Savitri Era of those who adore, Om Sri Aurobindo and The Mother.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Terrorist approach in the freedom struggle of India

At the outset, it seems pertinent to note that freedom struggle of India was led by leaders having different perceptions of their own. Some leaders like Ranade, Gokhale had moderate approach. Aurobindo Ghosh, M.N. Roy, Bhagat Singh, Khudiram had ‘terrorist’ approach and some others like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal had extremist approach; Bal Gangadhar Tilak though initially had moderate mind but subsequently changed his mind to that of an extremist because he lost faith in British administration. ... He was an apostle of ‘humanist realism’. TILAK AND INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT : AN OVERVIEW - RITESH KUMAR, INDIAN JOURNAL OF RESEARCH(2012)6,43-46 ANVIKSHIKI 15 Nov. 2011

Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, has  published Barindra Kumar Ghose’s book The Tale of My Exile : Twelve Years in the Andamans (introduced and edited by Dr. Sachidananda Mohanty of  the Department of English, University of Hyderabad) in December 2011. Rare photographs of Barindra Kumar Ghose by 
19 January 2012 At 18:30 - C. D. Deshmukh Auditorium

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Three influential advocates

35 | January 3, 2012 11:18 am

citizen_q wrote:

There were three influential figures advocating for Indian independence from Britain at that time. Ghandi, who advocated a suicidal pacifism in the face of the Third Reich and more importantly for India, Imperial Japan. Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian fascist who advocated alliance with the Axis powers against Britain, and Sri Aurobindo, who advocated Indians to fight on the British side against Japan and Germany in exchange for guarantee of independence after the war.

Sri Aurobindo is the pivotal need

On India’s darkling plain
January 4, 2012 By Jagmohan

My own long experience of dealing with political as well as bureaucratic functionaries has reinforced my belief that as long as the Indian mind is not reformed, no administrative, economic or constitutional reforms would save the country from the ever-deepening quagmire of inefficiency, corruption and malpractices.

The experience of 65 years of Independence has shown that it is not possible to build a clean and honest system of governance on a diseased mindscape in the degraded milieu which such a mindscape gives rise to. Strong laws are necessary. Well-structured and effective institutions are a must. The personnel to implement the laws and run the institutions have to be knowledgeable and trained. The overall mechanism of deterrence has to be potent. But all these are of no avail if the fundamental issues pertaining to the mind and soul of India remain neglected and if the negative and nasty values are allowed to hover around.

History tells us that every turning point in the march of civilisation has been preceded by a fundamental change in the mindscape of the people as in the case of the European renaissance in the mid-15th century. It was such inner change that was most needed in the post-1947 India, and it was this very pivotal need that was neglected by the builders of our nation.

Along with the modern Constitution and five-year plans for economic development, the leadership should have been instrumental in the formulation and implementation of a national regeneration programme, by which the country should have been rid of all the detritus that had collected during the long period of decay and degeneration. At the same time the buried treasures of her life-elevating ideals should have been dug out — the ideals which the great reformers of Indian renaissance, such as Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Sri Aurobindo talked about. The leadership should have realised that without providing inner energy, institutions created by the Constitution could not develop the animation needed to keep them clean, creative and constructive.

The writer is a former governor of J&K and a former Union minister’s-darkling-plain-652

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Sri Aurobindo during 1890-1920

Empire, the National, and the Postcolonial, 1890-1920: Resistance in Interaction
Elleke Boehmer

This book explores the political co-operations and textual connections which linked anti-colonial, nationalist, and modernist groups and individuals in the empire in the years 1890-1920. By developing the key motifs of lateral interaction and colonial interdiscursivity, this book builds a picture of the imperial world as an intricate network of surprising contacts and margin-to-margin interrelationships, and of modernism as a far more constellated cultural phenomenon than previously understood. Individual case studies consider Irish support for the Boers in 1899-1902, the path-breaking radical partnership of the Englishwoman Sister Nivedita and the Bengali extremist Aurobindo Ghose, Sol Plaatje's conflicted South African nationalism, and the cross-border, cosmopolitan involvements of W. B. Yeats, Rabindranath Tagore, and Leonard Woolf. Underlining Frantz Fanon's perception that ‘a colonized people is not alone’, the book significantly questions prevailing postcolonial paradigms of the self-defining nation, syncretism and mimicry, and dismantles still-dominant binary definitions of the colonial relationship.