Dear Bobby, I don't see that much connection with English as an empowerment language. But even when Gandhism might have been put to empowering uses, i don't know how empowering it still is for dalit/caste politics, which is my concern.
Once again let me say, i was pointing out to an entirely different debate that exists about Gandhi, which the seminar, i felt, did not consider at all. Along with this, I wanted to say that given my background, Gandhi is the last empowering tool that i would be using, personally/politically. I have better ones, maybe.. And you don't know Malayalam? in English try Iliaha's article, if there is a published English version, or with the editors of earlier Pachakuthira.. And then there is T T Sreekumar's article, Shankara Narayanan Malappuram. And Dileep Menon's article in English, *Being Marxist the Brahmin Way.. * love jenny On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Jenny and > Hey Luisa - was not at all trying a one-up-"man"-ship... Please continue > with Ghandi - its all the same...There needs to be a debate on whether > difference in religion(parsi or baniya) has changed caste hierarchies at > all!!!! > And I do not claim to be an anarchist (despite my profound respect for > anarchism)!!!!! > I just got online and read the thread after that > More of this post is a reply to Jenny and getting to remember arguments we > had on english as an empowerment language. ....before I explain why I am > reluctant to give up Gandhi as a political tool (and I do not see why he > should be seen otherwise either)... > Just needed to point out that the Indians who got the right livelihood > award this year are this really effective dalit couple from TN, who without > any apologies claim to be Gandhians - Krishnammal and Shankaralingam > Jaganathan and they are part of a Gandhian organisation. > There is a work I am trying to finish that I shall be able to share soon on > this which I am trying to fathom whether gandhian politics is empowering and > disempowering > So like English as a colonial language that is empowering, may be Gandhian > politics works at some levels (while "our" role of critiquing Gandhi > continues) > (Deliberately refraining from discussing "Gandhi as anarchist" and > "non-violence" as a political tool) > Jenny, you know my malayalam disability - if possible and if you have, I > would like references to caste critiques on Namboodiripad > Warmly > > > 2008/10/4 Luisa Steur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Oops...I'm a bit dislexic..from now on I'll pay attention to the spelling >> of Gandhi's name :-) >> Luisa >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Saturday, 4 October, 2008 10:21:18 >> Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Readings of Gandhi >> >> Thanks Jenny for that response, I was reading these exchanges with >> interest and I loved Venu's mail. I thought this might be an appropriate >> juncture to throw in some words >> I was very fascinated by the spelling Luisa used for Gandhi (Luisa, please >> dont see this is as nitpicking - I agree with most of what you said in your >> post and there is a remarkable way in which "anarchism" is read in India - >> even I have often been called one for merely not complying to established >> streams of thought and I am far from being one). Gandhi is a bania caste >> surname, whereas Ghandi/y is the Parsi/Bohra surname. Interestingly, there >> is a rumour that Indira changed her surname from Ghandy to Gandhi to >> identify with MK. >> I dont think it is difficult to establish Gandhi as castiest and >> patriarchal and I am fairly critical about attempts by people like D R >> Nagaraj to harmonise Gandhi with the Dalit empowerment politics in general >> and Ambedkar in particular. >> Having said all of the above, I am not sure how one exorcises Gandhi in >> the first place. On the other hand, I do not think it is a worthwhile >> exercise that requires the expending of energies. Moreover, despite all my >> reservations about Gandhi and his savarna philosophy, I still do not see him >> as being completely irrelevant. There are others within the mainstream >> political discourse who have been more complicated, suave and dangerous in >> that regard like the Namboodiripad kinds, who have hardly been critiqued (at >> least I am not aware of serious critiques) >> Warmly >> >> >> On 04/10/2008, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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/within* *Macro 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 ยป >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
