To argue that Ghandi was an anarchist is to empty anarchism of all meaning. It's all fine to dream of social organization without a state but since anarchism is almost per definition never in power, fighting the state is the foremost thing on any anarchist agenda, precisely because the state is (in the present) the dominant organizing principle in society that cannot simply be dreamed away. And anyhow, Ghandi's strict normativity and his frequent invocation and legitimation of authority make him everything but an anarchist.
I've very often noticed that "anarchism" is used in India (and other places too) to describe anything dreamy, inconsistent or chaotic. It would be good if there was some more attention to the actually existing historical social-political doctrine of anarchism (many people don't even know it exists!). To quote George Woodcock in his excellent (Penguin pocket) study of anarchist (entitled Anarchism) "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it. But by no means all who deny authority and fight against it can reasonably be called anarchists. Historically, anarchism is a docrine which poses a criticism of existing society; a view of a desirable future society; and a means of passing from one to the other. Mere unthinking revolt does not make an anarchist, nor does a philosophical or religious rejection of earthly power. Mystics and stoics seek not anarchy, but another kingdom. Anarchism, historically speaking, is concerned mainly with man [sic] in his relation to society. Its ultimate aim is always social change; its present attitutde is always one of social condemnation, even though it may proceed from an indivialists view of man's nature; its method is always that of social rebellion, violent or otherwise." I don't think Ghandi fits into any of this really. I must admit btw that in most analytical, historical writing on anarchism, such as also George Woodcock's book, there is something of a Eurocentric bias but there are books that overcome this, for example Benedict Anderson's great recent book (with Verso) "Under three flags: anarchism and the anti-colonial imagination", which writes precisely on transnational anarchism and anarchist thinkers in Cuba, the Phillipines, China and Japan. Anyway, if because there was no state in Ghandi's imagined desirable future we start counting him as an anarchist, we can just as well start calling him a fascist because of his call to the Indian officer to place discipline before all else....i.e., I think we should stay a bit closer to the analysis of actually existing historical movements of anarchism, fascism etc. when we use these words. L. ----- Original Message ---- From: venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Green Youth Movement <[email protected]> Cc: Greenyouth <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 3 October, 2008 9:19:43 Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Readings of Gandhi >"There of course were conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in his life and positions. pointing this out have no significance in itself, as everybody's life is inconsistent"... >."As an anarchist Gandhi didn't conceive a state. In the social world conceived by him, major moving principle and force of social organisation is Satyagraha. Every individual has to resolve the problem.Whatever be the other ( state, individual or community), we will never find a reification of any of those terms in Gandhi.All others are subject to negotiations..." Dr Nisar having stated these about Gandhi, what is left there so much to discuss? Go happy, please.. Please follow Gandhi with all those ill famous inconsistencies, albeit with any semblance of critical intelligence in you totally surrendered! (Bolo Mahatma Gandhi ki...!!.) Still, I wish to add a post script here,with apologies in advance, for possibly offending you: 1.When an Indian Officer in the British Cops did not want to fire up on unarmed sathyagrahis in disobedience to an order of a British Superior to that effect while confronted with an unprecedented scene in which they were not convinced of reasons for a call for immediate suspension of the Non Co-operation Movement of the 1930s, Gandhi publicly and outspokenly criticized and used bombast on the indiscipline showed by the Indian officer . 2. Furthermore, when two French reporters ( women) while on an interview, referring to this incident raised a pointed question to Gandhi, they were replied that any person ought to perform his duty in the first place, and, this was but the basic principle of Karma. 3. Again, Gandhi continued to add to his discourse on Karma. He reasoned somewhat like this: If we (the Congress) come to power tomorrow, how else could we keep order? Friends, this is being scribbled out of my memory of having read "India and the Raj", written and published by Suneethi Kumar Ghosh some time in the 1980s . The narration was backed with complete references. Another interesting reading on Gandhi I wish to recommend from Subaltern Studies series, (volume 3?etc.),"Ghandhi Made Mahatma" by Shahid Amin (edited by Ranajith Guha et al) This can also be the kind of" Anarchism vis a vis the State", and" Liberalism" ,etc.etc, one can find while going through at least a few of the critical readings of Ghandhi .Finally,not to speak about Ambedkarite critiques of Mahatma in "Annihilation of Caste", "What Congress and Gandhi Had Done to the Untochables of India?" and such 'bad" readings and writings!! > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yesterday, a group of people came together under BookPort's intative to > share thoughts on > relevance of readings of Gandhi in the present. > > Dr.Nizar Ahmed: > > The notion of reading had an edifying nature in its modern sense. Reading > was meant for self development and self enlightenment. > In order to reach majority from minority, as Kant described it. Classical > reading was different.there one read scripts reverently, repeating it > without knowing meaning.Then reading only indicated that you belong to a > tradition.Contemporary reading is different from both these > traditions. It is neither ritualistic, nor edifying.Whether it be Gandhi, > geeta or Bible, the reading now is not ritualistic.It has got a new > dimention.In a technical sense, while reading a text there happens a one - > to- one mapping.We actulally suck those things from text with which we can > identify. > > Gandhi himself was constructed as modern subject through certain readings > .He was partly formed through reading Ruskin.He was seeking confirmation for > certain positions in Ruskin.Not that Ruskin showed him someting new. > > While we take Gandhi as a text, his actions are also included, drawing on > paul Ricoeur's notion, "actions are text as well". > His writings and interventins for four decades were purposive, informed by > and influenced by the struggles.The other who mattered over and above every > others to him was state.His view of state and approach toward the opponent > in struggles demand close consideration. > There ofcourse were conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in his > life and positions. pointing this out have no significance in itself, as > everybody's life is inconsistent. > > One among the contradictions was his simultaneous upholding of communitarian > and liberal standpoints. Against state he tried to protect community life.On > another level he stood for individual rights confronting both community and > state. Was he aware of the conflict between these two uncompromising > positions? > > We may try to find out a solution to this problem through reading his texts. > take his notion of Satyagraha.Its literal meaning is, clinging to one's > position.Gandhian model of individualisation is mediated by the concept of > satyagraha. Thus he was a cripto-communitarian and cripto-liberal. > > Why Gandhi is not a liberal?Its answer could be found in the lifeworld of > that period. State was the arbitrator / umpire of public justifications > then.As an anrchist Gandhi didn't conceive a state. In the social world > conceived by him, major moving principle and force of social organisation is > Satyagraha.Every individual has to resolve the problem.Whatever be the other > ( state, individual or community), > we will never find a reification of any of those terms in Gandhi.All others > are subject to negotiations. > > the following are some problems we come across while reading gandhi today. > 1.Is Satyagraha a solution when state undergoes radical transformations > under neoliberal economic changes? Gandhi's specialisation was in struggles > and he encountered state as the dominant adversary.Today people face > corporates as well as state in struggles. > 2.What will be gandhi's answers to questins on public debate today?Public > justification of one's political programmes is the most important priciple > in a world where liberal ddemocracy has become commonsense.Actually all > debates are interest--national, market , individual as well as > communitarian-- based. > > S.Gopalakrishnan,T.V.Madhu and Damodar Prasad presented papers(Hope Prasad > will summarise the points he presented.) . K K Baburaj,K P Sethunath, N P > Johnson and Devarajan tokk part in discussions. > > Dileep R I thuravoor On Oct 3, 9:50 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yesterday, a group of people came together under BookPort's intative to > share thoughts on > relevance of readings of Gandhi in the present. > > Dr.Nizar Ahmed: > > The notion of reading had an edifying nature in its modern sense. Reading > was meant for self development and self enlightenment. > In order to reach majority from minority, as Kant described it. Classical > reading was different.there one read scripts reverently, repeating it > without knowing meaning.Then reading only indicated that you belong to a > tradition.Contemporary reading is different from both these > traditions. It is neither ritualistic, nor edifying.Whether it be Gandhi, > geeta or Bible, the reading now is not ritualistic.It has got a new > dimention.In a technical sense, while reading a text there happens a one - > to- one mapping.We actulally suck those things from text with which we can > identify. > > Gandhi himself was constructed as modern subject through certain readings > .He was partly formed through reading Ruskin.He was seeking confirmation for > certain positions in Ruskin.Not that Ruskin showed him someting new. > > While we take Gandhi as a text, his actions are also included, drawing on > paul Ricoeur's notion, "actions are text as well". > His writings and interventins for four decades were purposive, informed by > and influenced by the struggles.The other who mattered over and above every > others to him was state.His view of state and approach toward the opponent > in struggles demand close consideration. > There ofcourse were conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in his > life and positions. pointing this out have no significance in itself, as > everybody's life is inconsistent. > > One among the contradictions was his simultaneous upholding of communitarian > and liberal standpoints. Against state he tried to protect community life.On > another level he stood for individual rights confronting both community and > state. Was he aware of the conflict between these two uncompromising > positions? > > We may try to find out a solution to this problem through reading his texts. > take his notion of Satyagraha.Its literal meaning is, clinging to one's > position.Gandhian model of individualisation is mediated by the concept of > satyagraha. Thus he was a cripto-communitarian and cripto-liberal. > > Why Gandhi is not a liberal?Its answer could be found in the lifeworld of > that period. State was the arbitrator / umpire of public justifications > then.As an anrchist Gandhi didn't conceive a state. In the social world > conceived by him, major moving principle and force of social organisation is > Satyagraha.Every individual has to resolve the problem.Whatever be the other > ( state, individual or community), > we will never find a reification of any of those terms in Gandhi.All others > are subject to negotiations. > > the following are some problems we come across while reading gandhi today. > 1.Is Satyagraha a solution when state undergoes radical transformations > under neoliberal economic changes? Gandhi's specialisation was in struggles > and he encountered state as the dominant adversary.Today people face > corporates as well as state in struggles. > 2.What will be gandhi's answers to questins on public debate today?Public > justification of one's political programmes is the most important priciple > in a world where liberal ddemocracy has become commonsense.Actually all > debates are interest--national, market , individual as well as > communitarian-- based. > > S.Gopalakrishnan,T.V.Madhu and Damodar Prasad presented papers(Hope Prasad > will summarise the points he presented.) . K K Baburaj,K P Sethunath, N P > Johnson and Devarajan tokk part in discussions. > > Dileep R I thurav On Oct 3, 9:50 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yesterday, a group of people came together under BookPort's intative to > share thoughts on > relevance of readings of Gandhi in the present. > > Dr.Nizar Ahmed: > > The notion of reading had an edifying nature in its modern sense. Reading > was meant for self development and self enlightenment. > In order to reach majority from minority, as Kant described it. Classical > reading was different.there one read scripts reverently, repeating it > without knowing meaning.Then reading only indicated that you belong to a > tradition.Contemporary reading is different from both these > traditions. It is neither ritualistic, nor edifying.Whether it be Gandhi, > geeta or Bible, the reading now is not ritualistic.It has got a new > dimention.In a technical sense, while reading a text there happens a one - > to- one mapping.We actulally suck those things from text with which we can > identify. > > Gandhi himself was constructed as modern subject through certain readings > .He was partly formed through reading Ruskin.He was seeking confirmation for > certain positions in Ruskin.Not that Ruskin showed him someting new. > > While we take Gandhi as a text, his actions are also included, drawing on > paul Ricoeur's notion, "actions are text as well". > His writings and interventins for four decades were purposive, informed by > and influenced by the struggles.The other who mattered over and above every > others to him was state.His view of state and approach toward the opponent > in struggles demand close consideration. > There ofcourse were conflicts, contradictions and inconsistencies in his > life and positions. pointing this out have no significance in itself, as > everybody's life is inconsistent. > > One among the contradictions was his simultaneous upholding of communitarian > and liberal standpoints. Against state he tried to protect community life.On > another level he stood for individual rights confronting both community and > state. Was he aware of the conflict between these two uncompromising > positions? > > We may try to find out a solution to this problem through reading his texts. > take his notion of Satyagraha.Its literal meaning is, clinging to one's > position.Gandhian model of individualisation is mediated by the concept of > satyagraha. Thus he was a cripto-communitarian and cripto-liberal. > > Why Gandhi is not a liberal?Its answer could be found in the lifeworld of > that period. State was the arbitrator / umpire of public justifications > then.As an anrchist Gandhi didn't conceive a state. In the social world > conceived by him, major moving principle and force of social organisation is > Satyagraha.Every individual has to resolve the problem.Whatever be the other > ( state, individual or community), > we will never find a reification of any of those terms in Gandhi.All others > are subject to negotiations. > > the following are some problems we come across while reading gandhi today. > 1.Is Satyagraha a solution when state undergoes radical transformations > under neoliberal economic changes? Gandhi's specialisation was in struggles > and he encountered state as the dominant adversary.Today people face > corporates as well as state in struggles. > 2.What will be gandhi's answers to questins on public debate today?Public > justification of one's political programmes is the most important priciple > in a world where liberal ddemocracy has become commonsense.Actually all > debates are interest--national, market , individual as well as > communitarian-- based. > > S.Gopalakrishnan,T.V.Madhu and Damodar Prasad presented papers(Hope Prasad > will summarise the points he presented.) . K K Baburaj,K P Sethunath, N P > Johnson and Devarajan tokk part in discussions. > > Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
