मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि च दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… इ. स. 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Saturday, October 18, 2025

टिळकांचा जॉन स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल बद्दलचा २०व्या शतकाच्या सुरवातीचा द्रष्टेपणा उठून दिसतो...J S Mill and B G Tilak

गोपाळ गणेश आगरकर, जून १८९३ : 
 
"...जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिलसाहेब, पुढील जन्मीही तुमच्या पायाशी बसून शिकता आले तर मला अतिशय समाधान लाभेल. जर आपणास माझे सर्वात प्रिय व आदरणीय गुरु होणे शक्य झाले आणि मलाही आपला सर्वात नम्र आणि अज्ञात शिष्य होणे जमले तरच हे सुख मला लाभेल..."

 ('आगरकर', य  दि फडके, १९९६)
 
आगरकर आणि लोकमान्य टिळकांचे मतभेद व्हायला  जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल यांचे विचार पण कारणीभूत होते  का ?
 
फडक्यांच्या पुस्तकात  १८८५ रोजी टिळक आणि आगरकरांचे , न्यायमूर्ती रानड्यांच्या विरोधात, मिल्ल बाबत  एकमत दिसते (पृष्ठ ६६) पण नंतर टिळक बदलेले असावेत. आणि आज वाचताना टिळकांची मते मला अत्यंत योग्य वाटतात. 
 
सोबत टिळकांच्या १० सप्टेंबर १९०७ च्या ''मिल्लआणि मोर्ले" ह्या लेखातील दोन पाने देत आहे 
 

 


('लोकमान्य टिळक लेखसंग्रह', संपादक तर्कतीर्थ लक्ष्मणशास्त्री जोशी. १९६९-२०१३, पृष्ठ १७३, १७४)
 
टिळकांनी मिल्ल चा समाचार सुद्धा काही प्रमाणात घेतला आहे... 
 
इंग्लिश मध्ये मिल्ल  यांच्या विचाराचा Deepseek च्या मदतीने केलेला गोषवारा देतो   ... 

Mill's Justification of Empire

Mill justified empire primarily on utilitarian grounds, arguing that it could bring about greater overall happiness and progress. His reasoning can be summarized as follows:

  1. The Civilizing Mission:
    Mill believed that more "advanced" societies (primarily European) had a duty to govern and "civilize" less developed nations. He argued that societies in what he called "barbarous" or "savage" states were not capable of self-government and needed the guidance of more enlightened rulers to achieve progress. This was a common justification for colonialism during the 19th century.

  2. Temporary Rule for Progress:
    Mill saw imperial rule as a temporary measure, not a permanent condition. He believed that once the colonized peoples had been educated and "civilized," they would eventually be capable of self-governance. This idea was rooted in his belief in progress and the potential for human improvement.

  3. Utilitarian Benefits:
    From a utilitarian perspective, Mill argued that empire could bring about greater overall happiness by spreading civilization, education, and economic development. He believed that the benefits to the colonized populations (e.g., improved infrastructure, education, and governance) outweighed the costs of losing their independence.

  4. Economic and Strategic Interests:
    Mill also acknowledged the economic and strategic benefits of empire for the colonizing nations. As an employee of the British East India Company for much of his career, he was intimately familiar with the economic advantages of colonial rule. He saw empire as a way to secure resources, trade, and geopolitical influence.

    टिळक म्हणतात हे ब्रिटन भारत संबंधांना लागू नाही - मुळातून वर उद्धृत केलेले टिळक वाचा -  त्यामुळे ब्रिटन ला राज्य करायचा अधिकार नाही ... 

    Amitav Ghosh writes about J. S. Mill in his book 'Wild Fictions : Essays', 2025:

    "...In the last chapter of Provincializing Europe , you quote A.K. Ramanujan on
    how his father reconciled two apparently irreconcilable ideas. To my mind, the
    questions that are implied there are more appropriately addressed to Mill, who
    saw no conflict between his hobby of theorizing about liberty and his day job as
    the overseer of the Indian Empire. It was really he and others of his ilk who managed
    to believe two completely divergent things at the same time..." 

    टिळकांचा जॉन  स्टुअर्ट मिल्ल बद्दलचा २०व्या शतकाच्या सुरवातीचा द्रष्टेपणा उठून दिसतो...

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)