Monday, May 11, 2009

Sri Aurobindo must take his share of the blame for the partition and the bloodletting

130.94.91.2 (Ntt America Inc) California, San Diego, United States, Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Skewed law of Karma": OPEN LETTER TO SCIY - I have a question for all those support the book. Could SCIY editors or contributors please respond or answer?.

As SCIY has shown unstinted support and admiration for the book and since they have read the book thoroughly, I hope they answer this and help people like myself to understand their position. I personally have a problem with some of the statements made about Aurobindo. My questions hold for each such statement.

Lets take for eg where the author states that Aurobindo refused to see the problem of communalism as a political issue and tried only half-heartedly to bring the Muslims into the movement and hindsight shows that Aurobindo was negligent in this regard and must therefore take his share of the blame for the partition and the bloodletting that accompanied it (even though this bloodletting and partition would most probably have happened anyway.).

This is what the author states and I was rather alarmed. I know very little of Indian history but I do know that Aurobindo has been regarded as having great political foresight, insight and acumen to have missed this obvious communal problem. In any case its quite something to hold him responsible for the bloodshed and the partition. It is quite damning. I hope its not true. That is a huge failure of Aurobindo. On this subject (of his being responsible for the partition and the bloodshed) I would like to know which of the following positions you hold (each supporter might answer differently). Either

1) All of you actually hold this to be true- Aurobindo must be held responsible for the partition and the bloodshed. It follows also that you have no problem that a disciple states this publicly(especially given that there is also much that is stated positively about him).

2) You do not believe it to be true. It follows that you feel its still ok for a disciple to state this publicly(especially given that there is also much that is stated positively about him).

3) You are not sure, but Aurobindo is most probably guilty. It follows that despite being not 100% sure you still think its ok to state it publicly that Aurobindo must be held responsible.

I cannot think of any other possibility. Which one is it? Could you please let me know? Noel Posted by Anonymous to Savitri Era at 1:34 PM, May 11, 2009

91.108.123.97 (Ouk-llu) England, Bath, United Kingdom, Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Inappropriateness of speaking in the same breath o...":

What I want to understand is how Carter Phipps got all our website URLs related to this controversy??? Maybe Ulrich or someone at SCIY gave it to him. The lawyers of heehs are at work behind the scenes. Posted by Anonymous to Savitri Era Open Forum at 8:26 PM, May 10, 2009

91.17.87.203.static.vic.chariot.net.au (Chariot Limited) Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Rebellion against religion bears responsibility fo...":

How then does one explain all the slaughters done in the name of religion prior to the 20th Century? Especially the slaughters and collective psychosis that engulfed most of Europe with the Counter-Reformation--the catholic vs protestant wars of religion. Posted by Anonymous to Evergreen Essays at 4:33 PM, May 11, 2009

No comments:

Post a Comment