“In crucial respects the Constitution is a charter for the reform of Hinduism.”
Law and Society in Modern India by Marc Galanter (1989)
Law and Society in Modern India by Marc Galanter (1989)
Logging you in...
Leica M10 – the Focus button
23 hours ago
Monday, July 08, 2019
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
The Indian Constitution sought to wipe out the ways Hinduism had been used to oppress untouchables and women and privilege elite castes.
Naturally the privileged objected, which is why Gandhi was assassinated and why the BJP rules.
tim · 299 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago
I'd love for you to show me any document from the American Founding Fathers that argued that the Constitution was in part, a reform project for Christianity. I think this is a pure invention on your part, but would love to proven wrong, because I'd have learned something.
E.g., I would have thought this charter for the reform of Christianity might be mentioned in the Federalist Papers. My fading recollection is reassured by Jeff Schweitzer's "As with the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity every mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference."
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
Where in the Indian Constitution say that its purpose is the reform of Hinduism? Or is that just a pronouncement of some outsider.
nainankovoor 17p · 299 weeks ago
Are you really asserting that M.K.Gandhi was assassinated because the "privileged elite castes" objected to the Indian constitution seeking to wipe out the ways "Hinduism had been used to oppress untouchables and women" and privilege them?
Quick notes: India's Constituent Assembly first met on December 9th 1946. It was reconstituted subsequent to Indian independence and partition in August 1947. The Constitution was adopted on January 26th 1950. Nathuram Godse assassinated Gandhi on January 30th 1948. Godse's lengthy and very articulate courtroom speech, in Hindi, delivered during his trial for capital murder, is readily available. In it he makes his motives for his act abundantly clear. A great deal is also known about Godse's milieu. None of this supports your contention.
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
I don't think the justifications murderers offer for their actions should be taken at face value, or maybe for any value, regardless of how articulate they may be.
nainankovoor 17p · 299 weeks ago
I see that you have dropped all mention of the Indian constitution, without acknowledging the fact.
You are using 'status' very loosely, - it is unclear whether you refer to notional ceremonial status in a varna hierarchy, or wealth and property, or social prestige, or political power. These are different sources of 'status' in India, and do not go hand in hand.
"Godse is a classic case - a Brahmin who felt he had lost status and was forced to work at a lower caste job, and a boy who was raised as a girl and was consequently attempting to overcompensate by posturing as hyper-masculine."
You know this - how? [I'm asking about Nathuram Godse's inner psychological landscape, not about his having worn a nose-ring etc.]
Godse was the son of a postal worker. He was running a newspaper for the Hindu Mahasabha. If that is a 'lower caste job', it is one that many 'higher castes', or people who expected a job on the basis of their caste status, might gladly have accepted.
"He became RSS but found it not radical enough for him. He had a lot in common with other nutjob assassins like John Wilkes Booth."
He bowed in salutation to his victim before firing the fatal bullets. He made no attempt to escape. Very different from Booth.
"I don't think the justifications murderers offer for their actions should be taken at face value, or maybe for any value, regardless of how articulate they may be."
Off the top of my head - how about Charlotte Corday? Or Brutus?
Is it conceivable that someone who commits a plainly political assassination could have been driven by motives other than personal gain, or simple vanity? I concede that the person may aim to maximize the future prospects of his nation or the community to which he believes he owes final allegiance. He may also find the prospect of high-profile martyrdom more attractive than decades of struggle eking out a slender living.
tim · 299 weeks ago
" --- Given the complete crash of economy during the colonial period, most people across all jaatis were unemployed especially in the United provinces(leaving aside a few Kayasthas) . Any 'upper caste' person would have gladly taken that job during the 30s and 40s.
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago
( Anglo-Indians: Vanishing Remmants of a Bygone Era : Anglo-Indians in India. By Blair Williams)
What postal jobs were open to non-Anglo-Indians is an open question, but it is far from obvious that "postal worker" was a low-status job.
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
Of course I didn't mean that Godse literally resembled Booth, but they had similar motives, revenge against someone who they thought had harmed their class. Corday thought she was helping the Girondins. Brutus thought he was defending the Republic. All were wrong, and disastrously so. That's not to say that none of the victims had it coming. Certainly Marat and probably Caesar were in that category.
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago
What I am asserting is that members of privileged groups resented and continue to resent their loss of status.
That is a truism, but you have to show that it is applicable in this particular case. Mere assertion is insufficient.
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
nainankovoor 17p · 299 weeks ago
I mentioned Corday as a prime example of someone whose stated justifications for her act (including a written statement penned before the deed) seem entirely plausible and deserving of being taken at face value. Had you been paying some attention, you might have realized that whether or not Corday ended up helping her cause or party or faction was utterly irrelevant.
"Of course I didn't mean that Godse literally resembled Booth, but they had similar motives, revenge against someone who they thought had harmed their class."
Regarding this business of Godse taking revenge on MKG as someone he thought had harmed his class, did you make it up on the fly, or did you read it somewhere? In fixating on caste, and then class, you are making two glaring errors that would be obvious to a reasonably well-informed Indian.
(1) You are ignoring the obvious humongous elephant in the room, namely the question of Islam and its future in the Indian subcontinent. Godse belonged to the RSS and then the Hindu Mahasabha. Both organisations are officially and openly anti-casteist and seek to unite Hindus across caste lines. Both organisations are well-known for voicing suspicion of the loyalty and allegiance of Indian Muslims.
(2) On the question of caste, MKG was the most obvious conservative among prominent figures in the freedom movement in the decades preceding India's independence. While he might have stood for the dignity of all human beings, cynics might say that he was fighting a cunning rearguard action to preserve caste as much as possible - and they might be right. There are many reasons why a Maharashtrian Brahmin might resent the activities of MKG the Gujarati Bania, in the decades before Independence, but loss of caste or class status - past, present, or future - is not something that could reasonably be pinned on him.
There is also a whole lot more that we know, for instance about Godse's social circle, that makes your contention seem ludicrous.
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago
Making of Gandhi's Model of Masculinity
Gandhi's life can be classified into three phases. First phase lasted up to 1893 when he was under the influence of late Victorian masculinity and tried to imitate the British gentleman. The second phase between 1893 to 1919 can be considered as a transition phase of his life in which he was in search of self identity. The third phase was the final phase when he lost faith in the British Empire and gave final shape to his own model of masculinity.
The loss of faith in the British Empire came with the passage of Rowlatt Act and massacre at Jalianwalla Bagh in 1919 and unjust convictions of the people in the cases under Punjab Martial Law. He came to the conclusion that co-operation with this empire was a 'sin' and non-cooperation a 'virtue' because people had a right to self- respect and dignity. It was the major turning point and the beginning of the third and final phase of Gandhi's life.
We come across the words 'emasculation/ 'manhood' a number of times in Gandhi's writings and speeches on political, social and economic condition of India. Gandhi believed that India was manly under the Mughal and Maratha rule and an orderly humiliation and emasculation of the whole nation was going on under the British Empire.
Gandhi knew it very well that there was a continuous psychological war going on between Indian and British men. The imperialist British had overpowered the Indian men physically and mentally too. Gandhi believed that compulsory disarmament had made Indians unmanly and the presence of an alien army, employed with deadly effect to crush the spirit of resistance, had made Indians think that they could not defend themselves against foreign aggression.Gandhi raised the demand for the right to carry arms from various platforms. It was one of the major demands presented to the Viceroy before launching the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930. Gandhi was the leader of this disarmed army of poor and dumb millions. He had to redesign and redefine the traditional concept of masculinity to suit the condition of India.
Gandhi's model of masculinity was designed combining the best features of Eastern and Western culture after removing their defects. Gandhi knew that it was difficult to compete British imperialist masculinity with physical power; so he gave emphasis on moral superiority. By presenting this new model of masculinity, Gandhi wanted to remove the inferiority complex from the minds of Indian men.
Local, regional, national and international influences and factors played an important role in the making of the masculinity of Gandhi. I have tried to study his model of masculinity in the form of body and social practices.
Guest II · 299 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago
tim · 299 weeks ago
See this --- https://m.phys.org/news/2019-07-ancient-genomics-...
macgupta 81p · 299 weeks ago