pls elaborate nisar's take on satyagraha? what is satyagraha? and how it s relevant in applying it n chengara
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > HI, > I am pasting Jenny's mail on Chengara struggle at the bottom of this > thread. > To make the terrain clear, let me clarify why I want Gandhi (the historical > person) to be forgotten in this new thread. > > If the attempt in the other thread by some friends was to convince all that > Gandhi > as an actor is historically not recommendable and Ambedkar is more > acceptable, i personally have nothing against it. > > but in order to reject certain principles ( even if those are invented by > Gandhi) we need more reasons . > Is there somethinng inherently doubtful about them/Then that should be > visible to everybody. thus I insisted on providing reasons. > If somebody tell why it is unacceptable, there is scope for debate. > Otherwise , the exclusivist attitude will > demand the other to accept ones terms .which means the end of > communication.Are there terms in between all of us? can we temporarily give > up our own terms? > > Jenny, I am still sticking to the role of reporter in this mail. I find > some scope for debate betwween your take and Nizar's position. > So, let me first explore it before articulating my own position. > > The reasons given by Nizar to qualify Chengara struggle as satyagraha were > the following. > 1.They have violated the law. > 2.They are fiercely holding on to what they have found as truth. > 3.They have consciously opted self injury instead of injury on others. > 4.this existential dimention, that they are ready to hold on to truth unto > death , is different from other struggles. > 5.This is satyagraha. > 6.The point you raise, that, it is not a choice but forced situation, > doesn't nullify such a proposition. > 7.Satyagraha, even in gandhi's imagination, was the tool of > oppressed/powerlwess. It is not the first step, > but final step, when all attempts at negotiating failed. > 8.It is not necessary that activists in Chengara should opt this form. They > could become violent or join other political parties. > > > > Jenny: > > 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.. > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
