Sweet home

I graith walls,
Walls that art bulwark,
Walls that hark,
Walls that art soothfast,
Walls that conceal,
Who I am or how I feel.

I graith walls:
Walls to imbosk,
to cover what’s withinforth,

Walls that art strait,
Walls that even avert our eyen
From the tears those might incline.
I graith walls:
Walls that nowise let me, truly touch
Walls that I love so very much.
Walls that need to fall!
Walls that meant to be bulwark
art prisons after all.

I graith walls,
Walls that throttle aught but shack,
Walls that left us alack,
Walls that cumber us in relation,
Walls that don’t fie,
Certes, that art our creation.

Politics and philosophy

Few lines from a conversation between

two great patriots
two great pundit of politics
two great philosophers

of Nanda's era

महामात्य कात्तायण: आज मैंने देख लिया आर्य! सच की परिभाषा व्यक्ति के साथ बदल जाती है | जिनकी भुजाओं में शक्ति होती है , उनकी मुट्ठी में सच होता है |
महामन्त्री षत्ताअर: जब यह जानते हो तो फिर क्यों व्यथित हो रहे हो अमात्य | यही दर्शन है और यही राजनीति भी |

Why this and why not that

Many people in our country hold the view that any venture that we undertake should be based on a grand world-thought capable of rendering good to the whole of humanity eschewing all narrow limitations of the country, community or religion. In support of this view, some proclaim that in this age of missiles and rockets distance has vanished, boundaries of countries have become meaningless and the whole world has shrunk. They, therefore, feel that the very concept of country, nation, etc., has become outdated, that the spirit of world unity alone should inspire all our activities. They conclude that the modern ‘isms’ which have taken up ‘internationalism’ as their watchword can alone lead us to that cherished goal.

Now, the question that naturally poses itself before us is how far is the task of reorganising the national life of Hindus taken by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, in conformity with the spirit of world unity and human good?

At the very outset, let it be made clear that it is not the modern thinkers who are the first in the field to think in terms of world unity and universal welfare. Long long ago, in fact, long before the so-called modern age had set in, the seers and savants of this land had delved deep into this vital question. The ideal of human unity, of a world free from all traces of conflict and misery, has stirred our hearts since times immemorial. Our one constant prayer all through the ages has been Let everyone be happy, let everyone be free from all ills While the present-day West has not been able to go beyond the motto of ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’, we have never tolerated the idea of a single human being – why, of even a single living organism – being miserable. ‘Total good of all beings’ has always been our glorious ideal.

But coming to the plane of the present-day world, we are faced with the hard reality of the all-round discord and disruption ravaging human society. Today, humanity is divided and subdivided into so many small exclusive groups called nations or states, each one of them devoted to its own narrow self-interest. And it is a matter of common experience that wherever there are groups inspired only by self-interest, there is bound to be mutual conflict. Obviously, human unity and welfare is impossible so long as this type of conflict continues. The present state of strifes and wars resulting in human destruction and misery has led many thinkers to conclude that the sentiment of nationalism which nourishes exclusive self-interest is the major obstacle in the way of world unity and human welfare. They, therefore, declare that nationalism should be rooted out from the minds of men all over the world. The Communist ideology which claims internationalism as its sheet-anchor often talks in this strain.

On the other hand, there is another school of thought, which holds that the roots of nationalism are so deep and long-standing that it is impossible to destroy them. Soviet Russia, which sought to discard nationalism in a bid to take to international communism soon learnt by experience that destruction of this sentiment deprives the people of the incentive for dedicated effort. In the first flush of revolution, material progress was no doubt achieved in Russia in a certain measure. Their first few Seven Year Plans were to an extent successful. But, by and by, the enthusiasm of the people began to wane, their incentive for work began to die away. Eventually, labour in big factories had to be forced to work at the point of bayonet. And again during the Second World War, when Hitler’s tanks were relentlessly pressing forward on the Russian soil, the slogan of ‘Internationalism’ and ‘Communism’ failed to enthuse the Russian people. This served as an eye-opener to the Russian leaders who found it absolutely essential to rouse the dormant patriotic sentiments of the Russian people by invoking their age-old loyalty to motherland and their heroic ancestors. It is evident, therefore, that it is devotion to one’s motherland, society and tradition experienced under the concept of nation that inspires the spirit of real service and sacrifice in the individual.

We can thus conclude that nationalism cannot and should not be destroyed. Then the problem boils down to one of achieving a synthesis of national aspirations and world welfare. Synthesis of various kinds have been, in fact, attempted from time to time in the past. Imperialism has sometimes been claimed to be one such large-scale effort to eliminate conflicts between smaller nations by making them limbs of a single empire. But as it was basically motivated by self-aggrandizement, leading to revolts by the subject nations against their oppression and exploitation, imperialism failed to eliminate international conflicts.

The League of Nations, formed after the First World War, was also an experiment in avoiding wars and achieving world unity. But within just two decades of its birth, the League of Nations was shattered to pieces on the rock of unbridled national ambitions and consequent conflicts. A more terrible war than all the previous ones besmirched the face of the earth with death and destruction. The UNO too, formed after the Second World War, is faring no better. Our own experience in the case of Kashmir issue tells us that it is incapable of meting out justice, of pulling up the erring members and bringing about an honourable amity among nations. It has been converted into an arena for international conflicts, the powerful nations trying to dominate its forum to further their expansionistic ends. The world is overcast with the dark clouds of a third world war which may, at any time, mean the sudden and total end of the present civilisation itself.

We thus see that nations are not prepared to come together in a spirit of amity for the welfare of mankind. On the contrary, the national entities are getting more and more exclusive and their ambitions whetted day by day. Newer nations are also coming up on the world stage. The entire face of the world is covered with conflicts between nations.

In short, nationalism cannot be destroyed; all attempts to harmonise the national ambitions so far have also utterly failed; and the world is on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Then, which way lies the salvation for humanity? No answer to this challenge seems to be forthcoming. Thinkers, the world over, are on the horns of a dilemma.

MOTHER TERESA

Hehe I didn't quote "fallacious history", I didn't even quote anything from HISTORY in general. Although I know I wrote WEST by mistake instead of EAST but I don't think if it really did change anything and anyways that wasn't an attempt to "MISLEAD" anybody. That Bengal thing i quoted is from "A brief History of MODERN INDIA" by Rajy Ahir a well known book for civil services and rest of the things. I am really glad that you forgave me for writing WEST instead EAST though.

Unfortunately you didn't seem to establish yer mind if you are against religion, patriostism or HINDUTVA or me because the MOTHER TERESA you're talkin' about
was nothing but a MISSIONARY she wasn't no athiest. A garden variety CNN IBN led guy would barely know about Sangh and their motives and definition of Hindutva according to Guru Golwalkar Ji, Sudarshan Ji, Atal Ji or SUPREME COURT. You know about VHP but you don't about Seva Bharati or Shishu mandir.

Anyways let it be, trust me I don't want to change the topic now but you must know RSS is the major force working against CASTEISM, UNTOUCHABILITY. RSS came in picture in 1925 and BJP in 1980 and hindu politics in 1987 after Shah Bano case. Patriotism doesn't mean fighting with Pakistan, it also mean you should stop at the red signal, try to save energy. You'd hate Hindutva but you might like "INTERGRAL HUMANISM" 'cuase it's been supported by ENGLISH people which is nothing but a daughter concept of Hindutva.


Again you keep talkin' about me while am talking about an ideology. You keep calling me middle class, you are the one who's classifying people and questioning me. I tell ya what, I am born and brought up in well to do and politically and socially active people family i never had to and i never wanted go through BOOKS to understand society, I was born and brought among masses. I graduated from the best school in India. Socially active since 8th standard. I have been collecting every single ounce of my ideology for past 22 years. I have a nice job. Wtf does make you think am middle class what gave you that right. Just 'cause I ADVOCATE Indian philosophy instead of western and commercial.


I am 101 % sure you ain't sure and clear with the definition and etymology of स्वतंत्रता and परतंत्रता , you don't know why Bhagat Singh died, why someone like Neta Ji shook hands with Hitler.

you don't need to be patriotic one Swami Ji, one Dr. Hedgewar, one Gandhi , one Patel , one Neta Ji was way to more than enough for Mother Inida.

and tell me

Do you really think I haven't read Gita or MAHABHARAT or RAMAYAN.