Friends, 1. Given the new turn in the discussions to read *Gandhi as a text, *both by Ahmed in an another thread and by Devika here... what i am writing here is also an attempt to read Gandhi's philosophy.. Actually i have done it earlier too in talking about the concept of Sathyagraha... However Ahmed i know that some readings always gets better visibility than others..
2. Dileep, most of the points that you have written about Sathyagraha can be shared by any non-violent and even violent resistance as Luisa pointed out.. The core to what distinguishes Gandhian Sathyagraha from other forms of non-violent resistance is the fact that here there is an insistence on suffering, self-injury, truth and other ideals like patience, sympathy, weaning, love... etc.. -- let me quote again from Gandhi's own text... * Its root meaning is holding onto truth, hence truth-force. I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself**.*.. In an earlier mail to Dileep, I had already talked about this to which Dileep wrote: *??>6.The point you raise, that, it is not a choice but forced situation, doesn't nullify such a proposition.* Let me elaborate my point further... The whole Gandhian idea of winning over, patience, love, suffering etc.. imagines a struggle, where the resisting party is already placed in some kind of a negotiating position.. Where she can still be patient, suffer, wean, wait it out, talk about love, etc etc.. In other words, where she is able to somewhere make a connection with the opponent from his present situation and wean him into give in.. This is Sathyagraha for you.. For an excellent illustration see *Lage Raho Munna Bhai.. * What i am saying is this... this kind of an approach might not be available to Dalit Bahujan and other politically oppressed people whose political position has given them less than human-lives and intense SUFFERING for centuries after centuries, * PATIENCE AND SUFFERING AND LOVE as IDEALS, JUST MIGHT NOT APPEAL TO THEM Because patience and love are not essentialized and naturally given ideals and they need a cultural context to be made into a reality and to survive.. *So one can conclude that sathyagraha is a very savarna middle-class ideal, with its use and uselessness... And most Gandhian ideals are like this... Gandhian philosophy is also like this... You really cannot stop reading Gandhi's own identity into his political and philosophical formulations.. You meet it there in his text as well as in his action.. And then you realize that he cannot be easily transplanted into subaltern locations and positions.. neither to understand subaltern struggles or politics.. And this is where Ambedkar's analysis begins to become important.. * *Some more points on what Devika said: *>>I don't think saying that the activists at Chengara are using the techniques of satyagraha automatically reduces them to >Gandhi's politics or denies their innovativeness. >>Satyagraha has always been an idea capacious enough to allow multiple uses and interpretations.* *>>I have a feeling the activists at Chengara could be seen as innovating on it in a strikingly anti-Gandhian spirit and to ?>diametrically opposite ends.* * *If Chengara struggle has "innovatively moved" out of Gandhian Sathyagra and is also "anti Gandhian", then why is Nizar Ahmed and others compelled to see "Gandhian" ideals in it? I really really cannot understand.......except by thinking of dogmatism - this is not a personal comment, but i really cannot understand thisd phenomena otherwise... .* * To end, let me just say that... the Chengara struggle is a Dalit struggle, with ideas, ideals and philosophy mainly drawn from Ambedkar and Ayyankali.. And this is what the struggling people in Chengara are telling us.. And this is the philiosophy that India/Kerala culture has no access to. Saturated as we have been with Gandhi and Gandhians for so long.. We want the ideals and ideas of Ambedkar, Ayyankali and other Dalit Bahujan thinkers, who take *CASTE *as *one of the most *important analytical category for any kind of analysis. We reject the Savarna ideals of Gandhi's philosophy and persona and recognize him and his writings as the spokesperson/philosophy of the HIndu caste system, which is one of the most oppressive power structures in India today... If we are to think about Gandhi please don't assimilate Dalit struggles into Gandhism. In stead tell us how Gandhi is relevant for Dalit Bahujan Minority Gender and Sexual politics.. and which of his philosophy and which text we must read for this..... jenny On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before branding Chengara struggle as Gandhian, do these intellectuals ever > felt for a second to think about how Dalits waged their freedom movement > agansit brahminism? DO they refer back to find out the nature of struggle > that Ambedkar led? genealogy of Dalit Struggles can't be find in Gandhi and > Gandhism. there is a history of such struggles. Chengara could be traced > back to that history. > for me, NIsar's reading is yet another attempt to mask that history of > struggles by Dalits. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
