Angiola Codacci-Pisanel
The writer Arundhati Roy: "you are corrupting Gandhi's ideas to make a violent use of non-violence. It is immoral to allow a State to commit violence, and claim a non-violent reaction by the victims '
Arundhati Roy"Those who have nothing to eat can do a hunger strike. And if there are no spectators does not make sense to do a sit-in ". And ' pithy Arundhati Roy in indicating the limits of non-violence and the risk of "gandhism forced". Behind a hugely successful novel ("the God of small things") followed by a non-fiction increasingly engaged and anti-Government, Indian writer is coming to present at Ferrara, at the Festival of "International", along with his "spiritual father" John Berger, the collection of essays "Broken Republic" (in Italy by Guanda due out in January): a book with hatred in India because it supports the armed resistance of the indigenous peoples who seek to defend their forests by the appetites of the multinationals supported by the Government. People, writes Roy, for the media are "Maoist rebel violence and blood-thirsty" and "from the point of view of consumption are more of a Gandhian Ghandian protesters".
Non-violent manifestations of Arab spring they did talk about a return of the ideals of Mahatma. Would you agree?
"We cannot talk about gandhism just because there are mass demonstrations. Gandhi was a politician, very complex and interesting. He had a philosophy of life, a particular attitude towards consumerism. I'm not an unconditional fan of Gandhi but admire and wouldn't ever mistake of confusing what has been called Arab spring with a Gandhian movement. The revolts of Arab countries have complex policies components: in Egypt have an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood, which certainly cannot be called valorises local traditions. We must see how the situation evolves before Judge ".
Meanwhile, in India the politician of the moment is Anna Hazare, the "new Gandhi" that she disapproves of everything, right?
"Yes, because he really has little to do with Gandhi. Says that the corrupt should be hanged and that they must cut off the hands of the thieves: looks more like a supporter of the sharia that a Gandhian. In addition to a centralized democracy, an oligarchy formed by 30 thousand people responsible for weeding out corruption at all levels, while Gandhi believed in decentralisation. I think you atteggi to Gandhian for reasons and to inspire sympathy, but it has nothing to do with him. "
Behold, the Theatre: you write that non-violence makes no sense if it does not have an audience.
"When you decide to start a hunger strike or a sit-in need of an audience that shares. Then in the forests of central India, where police and paramilitaries encircle the poorest and burning houses and rape women, when your village is surrounded by a thousand policemen without organs information knowing nothing, what kind of Gandhian politics can do? View Hazare: When did the hunger strike was in the heart of Delhi, surrounded by journalists and supporters. This is very dishonest. "
The hunger strike so it is for the rich and famous?
"The part of Gandhi who admire more his approach to sustainability, ecological life, which was really ahead of its time-is the part of which no one speaks. The so-called Gandian protesters today want to maintain a consumerist behavior and have the free market, and meanwhile you fill your mouth with non-violence. Sure Gandhi would not have been backed by multinational companies such as Tata ".
Think you can bribe Gandhi's ideas to make a violent use of non-violence?
"It's what's going on. When I see people in India who claim non-violence by the poorest of the poor while their villages were under attack, when they preach to the people of Kashmir living under the occupation of 700 thousand soldiers, I feel that is deeply immoral. It is unethical to allow a State to commit violence, and claim a non-violent reaction by the victims. "
Non-violent manifestations of Arab spring they did talk about a return of the ideals of Mahatma. Would you agree?
"We cannot talk about gandhism just because there are mass demonstrations. Gandhi was a politician, very complex and interesting. He had a philosophy of life, a particular attitude towards consumerism. I'm not an unconditional fan of Gandhi but admire and wouldn't ever mistake of confusing what has been called Arab spring with a Gandhian movement. The revolts of Arab countries have complex policies components: in Egypt have an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood, which certainly cannot be called valorises local traditions. We must see how the situation evolves before Judge ".
Meanwhile, in India the politician of the moment is Anna Hazare, the "new Gandhi" that she disapproves of everything, right?
"Yes, because he really has little to do with Gandhi. Says that the corrupt should be hanged and that they must cut off the hands of the thieves: looks more like a supporter of the sharia that a Gandhian. In addition to a centralized democracy, an oligarchy formed by 30 thousand people responsible for weeding out corruption at all levels, while Gandhi believed in decentralisation. I think you atteggi to Gandhian for reasons and to inspire sympathy, but it has nothing to do with him. "
Behold, the Theatre: you write that non-violence makes no sense if it does not have an audience.
"When you decide to start a hunger strike or a sit-in need of an audience that shares. Then in the forests of central India, where police and paramilitaries encircle the poorest and burning houses and rape women, when your village is surrounded by a thousand policemen without organs information knowing nothing, what kind of Gandhian politics can do? View Hazare: When did the hunger strike was in the heart of Delhi, surrounded by journalists and supporters. This is very dishonest. "
The hunger strike so it is for the rich and famous?
"The part of Gandhi who admire more his approach to sustainability, ecological life, which was really ahead of its time-is the part of which no one speaks. The so-called Gandian protesters today want to maintain a consumerist behavior and have the free market, and meanwhile you fill your mouth with non-violence. Sure Gandhi would not have been backed by multinational companies such as Tata ".
Think you can bribe Gandhi's ideas to make a violent use of non-violence?
"It's what's going on. When I see people in India who claim non-violence by the poorest of the poor while their villages were under attack, when they preach to the people of Kashmir living under the occupation of 700 thousand soldiers, I feel that is deeply immoral. It is unethical to allow a State to commit violence, and claim a non-violent reaction by the victims. "
*This article has been automatically translated from Italian
No comments:
Post a Comment