In the spiritual domain the party aims at establishing the truth and preaching it that the world in not Maya, an illusion to be ignored and despised at, but that it is the manifestation of the one individual soul, the supreme source of all power, all knowledge and all beauty. The revolutionary party has its own policy and its own programme. It cannot for obvious reasons divulge all its secrets.
- A.D. 30.
- Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain.
- Heidegger and Practical Philosophy;
- The Revolution: A Manifesto.
But when it will become quite sure that the government happens to know more than our own people, then the public will also be informed of its plan and methods without any hesitation at will. This revolutionary party pursues the policy of cooperation when possible and dissociation where necessary with the Indian National Congress and its different parties. But this party views all constitutional agitation in this country with contempt and ridicule.
It is a mockery to say that India's salvation can be achieved through constitutional means, where no constitution exists. It is a self-deception to say that India's political liberty can be attained through peaceful and legitimate means.
A Revolutionary Manifesto
When the enemy is determined to break the peace at his own convenience, the fine phrase "legitimate" loses all its charm and significance when one pledges himself to maintain peace at all costs. Our public leaders hesitate to speak in plain terms that India wants complete autonomy free from foreign control. They perhaps are ignorant of the fact that nations are born through the inspiration of great ideals. The spiritual ideal which hestitates to accept the spirit of complete autonomy can hardly be called spirititual, though it may seemingly appear the most unmistakable terms and to place before the nation an ideal worth the name.
The ideal before us is to serve humanity in an organized way. The ideal can never be realised by India so long as India remains British India. In order that India may realise her ideal she must have a separate and independent existence. This independence can never be achieved through peaceful and constitutional means. Even a child can understand that the laws that govern British India are not made by Indians, nor can they have any control over them. British India can never be transformed into a federal republic of the United State of India through the British laws and constitution.
You are here
Young Indians! The inevitable is to come. Do not be misguided any more. Peace and tranquility you cannot achieve by peaceful and legitimate means. The following memorable words of a great English author Mr.
Robertson may serve to make the wise men of India wiser still:. Indian public leaders are still ignorant of this fatal secret, or else they are foolishly wise to remain ignorants. The wise men of India say that it is absurd to cherish the hope that India can be reconquered by force of force of arms, though they forget that it is equally or more absurd to believe that a handful of Englishmen have kept under subjugation by the force of arms, though they forget that it is equally or more absurd to believe that a handful of Englishmen have kept under subjugation by the force of arms one-fifth of the whole human race.
Posterity may well doubt the authenticity of this fact that a handful of Englishmen even ruled over India for a century; it is so inconceivable. A few words more about terrorism and anarchism. These two words are playing the most mischievous part in India today. They are being invariably misapplied whenever any reference to revolution arises to be made, because it is so very convenient to denounce the revolutionary under that name. The Indian revolutionaries are neither terrorists nor anarchists.
They never aim at spreading anarchy in the land and therefore they can never properly be called anarchists. Terrorism is never their object and they cannot be called terrorists. They do not believe that terrorism alone can bring independence and they do not want terrorism for terrorism's sake although they may at times resort to this method as a very effective means of retaliation. The present Govt. The Indian people do not love their English masters, they do not want them to be here; but they do help the Britishers simply because they are terribly afraid of them and this very fear resists the Indians from extending their helping hands to the revolutionaries, not that they do not love them.
The official terrorism is surely to be met by counter-terrorism. A spirit of utter helplessness pervades every strata of our society and terrorism is an effective means of restoring the proper spirits in the society without which progress will be difficult. Moreover, the English masters and their hired lackeys can never be allowed to do whatever they like, uninterrupted, unmodested. Every possible difficulty and resistance must be thrown in their way.
Terrorism has an international bearing also, because the ardent enemies of England are at once drawn towards Indian through terrorism and revolutionary demonstrations, and the revolutionary party has deliberately abstained itself from entering into this terroristic campaign at the present movement even at the greatest of provocations in the form in the form of outrages committed on their sisters and mothers by the agents of a foreign government, simply because the party is waiting to deliver the final blow. But when expediency will demand it, the party will unhesitatingly enter into a desperate campaign of terrorism, when the life of every official and individual who will be helping the foreign ruler in any way will be made intolerable, be he Indian or European, high or low.
But even then the party will never forget that terrorism is not the object, and they will try incessantly to organize a band of selfless and devoted workers who will devote their best energies towards the political and social emancipation of their country. They will always remember that the making of nations requires the self-sacrifice of thousand of obscure men and women who care more for the idea of their country than for their own comfort or interest, their own lives or the lives of those whom they love.jugtincwessiri.tk
The Revolution: A Manifesto - Wikipedia
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, , all documents enter the public domain after sixty years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year ie. The primary historical cover for this interpretation comes from Jefferson and Madison. Paul, however, does not only celebrate the tradition of the most famous Founding Fathers. It is not hard to select excerpts from all these writers criticizing the extension of governmental powers. Yet to group all four Virginians together so cavalierly obscures as much as it illuminates.
On any specific issue relating to government, it would be hard to find all four gentlemen in agreement; the inference that their ideology was coherent in anything more than the most general sense would be historically misleading. When their actions do not fit so neatly into an anti-governmental framework, they are strangely absent from the narrative. In his lengthiest chapter, dealing with the need for economic reform, Paul relies extensively on his reading of Austrian School economics.
- The Brave Captains (The Phillip Hazard Novels, Book 2).
- Ecosystem Services – Concept, Methods and Case Studies.
- The Designer s Guide to Spice and Spectre;
In terms of policy prescriptions, he advocates the repeal of the income tax, looking at the history of its implementation to show how government, once given a small wedge, will use its power to extend programs well beyond their original intent. So far, so convincing — original arguments in favor of income taxes certainly did not envisage the development of the IRS. Yet Paul does not deal at all with the 16th Amendment — the use of popular power to enact governmental change in accordance with the very document that Paul reveres so strongly in the rest of his book.
While he recognizes that many of his specific policy prescriptions are an enormous change from modern practice, the establishment of a declension narrative in which the concerns of the Founders have been systematically ignored over time allows Paul to argue that his platform is simultaneously radical and a restoration of familiar ideals. The Revolution does not only posit a declension narrative in terms of the overreach of the federal government; the economic stability of America has similarly declined since the abandonment of the gold standard. America must govern according to older principles if it is to restore its previous prosperity and prestige.
Given such a romanticized view of the American past, it is unsurprising that Paul had a tendency to use history as a crutch, rather than engaging deeply with the nuances and complexity of the past. When discussing his opposition to the draft, for example, he jumps from Robert Taft to Ronald Reagan and back to Daniel Webster. Such a disjointed connection of ideas, divorced from their immediate context, is a little dizzying to the historian; it smacks of coming up with the answer first, and finding the evidence later.
This is particularly illuminating of the sometimes shallow reading of history evident in The Revolution : a more considered view of the American founding would have given abundant evidence of suspicion of a government-controlled military. Revolutionary-era support for the militia remained steadfast even as Washington and other officers of the Continental Army argued vociferously for the strategic necessity of a standing army. Paul could have bolstered many of his arguments had he drunk deeper from the historical well.
The unconstitutionality of many recent actions of the federal government is a recurring theme. Interestingly, in these cases Paul does not spend much time harking back to constitutional precedent.
When the actions of the Bush Administration are most easily portrayed as unconstitutional, the 18th century disappears from view. When contemporary opinion is less settled, Washington, Jefferson and others are wheeled in to provide as much moral as substantive support. His reading list, in which he lists titles that have been most influential on his way of thinking, consists mainly of economists and political theorists. As such, when Paul does introduce historical events into his manifesto, they are filtered through the lens of those who have used founding-era history to argue specific ends.
Yet while Paul frequently references the most celebrated of the Founding Fathers, it is telling to look at the historical figures who appear alongside the American sainthood. For The Revolution is as apt to cite an oppositional strand or dissenting tradition within American politics. When discussing 20th-century foreign policy, for example, Paul relies heavily on the isolationism of Robert Taft, as opposed to the foreign policy convergence of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower.
In dealing with revolutionary and early republic era concerns on the limits of government, Paul is as likely to cite Anti-Federalists or Old Republicans such as John Taylor of Caroline as he is Jefferson or Madison. Paul is thus right to note that many of his ideas have a long history as part of American political discourse.
Without closer attention to the discourse, however, historical arguments are drawn more for their rhetorical appeal than establishing the foundational importance of the idea. Yes, Founding Fathers were suspicious of governmental power in a general sense.
Related The Revolution: A Manifesto
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved