I am familiar with some of the work published in the vernacular. Y.D. Phadke is a prominent historian of the 20th century Maharashtra. His work has not been translated into English. There is a volume of Phule's complete writings in the vernacular. Then there are writings of Ambedkar and his followers. However, the broad picture presented is by you will not undergo major changes. Phule and Ambedkar were the most influential figures in the movement for social reform in Maharashtra. There is no anti British sentiment in Phule's work. While there can be no doubt about Ambedkar's patriotism, he is hardly known for militant anti-imperialism. Absorption of Satyashodhak movement in the Congress coincides with loss of its reformist zeal.
My remarks about Marx were based on my sense of Marx's overall work, particularly Capital and Grundrisse. I am not familiar with Krader's arguments. However, I am sceptical about the idea of a pre-existing human essence corrupted by capitalism.
Ulhas in Mumbai
----- Original Message ----- From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Orientalism Revisited
> Ulhas,
>
> >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
>