Transcript April 3rd Discussion

May 6, 2008 Humanities Core Course
Today's Plan
1)
House-Keeping
2)
Savarkar
3)
Preparation for Research Paper
Returning Things:
I'll return your essays on Thursday.
I'll return your midterms next Tuesday.
1. Which historical event (or events) is Savarkar writing about in his book? Why does it matter
to Savarkar that the events of 1857 be classified as a war of independence?
The “Selections” really do not provide a solid answer to these questions, especially for
individuals who may not be aware of the rebellions of 1857 in India. Chaturvedi discussed
these rebellions, as part of Lecture 2 last week, to highlight the resistance to British rule in the
nineteenth century. Think about the political processes involved in classifying historical
events. REmember that the first events of 1857 were called a “mutiny.” Later, they were
identified as “rebellions” or “revolts”. Savarkar’s intervention then introduces the terms “war,”
“revolutionary war,” and “war of independence.”
As an aside, Karl Marx also wrote about these revolts (the term that he used) in the New York
Daily Tribune from 1857-1859. In 1959, Progress Publishers in Moscow compiled a volume
of Marx’s writings on the revolts with the title, “The First Indian War of Independence.” It isn’t
clear if some Russians/Soviets were influenced by Savarkar’s writings, or if some Indian
sympathizers to Savarkar’s writings were based in Moscow when the volume was published
(or both). However, what is evident is that Savarkar’s title was maintained, with the small
modification of “First” into the title.
•
2. (151) Why has Savarkar written this book?
•
Think about writing as an active political process—in the spirit of DOING for this
quarter. Savarkar places an emphasis on writing from a “national” perspective,
which opens up new research questions. Think about how different perspectives
allow us to ask specific types of research questions.
3. (151) Who is the intended audience of Savarkar’s book?
Savarkar states that he has written the book for “Indian readers.” He states, “I thought that
my countrymen will be most agreeably disappointed, even as I was, at this deep-buried
spectacle in one of the most neglected corners of our history.” Further, the purpose in
addressing “Indian readers” is to create a national consciousness of the past, so that Indians
are masters of the past and no longer the slaves.
However, it is clear from the discussions in the text that there were other individuals who were
very keen on reading the book, especially British intelligence officials. The book also travels
to places where the book had a wide reception, beyond what Savarkar expected. The point is
that Savarkar writes the book for the specific purpose of participating in a counterpublic made
up of Indian revolutionaries and nationalists. He publishes the book anonymously and
circulates it through—what we might call—global underground networks.
4. (152, also 154) According to the Publisher’s Preface, why was Savarkar’s book translated into
English? Who translated the book?
At one level, the answer to the first question can be summarized in the following sentence: “To let
them (Indians) know how their nation fought for its Independence and how their ancestors died for
the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their Gods.” The Publisher’s Preface implicitly opens
the discussion that English would allow educated Indians from different parts of India to read the
text, whereas, if the book was in the vernacular (Marathi, in this case), the book would only be read
in that one region. Further, the English translation would also allow for a global circulation of the
book to “sympathetic” revolutionaries.
Members of Savarkar’s revolutionary group called the Abhinav Bharat Society, or the Young India
Society, translated the book. (Savarkar is evoking various European, especially Italian,
revolutionary organizations in giving the group its name.)
5. (153) According to G.M. Joshi and Bal Savarkar, the authors
of “The Story of this History,” why does Savarkar write the
book?
The authors (Bal Savarkar is V.D. Savarkar’s brother) state
that Savarkar simply would not have been able to call for an
armed revolution against the British empire, without being
arrested. Writing a history of a revolution war was meant to
inspire Indians to start another revolutionary war. History as a
genre of writing was more acceptable than a declaration of
independence, despite the fact the book was banned.
6. (153) In the following sentence, who are the moralists?
“The very mention of [armed national revolt] was brushed aside as chimerical by the
then extremists, was denounced as criminal by the loyal moderates and was even
anathematized as immoral by the half-witted moralists!”
The authors have a specific critique of both Extremists and Moderate members of the
Indian National Congress. Their critique about the Extremists is that they call for
“extra-constitutional” methods (violence, assassination, bombings, etc.) for the cause
of swaraj, but they do not promote the idea of a revolutionary war. Not surprisingly, the
Moderates are viewed as loyalists to the empire, given the fact that they do not call for
the end of empire. The “Moralists” is a reference to Gandhi and his disciples. See the
nature of debate within the public sphere. However, the authors really do not provide a
counterargument to Gandhi, but are simply dismiss him and his disciples. Perhaps this
could even be used to illustrate what makes a bad counterargument. Savarkar’s own
writings do something very different. Consider: “Is Savarkar providing a
counterargument to Gandhi in his book, or is Gandhi providing a counterargument to
Savarkar in HS?”
7. (154) Savarkar originally wrote his book in which language?
Savarkar originally wrote the book in Marathi. Consider the point that Savarkar knew
at least 5-6 languages, but his first language was Marathi. He wrote his first book on
Giuseppe Mazzini in Marathi, which was banned and had limited circulation in India.
His second book manuscript was lost and never recovered. The Indian War of
Independence was his third book, and it seems that he wanted to make sure that it
had wider circulation. Think about the incredible difficulty of writing in any language,
the publication process in an imperial context, and the difficulty of circulating a book
that is banned.
8. (155) Why is it significant the book was proscribed even
before it was published?
Think about the importance of having writings denounced,
condemned, banned before they even appear in public. Also,
the process of making something illegal, especially within an
imperial context, is important to consider in the making of a
counterpublic.
9. (161) What is Savarkar’s problem with English historians?
He states that English historians are “misleading” and “unjust”
in their discussions of the “Revolutionary War.” (They never
identify it as a revolution or war.) He states that they have
written histories that are “wicked” and “partial.” The following
sentences further help to illustrate this point:
“Their prejudiced eye could not or would not see the root
principle of that Revolution.”
“…because it is against their interests to admit the truth.”
(206)
10. (161-62) What is Savarkar’s problem with Indian
historians?
He says that some Indian historians are “sycophants,” who
replicate the interpretations of the events of 1857 given by
English historians. He states that they provide “misleading”
causal explanations for the revolution and in the process do
not reveal the “real” reasons or causes.
11. (163) What were the “real” causes of the revolution?
The real causes were “Swaraj” and “Swadharma.” To put it
differently, Savarkar is arguing that people participated in the
“revolution” to protect their own country and their own
religion.
Sample Final Question: What were the claimed causes of the war of 1857 in
India? Explain the divergence between these causes and relate them to those who
provide them as answers.
Answer: According to British historians (those British historians highlighted by
Savarkar), the start of the war of 1857 in India occurred from either the reaction
that Indians had to the fact the claim that the British coated their ammunition in
animal fat, or from the British annexation of Oudh. According to Savarkar, it was
Indian desire for Swadharma (self-religion) and Swaraj (self-rule) that started the
war of 1857 in India. According to Savarkar, the British answer to the cause of
the war was meant to show how irrational the Indians were, and this is why
Savarkar brings up his own causal analysis of the war.
Think about causal analysis
Okay, now I want to talk about research projects. We need to switch into "high
gear" and get going on this. We have two assignments coming up, and both
assignments require you to have at least a vague notion of a topic.
If you do not have a topic approved by me, you need to email me every day until
you have one. This is essential. This cannot be done last minute. If it is done last
minute, you will likely fail the writing portion of the course. How's that for doom
and gloom?
Let's go over the prompt together:
Research Paper
And now, let's consider topics:
Anyone not have a topic and want to have one? Any volunteers?
Anyone have a topic and want to share it with us?
And now, let's consider topics.
If you were doing the Psychology of Advertisments, you could consider this cover of
Vogue. Has anyone seen it?