[Reader-list] A critique of nonviolence - absolutely brilliant

[Jeebesh]

dear Aalok Aima,

Below is a response from the author to your comments.

warmly
jeebesh

  Dear Aalok Aima,

Thank you for your prompt response.

Firstly, the phrase ‘a curious twist of logic’ that appears in the  
sentence quoted by you should be read in reference to the set of  
common-place arguments involving the credo of ‘nonviolence’. The  
intention behind its employment was to bring into sharper focus the  
‘logic’ that impels one to regard ‘nonviolence’ as the highest  
ethical virtue extolled by the Mahābhārata. The point is: by  
overlooking (or better still, by suppressing) the concept of  
ānŗśamsya or ‘noncruelty’ or ‘leniency’, the ideologues  
championing the cause of ‘nonviolence’ make it seem, the  
Mahābhārata resolved the tension between the terms ‘violence’ and  
‘nonviolence’ with such astuteness that it effectively dissolved  
the ‘opposition’ inherent to the binary and settled for an  
unqualified privileging of ahimsā.

Secondly, one of the aims of the essay was to demonstrate how, even  
when ānŗśamsya is raised to the status of being a ‘golden mean’,  
the notion of ‘violence’ re-surfaces through the in-between term.  
To do so, the essay in one of its sections, concentrated on the most  
elaborate treatment of the concept the Mahābhārata presents. The fact  
that a member of the lowest order in the four-fold varņa system mouths  
the richly textured discourse is tempting enough to regard it as yet  
another instance of Brāhmaņic trickery. For, what Dharmavyādha, the  
Sūdra  ‘proficient in Brāhmaņic  
Philosophy’ (‘Âraņyakaparvan’: 201.14 [Critical Edition]), says  
in his long-winded speech does not essentially differ from the  
standard self-justifications offered by priests committed to Vedic  
rituals and           animal-sacrifice. Dharmavyādha’s explication  
of ānŗśamsya does gesture towards ‘the prescript of “violence  
without violation”; but, peculiarly enough, by the same movement, it  
further strengthens the codes enshrined in Dharma-śastras and bolsters  
statements such as this of Manu, ‘killing in sacrifice is not  
killing…The violence sanctioned by the Veda and regulated by official  
restraints is known as nonviolence’ (The Laws of Manu: Chapter V,  
Verse nos. 39 & 44). In other words: ‘the prescript of ‘violence  
without violation’ that Dharmavyādha’s ānŗśamsya suggests does  
not mitigate the contradictions between ‘violence’ and  
‘nonviolence’; instead, it makes them more flagrant.

Lastly, read as a compromise formula, Mahābhārata’s ānŗśamsya,  
for most parts, is a Brāhmaņic ploy to countermand Śramaņic, i.e.,  
the Buddhist and the Jain among others, criticisms of orthodox  
practices—a ploy that still succeeds in keeping in check the present- 
day ‘heterodox’ tendencies of (politically volatile) India. The  
‘logic’ is indeed twisted.

  Sibaji



On 17-Aug-10, at 6:01 PM, cashmeeri wrote:

> Jeebesh
>
> Thanks for sharing this absolutely brilliant essay.
>
> I am intrigued by SB stating towards the start of the essay that:
>
> "along with ‘nonviolence’ and ‘truth’ there is one order of  
> excellence extolled by the Mahābhārata, which by a curious twist of  
> logic, appears to give lie to the truth of nonviolence. And that is  
> ānŗśamsya or ‘noncruelty’."
>
> I did not see anything in the essay that put forward that  'curious  
> twist of logic' since the range of differentiations between  
> ‘ahimsā' (nonviolence) and 'ānŗśamsya' (noncruelty) have been  
> competently brought out.
>
> Further on SB himself puts it appropiately "Placed as a golden mean  
> between two extremes, ānŗśamsya gestures towards the apparently  
> contradictory prescript of ‘violence without violation’."
>
> I do not understand why he characterises that understanding of  
> 'violence without violation' as containing contradictory elements  
> since he himself analyses the positions that explain that 'prescript'.
>
> Renewed thinking: My thoughts went to 'human rights' and  
> 'environmental' abuse.
>
> Thanks again
>
> .............. aalok aima
>
>
> --- On Sun, 8/15/10, Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net>
> Subject: [Reader-list] A critique of nonviolence
> To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Sunday, August 15, 2010, 11:55 PM
>
>
> dear all,
>
> in this essay of exceptional scholarship we could find an opening  
> for a renewed thinking.
>
> warmly
>
> jeebesh
>
>
>
> http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/608/608_sibaji_bandyopadhyay.htm