این پاچاه خان زمانی طی سفر سیاحتی و تفریحی به هزاره جات در ولسوالی پنجاب هم توقفی داشت مسولین برایش در پیاله های معمول و مروج ان زمان چای اوردن ولی پاچاه خان از پیاله ها چای نوشیده نتوانستند علت را جویا شدن گفتند بینی پاچاه خان انقدر دراز است که مانع نوشیدن چای از پیاله میشود بعدش چای را در کاسه کلان شوربا خوری برای شان سرویس کردند .
پٹھآن ھونے کے باوجود باچا خان سے نفرت کیلئے اتنا کافی ھے کہ وہ پآکستان کے وجود کا مخآلف تھا دشمن تھا باچا خان عظیم قآئد اعظم کا مخالف تھا ۔ وہ دن گئے جب پٹھان باچان کو اپنا لیڈر کہتےتھے اب پٹھانوں کآ صرف ایک ہی لیڈر ھے جو تمام صوبوں کے باشندوں کا یکساں محبوب ھے اور وہ ھے عمرآن خآن ایک عظیم آنسان زندہ باد
That being said, to inherit a royal heritage is not a bad thing or slightly unethical, any culture including a familial one deserves to exist, even a small act of familiar genocide is malicious, even if for some social purpose or some perception of kindness. Let not such unethical attitudes persist. The world should be filled with variables and differences, not at the enslavement or bitter detriment of any others, shared in interesting ways instead, complex and unlike the other at every place. Fuck the cut lawn. The irregularity is beautiful.
Another possible interpretation might go like: under the condition of non-violence, attempts to injure your movement help your movement and never truly harm it.
It was the secondary point but fascism didn't invent violence, such that, not all expressions of violence are expressions of fascism. It's tempting to say that but logically fallacious. Now, there may have been a general infiltration by fascism but it's a separate matter.
I have to always remind myself that Ghandi was 12 years older than me when he really started practicing Satyagraha and one year older than me when he first developed the concept.
Hey we agree. I get swayed that times in the past may have been worse by those who argue it... But somehow I can't ever believe that this is a better time at all either. Rather that it feels oppressive, addicting, expensive, unrelentingly abusive and dangerous.
You know, you say this quote exemplifies the corrosive role of anger and fear. And of course Ghandi is a fallible human, he doesn't think otherwise. When Ghandi says "it is to do a favour for the community if you put down a lunatic with a sword," and to some degree it is ableism, you could disable him without killing him, I think what we hear here is a bit of Ghandi's "I have three key enemies and one of them is Mahatma Ghandi" (to paraphrase) for although the lunatic doesn't necessarily hate you (maybe he does, situationally speaking he could be filled with an irrational hate but he is not hateful like a racist might be) one is afraid of the lunatic, and therefore motivated to violently put them down for the sake of the safety of others. Therefore, to love the lunatic, is to pity him, and wish for him to be disabled, restrained and healed. Which indicates that here, this principle of killing the lunatic perhaps comes from Ghandi's enemy within, rather than from his virtuous place.
During my lifetime, it looks like divide-and-conquer overpowers any positive possibilities of the paradox of resistance and may continue to do so to the point of civil war in the US.
In general, equality has been a part of our democracy. But democracy has almost always divided the "free and equal citizen" from the outsider. Athenian Males, White male Americans, etc... Equality of humans under the banner of the nation is the essential struggle for the democratic soul. For democracy is people-rule, those who wish to control the democracy best do by demarcating which people rule and whom are not people at all.
I can will not to harm and hold to that will truthfully. But I do not live without an inner-life which, from time to time, experiences abhot-flash of violent thought.
if one is fortunate enough to find a mentor in life, this will also diminish the likelihood of making very stupid mistakes. But of course, we’re gonna make them anyway since we’re not perfect.
I don't know. Even in unrequited love this may be beyond duty. Authentic love would not care if the love was unrequited. But the conjoining of love for love would be amplifying.
But how can we trust a state which tells us we cannot use the thing well enough? If we should each unlock our potential through the statr, then a vacuum of merit can deprive the many for a few. For the capitalists exploit often by saying it is their merit which commands their ownership. I get the spirit. But I worry that in any case where we can only be trustees of our situation, we must first have a nation we can trust as god is said to be trustworthy. But look around the world. Not one nation is.
Perfect recipe for disaster and peroetual poverty ! Show me one district , nay, even a single village which had followed the great gandhian economics and flourishing!!
A true science, which is why Gandhi called it an experiment with truth. it needs to be studied and put into practice to see the results of the experiment.
A lot of corruption has entrenched during a long period of relative peace. I'm having a hard time and I'm wondering just how much coexistence with corruption is actually possible. Especially with regards to the abuse of technology. Considering the technologies in development it's also hard to imagine the same forces of psychology even being in play in a decade by the oppressors let alone two. Right now is the definitive moment.
I know what that's like man. Making it to the other side takes daily work but... It can be done. I did it away from some pretty delicious sin. It took years to do that. It's hard. But it's within your power.
And yet "immoral means cannot achieve moral ends." So even if the ends are lovingly determined, such that the means are lovingly employed, such force cannot always be non-violent. This tells me the loving use of force can only occur in very limited situations. Limited in part by a severe condition, and in part by a tempered force. For example, from fiction, a man whose mind of taken over moves to murder his friend, and his other friend punches him, awakening him from the mind control. A punch is a very limited force, the motive is loving (in comradare) and the situation is severe (attempted murder). Such that highly immoral end is prevented and only sufficiently minimal force is employed - the person awakens from their stupor without resentment. A non-violent effect.
There is a way to do that right and a way to do that wrong. And most definitely a way to do that violently. To go deeper than reason, to stir by emotion, to influence the subconscious. To assimilate, override and direct.
