The document discusses whether an individual or organization that does not participate in a political freedom movement led by another group can be considered antinational. It provides several examples of individuals who may not have participated in political freedom struggles, including artists, scientists, government workers, and those focused on other social reforms. It argues that after 62 years of independence, it is important to move past judgments of others' viewpoints and actions during the freedom struggle, and instead focus on a shared vision of prosperity and equality for all.

1. FREEDOM
DR.
SHRINIWAS
KASHALIKAR

2. Is an individual or an organization that does
not participate in political freedom movement
under the leadership of another particular
organization antinational?
An individual could be an artist, a scientist, a
hermit or a health worker, and may not participate
in a political freedom struggle. There are many
examples of this type of great people in Indian
history.
He could be in some government
departments (such as post and telegraph, police,
military and so on) while they were under the alien
rulers and may not participate in political freedom
movement.
He could be a part of an organization
involved in different social reforms and may not get
involved in political freedom movement.

3. He could be a part of an organization or a
group that felt, religious dogmas e.g.
untouchability; could hinder the evolution of
equality. His goal may be focused on annihilation of
such dogmas and may not participate in political
freedom movement.
He could be one of those who sincerely felt
theism as a tool of exploitation and theism made
individuals parasitic, or dependent and/or helpless.
He may therefore get involved in propagation of
atheism and annihilation of theism in every respect
and not get involved in political freedom
movement.
He could be a believer of a theory that a
revolution (freedom from exploitation and equal
opportunity to all) is not possible in an isolated
country. So a political freedom movement would be
thought by him as belonging and beneficial to a

4. particular section and not all inclusive. He may not
participate in a political freedom movement that
according to him belongs to exploiter could serve
purpose of only small exploiter section of a society.
He could be in an organization that believed
in identity of a nation on the basis of a religion or a
culture or indigenousness. He may therefore
dedicate himself to uniting people on the basis of
such national identity, on priority basis rather than
getting involved in political freedom movement.
He may belong to a religion that did not
believe in idol worship and thought idols were
hindrances in the way of God. He thought imagery
of different kinds entangles and throttles one. He
may therefore choose to pursue the goal of
destroying idols and annihilating all kinds of
worship of imagery.

5. He could have belonged to a particular caste,
religion, region or ethnic group and got
overwhelmed by the emotional appeal for
assertiveness and welfare of that section the society.
62 years after political freedom of India,
every individual and organization whether having
participated in the political struggle or not, have to
appreciate that the different feelings and different
ideologies, viewpoints, strategies and actions at
individual and organizational levels can have some
element of truth and error.
It is most urgent to get rid of pettiness,
superficiality, self righteousness and fanaticism and
accept OUR and forgive OTHERS’ erroneous
viewpoints, strategies and actions and immerse in a
vision and mission of blossoming of one and all.
DR. SHRINIWAS KASHALIKAR