Dear Jenny, That is perhaps true of even other kinds of social intervention apart from agitation. Most of these are attributed to Gandhi in some way, when they differ in their method of addressing issues from each other as well as from Gandhian methods. In fact any serious effort with complete dedication and an aura of selflessness/ simplicity is attributed to Gandhi. It is a kind of simplistic,loose understanding of Gandhi. Same maybe true of Ambedkar's ideas/philosophy and its many followers. Some of the leaders of such campaigns themselves speak of Gandhi as a source of inspiration, though as you have said re. satyagraha, they don't necessarily follow him to boot. In fact their methods maybe quite distinct from Gandhi's and perhaps even against his beliefs.( like the new values he attached to the act of Satyagraha etc.).
Mostly it is a general sort of inspiration in which the concerned people speak of. Like how artists speak of in direct influences sometimes. I think its also important to know what the practitioner thinks of her/his methods. Even when its easy to point at details which do not indicate to strict following of the concerned philosophy. I have been following the different threads in this discussion. these were some thoughts after reading those. Regards Gouri I have been following as many threads in this discussion as I can. 2008/10/7 jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Dear Gouri, > > Have not so far come across any writing on Satyagraha by Ambedkar. > > After Gandhi's adoption of this term, most non-violent struggles were > routinely called Sathyagraha. > > Though Gandhian theory on Sathyagraha actually went beyond just non-violent > resistance, > > and attributed new values to it...This has already been discussed here from > many perspectives. > > See above and other threads.. > > jenny > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Gouri Patwardhan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As far as I know the agitation for the access to the water tank in >> Mahad that Dr. Ambedkar led was called Mahad chowdar Tale (Chowdar >> tank) Satyagraha. I don't know if Dr. Ambedkar called it Satyagraha. >> Has he written explicitly about Satyagraha? >> Gouri >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 7:25 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > Aryan, I found Nizar's arguments not to have any relevance to >> > understanding the present. that is the political >> > reason for my posting here.. >> > >> > waiting to read ur piece.. >> > >> > jenny >> > >> > \\On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:25 PM, aryakrishnan ramakrishnan >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Jenny,Luisa,Ranju, >> >> >> >> My interest in engaging in this kind of exercise is related to >> >> understanding the present. which is more political than historical. >> >> History do help in major ways but sometimes the novelty, >> >> innovations, and surprises won't be captured due to overhistoricising. >> >> >> >> One has to be theoretically inventive, creative and commited in order >> >> to >> >> theorise the present. >> >> >> >> Thus I found Nizar's proposition interesting. Arguing with it will also >> >> be productive, as this debate increasingly show. >> >> >> >> I will share my reading of Chengara struggle in anorganised manner >> >> soon. >> >> triggering rich theoretical work in itself is an indication of the >> >> creativity of the movement. >> >> It isn't at all an attempt to negate agency to Dalit activists in >> >> Chengara >> >> and ascribe it to Gandhi ! I personally take the social reality as >> >> indeterminate, calling for >> >> various theoretical frameworks. >> >> >> >> >> >> Luisa, >> >> To be frank, Nizar himeself (in an interview published in a Malayalam >> >> journal) called Bin Laden >> >> "violent Gandhi". considering their position on civilisation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM, jenny rowena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
