Panaji (Goa) : Lord Bhikhu Parekh, a member of Britain’s ‘House of Lords’ referred to revolutionaries like Swatantryaveer Savarkar, who fought for India’s freedom, as ‘armed terrorists’. In the series of lectures organized in the name of D D Kosambi, such insulting reference was made by Parekh. When after the lecture, during question-answer session, a patriotic citizen, Shri. Shrikant Barve took him to task for the same, Bhikhu Parekh said that his definition of ‘terrorist’ was different. (Bhikhu Parekh has probably been given membership of ‘House of Lords’ for his mentality of referring to the armed revolution of rebelling patriots against English regime. A person, who calls a patriot as terrorist and refers to terrorists with respect, is anti-national and such person can only have different definitions. – editor) Bhikhu Parekh gave a lecture on the subject of ‘India’s tradition of disputes and discussions’. This lecture was organized by Art and Culture Department of Goa Government. (Patriotic citizens should register protest, in lawful manner, with the Government’s Art and Culture Department for inviting such anti-nationals and for not forcing him to render apology for his anti-national statement ! – Editor SP)
1. Parekh said further, “Disputes, discussions and exhibition of opposition is an old tradition of India followed from Vedic period. The puritanical Hindus also had difference of opinion and had arguments with principles advocated by Buddhist and Jain Sects. (Disputes and exhibition of opposition cannot be a tradition of tolerant Hindus. In ‘Treta-yuga’, when Sriram had to go in exile, He never had arguments with anyone or showed opposition in any manner. During ‘Dwapar-Yuga’ also, nobody opposed the ‘Dharma-yuddha’ for the sake of opposition. In fact, fighting or arguing on trivial matters, resorting to riots with unwarranted opposition, is the tradition of fanatics. Hindu culture has no place for such things ! – Editor SP)
2. While giving an example of Mohandas Gandhi, Bhikhu Parekh said, “Mahatma Gandhi set a good practice of exhibiting dispute. When he had gone to London, he argued with Indian terrorists on means of gaining freedom, way of thinking etc. There was difference of opinions between Ambedkar and Gandhi on many social issues. (Parekh has got the title of ‘Lord’ from Britain. What could be his problem, is it that he does not know Marathi or could it be his treason that he is calling freedom fighters as terrorists? – Editor SP)
3.Mr. Shrikant Barve, who cornered Parekh for his objectionable statements, by asking him to explain who is terrorist and why did he refer to them as terrorists, Parekh said that ‘terrorist means Swatantryaveer Savarkar. (How can Parekh dare to refer to a great freedom fighter like Swa. Savarkar, as a terrorist, in front of so many Hindus? Hindus should teach a lesson, in lawful manner, to such over-learned persons for insulting their leader ! – Editor SP) Parekh said that ‘terrorist’ word was not used in conventional manner but it had an expansive meaning. I meant it as those fighting with weapons.’ (Did Parekh not find better words other than terrorists or extremists ? – Editor SP)
Source : Dainik Sanatan Prabhat
