Gandhi, a revolutionary freedom fighter, who pioneered the idea of peaceful insurgence. Marx, a thinker who spearheaded the socialist cause, which has since morphed to represent a totalitarian state regime.
Two ground-breaking theorists, who are perceived to exist on opposite ends of the spectrum.
What if there was a wholesome balance between the two? What if the war against power thirsty authorities didn’t have to be a bloody usurpation, nor a silent call to arms that may be taken for granted? What if the solution to the dominant, capitalist narrative was actually a balance of these intense movements? This is the funding premise of Sinha’s Marx and Gandhi in the Modern Context.
Sinha proposes approaching the age-old capitalist debate with a yin yang view of these theories. Instead of simply shrugging one philosophy off and adopting the other, he argues there could be a perfect marriage of the two.
Because we have examples galore of countries opting for only one of the theories and disregarding the other, in both cases, it has not panned out well. Ingeniously, though, Sinha counters debate with debate. As he doesn’t explicitly state what the perfect union should look like. Or how much of each ideology would sit well with the current state of affairs? Instead, he opens that question to the audience. Letting them interrogate, analyse, and answer what they think the “ideal state” would look like.
So, it is up to the reader to define the terms and conditions of a free, oppression less nation with an erudite and equal people.
As editors, we respect the complexity and flexibility of language. We are not attempting to anglicise the voice of a thinker who wants to dismantle a decade old, accepted practice for the greater good. And hence, we attempt to keep this work as raw, unfiltered, and potent as possible. This may tick some Purists off, but we don’t care.
Through this work, Sinha posits the first step to revolution, to change, to progress is… Question the system that has pulled the wool over your eyes. Question the system that widens the divide between the rich and the truly working. Question the ways in which the elite of society put their boots down on the tools of the labourers, only to reiterate their authority, for the sake of the “betterment of society”. Whether it be socialism or capitalism, the blind spots in both exist only to lift the upper class higher… and is that the purpose of life?
Not just as citizens, or patriots, but as humans. Is it all the apex predator is capable of achieving? Either an authoritarian state where the government exercises complete control, or a highly competitive, monetarily driven financial model, where you are worth the sum total of your earnings. Are those the only two options?
The answers or solutions to these questions may vary amongst his audiences, but Sinha’s question does not merely concern a government model. It also embodies the existential angst and dread of a 21st century thinker.
Genre: EDUCATION / Classroom Management
---------------------------------------------
Gandhi, a revolutionary freedom fighter, who pioneered the idea of peaceful insurgence. Marx, a thinker who spearheaded the socialist cause, which has since morphed to represent a totalitarian state regime.
Two ground-breaking theorists, who are perceived to exist on opposite ends of the spectrum.
What if there was a wholesome balance between the two? What if the war against power thirsty authorities didn’t have to be a bloody usurpation, nor a silent call to arms that may be taken for granted? What if the solution to the dominant, capitalist narrative was actually a balance of these intense movements? This is the funding premise of Sinha’s Marx and Gandhi in the Modern Context.
Sinha proposes approaching the age-old capitalist debate with a yin yang view of these theories. Instead of simply shrugging one philosophy off and adopting the other, he argues there could be a perfect marriage of the two.
Because we have examples galore of countries opting for only one of the theories and disregarding the other, in both cases, it has not panned out well. Ingeniously, though, Sinha counters debate with debate. As he doesn’t explicitly state what the perfect union should look like. Or how much of each ideology would sit well with the current state of affairs? Instead, he opens that question to the audience. Letting them interrogate, analyse, and answer what they think the “ideal state” would look like.
So, it is up to the reader to define the terms and conditions of a free, oppression less nation with an erudite and equal people.
As editors, we respect the complexity and flexibility of language. We are not attempting to anglicise the voice of a thinker who wants to dismantle a decade old, accepted practice for the greater good. And hence, we attempt to keep this work as raw, unfiltered, and potent as possible.
| Language | Status |
|---|---|
|
English
|
Already translated.
Translated by Horace Miner
|
|
Spanish
|
Already translated.
Translated by Horace Miner
|
