Comments on: Gandhi in the land of a million mutinies http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/gandhi-in-the-land-of-a-million-mutinies-2 Powered by Webshore Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:46:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SuperSonic http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/gandhi-in-the-land-of-a-million-mutinies-2#comment-446 SuperSonic Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:52:04 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1052#comment-446 , [url=http://www.hoscroc.com/]SuperSonic[/url] ,

[url=http://www.hoscroc.com/]SuperSonic[/url]

]]> By: Sakshi http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/gandhi-in-the-land-of-a-million-mutinies-2#comment-429 Sakshi Sun, 03 Oct 2010 07:14:03 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1052#comment-429 Jayant - thank you for for your excellent critique of the post. I appreciate that the issues that you highlight will arise if symbolism becomes the sole, or even the main strategy of the state in engaging with resistance movements. The post is based on the premise that it would be in the interest of the state to counter movements that challenge its existence or unity. An essential part of strategy formation by the state is the need to understand the reasons why a movement wins the backing of the wider citizenry (a larger group than those actually involved in the protest). Gandhi recognised the importance of mass emotional appeal decades ahead of our era of media dominance, and used it to strengthen his movement. The Indian state, on the other hand, has been slower to appreciate this. Understanding the emotive appeal of the weaker side in these (at times seemingly) unequal contests would help the state nuance its response better. While it is easy to accept that resistance movements often begin with the need to voice some very real grievances against the state, it is also equally true that movements (particularly violent movements) at times end up losing sight of their initial goal and take on a life of their own. The use of strong arm tactics by the state at such points, often ends up giving the movement a legitiimacy based on the David v. Goliath nature of the contest, rather than on the basis of the issues represented by the movement. If the state keeps this in mind while deciding on its counter strategy, this will perhaps lead to more humane responses by the state, and a greater scope for evidence based, rather than emotive responses by the citizenry. As an aside, 'land of a million mutinies' in the title is a reference to Naipaul's "India: A Million Mutinies Now", and not an attempt to characterise the nature of the Kashmiri struggle. This would also be clear from the fact that no position has been taken on whether to term it a struggle for independence or a seccession movement. Jayant – thank you for for your excellent critique of the post.

I appreciate that the issues that you highlight will arise if symbolism becomes the sole, or even the main strategy of the state in engaging with resistance movements.

The post is based on the premise that it would be in the interest of the state to counter movements that challenge its existence or unity. An essential part of strategy formation by the state is the need to understand the reasons why a movement wins the backing of the wider citizenry (a larger group than those actually involved in the protest). Gandhi recognised the importance of mass emotional appeal decades ahead of our era of media dominance, and used it to strengthen his movement. The Indian state, on the other hand, has been slower to appreciate this. Understanding the emotive appeal of the weaker side in these (at times seemingly) unequal contests would help the state nuance its response better. While it is easy to accept that resistance movements often begin with the need to voice some very real grievances against the state, it is also equally true that movements (particularly violent movements) at times end up losing sight of their initial goal and take on a life of their own. The use of strong arm tactics by the state at such points, often ends up giving the movement a legitiimacy based on the David v. Goliath nature of the contest, rather than on the basis of the issues represented by the movement. If the state keeps this in mind while deciding on its counter strategy, this will perhaps lead to more humane responses by the state, and a greater scope for evidence based, rather than emotive responses by the citizenry.

As an aside, ‘land of a million mutinies’ in the title is a reference to Naipaul’s “India: A Million Mutinies Now”, and not an attempt to characterise the nature of the Kashmiri struggle. This would also be clear from the fact that no position has been taken on whether to term it a struggle for independence or a seccession movement.

]]> By: Jayant Hingare http://www.criticaltwenties.in/nationalpolitics/gandhi-in-the-land-of-a-million-mutinies-2#comment-408 Jayant Hingare Sat, 02 Oct 2010 08:17:36 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1052#comment-408 Thank you for a thought-provoking post. I confess I find it a little hard to follow your reasoning. You argue anecdotally that public opinion has historically favoured the underdog in popular movements and/or uprisings. You then say, <blockquote cite="...if the Indian state is to prevail over these <i>mutinies<i>, policies need to be designed to make the fight <i>seem<i> more even"><cite>. Using your preferred example of the Kashmir protests regarding the AF(SP) Act, if the central government shares your view that this is a "mutiny" or an otherwise illegitimate set of protests, surely the best course would be to use the media to portray the protesters as politically-motivated troublemakers, to make the fight "seem" more even? Following this line of reasoning, the government should first undermine the mass support for the protesters through a concerted media operation to smear them, and then redouble its military efforts to stamp out the protests and incarcerate its leaders. Since Gandhi-style protests are inevitably directed <i>against<i> state power, you are right to say <blockquote cite="...if there is one lesson that the Mahatma can teach the nation that he fathered, it is of the irresistible appeal of the idea that the meek shall inherit the earth."><cite> That lesson is appropriate for the "nation", i.e. the citizenry, not for the state. The counter-lesson that the "state", i.e. the governmental apparatus should learn, is that the appeal of such imagery can be countered by cynical media manipulation to discredit and trivialise what may be legitimate protest movements (as you seem to unwittingly do by dubbing the Kashmir protests a "mutiny"). The fact that the government has not adopted the strategy outlined above surely indicates that it believes that there is a genuine problem to be resolved regarding AF(SP)A. A unilateral withdrawal of the special powers by the central government will only strengthen the hand of the opposition and separatist politicians in the Valley, as it will be perceived as a victory engineered by them (the underdog strikes a mighty blow, as it were). Nevertheless, the central government is trying to hammer out a deal which can retain future flexibility for defence forces while giving the Kashmiris more autonomy. That to me seems like a government that has moved on from a cynical approach to a pragmatic one. It seems to me that citizens will always use the David v. Goliath imagery as a pressure tactic in any protest or action to change government policy. So the true lesson for the state is probably to rise above what the <i>nation<i> can learn from Gandhi, and to engage in evidence-based policymaking. Thank you for a thought-provoking post. I confess I find it a little hard to follow your reasoning.

You argue anecdotally that public opinion has historically favoured the underdog in popular movements and/or uprisings. You then say, <blockquote cite="…if the Indian state is to prevail over these mutinies, policies need to be designed to make the fight seem more even”>.

Using your preferred example of the Kashmir protests regarding the AF(SP) Act, if the central government shares your view that this is a “mutiny” or an otherwise illegitimate set of protests, surely the best course would be to use the media to portray the protesters as politically-motivated troublemakers, to make the fight “seem” more even? Following this line of reasoning, the government should first undermine the mass support for the protesters through a concerted media operation to smear them, and then redouble its military efforts to stamp out the protests and incarcerate its leaders.

Since Gandhi-style protests are inevitably directed against state power, you are right to say

That lesson is appropriate for the “nation”, i.e. the citizenry, not for the state. The counter-lesson that the “state”, i.e. the governmental apparatus should learn, is that the appeal of such imagery can be countered by cynical media manipulation to discredit and trivialise what may be legitimate protest movements (as you seem to unwittingly do by dubbing the Kashmir protests a “mutiny”).

The fact that the government has not adopted the strategy outlined above surely indicates that it believes that there is a genuine problem to be resolved regarding AF(SP)A. A unilateral withdrawal of the special powers by the central government will only strengthen the hand of the opposition and separatist politicians in the Valley, as it will be perceived as a victory engineered by them (the underdog strikes a mighty blow, as it were). Nevertheless, the central government is trying to hammer out a deal which can retain future flexibility for defence forces while giving the Kashmiris more autonomy. That to me seems like a government that has moved on from a cynical approach to a pragmatic one.

It seems to me that citizens will always use the David v. Goliath imagery as a pressure tactic in any protest or action to change government policy. So the true lesson for the state is probably to rise above what the nation can learn from Gandhi, and to engage in evidence-based policymaking.

]]>