What does Arundhati Roy want? Mahatma Gandhi's memory to be wiped off the face of the earth? All she has to do is stop thinking about him all the time.. She seems to be obsessing about the man..
"He was an NGO sponsored by corporates." So what did Gandhi do with the money? Do foreign trips, buy suits, cars?
For every quote Roy cites to condemn Gandhi, I can site 20 pointing to the contrary...
Should Gandhi have refused Birla or Bajaj when they gave land or money to run the ashram? Should Ambedkar have refused sponsorship of his Columbia education by the King of Baroda?
All Roy has to do is to fight the land acquisition bill by leading walk of a group of men and women through interior villages where the richest and the poorest walk shoulder to shoulder... then I will listen to her... Aparna Krishnan
https://www.facebook.com/vrdevika/posts/10152980459699039
Venkataraghavan Srinivasan This phenomena(Gandhi bashing/icon bashing ) has been studied quite in detail by shrinks and social scientists. The First reason is that a significant part of our generation seems to trust random Facebook articles more than well written history books. Secondly as a society I think majority of us have completely rejected the idea that selfless altruistic people can exist. We reject the idea of a man standing up for his principle in the toughest of situations. In our hearts we say " he must have gained by doing this somehow...probably we are hearing only one side of the story..how can people like Teresa and Gandhi exist in reality...something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong" because we don't seem to see any such souls in our day to day lives and interactions with people around. Thirdly(and for this I draw from MKG's my experiment with truth), we are guilty, because we were/are weak ourselves when we ourselves encounter/(ed) similar dichotomies between instant gratification and long term principles.Then again, we are not the intended audience for this latest round of western intellectual exhibitionism of Miss.Poseur. India, her history, people and politics, are instead convenient props in an outstanding performance aimed at Western readers and their sensiblities, who have indeed romanticized the Mahatma. In the Western imagination, Gandhi occupies a hallowed hagiographic space in the pop culture pantheon of saints, right alongside Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, and most recently, Aung San Suu Kyi. And much of this vitriol is aimed at knocking him off that particular pedestal while earning personal brownie points for doing so.We, Indians, are irrelevant in this discourse, and are entirely besides the point. This is about their 'revered' Mahatma, not our more familiar Bapu.
Manage
GL Sampoorna You cannot discuss with ignorance. You cannot argue with arrogance. You cannot convince greed. Leave them to be!
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika Sun Son, Gandhi was criticized even during his lifetime and afterwards too. There were major exchanges between several people and him including Tagore and Nehru. But not one of them spoke of him or to him disrespectfully.. This is what I object to not the criticism.. do criticize Gandhi .. He opened it out himself..
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika Sun Son you obviously know nothing about Gandhi's actions for saving Bhagat Singh's life while not condoning his action and his total objection to partition and his saving lives in Naokhali during that time.. He risked his life walking into killing fields, getting opposing groups to talk to each other.. Criticize him for the things he should be criticized not for being the most active person during partition and saving lives..
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Indepth scholarship and reading has died. And so most discussions are pointless beyond exchageing one line views. In this media at least.
Manage
Jvv Murthy When do we stop discussing,talking,wasting scarce public funds on seminars,establishing chairs in universities, researches and dissertations of Gandhian studies,erecting statues in unwanted spaces,places and countries,praising and abusing the personality called M K Gandhi?.He never needed us and our all out efforts to glorify him.Ironically it is we who need him for our livelihood evident everywhere!!!Nauseating!!!He must be turning in his grave all the time!!!When do we live him?In everday life and actions?Especially the common people and children of India!!Do the parents and children follow any discipline at their homes?Like getting up early,sweeping and cleaning the house and surroundings,sharing house hold chores before leaving for school and work,wear simple clothes,help others,be righteous,avoid telling lies as far as possible,not stealing other's belongings,washing your own cloths and utensils,develop attitude of self-help,....the long list of mundane aspects of daily life which are fundamentally the Gandhian ways which indeed he himself derived from our age old practices are absolutely the basics that have to be practised to shape the future of India!!All the empty talks,writings,arguments and the rest of itare just bullcrap!!!
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika Along with Godse, The Hindu Maha Sabha can also erect statues of Arundhati Roy.....
Manage
Rama Subramanian I find the journey of A Roy in her fight with Gandhi quite fascinating. I continue to believe someone so intelligent may eventually understand him much better too. I have come to the understanding that perhaps we are disadvantaged to comment on persona in the past as we are never aware of the complete set of circumstances and understanding of experience they went through. Someone once said that atleast 200 books every year get written or published on gandhi in various languages. You can't sell them off they are repetitive. A Roy now largely caters to an international audience, particularly since her dramatic new York lecture several years back. Her writing lacks the rigour while the words are still rather sharp and beautiful read. As an Indian when i see her as another Indian, i feel happy but as someone working in the Indian social space I often can't relate to the hyperbole sometimes. She is free thinker of our times we definitely need to celebrate, doesn't mean we have to agree or accept. I often admire nicely designed packages of things I don't need or can't use stacked beautifully in supermarket shelf, but I am not their market.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Ram, she misrepresents gandhi. and that is irresponsible. Like devika says, many of her points can be countered specifically. i think such a debate is in order, if a common search for truth and direction for the country is the desire. Gandhi's one great strength imho is his deep understanding of the pulse of the people. Rajmohan gandhi's response is detailed. And let Gandhi be critiqed, questioned openly - no one is trying to make him a God.As humars we all ere, again and As Venkataraghavan Srinivasan says above "Gandhi occupies a hallowed hagiographic space in the pop culture pantheon of saints, right alongside Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr, and most recently, Aung San Suu Kyi. And much of this vitriol is aimed at knocking him off that particular pedestal while earning personal brownie points for doing so.We, Indians, are irrelevant in this discourse, and are entirely besides the point. This is about their 'revered' Mahatma, not our more familiar Bapu."
Manage
Rahul Banerjee She has done some in depth research of the collected works of gandhi to buttress her arguments though her choice of epithets is disrespectful. The biggest problem with Gandhi is that he compromised heavily in later life on the anarchist principles he set out in "Hind Swaraj" in the same way as Lenin compromised on the principles that he set out in "State and Revolution" both succumbing to the powerful destructive logic of centralised power. In fact centralised capitalism has laid all of us low!! Therefore instead of hagiographical obeisance to these icons it is better to critically evaluate them to get an understanding of the powerful structural factors that inhibit social change for justice.
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika Actually Gandhi can easily be quoted against him as he was so prolific and accepted that he was willing to change his opinion with more information and may even go back to earlier belief after examining something in depth.. She is actually cherie picking Rahul Bannerjee .. choosing what suits her..
Manage
Rahul Banerjee Maybe but what she has picked is quite damming and there is no way one can excuse gandhi for writing like that.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan The context and history of statements are most important for any real picture. That is if a genuine collective search is the idea. If its taking potshots, or if peoples minds are made up with indepth or superficial readings, then its rather pointless anyway.And Rahul Banerjee, Gandhi has clearly said that anything he says he may always revise and alter completely based on future evidences and understandings. So here a holistic picture becomes even more important.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan And regarding the deviations from Hind Swaraj - much he succumed, how much he was pushed out, and how much was inevitable given the sheer power of the capitalist lobby needs to be seen. But that would only be a case for putting Gandhi on the dock - waste of time as none of his are trying to canonise him. The issue is the ideas he put out for us, in theory and practice. those ideas questioning moderninty and industrilisation are central today where the debate between communism and capitalism has become irrelevent in a ravaged earth. Where the anarchist principle of Gram Swaraj seem the only answer for an alienated and self-destructive civilisation. Roy can apply her energies far more productively on these, than taking pot shots in Gandhi. We also maybe ....
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika Actually the Roys and the Hindu Mahasabhas also keep Gandhi's name alive.. I think the same discussions will be on in 2090 also if human kind is still continuing
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika There will be some 10,000 more books will be written for and against Gandhi ....
Manage
Rohit Bansal A Roy's attack on Gandhi is part of a larger game - appropriate his legacy and morph it into a simple (which can easily be condemned) Hindu legacy. If you track some of her contemporaries in her inner circle, you will get enough indications of this 
:-) Once stripped of all of his greatness, as a mere Hindu, he can easily be erased from people's memory, and thus stripping the nation of its only moral compass, in recent times. All part of the game of damaging India.
Manage:-) Once stripped of all of his greatness, as a mere Hindu, he can easily be erased from people's memory, and thus stripping the nation of its only moral compass, in recent times. All part of the game of damaging India.
Rohit Bansal As far as Gandhi and his statements and weaknesses, all humans do have, the difference is - did he accept it? did he try to learn and improve? did he open up for criticism? Answer to all these (differentiating) questions is (overwhelmingly) YES. Any leader, worth discussing, would have had to make tough choices in life, and Gandhi was no exception, he did make his. In the hindsight, they may turned out to be wrong, but question is - did he choose for personal gain? did he live up to his principles and values? Rahul Banerjee he made the compromise because in the past, the same principle had led the nation to subservience and slavery, whereas the large (and centralized) kingdoms had brought lot of stability and prosperity to the nation. Different times, different people, and hence it is unpredictable what will work and what won't :-) Unfortunately, we are too caught up with the end-result and not the journey, despite being aware that it is only the journey which we can determine.
Manage:-) Unfortunately, we are too caught up with the end-result and not the journey, despite being aware that it is only the journey which we can determine.
Rahul Banerjee Anarchism has always lost out in practice to centralised systems because the latter are always more powerful but that doesn't justify jettisoning the former. The nation became subservient not because of anarchism but because of self serving traitors and these still rule at present and we are independent only in name!! Gandhi's journey is no doubt inspiring but that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to his many warts. Everyone is free to have his opinion and as an anarchist I look askance at Gandhi's serious compromises and hobnobbing with capitalist crooks!!
Manage
Vepathangudi Ramachandrarao Devika compromises and hobnobbing with capitalist crooks! Rahul Banerjee Yes there were some rich people around him but read Mahadev Desai's diaries to understand what you mean that was really hitting below the belt..
Manage
Rahul Banerjee I have archival data regarding the great extent of this hobnobbing with capitalists which I have quoted in my book. Anyway as I said people have their opinions and it is best not to get into debates.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Rohit Bansal, i see this subtle denigration of India, India's villages, the religion and the ethos of the village (and of the rest) as the deepest damage currently underway. (To commodify a classical music and a classical dance and a Vedanta as consumer items is irrelevent to the soul of India). The depiction of India's villagers as 'oppressed and depressed' sans their wisdom, goodness and million and one gods and divine trees and divine anthills, is to emasculate them while giving them roti and kapda (wich anyway we stole from them in the first place). Yes, the attacks on Gandhi seems part of this process - conscious or subconcsious I do not know.
Manage
Rohit Bansal Aparna Krishnan don't be mistaken, it is very conscious, deliberate and master-minded effort, a very carefully planned and well executed game.
Manage
Rohit Bansal Aparna Krishnan I have already shared with you as part of our previous conversation :) the roots are there.
Manage:) the roots are there.
Aparna Krishnan That I understood. I will collate those messages and share - have been meaning to. But Gandhi also ?
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Rahul Banerjee, does dissecting Gandhi matter so much - that the concepts he placed before us get left behind in this personality analysis. I think most who bow to him are intelligent enough and honest enough to see the contradictions and compromises and are not trying to get him canonised. A deep introspection is one of the basics of his philosophy, more than many other social philosophies. And maybe there were compromises - and though we need to note it, why do we make such a noise about it, when the reality everywhere is usually that 'balance' or 'compromise'. My life is compromised, organisations speaking of swadeshi are compromised with foreign money, a compromised reality seems to entail some compromised choices (and there is always our own personal limitations also). Finally it is the philosophy he presented - moral, ethical, social, political, which is what we need to work on and with - there is none other imho.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan And especially when it comes to India - what i have seen as the soul of my villages, as the source of the strength of its monetarily impoverished people, is what i hear echoing in his writings - as nowhere else. So for this country to recover its soul (apart from GDP and roti, kapda, makam) we cnnot bypass Gandhi imo.
Manage
Rahul Banerjee I just mentioned the structural factors that have bulldozed all individuals regardless of their ideologies not just Gandhi.
Aparna Krishnan The principles are more important that the people behind them - though unless the person has personal integrity the writings stay hollow. The integrity here I suppose is uncontested. Beyond that 'warts' are not denied, but are slightly beside the point. The point is to find the philosophy that answers the needs od this beleaguered country - body and soul.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Yes, so we need to work on other systems, which have other things built in, more than greed. Even today this is so in the villages, my own village, maybe more so in your adivasi belt, where one see less materialism and greater compassion. One needs to work towards these small communities - strengthening and rebuilding. Yes, the steps will be small, and the overall progress will seem to be negative, but do we have a choice ?
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Ananthu's commentry on Hind Swaraj, "Swaraj at the social or national level means a societal set-up designed to encourage its citizens to practice self-control. It is not an easy thing for individuals to opt for self-control; all our ‘natural instincts’ tend to drive us in the opposite direction. The social set-up can either further inflame these instincts, or provide an atmosphere where they can be overcome more easily. To the extent that it goes in the latter direction, there is Swaraj at the social or national level. This is the clue to why Gandhi termed his book ‘a severe indictment of modern civilization’ (p.16). In modern civilization, as Gandhi points out (see pp. 36-37), men are enslaved by temptations and luxuries and dissuaded from morality and religion. In other words, a society based on such a civilization that encourages self-indulgence, not self-control, needs to be condemned. Incidentally, Gandhi pointed out that India had lost its Swaraj not because the British had taken over the land by force but because Indians got tempted at the sight of British goods (see p.38). And, he maintained, as long as this temptation lasts, India can never attain real Swaraj. The attainment of a mental state where this temptation is absent or at least low is the goal or definition of Hind Swaraj."
Manage
Raghu Ananthanarayanan What I find amazing about Gandhiji is his honest self exposure. And what I find disgusting is the lack of introspection among the so called activists. In my work I often come across activist who need deep counseling. It is amazing to see how deeply their own sense of victimhood or vengefulness or informs their attitudes, and how blind they are to it. In any case it is not for me to judge the man, it is for me to do the "hamsa ksheera nyaayam" and see how my life can be enhanced.
Manage
Rohit Bansal Aparna Krishnan in modern times, Gandhi is the only icon people of this country can take inspiration from (if they want). By destroying that icon, country loses that beacon. Also, as he will be destructed as chaste Hindu, it serves another purpose of shaming Hinduism. So, two targets with one throw :-)
Manage:-)
Rohit Bansal Rahul Banerjee what you say about institutionalization is true, however, institutionalization, as a concept, breeds this greed, because of its pyramidal approach to its goal. The beauty of anarchism, or village republics, is that it creates institutions at such a small level that large-scale centralization can be avoided, which keeps the pyramid small enough to have any major detrimental effect.
Manage
Aparna Krishnan I tend to agree - the integrated moral, social, political questioning and thinking that Gandhi gives for an individual and for a society is so important. And as it is anchored in our ethos, as no other philosophy of social change is, it becomes so irre...See more
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Raghu Ananthanarayanan, I agree that that deep introspection, basic to Gandhian thinking, is critical - especially when one is engageing with society. Anyway the activist word itself I have ceased to relate to - preferring to be a mother, friend and neighbour in the village. As an activist, one needs to 'offer solutions'. As years went by I saw the deep richness of the village wisdom as realised that we needed to simply allow it to be, and if we could learn from it and establish it elsewhere much would get restored. I and my community were ravageing the earth and destroying justice - and we need to learn first from these places, before we can 'give gyan'. (That is very generally speaking - in specifics I understand the need to act in the here and now. 24*7 !)
Manage
Aparna Krishnan Yes, where the modern activists see victimhood and 'oppression' and 'depression', Gandhi saw vast wisdom and strengths. And he drew on their strengths to fasion their struggle. I remember a place where he demanded of the mill workers 1/2 hour of daily spinning for the nation's cause. he said he accepted the travails there were in, but accepting that, they were spending their whole day for themselves, and this they could and should do for the larger need. Thus was each person, the smallest and the poorest even, empowered.
Manage
Subha Bharadwaj One comment by a person who probably wants more limelight by throwing Gandhi's name,.... look at the wealth of discussion and debate which invokes His principles and brings to light the contradictions and thought process of modern India. I for one am gaining a lot of information from these posts. Thank you
Manage
Mark Johnston Most thinking anarchists would surely recognise Gandhi's attempts to build Gram Swaraj as the best example in the 20th century of a workable movement for change that would break our wholesale dependance on and subservience to centralised governments, corporations and the military. What could be more anarchist than a network of autonomous and self reliant villages? The irony of putting Gandhi's image on the money of a nuclear be-weaponed state that puts the interests of multinational corporate industries before those of its own farmers is almost unbearable. That said at least India had Gandhi and some still try to live by his example, I cannot make the same claim for Scotland.
No comments:
Post a Comment