That's just "shit". I just can't dig up anything more appropriate.
Hitler, in any case, is unparallel in modern human history. He put, racist (purity of Aryan blood etc.) and even otherwise, hatred and violence on a pedestal and then executed on a mind-boggling scale. And Gandhi, one can very well have one's own assessment - from angel to crook, but bracketing with - nay "more violent" than, Hitler!!!. Just to recall, he was "martyred", because he went on an indefinite fast to force the GoI release the funds due to Pakistan, the enemy state, held up on account of the Kashmir war. That was the final trigger. Even if one forgets the legendary foot marches by this indomitable spirit through blood spewing riot torn districts - Noakhali and (in) Bihar - without any "protection" whatever. And his interventions in Calcutta and Delhi. A mind-boggling obscenity! Sukla 2010/1/15 sreenivas v.p <sreenivas_...@yahoo.co.in> > > I agree with Mr. Venugopal . There is no point in comparing Gandi with > Hitler because Gandi never perpetuated the philosophy of hatred and also > he did not support violence directly . > > But it is a fact that Gandi's false ideas and his political stand has > resulted in killing of thousands of Indians . I believe that Gandi was > preaching what he got from hindu text books and he was very adamant in > executing and imposing these stupid philosophies on others . > > It is Gandi who should be blamed for dragging the freedom struggle for so > long and he never took any solid action against the british imperialism . > > So it can be said that Gandi believed in peace and nonviolence but he > indirectly created more violence and killings than hitler > > > > > --- On *Thu, 14/1/10, venukm <kmvenuan...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: venukm <kmvenuan...@gmail.com> > Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler ? > To: "Green Youth Movement" <greenyouth@googlegroups.com> > Date: Thursday, 14 January, 2010, 11:10 PM > > > In spite of whatever Zizek has said, he hasn't given the rationale of > his ranking Gandhi higher in violence. It looks that a comparison > between Hitler and Gandhi is ok, both having justified the states' > ways of coercing the poorest people to serve the elite without > grumbling.. but giving away the first place to Gandhi by him,is just > to give the effect of sensationalizing. One can see that the source of > savarna violence is Hindu scriptures and beliefs in a divinely > ordained system of division of labour and labourers., whereas that of > Hitler& fascism is entirely based on hate and ethnic cleansing of the > 'other'. British India was a territory inhabited by the largest Muslim > population and Gandhi became a martyr just for having intervened in > the process of ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Hindus. > Fascists on the other hand, were also motivated by the desire to bring > the entire world under control, for which they even made use of the > advancement of the science in the form of newer techniques to kill. > Gandhi never preached hate and violence for its own sake!Zizek > obviously misses lot of details about India, Gandhi and Buddha! > He is only a beginner of all these and of the Ambedkarite modernism. > > On Jan 14, 7:46 pm, Ranjit Ranjit > <ranjit.ran...@gmail.com<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ranjit.ran...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Shobhan > > Saxena<http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street>, > > 12 January 2010, 06:14 PM IST > http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street/entry/was-gandhi-more-violent-... > > > > Let me make it clear at the very beginning that I have no doubt that > Hitler > > was more violent than Gandhi. Actually, I would not even compare Gandhi > with > > Hitler. I am not an admirer of Gandhi, but I wouldn’t call him a violent > > person. Now, if you are wondering why on earth I am asking this question > -- > > Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Here’s my answer: Last week, I met > > Slavoj Zizek who is an unusual philosopher from Slovenia. Zizek mixes > > unfashionably intransigent left-wing politics with his taste for > Hollywood > > classics. The 59-year-old academic has written more than 30 books on > > subjects as diverse as Alfred Hitchcock, Lenin and 9/11 attacks, and also > > presented the TV series The Pervert's Guide to Cinema. He has also run > for > > Slovenia’s president. During the interview, excerpts of which were > carried > > in this week’s Sunday Times (All That Matters page), Zizek told me that > he > > considered Gandhi to be an extremely violent person. When I asked Zizek > to > > elaborate his point, he gave a long, provocative and interesting > > explanation. It’s not easy to disagree with him. Zizek, who was invited > to > > India by Navayana to release his latest book, First As Tragedy, Then As > > Farce, and give a series of lectures across the country, also slammed the > > Dalai Lama and Buddhism and China. On the advice of some friends, who > found > > the interview interesting and wanted to know more about Zizek, I am > posting > > the detailed interview here. Read it and decide for yourself if you agree > > with Zizek or not. > > > > *Q: You call yourself a Leninist but the media in the West has called you > an > > "intellectual rock star", "Elvis of cultural theory" and the "Marx > Brother". > > How do you react to such journalistic labeling?* > > > > ** > > > > A: With resigned melancholy. I think they try to say that this guy may be > > interesting and provocative but he is not serious. They call me a > > provocative guy. To the western media, I am like a fly that annoys you > and > > provokes you but should not be taken seriously. It’s a defence mecahnism. > > Though, of late, they have been dubbing me as someone more threatening... > > > > ** > > > > *Q: In an article in the New Republic recently, Adam Kirsch called you > the > > most "dangerous philosopher in the west..." * > > > > A: Yes, in the last two years, the tone in the US and Europe has changed. > > Now they say we are dealing with somebody very dangerous. This change of > > tone is quite amazing. First there were Marx Brothers jokes and now they > say > > I am dangerous because I am Leninist. But I don’t care. I am resigned to > it. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: You have also been accused of glorifying political violence. Do you > > support violence as a means of political change?* > > > > A: Here I must be frank. For me, the 20th century communism is the > biggest > > ethical-political catastrophe in the history of humanity, greater > > catastrophe than fascism. In fascism, you had bad people who said we will > do > > bad things and they took power and they did bad things. That’s why in > > fascism you don’t have dissidents. But in the first years of the October > > Revolution, in spite of the so-called Red Terror, there was sexual > > liberation, literary explosion and then it turned into the nightmare. I > > don’t accept the right-wing critique that says it was evil from the very > > beginning. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: What’s your point?* > > > > A: My point is what people perceive as violence is the direct subjective > > violence. It’s crucial to see violence which has to be done repeatedly to > > keep the things the way they are. I am not just talking about structural > > violence, symbolic violence, violence in language, etc. In that sense > Gandhi > > was more violent than Hitler. Hitler killed millions of people. It was > more > > reactive killing. Hitler was active all the time not to change things but > to > > prevent change. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: A lot of people will find it ridiculous to even imagine that Gandhi > was > > more violent than Hitler? Are you serious when you say that...* > > > > A: Yes he was, although Gandhi didn’t support killing. With his actions > -- > > boycott and all that -- he helped the British imperialists to stay in > India > > longer. This is something Hitler never wanted. Gandhi didn’t do anything > to > > stop the functioning of the British empire or the way it functioned here. > > You have to think why was India called the jewel of the empire? That for > me > > is a problem. Let us locate violence properly. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: I guess you have no respect for Gandhi who is a tall figure in this > > country... * > > > > A: I respect him. I don’t respect him for his peaceful ways, > vegetarianism > > etc. I don’t care about that. But Gandhi somehow succeeded in carrying on > > his principled attitude with pragmatic spirit. It’s very difficult to > > maintain this balance. But again I feel Ambedkar was much better than > > Gandhi. My favourite oneliner from Ambedkar is when he said that "there > is > > no caste without outcastes". Ambedkar saw that the Gandhian solution for > > untouchables was wrong. This attitude doesn’t work. I am for Ambedkar’s > > radical approach. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: You haven’t answered my question about your stand on political > > violence...* > > > > A: In an abstract sense I am opposed to violence. But nobody is actually > > against violence. Look at the Buddhist text. They say you shouldn’t kill, > > but then they have all the exceptions. During the 40s, a great Zen > > philosopher was writing articles not only justifying Japanese invasion of > > China but also giving advice on how Buddhist enlightenment allows you to > > kill without guilt. It says you are in a void, you are an observer, your > > hand moves in the air and the other’s body gets stuck on your knife > knife, > > so it’s not your fault. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: It’s hard to accept that Buddhism supports violence. Buddhism is > growing > > very fast in the west and very few people will agree with you...* > > > > A: Buddhism is the predominant ideology in the west now. It plays a very > > conformist function. It makes you feel good in global capitalism. I read > an > > analysis why all the top managers in the US like to practice Zen and all. > > Because things are so confusing now with one speculation you can lose > > billions of dollars in a minute. The only thing that can explain this is > > Buddhism which says that everything is an appearance and be aware of the > > inner reality and all that. You are dealing with just fake appearance. > The > > tradition European thinking doesn’t help in explaining the world in a > flux. > > This new age Buddhism gives authenticity to global capitalism. That’s why > > Dalai Lama is popular in Hollywood. I hope he is aware of what kind of > game > > he is playing there, maybe he is not aware. He is providing them a cheap > > spiritual path so that you can basically go on with your life -- > seducing, > > sex orgies, drugs, earn money -- but it gives you a feeling that I am > aware > > I am not really that. It helps you to normalize and neutralize the > > schizophrenia we live in. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: In your new book you have addressed the issue of the recent financial > > crisis. Do you see it as an opportunity for the Left to revive itself?* > > > > A: I don’t believe my leftist friends who say this is wonderful > opportunity > > for the Left as the people will see that capitalism has failed. That’s > the > > tragedy of the Left. Let’s be very clear, all this ideas of environment > > movement, civil society movement etc cetera is not going to work. This is > > all logic of the movement. But there is no alternative proposal. The > > majority of the Left today -- and this is ironic -- have become > Fukuyamist. > > They make fun of Francis Fukuyama for his "end of history" argument but > > basically they accept his argument. They believe the liberal capitalism > is > > not the best of the system but it’s not too bad and what all we can do is > to > > make it better. Today majority of the Left wants global capitalism with a > > human face -- more tolerant, more healthcare, more education, etc. The > big > > issue if this is enough. I don’t think this is enough. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: You are a philosopher but you are also a follower of Hollywood > classics. > > Don’t you see Hollywood as part of the global capiltalism...* > > > > A: Hollywood is an ambiguity. But it’s worth analysis. The Hollywood > > products are the best indicators of where we are moving in our collective > > ideology. If you look at reality, it’s confusing, but in Hollywood you > get > > the distilled version of reality, like the distilled alcohol. At the same > > time, on the margins of Hollywood you have wonderful filmamkers like > Robert > > altman, Woody Allen. I am opposed to this simple third-world attitude > > towards Hollywood. If you ignore Hollywood you end up ignoring the worst > of > > Hollywood. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: What about Bollywood? Can you ignore it?* > > > > A: For us in the West, Bollywood is chaotic and too colourful but I like > > this experience. The first reaction to this linear western story in > chaotic. > > You have to look for a different type of narrative. It’s like the > medieval > > painting when you don’t have to make a distinction between the foreground > > and background. It’s totally different disposition of space. This is how > I > > watch Bollywood not for the story but how they present it. I like even > the > > fake Bollywood like Slumdog Millionaire. First, I resisted the movie, but > > what I started to like was how much the brutakity of life exists. This is > > something unimgibale in the west. It’s a happy story but nonetheless the > > reality remains. It’s a fairytale but it doesn’t allow all the reality to > > disappear. In the west, a feel good story could not be combined with this > > brutal intrusion of social reality. > > > > ** > > > > *Q: You can’t be here just to watch Bollywood?* > > > > A: No, I am here to know more about India. I must frankly admit that till > > now I ignored India. But for sometime, a storm was gathering inside me > and > > now it exploded and now I am here. I am reading books on India. I started > > with the laws of Manu. I am here to study how the modern and tradition > > co-exist together amid contradictions of globalization. I have more hopes > > from India than China because in China something very dangerous is > > happening. It all started in Singapore -- capitalism with Asian values, > > which is actually authoritarian capitalism. Till now, there was one good > > thing to say about capitalism -- democracy. I am afraid what’s now > emerging > > in the Far East (we all know that Deng Xiaoping went to Singapore and > said > > this is the model for all of China). It’s the new capitalism. It’s more > > dynamic than the western capitalism. And I don’t believe my liberal > friends > > who believe that in another 10 years in china there will be another > > Tiananmen. > > > > -- > > Ranjit > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Green Youth Movement" group. > To post to this group, send an email to > greenyouth@googlegroups.com<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=greenyo...@googlegroups.com> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+ > unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. > > > -- Peace Is Doable--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
