Thanks. Entered. But not appearing. Maybe later.
Sukla 2010/1/15 venukm <[email protected]> > Please post your comments there in the original blog as well, which I > think, could perhaps be directly seen by Zizek himself > > http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street/entry/was-gandhi-more-violent-than > > On Jan 15, 10:49 am, Kavita Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > 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. > > > > -- 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].
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
