What is the definition of political sovereignty? Robespierre, “On Political Morality” of the French Revolution 1789 – 1799.

Political sovereignty refers to the highest level of absolute power through which independent states are controlled by a designated political authority.


In the speech “On Political Morality” delivered to the Convention on 5 February 1794, Robespierre offered a justification of the Terror. By this date, the Federalist revolt and Vendée uprisings had been by and large pacified and the threat of invasion by the Austrians, British, and Prussians had receded, yet Robespierre emphasized that only a combination of virtue (a commitment to republican ideals) and terror (coercion against those who failed to demonstrate such a commitment) could ensure the long–term salvation of the Republic, since it would always be faced with a crisis of secret enemies subverting it from within, even when its overt enemies had been subdued.






What does moral law have to do with getting rights for yourself? Find out here.

Gandhi on the partition of India and Pakistan. 1947

Satyagraha and fanaticism of the “open” kind, Tolerance. Tony Milligan, Author. ” Civil Disobedience: Protest, Justification and the Law.” 2013.


It is tempting to say that for satyagraha to occur, only the leadership and the specially trained satyagrahis were required by Gandhi to take steps towards the transformation of anger into love. But while love on the part of satyagrahis might be used to disarm and to help persuade political opponents by appealing to what is best in them, Gandhi made it clear that satyagraha, understood as the force of love or soul force, involved more than persuasion. It was not mere supplicatoin, not even polite supplication. “It is not a matter carrying conviction by argument. The matter resolves itself into one of matching forces.” Forces cannot be reduced to communication although an element of the latter might still be involved. Rather, satyagraha was supposed to cooperate with what was best in opponents in order to coerce what was worst. Effort was involved: “When love is bestowed on the so-called enemy, it is tested, it becomes a virture and requires an effort, and hence is an act of manliness and real bravery.” Here we may be uneasy about Gandhi’s echoing of Thoreau on the subject of manliness. Beyond being forceful and manly, satyagraha was nonetheless still civil in a variety of senses and for Gandhi this did mean that it had to be public: “Disobedience to be civil has to be open and non-violent.” Similarly, in another passage which speaks of civility: “The law-breaker breaks the law surreptitiously and tries to avoid the penalty; not so the civil resister.” This insistence upon open and the appeal to the good inside the immediately confronted political opponent, differs significantly from the more on-directional and not necessarily requited appeal. For Gandhi, something in political opponents had to answer to civility and love. This made the sacrifice of the satyagrahi, even the sacrifice of life, worthwhile. “He disobeys the ruler’s orders and his laws in a civil manner and willingly submits to the penalties of such disobedience, for instance imprisonment and gallows.” Stripped of a certain romantic appeal, this looks suspiciously like a conflation of political responsibility and fantaticsm. It is tempting when faced with passages like this to wonder if Gandhi was occasionally carried away by winged words. But it is difficulty to overlook the fact that many activists were killed duing the agitation for independence, even at the culmination of the otherwise peaceful Salt March, when suppporters were brutally clubbed and did not respond in anger. There was a match between the political rhetoric and real danger. Such a conceptionof the task that faced the truest of satyagrahis is also presupposed demandingness to the point of sacrificial leadership, a model which (again) is by no means alien to Christian modes of political thought. Perhaps we may be inclined to say that, even with its fanatical overtones, this was the right conception of protest for the time and for the circumstances in question. Perhaps we may even say that disparate mass movements, with all sorts of internal tensions and a varying record of success were, on several occasions during the twentieth century, united to an unusual degree by figures who, like Gandhi, appeared to stand head and shoulders above the fray while often,in point of fact, being prepared to take a stand on factional disputes. Here, I am thinking also of Martin Luther King and closer to our own time, Nelson Mandela. Their authority has stretched far beyond anything that is customarily associated with political leadership. It is the authority of political figures who are not to be regarded as mere politicians. Individuals of this standing who are not to be regarded as mere politicians. Individuals of this standing are often expected to comment in a deep way upon the human condition in addition to providing notes about political strategy. As an instance of such a politicized moral and spiritual leader, Gandhi may have denied any claims of personal sainthood, but his conception of the satyagrahi, at least on the strongest formulations of the later, was not so much an ordinary activist ideal but a model for saintly leadership, one that may perhaps occasionally be embodied by very few which may inspire but is nonetheless unlike to match up well with the more mixed psychological makeup of ground- level political activism.

Satyagraha and civilizational values. Amra Nuthon Juboneri dhuth. We are the ambassadors of a new world. Lyrics of Poet Rabindranath Tagore. Vocalist, Swagatalakshmi Dasgupta.

Aamra nuthon juboneri dhuuth, We are the new days beginnings, āmarā cañcala, āmarā odhbhuth. We are vibrant and amazing, Āmarā bēṛā bhāṅi, we can overcome all obstacles, āmarā aśōkabanēra we are the emperor’s courtiers rāṅā nēśāẏa rāṅi, that make him proud; making quietened storms his consort. Jhañjhāra bandhana chinna, We effortlessly dispose shackles karē di’i with the help of and for the help of others. Aamarā bidyuṯh. We are lightning, Āamarā kori bhul, that brings to life wrongdoers. Agādha jalē jhām̐pa diẏē, In deep water, we jump in head first, yujhiẏē pā’i kūla to search out new and old horizons. Yēkhānē ḍāka paṛē. Ready to serve wherever and whenever we are called to do so jibon moronn jhodhe.  In cases of life and death aamra prosthuth, we will serve forevermore.

What is an illiberal democracy? Satyagraha and reform. Truth can be an antidote.

“Illiberal democracy is a variant of liberal democracy, in which free elections establish legitimacy for authoritarian-leaning political elites. Elections provide a smokescreen for the erosion of civil liberties and constitutional protections associated with an expanding executive branch power. Under the cloak of majoritarianism, illiberal democracies institute a political agenda based upon rampant nationalism, isolationism, xenophobic propaganda and economic statism.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dani-rodrik/illiberal-democracies-on-the-rise_b_7302374.html.

Foundation of illiberalism??ancientjerusalempicture

Ancient Jerusalem.

Why persist against evil? To build the moral. Satyagraha and moral law.

God forgives what he does not allow. Therefore, an explanation of evil exists. Evil has never been able to chart a course of its own. As a consequence one’s morality should be a reflection of its daily practice, of atoning for evil in order to receive forgiveness from God.

Commentary, Daniel Boyarin. Professor of Rhetoric, UC Berkeley.

Blasphemy is the most subtle meditation on colonialism and European cultural imperialism that I know.


Does God allow crimes of passion. For example, blasphemy. From the book, Blasphemy. David Lawton, Author. Published in 1993.

Blasphemy has been a force in producing many forms of Western cultural identity. Blasphemy continues to influence our relations with other cultures, yet it is not so much an idea as a shifting rhetorical figure. It stands for whatever we deplore: we define the truths we uphold in terms of the blasphemies we attack. “Blasphemy is an orthodoxy’s way of demonizing difference,” writes Lawton. Blasphemy has been a force in producing many forms of Western cultural identity. Blasphemy continues to influence our relations with other cultures, yet it is not so much an idea as a shifting rhetorical figure. It stands for whatever we deplore: we define the truths we uphold in terms of the blasphemies we attack.