In Towards Electicism, Professor of Peace Studies Johan Galtung is less concerned with Sarkar's particular contributions and more with mapping Sarkar with other grand thinkers. He argues that macro-historians have shaped our entire way of conceiving of ourselves, in History. They have mapped us on trajectories with the most intriguing curve shapes even if the linear and the cyclical tend to dominate. Giants as they are, there is always the temptation to yield to any one of them, like people in occident (and not only there) have done to Smith and Marx. There is the temptation to adopt the biblical approach and see their main work as The Book as the book.
In his essay, Galtung does not take that approach, rather, he sees that there is much to be learned from all the macro-historians. And even more to be learned by seeing their works, not as the end of the story, but as the beginning of a dialogue between these great thinkers. Here Galtung extends their works by taking us on a journey of juxtaposition - positing what ten great macro-historian might have taught, and learnt from, each other. For, according to Galtung, 'greatness can be shared: there is much room at the top of Mt. Olympus.' [Source: Transcending Boundaries Edited by Dr. Sohail Inayatullah & Jennifer Fitzgerald]
|
"In economic life there is extreme inequality and exploitation. Although colonialism no longer exists openly in the political and economic sphere, still it persists indirectly, and this should not be tolerated... In this respect you should remember that in economic life, we will have to guarantee the minimum requirements of life to one and all... There cannot be any sort of adjustment as far as this point is concerned. The minimum purchasing requirement must be guaranteed to all. Today these fundamental essentialities are not being guaranteed. Rather, people are being guided by deceptive economic ideas like outdated Marxism, which has proven ineffective in practical life and has not been successfully implemented in any corner of the world. Why do people still believe in such a theory, which has never been proved successful? The time has come for people to make a proper assessment of whether they are being misguided or not." |
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |