Question:
what is your opinion about hindus of india?
ganesh n
2007-01-29 14:03:09 UTC
wants here your views,opinions,ciritcsims etc,plz answer the truth only,thanks
43 answers:
HIMANSHU D
2007-02-05 08:56:42 UTC
Hindus are heart and soul of the nation. I m very proud to be a Hindu.



Hindus believe in Worship practices are very regional and are based on the cultural norms of different communities. People go to temples that they are comfortable with. People from the South have a distinct style of worship, while those from the North have a different style. When we go to different parts of the country in India, we admiringly observe the different and rich traditions of different communities.



The term Hindu was also loaned into Sanskrit, as Hindu (हिन्दु), appearing in some early-medieval texts (e.g. Bhaviṣya Purāṇa, Kālikā Purāṇa, Rāmakośa, Hemantakavikośa and Adbhutarūpakośa).



From the geographic sense comes the modern (religious) term Hindu, with the meaning of being a follower of Hinduism.



There could be many ways in which one could describe a Hindu. One of those ways is in accordance with the traditional schools of Hindu philosophical thought.



The Sanskrit term Nastika means a non-believer, non-Hindu. The six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta) define Astika [6] (believer, Hindu) as one who accepts the authority of the Vedas as supreme. These six schools are known as Shat Astik Darshana. Even though these philosophies are studied only formally by the scholars their influence is found in many religious beliefs of the average Hindu.



Hence a Hindu could be defined as a person who accepts the authority of the Vedic scriptures as supreme and leads his/her life in accordance with Dharma. (righteousness, good moral and ethical practices in accordance with the scriptures.)



The Nastika (non-believer) schools are the ones which deny / reject the authority of the Vedas as supreme. They are Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayata.



Thus if you accept the Vedas (by extension Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles as mentioned in them, you are then a Hindu.



Truly out of Hindu practices and beliefs a Hindu is one who practices Bhakti (devotion) on any form of God (see Brahman & Paramatma) or who practices one of the yoga systems for the purpose of Moksha.



There could be many ways in which one could describe a Hindu. One of those ways is in accordance with the traditional schools of Hindu philosophical thought.



The Sanskrit term Nastika means a non-believer, non-Hindu. The six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta) define Astika [6] (believer, Hindu) as one who accepts the authority of the Vedas as supreme. These six schools are known as Shat Astik Darshana. Even though these philosophies are studied only formally by the scholars their influence is found in many religious beliefs of the average Hindu.



Hence a Hindu could be defined as a person who accepts the authority of the Vedic scriptures as supreme and leads his/her life in accordance with Dharma. (righteousness, good moral and ethical practices in accordance with the scriptures.)



The Nastika (non-believer) schools are the ones which deny / reject the authority of the Vedas as supreme. They are Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayata.



Thus if you accept the Vedas (by extension Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles as mentioned in them, you are then a Hindu.



Truly out of Hindu practices and beliefs a Hindu is one who practices Bhakti (devotion) on any form of God (see Brahman & Paramatma) or who practices one of the yoga systems for the purpose of Moksha.



There could be many ways in which one could describe a Hindu. One of those ways is in accordance with the traditional schools of Hindu philosophical thought.



The Sanskrit term Nastika means a non-believer, non-Hindu. The six traditional schools of Hindu philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, Vedanta) define Astika [6] (believer, Hindu) as one who accepts the authority of the Vedas as supreme. These six schools are known as Shat Astik Darshana. Even though these philosophies are studied only formally by the scholars their influence is found in many religious beliefs of the average Hindu.



Hence a Hindu could be defined as a person who accepts the authority of the Vedic scriptures as supreme and leads his/her life in accordance with Dharma. (righteousness, good moral and ethical practices in accordance with the scriptures.)



The Nastika (non-believer) schools are the ones which deny / reject the authority of the Vedas as supreme. They are Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayata.



Thus if you accept the Vedas (by extension Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, etc.) as your scriptural authority, and lived your life in accordance with the Dharmic principles as mentioned in them, you are then a Hindu.



Truly out of Hindu practices and beliefs a Hindu is one who practices Bhakti (devotion) on any form of God (see Brahman & Paramatma) or who practices one of the yoga systems for the purpose of Moksha.
kk s
2007-02-05 09:51:53 UTC
Well it is a good question to ask when many people in India have started feeling that hinduism is on decline in this country. This does appear to be the case if one goes by demography. Immediately after partition, the percentage of hindus was around 88-89% while today it is around 80% only, even tough the country's population has trebled since 1950. This means that by breeding and by conversion the muslims and christians have increased in number considerably. One can view this as weakness in hinduism.

Our President is a muslim, the PM is a sikh, The chief minister of AP is a christian, the president of the political party that governs the country is also a christian. Such a phenomenon can not be witnessed in any other country in the world, forget any christian or a muslim country. Yet it is the hindus that are blamed for narrow-mindedness.

I think this is the strength of hinduism which has enabled it to survive the on-slaught of foreign invadors, both muslims and christians. But the lessons have not been learnt. The hindus are terribly divided into many warring castes and factions. There is a much greater tendency of self denigration. Because the muslim and christian communities are more united there is a rush to appease them for votes. This surely is against the interest of hindus. But there is no great or true leader of hindus to get them their rightful place in the world by uniting them and by removing the untouchability and caste system prevalent among hindus.
Ashok C
2007-02-05 08:46:16 UTC
Hindus of India are intelligent and smart.They can be extremely good at intellectual work.They are normally tolerant but in this they can be self destructive as actually many times this tolerance is either because they want to act Great or because they have a selfish interest in this.Hidus are very philosophical,so sometimes they tend be Fatalistic.There is too many divisions in Hindus fully allowing caste based politics and be used by pseudo intellectuals & Politicains.There is a need to brighten this breed
anonymous
2007-01-29 14:14:09 UTC
Like your handle. Ganesh... My fav is Shiva.



Hinduism is a great religion. My favourite part of it is that Hinduism is truly tolerant of other religions and it exponents even recognise Jesus as an avatar. I cannot say the same for most the other religions of the world!



Hindus, as practioners of Hinduism, are the same as any other people. You get bad Hindus and you get good ones. Being a follower of a particular does not make you automatically one thing or the other so I cannot comment on the individual person.



I have met Brahmins and I have lived among untouchables. All are wonderful people. I have also met ones I didn't care for. But not because of their religion! LOL!



While I understand that in India people ARE their religion (more so than most anywhere else I have ever been) people cannot hide behind it- they are what they are because THEY choose to be thus.



Peace out!
PT B
2007-02-05 00:53:47 UTC
In short Hindus are the most tolerant people, that is why they are able to co-exist with other religious people. But they are poor with no external support like other religious people. But Hinduism must shun away with cast and untouchability and treat all are equals. For this, of course our politicians and Govts. should also extend their helping hand by not dividing Hindus by SC,ST,BC,MBC, etc. etc. All these never comes with ones birth, but with ones economical status. Whether in Hindus or in any religion, those with economical well being have a place or status in society. This economical equality has to be achieved first, in such case all other things will follow side by side in Hindus.
Dinesh Gharat
2007-02-05 09:39:03 UTC
Hindus are Hindus ! Though they are divided in many casts they are one. They are very good at heart. They will share their food to a needy person even when they are hungry. The believe "Atithi Devo Bhava" means a guest is like god. They believe the God is one but exists in many forms. Therefore they pray Tree on Vat Pornima and Snake on Nag Panchami. They have never attacked any country or neighbouring area else they have power to destroy Napak-istan (Napak Sthan = Pakistan). This place is very short to explain about Hinduism, many Hindus even could not understand what it is. I am a very small creature, so unable to explain it completely. Please drom your email id so that I will contact you again and will attempt to explain you what exactly is Hinduism !
anonymous
2016-12-03 10:11:56 UTC
till eventually about four hundred-600 A.D. Guna , Karma lead yet after the invasion by technique of foreigners issues have replaced possible. honestly the gadget nonetheless prevails because the Sanatan structures do no longer change with time. The Vedic gadget isn't acceptable to Society on my own yet applies to man or woman , Nature and entire Universe. Yatha Pinde tatha Brahmande. In body also , Head is Brahman , hands are Kshatriya , abdomen is Vaish and ft are Shudra . the international runs that way.
plato's ghost
2007-01-30 14:28:35 UTC
Hinduism is a great culture. It's not a religion. Taht is why a Hindu is a born Hindu. You can convedrt into other religions. But you cannot get converted into a Hindu.



Hinduism deals with all the fileds fo knowledge. No wonder it's India who has given the decimal numbering system to the world, who has developed the oldest ever known medical science - ayurveda, who has talked about the earth being round thousands of years ago and alot more.



And for all those fanatics out there, Hindus believe in one God. They also believe that God has different forms. He is present in me as well as you. Hindus also believe taht there is a satan present in us. It's upto us whom to give way. It's the most tolarent culture. The only culture in the world which teaches us to respect each and everything in nature, teaches us to survive in extreme conditions, to live in harmony with mother nature.



Wanna know more on hinduism, mail me. Each and every vedic ritual has an technical expalantion. Hinduism doesnot teach one to preach hinduism but to share. That explains why India has given so much and is still making its offerrings to this thankless world.
Govinda
2007-02-05 00:55:49 UTC
Hindus are human beings just like christians, Muslims etc, with all the human weaknesses. Of course they are more tolerant than others and hence relatively less aggressive. You can continue to be a hindu even if you go on denigrating Hindu gods/rituals etc. A Christian or Muslim can not do so with their Gods.
anonymous
2007-02-05 10:05:58 UTC
As for as I am concerned there is no Hindus in India.Here only some people who are worshipping idols.They are all false belivers.

They dont know the actual Philosophy of Hinduism.Some dirty Castism is prevailing in India.The religious people who are pretendig that they were Hindus.Their only thinking is to make money by exploiting the illiterate poor by showing some nasty magic.
subhendu c
2007-02-05 00:25:23 UTC
I dont know how to answer your question. As the topic on which as vast as a ocean and you are asking me the opinion about the drops of water in that ocean. I will rather like to ask you, what sort of opinion you are looking into. If you really want to know about Hindu than you need to study the Vedas, Gita from a spiritual Master.
anonymous
2007-02-05 02:21:48 UTC
i think hindus of india is quite well behaved in society but i do not like the way they worship there god they believe in miracle that cannot be possible in a present world
ravipati
2007-02-05 01:37:34 UTC
A real Hindu is one who does not have a religion or cast. He respects every other being as god and tries to learn something from them. Hindu is one who confirms to the cosmic order.
anonymous
2007-02-05 05:13:04 UTC
Hindu is not a religion it is a culture who are borne in India all are Hindus irrespective of religion, in the mythological Ariana, they may be Muslim, Christian, Sikh etc etc
irfan
2007-02-05 06:14:31 UTC
To the Idiots who think Hindus have lots of Gods.... really need to research... Hindus only have one God but seen in many forms.... Jesus is not no God.... but he's worshipped as the god, father and the son.... All you stupid people...REALLY need to learn about Hinduism before answering this kinds of questions... Obviously your religion sucks since your religion teaches you to disrespect other beliefs...
anonymous
2007-02-01 23:12:21 UTC
UNLIKE IN OTHER ORGANIZED RELIGIONS, HINDUISM DOES NOT SAY THAT BY WORSHIPING A PARTICULAR GOD OR A BOOK ONLY, A PERSON GETS SALVATION. IT PREACHES THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO REACH GOD. THEY ARE GNANA{KNOWLEDGE}, BHAKTI{DEVOTION},KARMA{DEEDS} YOGA.IN THAT WAY IT GAVE FREEDOM TO ITS SUBJECTS. IN HINDUSIM, EVESRY CASTE IS A RELIGION. THE problem with Hindus is they are most tolerant towards other religions. but at the same time, THEY ARE MOST INTOLERANT TO WARDS, DALITHS,WHO ARE STILL REGARDED AS UNTOUCHABLES. STILL IN RURAL AREAS, 2 GLASSES SYSTEM IS FOLLOWED. THAT MEANS IN HOTELS, THE OWNERS MAINTAIN 2 TYPES OF GLASSES 1 FOR UPPER CASTE HINDUS AND ANOTHER FOR DALITHS.UPPER CASTE HINDUS DO NOT ALLOW DALITH HINDUS TO ENTER THE HINDU TEMPLES.FOR EXAMPLE, IN ORISSA, RECENTLY , THE DALITHS WERE DENIED ENTRY INTO A HINDU TEMPLE,CALLED JAGANNADHA SWAMY TEMPLE.HINDUS DON'T BOTHER EVEN IF THE BORDERS OF INDIA ARE INVADED BY FOREIGN FORCES. BUT THEY DO NOT HESITATE EVEN FOR A MOMENT, IF AN UNTOUCHABLE DRINKS WATER FROM COMMON WELL.HINDUS KEEP QUIET EVEN IF THEIR GODS ARE INSULTED BY OTHER RELIGIONS BUT THERE WOULD BE A BLOOD BATH BETWEEN UPPER CASTE HINDUS AND DALITHS AND BETWEEN BACK WARD CASTES AND UPPER CASTE HINDUS. RECENTLY IN MAHARASHTRA, A STATE IN INDIA, ENTIRE FAMILY OF DALITHS WERE TORCHED TO DEATH BY BACK WARD CASTE HINDUS.TILL DATE NO CULPRIT WAS ARRESTED.
coldsparkle216
2007-02-05 04:28:55 UTC
as far as i know they are INDIANS and i`m proud they see GOD in a different form so they are lucky. if they were no hindus we would`nt have had the opportunity to serve one another as we are doing.worship is important not language or appearance or idol. there is one GOD who answers all prayers what if they see it a different way. they are normal human beings like us...
Subramanya N
2007-02-05 08:55:04 UTC
hindus are good but as far as i think they have too much tradition, that's why they are not following as Muslims and cristians,
anonymous
2007-01-29 14:11:43 UTC
Opinion? That they are human beings, just like Christians, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc are. That's the truth. Labels and denominations don't matter to me; people are just people.
Curiosity
2007-01-29 22:08:23 UTC
to the Idiots who think Hindus have lots of Gods.... really need to research... Hindus only have one God but seen in many forms.... Jesus is not no God.... but he's worshipped as the god, father and the son.... All you stupid people...REALLY need to learn about Hinduism before answering this kinds of questions... Obviously your religion sucks since your religion teaches you to disrespect other beliefs...
basant vyas
2007-02-05 07:55:31 UTC
India only the famous on his religion of hiduism . hidu it prove the

nature of proverty in india
chaitanya_thegr8
2007-01-29 16:00:14 UTC
hindu is not a religion but a ideal practise of what is to be done and what sshould not be done.we should respect every religion and the hindus of india does not practise it but nepali's are the pure followers of hindu religion
star
2007-02-05 05:46:53 UTC
hindus-very pious.do not interfere in the principles of other religions. do not force hinduism on anybody.do not hurt others even they hurt them.
sunny_19592003
2007-02-05 05:21:03 UTC
The are very much understanding religious people, (of course there is some kind of mis believing is there), even if generally they are very good, and believers
yash g
2007-02-05 07:06:25 UTC
they are indians but dont think abt their india just think abt their religion to get privileged in india
padmaa b
2007-02-03 10:16:26 UTC
they are the seeds of india who are going to reep the best fruit in the world of market that even if you try to graft this seedling plant it will yeild only good fruits and will shelter who ever stands beneath it.
blueblood
2007-01-29 14:14:46 UTC
So U R Loving Answers,
ashwath v
2007-02-05 08:48:32 UTC
Hindustanis are very fun but they are a bit mocking.
DHANAPAL R L
2007-02-05 05:45:04 UTC
it is a different religion in this world. they pray different gods. it is a powerful, because it is religion from india.
anonymous
2007-01-30 18:18:43 UTC
In India:" Abuse to hindu and call be wise ,Help the muslim get the prize
ravi k
2007-02-02 08:52:25 UTC
powerful

after so many kings invaded india and ruled

and ofcourse the britishers also

for cneturies

still the religion exists

thery are the great people who

let it live

and followed

they are to be praised

they are great and

let them long live

and their religion for ever
Glory to God
2007-02-03 09:10:13 UTC
They worship what ever they are afraid of....they make idols out of stone, clay, wood etc., and worship them. They believe ethics and stories and worship the hero and heroins of the ethics and stories
?
2007-01-30 03:31:46 UTC
They are religious but not really faithful to their religion.They are tolerant and broad minded. Accept other Gods too because though they believe that 'there is only one God, He has many forms'.
Love Shepherd
2007-01-29 14:08:06 UTC
They answer phones well. How much do you think most of the world knows about the place? Yummy food and lots of gods.
anonymous
2007-02-05 09:58:02 UTC
no opinion
Johnson
2007-02-01 01:31:45 UTC
hindus are basically good.

but fundamentalism is not good.
RAMAN IOBIAN
2007-01-31 19:57:36 UTC
IT IS GOOD RELIGION AND THEY LOVE MANKIND. ITS POLICY OF LIVE AND LET LIVE IS MESSAGE FOR TODAY'S WORLD.
bangaru1
2007-01-29 15:54:33 UTC
The hindus are the most racist people in the world . They kiss up while kicking down meaning they will kiss white butt while looking down on the black people. In USA i have witnessed many times newly arrived hindus ill - advicing their white colleagues/friends against other communities particularly against black people.Even in USA they treat the black people as untouchables.



And then they are ashamed to speak their mother tongue hindi and would rather speak their former masters lang. English(even in India).So stupid are they that they think that speaking English is the benchmark of intelligence. And then they have the courage to look down on people who don't speak English.They seem rather proud that their country was ruled by the British for over 200 yrs. But would not talk about the Muslim rule that lasted for more than 800 yrs.Almost everyone has ruled over India in the last millennium.
manasi r
2007-02-05 03:01:25 UTC
very superstitious
lcraesharbor
2007-01-29 14:08:26 UTC
That's a f*ck of a lot of gods you got there. Other than that, no worries.
swatee_53
2007-02-05 09:51:55 UTC
god fearing people
god_of_the_accursed
2007-01-29 15:41:19 UTC
their missing a lot with there "no beef" thing.
AD
2007-02-05 06:28:53 UTC
FIVE YEARS on, the world is a more dangerous place than it was prior to September 11, 2001. Acts of terror, real and presumed, cause panic each month across the globe. Hundreds of people have been killed in terror attacks in many countries. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Both nations have been ravaged and devastated. Millions of lives have been disrupted forever. Lebanon lies shattered. And more and more flashpoints — even nuclear ones — emerge. In a divided planet, there is one zone of agreement: the worst is yet to come.



The appalling crime committed in New York on 9/11 — when close to 3,000 people were murdered in the WTC bombing — is still fresh in memory. One claim of the time was that it had "changed the world forever." Did it? And in what ways? The West's search for security against a global threat continues. It was there in the 1960s too, when the satirical song writer Tom Lehrer sang an ode to it in his "MLF Lullaby." The `multilateral force' set up to `deter' the Russian threat was its subject. "MLF, will scare Brezhnev," crooned Lehrer, "I hope he is half as scared as I."



Changing the world in terms of `exporting democracy' has come a cropper. The bloodied streets of Iraq show us just how insane that notion was and is. As for Afghanistan, it gets more bizarre each month. Take the recent claim by British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells. "Across the country progress is being made. Afghanistan had economic growth of 14% last year." Well, in 2003, the same country had the fastest rate of growth in the world — 21 per cent. More than half of that coming, as the United Nations noted, from opium. In any case, Afghanistan's figures improve if you just stop the bombing for a few hours. It's not hard when your base is zero. Or worse.



Both the crazies who brought down the WTC and those later responding to them, stay firmly convinced they are changing the world. The world itself remains somewhat stubbornly resistant to these notions. In every society, the Muslim-non-Muslin divide has deepened as neighbour suspects and lives in fear of neighbour. The war on terror translates too, into a war of suspicions and nerves. Meanwhile the basic pretexts for the assault on Iraq have collapsed. A U.S. Senate panel finds that Saddam had no link with Al-Qaeda whatsoever. And the weapons of mass destruction story has ceased to be even a joke.



Neo-Liberal 9/11





September 11, 1973. Then it was the export not of democracy but of terror. This was the day the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was brought down. By the Chilean armed forces led by General Augusto Pinochet. And fully supported by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Allende was pushing measures that favoured his nation's poor. But even the most modest re-distribution of wealth was intolerable to the Chilean elite. As also to the U.S. corporations controlling so much of the economy.



"Make the economy scream," President Nixon ordered CIA boss Richard Helms in 1970. His order was duly carried out. A vast array of overt and covert actions were launched to wreck that nation's economy. "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves," declared Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.



The 9/11 of 1973 saw what analyst and author William I. Robinson called "the bloodiest coup in Latin American history." Over 3,000 people were murdered after the armed forces bombed and stormed the Presidential Palace. Allende himself went down in the battle. Estimates of people killed in the years that followed range from 3,000 to 20,000. Well over 100,000 people were arrested in the first three years. Many simply "disappeared." The film Missing starring Jack Lemon was inspired by this period.



Chile's National Stadium was used as a concentration camp. Thousands suffered gruesome tortures. And many of them were slaughtered. Among those tortured and put to death here was the legendary Victor Jara, one of Latin America's greatest musicians.



Chile's 9/11 also marked the start of the imposition by force of a neo-liberal economic model on an unwilling nation. U.S. economist Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" ran riot in Chile. While the putschists raped, tortured and murdered pregnant mothers and children, neo-liberal policies had the same impact on the economy of the poor.



Some 25 years later, the U.S. and the Britain were still holding Gen. Pinochet's hand. The leader of Chile's bloody putsch was arrested in London while there on a visit. This followed an Interpol Red Notice. A warrant had been issued against him in Spain for crimes his junta had committed against Spanish citizens in Chile during his 17-year dictatorship. But his old friends in the West did not desert him. (The same powers are driving trials of war criminals in Iraq and elsewhere.) Pinochet is back in Chile — facing murder charges there too.



Latin America, though, is seeing a wave of anti-neo-liberal globalism protests. And a trashing of pro-U.S. regimes. Whether in Venezuela or Ecuador or Bolivia. Last year, tiny Uruguay became the first nation in the world to ban water privatisation. Others too, are reclaiming their natural resources from foreign corporations. The world is changing, but not in the way the authors of 9/11, 1973, hoped for. Moral authority in Latin America belongs to a Castro or a Chavez. No pro-U.S. leader comes anywhere close.



Non-violent 9/11





The first of the 9/11s did help change the world. That was the day Gandhiji's Satyagraha in South Africa first began — September 11, 1906. Today is the 100th anniversary of that launch of his non-violent resistance movement. Gandhiji was quite clear it was a war he was fighting against racism and colonial oppression in South Africa. A war he saw as touching anti-colonial sentiment in India as well. A war he felt he had a strategy for. "Only the general who conducts a campaign can know the objective of each particular move," he later wrote. "And as this was the first attempt to apply the principle of satyagraha to politics on a large scale, it is necessary any day that the public should have an idea of its development."



For decades, the weapon of mass disobedience he had developed rattled the British in India. Gandhiji always referred to 9/11, 1906, as the day it all began. "The term satyagraha was invented and employed in connection therewith," he wrote. And listed the times where he used it again — in India. It was to be used yet again in South Africa much later. It was also used by Martin Luther King in the civil rights struggle in the United States.



On that day in Johannesburg, the Indians Gandhiji spoke to were more than a little mystified by his notion that the might of the Empire could be engaged differently. It's a debate that lasts to this day. With no easy answers. Gandhiji himself acknowledged there were no "miraculous qualities as such in satyagraha..." And that a movement which lost sight of the truth would find the technique of little use.



Yet, the struggle put the South African government in the dock. It saw the repeal or suspension of some of the more obnoxious laws the Indians there were opposed to. Very importantly, it brought about a vital measure of Hindu-Muslim unity amongst Indians in South Africa for the first time. New factors were to make things a whole lot worse later. But at the time, it set off a process that caught on in many other parts of the British Empire. Not the least within India, led by Gandhiji himself.



The British had to contend with the rising of millions of ordinary people. His weapon and its allied tools helped forge great changes in Indian history. But this General was not for war. "War with all its glorification of brute force is essentially degrading," he wrote. "It demoralises those trained for it. It brutalises men of naturally gentle character. It outrages every beautiful canon of morality."



That was in an era when another global figure, then bigger than Gandhiji, had declared "War is the most natural, the most commonplace thing... War is life. ... all struggle is war." Hitler too, changed the world.



Three 9/11s. One that helped change the world for the better. Two that had much in common. The bloody slaughter of innocents, the brutalisation of millions. And the imposition of regimes hated and despised. Juntas with no legitimacy at all. Think of a Pinochet now hiding behind pleas of age, ill-health, and senility to escape justice Think of an Iraqi regime whose leaders almost no one can name. Or of a Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan whose writ barely runs across the presidential palace in Kabul. Who has to at all times be protected from his own people by American soldiers. Think also of a Henry Kissinger who has curbed his travel in recent years for fear of facing war crimes charges in more than one country in Europe. Think, too, of an old man who warned: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...