Favor: Can you post your objections to Gandhi today? I forgot to copy them down off the board.
Favor 2: Any suggestions for the Doing project?
Homework: Course Reader 151-65 (Savarkar). Answer your study question as assigned below. (I just went alphabetically.)
1. Christine, 2. Joanna, 3. Aubrey, 4. Sarah B, 5. Marko, 6. Marcee, 8. Sarah D, 9. Annie, 10. Kiyomi, 11. Priya, d1. Steve & Elim, d2. Mark & Monique, d3. Ivan & Roselaine, d4. Ankita & Yen, d6. Lorena & Rosa, d7. Stephanie & Alexa
Kickoff: Lorena & Alexa (anything related to Savarkar from lecture or reader)
Research Prospectus: due Friday night, May 8. I'll explain more about that in class, but this page will be super, super helpful. Here's a sample prospectus the HumCore writing director put on the website... but it's probably a bit too long.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roselaine and Mark
ReplyDeleteWhat's the purpose of pitying someone (besides the fact that it's not brute force)? pg. 84&109 [pitying the robber instead of getting angry, and pitying mill owners instead of condemning their reliance and use of machinery]
Ankita and Aubrey
ReplyDeleteWhy be against prolonging someone's life through medicine if its is indeed possible? pg. 63-64
If God gave us a brain and we used it to develop modern medicine, why not reap the benefits of our intelligence?
d2. Why does Savarkar write history? What would Gandhi say about Savarkar’s interpretation of history?
ReplyDeleteSavarkar writes history because he was fascinated by the revolutionary wars. He wanted to make sure that he created a historical consciousness for the people of India. Savakar was greatly influenced by the French and American Revolutions and hoped that by interpreting these revolutions, it would inspire future revolutions.
Gandhi would not have liked Savakars interpretations because he would say that historical consciousness is what ruins everything. The records of history should be of the peace, not of wars.
d3. What does Savarkar mean by the following:
ReplyDelete"The nation that has no consciousness of its past has no future. Equally true is that a nation must develop its capacity not only of claiming a past but also of knowing how to use it for the furtherance of its future. The nation out to be the master and not the slave of its own history." (151)
Savarkar draws attention to the fact that simply knowing history is not enough to spur a revolution or change in that nation. History is an instrument for revolution, not just dormant knowledge. Savarkar sees history as "an outline of a programme of organization" to be USED, hopefully motivating revolutionaries and furthering/changing the future as he sees fit. When Savarkar talks about "mastering" history, he may be referring to the manipulation of it in order for the nation to progress. This doesn't mean falsifying history, but probably just "viewing it through such a revolutionary perspective" in order to initiate the right audience into action.
5. (153) According to G.M. Joshi and Bal Savarkar, the authors of “The Story of this History,” why does Savarkar write the book?
ReplyDeleteSavarkar wrote this book to inspire the people of India to wage a successful revolt to liberate their motherland.
1. Which historical event (or events) is Savarkar writing about in his book? Why does it matter to Savarkar that the events of 1857 be classified as a war of independence?
ReplyDeleteSavakar is writing about the Indian Rebellion of 1857, or also known as India's First War of Independence. It is important for Savarkar to classify the events of 1857 as a war of Independence because it was the first mass revolt of military and civilian Indians trying to stand against British control, which ended with a mutiny of Indian people by the hands of British troops.
For Joanna and Christine's objection to Ghandi was education found on page 100-103.
ReplyDeleted1. M.K. Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar provide contrasting interpretations about the idea of swaraj. Do you agree (or disagree) with this statement? Provide examples from the text to support your claim.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Gandhi and Savarkar has contrasting interpretation of swaraj. Although they both describe swaraj as a type of improvement, Ghandi refers to it as self or home improvement. According to him, Swaraj is when," we learn to rule ourselves," and it must, "be experienced by each one for himself,"(73). Savarkar, however, refers to swaraj as a political independence from Britain. He refers to, "the chains of political slavery," that, "had been put round them," (163) by the English government, and this is what motivates them as a nation to acquire "swaraj".
Annie and Kiyomi:
ReplyDeleteOur objection had to do with the blind faith that people have to have in order to use passive resistance effectively (as in the case of the robber where you simply give him your things and assume he will feel guilty and thus return the things). This is discussed on pages 83 & 84.
Study Question #9: "(161)What is Savarkar’s problem with English historians?"
ReplyDeleteHis problem is that in writing about the Indian Revolution, they distorted the account, making it seem as if the whole thing were about cartridges. This cannot be so, as so many different levels of people got involved. In Savarkar's view, the English historians tried to completely erase the underlying cause, which is the most important aspect of any war.
10. (161-62) What is Savarkar’s problem with Indian historians?
ReplyDeleteSavakar criticizes many historians on their skill in the classification of events. He believes that [in searching for these principles, historians often make mistakes in the the proposed cause] (160). Savakar believes that the historians must "try to discover and discuss fundamental causes" of the "history of any event in general, and tof revolutionary movements in particular" and to its source that started the movement (160). Savakar specifically criticizes Indian historians blindly copying and "describing the rumour as to the greased cartridgesas the moving cause of the Revolution"(161). They simply follow what the English have written and are also driven by English money and this leads to "a procession of blind men" (162).
D-3. What does Savarkar mean by the following:
ReplyDeleteThe nation that has no consciousness of its past has no future. Equally true is that a nation must develop its capacity not only of claiming a past but also of knowing how to use it for the furtherance of its future. The nation out to be the master and not the slave of its own history. (151)
Savarkar's message is that different times call for different means of handling a situation. The way one feels and acts at one point in time is not necessarily the same way he should act at a later time, either because it is not effective or because it's just not right. In other words, situations change. The example Savarkar gives later in the same paragraph is the Hindus' hating of the Mahomedans at a certain time in history. Savakar states that hating Mohamedans today just because those were the "dominant feelings" of the Hindus at an earlier time would be rediculous.
D7. Are Savarkar and Gandhi trying to reach the same public/counterpublic through their writings? Does it help the public/counterpublic to have contrasting interpretations of swaraj?
ReplyDeleteNo, the bizarre thing about Savarkar as opposed to Gandhi is that Savarkar is actually trying to reach the counterpublic. He is intentionally being controversial and raising issues that are less than orthodox to the British government. However, Gandhi is reaching for the public, avoiding placing too much blame on the British themselves and making his argument more about the individual. Although, both authors actually end up reaching the counterpublic rather than the public when Gandhi's book is banned before it is even published. The counterpublic then, is provided with two different definitions of swaraj and allows them to consider both extremes and the opportunity to take a more moderate middle path.
3. Who is the intended audience of Savarkar’s book?
ReplyDeleteHe is speaking about the people of India. He wishes to target those who are open minded enough to realize that there is no future for a nation if it does not learn from its past and utilize the knowledge gained from that experience properly.
D4
ReplyDeleteBoth Gandhi and Savarkar make a point that in order to respect anyone else you need to respect your self first! Succumbing to the unjust people or ideas or laws is, according to Sarvarkar, defying religion (Swadharma).Freedom of religion is very important to both their philosophies, because religion determines your ethics and is the guiding principle for all actions. If there is no Swadharma, one is not free to act. Like a slave, who has no self-rule(Swaraj), because his actions are guided not by his religion or his ethical choice, but by his owner. In short, in order to obtain the freedom of religion, it is necessary to fight for self rule.
D6.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with translation in “The Original Publisher’s Preface” is that, there are so many languages that have been carried from place to place that it begins to get difficult to follow what its original translation was. When words, phrases, and sentences are being translated there are often things lost in translation, it never comes out exactly how the original word, phrase, and sentence were intended.
and I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I copied down all of the things on the board from the last class...
ReplyDelete-Where did Gandhi lose you?
-medicinelongevity (63-64)
-how can “ancient civilization be given” new spirit”? (71)
-what exceptions are permissible to the use of “brute force”? (86)
-“modern” education…doesn’t Gandhi himself have/use it? (103)
-robber example…how to deal with others who use brute force? (82-84)
-who should we pity and why? (84-109)
-chastity, sex makes you a coward? (97)
-modern civilization is anti-religious? Unholy, untruthful, etc. (42)
-“women should be queens of households,” or they’re just like prostitutes (37)
2. (151) Why has Savarkar written this book?
ReplyDeleteSavarkar wants to display the true history of India. He wants to deliver a more accurate, and more detailed account of what truly happened in the war of 1857 because he believes that a nation "that has no consciousness of its past has no future".
8. (155) Why is it significant the book was proscribed even before it was published? (Define proscribed)
ReplyDeleteProscribed: taboo, excluded from use or mention
It is significant because nobody even really knows what is in the book. By proscribing the book before it came to print the British Government is telling people that this will be a very important text. It is the draw of the forbidden fruit. It must be good if it is not allowed.
6. In the following sentence, who are the moralists?
ReplyDelete“The very mention of [armed national revolt] was brushed aside as chimerical by the then extremists, was denounced as criminal by the loyal moderates and was even anathematized as immoral by the half-witted moralists!”
The moralists were the extremely conservative party who completely condemned the thought of the nation taking up arms and revolting. (accoring to wiki) This group still survives in India to this day.
11. (163) What were the “real” causes of the revolution?
ReplyDeleteSavarkar believes the real causes of a revolution are more “deeper and more inward” compared to the “accidental causes” proposed by historians. The real cause of the revolution in 1857 was a threat to Swadharma and Swaraj. People were insecure and felt an attack on their religious beliefs and principles. They believed their God-given rights were either being harmed or taken away by the English rule. In 1857, there seemed to be a universal spreading of “traditional and noble principles” which are defined by Swadharma and Swaraj. Indians were persuaded to join the revolution because leaders used the ideas of religion as a means of pathos to appeal to them in a way to unify people of different casts towards one common cause. The revolution of 1857 can be seen as a religious war; in a proclamation, the Emperor of Delhi recites “God does not wish that you should remain so; for he has inspired in the hearts of Hindus and Mahomedans the desire to turn the English out of our country.” The threat to religious values and principles seems to be the “real” cause of the revolution in 1857.
Why do individuals like Savarkar and Gandhi refer to slavery when talking about the colonial experience?
ReplyDeleteTo them, the colonial experience meant that they, the people of India, were "bound" by the political views of the British (163). The principles of Swadharma and Swaraj (their religion and country) are dear to the hearts of the Indian people and without one or the other, either one is achieved to its fullest. According to Savarkar, the Indian liberty was subdued by British "chains of political slavery" and their "subtle tricks" (163). With this oppression upon them, they cannot achieve Swadharma and Swaraj and feels it was the fault of the British.
d1. M.K. Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar provide contrasting interpretations about the idea of swaraj. Do you agree (or disagree) with this statement? Provide examples from the text to support your claim.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Gandhi interprets the idea of swaraj as a self-rule and relates it to "the need for patience." (29) Savarkar interprets his idea of swaraj with more emphasis on "love of one's religion" (163) and also ties it more with swadharma which is like a political duty.
Savarkar and Gandhi are both trying to reach a majority of the Indian people to convince them that their means of revolution is the most effective. However, Savarkar wants to find people that are more willing to use brute force to take action. His use of action would be against the British because he knows that the Indian people cannot prosper if they live in the same society. Gandhi on the other hand still upholds his belief that Indians and British can live alongside each other once the British become Indianized.
ReplyDelete