Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Shobhan Saxena, 12 January 2010, 06:14 PM IST
Let me make it clear at the very beginning that I have no doubt that Hitler was more violent than Gandhi. Actually, I would not even compare Gandhi with Hitler. I am not an admirer of Gandhi, but I wouldn’t call him a violent person. Now, if you are wondering why on earth I am asking this question -- Was Gandhi more violent than Hitler? Here’s my answer: Last week, I met Slavoj Zizek who is an unusual philosopher from Slovenia. Zizek mixes unfashionably intransigent left-wing politics with his taste for Hollywood classics. The 59-year-old academic has written more than 30 books on subjects as diverse as Alfred Hitchcock, Lenin and 9/11 attacks, and also presented the TV series The Pervert's Guide to Cinema.
He has also run for Slovenia’s president. During the interview, excerpts of which were carried in this week’s Sunday Times (All That Matters page), Zizek told me that he considered Gandhi to be an extremely violent person. When I asked Zizek to elaborate his point, he gave a long, provocative and interesting explanation. It’s not easy to disagree with him. Zizek, who was invited to India by Navayana to release his latest book, First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, and give a series of lectures across the country, also slammed the Dalai Lama and Buddhism and China. On the advice of some friends, who found the interview interesting and wanted to know more about Zizek, I am posting the detailed interview here. Read it and decide for yourself if you agree with Zizek or not.
Q: You call yourself a Leninist but the media in the West has called you an "intellectual rock star", "Elvis of cultural theory" and the "Marx Brother". How do you react to such journalistic labeling?
A: With resigned melancholy. I think they try to say that this guy may be interesting and provocative but he is not serious. They call me a provocative guy. To the western media, I am like a fly that annoys you and provokes you but should not be taken seriously. It’s a defence mecahnism. Though, of late, they have been dubbing me as someone more threatening...
Q: In an article in the New Republic recently, Adam Kirsch called you the most "dangerous philosopher in the west..."
A: Yes, in the last two years, the tone in the US and Europe has changed. Now they say we are dealing with somebody very dangerous. This change of tone is quite amazing. First there were Marx Brothers jokes and now they say I am dangerous because I am Leninist. But I don’t care. I am resigned to it.
Q: You have also been accused of glorifying political violence. Do you support violence as a means of political change?
A: Here I must be frank. For me, the 20th century communism is the biggest ethical-political catastrophe in the history of humanity, greater catastrophe than fascism. In fascism, you had bad people who said we will do bad things and they took power and they did bad things. That’s why in fascism you don’t have dissidents. But in the first years of the October Revolution, in spite of the so-called Red Terror, there was sexual liberation, literary explosion and then it turned into the nightmare. I don’t accept the right-wing critique that says it was evil from the very beginning.
Q: What’s your point?
A: My point is what people perceive as violence is the direct subjective violence. It’s crucial to see violence which has to be done repeatedly to keep the things the way they are. I am not just talking about structural violence, symbolic violence, violence in language, etc. In that sense Gandhi was more violent than Hitler. Hitler killed millions of people. It was more reactive killing. Hitler was active all the time not to change things but to prevent change.
Q: A lot of people will find it ridiculous to even imagine that Gandhi was more violent than Hitler? Are you serious when you say that...
A: Yes he was, although Gandhi didn’t support killing. With his actions -- boycott and all that -- he helped the British imperialists to stay in India longer. This is something Hitler never wanted. Gandhi didn’t do anything to stop the functioning of the British empire or the way it functioned here. You have to think why was India called the jewel of the empire? That for me is a problem. Let us locate violence properly.
Q: I guess you have no respect for Gandhi who is a tall figure in this country...
A: I respect him. I don’t respect him for his peaceful ways, vegetarianism etc. I don’t care about that. But Gandhi somehow succeeded in carrying on his principled attitude with pragmatic spirit. It’s very difficult to maintain this balance. But again I feel Ambedkar was much better than Gandhi. My favourite oneliner from Ambedkar is when he said that "there is no caste without outcastes". Ambedkar saw that the Gandhian solution for untouchables was wrong. This attitude doesn’t work. I am for Ambedkar’s radical approach.
Q: You haven’t answered my question about your stand on political violence...
A: In an abstract sense I am opposed to violence. But nobody is actually against violence. Look at the Buddhist text. They say you shouldn’t kill, but then they have all the exceptions. During the 40s, a great Zen philosopher was writing articles not only justifying Japanese invasion of China but also giving advice on how Buddhist enlightenment allows you to kill without guilt. It says you are in a void, you are an observer, your hand moves in the air and the other’s body gets stuck on your knife knife, so it’s not your fault.
Q: It’s hard to accept that Buddhism supports violence. Buddhism is growing very fast in the west and very few people will agree with you...
A: Buddhism is the predominant ideology in the west now. It plays a very conformist function. It makes you feel good in global capitalism. I read an analysis why all the top managers in the US like to practice Zen and all. Because things are so confusing now with one speculation you can lose billions of dollars in a minute. The only thing that can explain this is Buddhism which says that everything is an appearance and be aware of the inner reality and all that. You are dealing with just fake appearance. The tradition European thinking doesn’t help in explaining the world in a flux. This new age Buddhism gives authenticity to global capitalism. That’s why Dalai Lama is popular in Hollywood. I hope he is aware of what kind of game he is playing there, maybe he is not aware. He is providing them a cheap spiritual path so that you can basically go on with your life -- seducing, sex orgies, drugs, earn money -- but it gives you a feeling that I am aware I am not really that. It helps you to normalize and neutralize the schizophrenia we live in.
Q: In your new book you have addressed the issue of the recent financial crisis. Do you see it as an opportunity for the Left to revive itself?
A: I don’t believe my leftist friends who say this is wonderful opportunity for the Left as the people will see that capitalism has failed. That’s the tragedy of the Left. Let’s be very clear, all this ideas of environment movement, civil society movement etc cetera is not going to work. This is all logic of the movement. But there is no alternative proposal. The majority of the Left today -- and this is ironic -- have become Fukuyamist. They make fun of Francis Fukuyama for his "end of history" argument but basically they accept his argument. They believe the liberal capitalism is not the best of the system but it’s not too bad and what all we can do is to make it better. Today majority of the Left wants global capitalism with a human face -- more tolerant, more healthcare, more education, etc. The big issue if this is enough. I don’t think this is enough.
Q: You are a philosopher but you are also a follower of Hollywood classics. Don’t you see Hollywood as part of the global capiltalism...
A: Hollywood is an ambiguity. But it’s worth analysis. The Hollywood products are the best indicators of where we are moving in our collective ideology. If you look at reality, it’s confusing, but in Hollywood you get the distilled version of reality, like the distilled alcohol. At the same time, on the margins of Hollywood you have wonderful filmamkers like Robert altman, Woody Allen. I am opposed to this simple third-world attitude towards Hollywood. If you ignore Hollywood you end up ignoring the worst of Hollywood.
Q: What about Bollywood? Can you ignore it?
A: For us in the West, Bollywood is chaotic and too colourful but I like this experience. The first reaction to this linear western story in chaotic. You have to look for a different type of narrative. It’s like the medieval painting when you don’t have to make a distinction between the foreground and background. It’s totally different disposition of space. This is how I watch Bollywood not for the story but how they present it. I like even the fake Bollywood like Slumdog Millionaire. First, I resisted the movie, but what I started to like was how much the brutakity of life exists. This is something unimgibale in the west. It’s a happy story but nonetheless the reality remains. It’s a fairytale but it doesn’t allow all the reality to disappear. In the west, a feel good story could not be combined with this brutal intrusion of social reality.
Q: You can’t be here just to watch Bollywood?
A: No, I am here to know more about India. I must frankly admit that till now I ignored India. But for sometime, a storm was gathering inside me and now it exploded and now I am here. I am reading books on India. I started with the laws of Manu. I am here to study how the modern and tradition co-exist together amid contradictions of globalization. I have more hopes from India than China because in China something very dangerous is happening. It all started in Singapore -- capitalism with Asian values, which is actually authoritarian capitalism. Till now, there was one good thing to say about capitalism -- democracy. I am afraid what’s now emerging in the Far East (we all know that Deng Xiaoping went to Singapore and said this is the model for all of China). It’s the new capitalism. It’s more dynamic than the western capitalism. And I don’t believe my liberal friends who believe that in another 10 years in china there will be another Tiananmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment