This paper deals with two great traditions of humanism: Danish humanism as represented by [1] Nicolas Frederick Severin Grundtvig, a churchman, a poet, a song and hymn writer, a prolific writer, a politician and the founder and inspirer of the Folk High School movement; and the Indian humanist tradition represented by Dr. Bhim Rao (Babasahep) Ambedkar, who was the undisputed leader of the largest group of extremely oppressed persons yet remaining in the world, who are known as Shudras-untouchables-and Dalits, [1] as well as an eminent jurist, a politician, a religious philosopher and also a prolific writer. Both are large subjects who defy definition; legends in their own countries who continue to have an influence in the societies they belonged to and both of who are increasingly recognised internationally.
The paper involves four parties: the two persons whose ideas and practices are discussed; the author of this paper and the readers. About the two persons, Grundtvig and Ambedkar, much has been said in the following paper. As for the author, myself, my interest in this study begins from the situations of my own country-Sri Lanka and that of Cambodia with which I have become very much involved. During my adult life, my country got into a serious crisis resulting in violence both in the North as well as the South. In my view the basic causes which produced this situation in both parts of the country are the same: it was the failure to work towards social equality, following the political and juridical equality which began with the independence from the British colonialism. Both persons studied here have dealt with the issue of social equality in the different contexts of their respective society. Cambodia presents a classic example of a complete tragedy. The causes, which gave rise to it, are analysed by different persons from varying perspectives. However, the almost total neglect of the people and social factors is the internal source, which made the tragedy possible.
On the other hand, the alternative was much worse; it too completely dismissed the human aspect of social change. The internal impact of these events on me as well as on so many others I know has made it necessary to look for those who thought differently and did things differently. This study is motivated by this search.
As for the readers, who may vary in their backgrounds, there is, I believe, one thing in common: we are all living today in the context of a rapid change, if not revolution, in communication, which has brought about potentials for a change which is beyond imagination. No one I believe will contend that these are merely technological changes. Given the transformation of communication it is simply impossible to avoid a fundamental change in relationships. What this means is not a mere increase in the receipt of information. This communication revolution implies enormous possibilities of action. If Grundtvig and Ambedkar were living in this current communication context and wanted to do the very same things they did in their lifetimes, how may have the communication transformation have affected them? If they were able to use the relatively backward communication systems of their time, with enormous implications on their labour, time and organisational work, and achieved as much as they have in fact done, what greater possibilities would there have been for them in the modern context? Those possibilities are now available to us. Giving serious thought to their ideas and practices may make it possible for us to achieve these objectives in our present context.
I have introduced the theme of demoralization and hope as the basic thrust of this paper. Social inequality is the greatest source of demoralization. Hope in those circumstances cannot arise from mere words. It can arise only from social practices that makes social equality possible. It is not mere formal equality – the duty of each person standing in the queue – that is implied by the term social equality. The humanist concept of equality, the assertion of our common humanity, is what is at stake. That alone is the real source of genuine hope. Of this we have much to learn from the two persons we study here. In studying them we study the traditions they represented and to which they too contributed.
Grundtvig’s humanism was conditioned by his world outlook as a participant of the Lutheran Christian tradition. His belief that something had gone wrong in the world and with humanity on the one hand and that something had to be done to correct this wrong on the other was fundamental to his thinking and to his world outlook (Anskuelse) [2].This he expressed through Christian expressions. However, he saw that those whom he called Naturaliser (naturalists) shared this same view and expressed it through secular expressions. In stating folk life as a precondition for Christianity and primacy of the human – an expression in his poems is Man First, Then Christian – he recognised equality among those who are engaged in trying to understand and change the world.His conception of joyful Christianity was opposed to Puritanism and some sects, which advocated a morose approach to life. Joyfulness combined with seriousness fitted to contribute towards an outlook, which encouraged working towards change. Ambedkar’s world outlook was influenced by many sources. An outstanding jurist, equal to any in any country, he had a secular outlook: the cause of the caste system being the doctrines of the very religion he was born into, he rebelled against that tradition with the whole of his being. Having discovered the historical roots of Buddhism as the philosophy that attacked the fundamental basis of caste, he converted himself to Buddhism with a large following, and Buddhism became the framework of reference for him on the issue of liberation from caste and all other matters.
Such are the humanitarian traditions they belonged to. They were however, not passive recipients of these traditions. They contributed not only to the renewal but also to the reshaping of these traditions.
Some of the main ideas of this essay are as follows:
The vitality of a society depends on the internal communication within that society, said Ambedkar. Grundtvig expressed the same concept as the need for internal fertilisation of one part by the other.
The authenticity and the strength of this communication and fertilisation will depend on the extent to which the ordinary people participate in such a process: There is a natural tendency in the people who belong to the privileged sections of any society to be unmindful of the need for internal communication and cross fertilisation; and there is a tendency in formal education systems to ignore the capacity of the oral communication, which is the main medium of communication of ordinary people. The ordinary people bring into the social discourse the ordinary ways of thinking which exist within a particular culture, the ordinary sensibilities of the people, and the ordinary ways of how human reactions take place in a particular society. In this way the greatest humanist traditions existing in society get expressed through the participation of ordinary people in social discourse.
Where internal communication is blocked, such obstruction of communication can bring about a complete crisis in that society and if it lasts long, it can result in creating deep internal divisions and polarisation. This in turn makes it impossible for a society to be a democracy. What the caste system has done to India provides a sad but glaring example of the process of social and cultural decay resulting from the breakdown of internal communication and fertilisation. As the problem is a common one, it can be useful to study this extreme example in depth. (The situation in ancient India however provides a different picture. India has had its own great models of internal communication and fertilisation.)
On the other hand the experience of Denmark in the 18th and 19th centuries can be an example in the opposite direction. Encouraged by the country’s own internal land reforms and the traditions of religious reformation and European revolutions, new ways of thinking were developed to keep an ongoing process of internal communication and fertilisation. This took the form of practical experiments like the folk school movement. The study of the thinking behind these experiments and the lessons gained from actual implementation of these ideas can be useful.
Both these experiences can now be discussed only in the context of an enormous transformation in communications, which has put the discussion on internal communication and fertilisation into a completely altered context. The new context provides hitherto unimaginable possibilities to ordinary people for inter-personal exchanges and communication of ideas and for development of action. The new context thus provides greater possibilities of pursuing the ideas of the two persons studied in this paper.
The issue of communication and fertilisation needs now to be discussed not only in relationship to the local contexts but also in relation to the international context. In fact both in the Folk School movement and the Dalit movement the realisation of the need for a deeper international understanding has come about quite some time back. The new communication context has created greater possibilities to pursue the actualisation of such realisations.
This study can also be relevant to the ongoing debate on globalisation. In particular it is very relevant to the discussion on the rights of minorities. It is also relevant for peace studies in general. The issue of internal communication and cross fertilisation is very much an issue in poverty eradication. In fact, the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights very much depends on the understanding of the processes of communication and cross-fertilisation.
[1] For explanation of the words Shudra, Untouchable and Dalit see Chapter Ten [back to text]
[2] Here the following explanation given by Grundtvig himself to the word Anskuelse may be useful “The Mosaic-Christian view of life (Anskuelse) is for me now as previously the only divinely true one. I have, however, learned to distinguish sharply between Church and School, Faith and Philosophy, mortal and eternal. I am thoroughly convinced that just as the Christian Church must refute every attempt to state or philosophy to change it according to their ideas, just as wrongful it is to force state or school to become church-like instructions.”
(Translation from Grundtvig’s Udvalgte Skrifter, i.e. Selected Writings, ed.by Holger Begtrup.Vol.VI, 1907,P.12)
-Dr. K.E.Bugge says” Anskuelse”, is therefore, not exclusively Christian. It is a stance shared by Christians, Jews and “all men of Spirit” as (Grundtvig has expressed it) by the way also Muslims” (a personal note) [back to text]
