·
Kannan, someone
sent me this. Your comments ?
" Let
them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful
buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If
these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them." Pardon
me, but this is unadulterated non-sense and false interpretation of Ahimsa
which is not based on Dharma, but on Leo Tolstoy's preaching of Orthodox
Christianity to Gandhi. I recommend you to read this brain formatting letter
that Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi and share your opinion on the same. http://www.brainpickings.org/.../leo-tolstoy-gandhi.../
He is
reacting only to a part of the comment. I am familiar with this letter but it
is brain-formatting only in a positive manner.
Ahimsa, in
its purest form, is not palatable to most. Only when it is presented as a
workable strategy, people are willing to accept it. I think that was Gandhi's
biggest regret as well - that people adopted ahimsa as a strategy and not The
Truth.
What he is
saying is that Dharma (as propounded by Krishna) demands that one 'fight' for
right, and not surrender ?
Gandhi saw
in Tolstoy and Gita, or for that matter, even Ruskin, what he wanted to see. He
departed from 'passive resistance' in making surrender a form of fight.
The surrender
was active and not passive.
The Geetha
did not suggest that ?
I don't
think so. I thinking that morphing happened only in Gandhi and Vinoba's
interpretations :-)
Kural
suggests active surrender...Tolstoy cites from Kural as well : இன்னா செய்தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண நன்னயம் செய்து
விடல்.
Do you think the Geetha also suggested active
surrender as much as war ?
'The best
way to punish someone who harmed you is to shame them by doing good.'
In
Tolstoy's words: The punishment of evil doers consists in making them feel
ashamed of themselves by doing them a great kindness.
My reading
of Gita is not as deep as Kural.
Kural also
talks about warfare for the kings.
His interpretation
of Unto the Last also went beyond where Ruskin ventured.
Btw, I
find the implication that it is nonsense because it is based 'on Leo Tolstoy's
preaching of Orthodox Christianity to Gandhi' very offensive. So what is wrong
if it is based on orthodox Christianity? Gandhi himself said Sermon on the
Mount went 'straight to my heart'.
His work with Shanti Sena deserves more
attention, and it is an idea whose time will come again.
While you
are exploring why people hate Gandhi: You'll find this interesting - my blog on
SN Nagarajan, an original Marxist thinker, who rejects the political Gandhi but
embraces the ideological Gandhi in formulating his idea of Eastern Marxism ...
Why do you think people question Gandhi ?
The right
has its obvious reasons - primarily his love for Muslims.
The left
is generally ill-informed on Gandhi. While they find enough reasons to love and
excuse Stalin or Mao, they just don't read the right books on Gandhi.
Also, both
right and left are fascinated by armed revolutionaries.
SN
Nagarajan rejects armed revolution and modern science (he was a biologist in
50s) - hence, through the Marxian method, he has arrived at Gandhi.
But Marxism
exists without armed revolution ?
He calls
it Eastern Marxism or feminine Marxism - yesterday, there was a conference
about him. His primary student, another respected Marxian scholar in Tamil,
said as much - that there was hardly any Marx in his Eastern Marxism
We call
that Gandhism :)
Actually,
that is what I felt listening to him and about him for hours - that if you take
away the ideas of arms, technology and centralization from Marxism, we get
Gandhism.
SN is Gandhian in another way - he loves to
speak in the people's language unlike the elite Marxist leaders - no wonder he
was expelled from CPI in the 60s.
Dont
ordinary Marxists stay people oriented ?
Yes. But
their leaders, especially the national leaders?
True. A
senior Gandhian would still have personal values intact.
What about
the 'capitalist stooge' logic ? They say Gandhi took money from Birlas and so
was soft towards them after independence.
He was
patronised by Birla and Bajaj. Tata sent him money anonymously even in South
Africa. But that didn't make him espouse their cause. He took money from the
poorest as well.
They say
he espoused their cause. I do not see where. They quote some dam story.
Rajmohan
has written about the dam issue in his refutal of Arundhati Roy.
After his
book on Gandhi, he wrote extensively on Ayothidasar, a pre-Ambedkar Dalit
intellectual.
This
Gandhi Ambedkar debate needs to be tabled and discussed widely with SCs
centrally on board.
…
Jeyamohan
is has written well about Gandhi-Ambedkar debate. His understanding of caste
and religion may be quite close to yours.
In TN, the OBC vs Dalit scene is quite bad. That could be
playing a part. And his involvement with Dalit organizations - he wrote a work
set in 19th century famines, involving a Dalit uprising.
But in any
case, Jeyamohan is a person of literature, first and foremost. It is not easy
to bracket him into any slot.
I have
been meaning to ask him about this change - I'll do it when he comes to
Coimbatore in December.
Met
him a few times. Wrote him a few letters. But we have a lot of common friends.
Suneel Krishnan, who runs the Gandhi Today website, is a close disciple of
Jeyamohan.
With
a few originial works and many translations of Gandhian books into Tamil.
My
interview with Narayan Desai appeared there, first.
I will add
some more grief to your worries about Tamil fluency :-) Jeyamohan has been
recreating Mahabharatha in Tamil. He has already come out with a few novels on
it - has plans for the next 10 or 15 years.
But why ?
he's given a different angle to it ?
I read a
couple of them. Couldn't keep up with the pace. Sometimes it is a retelling but
usually with a different angle, exploring the gaps and giving it a modern
structure.
In Tamil,
there is Kamba Ramayana. But no comprehensive great work on Mahabharatha. So
there is a need, definitely.
Getting to
the essential root of the ethos of the community is critical. Gandhi tuned
into it, respected it, and the masses moved with him. Economics
is one part, the cultural identity is another equally (or more) important part.
Aparna Krishnan
Gandhi-ism is all about regulating / monitoring / evaluating / correcting (inner) self, which tantamount to being harsh on yourselves, whereas leftist agenda is all external (society, other groups, environment) and hence easy to point fingers at. (this is going to cause missile attacks 
) the former is a subset of traditional Indic philosophy and value system, whereas the latter is an alien concept, and, therefore, today, finds many takers in our country (since we disdain everything which is ancient).Why does the leftist agenda attract the intelligensia more than Gandhi-ism ? Its easier on oneself ?
No comments:
Post a Comment