Indian Political Thought 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Indian Political Thought 2 PDF

Description

Graduate Course

Paper-XIV : Indian Political Thought-II Contents Pg. No. Unit-1 : Introduction to Modern Indian Political Thought

Dr. Nishant Kumar/ Narayan Roy

01

Anju

13

Dr. Smita Agarwal

27

Anju

37

Manish Kumar

51

Dr. Nishant Kumar

62

Unit-7 : Tagore critique of Nationalism

Nitesh Rai

76

Unit-8 : Muhammed Iqbal: Community

Dr. Prashant Barthwal/Dharmendra Kumar

87

Unit-2 : Raja Rammohan Roy: Rigths Unit-3 : Pandita Ramabai Unit-4 : Vivekananda: Ideal Society Unit-5 : Gandhi: Swaraj Unit-6 : B. R. Ambedkar

Unit-9 : Nationalism of V.D. Savarkar Unit-10 : Nehru: Secularism

Sheshmanee Sahu 100 Dr. Deepika 112

Unit-11 : Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Edited by: Dr. Mangal Deo Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007

Dr. Nishant Yadav 123

Unit-1

Introduction to Modern Indian Political Thought Dr. Nishant Kumar/Narayan Roy Structure  Introduction  What is ‘Modern’ in Modern Political Thought  Indian and Western political thought compared  Context of Emergence of Modern Indian Political Thought  Major Themes of Modern Indian Political Thought  Significance of studying modern Indian thinker  Conclusion  Practise Questions  Suggested Readings Introduction Few decades ago, the word philosophy was considered synonymous with Western Philosophy. It reflected philosophical writings having a very structured and argumentative form which emerged in the west, beginning from Ancient Greece. Overtime it was claimed that this understanding reflected ‘Eurocentrism’ and hence only partial understanding of human intellectual evolution. On the contrary, it was argued that wherever human beings have lived, they have reflected and interacted on the questions related to the existence of human life and goal of human life, questions like what is ideal nature of the society, what is ideal way to govern a society, what is to be considered as just and unjust etc. Thus, it was held that philosophical thinking began centuries ago and that it did was not a monopoly of any particular region or way of thinking. However, it was equally true that the mode of expression evolved overtime and it was not the same as in ancient times. In India, we can easily find the roots of political philosophy in the works like Mahabharata, Manusmriti, Kautilya’s Arthasastra. This trend of philosophy continued for many centuries, but with the arrival of British as colonial power it took a new turn. Indian thinker of that time came in touch with the western ideas and philosophy, which impacted their ideas, their thinking and thought process. Due to significant impact of Western political tradition, a new and modern trend emerged in Indian political philosophy during 19th and 20th century. This new trend went in two directions, some thinkers of that time accepted the logic and validity of the western ideas and we can easily see western essence in their writings and speeches. On the other hand, many other modern Indian thinkers traced the roots of these new 1

introduced western ideas like liberty, equality, social harmony and created the map of India’s future on basis of traditional knowledge that was embedded in ancient Indian Granth and Upanishadas. Indian thinkers of the period like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, M.N. Roy, Rabindranath Tagore, Aurobindo Ghosh, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Pt. Nehru, either through their writings or speech or both, tried to bring reforms in traditions and related customs and beliefs those were considered inhumane and threat to the project of creating modern India. Simultaneously, they also tried to give an Indian face to western ideas and proposed ideals and framework of India’s future political system, like Nehru did in Discovery of India and Gandhi in India of My Dreams. There were many aspects in this approach that was different from both Ancient philosophy as well as Modern Western Philosophy. What is ‘Modern’ in Modern Political Thought The word ‘Modern’ in Modern Indian Political Thought does not reflect an epistemological meaning as it generally does. In western lexicon, ‘Modern’ knowledge corresponds to a particular meaning, where modernity was seen as a gift of scientific and enlightenment-based movements. Knowledge in this framework was considered to be meaningful only if it conformed to the epistemology of science, that is if you want to claim something as knowledge it should be have emerged from the process of observation, experimentation and confirmation. This Modern epistemic frame of knowledge became the base of differentiation between Classical and Modern Western political thought, which also reflected a rejection and replacement of the classical. However, the same might not be true about Indian Political Thought. Actually, the word ‘Modern’ in Modern Indian Political Thought represents the time, the time of India’s struggle for its independence. During this period of time certain set of ideas were produced by our leaders those were leading the struggle. These leaders crossed the constructed boundaries of thought and produced new ideas about many political subjects like state, freedom, equality, social justice, ideal system of governance suitable for India and many more. On one hand, these leaders challenged the dominant perspective of the west by constructing or producing such new ideas and on the other hand they, by using their capability of leadership, made these new ideas like social justice, freedom, equality, fraternity popular among masses. These new perspectives which challenged the western ideas, together, constitutes what we call Modern Indian Political Thought. Thus, it can be said that the origin of modern Indian political thought lies in the responses of Indian intellectuals to the processes of colonization and modernization of their society under British rule, which can be understood as a response to colonial modernity. Indian and Western Political Thought Compared To have a clear understanding of modern Indian political thought, we need to have knowledge about the differences between Indian and Western political thought. However, 2

before entering this discourse we also need to understand what is ‘western’? Generally, the word is used in India to denote anything that belongs to Europe or America. But the problem with such generalized use is that it assumes that there is some homogeneity in the sociocultural patterns of these societies. But it is not so. If we take the example of advent of modernity and the rise of enlightenment movement in these societies, we find that even within Europe, different societies were responding to it differently. For example, the English Enlightenment was very different from Scottish Enlightenment or French Enlightenment movements and had differing repercussions on these societies. Also, the social values celebrated in American society is much different than in England. So, there is no homogeneity in the socio-cultural pattern exhibited by these societies. Yet, for a long time in India the use of ‘west’ as a homogenous category has not only become a common parlance but also gained popularity. During colonialism, the use of this category also helped in the process of ‘self-identification’. By treating west as a homogenous category, the nationalists tried to project it in binary terms to what was Eastern or Indian in particular. As most of the colonizing forces belonged to west (Europe in particular like France, Portugal, Spain and Britain etc.), this categorization easily found buyers in different colonized societies. The categorization helped the nationalists to claim a self-identity for nation in socio-cultural way by claiming that it represented what was right and good against the ‘west’ that represented all that was negative and often against the values celebrated by East. West therefore became the obvious ‘other’ which was used to assert the self-identity and difference of Indian nation and its culture. Now let us see in what broad ways is the Modern Indian Political Thought different from Western Political thought. 1. As we have discussed earlier, the word ‘modern’ in west was used to show epistemological difference between new and previous knowledges. On the basis of this new modern framework of knowledge, western thinkers and intellectuals, established the hegemony of the knowledge system developed primarily in the post enlightenment period with an emphasis on scientific methodology. The dominance of this methodology was so regressive that it branded any idea developed at other places as outdated and worthy of rejection if it did not conform to their standards. Under colonialism, the intellectuals from west, including many Indologists, did the same with Indian knowledge systems. On the contrary, modern Indian intellectual system unapologetically used the resources which were primarily indigenous to develop their philosophy. So, the idea of rejection or refutation was not the focus, rather they focussed on revisiting the ancient tradition and rebuilding it to suit the changed context. A great of example of this is philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, which formed the basis of political philosophy of many modern Indian thinkers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Aurobindo Gosh, and Tagore. Similarly, Samakhya philosophy had deep influence on the political philosophy of Bankimchandra. 2. Second difference between Indian and western political thought lies in their evolution process, which had impacted the nature of both. Evolution process of western philosophy is linear, which started with Reformation (movement in which established 3

western doctrines were rediscovered during the age 16th century in west) followed by Renaissance (the transitional era in Western history during which medieval times metamorphosed into the modern era), Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. The Indian tradition of thought, the evolution happened by dialogue and interaction among many different traditions and cultures. In modern Indian political ideas, we can easily find impacts of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. at the same time, traces of western modernity were carried by its colonizers and the process of colonialism itself became an important site of contestations and reformulations within Indian philosophy. 3. Another difference between Indian and western Tradition of political thought is based on how they see individual as a being. In western tradition, there is Mind-Body Duality, where mind denotes thinking or rational capacity of individual and body denotes the physical being and its material experiences. This duality is reflected most prominently in the Cartesian system of Descartes, which forms the framework of dominant form of thinking in the west. In Indian tradition of philosophy, the understanding of this relation was quite different. Indian thinker believed that there are three aspects of individual: mind (thinking faculty of individual), body (physical being of individual) and soul (Atman) and the relation between all the three aspects of individual was believed to be based on autonomous interaction. Also, the emphasis on atman as the true self was unique to Indian form of thinking. 4. In modern western thought, the idea of rights is central, whereas in Indian modern political thought we see the paradox of rights vs duty as central to the discourse. The centrality of rights in western discourse was based on an atomistic or at least an autonomous understanding of individual derived from an understanding the individuals are rational and the best judges of their good and bad and hence should be free in their choices. In India, since the ancient times idea of dharma has been an essential part of social system. Here the word dharma is not equivalent to the word religion. Dharma denotes the meaning of duty, a duty which one have to full fill toward other being and society. This idea of dharma emanates from a communitarian or at least a collective vision of individual, where individual is seen as integrally attached to others in society and its existence is never atomistic in nature. The idea of samaj and samudaya among many others, constantly reflect such understanding. Gandhi’s vision of oceanic circle is an explicit example in this regard. Context of Emergence of Modern Indian Political Thought Earlier we discussed that it is the context which distinguishes modern Indian political thought from ancient politico-social ideas, thus the need arises to understand the context in which it emerged. In this reference, we need to understand: (a) impact of colonialism on Indian minds; (b) the response of Indians towards orientalist construction of idea of India and (c) debate regarding continuing tradition or breaking ties from the past.

4

Colonialism and its impact on Indian minds: Almost all the thinkers, those are categorised as modern Indian thinker, synthesised and produced their ideas during the colonial period of India. It is well known fact that British rule used education as means to achieve its end of creating a class (of Indian people) which physically appeared to be Indian but mentally which was in sync with colonial powers. Britisher tried to colonize the Indian minds, by implementing the western English education model based on western ideals and thought. A popular example of it is Macaulay minutes 1835 which sought to establish the need to impart English education system to Indian natives. The cultural dominance asserted by the colonizers was largely successful in creating self-doubt in the minds of Indians many of whom became sceptic about the relevance of their cultural and social aspects. The constant criticism and name calling of the cultural practices, branding them as barbaric had a deep influence on Indian psyche. However, it is equally true that the same process of colonialism that became the reason for humiliation became the source for preparing a counter attack. The education which was aimed to cement colonial cultural dominance, became the weapon to challenge and threaten the dominance of the colonizers in their own turf. Indians became more aware of concepts like liberty, rights, equality and used it as trope to expose the dubiousness of British rule in India. They realized how, on one hand, the western ideas talk about liberty and right of individual but on other hand, they are abstaining native Indians from exercising these rights. One way of understanding this dilemma and the native response has been theorized by Partha Chatterjee who uses the binary of ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ conflict among the nationalist visualization. Chatterjee argues that in response to colonial modernity, the nationalists on the one hand were ready to accept and negotiate on subjects that concerned public/outer/political sphere, as in the case of rights and political representation. But at the same time on subjects concerning inner sphere like spiritual or cultural aspects they were not ready to compromise with the values and principles that were central to their identity. This is reflected in the protests against the reform bills like Age of Consent Bill among others. Response against colonial efforts to colonize Indian minds had several dimensions. Indians were not static or passive beings waiting to be moulded according to the British wish. Colonial modernity had the most pressing influence and as the attack on Indian identity continued the natives responded in different ways. Their response can be broadly categorized as one of the following: submission, reform, or revivalism. Submission: Submission in relation to the impact of colonial modernity meant that many Indians of that time accepted the appeal of western modern ideas. They became cynical about the social values and cultural practices of India and believed that the only way to change things was through adoption of what the west had on offer. They believed that ideas of west (like separation of power, constitutionalism, etc.) and western scientific education can be of more importance in building new India. Thinkers of this category favoured imitative reproduction of knowledge and worked aggressively for its adoption and replacement of socio-cultural practices that were contrary to this ideation. 5

Reform: The difference between submission and reform was that, under submission claims of western supremacy was accepted uncritically, but in contrary to this, reformist Indian thinker opted to do Indianization of the western ideas, by combining them with native ideas. Thinkers of this category, avoided narrow approach of studying ideas by creating binaries like indigenous and foreign, modern and tradition, and opted for method of dialogue between tradition and modern, indigenous and western. Thinkers like Rajaram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda, Gandhi and many others had accepted the importance of wester ideas, but they defined these ideas from a new lens. This new perspective can be seen if we see how our leaders defined secularism, nationalism, and the role of state. Western criticism was used as a mirror to root out elements within our culture and society that were considered negative and thereby introducing incremental changes to root it out. Revival: Against oriental construction of idea of India, some Indian intellectuals responded by focusing on revival of Indian native ideas and knowledge. Such a take was taken by K C Bhattacharya, when he argued about establishing Swaraj in Ideas, a cognitive independence from western ideas. Thinkers of this category were focused on redefining the knowledge and ideas presented in Upnishadas and Ancient texts. Another explicit example of this was the approach of Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati whereby he gave the call of going back to Vedas. They tried to show how these ideas, which are tagged as tradition by West, are relevant in modern times and needed to be revived in its pure form. It also included an uncritical and unapologetic glorification of India’s past. One other thing that we need to understand is the debate about question of continuity of tradition or break from past. In ideas of many thinkers like Ambedkar, Nehru, Lohia we can see a kind of substantial break from the tradition or Indian past. In modern new context these thinkers produced such ideas in which we can see a departure from medieval and ancient tradition of Indian political thought. Whereas in the works of thinkers like Aurobindo Ghosh, Rabindranath Tagore and also Gandhi, we can explicitly see the continuity of tradition. Some political thought experts have argued that neither the conception of continuity nor the conception of break from tradition is completely true about Indian political thought, rather the evolution of modern Indian political thought follows pattern of continuity with change. Major Themes of Modern Indian Political Thought As we all know, Britishers with them brought a system of colonialism, under which there only goal was to have political control over India and to uses its resources for the growth and prosperity of Britain. Many years after, as time passed, many of our people came to realize this harsh truth. They started struggle for their right to have a dignified life. Initially, during the period of colonization of India, Britishers limited themselves to economic and political sphere, but later on they also started bringing western culture in Indian society, through education and other means. To achieve this objective, they started producing knowledge about India, which could be understood in terms of Edward Said’s theory of ‘Orientalism’. Due to this step of Britishers and Indian response to this orientalist construction of 6

knowledge, many ideas like swaraj, swadeshi, nationalism, revolution, democracy, nation building, liberalism, socialism, constitutionalism, secularism, satyagraha, relation of politics with ethics and religion, power and its decentralisation, social transformation and emancipation of individual, and social j...