Activities
General
discussion; course activities; readings
(Click here
for “Letters to the Editor;”)
General
Discussion
Are we
still able to stop tanks?
A key question of
our discussions was whether we are still – in the age of mass media
conglomerates, increasingly intrusive state activities, growing violence and
terror (and, on the other hand a simultaneous, diffusion of power among groups
in society, for e.g. the rise of NGOs, the IT revolution increasing access to
information) – able to bring about political change via satyagraha and ahimsa.
The Indian
independence movement, which was directed against British rule, under Gandhi’s
leadership used ahimsa and satyagraha
quite successfully; British tanks were stopped in their tracks (though one need
not imply that the process was benign in any way). Yet, the tanks did not stop
long in
While one wonders
about the efficacy of non-violent resistance, we may not be justified in
dismissing it outright. After all, in
2000, Otpor was able to topple one of the worst
dictatorships of our time – that of Slobodan Milosevic.
Otpor: the tanks did stop
The key to a
successful non-violent campaign may lie in the organizational
capacity of the campaigners, and the vision – characterized primarily (not
to be confused with only) by singularity of purpose – motivating them. We cannot deny the role of external factors –
nature of government, role of the press, international support - in influencing
the outcome of peaceful resistance, but internally we do need cohesion and
clarity of purpose. Do current protests share Gandhian features
of precise organization and singularity of purpose? Most in the class thought that the majority –
of current protest movements - did not (because there seemed to be
organizational problems – the ad hoc nature of these movements seemed very
distant to Gandhi’s institutionalized approach – and then there was the lack of
vision). This lack may explain the
paucity of substantial results generated by most protests. Maybe, those of us
who want to engage in meaningful resistance need to learn from Gandhi (as Otpor seems to have done brilliantly, showing us that we
are capable).
Class activities
While the class
did not undertake a joint satyagraha campaign
(because of various reasons), we did manage to complete a skit (based on the
play, “I, Nathuram Godse
speak”), and the cotton weaving session (and realized how hard it is to make thread
out of cotton, let alone a piece of cloth - khadi). Other activities, listed on the syllabus,
like viewing films (I was surprised that everyone in class agreed that
Attenborough’s film was better than Benegal’s!),
class discussions, etc., were undertaken successfully.
Students wrote letters to local
newspapers on an issue of concern to them, as part of an individual attempt
to generate awareness about political issues – a satyagraha
of sorts. Some of these letters were
published, others were not. The point of
the exercise was its execution. Writing
letters to the editors of local newspapers may not sound as romantic as
throwing a pie on of the President of the World Bank. But, the former is a more
positive exercise of political liberty than the latter.
(Letters
available here
)
All of us also
participated in the campus debate (sponsored by DiPhi
and Campus Y) on whether the rights of
Discussions of
regular assigned material were heated, illuminating, and sometimes dry. It was a learning experience for all involved
(This was true, most of all, for me as instructor). We did go off on seemingly un-related debates
like the capital punishment controversy during the role of religion and secular
state discussions. In doing so, many
tried to see how Gandhi would deal with similar issues, citing the authority of
Hind Swaraj,
or other sources they had read (including excerpts from Dostoevsky); thereby
making these detours seem part of the class project: gaining a Gandhian insight toward practical – in this case
deliberation on the validity of capital punishment – ends.
During some
classes, in addition to discussing regular course material (listed on the
syllabus) we discussed external readings as well. We tried to determine what issues Gandhi
would have addressed if he were around today.
These involved various topics: the reception of The Passion of the Christ in America, the issue of gay marriage,
Iraq, controversies on campus, civil society and its prospects in the Middle
East (see Shirin Ebadi
lecture), picketing in Durham to protest Mt. Olive’s labor practices, etc.
The most
structured discussions of such external topics were: the stem cell research debate following the announcement
by Korean scientists that they had successfully cloned embryos to cull stem cells
for research (see article by Kass and others); the question of the future of
books and how we tell stories (see article by Umberto
Eco); the issue of whether artificial intelligence can be creative, (we
looked at Hofstadter’s discussion of AI and music);
and, how Powerpoint makes us dumb! It was as if we
were discussing the human condition; actually
emulating Gandhi’s efforts to do the same during his lifetime!
Shirin Ebadi’s Nobel lecture
Stem cell research debates by Kass et al
The Future of Books by Umberto Eco
Sounds like
Bach by Douglass
Hofstadter
Powerpoint makes you dumb by Clive Thompson
(Note: The
activities section was added to the website in April 2004 after the course was
over. It serves as a record of sorts,
documenting some class activities during the course of the semester).