We may begin this study by dealing with one area in the approaches of the two persons we study where there seems to be a fundamental difference. This is about the interpretation of the scriptures and the myths of one’s culture. Grundtvig, judging by the interpretation given by his interpreters [6] constantly used the Christian scriptures and Nordic myths as his points of reference. He reinterpreted these in terms of the particular context of his time and his country.
Ambedkar’s greatest difficulties came from the scriptures and the myths of India. They were the foundation on which the notion of caste was created and maintained. Thus the greatest obstacle to the making of a nation came from the scriptures and myths on which the social divisions of the people were based and legitimised.
However, the way Ambedkar dealt with this issue bears a resemblance to the way Grundtvig dealt with the Lutheran tradition, that shaped him and the tradition to which he contributed. Ambedkar called for making a distinction between mere rules, contained in ancient scriptures and principles. He called for discarding archaic rules even if the scriptures proscribed them and to look for abiding principles which have moral value. This was quite forbidden by the Hindu scriptures, which prescribed their acceptance irrespective of whether such rules were considered good or bad. In fact good and bad were determined by obedience to rules and not by the merits of the rules themselves.[7]
This led him to call for the right of interpretation. There was no right of interpretation of these texts. They were sacred and they had to be strictly observed. The only excuse for non-observance was physical impossibility, for example in train journeys and foreign travel, where different castes may face each other, without being able to observe the rules meant to ensure caste segregation. In such instances, a person who has so sinned could cleanse him or herself by observance of certain rituals.
Calling for the right of interpretation implied denying the sacredness of these rules, which were contained in the texts. As caste was based on a single interpretation of each religious text, multiple interpretations would be possible only if the sacredness attached to these texts were removed.
However, Ambedkar was aware that such rejection alone would not ensure the issue of re-interpretation of scriptures and myths. To resolve this problem he adopted a two-way strategy. He advocated the selection of texts, in terms of what can be morally justified and humanely acceptable and those that cannot be thus accepted. He called for abandoning morally unjustifiable texts, particularly those which justified the caste system and selected those texts in the Vedas, which supported democratic ideals of equality, liberty, and fraternity.
He wrote “Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion-a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no authority on the subject. But I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads. Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, a considerable scraping and chipping off the ore they contain, is more than I can say. This means a complete change in the fundamental notions of life. It means a complete change in the values of life. It means a complete change in outlook and in attitude towards men and things. It means conversion; but if you do not like the word, I will say, it means new life. But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can enter only in a new body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. To put it simply, the old must cease to be operative before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate.”[8]
On the other hand, he turned to another tradition within Indian history, which had been buried for centuries. That was the Buddhist tradition. In fact the latter part of Ambedkar’s life was spent on studying and presenting Buddhist teachings. Buddha, he found, had raised the very same questions that he did and further had answered them already in the sixth century BC. Buddha evolved a basis for morality, which completely rejected caste and accepted the equality of all. Equality, liberty and fraternity were central to his teaching. He accepted no religious authority, including his own authority.
On the basis of Buddha’s and his followers’ radical teachings, there had emerged a whole civilisation which had spread to most parts of India and to neighbouring countries. During this period culture flourished. Emperor Asoka who was converted to Buddhism gave up war and devoted to doing good works such as building hospitals, spreading education, and laying the foundations for a different type of society. Chandra Gupta had based his political revolution on the basis of Buddha’s philosophical and moral revolution. In fact, Ambedkar compared the link between Buddhism and Chandra Gupta’s political revolution to Reformation and the making of modern Europe.
Ambedkar saw his own work in the sprit of the reformation. He wrote:
“One can say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions. The religious Reformation started by Luther was the Precursor of the political emancipation of the European people. In England, Puritanism led to the establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded the New World. It was Puritanism, which won the war of American Independence, and Puritanism was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before the Arabs became a political power they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammed. Even Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandra Gupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak. It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the political expansion of the people.”[9]
Ambedkar maintained that there was a tradition of democracy in India and that it was lost.
“It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics and where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliament or Parliamentary Procedures. A study of Buddhist Bhikshu Sangas discloses that not only there were Parliaments- for the Sangas were nothing but Parliaments- but the Sangas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballots, Censure motion, Regularisation, RES JUDICATA, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by Buddha to the meetings of the Bhikshu Sanga, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the political assemblies functioning in the country in his time.” [10]
Thus in this respect despite seeming differences, there was a fundamental similarity with the principles of the Reformation, though applied to a different religion.
However, there still is a much greater difficulty. Central to the approaches of both these persons was the concept of the nation. For Grundtvig, it was the Danish nation. The concept of Danishness was one of the central components of his thinking, though this was not used chauvinistically,[11] but delicately. The central difficulty for Ambedkar was that in India, caste had only created separate and absolutely segregated groups.[12] Socially speaking there was no nation, though politically there was one. Ambedkar called India not a nation, but a nation in the making. In fact, what remained one country, for most of Ambedkar’s lifetime, has now become three different countries: India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, what Ambedkar, pointed out was the deep divisions in Hindu India itself, in terms of caste.
The issue then was whether there could be one people. It was the caste above all things which was preventing this in Hindu India.
Even on this difficult issue, one can see a similarity of approaches regarding a solution, which is that the social aspect of the nation must be built above the political and economic aspects. Ambedkar’s famous statement regarding the Indian independence reveals this theme.
He said:
“On January 26, 1950, we will have equality in politics and inequality in social and economic life.
We must remove this contradiction at the earliest moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy.” [13]
Here we may consider the ideal Ambedkar held for society. He wrote,
‘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. And why not ? What objection can there be to Fraternity? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change, taking place in one part to other parts. 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 communicate, – An experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow men. Any objection to Liberty? Few object to liberty in the sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials as being necessary for earning a living to keep the body in due state of health. Why not allow liberty to benefit by an effective and competent use of a person’s powers? The supporters of caste who would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to choose one’s profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalised form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes, which control their conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality? This has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound and one may have to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that? Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A man’s power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal? This is a question, which the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the individualist it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the full development of every one’s powers. But what would happen if men were treated unequally as they are, in the first two respects? It is obvious that those individuals also in whose favour there is birth, education, family name, and business connections and inherited wealth would be selected in the race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason therefore, which forces that in the third respect we should treat men unequally demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally as possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race. That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another reason why we must accept equality. A statesman is concerned with vast numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to treat each equitably i.e. according to need or according to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they are alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but, taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and which demands a severely practical test.” [14]
It is this ideal, this way of understanding democracy, which brings together the ideas of the nation of these two persons. It is democracy that made the nation and not the nation that should shape democracy. Democracy was the higher notion and nation was subordinate to this notion. In contrast, there is today the argument that each nation can determine its democracy. The political construct of democracy is agreed or imposed first, often by way of a Constitution and this construct then determines democracy. Instead of this model Ambedkar speaks of democracy not merely as a form of government; It is primarily – a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicate – an experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards other persons.
Were not the basis for Grundtvig’s contributions, such as his publications Danevirke, The Dane, Dannerborg (Danish Flag),[15] his involvement in the national assemblies of his time, the associations he founded such as the Danish Association in 1853, [16] his preaching, writings, hymns and poems and above all the concept and practice of the Folk High Schools, a view of democracy, which regarded it as a conjoint communicate, an experience and attitude of respect and reverence towards his or her fellow people? Often attempts to educate peasantry take place in many countries, which are nothing more than attempt to incorporate peasants into modern society. Reforms thus are seen as ways to form them into an acceptable lot within the modern context. Was Folk High School such an experiment or was it an attempt to change the concept of nation itself as a higher communication experience among all those who constitute the nation? If all that the peasants had to do was to adjust to change and to adapt to the external experience, there is no difference between the Folk High School and most adult education institutions in the world. In fact even re-education camps have been used as forms of adult education under communist countries, particularly in the early period of the Chinese revolution. The elite — be they right wing or left wing — determined the social, political and economic models and the peasants were especially helped to adjust through instruction or by force or by both means. Folk High School came in fact from a resistance to the Latin educated elite of Grundtvig’s time. The contempt that the elite usually had for the peasantry, a common experience in almost all countries, had to be replaced by respect. The elite were encouraged to sit together with peasants in a common school to discuss national affairs.
The radicality of the Folk School concept can be understood when compared to other models of peasants’ education in several other places. The Russian experience in the 19th century is well known. Intellectuals went to the peasants’ areas, lived with them, tried to learn from the peasants
and to teach them. Some of them married and settled down in peasant areas. In China, during the early period of communism, the educated people were sent to rural areas to work with peasants. In India there were many experiments of this sort. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi, a British-educated barrister, changed his ways of dress and living adapting to the styles of the poor and he lived among them. Many movements arose which stressed that elite must go with the people.
The model of the Folk High School was different. It was at the beginning an initiative where the peasants were brought to education and discussion in their leisure times. As the schools spread, the articulateness of the peasantry increased. The elite had to enter into dialogue in shaping policy and conducting their work. Folk High School became a nationally recognised instrumentality through which a type of communication was created among peasants themselves and with outsiders, including state officers. In fact, Grundtvig’s ideas of bringing about enlightenment changed over time. He first thought educated groups may be the vehicle. However, later the whole approach changed. It was not just a change of mode of education. The change was based on greater understanding of who would represent the interests of the nation better. In India too experience showed how easily the elite adjust to alien interests. It is those who have roots in the localities that define their own lives in terms of their society.
This model of Folk School differed from other models mentioned above, primarily in that it was not meant to be an instrument of coercion either directly or indirectly, while all other models are that to varying degrees, whether it be coercive reform or persuasion for reform that they advocate. In fact, Folk School presupposed a type of transformation in which the old will continue into the new and there will be an organic link between the old and the new. Modernisation will not be a wiping out of the past but a creative metamorphosis. It was a link not to institutions but a direct link of the people who could fertilise each other. The principle of fertilisation is fundamental to Grundtvig’s way of thinking. Taken this way this new mode of communication had potential not for a higher form of democracy but also a higher form of respect for human beings, which is the foundation of human rights.
Once this type of communication is established as a physical fact, the link between people and the government becomes something different to the 18th century classical model of contract, where sovereign people contract out their sovereignty. Here in the Danish model a new mode of communication has been established within which the power concept is one of fertilisation and not of domination of one by the other. However, for juridical purposes the old model prevailed, as elsewhere in the legal society.
Ambedkar’s struggle against caste was essentially an attempt to bring in the lower strata of Indian society for a social discourse and thereby change the nature of the political discourse and the nature of the nation. In this sense Ambedkar’s ideas are richer and more radical than any other Indian thinker of modern times. Several Indian intellectuals and radicals have been attracted to the Russian model of intellectuals going to the less advantaged areas and the Chinese model of the Cultural Revolution. Ambedkar and the Dalit movement have alone stood for the empowerment of the bottom and breaking the barriers of internal communication within Indian society. (In their case they did not have to go out anywhere to find the oppressed people. They themselves were the most neglected people.) In the area of minority rights too, many Indian minority groups have been attracted to separation. In fact there are many political movements based on that at present. Ambedkar had stood for a more fundamental transformation, by way of breaking down the walls of separation that already existed. While several minority groups fight for the juridical and political recognition of the separation which in fact exists, Ambedkar had fought for breaking down the internal structure of separation and therefore making cross-fertilisation possible.
This broader perspective is similar to Grundtvig’s, though particular historical circumstances differed. It seems that Grundtvig was lucky with the historic circumstances he found himself in, at least at the latter part of his life. It may be said that Grundtvig found a good situation, which he made it even better. Ambedkar, was a swimmer against the current. The human suffering he was trying to eradicate was beyond description. The suffering he was exposed personally remained immense. He was basically an unwelcomed reformer of a nation that excommunicated dissenters. Perhaps the parallel is closer to that of Martin Luther and the early reformers.
[6] Tradition and Renewal, Edited by Christian Thodberg and Anders Pontoppidan Thyssen [back to text]
[7] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1937 – Annihilaiton of Caste is a text of a long speech which was not allowed to be delivered. Ambedkar published text. It became a popular text and was translated to many Indian language. This text is considered as the best exposition of the Indian caste system. The text is available in the internet www.hrschool.org. [back to text]
[8] ibid [back to text]
[9] ibid [back to text]
[10] speech delivered by B.R. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly of India on 25th November, 1949 [back to text]
[11] Stephen M. Borish, Land of the living [back to text]
[12] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste [back to text]
[13] From a Speech delivered to Constitutional Assembly of India on 25th November 1949. Ambedkar as the chief of the drafting committee of the Constitution became also the main exponent of the draft Constitution. His speeches at the Constitutional Assembly were many and are included in the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, published by Education Department of Maharashtra Government – 1989. [back to text]
[14] B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, 1937 [back to text]
[15] Tradition and Renewal, Edited by Christian Thodberg and Anders Pontoppidan Thyssen [back to text]
[16] ibid [back to text]
