as S anand mentioned, why is it that the WE get patriotic while attacking an easy target like white european male (look at metro-feminists like nivedita menon), forgetting that the occupied "patriotic" realm has been challenged from below. like the kafila intellectuals who enthralled in deleting any criticism, the indian gandhi fans fall in line to defend the violence of gandhi, forgetting that the same has been pointed out by fellow indians as well. zizekian polemics exposes these hypocratical realm; thus for THEM there are two zizeks as well...poor country!
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:06 AM, venukm <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps I like to brush aside Zizek's negative remark on Gandhi show > his novoice : I'll rather be happy with his conclusion here, in the > interview > : " 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". > > On Jan 15, 5:17 pm, "sreenivas v.p" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do not think Gandi did some social service or something for the > humanity . His social service was focussed on satisfying his own egoism and > principles for which he worked. > > Thousands of people including children were killed or brutally tortured > by the british soldiers mainly because they listened to Gandi's false idea > called Ahimsa . > > Ahimsa has meaning when it is applied to an individual but it is a mere > stupidity to preach this when we have to confront a common enemy who is > coming to annihilate us . > > And Gandi became a role model for Indians mainly because of the fact that > he upholded religious sentiments which were considered to be the true > philosophy of life by the majority. > > > > A man having peaceful objectives can do harm if the tools or method he > uses is incorrect > > and especially if he is able to mobilize the masses . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- On Fri, 15/1/10, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: Sukla Sen <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [GreenYouth] Re: Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler ? > > To: [email protected], "greenyouth" < > [email protected]> > > Date: Friday, 15 January, 2010, 4:46 PM > > > > Labelling Gandhi as "more violent" than Hitler would also ipso facto mean > than Hitler is less violent, and thereby more benign, than Gandhi!! > > > > That's the true extent of this stinking obscenity. > > > > I also imagine that "social science" is no esoteric branch of > Astrophysics or something of that sort so that only a blessed few are > entitled to interpret and dish out whatever nauseating hocus pocus they want > to. > > > > Sukla > > > > 2010/1/15 Daniel Mazgaonkar <[email protected]> > > > > I really fail to understand what you all are saying and arguing, calling > non-violence violence, and violence, non-violence. > > > > Shall we ever call what is going on in Chhattisgarh, non-violence of the > state? > > > > Daniel. > > > > 2010/1/15 Chrysanthemum Grower <[email protected]> > > > > I’m not sure it is particularly helpful to term a comparison of Gandhi > with Hitler ‘shit’ or ‘dumb’. > > > > > > I think Zizek is absolutely right about Gandhi. It is quite sensible to > compare Gandhi with Hilter from the point of view of social science AND > politics: both were leaders who had the capacity to mobilize large number of > their countrymen – the question is, the effects of what they did, with all > that power they wielded, and what they could have done. > > > > What Zizek says here is not particularly original; others with more > ‘knowledge’ of Indian history have made the same point. Gandhi’s violence is > the violence that nonviolence makes possible and helps in reproducing. I > imagine one can recognize that without necessarily pouring scorn on Gandhi > as a human being. But for that one has to stop putting him on a pedestal and > worshipping him and treating him like a God and making an ‘ism’ > (Gandhianism) out of his thoughts. It ought to be pretty obvious that > violence in one domain is not possible without forms of complicity, through > explicit nonviolence, in other domains. That is the link between a > nonviolent salesman in Dadar and the soldier-rapist in dantewada. The > violence of pacifism would annihilate this link, and failing that, term it > ‘shit’. > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Kavita Krishnan <[email protected]> > > Date: 2010/1/15 > > Subject: Re: [GreenYouth] Re: Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler ? > > To: [email protected] > > > > Cc: foil-l <[email protected]>, Free Binayak Sen < > [email protected]> > > > > 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]> wrote: > > > Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Shobhan > > > Saxena<http://author.toiblogs.com/Main-Street>, > > > 12 January 2010, 06:14 PM ISThttp:// > 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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. > > > > -- " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed class using a public tank not because they really believe that the water will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of losing their superiority of caste and of equality being established between the former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not becasue we believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human beings." - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927--
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.
