From Gandhi to Deendayal: contradictions of conservative Hindu tendencies in Indian environmental thinking

Abstract

This article examines the traditionalist and conservative trends in the environmental thinking in India, especially in the works of M. K. Gandhi and Deendayal Upadhyay. Special attention is paid to the latter’s concept of integral humanism, which has recently become a widely discussed idea in the Indian public discourse. Exploring their ideological bases, Gandhian spiritual radicalism and Deendayal’s integral humanism are placed into the broader trend of the Indian nationalist and environmentalist thinking, showing the possible convergence of ecology and social conservatism. Analyzing the implications of the authoritarian and non-egalitarian tendencies in the society, it shows how the Indian environmentalist movements drawing on Brahminical traditions and Gandhian thinking become prone to be hijacked by the Hindu nationalism. *** De Gandhi a Deendayal: contradições nas tendências conservadoras hindus no pensamento ecológico indiano ***Este artigo examina as tendências tradicionalistas e conservadoras no pensamento ambiental na Índia, especialmente nos trabalhos de M. K. Gandhi e Deendayal Upadhyay. Uma atenção especial é dada ao conceito de humanismo integral, desse último autor, que recentemente se tornou uma ideia amplamente discutida no discurso público indiano. Explorando suas bases ideológicas, o radicalismo espiritual de Gandhi e o humanismo integral de Deendayal são colocados na tendência mais ampla do pensamento nacionalista e ambientalista indiano, mostrando a possível convergência da ecologia e do conservadorismo social. Analisando as implicações das tendências autoritárias e não-igualitárias na sociedade, isso mostra como os movimentos ambientalistas indianos, baseando-se nas tradições bramânicas e no pensamento de Gandhi, tendem a ser sequestrados pelo nacionalismo hindu.Palavras-chave: Índia. Ambientalismo. Tradicionalismo. Hinduísmo. Nacionalismo hindu. Humanismo integral.

Theories of Political Ecology: Monopoly Capital Against People and the Planet

“…1). 12 It is noteworthy that anti-“modern” stances based on tradition have been taken up by reactionary forces in India, for example (Krejčík, 2019); and absent a revolutionary force capable of taking over the state, delinking, nationalizing all domestic enterprises, and breaking from the law of value, what state could possibly rupture with what the literature diagnoses as “developmentalism?” Indeed, taking state power is not even on the agenda (cf. Heron & Dean, 2022), as disdain for the state suffuses this literature, against the Chavista position that “it is not an option to be governed by the criminals who ruled in the past” (Marquina & Gilbert, 2020) or the Arab nationalist position defending the “peripheral nation”s working [class’s]… right to exercise sovereignty, through the state, over its human and natural resources” (Kadri, 2016, p. 272).…”

“…1). 12 It is noteworthy that anti-"modern" stances based on tradition have been taken up by reactionary forces in India, for example (Krejčík, 2019); and absent a revolutionary force capable of taking over the state, delinking, nationalizing all domestic enterprises, and breaking from the law of value, what state could possibly rupture with what the literature diagnoses as "developmentalism?" Indeed, taking state power is not even on the agenda (cf.…”

Urban Ecosophy for a Post-Colonial Ecohumanism of the City

“…(Naess, 1989, 101). The Gandhian ideal and Naess´s approach of ecosophy emphasize the decentralization and life in harmony with nature as an alternative to the urban industrial civilization, as a result of the colonialism (Krejčík, 2019). Furthermore, Naess highlights the abandonment of belonging to places, such as a loss of links, particularly in urban areas due to centralization, increased mobility, and dependence on foreign goods and technologies (Naess, 2008, 45).…”

Bodies and environmental matters in Maoism and Gandhism

“…40,p. 453. 26 Krejčík 2019. and disposition of natural or physical things are different from mere governmentality and claiming sovereignty. As the government of matter and all kinds of bodies is primarily targeted at regulating, steering and dominating the governed subjects in their relationships with environments and things, and sovereignty is a power exercise on a bounded territory and on the subjects inhabiting it, the Maoist politics of matter orients more towards structural transformation.…”