Hare Krishna and dandavat pranama to all prabhujis and matajis!!
Recently, I got a beautiful piece of information while surfing the net which I would like to share with all of you.
Srila Prabhupada has commented on many occasions about politics and how to deal with political situations. For example, Srila Prabhupada is very straightforward and blunt about the fact that Mahatma Gandhi was a total failure, for many reasons, but primarily because he was pursuing a program of non-violence and trying to apply that to politics. On a walk in Los Angeles in December 30, 1973, Srila Prabhupada states, "Well, in politics, unless there is violence, you cannot take. Simply by sweet words, not possible. That was the difference between our political leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose.”
Srila Prabhupada goes on at length to describe how, in reality, Subhash Chandra Bose was the actual personality who brought about independence for Indian, and not Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Gandhi prolonged the Colonialism by promoting his non-violence, and the British were very smart in letting him do so.
Srila Prabhupada explains that not only is Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence bogus, the myth that he brought about independence is also bogus. Which brings up another important philosophical point: when persons in political power and position take on a saintly persona and then promote bogus philosophy that is not supported by sastra, then one has to speak up with the truth, regardless of how unpopular it may seem to a majority of listeners. Many around the world have swallowed the Gandhi myth as though it were true, and telling the truth about the situation is the only way to beat the myth.
Morning Walk
—
December 30, 1973, Los Angeles | |
| | Śrutakīrti: Morning Walk, December 30, 1973. [break] | |
| | Prajāpati: In this morning's class you were giving us the example of the takeover of the kingship, of the brāhmaṇas getting rid of a bad king. So many times in the literature you've given us, whether Kṛṣṇa killing His uncle King Kaṁsa, or the Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira and Arjuna in the Battle of Kurukṣetra killing the old political regime that are demoniac consciousness. Is this the recommended means in Vedic literature for getting rid of bad government, or are there other means that are described, that one can get rid of demoniac government and take over with godly rulers? | |
| | Prabhupāda: Well, in politics, unless there is violence, you cannot take. Simply by sweet words, not possible. That was the difference between our political leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose. So Subhash Chandra Bose was of opinion that—and that is a fact—that "You are agitating non-violence. These people will never care for your non-violence. Unless there is violence, so these Britishers will never go away." So Gandhi would say, "No, I am not going to accept this violence theory. I shall continue." So for thirty years... He started from 1917 and up to '47, the Britishers did not go. But when Subhash Chandra Bose, he saw... He took the political power. He became the president. But Gandhi was angry. So because he was old leader, out of respect, he resigned the presidentship. Then he thought that "So long this man will live, there will be no independence." So he went out of India and joined with Hitler, and Tojo, Japanese. | |
| | Nitāi: Who went out of India? | |
| | Prabhupāda: This Subhash Chandra Bose. And he organized the INA, Indian National Army. So when this Indian National Army was organized and the Britishers... They were great politicians. They saw, "Now the army is going to national movement. We cannot be." Then they left. Because it was not possible. They were maintaining British Empire with Indian money, Indian men. You see? They did not conquer by their British soldiers all round the Far East, Burma and the Mesopotamia, and the Egypt. That was Indian army, the Sikh soldiers and the Gurkha soldiers, and Indian money. On the pretext that "For Indian protection, we are maintaining this army." Actually, they were expanding their empire. Africa, Burma. And when they saw that "India is lost," voluntarily they liquidated all others. Went back... Back to home, back to Godhead. (devotees laugh) So in politics this is nonsense, non-violence. It is nonsense, cowardism. In politics in sweet words you cannot get. There must be fight, arms. That is army. "If you don't agree, then fist." That is politics. There must be violence. Otherwise you cannot control. When there is educated good men, then you can argue. But when people are ruffians, there is no question of good...Argumentum vaculum, I told you the other day... [break] ...in the beginning of creation, the fight between the demons and the demigods,devāsura-yuddha. That is always there. In the European history, without revolution, no order changes. Even the Russian Revolution was there. French revolution was there. In England, Cromwell? Cromwell? Cromwell Revolution? | |
| | Nara-nārāyaṇa: Yes. | |
| | Prabhupāda: Yes. So without revolution, (indistinct), you cannot change old order. "Old orders changes giving place to new." That old order changes... Everywhere it is by violence. The Mahābhārata also, the Battle of Kurukṣetra. Kṛṣṇa was there. He tried to settle up. But it was not settled without violence. Paritrāṇāya... What is that? Vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām. Paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām [Bg. 4.8.Kṛṣṇa also comes, vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām, to, for killing the demons. Kṛṣṇa also comes. | |
| | Nalinīkaṇṭha: [break] ...will be overthrown and replaced with God conscious beings. |
Replies
Ambassador: How did you feel about Gandhiji spiritually?
Prabhupada: He was a good gentleman, that's all. He had no spiritual asset.
Ambassador: That's what I wondered. I never met him. I don't know. But he said himself, "I may be a saint among politicians, but I'm a politician among saints." (laughs)
Prabhupada: He said or the governor said? Anyway, it is... Mr. Casey from Australia -- he was gov
Ambassador: But God uses whatever material is there and He used him.
Prabhupada: No, it was God's desire. You see? Without His desire, otherwise how such a vast British power could be driven away by the noncooperation movement? Of course, it was very nicely planned because the Britishers were ruling over India by the cooperation of the Indian.
Ambassador: Yes.
Prabhupada: So when that cooperation was withdrawn, naturally they could not... They were trying to the last point, but when the Subhas Bose's organization, INA... You have studied that Indian history. Yes. INA. Indian National Army. So this National Army was formed by Subhas Candra Bose outside India with the cooperation of Hitler and Tojo. He's formed that, what is called, Indian government outside India, the INA, the soldiers... The INA soldiers means all the soldiers that were arrested in the battlefield, they were given to Subhas Candra Bose, either by the Japanese or by the Germans. So the soldiers took this opportunity; they voluntarily surrendered to the enemy. So when the Britishers understood that the soldiers, Indian soldiers, are now noncooperating, then they decided, "No, no more. It is not possible." So they voluntarily withdrew, that Sir Sirpiting(?) Lawrence, the secretary of state for India. Then they voluntarily settled up. And they settled up means the last parting kick was partition-Pakistan and India. And they partitioned in such a way that these two people will fight everlong. That is going on. They are very good politicians. So after all, it is all... There is a verse in the Bhagavad-gita:
sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto
mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyam
vedanta-vid vedanta-krd ca aham
[Bg. 15.15]
Krsna said that "I am in everyone's heart." Sarvasya. Sarvasya ca aham hrdi. Hrdi means the heart. Sannivistah: "I am there." So He is witnessing everything. So Britishers would have been... They were accepted by the Indians very nicely. People liked, because after the Mohammedan period, when the Britishers came, they did something which was very, very nice for the Indians, and the Indians, they liked them very much. Later on, they became too much greedy. For their own men they wanted to sacrifice everything Indian. So that Jalianwala-bagh. Then the Gandhi came and took this vow that "The Britishers must go, quit India." So Britishers got a very good opportunity for world unity under British Empire. But their only policy was that to exploit others and enrich London. That was their bad policy, yes. They should have ruled for the benefit of the people. Then British rule was very nice.(Extracted from a conversation held in Iran)
Conversations
Prabhupada: That is warned by
Sankaracarya. Vivekananda lamented at the end of his life, that "I have simply
wasted my life." He admitted, "I have not given anything." Balakanam. He was
after this body, and he was recorded, government record, as political sannyasi.
Yes. He had political purpose, but was acting as a sannyasi. Just like Gandhi,
"Saintly statesman." He is recorded, "Saintly statesman." He's a statesman,
politician, but he was introducing some morality, non-violence, like that.
Actually, his philosophy failed. He wanted Hindu-Muslim unity, but it was
divided. The Muslim and Hindu divided. He wanted non-violence. He died out of
violence. Therefore all his philosophy failed. And Indian independence was
achieved not by Gandhi's non-violence method but (by) Subhas Bose's violence
method. And he wanted to explain nonviolence from Bhagavad-gita. Just see,
another foolishness. Bhagavad-gita is spoken in the battlefield, and he was
screwing some meaning to prove his nonviolence.