Though it is quite usual in liberal discourse to present intellectuals as promoters of democracy, in the particular historic contexts of their lives Ambedkar and Grundtvig found that intellectuals as a group resisted social equality. In the case of Denmark during Grundtvig’s time it was the Latin-educated elite, the people of “the school of death.” In the case of India, for many centuries it was the Bhramins. Ambedkar thought that it was this intellectual caste that posed the largest single threat to democracy in India. He wrote:
“Whether you accept the theory of the great man as the maker of history or whether you do not, this much you will have to concede that in every country the intellectual class is the most influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give lead. In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest, independent and disinterested it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means and the use of means depends upon the ends, which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a gang of crooks or a body of advocates of a narrow clique from which it draws its support. You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound with one single caste, that this intellectual class should share the interest and the aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself the custodian of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains that the Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class but it is a class, which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus. The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth) … The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu says, ‘If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force ‘: … When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste System appear to me very, very remote.”
Having found that the intellectual class in India was uncreative and unable to provide intellectual leadership, Ambedkar’s concentration was to educate the people of India’s ghetto and to get them to be articulate and to speak for themselves. An often quoted slogan of his was, “educate, organize and agitate.” Through massive educational reforms the monopoly of the Bhrahmins as the sole spokesman of Hindu India has been broken. Today there is a multitude of voices and there are conditions for creating a new balance, which is the most important need for survival of India as a nation.
There seems to be some difference in the ideas of Grundtvig and Ambedkar on this issue, though in practical term their approaches to the resolution of the problem was the same: let people speak for themselves. Grundtvig coming from the Lutheran tradition has inherited a memory of how a well-established intellectual class can breakdown and how people can become vocal in terms of the break down of the Catholic clericalism and spread of Protestantism. In fact Grundtvig as a theologian has further developed this idea of the people. He thought of the church not as a Bible-reading circle but as a fellowship of believers [ 48] . The concept of fellowship was well established. Besides, the idea of our common humanity was also central in Grundtvig’s thinking. In Ambedkar’s society both the concept of fellowship and common humanity did not exist. In fact, the very opposite was considered ideal: the separation of each caste and denial of the humanity of lower castes, in theory and in practice.
Despite this enormous difference of the situation, in the practices that both adopted the main instrument for establishing social equality was the genuine enlightenment of the people themselves and their actual participation. Folk Schools were thought of as a means of preparing and enabling ordinary people for participation in Denmark’s destiny. [49]
[48] N.F.SGrundtvig- Selected Educational Writings- Compiled by Max Lawson published by The International Peoples Colloege and The association of Folk [back to text]
[49] ibid [back to text]
