Aristotle

Title: Aristotle – Understanding the World’s Greatest Philosopher
Author: John Sellars
Publisher: Pelican Books, 2023 (First)
ISBN: 9780241615638
Pages: 128

Aristotle was undoubtedly the greatest philosopher of the Western world whose immense clout guided quests for knowledge in Europe for several centuries. He was the last word on points of contention among scholars. Even in the modern world, he has an assured place in the pantheon of philosophers. Though many people will be put off by the term 'philosophy', it means only a rational study of the fundamentals of a given thing. Some part of philosophical enquiry every human should do because it is the only route to a happy life in the fullest sense. It's an extension of our natural human curiosity. One who wonders at the beauty and complexity of the natural world through a TV documentary is also participating in the same activity that Aristotle and his companions did. This short book is ideal for novices like me getting aware of the complexities of philosophical thought. It provides nothing in detail, and acts only as a primer. The author himself admits that this book does not cover anything in depth but gives only a taste, an opportunity, to get a flavour of who Aristotle was, what he thought and his vast impact. John Sellars is an academic, being a lecturer in philosophy at Royal Holloway University in London. He is the author of many books which are translated into over a dozen languages. This book claims that Aristotle's ideas and concepts are the basis of our natural ways of thinking in science, philosophy or logic.

Aristotle was the disciple of Plato, who himself was a disciple of Socrates. Aristotle has derived many ideas from Platonic thought and Sellars introduces the salient points of Plato's ideas in a highly simplified way, but even this treatise may appear cumbersome in some places. Plato put forward his theory of ideal forms. The objects we encounter in the changing physical world are but copies of more perfect, unchanging ideal forms. Aristotle was a strident critic of his teacher Plato while also remaining deeply influenced by him. Aristotle's 'physics' is the study of the natural world. In it, he tackles the most fundamental questions connected to the study of nature – like causation, divisibility and infinity. It includes some wild guesses like spontaneous generation of some species in the flora and fauna of the world. However, it should be taken as no more than an educated guess until truth is uncovered through further observation. Sellars notes with regret that there are some influential modern books which depict Aristotle in a very bad light as to appear like a champion of superstition and conservatism. They imply that Aristotle loathed experiments of any kind and fully immersed only in mental exercises. I remember reviewing a book claiming that Aristotle believed that women had more teeth in their mouth than men, yet he did not care to verify this hypothesis even though he had married twice! This is untrue and it is clear that Aristotle studied lifeforms extensively while he was in Lesbos Island and dissected them for analysis.

The author introduces the books in the traditional sequence of Aristotle's logical works one by one and very briefly. The logical arguments and conclusions that are derived from them are examined. So are the peculiar way of some arguments initiated by the great philosopher. Opening a claim like 'for the sake of argument' and pursue wherever it goes is a method put forth by Aristotle. To argue for and against a particular view in order to test it is another tool in his arsenal. Aristotle classified data related to animals and in his logical works set out formal rules for further analysis on this data. This is clearly a part of the modern 'scientific method'. To have done either of these would have been a major achievement, to have done both is truly awe-inspiring. He believed that the role of human beings is the activity of the soul in accordance with reason, or rational thinking, to understand the world around us.

Even though Aristotle's reputation transcends time and reaches out to us still, some of his ideas are stunningly outdated and some are politically incorrect to express in today's society. Whatever may be one's intellectual merit, everybody is a prisoner of the zeitgeist and perhaps unknowingly it restricts the range of one's thought. Likewise, Aristotle justified slavery or at least didn't find any qualms in keeping slaves himself. He claimed that some people can legitimately be described as 'natural slaves' and that women are naturally ruled by men. The author then holds his nose and supports this assertion by alluding the term 'natural slave' as someone who is mentally impaired and in need of someone else's help, yet concedes that Aristotle seems to assume that it is perfectly normal for most households to include slaves. Regarding women, he does a tight-rope walk by claiming that 'by nature' might mean 'for the most part' or 'usually what happens'. Aristotle was also biased towards the ideal of the 'city state' as a political unit to live under. If a man is focussed entirely on subsistence, he is closer to an animal. A rich human life which requires contemplation mandates a reflective intellectual pursuit. A city-state provides the infrastructure to make it happen. Even though Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor, there is no real evidence of any influence between them. Aristotle makes no mention of Alexander in his works and there is no trace of any of Aristotle's ideas shaping Alexander's subsequent behaviour.

This book really has a large scope in picturizing Aristotle's contribution to the society he lived in. His writings on the art forms such as drama or play still find relevance in today's art even though cinema has fully appropriated what was originally meant for the exclusive use of plays. The book contains an analysis of Athenian drama and its components. Aristotle thought about why people enjoyed tragic plays. We can enjoy, he says, a pleasurable release when we experience extreme emotions such as pity and fear. He calls this a moment of purification in which any excess of these emotions get cleared, restoring us to a state of balance. We enjoy them because we know in our mind that even though we may be sharing the emotions of the characters, at the end of the play we can go back to the comfort of our homes. A work of art can prompt us to experience difficult emotions in a relatively safe and artificial setting helping us to process the real emotions that befall us in our own lives. The idea of philosophy is anointed with a touch of elitism as conceived by great masters such as Aristotle. Leisure was one of the things required for anyone to do philosophy. You should not be overburdened with distracting practical responsibilities and to have basic necessities of life provided for. It is absolutely not intended for menial labourers whose wages would not allow them to skip work for any meaningful length of time. Lyceum was a community of scholars in this sense, of individuals wealthy enough not to have to work all day.

As noted earlier, this book is an excellent primer for stepping into the world of philosophy and highly recommended for novices who are serious about the job. Ordinary readers may better leave it aside.

Rating: 4 Star

1984

Title: 1984
Author: George Orwell
Publisher: Maple Press, 2016 (First published 1949)
ISBN: 9788190782692
Pages: 312

The Soviet Union went into World War II as an ally of Nazi Germany. When Hitler turned towards Poland and France on the western front, Stalin annexed a good chunk of eastern Europe. Unexpectedly, Hitler turned against Stalin in 1941 and invaded Russia, who then joined the Allies in fighting Germany. Stalin emerged victorious and righteous at the end of the war with an immense political clout. With the rise of a worldwide Leftist movement gaining momentum, it seemed as if communism would take over the whole world. The absence of personal freedom and civil liberties in the Soviet Union had attracted the scorn of non-partisan intellectuals in the West. This book is essentially a political satire that gives a dire warning against totalitarianism. This was originally published in 1949. The plot envisages a nation named Oceania which geographically includes all regions coming under the definition of the West, such as the USA, UK and Western Europe. The story unfolds in London. An authoritarian political regime controlled by a cadre-party and headed by a figure named 'Big Brother' runs the administration where the citizens' rights and privileges hardly rises above the level of animals. George Orwell is the pen name of Eric Arthur Blair who was an English novelist, poet, essayist, journalist and critic. He was born in Motihari, Bihar, where his father was an opium agent. 

Orwell portrays the authoritarian society in the hypothetical republic of Oceania as something modelled on the erstwhile Soviet Union. Like the larger than life-size pictures of Stalin in the Soviet Union, Big Brother's portraits were everywhere, watching over the people. He is depicted with a heavy, black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Continuously living under the punishing gaze of the authorities, all looked older than their age in Oceania and one has the impression that 'there was dust in the creases of their faces'. Children eavesdropped on their parents and denounced them to the police who then elevated these little monsters as child heroes. Nothing was one's own, except for the few cubic centimetres inside the skull. That was why the most stringent mechanism was put in place to regulate what was going on there, in the form of the Thought Police. The Ministry of Truth ensured that people who were purged are wiped clean in all records. It created fictitious people to uphold some points of the party's dogma and to serve as a model for others. There were no friendships in the real sense between people, but everyone was comrades with each other. This is a direct adaptation from communist jargon. It was that there were some comrades whose society was pleasanter than the others. Slogans that run counter to common sense were promoted by the party to spread among the people. Some such slogans were: 'War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength'; 'Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'. 

Orwell has imagined a comprehensive surveillance mechanism for the citizens of Oceania that fully utilized the technological know-how of the 1940s. We may shudder at the thought of what an authoritarian government of the future would not be capable of, considering the mind-boggling advances in AI. In Oceania, every house was fitted with a telescreen that received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound above the level of a low whisper would be picked up and relayed to the police. No privacy was allowed. The punishment for keeping a diary was death or 25 years in a forced-labour camp. People suppressed their feelings and emotions, just to keep on living. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone was doing, was an instinctive reaction. A new category of offense was introduced in the form of 'thought-crime'. Even thinking about practises that run counter to what the party advocated was a crime. A thought or an attitude could not be concealed forever and sooner or later, the thought-police would get them. The heresy of heresies was common sense. The party bluntly told its cadres to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears.

Orwell brilliantly picturizes the novel ways in which all intellectual exercises not conforming to the party line could be bridled effectively. Shortening of the vocabulary of the language was a clever idea. There was only one word for a concept, which eliminated synonyms and finer nuances. For example, the word 'good' was in the dictionary. Its antonym 'bad' was removed from it. Instead, it was expressed as 'ungood'. Comparative terms like 'better' and 'best' were changed to 'plusgood' and 'doubleplusgood' respectively. This was intended to narrow the range of thought so as to make 'thought-crime' impossible to commit. Marriage was permitted only between party members, but was only for begetting children for the service of the party. Sexual intercourse was looked upon as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. A party committee has to approve marriage between party members. Permission is refused if physical attraction was suspected. 85 per cent of the populace belonged to 'proles', which is a shortened form of proletariat. They were the slaves over whose efforts the edifice of the party was constructed. Proles had some freedom to act as they wished and the hero of the novel secretly wished that the regime would one day be usurped through rebellion by the proles. A party member had no spare time in principle. When they were not working, he or she should be taking part in some kind of communal recreations. A taste for solitude which is a suggestion of individuality was frowned upon. The proles were lured by a government-run lottery which was regularly conducted and offered enormous prizes. Only small sums were actually paid out, the larger ones assigned to imaginary persons. It was the principal reason for a lot of people remaining alive. Literature was commanded to serve the interests of the party. Novels were written by machines according to the general directives issued by the Planning committee. Books were just a commodity that had to be produced, like jam or bootlaces. Music was generated by a machine called versificator. All recipes for an AI-ruled world are pictured by Orwell in this book.

The story turns around Winston Smith, an employee in the Ministry of Truth, whose real job is to falsify records as per the needs of the party. His rebellious nature makes him stifled to live according to the dictates of the party. He secretly starts a diary and records his observations. He falls in love with a fellow employee Julia against the code of conduct. Both of them join the clandestine resistance movement which was in fact secretly run by the party itself to identify detractors. He was tortured by his mentor and finally betrays Julia who had betrayed him similarly under torture. After a brainwashing experience during the interrogation, he submits to the will of the Big Brother. The only hope for civilized society was the proles, who remained loyal to each other than to the party or country, and hence were looked down upon. They stayed human and did not become hardened inside. Orwell analyses the nature of absolute power in this book. It is not a means; it is an end. It is not merely an ability to control human bodies, but their minds too. How they do it is nicely described. The rationale for the privileged minority in the party top brass to keep the masses in poverty even though the technology can make every one of them wealthier is rather odd and brutal. Wealth brings in leisure and security which may turn the poor into thinking for themselves and who might conclude that the privileged has no function to perform. Indulging in continuous warfare with other states destroys the surplus produce and keeps everybody on scarcity of essential goods. Small privileges to some groups means a lot in such cases. The book claims that the philosophies that run in the three super states are barely distinguishable. Everywhere there is the same pyramidal structure. The super states cannot conquer each other, they remain in conflict and thereby prop each other up to keep the people in poverty.

1984 is not, as is usually believed, a scathing criticism of the communist system alone. It raised its voice against all kinds of authoritarian tendencies to intrude into the life of the people. It has some cadences tuned to what is called McCarthyism in the US. This book is a poignant reminder to the dangers inherent in hoisting a single party or group with unbridled powers onto the throne. This has added resonance to our technologically advanced societies. In the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. That is not so today with the ubiquity of mobile phones and its enhanced powers to eavesdrop and voyeurism. Doomed are the people who are fated to live under a regime that is keen on utilizing the surveillance potential of sophisticated technology. The conclusive chapter of the book on Newspeak — the language developed by the party for popular use — is informative but pointless.

The book is highly recommended.

 

Rating: 4 Star 

Musaliar King

Title: Musaliar King – Decolonial Historiography of Malabar’s Resistance
Author: Abbas Panakkal
Publisher: Bloomsbury, 2024 (First)
ISBN: 9789356409125
Pages: 280

The 1921 Malabar riots is a blood-stained chapter in Kerala history where a genuine agitation for independence from Britain unexpectedly changed track and hijacked by jihadi elements to kill, convert and rape Hindus en masse. A lot has been told about the episode and nothing more is intended as introduction to this book's review. Suffice it to say that hard-line Islamists still try to whitewash this Hindu genocide under the garb of 'freedom struggle', 'resistance to colonialism' and 'secular struggle' (citing the few Muslims who took sides with the British and were killed by the rioters). This book is one among them. This is especially alarming as the author is an academic faculty in an institution of higher learning in the UK. This book is a plain rebuttal of known facts in favour of a jihadi agenda to rewrite history according to them. It's no wonder that recently, the UAE significantly restricted government-funded scholarships for its citizens to study at UK universities, driven by concerns over Islamic radicalization and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on campuses. This book is about Ali Musaliar of Tirurangadi (1862–1922) who was a religious scholar and leader of the Khilafat movement who fought against the British and was arrested and hanged. He is said to have declared an Islamic state under his kingship when the countryside lay in his hands for a few days when the British power was temporarily stopped in its tracks. Abbas Panakkal is a historian affiliated with the School of History at the University of St. Andrews in the UK. Simultaneously, he holds a position on the advisory board at the Religious Life and Belief Centre at the University of Surrey. The author aims to provide a 'decolonial narrative' that represents the struggles of Malabar.

This book claims to rely on collective memory and oral narratives of those who witnessed the struggle, quite possibly that of the fighters themselves. How objective such a hotchpotch can get is anybody's guess. It's a totally one-sided perspective as it ejects colonial documentation and history as 'contrived', 'manipulative' and 'conferring legitimacy on British efforts'. In a stroke of breath-taking disingenuity, Panakkal discounts all of the British narrative and concludes that not even a word in them can be trusted! Not content with that, he then proceeds to denigrate the memoirs penned by Indians as well which do not agree with his narrative. He accuses them of adopting a linguistic style reminiscent of the colonial administration. This is because some of them use the term 'Moplah fanatics' which irritates the author. What else would you use to denote a crowd intent on achieving martyrdom by fighting for their religion, especially since the position of Hindus in 1921 Ernad-Valluvanad areas was akin to that of Yazidis in Iraq in the 2010s against the Islamic State terrorists? In the same vein, C. Gopalan Nair's memoir is accused of supporting the British line. K. Madhavan Nair's version is alleged to be fabricated by adding 'layers of intrigue'. M. Gangadhara Menon's narrative is 'ensconced within the colonial narrative'. What he finds agreeable are the accounts made by jihadi elements and Leftist Historians.

The book is very subdued in recollecting the violent incidents of the rebellion maybe because they are too stark to gloss over. Obfuscation begins the moment he sets the objectives of the riots. He claims that the instigators laid down their lives for the cause of their land. This itself is not factually correct. The agitation's casus belli was the dethronement of the Turkish sultan who was also the Islamic caliph. Hence the agitators laid down their lives to reinstall the deposed Ottoman sultan on his throne. On the British side, Panakkal practically exonerates the provincial and central governments and casts blame on Collector Thomas and district police chief Hitchcock who are said to be behind the provocation of the events. The author uses his 'decolonial analysis' to reach this conclusion which means that official narrative is negated as fabricated and lists out the opposite as true without any evidence, or even supporting fact. For example, one Vadakke Veettil Mammad, manager of Nilambur Kovilakam, was dismissed from service and his house raided on accusation of theft of a gun and Rs. 130. Author argues that this is not true and that the landlord — who was one of the richest landed magnates in the entire country — owed him thrice the claimed sum (p. 31). The preparations of the government in assembling men and material to counter a possible riot is portrayed as a pre-planned effort to cause mayhem. The District Magistrate (Thomas)'s expedition to Tirurangadi to apprehend Ali Musaliar and his associates is claimed to have marked a watershed moment that set in motion a comprehensive military intervention (p. 39). Thomas' report is alleged to have characterized 'common utilitarian knives employed for mundane purposes' as weapons of war made in a hurry. He also claims that the police fired without warning on unarmed peaceful protesters and killed 40 of them. Again, this appears as a falsehood as the crowd had attacked and killed two British officers. The author concludes his charges with the declaration that Thomas and Hitchcock exceeded their authority and used lethal force resulting in numerous fatalities. This was an active attempt to incite unrest which was a ploy to validate their earlier warning report (p. 50). This is representative of the tone of the book.

When the author opens up a little, his ultra-religious outlook exposes itself. Before any confrontations in which government troops were likely to be killed, the rioters exhorted the Muslim soldiers to leave the field for their own safety (p. 52). Even though the author denies it, Ali Musaliar is said to have assumed kingship of the 'liberated' areas when the forces temporarily retreated. But when they regrouped and hit back with full force, Musaliar meekly surrendered. Loot and pillage are justified in this book. Rioters looted homes which the author characterizes as 'seizing funds from landlords'. Participation of Hindu Congress leaders in the early part of the agitation is arrayed as certifying to the secular nature of the struggle. The sad truth is that as the jihadis took over and started rampaging, the others backed out of the endeavour. In Malabar, the military and the police responded with a harsh and punitive stance, resorting to violent measures resulting in fatalities. Conversely, within the provincial headquarters, a more conciliatory strategy was employed, avoiding confrontations that led to human casualties. The author accuses the British of not respecting the 'human rights' of the rioters. He does not pause to examine whether the assailants respected the human rights of those they captured. Also, judgments of tribunals are claimed to be 'dictatorial and lacking humanitarian considerations'.

A striking contrast is seen in the valiant spirit of the rank and file and the leaders. Ali Musaliar and Variamkunnath Kunjahmed Haji's abject surrender to the British was humiliating for his supporters as many of them had fought till death. If Musaliar and Haji had desired to save their own skin, they were painfully mistaken. Musaliar was tried and hanged in Coimbatore Prison while Haji was summarily shot! Panakkal presents a fantastic tale that a miracle had happened inside the prison. He claims that Musaliar prayed fervently to avoid gallows and passed away in deep prayer on the morning of his day of execution (p. 85). Despite this, the authorities hanged his dead body. This is the story told to the author by the Musaliar's grandson and this yarn is admitted at face value! This is the level of research in the book. Panakkal quotes from the diary of a poet in Vengara as evidence of Muslim women's empowerment and independence in 1921. They are said to have dabbled in business and wealth management. However, this is such an obviously fraudulent take on reality that readers won't be misled. A French magazine 'Sciences et Voyages' had published a photo of Ali Musaliar and two of his accomplices on the centenary of the rebellion. One of them was claimed to be Variamkunnath Haji by a section of social media, even though their names were not divulged by the magazine. This book completely debunks this claim. It also contains several false claims on religious harmony in statements such as 'many non-Muslims participated in a shared jihad' (p. 126), even though he admits that Khilafat was a 'pan-Islamist' political campaign (p. 126). Listing two prominent Muslims opposing Tipu, he concludes that support for Mysore stemmed from shared political objective, rather than religious affiliations.

Panakkal does not appear to be much comfortable with the Khilafat Movement itself, which he claims to have no resonance with Malabari Muslims. Instead, it was introduced in Malabar through the efforts of Gandhi who in turn was influenced by North Indian Muslims. However, in another part of the book, we read about Muslims in Malabar donating money directly to the Ottoman sultan for his war effort (p. 45). So it cannot be said that Malabar was not in thrall to the Ottomans. Besides, the book describes about Sayyid Fazal Pookoya Thangal ending up in the court of Istanbul after his transportation for life from Malabar. The author argues that the Khilafat issue became a tool for the British to instigate the non-Muslim's aversion to Muslims (p. 144). He does not explain why the non-Muslims should harbour an aversion to them. The British had instituted harsh legislations like the Mappila Outrages Act 1859 and the Malabar War Knives Act 1854 to quell sectarian violence to good measure. In spite of this, there was a channel of support among them to the colonial power. A military contingent called the 77th Moplah Rifles was part of the British army till its disbandment in 1907.

There is a section on resistance to colonial aggression played out by the Mappilas right from the arrival of the Portuguese. It recounts some noted Mappila outbreaks in the nineteenth century, but is insistent that only landlords and their supporters were killed and economic reasons are attributed to the atrocities. But the fact was that all of the killed landlords were Hindus. No Muslim landlord was killed anywhere by his Hindu tenants. Besides, the author denigrates the victims by accusing them to have 'a penchant for intoxication', 'domineering and abusive nature', 'usury' and 'land encroachment upon religious institutions' as if to create the impression that they deserved to get killed! British newspapers are castigated for spreading propaganda that the rioters coveted the 'virtue of eliminating idolators and thereby securing a distinct reward in afterlife'. Thanks to the burgeoning works of ex-Muslims in social media, we now know that this is not propaganda at all and the jihadis were only trying to live up to the tenets of their religion. Rape of women, forced conversions and desecration of temples are not colonial resistance. The Moplah Outrages Act 1854 levied substantial collective fines, seized the assets of those found culpable and deportation for life. These were harsh but very effective and the bulldozer tactics we read about in North India are emulating the spirit of these prescriptions. The assassination of Connolly, district collector, finds mention in the book. Connolly was an efficient administrator but fell foul of the Mappilas with his handling of violence with an iron hand. He orchestrated the banishment of Pookoya Thangal. Connolly was killed on an evening in his bungalow's portico when he was relaxing with his wife. He was hacked to pieces in front of her eyes. As a political assassination, this is not extraordinary, but the author romanticizes the incident stressing on the 'bravery' of the murderers describing about the settings of the scene as if it was a candle-lit dinner. It reminded me of the eulogization in jihadi Palestinian media of the terrorists who shot dead 11 Israeli athletes during 1972 Munich Olympics.

The book is written in a clumsy style with heavy academic jargon. After a few pages, you feel like being in a swamp with no other way than going forward wading through the muck. The book assumes that the readers are well familiar with the causes of the conflict. It does not explain what was the spark that ignited the Khilafat agitation but claims that it was a struggle against colonialism while in fact it was only a failed effort to resuscitate the Ottoman colonialism. The book is divided into two parts, the first being the visit of Gandhi to Malabar, the setting up of Khilafat committees and the events associated with it. The second deals with resistance to the Portuguese and British from 1498 to 1900s. The research methodology lacks academic rigour and one wonders how such a loosely organized piece of mostly unverified information passed through peer review. Acts of resistance and British atrocities were collected from the author's 'field study' which seems to be a euphemism for collecting hearsay and embellished legends. Panakkal collects reports on Mappila riots from newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, but provincial and nationalist newspapers in India are omitted entirely, probably because it does not suit or support his narrative. A passage in the book refers to the Governor of Madras as ‘Lord Wellington’ (p. 107) instead of Willingdon. These are two distinct statesmen separated by a century between their lifetimes and even a silly schoolboy is not expected to falter under confusion on their names. The book quotes Left historians such as Romila Thapar and K. N. Panikker to buttress his argument that Muslim invaders such as the Mughals or Tipu Sultan were interested only in material gain. It also includes several historical falsehoods and half-truths such as the British persuaded the Raja of Cochin to renounce allegiance to Tipu (p. 161). The fact is that Tipu extracted this offer of allegiance from the raja under extreme coercion.

This book is totally unappealing for an interesting read, serves only jihadi propaganda and fails to provide a fresh outlook on the riot and hence not recommended.

Rating: 1 Star