Mandela: Confused About Forgiveness

Baba

MANDELA: CONFUSED ABOUT FORGIVENESS

Note: This is in reply to the letter "Mandela & Forgiveness."

Namaskar,
To understand Mandela's story one should first understand Baba's teachings on forgiveness. Here we should remind ourselves of Baba's divine guidelines on this important yet often misunderstood point.

NO RIGHT TO FORGIVE THOSE WHO HARMED THE COLLECTIVE

Baba says, "In collective life one has no right to forgive anyone; in individual life you can extend maximum forgiveness-- rather, the more forgiveness, the better. Forgiveness is something personal; it is not a collective matter. Suppose you are an inhabitant of India. If someone harms the collective life of India, you must not forgive them. Likewise, as you belong to the entire human race, you must not forgive anyone who harms humanity." (29 Nov 1970 DMC, Kolkata)

Here the critical piece is that no individual - like Mandela or anyone - has the right to forgive or pardon anyone who has harmed the entire country.

FORGIVENESS IN COLLECTIVE LIFE IS DISASTROUS

Here is another teaching where Baba warns us how forgiveness cannot be practices with those who have harmed humanity on the whole - the results will be disastrous.

"Ks'ama' vaeyas't'ik jiivan ke liye maha'n gun' hae.               
Sa'muhik jiivan ke liye maha'n dos' hae.
Sa'muhik jiivan me bha'ratva'sii is dos' se grast haen.
Atah satark rahoge.
Yah dos' bahut khara'b dos' hae;
Sa'mu'hik jiivan men agar yah kiya' gaya'."

30 Dec '70, Patna, Samgrame Vaepariityam ('Opposite Stance in Battle') AV-28 (H)

Translation:

"In individual life forgiveness is a very good quality. In collective life it is very bad. Be aware, inhabitants of India are suffering from this defect in collective life. If it (forgiveness) is done in collective life, this defect is disastrous."

WRONG USE OF FORGIVENESS

MAKES PEOPLE VICTIMS OF MORE EXPLOITATION

Next Baba points out how even great saints have made huge errors and grossly miscalculated this point of forgiveness, in which case the common people suffered more at the hands of the exploiters.

"He [Lord Mahaviira] placed too much emphasis on forgiveness and mercy. He taught people to forgive their worst enemies, even if they were as deadly as scorpions and snakes. As a result of this teaching, people lost the will to fight against the enemies of society." (PNS-16)

So for someone to revere Lord Mahaviira - the founder of the Jain religion - because he extended unconditional forgiveness to exploiters is pure foolishness. That type of forgiveness undermines the integrity and well-being of society. That is Baba's distinct guideline. So no one should praise or Mahaviira on this point.

CAN ONLY FORGIVE IN INDIVIDUAL LIFE IF PERSON IS RECTIFIED

NO RIGHT TO FORGIVE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Here again Baba critically warns us that forgiveness cannot and must not be extended to those who have harmed the greater humanity. No single individual has the right to pardon or forgive them. For example, no individual may forgive those who have manipulated and distorted Baba's discourses because those perpetrators have committed a crimes against humanity.

"Ks'ama', or forgiveness....What is forgiveness?...How should a virtuous person behave? If one is satisfied that the wrongdoer's habit has been rectified, one may pardon him. If someone is perpetrating atrocities on thousands of Ananda Margiis, however, one has no individual right to excuse the wrongdoer because that wrongdoer has harmed thousands of innocent people. But if a person commits atrocities on me alone, and if I am satisfied that his nature has been transformed, it would be proper for me as dharmika to show forgiveness. However, if his nature has not been rectified, my forgiveness may result in that person becoming even more of a reckless scoundrel and in such a case forgiveness would be considered as a sign of my weakness. This is the dharmik interpretation of ks'ama'." (AV-4)

THOSE WITH A WEAK MIND FORGIVE PREMATURELY

In Carycarya, Baba states that those who prematurely forgive others - i.e. before those wrongdoers have truly rectified themselves - suffer from a defect in the mental realm. Such a weakness of mind leads to more harm to the social body.

"You may come to a temporary truce with a hypocrite, but do not forgive till his/her nature is reformed. Immediate forgiveness is a special weakness of mind. It results in worse harm to society." (CC-2, Society, pt #6)

SUMMARY WHEN, WHY, & HOW TO FORGIVE

Thus in these above guidelines Baba is instructing us that:

1) If society is harmed, no individual has the right to forgive the perpetrator(s). (Note: The next section addresses how collective forgiveness may be granted.)

2) A single person may only offer forgiveness in individual life- never in collective life. Even then, that forgiveness in individual life must be done under certain conditions: Only if the guilty party has fully rectified themselves.

3) Rectification is a pre-requisite for forgiveness. If the wrongdoer has not corrected their defective behavior and character then they cannot be forgiven.

4) Premature forgiveness results in further harm done to the society.

These are some of Baba's key points on forgiveness. Thus, forgiveness is one particular practice that can only be done under very limited circumstances. It is not something that can be handed out freely or done indiscriminately. Doing so will create more problems and lead to more injustices.

HOW FORGIVENESS MAY BE GRANTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

As discussed, no single individual - like Nelson Mandela - can forgive those who have harmed an entire country. The question then arises how or when can forgiveness be granted to those who have harmed humanity. Here is a hypothetical situation.

Suppose country A invaded country B and and committed heinous crimes against the people of country B. Later on, the leader of country B cannot single-handedly issue an apology to country A. Rather, the government of country B must hold a referendum: A country-wide vote where all those exploited by country A are educated about the crimes committed by country A and then given opportunity to cast a ballot in favour or against forgiving country B. If the vast majority, i.e. 75% of the exploited mass of country B, decides that country A has been rectified; and, 75% of the exploited mass votes to forgive country A, then forgiveness may be granted - otherwise not. Remember, no single individual can grant forgiveness for crimes against humanity.

COWARDS ALWAYS MISUSE FORGIVENESS

NO COURAGE TO FIGHT

Some sincere margiis get confused that Mandela of South Africa was a great and magnanimous man because he was willing to forgive and pardon those exploiters. But what Mandela has done is wholly against Baba's guideline; Mandela had no right to forgive those exploiters who so terribly abuse and harmed the common masses of South Africa.

Indeed, pardoning those exploiters is not the way - that is not indicative of a magnanimous mind. Rather, it is a cowardly act. Mandela had no right to forgive and pardon exploiters when they perpetrated terrible crimes against humanity by enslaving the blacks of South Africa into endless poverty.

Tragically, Mandela did the same mistake as Gandhi as they both forgave those who exploited and harmed their own people. Both betrayed their own people for the sake of political gain; both were cowardly and allowed the exploiters to continue their economic exploitation. Because of their cowardly approach, still today that exploitation is going on in their respective lands. Still the people are at the mercy of those very same exploitative methods.

Unfortunately some Ananda Margiis remain confused on this point.

Such persons like Mandela are hypocrites. They are revered as heroes but they are not great.

Until we educate the masses of the world about Ananda Marga ideology and this point of forgiveness, then cowards like Mandela will be worshiped as a hero, and the masses will be duped - thinking Mandela type of people to be great and magnanimous.

This is the unfortunate state of affairs. We must remove their darkness and preach Ananda Marga ideals: Never forgive demons for collective crimes against humanity. No single individual can pardon those who did collective harm. That can only be discussed and decided by the greater collective body of the exploited mass. what Mandela did was wrong, hypocritical, and deceitful. He forgave the exploiters and sold out on his own people.

Namaskar,
In Him,
Satyajiita

Note 1: LINKS TO EARLIER POSTED LETTERS ON MANDELA

Here below are two letters initially posted about Mr Mandela. These letters detail How Mr Mandela "sold out" his own people by forgiving the exploiters and launching a political campaign instead of demanding economic justice.

#1:http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-messiah-of-poor-or-became.html

#2:http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-messiah-of-poor-or-puppet-of.html

Note 2: LINK TO THE LETTER "MANDELA & FORGIVENESS"

Here below is a link to the letter which spurred this email reply.

http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com/2014/01/mandela-forgiveness.html

Mandela & Forgiveness

Baba

MANDELA & FORGIVENESS

Namaskar,
Nelson Mandelas life was more consistant with Babas teaching than most of our WTS and margiis alike. As you are fully aware that Ananda Marga is in serious crises due to the lack of forgiveness and magnanimity of mind. Reconciliation amongst our groups is not possible because of the lack of our first of our 15 Shiilas. Nelson Mandela showed the world that through forgiveness what is most impossible is made possible. We, South Africans, are fortunate to have experienced the impact of of a magnanimous mind. Nelson Mandela united a nation on the brink of civil war.

South Africa today is a most vibrant country with huge potential - thanks to Nelson Mandela. Since our first democratic election great progress has been made in the advancement of lives of previously disadvantaged communities. Millions of low cost housing have been provided, tap water provided and electricity supplied to the masses. Yes, I concede, a lot is still to be achieved.

Yes, there many parallels between Ananda Marga and the political movement to which Mandela belonged. South Africans have pledged to follow the legacy of Nelson Mandela. Sadly our leadership (Ananda Marga) have abandoned Babas legacy so soon. Greed for material wealth and power has overwhelmed the sadhakas mind- unimaginably so.

We are celebrating the life of a great personality and not the political movement to which he belonged. For this I am saddened that the TRIBUTE TO NELSON MANDELA was not posted, rather a negative viewpoint has been given centre stage.

Amrit

Mandela: Messiah of Poor or Puppet of Exploiters? #2

~ Baba ~

MANDELA:

MESSIAH OF POOR OR PUPPET OF EXPLOITERS?

~ Part 2 ~

Note: If you are very emotional or very attached to a particular point of view, then you may want to pause before reading this, or not read it at all. If you easily become emotionally charged or have a tendency for knee-jerk reactions, here again you may want refrain from reading. Those who over-react and fail to keep calm demeanor will not be able to understand this subject matter. This posting presents an article by Reuters - a credible news agency that engages in investigative reporting, not hearsay. Before reading please think whether you can manage this sensitive issue or not. A rational and calm mind is needed; those who get reacted easily must have control over their emotions, otherwise they may not be able to manage these hard facts. Those who do not want to hear "the other side of the story" should not read.

We should not forget that these days the media is controlled by capitalists - so the media does not present the plight of the impoverished masses. It is very rare for the news media to take the side of the exploited people - rather they present the stance of the exploiters. As we know, Nelson Mandela is universally praised as a great hero and veritable saviour. One of the key reasons for this is that Mandela himself maintained the economic inequality in South Africa where white exploiters maintained sheer and utter domination of South Africa's natural and financial resources, including the vast gold-mining operations. In result, the capitalist owned media agencies presented Mandela as a great agent of peace and equality. When in fact the truth is that Mandela protected the advantages of the exploiters. This reality is not widely known because the capitalist media covers it up, but that is important for all to know about. Please read the following.

Mandela's legacy: peace, but poverty for many blacks

Thu Dec 5, 2013
By Ed Cropley

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – In the 10 years after he withdrew from public life, Nelson Mandela divided his time between a mansion in one of Johannesburg’s wealthiest suburbs and his ancestral home in Qunu, a village in South Africa’s impoverished eastern Cape.

The contrast could not have been starker.

In one, his neighbours were cast in the image of the white “Rand Lords”, the mining magnates and bankers who built the sprawling city – and Africa’s biggest economy – from the vast gold reserves in the rock beneath their feet.

In the other, they were black peasant farmers living in thatched “rondavel” huts and eking out a living on windswept hillsides in scenes that have hardly changed in centuries, let alone the two decades since the end of apartheid.

While few query Mandela’s achievement in dragging South Africa back from the brink of civil war in the early 1990s and brokering a peaceful end to three centuries of white dominance, tougher questions are being asked of the country he leaves behind.

Despite more than 10 years of affirmative action to redress the balance under the banner of “black economic empowerment”, South Africa remains one of the world’s most unequal societies and whites still control huge swathes of the economy.

In the words of leading trade unionist Zwelinzima Vavi, its structure is akin to an Irish coffee – black at the bottom, with some white froth and a sprinkling of chocolate on the top.

On average, a white household earns six times more than a black one, and nearly one in three blacks is unemployed, compared with one in 20 whites.

Such ratios are fodder for critics of the 1994 settlement that brought the curtain down on nearly half a century of institutionalised white-minority rule and saw Mandela anointed South Africa’s first black president.

The numbers also support the anecdotal evidence from wealthy urban neighbourhoods – including Mandela’s Houghton – where, 19 years after the birth of his “Rainbow Nation”, most of the black people to be seen are housemaids, security guards or gardeners.

“Mandela has gone a bit too far in doing good to the non-black communities, really in some cases at the expense of (blacks),” Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said in a documentary aired on South African television in May 2013.

“That’s being too saintly, too good.”

POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC POWER?

The defenders of Mandela’s settlement note that Mugabe’s violent seizure of white-owned farms in neighbouring Zimbabwe from 2000 triggered an eight-year economic collapse and confirmed his fall in the eyes of outsiders from respected liberation hero to international pariah.

Yet his criticism of Mandela finds echoes in some corners of the African National Congress (ANC), the 101-year-old liberation movement that joined forces with the unions and the Communist Party to topple apartheid.

In a 2010 interview with the wife of British author V.S. Naipaul, the anti-apartheid firebrand and “Mother of the Nation” Winnie Madikizela-Mandela accused her former husband of selling out after being broken by his 27 years in apartheid prisons.

“Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a burning young revolutionary. But look what came out,” she was quoted as saying.

“Mandela let us down. He agreed to a bad deal for the blacks. Economically, we are still on the outside. The economy is very much ‘white’. It has a few token blacks, but so many who gave their life in the struggle have died unrewarded.”

Even among academics, there is broad acceptance that in its sparring with then-president FW de Klerk in the early 1990s, the ANC under Mandela, a self-confessed economic novice, focused too much on the quest for political rather than economic power.

In less polite terms, the ANC’s stance translated into a quip popular at the dinner parties of wealthy whites: “We’ll give them the vote but keep the banks.”

William Gumede, a professor at Wits Business School in Johannesburg, said it was wrong to argue that Mandela sold out.

“However, the economic negotiations were not as robust as the political ones,” he said.

“There was a glib acceptance among most in the ANC that all they needed to do was capture political power, and then they could transform the economy. It was a simplistic argument, and it was also the Mandela argument.”

South Africa and the world watched in awe when, on February 11, 1990, Mandela left Cape Town’s Victor Verster prison and raised his fist in salute to the crowds as he stepped out on his and the nation’s “Long Walk to Freedom” – the title of his subsequent autobiography.

The start of a momentous political transition, it was also a key moment in the evolution of a cult of Mandela both at home and abroad.

MAN AND MYTH

In 1993, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with de Klerk, and in 1995 he won over all but the most diehard right-wingers as he saluted the overwhelmingly white Springbok side that won the Rugby World Cup in Johannesburg.

He is immortalised in a stained glass window in Soweto’s giant Regina Mundi church; statues of him dancing, boxing or raising his fist are dotted across the country; and in 2012 the central bank issued a set of bank notes bearing his face.

The announcement about the notes came on February 11, the 22nd anniversary of his release from prison.

In such an atmosphere, it was perhaps inevitable that some episodes of his single five-year term as president are glossed over.

His close personal friendship with Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi drew criticism – and a fierce rebuttal from Mandela, who said: “Those who feel irritated by our friendship with President Gaddafi can go jump in the pool.”

The 2010 “blood diamonds” testimony of British supermodel Naomi Campbell at a Hague war crimes tribunal also shone an uncomfortable light on a dinner Mandela hosted in 1997 for Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, whose presence at the table called into question South Africa’s ‘ethical’ foreign policy.

Then there is the infamous ‘Arms Deal’, a $5 billion defence equipment contract that erupted into a massive scandal for Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, and remains the defining episode in the ANC’s slide from post-apartheid grace.

Amid fierce criticism of Mbeki and the current president, Jacob Zuma, also embroiled in the furore, many South Africans have chosen to forget that the deal was first announced in 1998, when Mandela was still in office.

On the streets of the sprawling black township of Soweto, where police and disgruntled unemployed youngsters still face off in sporadic, violent protests over poor housing and public services, there are plenty who do not buy the Mandela myth.

“Mandela kept on saying: ‘I am here for the people, I am the servant of the nation.’ What did he do? He signed papers that allowed white people to keep the mines and the farms,” said 49-year-old Majozi Pilane, who runs a roadside stall selling sweets and cigarettes.

“He did absolutely nothing for all the poor people of this country.”

(Additional reporting by Tiisetso Motsoeneng; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

===

HERE BELOW ARE SOME OF BABA'S RELATED TEACHINGS:

DO NOT FORGIVE THOSE WHO DID COLLECTIVE HARM

"In collective life one has no right to forgive anyone; in individual life you can extend maximum forgiveness – rather, the more forgiveness, the better. Forgiveness is something personal; it is not a collective matter. Suppose you are an inhabitant of India. If someone harms the collective life of India, you must not forgive them. Likewise, as you belong to the entire human race, you must not forgive anyone who harms humanity." (AMIWL-11, Taking the Opposite Stance in Battle)

BLUNDER: MANDELA SOUGHT POLITICAL GAIN NOT ECONOMIC JUSTICE

JUST LIKE WITH INDIAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

India’s Fight for Independence

In this fight for independence, the Indian leaders committed a blunder. They should have engaged themselves in an economic fight instead of starting a political movement. The British took advantage of this blunder of the Indian leaders...

leaders of India should have started a struggle for economic independence instead of launching a political movement. All Indians could have fought together unitedly, there being no Hindu, Muslim, Punjabi or Marathi feelings in this economic struggle, and as a result an anti-exploitation sentiment could have been developed in India. This sentiment could have made Indians stronger...

when India would have gained economic independence, Hindus and Muslims would have lived together as brothers and sisters in undivided India. The fight for economic independence would have brought political independence also. There might have been some delay in it, but political independence would have surely come...

Had they started a movement for economic independence instead of accepting the partition of India, it would have been possible to form a united and independent India...

The economic struggle could not have remained confined to British exploitation only, but would have extended to the Indian exploiters (social, economic, psychological). When the British would have realized that their exploitation was not going to continue, they would have been compelled to grant political independence to India, and with political independence exploitation by the local people would have come to an end also. But the Hindu and Muslim leaders came from the bourgeois class and so they did not like this idea. They wanted liberty keeping capitalism (social, economic, psychological, etc.) alive. For this reason they accepted the political independence of divided India. (To the Patriots)

ONE SHOULD NOT FORGET

We should not forget that Prout is the voice of those who are voiceless. Prout always supports the exploited mass - not the exploiters. The following article does just that - it gives voice to the voiceless, exploited mass. It reveals how the poor are suffering due to severe exploitation at the hands of the capitalist elite. The majority of people are living in dire poverty while a few wallow in absolute luxury. Still today, the native people are working for slave wages doing menial tasks for the exploiters. How can we overlook this situation. Mandela himself supported that status quo - he did nothing to end this economic tyranny.

The European exploiters reached South Africa, ruled for centuries, captured the abundant natural resources, and made native Africans their slaves by stripping them of their rights etc. Just recently, the native people achieved political freedom (1994) but not economic freedom. Prout demands economic justice as well as political freedom. That is why we are highlighting the hypocrisy of Mr. Mandela - who deceived his own, native peoples into thinking he was for them, when in fact he was upholding the status quo - i.e. the stance of those exploiters.

Namaskar,
Mahadeva
M.S. Wolcott (Cape Town)

Note 1: LINK TO EARLIER LETTER ON THIS TOPIC

http://anandamarganewsbulletin.blogspot.com/2013/12/mandela-messiah-of-poor-or-became.html

Mandela: Messiah of Poor or Became Puppet of Exploiters?

MANDELA:

MESSIAH OF POOR OR BECAME PUPPET OF EXPLOITERS?

Note: If you are very emotional or very attached to a particular point of view, then you may want to pause before reading this, or not read it at all. If you easily become emotionally charged or have a tendency for knee-jerk reactions, here again you may want refrain from reading. Those who over-react and fail to keep calm demeanor will not be able to understand this subject matter. This posting is a collection of articles based on Shrii PR Sarkar's Prout philosophy. Before reading please think whether you can manage this sensitive issue or not. A rational and calm mind is needed; those who get reacted easily must have control over their emotions, otherwise they may not be able to manage these hard facts. Those who do not want to hear "the other side of the story" should not not read.

======

EXCERPT #1

(Courtesy of: news24.com)

Dear Former President Nelson Mandela,

I was only about 5 years old when were released from prison. I come from a poor background as a black child and I was raised by my grandmother. In 1994 South Africa had its first democratic elections; I remember people around me including my grandma were excited to vote for you and the ANC government. Sadly my grandma passed away before she could vote in beginning of April in 1994.

I understand that you had meetings between 1985-1990 with P. W. Botha to have a negotiated settlement. Revered late ANC President, Oliver Reginald Tambo, referring to your meetings with the colonial-apartheid regime in the crucial 1980s, said “Prisoners can’t negotiate their freedom”.

I have read that according to aged ANC veterans, Tambo seemed disturbed about senior members of the leadership including you, who could have compromised the organisation. He seemed to question whom to trust. This, according to those veterans, eventually led to Tambo’s first stroke.

In 1990 before you were released from prison you assured your supporters that the nationalisation of mines, banks and minerals were on the cards. That belief had formed the core doctrine of the ANC and was enshrined in a document known as The Freedom Charter.

“The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people; the mineral wealth beneath the soil; the banks and monopoly industries shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole; all other industries and trade shall be controlled to assist the well-being of the people,” the charter states.

It later emerged that you and other ANC leaders were busily creatively re-interpreting the “Freedom Charter’s” commitment to nationalisation in order to comfort the monopoly white capitalists.


The nature of the sell out:

How Mandela sold out blacks

When you negotiated with the Nationalist had intended to oversee a settlement which guarantees the maintenance of a white capitalist South Africa and of the profits extracted from the exploited black masses, and leaves power firmly in the hands of the white capitalists for the foreseeable future. As De Klerk has insisted “I do not intend to negotiate myself out of power”. On the contrary, negotiations were intended to prevent the victory of the black masses. De Klerk had laid a trap for the blacks into which they were being led by you. Any so-called ‘deal’ made with devils MUST, by default, go wrong! Truth be told; you were out-negotiated by the Nationalists.


Failed transfer of power during negotiations

The negotiations focused on two aspects: one was political, the other economic. When you were negotiating with the Nationalists you choose to separate political and economic power. That was your biggest mistake and betrayal to black people. The transfer of ownership of wealth and land is at the heart of a transfer of power. Hence it was clearly stipulated in the Freedom Charter. But you chose to ignore that.

During the negotiations everyone was watching the political negotiations. You were too concerned that if the political negotiations didn’t go well there would be mass protest. People were not interested in the economic negotiations and when the economic negotiators would report back, people thought it was technical; no one was interested. (Lack of education) You should have known better. This is where we missed our freedom completely and you sold it to the Nationalists.


Failed economic negotiations and state ownership of the Reserve Bank

Mr Former President, your mandate from the people was to ensure that the values of the Freedom Charter were implemented including nationalisation of country’s assets. Instead of nationalising the mines you were meeting regularly with Harry Oppenheimer, former chairman of the mining giants Anglo-American and De Beers, the economic symbols of apartheid rule.

Shortly after the 1994 election, you even submitted the ANC’s economic program to Oppenheimer for approval and made several key revisions to address his concerns, as well as those of other top industrialists. Shame on you for selling out of minerals and land to the imperialists.

The outcomes of those meetings were that you could have the political power but the gold and diamonds would remain in the hands of the individuals that controlled it before. Have you forgotten what the Freedom Charter had said??

One of the most revealing aspects of the economic transition was the ownership of the Reserve Bank of South Africa. Arguably the most powerful institution in the country, its fate was explained by Durban businessman Vishnu Padaychee; asked to draft a document for the negotiating team on the on the pro’s and con’s of having an autonomous central bank, run with total autonomy from the elected government. Padayachee could not believe what he was hearing. He and his team drafted and submitted the document with a clear policy of not allowing the Reserve Bank to be autonomous.

He was later told by the negotiating team that, “We had to give that one up”.

The bank is privately owned and today has some 650 shareholders. Why did you let go of the Reserve Bank and let the imperialist whites take control of it Mandela?

During the negotiations you agreed that not only would the Reserve Bank be run as an autonomous entity within the South African state, with its independence enshrined in the SA constitution, but it would be headed by the same man who ran it under apartheid, Chris Stals. Another Apartheid era figure, finance minister Derek Keyes, also retained his position in the new administration. Mandela how could you allow the people who oppressed us to be in charge of the Reserve Bank?

Padayachee lamented that with the loss of the Reserve Bank, “everything would be lost in terms of economic transformation”. This is indeed true; everything was lost when YOU handed over the Reserve Bank!!!!! One of the Freedom Charter pledges is the redistribution of land; this became highly constrained with a new clause in the constitution which protected all private property.


Failed rainbow-nation coated myth

You have been preaching this rainbow-nation myth to the world that does not exist but only exists in your head. Reconciliation has meant nothing but black people `forgiving’ whites for 300+ years of dispossession, humiliation and suffering. I experience pain every time a white South African – at the shop; in a bar; on the Talk Radio 702 or online forums – says that “We need to forget the past, get over it.” It is like they are saying to us `forget your pain’. And that from someone who benefited at your expense! We have suffered racial abuse and our abusers are among us.

You and Desmond Tutu’s rainbow myth glossed over this pain – much to the relief of whites. Whites fail to acknowledge our pain and suffering – and their position as beneficiaries of our pain. But you were overly concerned with not rocking the boat as far as whites were concerned. That is why you are the subject of a personality cult in the white community than the black community.

Whites in this country believe that you are the only honourable black person while the rest of us blacks are corrupt, criminals, rapists, drunkards and uneducated buffoons.

The FREE & FAIR environment post-94 is another rainbow-coated myth. Black people are not free (unless you describe freedom as being able to vote and not having to carry ID’s 24/7). We are not FREE and very little is fair! All thanks to you Mandela.


The current state

Are you aware that blacks remain landless, underfed, houseless, under- employed, badly represented in senior managerial positions? The state of healthcare and education for black people remains as it was, if not worse than, under apartheid.

Vestiges of apartheid and colonial economic patterns, ownership and control remain intact despite the attainment of political freedom by you. Are you aware that political freedom without economic emancipation is meaningless?

The unemployment crisis is also defined along racial lines due to the fact that in the third quarter of 2010, 29.80% of blacks were officially unemployed, compared with 22.30% of coloureds, 8.60% of Asians and only 5.10% of whites. About 12 million of the population lives on less than R2.50 per day, whilst 16 million South Africans receive social grants.

In terms of racial distribution of per capita income, African and coloured income levels in 2008 were still only 13% and 22% respectively of white per capita income, compared to 10.9% and 19.3% in 1993. The income gap for Indians has narrowed, with Indian per capita income in 2008 standing at 60% of those of whites as against 42% in 1993.

In 1995, median per capita expenditure among Africans was R333 a month compared to whites at R3 443 a month. In 2008, median expenditure per capita for Africans was R454 a month compared to whites at R5 668 a month. Source: [Leibbrandt, M. et al. (2010), "Trends in South African Income Distribution and Poverty since the Fall of Apartheid"]

The economy has failed to create jobs at the pace necessary to reduce extremely high unemployment, and the education system has failed to ensure that equalised public spending on schooling translates into improved education for poor black children.


Final thoughts

The democracy has not brought what was promised, you as former president of the ANC and of the country is responsible for that misdirection.

Mr Former President what you have done for black people is that you have laid the final brick by selling out on the struggle to achieve your dream of political victory. Your dream which has become our worst nightmare as black people.

You sold us as black nation for a “Noble Peace Prize” and that is the reason for the service delivery demonstration and the lack of service delivery. Our Constitution hailed as the best in the world favours the Caucasians while it oppresses the Africans. Thanks for nothing Mandela. You understood the Kempton Park negotiations as a sell-out solution to rescue white capital and for the few in power, and that such a democracy would continue the suffering of the black majority.

I have a problem with people giving “Messianic status to Madiba” like a black Jesus when we all know that you have failed the black nation.

When I started out this letter I told you about my grandma who died before she could vote for you. Well, I am glad that she never voted for you as she would have voted for a traitor. What you have done is simply continued where the apartheid government left us off and dug the holes of poverty and oppression deeper.

Before you leave this earth I would like you to take responsibility and apologise for your actions and what you did to black people. You sold our land to the imperialists, if you fail to apologise before you die it simply means you are an accomplice to them.

When you eventually die and meet the likes of Dr Hendrink Verwoerd and P.W. Botha may you have good time with them and laugh at how blacks continue to suffer. I have nothing but hatred for what you have done to us.

Signing out from the deep dark hell hole of continued oppression you put us in.

Yours Sincerely,

Youngster

(Courtesy of: news24.com - How Mandela sold out blacks)

 

======

EXCERPT #2 - He Did Nothing For All the Poor

(Courtesy of: dailymail, By Colin Fernandez)

Some South Africans accuse Mandela of selling out to the white minority in 1994 in his quest to forge a “Rainbow Nation” from the ashes of apartheid.

Despite strong economic growth in the two decades since white rule ended, South Africa remains one of the world’s most unequal societies with white households enjoying incomes six times higher on average than black ones.

“Mandela kept on saying, ‘I am here for the people, I am the servant of the nation.’ What did he do? He signed papers that allowed white people to keep the mines and the farms,” said 49-year-old Majozi Pilane, who runs a stall selling fruits, sweets and cigarettes in the heart of the black township of Soweto.

“He did absolutely nothing for all the poor people of this country.”

(Courtesy of: dailymail, By Colin Fernandez)

======

EXCERPT #3 - Accuses Nelson Of 'Betraying' The Blacks Of South Africa

(Courtesy of: The Star, By: Tiisetso Motsoeneng Reuters)

Nelson Mandela has been accused by his former wife of betraying South Africa’s black population.

In a savage attack, Winnie Mandela said he had done nothing for the poor and should not have accepted the Nobel peace prize with the man who jailed him, FW de Klerk.

The 73-year-old said her ex-husband had become a ‘corporate foundation’ who was ‘wheeled out’ only to raise money for the ANC party he once led.

She said Archbishop Desmond Tutu was a cretin and claimed the sacrifices of Steve Biko and others in the fight against apartheid were being overlooked.

The comments were made in an interview yesterday with Nadira Naipaul, the wife of novelist V S Naipaul.

Mrs Mandela became notorious in 1991 when she was jailed for six years for the kidnap of Stompie Moeketsi – a sentence later cut to a fine.

Stompie, 14, had been murdered three years earlier by members of Mrs Mandela’s bodyguard, the Mandela United Football Club.

She also caused outrage by endorsing the punishment of apartheid collaborators with ‘necklacing’ – putting burning tyres around their necks.

Yesterday she said: ‘This name Mandela is an albatross around the necks of my family.

’You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died.

’Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a young revolutionary but look what came out.

’Mandela let us down. He agreed to a bad deal for the blacks. Economically we are still on the outside. The economy is very much “white”.

’I cannot forgive him for going to receive the Nobel with his jailer de Klerk. Hand in hand they went. Do you think de Klerk released him from the goodness of his heart?

’He had to. The times dictated it, the world had changed.’

The Mandelas, who divorced in 1996, were married for 38 years – although together for only five.

Mrs Mandela criticised her country’s Truth and Reconciliation Committee – which she appeared before in 1997 and which implicated her in gross violations of human rights.

She said: ‘What good does the truth do? How does it help to anyone to know where and how their loved ones are killed or buried?

’That Bishop Tutu who turned it all into a religious circus came here. He had a cheek to tell me to appear.

’I told him that he and his other like-minded cretins were only sitting there because of our struggle and me. Look what they make him do. The great Mandela. He has no control or say any more.

’They put that huge statue of him right in the middle of the most affluent white area of Johannesburg. Not here [in Soweto] where we spilled our blood.

’Mandela is now like a corporate foundation. He is wheeled out globally to collect the money.’

She said her daughters, Zenani, 51, and Zindzi, 50, had to struggle through red tape to speak to their 91-year-old father, who led South Africa from 1994 to 1999.

(Courtesy of: The Star, By: Tiisetso Motsoeneng Reuters)

======

EXCERPT #4 - What Did He Actually Do To Help And Benefit His Own People

(Courtesy of: ukcoalition...)

Can someone tell me what Nelson Mandela actually did to be such a venerated international god like person with statues being put up to him. As I see it, he did not have anything to do with the ending of apartheid, that was President Van Klerk. When Mandela became President he went on an international campaign to be seen as a wonderful world statesman whilst he did nothing in South Africa to progress his own people, crime spiralled out of control, witch doctors said that raping babies would cure aids so baby rape became a major crime and Mandela refused to condemn it, poverty amongst the indiginous black population worsened considerably under his regime. He refused to acknowledge that aids was a problem, now one in every six babies born to women under the age 27 are HIV positive.

So what did he actually do to help and benefit his own people. and be such a god like creature? Please advise

All you smart ars..s don’t know anything. When Mandela came to power first thing that happened was they shut my school. They wanted us all to go to the previously white only schools. Except we couldn’t afford the uniform so they would not let me in. The my parents worked for went to live in England and got the papers so that we could also go. So I was educated here, am proud to be here, and consider myself as English because this country gave me what Mandela’s South Africa could not give me. You people sitting in your little worlds, have never been in South Africa, listen to all the propoganda about Mandela. He did nothing for his people. He went on an international crusade, dressed in his expensive Saville Row suits, to be a big deal international statesmen, while poverty in SA went from bad to worse. One country in Africa that did not have children with blown up bellies from starvation, to a country with hundreds of thousands of starving children

(Courtesy of: ukcoalition...)

===


HERE BELOW ARE SOME OF BABA'S RELATED TEACHINGS:


DO NOT FORGIVE THOSE WHO DID COLLECTIVE HARM

"In collective life one has no right to forgive anyone; in individual life you can extend maximum forgiveness – rather, the more forgiveness, the better. Forgiveness is something personal; it is not a collective matter. Suppose you are an inhabitant of India. If someone harms the collective life of India, you must not forgive them. Likewise, as you belong to the entire human race, you must not forgive anyone who harms humanity." (AMIWL-11, Taking the Opposite Stance in Battle)

BLUNDER: MANDELA SOUGHT POLITICAL GAIN NOT ECONOMIC JUSTICE

JUST LIKE WITH INDIAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

India’s Fight for Independence

In this fight for independence, the Indian leaders committed a blunder. They should have engaged themselves in an economic fight instead of starting a political movement. The British took advantage of this blunder of the Indian leaders...

leaders of India should have started a struggle for economic independence instead of launching a political movement. All Indians could have fought together unitedly, there being no Hindu, Muslim, Punjabi or Marathi feelings in this economic struggle, and as a result an anti-exploitation sentiment could have been developed in India. This sentiment could have made Indians stronger...

when India would have gained economic independence, Hindus and Muslims would have lived together as brothers and sisters in undivided India. The fight for economic independence would have brought political independence also. There might have been some delay in it, but political independence would have surely come...

Had they started a movement for economic independence instead of accepting the partition of India, it would have been possible to form a united and independent India...

The economic struggle could not have remained confined to British exploitation only, but would have extended to the Indian exploiters (social, economic, psychological). When the British would have realized that their exploitation was not going to continue, they would have been compelled to grant political independence to India, and with political independence exploitation by the local people would have come to an end also. But the Hindu and Muslim leaders came from the bourgeois class and so they did not like this idea. They wanted liberty keeping capitalism (social, economic, psychological, etc.) alive. For this reason they accepted the political independence of divided India. (To the Patriots)

SHARE YOUR OPINION

Your opinion is greatly valued - please share your thoughts here...

Namaskar,
in Him,
Satyendra Dalton
(Johannesburg)