Remember, this is Tulsi Gabbards' family religious tradition

Quote

ISKCON Desire Tree - Devotee Network

Connecting Devotees Worldwide - In Service Of Srila Prabhupada

Quote

Srila Prabhupada reasons against Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence
Posted by Gourab Saha on August 22, 2012 at 11:27am in Krishna
View Questions
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.

Corboy note: "sastra" is a Sanskrit term variously translated as law, precept, tradition.

[www.google.com]



Morning Walk
—
December 30, 1973, Los Angeles

?rutak?rti: Morning Walk, December 30, 1973. [break]


Praj?pati: In this morning's class you were giving us the example of the takeover of the kingship, of the br?hma?as getting rid of a bad king. So many times in the literature you've given us, whether K???a killing His uncle King Ka?sa, or the Mah?r?ja Yudhi??hira and Arjuna in the Battle of Kuruk?etra 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?


Prabhup?da: 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.


Nit?i: Who went out of India?


Prabhup?da: 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,dev?sura-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-n?r?ya?a: Yes.


Prabhup?da: 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 Mah?bh?rata also, the Battle of Kuruk?etra. K???a was there. He tried to settle up. But it was not settled without violence. Paritr???ya... What is that? Vin???ya ca du?k?t?m. Paritr???ya s?dh?n?? vin???ya ca du?k?t?m [Bg. 4.8.K???a also comes, vin???ya ca du?k?t?m, to, for killing the demons. K???a also comes.


Nalin?ka??ha: [break] ...will be overthrown and replaced with God conscious beings.