindu religion rather than fix the problem in Sikhism.

    If this problem is fixed through a debate then that might save people going to stupid deras and creating worse problem for Sikhis and Non-Sikhs alike in Punjab.
     
  9. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    I agree that Human rights voilation is a grave concerned but then why we sikhs are silent on Kashmiri pandits,Bangladeshi hindu's where their population decilined from 22.7% to 8.5% present,Sri lankan Tamils and on Tibetan buddhists too .

    Also Whenever there is criticism it should be backed by prooves which should be accepted by non sikhs too.No Doubt Gandhi was Ziddi and use to beleive in his theories.but one cannot say that He was fanatic Hindu.He was kIlled by Fanatic hindu for not supporting Hindu cause.in the article it is also written that Gandhi blessed the Partition ,while it is well known that in 1947 Gandhi was powerless in congress and Nehru ,and Patel were main Leaders.
    Gandhi's pro muslim policies are also well known and He did not want muslims to leave India.As I said in another thread that we can still see large number
    of Delhi muslims in Old delhi but we cannot see large number of Hindu and sikhs in Lahore or Rawalpindi.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Admin Singh

    Admin Singh
    Expand Collapse
    Admin SPNer

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,978
    Likes Received:
    5,043
    My apologies if this topic pinched you so much... but i think the framework of this topic was meant to be like this...

    Your concerns about Sikh issues is well taken and we would like to inform you that we are aware of all these problem facing Sikhs but we do not feel intimidated acknowledging them... Sikhs have shown the guts to even question and challenge the authority of corrupt officials exploiting the supreme temporal authority of Sri Akal Takht Sahib and we have not even tried to cover such topics under the carpet.

    You can read so many topics here hitting the psyche of a common Sikh. There is no other Sikh forum on internet that is open to discussing issues plaguing Sikhs other than SPN.

    I wonder, how many topics you can quote at SPN that you can accuse of bashing Hinduism, you are playing naive by generalizing. If pin-pointing a problem amounts to bashing then i afraid there can be no solution to these problem plaguing Hinduism.

    This topic was intentionally posted in Opinion's forum instead of Hinduism section as everybody is entitled to his/her opinions. :)
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. Tejwant Singh

    Tejwant Singh United States
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    6,989
    I think many of us our missing the point and mixing apples and oranges. This essay by late Dr. Baldev Singh is written as an open letter to to Oprah Winfrey where she compared Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi as far as peaceful means to get things done is concerned. Dr. King did go to India and met Gandhi. But many forget that this non-violence- ahimsa was the only ploy that Gandhi could play because he knew that Hindus were very weak to take arms against the Brits and the upper crust of Hindus did not want to do that and at the same time they had no tools to gather all the low caste Hindus whom they abhorred to become rebels against the Brits.

    Dr. Baldev Singh explained in details the difference between slavery, Holocaust of the Jews and of the Native Americans, all of those occurred in the hands of the Europeans and what truly took place in India.

    Brits, very cunningly recruited all the fighting tribes of India into separate regiments and gave them identity and shipped them abroad to fight for them. eg. Sikh, Sikhli, Rajput, Gurkha, Maratha etc. etc.

    So, all there were left were poor farmers and let us not forget that Gandhi was shipped to Gujarat from South Africa far away from Bengal, UP, Delhi and Punjab where the minds of intellect were centered.

    Dr. Baldev Singh has quoted Gandhi himself regarding his adoration and acceptance of caste System. If someone has other quotes from him or an opposing view, he/she is free to bring this forward and write about it here.

    The question regarding, why many Muslims are still in India and treated well, ( we had a Muslim ex -president) and why the remaining Hindus and Sikhs and people of other minorities are treated so badly in Pakistan has a very simple justification. Hindus, Sikhs are very accepting to other religions. There are no kafirs, infidels or non- believers in these schools of thoughts but Islam is based on this inherent hatred or rejection of other religions.The country was divided into two- India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Indian constitution put Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists as part of Hindus where as Muslims and Christians remained as people from separate religions.

    This was a very cunning move to suppress the minorities rather than giving them the freedom to be what they really are and it is still true till today.

    So, to the objectors, please write something showing the other side with concrete references that Dr. Baldev Singh did not show, then only a healthy discussion can occur and mere rhetoric can be stopped.

    Tejwant Singh
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    Aman singh ji

    First let me clarify that this Article do not pinched me at all.in no way I was pointing out at SPN for hindu bashing. I was just referring to sikh literature which I see available on
    many sikh sites
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    I am no fan of Gandhi neither I think anyone is here.I don't care whether he beleive in caste system or not.But does beleif in caste system make him a fanatic hindu,i think no
    We have to look at his entire life and his policies.Here are the words of killer of Gandhi Nathuram Godse that why he killed him

    Kayastha E-Club
    WHY I KILLED GANDHI?

    User Rating: / 23
    PoorBest Listen this article

    Why I killed Gandhi ? Godse's Original words in the court during the proceedings
    When I was searching for the R'day topics my web search lead me to many interesting subjects. One shock I got is on reading Godse's last official words ... Even the people who had gathered in court room were strongly felt for him. The judge who convicted Nathuram was on record saying that had the public been the jury, Nathuram Godse would have been surely aquitted. - Harish

    In the pic (L to R) :Nathuram Godse, Narayan Apte and Vishnu Karkare
    Here is his speach ...

    " Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.

    I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

    All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to
    render true service to humanity as well.

    Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, hunour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would
    consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the
    revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.

    In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and
    non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

    The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was
    the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail'
    was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.

    Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their
    intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.

    Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a ******* tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his
    desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

    From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and
    abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but
    Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established
    with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.

    One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.

    Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.

    Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.

    I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a
    leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.

    I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day
    in future. "
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page