January 28, 2008
Arun Gandhi: A Saffron Finklestein?Issues
It seems rather obtuse for someone to resign from a foundation which bears their name, but in some circumstances it seems entirely justified. This is the tack taken by University of Rochester president Joel Seligman in a terse statement, describing his reaction to the recent resignation of Arun Gandhi from the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence (which is now situated at the University of Rochester):
I was surprised and deeply disappointed by Arun Gandhi’s recent opinion piece in the Washington Post blog, “On Faith.” I believe that his subsequent apology inadequately explains his stated views, which seem fundamentally inconsistent with the core values of the University of Rochester. In particular I vehemently disagree with his singling out of Israel and the Jewish people as to blame for the “Culture of Violence” that he believes is eventually going to destroy humanity. This kind of stereotyping is inconsistent with our core values and would be inappropriate when applied to any race, any religion, any nationality, or either gender.
University presidents are a curious breed, in large part tasked with finding big donors and implementing ‘big picture’ programs across entire educational institutions. As a result, they are sometimes easy targets for backlash—I remember the former President of my own alma mater, declaring at a commencement speech that all previous graduating classes amounted to “mush in, mush out” and was hounded from that post (directly into a cushy job in the Business School). It seems unlikely, however, that Mr. Seligman will face any sort of flak for his official statement on Arun Gandhi’s resignation.
Examination of the original post does not seem to reveal a deep-seated hatred for world Jewry, as many of his critics in the comments section seems to suggest but a kind of benevolent academic buffoonery. Mr. Gandhi could have, however, made his comments a bit more nonspecific and less pointed—one doesn’t have to assume much to read the post and think Arun was simplistically blaming terrorism on the world’s Jewish population and accusing the same population of overplaying concerns which, in his opinion, have long exhausted their instructive content:
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience — a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.Taking the Norman Finklestein position certainly doesn’t help matters, as Finklestein found himself without a job due to the backlash generated by his strident condemnations of groups like the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress and individuals like Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz for this alleged pimping of Holocaust suffering for material gain. It’s not a line that will start many conversations but rather many one-sided flames—even as a ‘thought experiment’ it seems too offensive to too many people to be a viable origin of constructive and instructive dialog. There are, however, some very obvious errors. Gandhi’s statement is rife with analytical sinkholes: conflating Jewish identity with agreement with Israeli policy and actions, comparing the people of the occupied territories and Israel with fratricidal snakes, and creating a concept which he does not care to expand but quickly assigns to, “Israel and the Jews.”
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit — with many deadly snakes in it — and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship? Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don’t befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.
It was here that my casual regard for Mr. Gandhi began to waver. What could he possibly think could be achieved by assigning blame to “the Jews” for a “culture of violence” that he doesn’t care to define? Especially if this “culture of violence” will bring an end to our world?
I had thought that proponents of non-violence would mostly speak in vague terms, extolling the virtues of non-violence over violence, invoking some sort of deity/divinity/saint to buttress their claims of the primacy of non-violent methods and leave it at that. How did Arun find his way into the very contentious topic of Israel? Again, I found a set of questions floating to the top of my mind:
Is non-violence really the best solution in all situations/contexts? If it is not, is there any point to stumping for the cause?
Is Arun Gandhi finished in the world of academic discourse? (if he ever inhabited it to begin with?)
Does the doctrine of non-violence, as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi, really represent the death of a Jewish state?
Arun Gandhi issued an apology after the initial uproar which addressed many of the points I raise above—however, I don’t believe for a second that it’s entirely sincere. He’s not apologizing for the sloppy analysis which pervades his original post, but correcting what he sees as misreadings of the same. Whatever the case, what he wrote initially will always be available to the net-going public and skeptics who do not buy his apology will forever abound.
Nayagan on January 28, 2008 05:09 PM in Issues, Issues, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Why the adjective "saffron"?
I agree with many of the concerns raised by Arun Gandhi. Israel was explicitly created as a state for Jews and hence it is not unreasonable to conflate Jewish and Israeli identities. Every Jew has automatic right to Israeli citizenship. Like every Hindu being granted Indian citizenship. Having said that I admire the Israel for building and holding onto a state in the face of great adversity. Going negative against Jews / Israel does not make you friends in the Western World - especially in the USA. In that respect, Arun was daft.
Exactly the question I wanted to ask. If anything, M. K. Gandhi's views of Jews (and Israel) were controversial. India and Israel had strong diplomatic relations during the rule of the BJP, and the right wing has shown nothing but the utmost admiration for Zionism in general and Jews in particular.
I think that it's unfair to call this the "Finkelstein position", given that Finkelstein has spent quite a bit more time and effort constructing what is (in my opinion) a very coherent argument, and offers plenty of nuanced analysis to back up his position. I think to say this distracts from both the content of Gandhi's post as well as the depth of Finkelstein's work.
2 · melbourne desi on January 28, 2008 06:39 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)
Having said that I admire the Israel for building and holding onto a state in the face of great adversity.
Give credit where credit is due.
It seems like there is an instant conflation between Jewish identity/Israeli policy in most people's minds. Any time someone criticizes the latter, the statement is met with violent cries of 'anti-semite!'
Granted, his parenthetical crack about Israel and the Jews was a bit over the line, but Mr. Gandhi might be building to a slightly larger point.
Violence? an inability to forget history? Anti-Muslim
Seems like he might be drawing ties to something else...
4 · yeti said
Would you rather I call it the David Irving position;) This argument is most commonly identified with it's greatest and most consistent proponent: Norman Finklestein. You certainly don't see Peter Novick making it the foundation of his career.
Anyhow, like/dislike Finklestein as you may, you cannot deny the parallel. Arun's post may be shallow and poorly worded, but it tracks with Finklestein to a tee.
Sorry, that was meant to read "anti-Muslim sentiment"
Almost any time the topic of Israel comes up on Sepia Mutiny. It become a form for people to go off there Israel bashing, which I don't understand.
And this Mr.Gandhi is almost as lost as the late Rachel Corrie[a real dumb blonde]
I hardly think a simple statement of facts is 'Israel bashing'.
A statement of fact?????????
Just look at any past post on this website and most of the comments about Isreal are very negative.
For some reason alot of people want to support these people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzRV-t5fLM&feature=related
Oh good. Here comes the 'terrorists' argument.
*cue star spangled banner*
Yes, there have been some disparaging things said in past SM posts.
I didn't type them.
As I said before, I disagree with the way in which Mr. Gandhi stated his opinions. He stepped over a line with the last part of his post, as a man of his standing should be more sensitive to the perception of his comments. I don't, however, disagree with the content of his post; that a(ny) nation and its people should never become so mired in the past that they can't see the destructive and divisive nature of their actions in the present.
Israel might not represent all Jews, but a Youtube video represents the whole of Pakistan. I see what you did there. Well played.
9 · AR said
That would be a much more compelling rebuttal if you had made some simple statements of fact, rather than used a bunch of weasel words. The preemptive complaint about critics of Israel being called anti-Semites also sends up a lot of red flags. As do your implications about America's role. As does the fact that you chose those specific "facts" to state, and not any of the myriad others.
Not calling you an anti-Semite, just stating the simple fact that if you don't want people to think you're out to bash Israel, the simplest solution is to not act like someone who's out to bash Israel/Jews.
Rachel Corrie was naive. But she wasn't any dumber than the neocons who have ruined our foreign policy. Are you an LGF troll? Israel has good and bad points. While I do not agree with the concept of Israel(I just cant get on board that they are the rightful heirs to that land despite many of them not being part of it for centuries). However, those muslim countries that attack Israel kind of brought it on themselves a little bit too. They are just as intolerant of Jewish people. The other Muslim countries did not give Palestinians much respect until they became a usefull propaganda tool. I think the Palestinians are the only real victims. I find it ridiculous that they can call themselves a democracy but Jewish religion is given preference. The right wing Jewish wing has taken control of our foreign policy views towards Israel in the US. AIPAC is a menace. I sure hope an Indian lobby doesnt become as obnoxious as the lobby they aspire to be.
And to the idiot who called Rachel Corrie a big dumb blonde, I also believe she was murdered. I find it hard to believe it was an accident.
As Manju would say, this is a great opportunity for Gandhi Jr. to start his own M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence.
2 · melbourne desi said
Except that the world is full of ethnic Jews who are not Zionists. I am one of them. So the conflation of "Jew" with "Israel" (usually meaning "Zionist") angers me.
And this Mr.Gandhi is almost as lost as the late Rachel Corrie[a real dumb blonde]
Haha! What a witty comment. As the joke goes, I was standing in front of the IDF Caterpillar bulldozer.......
The history of anti-semitism (anti-Jewish really) has a long, dreary tale in Europe and to a lesser extent, the middle-east. But that does not mean that a separate, sovereign country of Israel can never be criticized by descendents of Europeans, much less by descendents of Asians. Gandhi of all people would never talk like this unless he had serious realson to. Looking at politico-religious history in the U.S., Pres. John Kennedy had to be very careful he gave no show of favoring Catholics or Cathlicism in any way, which didn't seem to be a problem for him. And of course people worry about electing Muslims. Yet Dov Zakheim, Comptroller of the Pentagon from 2001-2004, had dual Israeli-American citizenship and was an ordained rabbi. I don't get it. I honestly just don't get it. Sepiamutiny is probably not the best place to be asking for answer to this particular quandary, but since it's come up,what is it with this dual-citizenship stuff? and being an ordained member of a clergy whose first loyalty is going to be towards his co-religionsits. Why are evangelists and rabbis allowed in public office? is this legal?
Most Jews, like most Christians and Muslims, Hindus and atheists, do not think that politicians should hijack the government for the purpose of promoting their own "people." We know that democratic government is supposed to be above that. So what gives with rabbis comptrolling the Pentagon?
So the conflation of "Jew" with "Israel" (usually meaning "Zionist") angers me.
As the conflation of anti-semitism and anti-zionism angers those who criticize Israel
I think the conflation of Jew == Zionist == Israel == Israeli does a huge disservice to each of those groups, but it also ensures that individuals discuss identity instead of discussing how identity is leveraged to privilege or exclude specific groups. Instead of being able to evaluate a country based on its actions or the actions of its leaders/government (as we do with most countries), conversation often quickly devolves. It's much harder to solve an "ancient" problem (as ethnicity and difference is often described) instead of solving problems around specific issues, e.g., resource access or the franchise. In this sense, while Arun Gandhi may have had appropriate critiques of Israel (as a state actor), I think projecting the issue onto Jews as some monolithic, homogenous entity, is stupid.
With respect to your question Nayagan, re: non-violence always being appropriate, I would argue no, but I have a general chip on my shoulder with the philosophy of non-violence as a life path vs. the reality of non-violent resistance as a tactic. In the context of Israel, I don't understand your question: "Does the doctrine of non-violence, as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi, really represent the death of a Jewish state?" How would you see non-violence applied to the Israeli context?
I think Arun Gandhi should've refused to leave, forcing Seligman to go on a hunger strike to oust him. Although Arun Gandhi being "fired" from the M K Gandhi institute is about as ironic as Teddy Kennedy being detained at JFK airport for being on the no-fly list.
On a serious note, though, his last paragraph was indefensible. The rest of it would've been reasonable if he had either made his argument specific to Israel's actions, or had established some basis for his conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli actions (either that this is public perception, or that a large number of Jews feel that way).
That said, I think it is well established that criticizing Israel's actions is not a good career move in general.
And so the oppressed become the oppressors.....
21 · Camille said
Well I was thinking of alluding to the idea (that I do not subscribe to)that non-violence, in the face of Hamas/Hezbollah terrorism, is a policy prescription for collective suicide. It's somewhat similar to the argument against a Tony Judt-style binational state--that the Jewish population will be 'swamped' by non-Jews and cease to be a 'Jewish' state and thus, it's okay to take preemptive action against such a situation.
22 · Rahul said
Rahul, he'll be fine. he can always get a job at the BBC or start his own institute, as PAfD wisely advises. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if Goldman Sachs new community development fund finances the venture, given the huge amount of criticism of Israel coming form the Jewish community, including jews in israel. (wish i could say the same about other apartheid states like saudi Arabia and iran).
anyway, imus made a comeback, arun will do the same.
Good job equating Imus' career pastime of race baiting and his gratuitous abuse of innocent basketball players with Arun Gandhi's remarks, which were, clearly, at best poorly thought out.
I'll eagerly await the press release.
I don't understand this sentence either.
26 · Rahul said
i take that as a begrudged acceptance that there is more at stake here than criticizing Israel. after all, even edward said had a lucrative career. in the upper west side, of all places
27 · Rahul said
Rahul,
how much entertainment can one derive from a discussion with a troglodyte glib enough to equate Corrie with a sexist hair color stereotype?
I think the pleasure will fade far before the fingers leave the keyboard.
Thank you Nayagan. I think you're far too kind to Gandhi (his post wasn't criticism of Israeli policies but demonization of Jews) but as a BuJu I appreciate your post here. If I can offer answers to your questions:
1. No, I don't think that nonviolence is always possible. Certainly there were Jews in Germany before and during the Holocaust who tried it. I doubt their lack of success can be lain at the feet of those who resisted. When someone is not merely willing to but desires to kill you, I don't think nonviolence can be very effective. I am sympathetic to complete pacifism, but that means some degree of tolerance for even the greatest tragedies mankind can dish out.
2. I hope so until he can change his views on this.
3. No, nonviolence does not imply anti-Zionism in the least. So long as it is consistently applied to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Unfortunately, even the great Mahatma Gandhi got that wrong, as he refused to criticize the Arabs who attacked Jews while telling the Jews that they should have committed suicide to shame the Nazis. There is a will for peace on both sides that can be nourished.
I think he was an idiot to say what he said, since it is not borne out in fact, and is violently inflammatory in the current context. However, he has not made a career of abusing or making snide remarks about Israel or Jews, so equating him with Imus is completely ridiculous.
Edward Said is the only person (or maybe one of very few) I can think of whose occasional overreaching in the support of the Palestinian cause did not fatally destroy his career, but on the flip side, he had made his reputation in an earlier time, which was not as charged as today, and was a huge and vocal critic of the PLO too.
I dont hear condemnation from moderate Jews about extreme Zionists - a demand that is made of moderate Muslims / Hindus. What is good for one set of people is good for another.
Israel is a fantatic success story of building something out of virtually nothing. One that the Indian state can learn a lot.
caveat : never been to israel.
2 · melbourne desi said
No. Wrong
30 · Matt said
Gandhi much earlier also suggested much the same to the Hindus of Kerala during the Moplah Massacres post-Khilafat movement. He also asked of the citizens of Amritsar if those who had been mowed down at Jalianwalah were shot in the back or faced the bullets with courage. Gandhi was an equal opportunity non-violence proponent.
And Nayagan, why saffron?
Speaking of confused identity, how bout those semites.
So if Israel fights against its Arab neighbors, that would make them anti-semitic, no?
Not that anyone's calling names).
This is silly game-playing. In the English language, anti-semitic means anti-Jewish. Period.
The fact that Semitic means something broader in terms of lingusitic groups is irrelevant to the ordinary-language meaning of anti-semitic.
I suppose the meaning and relationship to the linguistic term has something to do with the demographics of England at the time the word emerged.
But to keep bringing up (I don't have the patience to link to other threads, though I've seen it more than once, by different commenters)
is silly (and pointless).
Yes, even if one believes that the term "semitic" has been hijacked to mean Jewish, these linguistic shenanigans do not, in the least, confuse the debate around the real and tangible issues, so there is absolutely no point harping on this issue (Unlike, for example, referring to the Iraq war as part of the "Global war on terror", or framing the discussion on Iraq as a choice between "stay the course" and "cut and run" - those are arguably linguistic issues that affect public discourse in significant ways).
Good point, Rahul--as you suggest, I'm definitely not saying that language never matters, just that this "anti-semitic" includes "anti-Arab" claptrap in fact goes nowhere and is a distraction.
on a somewhat similar theme, this week's Reporting Religion on BBC World Service Radio had this report:
"Why did it take seven years for Muslims in Britain to end their boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day? Sir Iqbal Sacranie from Muslim Council of Britain and Stephen Smith, Head of Holocaust Memorial Day Trust will discuss if their differences are over."
It was quite interesting, as Sir Sacranie made the point that they'd rather that the focus should be on genocides occurring today (or in the recent past- eg Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.) than just the one that took place in WW2.
You can listen to it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/reporting_religion.shtml
rahul: methinks you protest too much. we live in a world with a divestiture movement aimed at israel, but not saudi arabia or iran. in the uk they're trying to ban Israeli professors outright. Columbia university has hosted not just Said, but Rashid Khalidi and joseph massad, both of whom have no problem referring to israel as a racist apartheid state...the latter also harbors a peculiar brand of homophobia, that's given a special privilege on campus b/c it couched in anti-colonialist theory.
howard zinn and noam chomsky are doing fine last i checked but larry summers was forced to leave, in part b/c of his pro-isreaeli views. i could go on but you get the point, i'm sure.
I dont hear condemnation from moderate Jews about extreme Zionists
Well, there is plenty of condemnation of the settlers from the majority of Israelis and Jews the world over, well known to favor a two-state solution. Other than that, there are relatively few people willing to entertain that there are moderate Zionists, so no one perceived to demand condemnation from.
Manju,
1) your posts are great, but in interest of keeping you scrupuliously honest,
2) you might be overstating the state of affairs a bit in the excerpt above--Chomsky is "just" a professor--Summers was forced out as University President, which, as Nayagan noted in his initial post, is a different animal altogether
C'mon Manju, surely you should've gone on to mention the tenure denial of Joseph Massad after a concerted effort by a whole raft of pro Israel organizations, who criticized him for everything from being anti-semitic to intimidating students. I am not holding my breath to wait for Bollinger to make a prefatory speech condemning the wall, and the encouragement of settlers to change the "facts on the ground" if and when Olmert gives a speech at Columbia (I am not equating Israel to Iran by the way, but it is pathetic that he felt the need to make that CYA speech to keep his job).
Larry Summers wasn't forced out of office for his anti Israel views, just as he wasn't forced out of his office for his speech on women and science. The latter was just a convenient excuse to get a drumbeat of public support going against somebody who was wildly unpopular among his colleagues
Contemporary scholars who are making their reputation today are certainly taking a huge gamble with their careers by taking strident anti-Israel positions. The examples of Massad, Finkelstein and Khalidi (both of whom Dershowitz, who is tremendously influential took aim against - except Khalidi had tenure), and Nadia Abdul El Haj (who barely scrabbled to tenure at Barnard) are cautionary tales for anybody who might be considering espousing similar views.
This is not to say that I think that I agree with all the opinions of all these folks - in fact, there is a lot of bogus/crappy scholarship in this broad area - but the views that attract the most public disapproval are of a certain ilk.
As for divestment campaigns, I don't know what your point is. A lot of these are driven by student organizations, and not a single one has had any effect on university policies.
In any case, I think we can each argue the other to a standstill by taking the slice of reality that amplifies the injustice we want to perceive, so I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion now.
Well what about Hindus in our community who defensively make excuses for anyone pointing out any problem in the Hindu community by pointing out flaws in other religions.
By the way, during the Lamont - Lieberman primary, Lieberman's people tried to put a guilt trip on Jewish residents when polling found out that more Jewish Democratic party residents in the state were actually favoring Lamont in the primary. Lieberman was clearly playing the Israel card to no effect. It took a lot of dirty politics by the establishment in both parties for him to win the General Election, but Jewish people in America do not blindly believe in right wing Zionist crap.
Muslim fundamentalists also have not made it easy for the moderate Jews to be more strident against the right wing guys with their ridiculous demonization of all jews. Yet how many of these muslim fanatics have railed against other muslim nations for not treating the Palestinians well?
Manju, I highly doubt Summers lost his job at Harvard for any Israeli related favoritism. Do you have any links? From what I read, it was pretty much because of some of his gender related remarks.
why saffron??
i thought that was still pending.
strident anti-israel positions are rare on campus? perhaps they should talk to the legions of conservatives who've been denied tenure, and learn how to start they're own thinbk tank...wouldn't take too much imagination to come up with a long list of wealthy potential funding sources.
that's my point. i didn't want to get into a oppression Olympics but rather point out that partisans often think they're side suppressed, like the fox news anchor complaining that the MSM doesn't report good news in iraq, blind to the fact that she's contradicting herself in the moment she speaks.
As a pretty close student of the goings-on at Harvard…I have to say that the only faculty member I know who actually did suffer for his views on Israel was Lawrence Summers, who happened to be the university president at the time he gave a speech positing a possible link between animosity toward Israel and anti-Semitism or the appearance of anti-Semitism. That speech, plus another unpopular speech supporting the ROTC program, which Harvard’s faculty stripped of university funding in 1995, capped off by Summers’ infamous musing on women’s suitability for careers in science made Summers sufficiently vulnerable so that a no-confidence resolution introduced by none other than Professor Matory caused Harvard’s governing body to vote “no confidence” in Summers, resulting in his resignation in February 2006.
You should have also used "states' rights" and "Plessy v. Ferguson" to add to the "partisan" and "fox news" comparison codewords :)
saffron:
good question. :-)
End the Iranian occupation!
Living up to your avatar, as always.
Nina P., I can appreciate and relate to your anger, but I don't think he was conflating Israel with Zionism, and I don't think that assumption should be made. I'm sure there are many, Israelis who are not Zionists.
Yeah, I love catching their random appearances on C-SPAN 3, while their ideological counterparts, like William Kristol, appear on major networks and write opionion columns for the Times.
3. No, nonviolence does not imply anti-Zionism in the least. So long as it is consistently applied to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Unfortunately, even the great Mahatma Gandhi got that wrong, as he refused to criticize the Arabs who attacked Jews while telling the Jews that they should have committed suicide to shame the Nazis. There is a will for peace on both sides that can be nourished.
It is lot more complicated than that:
1) First, MK Gandhi was an "equal opportunity" non-violence preacher(as Joystana) pointed out, be it Jallianwallah Bagh, Nazi atrocities, etc. This said, he also advocated violence over cowardice.
2) MK Gandhi was opposed to formation of Israel purely on the basis of religion. Again, this is "equal opportunity", he had opposed the formation of Pakistan on same grounds till the last.
3) With all this said, one of his earliest supporters/ confidants were Jews, the most famous being Kallenbach, his friend and carpenter in Tolstoy farm, South Africa. Others included, Albert Einstein.
Now to Arun Gandhi, there is a case to be made that since 1948, violence has played a central role in the formation of Israel, and Middle East politics. Some of the prominent politicians in the area - Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, even Rabin (he was part of Haganah) were well known terrorists in their younger days, and then became elder statesman later.
BTW, MKG was dead by early 1948, so he saw very little of Middle East politics unfold post 1948.
Who is this dude Arun Gandhi? And why is he "saffron"? Is the case that when any hindu makes stupid remarks he becomes "saffron"?
And why is Mr. Gandhi unable to distinguish between the israeli govt vs. people of israel with varied views vs. jews as a religous and cultural group vs. US funding of israel, egypt, jordan for its own interests? That seems strange naivete for a "peace" activist or general busybody or whatever he thinks he is.
Correction: so he saw none of Middle East politics unfold post 01/1948.
Yasser Arafat, Ariel Sharon, even Rabin (he was part of Haganah) were well known terrorists in their younger days, and then became elder statesman later.
No only Arafat was a terrorist like Bin Laden. Rabin and his Haganah group were more like George Washington. Also as Manju has wisely pointed out, stop the Iranian and Saudi Arabian apartheid of native people and colonial occupation of other countries.
Bhaiji Nagayan,
Arun Gandhi, if you knew anything about him, is 180 degrees opposite of "saffron"
Kush from Sakoti Tanda
I find it hilarious that while Arun Gandhi was preaching Israel to be a pacifist country, he ended up getting kicked out of his own foundation for not having the guts to fight it out. He lacked so called "hard power".
I completely support Israel and any other country facing constant onslaught (read India) right to acquire "hard power" to defend its "soft power" (culture, values and way of life etc.). Peace can be brought about only by holding on to power/strength. I don't need to do more than visit my local Hindu Temple to see that in action. All the representations of god in the temple have some kind of weapon in their hand, to protect and attack when needed.
Kush, as I wrote above, the Holocaust was different from other cases of violence. Killing Jews was their primary goal, the goal all of their efforts were centered around. In fact, as the Nazis were losing the war, they actually diverted resources away from the front to speed up the genocide. They believed that Germany's very existence was threatened by the mere existence of Jews. That's not comparable with, for example, your example Jallianwallah Bagh, and so I don't think it's fair to say that MG was "equal opportunity" in his nonviolent approach on that basis. In fact, there was at least one case where he refused to criticize violence as a political tool - when it was used by Arabs against Jews. "I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
(And religious Zionism played a very small part in the formation of Israel. It was about establishing/returning to a homeland as a way of creating the conditions under which Jews, as a people, could exercise political self determination. He was in favor of many groups having self determination in their homelands, no? But he argued that Jews should exist in diaspora while others had homelands.)
Matt
Your view that Mahatma Gandhi had some issue with jews is just plain silly. Your comments are in fact identical to the comments made by certain indian hindus with the word jew replaced by hindu. Gandhi was very consistent and clear about his view: no support for european-style nationalism or religion-based separatism. NONE. He didnt agree with the formation of pakistan and india, he didnt agree with the proposal for israel. He never attended a single formal event of the indian and pakistani states. To this day, he is hated by hindu chauvinists for having insisted on a multi-million dollar payment to pakistan in 47-48 which was quite critical to their survival.
Maybe some of his thoughts were unrealistic and impractical. Certainly he couldnt imagine a character like Hitler, but in fairness, very few people did in the 30s.
You also speak of "religous zionism" - this sounds just plain wrong. Zionism was quite anti-religous or at least areligous in its basic form. Many orthodox jews objected to the formation of israel, for various cultural and religous reasons. The influential status of religous groups in the state of israel is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Here is an interesting academic article on Gandhi, and Zionism.
Agreed completely.
It is OK to take issue with Gandhi for his ill advised comments and I in no way agree with what he has said,
but calling him saffron is just plain inaccurate.
Next time perhaps more research before using such epithets.
62 · Yogi said
To some of you, it is an epithet. To me it is a color on the Indian flag which some readers will quickly assume to be a pejorative reference--read the comments for his initial post and you'll see that's how some of the commenters frame him (but if you're too lazy to do your own research, by all means plumb my post's title for 'anti-saffron' bias.) Glad to see, however, that you're reading either way. If I really wanted to make the connection, I would have titled it, "Arun Gandhi: a SpoorLam Finklestein."
AFAIK there were several different types of Zionist thought(which includes the Iron Wall of Jabotinsky as well as the high-society, top-down vision of Herzl). The initial Aliyas were composed mostly of kibbutz socialists but Jewish migrant demographics are a bit more complicated than secular v. non-secular.
I'm a U of R alum and thought I could contribute to this convo, from a totally different angle. I'd have to agree with you Nayagan, I doubt Seligman will face any flack for his post or decision. He's actually battling cancer and has publically discussed it this year, and I think a lot of members of the university community are impressed with his leadership despite his current personal battles and may approach this with kid gloves.
In terms of the future of the institute, I do think its goals fit nicely with other institutes and programs at Rochester. As some people may know, both Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass are strongly affiliated with the school and there are several institutes, programs and buildings in their name. I think this institute, as a young alum, was an extension of that atmosphere Rochester tried to create in the last decade. I will be definitely look at future univ. correspondence to see if this is addressed. U of R is in a tough situation....Hillel is a very strong community on campus, and I've worked w/ them on interfaith programming while I was in undergrad. U of R has an Interfaith Chapel on campus (no other religious buildings) and tries to convey interdependence amongst faith groups on campus. Of course, this situation may bring up some divisions that have been otherwise stiffled by that, and I'm sure the school will be very quick to try to bring the atmosphere back to status quo. Hence statements like these.....
)I have not accused you of any bias just was pointing out what seemed like a factual inaccuracy. No need to resort to name calling when making your point.
FWIW I think the hindu right with its divisive politics threatens to unravel the very fabric of the Indian
nation.
lead by example. this is what you said:
I think he meant homeland as the place where you reside. As previously stated, he was against the creation of Pakistan, and I doubt he would have been too happy if a bunch of Mumbai Parsis decided to go reclaim Tehran as their rightful "homeland."
You are using saffron as a short hand for Indian, that is inaccurate in my opinion, and I wanted to point that out.
If I came across as snarky in my earlier remarks and hurt your feelings I am sorry.
Al beruni, Your view that Mahatma Gandhi had some issue with jews is just plain silly. That's not my view. My view is that he was wrong on the issues in this case. (You also speak of "religous zionism" - Only to note that it had little to do with the formation of Israel.)
Kush, It isn't that I'm unaware of Gandhi's views on the matter. He wrote, "Why should they [Jews] not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?" So, why should they not resolve to be everywhere minorities with political power that can only flow from the good will of others? He never wrestled with the questions Zionism was actually trying to address. Instead, he saw Zionism as a colonial project that fundamentally misrepresented the position of Jews in the world. According to your link, "Famous Jewish pacifists, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Hayim Greenberg, who otherwise admired Gandhi, felt "highly offended by Gandhi's anti-Zionism" and criticized him for his lack of understanding of the spirit of Zionism." It might be worth exploring their views. And I would add Hannah Arendt.
69 · Yogi said
No, i am not using it as short-hand for "indian." I am alluding to the casting of Gandhi as allied with Saffron warriors in the comments section of his first post (as I pointed out in my initial comment).
#63 Nayagan
--> Did you read what Yogi pointed out before saying the bold portion above ?
I am just curious how saffron reference came to be associated with Arun Gandhi in your original post.
#71 Nayagan
--> Can you point out where Saffron was referred in the comments section of his first post ?
I tried looking for it but there was none. Maybe I missed it.
If you took the saffron reference from comments section of his(Arun Gandhi) first post, how well researched is your original post ?
I completely support Israel and any other country facing constant onslaught (read India) right to acquire "hard power" to defend its "soft power" (culture, values and way of life etc.).
so how is India losing it's soft power? is it due to westernization? and what is the hard power it is acquiring to defend this so called right?
This statement seemed bizarre to me...like a rant that is cloaked in 'patriotism'
Arun Gandhi betrayed Mahatama Gandhi's legacy by refusing to go on a hunger strike. There is no hope for Gandhianim with his own descendants abandoning Gandhian methods.
My point about the roots of 'semitism' was simply that a lot of these definitions of nationality, race, and in some senses, geography, are fluid. I'd rather not get into a "bizarre pissing contest (new favorite term)" about what is and isn't an acceptable discussion on this thread, especially considering the current row over what exactly the titular 'saffron' refers to (enter 'titular' joke by ping pong here)
I read the use of the word 'saffron' as an analogue to 'Indian'. I don't feel offended thinking my $6.95 buffet is doled out by an RSS acolyte, but just barrel the frozen vegetable curry down in my pan Indian fervor.
If only this guy's view was shared maybe all this strife between Israelis and Palestinians can be a little alleviated....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/29/opinion/edbarenboim.php
76 · Rahul said
Good point. I forget all the good come backs.
Nayagan,
I am happy your title caused you controversy. That should bring home the fact that every word needs to be seen in its context, with as liberal an interpretation as possible. The rest of your post, and even the question mark in the title would suggest you are not "conflating" saffron with Indian, but you were still accused of the same.
It is ironic but fitting that you find yourself in the same plight as Arun Gandhi. Hope your sympathy for your own position extends to that of his, and you now agree that a poorly chosen word or two should hardly require one to resign from his post.
Trust we will be seeing you around at SM for long.
79 · bunty said
What the hell does this mean?
As for the eyeroll-inducing preoccupation with "Why Saffron, why saffron?", you lot remind me of my two-year old niece, who likes to ask the same question dozens of times-- except she doesn't assume the worst while repeating herself. Why cede such a gorgeous color to extremists? I love my saffron saris, to me it's the most Indian color of all and I will wear them, BJP, RSS and HBS be damned.
Sometimes, saffron is just saffron, it's not an Om-signal in the sky.
Why this omophobia on SM? Not that there's anything wrong with that...
You actually had me frantically clicking "define: omophobia" on Google before I got it. :) Not omophobia. More like kvetching-about-the-title-and-overtaking-the-thread-phobia.
I wonder if this is a generational divide. Someone born here/who isn't Indian/who isn't well-acquainted with the Indian political system, may not see the same implications in "saffron" as someone from India. We're all coming to this blog with different backgrounds.
80 · Pondatti said
.That I hope he is not forced to resign from SM for conflating the Indian identity with the saffron one.
Surely my paltry vocabulary skills are no match for your knowledge of $10 words? :)
Glad to have helped with my contribution to the threadjack :)
85 · Rahul said
Surely my paltry vocabulary skills are no match for your knowledge of $10 words? :)
Glad to have helped with my contribution to the threadjack :)
Not really attempted threadjacking. It's unfortunate that I was stuck in the defensive rhetorical posture so long, that I forgot about the good offense that Rahul brought up initially and Pondatti seconded.
Anyhow, for the Saffron Outrage Brigade (bravely searching for bias/misapplication wherever it may lie--a title, a tag, etc.) a few facts:
1. Most of my friends as a small child were adults--adults wearing saffron clothing and doing generally sannyasi things. Which means...drumroll please...that I grew up around and admired people who wore saffron daily--monks, initiates, SWAMIS!!!!! (have any of you done the same?) It doesn't carry the negative connotation for me because of my lived experience (which sadly never included $6.95, reheated pan-Indian buffets-I'm assuming these delicacies are available around DC?).
2. I had much in the way of sympathy for Arun Gandhi, not for the ludicrous reason that bunty points to, but for the simple reason that without his book on Kasturba, my senior history seminar paper in college would have never been possible. I feel bad for him, but macaca please!
3. Since 'Saffron' seems to gently brush a few quick-firing nerves, I fully intend to work the word into every post I write.
What is HBS??.
That is just Evil. Me like.
Evil Abhi, you are not nearly as evil as Evil Saffron Abhi.
Please to be watching my new devotional movie: Bal Vihar Bhajans 2. It has wonderful akhada sequences, love scenes that would make Krishna proud, and a climactic temple sequence that will leave you screaming 'Hey Ram'.
Reminds me of the time when I wore a red t-shirt in Kerala once, my bourgeois-congress grandfather's quick firing nerves were gently brushed, and asked me quite concerned "Eda, nee communist aayo?" (Have you become a communist?). In response, my usually quick-firing nerves were confused whether to push the 'hmm..this-is-mildly-amusing' button or the 'oh-no-you-di-int' button.
HBS = Harvard Business School
Pondatti:
:-) is there any reason behind your handle?.
Ok. I was trying to figure out a relation between BJP, RSS and HBS. I know in "progressive" speak BJP, RSS, Hindutva, Hitler, Fascism, Saffronazis, Saffron are common terms. I have not heard or read about HBS, that's the reason for my question. Thanks
Man states a personal opinion, clumsily, and gets carried away in last sentence. Loses job and livelihood. Am I the only one here who thinks this is not a good thing?
Could someone point me to something 'good' to read on this Hindutva issue? I have tried to look into it, and have done so enough that I am familiar with the basics, but I'm left deeply unsettled, over, for example, the frequent quick turns by the pro-BJP people to say something along the lines of (sorry if I'm mis-characterizing things--I am an AB(C?)D! and far from a policy-maker or historian, and my parents have their own obviously agenda-driven take on the topic(s)) "well, even though the Gujarat riots are regrettable, Congress/'the pseudo-secularists' have never gotten to the bottom of the anti-Sikh pogrom in Delhi under Indira," or that "Congress coddles Naxalites," etc. And although I'm deeply suspicious of "tit for tat" arguments, I have yet to find a good overall analysis of these charges/facts (I've looked at some books by historians in India, but they seem too overtaken by Derrida, Spivak etc. to really make sense to me, and I've seen a lot of skepticism on SM about Naipaul or Mishra, so I don't want to rely on them too much either)--hopefully I'm stumbling around in the dark, so--any suggestions on what to read?
Calling Arun Gandhi "saffron" makes about as much sense as calling Elie Weisel a nazi.
#94
If that is the case where is the freedom of expression in the U.S.? Everytime you express your opinion you pay a price?
>>Is non-violence really the best solution in all situations/contexts?
Cough-cough...
M. Nam
I think you can read "Arun Shourie", he is someone from the Hindutva side whose works portray a pro "Hindutva" perspective. I believe he used to be a "progressive" (Magsasay award winner) then turned into a Hindutvadi.
usadesi_x,
I'm not sure if you were asking a rhetorical question but if in case you weren't, I'm offering my take (for whatever that's worth). The 1st Amendment does give the right to freedom of speech from gov't intervention (with certain limits as interpreted by the Supreme Court). However, the same freedom of speech applies to those who may wish to disagree or ridicule that opinion. (as can be seen from time to time on SM - which often leads to some rather interesting debate) So yes, every time someone wishes to open their mouth or pen a word, they should be aware that there may be a consequence in the disapproval of others and the cost that may bring. While that may seem to be limiting on the right to freedom of speech, I think that it's the very purpose of the freedom of speech, to create a marketplace of ideas (to borrow a phrase from the Supreme Court) where some ideas and thoughts can be examined and discussed and determined by the listener/reader as worthy or not of keeping.
Additionally, the freedom of speech allows people to discuss whether reactions to speech made by people like Mr. Gandhi is appropriate, as illustrated by your comments and Nayagan's post.
97 · usadesi_x said
Paying a price for expressing your opinion is a consequence of others exercising their freedom of expression.
JJ:
re: 100 & 101
I write the soundbites, you handle the details.
If that is the case where is the freedom of expression in the U.S.? Everytime you express your opinion you pay a price?
Yes, but that price is not inflicted by the government as the first amendment restricts the government from taking action against people for speech (with a few exceptions)
The US like any place else has effective freedom of expression for mostly popular opinion. Unpopular opinion leads to disastrous consequences in a lot of cases though the disaster in the US does not come from the government.
Also what JJ said in 100.
I liked the sound bite, it was pithier. I will be appropriating it. I'll handle the grunt work and you