Did Man really Landed on MOON ???.. A Mystery
This mystery hasn’t ended up still.But certain doubts raised from the fact file has subsequently raised eye brows and insist to question “Did Man really landed on Moon?” Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on the Moon. It was the fifth human spaceflight of the Apollo program, and the third human voyage to the moon. Launched on July 16, 1969, it carried Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin. On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans to land on the Moon, while Collins orbited above.
The mission fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s goal of “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth” by the end of the 1960s.
Primary crew of the mission :
Neil Armstrong, commander
Michael Collins, command module pilot
Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, lunar module pilot
Image 1
Buzz Aldrin poses on the Moon allowing Neil Armstrong to photograph both of them using the visor’s reflection. Image 2
L-R: Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin Image3
The historical plaque on the ladder of Apollo 11′s lunar module “Eagle”, still remaining on the Moon. Image4
Neil Armstrong works at the LM in one of the few photos taken of him from the lunar surface. So now the discussion starts…, protuding certain real proofs that the mission is FAKE and no men landed on moon yet. Proof 1 Proof 2 Proof 3 Proof 4 Proof 5 Proof 6 Proof 7 Have u got the right answer now ????
The correct information on the hypothetical Lost Continent of Lemuria, and the lost land of Kumari of the Tamil oral and literary traditions are important in the study of the origin of the Tamils/Dravidians.
As we have mentioned earlier there were many 19th century European geologists who believed in the drifting as well as the sinking of continents. One of those scientists who was a biogeographer, was Philip Lutley Sclater (1829-1913).
He observed certain flora and fauna, and the lemurs that were mostly present in Madagascar, and in other scattered islands of south east Asia, Sri Lanka and south Asia. To explain this phenomenon he wrote a famous paper on “The Mammals of Madagascar" which was published in the Quarterly Journal of Science in 1864.
In his desire to explain the puzzle of the presence of certain plant fossils and lemurs, the primates found only in India, Madagascar, but not in Africa or in the Middle East, Sclater proposed the following hypothesis that Madagascar and India had once been the parts of a large continent which had submerged in the Indian ocean:
“The anomalies of the Mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that…a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian oceans… that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with… Africa, some…. with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands, we have existing relics of this great continent, for which… I should propose the name Lemuria!”
Sclater was not the first to observe this phenomenon, and think of the possibility of the sinking of a continent. There was another French natural historian, Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844) who also thought of the possibility. But Sclater was the first to name the hypothical continent, Lemuria. This idea of a continent submerged into the Indian Ocean was the creation of the 19th century European scientists
There is no reference to such a possibility in any scientific literature prior to 1864. This idea became obsolete and it was proven false in the 1950s and 1960s by the new science of plate tectonics. This is new theory of plate tectonics has proved that continents do not sink but they float and already are floating. The continents will continue to float however slowly due to the sea floor spreading.
In spite of the new scientific discovery, the concept of the Lost Continent of lemuria, like scientific Frankenstein, had appeared again and again to haunt the European scientists and confuse the Indian enthusiasts, particularly in South India, in their efforts in inventing or discovering their ancient history. But for some it provided great opportunities for formulating their theories of the origin man and races.
The Lost Continent of Lemuria and Occultists: Even though the scientific community had lost interest in the hypothesis of the Lost Continent of Lemuria as it was disproved, it created greater interest among the occultists like Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891), who claimed to have attained the unique knowledge of esoteric cosmology, which according to her, cannot be attained through any religion.
She founded the Theosophical (theosophic-divine wisdom) society along with colonel Henry S. Olcott (1832-1897) in New York in 1875. They both travelled to India in 1879 and established the Theosophical society in 1882 at Adaiyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
After some controversies, Blavatsky left India for London in 1885. While in London Blavatsky wrote several books, and one of them was, "The Secret Doctrine" (1888) in which she explained the several stages of human evolution.
She called the evolutionary stages ‘Root Races’. For Blavatsky, the Lost continent of Lemuria and Atlantis were the places for the evolution of the ‘Root Races’. She claimed that humanity was at a stage to evolve the ’Fifth Root Race’, the Aryan race.
One of her followers, W. Scott Elliot, in his book, 'The Lost Lemuria Showing the Distribution of Land Areas in Different Periods', published in 1904, confirms the evolutionary model of Blavatsky for the Aryan Root Race as follows:
“It may be remembered from previous writings on the subject that it was from the Fifth or the Semitic sub-race of the Fourth Root Race, that was chosen the nucleus, destined to become our great Fifth or Aryan Root Race.”
Race studies by the Occultists/Theosophists and their Impact in Europe and India:
The race studies by the occultists/theosophists fueled great debate in Europe and as well as in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries regarding the evolution of various human races in the Lost Continent of Lemuria and Atlantis, particularly the final emergence of the so called ‘Master Race’ that is supposed to rule the world
Western colonial powers were very much interested in the discussion of superior race which helped them to justify their empires and spread the notion that they were on a civilizing mission of the inferior races of the world.
What is the master race? Max Muller’s (1833-1900) translations of the Hindu scriptures, particularly the ancient Rig Veda and the translation and publication in a set of fifty volumes of the Scared Books of the East, opened the ‘ancient wisdom’ to the West and introduced the concept of the ‘Aryan Race’ Max Muller was the first to mention the term ‘Aryan Race’.
For example in his lectures on the science of language delivered at the Royal Institute of Great Britain in April, May and June of 1881, he mentions the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘Aryan Race’ several times. There were criticism regarding his use of the term, ‘Aryan Race’. He answered his critics that he only used the term
‘Aryan Race’ as a linguistic category (referring to the category of Indo-European languages), but not as an ethnic or racial category.
In spite of his explanation, the socio-political climate of the 19th and 20th century Europe, particularly of Germany, the mere mentioning of ‘Aryan Race’ had fostered further the belief that the ‘Aryan Race’ was the superior race destined to rule the world.
The research and discussion on the Root Race theories, particularly of the ‘Aryan Race’ by the occultists/theosophists like Blavatsky, Annie Besant and others provided further impetus in Europe to political leaders like Hilter. Hilter declared in his manifesto ‘Mein Kempf’ (My struggle), his theory of Aryan Race that is fit to rule the world:
“If one were to divide mankind into three groups: culture-founders, Culture-bearers, and culture- destroyers, then, as representative of the first kind, only the Aryan would come in question. It is from him that the foundation and the walls of all human creations originate, and only the external form and color depend upon the characteristics of the various peoples involved.
He furnished the gigantic building- stones and also the plans for all human progress, and only the execution corresponds to the character of the people and races in this various instances ."
He said that the Jews form the strongest contrast to the Aryans and that they were the destroyers of culture. That is his reason for his decision to exterminate them in World War II. Aryan race and Aryan dominion were also a powerful motivation for the British Empire in India. The new Aryan dominion had linked with the former Aryan dominion by restoring its old glory.
This was the prominent thought and action of another occultist, theosophist, Annie Besant in India. Annie Besant was a convert to theosophy and a close friend of Blavatsky. Annie Besant was married to a Christian pastor. She divorced him, became an atheist, then became a secularist and eventually joined with Madame Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society in 1881.
After the death of Blavatsky in Annie Besant home in London, she became the President of the Theosophical Society at Adayar. Chennai, India. She came to India in 1893, with Henry S. Olcott, one of the founders of the Theosophical Society.
During her association with Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant studied Hinduism, and Buddhism and their beliefs such as karma, rebirth, and nirvana, and other basic tenets and they basically formed the foundational principles of theosophy.
Annie Besant, along with H.S. Olcott, toured India and made excellent presentations on the merits of the spirituality of Hinduism and received great support from orthodox Hindus, particularly Brahmins whose political causes that Annie Besant had championed very vigorously.
Annie Besant in India: “Her Home Rule Movement” and the Opposition in Madras Presidency
Annie Besant was politically active in England as well as in India. She championed many social causes. She strongly believed in the supremacy of the Aryan race (“The Fifth Root Race”). She believed in the Indian caste-system and the supremacy of the Brahmin castes.
She put her prestige behind the Brahmin version of nationalism based on caste exclusivity and Aryan superiority. She genuinely believed that the political leadership of free India should legitimately belong to the Brahmins.
While her predecessor, Colonel Henry Olcott “….. had merely vowed to reconstruct the 'ruined garden' of Hindu-Sanskrit civilization ,…”. Annie Besant was willing to go further. She was prepared to transform the notion of caste exclusivity to represent a brave new political philosophy. She was convinced of the ‘natural’ superiority of Brahmins over others as far as intellectual prowess was concerned. "
This was the spirit and the underlying scheme of the Home Rule Movement that Annie Besant had launched in 1913. ‘Home rule’ became a common platform of the Indian National Congress of which Annie Besant was a former President. It drew strong support from the Brahmins, most particularly in the Madras Presidency, as the Presidential Congress was dominated by the Brahmin community.
If set the alarm among other castes. There was strong opposition to the Home Rule Movement from these castes. The result was the Non-Brahmin movement. It generally manifested in the formation of a new political party, known as the Justice Party or the South Indian Liberation Federation.
The Justice Party opposed the Home Rule Movement. It took advantage of the “Diarchy” (Rule by Two), the new administrative system established in 1919 by the British Colonial Government as the result of the Montagu-Chelmsford recommendations for administrative reform.
The Justice Party contested election in 1920 to form the Provincial Legislative Council for Madras Presidency (which comprised of the modern Indian States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala.) The Justice Party won the election and formed the Provincial Government.
This is the historical juncture when the Tamil nationalism sprang up and it was looking for the real history of their ancient past. It was a revolutionary movement to counter the prevailing stories, concocted by the Western and Sanskrit scholars, that the Tamils/Dravidians had migrated from the Middle East and that the Indus Valley civilization was Aryan and that the Dravidians were the people driven down to the South by the victorious Aryan people as they were moving south, civilizing the ‘aboriginals’ on their way.
Source : International Journal of Tamil Culture & Civilization, Volume 3, Issue 2, Spring/Summer 2012, Page 29-31
Born Diana Spencer on July 1st, 1961, Princess Diana became Lady Diana Spencer after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer in 1975. She married heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, on July 29, 1981. They had two sons and later divorced in 1996. Diana died in a car crash after trying to escape the paparazzi in Paris on the night of August 30, 1997.
Aristocratic Upbringing
British royalty. Born Diana Spencer on July 1st, 1961, near Sandringham, England. Diana, Princess of Wales, was one of the most adored members of the British royal family. She was the daughter of Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, and Frances Ruth Burke Roche, Viscountess Althorp (later known as the Honorable Frances Shand Kydd). Her parents divorced when Diana was young, and her father won custody of her and her siblings. She was educated first at Riddlesworth Hall and then went to boarding school at West Heath School. She became Lady Diana Spencer after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer in 1975. Although she was known for her shyness growing up, she did show an interest in music and dancing. Diana also had a great fondness for children. After attending finishing school at the Institut Alpin Videmanette in Switzerland, she moved to London. She began working with children, eventually becoming a kindergarten teacher at the Young England School.Diana was no stranger to the British royal family, having reportedly played with Prince Andrew and Prince Edward as a child while her family rented Park House, an estate owned by Queen Elizabeth II. In 1977, she became reacquainted with their older brother, Prince Charles, who was 13 years her senior.As the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles was usually the subject of media attention and his courtship of Diana was no exception. The press and the public were fascinated by this seemingly odd couple — the reserved, garden-loving prince and the shy young woman with an interest in fashion and popular culture. When the couple married on July 29, 1981, the ceremony was broadcast on television around the world, with millions of people tuning in to see what many considered to be the wedding of the century.
On June 21, 1982, Diana and Charles had their first child: Prince William Arthur Philip Louis. He was joined by a brother, Prince Henry Charles Albert David — known widely as "Prince Harry" — more than two years later on September 15, 1984. Initially overwhelmed by her royal duties and the intense media coverage of nearly every aspect of her life, she began to develop and pursue her own interests. Diana served a strong supporter of many charities and worked to help the homeless, people living with HIV and AIDS, and children in need.Unfortunately, the fairy tale wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles did not lead to a happily-ever-after marriage. The two became estranged over the years, and there were reports of infidelities from both parties. During their union, Diana struggled with depression and bulimia. The couple's separation was announced in December 1992 by British Prime Minister John Major, who read a statement from the royal family to the House of Commons. The divorce was finalized in 1996.
Even after the divorce, Diana maintained a high level of popularity. She devoted herself to her sons and to such charitable efforts as the battle against the use of land mines. Diana used her international celebrity to help raise awareness about this issue. She also continued to experience the negative aspects of fame — her 1997 romance with Egyptian film producer and playboy Dodi Al-Fayed caused quite a stir and created a media frenzy. While visiting Paris, the couple was involved in a car crash after trying to escape from the paparazzi on the night of August 30, 1997.Diana initially survived the crash, but later succumbed to her injuries at a Paris hospital a few hours later. Al-Fayed and the driver were also killed, and a bodyguard was seriously injured. French authorities investigated the crash and the driver was found to have a high level of alcohol in his system at the time of the accident. The role of the pursuing photographers in the tragedy was also scrutinized.
News of her sudden, senseless death shocked the world. Thousands turned out to pay tribute to the "people's princess" during her funeral procession. The funeral was held at Westminister Abbey, which was broadcast on television. Her body was later buried at her family's estate, Althorp.In 2007, marking the tenth anniversary of her death, her sons, Princes William and Harry, honored their beloved mother with a special concert to be held on what would have been her 46th birthday. The proceeds of the event went to charities supported by Diana and her sons.
Continuing her charitable efforts is the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Established after her death, the fund provides grants to numerous organizations and supports initiatives to provide care to the sick in Africa, help refugees, and stop the use of land mines.
The story of Alexander the Great is very familiar to most Indians (at least we think we do). We are taught in history classes that Alexander invaded India in 326 BCE. He fought a fierce battle with King Porus (battle of the Hydaspes River) in modern day Pakistan. Porus was defeated but Alexander spared his life and allowed him to rule the area under his name. Alexander then reached the Beas River in Himachal Pradesh and decided to turn back after his army started revolting (many people in the ancient world including the Greeks also believed that India was the end of the world and it would not make sense to keep advancing).
As Alexander started his long journey back to Macedonia he awarded most of the lands captured by him to various Satraps (Persian name for governors). Over the course of time many of these Satraps became emperors controlling large tracks of land themselves. Unfortunately very little is taught in Indian schools
about these satraps appointed by Alexander or the lasting legacy that they left on the long history of India.
Indian history teaches that the Mauryan Empire came into existence immediately after Alexander’s arrival in northwestern India. Chandragupta Maurya (340 BCE to 298 BCE) is credited with founding the Maurya Empire and establishing the first “Indian” empire by defeating the Greek Satraps. How do we explain such a major Indian empire coming into existence just 15 years after Alexander’s arrival at the Beas River?
In Greek and Latin Chandragupta Maurya is known as Sandrokottos or Androcottus. Very little is known about him or his lineage. Some Indian historians claim that he is the illegitimate child born to a Nanda prince and a maid. Others claim that he was raised by peacock tamers. But history is murky. The dates attributed to reign of Chandragupta Maurya are not set in stone and that is what makes his story very interesting.
Noted Indian historians like Dr. Ranjit Pal (Ph.D from IIT Kharagpur and life member of “Indian Society for Greek and Roman Studies”) are now beginning to make a compelling case about revising the history of India during the time of Alexander (I recommend reading his book “Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander). The main area of contention is the location of the city of Pataliputra (which is mentioned in the classic work by Greek writer Megasthenes called Indica).
Sir William Jones (1746 – 1794) was the founder of the Asiatic Society and one of the first individuals to suggest an existence of a group of languages now known as Indo-European languages (he wrote a book called “The Sanscrit Language” in 1786 in which he suggested that Sanskrit, Greek and Latin had a common root which we now know to be true). But he also made a claim that Pataliputra (Palibothra) is Patna (Bihar). This effectively placed Alexander, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka in Eastern India. This is called the “Jonesian Theory” and is widely accepted as a fact in India and elsewhere.
But many Indians would be surprised to learn that this theory is based on very thin evidence. Till date no relic of any Mauryan King including the great Ashoka or the Greeks has been found in Patna. This is true for the Nanda kings who the Mauryans supposedly captured. So where were the Mauryans actually ruling and who is Chandragupta Maurya?
Dr. Ranjit Pal argues that Palibothra of Megasthenes is not Patna of Bihar but Patali (near the city of Kerman in Iran). The names of many Indian cities can also be found in other countries and names like Patali, Konarak, and Salem are good examples (it would be a mistake to assume that these Indian cities are older. It is more likely that Patali (Iran) is much older than Patna (India). The name Patel which is popular among people in Gujarat is likely related to Patali. Gujarat is part of Western India and close to Iran where Patali is).So if Megasthenes was talking about Patali in Iran and not in India then that would mean that Alexander never visited India that we know today. Instead of Chandragupta Maurya setting up the Mauryan Empire following Alexander’s retreat there is evidence to show that Chandragupta was a contemporary of Alexander and fought and lost a major battle with Alexander in Patali. This will mean that the Mauryan Empire was mostly an empire that existed in Northwestern India (including Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran) and probably did not exist in modern day Central and Eastern India (which could be the reason why the archeological evidence is missing).
After capturing Taksila (city in Pakistan), Alexander left the city under the control of one of his Satraps known as Orontobates (some accounts indicate that Orontobates was a Persian. Alexander’s army just like most armies in the world today had soldiers and generals from lands that they captured). Orontobates was also known as Tridates. He later on assumed the name of Sasigupta (known in Greek as Sasicottos).
Sashi and Chandra means moon in Sanskrit. Many historians now believe that Orontobates a.k.a. Sasigupta is none other than Chandragupta Maurya (this explains why there is very little information in the Indian context as to who Chandragupta was before he became emperor of “India”). This Persian was an important member of Alexander’s conquests. Diodorus (ancient Greek historian) indicates that it was Tridates who handed the Persian treasury over to the Greeks after Alexander defeated the Persian Empire led by King Darius III
Why did Chandragupta revolt against his longtime friend Alexander? Did he secretly continue to resent the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks under Alexander after all these years? Did he participate with other Persians in Alexander’s army to poison and kill their leader? If you believe in the ancient Sanskrit drama Mudrarakshasa the answer is a resounding yes
Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia. He was son of Philip II, King of Macedonia, and Olympias, the princess of neighboring Epirus.Alexander spent his childhood watching his father transforming Macedonia into a great military power, winning victory after victory on the battlefields throughout the Balkans.
March on India
India, in Alexander's time, meant the land of the Indus–not necessarily the area where the modern country of India stands. The Greeks, who had limited knowledge of the geography of central Asia, knew almost nothing of the Indian subcontinent or China. India, to the Greeks, meant the area in western Pakistan, particularly the Punjab and Sind territories.
There are several possible reasons why Alexander chose to pursue India. Part may be simply that Persia had once possessed parts of India, and therefore Alexander, as the new Great King, wanted to reclaim it. As little was known about India, curiosity was likely also a factor. Perhaps most important, India was the end of Asia as far as Alexander knew; its acquisition was necessary if he was to rule the entire continent.
The invasion of India began in the summer of 327 B.C. Alexander proceeded as he had in his Persian conquest, vanquishing city by city. Many cities surrendered without a fight; those that did not were usually massacred without mercy. Alexander soon gained the support of Ambhi, the ruler of Attock. Alexander and his troops rested for a couple of months in the capital city of Taxiles as they prepared to meet Ambhi's enemy, Porus.
In response to Alexander's request that he submit, Porus assembled his army and prepared to meet Alexander on the bank of the Hydaspes River. When Alexander arrived, he found that Porus had the fords guarded with elephants, which made a crossing impossible. Moreover, whenever Alexander moved along the river, Porus mirrored him on the opposite side. To confuse his foe, Alexander divided his army into several units and spread them along the bank. This splitting up also gave Alexander a chance to search for other possible fords farther down; indeed, a suitable one was found seventeen miles upstream. The question was whether Alexander could keep Porus from following him all the way to that crossing point.
Once again Alexander devised a plan to confuse his enemy. For several nights, he sent the cavalry to various spots along the bank and instructed them to make noise and raise war cries. Porus, of course, followed them the first few times, but eventually stopped responding to Alexander's bluffs. On the night planned for the attack, Alexander divided the troops into three groups. One would remain in the original spot to keep Porus off guard, while a second group prepared for a crossing that would take place only if Alexander succeeded in clearing the fords. Alexander himself led the third group, consisting of about 15,000 infantry and 5,500 cavalry. Porus sent an initial group of about 2,000 cavalry, led by his son, to attack the Macedonians while they were crossing and to drive them back into the river. However, the Indians did not make it in time to have the early advantage, and Alexander easily defeated the troops.Porus was therefore forced to march against Alexander with full force, leaving only a small detachment to face the second crossing group. The fact that Porus's front line consisted entirely of elephants prevented Alexander from using his cavalry, as the horses would not charge in face of the elephants. Once again, Alexander succeeded with a brilliant strategy. He kept a segment of his cavalry hidden, allowing Porus to think that he was winning. When Porus advanced to exploit Alexander's apparent weakness, the hidden cavalry emerged and caused confusion among the already exposed Indians. The battle culminated in the surrounding of the Indians, and Porus was finally prevailed upon to surrender. The victory had not been easy, however. The Macedonians were particularly troubled about the elephants, which had brutally trampled and mangled their soldiers. Nevertheless, it was Alexander's last major battle and one of his greatest.
Alexander allowed Porus to continue his rule–a decision likely motivated by Alexander's recognition that he was running out of resources to maintain a strong presence at every corner of his territory. Nevertheless, Alexander's thirst was not quenched, and he wanted to press farther, though his next opponent, the Nanda empire, would have been very formidable. Alexander's troops had other plans, however, and talks of mutiny abounded. The troops had been away for eight years and marched over 17,000 miles.
The elephants had been especially demoralizing, especially since it was reported that Nanda possessed about 4,000 of them. Alexander offered every possible incentive and bribe, but even his chief officers sympathized with the men. One senior officer, Coenus, finally rose to speak on behalf of the men, and Alexander finally recognized that a rebellion led by a popular man like Coenus was an alarming possibility.
Alexander, therefore, he was finally prevailed upon to turn around and head home, though he never forgave his men and officers. He was convinced that he could have conquered the entire world if his men had not turned their backs on him. Furthermore, he showed no apparent gratitude for their service and dedication. He purposely took a difficult journey home that required constant skirmishes with unconquered Indian provinces. Alexander's armies finally left India by sea in September 325 B.C.
Some sources have exaggerated Alexander's success, particularly in his domain over India. In reality, Alexander's influence in the area was limited. Porus was essentially an independent ruler, though formally he derived power from Alexander. Moreover, Alexander did not have the resources to hold India in line, and by 317 B.C. all traces of Macedonian power had essentially disappeared. Nevertheless, Alexander had led a great expedition to unfamiliar territory, and he had conquered it as effectively as he had conquered the rest of Asia.
Abraham Lincoln was the son of a shoemaker and he became the president of America. Naturally all the aristocrats were tremendously disturbed, annoyed, irritated.
On the first day, when he was going to give his inaugural address to the Senate, just as he was going to stand up, one ugly aristocrat stood up and he said "Mr. Lincoln although by some accident you have become the president of country, don't forget that you used to come with your father to my house to prepare shoes for our family. And there are many senators who are wearing the shoes made by your father"
He was thinking he can humiliate him.
Abraham Lincoln said something which should be remembered by everyone. He said "I am very grateful to you for reminding me of my father just before I give my address to the Senate. My father was so beautiful, and such a creative artist-there was no other man who could make such beautiful shoes. I know perfectly well that whatever I do, I will never be such a great president as he was a great creator. I can not surpass him.
But by the ways, I want to remind all you aristocrats that if the shoes made by my father are pinching you, I have also learned the art with him. I am not great shoemaker, but at least I can correct your shoes. You just inform me, I will come to your house".
There was a great silence in the Senate, senator understood that it was impossible to humiliate this person. Only small people, suffering from inferiority, can be humiliated; the greatest of human beings are beyond humiliations.
Born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar, India, Mahatma Gandhi studied law and came to advocate for the rights of Indians, both at home and in South Africa. Gandhi became a leader of India's independence movement, organizing boycotts against British institutions in peaceful forms of civil disobedience. He was killed by a fanatic in 1948.
Indian nationalist leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, more commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar, Kathiawar, India. He studied law in London, England, but in 1893 went to South Africa, where he spent 20 years opposing discriminatory legislation against Indians. As a pioneer of Satyagraha, or resistance through mass non-violent civil disobedience, he became one of the major political and spiritual leaders of his time. Satyagraha remains one of the most potent philosophies in freedom struggles throughout the world today.
In 1914, Gandhi returned to India, where he supported the Home Rule movement, and became leader of the Indian National Congress, advocating a policy of non-violent non-co-operation to achieve independence. His goal was to help poor farmers and laborers protest oppressive taxation and discrimination. He struggled to alleviate poverty, liberate women and put an end to caste discrimination, with the ultimate objective being self-rule for India.
Following his civil disobedience campaign (1919-22), he was jailed for conspiracy (1922-24). In 1930, he led a landmark 320 km/200 mi march to the sea to collect salt in symbolic defiance of the government monopoly. On his release from prison (1931), he attended the London Round Table Conference on Indian constitutional reform. In 1946, he negotiated with the Cabinet Mission which recommended the new constitutional structure. After independence (1947), he tried to stop the Hindu-Muslim conflict in Bengal, a policy which led to his assassination in Delhi by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu fanatic.
Even after his death, Gandhi's commitment to non-violence and his belief in simple living--making his own clothes, eating a vegetarian diet, and using fasts for self-purification as well as a means of protest -- have been a beacon of hope for oppressed and marginalized people throughout the world
