I used the word 'non-violence', instead of 'peaceful existence', in the quoted sentence. My apologies for the oversight.
On 6 Oct, 15:04, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
