Freedom Dr. Shriniwas Kashalikar
Download as DOC, PDF0 likes49 views
The document discusses whether an individual or organization that does not participate in a political freedom movement led by another group can be considered antinational. It provides several examples of individuals who may not have participated in political freedom struggles, including artists, scientists, government workers, and those focused on other social reforms. It argues that after 62 years of independence, it is important to move past judgments of others' viewpoints and actions during the freedom struggle, and instead focus on a shared vision of prosperity and equality for all.
Freedom Dr. Shriniwas Kashalikar
- 2. Is an individual or an organization that does not participate in political freedom movement under the leadership of another particular organization antinational? An individual could be an artist, a scientist, a hermit or a health worker, and may not participate in a political freedom struggle. There are many examples of this type of great people in Indian history. He could be in some government departments (such as post and telegraph, police, military and so on) while they were under the alien rulers and may not participate in political freedom movement. He could be a part of an organization involved in different social reforms and may not get involved in political freedom movement.
- 3. He could be a part of an organization or a group that felt, religious dogmas e.g. untouchability; could hinder the evolution of equality. His goal may be focused on annihilation of such dogmas and may not participate in political freedom movement. He could be one of those who sincerely felt theism as a tool of exploitation and theism made individuals parasitic, or dependent and/or helpless. He may therefore get involved in propagation of atheism and annihilation of theism in every respect and not get involved in political freedom movement. He could be a believer of a theory that a revolution (freedom from exploitation and equal opportunity to all) is not possible in an isolated country. So a political freedom movement would be thought by him as belonging and beneficial to a
- 4. particular section and not all inclusive. He may not participate in a political freedom movement that according to him belongs to exploiter could serve purpose of only small exploiter section of a society. He could be in an organization that believed in identity of a nation on the basis of a religion or a culture or indigenousness. He may therefore dedicate himself to uniting people on the basis of such national identity, on priority basis rather than getting involved in political freedom movement. He may belong to a religion that did not believe in idol worship and thought idols were hindrances in the way of God. He thought imagery of different kinds entangles and throttles one. He may therefore choose to pursue the goal of destroying idols and annihilating all kinds of worship of imagery.
- 5. He could have belonged to a particular caste, religion, region or ethnic group and got overwhelmed by the emotional appeal for assertiveness and welfare of that section the society. 62 years after political freedom of India, every individual and organization whether having participated in the political struggle or not, have to appreciate that the different feelings and different ideologies, viewpoints, strategies and actions at individual and organizational levels can have some element of truth and error. It is most urgent to get rid of pettiness, superficiality, self righteousness and fanaticism and accept OUR and forgive OTHERS’ erroneous viewpoints, strategies and actions and immerse in a vision and mission of blossoming of one and all. DR. SHRINIWAS KASHALIKAR