“A balance between two things that remain different, but that should fertilize each other in their differentness.” [36]
This conception of balance can be an explanation of anarchy as well as of violence, when such a balance is absent. It provides the basis for sanghatan and co-operation within a society. It provides a basis for understanding what a dictatorship does to a society, whether the dictatorship is based on right-wing claims or left-wing claims. It helps to understand some of the worst experiences of humanity in recent times, both in the West as well as in the East. It also helps to understand the modern forms of social disorganisation through the use of sophisticated media on the one hand and the great potential that exists in modern communication systems to create this balance.
The principle of balance consists of two parts: the recognition of difference and the need for cross- fertilisation while remaining different. Out of these two, it is the first that is neglected most. Once the differentness is denied or ignored, the need for fertilisation by each other does not arise. On the other hand when at a given time, cross-fertilisation stops due to whatever reason, it results soon in denial of the principle of differentness. This results in one of the different components taking dominion over the other and no longer running into each other, thus making it impossible for the other to participate in the process of fertilisation of the social process. To put this another way, denial of differentness makes social discourse unnecessary. Disappearance of discourse buries differentness. To this one more aspect can be added. The denial of differentness and discourse destroys not just one, but the whole. Ambedkar’s Annilation of Caste is a classic exposition of this principle of balance relied on by Grundtvig, by presenting an historical example of how this inner balance was lost in Indian society through the development of the caste system, which virtually denied the human existence of a vast sections of society and punished them by keeping them out of the social discourse. The result was the inner destruction of the whole society and the collapse of a great civilization. Since this theme is discussed in relation to India throughout this paper, we may now look into a few other examples by way of examination of this principle.
It may be useful here to discuss some of the ways by which this principle of a balance has been denied in the political theories practiced in some countries. One such theory has been the need for authoritarianism in order to promote rapid economic growth. Another is the concept of a “people’s” take over of the state and using it for their benefit. Under these two broad principles several recent experiences can be discussed.
One of the best expositions of the denial of the differentness and therefore also of the need or even the possibility of fertilisation found in the political theories of Lee Kuan Yew, on the basis on which the Singaporean State was built.[ 37] These theories are practised still. The right of a hard core of people to make all decisions is at the heart of this political theory. An often-quoted Lee Kuan Yew maxim is “The pope elects the cardinals and the cardinals elect the next Pope.” Every form of discourse is regarded as harmful and having the potential of provoking ethnic disputes. Every form of education including religious instructions at schools is controlled by the state. Theoretically, differentness between State and the people is denied. The people are what they are because of the State. It is this oneness that people are encouraged to profess all the time. What is unique in Singapore is that this theory has been thoroughly and genuinely put into practice. The State is the organizer of everything. Thus people’s organizations are not only suppressed but also made unnecessary. We see here the very opposite of the principle of the primacy of folk life. Folk life is pushed underneath. There is no idea of enlightenment. In its place, there is a concept of sophistication, meaning, learning the use of software, hardware and technology. A good citizen is a good tool operator and nothing more. The study of social sciences and culture is positively discouraged by not making many possibilities for them available. Thus the Singapore Story become the ‘Lee Kuan Yew Story’. In a small city, without bloodshed, the Stalinist idea of State has been completely realized, not with a left-wing ideology, but with the ideology of the market economy.
However, the central component of the ideology is the same as under Stalinism, namely, rapid economic progress is not possible without complete authoritarianism. This same political theory provided the foundation for a political perspective in Southeast Asian countries, during the period that was known at the time as the “Asian Miracle.” It gave rise to many forms of authoritarian rule, most of which have collapsed during the last few years. However, the result of the collapse has not only affected the dictatorships but also one society as a whole. The reason is that different aspects of society have not been recognized and therefore, the means of cross-fertilisation has been lost. The reformers, who wish to rebuild society and to prevent anarchy, get bewildered by the massive destruction as for example is evidenced by the statements of many new leaders of Indonesia. There, thus, emerges a huge abyss between the social goals proposed by new democrats and the near absence of natural channels of social discourse.
In fact, in places where grave abuses of people have taken place by way of massive violence and gross violations of human rights, one can easily see the collapse of the balance paving the way to such a situation. A few examples are taken from Asia. Where the State has failed to recognize the differentness of ethnic groups, there have been massive forms of violence between the State and minority groups in Asia, South Asia in particular. At a certain point in these conflicts, channels of cross-fertilisation break due to such lack of recognition of the differentness. This has given rise to armed conflicts. In the process of such armed conflicts minority groups themselves contribute to the continuity of the conflict by stressing only the differentness and denying the need for constant fertilisation. From this emerges the demand for separate states. In this way differentness becomes absolutized and the possibility of fertilisation becomes conceptually outlawed. The Sri Lankan ethnic conflict provides a glaring example of the consequences of abandoning the balance, by refusal to accept differentness of different groups. There cannot be creative cross-fertilisation, unless the differentness of State and people, who are themselves differentiated by being spread into different groups, is accepted as a fundamental reality, both by the State as well as by the people.
Another example of the loss of balance is the experience of Thailand under the Three Seal Law, which is also known as Sakdina system.[ 38] Three Seal Law was a legal code consisting of 1200 articles, which was codified 200 years ago. It gathered into a single code rules that had existed for hundreds of years. By assigning a value to each, it recognized differentness of each person. However, this assigning of value prevented the possibility of fertilisation, by binding interactions among different “units” to strict limits prescribed by the code, deviation of which was punishable. Even the way a person with one kind of value speaks, or even looks, at a person having another value, higher or lower, was prescribed. Much of what Ambedkar speaks of about the caste system equally applies to the Sakdina system. The fundamental difference however, was that differentness was not determined by birth but by a classification. It was possible to change one’s place in the system. Though this code was abolished in 1932, the social and psychological effects of the system remain. Particularly with regard to the abuse of women’s rights, preventing the participation of people and preventing the possibility of fertilizing the social and political system, much can be learned from the study of the effects created by this system in the rulers as well as on the people of Thailand. Ultimately an understanding of the limits created on social discourse through the operation of the Sakdina system may help to enrich the democratic reform movement in Thailand.
This same denial of differentness and fertilisation is implied in many activities of international cooperation, where thought flow originates from international centres to the Third World countries which are merely treated as passive partners. Here the States as well as the people are ignored and therefore discourses with them are confined only to implementation and accountability. The result is to destroy the inner balance of society, which loss is then manifested in various forms of violence and anarchy.
Some of the international peace efforts can also be examined from this point of view. Is a given attempt to help in reestablishing an inner balance often a consideration in these efforts? The experiences of international efforts like those in Cambodia, Bosnia and Kosovo may be looked at from this point of view.
The history of the twentieth century provides numerous examples of the destruction that takes place when the people on their part fail to recognize the differentness of the state. The experience of the Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Europe under Stalinism will remain an important experience to grasp in terms of any type of democratic reforms that may be tried. In the original theory of the Russian State based on Lenin’s thesis envisioned in What Is To Be Done, the Communist Party was assigned the role of the vanguard of the proletariat. When the Party took power, the differentness of the people and the State was thus not recognized. Therefore, the issue of fertilisation of each by the other did not arise at all. Though the early debates led by Leon Trostsky [ 39] reflected some distinctions between the revolutionary organisations of the workers and the Party, the basic principle of identity of the State and Party was taken as a basic dogma by all. This absence of the differentness was brought to an absolute position under Stalin, who was also treated with the title of the Father of the People. The State and people thus became one as a family. The destruction that this has caused on Russia and other countries took not only the form of millions of deaths, but also the devastation to the internal processes of interaction and exchange among the peoples.
It has for some time been argued that Russia has always had tyranny and therefore, this experience under communism, particularly under Stalinism was nothing new. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two experiences. Monarchies, however strong, cannot create a feeling of oneness of the people with the State. In fact such rule by the Russian rulers did help to create the understanding of differentness among the people. The revolutionary movements have benefited from the deep sense of differentness people have felt against such strong rulers. And this feeling of differentness has been a creative power used to achieve change. When the identification of the people with the State became so complete as to treat any perception of differentness as a treachery, Russia lost its creative capacity. Maxim Gorky had earlier said the will to resist is the most important aspect of a human being. When the very forces of resistance then allowed themselves to be so totally identified with the State and ceased to think as distinct, they lost the very creative power that had made their resistance possible. Much of the social and psychological process which took place due to caste as described by Ambedkar, also took place in Russia during this period for different reasons. Ambedkar commenting on the loss of the power of resistance under a Hindu community organized under the caste system, confessed that he could not understand how when there was such enormous oppression, a social revolution did not take place in India. Perhaps the answer lies in the understanding of the principle of balance as expressed by Grundtvig. The erasing of recognition of differentness by way of treating the danger of interacting with different group destroyed the feeling of fellowship among the different castes in India. Each group became capable of thinking only as a single unit.
This makes it impossible to consider any one else as, “your own, living in their midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling, in short loving them,”[40] (though this remark was made particularly with regard to the relationship of upper caste Hindus to tribal groups in India, it applied equally to the general treatment of any one outside one’s caste. Caste creates an isolation of an absolute kind, as it neither recognizes the differentness nor the possibility of fertilisation of one by the other. Each caste is an island.
A quite sad but striking example of denial of differentness took place in Cambodia, resulting in the loss of over one million people (according to conservative estimates) out of a population of about seven million, during a period of less than four years. The denial of differentness was so complete that any type of intellectual activity, which included reading, writing, or the use of any technology was punished with death. Young children were taken from their parents and separated so that they would not be different and would grow up into a standard type of persons.. The common kitchens were introduced so as to abolish private kitchens where, with differentiation of tastes begins the absence of uniformity. It is usually said that the purpose of these activities was to abolish private property. However, a closer look at the history of these four years shows that it was an attempt to put into practice a theory of total uniformity that brought the devastation, as without centres affirming differentness there was no force to stop the destruction. It has been established that most people interrogated and killed in detention centres were party cadres themselves, [41] who due to their own negative experiences had begun to have different thoughts. Doubts are a way and an expression of differentiation. A political regime that does not accept the creative role of differentiation must punish all who have doubts. In Cambodia, the punishment was death. While the details of Cambodian cruelties have been collected, the basic theoretical bases of this experience has not yet been exposed. Is it because of the affinity that these basic philosophical principles have to other ideologies, which still exist elsewhere? The Cambodian tragedy was not a result of the absence of principles but the result of denying the differentness as a matter of principle.
The refusal to accept that two things must remain different, also leads to anarchy. In Asia many examples can be found to illustrate this. Perhaps, one of the saddest is the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Often romanticized some time ago as an experiment as a process creating a new man, it was in fact a horrible experience claiming many million lives and bringing China to a point of collapse. Subsequent Chinese experiments began with the realization of the causes of this disaster and attempts to create a balance. Wei Jingsheng in his book Courage to Stand Alone, described the Cultural Revolution as a coup, carried out with mass mobilization.
Often, the minority programmes too are formulated in a way to deny acceptance of the State which needs to remain in its differentness if cross-fertilization is to become possible. This often begins because the State itself does not recognize the differentness of minorities. Ambedkar, who was the leader of the largest minority in the world and one of the most oppressed, consistently fought for a change of the situation of the minority, with a democratic framework of recognition of the State. Despite the bitter criticism of Indian society and the State he made throughout his life (in fact he is the greatest critic of social institutions that India ever produced in recent times) he worked for creating balance on a principled basis. He often warned the Indian upper castes of the disaster that would fall on them if they continued to ignore the caste issue.
[36] This is a translation by Stephen M. Borish- Land of the Living- He has made an attempt to interpret the word.
vekselvirkning. This interpretation is used it for the purpose of explaining some of the ideas discussed in this chapter.
[37] Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, Prentice Hall,Singapore and Singapore 21 – a publication by the Singapore
[38] Mark Tamthai, Sakdina System and Promotion of Human Rights, Human Rights SOLIDARITY, Vol.9 No.6 June 1999, Asian Human Rights Commission
[39] Leon Trostky, Revolution Betrayed.
[40] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1937
[41] David Chandler, Brother Number One
