Dr R Rudra Narasimham Medical Officer Operation Eagle Chittagong Hill Tracts 1971
Love is a powerful emotion felt for another person manifesting itself in deep affection, devotion or sexual desire. If love is viewed as fondness or affection it may include or based in part on sexual attraction which is related to libido( sexual urge or instinct ), and lust( a desire to gratify the senses or bodily appetite that seeks unrestrained gratification ). Love implies feelings that are attached to relationships or objects and assumes various forms such as sexual love, brotherly love, and love of God. The attachment may be felt for inanimate things as well as people, or ideas, or expressed as an abstraction. There are many different kinds of love; different in object, different in tendency, and different in expression. The problem of the kinds of love is further complicated by the need to differentiate and relate love and desire. The category of love known as sexual love has the tendency to desire possession of the object that is loved. The tendency of desire is acquisitive. Sexual love is a love born of desire, and the drive of desire continues until it is satisfied by possession of the loved object. Physical possession is the basis for the satisfaction of sexual desire, sexual appetite, or sexual hunger, or sexual thirst. The other forms of love do not tend to possess the object loved but seek to benefit the object that is loved. Love is selfish when it acts like hunger, thirst, or appetite which need to be satisfied for the benefit of the person expressing that love. Love is altruistic when it acts for the good or the benefit of the beloved. Conjugal love may include a combination of selfishness and altruism. The ancient languages have three distinct words for the main types of love; EROS, PHILIA, and AGAPE in Greek language; AMOR, AMICITA or DILECTIO, and CARITAS in Latin language. However, English language has no such distinct words and hence it becomes necessary to use such phrases as “sexual love”, “love of friendship”, and “love of charity” in order to indicate plainly that love is common to all three, and to distinguish the three meanings. The idea of love expressed in Biblical Scriptures makes no distinction between AMOR, DILECTIO, and CARITAS. For example, in The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Chapter 22, verses 37, 38, and 39 speak of the Great Commandments of The Laws of Moses: Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Jesus brings unity between the idea of self-love, love of God, and the love of one another without making distinction between the three different kinds of love. Jesus does not specify if man should wish and expect to be loved in return. Jesus did not attach any purpose to this act of love, and did not describe the nature of desire, the attachment, and the gratification of his Love Commandment.
Sigmund Freud’s theory places the origin of love in the sexual instincts, and so for him the many varieties of love are simply the forms which love takes as the ‘LIBIDO‘ fixes upon various objects. He states, “The nucleus of what we mean by love naturally consists …… in sexual love with sexual union as its aim. We do not separate from this; on the one hand, self-love, and on the other, love for parents and children, friendship and love for humanity in general, and also devotion to concrete objects and to abstract ideas….. All these tendencies are an expression of the same instinctive activities…. They differ from sexual love only because they are diverted from its aim or prevented from reaching it, though they always preserve enough of their original nature to keep their identity recognizable.” If love is the passion of the sexual instinct, temperance is an inadequate restraint. Neither reason nor law is adequate to the task of subduing the nature of the sexual instinct. Sexual instinct is a very powerful biological instinct and it profoundly influences human behavior. Hence it becomes necessary to transform sexual love either by repressing it, or sublimating it, or mixing it with tenderness or kindness. In that context, friendship, charity or compassion, and devotion to God could be stated as transformations of sexual love. Sexual instincts are inhibited or actually repressed in the expression of brotherly love, or feelings of deep affection for children and others where the relationship should not be based upon feelings of sexual attraction.
THE COMPLEXITY OF LOVE :
Love is a very complex emotional instinct and it is complex as it may not always provide a sense of joy or happiness. There is a fact about love; love frequently turns into its opposite, HATE. Sometimes there is love and hate of the same object; sometimes love inspires hate, and love may also cause jealousy, anger, and fear. Love seems to be the primal passion, generating all the others according to the oppositions of pleasure and pain and by relation of cause and effect. The individual’s experience of love is extremely variable and it includes the operation of both positive and negative impulses. Indian tradition has carefully examined this complex instinctual behavior and has instructed people of the Land of Bharat or India to understand the three major distinctions or categories of love and to apply a sense of restraint, or that of repression has brought love under the purview of morality, the code of Right Conduct or DHARMA. Indian Culture does not provide the linguistic tools to express feelings associated with sexual passion without using temperance. There is no linguistic equivalent in classical Indian languages to profess love. The terms and words that Indians use have specific meaning attached to them.
LOVE vs PREMA :
Love is not a universal term and this idea is not expressed in Indian tradition and classical literature. The word “LOVE” appears repeatedly in the Bible, in several different editions of Bible. I am not a language expert and I believe that people who had translated Bible have exercised great care to convey the meaning of love. Many editions of Bible have further clarified the meaning of Love in their glossary section or Bible dictionary and define Love as a deep sense of affection, devotion for someone or something and they very carefully exclude sexual desire and sexual passion. In English speaking world, and in English literature, the word Love is used to describe desire, libido, lust, and passion based upon sexual attraction. So, Love is a generic term and it may not always mean brotherly love and goodwill. Indian Culture has erected subtle barriers and has not provided linguistic tools to use the word Love as we like. It separates Love into various categories and sets them apart. The feelings of affection, or fondness that are associated with sexual attraction are specifically known as ‘KAMA’ and intense sexual passion or desire is called ‘MOHA’. Any intense or passionate desire could be called KAMA and to act under its influence could be stated as MOHA. My love for God could only be expressed in terms of Bhakti or Devotion, and the desire could be called PREET. The desire called PREETI or Preet is a legitimate desire. It is also called “ISHTA”. I am allowed to seek or desire certain things in my life and that desire is subject to the rule of Good Conduct or Dharma. I can express the sentiment of Preet only when, and where such desire is allowed to be stated in a legitimate manner, and is acceptable to tradition and established conventions and social norms. If I entertain thoughts of sexual attraction about my attractive and rich neighbor, I am not allowed to express my feelings as Preet. It can not be called “ISHTA”. I can call it Kama or Moha. In the epic poem of Ramayana, when King Ravana of Lanka had wanted to marry Princess Sita and had attended her Swayamvara, the desire was legitimate and he was allowed to feel sexual attraction and it was not Kama. But, when he had abducted her while she was lawfully married to Prince Rama, that desire and sexual attraction represents an impulsive action of Moha, and Kama. King Ravana was not entitled to express his Love for Sita if it is formulated by Kama, and intense sexual passion known as lust or Moha. Similarly, a man can express his love or Preet for a woman in a respectful or legitimate manner and to seek a valid relationship. If the relationship is illegal, it can not be called Preet. A father’s love, or mother’s love, or brother’s love is described as “VASTHALYA”, a natural sense of affection and fondness which is not related to sexual attraction or desire. The word “PREMA” or “PREM” is used to describe the feelings of affection, fondness, friendship(SNEHA), kindness(DAYA, or KARUNA), compassion(KRUPA), happiness, joy(ANANDA) that have no direct relationship to the satisfaction of sexual desires and passions. The deep sense of affection between husband and wife is often called “ANURAG” which indicates an intimate friendship. I can not literally translate this word LOVE into any of the Indian languages as such expression is not allowed without stating the nature of its contents.
If Jesus gives the Commandment of Love your neighbour as thyself; I would not be able to express that thought in Indian languages. Jesus has not stated that idea in terms of friendship(SNEHA), kindness(DAYA), or giving happiness(ANANDA). Only when, and if those qualities of friendship, kindness, and giving joy or happiness are specifically included; Jesus could Command others to express PREMA to one another. However, in Indian tradition, the deep sense of affection or fondness of God is stated as Bhakti or devotion. Mirabai has expressed such deep sense of affection and I would not call it as her love of Krishna. Jayadeva in his famous description of Lord Krishna’s creative activities in Brindavan(Vrindavan) has depicted the intense erotic feelings of the young maidens as a product of their intense devotion to the Lord. I can not use the word Love to describe the sexual passions of the Gopis or the young maidens of Brindavan.
SELF-LOVE AND NARCISSISM :
My concern is not about PREMA or LOVE. My concern is about self-love, a man’s love of himself. In psychology the word ‘NARCISSISM’ is used to describe excessive self-love. In my medical practice, I have not encountered such narcissistic tendencies among people of Indian origin. Indian tradition has erected barriers and would not easily let us identify ourselves with the physical-self. Indian tradition repeatedly instructs us about our Essence and true Identity and reminds us not to get attached to the physical-self. If I have no feelings of attachment to my physical-self, I can not really love myself. If I can not truly love myself, I can not also love my neighbor in the same manner, or to a same degree of my self-love. If man is not expected to love himself, the issue of loving the neighbor is redundant.
The Times of India has published a news story about the likely reincarnation of Satya Sai Baba as “PREMA SAI BABA.”My impression about this story is, Sri Satya Sai Baba has attempted to import a foreign idea to the Land of Bharat without fully understanding the subtle cultural barriers that exist in the Land. The notion of PREMA could only be expressed in terms of Friendship( lack of animosity ), kindness and goodwill, and that of giving happiness to others. It can not be related to the idea of Love. The theory of reincarnation is not the issue. The issue is about the idea itself. He has to attach meaning to the word “PREMA” that he used and distinguish from the word “LOVE” that is used in English language.
Dr. R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S.,
Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India,
M.B.B.S., Class of April, 1970.
“Prema Sai will be born in Doddamalur”
M B Maramkal & K R Rajendra Kumar, TNN | Times of India, Apr 28, 2011, 05.52am IST
DODDAMALUR(Mandya): Will the reincarnation be reality or not?
Whatever happens, the tiny village of Doddamalur, off the Bangalore-Mysore highway, will definitely be in the news in the coming years, with scores of stories doing the rounds here over the reincarnation of Sathya Sai Baba as Prema Sai.
What has lent credence to claims of people of the Vaishnava sect temples of Aprameya (Vishnu) and Ambegalu Krishna (toddler Krishna) is based on a book `Sri Sathya Sai — Anandasai’ authored by one Swami, an ardent devotee of Sai Baba. In that, he claims that the godman, during his visit to Doddamalur, had told him that Sai Baba had three avatars in kalyug, and of them, he is the second avatar (reincarnation) of Shirdi Sai Baba. The third will be Prema Saiand he will be born in this village. He also claims that Baba, during his visit in the ’60s, showed a small house where he will be born.
However, confusion prevails among people who are making claims of Baba’s reincarnation in the village. According to Ramadas, who runs a Krishna charitable trust, Prema Sai will be born in this village after 2023, as predicted by Sathya Sai Baba. Ramadas said Baba had predicted that his personal assistant, Narayan Kasturi, who died long ago, will reincarnate himself as a woman in a village near Bhadravathi, marry a person from this village and give birth to Prema Sai. “Today you are my assistant, in the next life you will be my mother,” Sai Baba is supposed to have said.
Doddamalur, located on the banks of the river Kanva, will be called Gunaparthy after the reincarnation, said Raghav, an aged villager, disclosing that the soil and water of the village have curative powers. The village will be called Gun (cure) parthy (place) in the years to come.
WHY DID BABA CHOOSE THIS VILLAGE?
Villagers who are well-versed with its history claim that Baba was carried away by the religious history and mythological importance of this village. People say a Kanva sage did tapasya (penance) here and it was an agrahara (Brahmin settlement) in medieval history. It is said that saint Purandaradasa visited the Aprameya and Krishna temples here and presented a kirtana (discourse) on this village and temples. Baba was enamoured by the historic significance of this village.
This blog post is dedicated to Bhagavan Sri Satya Sai Baba who has defined the word “SAI” : The letter ‘S’ stands for Spirituality, the letter ‘A’ stands for Association, and the letter ‘I’ stands for Individual. Man is an Individual, an Association of trillions of Individual Cells which formulate the Identity of the Individual because of a Cellular function known as Consciousness which establishes God-Connection, or Spiritual Connection between the energy dependent Individual and the Cosmic Source of Energy/Power/Force which supports, sustains, and preserves the Living Functions of the Individual and all that is living on the planet Earth.
THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTIONS :
The Totality of Things have been divided by describing The Three Fundamental Distinctions; 1. the Distinction between the natural and the supernatural, 2. the Distinction between the material and spiritual, and 3. the Distinction between the lifeless and the living(inanimate/animate, non-living/living, inorganic/organic). How do we make these Distinctions? The Difference, is that of Kind or that of Degree? If physical matter is called natural material substance, Is there an immaterial, transcendental substance called supernatural? The material substance is governed by The Laws of Physics and interacts with other material substances as per The Laws of Chemistry. Who or what governs the nature of Spiritual substance? The Laws of Thermodynamics are applicable to both non-living, and living systems. What is the Difference? The Living matter or Living cell is a thermodynamically unstable system. This means that without a continuous input of energy, a Living cell will degrade spontaneously into a non-living collection of molecules. If Deoxy Ribo Nucleic Acid or DNA is viewed as a Living Organic Molecule, it lives as long as energy is supplied to manifest its living functions. If the supply of energy is withdrawn, this Organic Molecule degrades into its constituent inorganic elements, and molecules.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH :
Death is defined as the extinction or cessation of Life. Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, Dean of the Harvard Medical School(1847-1882), defined Life: “To live is to function, and that is all there is in living.” Life is defined as function at the level of physiology, of molecular biology, biochemistry, and of genetic potential. If Life is defined by function, Who or What is the Subject who lives because of its Function? What is that Function that could establish all other living functions? If living functions are goal-oriented, purposeful, sequential and not random, who provides the guidance or what is the source of Knowledge to perform goal-oriented functions? Life is described as a state of an organism characterized by certain processes, abilities that include metabolism, growth, motion, reproduction, responsiveness to stimuli, and awareness of its own condition of existence in a given environment. Functions depend upon the use of information; the information that is stored at a particular site or location is transferred to a different site or location where its is transformed into action which describes the nature of the function performed. Life could be defined as “Knowledge in Action.” The living functions or actions depend upon the use of energy. If Life is a manifestation of a System that is energy dependent, it requires Knowledge to acquire energy from an external source of energy. Life could be defined as a State of Knowing the Connection between energy- seeker and energy-provider. If a cell or matter to exist as Life, it must exist in a State of Knowing, or Awareness, or Consciousness that gives it the ability to acquire energy from its environment. Man has the Capacity of Consciousness in the presence of the vital functions operated by structures in Brain Stem. Man is certified to be dead when Consciousness departs and the same is evidenced by the absence of his Brain Stem functions. Consciousness is a transcendental term. It establishes a connection between matter or substance and a source of energy that is extraterrestrial or of Cosmic origin.
In a multicellular organism, cells have short lives as individuals. The Whole Organism has a life span of its own. However, the Identity of the Individual who is seen as a living person is defined by a process called Cellular Death. The Identity is formulated by what is known as Programmed Cell Death. To achieve proper numerical balance between functionally related cell groups, the death of many cells is necessary for others. This Programmed Cell Death plays an important role in embryological Growth and Development of human fetus. Waves of genetically driven Cell Deaths are critical to the proper modeling of organs and organ systems. Such Programmed Cell Death events are essential if the organism as a whole is to develop its normal, final form and acquire a recognizable morphological appearance. Lord Gautama Buddha had observed; “Whatever is born, produced, conditioned, contains within itself the nature of its own dissolution.” Life and Death are the two sides or the two faces of the same coin. Without death, the Identity can not be expressed, and death also takes away the Identity that it has established. Identity and Individuality are not the same. Identity is established by the Phenotype which undergoes changes under the influence of Time. The Individuality is supported by Consciousness which operates the Genotype. Man’s Essence( Who you are ) is defined and is preceded by the Physical Reality of Existence. There is no Essence without Existence. There is no Existence without Connection, Association, or Partnership between energy-seeker and energy-provider. There is no Connection, Association, or Partnership without Consciousness. Man begins his life journey as a single cell and during his entire life journey the individual cells that describe his physical body constantly experience Cell Death while the Conscious entity survives the dying process. Consciousness is not affected by the dying process that gives the human a shape, a size, a form, and an Identity. Identity is dependent upon Consciousness and Consciousness is independent of the changing Identity such as infancy, boyhood, adulthood, and old age.
THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE INDIVIDUALITY :
The Individual is a Physical being and is a mortal being. The Individuality survives unchanged during the physical life journey of the Individual who lives with changing identity all his life. What happens to the Individuality? Does it continue without change? It depends upon the Flow of Time. Things in Nature change with Time but certain things like Mass, Energy, Momentum remain constant, unchanged, and they can not be created or destroyed. If Time flows in a cyclical manner, the Past flows into the Present, the Present flows into Future, and the Future soon becomes a Past event. Man’s existence depends upon the cyclical flow of Time, and Man’s existence depends upon his inability to directly experience the events that cause this cyclical flow of Time. Man exists not because of things that change in nature, but because of the constancy or unchanging nature of the change he perceives. Day is followed by Night, and the Winter Season is followed by the Spring Season with unfailing constancy. Very often, the cynical people would ask for verification. If not Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Jesus has provided some experience to His disciples and had verified the fact of His Resurrection. The Book of John, Chapter 20, verse 29 quotes the conversation between Jesus and His disciple Thomas. Today, Sunday, April 24, the Christian community is celebrating the Holiday known as Easter. Man will have no direct experience about the unchanging, eternal nature of his Individuality as his perception abilities, his cognitive abilities operate under the powerful influence of Illusion. As long as man lives on this planet Earth without direct experience of Earth’s Angular Speed, and Linear Speed, he will not know what changes and what may not change under the influence of Time. Man has to be uplifted from his State of Conditioned Existence to know his true nature. In a changing world, that is characterized by changes in function such as Life and Death, man has to seek the Unchanging Reality, the Unchanging Constancy that supports all Life.
Dr. R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S.,
Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India,
M.B.B.S., Class of April, 1970.
The Hindu A child pays floral tribute to a portrait of Sri Sathya Sai Baba at the Satya Sai Nigamagamam in Hyderabad on Sunday after the spiritual leader passed away at Puttaparthi in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh . Photo: P.V. Sivakumar
“Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba is no more with us physically. He left his earthly body on April 24, 2011 at 7:40 a.m. due to cardio-respiratory failure,” Director of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences Dr. A.N. Safaya said in a bulletin »
Related: End of a chequered spiritual journey
- Spirituality – Soul, Consciousness and the God-connection (bhavanajagat.wordpress.com)
- The Science of Consciousness (bhavanajagat.wordpress.com)
- The Truth About Self – “i Am Consciousness” (bhavanajagat.wordpress.com)
THE PROOF OF PUDDING IS IN THE EATING :
Gandhi had categorically pronounced his views about self-defense and his words need no further clarification. It would be very interesting to observe that Gandhi made a distinction between violence imposed by Muslims and the violence that should be endured by Hindus. Muslims are entitled to their concept of ‘JIHAD’ and may use violence, force, or warfare as a religious duty. Hindus are not required to offer any kind of resistance if they happen to come under a violent attack. Gandhi had no problem if an Afghan warlord would attack India to defeat the British Raj and had stated that Indians would not oppose that kind of military attack. But, Gandhi had vigorously opposed people like Subhash Chandra Bose and their quest for Freedom by using force. Gandhi had discovered good reasons to condone violence perpetrated by Muslims and had consistently counselled Hindus to accept violence with a sense of cheer and rejoice and to adhere to their spiritual belief in Rebirth.
Dr. R. Rudra Narasimham,
Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India,
M.B.B.S., Class of April, 1970.
I had received Gandhi’s pronouncements from Shri. Hari Kak. I give my thanks to him for sharing this information about Gandhi and his role as a leader.
On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the Father of The Nation(born October 02, 1869, died January 30, 1948 ), the followers of his views and way of life, may like to read the extent to which he tried to take the Muslims along with him.
THE KHALIFAT MOVEMENT :
Gandhi returned to India during 1914 with a determination to fight for India’s Independence. With his experience in South Africa, and as a shrewd observer of the ongoing independence movement, he realised that it was Hindu dominated and to make it a success the full participation of the Muslims was essential. To achieve this aim he bent over backwards to appease Muslims and during the last days of his life his efforts went to inexplicable lengths. The Ottoman Caliphate in Turkey was tottering under the French-British attacks and ended with Mustafa Kamal abolishing the institution. But, strangely in India, the Muslims under the leadership of brothers Maulana Mohammed Ali, a cleric and journalist and Maulana Shaukat Ali started the Khilafat Movement. Around 1920, Gandhi joined it along with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, an eminent Congressman.
Dr. Ambedkar in his voluminous tome ” Pakistan or Partition of India” has referred to an invitation extended by the Ali brothers,to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India to wage “jihad” against the British – a horrendous proposition which was supported by Khilafat-besotted Gandhi. C.Y. Chintamani (Editor of ‘The Leader’ of Allahabad) and Rev. C.F. Andrews tried to dissuade Gandhi from supporting the “mad” venture of Ali brothers in seeking Afghan invasion of India. Gandhi’s reaction was “I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are going to be arrested as the rumours go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing which I would not do. If they had sent a message to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it would help the Government to drive him back.”
There was some non-cooperation and protests but by the end of 1924, the Khalifat Movement, as expected, had totally collapsed. Ali brothers blamed Gandhi for the failure of the Khalifat Movement. Maulana Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi had shown great affection said, : “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character.” He further emphasised: “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi.” Showing their true colours,the Ali brothers later joined the Muslim League.
THE MOPLAH REBELLION OF 1921 :
Taking a clue from the Khilafat movement the Moplahs ( Mopillas) in Kerala revolted in 1921, against their Hindu landlords and turned it into a killing spree of Hindus of all vocations. Annie Besant stated: “They (Moplahs) murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything. Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.”
As pointed out by Dr. Ambedkar , after the brutal killings of “Kaffirs” during ‘Moplah rebellion’, there was hardly any reaction by Khilafat-oriented Gandhi, or for that matter even Congress Party. They were all praise for Moplahs whom Gandhi even described as “brave people” and condoned their savagery by saying that “they did what was right according to their religion.” These were the early years of Gandhi’s leadership role in India’s Freedom Movement.
GANDHI’S VIEWS ON PARTITION RELATED VIOLENCE OF INDIA : HINDUS MUST DIE WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACES :
Some of his views on partition are listed below. They defy comprehension.
Prarthana-Pravachan Part I PP 54-8; CWOMG vol 87 pg 394-5
Speech at Prayer Meeting. New Delhi, May 1, 1947
….Jinnah Saheb presides over a great organisation. Once he has Affixed his signature to the appeal, how can even one Hindu be killed at the hands of the Muslims? I would tell the Hindus to face death Cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real Sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son Should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. But why in the First place would a Muslim kill at all when he has been asked not to do it?…..
You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain…..
Muslim slaughter of Hindus was defended by the Mahatma as being that by a “brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion” (BR Ambedkar, quoted by Arvind Lavakare). Indeed, the Mahatma said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence” and Hindus “should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.” Kindly read the news story at rediff.com, April 16, 2002 (Arvind Lavakare, “Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence”)