The perilous nexus between the media and political parties
This originally written by Lavanya original link is given below
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1455-medias-nexus-with-the-congress-and-communists/
It would be fair to say that our country is experiencing the greatest media revolution it ever had before since independence. The contemporary media looks like playing safe by associating itself with a particular political ideology or may be they don?t have any option. Personally, I refuse to buy that reason. There is a difference between relationship with politics and relationship with political parties. It is very much legitimate on part of the media to observe objectively the activities of politics and reporting the news and events to the audience without distorting the facts. When I say that the relationship of the media with political parties is dangerous then I mean to imply that the odds and ends are far more precarious than anything else.
We talk about self-regulation for almost all business verticals in our country but what about the media which is also an industry and the entities are incorporated with the prime motive to earn profits and not to forget the TRPs? Profit is not a bad word but I still believe that one can stick to social and business values and still run business in profits. It applies to media all the more as it is the mirror of society and carries a greater onus of reporting the truth and facts as they happen.
A classic example of how media and political parties can influence each other is as follows:
NDTV?s Chairman and President Dr. Prannoy Roy (no offence whatsoever) married Radhika Roy who is Brinda Karat's (Prakash Karat's wife) sister. Brinda and Prakash both are politburo members of the CPI (M). It is rumored that Prannoy Roy's seed capital for NDTV came from the comfy relationship he had with Bhaskar Ghose, then Doordarshan's head honcho. DD was fond of doing business with Roy at the exclusion of other contenders, which fondness Roy exploited to the detriment of DD's revenues but to his own advantage. Rajdeep Sardesai, former test cricketer Dilip Sardesai's son and was an anchor at NDTV, is married to Bhaskar Ghose's daughter Sagarika Ghose who writes columns for the Indian Express. Indian Express' Shekhar Gupta in return hosts a talk show on NDTV. Last but not the least, the stylish and sophisticated Dr. Prannoy Roy was known to be close to Rajiv Gandhi and now Sonia.
No wonder that the channel that initially hounded Natwar Singh on the Volcker Scam had raised its doubts on the opposition party?s intention of joining hands with Natwar Singh. Whoever has watched the parliament proceedings (I know most of us don?t waste time watching such a silly drama on TV) on DD will agree that the Speaker is clearly partial towards the government. To my surprise and utter dismay none of the channels condemned or gave an impartial reporting on that issue. Most of the talk shows and debates telecast are finely orchestrated to suit their favorites? (Communists and Congress) interests.
The danger is clear. In the garb of sophistication, highly educated image, the image of holding high moral and social values these channels are cleverly selling the ideology of their favorites. They definitely wouldn?t like to be called mouthpieces. Therefore, this veil of intelligence and urbanity is a clever trick. I wonder why these so called ?modern and liberal? channels haven?t highlighted grave issues like illegal immigration from Bangladesh, Kashmiri Pundits? lives as refugees in their own country, criminals in politics, vote bank politics in the name of caste, poor infrastructure etc? The amount of time or space given to these issues is either nil or very less, unless of course something like floods or other natural calamities strike in case of poor infrastructure. The worse thing is that these channels and newspapers do not shy away from covering ?B? grade or ?C? grade actors? wedding ceremonies, Saurav Ganguly?s future in Indian cricket team, how many wives does a popular Bollywood singer has, the divorce drama between former leading Bollywood actress and her husband, vulgarity in a ?C? grade music album etc. No wonder people like Govinda are MPs. This is the kind of peril that media can make happen. I wouldn?t even suggest them to have reality checks or introspection for I?m sure that the kind of people that are in media are highly educated and whatever they are doing is their conscious decision.
Will the Indian media ever emerge above these inconsequentiality and nepotism? Save the nation!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
nehru family is actually muslim
NEHRU FAMILY
The very beginning of his book, "The Nehru Dynasty", astrologer K.N.Rao mentions the names of Jawahar Lal's father and grandfather. Jawahar Lal's father was believed to be Moti Lal and Moti Lal's father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawahar Lal's only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru; Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. She was totally against Indira's proposed marriage with Feroze.
Why? No one tells us that. Now, who is this Feroze? We are told by many that he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines, etc. to Anand Bhavan, previously known as Ishrat Manzil, which once belonged to a Moslem lawyer named Mobarak Ali. Moti Lal was earlier an employee of Mobarak Ali. What was the family grocer's name? One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi's grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the maternal grandfathers. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies.
Why is it then no where we find Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather's name?It appears that the reason is simply this; Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather was a Moslem gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujarat. This Moslem grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv's father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru's wishes. Feroze's mother's family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi, sometime before his wedding with Indira, by an affidavit. The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings) Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Gurudev Rabindranath himself for misdemeanor, the lonely girl was all by herself, while father Jawahar was busy with politics, pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital. Feroze Khan, the grocer's son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Moslem woman and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque. Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this marriage eventually reached Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the youngman to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to Hinduism for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi. The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India's Mahatma and the 'Father of the Nation' didn't mention this game of his in the famous book, 'My Experiments with Truth'.
Why? When they returned to India, a mock 'Vedic marriage' was instituted for public consumption. On this subject, writes M.O. Mathai (a longtime Private Secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' on page 94, second paragraph: "For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage under Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage." It's a known fact that after Rajiv's birth, Indira and Feroze lived seperatly, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfered in Nehru's political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister's residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political forces, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry. Those who try to keep tabs on our leaders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation, are aware of the fact that the second son of Indira (or Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here, in passing, we might mention that the second son was originally named Sanjiv. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother's name. It was changed to Sanjay when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India's High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay. Incidentally, Sanjay's marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra's court dancer rather offensive!) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus' house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Menaka who was a model (She had modelled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a >towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father, Colonel Anand, threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka.
It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who cried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus' book, 'Persons, Passions & Politics' one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always belived that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was?When the news of Sanjay's death reached Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him. Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M.O. Mathai in his "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age", page 206. Mathai writes: "In the autumn of 1948 (India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasini named Shraddha Mata (an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology. People, including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S.D. Upadhyaya, Nehru's old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM's house. As she departed, I noticed (Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent, mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru's visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual. Nehru sent her the reply; and she visited Nehru at midnight... "Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother Superior, who was a foreigner, had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person who brought the letters surrendered them..."I (Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy, I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was."
Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Parsi religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv became Roberto. His daughter's name is Bianca and son's name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. What is amazing is the extent of our people's ignorance in such matters. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference, Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, speaking of the Parsi religion, he had no Parsi ancestor at all. His grandmother (father's mother) had turned Muslim after having abandoned the Parsi religion to marry Nawab Khan. It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children's encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today! The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be a student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mislead Indians. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign students come to learn English. Sonia was working as an 'au pair' girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time. And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India's public.
This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestgious national party because of just one qualification - being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi itself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an anmial lover, but for her links to the Nehru family. Saying that an Italian should not lead India will amount to narrow mindedness.
At this address you can find the family tree of nehru family
http://alchemystical.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/nehru_gandhi_family_tree.jpg
The very beginning of his book, "The Nehru Dynasty", astrologer K.N.Rao mentions the names of Jawahar Lal's father and grandfather. Jawahar Lal's father was believed to be Moti Lal and Moti Lal's father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawahar Lal's only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru; Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. She was totally against Indira's proposed marriage with Feroze.
Why? No one tells us that. Now, who is this Feroze? We are told by many that he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines, etc. to Anand Bhavan, previously known as Ishrat Manzil, which once belonged to a Moslem lawyer named Mobarak Ali. Moti Lal was earlier an employee of Mobarak Ali. What was the family grocer's name? One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi's grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the maternal grandfathers. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies.
Why is it then no where we find Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather's name?It appears that the reason is simply this; Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather was a Moslem gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujarat. This Moslem grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv's father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru's wishes. Feroze's mother's family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi, sometime before his wedding with Indira, by an affidavit. The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings) Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Gurudev Rabindranath himself for misdemeanor, the lonely girl was all by herself, while father Jawahar was busy with politics, pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital. Feroze Khan, the grocer's son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Moslem woman and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque. Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this marriage eventually reached Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the youngman to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to Hinduism for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi. The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India's Mahatma and the 'Father of the Nation' didn't mention this game of his in the famous book, 'My Experiments with Truth'.
Why? When they returned to India, a mock 'Vedic marriage' was instituted for public consumption. On this subject, writes M.O. Mathai (a longtime Private Secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' on page 94, second paragraph: "For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage under Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage." It's a known fact that after Rajiv's birth, Indira and Feroze lived seperatly, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfered in Nehru's political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister's residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political forces, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry. Those who try to keep tabs on our leaders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation, are aware of the fact that the second son of Indira (or Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here, in passing, we might mention that the second son was originally named Sanjiv. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother's name. It was changed to Sanjay when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India's High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay. Incidentally, Sanjay's marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra's court dancer rather offensive!) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus' house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Menaka who was a model (She had modelled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a >towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father, Colonel Anand, threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka.
It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who cried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus' book, 'Persons, Passions & Politics' one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always belived that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was?When the news of Sanjay's death reached Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him. Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M.O. Mathai in his "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age", page 206. Mathai writes: "In the autumn of 1948 (India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasini named Shraddha Mata (an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology. People, including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S.D. Upadhyaya, Nehru's old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM's house. As she departed, I noticed (Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent, mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru's visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual. Nehru sent her the reply; and she visited Nehru at midnight... "Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother Superior, who was a foreigner, had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person who brought the letters surrendered them..."I (Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy, I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was."
Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Parsi religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv became Roberto. His daughter's name is Bianca and son's name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. What is amazing is the extent of our people's ignorance in such matters. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference, Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, speaking of the Parsi religion, he had no Parsi ancestor at all. His grandmother (father's mother) had turned Muslim after having abandoned the Parsi religion to marry Nawab Khan. It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children's encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today! The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be a student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mislead Indians. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign students come to learn English. Sonia was working as an 'au pair' girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time. And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India's public.
This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestgious national party because of just one qualification - being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi itself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an anmial lover, but for her links to the Nehru family. Saying that an Italian should not lead India will amount to narrow mindedness.
At this address you can find the family tree of nehru family
http://alchemystical.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/nehru_gandhi_family_tree.jpg
PORUS DEFEATED ALEXANDER
PORUS DEFEATED ALEXANDER: ALEXANDER "THE GREAT" EXPOSED!
greenspun.com : LUSENET : Alexander the Great Q&A Forum : One Thread
The reality is Alexander "the Great" suffered heavy losses and failed campaigns in India. Moreover, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that King Porus was ever captured by Alexander and then magnanimously released; in fact it was more like the other way around. And far from being magnanimous, Alexander murdered innocent Brahmins and other Indian philosophers. Mythology surrounding Alexander continued to be embellished and fabricated even centuries after his death. Check the below sites for the reality of Alexander's defeat in India:
The Myth, Romance and Historicity of Alexander and His Influence on India - http://hinduwebsite.com/history/research/alexandermyth.htm
Alexander, The Ordinary - http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593
Alexander's Waterloo in Sindh - http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/node7.html
i. Chivalry suited the politics of balancing one Punjab rajah against another, but Indian historians have been unable to believe this intelligent generosity and still argue that if Porus received such honours, India’s alleged defeat at the Jhelum can only be a western falsehood: The cruel nature of Alexander has well been brought out by the western historians and therefore under the circumstances, the treatment of Porus by the victor Alexander makes one to suspect the Victor’s victory. In fact, the psychology of the poets / writers in eulogizing the Defeated was to make him a Victor always.
ii. The retreat he inspired has always seemed sympathetic: Because, already many soldiers were killed. His pet horse was killed or died. The rest of the army had already started revolting and urging him to return.
“In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander’s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He, therefore, requested Porus to stop fighting. True to Indian tradition Porus did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed a treaty. Alexander then helped him in annexing othere territories to his kingdom”15.
15. E. Migot, Memoris Sur les anciens philosophers de l’ Inde, andMemories de l’ Academie Eroyal des Inscriptions et Belles, Letters, XXXI, 1761,-63, pp.90-92.
What was the Direct and Indirect Effect of Alexander’s Invasion of India? Vincent Arthur Smith gives answer to this crucial question, which is reproduced as follows:
1. “Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect consequences of Alexander’s invasion. The Greece influence never penetrated deeply. Indian polity and structure of society resting on the caste basis remained substantially, unchanged, and even in military science Indians showed no disposition to learn the lessons taught by the sharp sword of Alexander” (emphasis added).
2. “Alexander’s fierce campaign produced no direct effects upon either the ideas or the institutions of India. During his brief stay in the basin of the Indus, he was occupied almost solely with fighting. Presumably, he was remembered by the ordinary natives of the regions which he harried merely as a demon-like outer barbarian who hanged Brahmins without scruple and won battles by impious methods in defiance of scriptures, Indians felt no desire to learn from such a person” (emphasis added).
greenspun.com : LUSENET : Alexander the Great Q&A Forum : One Thread
The reality is Alexander "the Great" suffered heavy losses and failed campaigns in India. Moreover, there is no reliable evidence to indicate that King Porus was ever captured by Alexander and then magnanimously released; in fact it was more like the other way around. And far from being magnanimous, Alexander murdered innocent Brahmins and other Indian philosophers. Mythology surrounding Alexander continued to be embellished and fabricated even centuries after his death. Check the below sites for the reality of Alexander's defeat in India:
The Myth, Romance and Historicity of Alexander and His Influence on India - http://hinduwebsite.com/history/research/alexandermyth.htm
Alexander, The Ordinary - http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593
Alexander's Waterloo in Sindh - http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/sindh/story/node7.html
i. Chivalry suited the politics of balancing one Punjab rajah against another, but Indian historians have been unable to believe this intelligent generosity and still argue that if Porus received such honours, India’s alleged defeat at the Jhelum can only be a western falsehood: The cruel nature of Alexander has well been brought out by the western historians and therefore under the circumstances, the treatment of Porus by the victor Alexander makes one to suspect the Victor’s victory. In fact, the psychology of the poets / writers in eulogizing the Defeated was to make him a Victor always.
ii. The retreat he inspired has always seemed sympathetic: Because, already many soldiers were killed. His pet horse was killed or died. The rest of the army had already started revolting and urging him to return.
“In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander’s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He, therefore, requested Porus to stop fighting. True to Indian tradition Porus did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed a treaty. Alexander then helped him in annexing othere territories to his kingdom”15.
15. E. Migot, Memoris Sur les anciens philosophers de l’ Inde, andMemories de l’ Academie Eroyal des Inscriptions et Belles, Letters, XXXI, 1761,-63, pp.90-92.
What was the Direct and Indirect Effect of Alexander’s Invasion of India? Vincent Arthur Smith gives answer to this crucial question, which is reproduced as follows:
1. “Whatever Hellenistic elements in Indian civilization can be detected were all indirect consequences of Alexander’s invasion. The Greece influence never penetrated deeply. Indian polity and structure of society resting on the caste basis remained substantially, unchanged, and even in military science Indians showed no disposition to learn the lessons taught by the sharp sword of Alexander” (emphasis added).
2. “Alexander’s fierce campaign produced no direct effects upon either the ideas or the institutions of India. During his brief stay in the basin of the Indus, he was occupied almost solely with fighting. Presumably, he was remembered by the ordinary natives of the regions which he harried merely as a demon-like outer barbarian who hanged Brahmins without scruple and won battles by impious methods in defiance of scriptures, Indians felt no desire to learn from such a person” (emphasis added).
The Birth and Death of Alexander
The birth of Alexander is shrouded in mystery and legends.
He was born in night to Olympias, the daughter of Neoptolemus,
prince of the Molossi, when the great temple of the Asian
Goddess at Ephesus was supposed to have been burned down.
She was fierce and beautiful7! His father,
Philip divorced Olympias and married Cleopatra, thus Alexander
was estranged from him and his legitimacy was suspected. Later
Olympias murdered Philip elevating Alexander to an advantageous
position. Other versions accuse Alexander of patricide.
How Alexander died is mystery, though, historians asserted
that he was died of a mysterious disease, after
the conquest of India! When he was dying,
Peucestas and some others of the Companions passed the night in
the temple of Serapis and asked the god whether they should
convey the sick man into the temple, if haply the might be cured
there by divine help, but a voice warned them not to bring him,
but to let him remain where he lay! Bury8
characteristically notes that, “such is the punctilious and authentic account of in the Court diary; but it is not
sufficient to enable us to discover the precise nature of the
fatal disease.” These details are discussed to
show that they have no similarity with that of Skanda archetype
or Skanda form of worship.
Then, how to Interpret Alexander historically on Others?
The western scholars have been compromised miserably and
proceeded further just to historicize Alexander for their
“historical” purposes. Many times, they have to depend upon
the forged, concocted and fabricated literature, collectively
known as “The Alexander Romance”. Therefore,
historians have to be careful in taking such mythical legends
for historical interpretations. They cannot try to make mole out
of a mountain.
The Alexander Romance
Like the Alexander’s invasion on India, the “Alexander
Romance” has also been exploited by the westerners to
belittle India. Some have tried to interpret that the Skanda /
Kanda worship has been developed only from the “Alexander
myth”. Therefore, such “Romances turned myths” have to be
analyzed critically. The “Alexander Romance” is nothing but
superstitious, legendary and mythical narrations developed based
on earlier myths and circulated in the name of “Alexander”.
This legendary narrative took shape in Egypt, mostly some
five centuries after Alexander’s death. Earlier elements and a
few facts survive among its wild fiction. Because of the spread
of the Romance of Alexander, there are Afghan chieftains who
still claim to be descended from his blood. Seventy years ago
they would go to war with the red flag they believed to be his
banner, while on stormy nights in the Aegean, the island
fishermen of Lesbos still shout down the sea with their
question,” Where is Alexander the Great?”, and on giving
their calming answer, ”Alexander the Great lives and is
King”, they rest assured that the waves still subside (RLF,
p.26).
His only measurement is given in the fictitious Romance of
Alexander , where he is said to have been three cubits, or
four feet six inches high…….Only in German myth was
Alexander was remembered as king of the dwarfs, and it would
perhaps be rash to explain his ambition on the assumption that
he was unusually small (RLF, p.41).
Philips orders Aristotle to teach Homer to Alexander (RLF,
p.59).
……..Alexander is said to have been crowned as Pharaoh of
Upper and Lower Egypt, an honour only mentioned in the
fictitious Romance of Alexander; this crowning cannot be
dated to any one month, but is supported by the Pharonic titles
which were applied to him in the inscriptions of the country’s
temples. As Pharaoh, he was the recognized representative of god
on earth, worshipped as a living and accessible god by his
Egyptian subjects; he was hailed as Horus, divine son of the sun
god Ra whose worship had prevailed in Lower Egypt, and as
beloved son of Amun, the creator of the universe, whose worship
had flourished in the temples of Upper Egypt and grown to
incorporate the worship of the more southerly Ra. This divine
sonship fitted him to the dynastic past of the native Pharaohs,
for he could be said to share their common father Amun-Ra, who
visited the Pharaoh’s mother to father each future king;
(RLF, p.196-197).
Romance of Alexander gives the details of death of
Alexander as to how he was poisoned to death (RLF, p.462).
The author discusses about his deification in pages 436-460
Chapter 31. He was worshipped as god in Egypt and Greece.
This romance / the German myth also gives a hint that the
myth might have been adapted and adopted from the Vamana
avatara, where, the Dwarf Vishnu conquers the entire world,
which is well known in India. The main feature of the dwarf
incarnation is to conquer the world. As usual, to reverse the
facts, the historians must have resorted to this reverse method
of writing history as has been done in other cases.
The Alexander’s Invasion of India
Encyclopedias14 have been cautious in narrating
about the Alexander’s invasion of India, because, he never
reached India proper. They never record that he conquered India,
though they mention about his invasion of India. In fact, there
has been a tradition that the Indian forces defeated him and he
was forced to retreat.
“In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of
Alexander’s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he
were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He,
therefore, requested Porus to stop fighting. Treye to Indian
tradition Porus did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this
both signed a treaty. Alexander then helped him in annexing
othere territories to his kingdom”15.
Recently, a project on Alexander after working extensively,
created a website, which points out the following facts:
- Alexander’s ideas concerning India were …still
sketchy in the extreme.
- To the Greeks, the land across the Indus was a shallow
peninsula, bounded on the north by the Hindu Kush (it was known
as such only in the medieval period) and on the east by
the great world-stream of ocean, which ran at no great distance
beyond the Sind desert, implying that there were no
countries.
- On the main Indian sub-continent, let alone the vast Far
Eastern land-mass from China to Malaysia, they knew
nothing.
- In general Alexander’s ignorance of Indian
geography remained profound.
- His whole eastern strategy rested on a false
assumption.
- When enlightenment came, it was too late.
- The great Ganges Plain, by its mere existence, shattered
his dream more effectively than the army could have done.
Therefore, the historians have made a frivolous attempt
during 19th century to make Alexander invade India
obviously to strengthen their invasion theory of colonized
nations.
The Nile and Nila Explode the Myth of Alexander’s
Invasion on India: Alexander and Virgil considered and named
Indus as Nile.
“According to the geographical theories of
the earliest Greeks, the “Prometheus Bound” is described as
follows: This condition was fulfilled by the river Indus. Arrian
(vi, I) mentions that Alexander the Great, when preparing to
sail down the Indus 9having seen the crocodiles in the river
Indus, and in no other river except the Nile…..), seemed to
himself to have discovered the sources of the Nile; as though
the Nile, rising from some place in India, and flowing through
much desert land, and thereby losing its name Indus,
next…….flowed through inhabited land, being now called Nile
by the Ethiopians of those parts and afterwards by the
Egyptians. Virgil in the Ivth George echoes the obsolete
error”,
Blavatsky16, after giving these details notes that
–
“Alexander, who was better acquainted with
Attock than with India – for he never entered India proper –
could not have failed to hear the Indus near its sources, called
Nil and Nila. The mistake – if mistake it is – is thus
easily accounted for”
The Greek cartographers have cleared showed that the world
ends with Arabia during the material period. No two maps tally
with each other in any detail. In fact, they later start to
identify India as Indian extra-Gangem and India intra-Gangem. Whereas, there were Greek scholars who
considered India as a land of knowledge, wealth and so on, and
thus, later even mentioned as paradise on the earth. But,
because of the complexity, they started misrepresented the facts
of India.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Mountbatten used wife to influence Nehru on referring Kashmir to UN
Mountbatten used wife to influence Nehru on referring Kashmir to UN
17 July 2007The Daily Times
Lahore: The youngest daughter of Louis and Edwina Mountbatten says her mother and Indias first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru were very much in love, but it was a platonic affair and no sex was involved. Lady Pamela Hicks said in a television interview that Lord Mountbatten, British Indias last viceroy, did use her mother to influence Nehru into going to the UN on the Kashmir row with Pakistan. But Hicks insisted in her interview to Karan Thapar in CNN- IBNs Devils Advocate programme to be telecast on Sunday night that Nehru and Edwina never got physical. If you long to believe that (they had sex), then dont let me prevent you. But I dont believe it, she said. I believe just that they loved being together ... they might like to hold hands or to hug or something like that. (But) I dont believe, I really dont believe, because of the fact that my father was so often around and that there was not a hint of that. Hicks gave the interview to mark the publication of her book India Remembered about the 15 months she spent in the country from March 1947 to June 1948. Pressed that it would have been natural for a widower that Nehru was to be attracted sexually to a beautiful woman that Edwina was, Hicks said: It could be and maybe everybody will think Im being very naive but the fact she had had lovers in the past, somehow this was so different. It really was. My mother was so happy with Jawaharlal ... my father knew that it helped her because a woman can, after a long marriage, and they had had their silver wedding so theyd been over 25 years together, a woman can feel perhaps frustrated, and perhaps neglected ... and so if a new affection comes into her life, a new admiration, she blossoms and shes happy ... It made my mother, who could be quite difficult at times, as many very extraordinary women can be ... lovely to be with her. There were no prickles. She said that both she and her father, Lord Mountbatten, handled the Nehru-Edwina affair with tact. Asked how easy that was, she responded: We just had to go out of the room. Hicks admitted that Lord Mountbatten did use his mother to influence Nehrus thinking. But he certainly wasnt going to throw her, he didnt say to her go become the prime ministers lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection. I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen, she said.
17 July 2007The Daily Times
Lahore: The youngest daughter of Louis and Edwina Mountbatten says her mother and Indias first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru were very much in love, but it was a platonic affair and no sex was involved. Lady Pamela Hicks said in a television interview that Lord Mountbatten, British Indias last viceroy, did use her mother to influence Nehru into going to the UN on the Kashmir row with Pakistan. But Hicks insisted in her interview to Karan Thapar in CNN- IBNs Devils Advocate programme to be telecast on Sunday night that Nehru and Edwina never got physical. If you long to believe that (they had sex), then dont let me prevent you. But I dont believe it, she said. I believe just that they loved being together ... they might like to hold hands or to hug or something like that. (But) I dont believe, I really dont believe, because of the fact that my father was so often around and that there was not a hint of that. Hicks gave the interview to mark the publication of her book India Remembered about the 15 months she spent in the country from March 1947 to June 1948. Pressed that it would have been natural for a widower that Nehru was to be attracted sexually to a beautiful woman that Edwina was, Hicks said: It could be and maybe everybody will think Im being very naive but the fact she had had lovers in the past, somehow this was so different. It really was. My mother was so happy with Jawaharlal ... my father knew that it helped her because a woman can, after a long marriage, and they had had their silver wedding so theyd been over 25 years together, a woman can feel perhaps frustrated, and perhaps neglected ... and so if a new affection comes into her life, a new admiration, she blossoms and shes happy ... It made my mother, who could be quite difficult at times, as many very extraordinary women can be ... lovely to be with her. There were no prickles. She said that both she and her father, Lord Mountbatten, handled the Nehru-Edwina affair with tact. Asked how easy that was, she responded: We just had to go out of the room. Hicks admitted that Lord Mountbatten did use his mother to influence Nehrus thinking. But he certainly wasnt going to throw her, he didnt say to her go become the prime ministers lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection. I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen, she said.
Lord Mountbatten "used" Edwina to influence Nehru on Kashmir
Lord Mountbatten "used" Edwina to influence Nehru on Kashmir
-->
July 18, 2007 New Delhi: Lord Mountbatten "used" his wife Edwina, who shared a "deep emotional love" with Jawaharlal Nehru, to influence India's first Prime Minister to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, according to the last Viceroy's daughter."That is true and he did use her like that. But he certainly wasn't going to throw her, he didn't say to her go become the Prime Minister's lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection," Lady Pamela Hicks said in an interview to Karan Thapar in his programme 'Devil's Advocate' to be aired on CNN-IBN.She was replying to a query on whether Lord Mountbatten used the Edwina-Nehru relationship to influence him in the handling of the Kashmir issue.Hicks, who has recounted the relationship between Nehru and her mother in the book India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power , said it was possible that Edwina's influence played a role in Nehru's decision to refer Kashmir to the UN."I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen," she said.This was in reply to a question on whether Nehru decided to refer Kashmir to the UN under Lord Mountbatten's advice and whether this was an area where Edwina's influence could have been particularly useful."Yes, I think so," Hicks said on whether her father had a bit of influence on Nehru through Edwina.Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89644
-->
July 18, 2007 New Delhi: Lord Mountbatten "used" his wife Edwina, who shared a "deep emotional love" with Jawaharlal Nehru, to influence India's first Prime Minister to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, according to the last Viceroy's daughter."That is true and he did use her like that. But he certainly wasn't going to throw her, he didn't say to her go become the Prime Minister's lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection," Lady Pamela Hicks said in an interview to Karan Thapar in his programme 'Devil's Advocate' to be aired on CNN-IBN.She was replying to a query on whether Lord Mountbatten used the Edwina-Nehru relationship to influence him in the handling of the Kashmir issue.Hicks, who has recounted the relationship between Nehru and her mother in the book India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power , said it was possible that Edwina's influence played a role in Nehru's decision to refer Kashmir to the UN."I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen," she said.This was in reply to a question on whether Nehru decided to refer Kashmir to the UN under Lord Mountbatten's advice and whether this was an area where Edwina's influence could have been particularly useful."Yes, I think so," Hicks said on whether her father had a bit of influence on Nehru through Edwina.Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89644
MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?
Irrespective of religion, all Indians should feel ashamed
MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?
Mar 14 2010 Views 754 Comments (36) Report Abuse
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "Current Affairs"; yahooBuzzArticleType = "text";yahooBuzzArticleId = window.location.href;
window.location.href
Buzz up!
var sTitle="MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";
SHARETHIS.addEntry({
title:sTitle,
summary:sTitle,
icon: 'http://www.sulekha.com/common/images/favicon.ico'
}, {button:true} );
ShareThis
MF HUSSAI IS NOT A SECULAR PERSON---HE HAS A GUILITY CONSCIOUS AND THAT IS WHY HE IS HIDING LIKE A THIEF OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY-------CHOSEN TO BE A CITIZEN OF 'QATAR'. HIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS A PLOY TO DERIDE THOSE WHOM HE HATES. I HOPE HIS 'SECULAR' SUPPORTERS ON SULEKHA CAN AT LEAST, ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR BLINDNESS.
I WOULD ACCEPT ALL HIS NONSENSE IF HE PAINTS THE 'QUEEN OF QATAR' NAKED AS AN HONOUR TO HER. HE MUST DO SO IN HIS NEW COUNTRY OF LOVE AND PASSION.
WOULD HE?
EXPOSING MF HUSSAIN
Be a judge yourself of Hussain ' s paintings below.
NAKED GODDESS DURGA's ##########UNION WITH TIGER---FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
I AM ASHAMED OF SECULARISM IF THIS IS WHAT IT IS!
A MUSLIM WOMAN-FULLY CLOTHED----NUDITY TO HUSSAIN IS TO INSULT
THOSE WHOM HE HATES UNDER THE GARB OF ART, FREEDOM & SECULARISM!
NAKED HANUMAN ? AND MA SITA NAKED --SITTING ON THE THIGH OF RAVANA------
IS THIS ART OR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?---------
I AM ASHAMED IF THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED 'ART AND FREEDOM' IN THIS COUNTRY?
MUSLIM POETS -FAIZ, GHALIB---FULLY CLOTHED---SECULARISM OF MF HUSSAIN---?
A FULLY CLAD MUSLIM KING AND A NAKED HINDU BRAHMIN---
DOES N'T IT SHOW THE HATRED
OF THIS PERVERT, CALLED "SECULAR MF HUSSAIN"?
WHAT HAS HIS APOLOGISTS GOT TO SAY?
Naked Bharatmata - Hussain has shown naked woman with names of states written on different parts of her body. He has used Ashok Chakra, Tri-colour in the painting. By doing this he has violated law & hurt National Pride of Indians. Both these things should be of grave concern to every Indian irrespective of his religion.
Out of the four leaders M. Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. Hussain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he had depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him and as he deserved it ! How come Hitler ' s nudity cause humiliation when in Hussain ' s own statement nudity is art which depicts purity and is in fact an honour ! This shows Hussain ' s perversion and hypocrisy.NOW YOU KNOW WHAT NUDITY DEPICTS IN HUSSAIN 's PAINTINGS------WHAT HAVE THE SECULAR APOLOGISTS OF HUSSAIN GOT TO SAY?
PROPHET MOHAMMED's DAUGHTER 'FATIMA' FULLY CLOTHED !
THIS IS DOUBLE FACED HUSSAIN's ART AND SECULARISM.
I AM ASTONISHED AT SOME OF HIS aRT LOVING ADMIRERS aND THEIR UNWANTED NOISE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Please ask him to paint nude the QUEEN of QATAR only once----I will salute him 1000 times!
GODDESS LAKSHMI PAINTED NAKED ON SHRI GANESH!
IT IS ANOTHER CASE OF PERVERT THINKING.
MF HUSSAIN's MOTHER- FULLY CLOTHED! SHOULDN'T HE HAVE PAINTED HER NUDE
FOR THE PURITY OF ART AND HONOUR OF HIS MOTHER?
NAKED SRASWATI--------FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
MOTHER TERESSA FULLY CLOTHED !
NAKED MAA PARVATI---------FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and ART?
MF HUSSAIN's DAUGHTER FULLY CLOTHED-
SHOULDN'T HE HAVE PAINTED HER IN NUDE FOR THE SAKE OF ART, PURITY AND HER HONOUR?
NAKED DRAUPADI-----FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & ART?
Barbaric agenda
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Have-babies-Muslims-UK-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-UK.html
MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?
Mar 14 2010 Views 754 Comments (36) Report Abuse
yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "Current Affairs"; yahooBuzzArticleType = "text";yahooBuzzArticleId = window.location.href;
window.location.href
Buzz up!
var sTitle="MF HUSSAIN PAINTINGS ---ART, PURITY & SECULARISM ?";
SHARETHIS.addEntry({
title:sTitle,
summary:sTitle,
icon: 'http://www.sulekha.com/common/images/favicon.ico'
}, {button:true} );
ShareThis
MF HUSSAI IS NOT A SECULAR PERSON---HE HAS A GUILITY CONSCIOUS AND THAT IS WHY HE IS HIDING LIKE A THIEF OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY-------CHOSEN TO BE A CITIZEN OF 'QATAR'. HIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS A PLOY TO DERIDE THOSE WHOM HE HATES. I HOPE HIS 'SECULAR' SUPPORTERS ON SULEKHA CAN AT LEAST, ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR BLINDNESS.
I WOULD ACCEPT ALL HIS NONSENSE IF HE PAINTS THE 'QUEEN OF QATAR' NAKED AS AN HONOUR TO HER. HE MUST DO SO IN HIS NEW COUNTRY OF LOVE AND PASSION.
WOULD HE?
EXPOSING MF HUSSAIN
Be a judge yourself of Hussain ' s paintings below.
NAKED GODDESS DURGA's ##########UNION WITH TIGER---FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
I AM ASHAMED OF SECULARISM IF THIS IS WHAT IT IS!
A MUSLIM WOMAN-FULLY CLOTHED----NUDITY TO HUSSAIN IS TO INSULT
THOSE WHOM HE HATES UNDER THE GARB OF ART, FREEDOM & SECULARISM!
NAKED HANUMAN ? AND MA SITA NAKED --SITTING ON THE THIGH OF RAVANA------
IS THIS ART OR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?---------
I AM ASHAMED IF THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED 'ART AND FREEDOM' IN THIS COUNTRY?
MUSLIM POETS -FAIZ, GHALIB---FULLY CLOTHED---SECULARISM OF MF HUSSAIN---?
A FULLY CLAD MUSLIM KING AND A NAKED HINDU BRAHMIN---
DOES N'T IT SHOW THE HATRED
OF THIS PERVERT, CALLED "SECULAR MF HUSSAIN"?
WHAT HAS HIS APOLOGISTS GOT TO SAY?
Naked Bharatmata - Hussain has shown naked woman with names of states written on different parts of her body. He has used Ashok Chakra, Tri-colour in the painting. By doing this he has violated law & hurt National Pride of Indians. Both these things should be of grave concern to every Indian irrespective of his religion.
Out of the four leaders M. Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. Hussain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he had depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him and as he deserved it ! How come Hitler ' s nudity cause humiliation when in Hussain ' s own statement nudity is art which depicts purity and is in fact an honour ! This shows Hussain ' s perversion and hypocrisy.NOW YOU KNOW WHAT NUDITY DEPICTS IN HUSSAIN 's PAINTINGS------WHAT HAVE THE SECULAR APOLOGISTS OF HUSSAIN GOT TO SAY?
PROPHET MOHAMMED's DAUGHTER 'FATIMA' FULLY CLOTHED !
THIS IS DOUBLE FACED HUSSAIN's ART AND SECULARISM.
I AM ASTONISHED AT SOME OF HIS aRT LOVING ADMIRERS aND THEIR UNWANTED NOISE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Please ask him to paint nude the QUEEN of QATAR only once----I will salute him 1000 times!
GODDESS LAKSHMI PAINTED NAKED ON SHRI GANESH!
IT IS ANOTHER CASE OF PERVERT THINKING.
MF HUSSAIN's MOTHER- FULLY CLOTHED! SHOULDN'T HE HAVE PAINTED HER NUDE
FOR THE PURITY OF ART AND HONOUR OF HIS MOTHER?
NAKED SRASWATI--------FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?
MOTHER TERESSA FULLY CLOTHED !
NAKED MAA PARVATI---------FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and ART?
MF HUSSAIN's DAUGHTER FULLY CLOTHED-
SHOULDN'T HE HAVE PAINTED HER IN NUDE FOR THE SAKE OF ART, PURITY AND HER HONOUR?
NAKED DRAUPADI-----FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & ART?
Barbaric agenda
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Have-babies-Muslims-UK-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-UK.html
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Note: The Indian Opinion was a newspaper established by Mohandas Gandhi in South Africa. He edited the paper and wrote much of its content for years, using it as a propaganda tool to promote his ideology.
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Gandhi was born to a Hindu family in 1869 in British-ruled Gujarat, India. In 1888 he went to study law at University College in London, England. After a short stint as an attorney in India, he was hired to work in Durban, South Africa as a legal adviser for a wealthy Indian merchant firm. He moved there in 1893. Prior to Gandhi’s arrival in South Africa, the black Zulu South Africans were in the middle of a nonviolent civil rights movement against their colonial British masters. They refused to pay taxes and often even to work. Surprisingly, to those unfamiliar with the real Gandhi, he refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their movement, and actively campaigned against it.
He endorsed a British war on South African blacks, sought comfort and assistance for British troops, and pursued recruitment into the armed services. Eventually, he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army. He then wrote propaganda about the war, and years later lied about the form of his involvement in his autobiography.
British Declare War on Blacks
In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion.
While the British took active measures to raise and equip an armed force for suppressing the blacks, Gandhi also began to prepare for the war against those he called “Kaffirs.”
Gandhi Endorses British War
For over six months Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Zulus. Though considered an Apostle of Nonviolence, Gandhi eagerly pursued a chance for military service. His campaign began in late 1905, when he wrote “An Indian Volunteer Corps” for the Indian Opinion, saying, “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”
Gandhi expressed his frustration that the British had not yet raised an Indian regiment in his Mar. 17, 1906 “A Plea for Indian Volunteering.” He sounded almost desperate to participate in the war on blacks when he wrote: “The Natal Native trouble is dragging on a slow existence…. There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war…. Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?”
Gandhi Campaigns For Care Packages for British Troops
While the Zulus continued their war for freedom, Gandhi urged the Indian community to send money and care packages to the white militia fighting the black Zulus. In “The Natal Rebellion,” Feb. 2, 1906, he wrote: “The substance of it is that the Indians are not able to go to the battle-field, but that they can assist the men at the front with the requisite amenities.” In the same letter, he also urged Indians to help fund the war effort, saying, “It will be good to collect some money and send it to the Government or to some Fund that might have been started. We shall then be considered to have done our duty to that extent. We hope the leaders of the community will take up this matter.”
In his June 6, 1906 “Soldier’s Fund,” he glowingly wrote, “The Durban Women’s Association has started a special fund for the soldiers who have gone to the front to fight the Kaffirs. All leading men have contributed to the Fund and some Indian names are seen among the contributors. It is our advice that more Indians, traders and others, should subscribe to the Fund.” He also demanded that civilians send care packages to the soldiers. Strangely, the staunch Brahmanist Gandhi suggested these include tobacco, use of which is considered a sin in Hinduism. He wrote: “The soldiers’ life is a hard one…. Those, therefore, who do not go to the front should, in order to express their sympathy, raise a fund for the purpose of sending the soldiers fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things that they might need. It is our duty to subscribe to such a fund.”
Gandhi Seeks Recruitment Into British Armed Services
Gandhi finally managed to convince the British government to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. He seemed a little disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, however, when in his May 12, 1906 “Indian Volunteering” he wrote: “The pity of it is that the Government…have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.”
Still bent on convincing the British to arm that corps, however, Gandhi spoke of an “amendment of the Fire-Arms Act” in his June 9, 1906 “Indians and the Native Unrest.” This amendment would “[provide] for the supply of arms to Indians…intended to give Indians an opportunity of taking their share in the defence of the Colony.”
He also displayed his selfish reasons for raising an Indian regiment, which had nothing to do with actually helping the British and completely ignored the just cause of the black Zulus. He wrote: “Indians have now a splendid opportunity for showing that they are capable of appreciating the duties of citizenship. At the same time, the fact of the corps being raised is nothing to be unduly proud of. Twenty Indians, or even two hundred, going to the front is a flea-bite. The Indian sacrifice will rightly be considered infinitesimal. But it is the principle involved which marks the importance of the event. The Government have, by accepting the offer, shown their goodwill. And if Indians come successfully through the ordeal, the possibilities for the future are very great. Should they be assigned a permanent part in the Militia, there will remain no ground for the European complaint that Europeans alone have to bear the brunt of Colonial defence, and Indians will cease to feel that, in not being allowed to participate in it, they are slighted.”
Gandhi Becomes a Sergeant Major
On June 6, 1906, in “Pledge of Allegiance,” Gandhi transcribed his oath: “We, the undersigned, solemnly and sincerely declare that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His Heirs and Successors, and that we will faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force of the Colony of Natal as Stretcher-Bearers, until we shall lawfully cease to be members thereof, and the terms of the service are that we should each receive Rations, Uniform, Equipment and 1s. 6d. per day.”
It was official. Gandhi was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army, and would lead 20 Indian volunteers to assist the war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi Writes Propaganda for War on Blacks
As a last touch before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published “Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?” on June 30, 1906, in the Indian Opinion. He passionately urged Indians to volunteer, saying: “There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.”
He made sure to downplay the dangers of going to war by inventing statistics regarding previous British wars. “The Crimean War,” he wrote, “caused heavy casualties; yet it has been estimated that fewer men died from bayonet or bullet wounds in that war than through sheer carelessness or perverse living. It was calculated that, on an average, more men died of fever and other diseases during the attack on Ladysmith than by Boer bullets. The experience in every war has been similar.”
Gandhi also advertised military service as physically and mentally beneficial, saying: “Those who can take care of themselves and lead regular lives while at the front can live in health and happiness. The training such men receive cannot be had elsewhere…. A man going to the battle-front has to train himself to endure severe hardships. He is obliged to cultivate the habit of living in comradeship with large numbers of men. He easily learns to make do with simple food. He is required to keep regular hours. He forms the habit of obeying his superior’s orders promptly and without argument.”
Completely ignoring the underlying cause of the Zulu rebellion, which was a desire for freedom, Gandhi argued for a religious reason to wage war on the black natives of South Africa. He said, “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.”
Gandhi Lies About His Involvement in War on Blacks
Gandhi tried to rewrite his South African history in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: “I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the ‘rebellion’ itself.” He also claimed, “My heart was with the Zulus.” Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to “[take] their share in the defence of the Colony,” demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for “actual warfare.”
His lying was even more blatant, however.
In his autobiography, Gandhi insists, “I was delighted, on reaching headquarters to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus.” He also wrote that “the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulu.” Yet in “Fatigue Duties,” his final dispatch from the battlefield, Gandhi describes his duties:
“Early on the morning of the 27th, therefore, one-half of the Corps, with two stretchers under Sgt.-Major Gandhi and Sgt. Joshi proceeded to Otimati, where instructions were received to take a stretcher to carry one of the troopers who was dazed. Fortunately, the trooper had recovered before the party reached Thring’s Post. But by an unfortunate accident, another trooper, by name Forder, had received a bullet-wound in the thigh from a co-trooper. He, however, pluckily rode to the camp. The stretcher party had to assist Mr. Stokes, of the N. M. C., in treating the wounded trooper, and others, who had received slight injuries through accidents or otherwise, requiring medical help. On the 28th, the stretcher party at Otimati were to take to Mapumulo Private Sutton of the Durban Reserves, whose toe was crushed under a waggon wheel, and Trooper Forder. The latter had to be carried on a stretcher, as his wound was very delicate. The work of carrying Trooper Forder proved to be much heavier than we had thought. The energy of all the available men had to be taxed to the utmost in carrying the wounded men, especially as it meant going uphill all the way. As we were nearing Mapumulo, the Captain of our escort sent word that, if it could be managed, Forder should be placed in the ambulance waggon, as the Natives about the hill might wrongly consider that the rebels had succeeded in wounding at least one of our men. Trooper Forder, on hearing the message, gladly volunteered to go into the wagon. And the fatigued bearers were equally glad to be relieved of the necessity of having to carry their charge up the very steep hill near Mapumulo.”
Although years later Gandhi claimed his military work consisted “only” of nursing wounded blacks, his earlier writings tell a completely different story. His main work was caring for British troops wounded during the war against blacks.
Summary
The indisputable truth is that Gandhi chose to actively endorse and participate in a war waged solely to deprive black people of their liberties. At a time of extreme racial conflict, Gandhi knowingly sided with the oppressive white race. He even thirsted for Zulu blood, ruefully saying in July, 1906: “At about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.”
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Gandhi was born to a Hindu family in 1869 in British-ruled Gujarat, India. In 1888 he went to study law at University College in London, England. After a short stint as an attorney in India, he was hired to work in Durban, South Africa as a legal adviser for a wealthy Indian merchant firm. He moved there in 1893. Prior to Gandhi’s arrival in South Africa, the black Zulu South Africans were in the middle of a nonviolent civil rights movement against their colonial British masters. They refused to pay taxes and often even to work. Surprisingly, to those unfamiliar with the real Gandhi, he refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their movement, and actively campaigned against it.
He endorsed a British war on South African blacks, sought comfort and assistance for British troops, and pursued recruitment into the armed services. Eventually, he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army. He then wrote propaganda about the war, and years later lied about the form of his involvement in his autobiography.
British Declare War on Blacks
In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion.
While the British took active measures to raise and equip an armed force for suppressing the blacks, Gandhi also began to prepare for the war against those he called “Kaffirs.”
Gandhi Endorses British War
For over six months Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Zulus. Though considered an Apostle of Nonviolence, Gandhi eagerly pursued a chance for military service. His campaign began in late 1905, when he wrote “An Indian Volunteer Corps” for the Indian Opinion, saying, “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”
Gandhi expressed his frustration that the British had not yet raised an Indian regiment in his Mar. 17, 1906 “A Plea for Indian Volunteering.” He sounded almost desperate to participate in the war on blacks when he wrote: “The Natal Native trouble is dragging on a slow existence…. There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war…. Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?”
Gandhi Campaigns For Care Packages for British Troops
While the Zulus continued their war for freedom, Gandhi urged the Indian community to send money and care packages to the white militia fighting the black Zulus. In “The Natal Rebellion,” Feb. 2, 1906, he wrote: “The substance of it is that the Indians are not able to go to the battle-field, but that they can assist the men at the front with the requisite amenities.” In the same letter, he also urged Indians to help fund the war effort, saying, “It will be good to collect some money and send it to the Government or to some Fund that might have been started. We shall then be considered to have done our duty to that extent. We hope the leaders of the community will take up this matter.”
In his June 6, 1906 “Soldier’s Fund,” he glowingly wrote, “The Durban Women’s Association has started a special fund for the soldiers who have gone to the front to fight the Kaffirs. All leading men have contributed to the Fund and some Indian names are seen among the contributors. It is our advice that more Indians, traders and others, should subscribe to the Fund.” He also demanded that civilians send care packages to the soldiers. Strangely, the staunch Brahmanist Gandhi suggested these include tobacco, use of which is considered a sin in Hinduism. He wrote: “The soldiers’ life is a hard one…. Those, therefore, who do not go to the front should, in order to express their sympathy, raise a fund for the purpose of sending the soldiers fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things that they might need. It is our duty to subscribe to such a fund.”
Gandhi Seeks Recruitment Into British Armed Services
Gandhi finally managed to convince the British government to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. He seemed a little disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, however, when in his May 12, 1906 “Indian Volunteering” he wrote: “The pity of it is that the Government…have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.”
Still bent on convincing the British to arm that corps, however, Gandhi spoke of an “amendment of the Fire-Arms Act” in his June 9, 1906 “Indians and the Native Unrest.” This amendment would “[provide] for the supply of arms to Indians…intended to give Indians an opportunity of taking their share in the defence of the Colony.”
He also displayed his selfish reasons for raising an Indian regiment, which had nothing to do with actually helping the British and completely ignored the just cause of the black Zulus. He wrote: “Indians have now a splendid opportunity for showing that they are capable of appreciating the duties of citizenship. At the same time, the fact of the corps being raised is nothing to be unduly proud of. Twenty Indians, or even two hundred, going to the front is a flea-bite. The Indian sacrifice will rightly be considered infinitesimal. But it is the principle involved which marks the importance of the event. The Government have, by accepting the offer, shown their goodwill. And if Indians come successfully through the ordeal, the possibilities for the future are very great. Should they be assigned a permanent part in the Militia, there will remain no ground for the European complaint that Europeans alone have to bear the brunt of Colonial defence, and Indians will cease to feel that, in not being allowed to participate in it, they are slighted.”
Gandhi Becomes a Sergeant Major
On June 6, 1906, in “Pledge of Allegiance,” Gandhi transcribed his oath: “We, the undersigned, solemnly and sincerely declare that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His Heirs and Successors, and that we will faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force of the Colony of Natal as Stretcher-Bearers, until we shall lawfully cease to be members thereof, and the terms of the service are that we should each receive Rations, Uniform, Equipment and 1s. 6d. per day.”
It was official. Gandhi was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army, and would lead 20 Indian volunteers to assist the war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi Writes Propaganda for War on Blacks
As a last touch before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published “Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?” on June 30, 1906, in the Indian Opinion. He passionately urged Indians to volunteer, saying: “There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.”
He made sure to downplay the dangers of going to war by inventing statistics regarding previous British wars. “The Crimean War,” he wrote, “caused heavy casualties; yet it has been estimated that fewer men died from bayonet or bullet wounds in that war than through sheer carelessness or perverse living. It was calculated that, on an average, more men died of fever and other diseases during the attack on Ladysmith than by Boer bullets. The experience in every war has been similar.”
Gandhi also advertised military service as physically and mentally beneficial, saying: “Those who can take care of themselves and lead regular lives while at the front can live in health and happiness. The training such men receive cannot be had elsewhere…. A man going to the battle-front has to train himself to endure severe hardships. He is obliged to cultivate the habit of living in comradeship with large numbers of men. He easily learns to make do with simple food. He is required to keep regular hours. He forms the habit of obeying his superior’s orders promptly and without argument.”
Completely ignoring the underlying cause of the Zulu rebellion, which was a desire for freedom, Gandhi argued for a religious reason to wage war on the black natives of South Africa. He said, “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.”
Gandhi Lies About His Involvement in War on Blacks
Gandhi tried to rewrite his South African history in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: “I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the ‘rebellion’ itself.” He also claimed, “My heart was with the Zulus.” Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to “[take] their share in the defence of the Colony,” demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for “actual warfare.”
His lying was even more blatant, however.
In his autobiography, Gandhi insists, “I was delighted, on reaching headquarters to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus.” He also wrote that “the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulu.” Yet in “Fatigue Duties,” his final dispatch from the battlefield, Gandhi describes his duties:
“Early on the morning of the 27th, therefore, one-half of the Corps, with two stretchers under Sgt.-Major Gandhi and Sgt. Joshi proceeded to Otimati, where instructions were received to take a stretcher to carry one of the troopers who was dazed. Fortunately, the trooper had recovered before the party reached Thring’s Post. But by an unfortunate accident, another trooper, by name Forder, had received a bullet-wound in the thigh from a co-trooper. He, however, pluckily rode to the camp. The stretcher party had to assist Mr. Stokes, of the N. M. C., in treating the wounded trooper, and others, who had received slight injuries through accidents or otherwise, requiring medical help. On the 28th, the stretcher party at Otimati were to take to Mapumulo Private Sutton of the Durban Reserves, whose toe was crushed under a waggon wheel, and Trooper Forder. The latter had to be carried on a stretcher, as his wound was very delicate. The work of carrying Trooper Forder proved to be much heavier than we had thought. The energy of all the available men had to be taxed to the utmost in carrying the wounded men, especially as it meant going uphill all the way. As we were nearing Mapumulo, the Captain of our escort sent word that, if it could be managed, Forder should be placed in the ambulance waggon, as the Natives about the hill might wrongly consider that the rebels had succeeded in wounding at least one of our men. Trooper Forder, on hearing the message, gladly volunteered to go into the wagon. And the fatigued bearers were equally glad to be relieved of the necessity of having to carry their charge up the very steep hill near Mapumulo.”
Although years later Gandhi claimed his military work consisted “only” of nursing wounded blacks, his earlier writings tell a completely different story. His main work was caring for British troops wounded during the war against blacks.
Summary
The indisputable truth is that Gandhi chose to actively endorse and participate in a war waged solely to deprive black people of their liberties. At a time of extreme racial conflict, Gandhi knowingly sided with the oppressive white race. He even thirsted for Zulu blood, ruefully saying in July, 1906: “At about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)