Indian Muslims

Traditionalist understanding of ChaturVarna system - the one that our great grandparents had - is pretty much dead now even among Hindus. And since it got too much mixed up with caste sytem and caste-based discrimination, few tears ought to be shed over the demise of that understanding.

But IF one could rid the Varna system of the oppressions and discriminations that became part of it, it WAS a very interesting, powerful, and uniquely complex sort of social arrangement that developed in India. Gandhi first thought, quite foolishly IMO, that he could achieve the miracle - remove the absurdities and corruptions, and save the core Indian concept. For this mistake he fully deserved all of Baba Ambedkar`s curses and strongest denunciations (this Gandhi understood, and never, as far as I know, became bitter toward Baba Sahib). At some point in time, Gandhi realized the futility of trying to clean up old concepts and changed his views.

My personal view is that if there was one Indian who saved Hindu-Muslim relations from completely breaking down in India and who completely delegitimated (not removed) caste-based discriminations among Hindu intelligentsia, it was Gandhi.

Nehru the great and glamorous modernizer and secularist would have acheived very little without getting to stand on the shoulders of Gandhi, the great and weird traditionalist and religious Indian.

anil #377: .........i agree with you, except for one caveat.......

........in general i don`t support faith-based division or separation or segregation or education.......i also don`t support such divisions on ethnic lines..........i don`t even support them on nationalistic lines, i.e. in general i am against teven he concept of a nation-state........i think all humanity should be one union, much like in star trek.........

.........do keep in mind that there is, and has been, more violence in the world due to nationalistic divisions than due to religious and ethnic divisions.......nations have always fought each other and still do..........while there have been very few outright religious based wars.........the crusades being one that i can think of.........interestingly, there has been far more intra-religion violence than inter-religion violence.........ethnic wars have been far less than wars of nations also.........similarly the concept of war of cultural civilizations is still in its foramative years, while the concept of nations fighting each other has been around since times immemorial........

.......thus i can never figure out why various people are ok with nationalistic (or cultural or ethnic)-based divisions but are not fine with religious based ones......in any case, i oppose all of the above, and not just religious based ones........here is however the caveat, which you are not considering..........

..........very few individuals want divisions just due to their religion or ethnicity.........unfortunately, the only country i have experienced which i feel satisfies the high criteria of no discrimination due to religion, ethnicity etc. is canada........all other countries practice it........some, like usa, not so much, and are hence relatively good places to live........

........however, third world countries (including india and pakistan) do pratice discrimination due to religion etc............what should minorities do in such a situation?..........can they continue to hope for the utopian ideals of being treated equally, as you are suggesting?...........or at some stage, do they eventually get tired of it and try to defend their own rights?............

as in example, i would strongly oppose any religious based division (or even autonomy) in present day canada.........for the simple reason that i don`t feel disadvantaged due to my religion.........however, i would have strongly supported autonomy (or division) in sub-continent, circa 47, because i feel i would have been discriminated against, by the majority, due to my religion.......

.......based on the above, what is the situation in india for muslims, circa 06-07.......are they realizing the, ``indian dream,`` in which case your approach is valid...........or is the gap between them and rest of india increasing as hindu india realizes this dream, while muslim india is unable to benefit from it?........

.........the above is what happened in pakistan, in the 60s........west pakistan enjoyed the, ``pakistan dream,`` (similar to what india is enjoying today) while east pakistan did not.........resulting in an ethnic division of the country.......at that time, the bengalis did not buy into the idea of nationalism over ethnic divisions............i.e. they would not have bought into the concept you are presenting........

Re:anil #391

[...The following is just one example of Lincoln on slavery...... Would you call him a pro-slavery person.... and try convincing the world... or would you like to do something better?...]

Anil,

Manto has three objectives when he bashes Gandhi. Firstly he considers Gandhi to be the main rival to Jinnah. But for Gandhi, Jinnah would have been the real hero of the subcontinent and hence Pakistan would have a much better image on the world stage. Its a case of my hero`s rival is also my rival. It is very personal for him. He believes that Gandhi somehow robbed Jinnah of that shot at superstardom that he deserved. No wonder the resentment is so deep.

Secondly Manto is very eager to create a movement in Pakistan that is secular and anti-jihadi. Thats a noble goal, no doubt. But he feels that he cannot motivate enough people to switch from jihadi politics to Jinnah style secular politics, unless he creates an enemy around which they can all rally i.e. Gandhi. By targeting the most well known hindu, it becomes a proxy for hindu hatred which can be powerful to unite people in Pakistan.

Finally, Manto is severely frustrated with jihadi politics in Pakistan. Unfortunately he dare not criticize the jihadis for obvious reasons. Amazingly enough, he has mapped Gandhi`s use of religious symbols in politics to the Jihadi parties` use of jihadi symbols in Pakistan i.e. Gandhi introduced religion into subcontinental politics which somehow led to the evolution and ultimate triumph of Jihadi politics in Pakistan. Bizarre as it may sound, he actually blames Gandhi for the jihadi nuisance in Pakistan, which stymies his hero Jinnah`s objective to create a secular nation.

Knowing Manto for a pretty long time now, I actually find his motivations and writings to be really fascinating. He is an idealist, which is great. Unfortunately he doesnt realize the irony that in trying to criticze Gandhi as being a hateful fascist bigot, he ends up himself sounding like a hateful fascist bigot. He is not one in reality, but his passion gets the better of him.

Yasser Latif Hamdani various posts

Yasser, dear boy, you are a true-blue graduate of the Mohammad Ali Jinnah School of Shysterism.

Every book written by Mountbatten and his advisors on the interaction between them, the Congress and the Muslim League call Jinnah an intransigent negotiator who kept his silence till he found out how far the British pushed the Congress to make concessions and then made more demands. Yet you are making the laughable claim that it was the Congress that was intransigent.

It is laughable to think that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was going to be the protector of the Dalits of India by appointing one of them to the Viceroy`s Executive Council. You know fully well that it was just grandstanding on his part. Jogendra Nath Mondal would testify to that. In fact, so would the ENTIRE POPULATION of Bangladesh about Jinnah being the protector of the subcontinent`s Muslim population. They only got 3 million killed by the ``protectors`` of India`s Muslims.

Hey, you want to follow Jinnah`s footsteps and have been quoting Ayesha Jalal`s whitewashing of the man to prove that Jinnah`s intentions were only to negotiate safeguards for India`s Muslims and not to partition India. Tell you what, you and your lovely wife could take some time off from your activities and circulate a petition in Lahore asking to undo the Partition and for Pakistan to be re-united with India.

Heck, start the petition on Chowk and let us see how the Chowk Pak readership reacts.

That would tell you exactly what the REAL world thinks of your and Ayesha Jalal`s revisionist history.

By the way, yesterday the front page article on New York Times is how all the suicide bombers in Afghanistan originate in Pakistan.

That is the true legacy of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. A man who with his typewriter created a jihadi factory! Live with that and your green passport. Tell Aisha that all body cavity searches are not necessarily nice.

Re: # 390
Tolkinin my dear fellow, if you read what Sadna has posted you might find that you are wrong about views on inter-caste marriage, that Gandhi had. He changed in time. His son married a Brahmin girl though initially he was opposed to it.

On the second point I cannot comment you doubtless know much more, but I don`t think he left a lot of RUPEES behind when he gave up the ghost.

Yasser:

The following is just one example of Lincoln on slavery...... Would you call him a pro-slavery person.... and try convincing the world... or would you like to do something better?

Anil

Lincoln on Slavery.....

``....Henry Clay, in his inimitable way, had once again stepped in to save the union with his Compromise of 1850, which provided for the admission of California as a free state, the organization of the New Mexico and Utah territories without mention of slavery, the abolishment of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and, most significantly, a powerful federal fugitive slave law designed to restore runaway slaves back to their masters. Lincoln, always a great admirer of Clay, personally approved of the Compromise of 1850. Two years later, upon Clay`s death, Lincoln would praise him for his compassionate moderate politics in a public eulogy.

There can be no disputing that Lincoln accepted the existence and continuation of slavery in the southern states during much of the 1850s.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/lincoln/section5.rhtml``

#389 by sadna on November 14, 2006 2:16pm PT

Gandhi was also opposed to inter caste /religous marriages,he left no room for individuality excelling, trying to be best in your field but more like buisiness community,jain or marwari community who just look at profit in terms of how much rupeesONLY!

This has been posted before on chowk.com. Only those interested in actually understanding the subject need read.

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2006&leaf=05&filename=10069&filetype=html
Economic and Political Weekly May 13 2006


Gandhi`s Little-Known Critique of Varna

Gandhi`s critics had argued at the time that he was carrying out his campaigns against untouchability, that it would go only when caste was destroyed. It is not generally known that Gandhi moved to this position in the mid-1940s. It is also generally understood that while Gandhi opposed untouchability and criticised caste, he defended `varnavyavastha`, the fourfold varna order. This is not entirely correct over the entire Gandhian trajectory. Gandhi`s own critique of the varna order, which unfurled over time, is usually overlooked by scholars.
Anil Nauriya


Gandhi had said to Sri Lankans in 1927 that if India could take pride “in having sent you Mahinda and the message of the Buddha to this land, it has also to accept the humiliation of having sent you the curse of caste distinctions.”1 By the early 1930s, Gandhi had declared that caste, that is, the endogamous sociological category, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, was “a handicap on progress”2 and “a social evil”3 and, by the 1940s, that it was “an anachronism”4 which “must go”.5

Since Gandhi distinguished the caste system from ‘chaturvarna’, the scriptural fourfold varna order of hereditary occupational divisions, his still unfolding critique of the fourfold order has often been overlooked. This critique is ignored especially by contemporary scholars, partly perhaps because of the traditionalist nature of the concepts with which it deals. Such oversight is unfair to Gandhi’s dalit critics as well as to his dalit supporters; for his interaction with both – exemplified by B R Ambedkar and Jagjivan Ram – had no doubt contributed to the evolution of Gandhi’s positions.

Gandhi incrementally unfurled a critique of the fourfold varna order, taking the concept of such an order in the end, by the mid-1940s, to vanishing point. Even in the early years, while defending the fourfold order, Gandhi said that it was not observed in his own circle: “In the ashram, however, from the beginning, it has been our rule not to observe the varnavyavastha because the position of the ashram is different from that of the society outside.”6

Later, in 1927, Gandhi declared that “if varnashrama goes to the dogs in the removal of untouchability, I shall not shed a tear.”7

He knew the struggle against old ingrained practices would be long. Let us fight untouchability, he says open-endedly, and we’ll cross the other bridge later. In February 1933, he gave what he then saw as practical reasons: “At the present moment, it is the ‘untouchable’, the outcaste, with whom all Hindu reformers, whether they believe in varnashrama or not, have agreed to deal. The opposition to untouchability is common to both. Therefore, the present joint fight is restricted to the removal of untouchability... It is highly likely that at the end of it we shall all find that there is nothing to fight against in varnashrama. If, however, varnashrama even then looks an ugly thing, the whole of Hindu society will fight it... At the end of the chapter, I hope that we shall all find ourselves in the same camp. Should it prove otherwise, it will be time enough to consider how and by whom varnashrama is to be fought.”8 Gandhi’s sequencing did not, at this point, synchronise with Ambedkar’s. But it is clear that Gandhi did not, even at this stage, rule out a later struggle against the fourfold varna order.

First Salvo Attack

In April 1933, Gandhi declared on the basis of some authoritative texts that varna could not be perpetuated or determined merely by birth. He argues: “These and numerous other verses from the shastras unmistakeably show that mere birth counts for nothing.”9 This formulation was Gandhi’s first salvo attack on the concept of varna. It did not repudiate birth as a criterion for varna; yet it took away the conclusive element attached to birth. From now onwards it is inaccurate and erroneous to say merely that Gandhi defended the fourfold varna order or varnavyavastha.

During Gandhi’s all-India anti-untouchability tour of 1933-34, he was opposed virulently by Hindu orthodoxy. His car was stoned in Bihar. In Benaras he was met with black flags. There was an attempt on his life in Pune. A lethal bomb was hurled and several persons were injured. Pune was the heartland of Hindutva opposition to Gandhi. It was one of the cities which nurtured his future assassin. In October 1933, before launching out on the tour, Gandhi said that the Jains must vehemently stress the fact that their religion knows no varnashramadharma. “They must emphatically tell the people that untouchability and the present-day varnadharma have no place in Jainism, after first convincing themselves about it.”10 These are clearly not the words of one who is smug about the varna system.

He could not accept, he said in 1934, that in his religion “there should be a single human being considered lower than myself.”11 In 1935, Gandhi described the restrictions on inter-marriage and inter-dining imposed in relation to the varna system as “cruel.”12

He had stood especially for the ‘bhangis’, considered the weakest section of the dalits. He was therefore conscious of hierarchies among dalits themselves. The scheduled castes, he said in 1937, “cannot be expected to appreciate and accept ex-cathedra usages that discriminate between savarnas and avarnas and between the different groups among the avarnas themselves, as these smack of invidiousness and offend against reason.”13

In 1945, Gandhi’s positions against the fourfold varna order become more emphatic. He discards some previous formulations, including those on hereditary occupations. In a new foreword to an older Gujarati language compilation of articles on the subject, he invites the reader “to discard anything in this book which may appear to him incompatible”14 with his latest formulations. He looks beyond this aspect of the Gita, saying now that:

But there prevails only one varna today, that is of shudras, or you may call it, ati-‘shudras’, or harijans or untouchables. I have no doubt about the truth of what I say. If I can bring round the Hindu society to my view, all our internal quarrels will come to an end.15

The thought recurs, being sometimes formulated not descriptively but normatively, expressing the view that this single category situation should be made to prevail.

Interestingly, it is in 1945 that Gandhi says, in reversal of his earlier understanding that untouchability could be fought separately from caste and the fourfold varna order, that “castes must go if we want to root out untouchability”.16 Thus he had now veered round to Ambedkar’s line on this question.

One Varna Idea

Meanwhile, persistent with the one varna idea, Gandhi observed in April 1946: “I have of late been saying that the Hindus have to become ati-shudras not merely in name but in thought, word and deed.17 Returning to the theme the following month in Mussoorie, he burns the conceptual candle at both ends. For now the notion of repudiating one’s varna enters Gandhi’s mind:

I myself have become a harijan by choice... A harijan by birth may repudiate his varna but how can I who have become a harijan by choice? I have not hesitated to suggest to caste Hindus that today they have all to become ati-shudras, if the canker of caste feeling is to be eradicated from Hinduism and Hinduism is not to perish from the face of the earth.18

And again in New Delhi: “If the caste Hindus would become bhangis of their own free will, the distinction between harijans and caste Hindus would automatically disappear. There are various divisions amongst the harijans too. They should all go. All should be of one caste, that is, the bhangi.”19

Speaking in July 1946, he encouraged marriages between dalits and others: “Finally there will be only one caste, known by the beautiful name bhangi, that is to say, the reformer or remover of all dirt. Let us all pray that such a happy day will dawn soon.”20 Thus by 1945-46 Gandhi had denuded the conceptual category of varna implied in the Gita, both of its sociological implication and of its original connotation of fixed classes of humanity determined by birth and distinguished by four categories of occupations.

Gandhi’s penultimate blows to the varna concept were delivered in February 1947. He now turned the category of varna upon itself by removing the foundation of the edifice of varna distinctions. Saying that caste must go if Hinduism is to survive, he went on: “There was room for varna, as a duty.” According to him: “This was true of all religions whether the name used was other than varna. What was a Muslim ‘maulvi’ or a Christian priest but a brahmin if he taught his flock its true duty, not for money but because he possessed the gift of interpretation? And this was true of the other divisions.”21 Significantly, the position of a maulvi in Islamic society does not indicate any inherent superiority and does not necessarily pass hereditarily.

On the same occasion, the idea of hereditary occupations which was the essence of the fourfold varna order was laid to rest by Gandhi. Asked if he favoured inter-caste marriages and whether the monopoly of occupations of specific castes should be abolished, Gandhi reiterated his long-standing position in favour of inter-caste marriages and proceeded to say:

The question did not arise when all became casteless. When this happy event took place, monopoly of occupations would go.22

In a letter written around May 15, 1947 Gandhi observes in appreciation of Gautama Buddha that he “knew no caste and stood for perfect toleration”.23

On Terminology

In 1927 and 1931 Gandhi had referred to the word “dalit” and even used it, while saying that the state to which it referred was so obnoxious that any word to describe it would be rejected after a while. He wrote that “dalit” was used “quite rightly” because the people to whom it referred were not “depressed” but “suppressed”; and “they became, and remain, what they are because they were suppressed by the so-called upper classes”.24 Evidently, he would not have been surprised at his preferred term ‘harijan’ now fading out of use.

Gandhi knew the struggle was also political. Many dalits went to prison in Gandhi’s campaigns against British rule. To them, Gandhi was the liberator and alien rule the established ally of their local oppressors. Social and economic oppression were connected and the colonial regime was upholding a highly inequitable land system which had contributed to the assetlessness of the dalits. As independence dawned, Gandhi spoke aloud about the “rule of the bhangis”25 and of a dalit girl becoming president of India, indeed the first president.26

In June 1947 Gandhi told the All India Congress Committee which was meeting in Delhi to discuss the partition of India:

...if you do away with the distinction of savarna and avarna, if you treat the shudras, the untouchables and the adivasis as equals then something good will have come out of a bad thing. …But if we oppress them and oppress those following other faiths then it will mean that we do not want India to survive, that we are out to destroy it.27

Understandably, a leading socialist had observed in 1950 that Gandhi’s assassination was an episode not merely in the Hindu-Muslim context; it was equally a result of the “bitterness” accumulating from his blows “against caste and for woman”.

Gandhi’s trajectory has been the subject of this essay. He was conscious of the vital need to take society with him, for merely taking an advanced position without having an impact on society held no attraction for him. He had told a questioner: “It is one thing for me to hold certain views and quite another to make my views acceptable in their entirety to society at large. My mind, I hope, is ever growing, ever moving forward. All may not keep pace with it. I have therefore to exercise utmost patience and be satisfied with hastening slowly.”28

His approach and method were well understood by many of his contemporaries. The famous atheist, G Ramachandra Rao, “Gora”, for example, summed up in 1950:

This attitude and method of Gandhiji can be seen in his answers to questions at the meeting of the Harijan Sevak Sangh held on August 14, 1945. When he first undertook to remove untouchability, the problem of varna-dharma (caste system) was also there. It was easy to see intellectually, even then, that caste ought to go root and branch if untouchability was to be completely eradicated. But as a practical proposition, caste was not the immediate problem then. The problem was only the removal of untouchability. So he allowed caste to continue, though personally he observed no caste even then. Thus the work of the removal of untouchability progressed through the early stage, leaving the contradictions of the caste system untouched, and, therefore, without the complication of opposition from those who would resist the abolition of caste. When the stage had come where he found caste was a serious hindrance for further progress, Gandhiji said that caste ought to go root and branch and proposed not only inter-dining but inter-marriages as the means. A mere intellectual might read inconsistency in Gandhiji’s tolerance of caste earlier and his denunciation of it later. But to a practical man of non-violent creed these are stages of progress and not principles of contradiction.29

Gandhi’s positions against untouchability and caste were direct assaults and may be compared with Luther’s attacks on the church. On the fourfold order he moved more cautiously, somewhat like Erasmus.

Yet it is difficult to understand why Gandhi’s critique of the fourfold order is now so little known. This omission from scholarship at large is significant, as his earlier statements on the fourfold order have become, in writings on the subject especially since the 1980s, a primary ground for criticism of Gandhi’s position.

Email: instituteone@gmail.com

Re: # 381

Majumdar:

Yasser is trying to get mileage out of a dead horse. He is regurgitating in 2000, the views and thoughts expressed in late 1800s, and early 1900s.

Lincoln - Douglas debates are famous and must read to understand foundations of democracy. Douglas in these debates tried to bring out pro-slavery pre 1863 views of Abraham Linclon. No one cared in the plural society. Lincoln lived to become an anti-slavery champion and legend. Douglas no one hears about, other than in the context of these debates. Why, people and societies moved on with time.

Although, there may still be obscure people, probably KKK supporters, who still read Lincoln`s long discarded pre-1863 views on slavery.

Just remember, in all these many years that Yasser is propounding these views he has not changed too many minds. Tahmad Sahib, you can read right now. Romair earlier commented and moved on. Only Indians on this board get riled up. It is best for Indians on this board to move on too, and wish him best. In an adversarial situation, if Shoaib Akhtar is tied down in some silly past and cannot bowl fast, Indians will be happy.

Yasser, like Shoab Akhtar, is a misaligned talent right now.

Anil

No, no, manto is right. How disgusting that the hindus have caste system and that anyone should support it in 1910!!

You see, the nice white european christian people were much more advanced. They took their minorities and MURDERED all of them in the 1940s. This is much more advanced, thank goodness they did not have untouchability!

Arab muslims created the foundations of modern slavery. They began the vast trade in blacks, indians and other peoples right from the creation of islam. How many millions were taken from conquered lands? Al beruni reports that after the muslims conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni the ``entire plain turned black with the slaves being taken back to Afghanistan``.

Till 1920 you could buy a black man for US $100 in Saudi Arabia. But never forget that islam is an egalitarian religion! Thank goodness they never had a caste system.

Now you see how disgusting this bandar Gandhi is !! Defending him just shows how horrible racists the hindoos are.

Or maybe how ignorant of history Mr. Manto is?

#384 by Mantolives

As I`ve said many times before on this website, Gandhi was no intellectual. While his earler stance on caste was eminently boneheaded, you will see in this posting that he gives the comparison of two brothers who love each other, when he talks about two different castes.

That`s definitely not hatred, or looking down on anyone.

The things to admire about Gandhi were his sincerity and absolute courage. Have you ever tried to sit calmly while the police come charging at you mounted on horses with iron horseshoes?

True to his gujarati background, he was a pragmatic man, and he contributed hugely to the independence of the subcontinent.

Okay. Now you can start badmouthing him. :)

Re: # 384

Dispossessed Qadiani,

What`s particularly wrong in it? Look at the background in which he`s talking abt those matters (in South Africa). He went there to fight a case for a Muslim Gujarati. He was fighting for Indians there (not Hindus). He was not diving Hindus and Muslims in South Africa. As for his views on blacks, think abt our views now? What we talk among oursleves abt kalas in the US and UK. Were they any diff from what Gandhi said abt them. No.2. The present day blacks are diff from blacks of 1900 in native Africa and think abt the criminals among them? He didnt ask for Hindu or Muslim cells there.

HOW THESE VIEWS OF HIS FORMATIVE YEARS AS A POLITICIAN CAN BE HELD AGAINST HIS CONTRIBUTION TO INDIAN INDEPENDENCE? Btw, in 1906 he was not even an Indian leader.

As for caste system, u like it or not Indians of all persuations follow this i.e Hindus of all sects, Muslims of all sects, Sikhs, Parsees and even Christains follow this mothered system. It started as a division of labour but persisted to date due to racial differences among Indians.

Gandhis`s views on caste had economic angle. Castes are economic designations and people are normally born into their family professions. Some follow the family professions some like Jinnah deviate.

Gandhi was the surname derived from his ancestry of trading in spices (gandha originally was a Sanskrit word meaning good smell) which later became Gandhi. (I am quoting the folklore abt these names). Now was Gandhi actually trading in spices or was he doing his profession when he`s cleaning the toilets of Ashram inmates? Wasnt he acting as a Bhangi? Was he castiest then? When he was spinning the cotton wheel, he became a weaver - a backward caste. Had he lost his bania caste? No!

His eccentric views on caste are consevrative at worst but not oppressive. They were never meant to be. In an under developed India when Britain was implanting new economic systems and new modes of technology he saw natives losing jobs to British. He advised natives not to leave their family avocations lest they lose their livlihood. U must see buring of British cloth and Salt Satyagraha in that light.

GANDHI CANT BE CALLED NAMES BCOZ OF THE BS U GAVE HERE.

Gandhi wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan:

(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system.
(2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole....

(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.

(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.

(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe.... Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.

(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.

(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.

(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.

(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.

....


Not just wrong... but I think Gandhi`s views were an affront to the true spirit of Hinduism as well... I remember reading as a kid in school that originally caste divisions were not rigid ... but Gandhi`s view seems to show up Hinduism in a really bad light.

Dear Majumdar,

If that was how simple it was, why did Gandhi try to bribe Doherty to shut up about it? That is what has been alleged in the deposition remember?



Re: # 379

Dear Tahmed,

I am glad that you have restored to me the right to hold my opinions- wrong as they maybe.

The story behind Chaura Chauri is long and can be debated from various historical angles. Needless to say, I think attaching unnecessary importance to what was essentially a political ploy (either face saving to get out of an increasingly bleak situation or a deliberate move to take the wind out of the movement at the command of those who had chosen Qaiser-e-Hind Mohandas Gandhi Recruiter firstclass to do their dirty work). The fact that there isn`t a single movement that Gandhi was involved in which did not turn violent is also a fact. It must be recalled that such pretensions were dropped in Quit India movement altogether, where the famous slogan was ``maro ya mar jao``.

However please appreciate that Gandhi`s public stances of nonviolence (when in reality every single one of his movements turned violent) is hardly the point of disagreement here. The point of disagreement is when this person is presented as a champion of liberal causes, which he never championed but infact vehemently opposed. That he propagated the cause of upper caste Hindus despite his stances to the contrary is well documented by Dr. B R Ambedkar`s book ``Gandhi and Gandhiism`` as well Gandhi`s own views on the absolute importance of caste system and isolation of castes for humanity. That Gandhi believed black people were subhuman and of inferior genetic stock is also a fact of history. No amount of preaching on Gandhi`s attributes is enough to take him off the hook.

In any event, Gandhi`s purported ``non-violence`` has never been part of my ``conclusions``. That you keep trying to narrow the debate down to this is just plain wrong. Unfortunately so far my understanding is that your admiration for Gandhi`s non-violence is not based on anything substantial....

My question is do you feel my conclusion that Gandhi was racist and casteist not based on Substance?

On What Gandhi wanted

The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment`s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs

Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (3)

CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES

The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled `For Coloured Debtors`. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. ...Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. ...the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could…But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.

Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (2)

INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS

There, our garments were stamped with the letter `N`, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.

It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. ...We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.

Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company

Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (1)

I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so.
Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.

Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149

On What Gandhi wanted (9)

Gandhi`s disdain for black people continues:

It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered

What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (8)

The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets

Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105

CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (7)

More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (6)

More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…

His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of `coloured person` on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult

Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178

Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (5)

It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.

Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423

On What Gandhi wanted (14)

On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children

Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (13)

On Minority White rule in South Africa:

We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words `gentle compulsion` in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children

Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360

CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (12)

What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements

Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (11)

Ah… and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad…

Well here is Gandhi with his theory of ``Separate and Unequal``

...The petition dwells upon ``the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races``. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?

The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89

private delete

October 4, 2005

On What Gandhi wanted (10)

More on Gandhi`s theory of ``separate and unequal``

Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly

Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131


CWMOG= Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi


I will produce Gandhi`s philosophy on caste in a minute.

Dispossessed Qadiani Syndrome:

(My Opinion: Not all Qadianis suffer from this Syndrome).

I am loudly thinking abt this DQS & Stockholm Syndrome. This DQS is self-explicit & therefore doesnt need any explanation here, especially for the couple who suffer from DQS. An interesting tail-piece to this is that this DQS is directly linked to the Stockholm Syndrome.

1. http://sniggle.net/stock.php

``The syndrome explains what happens in hostage-taking situations, but can also be used to understand the behavior of battered spouses, members of religious cults,....``

2. http://ask.yahoo.com/20030324.html

What causes Stockholm Syndrome? Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defensive mechanism, out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is by definition impossible.

3. http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/trauma/stockhol.htm

Bonding with an abuser maybe the universal survival strategy for victims ......... Studies of other hostage-like groups seem to bare this out. --

These groups are:

...................
cult members
...................
...................
...................
...................

Tahmed sahib,

(The only example of Gandhi promoting non-violence that you have been able to provide is this one about a woman in the US threatening to take Gandhi to court for killing her husband. )

I remember that epi very well. The lady was some Mrs. Doherty and Manto mian had gone to town quoting her as an example of MKG promoting violence. I was salivating at the thought of Mr. D catching MKG red-handed indulging in some brahmacharya with Mrs. D and MKG responding by bumping off the poor fellow. But the whole explanation was a damp squib, apparently Mr. D had been caught up in some political riot in India and got killed by mistake.

Regards