Discover & Read Best Stories about happy movement quotes. Also Read about .
Most Indians recognise 26 January as Republic Day, but not many are aware that on 26 January 1930, exactly 20 years before India became a republic, the Indian National Congress in an electrifying resolution declared Purna Swaraj — complete freedom from the British Raj. From then on, it was a question of when — not if —India would become free.
By 1920 Indian nationalist leaders were convinced that contrary to what the British government had promised during World War 1, few, if any, of their demands would be met. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the disturbances in Punjab and the Rowlatt Act (which indefinitely extended ‘emergency measures’ enacted by the government during the war) added to the sense of gloom. The British failure to heed the grievances of the leaders of the Khilafat movement over the disintegration of the Turkish Empire alienated a large section of Indian Muslims. All this culminated in the non-cooperation movement that was launched on 1 August 1920. The Khilafat movement, which Mahatma Gandhi endorsed, ran parallel to the non-cooperation movement.
‘Non-cooperation’ was a call to Indians to surrender all titles and government posts, boycott functions of the British government and shun foreign articles. It also stressed on developing small scale industries, using swadeshi articles and maintaining communal harmony.
Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement after a mob in Chauri Chaura set a police station on fire, killing 22 people. As the first mass movement of its kind in India, it led to tangible gains. In their book India’s Struggle for Independence Bipan Chandra and other historians write: “After non-cooperation, the charge of representing a ‘microscopic minority,’ made by the Viceroy, Dufferin, in 1888, could never again be hurled at the Indian National Congress. Its reach among many sections of Indian peasants, workers, artisans, shopkeepers, traders, professionals, white-collar employees, had been demonstrated…The capacity of the ‘poor dumb millions’ of India to take part in modern nationalist politics was also demonstrated.”
Gandhi was arrested in March 1922. He was released from jail in February 1924 on health grounds. Meanwhile, there was a split in the Congress ranks, with a section calling themselves ‘Swarajists’ in favour of working with the councils instead of boycotting them. The most important Swarajists were C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru. Gandhi intervened between the two sides and brought about a rapprochement, agreeing that the Swarajist Party would work in the legislatures on behalf of the Congress.
Motilal Nehru called for the framing of a new Constitution to transfer real power to India in the first session of the central legislative assembly. The demand was passed. There were other moral victories for the Swarajists. The government faced severe criticism for its repression of dissent. C.R. Das said: “Repression is a process in the consolidating of arbitrary power — and I condemn the violence of the government for repression is the most violent form of violence…”
However, as the 1920s progressed, the nationalist movement seemed a little confused and lacking in coherence. Ironically, it was the British who provided a spark which re-ignited a nationwide struggle. This was the infamous Simon Commission, which was set up ostensibly to discuss further reforms for India, but without a single Indian on board. The backlash was immediate. In January 1928 Gandhi wrote in Young India: “The act of appointment (of the Simon Commission) needs for an answer, not speeches, however heroic they may be, not declarations, however brave they may be, but corresponding action…”
As soon as the Commission arrived in Bombay on 3 February 1928, it was met by protestors carrying black flags. Protests spread to major Indian cities, with the Congress at the forefront of the opposition. In one such protest in Lahore, the senior Congress leader Lala Lajpat Rai was severely injured in a brutal police lathi-charge and
What is Germaine Greer the iconic feminist trying to say in that Al Jazeera interview in 'Head to head' program?
Okay, first of all, let me say it in the beginning that I am not a feminist supporter but supporter of ultra modern women who take decision on her own right without conditioned by others.
Why am I not supporter of feminism rather pro men that is a complex long debate for another day.
I gave this introduction about myself to clarify a few things as I am going to answer this question.
I saw the recent debate of Germaine Greer in Al Jazeera channel.
What is my take from that debate that she is hugely misunderstood by others for many reasons.
I am explaing this as a normal analyser of any normal analysable content not as a feminist defender of any kind (as I said before, sorry for repeating)
First of all, she is an old woman so she isn't being able to communicate with people clearly
What she is again and again trying to give message that sex is not a big deal. Wheather it is abusive sex or normal sex. Her intention is basically to make sure sex never becomes the prime issue for women.
She feels that sex is the biggest distraction for women's rights. As she feels that women are beyond anything attached to sex. She feels that it is conditioned by men to make women contained by sexual parameters.
She wants women to get out of that trap. She feels mordern feminists are Kind of trapped in this.
Now I don't know her or follow her, so I don't exactly know what she said or not. Maybe she hasn't said all those things, maybe it kind of got hyped by the media or she has said those things in order to explain the things that I said before but couldn't do it in a simple clear way. As a result end up making a lot of confusion in the process
As you may have heard in that interview 'Head to head', she was constantly describing herself as middle class white academic. Which means she is trying to say that she can see through the fakeness of so-called privileged and rich Hollywood people or people like that. And she is basically pissed off in a big way towards them. Because she feels that is dumbing down the whole feminist movement. Remember she mentioned Uma Thurman in this case. She is trying to say that these people(Hollywood types or celebrity types) doesn't matter what they say as they are opposing certain people when it suits their agenda, and they will support when it will suit them. She is trying to say that these people are complaining against certain lobby which they themselves are very well part of therefore completely fake. This is why she has such disdain towards ‘Me too' campaign or negetive towards these types of effort as she feels this is all part of big show of powerful people. She just hates this. That is why she feels there not going to be much result from people like Hervey Weinstein's case. As she feels that the whole feminist movement is now driving by the same poweful lobby which it's supposed to oppose.
As a result she feels that women's issues are not even the main issue in feminist movement any more, a whole lot of other issues have come into it and clouding it or distracting it or slowing it down.
This is why not being able to express properly she generally use very strong insensitive word. It is her lack of communication basically.
She is tremendously concerned with the fact that a lot of other kind of thinking has got into feminist movement as a result the whole feminist movement at times becomes completely different from what it started to be.
She is trying to say that these religious politically correctness defeating the whole feminist movement. For example how Muslim feminist defend Quranic verse or burqa etc. But again she is not exactly communicating properly. That's why she doesn't like that Muslim anchor who obviously felt that he exposed her duplicity through his debate. That is why she is again and again giving emphasis on sex being not a big issue. As she knows sex is a big issue to religion. In this case Islam. This is why also she is pissed off
She belongs to that era where calling spade a spade was infact politically correct or they fought for. So she is pissed off seeing today's feminist's certain religious ass kissing in this case Islam. But again she is not being able to communicate properly.
This is what I thought from that interview.
I could be wrong as I never heard about her before that interview.
But I feel I am not wrong here.
To be happy in one’s own happiness and sad in one’s own sadness is beastliness, while to be happy in others’ happiness and sad in others’ sadness is humanity. Therefore, as long as, a man does not develop the nature of becoming happy in others’ happiness, and sad with others’ sadness, he does not deserve to be called a man. His appearance may be like a man, but in fact he is not a man. So long as a man is happy in his own happiness and sad with his own sorrows, it means that he has not developed humanity in him.
He who harms others for his own happiness and pleasure, does not deserve to be called a man. A man is he who having renounced his selfishness, does good to others or at least does not in the least cause any suffering to others. Therefore the lesson that needs to be learned is that let no one experience any pain or suffering, in the least bit through our actions. Besides trying to relieve the people of their sufferings, we should aim at their welfare, keeping in the forefront, how they can be benefited? May all beings be benefited!
“Remain engrossed in the welfare of all.” (Gita 5/25; 12/4).
We are only responsible for the welfare of others to the extent of our ability, power and resources. No one can make everyone happy. Even all the men in the world pulling all their resources together, cannot make a single man happy. The reason is that as a man’s desire for prosperity, pleasures, honor and praise etc., are fulfilled, the more they are strengthened. In the Manasa, it is mentioned,
“Jimi pratilaabh lobh adhikaayi,”
“The more a man gains, the more greedy he becomes.”
Even on acquiring an abundance of riches, the man can’t be satisfied. When the entire world together cannot make a single man happy, how can then one man relieve all people of the world of their suffering? However, all can adopt the feelings and sentiments, of wishing well for other’s welfare, i.e. “How can all be happy?”, whether he is a brother or a sister, young or old, rich or poor. No one is deprived of this right.
He who does good to others according to his power, God does good to him according to His power. If he applies all his power to do good to others, then God also applies all His power to do good to him. When God applies His powers, then how can he remain unhappy? No one can ever make him unhappy; and such a person attains God. The Lord declares -
“Te praapnuvanti maameva sarvabhootahite rataah.”
“Those who are engrossed in the welfare of all beings attain Me.” (Gita 12/4).
We should wish -
“Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah;
Sarve Santu Niraamayaah |
Sarve Bhadraani pashyantu,
Maa kaschid dukhabhaagbhavet ||
“May all be happy, May all be free from diseases, May all attain benediction and May no one suffer in the least.”
He who wishes everyone to be happy, healthy and totally free from all sufferings, deserves to be called a human being. As long as he is not saddened by the sufferings of others, till then he cannot be considered to be a man. Second point is that, he who empathizes and identifies with the suffering of others, does not grieve from his own grief. You all pay attention! Only he, who does not have compassion for the joys and sorrows of others, has to suffer. Only he who is a pleasure seeker, and hankers after riches, experiences the void of and lack of happiness. But he, who is happy with the happiness of others, never has a shortage of happiness. How? His desire for enjoyment and pleasures perishes.
The desire for pleasures and prosperity is the main obstacle to God Realization. Sense pleasures and hoarding, will not permit man to realize God. The reason is that when he hoards, he does this with his body, and when he enjoys pleasures, he does so with his body. So if a man is attached to the body, an effigy of bone and flesh, if he is a slave to these, how can he attain spiritual enlightenment? But he, who is happy in the happiness of others, ceases to have the desire for happiness or pleasure, while he who is moved and distressed in the sadness of others ceases to have the desire for hoarding.
On being moved with the sufferings of others, man thinks of relieving the sufferers of their sufferings. Just as we spend money to relieve ourselves of our pain, similarly, we will be willing to spend money to relieve others off their sufferings. We will not be able to hoard too much money! Even if it is accumulated, we shall not remain attached to it, by thinking that it belongs to others. It is therefore mentioned in the Bhagawat -
Yavad brhiyeta jatharam taavat svatvam hi dehinaam |
Adhikam yo’bhimanyeta sa steno dandamarhati || (7/14/8)
A man is authorized to possess only the bare necessities of life. It means that the food which satisfies your hunger, the water which quenches your thirst, the clothes and house which are necessary for the bare maintenance of your body, are yours. One who lays a claim to anything else besides these bare necessities of life is a thief and will be punished. You may say that you have not got these from somewhere else, these are your own. But how are they yours? Did you bring even a single thing with you when you were born? Will you carry even a single coin with you when you die? Therefore all the extra things with us belong to those who have a shortage of these. He who is sad with the sadness of others, never hankers after pleasure and prosperity. His heart is filled with compassion which provides him with such a relish or joy which cannot be provided by mundane pleasures.
If you amass riches, it means that within there is cruelty, lack of compassion. Where there is compassion, there is no amassing of possessions for one’s pleasure. Why? Because he is naturally joyful! The happiness that comes from hoarding is of the modes of passion and ignorance. The happiness which is derived by being happy in the happiness of others is not changed into pleasures and prosperity, but it is a kind of bliss! a very joyful feeling!
He whose nature and inner sentiments (bhaav) are to share in the sufferings of others, can never ever enjoy pleasures while others are suffering. A person with a noble heart can’t cook and relish delicious dishes, if his neighbor is starving. Under such circumstances, he can’t relish food at all. But those people who cause suffering to others, will they suffer on accord of other’s sufferings? Such people who cause suffering to others for their own happiness, dishonor others for their own honor, blame others for their own praise, dismiss others for their own position, don’t deserve to be called human beings. They are not human beings at all. They are animals! Animals that are so lowly, that they have neither horns, nor tails. They possess human body and beasty nature. Birds and beast are purified by reaping the fruit of their sinful actions. But vile persons, who cause sufferings to others, pave the way to hells by committing new sins. In the Ramcharitramanasa Lord Rama says to Vibhishana –
Baru bal baas narak kar taataa |
Dusht sang jani deyi bidhaataa || (Manas 5/46/4)
O’ dear friend, it is better to live in hell, but let providence not give us the company of vile persons (Manasa 5/45/4)
It is vile to be happy and sad with one’s own happiness and sadness. Our stay in hells will expiate our sins and purify us, while company of the vile will lead us to different kinds of hells.
Animals don’t incur sins by causing suffering to others because the ordinance of sins and virtues is applicable to human beings only. Birds and beasts cause suffering to others in order to satisfy their hunger, rather than for pleasure and prosperity. But a millionaire or a multi-millionaire that goes on hoarding wealth by causing suffering to others does not deserve to be called a human being. He is worse than an animal. This human life aims at purification. Those who cause suffering to others commit sins and they will have to reap horrible fruits.
The inner sense of those who don’t feel happy in the happiness of others and compassionate with sorrow of others is impure. Their impure inner sense paves the way to hell for them. The inner sense of animals is not so much impure because they don’t kill beings for pleasure. They satisfy their hunger with the kill. Men are free to perform new actions while animals have to reap the fruit of their past actions. Men prepare delicious dishes and relish them and thus they incur sin. True humanity consists in being happy with others’ happiness and sad with others sadness. So every human being should have the sentiment how can all beings be happy and how can they be relieved of their sufferings?
नारायण ! नारायण ! नारायण
From "Ease of God Realization" in Hindi and English by Swami Ramsukhdasji