Dear Jenny, I totally agree....and what's more, Ghandi also continues to be exported from India (by its elite) as the best thing India has to offer the world in terms of political philosophy. At my university here in Budapest there will be a "Ghandi conference" on 1-3 December and it is absolutely frustrating to see that there's not a single critical presentation lined up for it. Nobody outside of India seems to have heard of Dr. Ambedkar--while most people who celebrate for example Martin Luther King's thought (who was inspired by Ghandi) do know Malcolm X, the radical counter-part of King (somewhat comparable--though of course in a totally different context--to Ambedkar as the radical counter-part of Ghandi). Well, I guess Western intellectuals just want to believe in the dogma of non-violence as an easy solution to all kind of difficult dilemmas of resistance...and if they were to actually read dr. Ambedkar, this comfortable, absolutist moral solution might be shattered. The lack of attention by Western intellectuals to the critical debate in India on Ghandi's legacy seems to me a clear case of Eurocentrism however. Luisa
----- Original Message ---- From: jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 4 October, 2008 9:46:12 Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Readings of Gandhi Thanks Venu'ettan and Luisa for your posts. (Its strange that there was no response so far to what Venugopal has written on Gandhi. It is even more strange that in this post-Chengara age also there can still be a seminar on Gandhi's position without a single mention of the oppressive caste system that he has personally and politically helped to perpetuate. .!!!) Actually all the casteist "truths" about Gandhi, as pointed out by Venugopal, does not seem to disturb India's most enlightened intellectuals. This was visible to many of us, when a seminar on Gandhi was organized a few years ago in Hyderabad, and Gandhi was presented as the best thing to have happened to alternate, intellectual thought. However, some of us cannot ever forget that Gandhi is the spiritual and moral leader of the Savarna Hindu community that took over power from the British and has been ruling us both culturally and politically after they left.. As responsible intellectuals, we should be exorcising the ghost of Gandhi from the mind of this nation - the ghost which still sees to it that this nation remains Savarna and Hindu resulting in so much suffering day by day, as we are all witness to .. We need to do some serious new kind of thinking in this manner, along the lines of Ambedkar and later Dalit Bahujan scholars like G Aloysius. and if as Luisa said, anarchism also signifies social change, Gandhi should be seen as someone who prevented it, with his charisma and inspired Hindu political will. regards jenny ps: And its high time we find some space for categories concerning identity, - such as gender, caste,religion, sexuality, etc - along side/withinMacro Marxist categories like STATE. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THE SATANIC VERSES FROM GANDHI - extracted from various sources If the Shudras (low castes) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed. (Hind Swaraj). I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? (Harijan, 3-6-1947). He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility. (Young India, 11-24-1927). According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth. (Young India, 11-14-1927). As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law of man's being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace. (Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932)). I would resist with my life the separation of "Untouchables" from the caste Hindus. The problems of the "Untouchable" community is of comparatively little importance. (London Round Table Conference 1931.) I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system. (Dharma Manthan, p 4). I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies in birth. (Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77). The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth alone. (Dharma Manthan, p 5). Caste means the predetermination of a man's profession. Caste implies that a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood. (Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68). Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him. (Varna Vyavastha, p 15). I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. (Dharma Manthan, p 65). How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today. (Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132). There are I am sorry to say, many Hindu temples in our midst in this country, which are no better than brothels. The caste system can't be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter- marriages in different castes. (Gandhi by Shiru, p129). The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint - I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste System is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma (caste system). I don't believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. (Harijan, 1933). Presented by: BSS NHQ: 304 Mandakini Enclave, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 (India) M- 09312237353 posted by Mission Media at 7:21 PM 0 Comments: On Oct 3, 3:43 pm, Luisa Steur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
