jayan008

You are right, when one is critical of a person, he always find negative traits of that person's actions. The problem with most people are that instead of understanding the circumstances which led to such an action / understanding the position of the person who has taken a decision, people directly come to a conclusion. They only look at from their view point and make silly comments. Given a chance these people would be the first to run away rather than make an important decision in their life which affects other people. A decision of a King or in the present age that of a President/PM has a great effect to the general population of that country. He just can't take a decision which seem fit to only him. The sentiments of the people he is ruling, in general, is also to be considered. He cannot be selfish and think his own well being. Leaders ruling for their own well being and selfish motives can never have the trust of their own people and will perish forever never to be known. Great people have always been criticised, because there are few who could really understand them.

1) Right. But, the party which does it will not survive the next election, and they cannot risk it. All are hungry for power, who care where India will be in future. They only think of the present situation and themselves. 2) Wrong. What did US did to Iraq? Did the US find any weapons of mass destruction, the thing which they claimed and the reason for which they waged the war? No. Their only intention was to grab the oilfields. Why don't they strike Israel or Pakistan. Who created the Muslim Jehadis (the group which is now led by Osama), It was US, Pres. Ronald Reagon. They made such groups of islamic fundamentalist to oust Russia from afgahnistan during the 80s. Now they are reaping what they sowed. What about U.K., they harboured all these islamic criminals and indian khalistan criminals, and see what they have dug for themselves. All countries, esp. super powers plays only to their benefit, they don't care a damn about other countries and their problems. Initially US were critical about India in trade matters, now it is changing because most of their companies and business interest is in India and China. 3) Why should i contradict a correct statement. 4) Efforts are on, if you read the latest happenings and development taking place, you will realise it. India and China is the fastest growing economy in the world. People are realising the important of good governance. But, it will definitely take time. Politics is the present order of the world, no one can escape from it. We should from our part try and bring to light the good things in it before people and understand it ourselves. Running away is never an end solution.

The Constitution was made taking into account the various world order existing during that period viz., Capitalist Democracy, Communism, Socialism and then created a more secular form of Democracy where all religion were better represented. Absolutely nothing selfish was involved while drafting. Mr. Ambedkar who drafted was a learned scholar. As I said, everything was taken into consideration. But then political parties in the long run amended and extended certain important guidelines to suit their own needs for eg., Reservation clause. It was made, as at the time of independence, the lower caste people were deprived of basic necessities to survive and hence a time period of 10 years starting from 1950 was made, wherein a percentage of government jobs would be reserved for the underpriviledged, so that they could make a start and in 10 years would be self-sufficient. However, vested interest in the political circles misused it and extended for the next 10 years, which is still on, thus gaining the support of the lower class and underpriviledged while gaining a upperhand on the opposition. Attempt to stop it failed, as there have been widespread agitation by people. Initially these people were misled by the politicians that if they allow it their life would once again be like before and presently these people misuse it by threatening to vote out the party which support such moves. The result of it is less-qualified people doing jobs, resulting in low quality of the work and other negative effects. One religion cannot be incorporated in our Constitution, because, unlike in other countries we have a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual groups of people. A particular religion suffering is due to this complexity of so many religions to deal with coupled with the vested interest of the ruling parties. Not a single political party is bothered about people or any religion in particular, except their desire to be in power. There are so many hindutva parties, who boasted many things, but once they came to power, they were wooing the other religions for support. Gandhi’s vision was that all people, regardless of their religion or caste, stay united under one roof. If Gandhi’s vision is not working, it is because of all the above factors, which he cannot control, because he was never involved in any political party, even though Congress always misquoted that he belonged to them. He is used as a tool by Congress to hide their dirty tricks. Your fear of Indian turning into a vicious country like US / some in Europe, is very much true, but there is a positive side as you can see with globalisation, even though some bad influence of west has arrived, it has boosted the economy by creating new job opportunities, which in turn has raised the standard of living, industries are improving their standards to compete international companies and have succeeded in making their presence in the global market, they are abiding to the environmental rules, women are becoming more self dependants, education has broadened with various fields of study available. Changes will come, nothing can be achieved overnight, but it will take time, a long time infact, due to the ill effects of bad political situation, but we have definitely made a start.

1) Isn't 70% more than enough? 2) Obviously, since US is the only super power left, and who have sufficient controls of even the UN to an extent. 3) Petty politicians thrive, due to petty blank common people, who have no logical thinking capacity. 4) Nothing comes to an end altogether, but it minimises. If you cannot understand real politics, how can you understand what is true in this world, which is controlled itself by ugly politics.

It is a fact that the pressure of war coupled with the pressure of struggle of Indian independence movement created in the international circle led to the freedom of India. Gandhi is primarily responsible for that struggle who united the whole of India on the doctrine of non-violence. Why is Pakistan not stopped? If you are in the U.S., please ask this to the President. They very well know. The presence of U.S. in Pakistan is of very strategic and grave importance to US, which it uses to monitor China and Russia. It cannot risk going all out against Pakistan, which will result in losing its strategic defence base position in important border regions of Pakistan, near to China and Russia. Absolutely no, politicans can never be petty, it is the general public, who never understand the real intentions of these power hungry politicians and their intentions, and elect them. To know the real politics, you should leave the comfort of your room and check the reality. May be it is a wishful thinking that people will one day realise their ignorance and boot out these politicians, but am positive, because all bad things comes to an end.

The problems with us all is that we always look matter with a religious point of view. The hindus says they are sidelined, the muslim say they are and so do others.... Infact it is nothing, but dirty politics, which the politicians play for their own benefit. Our Constitution was made in such a way that the best of all world order was put together so that people with various religious and cultural background could stay together and is not biased. However, the politicians have twisted it for their own benefit. The Constitutional policies since its inception has been amended by all the political parties to suit their own benefit. If one religious group is unhappy on a certain thing (eg. Uniform Civil Code), the political leaders will not see the relevance of that thing to the society, but whether making these people unhappy would invite trouble for themselves and would they be voted out in the next election. So, to keep their vote-banks intact, they would cave into their objections. The people in turn too have used this as a tool to achieve their purpose by electing people who support their selfish causes. Hence, we have a Sonia Gandhi as PM, because people are symphathetic towards Nehru family and whether she is capable or not, the Congress Party appoints her as their candidate, because the bottomline is to 'be in power'. Her not becoming the PM was her own will, atleast she acknowledged that Manmohan Singh is better dealing with the PM's job. Sanathana Dharma is the best, but it can never be followed, because if politicians will use it, others will oppose it, saying it is against their religion. The politicians who oppose are not just muslims / christians, but majority of them are hindus, who use this as a platform to gain support of the minority community and get elected. My view of independence is freedom from all kinds of slavery, whether political or religious. Human being all over the world are one and should unite. Politics & religions, which are man-made things and made for betterment the society, have only been misused.

British had its major presence in India and South Africa, and only few colonies in China and other countries most of which were annexed and gained control by Nazis and Japanese...and hence left those. However, they held on to India and South Africa, but along with the weakening of resources with the war and the pressure of the independence struggle in India on the Empire finally forced them to give up India. This struggle of independence led by indians was in majority of non-violence, which gained international attention and making powerful nations to pressurise Britan to free India. But, that didn't happen in the case of South Africa, which was finally free of British empire many years after, because the freedom movement in SA during that period was not forceful, and failed to create any international response. Politicians are responsible for hindu-muslim or for that matter any religious fights all over the world, and not Gandhi. If people realise the importance of non-violence and restraint they will never fall prey to the petty political tactics and there will be no further bloodshed.

If you really used to like Gandhi, you would have atleast tried to do a background check on whether all the allegations are true. There are lots of things written about him by lots of people. Some praised and made him the Mahatma, some were totally opposite to his ideas. He never claimed himself to be a Mahatma. If you read his autobiography, you will realise this. You will never find a true autobiography of any other person than his. He always advocated restraint, which people have always misinterpreted, and one such thing is about rape. He never mentioned only Hindus to practice restraint, he advocated it to all Indians and the whole world in general. The theory of rape by a muslim of a hindu women is something which came up only to show that he was biased and supportive of muslims and enrage hindus to gain their support. We all know how well writers and journalist can create sensationalism of a simple quote. The context in which a statement was made is never shown or written. You tell that he has crept to Jinnah, didn’t Krishna go to the Kauravas with a proposal. Does that belittle him? He never advocated war/violence as a solution. You can see for yourself what the split to make Pakistan has resulted - a continuous headache to India with militancy and violence on the border. Will there ever be an end to the sufferings of people in Kashmir? People who support the split don’t realise that it wasn’t only the Hindus who fought for the freedom, but Muslims and other religious communities were equally involved in it. It was only people like Jinnah, who had selfish motives of gaining power and wearing the mask of saving the minority Muslim community from the tension that will arise if the Hindus dominate the political circle of independent India, that created the rift among the common people, who fell prey to it. Isn’t the same thing happening today, people are killed in the name of religion, by power hungry people, who will misinterpret the religious scriptures / following to confuse common people and twist the political scenario to suit their own needs. Gandhi advocated non-violence, he fought for the unity among Indian people, he never wanted nor used people for his own benefit. He was not a self-proclaimed Mahatma, like the ones we see nowadays, faking to be the saviour of religion and humanity.

So, how did we gain independence? By violence. As far as we all know, India is the only country which gained independence through non-violence, which was the doctrine advocated by Gandhi. So, how did he fail? Which history book do you refer, The French Revolution?

Who is Godse? He is just one of those religious fanatics who was crazy about hindu religion whilst not understanding the true meaning of it. Ahimsa, is imbibed in Hinduism. If muslims killed hindus, hindus did the same thing. So, why blame the muslims alone. Gandhi fought for India and not any particular religion. How can a person, who revered Bhagwad Gita, compare people on religion. People who object to Gandhi are biased and ignorant of the fact that human being and its welfare comes first than any religion. Religion is a man made thing, which is twisted and changed to suite the selfish men for their own benefit. Gandhi was afterall a human being, he was told as stubborn, because he want all the people to follow this prinicple of loving all human beings equally, irrespective of their caste or creed. One person cannot change the viewpoint of a billion, hence his ideas were revered by a section of people and looked down by a few others. War is never the final solution. It can only kill. It only brings grief. It should be used only as a last option, if all attempt for peace fails.

You have given the names of people which makes "JUNAZOPA", and not its meaning. In India, unlike in the west, all Hindu names have a meaning. Like, if you translate my name in english it would be "Victor". Hope you got it. However, if your names cannot be translated, "JUNAZOPA" as it is can be tatooed in Hindi - using Devanagari Script. Only the writing will be different, but the pronouncement remains the same. Just like football star David Beckham has done his tatoo. Hope you got it.

first tell the people what does 'JUNAZOPA' means. translate the meaning in english and may be then people could find an exact matching word in Hindi.

If somebody, like me or the person who posted this subject, say that we would not have thrown our wife on some baseless allegations, please consider this...we are not Rama...it would hardly cause even a ripple for the general public, the society or the nation, when compared to the position Rama was in. Here the common people, who revere Rama as the incarnation of Vishnu, the people's King, the Noblest of all of the Bharat Varsh, has started talking about the purity of his wife i.e., their very own Queen, Sita. It was no doubt the work of evil-minded people who had spread this misinformation. Enemy need not always be from outside the Country, there are always many in the Country itself. Rama had foreseen this and hence he had asked Sita to give the 'Agni-Pariksha' to prove her purity, so that the matter never come up.... but you cannot stop evil minded people from spreading false information and slowly people started talking and believing in it… Rama did not ask Sita to leave the very next day he heard of such rumour talk amongst his citizens, but it had spread to such an extent that it was out of his control to stop each and every man from talking or discussing it.....The affect was so enormous that people started showing their dislike openly towards their King for being ruled by a Queen whose purity was doubtful…this was detrimental to the kingdom, and the evil mindeds almost succeeded in their attempt, because when people lose faith in their leader there would be no unity and no trust amongst people……in such an extreme situation he consulted all his senior ministers, elders and teachers, who left him with the choice of taking a decision as to his or the nation’s betterment. Finally, after considering all the pros and cons he chose to abandon Sita,,,,,this is not cruelty, this is sacrificing one’s love for the nation and its people…this can only be understood by a person who is such hugely revered, has great responsibility and who is looked upon to deliver and sacrifice for the people and the followers whom he stands for and in doing that take care that the common people are not misled into their own doom even if it meant sacrificing his own life, loved ones or liking……the effect of Rama's action was that the rumour ended and the tension eased up and a possible revolt by the evil minded people by support of the common citizens on false allegation was ended once and for all.

How can you categorise a ruling family to be a simple family and their dispute a simple family dispute. They were the rulers of the whole Bharatvarsha, and the war that happened was to restore true dharma in the whole of Bharatvarsha. It would then affect each and every one and so was termed as a big event. Ratheesh is correct in his statements. Bharatvarsha was considered to be holy land since ancient times, and hence the involvement of Gods to restore its glory under true dharma. You should first consider the situation and the context and then comment on it. You are trying to compare the present and the past. The present India and the glorious land of Dharma - Bharatvarsha, is hardly comparable. Life for you in the present age may seem dull, boring and tedious, but that doesn't mean that life was not fantastic as potrayed in Mahabharata. The situation has changed drastically, and hence you cannot imagine it, bcoz you have never seen it happen in your own lifetime. For you seeing is believing, and hence this suspicion.

Time constraint doesn’t permits me to visit the site regularly now, but it is Great to see you with a totally changed perspective…..Even though I have not been much involved like others, yet I have been going through all the postings and its reactions, commenting on a few, and I congratulate you on this change and specially your courage to accept it and speak out, which is rarely among people nowadays, as they never accept their ignorance/mistakes even if it is there for all and himself to see. As all of them have said, I too say, you have Won. If you have thanked others for giving you a new insight, all of them, including me, should thank you for picking up such debates, which has refined theirs and my own knowledge equally, about things which were not known / not delved into much deeper earlier. A champion gains praise only if he win against a worthy competitor. Hope you stick to this new found identity, and gain more knowledge and insights. Consider this just a beginning, Good luck, Jayan

Like Karna, who had the advantage of Kavacha Kundala, so also Bheeshma had an advantage. He had the boon of ending his life as per his wish...so no one could take his life, except that he/she can force him to take a decision by inflicting deep and unhealable wounds....Only Amba (reborn as Sikhandin) had received that boon from Shiva to slay Bheeshma& and Bheeshma had taken the vow not to use weapons against a person who was born female....Thus only Sikhandin (who was born female and later attained the male form from Yaksha), could have forced this to happen...not even the very Gods. Sikhandin was Amba in previous birth, who was forcefully, but mistakenly, taken by Bheeshma for marriage (not for himself though) even though she liked another person and her life was destroyed. If Bheesma was really better, he could have defeated Arjuna, but it never happened, infact it was Arjuna who was always having an upperhand in the battle against him, except for slaying him, which was only to be Sikhandin.

"Do you know that Karna almost killed Arjuna again with the nagastra, where once again Krishna saved his life? And Karna ket his promise that he wouldn't use it again." - That was Krishna's ability to wheel the chariot well...you should praise him and not praise Karna.....Karna's chairoteer had on numerous occasion helped him in retreating and saving him from the arrows of Arjuna...

If you read the Mahabharata carefully you will realise that Karna promised Kunti to spare four of her sons except Arjuna, thus she will have all her five children with either Arjuna or Karna. There was no instances in Mahabharata where he hesitated to slay Arjuna...don't make up your own stories... Karna is said to be peerless because he was blessed with the Kavcha and Kundala at birth, which cannot be pierced by any weapon. Before the kurukshetra battle he was time and again defeated by Arjuna and to say that Arjuna was afraid of Karna is only a wrong and biased opinion. Nowhere in Mahabharata it is mentioned that Arjuna was afraid of Karna? Arjuna is the only one, amongst all the warriors, who have never retreated from the battle field. While Karna, once again not able to win against Arjuna in the battlefield got the Shakti Astra to slay him. The Brahmastra was never used by Arjuna on Karna. Arjuna's slaying of Karna is well justified. In the first place though Arjuna never wanted to slay the unarmed Karna, but Krishna reminded him how Karna himself has used weapons against the unarmed Abhimanyu, slaying him, against the rules of battle.

this being a discussion forum, a person entering this forum is entitled to enquire/query his or her doubts......if you know the answer to the queries you can very well put down the same....instead of mocking and couter questioning the relevancy of such a query. Your ideas or thoughts might be different, that doesn't mean you are right. You can always put your belief/comments in a more pleasant way rather than ridiculing others....

It is beyond doubt that Arjuna was the best archer and more importantly the best warrior of all times....Arjuna had alone fought the Gandharvas, Danavas, Nivatakavachas and the Paulomas, with whom no one could even think of fighting with a huge army, forget fighting alone. While Karna, or for that matter, no other warrior has achieved such a feat single handedly. Ekalavya was the best archer, while he and Arjuna were studying shastra-vidya, but that does not mean that had not Drona taken his finger he would have been the greatest, because not all best students succeeds in life, a topper in school need not be as successful in his career. It is how we handle the opportunities and the difficulties in later life that brings the best out of an individual, who is equally capable. Karna on the other hand was gifted since birth with kavacha-kundla, which cannot be pierced and before the Kurukshetra battle he got the invincible weapon from Sun God. Arjuna never required such weapons, as he demonstrated in the battle between himself (as Vrinhala) against the whole Kuru army comprising of the Duryodhana, his brothers, Karna, Drona, Kripa, Bhisma...all of whom were chased back to Hastinapura, again, single-handedly. As asked, why Arjuna disguised as Vrinhala during the battle with Kurus, even though the period of vanavas was over, is not because he was scared and nor to take an undue advantage by creating an element of surprise, it is because the Pandavas, had decided to go together to Hastinapura to claim their right at an appropriate day and time. Please take note that they are from a royal family and any important decisions taken by them are done in a appropriate manner, date and time.....also, while Arjuna left with prince Uttara, he only agreed to be his charioteer, since his brothers and King Virata himself (to whom they had decided to reveal their real identity first) were out of the kingdom, but after understanding Uttara's cowardice and seeing him fleeing the battlefield, scared of the mighty Kuru army, and with no alternative left, Arjuna himself chose to battle.....The Kuru army very well knew it was Arjuna and none else from the twang of his mighty bow - Gandiva and the sound of his Conch - Devadatta, and Arjuna himself admits his identity before the battle begins, after which Karna openly challenges him, only to be mangled in the heap of his own chariot and running away from the battlefield like all others. To state that the Kurus came to battlefield unprepared is meaningless, because, no one comes unprepared to a battlefield. The Kurus, experienced in the art of combat and battle very well know never to underestimate one's opponent in a battlefield. Karna was too much indebted to Duryodhana and blindly sided him even though Duryodhana was choosing the path of Adharma. If he were a good friend of him, he would have advised him to mend his ways. As a best friend you may lay your life for your friend, but you should always put your efforts to put him right. Instead, Karna supported all the ill deeds of Duryodhana, he was party to the shameful act of Draupadi Vastraharan, he was foremost in slaying the unarmed Abhimanyu, which was against the rule of war, and unworthy of a true warrior,,, this finally led to his end.......

the example give by ratheesh of occurances of earthquakes, volcanos and tsunamis does make it more believable........these are natural occurances, and thus no need for any scientific proof for modern people to understand....

---------- They split god into three -Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and claim both are the same and worshipping one will lead to the other. ----------- Worshipping one is not leading to other, but worshiping one is equal to worshipping the other. The trinity is one God, in three different forms. When you use the word/say "lead" then the level of superiority applies, here all the three are equals.

Material desires are something which all experiences and everyone is born with, you cannot just discard it one fine day. The best way is to control it, because anything in access is bad. If one see a box of sweets, even though thrilled, one would not consume it fully in one go, because we know that intake of too much of sweets is not good for our health. Hence we control our craving. No one can ever be satisfied with his material gains, because when we achieve something, a new or better thing is found, we then crave for that and the cycle goes on...This would finally leave within us a feeling of non-fulfillment and depression. To counter this, try to be happy with what you achieve, even though little, don't think too much of what you will gain, but see that you put your best efforts in whatever you do. Sexual desires is likewise, everyone has it, but is better if one has control on it.... You may have tried being a brahmachari, but then just retiring to a secluded place or ashram, whilst thinking of all the material pleasures, you will never be able to control your desires.....One who becomes a true brahmachari is in good control of his mind and body, and for that - with all the shlokas and mantras, the most important thing is controlling your mind and body...like, in meditation/yoga. Have you tried it? If no, you should try and practice meditation/yoga, from a good teacher. You should also be open minded to him about your feelings during the course....if you are not able to control your mind you will never be able to control your feelings... Next, is to keep yourself busy with activities, in which you find interest, like book reading, music, playing etc., so that you keep yourself involved. If your thoughts wander, and the desires return, just sit back and ask what would be the end result if you indulge in such activities, will it bring any good in future if you keep on succumbing to this temporary urges. Chanting of shlokas and mantras is good, it will give you inner strength, but for that to happen you should put in your own efforts...Most people have this misconception that taking a bath in a holy river will wash their sins off, while their inner mind is corrupt. Our body is just a covering to our inner soul, just like clothes are material covering for our physical body. If we don't keep our body clean, with regular bath, and only clean our clothes, will that be of any good???? Hence, first you should put efforts from your own end by having control of your self, and when you feel that you now have the will to change for the better, you should then approach God to give you the mental strength to guard and withstand you from any unwanted influence. Be practical, don't confuse yourself on the choice and importance of which God to pray? God is "ONE". He is depicted in different forms, referred to with different names and prayed to in different ways, by people, as per their choice, interpretation and liking. Choose any form of Lord with whom you could relate yourself better, may it be Rama / Krsna / Shiva / Durga / Ganesha......... Also, do not rush into things. You may find success slowly and there would be occasional failures, but you should think positive in that, by saying to yourself that even though for a brief period, you were successful, and that you will try and better it the next time.

with your views that indians (esp. south indians) have not heard about Darwin or his theory.......infact south indians are the most educated lot in india, and of the four south indian states, Kerala, has got 100% literacy, while the other three states are having more than 60% literacy rate....if you visit to Kerala, you would hardly find people who do not know about Darwin and his theory.....south indians are more into education......while in contrast you will find many people in north india who don't even know the name of the Indian Prime Minister, let alone Darwin,,, even though majority of them are into active politics, rather to serve their own purpose.......your reference of uneducated village indians are majorly in the north.....please do not make any statements on the basis on what is potrayed in one media channel, which is never entirely true.....any statement should be made only after making thorough research.... I have already accepted that my reasoning of linking of darwin theory and vishnu avataar may be farfetched or even false....but then that's my own idea/imagination of how somebody could have come up with this linkage, i am not the one who proposed the linkage theory in the first place.........and for considering your theory to be logic, your never proposed any theory, but only opposed it.....you were the one who put somebody elses idea, saying that it make sense, in the first place....

the following link.... http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Vedas/Women