Suchergebnisse

Revised version of papers presented at an international conference held at Kasauli; in Indian context

AbstractIn this article I consider the epistemic injustice of colonialism. I define epistemic injustice as a form of cultural injustice that occurs when the concepts and categories by which a people understand themselves and their world is replaced or adversely affected by the concepts and categories of the colonizers. A deep problem today for the sufferers of epistemic injustice is that western categories both have an undeniable universal potential and they are fully intermingled with the specificity of western practices; worse, they bear a deep imprint of western domination and hegemony. I thus argue that we can neither ignore western ideas nor fully show how they can be rescued from the pernicious effects of their own imperial imprint.

One of the distinctive features of the Indian sub-continent is its rich religious diversity. This article examines two political responses to religious diversity, one, in third century BCE and the other in the middle of the last century as India became independent from British colonial rule. In Ancient India, Emperor Asoka issued edicts that advised people of all religious faiths to live together and claimed that the condition of sociability are fulfilled by all religious perspectives as each values self-restraint and self-purification. In the public arena, this translates into restraint of speech and civility towards one another. Modern India presented an entirely different scenario. Here the state had to respond to well demarcated, often conflicting religious communities, each of whom, was at least partially committed to freedom and equality-oriented reforms. This necessitated that the state take a somewhat combative stance towards both inter and intra-religious domination. The article argues that the only way in which to undermine these forms of domination is that the state adopts a policy of principled distance towards all religions.

Der Verfasser geht davon aus, dass es zwei Konzeptionen des Säkularismus gibt, die der Einfachheit halber als westliche Hauptströmung bezeichnet werden (die amerikanische und die französische). Ihnen wird eine dritte in Gestalt des indischen Modells als Alternative gegenübergestellt. Der indische Fall zeigt, dass eine solche Alternative existiert. Der Autor argumentiert, dass diese alternative Version bereits in der bewährten Praxis vieler Staaten wirksam ist, unter ihnen auch jene westlichen Staaten, die sich der westlichen Hauptströmung des Säkularismus zurechnen. Zweck der Überlegungen ist es, die Aufmerksamkeit auf das normative Potential dieser Praktiken zu lenken, das von der Dominanz einer Variante, dem westlichen Modell des Säkularismus, verstellt wird. Die westlichen Staaten müssen zu einem besseren Verständnis ihrer eigenen säkularen Praxis gelangen, genauso wie der westliche Säkularismus ein besseres theoretisches Selbstverständnis braucht. Statt in Modellen aus einer bestimmten Zeit ihrer Geschichte stecken zu bleiben, täten diese Staaten gut daran, ihre längst darüber hinausgehende Praxis zu schätzen bzw. von der indischen Spielart zu lernen. (ICF2)

Scholarly writing explains British withdrawal from India in terms of a crisis of the colonial state precipitated by Britain's expansive involvement in the Second World War and the sustained anticolonial struggle of Indians led by leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. This is not a complete explanation, but at least it nudges us in the right direction.