https://www.facebook.com/aparna.krishnan.902/posts/1493365320722767
Jesus was a Jew . As was Marx .
And they both come from a tradition that has been promised , well , A Promised Land .
Revolution of any kind is as much a Religious Belief as a Jihad .
It has never happened , ever .
The wise sages have always known , the Promised Land is within.
So anyone who believes in one outside , only takes it from another , always by force .
And then the Promised Land , is the Compromised Land .
That is all there is to the Grand Semitic Narrative , whether in Books or in Theories of their Patriarchs , Abraham , Jesus or Marx .
Revolution of any kind is as much a Religious Belief as a Jihad .
It has never happened , ever .
The wise sages have always known , the Promised Land is within.
So anyone who believes in one outside , only takes it from another , always by force .
And then the Promised Land , is the Compromised Land .
That is all there is to the Grand Semitic Narrative , whether in Books or in Theories of their Patriarchs , Abraham , Jesus or Marx .
Sunny Narang Every
single leftist and critic of Indian village system just borrows from an
essay by Marx written in 1853 where Marx celebrates the British
colonialism for destroying the village autonomy . Imagine a man who
never set foot on India , wrote stuff that
many so-called educated Indians follow blindly . The irrelevance of a
text based arrogance has been proved everywhere on the planet . "We must
not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that
this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in
contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and
rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget
that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of
caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances
instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they
transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural
destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature,
exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of
nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and
Sabbala, the cow." https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm
Sunny Narang Marx
was a bourgeois Jew from a predominantly Catholic city within a country
whose official religion was evangelical Protestantism. Marx's
determined efforts to cut loose from the influence of his family,
religion, class and nationality were never wholly
successful. As a venerable greybeard he remained forever the prodigal
son, firing off begging letters to rich uncles or ingratiating himself
with distant cousins who might soon be drawing up their wills. When he
died, a daguerreotype photograph of his father was found in his breast
pocket. It was placed in his coffin and interred in Highgate cemetery.
One of Marx's paternal ancestors, Joshue Heschel Lwow, had become the
rabbi of Trier as long ago as 1723, and the post had been something of a
family sinecure ever since. His grandfather, Meier Halevi Marx, was
succeeded as the town rabbi by Karl's uncle Samuel. Yet more dead
generations were added to the load by Karl's mother, Henriette, a Dutch
Jew in whose family `the sons had been rabbis for centuries' — including
her own father. As the oldest son of such a family, Karl might not have
escaped his own rabbinical destiny but for those `social and economic
circumstances'. Karl's father, Hirschel, owned several Moselle vineyards
and was a moderately prosperous member of the educated middle class.
But he was also Jewish. Though never fully emancipated under French
rule, Rhenish Jews had tasted just enough freedom to hunger for more.
When Prussia wrested back the Rhineland from Napoleon, Hirschel
petitioned the new government for an end to legal discrimination against
himself and his `fellow believers'. To no avail: the Jews of Trier were
now subject to a Prussian edict of 1812 which effectively banned them
from holding public office or practising in the professions. Unwilling
to accept the social and financial penalties of second-class
citizenship, Hirschel was reborn as Heinrich Marx, patriotic German and
Lutheran Christian. His Judaism had long been an accident of ancestry
rather than a deep or abiding faith. (`I received nothing from my
family,' he said, `except, I must confess, my mother's love.') The date
of his baptism is unknown, but he had certainly converted by the time of
Karl's birth: official records show that Hirschel began to work as an
attorney in 1815, and in 1819 he celebrated the family's new
respectability by moving from their five-room rented apartment into a
ten-roomed property near the old Roman gateway to the city, Porta Nigra.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wheen-marx.html
Sunny Narang The
Promised Land (Hebrew: הארץ המובטחת, translit.: Ha'Aretz HaMuvtahat;
Arabic: أرض الميعاد, translit.: Ard Al-Mi'ad; also known as "The Land
of Milk and Honey") is the land which, according to the Tanakh (the
Hebrew Bible), was promised and subsequently
given by God to Abraham and his descendants, and in modern contexts an
image and idea related both to the restored Homeland for the Jewish
people and to salvation and liberation is more generally understood.
The promise was first made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), then confirmed to his son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), and then to Isaac's son Jacob (Genesis 28:13), Abraham's grandson. The promised land was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river (Exodus 23:31). A smaller area of former Canaanite land and land east of the Jordan River was conquered and occupied by their descendants, the Israelites, after Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt (Numbers 34:1-12), and this occupation was interpreted as God's fulfilment of the promise (Deuteronomy 1:8). Moses anticipated that God might subsequently give the Israelites land reflecting the boundaries of God's original promise, if they were obedient to the covenant (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).
The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through whom they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region.[1]
The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in Negro spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, often which can only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King, Jr:
"I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
The promise was first made to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21), then confirmed to his son Isaac (Genesis 26:3), and then to Isaac's son Jacob (Genesis 28:13), Abraham's grandson. The promised land was described in terms of the territory from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates river (Exodus 23:31). A smaller area of former Canaanite land and land east of the Jordan River was conquered and occupied by their descendants, the Israelites, after Moses led the Exodus out of Egypt (Numbers 34:1-12), and this occupation was interpreted as God's fulfilment of the promise (Deuteronomy 1:8). Moses anticipated that God might subsequently give the Israelites land reflecting the boundaries of God's original promise, if they were obedient to the covenant (Deuteronomy 19:8-9).
The concept of the Promised Land is the central tenet of Zionism, whose discourse suggests that modern Jews descend from the Israelites and Maccabees through whom they inherit the right to re-establish their "national homeland". Palestinians also claim partial descent from the Israelites and Maccabees, as well as all the other peoples who have lived in the region.[1]
The imagery of the "Promised Land" was invoked in Negro spirituals as heaven or paradise and as an escape from slavery, often which can only be reached by death. The imagery and term have also been used in popular culture (see Promised Land (disambiguation)), sermons and in speeches, such as the "I've Been to the Mountaintop" (1968) speech by Martin Luther King, Jr:
"I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
The Promised Land (Hebrew: הארץ המובטחת, translit.: Ha'Aretz HaMuvtahat; Arabic: أرض الميعاد, translit.: Ard…
en.wikipedia.org
Sunny Narang "I've Been to the Mountaintop" is the popular name of the last speech delivered by Martin Luther King Jr.[1][2][3]
King spoke on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple (Church of God in Christ Headquarters) in Memphis, Tennessee. On the following day, King was assassinated.
The speech primarily concerns the Memphis Sanitation Strike. King calls for unity, economic actions, boycotts, and nonviolent protest, while challenging the United States to live up to its ideals. At the end of the speech, he discusses the possibility of an untimely death. The language is seen by some as a "prophetic" analogy. Moses is the leader of the people of Israel, whom they follow because of the prospect of life within a Promised Land. Before they reach it however, Moses is informed by God that God will not allow him to enter into the land and that he will only see it with his eyes.
"Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo ... There the Lord showed him the whole land ... Then the Lord said to him, "This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... I will let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it."
— Deuteronomy 34:1-4
Shortly after, Moses dies and is buried by God, and his successor, Joshua, leads the people of Israel into the Promised Land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27ve_Been_to_the_Mountaintop
King spoke on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple (Church of God in Christ Headquarters) in Memphis, Tennessee. On the following day, King was assassinated.
The speech primarily concerns the Memphis Sanitation Strike. King calls for unity, economic actions, boycotts, and nonviolent protest, while challenging the United States to live up to its ideals. At the end of the speech, he discusses the possibility of an untimely death. The language is seen by some as a "prophetic" analogy. Moses is the leader of the people of Israel, whom they follow because of the prospect of life within a Promised Land. Before they reach it however, Moses is informed by God that God will not allow him to enter into the land and that he will only see it with his eyes.
"Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo ... There the Lord showed him the whole land ... Then the Lord said to him, "This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... I will let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it."
— Deuteronomy 34:1-4
Shortly after, Moses dies and is buried by God, and his successor, Joshua, leads the people of Israel into the Promised Land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27ve_Been_to_the_Mountaintop
King
spoke on April 3, 1968, at the Mason Temple (Church of God in Christ
Headquarters) in Memphis, Tennessee. On the following day, King was
assassinated.
en.wikipedia.org
Sunny Narang The
land of Israel is central to Judaism. A substantial portion of Jewish
law is tied to the land of Israel, and can only be performed there. Some
rabbis have declared that it is a mitzvah (commandment) to take
possession of Israel and to live in it (relying
on Num. 33:53). The Talmud indicates that the land itself is so holy
that merely walking in it can gain you a place in the World to Come.
Prayers for a return to Israel and Jerusalem are included in daily
prayers as well as many holiday observances and special events.
Living outside of Israel is viewed as an unnatural state for a Jew. The world outside of Israel is often referred to as "galut," which is usually translated as "diaspora" (dispersion), but a more literal translation would be "exile" or "captivity." When we live outside of Israel, we are living in exile from our land.
Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by the Romans in 135 C.E., after they defeated the Jews in a three-year war, and Jews did not have any control over the land again until 1948 C.E. http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
Living outside of Israel is viewed as an unnatural state for a Jew. The world outside of Israel is often referred to as "galut," which is usually translated as "diaspora" (dispersion), but a more literal translation would be "exile" or "captivity." When we live outside of Israel, we are living in exile from our land.
Jews were exiled from the land of Israel by the Romans in 135 C.E., after they defeated the Jews in a three-year war, and Jews did not have any control over the land again until 1948 C.E. http://www.jewfaq.org/israel.htm
Discusses the importance of the land of Israel to Judaism, the rise of Zionism and the formation of the state of Israel.
jewfaq.org
Sunny Narang In
Abrahamic religions, Messianism[Notes 1] is the belief and doctrine
that is centered on the advent of the messiah, who acts as the chosen
savior and leader of humanity by God. Messianism originated from the
Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), in
which a messiah is a Jewish monarch or High Priest traditionally
anointed with holy anointing oil.[1] The concept of messianism has
developed over time, with different interpretations of scripture
constituting different prophecies and portraits of the messiah within
Judaism and the Abrahamic religions. In Judaism, the messiah will be a
future Jewish king from the line of David, and in Christianity and
Islam, Jesus is the messiah who is called the Christ[Notes 2], the
savior and redeemer of the Jewish people and humanity.In Christianity,
the Messiah is called the Christ (/kraɪst/; Greek: Χριστός, translit.
Khristós, lit. 'Anointed One'; Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ, translit. Māšîah, lit.
'Mashiach'), the saviour and redeemer who would bring salvation to the
Jewish people and mankind. "Christ" is the Greek translation of
"Messiah", meaning "Anointed one". The role of the Christ, the Messiah
in Christianity, originated from the concept of the messiah in Judaism.
Though the conceptions of the messiah in each religion are similar, for
the most part they are distinct from one another due to the split of
early Christianity and Judaism in the 1st century. Christians believe
Jesus to be the Jewish messiah (Christ) of the Hebrew Bible and the
Christian Old Testament. The word Masih (the Arabic word for "Messiah")
literally means "The anointed one" and in Islam, Isa Ibn Mariam,
al-Masih (the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary) is believed to have been
anointed from birth by Allah with the specific task of being a prophet
and a king. In Islam, Mahdi is believed to hold the task of establishing
the truth and fighting against oppression and injustice as well as
killing the false messiah al-Dajjal (similar to the Antichrist in
Christianity), who will emerge shortly before him in human form in the
end of the times, claiming that he is the messiah. After he has
destroyed al-Dajjal his final task will be to become a just king and to
re-establish justice, peace and monotheism in the world . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianism
In
Abrahamic religions, Messianism[Notes 1] is the belief and doctrine
that is centered on the advent of the messiah, who acts as the chosen
savior and leader of humanity by God. Messianism originated from the
Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), in which a messiah is a Jewish
monarch or High Pri...
en.wikipedia.org
Sunny Narang Throughout
nineteenth century Europe we find numerous connections between
Gnostics, mystics, occultists and radical socialists. They constituted
what the historian James Webb calls “a progressive underground” united
by a common opposition to the established
order of their day. Constantly, Webb writes, “we find socialists and
occultists running in harness.”2 Sundry spiritual communities emerged
across the United States, with clear Gnostic and occult doctrines, which
attempted to follow a pure communistic life style. Victoria Woodhull,
the president of the American Association of Spiritualists during the
1870s, was a radical socialist. Woodhull believed that Spiritualism
signified not only religious enlightenment, but also a cultural,
political and social revolution. She published the first English
translation of the Communist Manifesto and tried in vain to persuade
Karl Marx that the goals of Spiritualism and Communism were the same.
Dissident Christian mystics, spiritualists, occultists and radical socialists often found themselves together at the forefront of political movements for social justice, worker’s rights, free love and the emancipation of women. Nineteenth century occultists and socialists even used the same language in calling for a new age of universal brotherhood, justice and peace. They all shared a charismatic vision of what the future could be – a radical alternative to the oppressive old political, social, economic and religious power structures. And more often than not they found themselves facing the same common enemy in the unholy alliance of State and Church. The birth of radical socialist ideas in Russia cannot be easily separated from the spiritual communism practiced by diverse Russian sects. For centuries folk myths nourished a widespread belief in the possibility of an earthly communist paradise united by fraternal love, where justice, truth and equality prevailed. One prominent Russian legend told of the lost land of Belovode (the Kingdom of the White Waters), said to be “across the water” and inhabited by Russian Old Believer mystics. In Belovode, spiritual life reigned supreme, and all went barefoot sharing the fruits of the land and their labour. There were no oppressive rules, crime, and war. Another Russian legend concerned Kitezh, the radiant city beneath the lake. Kitezh will only rise from the waters and appear again when Russia returns to the true Christ and is once more worthy to see it and its priceless treasures. Early in the twentieth century such myths captured the popular imagination and were associated with the hopes of revolution.
In the latter half of the seventeenth century, a schism occurred within the Russian Orthodox Church of a new religious movement called the Old Believers. The result was that many Russian spiritual dissidents took courage from the split to found their own communities, giving vent to Gnostic ideas that had long been simmering underground. The Old Believers, in the face of severe repression, clung tenaciously to their ancient mystic tradition and expressed their separation from the official world of Imperial Orthodox Russia in collective migration to the fringes of the state, mass suicide by fire, rebellion, and a monastic communism.
Dissident Christian mystics, spiritualists, occultists and radical socialists often found themselves together at the forefront of political movements for social justice, worker’s rights, free love and the emancipation of women. Nineteenth century occultists and socialists even used the same language in calling for a new age of universal brotherhood, justice and peace. They all shared a charismatic vision of what the future could be – a radical alternative to the oppressive old political, social, economic and religious power structures. And more often than not they found themselves facing the same common enemy in the unholy alliance of State and Church. The birth of radical socialist ideas in Russia cannot be easily separated from the spiritual communism practiced by diverse Russian sects. For centuries folk myths nourished a widespread belief in the possibility of an earthly communist paradise united by fraternal love, where justice, truth and equality prevailed. One prominent Russian legend told of the lost land of Belovode (the Kingdom of the White Waters), said to be “across the water” and inhabited by Russian Old Believer mystics. In Belovode, spiritual life reigned supreme, and all went barefoot sharing the fruits of the land and their labour. There were no oppressive rules, crime, and war. Another Russian legend concerned Kitezh, the radiant city beneath the lake. Kitezh will only rise from the waters and appear again when Russia returns to the true Christ and is once more worthy to see it and its priceless treasures. Early in the twentieth century such myths captured the popular imagination and were associated with the hopes of revolution.
In the latter half of the seventeenth century, a schism occurred within the Russian Orthodox Church of a new religious movement called the Old Believers. The result was that many Russian spiritual dissidents took courage from the split to found their own communities, giving vent to Gnostic ideas that had long been simmering underground. The Old Believers, in the face of severe repression, clung tenaciously to their ancient mystic tradition and expressed their separation from the official world of Imperial Orthodox Russia in collective migration to the fringes of the state, mass suicide by fire, rebellion, and a monastic communism.
Sunny Narang Aparna
Indian leftists as well as so-called intellectuals have rarely
attempted to understand Europe on its own terms , and see how faith,
ideology , culture is entwined and no human agency can separate them.
Hundreds of years of protestantism or modern
left theory have managed not to diminish the power of the Catholic
Church at all , the Pope as powerful as centuries ago . I have no
respect for a single Indian academic or intellectual , including the
Indic ones, as they have just tried to see , at best , their own society
and protect their vision, no one has seen the Semitic ones , the
Islamic ones , the Sinic and Japanese and analyse them ruthlessly from
one's own Sanatan vantage point . It's time that began once again.
Sunny Narang Gandhi,
Tagore and Aurobindo, all spiritual mystics attempted a start , but
after 1947 the clones of the white colonialists and so-called
revolutionaries threw all that search into the dustbin.
Mark Johnston The
Abrahamic religions (or at least colonial interpretations of them) gave
us the disastrous doctrine of manifest destiny which has been
repeatedly used to justify taking other people's land and destroying
their indigenous cultures. They have also given
us many good people. The same religions that were used to justify
slavery produced some of the people who fought hardest against it. The
same books and beliefs created both the Inquisition and the Diggers.
Those who stand against war usually quote scripture as do the hawks who
stir up patriotism to justify the industrialised slaughter of our fellow
human beings. In Europe we often have a difficult relationship with
these middle eastern religions that mostly replaced and sometimes
co-opted our native pagan beliefs and knowledge.
Ashok Vardhan Why create a problem and then volunteer as a "messiah" for it too. Just to feel good about oneself? It's disingenuous.
Mark Johnston I would not know Ashok, my family have been atheists for at least five generations.
Aparna Krishnan oh
my, how ? in india every local person is religious. only some educated
people have chosen atheism, and that will never be a whole family. or
very very rarely.
Mark Johnston Perhaps
because our dominant religions here are a very poor fit for our
environment or maybe our brains are just wired a bit differently from
those of people with faith. Perhaps a deity with a sense of humour
created us that way...
Aparna Krishnan Yes,
I think it goes back to roots. an ancient religion develops many forms,
and local adaptations, many of which could even be diametrically
opposite. While holding onto a common core of values. Such a society
finds it easy to stay religious, in simple rooted ways. In my
experiance, an atheist villager does not exist in india.
Mark Johnston I
wonder how someone without faith born and brought up amidst the
embedded religion of an Indian village would fare. Would they quietly
and invisibly follow the rituals and habits for an easy life,
pointlessly rebel against their families and neighbours
or quietly leave to follow their own path? I don't have religious faith
but I am happy for others to, particularly when it is primarily based
on their intimate relationship to the land rather than on a zeal to
convert others.
Aparna Krishnan india
allows for all spaces. there has been a fringe atheist thinking also in
tradition. the simple religiousness in village is largely ethics an
simple colourful riruals and festivals. if a child were to grow up
there, she would absorb it - its too deep
rooted, and too much fun to disown. also socialization, festivities are
all intertwined. if someone decides to stand apart from temples and
religion also, there would be no problem. there is a simple
acceptability that is also part of the religious culture. nowadays there
is a noisy crowd, but that is more a reaction to many things, included
an artificial irreligiousness promoted by the educated crowd. but that
will pass. or get assimilated !
Raghurama Rao Suswaram Mark
Johnston! My grandfather lived most of his life in a small village in
Chittoor District in Andhra. That village did not have big shops,
theatre, or even a high school. Only upto 7 grades existed in a small
primary school. He was not a full-fledged
atheist but he never took any religious teachings to his heart. He was
a non-conformist in most of the aspects of life but never made a
display of it deliberately. He established some interesting equilibrium
in which his non-conformism was respected by others, due to his
fantastic knowledge of Sanskrit, his simple way of life without the
usual desires and his help to the people through his knowledge of
astrology. I guess non-conformism and atheism can be balanced by
respect one earns from the people around, even if the surrounding people
are highly religious and traditional.
Mark Johnston I
repaired the stained glass windows of a nearby church when they were
vandalised and maintained the plumbing, electrics, roof and stonework.
However when the minister offered me an official role in the church I
felt I had to, politely, turn her down. I think it amused her that a
local atheist would engage her in discussions of scripture but her
congregation would not.
Aparna Krishnan Like Vidyasankar Sundaresan
pointed out to me first, the terms of theism and atheism are actually
out of context in a religion like Hinduism. Our philosophy and
spirituality is structured differently and allows for godhood to be
perceived in many differant ways. Borrowed terms limit, and also
misdirect.
Vidyasankar Sundaresan I
think both the irreligiousness and a heightened religiosity seen in
India today are artificial in origin. And both have more to do with
politics than with any religious ritual or belief or philosophy.
Aparna Krishnan Mark Johnston,
that we have had our own religion passed down through times good and
bad, has been one of our greatest strengths. Roots matter.
Mark Johnston Roots
matter, native roots are adapted to the land and climate and we tend to
have adapted to them. Sometimes introduced roots grow destructively
like congress grass, cancer or cities.
For ambedkar caste was the one and only overriding concern and he believed the decentralised village system is the root cause for its origin and its sustained existence..and he thought breaking down of village structures are sine quo non for an egalitarian society..though the gandhian rural regeneration philosophy was the inspiration for the overall freedom movement with the construction programs, post gandhi, gandhians had to struggle hard to put panchayats even under directive principles of the constitution.
To be frank constitution was really hijacked from gandhians.
Mohanakrishnan Gopalakrishnan Marx was handicapped by tints of his lens as well as lack of information- as betrayed by usages like kneeling in front of Hanuman.
Aparna Krishnan Arrant
arrogance and abject ignorance. The mainstay of his followers who in
equal ignorance can see in villages only 'patriarchy', 'caste' and
'feudalism'.
Prakash Thangavel They just cannot see beyond that. Their bible is das kapital and head priest is Marx
Aparna Krishnan And
so they will never get India, even if they sit in a village for a 100
years. Unlearning and then seeing afresh needs humility, and an
acceptance of ones fallibility. To give up their bible and their priest
is hardest for them, of all communities !
Rama Subramanian It's
amazing how many conclusions were drawn from soi little data and people
happily prescribing solutions. Sounds like international agencies today
Rama Subramanian Aparna Krishnan,
i won't be so harsh on the leftists. remember, most of our 'leftists'
except the high end, university educated ones were not "indoctrinated"
into marxism just like many in bjp were not indoctrinated into
hindutva...the ordinary rank and file of
any party in India has been to a large extent going about doing
whatever they felt was good in their context. the left's real tragedy
was the intellectual top didn't dare acknowledge that ideas were
perhaps not best fit for india. they were of a clique and so was every
political party.
Nehru was different, like Komakkambedu Himakiran says, Nehru was a patriot, but, he was made to believe that the way to go was the industrial route. remember, it was not after 47, but, in the late 30s that congress defeated the village industries initiative of Gandhi. they never really took his initiative seriously. Dharampalji was very keen to work on the intelligence department papers of that period where repeatedly the reports from different provinces are sent to the British (who were convinced that Gandhi's village industries movement was fundamentally against them) government that congress men will ensure is failure. the few men left standing with Gandhi's ideas on economy after 47 were either not too powerful or not able to work with Nehru at all. Nehru did come around to acknowledging Gandhi's ideas were correct a few months before his death and admit he was wrong, this was repeated by him thrice (we have evidence of two of these and have reproduced them and one we don't) during the last months...but, it was too late.
Dharampalji often used to quote Roosvelt's letter to Atlee at the time of negotiation for Independence for India, to ensure that "india remains in the western orbit"! the decision to influence India as a continued market and a source of resource for the west, was made several years before the actual Independence. It was almost as though Gandhi saw this coming when he quit the congress and launched the village industries movement.
like Hima says, we did have cities in this country, but, our cities didn't seem to be 'unsustainable' and founded on resources stolen from the fields, below the fields and the stolen labourers of the farmers. today many of our "successful" industries are unsustainable in terms of their destruction of eco-capital and long term social impacts.
Nor were our villages "romantic ideas" in the Gandhian scheme of things, indeed he starts his village swaraj with the pragmatic, "this ideal village lives in my dreams" line and talks about the current state in great detail. and he opened the gates for us to talk about the caste system as no one before did. he can be criticised today for not doing enough on caste issues, but, if one reads his mayavaram lecture of 1915 and several others, one can see how much anger and loath he had for the biggest practitioners of the system in India. like Badshah khan said many decades later when asked about Gandhi's role in partition, "woh kya karte, akele the!" (what could he have done, he was lonely by then). every time i think of the tall man whom Gandhi regarded with deep respect and these sad words, it is hard to digest and moving really. but, that is a different story.
Nehru's biggest failure was to have failed to see in his hurry to make India as a 'nation' and himself as a 'statesman', the value that the few Gandhians could bring to his economic ideas. it is a pity and we are still debating it.
your anger against the marxists and the nehruvians are well founded. but, one of our fundamental problem is that we have used such categories to club unequal people together. i would rather look at the indian political system as the minority that are ideologically oriented and the majority that is ignorant of the ideology of their political parties. the minority has produced the leaders and sustained power in its hands and the majority has suffered in silence often. several of our modern myths that, "educated knows more", "those in power know what policies are good for country", "they have access to so much knowledge, they must know better perhaps" are all created and sustained to ensure that the minority continues to dominate in some form. occasionally, someone from the majority escapes into the midst of the minority, then they can bring some serious shifting of things.
Nehru was different, like Komakkambedu Himakiran says, Nehru was a patriot, but, he was made to believe that the way to go was the industrial route. remember, it was not after 47, but, in the late 30s that congress defeated the village industries initiative of Gandhi. they never really took his initiative seriously. Dharampalji was very keen to work on the intelligence department papers of that period where repeatedly the reports from different provinces are sent to the British (who were convinced that Gandhi's village industries movement was fundamentally against them) government that congress men will ensure is failure. the few men left standing with Gandhi's ideas on economy after 47 were either not too powerful or not able to work with Nehru at all. Nehru did come around to acknowledging Gandhi's ideas were correct a few months before his death and admit he was wrong, this was repeated by him thrice (we have evidence of two of these and have reproduced them and one we don't) during the last months...but, it was too late.
Dharampalji often used to quote Roosvelt's letter to Atlee at the time of negotiation for Independence for India, to ensure that "india remains in the western orbit"! the decision to influence India as a continued market and a source of resource for the west, was made several years before the actual Independence. It was almost as though Gandhi saw this coming when he quit the congress and launched the village industries movement.
like Hima says, we did have cities in this country, but, our cities didn't seem to be 'unsustainable' and founded on resources stolen from the fields, below the fields and the stolen labourers of the farmers. today many of our "successful" industries are unsustainable in terms of their destruction of eco-capital and long term social impacts.
Nor were our villages "romantic ideas" in the Gandhian scheme of things, indeed he starts his village swaraj with the pragmatic, "this ideal village lives in my dreams" line and talks about the current state in great detail. and he opened the gates for us to talk about the caste system as no one before did. he can be criticised today for not doing enough on caste issues, but, if one reads his mayavaram lecture of 1915 and several others, one can see how much anger and loath he had for the biggest practitioners of the system in India. like Badshah khan said many decades later when asked about Gandhi's role in partition, "woh kya karte, akele the!" (what could he have done, he was lonely by then). every time i think of the tall man whom Gandhi regarded with deep respect and these sad words, it is hard to digest and moving really. but, that is a different story.
Nehru's biggest failure was to have failed to see in his hurry to make India as a 'nation' and himself as a 'statesman', the value that the few Gandhians could bring to his economic ideas. it is a pity and we are still debating it.
your anger against the marxists and the nehruvians are well founded. but, one of our fundamental problem is that we have used such categories to club unequal people together. i would rather look at the indian political system as the minority that are ideologically oriented and the majority that is ignorant of the ideology of their political parties. the minority has produced the leaders and sustained power in its hands and the majority has suffered in silence often. several of our modern myths that, "educated knows more", "those in power know what policies are good for country", "they have access to so much knowledge, they must know better perhaps" are all created and sustained to ensure that the minority continues to dominate in some form. occasionally, someone from the majority escapes into the midst of the minority, then they can bring some serious shifting of things.
Aparna Krishnan Can
you expand "Badshah khan said many decades later when asked about
Gandhi's role in partition, "woh kya karte, akele the!" (what could he
have done, he was lonely by then).".
Rama Subramanian i
think rajmohan gandhi in his book on badshah khan records this. this
was during his last visit to india before his death, he was asked about
gandhiji's role in partition and apparently he was silent for a while
and then responded with these lines. there
is a beautiful anecdote recorded by rajmohan gandhi earlier in that
book where he records the last meeting before badshah khan leaves to his
land in aug 47. i don't remember the full details, but, it is said that
the big khan is pressing gandhiji's feet silently and at one point he
steps out and gandhiji breaks down and says, "it breaks my heart to see
him go. but, if he catches me with tears he would break down too, and as
a proud pathan he wouldn't like to be seen breaking down in
public"...the levels of sensitivity and the depths of these men is
something we cannot fathom easily in our times.
Aparna Krishnan As
someone said Gandhi has to be felt, not 'understood'. Same about the
other stalwarts. Nowadays people want to dissect him, write a PhD
theses, get a degree and move onto greener pastures.
Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan Marx
and Gandi had different perspectives..as he refered in his Hind Swaraj,
he repudiated the mainstream notion of history as a bundle of stories
of kings and wars and searched social history of the country and
presented it as the uninterrupped, peaceful
and productive flow of human creative activities enabled by a
decentralised and mostly consensus based and village based socio
politico ecomic system that defied any externally thrust system and
ideology..thereby showing itself immutable with its self reliant and
self sufficient existance..marx correctly described it in his book and
accepted that all succeful external invaders were really vanquised by
the superior culture of the defeated!..india seemed to defy the class
war paradigm by its seemingly immutable character..communism, the
brainchild of marx born out of marrying hegels dialectics and fuberbachs
meterialism was superimposed on the social history to derive the theory
if class struggle and its subsequent dictatorship of proletariate..to
establish the universality of this theory for him india needed to be
broken and bourgeoise middle class should evolve..that the reason for
his welcoming the british interventions ..nehru and ambedkar shared the
same view point for different agendas..
Sundaramoorthy Olaganathan Nehru
thought for a country of this size and "underdevelopment" required
heavy industries and centralised planning as in the case of the nearby
russia..gandhis idea of self contained village republics is utopian and
obsolete..only educated ,modern and urbanising india should lead the
history..the superstitious and reactionary rural india has neither the
capability nor the interest for the task is the main refrain of
nehru..if s.k.dey is to be believed in his last days nehru was terribly
dejected with the state of the nation and wanted some quick measures to
really empower the villages and village institutions..but it was too
late.
For ambedkar caste was the one and only overriding concern and he believed the decentralised village system is the root cause for its origin and its sustained existence..and he thought breaking down of village structures are sine quo non for an egalitarian society..though the gandhian rural regeneration philosophy was the inspiration for the overall freedom movement with the construction programs, post gandhi, gandhians had to struggle hard to put panchayats even under directive principles of the constitution.
To be frank constitution was really hijacked from gandhians.
No comments:
Post a Comment