How should philosophers in India approach the work of John Rawls? I argue against the view that h... more How should philosophers in India approach the work of John Rawls? I argue against the view that his work should be regarded as exclusively within the domain of 'Western philosophy', which needs some distinctive process of translation and contextualization in order to speak to 'Indian conditions'. I also question the idea that 'Indian political philosophy' should be seen as an autonomous discipline with roots specifically in the Indian past.
A reprint of a piece on post-colonial pedagogy, expressing some doubts about the 'decolonial' tur... more A reprint of a piece on post-colonial pedagogy, expressing some doubts about the 'decolonial' turn in philosophy, including its various Indian avatars such as Gandhi and KC Bhattacharya, taking sides with Tagore rather than Gandhi on the role of 'Western' ideas in India.
How was it that the Indian Civil Service (ICS), involved as it was in various activities to secur... more How was it that the Indian Civil Service (ICS), involved as it was in various activities to secure the British Raj against the pressures of Indian nationalism, was able to survive and flourish in the new political order after independence? This article argues that part of the explanation lies in the fact that it was, and was seen to be, a ‘politically neutral’ institution. In the course of making this argument, it surveys the changing role of the ICS vis-à-vis the nationalist movement before independence, and also considers the theoretical question of what is meant by the claim that bureaucratic work is ‘apolitical’ or ‘neutral’ with respect to politics.
My paper examines the early constitutional history of free speech in India, taking as may startin... more My paper examines the early constitutional history of free speech in India, taking as may starting point the first two free speech cases to come before the Supreme Court of India, in May 1950 – Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras, and Brij Bhushan and Another vs. State of Delhi. The first concerned the Communist magazine Crossroads, while the second concerned the Organiser, organ of the RSS. I am particularly interested in the kinds of free speech arguments made in defense of these publications by civil liberties groups at this time. The legal arguments for the Organiser were made by N. C. Chatterjee, then President of the All- India Hindu Mahasabha. While the argument which prevailed in the Supreme Court was a narrowly textualist one, his oral arguments before the Court, as well as his activism outside it, explicitly invoked an American free speech tradition – often framed in terms of the dictum, attributed to Voltaire, that one can fight for another's right to say something while disagreeing with what they say. Indeed, both Chatterjee and a later right-wing defender of free speech, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, were involved with civil liberties groups such as the All-India Civil Liberties Union, whose office-bearers included both Communists and members of the Hindu right, and whose proceedings were approvingly reported in the pages of both the Organiser and Crossroads. I claim that this alliance should not be regarded either as a hypocritical marriage of convenience between the ideological foes against a common enemy (the ruling Congress government). Rather, it tells us something about the nature of civil liberties – namely, that they are best conceived as “neutral” with respect to partisan political ideology, and stem from a general mistrust of state power, regardless of who exercises it.
How should philosophers in India approach the work of John Rawls? I argue against the view that h... more How should philosophers in India approach the work of John Rawls? I argue against the view that his work should be regarded as exclusively within the domain of 'Western philosophy', which needs some distinctive process of translation and contextualization in order to speak to 'Indian conditions'. I also question the idea that 'Indian political philosophy' should be seen as an autonomous discipline with roots specifically in the Indian past.
A reprint of a piece on post-colonial pedagogy, expressing some doubts about the 'decolonial' tur... more A reprint of a piece on post-colonial pedagogy, expressing some doubts about the 'decolonial' turn in philosophy, including its various Indian avatars such as Gandhi and KC Bhattacharya, taking sides with Tagore rather than Gandhi on the role of 'Western' ideas in India.
How was it that the Indian Civil Service (ICS), involved as it was in various activities to secur... more How was it that the Indian Civil Service (ICS), involved as it was in various activities to secure the British Raj against the pressures of Indian nationalism, was able to survive and flourish in the new political order after independence? This article argues that part of the explanation lies in the fact that it was, and was seen to be, a ‘politically neutral’ institution. In the course of making this argument, it surveys the changing role of the ICS vis-à-vis the nationalist movement before independence, and also considers the theoretical question of what is meant by the claim that bureaucratic work is ‘apolitical’ or ‘neutral’ with respect to politics.
My paper examines the early constitutional history of free speech in India, taking as may startin... more My paper examines the early constitutional history of free speech in India, taking as may starting point the first two free speech cases to come before the Supreme Court of India, in May 1950 – Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras, and Brij Bhushan and Another vs. State of Delhi. The first concerned the Communist magazine Crossroads, while the second concerned the Organiser, organ of the RSS. I am particularly interested in the kinds of free speech arguments made in defense of these publications by civil liberties groups at this time. The legal arguments for the Organiser were made by N. C. Chatterjee, then President of the All- India Hindu Mahasabha. While the argument which prevailed in the Supreme Court was a narrowly textualist one, his oral arguments before the Court, as well as his activism outside it, explicitly invoked an American free speech tradition – often framed in terms of the dictum, attributed to Voltaire, that one can fight for another's right to say something while disagreeing with what they say. Indeed, both Chatterjee and a later right-wing defender of free speech, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, were involved with civil liberties groups such as the All-India Civil Liberties Union, whose office-bearers included both Communists and members of the Hindu right, and whose proceedings were approvingly reported in the pages of both the Organiser and Crossroads. I claim that this alliance should not be regarded either as a hypocritical marriage of convenience between the ideological foes against a common enemy (the ruling Congress government). Rather, it tells us something about the nature of civil liberties – namely, that they are best conceived as “neutral” with respect to partisan political ideology, and stem from a general mistrust of state power, regardless of who exercises it.
Uploads
Papers by Arudra Burra
Drafts by Arudra Burra
The legal arguments for the Organiser were made by N. C. Chatterjee, then President of the All- India Hindu Mahasabha. While the argument which prevailed in the Supreme Court was a narrowly textualist one, his oral arguments before the Court, as well as his activism outside it, explicitly invoked an American free speech tradition – often framed in terms of the dictum, attributed to Voltaire, that one can fight for another's right to say something while disagreeing with what they say. Indeed, both Chatterjee and a later right-wing defender of free speech, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, were involved with civil liberties groups such as the All-India Civil Liberties Union, whose office-bearers included both Communists and members of the Hindu right, and whose proceedings were approvingly reported in the pages of both the Organiser and Crossroads.
I claim that this alliance should not be regarded either as a hypocritical marriage of convenience between the ideological foes against a common enemy (the ruling Congress government). Rather, it tells us something about the nature of civil liberties – namely, that they are best conceived as “neutral” with respect to partisan political ideology, and stem from a general mistrust of state power, regardless of who exercises it.
The legal arguments for the Organiser were made by N. C. Chatterjee, then President of the All- India Hindu Mahasabha. While the argument which prevailed in the Supreme Court was a narrowly textualist one, his oral arguments before the Court, as well as his activism outside it, explicitly invoked an American free speech tradition – often framed in terms of the dictum, attributed to Voltaire, that one can fight for another's right to say something while disagreeing with what they say. Indeed, both Chatterjee and a later right-wing defender of free speech, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, were involved with civil liberties groups such as the All-India Civil Liberties Union, whose office-bearers included both Communists and members of the Hindu right, and whose proceedings were approvingly reported in the pages of both the Organiser and Crossroads.
I claim that this alliance should not be regarded either as a hypocritical marriage of convenience between the ideological foes against a common enemy (the ruling Congress government). Rather, it tells us something about the nature of civil liberties – namely, that they are best conceived as “neutral” with respect to partisan political ideology, and stem from a general mistrust of state power, regardless of who exercises it.