Talk:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

Untitled

• This article includes material merged from other articles. Some articles have been simply redirected to this article. Old talk-pages: Talk:P.R. Sarkar, Talk:Neo-humanism, Talk:Microvitum, Talk:Progressive utilization theory, Talk:Social cycle theory of Sarkar.

Merger

There are currently two pages on the same man. This page is longer, more detailed, and slightly less-POV than the other (although it still has problems), so the P.R. Sarkar page should be scrapped and made into a redirect to this page.

The other page has some information not included here. I will try to add the relevant information here (and ignore the irrelevant information--does it matter that he was born on a full moon?), but someone who knows more about Sarkar, Ananda Marga, or Indian gurus in general should probably review my attempts.

I tried to reorganize and rewrite as little as possible of what was already on this page, but was forced to make some changes to fit in the information from the other. Falcotron 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it matters so much that he was born on a full moon, but all biographies of Sarkar mentions this fact. As far as I know this must be an auspicious sign in Hindu astrology, however Sarkar never put any significance into astrology except for the dates of fasting which are related to the moon phases. cJ --Cracker jack 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good idea to merge these two pages. Hopefully, the merged page is broadly agreed upon by those who take an interest in the life and ideas of this man. Ramayan 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for going over the two pages and fixing what I missed. Trying to integrate the two without destroying the organization of this page was harder than I expected.... Falcotron 04:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing: The Disciples section. I left the paragraph on Ravi Batra out (even though it was from his page that I found these pages) because I thought it was more appropriate to list him under the Ananda Marga page instead. Also, it seems strange to have a section on Disciples listing only one disciple. It might at least be worth mentioning that Sarkar had other disciples, or possibly moving information on Kalikananda down here. Finally, does Batra consider himself a disciple? I remember him playing down the connection during the press about The Great Depression of 1990 after a few critics discounted Batra as a "follower of a murderous cult leader." Falcotron 04:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, it looks like everything that was on the P.R. Sarkar page is now on this page, and I can't imagine anyone objecting to the merger, so I'm going to do it now. The last version of the other page is available at [[1]] (is there a way to wikilink history pages?), in case anything was missed. Falcotron 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

To list all Sarkar's diciples would be impossible, but a few notable ones should definitely be mentioned. Kalikananda is one of them (although his life is a mystery), but I would not suggest to remove the mentioning of him at the main Ananda Marga page, because I belive his initiation was the first step towards the formation of Ananda Marga, and the origin of Sarkar's affectionate name Baba. Other notable diciples would be Chandranath, and some of the other early followers (forgot their names), along with Subash Chandra Bose. There is also a rumour that one African president (I belive in Togo) was a diciple, but this needs to be confirmed. cJ --Cracker jack 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

A picture of P.R. Sarkar would be good. There is however only one official picture of him, and the rights of the picture belongs to Ananda Marga. I am not sure if usage of the picture would be allowed. Does anyone know? cJ --Cracker jack 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I too would like to see a picture of him! There are excuses of "fair use" or similar under copyright law and I also couldn't see AM really objecting to it anyway. Best thing is to simply ask them if you can use it and then use the letter or email of permission in the notes or comments attaching to the photo. IMO (In My Opinion) this would be more than sufficient. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a photo of Sarkar in WIkiMedia commons that has been released into the public domain by the photographer. I've added it to the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop capitalizing pronouns

User 62.190.10.139 has twice come in and capitalized a slew of pronouns referring to Sarkar. Please stop.

I assume you're trying to show respect for Sarkar as a great holy man, which is fine--but this is not the right way to do it.

In English, pronouns are often capitalized for the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, and occasionally for other gods, but never for great leaders, heroes, prophets, or even angels. Moses, Gautama Buddha, Moroni, and Rama don't get capitalized pronouns, and neither does Sarkar.

Also, notice that disciples like Ravi Batra don't seem to feel any need to capitalize Sarkar's pronouns.

And even if it were appropriate to do this, it would not be appropriate to do so inconsistently. Falcotron 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to comment, that it was the habit of P.R. Sarkar AKA Shrii Shrii Anandamurti to publish his books on social or rather mundane topics under the name of Sarkar and to publish the spiritual topics by the name of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti. Therefore one can assume Sarkar to be the mundane aspect of this great personality. And even I as His (Shrii Shrii Anandamurtijiis ;-) deciple see no problems to publicly address him (Sarkar) in low caps.

By vandalising around capitalizing the text others have written on this most public place where we have to come to terms one certainly does no honor for his Guru. This is not a book where the devotees are writing inspiring stories about their Master. To capitalize His pronouns is certainly POV. I absolutely share this POV :-) But until now the Wikipedia-dogma demands nothing but NPOV. If anyone does not agree with the NPOV-dogma one would habe to resolve this in a democratic process first, prior to using capitalized pronouns for P.R. Sarkar. --Manorainjan (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Polymath?

Should he be included in the list of polymaths? Andries 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, he definitely fits the description of a modern "renaissance man" as well as "know-it-all" Zhandorr the Magnificent 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Social cycle theory (Sarkar)

There are no google hits for "social cycle theory" and Sarkar. This has been prodded as possible hoax/OR; please comment and if it this is a real theory, please provide correct name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is incorrect. There are plenty of hits of Sarkar's "social cycle theory" relating to Sarkar. Try the follwing search string "social cycle theory" & "sarkar". Please note "Sarker" is an incorrect spelling of Sarkar. In the Talk page of the present "Social cycle theory" the following was written:
  • Wrong title for this article. The term '''Social Cycle Theory''' was first used in relation to '''The Law of the Social Cycle''' invented by P.R. Sarkar in his book Human Society, Vol. 2 published by Ananda Marga Press in Calcutta, India in the late 1950s. The term 'Social Cycle Theory' became popularised as the term for this law in other works in India and later in the West, including in the #1 New York Times best seller The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra published by Simon and Schuster in 1987. The SCT term was earlier introduced by Batra in his less well known book The Downfall of Capitalism and Communism: a New Study of History, published by MacMillan in 1976. The use of this term as a description of this article is therefore wrong and likely illegal. The term '''Sociological Cycle Theory''' could be used for this entry.
  • The issue concerns the right to the use of this title. It has been used in copyrighted works for many decades. The use of this name for other theories is not as per academic standard and should be discontinued. Please do the honorable thing and make the change in the title of the offending page, as earlier suggested, and then this mess can be cleared up. Budfin 11:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty? 18 Google hits for "social cycle theory" +sarkar -wiki -wikipedia. No Google Print hits. Perhaps this could be merged into this article, but it doesn't seem notable by itself; certainly not as his PROUT theory which gets 1800 hits on a similar search.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make this dependent on the number of google-hits ;-) Anyway, the social cycle thing is kind of a chapter of PROUT, but not a well published one exept in written books not on the net. When I came in contact with this theory there was no such thing as internet ;-) You won't find those book digitalized. --Manorainjan (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB?

This article may have been written from an autobiographical perspective. —Whig (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Namaskar

Would be nice to put some quotas of P.R.Sarkar into wikiquota.

polish example (just the beginig) http://pl.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.14.243.170 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Gurukul

Ananda Marga Gurukula hasn't yet got it's own page. A case can be made for either editing the Gurukula page or making a new section on the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar page, perhaps in that order. The Gurukula page already has a section for Gurukul#ISKCON_gurukulas. I will keep an eye on this possibility & assist in it as best I can, though I know there are others more directly involved & qualified than me for this task. DadaNeem (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Sarkar's middle name

The name of the article is "Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar", however the middle name "Ranjan" is spelled as "Rainjan" in all of the books of the author, according to the Roman Samskrta transliteration system that was also created by the author. He, Himself signed His middle name as Rainjan, therefore I suggest to move the article from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and spell His name as thus.
What do you all think?
--Universal Life (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

PROUT

Is clearly written from the point of view of the believer. Needs editing. John D. Croft (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some minor additions

I did some minor addition to the page related with Sarkar's early life etc. I also add some ext/internal links deeply related with the topic. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Sarat Chandra Bose 03.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sarat Chandra Bose 03.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sarat Chandra Bose 03.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversies!

I was talking to CorrectKnowledge here where he informed me about allegations against Ananda Marga and some controversies! I was not aware of these. I am a big fan of Sinil Gangopadhyay's (who has recently died) creation Kakababu. But I did not hesitate to add a controversy section here. So, if there are some controversies over works of Anada Marga, Sarkar etc, we can mention these in these articles. Again, frankly I do not know about these. Any suggestion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know very much about those controversies. But it seems to me that the CorrectKnowledge addings are inappropriate here. We are speaking of the life and of the philosophy of an author that had many enemies in India and outside of this country too. The charges against him were proven false: that's all. We cannot speak here about crimes committed by persons who claimed to be his disciples. As well as in the article that refers f.e. to Jesus or to other prophets we do not mention the crimes eventually committed by some of their disciples. My proposal here is to revert the article like it was before--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)(talk) 13:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Crimes committed by disciples of Jesus are mentioned in Christian terrorism, Criticism of Christianity and what not. Wikipedia is not censored and it would seem peculiar, if not blatant POV, to exclude major events surrounding Sarkar and Ananda Marga in the 1970s. The version of the article before I made the edits glossed over 12% of his life that he spent in jail. These are facts that the biography and the lead section cannot exclude. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge it's not a case of censorship: you are disseminating this article ONLY with negative addings, written in order to remove the neutrality which it had earned since the last work. I find your addings inappropriate: not only it's important to report the truth, but to put it in the correct way (from the comunicative point of view). If a falsely accused person is found completely innocent you have to declare it immediately and not after. You are inserting infamous accusations not related with the topic (P. R. Sarkar) in a manner that the reader remain with the suspect that this philosopher was a persecutor and not a persecuted. As you know during the State of emergency in India Indira Gandhi persecuted tousand of persons and organizations with false accusations and Ananda Marga was one of these. Of course you can create new articles on WP about criticism on P. R. Sarkar or on Ananda Marga. But please report only the truth in a correct and neutral way.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As you know, from Ananda Marga’s very inception, Sarkar himself became the target of much criticism, particularly from the orthodox Hindu community. Sarkar demanded that all practitioners of Ananda Marga meditation renounce the caste system, and this caused a large backlash in the Hindu community. This, however, was only the beginning of Sarkar’s problems.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The events in the biography section have more or less been arranged chronologically. Let me try and set the timeline of events surrounding P. R. Sarkar straight. In 1971, Sarkar was tried and convicted for the murder of Ananda Marga sect members. On 2 January 1975, Ananda Margis allegedly killed L. N. Mishra, India's Railway Minister, in a terrorist attack on Indian soil which killed 2 and injured 25. On 4 July 1975, the group was banned by Indian government after it declared a state of emergency on 26 June 1975. The ban was lifted in 1977. In February 1978, Ananda Margis were suspected of orchestrating the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. There were other attacks on Indian embassies worldwide as well, but L. N. Mishra and Hilton Hotel attacks are best known. Conviction of Sarkar was overturned in a retrial on 4 July 1978 after which Anada Margis ceased terrorist activities. During his world tour in 1979 Sarkar was denied entry into United States because of Ananda Marg's terrorist record. In 1989, a member of Ananda Marga accepted responsibility for Hilton Hotel attacks. On September 14 2012, Central Bureau of Investigation told a Delhi court that members of Ananda Marg were behind the attack on L. N. Mishra.[2][3] In fact, many tertiary sources document the terrorist activities of Ananda Margis.[4][5][6] Besides, the previous version of the paragraph was referenced using a SPS by a disciple of Sarkar. The current version uses a variety of sources and is far more balanced.

Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this things related with the problems of some of his followers. I'm speaking about this article: "P. R. Sarkar". You have to correct your addings 'couse this philosopher was persecuted, poisoned in jail and founded completely innocent after all. As I said before if you want you can create new articles on WP about all criticism on P. R. Sarkar or on Ananda Marga and you can put there all your critics. Here we are speaking about P. R. Sarkar and his works. Thank you--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You can add the statement on poisoning in jail, persecution etc. if you have reliable sources for it. I am not opposed to it. The point is, Ananda Marga finds repeated mention in the article as a "socio-spiritual movement" and its terrorist acts are conveniently forgotten. For balance it is necessary to adequately summarize what secondary and tertiary sources say about Ananda Marga. Besides, the terrorist acts by Ananda Margis deserve a mention because they were specifically undertaken to free Sarkar. My rewrite of the paragraph in biography section is not as detailed as the timeline above because I understand that details of terrorist acts belong in the Ananda Marga article, not here. I don't see any weight issues with the section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this discussion. It looks like a heated debate, and the remarks are already deeply indented. So I will start a new section just to avoid the clutter. --Abhidevananda (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks Abhidevananda.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Controversies section in article on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (and Ananda Marga)

In my opinion, there should be a Controversies section in the WP articles about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and Ananda Marga. But the content of such sections is likely to lower the standard of information in those articles - and attract heated dispute - unless the sections are written in a dispassionate and factual manner... something we do not see in the two books referenced by CK on his Talk page that I mention below.

For the record: (1) I was present in Patna on 1971 December 29, when Baba was arrested. (Yes, on a Talk page, I refer to my guru as 'Baba'. That is how I always addressed him. However, I don't do that in the WP articles that I write or edit.) (2) I was in India on 1973 February 12, when Baba was administered poison in the form of medicine by the jail doctor of Bankipur Jail, Patna. (3) I was also in India in 1978 from May through August, during the time when Baba was acquitted of the charges against him and subsequently released from prison. (4) During the time that Baba was in jail, I met with him on numerous occasions. (5) From 1973 to 1979, I was in charge of Ananda Marga in Australasia.

I have read the various accusations in "The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism" and the "Historical Dictionary of Terrorism" that Correct Knowledge (CK) referenced. In both books, most of the remarks are slanted ("POVy", to use CK's word). The former book offers AKAs for Ananda Marga of "Universal Army" and "Black Order". I never heard those, although one affiliated trade of AMPS, VSS (Volunteers Social Service), has been claimed (by others) to be initials for Vishva Shanti Sena (Universal Peace Army). Long ago, the name of VSS was changed (by Baba) to Ananda Marga Seva Dal (Ananda Marga Service Group), perhaps in part to overcome the misunderstanding. As for "Black Order", I have no idea where that name comes from, and - to the best of my recollection - this is the first time that I have heard it.

Similarly, the "Historical Dictionary of Terrorism" describes Ananda Marga by saying it "was" (past tense) "a nonstate mystical and religious sect devoted to the worship of Hindu god Shiva and his consort goddess, Kali, both associated with death and destruction, and to the practice of Tantric yoga". Anyone who knows even a little about Ananda Marga would have realized that it is not dedicated to the worship of any Hindu god or goddess. For the Ananda Marga perspective, read the book "Namah Shivaya Shantaya" by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti.

So when even the simplest of information is obviously wrong - and negatively slanted - how much credence should be given to the rest of the allegations? The latter book refers to the L.N. Mishra case. The book states: "Within India, on 2 January 1975, Ananda Margists killed Narayan Mishra, India's Minister of Railways in a bombing, killing two and injuring 25 others." The fact is that none of this is proven. The L.N. Mishra court case is still going on nearly 38 years after the event. For reference, see the following newspaper article or google the subject to read numerous other such articles. I won't counter every false accusation in that book's section on Ananda Marga, but there is a reference to the tandava case, which - to the best of my knowledge - we actually won.

Most of the information in the two books mentioned on CK's Talk page seems to derive from Indira Gandhi's government propaganda against Ananda Marga published during her Emergency rule. At that time, if memory serves, 36 organizations were banned, out of which 18 were connected to Ananda Marga. So when Baba's case initially came to trial, no one could testify on his behalf, because anyone who would have done so was either already in jail or s/he would be arrested on arrival at the court house for trying to testify. I read many of the leaflets put out by Indira Gandhi's Emergency government. They were all 100% yellow journalism and, for me, entirely forgettable. :)

Regardless of what any member of Ananda Marga may have done, the question arises as to whether Ananda Marga (or Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha) is morally or legally responsible. Is it reasonable to hold a religion or spiritual path responsible for the actions of each and every member, no matter how contrary to the movement's principles? Obviously not. As I recall - I think it was in 1977 - some Indian journalists visited Baba in jail and asked him about the alleged terrorist activities. His response was (and this might not be word-for-word): "Even if some misguided youth are resorting to violence, I will not come out of jail in that fashion." Also as I recall, the Supreme Court of India at some stage ruled that Ananda Marga cannot be held responsible for any alleged act of terror, as there is no evidence that Ananda Marga encouraged or instructed any member to engage in such activities. Furthermore, in Australia and the USA, Ananda Marga has never been banned. Had it been clear - as these books claim - that Ananda Marga was engaged in the type of activities alleged, then Ananda Marga would surely have been banned in both countries.

Okay, there are too many allegations to go into one by one. Yes, in Australia, one former margii (Evan Pederick) did eventually come forward and claim to be responsible for the Hilton bomb. He went to prison for that 'confession'. The other person(s) that he claimed were involved were either never charged or acquitted. The main reason for that was that the confession was riddled with contradictions and errors of fact. Eventually and not surprisingly, Pederick retracted his confession. To this day, many if not most knowledgeable Australians remain in doubt about what actually took place in this unsolved case. Wikipedia has an article on the subject (that I have not read) at Hilton Bombing. For more information, anyone can google the subject as well.

--Abhidevananda (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing to h3 for keeping this discussion together for future reference, I'll inform the author! --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that personal knowledge, being unverifiable does not count for a lot on WP and your association to Ananda Marga raises a few COI red flags. Please also note, Wikipedia guidelines like WP:CRITS discourage the creation of a separate articles and sections for criticism. Criticism of a subject has to be included within the article itself for NPOV. Apart from the two sources you've already mentioned, there are many other secondary and tertiary sources which connect Ananda Marga with terrorist acts: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] etc. James R. Lewis (the second source) actually believes that "Sarkar's publications contain doctrinal justifications for use of force...". It is unlikely that all the references are a part of Indira Gandhi's propaganda. And even if they were, Wikipedia would still have to give an opinion presented in so many sources its due weight in this article (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). Finally, your reference on L.N. Mishra is outdated. On September 14 2012, Central Bureau of Investigation did tell a Delhi court that members of Ananda Marg were behind the attack on L. N. Mishra.[13][14] Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, not really! Wikipedia:CRITS#Organizations_and_corporations says: If the sources treat these topics independently, that may result in sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism. Anyway that's not the primary subject of this discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not treat it independently. In any case, separate section on criticism is generally discouraged even if it might be acceptable in certain articles with riders. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not this article, I was getting worried about this which I created. The sources should be acceptable there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to CK by Abhidevananda

Once again - within a couple of hours - we are getting deeply indented (I would now be at seven colons.) Let me try an h4 to go back and answer CK's remarks in an obvious fashion. (Out of curiosity, why do I not get notified of changes to this thread even though I have selected "Watch this page"?)

CK, I think you missed what I said at the very top of my remarks. What I said was: In my opinion, there should be a "Controversies" section in the WP articles about Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and Ananda Marga. I am for it, not against it. I was not talking about creating a separate article... just a separate section of these two articles. If, instead of having a separate section, it seems more practical to talk about controversies throughout these articles instead of in a dedicated section of the articles, then I don't mind that either. But I suspect that this would disturb the flow of the articles in question and create a lot of bad feelings all around.

CK, I did not present my personal knowledge as if that were a final proof of anything or instead of other verifiable information. But, like it or not, personal knowledge from someone who was a witness to events amounts to authority, which is one of the three sources of knowledge according to Patainjali's yoga sutras. Frankly, CK, with a moniker like yours, I would have expected you to have a working grasp of Patainjali's helpful contribution to the field of epistemology (see, in particular, 1.7 in the Yoga Sutras). Hence, though my authority is certainly fallible, it has value comparable to other authorities (which, obviously, are also fallible). Instead of just dismissing my words on the basis of WP:V or WP:COI, why not try to verify what I said instead of blindly relying on some other authority that you prefer or whose POV you apparently prefer? Again, I have not said that there is no controversy. That has been an integral part of my experience in 40 years of working for Ananda Marga. All I said is that most of the accusations contained within the primary books that you mentioned are easily proven false. As for the secondary sources that you list above, except for the first one (which comes across in relation to Ananda Marga as loose gossip), they are much more neutral in their approach. Hence, CK, your characterization of them as secondary tends to raise a flag about your own POV. And it is interesting that you even include the last one, which seems to rely entirely on Malcolm Fraser's unsupported and largely unverifiable opinion as fuel for the controversy. In other words, the last book that you cite has exactly the same flags that you attribute to my words. :)

Regarding the James Lewis remarks about doctrinal support for violence, depending on your definition of 'violence', he is correct. If by violence, you mean the application of force, then definitely Ananda Marga supports that. Baba never supported the modern interpretation of ahimsa as non-violence, and he also did not support Gandhism. Rather, Baba pointed out that life feeds on life (jiiva jiivasya bhojanam) and that even a boycott can have violent impact by putting innocent civilians out of work. Furthermore, historically, social change generally comes about as a result of some application of force, either mild or severe. India would not be a sovereign nation without such application of force. The belief that the British government restored India's independence in response to non-violent appeals by a thin and frail man who used adolescent girls as canes and bed-warmers (see example) is rather naive. Not just India, but also the USA would not exist as an independent nation if physical force had not been applied. So, again, James Lewis is not wrong. But then we can find the same use of force endorsed in most religious or spiritual scriptures. And would it be right to say that any religion that endorses the use of force is necessarily endorsing terrorism? I don't think so.

Finally and respectfully, CK, regarding the LN Mishra case, you are wrong... my information is not outdated. Indeed, the two articles that you reference only confirm my point. The CBI have been saying the same thing for almost 38 years now. And still this court case drags on without a verdict. In other words, nothing is proven. Just because the CBI says it, that does not make it a fact. At this stage, most of the witnesses or potential witnesses have died. For any that survive, how much can we rely on their recollection of such long-ago events? There is a time-honored legal maxim: Justice delayed is justice denied. A court case involving accusations of murder that drags on for 38 years certainly falls within the ambit of that maxim.

Anyway, to sum up my position once more, I definitely feel that there should be information on the many controversies in both the article on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and the article on Ananda Marga. I won't be the person writing that information, because I have set for myself too many WP-related tasks that I consider to be higher in priority. However, should something be written and I happen to see it and consider it to be factually incorrect or biased (in either direction), I might take a little time to edit it. :)

--Abhidevananda (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to CK by Cornelius383

I read many of P. R. Sarkar books (only those translated into English) and I didn't find there not even a little hint of what CK says. On the contrary my impression is that they are imbued with deep knowledge. In many of them I found an ispiring message of love and compassion for all living beings with practical proposals to overcome the problems on the social and personal side of human beings. What to say about Sarkar's mission? I can only say what I've seen during some of my trips. I visited tens of his ashrams and schools around the world, where hundreds of his followers works hard serving others as a free service. I've also seen many of the AMURT workers leaving the comfort of their warm homes to go and help during natural disasters, without any personal gain. Truly I belive that this is the life of P. R. Sarkar (I heard that once he said that "I'm my organization and my organization it's me"), and this is his living philosophy that anybody can easily chek on a vast number of publications too. I think that these are the informations about this philosopher that, first of all, should be included on this article. We have also to keep in mind that "if my brother is a robber this doesn't means that I'm a robber too". I mean that "if" ("if") somebody of my family has done something wrong have to be punished, but this doesn't means that I'm guilty because of that action of my brother! Sorry CK if I find myself having here to speak of one of the key principles upon which the penal laws of our democracies are founded. Of course Sarkar was a controversial figure. He had many enemies in India and outside of this country too. He fought against rampant corruption and against the caste system and he was persecuted, poisoned in jail but founded completely innocent after all. CK, if you insert a controversial section on this article you have to be very neutral reporting all the informations in a concise way avoiding that this section becomes an arena to give vent to a "faction" rather than another etc. as happens sometimes on WP.--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

While working on another article, I read these remarks by Cornelius. Then I looked at the history for this article and found that CK had gone ahead and edited the lead to the article, inserting extraneous negative propaganda. In my estimation, CK's edits were highly subjective and - it would seem - intentionally prejudicial. CK used the word "mired", which - besides its negative connotations - is simply not factual. His count for the number of margiis was absurdly low (and based on nothing but hearsay or wishful thinking from some negative source like the two "primary" books he mentioned). In the Philippines alone there were already many thousands of followers - perhaps tens of thousands of followers - in the 1970s. Interestingly, CK did not cite any reference for his negative remarks, but he demanded - in blue superscript - a reference for one positive remark. Having seen CK's blatant bias - and having seen the way he unilaterally acted without prior consensus (despite the matter still being under discussion here) - I am now regrettably quite skeptical about CK's objectivity and his ability to appreciate the sensitivities of those who regard P R Sarkar with highest regard. ----Abhidevananda (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late. I gave up last time after reading your rather long reply above. First let me tackle this— Interestingly, CK did not cite any reference for his negative remarks, but he demanded - in blue superscript - a reference for one positive remark.... sentences in the lead don't have to be sourced if they are referenced in the body. They just have to summarize the content. Of course, I could have reverted you and added a few citations there, but your edit summary convinced me otherwise. ...hearsay or wishful thinking from some negative source like the two "primary" books he mentioned.. which two? Barring Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs all others are secondary or tertiary sources. Having seen CK's blatant bias... assume good faith. Finally, please don't write long essays while replying to comments by other editors (see WP:FILIBUSTERS). Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fasting: Totally Believable

So he went 5 years without eating? 🤣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.242.81 (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fasting can mean many things unless You specify it. One possible specification would be "dry fast": Not taking any liquid. But in case of the 5-year fasting of Sarkar, it was not a dry fast. It was 1 cup of curd water a day. It should not remain so unspecified in the article. --Manorainjan 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any RS saying what it consists of? Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely this is not possible. Does anyone know if he was force fed? 2A02:3035:A04:2200:1C1F:6FE3:444A:C7E5 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No "Criticism" page??

Why is there no page describing criticism of this? It looks like the description of a fairly standard Indian cult figure, usually there's some criticism from ex-cult members or those affected negatively by the cult.

At the very least, I'd expect Hindus who support he caste system to be against this person - where is their voice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.178.34 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Definetly needs to be a criticism page or the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.13.112 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Any controversies should be in prose in the body of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You will need reliable sources for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion as Not Notable

This article should be deleted as it's not notable. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Then wp:afd it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Fraud?

Can we add some information about how he was a fraud, and the collapse of ananda Marga? 2A02:3035:B0C:CFF1:B90C:F33F:FE7F:1FC1 (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Only is wp:rs covered it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Death

Why did he die so young? Was it because of his unhealthy lifestyle? 2A01:599:41C:9836:136:27D8:5C78:64E5 (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We would need RS to say why for us to say why. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)