c

?

 
?  

  


 


 




 
 


 




 

 

  

 


  

  





  
 


 







c






  
 
! "


 
  

 

 #
 



  




"
 


 

  



 
  


  
 

c




 


 "




    
 


 $

  


#
"
# 



 
    

  
  

c %
 








  
 


  
 
  #&

'


Ê

New Social Movements, Postmodernism, Gandhism and Ambedkarism

ðn recent years in ðndia, there has arisen a phenomenon described variously as the ³new
social movements´, ³anti-globalization movement´ or (self described as) ³people¶s
movements´. There are many groups in this category, many of them raucous, with
disagreements among themselves. However, they do have a substantial shared ideology.
The following are some shared characteristics.

1. They claim to represent the ³people´ ± the downtrodden ðndian masses, without,
however, subjecting this claim to the test of democratic elections.
2. They are against globalization, which, it is claimed, is bad for the ³people´,
though apparently not for the anti-globalizers themselves, who nurture elaborate
multinational networks of activists and supporters.
3. They claim to be fighting for oppressed groups such as Dalits and Adivasis.
However, the movement does not actually include any Dalits or Adivasis among
its leaders or ideologues.
4. They oppose the state as well as large corporations and large funding agencies
such as the World Bank. They also oppose large-scale projects. These are seen as
fundamentally exploitative of the ³people´.
5. They claim to be fighting for the protection of the environment, which, in their
view means minimizing any kind of substantial new technological intervention in
nature. Thus, they denounce nuclear power plants even though these produce far
less greenhouse gases than thermal power plants. Similarly, they denounce
genetically modified crops even though these have the potential to reduce the
need for irrigation and the need for chemical pesticides.
6. They criticize the mainstream industrialized, corporate West, though many of the
movements¶ leaders themselves maintain strong ties with the West.
7. They reject Enlightenment ideas of the universalism of science and reason as
Western hegemonic impositions. Rather, they claim to be in favor of diverse local
or indigenous traditional knowledge and belief systems and ways of organizing
society.
8. They reject universal indices of measuring development and progress such as
GDP, life expectancy, child mortality, literacy rate, etc. Rather, they argue in
favor of subjective and local yardsticks, such as ³happiness´, ³preserving the link
between people and the Earth/river/forest/God´, ³preserving the wholeness of
the community´, etc.
ð
 







Sometime in the 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment ushered in new ways of
thinking in Europe and America. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas
Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Voltaire sought to discard irrationality, superstition, and
inherited dogmas with reason, science and rationality, and believed that systematic
thinking should be applied to all spheres of human activity. Since then, many important
intellectuals ± Karl Marx for instance ± have accepted the basic values of the
Enlightenment. These values represent ³modernity´ and form the basis of the rationalist
scientific-technological outlook and the each-citizen-is-equal principles that lie at the
foundation of the Western democracies. Enlightenment ideas entered the ðndian
consciousness around the latter half of the 19th century. The Constitution of ðndia,
adopted in 1950, lies very much in the Enlightenment tradition.

ðn the last few decades, a new movement known as postmodernism has become
fashionable in intellectual circles, which denounces Enlightenment¶s claim to
universality. Postmodernists ± like Ashis Nandy, one of its leading ideologues ± hold
that acceptance of Enlightenment ideas by ðndians and other non-Westerners
represents a ³colonization of the mind´. They reject the idea that the spread of
rationality and scientific temper are emancipatory, and instead argue for the
preservation of ³local knowledge systems´ embedded in ³traditional cosmologies´,
religions, and traditional practices of agriculture, medicine, etc.

As far as ðndia is concerned, these postmodern ideas are not new ± they were espoused a
century ago by Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi, the father of the nation, can be viewed from
many different angles ± there is Gandhi the nationalist; there is Gandhi the politician;
there is Gandhi the prophet of non-violence; and then, there is the Gandhi of Œ

, the repudiator of modernity and Enlightenment values. ðt is this last anti-
modern Gandhi that postmodernists embrace.

Gandhi¶s rejection of modernity and Enlightenment values comes out most forcefully
in Œ
, a short book he wrote in 1909. ðn his essay



 , Lloyd
Rudolph characterizes Œ
 as the ³opening salvo of the postmodern era´. Here
are a few quotes from Œ
 that demonstrate Gandhi¶s complete antipathy
towards a modern rationalistic scientific-technological world view.
[on Western civilization] Let us first consider what state of things is described by the
word ³civilization´. ... Formerly, in Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by
manual labor. Now, one man can plough a vast tract by means of steam engines and can
thus amass great wealth. This is called a sign of civilization. Formerly, only a few men
wrote valuable books. Now, anybody writes and prints anything he likes and poisons
people¶s minds. ... This civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion. ... This
civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe who are in
it appear to be half mad. ... Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in
the streets or they slave away in factories. ... This civilization is such that one has only to
be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According to the teaching of Mahommed this
would be considered a Satanic Civilization. Hinduism calls it the Black Age.

[on the railways] The railways, too, have spread the bubonic plague. ... They are the
carriers of plague germs. Formerly we had natural segregation. ... Railways accentuate
the evil nature of man. Bad men fulfill their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy
places of ðndia have become unholy. Formerly, people went to these places with very
great difficulty. Generally, therefore, only the real devotees visited such places.
Nowadays rogues visit them in order to practice their roguery.

[on doctors] Doctors have almost unhinged us. Sometimes ð think that quacks are better
than highly qualified doctors«. The business of a doctor is to « rid the body of diseases
that may afflict it. How do these diseases arise? Surely by our negligence or indulgence. ð
overeat, ð have indigestion. ð go to a doctor, he gives me medicine, ð am cured. ð overeat
again, ð take his pills again. Had ð not taken the pills in the first instance, ð would have
suffered the punishments deserved by me and ð would not have overeaten again. The
doctor intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My body thereby certainly felt more
at ease; but my mind became weakened. A continuance of a course of medicine must,
therefore, result in loss of control over the mind. ... and the result is that we have
become deprived of self-control.
[on education] ðf we consider our civilization to be the highest, ð have regretfully to say
that much of the effort [for compulsory education] ... is of no use. «. To teach boys
reading, writing and arithmetic is called primary education. A peasant earns his bread
honestly. He has ordinary knowledge of the world. He knows fairly well how he should
behave towards his parents, his wife, his children and his fellow villagers. He
understands and observes the rules of morality. But he cannot write his own name.
What do you propose to do by giving him knowledge of letters? Will you add an inch to
his happiness? Do you wish to make him discontented with his cottage or his lot?
As Lloyd Rudolph has shown in



 , Gandhi¶s Œ
 world view
was never widely accepted either by Congress or by the Constituent Assembly of ðndia.
ðn 1945 Nehru wrote to Gandhi, ³it is many years since ð readŒ
 ... but even
when ð read it twenty years ago it seemed to me completely unreal´. He further
reminded Gandhi, ³... the Congress has never considered that picture (portrayed in Œ

) much less adopted it´. ðn those days it was the nationalist, non-violent,
humanist Gandhi who was admired and respected by Nehru and others ± not the
Gandhi of Œ
. However, things have changed in recent decades. According to
Rudolph, ³Gandhi¶s image and reputation in ðndia began to recuperate in the 1980s
when a postmodern Gandhi began to take shape. Books by Ashis Nandy and other
postmodernist scholars contributed to the turn-around. The critical and box office
success of Richard Attenborough¶s 1983 film 
 ... fed back to ðndia. .... A newly-
remembered Gandhi began to inspire and legitimize a burgeoning civil society of social
and political movements and not-for-profit, non-governmental and voluntary
organizations´.

According to postmodernist guru, Ashis Nandy, the Gandhi of Œ
 had

³decolonized his mind´, had freed himself from the ³intimate enemy´, and spoke from
³outside the imperium´. Here is a quote from Nandy approvingly describing the
connection between the Gandhi of Œ
 and the new social movements:
The third Gandhi is the Gandhi of the ragamuffins, eccentrics and the unpredictable.
This Gandhi is more hostile to Coca-Cola than to Scotch whisky and considers the local
versions of Coca-Cola more dangerous than imported ones. This is because his objection
to highly mechanized fast foods is structural and, therefore, he considers it more
dangerous if, on nationalist grounds, long-lasting, deep-rooted ðndian structures are
created to produce superfluous items of mass consumption within the ðndian economy.
... This Gandhi ± vintage Œ
 ± is also bit of a nag and a spoil-sport. He loves to
be a maverick and an oddity in our public life. ... ðt is this Gandhi who has guided the
notorious agitation of Medha Patkar against the Narmada dam, Claude Alvares against
Operation Flood, and Vandana Shiva against the Green Revolution. ... this Gandhi and
his young friends are a real nuisance to the ðndian State. « They are a menace to the
common sense that passes as sanity but can be actually called «the psychopathology of
everyday public life. (link)
Gail Omvedt, one of the most astute participants in this debate, has this to say:
The great values of the Enlightenment and the French revolution are today under attack
« not only in ðndia from advocates of pseudo-swadeshi who would see them as merely
³Western´ but also world-wide, from postmodernists and eco-romanticists who think
³progress´ is impossible and from Leftists who have taken ³liberalism´ and ³liberty´ as
bad words. « Eco-romanticism, taking its justification from Mahatma Gandhi, tends to
see history as heading into a downspin. « [They argue] that the French Revolution is
finished; its ideals cannot be extended to Dalits, women or other sections of the
marginalized in the world, and we must turn away from this vain effort to achieve
³growth´ to acceptance of a society based on limited needs, subsistence production, and
stasis. (link)



 


Other social movements that have come up in ðndia claiming to represent the
downtrodden have a very different ideology.

Mahatma Phule

Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, who belonged to the low Mali caste, was the leader of the anti-
Brahmin movement in Maharashtra from around the 1840s to 1880s. Phule was greatly
influenced by the works of Thomas Paine ± one of stalwarts of the Enlightenment. Phule
was so taken in by the Enlightenment philosophy of the American Founding Fathers,
and with the American slavery abolition movement, that he dedicated one of his books
to ³the good people of the United States´ (link). Today, Mahatma Phule is revered figure
in low caste movements all over ðndia.

Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker

E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, reverently called Periyar, was the founder and leader of the
anti-Brahmin movement in Tamil Nadu from the 1920s to the 1960s. His movement was
known as the 
 
 and he founded the social organization  
 . He fought against upper caste domination. Periyar¶s ideology was quite the
opposite of Œ
. Periyar was a rationalist and an atheist, and he ridiculed
Hindu rituals and superstitions. ðn contrast to Gandhi¶s conspicuous vegetarianism,
Periyar made it a point to eat large quantities of meat, including beef. Today, Periyar¶s
ideas still form an important part of Tamil social consciousness, and offshoots of
his   dominate the political scene in the state.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Bhimrao Ramji µBabasaheb¶Ambedkar was one of the greatest leaders that ðndia has
ever produced. Ambedkar and his ideas provide inspiration, dignity, and a practical way
forward for millions of the most oppressed people in ðndia.

Ambedkar was born in 1891 in an untouchable Mahar family in the Army cantonment of
Mhow. British Rule had given his family the chance to break out of their traditional
caste occupation. His father served in the ðndian Army. Coming from an Army
background, young Bhim got a rare opportunity to acquire a modern education. He was
one of the first untouchables to go through college. Then, he earned a scholarship for
higher studies in the United States. He eventually earned Doctorate degrees from
Columbia University in the U.S. and from the London Schools of Economics in England,
and was admitted to the London Bar as a barrister.

Ambedkar spent three years (1913 ± 1916) at Columbia University in New York City ±
three years that played a crucial role in his intellectual development. He later recounted
that it was at Columbia that he experienced social equality for the first time in his life,
and that ³the best friends ð have had in my life were some of my classmates at Columbia
and my great professors, John Dewey, James Shotwell, Edwin Seligman, and James
Harvey Robinson´ (link). Especially influential was John Dewey, of whom Ambedkar
reportedly remarked, ³ð owe my whole intellectual life to Prof. John Dewey´ (link).
Dewey¶s ideas were very much in the Enlightenment tradition. Ambedkar, like Dewey,
held that reason and scientific temper had the potential ± for all people everywhere ± to
challenge unexamined tradition and prejudices by cultivating a collective, democratic
³will to inquire, to examine, to discriminate, to draw conclusions only on the basis of
evidence after taking pains to gather all available evidence´ [Nanda].

ðn Dr. Ambedkar¶s view, an Enlightenment world view, emphasizing reason and a

scientific-technological outlook was fundamentally emancipatory in nature, since it
provided a means to challenge oppressive traditions and religious dogma. This was
diametrically opposed to Gandhi¶s Œ
  world view. A comparison below of how
the two understood the meaning of µcivilization¶ highlights the stark contrast between
them.
[Gandhi in Œ
] Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man
the path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms.
To observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we
know ourselves. The Gujarati equivalent for civilization means ³good conduct´. ðf this
definition be correct, then ðndia « has nothing to learn from anybody else« We notice
that the mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it wants, and still remains
unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions the more unbridled they become. Our
ancestors therefore set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a
mental condition. A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich or unhappy because
he is poor. .... Millions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors
dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have managed with the same kind of
plough as existed thousands of years ago. We have retained the same kind of cottages
that we had in former times and our indigenous education remains the same as before.
We have had no system of life-corroding competition. Each followed his own occupation
or trade and charged a regulation wage. (link)

[Ambedkar] ðn Gandhism, the common man has no hope. ðt treats man as an animal
and no more. ðt is true that man shares the constitution and functions of animals,
nutritive, reproductive, etc. But these are not distinctively human functions. The
distinctively human function is reason, the purpose of which is to enable man to
observe, meditate, cogitate, study and discover the beauties of the Universe and enrich
his life. « The conclusion that follows is that « the ultimate goal of man¶s existence is
not reached unless and until he has fully cultivated his mind. « How then can a life of
culture be made possible? ðt is not possible unless there is sufficient leisure. ... The
problem of all problems which human society has to face is how to provide leisure to
every individual. « Leisure means the lessening of the toil and effort necessary for
satisfying the physical wants of life. « Leisure is quite impossible unless some means
are found whereby the toil required for producing goods necessary to satisfy human
needs is lessened. What can lessen such toil? Only when machines take the place of
man. ... Machinery and modern civilization are thus indispensable for emancipating
man from leading the life of a brute, and for providing him with leisure and making a
life of culture possible. « A democratic society must assure a life of leisure and culture
to each one of its citizens. « The slogan of a democratic society must be machinery, and
more machinery, civilization and more civilization. Under Gandhism the common man
must keep on toiling ceaselessly for a pittance and remain a brute. ðn short, Gandhism
with its call of back to nature, means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty
and back to ignorance for the vast mass of the people. (link)
While Gandhi did fight against untouchability, he defended the 
 
  (the system of four 
 or castes and four   or stages of life),
insisting that untouchability was only an unfortunate corruption of an otherwise sound
system (towards the end of his life, Gandhi did make a few statements against the caste
system itself). Gandhi¶s approach towards untouchables was patronizing. As V.S.
Naipaul put it, they were ³Harijans, children of God, people for whom good things might
be done, objects of sentiment and a passing piety´. Ambedkar, on the other hand, called
for outright annihilation of the entire caste system, and called upon Dalits to stand up
for their rights as human beings. Ambedkar also rejected the Gandhian vision of an
idyllic   made up of peaceful and contended village communities. He
declared, ³The love of the intellectual ðndians for the village community is of course
infinite if not pathetic. ... What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance,
narrow mindedness, and communalism?´ [Jaffrelot]
ðn 1936, Ambedkar had declared, ³Unfortunately for me ð was born a Hindu
untouchable. ðt was beyond my power to prevent that, but ð declare that it is within my
power to refuse to live under ignoble and humiliating conditions. ð solemnly assure you
that ð will not die a Hindu´ [Jaffrelot]. ðn 1956, he led a mass conversion of Dalits into
Buddhism. Ambedkar, however, did not just ask Dalits to convert to one of the existing
schools of Buddhism (Mahayana, Hinayana, etc.), rather he launched a new school of
Buddhism, which some have labeled µNavayana¶ ± literally the µnew vehicle¶. Ambedkar
set forth his Navayana Buddhism in the book c
Π  (link), in
which he laid great stress on encouraging a rational scientific-technological world view,
as these following quotes demonstrate.

Belief in the supernatural is not Dhamma. [The Buddha¶s] first object was to lead man to
the path of rationalism. « Buddhism is nothing if not rationalism. That is why worship
of the supernatural is not Dhamma. [c
Π Book 3 Part 4]

Belief in ðshwara (God) is not essentially part of Dhamma. [Book 3 Part 4]

Belief in the infallibility of books of is not Dhamma. [Book 3 Part 4]

Dhamma to be Saddhamma must promote equality between man and man. [Book 3 Part
5]

Now what is Dhamma? and why is Dhamma necessary? According to the Buddha,
Dhamma consists of Prajna and Karuna. What is Prajna? And why Prajna? Prajna is
understanding. The Buddha made Prajna one of the two corner-stones of His Dhamma
because he did not wish to leave any room for superstition. What is Karuna? And why
Karuna? Karuna is love. Because without it, Society can neither live nor grow; that is
why the Buddha made it the second corner-stone of His Dhamma. [Book 4 Part 1]

ðf there is anything which could be said with confidence it is: He was nothing if not
rational, if not logical. Anything therefore which is rational and logical, other things
being equal, may be taken to be the word of the Buddha. [Book 4 Part 2]
ðt is important to note that Dr. Ambedkar did not disdain all tradition. Rather, he chose
to selectively promote those traditions that provide support for rationalism and
scientific temper. He said, ³my social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three
words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one however say that ð have borrowed my
philosophy from the French Revolution. ð have not. My philosophy has its roots in
religion and not in political science. ð have derived them from the teachings of my
master, the Buddha.´ The day before his conversion, Ambedkar underlined his
connection to ðndian tradition, ³Buddhism is part and parcel of Bharatiya culture. ð have
taken care that my conversion will not harm the tradition of the culture and history of
this land.´ [Jaffrelot]












Today, Dalits display a great deal of enthusiasm for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and his
ideas. Ambedkar statues and portraits ± usually depicting him in a Western suit and tie
± are proudly displayed wherever Dalits live. Following in Ambedkar¶s footsteps, Dalits
generally do not seem to share the postmodernists¶ aversion towards modernity and the
West. Consider, for example, the Dalit Goddess called µEnglish¶, inpired by the Statue of
Liberty, unveiled recently by Ambedkarite Dalit columnist Chandrabhan Prasad (see a
portrait of Goddess English here and Prasad¶s interview here). ðn view of this, it seems
to me that civil society groups, NGOs, etc., who claim to be championing the cause of the
downtrodden, should at least take a serious look at Ambedkar¶s ideas emphasizing
rationality and modernity, rather than blindly follow Gandhian traditionalism and
postmodernism. Civil society groups have the potential to play a very positive role in
ðndia. Unfortunately, ð fear that this potential might largely remain unrealized due to
the current tendency of many of these groups to reject modernity and a scientific-
technological world view.

Another very serious problem with the postmodernist ideology is that it provides
ideological support not only to the new social movements but also to the corrosive and
intolerant extremist Hindutva and pseudo-Swadeshi movements. As Meera Nanda has
shown, the extreme Hindutva ideology (equating astrology with science, for instance) is
a close ideological cousin of postmodernism and Gandhian traditionalism (link). ð have
not elaborated on this here, but this is a topic worthy of a whole new discussion.

Having said all this, ð do have some points of agreement with the new social movements.

On the Environment

One concern raised by the new social movements that ð agree with is the need to protect
the environment. However ð do not agree with them that the solution lies in abandoning
the entire concept of development, and moving towards a Gandhian-inspired traditional
society with limited needs and subsistence production, populated by contented and
unambitious people. My concept of development is completely different. To me, the
fundamental idea of development means unlocking human potential. This process of
unlocking human potential does involve some use of natural resources, but over-
exploitation of natural recourses is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
development. ðt should be possible, through human ingenuity and technological
advancement, to have development without over-exploitation of natural resources.

On ðnequality

Another concern raised by the new social movements is the very high degree of
inequality in ðndian society. ð do agree with them that this is a very serious problem.
However, ð do not agree that the solution lies in being anti-modern, anti-
industrialization, anti-economic-growth, anti-Westernization, etc. ðf there there¶s
anything worse than the inequality that exists in the modern industrialized part of ðndia,
it is the inequality that exists in traditional caste-ridden feudal ðndia. For instance, it is
estimated that there are more than 10 million bonded labourers (slaves) in ðndia today
(link). ðn other words, at least one out of every 100 ðndians is a slave. However, one
finds that slavery, perhaps the worst imaginable form of inequality, is most rampant in
ðndia in those occupations and communities that are almost totally untouched by
modernity or industrialization or Westernization. True, ðndia¶s fast growing information
technology sector benefits only a small section of the highly educated, upper-caste,
upper-class population of ðndia. Clearly, economic growth must be made much more
inclusive. One thing that ð think should be done is to introduce some sort of meaningful
affirmative action program (maybe reservations, maybe some alternative) in the private
corporate sector ± the most dynamic part of the ðndian economy. ð also feel it is
important is to encourage the manufacturing sector, which has the potential to provide
decent-paying jobs to large numbers of less highly educated people. For this, the
government must invest in physical infrastructure ± power plants, roads, ports, etc.
Every effort must also be made to increase agricultural productivity through technology
such as genetically modified seeds, etc. For the long term, the government must invest
heavily in universal quality primary education and in basic health care.