Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
About Me
- Girish Shahane
- Studied English literature. Reviewed films. Scripted a bit. Edited a magazine. Worked in a dotcom. Lectured on art. Wrote a column.
4 comments:
The byline of the column - Girish Shahane examines the links between culture and politics is quite interesting. Does culture influence politics or is the other way around?
Delightful piece. Though there is the feeling that a few things were left unsaid :)
Although I am totally unqualified to comment authoritatively on thise column, I liked it quite a lot.
Yeah, what was up with that statue?
You are right about the myth-building around the movement, but its characterisation as a conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie is not very far from the truth.
Bombay Citizens' Committee, the lobby group advocating Bombay's exclusion from Maharashtra had 200 members, 'ALL' of whom could easily find any comtemporary 'Who's Who' list.
The SMM was led by the communists but had approval from Ambedkar, and participation from Jana Sangh, precursors of what is Shiv Sena and even sections of Congress.
-VT
Seana, thanks!
Sujoy, some things can only be said in a roundabout way, if at all :)
VT, the question is not whether there was a Gujarati merchant versus Marathi labourer divide in Bombay, there clearly was. The question is, what was the Left's long-term solution to the problem. If it was to build a socialist society, then how exactly was a linguistic division going to help it along?
In that sense, even though it was a proletariat versus bourgeoisie fight, the solution offered to the proletariat was not a solution at all, at least not in Marxist terms.
The passions unleashed in the ideological battle created a culture which allowed the Right to flourish rather than the Left. In that sense the Left unwittingly signed its death warrant in Bombay by leading the SMM agitation in the manner it did. That was the point I was trying to make.
Post a Comment