Totally agree with Ranjith here.. A few lines about the difference between non-violent resistance and Gandhian Satyagraha and why Chengara does not fit the bill
- Non-violent resistance, tries to attain a political goal without averting to violence and yet at the same time putting pressure on governments and other authorities through various means like picketing, campaigning, consiousness raising, etc.. In this the need is to forcefully gain, procure, reach, a certain goal which is considered to be socially just and which is politically empowering to subjugated groups. - Gandhian Sathyagraha in Gandhi's own words "is a kind of truth-force or love-force or soul-force." Here the "pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent" and he would instead be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. Here, patience means self-suffering. And the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, *but on oneself.* In Chengara, nothing of this sort is/was happening. The suffering that is happening in Chengara is not a choice. It is not to convert the opponent. The threat of suicide is not used to hurt oneself, but because as people in Chengara have already said, they cannot return to their even worse lives. See the whole point is this.... An upper caste person like Gandhi, is giving up so much of a great life - including his clothes, his meat eating habits, sex, etc etc - to fight the British. He is choosing TRUTH over material comforts and this TRUTH clothes him and satisfies him and that becomes his moral weapon. An agitating person in Chengara (and in many other spheres too) is not anywhere like this. They are not giving up something - going to suffer something - so as to gain something better - NO. They are always already placed within suffering due to social injustice and they are looking for a political way out. Without patience and with anger. This cliched urge to look at all this in the Gandhian mode, tells us nothing about the political passions surrouding this new struggle, which needs new ways of understanding, and which also needs to be seen in the way it wants to be seen...as a continuation of the Ayyankali and Ambedkarite politics.. jenny On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:17 AM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > dilip, > chengara struggle is gandhian? This is the worst statement one can ever > make and I request NIzar Ahmed to apologise for humiliating the struggle of > chengara. > this s like saying: just bz all the struggles waged by Dalits under the > leadership of Ambedkar were peaceful and non-violent, it s gandhian. how > horrible the logic !! > People of chengara have rejected GAndhi and EMS . Why should NIzar kinda > bujis want to impose it on them? > > and abt ur take on "modern", i agree. but would like to point out that > modern could be as traditional as tradition. these days postmodern gandhi s > also availble on sale. > when talking from dalit perspective i would defenitly attach a 'positive' > and 'emancipatory' value to 'modernity' knowing clearly that it need to be > problematically looked at. for a Dalit the scope that modernity > offered would never be possible with 'tradition'. Gandhian modernsim was > rooted in the tradtion of caste heirarchy and savarna values. DAlits > could never become citizens in that imagination. the possibility (at least a > minutest) is outside that. That is why Ambedkar asked Dalits to "Come out of > Gandhian villages and go to cities. it s a spiritual and political call. it > chaged the Dalit world. the project is not finished yet. and to remind u > that city is not an end in itself. > Gandhi would never be the path for Dalits. it can;\'t be, even if NIzars > and dilips try to impose it on them. > DALITS HAVE OUTRIGhTLY REJECTED GANDHI. > regards > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:36 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> Sorry i sent off that half-written piece, without knowing.. >> >> Dileep , >> >> You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about Sathyagraha >> >> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years ago.. >> and when some others bring attention to some alternate ways of thinking >> about the same subject, you turn the tables on them and project your >> own problems into them? >> >> Can you please follow your own advice about critical debate, and tell me >> what >> makes you think i am intolerant. I was just drawing attention to the fact >> that Venugopal's >> post with so much informatin on gandhi was being ignored, and then >> connecting it to the >> fact that caste was not brought into the discussion, also .. >> >> And i was not asking the seminar to "mention" Chengara. I was referring to >> the point >> that in talking about Gandhi, you cannot forget the issue of caste, which >> had come alive >> after the Chengara issue.. >> >> Who is Ajay Skaria? I saw similarities in the seminar on Gandhi that >> happened in Hyderabad, >> with people like Ajay Skaria.. and in the report you gave.. that is why i >> mentioned him. >> >> and you are the one who seems to be angry.. >> >> jenny >> >> 2. Jenny, >>> on post Chengara scenario, there ofcourse were serius deliberations in >>> the session. >>> ( why are you so intolerent of a debate where about thirty people met -- >>> everybody except two or three were nonacademicians-- and had a live >>> discussion on certain important political issues ? who is Ajay Skaria? Why >>> do you transfer such anger to this sphere?) >>> >>> Nizar observed that Chengara struggle is Gandhian in nature due to the >>> readiness to self injury but the present day state and civil society is more >>> brutal than the British. It doesn't mind even if the >>> struggling people die. Thus here government is resorting to Gandhian >>> method , waiting patiently for the people to change ther mind >>> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:25 AM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ( I really don't understand why people exhort to refrain from >>>> engaging in critical debates and be satisfied with chanting certain >>>> manthras.While somebody claim that everything is said and done on >>>> certain topics, >>>> and everybody should content with uncritical repetition of >>>> certain 'critical' traditions... and show intolerence toward all >>>> differences, >>>> and even worse, brand everybody referring to certain names as >>>> reactionaries... I simply feel like ignoring it.) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about >>> Sathyagraha >>> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years ago.. >>> and when some others bring attention to some alternate ways of thinking >>> about the same subject, you turn the tables on them and project your >>> own problems into them? >>> >>> 1.*Really? and modern?? >>> what kind of discussions take place there in GAndhi's (savarna) raj? >>> * >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> Ranju, >>>> This is as rediculous as retorting "Really?Modern?" to somebody who say >>>> Hindu fundamentalism is modern not, traditional!! >>>> >>>> the point was, panchayat is a state, umpire, arbitrar, whihc works on >>>> hierarchy. >>>> Gandhi does not deny decision making within it . Its not that Gandhi >>>> stick to statelessness. >>>> Its only that his state is small. >>>> >>>> The moment one come across "modern" or "discussion' why should some >>>> (positive) values be ascribed to it? >>>> >>>> 2. Jenny, >>>> on post Chengara scenario, there ofcourse were serius deliberations in >>>> the session. >>>> ( why are you so intolerent of a debate where about thirty people met -- >>>> everybody except two or three were nonacademicians-- and had a live >>>> discussion on certain important political issues ? who is Ajay Skaria? Why >>>> do you transfer such anger to this sphere?) >>>> >>>> Nizar observed that Chengara struggle is Gandhian in nature due to the >>>> readiness to self injury but the present day state and civil society is >>>> more >>>> brutal than the British. It doesn't mind even if the >>>> struggling people die. Thus here government is resorting to Gandhian >>>> method , waiting patiently for the people to change ther mind !! >>>> >>>> >>>> Can you please follow your own advice about critical debate, and tell >>>> me what makes you think i am intolerant. >>>> >>> When there is a report on a seminar with no reference to the issue of >>> Caste, and there is a cliched debate >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
