"The religious nationalism of the present and trauma of the past has combined in telling ways to weaponise Partition’s memory. We live in a time where the bonhomie of the Kartarpur Corridor and warm nostalgia recollections of the pre-Partition period coexist with frequent acts of mob lynching, religious polarisation and routine warmongering against the so-called ‘eternal enemies’ of the Hindu nation.
These myriad specific juxtapositions demand that we cast a critical eye on our past and ask ourselves some tough questions. If we are to continue remembering Partition in this climate we must do so as a portent or warning of the future that awaits us. Rather than ignore the fascism that thrives on the victimhood of Partition, we must study the complex ways in which Partition survivors continue to grapple with Partition’s senselessness." Pranav Kohli wrote: theindiaforum.in/history/many-f…
https://x.com/i/status/2088981292784451971
We are probably heading towards anarchy. In these most turbulent times, we should regard all struggling and dissenting voices with utmost respect, sensitivity, and empathy, so that any untoward incident in the history of our country may be averted. It is time for those at the helm to reshuffle the leadership and bring in people of humility, character, and consideration.
https://x.com/i/status/2089053227052638487
A journey through India’s extraordinary maritime legacy at Unity Pavilion, Auroville. Shri Sanjeev Sanyal explored the story of INSV Kaundinya, India’s civilisational connections across the seas #Auroville #INSVKaundinya #MaritimeHistory #TheMother #SriAurobindo
https://x.com/i/status/2089210446020755551
In any other credible democracy the media would have rushed to commission such polls, so why didn’t the Indian media, asks Karan Thapar. He takes an informed guess:
“Someone, somewhere in authority – an editor, or perhaps, a proprietor – would have said no. They would have sensed the findings would embarrass the government and sought to avoid doing so. Their judgement would have tilted in favour of protecting the amour propre of our rulers at the cost of denying their readership or viewership information and an assessment that was truly needed. And this applies equally to our printed publications, as it does to our television channels.”
m.thewire.in/article/rights… via @thewire_In
https://x.com/i/status/2088884208043237735
This new paper maps feminism’s evolution in 4 stages—from Enlightenment equality claims, through romanticised female autonomy and individual “adventure,” to the alleged criminalisation of men under Indian law as “legal violence.” I reject the teleology and the conclusions, but it’s a useful window into how certain manosphere arguments are being academicised. Unsettling side note: it cites my book “Dalit Feminist Theory”, I presume to attack it. doi.org/10.31305/rrjss…
https://x.com/i/status/2089298686035554663
Montesquieu is the most underrated thinker in the Western political tradition. Not because he was obscure – The Spirit of the Laws sold out its first edition and went through twenty-two printings in 18 months. But because he was so completely absorbed into the foundations of Western constitutionalism that he became invisible – like load-bearing walls when the house is standing.
1. His central insight made America possible and France impossible: power must be separated. Different powers must belong to institutions with different interests, constituencies, and timescales, so no single force can accumulate enough authority to become tyrannical. In 1748, this was revolutionary. Every government that existed at that moment was, in some form, a concentration of power. Montesquieu looked at England — the only partial exception — and understood what France was missing.
2. He invented comparative political science. As a diagnostic tool: he asked not "what is the ideal government?" but "what kind of government produces what results, under what conditions?" This was Aristotle’s method applied to political systems: observe, compare, follow the evidence. The Spirit of the Laws is less a theory of how governments should be than an empirical study of how they actually work – and what their differences cost in human freedom.
3. The separation of legislative, executive, and judicial power was his most consequential contribution. Madison read Montesquieu closely; parts of the Federalist Papers are essentially Montesquieu translated into American. The Constitution’s architecture is his architecture. Every check, balance, veto, and independent court flows from one insight: the most reliable protection against the abuse of power is a system in which power constrains power. Not virtue. Not good intentions. Structure.
4. He understood that liberty is not the absence of government but the product of the right kind of government. This is the distinction the French Enlightenment repeatedly failed to make – and it helps explain why 1776 and 1789 produced such different results. Rousseau wanted a virtuous government. Montesquieu wanted a system in which government’s virtue was largely irrelevant because its structure constrained it regardless. One requires "philosopher-kings." The other requires architects. The architects won in Philadelphia. The philosopher-kings won in Paris. The results were not the same.
5. He understood that climate, geography, and culture constrain political possibility. Not all peoples are equally ready for all forms of government at all times. The institutions that produced English constitutionalism could not simply be transplanted onto a society with a different history and social fabric. You cannot design an ideal society from first principles and impose it on any population. The material matters. History matters. The accumulated habits of a people matter – and cannot be replaced by decree.
6. The French ignored him. France has a recurring habit of producing brilliant diagnoses and then abandoning them for the next beautiful abstraction. Montesquieu published in 1748. The Revolution came in 1789. The most precise available map of what produces freedom and tyranny sat largely unused by those who would soon build guillotines in the name of liberty. The Americans read Montesquieu. The French read Rousseau. The difference in outcomes requires little explanation.
7. He is present in every functioning constitutional democracy – and absent wherever power is concentrated in the name of efficiency, emergency, or "the greater good." The administrative state Tocqueville diagnosed, and which we increasingly inhabit, is the inversion of Montesquieu’s architecture: power concentrated, institutions captured, courts politicized, and executives expanding into every space legislatures vacate.
Montesquieu built the house. The current tenants have been quietly removing the load-bearing walls. They are surprised when the ceiling sags.
https://x.com/i/status/2089050035908444637
And before Hume, Smith, and Burke, there was Locke – the quiet Englishman who built the foundation everything else rests on.
John Locke’s starting point is simple and revolutionary: every human being arrives in the world with natural rights — to life, liberty, and property — that exist before any government, any king, and any General Will. Government does not grant these rights. It is created specifically to protect them. The moment it fails that function, the contract is broken and the people may dissolve it. This sounds like Rousseau. It is the precise opposite. Rousseau’s revolution tears everything down to rebuild the perfect society from first principles. Locke’s revolution restores what was wrongly taken – it is conservative by nature, backward-looking, anchored in existing rights rather than utopian futures. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was Locke in practice: not the demolition of an order but the correction of a king who exceeded his mandate. The American Revolution of 1776 was Locke in practice again: a list of specific violations, a reluctant separation, and a new government explicitly designed to do less, not more.
The French Revolution had Rousseau. The Anglo-American tradition had Locke. The difference in outcomes was not accidental. Just compare the faces…
https://x.com/i/status/2075876320349757907
The Troubling State of India's democracy: edited by Šumit Ganguly, Dinsha Mistree and Larry Diamond, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2024, xii+ 381 pp …
edited by Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner and Šumit Ganguly. The addition of the
word ‘troubling’in the title of this new volume is intended to signify that challenges to …
An organised and empowered Hindu society will show the world the path of peace and unity: Dattatreya Hosabale Worship of nature in all its forms rivers, trees …
strong Hindu society can guide the world towards unity and humanity. Wherever
Hindu society has reached, it has contributed positively to the progress of that nation …
Lived Experiences of Religious Freedom
communities across cultures and millennia. In seeking to make sense of existence,
people have offered answers shaped by–among other sources–revelation, tradition …
Unpacking Radicalism: Theories, Types, and Historical Contexts
movement shaped within the framework of Hindutva (Hinduness) ideology. Jaffrelot (2007,
p. 355) defines Hindutva as a form of ethno-religious nationalism that equates Indian …
Hindutva and the Rise of Radical Hindu Nationalism in India
primacy of Hindu culture and values within the Indian … of Hindutva and the politics
of Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation). By analyzing the historical context and ideological …
Dalits and Hindutva
the depart‑ ments of thought and activity of the whole … Therefore, the idea of
Hindutva is inextricably linked with the idea of being a Hindu. However, Savarkar …
Fundamentals of Dalit Studies: An Introduction
the name of the field. It provides a rationale for a volume engaging with the
fundamentals of Dalit Studies. It explains caste as involving oppression, oppressor …
[PDF] From Paraiyar to Adi-Dravidar: a critical documentary analysis of identity reclamation and persistent caste oppression in Tamil Nadu
extending into the 21st century with lower caste communities continuing to face
significant oppression from dominant caste groups (Ranjithkumar, 2024). The …
[PDF] From Exclusion to Self-Assertion: Reading Interloper through Dalit Discourse
caste discrimination, refugee existence, and the relentless struggle for dignity in
postcolonial India. Written from the perspective of a Dalit writer whose own life …
Casteism in the Indian Diaspora
caste is a transnational flow of multiple iterations of power across gender and
human and financial capital, this selection examines how it tethers to various forms …
Dalit Political Parties
during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Simultaneously, … Kanshi Ram’s
response to Hindutva movement was crucial because Dalits needed to counter the …
Caste Atrocities
Hyderabad, faced caste‑based discrimination and was suspended along with four
other Dalit students following a complaint by a Hindutva group of students. His …
Queering Caste
with indifference, while performatively advocating for a … + persons under today’s
Hindutva regime. From a meta‑perspective, the present moment marked by the rise …
Dalitization
under a singular Hindu identity. Ilaiah critiques Hindutva for its … Dalitization, in
contrast, celebrates pluralism and diversity, challenging the monolithic narratives …
Debrahmanization
caste system in India, emphasizing the need for debrahmanization as a means to
dismantle caste-based oppression. Historically rooted in the priestly caste’s …
Reframing the Zapatista Movement: Epistemic Struggle, Narrative Resistance, and the Global South
an active site of epistemological struggle and resistance. It is grounded in the
argument that the Zapatista movement enables interaction across distances through …
Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra
No comments:
Post a Comment