jaipur has been one of the best examples of indian city planning....however, the city is unable to take the pressure of increasing population and changing needs...
any comments?
its a boring subject. its been done to death. the situation you've chalked out is hardly unique to jaipur. your questions are generic enough to completely debase anything that is/was special about that city. if you're looking for a readymade idea for a thesis topic, all i can say is, do your own homework.
its a fascinating subject. its not been done to death. the situation you've chalked out may not be unique but is worth further exploration. your question may help us appreciate what is special about jaipur and how we can learn from the indian city planning. it is debasing to think that every city is just like anyother place.
Maybe a thesis topic - but why jump to conclusions so soon.
b8- please post some of your own thoughts and maybe some diagrams of the cities plan.
ticker- is there explaination for your blaise attitude towards jaipur (no, it's not mumbai)?
hahaha, no thats not it. but good guess. i apologise, i was just being balshy. not enough coffee in the morning...
jaipur, jaipur. it's been awhile. i remember doing some case studies on it while i was back in school, but that was so long ago, i can't remember too much except for the fact that its a grid and square based city form. i don't think the urban form is particularly interesting in itself, except for its historicity perhaps. of course, it all depends on the intellectual framework you set up through which to look at it. if we're talking about the reaction of historical indian cities to current capitalist and infrastructure-driven urbanism, then yes, maybe we have something to talk about. then it becomes interesting.
of course, b8 hasn't bothered to elaborate parameters for any sort of thinking. my problem with b8's post is that its just far, far too generic for any sort of commentary. he/she chalks out this vast terrain of potential ideas, so vast that one wouldn't know where to even begin to talk about it. 'increasing population and changing needs'. well, duh! you could be talking about almost any place.
i personally think the indian cities are interesting because i would argue that indians are not used to cities. there's no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around, not in the way european cities have it at least. and that's funny, because the social, collective and political mechanisms that would generally play a sizeable role in the development of urban form are just not there. on top of that, you have one of the fastest rates of urbanisation in the world. its crazy, i tell you...
Indians arent used to cities cos theres no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around, not in the way european cities have it at least. and that's funny, because the social, collective and political mechanisms that would generally play a sizeable role in the development of urban form are just not there.
Huh ?..
Indians arent used to cities ? ?
and there's no cosmopolitan and metropolitan culture ?
..what are you talking of pal ?
the social ,collective and political mechanism which you write of are very much there ,albeit may not be the same type of mechanism that operates in US or Europe or whatever (In a very simple non-intellectual explanation, ) is because India is not in the US or Europe or whatever.
wow, looks like i stirred up a hornet's nest here. i'm impressed y'all didn't flame the shit out of me, making grand statements like that. hang on, hang, don't take that those sentences too literally. yes, i know there have been cities in india for hundreds of years. and yes, i know that lots and lots of people have been living in them for generations. to dispute that would be silly.
right, hopefully i'll be able to explain myself better in this post. My history is a bit iffy, so please feel free to correct me if i make any glaring mistakes. hopefully, you'll get the gist of what i'm saying regardless.
i think that the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility. So, at the heart of the notion of the City is a civic consciousness and a collective identity that cuts across the entire social spectrum. This civic consciousness stresses on the role of the individual citizen within a collective framework.
india doesn't have those collective frameworks. yes, you're right nevermore, in that it's been a completely different developmental history, can't argue with that. however, that being said, india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
i think there are about 3 things that affect the development of an 'indian' city, as opposed to any standard city with indians in it:
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large.
looking back on this post, i realise there are some holes in my logic. also, i don't think i've really explained myself enough. hopefully, though, you guys got the gist of what i'm trying to point to.
hmm,
well tickertocker ,your post did sound quite vague and generalised thats why I asked what you meant.
to give my perspective on ur three points
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
you'r right to some extent ...but the reason for that ( the lack of a pan-indian consciousness ) is our incredible diversity in all spectrums ranging from cultural to financial. We are one of the most diverse nations or perhaps even the most in the entire planet.
But we cant help it, thats the way we are.
Although I personally think that beyond all the seeming diversity, there is also a deep consciousness of our national identity below all the "layers" that make us 'Indian'.
likewise for our cities..all these layers when placed on our cities, still make our cities very Indian.
I would beg to disagree with you , I think Indians DO have a collective identity.I can give a small proof of that.
Everywhere that indians settle in a large number anywhere in the world,that locality /suburb becomes like a Mini-India.
(I wont flinch at saying that it gets quite irritating and embarrasing for us, but its true)
Something which the chinese also possess , so their settlements become "china-towns".
Its not a ghetto mentality but like I said its the transfer of the very layers that make us what we are, onto the urban context.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory
But I think that happens in quite many cities everywhere.
What I mean is that in terms of demographics , the alike bind together. in the cities of the states, U have white neighbourhoods, black neighbourhoods, asian neighbourhoods , hispanic neighbourhoods , rich neighbourhoods , working class neighbourhoods etc etc
and talking of individualistic 'survival' mentality , Yes thats more pronounced in the cities than if your comparing with Indian villages or small towns where there is more of "community" spirit and empathy.
( where everyone knows whats happening with everyone )
But in a city for the fact of the sheer size and scale compared to a village or a small town that community spirit and empathy cannot be the same.
yet you must have heard of stories of groups on Mumbai's local trains.
Some groups of commuters only meet twice a day for like 20-30 years they meet only while they are commuting and have no other contact apart from that and on the basis of this they form a kind of mini-commuting group. save seats for their friends, create bridge and rummy clubs amongst themselves to pass time while travelling etc etc.
so there are micro communities within micro communities within macro communities lol.It just depends on how u see it.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large
Thats true but again thats everywhere in the world .
Hey ..your talking of private controlled enclaves of the rich ?.
try roaming aimlessly in any poor area or slum of bombay or any other city.
The eyes on your back will tear u apart.LOL. ,If nobody asks you who the f--k u are and what business u have there !.
LOL
The mini cities of controlled experience are not necessarily at the upper spectrum of the urban population ;)
whew..well its quite a complex issue, cant be summed up in short.
well Ticker you'r right too now that ive understood a bit of what ur saying but must say you do have quite socialist inclinations ;)
anywayz sorry for the belligerence , was ear-deep in Sepultura this morning.
india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
the most famous example of that which first comes to my mind (and your's too, I assume ) is corbu's Chandigarh.
Very seriously I think it didnt function in the urban context not because we didnt have a collective identity, but because we have a different collective identity.
(obviously very unlike to where corbusier hailed from , or what he thought of collective identity )
I mean, corbu studied a lot of the landscape, form, surroundings , his own visions etc etc etc but he forgot ( or tried to impose ? ) his view of what a 'city' should be like , instead of merging it with the ways of those people who would inhabit it one day.
Probably thats why they say its an architectural/town planning masterpiece but a functional disaster.
as has been alluded to, taking a step back from the idea of a 'collective identity' would ease out the assumed natural distinction between east and west. ticktocker's usage of the term connotes a nationalistic base for the definition. the same revolution that was paramount in determined the european civility also determined european nationalism; the idealist roots of which are said to hail back to late 18th to 19th century german idealism/romanticism.
which is to say, that prior to the germination of those ideas, in accordance with ticktocker's post, there was no 'collective identity' in europe or elsewhere and that this is a novel technological advancement for humanity at large
ticktocker: " the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility"
i think this is nonsense. nationalism was created suchlike and not the 'City'. this incurred a nationalist's sense of belonging and duty and not an historically first collective/communal responsibility/cohesion incarnate.
perhaps if you were to emphasize, in ironic fashion, the 'collective'
in 'collective responsibility' then you might disclose some truth. nationalism, in its facist peaks, knows collectivity like no other. unlike a dictatorship or feudalism, it is a bottom-up system massing everything that is bottom in one. it has the widespread machinelike infuence to import other humans from africa on a massive scale and kill millions belonging to a different religion/ethnicity.
the capsing in 'City' has an unqualified biblical naunce. as if by creating a distinction between the european City and others' cities, you echo augustine distinction between a latinized City (civitas dei) and its barbaric other (civitas mundi).
nevermore, does this 'we' incorporate pakistan and bangladesh as well? i ask because i am not sure whether you use the collective pronoun to signify a nation or a cultural cul-de-sac (precluding modern statehood and national identity, the indian subcultures are so diverse that other cultural connections can equally bind them to other nations). a more succinct question: is india a modern creation of nationalism that might suppress other indias? cheers.
well to be honest, to try and merge constantly the western imports with local inclinations into our own urban societies, we've quite reached 'aimlessly' to the entangled end of the thread (clue) ... to clarify the motive behind chandigarh WAS to undo both the indian social history and the colonial supremacy. Chandigarh was meant to be an alien place for the indian community. Corbusier was asked to break the rules and set new ones, set trends and ideology. if one blames the outcome, blame the vision behind it. Its very sentimental to constantly think of chandigarh as a city which fails to take into account the lifestyles of the people who would inhabit it. one, because no one knew who would move into the city eventually (it was supposed to be the city of clerks, where as today the richest farmers and landlords of punjab & bureaucrats occupy it). and two, the city was neevr meant to acknowledge the demands of an existing society in the first place. Chandigarh as it is was clearly asked for. Needless to say that 'popular opinion' suggests it to be one of the finest places to live in the country. On second thoughts, which city has actually developed its own urban fabric without drawing anything from its western counterparts?
this is where jaipur comes into picture ... and also madurai. its a small city but worth noticing as the 'architect' for both the cities is the same dude. as long as the legacy of the royal families continued, the kindoms flourished and systems remained 'essentially traditional' these 'cities' worked precisely well. the merger of the thoughts of a community 'walled witihin the city' with those of a global nature within a span of less than 20 years resulted in not a single city but two parallel urban conditions in one political boundary. the walled city continues to retain traditional and still 'predominat' economic structures and hence also the prestige and pride of its notion while constantly throwing inhabitants of its growing population beyond the bounds of its periphery. the new city is 'fashioned' with taste of the same community but demands of a western organisation.
more than 400 years ago, jaipur was a chandigarh which lacked any of its new physical nodes that could be related to its social and cultural customs except for a few temples, wells and a dominating fort. Iroically, the administration continues to perceive the idea of settlement in a similar way today. Chandigarh derives its name from a 'chandi devi'. no matter, what the design or planning of an urban space is, the 'city' still draws its 'identity' from existing settlements and customs. the sense of belongingness still comes from a concept which has to have its roots in history (maybe mythology). we still belong to our social groups immediately and then faintly to a city which is politically indian.
nationalism is still delayed its mention AFTER social and communal aspects which are clearly understood by every lay man, but the idea of nation is still far fetched to many. Its a default situation for many to be indian and be in india (there are holes within out cities still not within india). nothing is derived from that situation of being indian and nothing is added to that. its only theoretical to a great extent.
and hence coming back to the 'city' issue, the collectiveness is greater with social circles than within a city. the idea of a city being 'yours' has to be hammered into everyone's mind. its never natural. there is a complete lack of individual identity and hence the ownrship of a city. belongingness is to a group first, and then, as unanimous stand, maybe to a city. collective concerns are not civic yet. city as idea still continues to be either infrastructural advantage or cultural drawback more than an idea of living.
I did mean "we" as referring only to us (Republic of India)
However now that you ask, well yes in a way when we talk of the culture of the Indian Subcontinent, yes it could be clubbed together.
(India, Pakistan, Nepal,Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh ,Bhutan )
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are bound by more than just international borders.
There's History, culture , society,same language family and race.
The only major differentiating factor is religion.
(India , Nepal =Hindu/Secular )
(Pakistan ,Bangladesh= Islam )
which is also to be significantly addressed because religion affects in a major way , all the above mentioned factors. (History, culture , society,same language family and race.)
But however, I would stress of the fact that the other cultural connections which you speak of , as binding one nation to other ( say: India to Pakistan with respect to language ) are too weak as parameters to be of any significance.
and to answer your last question :
No I dont believe that 'India' is a modern construct of nationalism.
The concept of Indian Nationhood is millenia old and that is ingrained within the psyche of modern day Indians too. (The Concept of Bharat )
(Pakistan Sri-Lanka and Bangladesh were part of India too once )Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference , they will never acknowledge openly that they were and are now also part of the Grand Indian nation hood.
Lastly No I dont think so there are many India's within one India so there's no question of any India surpressing any other India.
from my perspective .
Many Indias are supported by one India.
(Indeed the word Bharat in Sanskrit means "to be or being maintained")
there are many multiple layers and shades of our incredible diversity which are woven and maintained together that forms the concept of the Indian nationhood whether it be ancient or modern.
so you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?
i don't get how you could mention diversity and then a simplistic 'India=Hindu/Secular' without contradicting yourself.
"Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference... "
this reponse might itself qualify as being arrogant. you used religion formulaicly; whilst i appreciate that might be a simple description of how the groups see themselves, the statement quoted above doesn't say much for a relaxed allowance of diversity.
luco, it makes sense. but don't you also also fall prey to a need to denominate a particular non eurocentric urban form which we call a city for the sake of convenience (in the sense that translation from one language/culture to another is a necessary lie) with the ideas behind european city, civility and citizenship? luco:"city as idea still continues"
the 'still' rings disappointment,
perhaps, the logical resolution of an argument for cultural relativism would seem to abolish consistent definitions (what is a city?) and absolute human values (rights and responsibilities. however, i am glad you intelligently specify city as, firstly and primarily, an 'idea'. because an 'idea' is easily challenged by the complex reality of urban formation.
Ticker:> i personally think the indian cities are interesting because i would argue that indians are not used to cities.
The RigVeda has an entirety to say about the "pur".
> there's no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around, not in the way european cities have it at least. and that's funny, because the social, collective and political mechanisms that would generally play a sizeable role in the development of urban form are just not there.
Actually, I agree with you on this.
There is no central planning. No nationalist architectural initiative as such. But, that's a good thing. I am glad the arch. enterprise is outside and above politics and our contemp. arch. can bear the true imprints of a timeless culture-consciousness, than imposing some nationwide set standards untrue to the soil, climate, landscape, lang. and its people.
> i think that the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility.
On the one hand this is right. Heid. would agree that the liberalist concept of the City is the analogue to a lack of man losing his own "is-ness". [His essay on Building, dwelling, thinking]
On the other hand, the City as the manifestation of political form can also be traced to the Greek Polis for instance [an entirely Vedic concept of the hearth at work there]. So we can't speak as if there is just one form for it.
> This civic consciousness stresses on the role of the individual citizen within a collective framework.
india doesn't have those collective frameworks.
You are an Indian and I can't believe you just said that. India wouldn't be a collective in the first place if it didn't place dharma at the heart of everything right from its constitutional principle of tolerating all kinds of people, etc. to a collective destiny, which puts people of any faith/creed within that collective framework.
> india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
The very fact that it didn't work shows there was a resistive collective identity.
> i think there are about 3 things that affect the development of an 'indian' city, as opposed to any standard city with indians in it:
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large.
But this is quite in keeping with the nature of the Indian political structure.
"We have clearly come some way from those earlier models - largely derived from stereotypical images of Western polities - which envisaged Indian states as great imperial structures equipped with centralized bureaucracies and exercizing a large measure of control over a highly structured periphery. These images turn out to be chimeras far removed from reality.
Burton Stein describes Indian society [esp. the south] as "segmentary", a term used to suggest the foll. formal features :
a) a relatively weak center whose control diminishes consistently with distance, so that one finds a series of relatively autonomous peripheral centers;
b) a tendency for these peripheral centers to "replicate" the structure of authority evident in the major centres;
c) a pyramidlike organization of the sociopolitical segments in relation to the central authority;
d) a ritual or symbolic hegemony that replaces effective political control as a major integrating force in the polity;
e) a dynamic, shifting, fluctuating system of relations between the various segments... " [David Schulman; King and Clown]
So the very feature of an Indian city is characterized by its inherent structural weakness, an ""integration" through disintegration and dissonance" [ib.]
Politics needn't be the only integrating force.
A collective identity needn't emerge out of dismantled hierarchies only; in the kind of diversity that we [Indians] have, it can even emerge from dissonance amidst very rigid social structures and explicit gaps between rich and poor or whatever differentiations.
noctilucent:> which is to say, that prior to the germination of those ideas, in accordance with ticktocker's post, there was no 'collective identity' in europe or elsewhere and that this is a novel technological advancement for humanity at large
I would argue, yes, there was. For instance, the Greek Polis.
"…the Greek Polis is supposed to be the “city stateâ€.
…It is neither merely state, nor merely city, rather in the first instance it is properly “the stead†[“die Stattâ€]: the site [die Statte] of the abode of human history that belongs to humans in the midst of beings.
This, however, precisely does not mean that the political has priority, or that what is essential lies in the Polis understood politically and that such a Polis is what is essential. Rather, it says that what is essential in the historial being of human beings resides in the pole-like relatedness of everything to this site of abode, that is, this site of being homely in the midst of beings as a whole.
From this site and stead there springs forth whatever is granted stead [gestattet] and whatever is not, what is order and what is disorder, what is fitting and what is unfitting. For whatever is fitting determines destiny , and such destiny determines history.
… from out ofthe relationship to the gods, out of the kind of festivals and the possibility of celebration, out of the relationship between master and slave, out of a relation to sacrifice and battle, out of a relationship to honor and glory, out of the relationship between these relationships and from out of the grounds of their unity, there prevails what is called the Polis." [Heidegger, Ister]
A second example would be the ancient Roman city as outlined by Coulanges:
"The domestic religion forbade two families to mingle and unite; but it was possible for several families, without sacrificing anything of their special religions, to join, at least, for the celebration of another worship which might have been common to all of them. And this is what happened. A certain number of families formed a group,
called, in the Greek language, a phratria, in the Latin, a curia. Did there exist the tie of birth between the families of the same group? This cannot be affirmed. It is clear, however, that this new association was not formed without a certain enlargement of religious ideas. Even at the moment when they united, these families conceived the idea of a divinity superior to that of the household, one who was common to all, and who watched over the entire group. They raised an altar to him, lighted a sacred fire, and founded a worship.
The City Formed.
The tribe, like the family and the phratry, was established as an independent body, since it had a special worship from which the stranger was excluded. Once formed, no new family could be admitted to it. No more could two tribes be fused into one; their religion was opposed to this. But just as several phratries were united in a tribe,
several tribes might associate together, on condition that the religion of each should be respected. The day on which this alliance took place the city existed.
Thus human society, in this race, did not enlarge like a circle, which increases on all sides, gaining little by little. There were, on the contrary, small groups, which, having been long established, were finally joined together in larger ones. Several families formed the phratry, several phratries the tribe, several tribes the city. Family,
phratry, tribe, city, were, moreover, societies exactly similar to each other, which were formed one after the other by a series of federations.
We must remark, also, that when the different groups became thus associated, none of them lost its individuality, or its independence. Although several families were united in a phratry, each one of them remained constituted just as it had been when separate.
From the tribe men passed to the city; but the tribe was not dissolved on that account, and each of them continued to form a body, very much as if the city had not existed. In religion there subsisted a multitude of subordinate worships, above which was established one common to all; in politics, numerous little governments continued to act, while above them a common government was founded.
The city was a confederation. Hence it was obliged, at least for several centuries, to respect the religious and civil independence of the tribes, curies, and families, and had not the right, at first, to interfere in the private affairs of each of these little bodies."
This is pretty much the city experience in India as well, where even secular Muslims, etc. participate going so far as to sculpt Hindu deities during the festival seasons for example [and vice versa].
noctilucent:> so you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?
i don't get how you could mention diversity and then a simplistic 'India=Hindu/Secular' without contradicting yourself.
Pardon for cutting in your discussion with Nevermore.
Your question is simplistic. It depends, and one can't answer either way on both cases.
I'd regard a secular muslim loyal to the spirit and the interest of this land just as Indian as any other.
I'd regard a hindu who does not defend the infringements on his cultural heritage by fanatic factions, be it muslims or any other, as less Indian.
[nevermore--->]:"Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference... "
-
noctilucent:> this reponse might itself qualify as being arrogant. you used religion formulaicly; whilst i appreciate that might be a simple description of how the groups see themselves, the statement quoted above doesn't say much for a relaxed allowance of diversity.
Its not arrogance, its a fact.
In our country, you'll find for example, it is not Hindus who do not want to include Buddhists or Jains under the umbrella as Hindus but it is they who do not want to be classified under the term Hindu, and we don't! Nevermind our neighbouring countries!
Just a talk to a Jain and he will tell you openly. Yet, a study of his texts will prove its the same core of Hindu thought garbed and practised differently.
This is what I was just telling tockertocker. The Indian city is such an "integration through disintegration and dissonance" because of an exceedingly relaxed tolerance of diversity that Hinduism allows, or the Indian spirit in general.
sotthi, i drew tickertocker's conclusion from tickertocker's post. followed by " i think this is nonsense". i would also argue yes.
and yes, i also agree that " you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?" is seemingly simplistic but only to be on par with indian=hindu/secular. the prospective reply on nevermore's part would elucidiate her/his stance, rather than deliver an expected absolute judgement.
does placing dharma at the centre of understanding what it is to be indian preclude non-hindu/ hindu in origin indians from being defined as indian?
sotthi:"I'd regard a secular muslim loyal to the spirit and the interest of this land just as Indian as any other. "
a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
the point regarding the inaccurate assimilation of the polis with the political is interesting . i read somewhere that it was with the romans that the political truly began to take shape (ie well after the fall and failure of the greek polis) whereby the earth, terra, became devoid of sacred inhabited meaning.
this would be interesting, cross referencing your mention of the centrality of hearth. does it depend on whether you see the political as an outcome of negotiations between different family hearths, or as their weakening? or both? conjecturing: secularism might be the 'out'-come of a necessary neutral ground between one hearth and the other. well really either neutral or one for negotiation. a clearing necessary for the savagely urban city to occur within.
i must read up on this matter of domestics and cities. why is every american home obsessed with paedophiles, mass murderers (or is that too last century? ) and kids carrying guns to school?
i think you will say that dharma accepts difference, whereas the sunna does not..and therefor the sunna cannot engender but itself ( a spiritual colonialism) , thus precluding a naturally multifaceted india (encouraged by dharmic acceptance). on these lines?
Noctilucent:> i think you will say that dharma accepts difference, whereas the sunna does not..and therefor the sunna cannot engender but itself ( a spiritual colonialism) , thus precluding a naturally multifaceted india (encouraged by dharmic acceptance). on these lines?
Yes.
In that case, you don't have to read further, but I'll answer your questions anyway.
Noctilucent:> is seemingly simplistic but only to be on par with indian=hindu/secular. the prospective reply on nevermore's part would elucidiate her/his stance, rather than deliver an expected absolute judgement.
I see. Sure, such a reply is indeed likely to inform you of his stance.
For my part, on the "indian=hindu/secular" equation, I'd say that the problem arises because of what the word secular itself has come to mean. Far from respecting the integrity of each religion, a shift has come to connote the emptying of all religious differences and an equalization that is to be paraded as the new religion - the only religion as no religion.
To reiterate a point I made, without the former thought of secularism embodied, by-and-in the Vedic-Hindu spirit, there would have been no muslim or any other culture-complex to speak of. The latter arrived as invaders to a dharmic heritage established over thousands of years.
In that historic sense, Indian/Hindu/Secular are interchangeable synonymous triads.
> does placing dharma at the centre of understanding what it is to be indian preclude non-hindu/ hindu in origin indians from being defined as indian?
"Coming to know, however, is always "placing oneself in a conditional relation to something." [Nietzsche]
So to answer your question, yes and no.
1)Yes, it precludes. Because there is more than one Dharma. There is foremost sva-dharma - being true to one's inner law.
Dharma in Indian/Hindu thought celebrates this, while this is not a feature of Islam. A Muslim loyal to India but who cannot affirm the religious integrity of other Indians is less Indian in my view.
No, it does not preclude. Because there is more than one Dharma - that towards one's 'heimat'/home-land. Muslims acting to safeguard the interests and the secular spirit of this country as our own President exemplifies evidences that.
In short, Yes, it precludes if the "conditional relation in the "placing oneself in a conditional relation to" the other is not a Dharmic one, for the contrary would instantly banish the very idea of Indianness = tolerance amidst diversity.
> a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
Yes, I would. To begin with, a devout non-secular Muslim owes his allegiance to Mecca; what can India mean to him?
"The true effectuation of a will does not come by coercion but by awakening the same willing in the other." [Heid.]
Real Solidarity cannot arise from compulsive obedience or instutionalized coercion.
> i read somewhere that it was with the romans that the political truly began to take shape (ie well after the fall and failure of the greek polis) whereby the earth, terra, became devoid of sacred inhabited meaning.
Spengler. [Decline I, p.334,35]
Of course rather than a failure per se, I'd say the small small patriae gave way to the Imperium.
Not sure if you are an Indian, and assuming you are not, the Indian word for sacrifice meant 'to stretch, weave and extend oneself'; the relay between the polis to the Imperium or the dynamic Indian feature of political integration through disintegration is like that - it disintegrates to expand and unite. That is my opinion atleast.
> does it depend on whether you see the political as an outcome of negotiations between different family hearths, or as their weakening? or both?
Heid. had something amusing to say on this. That "the polis is just as little something political as space itself is something spatial." He remarked that the polis could be founded only because the Greeks were the most unpolitical Volk, and the political is the outcome of being determined from aletheia. In his intro. to Metaphysics, he writes something truly insightful :
"First and foremost, according to Heraclitus, struggle allows what is essential to come into opposition by setting itself apart from itself, thus letting position and stance and rank first come into relation in what is present. In such setting itself apart, clefts, intervals, expanses, and jointures open themselves up.
In con-frontation there emerges a world.
Confrontation neither divides nor even destroys unity. It forms this; Polemos and logos are the same."
"Any individual actuality in all its connections is possible only if before all else nature grants the open, within which... all things are able to encounter each other. The open mediates the connections between all actual things. These latter are constituted only because of such mediation. The open itself, however,... does not arise from any mediation. The open itself is the immediate."
[Heid.; Elucidations on Holderlin's Poetry]
You can understand how Indian integration works. The Indian spirit is like that "open" to me.
> conjecturing: secularism might be the 'out'-come of a necessary neutral ground between one hearth and the other. well really either neutral or one for negotiation. a clearing necessary for the savagely urban city to occur within.
I'd argue for the case of it being neither.
My reasoning is informed by a metaphysics on that centre itself.
The 'Middle' is not some 'mean' realm, or background; it is a Beyond in the sense -
"it is located in the very midst of these distinctions as the stuff from which these distinctions are made" - it is that determinative center which allows one to differentiate various poles, make valuations.
It is the structure of an edge holding the two at their extremes where they cannot be reconciled. The Beyond is but a holding from the midst of them.
the edge is simulatenously 'on'(in the midst) and 'over'(against which distinctions are made wrt.) the two faces.
a right/dharmic measure not in the sense of a happy medium or a golden mean, in which everything is reduced to the balance of a placid equilibrium, but, rather, in the sense of a linking or a holding that maintains two things together at their extreme point: at the extreme point of their (in)commensurability, at the point where they can only just be perceived as two that are distinguised-yet-indistinguishable. ...This "not quite" is the minimal difference between two things, the exact measure or the shortest path between two things;
the right measure is not to say that it is a kind of synthesis of the two, (or neutralization) or that the two find some kind of organic unity ;
It is the name of the point where they nearly coincide." [See Alenka Zupancic on this.]
That point or juncture where the sharpest tension is felt between such extremes that cannot be reconciled, such a middle/Beyond therefore inevitably has the structure of preserving law.
The collective identity in the Indian city [or as it was in the ancient Roman city] is like this; in the authentic sense of secular, there is no
need for neutralization or even commonalizing for a collective identity. It can even emerge from dissonance.
Noctilucent:> i must read up on this matter of domestics and cities. why is every american home obsessed with paedophiles, mass murderers (or is that too last century? ) and kids carrying guns to school?
Are you suggesting that you see nothing problematic about that or that, what such problems have to do with cities?
sotthi: "Are you suggesting that you see nothing problematic about that or that, what such problems have to do with cities?"
the only stated suggestion was that of my interest in the private/public nuances in the u.s.: the household read against a background of possible intruding violence or against its own possible implosion. from urban isolation to suburban fakery, the paranoia over safety and security seems to be primarily a familial amalgam. for very instance, to justify the recent wars waged by the us against distant others, each and every family had to be threatened by proxy. coming from a leadership with close connections to non-liberal christian leaders (who are naturally advocators of the family...so much so that in advocating family they facistically isolate and define it within a homogenous repressing christian ideal), it seems to be an instance where in fearing the spread of fire from an other's hearth, they (the american family) are spreading their own fire around. to seperate the ethics of leadership from that of the community in order to create a complete judas scrapegoat out of one and absolve the other (the american public/family) is naive. the american voter is assuming herself/himself to be stupid.
wow, how did this thread start at jaipur and end at America ?
anyways noctilucent ,
I'd put forth a very generalising crude but Thought provoking argument from the circles of Hindutva about Indian Nationalism.
you wrote :- a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
The question herein is that..lets assume a Hypothetical situation.
very hypothetical.
what IF..
IF India would ever go to War against Saudi Arabia or vice-versa.
which side ( mentally even need not be physcially ) would , an:- orthodox devout Deobandi Sunni Indian muslim take ?
May be I know the answer to this but I dont wanna hazard a guess.
also,
you wrote :the only stated suggestion was that of my interest in the private/public nuances in the u.s.: the household read against a background of possible intruding violence or against its own possible implosion
well i think thats a social /demographic/political problem , not something to do with the structure of a city or its growth.
Households within a city are affected by social and political problems ..I cant see a strong connection between household problems and the the city ( except if the reasons be for bad , unsafe infrastructure or corrupt governance )
No, I think that reasoning is faulty. It is even the contrary of what you are trying to suggest.
First of all, there are actions that are taken to safeguard the hearth, and actions that are taken in the name of safeguarding the hearth. The example you cite, I take as the latter. Non-liberal Christianity
advocates of the family...so much so that it stringently advocates a universal uniform family (characterized by planting its own idea of democracy everywhere furthering its goals of a multicultural globalism), which goes against the very idea of a hearth in the proper Greco-Roman or I.E. sense it was conceived.
The American right is an extreme (trotskyite) left and the word "conservative" is a mere red herring. It is they who have pushed the agenda for more immigrants into their borders, cheap labour, etc. wrecking the hearths of their own people.
The universalist tendencies at the heart of these so called "non-liberals" (and the ethics of their pre-emptive war) goes against the very grain of safeguarding the hearth and family.
Further, speaking of the country in question in the main topic, the family hearth is of utmost importance in Indian thought, and yet, it does not lead us to want to supplant our way of life or even our "democracy" forcefully in other countries of unrest.
So I see no link between the two. A proper sense of the hearth and respecting boundaries as in an Indian city is the complete opposite of engaging in any totalitarianism.
Nov 23, 06 12:51 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
jaipur-the indian city that was v/s what it is now!
jaipur has been one of the best examples of indian city planning....however, the city is unable to take the pressure of increasing population and changing needs...
any comments?
its a boring subject. its been done to death. the situation you've chalked out is hardly unique to jaipur. your questions are generic enough to completely debase anything that is/was special about that city. if you're looking for a readymade idea for a thesis topic, all i can say is, do your own homework.
its a fascinating subject. its not been done to death. the situation you've chalked out may not be unique but is worth further exploration. your question may help us appreciate what is special about jaipur and how we can learn from the indian city planning. it is debasing to think that every city is just like anyother place.
Maybe a thesis topic - but why jump to conclusions so soon.
b8- please post some of your own thoughts and maybe some diagrams of the cities plan.
ticker- is there explaination for your blaise attitude towards jaipur (no, it's not mumbai)?
hahaha, no thats not it. but good guess. i apologise, i was just being balshy. not enough coffee in the morning...
jaipur, jaipur. it's been awhile. i remember doing some case studies on it while i was back in school, but that was so long ago, i can't remember too much except for the fact that its a grid and square based city form. i don't think the urban form is particularly interesting in itself, except for its historicity perhaps. of course, it all depends on the intellectual framework you set up through which to look at it. if we're talking about the reaction of historical indian cities to current capitalist and infrastructure-driven urbanism, then yes, maybe we have something to talk about. then it becomes interesting.
of course, b8 hasn't bothered to elaborate parameters for any sort of thinking. my problem with b8's post is that its just far, far too generic for any sort of commentary. he/she chalks out this vast terrain of potential ideas, so vast that one wouldn't know where to even begin to talk about it. 'increasing population and changing needs'. well, duh! you could be talking about almost any place.
i personally think the indian cities are interesting because i would argue that indians are not used to cities. there's no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around, not in the way european cities have it at least. and that's funny, because the social, collective and political mechanisms that would generally play a sizeable role in the development of urban form are just not there. on top of that, you have one of the fastest rates of urbanisation in the world. its crazy, i tell you...
Huh ?..
Indians arent used to cities ? ?
and there's no cosmopolitan and metropolitan culture ?
..what are you talking of pal ?
the social ,collective and political mechanism which you write of are very much there ,albeit may not be the same type of mechanism that operates in US or Europe or whatever (In a very simple non-intellectual explanation, ) is because India is not in the US or Europe or whatever.
If I understood your contention correctly ?
I concur with nevermore - "Indians arent used to cities cos theres no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around...
You are dictating India as something it is not…
wow, looks like i stirred up a hornet's nest here. i'm impressed y'all didn't flame the shit out of me, making grand statements like that. hang on, hang, don't take that those sentences too literally. yes, i know there have been cities in india for hundreds of years. and yes, i know that lots and lots of people have been living in them for generations. to dispute that would be silly.
right, hopefully i'll be able to explain myself better in this post. My history is a bit iffy, so please feel free to correct me if i make any glaring mistakes. hopefully, you'll get the gist of what i'm saying regardless.
i think that the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility. So, at the heart of the notion of the City is a civic consciousness and a collective identity that cuts across the entire social spectrum. This civic consciousness stresses on the role of the individual citizen within a collective framework.
india doesn't have those collective frameworks. yes, you're right nevermore, in that it's been a completely different developmental history, can't argue with that. however, that being said, india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
i think there are about 3 things that affect the development of an 'indian' city, as opposed to any standard city with indians in it:
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large.
looking back on this post, i realise there are some holes in my logic. also, i don't think i've really explained myself enough. hopefully, though, you guys got the gist of what i'm trying to point to.
hmm,
well tickertocker ,your post did sound quite vague and generalised thats why I asked what you meant.
to give my perspective on ur three points
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
you'r right to some extent ...but the reason for that ( the lack of a pan-indian consciousness ) is our incredible diversity in all spectrums ranging from cultural to financial. We are one of the most diverse nations or perhaps even the most in the entire planet.
But we cant help it, thats the way we are.
Although I personally think that beyond all the seeming diversity, there is also a deep consciousness of our national identity below all the "layers" that make us 'Indian'.
likewise for our cities..all these layers when placed on our cities, still make our cities very Indian.
I would beg to disagree with you , I think Indians DO have a collective identity.I can give a small proof of that.
Everywhere that indians settle in a large number anywhere in the world,that locality /suburb becomes like a Mini-India.
(I wont flinch at saying that it gets quite irritating and embarrasing for us, but its true)
Something which the chinese also possess , so their settlements become "china-towns".
Its not a ghetto mentality but like I said its the transfer of the very layers that make us what we are, onto the urban context.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory
But I think that happens in quite many cities everywhere.
What I mean is that in terms of demographics , the alike bind together. in the cities of the states, U have white neighbourhoods, black neighbourhoods, asian neighbourhoods , hispanic neighbourhoods , rich neighbourhoods , working class neighbourhoods etc etc
and talking of individualistic 'survival' mentality , Yes thats more pronounced in the cities than if your comparing with Indian villages or small towns where there is more of "community" spirit and empathy.
( where everyone knows whats happening with everyone )
But in a city for the fact of the sheer size and scale compared to a village or a small town that community spirit and empathy cannot be the same.
yet you must have heard of stories of groups on Mumbai's local trains.
Some groups of commuters only meet twice a day for like 20-30 years they meet only while they are commuting and have no other contact apart from that and on the basis of this they form a kind of mini-commuting group. save seats for their friends, create bridge and rummy clubs amongst themselves to pass time while travelling etc etc.
so there are micro communities within micro communities within macro communities lol.It just depends on how u see it.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large
Thats true but again thats everywhere in the world .
Hey ..your talking of private controlled enclaves of the rich ?.
try roaming aimlessly in any poor area or slum of bombay or any other city.
The eyes on your back will tear u apart.LOL. ,If nobody asks you who the f--k u are and what business u have there !.
LOL
The mini cities of controlled experience are not necessarily at the upper spectrum of the urban population ;)
whew..well its quite a complex issue, cant be summed up in short.
well Ticker you'r right too now that ive understood a bit of what ur saying but must say you do have quite socialist inclinations ;)
anywayz sorry for the belligerence , was ear-deep in Sepultura this morning.
to add more :--
india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
the most famous example of that which first comes to my mind (and your's too, I assume ) is corbu's Chandigarh.
Very seriously I think it didnt function in the urban context not because we didnt have a collective identity, but because we have a different collective identity.
(obviously very unlike to where corbusier hailed from , or what he thought of collective identity )
I mean, corbu studied a lot of the landscape, form, surroundings , his own visions etc etc etc but he forgot ( or tried to impose ? ) his view of what a 'city' should be like , instead of merging it with the ways of those people who would inhabit it one day.
Probably thats why they say its an architectural/town planning masterpiece but a functional disaster.
as has been alluded to, taking a step back from the idea of a 'collective identity' would ease out the assumed natural distinction between east and west. ticktocker's usage of the term connotes a nationalistic base for the definition. the same revolution that was paramount in determined the european civility also determined european nationalism; the idealist roots of which are said to hail back to late 18th to 19th century german idealism/romanticism.
which is to say, that prior to the germination of those ideas, in accordance with ticktocker's post, there was no 'collective identity' in europe or elsewhere and that this is a novel technological advancement for humanity at large
ticktocker: " the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility"
i think this is nonsense. nationalism was created suchlike and not the 'City'. this incurred a nationalist's sense of belonging and duty and not an historically first collective/communal responsibility/cohesion incarnate.
perhaps if you were to emphasize, in ironic fashion, the 'collective'
in 'collective responsibility' then you might disclose some truth. nationalism, in its facist peaks, knows collectivity like no other. unlike a dictatorship or feudalism, it is a bottom-up system massing everything that is bottom in one. it has the widespread machinelike infuence to import other humans from africa on a massive scale and kill millions belonging to a different religion/ethnicity.
the capsing in 'City' has an unqualified biblical naunce. as if by creating a distinction between the european City and others' cities, you echo augustine distinction between a latinized City (civitas dei) and its barbaric other (civitas mundi).
nevermore, does this 'we' incorporate pakistan and bangladesh as well? i ask because i am not sure whether you use the collective pronoun to signify a nation or a cultural cul-de-sac (precluding modern statehood and national identity, the indian subcultures are so diverse that other cultural connections can equally bind them to other nations). a more succinct question: is india a modern creation of nationalism that might suppress other indias? cheers.
ouch, point(s) taken. lots to think about there...
well to be honest, to try and merge constantly the western imports with local inclinations into our own urban societies, we've quite reached 'aimlessly' to the entangled end of the thread (clue) ... to clarify the motive behind chandigarh WAS to undo both the indian social history and the colonial supremacy. Chandigarh was meant to be an alien place for the indian community. Corbusier was asked to break the rules and set new ones, set trends and ideology. if one blames the outcome, blame the vision behind it. Its very sentimental to constantly think of chandigarh as a city which fails to take into account the lifestyles of the people who would inhabit it. one, because no one knew who would move into the city eventually (it was supposed to be the city of clerks, where as today the richest farmers and landlords of punjab & bureaucrats occupy it). and two, the city was neevr meant to acknowledge the demands of an existing society in the first place. Chandigarh as it is was clearly asked for. Needless to say that 'popular opinion' suggests it to be one of the finest places to live in the country. On second thoughts, which city has actually developed its own urban fabric without drawing anything from its western counterparts?
this is where jaipur comes into picture ... and also madurai. its a small city but worth noticing as the 'architect' for both the cities is the same dude. as long as the legacy of the royal families continued, the kindoms flourished and systems remained 'essentially traditional' these 'cities' worked precisely well. the merger of the thoughts of a community 'walled witihin the city' with those of a global nature within a span of less than 20 years resulted in not a single city but two parallel urban conditions in one political boundary. the walled city continues to retain traditional and still 'predominat' economic structures and hence also the prestige and pride of its notion while constantly throwing inhabitants of its growing population beyond the bounds of its periphery. the new city is 'fashioned' with taste of the same community but demands of a western organisation.
more than 400 years ago, jaipur was a chandigarh which lacked any of its new physical nodes that could be related to its social and cultural customs except for a few temples, wells and a dominating fort. Iroically, the administration continues to perceive the idea of settlement in a similar way today. Chandigarh derives its name from a 'chandi devi'. no matter, what the design or planning of an urban space is, the 'city' still draws its 'identity' from existing settlements and customs. the sense of belongingness still comes from a concept which has to have its roots in history (maybe mythology). we still belong to our social groups immediately and then faintly to a city which is politically indian.
nationalism is still delayed its mention AFTER social and communal aspects which are clearly understood by every lay man, but the idea of nation is still far fetched to many. Its a default situation for many to be indian and be in india (there are holes within out cities still not within india). nothing is derived from that situation of being indian and nothing is added to that. its only theoretical to a great extent.
and hence coming back to the 'city' issue, the collectiveness is greater with social circles than within a city. the idea of a city being 'yours' has to be hammered into everyone's mind. its never natural. there is a complete lack of individual identity and hence the ownrship of a city. belongingness is to a group first, and then, as unanimous stand, maybe to a city. collective concerns are not civic yet. city as idea still continues to be either infrastructural advantage or cultural drawback more than an idea of living.
noctilucent,
I did mean "we" as referring only to us (Republic of India)
However now that you ask, well yes in a way when we talk of the culture of the Indian Subcontinent, yes it could be clubbed together.
(India, Pakistan, Nepal,Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh ,Bhutan )
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal are bound by more than just international borders.
There's History, culture , society,same language family and race.
The only major differentiating factor is religion.
(India , Nepal =Hindu/Secular )
(Pakistan ,Bangladesh= Islam )
which is also to be significantly addressed because religion affects in a major way , all the above mentioned factors. (History, culture , society,same language family and race.)
But however, I would stress of the fact that the other cultural connections which you speak of , as binding one nation to other ( say: India to Pakistan with respect to language ) are too weak as parameters to be of any significance.
and to answer your last question :
No I dont believe that 'India' is a modern construct of nationalism.
The concept of Indian Nationhood is millenia old and that is ingrained within the psyche of modern day Indians too. (The Concept of Bharat )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharata_%28emperor%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bharatvarsha3.png
(Pakistan Sri-Lanka and Bangladesh were part of India too once )Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference , they will never acknowledge openly that they were and are now also part of the Grand Indian nation hood.
Lastly No I dont think so there are many India's within one India so there's no question of any India surpressing any other India.
from my perspective .
Many Indias are supported by one India.
(Indeed the word Bharat in Sanskrit means "to be or being maintained")
there are many multiple layers and shades of our incredible diversity which are woven and maintained together that forms the concept of the Indian nationhood whether it be ancient or modern.
so you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?
i don't get how you could mention diversity and then a simplistic 'India=Hindu/Secular' without contradicting yourself.
"Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference... "
this reponse might itself qualify as being arrogant. you used religion formulaicly; whilst i appreciate that might be a simple description of how the groups see themselves, the statement quoted above doesn't say much for a relaxed allowance of diversity.
luco, it makes sense. but don't you also also fall prey to a need to denominate a particular non eurocentric urban form which we call a city for the sake of convenience (in the sense that translation from one language/culture to another is a necessary lie) with the ideas behind european city, civility and citizenship? luco:"city as idea still continues"
the 'still' rings disappointment,
perhaps, the logical resolution of an argument for cultural relativism would seem to abolish consistent definitions (what is a city?) and absolute human values (rights and responsibilities. however, i am glad you intelligently specify city as, firstly and primarily, an 'idea'. because an 'idea' is easily challenged by the complex reality of urban formation.
Ticker:> i personally think the indian cities are interesting because i would argue that indians are not used to cities.
The RigVeda has an entirety to say about the "pur".
> there's no cosmopolitan/metropolitan culture around, not in the way european cities have it at least. and that's funny, because the social, collective and political mechanisms that would generally play a sizeable role in the development of urban form are just not there.
Actually, I agree with you on this.
There is no central planning. No nationalist architectural initiative as such. But, that's a good thing. I am glad the arch. enterprise is outside and above politics and our contemp. arch. can bear the true imprints of a timeless culture-consciousness, than imposing some nationwide set standards untrue to the soil, climate, landscape, lang. and its people.
> i think that the notion of the City itself as the manifestation of political form can be traced to, say, the French Revolution. The elaboration of the natural rights of man, the social contract and the notion of collective responsibility.
On the one hand this is right. Heid. would agree that the liberalist concept of the City is the analogue to a lack of man losing his own "is-ness". [His essay on Building, dwelling, thinking]
On the other hand, the City as the manifestation of political form can also be traced to the Greek Polis for instance [an entirely Vedic concept of the hearth at work there]. So we can't speak as if there is just one form for it.
> This civic consciousness stresses on the role of the individual citizen within a collective framework.
india doesn't have those collective frameworks.
You are an Indian and I can't believe you just said that. India wouldn't be a collective in the first place if it didn't place dharma at the heart of everything right from its constitutional principle of tolerating all kinds of people, etc. to a collective destiny, which puts people of any faith/creed within that collective framework.
> india has been very, very good at importing models of urbanisation (mostly from europe) and grafting them onto local fabric. most of these attempts have failed to varying degrees. why? maybe because these models are rooted in a completely different understanding of collective identity and urban form, an understanding that is alien to india. And i would argue that this is because indians (by-and-large) don't have a collective identity.
The very fact that it didn't work shows there was a resistive collective identity.
> i think there are about 3 things that affect the development of an 'indian' city, as opposed to any standard city with indians in it:
1) the lack of a pan-indian consciousness, and hence the lack of a coherent and cohesive political identity.
2) incredibly rigid social heirarchies that encourage an individualistic 'survival' mentality and discourage truly collective 'public' territory.
3) the rich-poor gap. i know this sounds cheesy, but its true. gated communities, private enclaves, mini-cities of controlled experience that keep the riff-raff out by withdrawing from the city at large.
But this is quite in keeping with the nature of the Indian political structure.
"We have clearly come some way from those earlier models - largely derived from stereotypical images of Western polities - which envisaged Indian states as great imperial structures equipped with centralized bureaucracies and exercizing a large measure of control over a highly structured periphery. These images turn out to be chimeras far removed from reality.
Burton Stein describes Indian society [esp. the south] as "segmentary", a term used to suggest the foll. formal features :
a) a relatively weak center whose control diminishes consistently with distance, so that one finds a series of relatively autonomous peripheral centers;
b) a tendency for these peripheral centers to "replicate" the structure of authority evident in the major centres;
c) a pyramidlike organization of the sociopolitical segments in relation to the central authority;
d) a ritual or symbolic hegemony that replaces effective political control as a major integrating force in the polity;
e) a dynamic, shifting, fluctuating system of relations between the various segments... " [David Schulman; King and Clown]
So the very feature of an Indian city is characterized by its inherent structural weakness, an ""integration" through disintegration and dissonance" [ib.]
Politics needn't be the only integrating force.
A collective identity needn't emerge out of dismantled hierarchies only; in the kind of diversity that we [Indians] have, it can even emerge from dissonance amidst very rigid social structures and explicit gaps between rich and poor or whatever differentiations.
noctilucent:> which is to say, that prior to the germination of those ideas, in accordance with ticktocker's post, there was no 'collective identity' in europe or elsewhere and that this is a novel technological advancement for humanity at large
I would argue, yes, there was. For instance, the Greek Polis.
"…the Greek Polis is supposed to be the “city stateâ€.
…It is neither merely state, nor merely city, rather in the first instance it is properly “the stead†[“die Stattâ€]: the site [die Statte] of the abode of human history that belongs to humans in the midst of beings.
This, however, precisely does not mean that the political has priority, or that what is essential lies in the Polis understood politically and that such a Polis is what is essential. Rather, it says that what is essential in the historial being of human beings resides in the pole-like relatedness of everything to this site of abode, that is, this site of being homely in the midst of beings as a whole.
From this site and stead there springs forth whatever is granted stead [gestattet] and whatever is not, what is order and what is disorder, what is fitting and what is unfitting. For whatever is fitting determines destiny , and such destiny determines history.
… from out ofthe relationship to the gods, out of the kind of festivals and the possibility of celebration, out of the relationship between master and slave, out of a relation to sacrifice and battle, out of a relationship to honor and glory, out of the relationship between these relationships and from out of the grounds of their unity, there prevails what is called the Polis." [Heidegger, Ister]
@ Noctilucent,
A second example would be the ancient Roman city as outlined by Coulanges:
"The domestic religion forbade two families to mingle and unite; but it was possible for several families, without sacrificing anything of their special religions, to join, at least, for the celebration of another worship which might have been common to all of them. And this is what happened. A certain number of families formed a group,
called, in the Greek language, a phratria, in the Latin, a curia. Did there exist the tie of birth between the families of the same group? This cannot be affirmed. It is clear, however, that this new association was not formed without a certain enlargement of religious ideas. Even at the moment when they united, these families conceived the idea of a divinity superior to that of the household, one who was common to all, and who watched over the entire group. They raised an altar to him, lighted a sacred fire, and founded a worship.
The City Formed.
The tribe, like the family and the phratry, was established as an independent body, since it had a special worship from which the stranger was excluded. Once formed, no new family could be admitted to it. No more could two tribes be fused into one; their religion was opposed to this. But just as several phratries were united in a tribe,
several tribes might associate together, on condition that the religion of each should be respected. The day on which this alliance took place the city existed.
Thus human society, in this race, did not enlarge like a circle, which increases on all sides, gaining little by little. There were, on the contrary, small groups, which, having been long established, were finally joined together in larger ones. Several families formed the phratry, several phratries the tribe, several tribes the city. Family,
phratry, tribe, city, were, moreover, societies exactly similar to each other, which were formed one after the other by a series of federations.
We must remark, also, that when the different groups became thus associated, none of them lost its individuality, or its independence. Although several families were united in a phratry, each one of them remained constituted just as it had been when separate.
From the tribe men passed to the city; but the tribe was not dissolved on that account, and each of them continued to form a body, very much as if the city had not existed. In religion there subsisted a multitude of subordinate worships, above which was established one common to all; in politics, numerous little governments continued to act, while above them a common government was founded.
The city was a confederation. Hence it was obliged, at least for several centuries, to respect the religious and civil independence of the tribes, curies, and families, and had not the right, at first, to interfere in the private affairs of each of these little bodies."
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/fustel/AncientCity.pdf
This is pretty much the city experience in India as well, where even secular Muslims, etc. participate going so far as to sculpt Hindu deities during the festival seasons for example [and vice versa].
noctilucent:> so you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?
i don't get how you could mention diversity and then a simplistic 'India=Hindu/Secular' without contradicting yourself.
Pardon for cutting in your discussion with Nevermore.
Your question is simplistic. It depends, and one can't answer either way on both cases.
I'd regard a secular muslim loyal to the spirit and the interest of this land just as Indian as any other.
I'd regard a hindu who does not defend the infringements on his cultural heritage by fanatic factions, be it muslims or any other, as less Indian.
[nevermore--->]:"Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are aware of this too but due to reasons of arrogance brought about by religious difference... "
-
noctilucent:> this reponse might itself qualify as being arrogant. you used religion formulaicly; whilst i appreciate that might be a simple description of how the groups see themselves, the statement quoted above doesn't say much for a relaxed allowance of diversity.
Its not arrogance, its a fact.
In our country, you'll find for example, it is not Hindus who do not want to include Buddhists or Jains under the umbrella as Hindus but it is they who do not want to be classified under the term Hindu, and we don't! Nevermind our neighbouring countries!
Just a talk to a Jain and he will tell you openly. Yet, a study of his texts will prove its the same core of Hindu thought garbed and practised differently.
This is what I was just telling tockertocker. The Indian city is such an "integration through disintegration and dissonance" because of an exceedingly relaxed tolerance of diversity that Hinduism allows, or the Indian spirit in general.
sotthi, i drew tickertocker's conclusion from tickertocker's post. followed by " i think this is nonsense". i would also argue yes.
and yes, i also agree that " you would say a hindu indian is more indian than a moslem indian?" is seemingly simplistic but only to be on par with indian=hindu/secular. the prospective reply on nevermore's part would elucidiate her/his stance, rather than deliver an expected absolute judgement.
does placing dharma at the centre of understanding what it is to be indian preclude non-hindu/ hindu in origin indians from being defined as indian?
sotthi:"I'd regard a secular muslim loyal to the spirit and the interest of this land just as Indian as any other. "
a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
the point regarding the inaccurate assimilation of the polis with the political is interesting . i read somewhere that it was with the romans that the political truly began to take shape (ie well after the fall and failure of the greek polis) whereby the earth, terra, became devoid of sacred inhabited meaning.
this would be interesting, cross referencing your mention of the centrality of hearth. does it depend on whether you see the political as an outcome of negotiations between different family hearths, or as their weakening? or both? conjecturing: secularism might be the 'out'-come of a necessary neutral ground between one hearth and the other. well really either neutral or one for negotiation. a clearing necessary for the savagely urban city to occur within.
i must read up on this matter of domestics and cities. why is every american home obsessed with paedophiles, mass murderers (or is that too last century? ) and kids carrying guns to school?
i think you will say that dharma accepts difference, whereas the sunna does not..and therefor the sunna cannot engender but itself ( a spiritual colonialism) , thus precluding a naturally multifaceted india (encouraged by dharmic acceptance). on these lines?
Noctilucent:> i think you will say that dharma accepts difference, whereas the sunna does not..and therefor the sunna cannot engender but itself ( a spiritual colonialism) , thus precluding a naturally multifaceted india (encouraged by dharmic acceptance). on these lines?
Yes.
In that case, you don't have to read further, but I'll answer your questions anyway.
Noctilucent:> is seemingly simplistic but only to be on par with indian=hindu/secular. the prospective reply on nevermore's part would elucidiate her/his stance, rather than deliver an expected absolute judgement.
I see. Sure, such a reply is indeed likely to inform you of his stance.
For my part, on the "indian=hindu/secular" equation, I'd say that the problem arises because of what the word secular itself has come to mean. Far from respecting the integrity of each religion, a shift has come to connote the emptying of all religious differences and an equalization that is to be paraded as the new religion - the only religion as no religion.
To reiterate a point I made, without the former thought of secularism embodied, by-and-in the Vedic-Hindu spirit, there would have been no muslim or any other culture-complex to speak of. The latter arrived as invaders to a dharmic heritage established over thousands of years.
In that historic sense, Indian/Hindu/Secular are interchangeable synonymous triads.
> does placing dharma at the centre of understanding what it is to be indian preclude non-hindu/ hindu in origin indians from being defined as indian?
"Coming to know, however, is always "placing oneself in a conditional relation to something." [Nietzsche]
So to answer your question, yes and no.
1)Yes, it precludes. Because there is more than one Dharma. There is foremost sva-dharma - being true to one's inner law.
Dharma in Indian/Hindu thought celebrates this, while this is not a feature of Islam. A Muslim loyal to India but who cannot affirm the religious integrity of other Indians is less Indian in my view.
No, it does not preclude. Because there is more than one Dharma - that towards one's 'heimat'/home-land. Muslims acting to safeguard the interests and the secular spirit of this country as our own President exemplifies evidences that.
In short, Yes, it precludes if the "conditional relation in the "placing oneself in a conditional relation to" the other is not a Dharmic one, for the contrary would instantly banish the very idea of Indianness = tolerance amidst diversity.
I get the feeling you already understand this.
> a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
Yes, I would. To begin with, a devout non-secular Muslim owes his allegiance to Mecca; what can India mean to him?
"The true effectuation of a will does not come by coercion but by awakening the same willing in the other." [Heid.]
Real Solidarity cannot arise from compulsive obedience or instutionalized coercion.
> i read somewhere that it was with the romans that the political truly began to take shape (ie well after the fall and failure of the greek polis) whereby the earth, terra, became devoid of sacred inhabited meaning.
Spengler. [Decline I, p.334,35]
Of course rather than a failure per se, I'd say the small small patriae gave way to the Imperium.
Not sure if you are an Indian, and assuming you are not, the Indian word for sacrifice meant 'to stretch, weave and extend oneself'; the relay between the polis to the Imperium or the dynamic Indian feature of political integration through disintegration is like that - it disintegrates to expand and unite. That is my opinion atleast.
> does it depend on whether you see the political as an outcome of negotiations between different family hearths, or as their weakening? or both?
Heid. had something amusing to say on this. That "the polis is just as little something political as space itself is something spatial." He remarked that the polis could be founded only because the Greeks were the most unpolitical Volk, and the political is the outcome of being determined from aletheia. In his intro. to Metaphysics, he writes something truly insightful :
"First and foremost, according to Heraclitus, struggle allows what is essential to come into opposition by setting itself apart from itself, thus letting position and stance and rank first come into relation in what is present.
In such setting itself apart, clefts, intervals, expanses, and
jointures open themselves up.
In con-frontation there emerges a world.
Confrontation neither divides nor even destroys unity. It forms this; Polemos and logos are the same."
"Any individual actuality in all its connections is possible only if before all else nature grants the open, within which... all things are able to encounter each other. The open mediates the connections between all actual things. These latter are constituted only because of such mediation. The open itself, however,... does not arise from any mediation. The open itself is the immediate."
[Heid.; Elucidations on Holderlin's Poetry]
You can understand how Indian integration works. The Indian spirit is like that "open" to me.
> conjecturing: secularism might be the 'out'-come of a necessary neutral ground between one hearth and the other. well really either neutral or one for negotiation. a clearing necessary for the savagely urban city to occur within.
I'd argue for the case of it being neither.
My reasoning is informed by a metaphysics on that centre itself.
The 'Middle' is not some 'mean' realm, or background; it is a Beyond in the sense -
"it is located in the very midst of these distinctions as the stuff from which these distinctions are made" - it is that determinative center which allows one to differentiate various poles, make valuations.
It is the structure of an edge holding the two at their extremes where they cannot be reconciled. The Beyond is but a holding from the midst of them.
the edge is simulatenously 'on'(in the midst) and 'over'(against which distinctions are made wrt.) the two faces.
a right/dharmic measure not in the sense of a happy medium or a golden mean, in which everything is reduced to the balance of a placid equilibrium, but, rather, in the sense of a linking or a holding that maintains two things together at their extreme point: at the extreme point of their (in)commensurability, at the point where they can only just be perceived as two that are distinguised-yet-indistinguishable. ...This "not quite" is the minimal difference between two things, the exact measure or the shortest path between two things;
the right measure is not to say that it is a kind of synthesis of the two, (or neutralization) or that the two find some kind of organic unity ;
It is the name of the point where they nearly coincide." [See Alenka Zupancic on this.]
That point or juncture where the sharpest tension is felt between such extremes that cannot be reconciled, such a middle/Beyond therefore inevitably has the structure of preserving law.
The collective identity in the Indian city [or as it was in the ancient Roman city] is like this; in the authentic sense of secular, there is no
need for neutralization or even commonalizing for a collective identity. It can even emerge from dissonance.
I hope all this sheds some clarity.
Noctilucent:> i must read up on this matter of domestics and cities. why is every american home obsessed with paedophiles, mass murderers (or is that too last century? ) and kids carrying guns to school?
Are you suggesting that you see nothing problematic about that or that, what such problems have to do with cities?
hmmm .. so remniscent of soulikeit + parallel38 .....
sotthi: "Are you suggesting that you see nothing problematic about that or that, what such problems have to do with cities?"
the only stated suggestion was that of my interest in the private/public nuances in the u.s.: the household read against a background of possible intruding violence or against its own possible implosion. from urban isolation to suburban fakery, the paranoia over safety and security seems to be primarily a familial amalgam. for very instance, to justify the recent wars waged by the us against distant others, each and every family had to be threatened by proxy. coming from a leadership with close connections to non-liberal christian leaders (who are naturally advocators of the family...so much so that in advocating family they facistically isolate and define it within a homogenous repressing christian ideal), it seems to be an instance where in fearing the spread of fire from an other's hearth, they (the american family) are spreading their own fire around. to seperate the ethics of leadership from that of the community in order to create a complete judas scrapegoat out of one and absolve the other (the american public/family) is naive. the american voter is assuming herself/himself to be stupid.
wow, how did this thread start at jaipur and end at America ?
anyways noctilucent ,
I'd put forth a very generalising crude but Thought provoking argument from the circles of Hindutva about Indian Nationalism.
you wrote :- a devout, as opposed to a secular, muslim cannot be as indian as any other? would you argue that her\his 'sunna' would be in conflict with an essentially indian autocthonic 'dharma'?
The question herein is that..lets assume a Hypothetical situation.
very hypothetical.
what IF..
IF India would ever go to War against Saudi Arabia or vice-versa.
which side ( mentally even need not be physcially ) would , an:- orthodox devout Deobandi Sunni Indian muslim take ?
May be I know the answer to this but I dont wanna hazard a guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
also,
you wrote :the only stated suggestion was that of my interest in the private/public nuances in the u.s.: the household read against a background of possible intruding violence or against its own possible implosion
well i think thats a social /demographic/political problem , not something to do with the structure of a city or its growth.
Households within a city are affected by social and political problems ..I cant see a strong connection between household problems and the the city ( except if the reasons be for bad , unsafe infrastructure or corrupt governance )
@ Noctilucent,
No, I think that reasoning is faulty. It is even the contrary of what you are trying to suggest.
First of all, there are actions that are taken to safeguard the hearth, and actions that are taken in the name of safeguarding the hearth. The example you cite, I take as the latter. Non-liberal Christianity
advocates of the family...so much so that it stringently advocates a universal uniform family (characterized by planting its own idea of democracy everywhere furthering its goals of a multicultural globalism), which goes against the very idea of a hearth in the proper Greco-Roman or I.E. sense it was conceived.
The American right is an extreme (trotskyite) left and the word "conservative" is a mere red herring. It is they who have pushed the agenda for more immigrants into their borders, cheap labour, etc. wrecking the hearths of their own people.
The universalist tendencies at the heart of these so called "non-liberals" (and the ethics of their pre-emptive war) goes against the very grain of safeguarding the hearth and family.
Further, speaking of the country in question in the main topic, the family hearth is of utmost importance in Indian thought, and yet, it does not lead us to want to supplant our way of life or even our "democracy" forcefully in other countries of unrest.
So I see no link between the two. A proper sense of the hearth and respecting boundaries as in an Indian city is the complete opposite of engaging in any totalitarianism.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.