Hind Swaraj Or Indian Home Rule by Mahatma Gandhi




The philosophic dimensions he has given to the everyday life and the simple way he adopts really makes it a simple experience; but the profound truth he expressed will remain in our psyche for a long time..



View all my reviews

വ്യക്തികളല്ല ,ആശയങ്ങളും
നിലപാടുകളുമാണ് എന്നെ
ക്ഷോഭിപ്പിക്കാരുള്ളത്.
എന്നെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം
എന്‍റെ ചിന്തയുടെയും
അഭിരുചിയുടെയും
സ്വാതന്ത്രിയം പ്രകടിപ്പിക്കാനുള്ള
ഉപായം കൂടിയാണ്
സാഹിത്യവിമര്സനം.
എന്‍റെ ചിന്തകളും വികാരങ്ങളും
ഒളിച്ചു വയ്കുവാന്‍
അറിഞ്ഞു കൂടാത്തത് കൊണ്ടാണ്
ഞാന്‍ എഴുതുന്നത്.
K.P.Appan
1. New critic should be like Socrates, the first rebel, always misunderstood by the society.
2. He should have a disinherited mind
3. Follow the footsteps of Cicero by saying liberty or death.
4. He should be a cynic like Diogenes.
There is only one person who fulfils all these standards, C.J Thomas, according to Appan. Appan discussed about the new tradition of criticism in his book Kshobhathinte Ithihasm. Somehow in his idea of a good critic the models he seek are all Westerners. Maybe pure coincidence!!!

On Idol Worship

The responses of a group of people in matters of food, clothing, marriage, death ,birth and their whole inclusive attitude is what we called the religion of that particular group. Based on the size, historical time period they survived as a group, whether they are organized or not, all these will contribute in the development of their religious system. The geographical and historical elements will be crucial in understanding and defining any particular religious system.
Almost all the religions in the present century are highly organized and it is difficult to analyze the various features which constitute the belief system. There is no single criterion to analyze the nature of any particular belief system.
The question I would like to analyze now is, whether idol worship is acceptable or not. There are so many agreements and disagreement among scholars about the practice of idolatry. From the beginning itself, reformers in India raised severe objections regarding idol worship. The Christian world viewed it as a pagan practice, were people worship stones and trees and such inanimate things. Since then talking in favor of idol worship is considered something bad and shows lack of knowledge. It is lack of knowledge since the authentic texts of worship, including Vedas talked against idol worship.
So what should be the criteria of analyzing a religion? Whether we can solely believe the words of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Holy Bible and the Holy Koran is a crucial question. Or is it possible to analyze any religion based on these texts, since none of us follow the written precepts.
Some thinkers expressed the view that, when the words of the authentic text and the mode of worship of the people differ each other the words on the page should be the most authenticated. Then the question is what a text is?
The text, whether written by an individual or divinely inspired, is nothing but some symbols or signs in a large system of signification. It is just one sign among the other signs, including the various performances of that particular group. To understand any religion we should study each sign without any prejudices.
As far as Hindu religion is concerned the practice of idol worship is just a sign with multiple significations. Each and every sign/idol shows different thanthric sambradayas and a correct understanding of it require a lot of study, including a closer study of the Vedas based on these symbols. These signs are nothing but a short way to the inner truths of Vedas. By negating the importance of Idols we can never fully understand Hindu religion. This has nothing to do with paganism since it includes lots of scientific truths within them.

Martyre as a Romantic Concept

Martyrs
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
— Oscar Wilde
"I have been astonished that men could die martyrs
for their religion--
I have shuddered at it,
I shudder no more.
I could be martyred for my religion.
Love is my religion
and I could die for that.
I could die for you."
— John Keats
"The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins."
— Søren Kierkegaard
അവനവനു വേണ്ടിയല്ലാതെ അപരന്നു ചുടു
രക്തമൂടി കുലം വിട്ടു പോയവന്‍ രക്തസാക്ഷി
മരണത്തിലൂടെ ജനിച്ചവന്‍
സ്മരണയില്‍ ഒരു രക്തതാരകം രക്തസാക്ഷി .
മുരുകന്‍ കാട്ടാക്കട

One of the most romanticised concepts in this period is the concept called martyrdom. Martyr is one who sacrifices everything for the well being of the community or group in which he belongs. He sacrifices what is called the selfish, personal interest for the larger interest of the group. For him the silly issues like family and such affairs are nothing. The world we live now emerged because of the sufferings and sacrifices of such great revolutionaries and martyrs. For every nation there will be at least one or two martyrs with great stories surrounding that personality, most of which looks like Byronic tales. The idea of sacrifice without any selfishness is something very hard to digest. Is it possible for a man to live without any personal interest? Is selflessness possible?
The irony is that those who celebrate the martyrdom of great personalities never allowed an objective study of their contributions. Each year they celebrate the sacrifice and each of such programmes will leads to new sacrifices.
The sacrifices are never been sacrifices, if we closely analyse each and every case in detail. They will be either the victims of a plot by their own friends and followers, or they simply could not escape the situation. Once they rose to prominence they can’t go back to their simple life because it will be considered as cowardice. They will not have any other option but move forward. In certain cases they may be unaware of their opponents’ strength.
These all are mere possibilities; my point is that there are so many myths related to martyrdom which are highly romanticised.

The Burden of Bistory

"The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."-Milan Kundera.
History means a systematic and an objective study of the human world, or the world in general in our perspective. It is regarded as objective and scientific discipline. But what is the purpose of history; or what the history/historians are doing. Again what is the advantage of the people in learning history; how they are using the historic knowledge in their life. What are the different ways in which the historians, common man, political &religious leaders uses history. More precisely, how the hi knowledge of history turns out to be a burden for all of us.
History means the collective memory of the whole human race. When I say I remember something, I’m simultaneously saying that I'm forgetting something else. In other words, the process of remember, whether it is personal or the collective, includes the process of inclusion and exclusion. We remember what we wanted to remember, not the exact truth. That is why we forget the most important and most touching events in a flash of a second. That is why we have 'memorable' moments in our life, i.e. we are very selective in his case.
The historians, political leaders, and religious leaders while talking about history are very careful to silence certain facts from history. the Hindu leaders discuss about the Muslim invasion; Muslim leaders about Hindu rule and subjugation; Dalits about the hegemony of the upper caste people, and so on....
why do we talk elaborately about our past; past glories and the persecution in the past. What is the advantage we have in talking about the Vedic period and the severe years of untouchability in the contemporary world why do we carry the burden of history. The communal leaders organise their work not by discussing the advantages we have now but by retelling the problems in the past..Why we are dividing the people by using history.