On 15 Apr, 2007, at 11:42 PM, raghu wrote:
On 4/15/07, ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quote the above with approval since it is not written in English? One
assumes Ivy League political science programmes are offered in Urdu?
;-)
Aren't you guys guilty of the same sin that you accuse of? Doug's
criticism of Arundhati Roy is entirely accurate: yes Roy is a
commodify marketed and sold to intellectuals, yes she speaks in the
language of the elite and to that extent her voice is not the voice of
the underprivileged that she champions.
So are we to return to that old relativism/anti-relativism argument
about an "Indian Math" or "Chinese Math"? As Yoshie pointed out, Toor's
criticism is mostly about TGOST. The stuff that Yoshie or Patrick Bond
posted, is recent material and contains claims and descriptions. Either
they are right, or they are wrong. Or if these are not our criteria,
let us begin with exorcising the English-speaking -- worse, Western
educated -- Ambedkar's words and thoughts from Indian politics and
history. And perhaps Periyar was unrepresentative of the Dravidian
revolution, due to his publications?
further excuse for such phrases as "the language of the colonialist".
Mahatma fucking Gandhi wrote in English, for crying out loud. I have
volumes of it (moth eaten but readable) in boxes back home! (b) As
English is and has always been "the language of the colonialist" in
India. It is "taught" (actually forced down the throats of students)
in schools not at home.
Well, then I speak of a different India. For what was forced down my
throat (and that of many others) as a student was not English (which
students had the option of studying or not studying, either as a
language or as a medium of instruction, and which my own mother could
spend a 40 year teaching career not having to teach or teach in), but
"the language of the oppressor": Hindi. That is what was "taught" in
schools, and more insidiously on television, but never at home.
And those schools are part of the educational system that is very
much the legacy of the colonial era. That Gandhi wrote in English
changes nothing.
I do not at all claim that Gandhi writing in English changes anything.
What it does do is prevent the use of phrases like "language of the
colonialist" (true in a merely trivial sense) to dismiss an argument.
--ravi
