Rules of Membership

[George Thompson]

In a message dated 7/14/00 6:28:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bmisra at FAS.HARVARD.EDU writes:

> > Many of gandhijis followers themselves can be quite critical of him. I
>  > personally head angry criticism by a staunch follower on his treatment
of
> a
>  > pregnant kasturba when she refused to clean public latrines in south
> africa.
>  > This from people who knew him personally and have been staunch followers
> all
>  > their lives. People do openly discuss his faults rather than just treat
> him
>  > as some undisputed symbol of morality. There is nothing strange about
>  > treating gandhi as another human being.
>  >
>
>  Of course Gandhi was a human being.  The statement above implies
>  as though human beings are Gandhis.  It takes a lot to be a Gandhi.
>  There is organized criticism of Gandhi lately by political
>  lobbyists.  It's unfortunate.
>
>  BM

Please note: this is addressed to the List, and not to K Elst [with whom I
have no desire to communicate].

Clearly, reasonable people can disagree about Gandhi's politics, about his
judgements at various points in his life, about some of his personal
idiosyncrasies. etc.  But reasonable people, I think, stop short of violence.
 And they do not glorify those who commit violence, whether for political or
religious reasons.   Whatever else might be said of Gandhi, in my view his
advocacy of non-violence was a good thing.

If the dispute between me and Elst were just that, it would be a very little
thing indeed: two petty scholars bickering with each other.  But I fear that
it may be much more than that. Maybe it is not significant, but notice the
violence in this language:

 "if I were to punch your face in, the damage done would not be one tenth of
the
damage done by defamation.  A face can be repaired nowadays, but a bruised
name?..."

Those are K. Elst's words.   Please note that there is nothing comparable in
mine.

I think that there is a significant relationship between the language of the
hindutvavAdI and his actions.  I am not so much troubled by words as I am by
actions.  To critiicize Gandhi is fair.  But his hindutva enemies did not
stop at criticism.  And likewise today there are fanatics in India who do not
stop at words. I ask the List: what is the relationship between the words of
hindutva apologists and hindutva violence?  In this regard, Elst and I are
unimportant.  But the larger question of the relationship between rhetoric
and violence is important [and of course not just in India].

This question is a perennial one, of course.  In my article on the Vedic
brahmodya in JAOS I emphasized the point that Vedic was an agonistic culture.
 It has been argued that Vedic verbal contests were a sublimation of direct
physical violence.  In my view that is something that we can learn from Vedic
culture: let us engage in a good tough argument -- it is better than killing
each other.  The best Vedic thinkers knew this and steered themselves and
their followers away from violence.

I am no devotee of Gandhi. I am neither Christian nor Muslim nor Marxist. I
have no religious views whatsoever.  However,  I think that it is a mark of a
civilized person to renounce violence. Certainly, I do so, not only in my
actions but also in my rhetoric.  I invite the List to judge whether I have
ever been violent in this sense.

And then compare the rhetoric of my enemies.

So who ultimately is the greater threat to civilized discourse, and to the
glory of a great civilization like India's?

Best wishes,

George Thompson