this may be a repeat but read on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti
this may be a repeat but read on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti
An American girl was sitting on the right side, near window seat. It indeed was a long journey – it would take nearly seven hours.
He was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible unusual of young Americans. After some time she smiled and we had few acquaintances talk.He told her that I am from India
Then suddenly the girl asked: ‘What’s your faith?’ ‘What?’ He didn’t understand the question.
‘I mean, what’s your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?’
‘No!’ He replied, ‘He am neither Christian nor Muslim’.
Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. ‘Then who are you?’ “I am a Hindu”, He said.
She looked at him as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what He was talking about.
A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today.
But a Hindu, what?
He explained to her – I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.
‘Who is your prophet?’ she asked.
‘We don’t have a prophet,’ He replied.
‘What’s your Holy Book?’
‘We don’t have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,’
‘Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?’
‘What do you mean by that?’
‘Like we have Jesus and Muslims have Allah – don’t you have a God?’
He thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe one God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.
According to her (or anybody who doesn’t know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. The mind is so conditioned and rigidly narrowed down to such a notion that anything else is not acceptable. He understood her perception and concept about faith. You can’t compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of God.
He tried to explain to her: ‘You can believe in one God and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What’s more – you may not believe in God at all, still you can be a Hindu. An Atheist can also be a Hindu.’
This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn’t imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.
‘I don’t understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?’
What can He tell to this American girl?
He said: ‘I do not go to Temple regularly. I do not make any regular rituals. I have learned some of the rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes’.
‘Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?’
‘God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.’
She thought for a while and then asked: ‘Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?’
‘Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.’ He told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority..
‘So, you don’t believe in God?’ she wanted everything in black and white.
‘I didn’t say that. I do not discard the divine reality. Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis – Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita – say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.’
‘Why can’t you believe in one personal God?’
‘We have a concept – abstract – not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don’t think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.’ He told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal Gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.
‘Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?’
‘Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,’
लोका समस्ता सुखिनो भवन्तु !!! ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः !!!
‘Funny,’ she laughed, ‘What does it mean?’
‘May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Let there be Peace, Peace,and Peace every where.’
‘Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free’ she exclaimed.
‘The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution – it is as simple as that.’
‘How does anybody convert to Hinduism?’
‘Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but it is a Culture, a way of leaving life, a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single Authority or Organization either to accept you or to reject you or to oppose you on behalf of Hinduism.’
He told her – if you look for meaning in life, don’t look for it in religions; don’t go from one cult to another or from one Guru to the next.
For a real seeker, He told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ‘ Kingdom of God is within you.’ I reminded her of Christ’s teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.
Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. ‘Isavasyam idam sarvam’ Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere – nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That’s what Hinduism teaches you.
Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.
Ancestors of today’s Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word ‘Hindu’ and considered it as a religion.
He said: ‘Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today’s world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception’
He said “I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence – ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’ means – Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn’t condition my mind with any faith system.
A man/woman who changes his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life.
Hinduism is the original rather a natural yet a logical and satisfying spiritual, personal and a scientific way of leaving a life..
Just look back in history, try to do some research and finding out the real truth and not what we have been brain washed by the Congress and the British/western Media. the following is not my opinion but is an excerpt of what I had received in my mail from one of my friends. We tend to idolise and immortalise people because we do not know the truth and believe in what is served to us as truth. We feel betrayed and cheated when we are duped by cunning selfish politicians and even our own friends and relatives that we tend to lose faith in our own self.
this post is not intended to hurt any one;s sentiments or feelings. readers are advised to use their own discretion and choice.
So you are an Intelligent Indian isn’t it? and all else are fools?
Gandhi was number one womanizer. If you read his”my
experiments with truth”(sathiya Sothanai) you would understand this fact.
Even in his old age he slept naked with few young ladies.How could
you term this action.What was the physiological, mental and sexual
feelings of those young ladies. Have you ever thought about the sexual
urge or feelings of those young ladies when they slept by the side of
a naked man.
I have read My experiments with Truth for several times since 13 years
of my age. Toady I am 43 and read both in Tamil and English.
Why haven’t you tried to paste the exact extract from “My experiments
with Truth” for this allegation?
Let it be truth, but who told this truth? the same Mahatma. One need
to have courage to reveal his sexual appetite. While teaching in AMET
University, most of my colleagues were above 60s, and they watch Porno
in office time and they don’t teach in class room just chat and
discuss and come back. No interest in academic, their only interest is
on watching porno and gossiping.
Ask any females, they will tell you the truth, it is far better to
believe a young man then a old man.
There is no pure blood in most of the Indians. Muslim blood run in
their vein. Even some Brahmin are included in this list.
What blood is running in your body? I know only of A, A+, AB+, O, O+
etc in blood group, and for the first time I come to know pure blood,
Indian blood and muslim blood?
Mahathma.What a hypocrisy. How could you call him as Mahathma. It is
So you like to be called as Mahatma isn’t it?, always spoken truth,
and honest in every action, not even accepted any gifts whatever of
the worth, fasted for weeks for social cause, sacrificed rich
clothing, treated all equal, no (wealth)security provided to own
children, even forced wife to wash common toilets for the benefit of
Sir, I don’t know you will realise or not about papa karma or punya
karma palan, or at least you can believe in “for every action, there
will be equivalent opposite action”. So abusing the great Mahatma like
this you may incur papa karma palan, so better be watchful of your
In this topic I have already wrote a mail, please read that.
Talking about past events and using ifs and buts is like what if my
Mother had mustache? Nothing can be redone about past, it is out of
ego, a drive for indetification one talk about past and find fault in
the past events. All events are supposed to happen as it is, even the
present moment will happen on its own, nothing the ego can do about
it. It is most stupidity to think I can do. All doing is by that very
god. Like a movie it is already directed by director and shown you
only to watch and not for any alteration, like wise our past, present
and future is all already directed by the god, we the consciouness
only need to watch.
Get out of this illusion to immerse in past, look at the present, and
be in the present, will keep you in joyful state.
Understand Bhagavad Gita properly.
After reading My experiments with Truth, in which Mahatma writes that
he reads Bhagavad gita every day and whenever he is in trouble some
phase, he reads Bhagavad gita and finds right answer from it. So on
reading these words I was inspired to read Bhagavad gita.
Osho and Ramana Maharishi have appreciated Mahatma for his sincerity
and honesty, what else is required. Ramana Maharishi is that god
himself, who cried on knowing Mahatma dead, such great soul is
Whoever talk ill of him incur sin or that illness is inside him, he
sees himself, like the one who sees all blue when he wore blue glass.
Try to be honest at least to yourself.
Thanks and best regards
PRINCETON, N.J. — BANGLADESH is in fresh turmoil. On Sept. 17, its Supreme Court decided that Abdul Quader Mollah, a leading Islamist politician, should be hanged for war crimes committed during the country’s 1971 war of independence from Pakistan. When he was given a life sentence by a Bangladeshi war-crimes tribunal back in February, tens of thousands of Bangladeshis took to the streets demanding his execution. Since then, more than a hundred people have died in protests and counterprotests.
This may sound remote or irrelevant to Americans, but the unrest has much to do with the United States. Some of Bangladesh’s current problems stem from its traumatic birth in 1971 — when President Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, his national security adviser, vigorously supported the killers and tormentors of a generation of Bangladeshis.
From the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947, Pakistan was created as a unified Muslim nation with a bizarrely divided geography: dominant West Pakistan (now simply Pakistan) was separated from downtrodden East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by a thousand miles of hostile India. Pakistanis joked that their bifurcated country was united by Islam and Pakistan International Airlines. This strange arrangement held until 1970, when Bengali nationalists in East Pakistan triumphed in nationwide elections. The ruling military government, based in West Pakistan, feared losing its grip.
So on March 25, 1971, the Pakistani Army launched a devastating crackdown on the rebellious Bengalis in the east. Midway through the bloodshed, both the C.I.A. and the State Department conservatively estimated that about 200,000 people had died (the Bangladeshi government figure is much higher, at three million). As many as 10 million Bengali refugees fled across the border into India, where they died in droves in wretched refugee camps.
As recently declassified documents and White House tapes show, Nixon and Kissinger stood stoutly behind Pakistan’s generals, supporting the murderous regime at many of the most crucial moments. This largely overlooked horror ranks among the darkest chapters in the entire cold war.
Of course, no country, not even the United States, can prevent massacres everywhere in the world — but this was a close American ally, which prized its warm relationship with the United States and used American weapons and military supplies against its own people.
Nixon and Kissinger barely tried to exert leverage over Pakistan’s military government. In the pivotal days before the crackdown began on March 25, they consciously decided not to warn the Pakistani generals against opening fire on their population. They did not press for respecting the election results, nor did they prod the military to cut a power-sharing deal with the Bengali leadership. They did not offer warnings or impose conditions that might have dissuaded the Pakistani junta from atrocities. Nor did they threaten the loss of American military or economic support after the slaughter began.
Nixon and Kissinger were not just motivated by dispassionate realpolitik, weighing Pakistan’s help with the secret opening to China or India’s pro-Soviet leanings. The White House tapes capture their emotional rage, going far beyond Nixon’s habitual vulgarity. In the Oval Office, Nixon told Kissinger that the Indians needed “a mass famine.” Kissinger sneered at people who “bleed” for “the dying Bengalis.”
They were unmoved by the suffering of Bengalis, despite detailed reporting about the killing from Archer K. Blood, the brave United States consul general in East Pakistan. Nor did Nixon and Kissinger waver when Kenneth B. Keating, a former Republican senator from New York then serving as the American ambassador to India, personally confronted them in the Oval Office about “a matter of genocide” that targeted the Hindu minority among the Bengalis.
After Mr. Blood’s consulate sent an extraordinary cable formally dissenting from American policy, decrying what it called genocide, Nixon and Kissinger ousted Mr. Blood from his post in East Pakistan. Kissinger privately scorned Mr. Blood as “this maniac”; Nixon called Mr. Keating “a traitor.”
India was secretly sponsoring a Bengali insurgency in East Pakistan, and the violence ended only after India and Pakistan went to war in December 1971, with the Indian Army swiftly securing an independent Bangladesh. Economic development and political progress were always going to be difficult there. But Bangladesh’s situation was made tougher by the devastation: lost lives, wrecked infrastructure and radicalized politics.
Bangladesh, despite its recent economic growth, is a haunted country. Part of the tumult centers on the fate of defendants like Abdul Quader Mollah, who face judgment in a series of national war crimes trials for atrocities committed in 1971 by local collaborators with West Pakistan. These trials are popular, but the court has often failed to meet fair standards of due process. Its proceedings have ensnared members of the largest Islamist political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, which is aligned with the main political rival of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
It will be up to Bangladeshis to fix their country’s rancorous politics, but their task was made harder from the outset by Nixon and Kissinger’s callousness. The legacy of 1971 still stains the reputation of the United States in India as well. If an apology from Kissinger is too much to expect, Americans ought at least to remember what he and Nixon did in those terrible days.
Gary J. Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of “The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide.”
) hari krishnamurthy K. HARIHARAN)”
He lambasted the dysfunctional regimes in Delhi where the Chief Minister accepts no responsibility for anything that goes wrong, including the safety of young girls, and New Delhi which is paralysed between the Government and the Mother-Son rule. The UPA is drowning in corruption, but remains addicted to “Gandhi-chaap”, the high denomination notes which are being collected in the tonnes. The nation, he concluded, is yearning for Su-raaj, good governance.
PC’s fake encounter with facts
Kishore Trivedi on September 23, 2013