Archive for March, 2011

Salamander has always been my favourite animal. This small amphibian has the capacity to regain the exact copy of its lost body organs(other than the CNS and major organ like heart) like Limbs, tail etc. The regeneration is not like that of lizard. Lizard, as we all know, looses its tail whenever it senses danger and then grows a new tail, but scientific studies has shown that the newly formed tail looses a large part of its sensitivity, and as we all have seen the tail is not the exact replica. Regeneration is also seen in invertebrates like flatworms, but what Salamander has is truly unique and complicated phenomenon. They can grow their lost limbs, tails like the original one and do it repeatedly, if needed.

salamander_pseudotriton
The salamander is a superhero of regeneration, able to replace lost limbs,eyes, damaged lungs, sliced spinal cord even bits of lopped off brain. They have a quite robust regenerative system. Unfortunately for them, this tends to mean that many of them spend their lives in tanks in laboratories across the world, getting bits chopped off of them while biologists try to figure out how it works.

It was before the X-Files (a TV serial that once screened salamander like regeneration in human using the salamander stem cell) days, it was before the pre-internet days I read a sci-fi story about salamander regeneration that made it my favourite animal. In that story a Indian genitist who lost his legs during accident regenerated them using
salamander cells. It was the story of late ’90s. Humans have always been fascinated with the salamander’s ability to regenerate lost limbs.

Now scientists studying salamander genes have discovered that the process isn’t quite as complicated as once thought.Scientists had long credited the diminutive
amphibious creature’s outsized capabilities to "pluripotent" cells that, like human
embryonic stem cells, have the uncanny ability to morph into whatever appendage, organ or tissue happens to be needed or due for a replacement. Based on experiments on genetically modified axolotl salamanders, the researchers show that cells from the salamander’s different tissues retain the "memory" of those tissues when they regenerate, contributing with few exceptions only to the same type of tissue
from whence they came.

Standard mammal stem cells operate the same way, albeit with far less dramatic results they can heal wounds or knit bone together, but not regenerate a limb or rebuild a spinal cord. What’s exciting about the new findings is they suggest that harnessing the salamander’s regenerative wonders is at least within the realm of possibility for human medical science. "I think it’s more mammallike than was ever expected," said Malcolm Maden, a professor of biology, member of the UF Genetics Institute, and author of the paper. "It gives you more hope for being able to someday regenerate individual tissues in people."

Also, the salamanders heal perfectly, without any scars whatsoever, another ability people would like to learn how to mimic, Maden said. When an axolotl loses, for example, a leg, a small bump forms over the injury called a blastema. It takes only about three weeks for this blastema to transform into a new, fully functioning replacement leg not long considering the animals can live 12 or more years.During limb regeneration adult tissue is converted into a zone of undifferentiated progenitors called the blastema that reforms the diverse tissues of the limb.

Moreover it is not to be confused that salamander regeneration is not due to the stem
cells but cell-type-specific pluripotent cells that develops into blastema cells. Stem cells can develop into any type of cells but it is not so in this case. Only ‘old’ muscle cells make ‘new’ muscle cells, only old skin cells make new skin cells, only old nerve cells make new nerve cells, and so on. The only hint that the axolotl cells could revamp their function came with skin and cartilage cells, which in some circumstances seemed to swap roles’, Maden said.

Note: The source of this article is based on the coverage of salamander limb generation in Nature, July ’10 issue.

Here is another link I found that is useful, “Salamander like regeneration, not just the X-Files anymore”

Advertisements

नोट: यसलाई कथा नसम्झीदिनुहोला,आफ्नै परिवेशको सत्यघटना हो यो, काल्पनिक लागेमा छ्यामाप्रार्थी छु।” 

आज उसले कछ्या ८ मा जिल्लाका सबैलाई चक्मा दिई छ। बिहानै घरबाट फोन आएको थियो, त्यसको घरमा खुसिको रुवाबासि चलेको छ रे। उसको नाम बिनुषा हो तर सबैले बिनु-बिनु भन्दा बिनुनै बनाईदीए नामनै। राम्रि छे, बानिवेहोरा सबै चिरिच्याट्ट परेको छ, घरमा पनि सबै काममा हात बटाउँछे। नाम जति सानो र सुन्दर छ, त्यतिनै पीडादयी छ उसको रामकहानी।

DSCI0414

उसको बाउ, अन्तरे, अनी आमा अन्तरी, ५२ सालतिर होला, भागेर बिहे गरेका थिए। बाउ मगर अनी आमा छेत्री, बिहे पछी छुट्टिएर बसे घरनजिकै एउटा झुप्रो हालेर। बाउचाहिँ रोजगारि गरेर सबैको पेट पालिरहेको थियो, राम्ररीनै चलिरहेको थियो परिवार। ५४ सालमा कसैले नसोचेको घटना घट्यो। दिनभरी यौटा स्कुलमा कामगरेर राति घरबाहिर खाटमा पल्टिरहेको उसलाई राति प्रहरि ले पक्रेर लाग्यो। मुद्दा लगाइयो, गाउँमा कसैले सुइँको नपाएको (हँदै नभएको) डाका मुद्दा। माइधारमा डाका गरेको आारोप लाएका थिए, तर खै माइधारवासि ले थाहै पाएनछन कहाँ डाका लाग्यो भनेर। पछि बुझ्दै जाँदा कसैले उसलाई माओवादी भएको सुराकि दिएछ। काहीँ नपाएर माओवादी होस बिचारा कसैले पुरानो रिसिभी मजासंग झार्यो होलानै। एकवर्ष सम्म मुद्दा चलाएर भका नभका सबुत र साच्छी बटुलेर १० वर्षको लागि जेल चलान गर्यो टाउकाको मोल तोक्ने सरकारले।

सायद, उसको मामली भाइ थियो यौटा, सक्रिय कार्यकर्ता, त्यहि सम्झेर पक्रेको पनि हुनसक्छ। दुधेको मान्छे चन्द्रगडि पुर्याएपछि, घरमा दु:खको भूमरी सुरु भयो, एकजना थियो कामगरेर जुटाउने, समस्याको बाडी सुरु भयो। आमाले अरुको मा कामगरेर अनि बेलामौकामा सागपात र रक्सी बेचेर आमाछोरीको पेट पालीरहेका थिए। झन्डै ६ महिना पछि उसका हजुरबाउचाहीँले आमाछोरीलाइ नै बोलाए मूलगरमा, संगै बस्ने गरी। मोटामोटी राम्रै संग बितिरहेको थियो, तिनिहरुको जिवन। उता बाहुलाई चाहिँ खप्नैसंग यातना दिन्थे अर, म त सानै थिएँ, बाबा जानुहुन्थ्यो भेट्न, धेरैपटक।विचाराले छोरीको मुखनी हेर्न पाएको थिएन, झन्डै एकाध वर्षपछि आमा र छोरी भेट्न जाँदा रुवाबासी नै चलेको थियो रे।

माओवादी त थिएन, तर पनि सबैले माओवादी ठानेर पक्राउ परेको भनेपछि परिवारसंग हिमचिम बढाउन थाले रातो तालो भिरेर देश बदल्न हिड्नेहरुले, बदले कि नाहिँ हेरी हाल्यौ। तर अब गरिब निमुखा र हेपिएका हरुको आवाज हौँ भन्दै आएपछी, राज्यबाट प्रताडित अन्तरेकी बुढी अन्तरी पग्लि हाली, काखकी छोरी नभएकी भए, सक्रिए कार्यकर्तापनि हुन बेर थिएन, असक्रियनै भएपनि कार्यकर्ता चाहिँ भई। मुल गर पनि मुल घरभन्नु मात्रै थियो, एकजा अन्ग्रेजका लागि गोलि खाएर भारतिय सेनाको पेन्सन खाइरहेका बुढा हजुरबुवा, जिन्दगिभरी कहिले आफ्नो अनि कहिले अरुको काममा जोतिँदा अनि भाँडासंग माझिँदा-माझिँदै खिइएकि बुढि हजुरआमा, अनि एकजोडा लाटा बढाऊहरु, विचाराहरुलाई गनेपनि ठिक नगनेपनि ठिक। हुनत यौटा बाठो भाइ अनि बुहारी नी थिए तर ति परे बाठा, काठमान्डौबासी।  

झन्डै दुईवर्षकि थिइहोली बिनु त्यतिबेला। आमाभन्दा बढि हजुरबाउ संगै झुम्मिन्थि ऊ। सखारै हाम्रो घरमा चिया खान नआइ, न त नातिनी न त बुढा हजुरबाउको दिन सुरु हुन्थ्यो, मेरो हजुरबुवा भन्नुहुन्थ्यो, २६ सालदेखिको निरन्तरता हो अरे, साँद जोडिएका अनि त्योभन्दापनि बढि मन जोडिएका छिमेकिको, जेजस्तो सारोगारो परेनी बाटोकाटेर कहिल्यै गएनन रे,तिनि अर्थात पूर्वछाने बढाऊ। प्रसंग बदलिएछ, त्यतिबेला बिराटनगरमा ठूलो आमसभा थियो रे, माओवाद छादेर प्रचण्डपथी बनेकाहरुको, अन्तरी पनि जानेभइ त्यस सभामा। जानत गई तर दूइदीनसम्मनी अत्तोपत्तो केहि थाहभएन, आमसभामा गोलिचलेको सुनेका सबैको होसहवास उडेको थियो। सबैको मनचाहीँ २ भर्खर पुगेकि त्यहि बिनुको के हुने हो भनेर थियो। पछि खबर आयो, पुलिसले पक्डेको छ भन्ने, फेरि सुनियो ६ महिनाको लागि चन्द्रगडि चलानगर्यो भन्ने। दु:खि त भइयोनै तर एकमनले खुसिपनि लाग्यो, लोग्ने स्वास्निको फेरि भेट हुने भयो भनेर।

यसो उसो गर्दागर्दै ६ महिना बित्यो, आमा जेलबाट पनि छुटि, त्सपछि राम्ररिनै चलिरह्यो परिवार। हेर्दैजाँदा, बिनुपनि स्कुलजाने भइ। आफ्नै स्कुलमा कामगर्दै गर्दा अन्तरे पक्राउ परेको कारण धनबादुर सरले नि:शुल्क पढाइदिने घोषणा गरे बिनुलाई। पहिलो हुननसकेपनि दोस्रो, तेस्रो हुनेगर्थि सँधै। कछ्या एकमा पढ्थि त्यतिबेला त्यो, असारमा ग्यानेन्द्रको जन्मदिन पारेर उसको बाऊले आममाफि पाएछ। स्कुलबाट घरफरकेर दलानमा बसेकि थिई, बाउचाहिँ टपल्कियो, झुत्रो झोला अनि मैला लुगाहरुमा। अचम्मनै भन्नुपर्छ, ६ वर्षकि बिनु चिच्याइ, “ममि बाबा आउनुभयो!”। आश्चर्य र खुसि एकैसाथ हालालुछ भएर आयो त्यो घरमा, अनि गाऊँका सबैलाइ कुँडुल्यार ल्यायो,कहिल्यै नभेटिएका बाउछोरीको त्यो अनौठो सम्बन्ध देखेर।

माओवादी भनेर जेल परेको, आन्दोलनको चरम अवस्थामा छाडिएपछी, अब पछिलाग्न थाले जनसेना बढाउन लागेका झालेमालेहरु। हस्तरेखाजस्तो आफैँमा टाँसिएको गरिबी

प्रत्येक पल मरिरहेका तिनै सपनाहरूसँगै उसले विदेशजाने निर्णय गर्यो। गरीबको पुर्पुरोमा सुख कहाँ सजिलै आऊँछ। अरब पुगेको ऊ, सायद जेलको यातनाको कारणले होला, मेडिकलमा फेल भनेर फर्काइदियो। जग्गा धितो राखेर विदेश छिरेको उसको १ लाख रुपैयाँ पनि झिरिप्पै भयो। गरिबिको दिनहरु त अब सुरु हुने वाला थिए। बुहारी संग मेल नभएपछि फरकिए आफ्नै झुप्रोमा। अन्तरे रिक्सा खेप्न थाल्यो, अन्तरी तरकारी बेच्थि, वा भनौँ, गरीबिसंग सम्झौता गरे तिनवटैले। कहिले मकै त कहिले भात गर्दै, बिस्तारै ऋण पनि तिर्दै गए, अनि छोरी पनि पढाऊँदै। अलिअलि गर्दै दिन फर्के उसका पनि। खेत उकासेपछि के खाने भन्ने समस्याले पनि पिछा छाड्यो।

त्यहि दु:खमा हुर्केकि बिनु, आज ८ किलासमा सबैलाई उछिन्दै जिल्ला प्रथम भइ, हर्षको सिमा छैन म मा पनि आज। एकप्रकारले मेरि विद्यार्थी पनि, अनि सारा दु:ख-सुख नजिकैबाट निहालेको नाताले। हुनत यात्रा अझै बाँकि छ, तरपनि कुवाझैँ खोपिल्टा परेको
आँखामा हुर्किएको यौटा सपना सार्थक भएको छ, एउटा दरिलो झापड दिएकी छे बिनुले हाम्रो समकालिन समाजलाई।

  


Osho – Yesterday I called Gandhi a bania, a businessman, and some friends felt hurt about it. Gandhi was a businessman; he was a businessman in the same sense in which I referred to four types of men a little while ago. Somebody has said that I used a derogatory term to describe him. Some people think that “businessman” is a derogatory term. Even the businessman feels so. But no word is derogatory. Businessman is a fact; he is a type of man. And I say that Gandhi is not a brahmin, not a warrior, nor a worker; his basic personality is that of a businessman. But it is just a statement of fact; there is no condemnation implied in it.

We have become so feeble in our thinking that we understand only the language of praise or condemnation; we do not accept a fact, that there is something like “fact”. If I say that so and so is suffering from T.B. he may say that I slandered him. But it is simply a fact that he is suffering from TB. — there is no condemnation involved in it. I called Gandhi a businessman just because he is a businessman. I did not mean to condemn him in the slightest. His whole personality was such. But the friend wants me to give a few more illustrations.

Osho on Mahatma Gandhi


A thousand illustrations can be given, but I will mention only a few. Mahavir Tyagi has mentioned an incident in his book of memoirs. One day Gandhi visited his town and addressed a largely attended public meeting in the evening. At the end of the meeting he asked for donations from the audience. Many people gave money; women gave away their ornaments, like earrings, bracelets and anklets. Gandhi accepted them and piled them on the podium. Before he left the meeting he asked Mahavir Tyagi to carry the donations to his residence.

Tyagi arrived at Gandhi’s place at about midnight. He thought that Gandhi had gone to bed; he also thought that he himself could have waited until the next morning before he saw him. But he had no idea of the mind of a businessman — he never goes to bed before finalizing his accounts. And so he was surprised to see that the old man was wide awake at that hour of the night.

As soon as Tyagi arrived Gandhi enquired if he had brought everything from the meeting place, and immediately he opened the bag and examined it. He found one earring missing. “No woman will give only one earring; she will donate the pair. So go back to the meeting place and find the other,” he said to Tyagi. A tired Mahavir Tyagi returned to the meeting place at one in the morning and found the missing earring with the help of a gaslight. When he returned to Gandhi’s place he again thought that he had gone to bed, but no, he again found the old man awake. When he received the earring he was satisfied and said to Tyagi, “Now you can go; the account is okay.”

I did not say anything derogatory about Gandhi. This is also a kind of mind; there is nothing of condemnation about it. And if we had rightly understood the personality of Gandhi, it would have made a great difference in the life of India. Because if the leadership of this country was in the hands of a businessman, the danger was inevitable. It was really the job of a warrior which Gandhi, a businessman, undertook to do.

Bhagat Singh would have done it well; Subhas Bose would have done it still better. But it could not happen that way. And Gandhi did what his type was capable of doing. The country was partitioned and it was a mutilated and lifeless independence that we had, because the businessman is always for compromise; he cannot afford to be an extremist. He says, “Let us settle on the basis of fifty-fifty.” India’s partition was the result of Gandhi’s leadership. Because the mind of a businessman does not like fight, he chooses compromise instead. He believes in settlement on the basis of give-and-take. He avoids conflict and confrontation. Whether Gandhi said so in explicit terms is not the question. It was the mind of a businessman that the country acquired from the leadership of Gandhi.

This is precisely the reason why Gandhi found accord with the British, because they also are a community of businessmen. The British could not have found this accord with anyone else. It was impossible to have accord with Bhagat Singh or Subhas Bose. They had accord with Gandhi because their mental type was the same. The British were essentially businessmen, who by mistake became rulers of a country and wielded power. And the person who confronted them was, to their good luck, also a businessman. It is surprising to see that the British government provided every security to Gandhi, something no government on earth had ever done to their enemy. We could not save Gandhi’s life after the British left India, but he was alive as long as they were here. It is such an interesting episode of history.

The British gave full protection to Gandhi because it became clear to them that sooner or later he would prove useful to them, and so they should be on good terms with him. others in his place would have been difficult to deal with. There was a sort of inner communion between him and the British rulers of India. This relationship was bound to happen, because it was so natural — they belonged to the same category as far as their mental makeup was concerned. They could understand each other, and so a rapport was established between them.

That is why India could not win her independence; it was given as a gift, and such an independence is worse than slavery. Independence is wrested, it is achieved, it is not had by begging. Independence is not had through negotiations and compromises; it is always wrested from unwilling hands. And the freedom that is wrested is alive and dynamic; it has a verve and vitality of its own. And one that is granted and received as a gift is as good as a corpse. It was a lackluster independence that came to India in 1947; it missed the glory and grandeur that comes with it. And it came with all the ugly consequences that independence coming as a gift brings with it.

Gandhi never tired of preaching non-violence, because a businessman cannot afford violence. Have you cared to note that the Jain teerthankara Mahavira is a kshatriya, a warrior, but the community that gathered around him is entirely a trading community. Mahavira is a warrior, and the twenty-four teerthankaras of the Jains are warriors, but not one Jain is a warrior — all the Jains are businessmen. What is the matter? There is no other reason than the fact that non-violence made a deep appeal to the merchant community. Mahavira’s non-violence made a great impact on the minds of the shopkeepers. Similarly, the businessman’s mind in India found itself in accord with Gandhi’s non-violence. It said that Gandhi was right: if we are not going to be violent with others, others will not be violent with us. It was because of Gandhi’s leadership that non-violence became the basis of a movement for independence. India had to go through tremendous misfortunes because of the non-violent character of its movement for independence.

It was a great misfortune that Gandhi did not allow the hatred and violence that naturally surged in India’s mind against the British to express itself. He suppressed it. Whenever a little violence showed itself, the businessman in Gandhi panicked and retreated, as if he thought aloud that shopkeepers could not afford violence, they were all for compromise. He always retraced his steps.

I remember a story; it is perhaps one of the folk tales of Rajasthan. The story says that there was a warrior, a kshatriya in a village, who was very proud of his mustache; it symbolized his brawn. He sat all through the day in front of his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. He had it announced in the village that nobody could pass his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards.

One day a businessman, who had newly settled in the village and who sported a mustache, happened to pass the house of the warrior while twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. The warrior stopped him and said, “Listen, businessman, stop twisting the ends of your mustache upwards.” The businessman said, “Who are you to order me about?” The warrior stood up and handed the businessman a sword saying, “Then take this sword and let us settle the matter once and for all.”

The businessman was flabbergasted, he had not imagined that things would come to such a head. He said, “Okay. But before we fight a duel let us do one thing that is necessary. In case I die, my wife and children will suffer. And if you die your wife will be widowed and your children will have to beg. It will be better if both of us go back to our houses and finish with our dependents. And then we will settle our score.”

The warrior readily agreed. If he had been intelligent, he would not have made an issue of his mustache. The businessman went home, and so did the warrior. The warrior killed his wife and children and returned to his seat, twisting his mustache. When the businessman came back, he had no mustache at all; he had shaved it. And he said, “I thought there was no point in fighting to death for nothing, and I shaved my mustache!”

This is a type of mind; there is nothing derogatory about it. This is just to say that the warrior is like this and the businessman is like that. It is not a condemnation. Whenever Gandhi was in difficulties, whether it was the Chaurichaura incident or something else that turned violent, he at once beat a retreat. He thought it was better that he shaved his mustache. Why fight?

The result was that the hatred and violence of the Indian people against the British, which was simply natural, was repressed. And because of this repression, the two major communities of India — the Hindus and the Mohammedans — fought with each other, and bloody riots took place throughout the country. If India had fought the British openly — with swords — the Hindus and Mohammedans would not have fought among themselves. As we could not fight the British, the repressed hatred, the unspent violence, had to find an outlet somewhere. Where could it go? And it found an outlet in the Hindu-Mohammedan riots, in violent infighting.

It is generally believed that Gandhi tried his best to prevent the infighting between Hindus and Mohammedans. But I say that he was responsible for the whole tragedy. You can understand this easily if you are familiar with the findings of modern psychology. The feeling of hatred and violence against the alien rulers was so powerful — and very natural at that — that it could have set fire to the British regime and thrown it out of India. Such a tremendous energy was suppressed, and it had to find other ways to express itself. It could not have done otherwise.

For example, there is a petty clerk working in some office. One day his boss berates him He is so hurt that he feels like strangling his boss, but he simply cannot do it; it is unthinkable. So he suppresses his anger and puts a false smile on his face and goes about wagging his tail before the boss as usual.

Then the clerk leaves for home in the evening. Watch his bicycle; he is pedaling it with great force. Why? He is just giving vent to his repressed anger against the boss. He would have beaten him with his shoes, but he could not. Now it is as if he is beating the pedal with the same shoes. And he drives fast. Now his wife should know that the lord and husband is coming home after he had some trouble with his boss. But she does not know a thing. She is fondly expecting her husband home. The husband too is not aware of what he is going to do after reaching home. But you can know that he is now going to strangle his wife in the place of his boss. He will find a thousand and one excuses to punish her — the bread for his dinner was burned, the bed was not made, and so on and so forth. And he takes her to task, he thrashes her. In reality he had to thrash the boss, but he dared not. So the anger deviates and makes the wife its target.

Hatred is stored in his mind; it is bursting. If you close the drainage of your house, then filth will be all over the place. As a house needs a drainage, so also our violence needs a let-go. And if it is not allowed a right outlet, it will find a wrong one. And the violence expressed the wrong way will do you more harm than one expressed the right way. It proved to be so.

But the wife is also helpless; she cannot beat the husband in retaliation. Up to now the wife has not gathered that much courage… but she should. Husbands themselves have taught the wives that husbands are their gods. Now it is dangerous to beat a god, although the wife has her doubts too. What kind of a god is he that beats his wife without reason? But she has to believe what she had been taught to believe.

So the wife of the clerk, in her turn, waits for her son to return from the school. These are all unconscious deviations. The son is returning from school; he is not aware of what has happened between his father and mother. He comes home singing a film song. The mother immediately grabs him by the neck saying, “What a dirty song it is!” It was this very song he sang while returning home the previous evening and the evening before that. And the mother herself sang it, his father too. Their forefathers had done the same — there is nothing new about this song — but today the mother is about to strangle him on the grounds that he sang an indecent song.

Now what should the son do? Should he hit his mother back? But the world has not become that civilized yet. So he goes inside his room, picks up his doll and tears it to pieces.

The mind has its own energy. Gandhi caused deviations in the way of India’s natural energy by thwarting it, suppressing it. If India’s violence had been directed against the British — which was its natural course — a splendored country could have emerged out of that clean fight. Then India would not have been divided into two parts; it would have remained one and whole. A direct fight with the British power would have disciplined us as a people, given an edge and sharpness to our energy and a dignity and grandeur of our own. A straight and clean fight with the alien rulers would have filled us with hope and confidence, verve and vitality; it would have made our life lively, juicy and beautiful. But that could not happen.

But we had to use the sword nonetheless, and we used it against our own people. This is how the Hindus and Mohammedans clashed, and clashed like savages. And who is responsible for the massive violence that blasted this country after it became independent on August 15, 1947?

People are dishonest who say that the British government engineered the communal riots and infighting. Some people say that Mr. Jinnah was responsible for it. Others say other things. No, this is wrong. None of them, neither Jinnah nor the British were behind the holocaust. The real reason was that a volcano of hate and violence was smoldering in India’s mind, but it had no outlet. So when India was partitioned, the suppressed volcano found an opportunity and it erupted. The pain of hundreds of years of slavery found an outlet. The country was partitioned and a million people were killed. At the price of a million lives we would have wrested our freedom from the British a long time before. If one fine morning a million people had only shown readiness to die for their country’s freedom, the British government would have left the very next morning. But it could not be.

When I say that Gandhi was a businessman, I say it after due consideration. And I do not mean to slander him in the least. And it will stand you in good stead if you take him to be what he is — a businessman. Then you will be careful in relating with him in the future. If this country has anything to do with the shopkeeper’s mind, then it will never have that dynamism, that elan vital, without which we would be as good as a dead people.

The tradesman has his usefulness. He has a place in the society, and he is valuable. Similarly the warrior has a place in the society, and he is useful and valuable. The priest is equally useful and valuable. And the laborer also. They all have their distinctive usefulness and value. And in the humanist sense no one is more or less valuable than the other.
But it should be clearly understood that socialism is going to wipe out these distinctive types altogether, because it does not accept them. It says that all men are the same — but all men are not the same.

A friend has a question, and a few other friends have put the same question with some variations. They want to know on what authority I say that Gandhi was opposed to railways, telegraphs and airplanes. They also say that I am wrong to say so.
I wonder if you read anything at all.

If you only read Gandhi’s hind swaraj you will see that Gandhi denounced modern machines and technology a thousand times more than what I have mentioned here. But the book hind swaraj was written way back in 1905, and someone may say that it is not right to judge a person who died in 1948 from his writings of 1905. I will agree with him. But in this context there is a letter of Gandhi’s which he wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1945. Nehru had asked Gandhi by letter if he still stood by his opposition to railways and telegraphs as he had written in his book hind swaraj.

Gandhi wrote back to Nehru — and this in 1945 — that he stood by every word he had written in hind swaraj. It appears that the questioners don’t read a thing. They have said that I am not aware of facts. But the truth is that Gandhi himself was not a well-read man, and his followers are still less so. In my understanding, Gandhi is the least-read man among the great men of this century. He was unaware of all the great findings of the present times. He knew nothing about Freud and Jung. And what he talked about celibacy was three thousand years old and now out-of-date. He had no knowledge of the studies done on birth control. He read Marx in jail in 1942, and I doubt if he read him fully. His grasp of Marxism, however, was never deep. He, of course, read the GITA and the RAMAYANA, but the GITA and the RAMAYANA are the textbooks for the ignorant villagers, not for the knowledgeable. Gandhi read poorly and thought poorly, and his followers, it seems, do not even read their leader’s writings.

A last word. Another friend has said that I did not illustrate my point when I said that there was contradiction in Gandhi’s professions and his practice.

I would like to give a few examples.
Gandhi preached non-violence throughout his life, but his own personality was violent, utterly violent. He never tired of talking of non-violence. You may ask how I say it. We need to understand this thing carefully.

If I point a knife at your chest and say that I w ill kill you if you don’t accept what I say, then you will say that I am a violent person. Now just reverse the process. Instead of pointing the knife at you, I point it at myself and say that I will kill myself if you don’t accept what I say. Do I now become a non-violent person? Does one become non-violent by just turning the direction of the knife, or changing its target?

All his life Gandhi used this threat, this coercion that he would kill himself if his point of view was not accepted. This is coercion, this is violence. Gandhi coerced Dr. Ambedkar through fasting. He could not bring about one change of heart, though he resorted to any number of fasts and fasts-unto-death. Not one heart was changed, although he always talked of”change of heart” as the object of his fasts. Ambedkar just gave in under duress and accepted Gandhi’s demands.

Later on Ambedkar said that Gandhi should not be under the illusion that he changed his heart. He still believed that he was right and Gandhi was wrong, but he submitted because he realized that it would be too much if Gandhi lost his life for his demand. His heart was not at all changed; he relented because of Gandhi’s coercion. Gandhi used this kind of coercion all along.

Whether you threaten to kill yourself or kill others, it is all the same and it is violence. Both kinds of threats are violent. But we fail to observe it, and we think that the threat to kill oneself is non-violent. Truth is otherwise; it is subtle violence. It is not non-violence. Non-violence is very different. Non-violence means that there should be no threat, no coercion whatsoever, to kill oneself or others. Ask the people who were associated with Gandhi. Ask his own sons. Ask Haridas Gandhi if his father was non-violent. If so, then why did he become a Mohammedan? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did his son take to drinking and meat-eating? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did he have to fight his father all his life?

It was because Gandhi’s non-violence was so sadistic, so torturous that he tortured his own sons. Haridas left home and ran away for fear of his father, that he would destroy him. Haridas did not know that the person who could not be a right father to his own son was going to become the father of a whole nation.

Really, it is easy to become the father of a nation; it is much more difficult to be a right father of a single son. Being the nation’s father you are really nobody’s father. Ask Haridas and you will know whether Gandhi’s personality was violent or non-violent. Ask Kasturba, his wife, about it. A lot is being written about the married life of Gandhi and Kasturba and it is trumpeted that they made a very ideal couple. It is sheer tall-talk; but in talking tall we are a matchless people.

In reality the married life of Gandhi was ridden with constant conflict and strife, but we claim that it was the ideal of ideals. Ask Kasturba; look at their whole life.But we don’t see at all; we are so skilled in shouting and slogan-mongering that we don’t need seeing.
Whenever they had a guest in their house in South Africa, Gandhi always asked Kasturba to clean the guest’s latrine. Once Gandhi saw that Kasturba was weeping while coming down the stairs with the guest’s chamber pot in her hands. He took her to task saying, “Don’t cry. Service should be rendered with a smile on your lips.” The poor woman is being forced to clean the latrine of others; she is not doing it for service. She is just in the trap of her husband who, in his turn, is in the trap of a set of principles. So he coerces his wife to clean latrines with a smile. Many times he took Kasturba by her wrist and threw her out of the house at midnight, on the grounds that she did not follow his principles.

This man is not non-violent; he is utterly violent. But he swears by non-violence; it is his ideal. And it is on account of his ideal of non-violence that it becomes so difficult to understand his personality.

Life is a very complex affair; it is not that simple. So when I say something don’t jump to a conclusion about it. Whatever I say is well-considered; I have given thought to it.
But Gandhi’s devotees think that they are protecting him by questioning me. They are mistaken to think so. The more questions they ask, the more vulnerable they make him to beatings. There is no place in my mind for Gandhi. I consider him to be an utterly diseased personality, so don’t get him beaten unnecessarily. It is not necessary to drag him in the midst of our present discussions. Right now I am speaking on the question of socialism and capitalism, and you bring him in for a beating. It is absolutely uncalled for.

In Mahatma Gandhi’s ashram tea was prohibited. You could not drink tea. You could not smoke, you could not play cards, you could not do this, you could not do that — small things. And he forced people to do these things.

Because somebody just likes a cup of tea in the morning, he would have to hide — close the doors and prepare a cup of tea. And others would be watching and trying to find out why he closes the doors in the morning, why he is keeping a stove in his room. And when he is out somebody may search and find some tea leaves. And he is exposed and brought before Gandhi as a criminal — that he has been hiding tea leaves. Every morning he has been closing his doors, and one knows not what he was doing with the tea. What can you do with tea? At the most you can drink tea! What else can you do?

And slowly there were factions — somebody else was also doing it — and those who were in favor of tea would become a party: "Alone we cannot exist, we have to fight." Those who were smokers would become a party. And what would Gandhi do? He was a masochistic person. He would not punish those people, he would go on a fast unto death. Why? — because those people are drinking tea!

But why are you going on a fast unto death? His logic was, "There must be something still incomplete in my being a master; otherwise, how can it happen that my disciples disobey me? So to purify myself, I am going on a fast unto death till I am purified. I am not going to stop my fast."

And naturally, the poor people who are drinking tea or smoking cigarettes would think, "Now his death will be on our heads," so they would go and they would say, "We bow down to you and we promise that we will never look at tea; we will never touch a cigarette — smoking is far away — but please stop this fast unto death."

And he would harass the whole ashram for three or four days. And from all over India wires and telegrams would come — "This is stupid that disciples should do such a thing; they should give an apology." And they were giving apologies the whole day. From morning to evening they were sitting there saying, "Forgive us! This is the last time — never again I will see tea! But stop this fast." And finally, after three or four days he would stop the fast. But he had tortured them, he had condemned them all over the whole country.

Love was prohibited. His own secretary, a very talented man… Many people have written on Gandhi, but the two books that Pyarelal has written are just the best. They are big volumes; perhaps each volume is twelve hundred pages. Pyarelal fell in love. Now, love is not something that you can prevent. One comes to know only when one has fallen. It is not that it comes with a signal ahead that, "Beware! I am coming! If you are a Gandhian, escape!" It comes so slowly that you never know you are falling in love. One day, suddenly you become aware, "My God, I have fallen in love." Now that was the greatest crime.

Pyarelal was his secretary… but he was turned out of the ashram in a very disgraceful way, and condemned all over India — for nothing, because he had fallen in love with a young woman. They both were young, and there was nothing wrong in it.

Then his own son, Devadas, fell in love, and that was even more of a problem for Gandhi. Certainly he is impure: his own son falling in love! Devadas fell in love with the daughter of another great Indian leader, Rajagopalachari. And the daughter was pregnant, so throwing them out was not the right thing; they had to be married, and they were not of the same caste. And Gandhi, who was saying his whole life that castes should disappear, there should be no castes — now he was disturbed that his son is going to be married to someone of a different caste.

Rajagopalachari was of the same age as Mahatma Gandhi, and he became the first governor-general of India after Mountbatten left. But Gandhi was the most cunning politician.
Rajagopalachari was not a follower of Gandhi — although he was in the party of Gandhi — but he was of the same age and had his own standing. In South India he was supreme, so Gandhi could not make rules for him. Rajagopalachari would come to visit his daughter and he would drink tea and he would smoke in the ashram — and then Gandhi would not go on a fast.
Somebody asked, "Why don’t you fast unto death now?"
He said, "He is not my disciple. I am not concerned with him. And when he leaves we will clean the room" — and cleaning the room meant whitewashing the wall, putting cow dung on the floor. Cow dung is the purest thing: it purifies every sin! And what sins? — just drinking tea and smoking a cigar.

But Gandhi could not prevent Rajagopalachari because he was now a relative, of the same standing, and politically he was also very powerful. But he took revenge with that man by making him the first governor-general. Everybody thought that Gandhi was being partial, making his own relative, his son’s father-in-law, the first governor-general, while there were more important, intelligent people more devoted to the freedom of the country. They thought that Gandhi was being partial, but politics is such an affair that you never know the whole story unless it comes to its end.

Gandhi made Rajagopalachari the first governor-general knowingly so that he could not become the first prime minister, because that would be the real power. This was simply a transfer period of fifteen days. What could he do in fifteen days? It was just a transitory period. Britain was leaving, Mountbatten had to turn over his duties to somebody, and the Congress Party had not decided yet who was going to be the prime minister, who was going to be the deputy prime minister.

The post of governor-general was going to be finished! — because the governor-general was the representative of the British government. Mountbatten was in a hurry and Gandhi managed Rajagopalachari… Rajagopalachari was happy that he is the first — and the last — governor-general of the British empire, but he was befooled because now he could not be the prime minister. Gandhi wanted to avoid him.

Now he was the governor-general and he had to give the oath to the prime minister, to other cabinet people. He was out of the running — he was finished! Once he had given the oath to these people, to the president of India and everybody, after fifteen days he was back in South India.

But politicians can fall so low in dignity. Seeing that he had been cheated, badly cheated — otherwise he would have been the president or the prime minister… Just to be the first and last governor-general for fifteen days means nothing. He was ready to become the chief minister of a province in the south, Madras. He became the chief minister of Madras, and he agreed to it after being the governor-general of all of India. Such is the lust for power. Now that there was no chance of being the president or the prime minister — and he was very old — he was ready to become the chief minister of a small province.

In Gandhi’s ashram there was a continuous fight going on amongst the people. I know it intimately because I knew one of Gandhi’s sons, Ramdas, very closely. So once in a while when I was passing near his ashram I would meet him, or if I was nearby he would come to meet me. Gandhi was dead then. Ramdas said that it was not a joy to live in the ashram because Gandhi had been too strict about trivia. He wanted to control everybody in every possible way. He was talking of freedom and creating slavery in his own ashram.

But this has been the way of all the religions, of all the religious saints. They create slavery for themselves, and then they have the right to create slavery in their disciples — and on such small matters that one wonders about these people. Were they concerned with human growth, with consciousness, or were they just concerned about how many sets of clothes you have? If you have more than three, it is a sin. And at what time do you get up? If you don’t get up at four o’clock in the morning, it is a sin. What time you go to sleep? If you don’t go to sleep before nine, you are committing a sin. What are you eating? In every possible way…

And then naturally cliques will develop. People will find ways to manage. A few people want to play cards. There is nothing harmful in it. They are not gambling, there is no money at stake — just playing cards. But they have to hide to play cards, and if they are caught, then they will be condemned by the whole country. Gandhi managed in such a way that what was done did not remain only in the ashram, the whole country condemned them.

I am a totally different person. I want you to be absolutely free. I want you to do everything according to your own conscience, your own consciousness. There is nothing to be kept hidden. You can expose yourself without at all feeling that you will be condemned for it — because condemnation means that people will remain closed, they will not open up.

So this is a totally new experiment in the whole history of man, where freedom really means freedom — freedom to be yourself — because I cannot see how, unless you are yourself, you can trust me. If I am preventing you from being yourself I am creating a wall between me and you. I want you to be yourself, to do whatever feels right to your consciousness. Except for your consciousness, nobody is going to decide about it.
I have never thought in terms of punishment; the very idea does not exist in my vocabulary. I have always thought of how I can reward you for being so silent, so alert. And I have nothing to reward you with except my blessings. So with my blessings — under the whole sky, wherever you are — just feel that you are close to me. Get into the same space in which you get when you are close to me.

It is a question of a knack. It is not something that you have to force. Just watch carefully what happens when you are close to me. Then try it in different situations, and it will start happening away from me. And in this way — and this is the only way possible now, because if all the ugly political forces want me to be isolated from my people… and all these great powers have proved cowards, criminals. So the only way left is that whenever it is possible and you can manage, you be with me; otherwise I will be with you. Just allow me. Just have a little space in your heart for me.

And one never knows that blessings come in disguise. There were many sannyasins who were useless. There were a few who were harmful. And I am not a person to say no to anybody. It hurts me, however wrong the person may be. I have never rejected anybody, and I will never reject anybody. Whatever he has done — even against me — I will not mention it. But this has been a good opportunity to see the real faces behind the masks. So those who were harmful are exposed; those who were useless will be lost. And only the chosen few — for whom I am living, and for whom I will die — will be left with me.

Source – Osho Book "The Path of The Mystic"

Krishna Prashad Bhattarai calls it quits. Actually like many people said he died in the morning but the death announcement was made only late at night so that the newly sworn minister will get salary for one day more. A gullible leader who was cheated most of the time by Koirala family most of the times he had to wait for more than 12 hours to be dead officially.

images1

Born in 1934 in Benaras, India from Lalita Devi and Sankata Pd. Bhattarai and a bachelor in Economics he became part of Nepali Politics from 1947. As a member of Nepali Congress for almost all of his life he was the leader of armed movement which uprooted Rana regime from most of the eastern region. He was the speaker of parliament of 2015 at the age of 36, not surprisingly he was the youngest speaker till date. I am not sure, but I guess he lost the election then as BP was too afraid to make him minister because of his straight forward and verbose nature, so instead made him speaker. Noticeably he became president of Nepali Congress for a total of 19 years after the demise of BP.

11

During Panchayat regime, most of the leaders of Nepali Congress and other party flew to India and started doing Delhi based politics in Nepal. But he refused to  do so, as a result he had to spend about 14 years in Jail. Bhattarai spent 10 years in prison as he refused to write a petition to the king requesting his release. He became the last to be released from jail because of his uncompromising stance. Bhattarai had taken the bold decision to remain inside the country and fight for the cause of democracy, Nepal student’s union wouldn’t have been formed hadnt he been in Nepal.

I am burrowing some lines of Bijaykumar," the words, ‘greed’, ‘fear’, ‘expectation’, ‘political line’, never were a factor whether when he inhabited the cold floors of Pulchowk during the Panchayat days or when he worked at an air-conditioned office during his term as an all-powerful Interim Prime Minister.”. Probably there is no one is more (Gadeshman was) tortured by Panchayat than he was but throughout his life he lived by his principle. Also to mention he had been the most spiritually aware leader of Nepal and his relations with many saints and prophets is long known.

Krishna prasad bhattarai was appointed the first prime minister of the interim government on Baisakh 6, 2047 BS. He successfully oversaw the formulation of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1991 and the general election of 2048 BS. But then started his demise as a leader. He was tricked in many ways by Girija Pd. Koirala. He lost the election in 2051, the Danga before that and then congress started to learn just one Name, Girija. In 2056 although he became primeminister from the party that had majority of members in the parliament he was tricked out of the government from his fellow party members.

But Kisunji never complained. He was the first to forgive Girija Pd. Koirala and all his deeds and he never demanded anything from him. He never did politics for seats, he never knew to work under others. He lived by his own principle and and died with them. He never had to sell his soul, as Girija did his for Sujata or Gadeshman did to some extent for P L singh. In the later stages of his life he remained saintly, self aware that there is nothing to lose or gain at the end. During the dusk of his life, Yoga meditation and a daily trip to Newroad became his daily routine.

Probably he is the only one who never sold himself for pennies. If he said I never did corruption if not all atleast I will believe. An epitome of integrity, he entered Baluwatar as prime minister with just his umbrella and water jar, and it was with just his umbrella and water jar that he left it again.His strict anti-corruption drive gave him the image of a clean politician. His anti-nepotism stand also helped him gain popularity among the public. once he said to  then Indian Primeminister Atal Bihari Bachpayi, “ हम आप जेसे सच्चा अविवाहित हैँ और आप जेसे झुठा ब्रम्हचारी”

The media never understood him and his humor. once he said all journalist are thieves and some other time he said I will go to parliament so that I can drink Brandies. though he said the things with humor, he was often on the wrong side of columns in papers. Often paper criticized his sex life and most ironically his relation with Amita Kapali. I cant forfeit saying that without kapli, Kisunji would have long gone.

Today As his lifeless body rests on the floor of his Bhattarai Ashram (that is symbolic of how low people can be as they did corruption while building an Ashram for Kisunji), lets see if the country gathers as one or like the fragments that we have been seeing for long now. A true condolence to Kisunji will be a constitution and stability to country as soon as possible (Remember how fast the country became stable after 2046’s movement, Kisunji was primminister then if you have forgotten already.

मेरो अन्तिम श्रद्धान्जलि राजनीतिका सन्त तिमिलाई।