Comparing Gandhi with Hitler is quite dumb - from the point of view of social science/politics, what have you. Zizek ought to know that being provocative isn't always the way to communicate something. It is possible to criticise the 'himsa' inherent in/unchallenged by/only partially challenged by Gandhi's 'ahimsa' - gender, caste, class and so on. But it is important to remember some things: Gandhi was unequivocally supportive of the Palestinian nation; he was willing to come out on to the streets against communal violence; he resisted anti-Pak jingoism. Those are important legacies for us: legacies that 'Gandhigiri' proponents in popular media tend to suppress and bury.
2010/1/15 Sukla Sen <[email protected]> > That's just "shit". > I just can't dig up anything more appropriate. > > Hitler, in any case, is unparallel in modern human history. He put, racist > (purity of Aryan blood etc.) and even otherwise, hatred and violence on a > pedestal and then executed on a mind-boggling scale. > > And Gandhi, one can very well have one's own assessment - from angel to > crook, but bracketing with - nay "more violent" than, Hitler!!!. > Just to recall, he was "martyred", because he went on an indefinite fast to > force the GoI release the funds due to Pakistan, the enemy state, held up on > account of the Kashmir war. That was the final trigger. > Even if one forgets the legendary foot marches by this indomitable spirit > through blood spewing riot torn districts - Noakhali and (in) Bihar - > without any "protection" whatever. And his interventions in Calcutta and > Delhi. > > A mind-boggling obscenity! > > Sukla > > 2010/1/15 sreenivas v.p <[email protected]> > >> >> I agree with Mr. Venugopal . There is no point in comparing Gandi with >> Hitler because Gandi never perpetuated the philosophy of hatred and also >> he did not support violence directly . >> >> But it is a fact that Gandi's false ideas and his political stand has >> resulted in killing of thousands of Indians . I believe that Gandi was >> preaching what he got from hindu text books and he was very adamant in >> executing and imposing these stupid philosophies on others . >> >> It is Gandi who should be blamed for dragging the freedom struggle for so >> long and he never took any solid action against the british imperialism . >> >> So it can be said that Gandi believed in peace and nonviolence but he >> indirectly created more violence and killings than hitler >> >> >> >> >> --- On *Thu, 14/1/10, venukm <[email protected]>* wrote: >> >> >> From: venukm <[email protected]> >> Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler ? >> To: "Green Youth Movement" <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, 14 January, 2010, 11:10 PM >> >> >> In spite of whatever Zizek has said, he hasn't given the rationale of >> his ranking Gandhi higher in violence. It looks that a comparison >> between Hitler and Gandhi is ok, both having justified the states' >> ways of coercing the poorest people to serve the elite without >> grumbling.. but giving away the first place to Gandhi by him,is just >> to give the effect of sensationalizing. One can see that the source of >> savarna violence is Hindu scriptures and beliefs in a divinely >> ordained system of division of labour and labourers., whereas that of >> Hitler& fascism is entirely based on hate and ethnic cleansing of the >> 'other'. British India was a territory inhabited by the largest Muslim >> population and Gandhi became a martyr just for having intervened in >> the process of ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Hindus. >> Fascists on the other hand, were also motivated by the desire to bring >> the entire world under control, for which they even made use of the >> advancement of the science in the form of newer techniques to kill. >> Gandhi never preached hate and violence for its own sake!Zizek >> obviously misses lot of details about India, Gandhi and Buddha! >> He is only a beginner of all these and of the Ambedkarite modernism. >> >> On Jan 14, 7:46 pm, Ranjit Ranjit >> <[email protected]<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Shobhan >> > Saxena<http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street>, >> > 12 January 2010, 06:14 PM IST >> http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street/entry/was-gandhi-more-violent-... >> > >> > Let me make it clear at the very beginning that I have no doubt that >> Hitler >> > was more violent than Gandhi. Actually, I would not even compare Gandhi >> with >> > Hitler. I am not an admirer of Gandhi, but I wouldn’t call him a violent >> > person. Now, if you are wondering why on earth I am asking this question >> -- >> > Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Here’s my answer: Last week, I met >> > Slavoj Zizek who is an unusual philosopher from Slovenia. Zizek mixes >> > unfashionably intransigent left-wing politics with his taste for >> Hollywood >> > classics. The 59-year-old academic has written more than 30 books on >> > subjects as diverse as Alfred Hitchcock, Lenin and 9/11 attacks, and >> also >> > presented the TV series The Pervert's Guide to Cinema. He has also run >> for >> > Slovenia’s president. During the interview, excerpts of which were >> carried >> > in this week’s Sunday Times (All That Matters page), Zizek told me that >> he >> > considered Gandhi to be an extremely violent person. When I asked Zizek >> to >> > elaborate his point, he gave a long, provocative and interesting >> > explanation. It’s not easy to disagree with him. Zizek, who was invited >> to >> > India by Navayana to release his latest book, First As Tragedy, Then As >> > Farce, and give a series of lectures across the country, also slammed >> the >> > Dalai Lama and Buddhism and China. On the advice of some friends, who >> found >> > the interview interesting and wanted to know more about Zizek, I am >> posting >> > the detailed interview here. Read it and decide for yourself if you >> agree >> > with Zizek or not. >> > >> > *Q: You call yourself a Leninist but the media in the West has called >> you an >> > "intellectual rock star", "Elvis of cultural theory" and the "Marx >> Brother". >> > How do you react to such journalistic labeling?* >> > >> > ** >> > >> > A: With resigned melancholy. I think they try to say that this guy may >> be >> > interesting and provocative but he is not serious. They call me a >> > provocative guy. To the western media, I am like a fly that annoys you >> and >> > provokes you but should not be taken seriously. It’s a defence >> mecahnism. >> > Though, of late, they have been dubbing me as someone more >> threatening... >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: In an article in the New Republic recently, Adam Kirsch called you >> the >> > most "dangerous philosopher in the west..." * >> > >> > A: Yes, in the last two years, the tone in the US and Europe has >> changed. >> > Now they say we are dealing with somebody very dangerous. This change of >> > tone is quite amazing. First there were Marx Brothers jokes and now they >> say >> > I am dangerous because I am Leninist. But I don’t care. I am resigned to >> it. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: You have also been accused of glorifying political violence. Do you >> > support violence as a means of political change?* >> > >> > A: Here I must be frank. For me, the 20th century communism is the >> biggest >> > ethical-political catastrophe in the history of humanity, greater >> > catastrophe than fascism. In fascism, you had bad people who said we >> will do >> > bad things and they took power and they did bad things. That’s why in >> > fascism you don’t have dissidents. But in the first years of the October >> > Revolution, in spite of the so-called Red Terror, there was sexual >> > liberation, literary explosion and then it turned into the nightmare. I >> > don’t accept the right-wing critique that says it was evil from the very >> > beginning. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: What’s your point?* >> > >> > A: My point is what people perceive as violence is the direct subjective >> > violence. It’s crucial to see violence which has to be done repeatedly >> to >> > keep the things the way they are. I am not just talking about structural >> > violence, symbolic violence, violence in language, etc. In that sense >> Gandhi >> > was more violent than Hitler. Hitler killed millions of people. It was >> more >> > reactive killing. Hitler was active all the time not to change things >> but to >> > prevent change. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: A lot of people will find it ridiculous to even imagine that Gandhi >> was >> > more violent than Hitler? Are you serious when you say that...* >> > >> > A: Yes he was, although Gandhi didn’t support killing. With his actions >> -- >> > boycott and all that -- he helped the British imperialists to stay in >> India >> > longer. This is something Hitler never wanted. Gandhi didn’t do anything >> to >> > stop the functioning of the British empire or the way it functioned >> here. >> > You have to think why was India called the jewel of the empire? That for >> me >> > is a problem. Let us locate violence properly. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: I guess you have no respect for Gandhi who is a tall figure in this >> > country... * >> > >> > A: I respect him. I don’t respect him for his peaceful ways, >> vegetarianism >> > etc. I don’t care about that. But Gandhi somehow succeeded in carrying >> on >> > his principled attitude with pragmatic spirit. It’s very difficult to >> > maintain this balance. But again I feel Ambedkar was much better than >> > Gandhi. My favourite oneliner from Ambedkar is when he said that "there >> is >> > no caste without outcastes". Ambedkar saw that the Gandhian solution for >> > untouchables was wrong. This attitude doesn’t work. I am for Ambedkar’s >> > radical approach. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: You haven’t answered my question about your stand on political >> > violence...* >> > >> > A: In an abstract sense I am opposed to violence. But nobody is actually >> > against violence. Look at the Buddhist text. They say you shouldn’t >> kill, >> > but then they have all the exceptions. During the 40s, a great Zen >> > philosopher was writing articles not only justifying Japanese invasion >> of >> > China but also giving advice on how Buddhist enlightenment allows you to >> > kill without guilt. It says you are in a void, you are an observer, your >> > hand moves in the air and the other’s body gets stuck on your knife >> knife, >> > so it’s not your fault. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: It’s hard to accept that Buddhism supports violence. Buddhism is >> growing >> > very fast in the west and very few people will agree with you...* >> > >> > A: Buddhism is the predominant ideology in the west now. It plays a very >> > conformist function. It makes you feel good in global capitalism. I read >> an >> > analysis why all the top managers in the US like to practice Zen and >> all. >> > Because things are so confusing now with one speculation you can lose >> > billions of dollars in a minute. The only thing that can explain this is >> > Buddhism which says that everything is an appearance and be aware of the >> > inner reality and all that. You are dealing with just fake appearance. >> The >> > tradition European thinking doesn’t help in explaining the world in a >> flux. >> > This new age Buddhism gives authenticity to global capitalism. That’s >> why >> > Dalai Lama is popular in Hollywood. I hope he is aware of what kind of >> game >> > he is playing there, maybe he is not aware. He is providing them a cheap >> > spiritual path so that you can basically go on with your life -- >> seducing, >> > sex orgies, drugs, earn money -- but it gives you a feeling that I am >> aware >> > I am not really that. It helps you to normalize and neutralize the >> > schizophrenia we live in. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: In your new book you have addressed the issue of the recent >> financial >> > crisis. Do you see it as an opportunity for the Left to revive itself?* >> > >> > A: I don’t believe my leftist friends who say this is wonderful >> opportunity >> > for the Left as the people will see that capitalism has failed. That’s >> the >> > tragedy of the Left. Let’s be very clear, all this ideas of environment >> > movement, civil society movement etc cetera is not going to work. This >> is >> > all logic of the movement. But there is no alternative proposal. The >> > majority of the Left today -- and this is ironic -- have become >> Fukuyamist. >> > They make fun of Francis Fukuyama for his "end of history" argument but >> > basically they accept his argument. They believe the liberal capitalism >> is >> > not the best of the system but it’s not too bad and what all we can do >> is to >> > make it better. Today majority of the Left wants global capitalism with >> a >> > human face -- more tolerant, more healthcare, more education, etc. The >> big >> > issue if this is enough. I don’t think this is enough. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: You are a philosopher but you are also a follower of Hollywood >> classics. >> > Don’t you see Hollywood as part of the global capiltalism...* >> > >> > A: Hollywood is an ambiguity. But it’s worth analysis. The Hollywood >> > products are the best indicators of where we are moving in our >> collective >> > ideology. If you look at reality, it’s confusing, but in Hollywood you >> get >> > the distilled version of reality, like the distilled alcohol. At the >> same >> > time, on the margins of Hollywood you have wonderful filmamkers like >> Robert >> > altman, Woody Allen. I am opposed to this simple third-world attitude >> > towards Hollywood. If you ignore Hollywood you end up ignoring the >> worst of >> > Hollywood. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: What about Bollywood? Can you ignore it?* >> > >> > A: For us in the West, Bollywood is chaotic and too colourful but I like >> > this experience. The first reaction to this linear western story in >> chaotic. >> > You have to look for a different type of narrative. It’s like the >> medieval >> > painting when you don’t have to make a distinction between the >> foreground >> > and background. It’s totally different disposition of space. This is how >> I >> > watch Bollywood not for the story but how they present it. I like even >> the >> > fake Bollywood like Slumdog Millionaire. First, I resisted the movie, >> but >> > what I started to like was how much the brutakity of life exists. This >> is >> > something unimgibale in the west. It’s a happy story but nonetheless the >> > reality remains. It’s a fairytale but it doesn’t allow all the reality >> to >> > disappear. In the west, a feel good story could not be combined with >> this >> > brutal intrusion of social reality. >> > >> > ** >> > >> > *Q: You can’t be here just to watch Bollywood?* >> > >> > A: No, I am here to know more about India. I must frankly admit that >> till >> > now I ignored India. But for sometime, a storm was gathering inside me >> and >> > now it exploded and now I am here. I am reading books on India. I >> started >> > with the laws of Manu. I am here to study how the modern and tradition >> > co-exist together amid contradictions of globalization. I have more >> hopes >> > from India than China because in China something very dangerous is >> > happening. It all started in Singapore -- capitalism with Asian values, >> > which is actually authoritarian capitalism. Till now, there was one good >> > thing to say about capitalism -- democracy. I am afraid what’s now >> emerging >> > in the Far East (we all know that Deng Xiaoping went to Singapore and >> said >> > this is the model for all of China). It’s the new capitalism. It’s more >> > dynamic than the western capitalism. And I don’t believe my liberal >> friends >> > who believe that in another 10 years in china there will be another >> > Tiananmen. >> > >> > -- >> > Ranjit >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Green Youth Movement" group. >> To post to this group, send an email to >> [email protected]<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+ >> [email protected]<http://in.mc84.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >> >> >> > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Green Youth Movement" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<greenyouth%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. > >--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an 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.
