Suresh1943's picture

Average: 5 (1 vote)

I posted following comments this morning at
My comments were on the following write up:
"Ever since I left home, at the age of eighteen, I’ve been desperately trying to change the world, as a self-appointed missionary of the ‘Revolution’. I began identifying with communities in India that saw themselves as ‘oppressed’, and took it upon myself to champion their ’cause’. How desperately I craved to be recognised as one among them! That is how I became what is called a ‘social activist’, and began writing mainly about Muslims, but also about Adivasis and Dalits and other such ‘marginalised groups’, attending their conferences and participating in their protest demonstrations, and even churning out ponderous tomes about them, all of which further reinforced my belief that I was indeed a seriously committed do-gooder.

Being a ‘social activist’ made me feel nice, for once, about myself. It made me think of myself as selfless and all so very goody-goody and pious, while leading me to look down on others as allegedly miserably self-centred and uncaring…

Being a ‘social activist’ and a supposed ‘expert’ on the problems of ‘oppressed communities’ also helped me to stand out among the crowd, in this way satisfying my inner urge to be somehow different from others so that, finally, I would gain their attention, even if in a negative way. As a child, there was nothing more than I craved for, and was denied, than recognition and acceptance and the feeling of being wanted, and the notice I began to receive as a supposed ‘expert’ on various ‘marginalised communities’ served to fulfil that desperate urge and fill that deep psychological vacuum.

Is this so wrong? Does it make his views more suspect? Not quite. Everyone’s worldview – be it of a Gandhi, a Hitler, a multinational executive or the chaiwalla – are shaped by our life experiences. All politics is indeed personal. But what differentiates a Gandhi from other ideologues is his willingness to bare his soul, inner demons included. We can see clearly the strengths and weaknesses of his politics, and wherein they spring from, be it his questionable sexual puritanism or indomitable commitment to ahimsa (non violence).

Of course, Sikand is no Gandhi – nor does he presume to reference him. But he shows that same and far too rare willingness to bare the private wellsprings of his public beliefs. And his experience reveals how self-knowledge can transform our politics.

MY comments follow:

Earlier we ALL learn this lesson, the better for entire humanity. Will it ever happen?? Well one lives on hope...may be my grand-daughter will see such a world when she comes of age; or may be her daughter will!! LET US ALL STRIVE TO BRING ABOUT SUCH A CHANGE WITHIN US.


When you use the words such as 'a Gandhi', you are practically trying to tie Nehru dynasty of today in some way to give some credence to them...please note there was only One Gandhi, that is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi..aka M K Gandhi. You should clarify this when you are trying to make a blanket statement about Gandhi last name. You must clarify that 'A Gandhi' you are talking about is i no way related to Nehru Gandhi dynasty of Congress (like BBC does all the time). It will help readers.

Suresh Anand:
A BIT OF A SILLY CAUTION!! ALL AWARE READERS WILL KNOW WHICH GANDHI WAS MEANT. Those who are not aware, do they really matter...they will NOT change!!

Rajender Mohan Kashyap
Snatching your rights being human; makes u the Social Animal.
Aggression being human of the Social Animal; makes u the Social Activist.Deprived of the human quality of content in life; gives u depression.Abundance of money, social security in life; pretends to confession.Confession of the Social Activist is not a negation of the negative.

Suresh Anand
I HAVE TO CONFESS I DID NOT AT ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! Can you please repeat in simple English? Thank you

jonas prabasi
great article. of course, we all have to work for change, but we should recognize that social activists have big egos and many prefer creating huge controversy and promoting themselves over change.

Many low key organizations like rotarians, temple and church charities and so on, have created more change that 1000s of pompous self-advertising "activists".

Suresh Anand
I have seen these so called 'low key' organizations from the ring side. They ALL have the SAME INFLATED EGO. They do donate funds (occasionally), but ALWAYS HAVE to follow their way! A few church charities are truly humanitarian, but most expect the beneficiaries to accept Jesus as the saviour. Those who serve selflessly shy away from organizations. At one time I had thought that I had found one organisation which was truly working for betterment of humanity (and I became a member); but from close within it quickly became clear that it was all about glamorising the ones who ran the show. Yes a few within the organisation may be selfless; but the vast majority are not.

I assure you Jonasi, I speak from very personal and close experience - in tribal areas as well as Cuttack of Odhisha, in Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, in Pune, in Gudur Andhra Pradesh, in Hong Kong, in several cities in California, in NOIDA and elsewhere. I AM YET TO COME ACCROSS A TOTALLY SELF LESS ORGANIZATION. EVERYWHERE eventually the Organization and/or the "guru" or the "leader" becomes much more important than the cause it/he/she is supposed to be promoting. THOSE WHO TRULY SERVE, SERVE SILENTLY. AND BEST SERVICE IS TO GAIN SELF KNOWLEDGE. ABOUT SELF KNOWLEDGE I HOPE TO WRITE A POST SOON.

ram swaroop's picture

boss heartly welcome of your blog.

boss i donot what you hide in side iff it is the ture that yourself explain. then your junior respect you boss. pl accept my CONG..........................

ram swaroop | Sat, 05/12/2012 - 07:03