May 13, 2008 Humanities Core Course Today's Plan 1)The Peasant's Letter from Last Week 2)The Vinayak and Me Article 3)Your Research Projects

The Letter. Look at what's going on: you are a student in a course which requires you to consider primary resources through the lens of your own research, with the incorporation of secondary resources to help you. And Look what happened last week: you were given a model of how to proceed. A process of making sense of the letter. Notice how he shows you each step of the process.

Don't overlook this research example. I'll get back to this when we discuss your research papers later today.

Remember I talked about Phoolan Devi last week? I brought her up as a contemporary who was denied a political voice by the establishment (public), and made a political voice for herself through her (counter-public) deeds. This is a doing.

I bring this up again so that you can have another example of a seemingly recurrent theme, an idea that was brought up last week: literacy is not a prerequisite for political action. We saw it in Antigone, Kohlhaas, and in the Ranchod Vira letter. Antigone (the character) was a woman, and as a woman she was not given a voice in ancient Greece. Antigone (the character) was not trained in formal logic, and was supposed to be incapable of it, and so was thought to be incapable of political action, and so was not allowed a voice in their politics. In Kohlaas, we saw peasants who were not educated in the letters who had their 12 articles written up, which played a part of the Peasants' War. We saw how this played a role in Luther's own articles. In the Ranchod Vira letter, we saw (according to our Professor): 1)Peasants throughout India were active in questioning colonial power, 2)Participants in creating a counterpublic 3)Rethink the ways we interpret the intellectual lives of peasants. And we then saw how this letter played a role in the political life of India that followed it.

So, I bring Phoolan Devi up so that you can count her in. She, like Antigone, like the peasants of the Holy Roman empire, like Ranchod Vira, engaged in political action without the supposed capacity for political literacy. I bring this issue up again since we see it in this week's readings, in our Professor's article about naming.

Now, on to our professor's name.

Our professor modeled for you research. He follows something that he's already interested in, does oral research, and then hits the books. My suggestion is that you don't underestimate the value of talking with people about your own research as they can sometimes turn you onto research material you would not otherwise find.

Okay, now, in finally talking about the importance of naming, I'll give you two pieces of background material. First, notice what's going on in Savarkar's IWI. In writing the Indian War of Independence, Savarkar seems to be engaged in a renaming of the events that occurred around The British called it a mutiny. What is the difference between Mutiny and Revolution? This is review, so it should be easy.

What is the difference between mutiny and revolution? One standard definition of mutiny is "an open rebellion against the proper authorities." An equally standard definition of revolution is "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." The point of this little exercise has been to show you that Savarkar, in writing his history of the violent incidents of 1857, was interested in getting Indian's to see an Indian account of what happened. And that effort began with the very title of the book. This is supposed to get you to understand the importance of naming, using material with which you should already be familiar.

Remember the 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. We'll put a new part into it, in light of the emphasis on naming. Answer: According to British historians (those British historians highlighted by Savarkar), the start of the "mutiny" (which is the name the British gave to the events to signifiy their claim to legitimate authority) 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 "revolution" (which is the name Savarkar gave the evetns to signify his claim to legitimate authority) of 1857 in India. According to Savarkar, the British answer to the cause of the conflict was meant to show how irrational the Indians were, and this is why Savarkar brings up his own causal analysis of the war, to show the Indians as rational, and just in their actions.

Okay, where was I? Oh yes, trying to get you onboard with the importance of naming. I tried to do this so far by showing you the difference between the British name for the conflict in India in 1857 and the name that Savarkar gave those same events. But perhaps pop culture can help? Remember Kumar from Harold and Kumar?

Remember Kumar from Harold and Kumar? Well, two years ago he did a movie called Namesake. Seen it? It is worth watching the trailer, so that you get a feel for it. Notice the difference in this instance of naming. It is not the naming of a war, or a nation, but of an individual.

1. My name is ________________ (choose one name you have or use) 2. One of my given names, or a name you chose? ____ 3. As a child, what you felt, about this name (liked it, didn't)?_________ 4. If you use one of your given names, do you use it as a nickname, or in its original form? _________________ 5. What you were told about name as a child (meaning, religious or ethnic or other association (named after a singer, war hero, etc.)___? 6. Information or associations with your name as a teenager or adult, if different_______________ 7. Other people who have this name:_____________________

Okay, I've tried to get you to see the importance of naming. Notice what I've done. I've shown you things that you should already know, and now I'm gonna try and show you things that you may not already know. I'm modeling for you a couple of different techniques. Going from the known to the unknown... we've heard that before. We called it "an example" in Fall.

Now, into the unknown. What do you think is going on in "Vinayay and Me?" At once it seems to be a history of an individual's name, and–at the very same time–the history of a broader social phenomenon.

Let's follow them in turn. The individual history in "Vinayay and Me" traces out the way in which an individual, in this case our Professor Chaturvedi, discovered the personal and social significance of his own name. The importance of this part of what's going on is two-fold. I've already high- lighted the first aspect, and that is how he models research for us. He starts with a question, looks at a dictionary to get up to speed with the basics, then asks people. Those people turn him onto books. Then, he reads books, and then talks to more people. While your research may not require you to conduct interviews, that certainly does not mean you should not talk to people. (When instructors tell you things like this three times in one discussion, you should take them seriously.)

The other aspect which makes this part of what's going on has to do with the importance of autobiography. Our professor has created for us, but also for a much larger community, a source. You don't teach Savarkar in India without controversy. Even your experience of being taught Savarkar in India is a primary resource. You, yourself, a primary resource, depending on the event. You could easily create a primary resource for others to use about... say the state of education in Irvine.

Notice how, in different contexts, our professor's paper is a primary resource, and in other contexts a secondary resource. How is it a primary resource? How is it a secondary resource?

The answer to "how is it a secondary resource?" brings up the other way in which this essay is important. Remember I said I though it was significant in two ways, first as a personal history, and second as a social history? Well, when we look at how this article can count as a secondary resource, we see that the essay is an important piece of social history, in some contexts. We learned all sorts of things about India that helps us with our knowledge of the differences between Gandhi and Savarkar.

The differences between Gandhi and Savarkar can seem obvious, but there are some nuanced difference that you should be aware of. Who could be "Indian" according to Gandhi? Could a British citizen become Indian? What was it about Gandhi's thinking makes you say that?

Who could be "Indian" according to Savarkar? Could a British citizen become Indian? What is it about Savarkar's thinking that makes you say that? Here's my point at the moment, we learn from Professor Chaturvedi's essay that Savarkar was interested in a territorialized definition of "Indian."

First, and this is important, we learned that Savarkar, as a condition of his release, was denied a political life in "public politics," and that, as a result, he engaged in a different kind of "politics." This has to do with that distinction we heard, between "publics" and "counter-publics." What were two things that Savarkar did which were not "public" politics, but which had political effects?

First, and this is obvious, he argued for the importance of names. This, in turn, lead Dr. Parchure to name our Professor "Vinayak." Secondly, he argued for a revival of Hinduism. This, in turn, was used to bolster the notion of Hindu nationalism. From the essay (p. 224): "Savarkar intended to use the text [Hindutva: Who is Hindu?] to clarify divergent opinions on how to define 'Hindu,' 'Hinduism' and 'Hindutuva' by establishing a history of the term "Hindu," demonstrating links between territoriality and Hindu identity, and answering the question 'Who is Hindu?.' His main focus in the text, nevertheless, was to argue that the conceptualization of Indian national identity must, at ist foundation, be based within the political philosophy of Hindutva." Savarkar was uniting India by revitalizing Hinduism, so as to create a religious nation, it seems.

How do you create a nation? British did it. How? Gandhi did it. How? Savakar tried. How?

The Ganesh festivals were formed with that task in mind. From the essay (p. 225): "In the 1890's Ganesh's popularity had a resurgence under the leadership of Tilak, who began mobilizing the large numbers of Hindus from upper and lower castes around an annual Ganesh festival. Tilak was concerned about harnessing the mass support against colonial rule, while simultaneously using the symbol of Ganesh to articulate a political agenda linking 'Hindu revivalism' with Indian nationalism. It was considered an 'extremist' form of nationalism for its celebration of Maharashtrian 'martial prowess' and for its militant anti-Muslim character. In fact, it has been argued that Tilak's invention of a Ganesh tradition was primarily in response to, and corresponded with, the annual Muslim festival of Muhharram."

The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons: 1)They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common ancestory. 2) 3)

The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons: 1)They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common ancestory. 2)They served to distance a community seen as harmful. 3)

The Ganesh festivals are important for a number of reasons: 1)They served to unify disparate communities by appealing to a common ancestory. 2)They served to distance a community seen as harmful. 3)They allowed those who could not read or write to participate in political action.

And why is it important to study history? Savarkar seems to have said it himself (though he's echoing others here) on p. 226: "The nation that has no consciousness of its past has no future." To this day, fighting continues between India and Pakistan. One area of contest is called Kashmir. Do a "google.com/news" search and you find that the fighting goes on to this day: 8&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=kashmir&btnG=Search+News Or, do a similar search, but of the news archives: d&as_ldate=2005&as_hdate=2005&lnav=d0&ldrange=1998,2004

Doing such a search shows how folks were excited in 2005 about being able to take a train between India and Pakistan for the first time in decades...

but digging deeper will show you that violence surrounds the train line. People who are against the exchange of people firebombed the train in 2007, killing 67 people.

In Other news: "Bomb blasts kill 60 in western India / Tue May 13, :10pm EDT "JAIPUR, India (Reuters) - Sixty people were killed in a series of bomb attacks in India's western city of Jaipur on Tuesday evening, police, officials and witnesses said. At least six bombs, which exploded in markets and near a Hindu temple in Jaipur's crowded walled city just as many people took to the streets after a sweltering day, also wounded up to 150 people, officials said. Rajasthan state government officials said between 50 and 60 people were killed in the explosions, the deadliest bomb attacks in India in nearly two years. "According to the information I have received 60 people have died and 150 have been injured," Rajasthan's Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying. But the state's police chief gave lower figures. "Forty-five people have been killed and at least 100 have been injured," A. S. Gill, Director General of Police in the state of Rajasthan, told reporters. No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks. But India has previously blamed Pakistan-based Islamist militants fighting to end New Delhi's rule of Kashmir for such bombings."

It continues: "The latest attack comes just over a week before India's foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee is due to visit Islamabad to review the four-year-old peace process, his first visit since a new, civilian government took over in Pakistan. It also comes just a few days after fresh firing along the border between the neighbours in disputed Kashmir, with India saying Islamist militants had been trying to sneak in."

We study history for a reason....

Okay, stepping off of the soap box...

What are your research topics? 1)Topic 2)Primary Resource(s) 3)Secondary Resources

Thanks...