Please post your comments there in the original blog as well, which I think, could perhaps be directly seen by Zizek himself
http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street/entry/was-gandhi-more-violent-than On Jan 15, 10:49 am, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakris...@gmail.com> wrote: > Comparing Gandhi with Hitler is quite dumb - from the point of view of > social science/politics, what have you. Zizek ought to know that being > provocative isn't always the way to communicate something. It is possible to > criticise the 'himsa' inherent in/unchallenged by/only partially challenged > by Gandhi's 'ahimsa' - gender, caste, class and so on. But it is important > to remember some things: Gandhi was unequivocally supportive of the > Palestinian nation; he was willing to come out on to the streets against > communal violence; he resisted anti-Pak jingoism. Those are important > legacies for us: legacies that 'Gandhigiri' proponents in popular media tend > to suppress and bury. > > 2010/1/15 Sukla Sen <sukla....@gmail.com> > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
