I think, time has come for me to express my stand in the matter. Before I tell what I have in mind, I am reminded of an instance in Gandhiji’s life.
During independence struggle a person approached him and said, "Gandhiji, I want to get converted to Hinduism". Gandhiji enquired as what prompted him to take this decision? The visitor replied “I like your ideals and want to follow you. Therefore , I want to change my religion”. Gandhiji told him, that no religion is inferior or superior and one should love his religion and follow the path of righteousness.
From this incident, I take a clue that a person should first love himself. If he loves himself, he would love his family, his society and his country. Loving one-self includes loving ones language too. Often there is a tendency to misinterpret that if one loves something, he hates the other. This is far from truth. Example, if one says that he likes mangoes, it doesn’t mean that he dislikes other fruits. If I love my child, it’s never to be interpreted that I hate other children. I love INDIA, it doesn’t mean I’m at war with other countries to annihilate and obliterate them from the face of Earth.
Since my marriage I have been out of Andhra Pradesh till 2006. My child was born and brought-up entirely outside Andhra Pradesh. Unlike many of my other Telugu friends, I adopted a policy to speak only Telugu at home. Today my child can speak chaste Telugu with Krishna District accent. Surprisingly it is these Telugu friends, who did not speak and encourage Telugu at home with their children in the past, started complaining now (at a much later stage in their life), that their children are getting lost culturally and are picking up Non-Andhra Cultures. Here the moot question is, were we able to help them to “Love Themselves”, when they were small? If they have to love themselves they should love their home, of which their mother-tongue is also an important factor. Loving oneself is a crucial aspect of personality development, where it connotes self-confidence.
If we start loving ourselves, we also start looking around to see how others are enjoying their life. I celebrate Sankranti with Pongali, Dusherra with Chenna Podo Pitha, Eid with Semvia and Christmas with a Cake. I love my culture, therefore I am able to appreciate other languages, festivals, food and cultures too!!
I’m proficient in English, Hindi and Telugu. I understand Oriya and Marathi also. I have adopted a policy to speak in Hindi with a North-Indian, Telugu with an Andhrite and English with others. If there is a common Indian language between me and my visitor, I prefer to talk in that language and express my respect to my visitor.
Similarly, I like English too!! To balance between my love for my mother tongue i.e Telugu and show respect to the audience’s accessibility, I have decided to narrate in Telugu on my Videos and post the Text of the recipe in English. If one reads the English text of the recipe on my website and watches my video, he is bound to understand the content in its entirety. The first comment mentioned above in this article is from a US settled Gujarati lady. It is a testimony to indicate that language is never a barrier.
If language was to be an hinderance for understanding my videos, a little more than 15 % of my viewers wouldn’t have been non-Telugus. At times I ponder whether man’s evolving a language, (unlike other animals) is in itself has become a mental barrier for which he is becoming a brute fanatic? Click here to watch a video on making Tofu, where the person in the video hasn’t uttered a single word, yet conveyed beautifully what he wanted.
Thus my videos would continue to be in Telugu, and I respect all other languages, cultures and foods. I promise to post and share with you more and more videos on the dishes which I have prepared at home and enjoyed with my family. They need not be only Andhra Dishes!!!
Honestly I also do not believe in superlative phrases like, “The most Authentic”, “The Best”, “Purely Traditional” etc.
No one can be branded as a bad cook and no one can be adjudged as the best chef. Both the extremes do not exist. It’s just an experimentation in ones kitchen. Some have time and interest to share, while some don’t have the opportunity to share their knowledge with the world.
I am blessed for being able to share and have your viewership.Enjoy viewing my videos in TELUGU and keep reading the Text of the recipe in ENGLISH !!!!!!!
|Our Earlier discussions on the Blog|
August 25, 2010 8:42 PM
August 30, 2010 4:31 AM
August 14, 2010 4:23 AM
Mohamed Sabir said...
July 20, 2010 12:58 AM
July 23, 2010 6:31 AM
June 27, 2010 5:00 PM
|Your Earlier comments on the Blog|
Hi Gayatri garu,
January 28, 2011 4:03 AM
January 3, 2011 10:48 PM
February 15, 2011 10:46 AM
May 13, 2009 5:48 AM
gayatri anti i am very much happy to c ur website mainly the happiest think is telugu videos of making curry with good clearence. thanks alot i am newly married but in 1yr only i have baby too early so no time to learn vantalu . ur site help me alot .but plz tell how to make chamadhumpa onin pululu. plzzz reply i lov it once agin thanks a lotAugust 13, 2010 9:33 PM
Although my Telugu is basic, your instructions are easy to understand and the outcomes are great! Thanks!July 23, 2010 9:42 PM
Hi Gayatri Garu
Hi Gayathri garu,
| Your emails to firstname.lastname@example.org|
Gayatrivantillu opinion on the mail forward from Lakshmi Jyothi Manapragada, on Nathuram Godse's statement
In "Parasurama" Avatara, powers of Parasurama were taken back by Lord Rama after it served the purpose of uniting small small kingdoms. Every Avatara has to come to an end and so is the case with Gandhiji also. When British adopted "divide and rule", there is no doubt about Gandhiji and his role. This Avatara was required for the undivided India to bring unity between Muslims and Hindus. Probably, this Avatara of Gandhiji needed to have ended a bit earlier, much before the eruption of ego-clash between Nehru and Jinnah, for which the country was divided to serve their respective individual aspirations. Remember, in Mahabharata also the country was divided into Hastinapur and Indraprastha to serve the aspirations of Kauravas and Pandavas. Yet Bhisma's endorsement to this solution couldn't avert Mahabharata War. In both these instances, individual aspirations took precedence over people's aspirations for which the country was divided. And probably that's what made Godse unhappy. Godse's statement makes a good reading & is thought provoking
Following is a mail forward from Lakshmi Jyothi Manapragada, on Nathuram Godse's statement
Mohan K Gandhi's Assassin: Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.
Nathuram Godse was arrested based on a F. I.. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police station at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death..
An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find it favourable and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you
are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949.
WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history, and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchables and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social, and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.
I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America , and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the molding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hinduism and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and program, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if
you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life
from day to day.
In fact, honour, duty, and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I
could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata] , Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna , and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny
in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being
of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.
Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster, and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League member's right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.
Lord Mount batten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mount batten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected
India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress
party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a the ocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When
top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was
filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he
imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown
some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He
was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly
attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty in as much as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty.
He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will, and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost my entire honor, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.
After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
I have to say with great regret that Primes Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preaching's and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan , and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weighs my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.