POST CORONA LIFE Part 2 Prof.PK POKKER

Michael Moore's Speech at Occupy Wall Street | NewsClick

Michael Moore's Speech at Occupy Wall Street | NewsClick

AMBEDKAR ON IDENTITY AND DEMOCRACY

Modernity paved way for the dissemination of humanist principles enabling man to realize the equality of all. Although it had colonial implications it could pave way for new understanding in different levels of life. In the main humanism along with the philosophy of enlightenment thwarted the feudal ideology to some extent. However as Gramsci rightly shows the rise of capitalism could not necessarily destroy the hegemony as such. However the change in many aspects led to the spread and acceptance of enlightenment in many parts of the world including India.

Dr. B.R Ambedkar writes, “What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty Equality and fraternity.”(Vol.1, p57.) As we know not only French revolution but also the other developments including colonial modernity and Marxism had influenced the various movements against cast and other oppressions in India and elsewhere.

At the same time the thoughts of postmodernism inspired the world to realize the limitation of renaissance in the sense that it envisaged a society with the same rationale. In other words the presupposition of enlightenment was knowingly or unknowingly unification of culture. In this regard culture was always distinguished against uncultured and civilization against uncivilized. Consequently the language, the attire or clothing became two chief measures of the culture/civilization. Although there are so many factors associated with human social life these two factors became the parameter to determine the culture. An enquiry into these two aspects of cultural marginalization will help to assess the difference between the two approaches in strengthening democracy. Here in this paper an attempt is made to analyse the hegemonic approach construed before the spread of postmodernism and its aftermath.

The ‘other’ is not an individual before someone as Sartre conceived in his Being and nothingness. The formation of ‘other’ is always a social construct and it is based on the approach towards a society or community alien to one. In other words one sees or views any one as ‘other’ not because he/she is outside himself or herself.

On the contrary I look at you as the other only when I share the ideology that you belong to Tamil, a ‘foreign’ language which causes different claim in sharing waters or whatever resources. Why should I see you or vice versa as ‘other’. It is here we again come across Ambedkar’s approach towards culture.

“In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen.” (P57.)

Here endosmosis is a physical phenomenon of mutually excluded liquids entering each other. It is osmosis leading to the mixing up of two liquids with different concentration. In the case of cast the hierarchy needs no explanation and its ‘concentration’ in the scale of culture is indeed different. Those who rule and those ruled are different. Similarly the hegemonic rule in the realm of ideas give certain society a superior status whereas the masses belonging to the lower castes in all means get a lower status. So in almost all societies there are societies within. What distinguishes one community from the other within a society may be colour, gender, faith or rationality. Indeed male and female are in many ways mutually exclusive and at the same time both live together. Despite men and women live together the domination of male over female is indubitable. Thinkers like Schopenhauer justified male domination during the period of modernity on the basis of biology. In the present context of postmodernism no thinker could justify male domination although our social existence continues to be male dominant in practice. The difference in clothing or biology does not warrant discrimination or domination over the other. In the case of gender the difference is a reality. The difference was treated as a measure to justify discrimination and oppression. Why EVR did preached self respect movement. Why should one feel inferior to some one? It is not actually the feeling of inferiority implanted in the mind of an individual. A woman behaves in a reticent way because she is trained to be so and herself being afraid of man. The fear and reticence are immanent in her behaviour as long as male domination exists in the society. What I want to make clear in this context is the difference between individual fear or reticence and the social and historical fear. Women express fear or inferiority not because she is inferior but because the anticipated approach from her is in such a way. So the language, gestures and such aspects of female existence are determined in the male dominant structure and an individual member simply shares this. It is here the interpretation of Althusser becomes relevant to analyse the phenomenon. A person is subjugated by the ideology in so far as it reigns over the society in general. An ideology becomes hegemonic as far as it determines the generation of meaning in a particular society. You are expected to bow your head before the Brahmin or a Policeman since you yourself share the view perpetuated by the ruling class. The coffee house waiter bows before the customer or the girl leaves her hand to the lover because such behaviour is anticipated by the ideology. Sartre considered it as bad faith and accordingly identified such acts as individual limitation. On the contrary the post-structural, postmodern thinkers could overcome the limitation of the phenomenologist and existentialists. The postmodern thinkers succeed in transcending the limitation as they use the larger frame.

The idea of endosmosis is more relevant in the realm of culture. Any society is divided in two ways; horizontal and vertical. In the horizontal division it is the class which distinguishes the two, an upper class and another lower class or more appropriately the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In the vertical division it is the language, colour, caste, gender, religion and such cultural constructs which create the division. The horizontal division is entirely economically determined and it ceases to exist with class war and attaining classless society. On the other hand the vertical division depends on various other factors and it need not vanish altogether. The process of endosmosis as suggested by Ambedkar is the only way establish healthy link between vertical groups or communities. In India there are numerous linguistic communities. The antagonism between one linguistic community and other disappears with endosmosis. If a Tamil citizen and Malayalam citizen could come together in their communication the demarcation or distance between them disappears. So the Tamil identity or Malayalam identity does not become an obstacle on the way of fraternity between the two. So linguistic communities can come together to fight bigger evils when required. Similar is the case with religion. The Sikh community came to Kerala and distributed food (langar) to express solidarity with the participants of Vykom Satyagraha.

The endosmosis involves two important factors; one as envisaged by Habermas the communicative or discourse ethics.

“Discourse ethics correlates ethical and moral questions with different forms of argumentation, namely, with discourses of self-clarification and discourses of normative justification (and application), respectively. But it does not thereby reduce morality to equal treatment; rather, it takes account of both the aspects of justice and that of solidarity. A discursive agreement depends simultaneously on the non-substitutable “yes” or “no” responses of each individual and on overcoming the egocentric perspective, something that all participants are constrained to do by an argumentative practice designed to produce agreement of an epistemic kind. If the pragmatic features of discourse make possible an insightful process of opinion- and will-formation that guarantees both of these conditions, then the rationally motivated “yes” or “no” responses can take the interests of each individual into consideration without breaking the prior social bond that joins all those who are oriented toward reaching understanding in a trans-subjective attitude.”

In the case of caste and gender all members of the society are bound to arrive at an ‘agreement of an epistemic kind’. Ambedkar in his famous speech at Mahad had exhorted the audience to proceed with struggle in order to maintain liberty, equality and fraternity. He made it clear that it was not a struggle simply for availing the river water but to establish the message of the French revolution. It is indeed a wonder how successfully our mainstream thinkers could marginalize the message of Ambedkar until the rise of postmodern surge. Most of the reformists in India confined their arguments to provide certain basic material benefits or rather rights to the untouchables. On the other hand the thought put forward by Ambedkar had a larger frame where the barrier between vertical divisions should disappear. Ambedkar burnt Manusmrithi at Chavadar lake valley on 25^th Dec 1927 to express the protest against the laws preventing not only drinking water but also all kinds of endosmosis. We have many erudite scholars and friends in India who even now uphold the veracity of Manusmruthi. It is here we should read Ambedkar with deserving emphasis on democratising the society. Democracy is the precondition to dispel antagonism, hatred and ‘otherness’ among any society with multiple vertical divisions. Ambedkar writes:

“A Government for the people, but not by the people, is sure to educate some into masters and others into subjects; because it is by the reflex effects of association that one can feel and measure the growth of personality. The growth of personality is the highest aim of society. Social arrangement must secure free initiative and opportunity to every individual to assume any role he is capable of assuming provided it is socially desirable. A new rule is a renewal and growth of personality. But when an association –and a government is after al an association-is such that in it every role cannot be assumed by all, it tends to develop the personality of the few at the cost of the many- a result scrupulously to be avoided in the interest of democracy. To be specific, it is not enough to be electors only. It is necessary to be law makers; otherwise who can be law makers will be masters of those who can only be electors.”

(Vol.1, p. 251) Here Ambedkar talks about the future of the underprivileged. Unless the underprivileged communities get opportunity to share rule, to make laws they might remain mere electors. Nowadays the mainstream media propagate the idea that the people of our country are fortunate enough to get the opportunity to vote. However as we find in the writings of Ambedkar the power to vote does not fulfil the real purpose. So sharing of power in all aspects of life is crucial.

The vertical compartments such as religious and linguistic identities are different from that of caste. The division of caste remain as an inhuman phenomenon that not only defies the rights of others but also imposes an attitude of hatred and inferiority among the masses. In religion one converts to another as and when he/she gets convinced about certain things. In linguistic community one may become expert in other language or the children become another linguistic community when they get opportunities such as change of location etc. But in the case of caste the hierarchy is something immanent in the very ideological structure. It is the Caste Hegemony which should be toppled first to enter the realm of democracy. The precondition to establish the real democracy is annihilation of caste and it is possible only when the underprivileged becomes rulers rather than electors.

The project of renaissance taught us to speak always against religion in order to build up secular democratic space. When political power was determined by religion the secular legacy required purely theoretical and practical atheism and materialism to thwart the Hegemonic ideology. Now the situation has changed almost all over the world. A partly democratised world needs full democracy. Without democracy endosmosis will not take place. Without endosmosis ethical communication will not take place. Indeed the communication between master and slave, native and foreigner, ruler and ruled will not entail understanding each other. The possibility of consensus is very meagre in such social structure. Any imposed consensus will cripple the individuals and communities. Contrary to such master slave relation we need mutual recognition and consensus. Let us see what Richard Rorty suggests in this regard. “I take the point of Rawls and Habermas, as Dewey and Peirce, to be that the epistemology suitable for such a democracy is one in which the only test of a political proposal is its ability to gain assent from people who retain radically diverse ideas about the point and meaning of life, about the path to private perfection. The more such consensus becomes the test of a belief, the less important is the belief’s source.”(Philosophy and Social Hope,p.173,italics my own) . Actually the assent from the people means the willing participation of the people who enjoy freedom to do so. It is here the development of the individual as mentioned by Ambedkar matters. An individual who could willingly participate in the formation of consensus is part of a society which recognizes equality at least in theory. Indian caste system in no way admits the equality even in principle. In such a context Ambedkar had to leave Hinduism to register his protest. However democratic movements in India as elsewhere have created a political and cultural space to express dissent, to participate in elections, to discuss the issues in public, to criss-cross the borders and so on. In such a situation people who share ‘certain moral principles in common’ as Rorty suggest could come together to fight the hegemonic ideology of our country. As the Sikhs shared the spirit of the Vykom satyagraha despite their religiosity all Indian belonging to various faith communities and atheist can come together to accomplish their desire to rule and make laws of their own.

(Paper presented at Madurai Kamaraj University on 29.3 2011)