I’ve never liked that idea. In fact I find it kind of offensive … "I, Me, Mine, Victorious!" … like a seductive and addictive drug.
I came across a 90s-style website earlier today: "The Svaraj Foundation"
On another level, the call for swaraj represents a genuine attempt to regain control of the ‘self’ – our self-respect, self-responsibility, and capacities for self-realization – from institutions of dehumanization. As Gandhi states, "It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves." The real goal of the freedom struggle was not only to secure political azadi (independence) from Britain, but rather to gain true swaraj (liberation and self-rule).
In contrast with personal sovereignty I’d offer up something I drew from my reading of Sun Tzu’s "Art of War". (I recommend the Shambhala edition most highly. While in Halifax I did a series of workshops with the translating committee … it’s a wonderful work.) What I came away with is a sense that we each of us must strive to be as though our own "sage general".
Tact and diplomacy … but with a sense of strategy, rather than mere opportunistic tactic; an over-arching sense of commonwealth that must in-form one’s self-interest and make it inclusive.
Pondering the Mumbai attacks … I can conceive of that as the acts of deranged individuals with an unfortunate knack for co-ordination.
But thinking more globally, more historically … the Raj in India, or the over-throw of Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile … I’m reminded of how this all became pithy to me when only a child: it isn’t the bullies who do the damage because alone they would dare not act at all, for they are at base cowardly. Those who find “pragmatic reasons” to play along, it’s they who lash out against those who don’t, those who manifest more autonomy and more integrity.
We are individuals who are socially situated, ignore that as we might. And we are called to act as “sage generals”, whether we respond to that call or not.
just a thot
Yes, Ben, That makes complete sense: "they who lash out against those who don't." It urges my thoughts around it now. I love the expression "sage generals". Yet, setting aside the negative meaning of "selfishness" you named that can be associated with "sovereignty", I also like the word -because, for those who never dare the sage general", a gentle personal sovereignty can often save a life, or awaken an inner identity which was afflicted. For those who have been abused, it is a vital word to use. I would say, the shadow side of any sovereignty, or sage general is the only worry…those who act with arrogant rage or "derangement", to borrow your word. I have called such abasement against life "nihilistic"-because it terrorizes the sovereignty of life-… Bright blessings, Rebekah
I think there might be some confusion here … a confound about selfishness and sovereignty? Because, while I said the latter "offended" me (I can't think how it can be used to benefit) I didn't use the former at all.
The number of times you use "sovereignty" … you write "I also like the word" … I apologize if what I wrote lead to some confusion; I certainly don't like the word … far from it … I find it heh lacking all facticity.
Stepping aside for a moment … in what way is anyone ever sovereign?
I just don't see anything like that sort of in-dependence. Never have … can't think I ever will.
Any general who thinks himself in some way sovereign has fallen victim to megalomania.