你相信拉姆·塞图吗?亚当之桥,认知多元化和殖民遗产

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY Island Studies Journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.24043/isj.405
A. Chatterjee
{"title":"你相信拉姆·塞图吗?亚当之桥,认知多元化和殖民遗产","authors":"A. Chatterjee","doi":"10.24043/isj.405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, whose construction was halted by a 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court of India due to religious sensitivity, has become a domestic and international strategic flashpoint. The religious and epistemic conundrum around the Sethusamudram project and Adam’s Bridge is a colonial-era legacy. Without understanding how the British colonial state saw Adam’s Bridge, we may wrongly infer that today’s Indian nationalist assertions of its sacrality necessarily stem from an anticolonial praxis to restore a politics of enchantment within Indian modernity. The British colonial state adopted epistemes or modes of knowing Adam’s Bridge that were ostensibly compatible with pre-Western forms of enchantment. This is particularly important considering that nationalist voices, largely represented by the right-wing BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and the Sangh Parivar in general, and liberal voices representing the Congress (Indian National Congress), or regional political voices such the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) and AIADMK (All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam), have dated the origins of the proposed Sethusamudram project to the colonial era, erroneously prolonging the implication that the British government aided plans of demolishing Adam’s Bridge.","PeriodicalId":51674,"journal":{"name":"Island Studies Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"1 Do you believe in Ram Setu? Adam’s Bridge, epistemic plurality and colonial legacy\",\"authors\":\"A. Chatterjee\",\"doi\":\"10.24043/isj.405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, whose construction was halted by a 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court of India due to religious sensitivity, has become a domestic and international strategic flashpoint. The religious and epistemic conundrum around the Sethusamudram project and Adam’s Bridge is a colonial-era legacy. Without understanding how the British colonial state saw Adam’s Bridge, we may wrongly infer that today’s Indian nationalist assertions of its sacrality necessarily stem from an anticolonial praxis to restore a politics of enchantment within Indian modernity. The British colonial state adopted epistemes or modes of knowing Adam’s Bridge that were ostensibly compatible with pre-Western forms of enchantment. This is particularly important considering that nationalist voices, largely represented by the right-wing BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and the Sangh Parivar in general, and liberal voices representing the Congress (Indian National Congress), or regional political voices such the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) and AIADMK (All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam), have dated the origins of the proposed Sethusamudram project to the colonial era, erroneously prolonging the implication that the British government aided plans of demolishing Adam’s Bridge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Island Studies Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Island Studies Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.405\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Island Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.405","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Sethusamudram航运运河项目,由于宗教敏感性,2013年印度最高法院的判决暂停了该项目的建设,已成为国内和国际的战略引爆点。围绕Sethusamudram工程和亚当桥的宗教和认知难题是殖民时代的遗产。在不了解英国殖民国家如何看待亚当桥的情况下,我们可能会错误地推断,今天印度民族主义者对亚当桥的神圣性的断言,必然源于反殖民主义的实践,目的是在印度现代性中恢复一种迷人的政治。英国殖民国家采用了认识亚当桥的知识或模式,表面上与前西方的魔法形式相容。考虑到民族主义的声音,主要以右翼的印度人民党(Bharatiya Janata Party), RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)和Sangh Parivar为代表,以及代表国大党(印度国民大会党)的自由主义声音,或区域政治声音,如DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)和AIADMK(全印度Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam),这一点尤其重要,他们将Sethusamudram项目的起源追溯到殖民时代。错误地延长了英国政府援助拆除亚当桥计划的暗示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1 Do you believe in Ram Setu? Adam’s Bridge, epistemic plurality and colonial legacy
The Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, whose construction was halted by a 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court of India due to religious sensitivity, has become a domestic and international strategic flashpoint. The religious and epistemic conundrum around the Sethusamudram project and Adam’s Bridge is a colonial-era legacy. Without understanding how the British colonial state saw Adam’s Bridge, we may wrongly infer that today’s Indian nationalist assertions of its sacrality necessarily stem from an anticolonial praxis to restore a politics of enchantment within Indian modernity. The British colonial state adopted epistemes or modes of knowing Adam’s Bridge that were ostensibly compatible with pre-Western forms of enchantment. This is particularly important considering that nationalist voices, largely represented by the right-wing BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and the Sangh Parivar in general, and liberal voices representing the Congress (Indian National Congress), or regional political voices such the DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) and AIADMK (All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam), have dated the origins of the proposed Sethusamudram project to the colonial era, erroneously prolonging the implication that the British government aided plans of demolishing Adam’s Bridge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
26.70%
发文量
29
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Distant Country, Paradise, Wilderness, or Mysterious World: The Changing Image of the South Sea (Nan’yō) Islands in Japanese Science Fiction Risk Perception of Small Islands Community on Climate Change: Evidence From Mepar and Baran Islands, Indonesia Island, Identity, and Trauma: The Three Ecologies of Wu Ming-Yi’s ‘The Man With the Compound Eyes’ Islanders Come Back to the Mainland: Social Identity in the People of Jeju in Mainland Korea ‘Made in Airbnb’: Sense of Localness in Neolocalism: Tourism Dynamics on Heimaey, Iceland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1