Luisa's argument is convincing. The precision in the political aim of Gandhi necessarily reveals not only this but many contradictions. It is the application of Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and its internationalization as a form of protest makes Gandhi closer to Anarchism. I don't know how the anarchism as a political idea evolved in non-european or specifically in Asian context.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience is considered to be one of classics of Anarchist works.. It rather can be considered as militant manifesto. Thoreau's anarchist idea is something more deeper and profound than a mere dream without a State. Thoreau says: "The mass of men serve state thus, not as men mainly but as machines, with their bodies. They are standing army, and the militia, jailors, constables, posse comitatus, etc..... and there is no free exercise whatever of judgment or of the moral sense... and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well.". What Thoreau points to the denial of human in the complete subjugation of body and mind to the purposes of State. The anarchist impulse in gandhi's thought and exemplified through civil disobedience as a political act was to recover the human from the subjugated. For accomplishing this act, the state has to be denied. And in Thoreau as well as in gandhi, the machinery metaphor is used while talking e western and colonial government. But Gandhi's spectacular failure was in limiting civil disobedience to passive resistance and any act in the further political pursuance of this idea was considered as a transgression and he urged an immediate withdrawal from that. This perhaps can be considered as a quest of truth. It is very difficult to assess what really gandhi aimed by this. May be its my limitation in understanding both gandhi and truth! Historically, it is the twneties and thirties which are marked by the intense actions of civil disobedience and non-cooperation. It also is period of the Gandhian influence of freedom movement and radical changes from the previous modes of protest like negotiating with the Raj. The civil disobedience in this sense refused to the accept the colonial preordination of normative order and its social organizing principle. As Nizar mash yesterday said in this quest for alternative order in the thick of freedom struggle, Gandhi was also inventing future prospects of democratic community or perhaps nation-in the making. PS: I was only responding to Luisa's interesting observations. yrday i did not present any "paper" so as to summarize. But Gopalkrishnan's and Madhus papers were really good. I was one of active participant in the discussions. What I said is not connected with the above. 2. The breaking news is Tata bye bye. Gandhi is a not a current affair. From tonnight ritualistic scriptural readings and media educating purposive threads will soon start. awaiting for nanoist thoughts elsewhere!! damodar prasad On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:13 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 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 thurav > > > 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 > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
