Luisa, a very late response eurocentric thought, often in india, gets recirculated as the most efficient academic philosophy. immediately taken up by everyone without even a whimper of protest..
I would not compare Martin Luther King - Malcolm X to Ambedkar -Gandhi, ever = as these two people shared similar goals. in the case of ambedkar-gandhi, they were pitted one against another and were like two entirely different pressures on the new nation that was forming. Gandhi won - as he had most national leaders on his side, too - and we got this nation as we have it now.. and one more thing is... western intellectuals are also being helped greatly by the dogmas that inter/national indian scholars are constantly reproducing. jenny On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Luisa Steur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/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 >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
