Monday 26 December 2016

Gandhi and Nehru and Marx and Ambedkar and villages.

Aparna Krishnan And when Marx and Nehru labelled villages as cesspools of superstition and ignorance, or something else like that, there is only so much that their frameworks can give this country. A country rooted in villages.

Mark Johnston The European and Russian villages Marx would have come across perhaps had little surviving in the way of traditional wisdom and practice. Patriarchal imported Christianity and an almost all poweful aristocracy ensured that old ways, ingrained by generations of survival with the land, had been almost completely discarded and forgotten. Foolishly, 'revolutionaries' from the urban elite were taken in by the myth, or was it the lie, of progress. They were looking to a future where technological 'improvements' ended the widespread starvation caused, not by stupidity of villagers but by the agricultural 'improvements' forced on them by their so called betters. Of course, this could not and did not work out for the better.
Not sure what Nehru's excuse was...
  
Comments
Narayana Sarma 1. Nehru was a product of the times. If he did not stand for all that he stood for, he would have been replaced by someone else who would stand for everything that well, he stood for. (If Aparna Krishnan was the then prime minister, she would have done exactly what Nehru did.)

Aparna Krishnan If Aparna Krishnan had spoken her mind, as she probably would have, she would have been quietly put away in the dustbin. The Mahatma was regelated to the background. FYI, you are I are presently in the dustbin !! 

Narayana Sarma 2. Villages then sure would have had some semblance of 'wisdom' but we have no means to say that they did not have the other two things mentioned- ignorance and superstition. It is important to see that knowledge in our villages coexisted with superstition all along. Our society was heavily stratified, we have our caste, untouchability, etc when the west had its slavery.

Aparna Krishnan what does not have good and bad ? The question is whether one believes in villages and works on reestablishing villages, or believes that they need to be wiped out and cities established.

Narayana Sarma 3. The proposition that the villages Marx saw had little by way of traditional
 knowledge sounds a bit too gross. What you said in that context seems to suggest that a) Christianity is some special and worst kind of patriarchal religion while others are not. b) there was some special aristocracy there which did not exist elsewhere in the world c) that prolonged exposure to the above two causes traditional wisdom to disappear, (in which case the contemporary indian villages, exposed to both of them for over hundred years would have no traditional knowledge left)- and none of these- I am sure- can be substantiated.

Narayana Sarma 4. I believe Marx's take off on Capital based society (btw that is what exists everywhere today) is not as much his observation/opinion, as it is his prophesy- the villages are fast becoming cesspools of superstition and ignorance (even if they were not then) and it follows that cities take them over. The capital as a force will draw the hitherto closed societies into world trade- and as a consequence the differences of class get more and more strongly defined, and as more and more people get marginalised, branded and discarded, retaliations arise in various forms, in various places, sometimes isolated and sometimes not so, sometimes victorious and sometimes losing out.
Aparna Krishnan

Aparna Krishnan And why would he decide that villages would become cesspools. And why did not Gandhi (or Naren or you ?)
Narayana Sarma Aparna Krishnan Marx deduced that from his theory of dielectics.

Narayana Sarma Gandhi did not work that way- he believed in the essential goodness of human beings, which when appealed to, could change the course of history, could alter even the laws of dielectics. Marx on the other hand went on to say that these forces of Capital destroy everything held hitherto sacred, will demolish every 'idea' for what the capitalist society offers- 'individual profit'.

Aparna Krishnan Well, and today the economics we see does butress Marx. But I see the essential goodness in villages and their framework that needs to be protected.  Cities are the cesspools ! Morally as well as literally.

Narayana Sarma Gandhi, (and Naren too) tried to appeal to the essential goodness of Man. I observe here that very few- countable- people like yourself have responded to the call. On the other hand several people like Nehru saw it fit to ignore Gandhi beyond a certain point. Gandhi got sidelined, and so was Naren. The larger wheel of Capital however marches on- it draws people away from villages into cities- whether the former/latter are cesspools or not. It offers them jobs which would emancipate them- give them new identities in place of the old, disgusting ones. Gandhi's, Narens, and Aparnas (well, narayanas too, if you insist :) ) will however go ahead and do whatever they like best.

Aparna Krishnan Now I repeat the earlier cross-question "One of the standard things critics of Gandhi say is that he allowed the capitalists to direct the course away from gram swaraj into a centralized industry because their support was needed. Would you consider the criticism valid ? Was anything else possible given the times and the exigencies ? And given that his first and last dream was gram swaraj ..."

Narayana Sarma Can't fault Gandhi there. Gram Swaraj was Gandhi's 'idea'. And Marx observes that history has proven time and again that ideas do not rule social laws. It is the economic 'substructure' that always ruled. Though sometimes it may give out some impression that ideas also mean something, the effect is almost without exception, very temporary in nature.

Aparna Krishnan So Kumarappa worked for the economic framework. When petroleum gets thus subsidized, all economics goes awry. Neither is a non renewable resource costed, or the permanent damage to the earth. What sort of economics is that Narayana ?

Narayana Sarma Capitalist economics is like that. Who says it is logical, rational or whatever that goes with ethics?

Aparna Krishnan You sound as if your head follows Marx, but your heart leads you along Gandhi's gram swaraj. Then how will you work out the economic basis for the this ?

Aparna Krishnan   And as to capitalism 'succeeding' on basis of a self-destroying logic - I am not very sure what that indicates. 

Narayana Sarma Aparna Krishnan One does not have to work out any economic basis. It simply does not exist :) 

Narayana Sarma Aparna Krishnan Gandhi considered himself a failure. I think he is right there and that does not reduce the importance of anything he did/intended to do. As to 'many successes', i believe they are very nearly redundant to the Grand march of Capital, that Karl Marx so vividly described.
Mark Johnston I'm sad to say that I do feel that the Abrahamic religions, when integrated with imperial rule and expansion are a special case. The damage that Christianity has done and is doing in every former colony illustrates that. The joke about "when the white man came we had the land and they had the bible, they asked us to close our eyes and pray and when we opened our eyes, they had the land and we had the bible" may be over simplistic but has too much truth in it to be funny. It was Christianity and the aristocracy combined with the British State that saw the militarily defeated Scots and Gaels banned from speaking their language, singing their songs, playing their music, wearing traditional clothes and finally cleared from the land to make way for sheep. The ministers from their pulpits backed the aristocrats in keeping rebellion down just as much as the soldiers sent in with guns.

Mark Johnston Nearly two thousand years of rule by priests and kings determined to destroy the native goddess worshipping culture that had endured from neolithic times in the British Isles is likely to have had a larger effect than a century or two of British colonialism and its destructive after effects in India. The witch burnings and hangings here were traditional women healers and midwifes being destroyed as much in the name of science as religion. Protestantism grew, in part, from patriarchal revulsion to the fact that aspects of goddess worship had found a place in the Catholic church under the guise of saints and the mother or Jesus.
Mark Johnston If the people are cleared off the land, lose their religion, language and culture and are replaced by outsiders who manage the new alien farming methods with the law, army, church, aristocracy and state collaborating against them than how much traditional wisdom can be expected to survive? The horrors practiced by the British Empire abroad were first practiced and 'perfected' at home. 
Aparna Krishnan Narayana Sarma, your choice of operation and way and life seems more impacted by Gandhi. But you seem to stand by the conviction that that way cannot work. There is some internal contradiction here.

Sanjay Maharishi Nehru's excuse was probably similar. Technology to improve the condition of the farmers.

Aparna Krishnan But he dismissed the richness of villages - and a richness that has been extant on this land.


Sanjay Maharishi ..and we know what the technology has brought.

Aparna Krishnan A rich land doomed by the 'educated'.


....

 

Nehru could see no good in villages. And that spelt the doom for India, as Gandhis dream to working on vibrant self sufficent villages was given a miss.
His successors, all Mccaulys children, the educated deracinated of this land took the reins. They could only see villages through jaundiced glasses, and were caught up in their international readings including Marx. To them villages and the infinite variety is encapsulated in three words, 'casteist', 'patriarchal' and 'feudal'. They completed the task that Nehru initiated.
Why shed crocodile tears over malnourished villagers, and those commiting suicide now ?
This is the statement of the man who never set foot on this land. And those who live by this thesis re also spelling the death knell for villages.
Marx - 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."

Comments

  • Karthikeya Sivasenapathy
    Aparna i differ in this but respect you and cherish your friendship .. lets talk about this when we meet some time ... keep up your good work .. will be ordering some bags hopefully soon ...
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3y
    • Komakkambedu Himakiran
      This Nehru Vs Gandhi debate needs to be seen in the context of the times. They weren’t polar opposites rather they had different takes on how India should be governed. It’s unfortunate the debate that they planned never happened.
      It’s never city vs villages. We’ve always had cities thriving within a vibrant village system. The concept of Nagarams-Pakkams is a good example of the same.
      Nehru did what he had to do in terms of prioritizing industrialization, but he didn’t essentially force urbanization. If you look at his centers of industrialization most of them were not in existing cities. He didn’t have the wherewithal to simultaneously focus on villages.
      The problems started post liberalization as our policies were hijacked by Western educated economists and thinktanks.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Komakkambedu Himakiran
      In 1947, we had to look at industries as that was the need of the hour; we didn’t have resources to focus on villages too.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Nehru says, "A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow-minded people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent.... ".
      This is a perspective issue 
      Karthikeya
      , Hima.
      From this emerges possibilities and directions.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Karthikeya Sivasenapathy
      Komakkambedu Himakiran
       one biggest reasons against villages is untouchability and casteism ..
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Komakkambedu Himakiran
      Aparna Krishnan
       agreed. The truth lies somewhere in between. One advantage cities have over villages is anonymity and opportunities. Villages are suffocating if the upper caste decide so.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Komakkambedu Himakiran
      Karthikeya Sivasenapathy
       yes...we have to keep breaking it one brick at a time
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
  • 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.
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3y
  • 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).".
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3y
    • 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.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      I have to read this book.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • 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.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      kya karen. Our loss.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3y
  • 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..
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 2y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Could you elaborate ? " ..nehru and ambedkar shared the same view point for different agendas.."
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2y
    • 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 fro gandhians or look like gandians..
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Yes. On another note, why is it that today attacking gandhi is in style ? why is it that all the great learnings from him are being lost as the so called intelligentia sets out to deny him. Denying the country many many possibilities as they are stay absorbed in their own trip of name or fame or intellectual exercises.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2y
    • Rama Subramanian
      Again 
      Aparna Krishnan
      , most people who fashionably critic Gandhi are ignorant of his body of work.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2y
    • Aparna Krishnan
      Yes, but the possibilities for the world that they destroy ! Utter self absorbtion, and irresponsibility.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2y
  • Ramakant Dani
    A complicated expression, better the article would have been in Hindi, more people could have participated to express their views...


 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)