Sylvester Raj Simon 2

7/23/2019 Sylvester Raj Simon 2

1/3

JURISPRUDENCE

RESPONSE PAPER--- 1

Though I dont deny that the three forward and advanced thinkers of the twentieth

century Gandhi, Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh have had mature and reasonable

observations but I feel that their confrontation of thoughts suffered from certain loopholes

which are to be deeply eamined! "y understandings of these personalities proceed with

the assumption that despite the creamy points laid down by them, there are certain

#uintessential residues which ought to be given serious concern!

At the outset, I do fervently admire Gandhi on the fact he is trying to preserve and retain

the old traditional concepts like dharma, duty, conduct, etc! $hat Gandhi is trying toshow us is the kind of interrelation of old traditional notions in a modern perspective!

Gandhi was a critical thinker in many aspects but having due regard to his reputation, his

thoughts werent stable and kept fluctuating at times when it came to the issue of doctors

and lawyers wherein he regards both their professions as immoral! Though in this light it

is to be understood that Gandhi wasnt discarding their professions completely, he

fetishi%ed that their professions would hold no value if they dont render selfless service

to the fellow Indians and the nations instead of gaining secret profit motive for

themselves! Gandhi is trying to establish a link between the kind of civili%ations between

the $estern nations and the traditional setup! &e calls the modern civili%ation as a

cultural disease and though is not vehemently promoting it but is deliberately trying to

secure its retaining ability by trying to suggest beforehand what technology would India

like to have if at all it were to succumb to civili%ation! I also personally view that Gandhi

is not a man of his words and his agony lay much deeper beyond the attainment of swara'

which he is often clear and vague sometimes in a broader sense! Gandhi as of today has a

sensation today! I do understand that changes are inevitable and if that has to happen

there has to be a disturbance in the society and it becomes inevitable if such a kind of

transgression either in terms of technology, values, customs and traditions has to happen!

Gandhi feels a bit reluctant to accept this kind of statement with his own reformed ideas!


2/3

In my understanding of Ambedkar, what I specifically observe is that Ambedkar is trying

to link ever inert problem to the caste system prevailing in India! Ambedkar, as I put it, is

a new definition to Gandhi and has refined certain conceptions of what was then

misconceived! $hy Ambedkar was dead against the caste comes from the point he hadto face many hostilities from the upper castes and it stuck him so deeply that he felt

anything to be impossible until a reformed social revolution would suppress the

ideologies of caste principles in the entire nation! &e didnt want this revolution to sweep

like land fire immediately but wanted it with the co(operation of the central and state

governments by educating people so that they could rise and fight for rights instead of

befooling them in the name of religion and other allied superstitious beliefs!

Ambedkar, as I perceive, was not only a man of letters but a man of words! &e stood on

what he fervently believed and aggressively promoted it! Ambedkars concern for caste

was closely linked to the religion of &induism where he etols that &induism sustains

caste and as a result of this, caste has outgrown its tentacles absorbing all the

overwhelming &indu population into it! &e suggests caste is a hydra headed dragon with

its associate called &induism in the name of religion which is trying to play on the minds

and emotions of the people! But in this regard, Ambedkar tries to delink caste with the

concept of division of labour! &e suggested that caste was more rigid in the hierarchical

setup and due to this it usurped an authority over the people of the then times! Ambedkar

makes some etreme arguments like the vedas, shastraas and )panishads had to be

reduce to ashes since they were nothing but a mere proclamation to denounce the fellow

humans in an immodest manner! The gravity of his statements helps us to deduce a

logical understanding as to how much the issue of caste has affected the Indian scenario

to a large etent! Ambedkar has a logical interpretation of the caste issues in India andhis reasoning is based on the vivid eperiences and trauma he has undergone at every

stage in his life! I am not wholly backing Ambedkars argument but his critical analysis

with respect to &induism and caste stands at crossroads unable to meddle with each other!

So, I opine that Ambedkar has made a tactical approach to deal with this problem!


3/3

Bhagat Singh, on the other hand, in my opinion was a mature political thinker and had a

very critical but also deep understanding of comple concepts concerning freedom

struggle, swara' and independence! Being a "arist, he at times painted a rosy picture of

certain things but also corroborated the same with certain dismal things! In myperspective, Bhagat Singh was basically a revolutionary and didnt have had any sort of

aggressive or revolting tendencies in his thoughts! &is in#uisition of struggle and the

notion of swara' started off indifferently! &e assumes of a kind of situation wherein there

is no clash of security and insecurity in freedom as such! *oncerning this fact, it is #uite

evident he was in an advanced stage of understanding a situation free of political wills

and restrictions where absolute freedom flourished! Bhagat Singh etols this kind of

situation of absolute freedom where there is no insecurity in itself!

As an atheist, he was of the critical view that God doesnt eist at all! It meant that

according to him, the Almighty, omnipotent presence of a godly power doesnt eist and

if it were to eist, why would people suffer so much and always go to God to lament on

each and every single problem+ &is understanding takes us in a very radical yet rational

approaching and the narrow connection of God with the people! Sometimes he feels that

certain things are so hollow that arent eplanatory! ven during the last moments of his

life, he hinged on to his own principles and never even prayed God once despite the

reali%ation of his friends words who said -If your last days come, you will tend to

believe God.! But Bhagat Singh remained firm even when death was inviting him!

Some as he eplains say that his approach towards God was due to the presence of pride

or vanity eisting him! But if this is all, Bhagat Singhs approach wasnt pride or vanity

but a very rational approach based on reasoned logic of life eperience and personal

trauma! I partially accept this statement! But will that eplain the contrary logic in thecontemporary scenario+ If not, what are the other options that we can think of in this

century taking into account the reasoning of Bhagat Singh+

Sylvester /a', Sec((( B, /oll 0o! 12!

Documents

Sylvester Raj Simon 2