• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

British Raj

prasad1

Well-known member
This is my editorial and personal view.
I hated the British for colonizing India until 1973. Then I went to England to study and work. I enjoyed the work and company of Indians who had started to command respect in the UK. Indians dominated the health systems.
But I also met Britishers who had a fond memory of their stay in India. I visited the museums in the UK and was thankful for the British who had saved so much of India's History. Having visited Indian museums, the UK museums were an eye-opener. Agreed that they might have stolen most of it, but generally, it was the "Indians" who sold it to them.
This History may be biased as it is from ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA


British raj, period of direct British rule over the Indian subcontinent from 1858 until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947. The raj succeeded management of the subcontinent by the British East India Company, after general distrust and dissatisfaction with company leadership, resulted in a widespread mutiny of sepoy troops in 1857, causing the British to reconsider the structure of governance in India. The British government took possession of the company’s assets and imposed direct rule. The raj was intended to increase Indian participation in governance, but the powerlessness of Indians to determine their own future without the consent of the British led to an increasingly adamant national independence movement.

The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857
In late March 1857, a sepoy (Indian soldier) in the employ of the East India Company named Mangal Pandey attacked British officers at the military garrison in Barrackpore. He was arrested and then executed by the British in early April. Later in April sepoy troopers at Meerut, having heard a rumor that they would have to bite cartridges that had been greased with the lard of pigs and cows (forbidden for consumption by Muslims and Hindus, respectively) to ready them for use in their new Enfield rifles, refused the cartridges. As punishment, they were given long prison terms, fettered, and put in jail. This punishment incensed their comrades, who rose on May 10, shot their British officers and marched to Delhi, where there were no European troops. There the local sepoy garrison joined the Meerut men, and by nightfall, the aged pensionary Mughal emperor Bahādur Shah II had been nominally restored to power by a tumultuous soldiery. The seizure of Delhi provided a focus and set the pattern for the whole mutiny, which then spread throughout northern India. With the exception of the Mughal emperor and his sons and Nana Sahib, the adopted son of the deposed Maratha Peshwa, none of the important Indian princes joined the mutineers. The mutiny officially came to an end on July 8, 1859.

 

prasad1

Well-known member
Aftermath of the mutiny
The immediate result of the mutiny was a general housecleaning of the Indian administration. The East India Company was abolished in favour of the direct rule of India by the British government. In concrete terms, this did not mean much, but it introduced a more personal note into the government and removed the unimaginative commercialism that had lingered in the Court of Directors. The financial crisis caused by the mutiny led to a reorganization of the Indian administration’s finances on a modern basis. The Indian army was also extensively reorganized.


Another significant result of the mutiny was the beginning of the policy of consultation with Indians. The Legislative Council of 1853 had contained only Europeans and had arrogantly behaved as if it were a full-fledged parliament. It was widely felt that a lack of communication with Indian opinion had helped to precipitate the crisis. Accordingly, the new council of 1861 was given an Indian-nominated element. The educational and public works programs (roads, railways, telegraphs, and irrigation) continued with little interruption; in fact, some were stimulated by the thought of their value for the transport of troops in a crisis. But insensitive British-imposed social measures that affected Hindu society came to an abrupt end.


Finally, there was the effect of the mutiny on the people of India themselves. Traditional society had made its protest against the incoming alien influences, and it had failed. The princes and other natural leaders had either held aloof from the mutiny or had proved, for the most part, incompetent. From this time all serious hope of a revival of the past or an exclusion of the West diminished. The traditional structure of Indian society began to break down and was eventually superseded by a Westernized class system, from which emerged a strong middle class with a heightened sense of Indian nationalism.

 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 (#1)

This happened more due to religious considerations of Hindus and Muslims Left liberals called it - 1st War of Independence.

Same with Malabr / Moppla revolt which is (Khilafat) to defend Caliphate in Turkey - initially supported by Gandhi . Now the left liberals says it was national upheaval against British Raj.

In Karnataka again the same story - you have Tippu Jayanthi !

The history is Secularized in Secular India!
 

kannan

Member
All that happen are with HIS knowledge, as per HIS will and are for good. The changes happening in the World is inevitable. However, the lessons learned from the past should benefit the present and the future for which both wisdom & actions are necessary. Often digging out the past lead to mental storms to avenge, to take pride or to condemn. In the present scenerio we must look around what happens today through the lense of Dharmic principles those aim at universal welbeing. There are both good and bad aspects in all actions and more good happening to more (including all living and non living) score better. Let there be more such topics for healthy discussions not only for better awareness but for better organised and consistent actions, too.
 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
All that happen are with HIS knowledge, as per HIS will and are for good

Let there be more such topics for healthy discussions not only for better awareness but for better organised and consistent actions, too.(#5)

One such topic as per your desire !

Malabar rebellion


They reveal the multifarious nature of the movement.
As the controversy over the 1921 Malabar rebellion is raging, the accounts of the turbulent times chronicled by freedom fighter K.P. Kesava Menon in The Hindu a century ago bring to light the multifarious nature of the movement


While Menon praised Moplahs for their enthusiasm to join the Khilafat movement and Congress committees during the pre-rebellion days, he also provided a critical account of the forced conversion of a Thiyya woman of Nilambur in the note, ‘Forced Conversion,’ ‘the Calicut Case,’ published on July 6, 1922.

 

kannan

Member
When we view an in incident in isolation which hurts some physically or mentally, it will sound painful. However, if we can seen from a global angle, every action and reaction are meant to shape the life on the earth in the right direction imparting wisdom to embarace the good. It calls for sensitivity from all around which can be achieved only through constant endeavour such as this that every one knows the truth about the past and do his part towards making necessary corrections for a peaceful co-existance.
In this context I recollect a dialogue expressing wonder as to Why GOD does not punish the non-believers and the wise man's clarification that He has created you to test you as to how best you care for others than to asses how much you believe in Him. Ones final score is measured by his own Karma and more you live for others better are your scores.
The popular phrase `Dharmo rakshathi Rakshitaaha' as we all know simply means Your goods deeds will protect you (hoping if every one does his good deed well peace and happiness will prevail).
What is meant here is we should also think and speak of Dharma as we discuss black side of human blunders so that it will inspire the readers and their successtors to tread the path of Dharma (the righteous deeds for peace and happiness for all).
 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
The popular phrase `Dharmo rakshathi Rakshitaaha' as we all know simply means Your goods deeds will protect you (hoping if every one does his good deed well peace and happiness will prevail).(#7)

Gandhi supports Kilafat!


Dr Ambedkar on Kilafat


Dr. Ambedkar was adept in understanding the mindset of political Islam and he rightly evaluated the Malabar Rebellion, popularly known as Moplah Rebellion, as an outbreak to establish the Kingdom of Islam in Malabar by overthrowing the British Government and non-believer Hindus. But Marxist historians painted these upheavals as insurgences against landlords and colonial rulers, in tune with their class war theory. Thus Dr. Ambedkar’s warnings were neglected and undivided India suffered.
- KC Sudhir Babu




Dr BR Ambedkar's warnings after Moplah riots went unheeded

In the long history of communal conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India Dr. Bhimrao Ram Ambedkar marked the span of twenty years from 1920 to 1940 as “a record of twenty years of civil war between the Hindus and Muslims in India.” It was while narrating the atrocities inflicted on Hindus by the fanatic Muslims during this civil war that Dr. Ambedkar mentioned the act of most heinous monstrosity performed on the Hindus of Malabar by the Muslim Moplahs during the notorious Moplah Rebellion in 1921.


The Muslim Moplahs in Malabar were the progeny of the Muslims, who came to Kerala for trade and business, married, with or without the sanction of local custom and law, to Hindu women and settled in Malabar. Very many uprisings organised by the Moplahs against the local authority and land lords were frequent in Malabar since the invasion of Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan in eighteenth century. The general nature of these uprisings was reflected in the observation made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the status of communal conflicts perpetrated all over India by Muslims against Hindus. Dr. Ambedkar observed,” There was carnage, pillage, sacrilege and outrage of every species, perpetrated by Hindus against Musalmans and by Musalmans against Hindus, more perhaps by Musalmans against Hindus than by Hindus against Musalmans. Cases of arson have occurred in which Musalmans have set fire to the houses of Hindus, in which whole families of Hindus, men, women and children were roasted alive and consumed in the fire, to the great satisfaction of the Musalman spectators. What is astonishing is that these cold and deliberate acts of rank cruelty were not regarded as atrocities to be condemned but were treated as legitimate acts of warfare for which no apology was necessary.”(Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Pakistan or The Partition of India. Pages. 206-207.)


It is very difficult to find any supporting proof or document from the biographies of Dr. Ambedkar to show that he nursed a secret animosity against Islam as a religion. But it is very evident that he studied Islam thoroughly and understood the character and convictions, commitments and allegiances of Islamic faith and religion. He was forced to express his convictions about Islam and their acts in India, since the days of Muhammed bin Quasim who invaded India in the eighth century, when Muslim league, under the instigating leadership of Muhammed Ali Jinnah, demanded the partition of India. After narrating the long and dark days of Islamic Imperialism in India and Islamic onslaught on Indian culture and Hindu life Dr. Ambedkar marked those twenty years from 1920 to 1940 as a period of civil war between Hindus and Muslims. It was in the course of this narration that he described the abominable and shocking episodes of Moplah atrocities unleashed against the Hindus in Malabar in 1921.


Dr. B. R. Ambedkar wrote on the Moplah uprising that,”there occurred in that year in Malabar what is known as the Moplah Rebellion. It was the result of the agitation carried out by two Muslim organizations, the Khuddam-i-Kaba(servants of the Mecca Shrine) and the Central Khilafat Committee. Agitators actually preached the doctrine that India under the British Government was Dar-ul-Harab and that the Muslims must fight against it and if they could not, they must carry out the alternative principle of Hijrat. The Moplahs were suddenly carried off their feet by this agitation. The outbreak was essentially a rebellion against the British Government. The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government. Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured, bands of desperados collected for an attack on British authority. On 20th August, a severe encounter took place between the Moplahs and the British forces at Thirurangadi. Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and the runway destroyed in a number of places. As soon as the administration had been paralysed, the Moplahs declared that Swaraj had been established. A certain Ali Musaliyar was proclaimed Raja, Khilafat flags were flown, and Ernad and Walluvanad were declared Khilafat Kingdoms. As a rebellion against British Government, it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment accorded by the Moplahs to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplahs. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of temples, foul outrages upon women such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction – in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplahs upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu-Muslim riot. This was just a Bartholomew. The number of Hindus, who were killed, wounded or converted, is not known. But the number must have been enormous.”(Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. pages.183-184.)


The idea that India was not a suitable land to lead a religious life for Muslims, that India became a Dar-Ul-Harab for Muslims since the beginning of British rule in India, took away the imagination of the Muslims and in turn, it prompted them to join hands strongly with the Khilafat movement to protect their religious sentiments than join the Indian Independence Movement. Dr. Ambedkar wrote,” According to Muslim Canon Law, the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harab (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harab when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the canon law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common mother land of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans- but it cannot be the land of the‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam, it becomes Dar-ul-Harab”. (Dr. Ambedkar.Page-322.)
 

ekaputra

Member
The Moplah rebellion and the Apostle of Peace.

Some 40+ years back when I was barely out of college, I read 'Freedom at Midnight' and my feeling towards Gandhiji was one of unmixed admiration and respect. I admired Gandhiji for conceiving Satyagraha as a means to independence - for, even if we had managed to win independence after fighting a bloody war there would have been several lac bereaved families for whom the taste of independence would have been only bitter. My mother and her sisters completed Visharad for the only reason that Gandhiji wanted all Indians to learn Hindi - such was their respect for him.

Since then I have read a lot more (for, against and neutral (news reports)) about him. In school we read only Indian History with a just a few pages devoted to the Freedom Movement. Though I had heard about Hitler I knew very little about him and absolutely nothing about the Holocaust or about Stalin and the Gulags or about the execution of several millions as enemies of Mao's cultural revolution. The Satyagraha was the main reason I admired Gandhi and my feelings about the Satyagraha are unchanged - if anything, only stronger . Now, it seems reasonable to ask if his Satyagraha would have worked against a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao. It is a fact that by the beginning of the twentieth century a large number of Britishers had become liberal in their outlook and many MPs in the British Parliament echoed their views. When he walked up the steps of the Buckingham Palace clad in a half dhoti, many of them saw him as the true representative of several crore poor oppressed Indians and not as a half naked Fakir come to humiliate Britain or its people. Gandhi owed his success also to them - not just to his steadfastness and adherence to Dharma. The British had a large part in the Making of the Mahatma.

But, what can I think about him after reading about his readiness to betray Hindus by perpetuating Islamic Rule in India after British exit - what would the Jews of today think of Moses if he had intentionally led them from slavery under the Pharaoh to slavery under a worse ruler? As a Hindu, can I really regard him as a freedom fighter if his aim was to free me from the British only to enslave me to the descendants of Alauddin Khilji and Aurangazeb? And as to his many fasts unto death (particularly in the period just before and after independence) in support of Muslims, I cannot help feeling that he put his own professed principles above the welfare of the people (mostly non Muslim) who believed him and followed him! To him his image as Apostle of Peace mattered more than the lives of Hindus who fully trusted him and loved him as Bapuji.

The following is from the same article "Dr Ambedkar condemns Moplah Riots. Gandhi condones" reproduced by Smt Janaki Jambunathan above:
"To Ambedkar’s horror, Gandhi laid the blame squarely on the Hindus. “Hindus,” said the Mahatma, “must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbor, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general.”


And, the following is from the book "Mahatma Gandhi" by Sankar Ghose:
"Indeed Gandhi developed the doctrine of non-violence in such an extreme form that on 9 April 1925, writing in Young India he even said that if he had been living at the time of Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Ranjit Singh, Guru Govind Singh, Washington and Garibaldi 'he would have called have called everyone of them a misguided patriot even though a brave and successful warrior'."

The Mahatma(???) was able to justify (or at least rationalize) the atrocities committed by Moplahs against innocent civilians - even against women (even ripping open pregnant women), setting fire to houses of people leading peaceful lives but did not hesitate to criticize warriors like Chhatrapati Shivaji who fought their battles against armies (professional soldiers).

It is recorded that being kicked out of a train in South Africa was a turning point in the life of this man who resolved that the imperialist British had to be kicked out of India. But, according to him, some of the above Indians who took to arms as a reaction to Islamic fanaticism (abuse of Hindu women, forced conversion alternatively execution, destruction of temples etc) deserved to be denounced as Misguided Patriots.

Did he really die with the words 'He Ram' or was it 'Ya Allah'?

Was Gandhi a Mr. Hyde who used Ahimsa and secularism as a mask to give the appearance of a Dr. Jekyll?
 

kannan

Member
I am glad that the posts get more interesting with views of the Mahatama and Baba Saheb who had opposing views with regards to Religious practices. The pre-independance dialogues from their quarters and their writings will reveal more. It was Baba Saheb's view that the Constitution of India will work well only in the hands good people. So are the religious faith or texts. The society should find good people to handle all the affairs particularly those affecting the people. It is easily said than done. While the religions demand Dharma the Constitution mentions duties and bestows rights. But where to find good people, is the fundamental question.
In this context, I recollect one of the Telecasts titled `Upanishads'. One disciple gets elighted by a lesson that every living being has atma and atma is a whole part of Paramatma. Hence their is God in all beings so there should not be any conflict amongst living beings. The disciple was highly spirited and was in a state of ecstacy as he walked along the street when a group of people were running from the opposite direction shouting at every one to run saying a wild elephant was chasing them. This disciple did not heed to the call and walked along murmering to himself that the elephant also has atma and hence is God too and it will not harm him, But he landed in the hospital with serious injuries. His Guru visited the disciple in the hospital and scolded at him saying he should not have gone ahead even after warning from the other people. The disciple questioned the Guru as to why did the elephant in which also rests the Atman (the God Himself) attack him and whether what was taught the other day about the Atman / Paramatman were not real. The Guru had to tell him that the Elephant did not attend the Gurukulam hence did not know the facts.
The above short episode is quite relevant to our topic, that what is missing is the absence of true knowledge or in todays parlour not equally informed or sensitised. Whether it is a mere society following religious texts for guidance or the state relying on its Constitution there has to be sustained effort to bring about true awareness through all means (soft or hard) and ensure good conduct. In a country where multiple religious beliefs flourish, the conflicts amongst them remain unresolved and the statute remains ineffective in many sense,, it has to walk long miles, rather run several KMs to fix the pegs in the right places. We being part of the larger people must continue our struggle such as this. Let us wish ourselves good luck.
Our ancestors were wise enough to realise that it is impossible to sensitise all people equally and accordingly founded the Varna system hoping that a reasonable balance and harmony can be established.
Various vices including jealous, greed, hatred, invasions, conflicts of religious interests and so on, ultimately managed to undo what the ancestors had preserved for long.
In the present context, we must do what is relevant today with out any fear or favour. Let us do what we can not only to avoid recurrence of the past violent conflicts but also to bring about lasting, peace.
 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
Let us do what we can not only to avoid recurrence of the past violent conflicts but also to bring about lasting, peace.
(#10)

Can you white wash history with a secular brush?

Secularised Karnataka celebrates Tippu Jayanthi !

 

ekaputra

Member
Let us do what we can not only to avoid recurrence of the past violent conflicts but also to bring about lasting, peace.
(#10)

Can you white wash history with a secular brush?

Secularised Karnataka celebrates Tippu Jayanthi !

For the Mandyam Iyengars in a particular village, Deepavali is a day of mourning - Tipu Sultan massacred several hundred families on that day. To me this is an attack on our religion and I would feel the same way if the attack had been on Lingayats or any other community. I wish the Hindus would burn effigies of Tipu Sultan on Deepavali (just like they do for Ram Lila) - not for uselessly and stupidly venting our anger but only to keep alive the memory of this carnage carried out by the man they celebrate as a great freedom fighter. If you can celebrate Tipu Jayanthi then people should also be permitted to celebrate Wellesley Jayanthi or Cornwallis Jayanthi - whoever despatched Tipu to the abode of Allah!

Even if secular Kannadigas refuse to acknowledge Islamic fanaticism, they should feel ashamed of themselves for glorifying (and celebrating) a man who replaced Kannada with Persian as the court language. This fact can be verified on the net.
 

ekaputra

Member
I was prompted to post only after reading about the Moplah revolt - in particular, Gandhi's reaction. I wanted to share my own feelings about the man.

The original post was about the British Raj and the Sepoy mutiny and had the subsequent comments stuck to that theme, I would have nothing to say. To followers of Gandhi and Nehru, the Sepoy mutiny may be the first fight for independence but as far as I am concerned we were slaves for 1000 years because I can never accept the rule of Sultans, Badshas, Nizams and Nawabs as native rule. To me the overthrow of the Muslims by the British was also a kind of emancipation. It is not that I am an admirer of the British Raj - the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre is a blot on the British army and their government - to me, Dyer is only a butcher, a miniature of Hitler and it is a disgrace on their army that he was not subjected to court-martial. Udham Singh assassinated O'Dwyer the Governor of Punjab who reportedly sanctioned the firing. Not surprisingly the apostle of non-violence said that he bore no ill-will towards Dyer even while disapproving of Udham Singh as having committed an act of insanity. Gandhi reportedly said:
“General Dyer himself surely believed that English men and women were in danger of losing their lives if he did not take the measures he did. We, who know better, call it an act of cruelty and vengeance. But from General Dyer’s own standpoint, he is justified."


Did he feel that Hindus and Sikhs should always react passively to all violence against them?

In the book "Soul Force - Gandhi's writings on peace" by M. K. Gandhi he says that the Bhagvad Gita counsels duty and not physical warfare. This book also records his opinion of Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh and others as misguided patriots which follows a few paragraphs later. Granted that the Gita does counsel only duty, were Shivaji and the Sikh Guru swerving from duty or Dharma in fighting tyranny and protecting their people.

Was Gandhi the only man ever in the history of humankind to have the correct perception of duty, Dharma and everything else that is good?

In fairness to Gandhiji -
Probably no other person ever (to have ever lived on this earth) had so many followers during his lifetime. The founders of religions had (and continue to have) more followers but that was after their lifetime. He could have probably brought the whole nation to a halt with a snap of his fingers. Yet he chose to lead a very simple life (dhoti, groundnuts and goat milk, travel by foot where possible else lowest class by train). Though he was a very powerful leader, his supporters were not in awe of him nor did they need to keep a safe respectful distance from him. (Can you go within 10 metres of a present day MLA?) Against all advice (concern for his safety), he walked through Noakhali during the height of communal riots and organized massacres - act of very great personal bravery. For these personal qualities and the Satyagraha I still have the greatest admiration for him.

But, he did betray the people who placed their faith in him- he betrayed the Hindus. It is fortunate that Nehru was unswerving in his ambition to become the uncrowned king of independent India, else our country would be under the control of Muslims. It is bad enough that even after the creation of Pakistan purely in the name of Islam, Gandhi was adamant about Muslims continuing in this country. Even today the Imans in India exhort the Muslims to have more children to increase their percentage, so that, one day they can regain control over the country. Many Islamic terrorist groups continue to get logistical and other support from Indian Muslims. Pseudo secular liberals and the leftists will say that if all Muslims had moved to Pakistan we would never have seen a Dr. Kalam. With due respects to the late scientist (President), our country would have gained far far more than the contribution of a few people like him. Gandhi knew about Islamic fanaticism and their unwillingness to live in peace with people of other faiths. But, to accept reality and protect the lives and welfare of people, who trusted him as their messiah, would have meant his going back on his avowed principles. To him, his principles were more important than the welfare of his followers/ supporters.

As a Hindu I cannot accept him as a statesman or a Mahatma.

(Sorry, Kannan Sir - I am worldly and find no solace in spiritual teachings.)
 

kannan

Member
We need to look into the history with an open mind. Opportunists often try to interpret history to their advantage not minding the danger of distorting facts. Their political interests will white wash history with what ever they get on their hands. The term secularism is also used / misused in similar manner. If we have to resolve all the issues, we must have the will and patience to address every issue created by the history and it is never possible.
Secularism in my understanding is keeping religion away from the governance of the state. However the politics of the people are not bound by this dictum. The same people affiliated and biased with opportunistic political doctrines run the government and we expect that a politician is sanctified off all his political affiliations the moment he takes oath of office. The core issue lies in the manner in which we have let in the political parties run the executive of the state. What happens today is that an active politician can assume office of the executive over night. Well that is what the statute permits and none can do any thing about it.
As a food for thought, let us assume that none contesting election can become a minister or hold an executive office and their work should be limitted in legislative Assembly or Parliment which can chalk all programs, budget, policies, etc. and leave the governance to people who have no affilation to any political party. The legislature being supreme can pull up the executive in what ever way it wants to ensure optimum checks and balance. It may do miracles where corruption of all kinds will be reduced to nil. It is in any one's knowledge that every one contesting election by spending lots of money is doing so only to earn several times of what he has spent.
We the people of India continue to believe that all that is provided in the statutes will ensure good governance. The selection /election of representatives through multi party elections and letting such elected representatives (who are more opportunitists than statesmen) assume executive offices is the fundamental flaw in our constitution. There has to be a strong buffer between political parties and the executive offices if we were to improve the system of governance in the country.
To put it blundly, we have the President or the Governor (who are to appolical) are the heads of executive and they never govern. They can act only as advised the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister who are staunch politicians. There were editorials in the past those indicated that had Pandit Jawarhralal been made the Presiden of India, the relative powers of the President and the Prime Minister would have been Vice Versa.
Interestingly, no politician will entertain this idea for obvious reasons. The very thought of making any change as above will immediately be trashed branding it `extremely foolish'.
Yet as a citizen, one has to keep thinking as to where we have gone wrong and as to why we have reached in such a shabby state of governance. Let him lament as loudly as possible, hoping some day things may change for the better!
 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
When you read history with open mind you have the Pandora Box on your hand. It could be frightening! So hurriedly you try to "close " the box !

Secularize history - the left liberals choice - or enact a law - Places of worship act of 1991 - the left leaning secularist's prefer - or do nothing - spiritual's choice - and call it Karma under 'His' watch!
 

kannan

Member
It is true that when a heated argument is going on and some one tries to soften the tempo with ideologies, it becomes intolerable. The point in question is `several attorcities have happened and what are we going to do about them'. Avenging them similarly will take us nowhere near a peaceful solution. The history distorted for political reasons can be corrected only politically or through judicial intervension. An open mind, as suggested for scrutiny of history, is not meant to discourage any attempt to know the history in true sense, but only to avoid hasty opinions or violent reactions..
With due regards to Shri Eakputra sir, it is submited that spirituality helps appreciating worldly things and being truely worldly is to realise that the world belongs to all including the opponents. Perhaps the decision for using carrot or the stick rests with the individual. But the spirituality helps him to think with a coold mind and act apporpriately. It is worth a trial.
 

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
But the spirituality helps him to think with a coold mind and act apporpriately(#18)

Spiritualist may have open mind but closed eyes when (they) look in to history - May be their ஞானக்கண் takes over to act appropriately!
 

kannan

Member
Well said. Good spirits are always helpful. One has to be really lucky to have `Jnanakkan'.
But Mr Kannan will join hands with those who have earnest action plans, even without spiritual considerations. Waiting for the good news.
 
Top