Civilization was perhaps understood as inherently western. My point was that Marx did not merely tout the superiority of civilization so understood but probed the deformations of character it wrought. You did not mention with which parts of Krader's argument you take exception.
> I would like to
>suggest that the entire debate about orientalism is about an ideology and
>simple inversion of an ideology is not likely to lead us anywhere.
>From my opposition to the treatment of cultures as monadic and self
enclosed--such that caste and hindu nationalism become displays of an
incommensurate other culture with which there is no shared history--you
cannot infer that I think the West is to blame for everything. This is a
simple logical error.
That the caste and communal identities that were consolidated and redefined in new ways during colonialism (see S Kaviraj) and then restrengthened by the Congress Party elite itself in its nationalist bid are now being reworked by the BJP for a project of domination by the Indian bourgeoisie seems clear enough to me.
And just to clear: I also do not subscribe to the idea of some kind of special hindu tolerance that was only undermined by Mughal invasions. That is poppycock history.
>Untouchability practised in India for centuries was no less responsible
>for'deformation of human character'
Who has said otherwise? Marx seems to have falsely imagined an egalitarian character to the communal basis of the Asiatic Mode of Production. In part this is why he saw no class conflict therein.
Let us be clear: the debate I was having was with Justin over his overly positive characterisation of western civilization, so I reminded him of Marx's more--dare I say--dialectical view.
and the most enlightened representatives
>of untouchables saw the British Rule as an opportunity to escape from the
>idiocy of rural life in Medieval India.
The British Rule created the
>possibility of the rule of law, urban life, access to education etc. which
>was seen by them as a great opportunity to escape from Brahminism (See
>Jyotiba Phule or Ambedkar in Western India).
This simplistic view does not square with any real modern history I have read. On which histories do you rely for this interpretation and point of view?
The organisation Statyashodhak Samaj (1873) that followed Phule's anti Brahmin toscin the Ghulam-giri (1872) quickly developed a dualism within movement. The first which was openly loyalist and politically divisive (as the British egged them on to undermine Tilak) was actually (you did know this, correct?) elite based, claimed Kshatriya origins for the Marathas, and from the 1890s received the patronage of the Maharaja of Kohlapur.
Now the second trend which actually used the Marathi vernacular, instead of English, inspired peasant uprisings in Satara in 1919-21, and actually helped to revitalise the Gandhian Congress in rural Maharashtra. See here Gail Omvedt's Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society: The Non Brahman Movement in Western India, 1873-1930 and Sumit Sarkar, Modern India 1885-1947
In fact the latter reports: "The radical potentialities of some elements within the Satyashodhak movement of Maharashtra have been noted before. Satyashodhak rural agitators led an anti landlord and anti mahajan uspurge in Satara district in 1919-1921, affecting 30 villages and involving some violent clashes; and from the mid 1920s Keshavrao Jedhe and Dinkarrao Javalkar began proving the leaderhsip, from Poona, of a new type of non Brahman movement which was quite as anti British as the Brahman dominated Tilakite Congress. In the course of the next decade, the Maharashtra Congress would be able to establish links with and ultimately absorb this trend, making Satara the strongest fort of nationalism in Bombay by 1942>" p. 243
Now of course this did not stop the untouchable Mahars from also developing an autonomous movement from the 1920s under Dr Ambedkar to demand separate representation, the right to use tanks and enter temples, and the abolition of traditional services to village chiefs.
Do you have evidence otherwise? Well you are there, right? Tell me the best histories available for this period you mention. Thanks.
Yours, Rakesh