Dear Michael, I am tempted to make another post here, after having taken aback by the surprising similarity in visions of Ranade and Ambedkar in another era with those of Arundhati Roy as expressed in 2006 in an interview in a conversation with Amit Sengupta, published in Tehelka! I reproduce portions here:
Mahadeva Govind Ranade , Quoted by Dr.Ambedkar:- " You canned be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics and conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. You cannot cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the sphere of your political rights and privileges, and at the same time keep your hearts closed and cramped. It is an idle dream to expect men to remain enchained and enshackled in their own superstition and social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights and privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will find their dreams lost."..." (Taken from “Ranade,Gandhi and Jinnah”,published in 1943,which was also the text of a speech delivered at Pune in 1943 at the occasion of 101th Birh Anniversary of Ranade) [Interestingly, a strikingy similar statement has been made by Arundhati Roy in 2006, in an interview in Tehelka with Amit Sengupta; please read it here:-] “Sometimes — quite often — the same people who are capable of a radical questioning of, say, economic neo-liberalism or the role of the state, are deeply conservative socially — about women, marriage, sexuality, our so-called 'family values' — sometimes they're so doctrinaire that you don't know where the establishment stops and the resistance begins. For example, how many Gandhian/Maoist/ Marxist Brahmins or upper caste Hindus would be happy if their children married Dalits or Muslims, or declared themselves to be gay? Quite often, the people whose side you're on, politically, have absolutely no place for a person like you in their social, cultural or religious imagination. That's a knotty problem… politically radical people can come at you with the most breathtakingly conservative social views and make nonsense of the way in which you have ordered your world and your way of thinking about it… and you have to find a way of accommodating these contradictions within your worldview." -Arundhati Roy On Nov 13, 4:01 pm, "James Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Mr. Venu. > But I am not sure what I should glean out of these postings. > I will wait for your comments to follow. > James. > > 2008/11/13 venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Dear James Michael, > > I just now had a fresh reading of text from Ambedkar written in > > early1940s. > > I wish to share a few excerpts with you and everybody else here, my > > comments reserved for another occasion. > > Thanks,Venu. > > > "..Most people do not realize that society can practise tyranny and > > oppression against an individual in a far greater degree than a > > Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for > > oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government, > > also they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is > > comparable in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication ?" > > "Indeed he showed a high degree of courage. For let is be remembered > > that he lived in times when social and religious customs however gross > > and unmoral were regarded as sacrosanct and when any doubt questioning > > their divine and moral basis was regarded not merely as heterodoxy but > > as intolerable blasphemy and sacrilege...." > > > "...The Hindu philosophers had. both their philosophy and their Manu > > held apart in two hands, the right not knowing what the left had. The > > Hindu is never troubled by their inconsistency, As to their social > > system, can things be worst ? The Caste system is in itself a > > degenerate form of the Chaturvarnya which is the ideal of the Hindu. > > How can anybody who is not a congenital idiot accept Chaturvarnya as > > the ideal form of society ? Individually and socially it is a folly > > and a crime. One class and one class alone to be entitled to education > > and learning! One class and one class alone to be entitled to arms! > > One class and one class alone to trade! One class and one class alone > > to serve! For the Individual the consequences are obvious. Where can > > you find a learned man who has no means of livelihood who will not > > degrade his education. ? Where can you find a soldier with no > > education and culture who will use his arms to conserve and not to > > destroy ? Where can you find a merchant with nothing but the > > acquisitive instinct to follow who will not descend to the level of > > the brute ? Where can you find the servant who is not to acquire > > education, who is not to own arms and who is not to possess other > > means of livelihood to be a man as his maker intended him to be ? If > > baneful to the individual it makes society vulnerable. It is not > > enough for a social structure to be good for a fair weather. It must > > be able to weather the storm. Can the Hindu caste system stand the > > gale and the wind of an aggression ? It is obvious that it > > cannot....." > > "...No wonder the Hindu Society had its moral bonds loosened to a > > dangerous point. The East India Company had in 1819 to pass a > > Regulation (VII of 1819) to put a stop to this moral degeneracy. The > > preamble to the Regulation says that women were employed wholesale to > > entice and take away the wives or female children for purposes of > > prostitution, and it was common practice among husbands and fathers to > > desert their families and children. Public conscience there was none, > > and in the absence of conscience it was futile to expect moral > > indignation against the social wrongs. Indeed the Brahmins were > > engaged in defending every wrong for the simple reason that they lived > > on them. They defended Untouchability which condemned millions to the > > lot of the helot. They defended caste, they defended female child > > marriage and they defended enforced widowhood—the two great props of > > the Caste system. They defended the burning of widows, and they > > defended the social system of graded inequality with its rule of > > hypergamy which led the Rajputs to kill in their thousands the > > daughters that were born to them. What shames ! What wrongs! Can such > > a society show its face before civilized nations ? Can such a society > > hope to survive ? Such were the questions which Ranade asked. He > > concluded that on only one condition it could be saved—namely, > > rigorous social reform....." > > > "...His (Ranade's) greatest opponents however came from the political > > school of the intelligentsia. These politicals developed a new thesis. > > According to that thesis political reform was to have precedence over > > social reform." > > > "..The thesis caught the imagination of the people. If there was one > > single cause to which the blocking of the Social Reform movement could > > be attributed, it was this cry of political reform. The thesis is > > unsupportable, and I have no doubt that the opponents of Ranade were > > wrong and in pursuing it did not serve the best interests of the > > country..". > > > "..The idea of making a gift of fundamental rights to every individual > > is no doubt very laudable. The question is how to make them > > effective ? 'The prevalent. view is that once rights are enacted in a > > law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted > > assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but > > by the social and moral conscience of society. If social conscience is > > such that it is prepared to recognizes the rights which law chooses to > > enact rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental rights > > are opposed by the community, no Law no Parliament, no judiciary can > > guarantee them in the real sense of the word.." > > > "..The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed > > be a misfit if there was no social democracy. The politicals never > > realized that democracy was not a form of Government. It was > > essentially a form of society. It may not be necessary for a > > democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by > > loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does > > unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, an > > attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is > > a social organization free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is > > incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness, > > resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the > > unprivileged. Unfortunately, the opponents of Ranade were never able > > to realize the truth of this fact..." > > > "..Ranade was not only wise but he was also logical. He told his > > opponents against playing the part of Political Radicals and Social > > Tones. In clear and unmistakable terms he warned them saying : > > " You canned be liberal by halves. You cannot be liberal in politics > > and conservative in religion. The heart and the head must go together. > > You cannot cultivate your intellect, enrich your mind, enlarge the > > sphere of your political rights and privileges, and at the same time > > keep your hearts closed and cramped. It is an idle dream to expect men > > to remain enchained and enshackled in their own superstition and > > social evils, while they are struggling hard to win rights and > > privileges from their rulers. Before long these vain dreamers will > > find their dreams lost."..." > > > "...Who are the present day politicians with whom Ranade is to be > > compared ? Ranade was a great politician of his day. He must therefore > > be compared with the greatest of today. We have on the horizon of > > India two great men, so big that they could be identified without > > being named—Gandhi and Jinnah. What sort of a history they will make > > may be a matter for posterity to tell. For us it is enough that they > > do indisputably make headlines for the Press. They hold leading > > strings. One leads the Hindus, the other leads the Muslims. They are > > the idols and heroes of the hour. I propose to compare them with > > Ranade. How do they compare with Ranade ? It is necessary to make some > > observations upon their temperaments and methods with which they have > > now familiarized us. I can give only my impressions of them, for what > > they are worth. The first thing that strikes me is that it would be > > difficult to find two persons who would rival them for their colossal > > egotism, to whom personal ascendancy is everything and the cause of > > the country a mere counter on the table. They have made Indian > > politics a matter of personal feud. Consequences have no terror for > > them ; indeed they do not occur to them until they happen. When they > > do happen they either forget the cause, or if they remember it, they > > overlook it with a complacency which saves them from any remorse. They > > choose to stand on a pedestal of splendid isolation. They wall > > themselves off from their equals. They prefer to open themselves to > > their inferiors. They are very unhappy at and impatient of criticism, > > but are very happy to be fawned upon by flunkeys. Both have developed > > a wonderful stagecraft and arrange things in such a way that they are > > always in the limelight wherever they go. Each of course claims to be > > supreme. If supremacy was their only claim, it would be a small > > wonder. In addition to supremacy each claims infallibility for > > himself. " > > "Politics in the hands of these two great men have become a > > competition in extravaganza. If Mr. Gandhi is known as Mahatma, Mr. > > Jinnah must be known as Qaid-i-Azim. If Gandhi has the Congress, Mr. > > Jinnah must have the Muslim League. If the Congress has a Working > > Committee and the All-India Congress Committee, the Muslim League must > > have its Working Committee and its Council. The session of the > > Congress must be followed by a session of the League. It the Congress > > issues a statement the League must also follow suit. If the Congress > > passes a Resolution of 17,000 words, the Muslim League's Resolution > > must exceed it by at least a thousand words. If the Congress President > > has a Press Conference, the Muslim League President must > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
