Study Questions to Help Review for the Final

Gandhi
What is swaraj? Is there only one definition of swaraj?

In the list of study questions provided, this pair of questions is accompanied by the page numbers 29-29, which are part of the chapter entitled "What is Swaraj?". A passage on page 29, written/spoken from the Editor's (Gandhi's) point of view, reads:

"There is need for patience. My views will develop of themselves in the course of this discourse. It is difficult for me to understand the true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. I shall, therefore, for the time being, content myself with endeavouring to show that what you call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj."

From what the Editor says, you can tell that there is no single definition of swaraj. The chapter, instead of answering the question directly, gives a debate in which the Editor critiques typical assumptions of what swaraj is. The reader wants to drive away the English immediately; Gandhi does not agree that this is the most effective solution, especially if the Indian people intend to maintain the English institutions or "ways" for themselves, which is where Gandhi believes the real problem lies.

One way to start finding out what swaraj means is by taking apart its etymology.

Swa = "self" (Gandhi translates it into "home.")
Raj = "rule"

Go to the lecture notes posted on the Hum Core main website to see how Professor Chaturvedi "mixes and matches" with the etymology of swaraj: https://eee.uci.edu/programs/humcore/Student/Spring2008/LectureNotes/LNWk4-1_GandhiLecture1_S08.htm

Savarkar
What is Savarkar’s problem with Indian historians?

On page 206 of the Humanities Core Reader, Savarkar explains that he wants accounts of the revolution to be "written in a scientific spirit." He claims that it has never been done this way "by any author, Indian or foreign." According to Savarkar, Indian writers tend to follow the opinion of English historians. He writes, "An Indian writer drawing inspiration from English history and English money says, "Foolish people went mad simply at the rumour that cartridges were greased with cows' and pigs' fat as to whether the report was true? One mad said and another believed; because the second became disaffected, a third joined him, and so like a procession of blind men, a company of inconsiderate fools arose, and rebellion broke out." To Savarkar, this kind of thinking is terribly inaccurate as well as an insult. He does not believe that the revolution was an accident, certainly not a blind one. It was carried out with a noble purpose. Elsewhere he writes, "Is it possible, can any sane man maintain, that that all-embracing Revolution could have taken place without a principle to move it?"

Consider/interpret further these passages/quotes above (found on pages 206-207) if this question is asked on the final. The important thing is to figure out clearly what it is that Savarkar wants from accounts of the revolution, so you can more easily deduct why he is disappointed with both Indian and English historians.

Simpson
Why is “FDJ punk” an insult?

Go to page 256 of the Humanities Core Course reader to help answer this question.