#Bengal Partition | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

peonycats · 1 year ago

Note

(might become a block of text as i write sorry) do you have any thoughts on how bengal's personification(s)...work ? i am bengali but it's always confused me how to go about it. was there only one bengal before the partition ? would west bengal and bangladesh have a personification only after it ? i feel weird making bengal (if there was one before what we have currently, which... there's gotta be right ??) "into" west bengal or bangladesh cuz then i feel as though there's a very weird and at least somewhat offensive connotation on which one's "more/truly bengali" to put it lightly, ya know ?? but i can't see either of them really being born in the contemporary era cuz bengal's history is so ancient and vast ?? it confuses me sm i know i should probably just ask other bengalis but the ones ik irl don't really have strong views on this and i don't know any bangladeshis i can realistically ask this to 😭😭😭 im sorry if this has become an incoherent block of text

HEAVY DISCLAIMER THAT I AM NOT BENGALI OR SOUTH ASIAN!!

Tbh, don't worry about sending in a big block of text, I think this is an scenario/question worth considering. Basically, there are a number of ways you can go about personifying Bengal/Bengali nations, and each of them have their own issue, each of which have their own pros and cons, if my understanding is correct-

There was one original Bengal personification that was Hindu, but around the time that Islam reached Bengal and Bengalis began to convert, another Bengal personification arose to specifically represent Muslim Bengalis.

There was one original Bengal personification that began as Hindu and eventually converted to Islam, going on to become the personification of Bangladesh. No other separate personification arose to represent West Bengal/Bengali Hindus because this original personification still represents them.

There was one original Bengal personification that began as Hindu and eventually converted to Islam, going on to become the personification of Bangladesh. Meanwhile, another Bengal personification later arose to represent West Bengal/Bengali Hindus around the time of British imperialism and/or the Partition.

APPROACH 1

Pros + Reflects the current cultural division between Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis

Cons - Lowkey justifies the Partition of the subcontinent by implying there were already personifications split on religious lines predating British colonialism

APPROACH 2

Pros + Reaffirms the artificiality of the Partition by there only being one Bengal personification representing all Bengalis regardless of religion

Cons - Does not accurately reflect the irl cultural divide between Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis and the difference in how they view themselves

APPROACH 3

Pros + Reaffirms the artificiality of the Partition by there only being one original Bengal personification representing all Bengalis regardless of religion

Cons - By making the personification of West Bengal so comparatively young, this both inaccurately reflects the age of the Hindu Bengali community vs the Muslim Bengali community, as well as have subtle implications about which community is more "authentic and legitimate" based on this difference in age

Now, choosing one of these approaches will definitely depend a lot on what exactly you're personifying and the historical-geopolitical context at hand, as well as what messages you're not afraid to convey. For example, I personify Afghanistan as representing both Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan from talking to actual Pashtuns and how they view the border between them, as well as communicating the artificiality of the border. I think it's useful to recognize that the entire process of personifying a nation is basically mapping things like, a nation's ethnogenesis, rise to power, golden age, and eventual decline and destruction to human life events, is always imperfect and sometimes, the allegory falls apart; the Partition is probably one of the best examples of this.

As for how I would go about personifying Bengal? I would probably for a variation of Approach 1, where instead of there being multiple Bengali personifications split on the basis of religion, there would be multiple Bengali personifications split on the basis of regional and cultural differences. (Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am an outsider to this, but there are sub-groups and regional differences in language and culture even within Bengal, right?) Because of there being multiple Bengali personifications, some of them would be Muslim, some of them would be Hindu, and by the time of Partition, the personifications representing the lands of modern day Bangladesh and/or Muslim Bengali communities would move to join/represent the nation of Bangladesh while those representing Hindu Bengali communities would join India. This approach still has its issues, and may still validate/justify the Partition in the eyes of some people, but I go for it because it fulfill my most important conditions-

Doesn't make any of the Bengal personifications outrageously young

The Bengal personifications are personified based on regional and cultural divides that predate colonialism and imperialism

Them having to consciously choose sides post-independence and having to separate from one another accurately reflects the artificiality of the Partition and how it split up communities.

That's just my take, ofc, as a non Bengali and as someone who hasn't done as much research into the region as I'd like to, feel free to disagree and choose whatever approach feels most accurate according to you and your research!!

#ask #// long post #hws bangladesh

28 notes · View notes

pastara-cell · 4 months ago

Text

God this blog may just turn into a tmf blog for a bit- Sorry hermitblr/trafficblr peeps

Just listing some basic drew headcanons here because I feel like I see the same ones over and over again so I’d like to combat that 🤺🤺/lh ofc, I love all headcanons

>Drew is Bengali, His great grandparents came to the uk from Kolkata (Whether it be from partition stuff or not) And since then, his family blood has still been entirely from west bengal

>Drew isn’t necessarily religious, however, He enjoys Hindu religious holidays (Like Diwali and Holi) and Pujas and He especially loves the food. His parents (who are Hindu) are fine with him being non religious, But do wish for him to participate in events just to spend time with him, which he doesn’t mind at all

>Adding onto that, he doesn’t eat beef or pork. Not for religious reasons, but because he just wasn’t raised on them and doesn’t enjoy the taste or texture.

>His parents love him, but are absent quite a lot due to work and business meetings. The only times he’ll see them for more than a months on end is during the winter months, mainly because thats holiday season. Other than that, 2 weeks at home, 2 weeks on a business trip, repeat

>His parents try to show their affection to him via gifts and food, because its really all they can send over while they’re away. Because of this, drew developed Gift giving and cooking food for people love languages

>this man can COOK. I know I said its one of his love languages, so you’d assume so, but oh my LORD this man can cook. Its half the reason henry and liam come over so often! He best at more traditional bengali food (although he hates doing it), but he can make pretty much anything if you give him a heads up, the ingredients, and enough time to tinker around with the recipe!

>His hair is actually wavy/loose curls, but he hates having curly hair, so he either straightens it so it doesn’t poof up, or uses a bit of hairspray. The only people who really know his hair is curly is the jomies (including jake, lia, and zoey) because they’ve slept over at his house, and have probably seen him when his hair was wet and curly again.

>He’s 15 feet into a glass closet. My sexuality head-canons for him change a lot, but I’ve sort of settled on omni/ace for now. However, For the most part, I think if he were to come out, he’d just be queer. I dont think he’d care for labels too much

>Obvious attachment issues, slight separation anxiety, although, I can see it being more leaning towards henry and liam than jake for that. He might have had an obsession with jake, but I think it’d have hurt more if henry and liam left him, considering they had been there the longest.

>He loves zoey, even still. He really does. He’s terrible at showing it, but he does his best.

>Zoey, knowing his love language is gift giving, and he’s rich, befriended him in late middle school/early high school, and they started dating seconds year odd high school. Drew definitely was the one who confessed after being hyped up about it by henry and liam and jake. Zoey definitely wasn’t planning on dating him, but shrugged it off as being able to get him to do more stuff. She eventually did develop feelings for him, but she was too far into the mess she had created to stop, so she kept pushing

>He has such an rbf guys, like, he would be thinking about the happiest thing ever and his face would be just this 1000 yard stare

>He definitely drinks energy drinks guys, probably monsters but I can see him bringing an alani to school because he knows he’s gonna get called emo if he brings a monster to school

>He is called emo quite a bit at school, although he isn’t. It doesn’t bother him much anymore.

>He loves cats and really really wants one, but he’s severely allergic. Like, your throat closes and you die unless you get to the ER or have an epipen level allergic.

>He has Two bearded dragons (Each around 18 inches long, a boy and a girl) named Jevin and Pearl, his two favourite hermits

>he watches hermitcraft. Probably the life series and Empires and Outsiders and Life steal and all that stuff too, but He watches hermitcraft RELIGIOUSLY (He’s watched every episode that Jevin, Pearl, Grian, and Xisuma have put out, and he’s working on Mumbo’s pov right now)

>His favourite broadway musicals are Heathers and Six. Mean girls is up there too, but those are his favorites

>He didn’t cry during the titanic because it was sad, but because he watched it with zoey and she was crying, which made him cry

>i’m not gonna diagnose him with anything necessarily because i’m in no way qualified for that, but he definitely has mood swings and his opinions change a lot depending on who else he finds has them. He can go from hating something for years to immediately liking it if Liam says its good, or go from liking something to hating it if Hailey likes it.

>He listens to music, heck, one of his main designs are airpods- So, I think that he definitely listens to electronic stuff, scenecore type shit (Asteria, Barely human, Odetari, Clover!, and allat jazz) Not because its his favourite, but because Liam and henry both listen to it, so drew likes it.

>He really cares about his friends, but is really shit at showing it.

>He’s not good at communication, and is not often sure how to communicate what he wants or what he needs without sounding blunt or rude. He often rehearses how talks will go.

>This mf does not regret bullying that music club guys- I love him but i’m not even gonna attempt to justify him bullying them because I feel like it takes away from his character a lot

>He hates Hailey and Zander, Mainly because he finds them annoying and freaky.

>He’s only bullied luke because of his connection to zander and the music club, he doesn’t really mind luke as a person

>Milly Is his second cousin, they really only have their families meet up on holidays, so they never grew up close. Drew and Milly dont view eachother as family, so they dont care about bullying eachother/doing stuff to eachother’s friends. Drew and Milly do both occasionally pull the “I’m going to tell Thamma (grandma)!”, which does admittedly stop the other from doing whatever they were going to do.

>Drew has picked on pretty much all the club members, except for sean. Whether this be because Sean is taller than him, older than him, Or because they simply just have never really talked, drew mostly leaves him alone. He forgets sean is there most of the time

>Insecure as shit, do I even need to say it lol?

I have a lot more, but these are my main headcanons. Ofc, I fluctuate a lot with them, I’m like a multishipper but instead of shipping its with headcanons.

#drew tmf #tmf drew #headcanons #tmf #freakblr #look at that i’m managing to shove hermitcraft into every au or fandom I find #its gotta be a talent at this point #I love the mexican or latino headcanons for dreww #but I feel like they’re super overused #Was it confirmer or something or is it just a headcanon?#grahhh rosy give us desi people representation through this silly lil asshole/silly

8 notes · View notes

everything-is-crab · 1 year ago

Text

:))

This is what I meant when I said both rightoids and liberals in India are equally dumb as fuck. Both are pro imperialists. She's not even lower caste and yet she's speaking on behalf of us. I have seen this trend in a lot of "anticasteist" upper caste women (who unfortunately have more voices than people like me, actually women from oppressed castes).

How are these people different from the white supremacists who say brown people are intellectually and socially inferior?

"At least the goras let us have meat" oh okay we're gonna ignore the 3 million lives lost in Bengal famine caused by Churchill's policies (after which he blamed it on us instead of his own greediness). Did he let those people eat meat then? Unhinged shit. They wouldn't let people fill their bellies cause sometimes instead of food crops they wanted our ancestors to grow cotton, indigo, spices, tea. Which also left areas prone to land disasters. Commercial stuff that they could sell at much cheaper prices in their own countries and others in the Western world as well. Also levied extremely unreasonably high taxes. Leaving us with no money. Delusional world these middle/upper class liberals live in where the British let us have meat. They didn't even let us have rice.

The British protected the caste system. Read Sharmila Rege's work about how the British introduced the process of "Brahmanisation" in colonial India.

This is the exact thing Hindu nationalists are doing rn! And have been doing forever! Protecting Western imperialists! Why do you think Modi is bootlicking the US so much? Do you think the farmers' protests and the after effects of globalization after 1991 are disconnected from Western imperialism?

Just because nationalists claim to be against white dominance doesn't mean they practice what they preach.

And this folks is why you need to incorporate class and gender in your analysis and not read about the work of only the middle class men of a community :)

Women and poor people matter too.

But unfortunately many earlier anti caste activists who were middle or upper class were anti Marxists and only later few like the Dalit Panthers and R.B More realized the importance of Marxist analysis for understanding modern caste based oppression more. Yes many Indian Marxists ignored casteism. But that does not mean we must dispose it as a useless theory.

But who tf cares about the Dalit Panthers or anyone else? Have you even heard of any other names that aren't Phule or Ambedka? Everyone followed and still follow people like Periyar, Ambedkar, Phule who were all from relatively well off family. And why will people who uncritically follow these people not think colonization was as bad? All of them attended British school and went for higher studies as well. The British was staunchly anti communist. They constantly resisted communist activists in colonial India. This is a privilege even today many people from oppressed castes cannot enjoy.

I have seen all these upper caste women, ignore people like me pointing this out. They think we're against education of oppressed castes (why would I advocate that for my own community?). But rather we take issue to these men ignoring their economic and male privilege and speaking on behalf of all of us.

A reminder that Periyar criminalized devadasis and read Ambedkar's arguments against Hindutva solutions to the Partition (hint: he cared more about the money that could be wasted in missionaries rather than the violence and human rights and unironically called Muslim people "tyrannical" and referred to "Muslim oppression" on Hindus). He was anti casteist, but he was Islamophobic.

To avoid with this kind of thinking, follow Dalit feminist theory. Dalit femininism from its inception has been pro Marxist (cause women make most of poor here). And they explain the effects of colonization on lower caste women (how the British introduced evidence act, a law that justified rape against lower caste women and let me remind you gang rape of lower caste women by upper caste men is a national issue. Ex the Manipur case, the rape of Phoolan Devi, the Hathras case etc). And how dowry (that earlier used to be a practice mainly amongst upper castes was now becoming dominant in lower castes as well due to capitalization of economy during colonial era). Maybe then you will understand why the British abolished sati but not any temple prostitution or other issues faced exclusively by women from oppressed castes. In fact they called upper caste women those who deserve to be protected but lower caste women were inherently deviant in their justification. But please go ahead and argue how imperialism brings "good things" sometimes.

Just read about caste reformation during colonial era. The choice isn't between hindutva and colonial era. The choice is between hindutva and hindutva along with colonial rule. Why do most liberals pretend the British never favored the Brahmins over everybody else?

White supremacy is so much better than Hindu supremacy for women of lower castes am I right guys?

This is so much better?

Also reminded of the "breast cloth" controversy. Do not mistake that anti caste activism is always anti caste for both Dalit men and women. Sometimes it favors Dalit men. And oppresses Dalit women further. Cause usually the colonizers never cared about oppressed castes but when they did, it was only for the men.

Ik many upper caste Marxists are not good at anti caste politics but I cannot separate Marxism from my anti caste or feminist politics. And as a Marxist from a formerly colonized country, I cannot ignore the imperial divide between the West (that is white dominated) and the global south (that includes India). You cannot separate the conditions of brown and black people today in the global south from the past dynamics of the colonizer and the colonized.

Lower caste women are obviously very poor. The poorest of all with least social protection. These upper caste women can sit on their asses and write papers and blogs on how much white supremacy was much cooler. But the ones from oppressed castes and working class? They don't have this privilege. They have the same burden of upper caste women related to marriage and domestic work and everything. But on top of that they have to do labor as well. And after globalization, when condition of "blue collar jobs" degraded (wages lowered, subsidies cut, worker protection rights gone etc) , the percentage of women in these fields increased. That's not a coincidence. Men always force women into lower earning occupations that have little job security. I am not gonna ignore this.

Fuck Hindutva. But fuck white supremacy too. For me neither is better. Both go hand in hand in fact. Look at the Hindu nationalists in France allying with white supremacists over shared conservative interests.

#Dalit femininism #india #marxist feminism

52 notes · View notes

arbitrarygreay · 5 months ago

Text

I keep referencing this scene from 1x8, so might as well make it easier for my self.

1692 Salem Witch Trials

1735 War for Independence (Our world: 1775-1783. The Molasses Act was passed in 1733, but was apparently routinely ignored before the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, and the resulting tensions ramped up until the riots began in 1772.)

1800 First Mexican War, 1810-1812 Second Mexican War (Our world: 1846-1848, after the Texas Revolution in 1836 and Mexico's own independence from Spain 1810-1821. In our world, the Louisiana Purchase was in 1803, leading to the Lewis And Clark and Pike Expeditions that decade. The UK supported Tecumseh's War in Indiana in 1811, rolling into the War of 1812, but which was the tail end of the Sixty Years' War era 1754-1813 of struggle between the UK, France, US, and Natives over the Great Lakes area.)

According to non-canon After The Storm, the Cession was created in the 1830s.

American Civil War 1840-1842 (Our world: 1861-65. As said above, in our world the 1840s was when the Mexican–American War took place.)

1908-1911 World War (Our world: WW1 1914-1918, Roaring 20s, Great Depression 1929-1939, WW2 1939-1945)

1940 The Hague (Our world: Notably, Geneva is not listed in this timeline, indicating that if Geneva was still a site of political importance, it wasn't to relevant witches. There were, however, also Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The 1899 conference led to creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and its housing, the Peace Palace, opened in 1913, also hosting many of the international organizations The Hague is known for today.)

1961-64 Chinese Civil War (Our world: 1927-49, with the US only making some minor moves about the Taiwan Strait.)

1960-present Proxy Wars (Our world: Cold War 1946-1991, NATO 1949, Korean War 1950-53, Vietnam War 1959-1975, Cuban Missile Crisis 1962, Moon landing 1969, Iranian Revolution 1979, Panama Invasion 1989, Gulf War 1990, Somalia and Bosnia/Herzegonia 1992, Haiti Invasion 1994, Kosovo 1996)

No mention of a Cold War or War on Terror (the latter not being surprising, given that it was replaced by the Spree)

Alder mentions the following locations as a part of "the early days" in 1x1:

Gibraltar (Great Siege 1779-83 stemming from Spain supporting the US in the Revolutionary War)

Tripoli (based on needing to have lifespan proximity to Gibraltar, this is about the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s between Ottoman Tripolitania and the US/Sweden)

Solomon Islands (rediscovered by Britain in 1767, Christian missionary work in the mid-1800s)

Alder's reminiscing from 2x9:

Bay of Bengal "running red with British blood", could be colonial or World War era.

Anatolian Plateau, probably about the Turkish War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire 1919-1923 after WWI, with Ankara becoming the new capital. Ankara is too far inland to be practical for the sea-based conflicts in the Barbary Wars and Aegean Sea conflicts. But there was also the Turkish "low-level civil war" 1976-1980.

Vienna, one summer, uhhhhhhhh probably World War events

Some other timeline notes:

1992 the Martyrdom in Liberia (Our world: immigration from the US with intent to colonize beginning in 1822, republic established 1847, coup in 1980, new republic in 1985, first Civil War 1989-1997, during which Greenville was destroyed.)

1994 Batan's bottles show up in Sudan (Our world: Sudan independence from Britain and UK in 1956, coup by al-Bashir in 1989, US sanctions in 1993)

1995 Batan's bottles show up in "in Minsk during the Belarus partition" (Belarus declared independence from the USSR in 1990, Lukashenko in 1994)

1997 First confirmed Spree attack

Some point in the 2000/10s: Bridey and her unit were in the Andes

Seven years ago (2012), per 1x6, Petra was in Belarus and encountered "The Balkan Composition".

The Balkan Composition was first deployed in "the Battle of the Urals", per 2x3

Willa and Quinn were stationed in Norilsk (a Russian city, west of the Urals) as a part of a siege at some point.

So what we see is that up to the World War, Alder's witch military mostly sped things up by a few decades (with the weird exception of the late 1700s/early 1800s, including Thomas Jefferson's presidency). Then, it seems that American hegemony would then delay/reduce much of the "modern" conflicts, or shift things around. Certainly, it seems that there was likely a large shift in the history of Eastern Europe and repercussions in East Asia.

#motherland fort salem #category: tv #I really really need to go back and add a mfs world building tag to the archives

8 notes · View notes

dragoneyes618 · 5 months ago

Text

Considered the Father of the Indian Nation, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948), aka Bapu (a Gujarati endearment for “father”), was a lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist and political ethicist whose use of nonviolent resistance led the successful campaign for Indian independence from British rule and inspired worldwide movements for civil rights and freedom.

Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability and, above all, achieving self-rule. He famously began to live in a self-sufficient residential community, to eat simple food, and undertake long fasts as a means of both introspection and political protest. Bringing anti-colonial nationalism to the common Indians, he called for the British to quit India in 1942 and was imprisoned several times for many years in both South Africa and India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, leading to extensive religious violence throughout the country.

Gandhi visited Punjab and Bengal, the primary affected areas, attempting to alleviate misery and, in the months that followed, he famously undertook several hunger strikes to halt the religious violence, with his final fast beginning in Delhi at age 78 on January 12, 1948. He was murdered a few weeks later by a militant Hindu nationalist unhappy about Gandhi’s defense of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims.

Gandhi’s first job was with a Jewish law firm in Johannesburg and some of his closest friends and confidants, both in Johannesburg (1893 – 1914) and later in India, were Jews. He lauded the Jewish spirituality, high standards, and sense of community and, after visiting the synagogue in Johannesburg during Pesach, he expressed his culinary delight with “the Jews’ unleavened cakes” and wrote that “you can almost say that I was keeping Passover with my Jewish friends.”

He, in turn, was always held in high regard by the Jews. In 1931, he met with members of Bene Israel to discuss their participation in the nationalist movement, but he suggested that they join in support of the movement only after India won its independence from the British, urging them not to become involved in politics before then because they constitute such a small minority.

The Bene Israel, sometimes referred to as the “Native Jew” caste, are a community of Jews in India said to be the descendants of one of the Ten Lost Tribes that settled in India many centuries ago. Starting in the second half of the 18th century after learning about normative Sephardic Judaism, they migrated to cities throughout British India, primarily to Mumbai, where they opened their first synagogue in 1796 and became prominent within the British colonial government.

Exhibited here is the editorial on the front page of the February 1948 issue of Schema that was dedicated to mourning Gandhi’s loss. After waxing enthusiastic about the greatness – indeed, the near deity status – of the late Indian leader, the editorial addresses Gandhi’s contribution to the Jewish community:

What does the passing of this great saint and believer in the universality of true religion mean to our small community in India? Our debt to him is no less unquestionable. Apart from the general principles of morality on which he based his every thought and action and which afforded all communities including ourselves the protection of the rock-like foundations of the true freedom and self-expression, he gave concrete expression to his sympathy for our cause and our sufferings on numerous occasions and in no uncertain manner. We are proud and grateful to place on record that he had the greatest respect and admiration for the Jewish people and all they symbolized – for he did not himself stand for what they had stood through centuries of persecution and suffering – the eternal principles of justice and morality against the savage hand of tyranny, the belief that the spirit shall triumph over the sword.

Indeed, Gandhi sympathized with Jews and saw their plight as similar to that of many Indians:

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews… There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany… A fundamental clause in the Transvaal constitution was that there should be no equality between the whites and colored races including Asiatics. There, too, the Indians were consigned to ghettos described as locations. The other disabilities were almost of the same type as those of the Jews in Germany. The Indians, a mere handful, resorted to satyagraha [nonviolent resistance] without any backing from the world outside or the Indian Government…

During a massive review of millions of its archival documents in 2019, the National Library of Israel unearthed a letter handwritten by Gandhi on September 1, 1939 – the very day that World War II broke out in Europe – in which he sends Rosh Hashanah greetings to Avraham E. Shohet, a local Jewish Indian official:

You have my good wishes for your new year. How I wish the new year may mean an era of peace for your afflicted people.

Shohet was head of the Bombay Zionist Association (BZA), president of the Bombay branch of Keren Hayesod, the Bombay city office’s Zionist organization, and editor of The Jewish Advocate, the official publication of the BZA and the Jewish National Fund in India.

But did Gandhi deserve the veneration and affection of the world’s Jews? The answer to that question is far from black and white.

It is doubtful that most Jews would consider Gandhi a great friend, or even a moral person, when they learn that, notwithstanding his characterization of Hitler as the ultimate in evil and as a man with whom negotiation is impossible, his solution to the Holocaust was that Jews should happily accept their fate and proudly submit themselves to mass extermination . . . which he readily admits would be the inevitable result of the Jews wielding “peaceful resistance” against the Nazis.

In a seminal letter he wrote from Segaon (a village in the Khargone district in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh where he established an ashram and settled) – which he published as The Jews in the November 26, 1938 issue of the Harijan newspaper – Gandhi argues that “the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history;” that “the tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone;” and that “he is doing it with religious zeal.” He writes that “If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified.”

However, because he does not believe in war under any circumstances, he concludes that “there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews:”

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. No person who has faith in a living G-d need feel helpless or forlorn. Tetragrammaton of the Jews is a G-d more personal than the G-d of the Christians, the Mussalmans or the Hindus, though as a matter of fact in essence, He is common to all and one without a second and beyond description. But as the Jews attribute personality to G-d and believe that He rules every action of theirs, they ought not to feel helpless. If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Tetragrammaton had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the G-d fearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

Gandhi even went so far as to send two conciliatory letters to Hitler, the first on July 23, 1939 and the second on December 24, 1940, in which he addressed the Fuhrer as a “friend” and wrote that he did not believe the German dictator was the “monster” that his opponents described. He raised the issue with Hitler of the Germans’ treatment of Poland and the Czechs – with nary a mention of the Jews – and he asked his closest friend, the Jewish Zionist Hermann Kallenbach (more on him later), to pray for Hitler.

Even after World War II, Gandhi essentially remained silent on the Holocaust and, most inconceivably, he spoke out against the “wickedness” of the trials of Nazi war criminals. In a June 1947 interview with his biographer, Louis Fischer, he said:

Hitler killed five million Jews [the correct number, of course, is six million Jews, but what’s another million Jews more or less?]. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

Gandhi defenders argue that, in urging Jews to accept martyrdom during the Shoah, he was only being consistent with his core values of pacifism and peaceful resistance and that this was not fatalism but, rather, an assertion of will so strong that it would deny the Nazis a sense of ethical and moral superiority over their victims. This position has not only been characterized as passivity bordering on cowardice but, I would argue, a naivete that is stunning, dangerous, and disgusting. Moreover, as I discuss in more detail below, Gandhi’s views of the Jews, the Holocaust, and Eretz Yisrael exhibit a sharp and indisputable double standard that is the very antithesis of “consistency”

Perhaps the Jerusalem Post said it best: in an article titled Repudiating Gandhian Pacifism in the Face of Mass Murder in 2016, the Post summarized Gandhi’s philosophy regarding the Shoah as “when some evil regime or group wants to attack and kill you, the worst thing you can do is try to run and hide to save your life.” No matter how much Gandhi may have sympathized with the Jewish condition, he was oblivious to Jewish survival.

Thus, in a 1939 response to Gandhi’s 1938 article, Martin Buber, the renowned Austrian Jewish and Israeli philosopher who had made aliyah from Germany only a short time earlier, wrote what should have been obvious to any rational person, let alone to a national leader and internationally-respected philosopher like Gandhi:

The five years I myself spent under the present [Nazi] regime, I observed many instances of genuine satyagraha [nonviolent resistance] among the Jews, instances showing a strength of spirit in which there was no question of bartering their rights or of being bowed down, and where neither force nor cunning was used to escape the consequences of their behavior. Such actions, however, exerted apparently not the slightest influence on their opponents. All honor indeed to those who displayed such strength of soul! But I cannot recognize herein a watchword for the general behavior of German Jews that might seem suited to exert an influence on the oppressed or on the world. An effective stand in the form of non-violence may be taken against unfeeling human beings in the hope of gradually bringing them to their senses; but a diabolic universal steamroller cannot thus be withstood.

Moreover, Gandhi extended his opposition to Jewish self-defense against Nazi genocide by resolutely opposing their right to go to Eretz Yisrael, whether to establish a Jewish State there or even to simply save themselves from death at the hand of the Third Reich. He argued that the mere Jewish agitation for a national home would provide justification to the Nazis to expel them – as if Hitler needed any additional excuses – and that the Jews should engage only in non-violence against the Arabs and “offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them.” In March 1921, he issued a statement supporting the proposition that Muslims must retain control over Eretz Yisrael.

In his 1938 article, Gandhi – almost unbelievably – writes:

Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and the persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question… [After expressing sympathy for the Jewish plight:] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. [But] why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colorable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

Not surprisingly, in the wake of its October 7th butchery, this quote has been resurrected by Hamas, and its supporters around the world who argue that Gandhi, the great statesman and man of peace, was clear that “Palestine” belongs to the Arabs and that the Jews are, at best, interlopers.

In his article, Gandhi concludes:

And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same G-d rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in their favor in their religious aspiration. There are hundreds of ways of reasoning with the Arabs, if they will only discard the help of the British bayonet. As it is, they are co-shares with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them… Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.

Thus, argued Gandhi, the “real Jerusalem” was the spiritual one and, as such, Zionism was unnecessary and Jews could practice their faith in their native countries – including, as we have seen, Nazi Germany.

In Buber’s 1939 correspondence to Gandhi cited above, he noted that Arabs had themselves come to possess Eretz Yisrael “surely by conquest and, in fact, a conquest by settlement,” and he appealed to Gandhi to recognize the responsibility for violence and unrest that was shared by Palestinian Arabs, but Gandhi would not yield. Similarly, Moshe Shertok, as head of the Jewish Agency (later to become Prime Minster of Israel as Moshe Sharett), also asked Gandhi to raise his authoritative voice in favor of a Jewish autonomous government in Eretz Yisrael, but he refused.

Statue of Gandhi and Kallenbach outside Rusne synagogue in Lithuania (2015).

Moreover, A. E. Shohet, the leader of the Indian-Jewish community and Gandhi’s good Jewish friend, reached out to Hermann Kallenbach, a wealthy Jewish Zionist architect and carpenter to whom Gandhi referred as his “soulmate,” to intervene with Gandhi on behalf of Zionism. In May 1910, Kallenbach had funded the establishment of Tolstoy Farm, the South African prototype for Gandhi’s ashram, where the two had lived together; Ghandi once wrote to him “Your portrait (the only one) stands on the mantelpiece in my room . . . even if I wanted to dismiss you from my thoughts, I could not do it.”

How to explain Gandhi’s outrageous views on the Holocaust and Israel? It certainly wasn’t due to antisemitism, since he loved all people and peoples – including, as we have seen, Nazis and terrorists – and he often spoke out in support of Jews. Some authorities suggest that he adopted his views on Jews because he understood Judaism only through the lens of Christianity and that he reduced Judaism to a religion without considering its nationalistic character and, as such, he excluded Zionism from the Jewish identity. Moreover, his closest Jewish friends, including Kallenbach and Sonya Schlesin, were all universalists largely ignorant of rabbinical philosophy and law and post-Biblical rituals and customs; thus, for example, Gandhi condemned the Bible’s “eye for an eye” rule for its inhumanity and violence, wholly unaware of the oral law teaching that the Biblically proscribed punishment was never meant to be interpreted literally but, rather, that the tortfeasor must compensate his victim through the payment of financial damages.

Another proffered explanation for Gandhi’s anti-Zionism was that, although he was well-informed about the special Jewish relationship with Eretz Yisrael from Kallenbach, Schlesin, and others, his pro-Arab bias and battle against British colonialism and imperialism trumped all other considerations so, unlike every other people, religion, and nationality, he chose to disregard Jewish singularity. Moreover, his desire to placate Hindus and Muslims and keep them united in India surely colored his attitude towards Zionism. In a manifestly undeniable double standard, he held Jews to the highest possible spiritual standard while judging the “proud Arabs” by the “accepted canons of right and wrong.”

Double standards seem to be the rule, rather than the exception, when it came Gandhi’s attitude to the Jews. As another example – in what can only be characterized as a truly monstrous double standard – he acknowledged that nonviolence was not possible for the Polish people in 1939 and praised their violent resistance to Hitler, at the same time he was telling the Jews to go peacefully and joyfully to death by their Nazi executioners. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize five times, but never won; yet, he continues to be admired by many Jewish leaders, including David Ben Gurion, who hung a photograph of only one person in his bedroom: Mahatma Gandhi.

#mahatma gandhi #gandhi #the holocaust #holocaust #world war ii #history #antisemitism #judaism #jumblr

7 notes · View notes

artiegenius · 2 months ago

Text

The Aesthetics and Appreciation of Indian Parallel Cinema

Indian Parallel Cinema, often referred to as the New Wave or Art Cinema, emerged as a distinct movement in Indian filmmaking during the late 1940s and 1950s. Unlike mainstream Bollywood, which is characterized by its song-and-dance routines, melodrama, and formulaic narratives, Parallel Cinema aims to portray realistic stories with a focus on social and political issues. It draws heavily on the traditions of Italian Neorealism, French New Wave, and Japanese Cinema.

Historical Context

The origins of Indian Parallel Cinema can be traced back to the works of pioneering filmmakers like Satyajit Ray, Ritwik Ghatak, and Mrinal Sen. Satyajit Ray's "Pather Panchali" (1955) is often credited with setting the tone for this movement. The film's emphasis on realism, its nuanced portrayal of rural Bengal, and its departure from the escapist fare of Bollywood, marked a significant shift in Indian cinema.

Aesthetics of Indian Parallel Cinema

Realism

At the heart of Parallel Cinema is a commitment to realism. This is reflected in various aspects:

Narrative Style: The narratives are often straightforward and slow-paced, allowing the audience to engage deeply with the characters and their environments.

Character Development: Characters are complex and multi-dimensional, often grappling with socio-economic issues, personal dilemmas, and moral conflicts.

Setting: Films are frequently shot on location, capturing the authentic atmosphere of rural villages, urban slums, or middle-class households.

Visual Style

Parallel Cinema employs a distinctive visual style that enhances its realistic portrayal:

Natural Lighting: Filmmakers often use natural light to achieve a more organic and less polished look.

Minimalistic Art Direction: Sets and costumes are kept simple and true to the setting of the story.

*Cinematography: There is an emphasis on long takes, handheld camera work, and static shots, which contribute to the immersive experience.

Themes

The themes explored in Parallel Cinema are typically more serious and socially relevant compared to mainstream films:

Social Inequality: Many films address issues of poverty, caste discrimination, and gender inequality.

Political Issues: Films often critique governmental policies and societal structures.

Human Relationships: The complexities of human emotions and relationships are a central focus.

Key Films and Directors

Satyajit Ray

Pather Panchali (1955): A poignant depiction of a poor family's struggle in rural Bengal.

Charulata (1964): A sensitive portrayal of a lonely housewife and her emotional journey.

Ritwik Ghatak

Meghe Dhaka Tara (1960): A powerful narrative about the partition of Bengal and its impact on a refugee family.

Subarnarekha (1962): Addresses the issues of displacement and survival post-Partition.

Mrinal Sen

Bhuvan Shome (1969): A satire on the Indian bureaucracy, marking the arrival of the New Wave.

Ek Din Achanak (1989): Explores the mystery and turmoil following a man's sudden disappearance.

Shyam Benegal

Ankur (1974): Highlights the class struggle in rural India.

Nishant (1975): A grim tale of feudal oppression and the fight for justice.

Appreciation of Indian Parallel Cinema

Critical Acclaim

Parallel Cinema has garnered significant critical acclaim both nationally and internationally. It has been recognized at major film festivals like Cannes, Berlin, and Venice, helping to elevate Indian cinema on the global stage.

Influence

The movement has influenced a generation of filmmakers who continue to draw inspiration from its aesthetics and thematic concerns. Directors like Mani Kaul, Kumar Shahani, and more recently, Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee, owe a debt to the legacy of Parallel Cinema.

Cultural Impact

Parallel Cinema has played a crucial role in shaping the discourse on social and political issues in India. It has provided a platform for marginalized voices and brought attention to the struggles of everyday life.

Conclusion

Indian Parallel Cinema remains a vital and influential part of the country's cinematic landscape. Its commitment to realism, its exploration of pertinent social issues, and its unique aesthetic continue to inspire filmmakers and captivate audiences. As we look towards the future, the legacy of Parallel Cinema will undoubtedly endure, reminding us of the power of film to reflect and shape society.The Aesthetics and Appreciation of Indian Parallel Cinema

2 notes · View notes

thebisexualwreckoning · 1 year ago

Text

Assorted thoughts on culture, generational trauma, racism, queerness and where they intersect for me

My family is from Bangladesh. Or they used to be. All of my great-grandparents were born there. At least 3 of my grandparents were born there as well. My mother travelled there on the back of trucks transporting hay. The town, practically the village, my father grew up in, is in Bangladesh.

There's this story my mother tells me. When I was around three years old, we were in a Bengali restaurant in New York and I was so happy to meet fellow Bengalis that I immediately started to speak Sylheti. They gave us a discount for that. called me Khuki and told my parents how nice it was to speak in the language of their home with someone once again.

Another time, another restaurant. This one is in London. I'm not three anymore. I don't speak Sylheti anymore either. They say I forgot because I had no one to speak it with. I don't even speak proper Bangla. It's now Bengali with a dash of Hindi. This time when we enter the restaurant, I don't approach the servers. They approach us and say how nice it is to find a fellow Bengali in the wild. We complain about how we're tired of white people food. My mother wishes she had macher jhol. The servers tell her to wait and bring out a plate of their own dinner. She cries as she eats it. Tears of joy and solidarity.

I'm twelve years old and for the first time, I decide to relearn my culture. I join a summer class, pencil in hand, ready to learn how to read and write all over again. I want to read my mother's magazines, the Feluda comics that she read out loud to me as a child. It paid off, but not in the way I expected, my mother fighting with my father, grabbing hold of my hand two days later as we boarded the aeroplane back to her father's house.

I'm 13 years old, on anti-depressants that I forgot to take some days, neurodivergence diagnosed, and learning more about myself each and every day. I come out as bisexual to my mom but do not tell her about my genderfluidity. Afraid of what she'll think when the daughter she always desired turns out to not be her daughter at all. We call my brother in Canada. He tells us about the people who shout slurs at him in the metro. We do not tell him that we are afraid that someday the slurs will turn into bullet wounds.

I'm fourteen years old, and my father's come to visit. It's his birthday so we travel to his parents' house. more than 4 hours away from ours. They greet us with barbed wire words on my grades, my brother's weight, my mother's inability to be a good wife. We smile through it all. I wonder how they can be so cruel. The people who cared for me when I was a child. The woman who named me now my worst enemy.

I'm fifteen years old now. My Bangla is clearer. Sharp vowels and clear consonants. It will never be rounded syllables of my childhood ever again. I learn of the Bengal partition in school. Learn how people killed each other in the name of freedom. I want to scream, "Amra shobai ek." We are all the same. We share the same culture, the same language but in different dialects, the same history. Stop killing, please. I'm tired of the violence and hatred, I say. This war started before I was born, will it continue after I'm dead as well?

I gathered the courage to google LGBTQ+ laws in Bangladesh today. And I realised something. I love my culture. I love my roots. I love this language, my ancestors, and every family member, even though sometimes I feel like there are too many to count. But I do not love what they have made of it. I saw the words splashed across the newspaper headlines, Anti - Queer laws still in place, Being gay is punishable with a life sentence in prison, a gay man is stoned to death in public and no one does anything to stop it. I do not cry. I've been doing nothing but crying for too long now.

Instead, I'm writing this. I'm writing this to tell everyone that it isn't over. I'm writing this to tell everyone that if I'd been born 413 km to the west exactly, I wouldn't be alive to write this post right now. I'm writing this because I am tired of our stories going untold, buried under layers of propaganda and zealotry. I'm writing this because people think my being Hindu, my being Indian, my being Bengali means that I cannot be queer.

Well sorry to prove you wrong. Because I'm still here. And I'm still kicking. And as long as I'm alive, I'm not going to stop. Neither will the thousands of others like me, telling their stories in a thousand different ways, fighting for their people in a thousand different ways.

So this one is for those still kicking.

We're Here

We're Queer

And we're ready to fucking fight.

#listen I was angry #so i made this #it probably makes no sense to anyone but me #but like that's fine #if i'm the only perosn who needs this #then at least I have it #but if you needed it to #that's fine as well #even if you don't relate to everything #because im probably the only person who'll ever relate to everything here #because im the only person who lived them #writers of tumblr #personal essay #writerblr #spilled ink #kismet ki kahaniya

12 notes · View notes