May I ask everybody (also because,Nizar is not directly available) to suggest a meaning for this statement? . " society based on nonviolence can only consist of groups settled in villages inn which voluntary cooperation is the condition of dignified and peaceful existence."
I can agree that this may be the 'core' of "Gandhism"as Dr.Nissar might like to suggest. But one might need to go beyond the words expressed and as they appear... Hence, I propose these to be explored in the context of :- 1.Dalits demanding more power,more education more resources at par with their counterpart caste Hindus...(which in turn,means, threat to the tranquility of caste-gender ridden villages,most certainly due to their urban contacts,cravings for higher learnings, questioning the status-quo,etc,etc) 2. Unless you express your dissatisfaction with the unique system of privilege and no privilege according to your birth,VOLUNTARY co- operation is more than assured. 3.Therefore, suppress all such possibilities of assertions,by your sweet equivocal ism, by constantly reminding of the 'evils of outside influence' 4. Keep saying that dalits can exist with 'dignity' as Harijans by working in village fields belonging to the upper caste landlords or carrying their night soils in head loads or doing similar things even though they are not represented in the political process. Aspiring for power ,by the by, will be a terrible contravention of the varnashrama principle of Hiduism 5.Make it look like that the social evil of untouchability is all about literal untouchability (btw, damage caused to the savarna by touching a dalit or being touched one could be reddressed by taking a small dip in water or by some penance) . Forget all other problems associated with caste as a deep social division and blame others for speaking caste! 6.So please don't forget the key words there: groups(= caste?), villages(=no education other than the bare minimum?), voluntary(= if you don't obey the rules, we may become a little harsh..so please? ) co-operation, non-violence(= you make us violent by asking us to change our great dharmashasthras?) Especially when more of the abhorring texts from are selectively avoided from the purview, possibly just to make Gandhism appear glittering, like 'India Shining', there can be lot of different readings too! Bear with people like us, please. On 6 Oct, 13:10, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Luisa, > > I have contacted Nizar and he gave the exact reference and quotes. Its not > Young India, but > Harijan, 13, 1940 January, a conversation with Mahadev Desai. > > " a society organised and run on the basis of complete nonviolence would be > the purest anarchy." > > In reply to the question whether it would be an ideal or reality, he adds > "a nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on > nonviolence." > > also.. > " society based on nonviolence can only consist of groups settled in > villages inn which voluntary cooperation is the condition of dignified and > peaceful existence." > > Nizar opines that these are positions seen throughout Gandhi's writings and > conforming to the premisses of anarchists. > > I feel your major argument ( that the use of anarchism in connection with > Gandhi --particularly in India-- is the result of mere ignorence or > romanticism is incorrect. at least in this instance. > > 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 > > > -- > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
