May 13, 2008 Humanities Core Course
Today's Plan
1)
The Peasant's Letter from Last Week
2)
The Vinayak and Me Article
3)
Your Research Projects
The Letter.
Look at what's going on: you are a student in a course which requires you to
consider primary resources through the lens of your own research, with the
incorporation of secondary resources to help you.
And Look what happened last week: you were given a model of how to proceed.
A process of making sense of the letter. Notice how he shows you each step
of the process.
Don't overlook this research example. I'll get back to this when we discuss your
research papers later today.
Remember I talked about Phoolan Devi last week? I brought her up as a
contemporary who was denied a political voice by the establishment
(public), and made a political voice for herself through her (counter-public)
deeds.
This is a doing.
I bring this up again so that you can have another example of a seemingly
recurrent theme, an idea that was brought up last week: literacy is not a
prerequisite for political action. We saw it in Antigone, Kohlhaas, and in the
Ranchod Vira letter.
Antigone (the character) was a woman, and as a woman she was not given a voice
in ancient Greece. Antigone (the character) was not trained in formal logic,
and was supposed to be incapable of it, and so was thought to be incapable
of political action, and so was not allowed a voice in their politics.
In Kohlaas, we saw peasants who were not educated in the letters who had their
12 articles written up, which played a part of the Peasants' War. We saw
how this played a role in Luther's own articles.
In the Ranchod Vira letter, we saw (according to our Professor):
1) Peasants throughout India were active in questioning colonial power,
2) Participants in creating a counterpublic
3) Rethink the ways we interpret the intellectual lives of peasants.
And we then saw how this letter played a role in the political life of India that
followed it.
So, I bring Phoolan Devi up so that you can count her in. She, like Antigone, like
the peasants of the Holy Roman empire, like Ranchod Vira, engaged in
political action without the supposed capacity for political literacy.
I bring this issue up again since we see it in this week's readings, in our
Professor's article about naming.
Now, on to our professor's name.
Our professor modeled for you research. He follows something that he's already
interested in, does oral research, and then hits the books. My suggestion is
that you don't underestimate the value of talking with people about your own
research as they can sometimes turn you onto research material you would
not otherwise find.
Okay, now, in finally talking about the importance of naming, I'll give you two
pieces of background material.
First, notice what's going on in Savarkar's IWI. In writing the Indian War of
Independence, Savarkar seems to be engaged in a renaming of the events
that occurred around 1857. The British called it a mutiny.
What is the difference between Mutiny and Revolution?
This is review, so it should be easy.
What is the difference between mutiny and revolution?
One standard definition of mutiny is "an open rebellion against the proper
authorities."
An equally standard definition of revolution is "a forcible overthrow of a
government or social order in favor of a new system."
The point of this little exercise has been to show you that Savarkar, in writing his
history of the violent incidents of 1857, was interested in getting Indian's to
see an Indian account of what happened. And that effort began with the very
title of the book.
This is supposed to get you to understand the importance of naming, using
material with which you should already be familiar.
Remember the Sample Final Question: What were the claimed causes of the war
of 1857 in India? Explain the divergence between these causes and relate
them to those who provide them as answers.
We'll put a new part into it, in light of the emphasis on naming.
Answer: According to British historians (those British historians highlighted by
Savarkar), the start of the "mutiny" (which is the name the British gave to
the events to signifiy their claim to legitimate authority) of 1857 in India
occurred from either the reaction that Indians had to the fact the claim that
the British coated their ammunition in animal fat, or from the British
annexation of Oudh. According to Savarkar, it was Indian desire for
Swadharma (self-religion) and Swaraj (self-rule) that started the
"revolution" (which is the name Savarkar gave the evetns to signify his
claim to legitimate authority) of 1857 in India. According to Savarkar, the
British answer to the cause of the conflict was meant to show how irrational
the Indians were, and this is why Savarkar brings up his own causal analysis
of the war, to show the Indians as rational, and just in their actions.
Okay, where was I? Oh yes, trying to get you onboard with the importance of
naming. I tried to do this so far by showing you the difference between the
British name for the conflict in India in 1857 and the name that Savarkar
gave those same events.
But perhaps pop culture can help? Remember Kumar from Harold and Kumar?
Remember Kumar from Harold and Kumar? Well, two years ago he did a movie
called Namesake. Seen it? It is worth watching the trailer, so that you get a
feel for it.
Notice the difference in this instance of naming. It is not the naming of a war, or
a nation, but of an individual.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/thenamesake/trailer/
• 1. My name is ________________ (choose one name
you have or use)
• 2. One of my given names, or a name you chose? ____
• 3. As a child, what you felt, about this name (liked it,
didn't)?_________
• 4. If you use one of your given names, do you use it as a
nickname, or in its original form? _________________
• 5. What you were told about name as a child (meaning,
religious or ethnic
• or other association (named after a singer, war hero,
etc.)___?
• 6. Information or associations with your name as a
teenager or adult, if different_______________
• 7. Other people who have this
name:_____________________
Okay, I've tried to get you to see the importance of naming. Notice what I've
done. I've shown you things that you should already know, and now I'm
gonna try and show you things that you may not already know. I'm
modeling for you a couple of different techniques. Going from the known to
the unknown ... we've heard that before. We called it "an example" in Fall.
Now, into the unknown.
What do you think is going on in "Vinayay and Me?"
At once it seems to be a history of an individual's name, and–at the very same
time–the history of a broader social phenomenon.
Let's follow them in turn.
The individual history in "Vinayay and Me" traces out the way in which an
individual, in this case our Professor Chaturvedi, discovered the personal
and social significance of his own name.
The importance of this part of what's going on is two-fold. I've already highlighted the first aspect, and that is how he models research for us. He starts
with a question, looks at a dictionary to get up to speed with the basics, then
asks people. Those people turn him onto books. Then, he reads books, and
then talks to more people. While your research may not require you to
conduct interviews, that certainly does not mean you should not talk to
people. (When instructors tell you things like this three times in one
discussion, you should take them seriously.)
The other aspect which makes this part of what's going on has to do with the
importance of autobiography. Our professor has created for us, but also for
a much larger community, a source.
You don't teach Savarkar in India without controversy. Even your experience of
being taught Savarkar in India is a primary resource.
You, yourself, a primary resource, depending on the event. You could easily
create a primary resource for others to use about ... say the state of education
in Irvine.
Notice how, in different contexts, our professor's paper is a primary resource, and
in other contexts a secondary resource.
How is it a primary resource?
How is it a secondary resource?
The answer to "how is it a secondary resource?" brings up the other way in which
this essay is important. Remember I said I though it was significant in two
ways, first as a personal history, and second as a social history? Well, when
we look at how this article can count as a secondary resource, we see that
the essay is an important piece of social history, in some contexts.
We learned all sorts of things about India that helps us with our knowledge of the
differences between Gandhi and Savarkar.
The differences between Gandhi and Savarkar can seem obvious, but there are
some nuanced difference that you should be aware of.
Who could be "Indian" according to Gandhi? Could a British citizen become
Indian?
What was it about Gandhi's thinking makes you say that?
Who could be "Indian" according to Savarkar? Could a British citizen become
Indian?
What is it about Savarkar's thinking that makes you say that?
Here's my point at the moment, we learn from Professor Chaturvedi's essay that
Savarkar was interested in a territorialized definition of "Indian."
First, and this is important, we learned that Savarkar, as a condition of his release,
was denied a political life in "public politics," and that, as a result, he
engaged in a different kind of "politics." This has to do with that distinction
we heard, between "publics" and "counter-publics."
What were two things that Savarkar did which were not "public" politics, but
which had political effects?
What were two things that Savarkar did which were not "public" politics, but
which had political effects?
First, and this is obvious, he argued for the importance of names. This, in turn,
lead Dr. Parchure to name our Professor "Vinayak."
Secondly, he argued for a revival of Hinduism. This, in turn, was used to bolster
the notion of Hindu nationalism.
From the essay (p. 224): "Savarkar intended to use the text [Hindutva: Who is
Hindu?] to clarify divergent opinions on how to define 'Hindu,' 'Hinduism'
and 'Hindutuva' by establishing a history of the term "Hindu," demonstrating
links between territoriality and Hindu identity, and answering the question
'Who is Hindu?.' His main focus in the text, nevertheless, was to argue that
the conceptualization of Indian national identity must, at ist foundation, be
based within the political philosophy of Hindutva."
Savarkar was uniting India by revitalizing Hinduism, so as to create a religious
nation, it seems.
How do you create a nation?
British did it. How?
Gandhi did it. How?
Savakar tried. How?
The Ganesh festivals were formed with that task in mind.
From the essay (p. 225): "In the 1890's Ganesh's popularity had a resurgence
under the leadership of Tilak, who began mobilizing the large numbers of
Hindus from upper and lower castes around an annual Ganesh festival.
Tilak was concerned about harnessing the mass support against colonial rule,
while simultaneously using the symbol of Ganesh to articulate a political
agenda linking 'Hindu revivalism' with Indian nationalism. It was
considered an 'extremist' form of nationalism for its celebration of
Maharashtrian 'martial prowess' and for its militant anti-Muslim character.
In fact, it has been argued that Tilak's invention of a Ganesh tradition was
primarily in response to, and corresponded with, the annual Muslim festival
of Muhharram."
The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons:
1)
2)
3)
They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common
ancestory.
The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons:
1)
They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common
ancestory.
2)
They served to distance a community seen as harmful.
3)
The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons:
1)
They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common
ancestory.
2)
They served to distance a community seen as harmful.
3)
They allowed those who could not read or write to participate in political
action.
And why is it important to study history?
Savarkar seems to have said it himself (though he's echoing others here) on p.
226: "The nation that has no consciousness of its past has no future."
To this day, fighting continues between India and Pakistan. One area of contest is
called Kashmir. Do a "google.com/news" search and you find that the
fighting goes on to this day:
http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF8&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=kashmir&btnG=Search+News
Or, do a similar search, but of the news archives:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=kashmir&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=
d&as_ldate=2005&as_hdate=2005&lnav=d0&ldrange=1998,2004
Doing such a search shows how folks were excited in 2005 about being able to
take a train between India and Pakistan for the first time in decades ...
Doing such a search shows how folks were excited in 2005 about being able to
take a train between India and Pakistan for the first time in decades ...
but digging deeper will show you that violence surrounds the train line. People
who are against the exchange of people firebombed the train in 2007, killing
67 people.
In Other news:
"Bomb blasts kill 60 in western India / Tue May 13, 2008 3:10pm EDT
"JAIPUR, India (Reuters) - Sixty people were killed in a series of bomb attacks in
India's western city of Jaipur on Tuesday evening, police, officials and
witnesses said. At least six bombs, which exploded in markets and near a
Hindu temple in Jaipur's crowded walled city just as many people took to the
streets after a sweltering day, also wounded up to 150 people, officials said.
Rajasthan state government officials said between 50 and 60 people were
killed in the explosions, the deadliest bomb attacks in India in nearly two
years. "According to the information I have received 60 people have died
and 150 have been injured," Rajasthan's Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje
was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying. But the state's police chief
gave lower figures. "Forty-five people have been killed and at least 100 have
been injured," A. S. Gill, Director General of Police in the state of
Rajasthan, told reporters. No group has claimed responsibility for the
attacks. But India has previously blamed Pakistan-based Islamist
militants fighting to end New Delhi's rule of Kashmir for such
bombings."
It continues:
"The latest attack comes just over a week before India's foreign minister Pranab
Mukherjee is due to visit Islamabad to review the four-year-old peace
process, his first visit since a new, civilian government took over in
Pakistan. It also comes just a few days after fresh firing along the border
between the neighbours in disputed Kashmir, with India saying Islamist
militants had been trying to sneak in."
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USSP1811320080513
We study history for a reason ... .
Okay, stepping off of the soap box ...
What are your research topics?
1)
Topic
2)
Primary Resource(s)
3)
Secondary Resources
Thanks ...