Amit Misra

I ask pardon for dispensing with the quotes altogether.
In this post, I'd like to highlight the fact that categories are important for meaningful conversation, and indispensible for scholarship. If we've all read through the thread, we must acknowledge that there are several dialectics (pink word? all right dvandvas of advaita fame) that emerge. Hinduwoman, I am sorry to say, keeps bringing up what we pinkos called soft-Hinduttva, but makes it plain that there is a clear distinction between hindus and hinduttva-ites, as there is between Gandhians and Savarkarites (Godse was Savarkar the Coward's creature), etc, etc. Victorialis introduces a rare edge of sophistication into our usual brawls, but firmly states her position as a Tory with a heart. I, with my sublime arrogance and certitude about being right, insist on a world according to the Left.
These are categories of convenience. They are identifiable, but not rigid. I may be persuaded one day (fat chance) that the rapacity of the Global North has actually benefited "huge chunks" of the world's poor. That would re-define my category.
Since individuals are important primarily to themselves, secondarily to "near and dear ones" and at a far remove to communities, it does not matter very much which category an individual falls within. Categories, however, need to be carefully defined,as in Nyaya or Sankhya darshan if the purpose is to talk about bunches of humans.
Hinduism eludes categorisation as a religion. So, for that, does "Indian Culture" or Indian cuisine. "The Idea of India" as Sunil Khilnani describes it in his 1997 book, is very much that of a Nation-State and little else.
Wish I had the time to go into what Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank bigwig (might have misspelt his name) has to say about Structural Adjustments and poverty. Seek, and ye shall find: the sinner repentant....

Amit Misra

I am also deeply horrified at the way our discussion on Gandhi is proceeding. Hinduwoman is, IMHO, articulating a reprehensible opinion that Gandhi's murder was regrettable, but his demise was welcome to "hindus." Those who welcomed his death were the very same people who had interests vested in the continuance of British Raj: the Brahminical toadies of the British Empire. Such interest groups had, for generations, bootlicked their way into favour with whichever ruler that came their way. Gandhi's contribution to the awakening of Indian opinion towards the necessity of a moral basis for governance pulled the rug from under their feet.
"Hindus," including several members of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, mourned his death in overwhelming numbers. Check out Desh Raj Goyal's account of his emotional state as a young RSS volunteer on the day of MKG's funeral.
Godse was crazy in only one sense: his mind had been taken over by the fascist indoctrination of Hinduttva.

victorialis

Amit, I agree with this conclusion. What I don't see is how this squares up with your idea of the utility of categories. I'll try to break down my incomprehension by following your statements in order. Perhaps all depends upon who does the waffling. I like my own waffling, and you prefer yours. As is supported by your next statement:

Although I don't see exactly how a statistical argument could accomplish this result in reality, on principle I agree heartily: it's your right to reject this if you will. I would reject it myself, on the strength of what you say next, if I agreed with it.

Here is a distinction I don't understand. How can significance accrue to a treatment of bunches of humans where it does not accrue to the same treatment of individuals? If it does not accrue to individuals, why would you care about your own category being redefined?

I ask this not to annoy, but with a certainty that you've got a reason. It is a very, very fine point, but I hope you can say what it is, because it goes to the heart of my initial curiosity about the viability of pluralism today. It's as though there is a different metaphysical reality to humankind that we think is inapplicable or irrelevant to the individual human being.

Would this mean a Nation-State uninformed by culture or history? I am grappling with the meaning-content of "nation-state" in another longstanding conversation -- in which my (europhile) interlocutor maintains that nation-states are all but irrelevant and only power-blocs now count. We've been unable to pin down the "all but" portion with specifics, and this example might help.

Yes, indeed, I'm aware of that controversy. It's a microcosm of the whole global/antiglobal debate.

victorialis

One would expect crocodile tears from any committed opponent of Gandhi, cryptofascist or otherwise, on the occasion of his death. Anything else would be extremely bad form.

Similarly, had Jinnah missed the classic opportunity to "blame the dead guy" for interfaith conflict, we would surely not know Jinnah's name today. I doubt he actually underestimated himself in the manner that his remark attempts to telegraph.

I've already gathered, Amit, that you see evil in hinduttva. But if I cannot get past my horripilation at the fact of political killings, I probably won't be able to step outside of my front door in the morning -- and any understanding of this process of collective self-definition will continue to elude me.

It's also to be expected that any political movement will be burdened with accountability for the actions of its extremists. Rather than seeking to understand the extreme element (which behaves rather similarly in all cases anyway), I am interested in the moderate element -- which must be present for a "movement" to exist at all, even if its loonies waste all the political capital.

hinduwoman

Victorialis, here are some more links on Godse and Gandhi if you are interested:

http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/jan/29godse.htm
http://forumhub.com/indhistory/17516.03.45.32.html

Yes, having no moral absolutes makes it easier for Hinduism to adapt otself to new circumstances.


Amit, you are saying that even members of Hindu mahasabha wept. does this mean you are acknowledging that not all Hinduttvites are evil?

And that was precisely my opening post.

Amit Misra

I'm saying that the utility of categories lies in their enabling a process of reasoning from the 'particular' to the 'general' situation.
I'll be literal minded and insist that a statistical argument having the ability to induce a change in my convictions would re-define my categorization as a this, that or other.
Still being absolutely literal. 'Significance' of the statistical variety is highly dependant on the largeness of the bunch it talks about. Significance of subjective/intuituve insight, similarly, should be gauged with reference to the scope of its applicability.
I have a pretty good idea that my wife would like a dress just this shade of brown. It is a valuable insight at a personal level, and accurate as one can get; yet it is utterly trivial when I put it down here in a discussion thread. It doesn't allow anyone who reads this information to conclude that wives like brown dresses (though if someone got it into their head to give my wife an unexpected present, I'd know how it came about )
Still arguing from example, I'd hazard an insight: any man's wife would like to get a dress as an unexpected present from him. This applies to the category of wives. It does not apply to non-wife women (at least, I've never tried to give a brown dress as an unexpected present to anyone else's wife, but I'd be unwilling to risk it). Knocking it off here- I write far too much junk to make effective points.
Khilnani, though, is worth a read. Birbeck College faculty, if I remember correctly.
hinduwoman: you started your post with hinduism eluding categorization and yet being a religion/culture. I still maintain that it does so because it is niether a religion nor a culture.
sorry got to rush
amit

victorialis

hmmm... another light bulb is glowing now. If there are no moral absolutes, then even tolerance is not a requirement of Hinduism; it's only a recommendation.

In the interview, Gopal Godse said hinduttva is culture. I am pondering what, exactly, he means by this. He does not mean caste, language, or locality; this was clear, he said as much. It appears he meant a shared history. To what extent is it actually shared -- and to what extent is it merely a presumption upon the good manners of the listener, who, having heard historical tales, has no personal stake at the moment in disputing what is in the past?

Gopal Godse went on to say "we are together," and I wonder also what exactly he means by that. Is it for the listener to supply the particulars of the meaning? Some listeners of good will are going to do so, happily, because they are already, by nature, so inclined; they like the idea of togetherness on principle. Others who are more cautious will not supply the meaning, and will either dispute the contention openly, or leave it unaddressed.

All attempts I have found so far at defining culture share at least one of two characteristics: (1) they refer to an undifferentiated totality (no categories), and/or (2) they refer to specific periods or populations (using categories -- these, or others).

Gopal Godse's comments appear to reflect the "undifferentiated totality" approach to culture. If so, then the hinduttva he points to is undifferentiated. How then can it also be distinct, politically relevant or meaningful?

hinduwoman

Godse was using Savarkar's definition.
The point is (I think) before the British came with their idea of a homogenous Hindu society I don't think such a concept of Hinduism as a nation existed. As a shared consciousness, as a religion different from Islam and Christianity (though in some places the blending made it hard to sort out which is which), and sometimes as a political force --- yes. But it did not extend to the whole of India.
Take Shivaji for example. He set up a Hindu empire after wresting it from the Mughals. It was very Hindu all right. But Gujrat et al which was looted by Marathas did not feel very thrilled about it. But in 19th century a new kind of consciousness of Hinduism as a nation was fashioned --- and Shivaji was suddenly the hero for whole of India. Tagore a Bengali wrote odes celebrating Shivaji festival (which did not exist before completely overlooking the fact that nursery rhymes of Bengal sing of the horrors of Maratha invasion.
That is why I say that insiting Hinduttva is a new force is silly. It is at least two hundred years old, growing out of the confrontation with British.


Yes, tolerance as a religious principle is strongly upheld, but since dharma is contextual, it is upto the individual to decide how much.


some more on Gandhi:
Gandhi after being declared a mahatma became intoxicated with his own saintliness. In 1940 this is what he advised the British government:
I can only agree with Aurobindo's (who in spite of being hailed as a saint, did not lose his head) reaction: "He must be a little cracked."



Amit if Hinduism is neither a religion nor a culture, then we have to fall on the standby "It is a way of life", which means --- what?

victorialis

Amit, I've been thinking about your brown dress story. There seems to be something circular in my thinking about this which I have not identified yet. I had written a response a couple of days ago, having to do with independent variables and degrees of freedom, but it was nonsense.

You mentioned nyaya a few posts back. Since then, I came across an idea that seems germane to my confusion. It is from http://www2.carthage.edu/~lochtefe/nyaya.html:
The salvageable kernel of my unposted nonsense response was this: it is, in some ways, inappropriate to consider human beings in the aggregate, which is precisely what statistical arguments do. That's the whole thrust of pluralism, and also my reason for questioning your concern with categorization.

For some purposes (e.g., in your professional work), there is no other way to gain reliable knowledge, and so in that context it is appropriate: there is a discrete purpose to quantitative analysis for therapeutic purposes, and it is effective: disease processes are arrested and reversed, and lives are saved.

For the purposes of self-determination, though -- that's where the statistical approach seems all wrong to me. The individual can -- and in practice, does -- view all such categorizations as provisional, and can reject those which are not constructive, conducive or otherwise agreeable (as you did earlier). Of course I say this from a viewpoint which has no experience of Varna; maybe that's why I don't understand.

If one takes a leftward view of political matters, and has a professional respect for the validity of quantitative methods, it is reasonable to believe (contrary to Thatcher) that society does exist, "as a whole new aggregate, completely different from its consitutent parts." Collectivism and socialism take this assumption a priori. It's also reasonable, by extension, to assume it's proper to ground social management in, and participate in political change using, scientific principles.

Yet we both know that statistics are manipulable; on what other basis would you have rejected the material I quoted earlier about poverty/inequality? (again, I'm not offended by this; I hold a few paradoxical beliefs of my own and I take it as a compliment that you will say what you really think.) More from the same academic website named above:
The existence of this "weak relational force" would further support your preference for a collectivist approach. The question for me is how and why this force breaks down.

victorialis

hinduwoman, I agree with your observation that hinduttva is not a new force. (Interestingly, from a very similar argument, neither is globalisation: the process of globalising trade has been underway since the 1400s CE, and it still has a long way to go. The exploitive nature of colonialism/imperialism is properly recognised as unjust and as a thing to be rejected, but it doesn't change this fact.)

It seems then that hinduttva (as it is called in its present incarnation) as a nationalist idea emerges only under certain conditions: i.e., in the presence of a perceived antagonist. This makes sense; without some social/cultural (nascent political) opposition to act as a catalyst, there is no perceived need for an explicit Hindu identity. And once Hindu nationalism is catalysed, the inner contradictions you mentioned in the example of Shivaji are put aside, which is also reasonable in the face of a threat. Hinduism is not alone in this phenomenon, nor in the belated recognition of inner contradictions in its political formulae.

Such formulae can function powerfully under an enormous load of inner contradictions. Maybe that's what Amit is worried about.

From this I am prompted to wonder whether the core of the idea of nation-states today isn't based quite simply upon a presumption of the presence of antagonism. Unfortunately I can take that idea no further; antagonism does exist (if sporadically) and social organisation cannot leave it out of the reckoning.
What is best done about it, no one knows yet.

I cannot know whether Gandhi achieved moksha; acclaim and achievement are not the same thing. But I've been reading that such achievement puts one beyond good and evil, beyond rules and duty.

Achievement of moksha would create, then, a unique (and rather lonely) outlook on the world, and it has to be asked: does such an outlook qualify one to advise others?

If others cannot appreciate the full wisdom of enlightened pronouncements, wouldn't any Mahatma experience a very low ceiling on political effectiveness?

Maybe it is meant to be that way.

I liked Amit's comment on Gandhi's bringing to people's attention the necessity for a moral basis for governance. That's a valid achievement all by itself. Perhaps it is wrong to have expected more of Gandhi.