1/28/16

Gandhi and His Interlocutors

Lecture 1: Gandhis Hind Swaraj
Recitation: Thursdays 1:10 pm at KNOX 208
Colonialism: all of India is not under British rule at the same time
Colonialism brings in profound change in social and economic structure (used to be
manufacturing economy and now a capitalist one)
Socially: there is a new elite created
bifurcation of common sense not the same as equality: Indian society was not united by
its common sense
2 types of dissatisfaction: of common people (peasants), and elite opposition against
British rule
permanent settlement: rent was fixed, gain profit off of land to improve condition
but instead the landlord class continued to live in their comfortable life and not visiting
the villages
The two dissatisfactions were not united until Gandhi
Elite: wanted more political reform from British rule, didnt want to get rid of British rule
(their numbers were very small and they were dispersed across India)
Peasants: violent revolts, wanted to get rid of Brits, localized revolts because of localized
thinking
Sociologically and ideologically dissatisfaction was distinct
2 important writers:
Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay: first important Bengali literature and political
writer, magistrate in the British administrate, hard for him to attack British rule
directly because he was part of the magistrate, uses humor, first anti-colonial
Bengalis felt they were special/elite Indians rise of Bengali patriotism leads to
intense regional nationalism and increases the tension/distance between the
Bengalis and the other Indians this tension must be overcome in order for the
Indians to unite in nationalism
Chattopadhyay tries to melt the ice between Bengalis and other Indians: says just
because you are given education it doesnt mean you are close to the British; you
should start thinking differently and the backward Indians are your true people
message is that we must oppose the British
Uses references to the Gita (full title of book: Bhagavat Gita) story about a
charioteer of war
Naiskarma: you should try to achieve an orientation toward life that is attachmentless because attachments are the root of all problems
Karma = attachment
Argues that what the Gita teaches us that the good life is to not act for self-interest
dont feel that you are fighting for the kingdom but instead that you are
fighting for justice ie. non-self-interest in action

Gandhi picks this up

Bhudev Mukhopadhyay: believes in fundamental unity in Indian civilization, calls

this unity in diversity
Believes 8 features of modern western civilization: installed egotism, departure
from nature, capitalism (alters relationship between man and nature),
individualism or activism (sets all individuals against other individuals and groups
against other groups), competition, Europeans cannot escape the logic or mindset
of attacking each other for power, relationship between humans and ethics that is
independent of God (system grounded in secularism is a lot safer because what if
science disproves the existence of god), infinite development of human life
enhancement, economics, democracy
Gandhi believes that if he wants to take down colonialism he has to take down the
features of modern western civ (condemn this social/ideological structure)
Bhudev argues that Europeans want to fight and conquer and colonize but they
want to outsource the fights on other s territory to protect security of their own

First argument/proposition then second later response argument (eg. Hegel, Marx)
In Sanskrit its called pulva paksa and then uttala paksa
Charles Taylor: Secular Age chapter called the Imminent Frame
Modern Social Imaginaries: usually if you want to understand an individual you must
first understand the society in which he comes, but this book argues inversely that society
is created by the meeting of individuals (individual is first/primary and society is
derivative concept) undermines the collectivist understanding of the social world
3 prominent individualist thinkers
Locke: private property, the earth was given to humanity by God, and our labor allows us
to appropriate material /property out of nature and delineate it as our own, ie.
appropriation is ontologically individual (its built into the structure of the world and
theres nothing you can do about it; ontologically at odds with sharing, therefore an
argument pro selfishness?)
Smith: modifies appropriation argument, that God has instilled sympathy in addition to
designing us individualistically as if to check us or correct our inevitable selfishness,
Newtonian conception of the universe proposes that God has withdrawn himself after
creating the universe, detached God, universe is sufficient in itself
More dignified to believe in secular form of morality
God has given us intelligence and nature we can enhance our life (even materially) and
this is dignified and magnificent (you should not have to feel defensive about this),
poverty is degrading so if you can lift human beings from poverty and misery this is very
fulfilling and a good thing
The state gives us security and an indispensable mechanism of settling human conflict in
a humane/civilized way, and a frame in which societies can continue/coexist in peace
Picard:

1/28/16
Gandhi and His Interlocutors
Lecture 1 Recitation
Gandhi: digressive thinker, nonconventional
First paper on 6 topics: Swaraj Swadeshi Satyagraha Anasakti Ahimsa Sarvodaya
Means/Ends (asked to focus on one but should touch on all)
Is he a politician or a philosopher? Everyone seems to have their own creations and
images/portrayals of Gandhi
Look up key interpreters:
Ashish Nandi (essays focus on a Freudian frame, strength is that hes very eclectic
and eccentric, read first part of The Intimate Enemy on the psychology of
colonialism, trendsetter in field of cultural studies, read essay on Gandhis
assassinations, read about womanness in India)
Akeel Bilgrami (from Columbia, treats Gandhi primarily as a philosopher, read
his essay Gandhis Modernity, his religion and relation to politics)
Maintain distance from the authors as you read
Why politician? Responding to political problems that he sees and thats his foremost
concern, politics is instrumental action in a Machiavellian sense (for a purpose) and in
this sense Gandhi is not a politician
Is Gandhi held accountable for his ideals, doctrines, and arguments? Exercise them in his
own life? YES! Unlike most politicians hes very deeply consistent man- his life and his
ideas are one this sets him apart
Ahinsa (nonviolence) is something he constantly tries to put into his life so much so that
he comes to be defined by this toward the end of his life
Politics is the domain of ethics: Gandhi thinks they are not distinct one and the same
First recognize the ethical principle at stake and then RESPOND to it ethically
Should we read Gandhi from the perspective of contemporary reader as if deeply
relevant today or modern reader examining history in a retrograde fashion? Is there
timelessness to his writing?
Skinner argues that you can never really understand a writer unless you were living in the
context of the arguments (place and time) so dont take him completely at face value
when reading. The other school of thought argues that context is not that important; the
nature of the thought is the same. Both views in their pure form are reductive. We seek a
middle ground as readers. Reconstruct his arguments in todays society.

Says the British Parliament is self-interested, deeply objectionable about public service
that needs to be exhorted, something reluctant about doing good for the people, morally
empty (his own definition involves social affections strength of heart, chapter 13: true
civilization)
What is the relationship between civilization, swaraj, independence, freedom from
wants, and self-restraint? What is he challenging about modern life? Do you find
him offensive from a modern perspective? Prepare a small statement.