The similarities between the two persons studied here are not peripheral or superficial but fundamental. Some of these fundamental aspects are as follows.
They were both serious democrats. Democracy to both was not a means but an end. As Denmark moves from the19th century to the 21st century, the visible forms of traditional farm life may have completely disappeared. As people have become more sophisticated, technology has imposed its tremendous grip on every aspect of life, forms of direct democratic discourse may have changed its form. However, what is important is to see how the inner democratic traditions of the 19th century fare in this new communication climate. For India, things have become even worse during the last fifty years. The inner divisions, which were made invisible by the needs of maintaining the appearance of a common front to liberate India from colonial domination, have now come to the forefront. The issues that Ambedkar raised in relation to democracy in India are as valid as ever. Ambedkar is usually presented, if at all, as a minority leader. These days Grundtvig is presented mostly as an educationist. However, their work cannot be separated from the radical conceptions of democracy they had. Their conceptions of democracy were formulated in opposition to the elite traditions of their countries, the Latin speaking elite of Denmark for Grundtvig and the Brahmins of India for Ambedkar. It must be admitted that the task that Ambedkar faced was much more formidable than that of Grundtvig.
Their serious approaches to democracy come from their views on the place of people in a democracy. In their views people are not mere electors of their representatives. People continue to participate directly in day-to-day affairs; their participation is not just political participation but direct participation in all aspects of their communities. The concept and practice of the folk school introduced a new living enlightenment, where the people constantly fertilised the social and political process. The people are always present. This is neither the Greek concept of citizen’s assembly nor is it the modern British model of representative democracy. It is somewhere in between. The people create their own milieu though fellowship of the school and community activities and keep up the on-going process of dialogue through their own creative discourses. Meanwhile the state exists differently from the people and people exist differently from the state. While remaining distinct and separate they constantly cross-fertilise each other. All the time people matter. As for Ambedkar, he expressed this by way of his fundamental idea of social equality. All his contributions on the democratic process in India were based on his critique of the dichotomy between political equality and social inequality. In fact, his critique of Indian history as a whole was based on this core idea of failure to create social equality as the source of failure of India to become a nation. To him too, people fundamentally mattered. This perspective that people matter also remains controversial in the West, even now. The controversy surrounding the work of Dr. Theo Van Boven [3] the director of the United Nations Human Rights Division in Geneva in the early 1980’s was on this issue. He published papers relating to this controversy under the title People Matter.
Implied in the concepts of Ambedkar and Grundtvig about the people, is their views on the nature of political culture which sustain an active democracy on a constant basis. The achievements of the Folk School movement are part of the heritage of Denmark. This was put to me by a thirteen-year-old Danish boy: “Our teachers encourage us to discuss. There is a belief that if we discuss we become better persons.” How different to the usual idea that silence is the sign of a good student! And how vastly different to the idea in the caste system, that the breaking of silence by those who are considered low caste should be punished violently. Even today murders and rapes take place simply because such persons dared to speak. What Ambedkar sought was a complete change. In fact much has already been achieved on this basis; by and large, the Dalits of today are much more articulate than their forefathers and are actively asserting their presence. India’s political troubles of today come from these awakened and active people who are breaking the draconian control of caste. India looks forward to a crucial change where the ideas of Ambedkar will become a reality, in the way Grundtvig’s ideas did come to realisation in Danish life.
They both gave central importance to social aspects of democracy over political aspects, unlike many others whose discourse on democracy is confined to the political and institutional aspects. The two of them paid greater attention to social linkages among people than separation of powers and constitutional safeguards for democracy. The concept of power contained in their thinking has a direct relationship between social power and political power. Foucault spoke about the need of a new conception of rights [4] , as against the 18th century concept of the juridical model of contract between sovereign individual and the sovereign state. In fact, the work of both Grundtvig and Ambedkar are based on much different conception of rights. Their ideas bear a direct relevance to the discourse on power, which has been taking place during the last fifty years. In this context, it may also be noted that the concepts of discipline held by both of them were influenced by their conceptions of democracy and they transcended the rule of law type of discipline found in most democracies of the West. The religious outlooks of both were also bound with their conception of discipline.
Both paid serious attention to religious notions that promote democracy. In the case of Grundtvig, this took the form of the primacy of the human being as a pre-condition for anything, including being a Christian and in the case of Ambedkar, the religious foundation of caste as the fundamental obstacle to democracy in India on the one hand and the Buddhist doctrine of liberty, equality and fraternity as the foundations for democracy on the other hand. It can be said that Grundtvig’s ideas came from the influence of the tradition of religious reformation, which had a profound impact on his country. The Reformation implied not just a change of ideas but the change in relationships, particularly in the church. The relationship within the Catholic structure broke down, paving the way for a new understanding of the relationship between the priests and the laity. The concept of set forms of mediation between God and the people was radically undermined. The link to this undermining was the concept of individual responsibility for salvation. Salvation could not be left to mechanical means such as indulgences. Nothing can take away individual’s responsibility. These principles, when applied to political life, meant that political leaders or bureaucrats could not be absolute mediators for people. People cannot abdicate their own responsibility. There has to be a living link between the people and the agents of the state. Keeping this link is not just the privilege of the individual; it is his/her duty.
Both saw the involvement of ordinary people in the participatory process as not merely a means of democracy but as the necessary foundation for achieving democracy. Quite explicitly expressed in their conceptions is the nature of communication that needs to exist between all sectors of society. Ordinary people are not considered as those who should be brought under the discipline of democracy, but as those whose creativity provides life for democracy. When the form of social organisation of a society stops the communication between all its parts, society as a whole, decays. When folk life is alive it keep the entire society alive.
Both of them considered education different as going beyond and being deeper than formal education. They thought of education as education for critical participation in society and the enhancement of the creative possibilities of life.
They come from two different continents and different times: one from a European nation with a small population, living from the 18th to the 19th century; and the other from one of the largest countries in the world, with a huge population, living from the end of 19th century to the first half of 20th century. The histories of both countries differed in terms of their historical development, economic development, political experiences. At the time Denmark was living through the ethos of European revolutions and emancipation, while India was living under colonialism and practically the whole of the Asian continent was facing a period of subjugation. How then, were they able to develop similar attitudes, similar ideas and similar fundamental commitments? It is more their characters that explain this similarity than any other external factor. They were both extraordinary humanists. That the two persons from two continents with different religious backgrounds, different histories and different levels of enjoyment of materials goods, were able to reach such a height of humanism, bears testimony to the existence of something in humanity which rises from the fact of common humanity alone. Both were very cultivated men, with a tremendous knowledge of books, the literature of their own cultures as well as Western literature as a whole. Still both felt the compelling need to reach beyond books to people. They were both activists par excellence. They both sought to share their lot with the less privileged members of society and both believed that the activism of the common people could determine the course of human history. This activist-intellectual model that they both represented is of paramount importance. The mainstream intellectual tradition of the West and also that of Asia (which is mostly shaped by mainstream Western tradition) still looks down on the activist-intellectuals. Perhaps, such attitudes are a by-product of the dichotomies of Western thought itself. Here in contrast are two activists, who qualify to be ranked highest in the ladder of activism, who are also great intellectuals by any standard. One can contend that Ambedkar is the greatest political thinker India produced for a long time. Outwardly this may seem strange in a country where intellectual life was the monopoly of the Brahmin caste and was completely denied to other castes for thousands of years. However, here no contradiction is involved. It was the very privileged position assigned to the Brahmin that became the cause of their retardation. That the very first generation of Dalits who were able to gain higher education were able to create an intellectual of Ambedkar’s calibre is a clear proof of Grundtvig’s thesis of the creative power of ordinary people.
Their similarities also point to another very important factor. The emancipatory tradition of Europe, which flowered in the 18 and 19th centuries, is not alien to Indian soil. In fact, there was a whole period of Indian history where a very deep tradition of emancipation has prevailed. This tradition though since lost, still carries its inner influence. Those whose roots are in this tradition easily respond to the emancipatory tradition of the West. Thus the Asian response to the West in this century has been two fold: On the one hand it violently reacted to domination by the West; on the other hand, it creatively, loving and hopefully responded to the emancipatory tradition of the West. The link is the greatest humanist traditions of both continents. A close study of Ambedkar and Grundtvig shows how deep the links are.
As for the personalities, both of them in their mature years were persons who affirmed their views with their whole being. Though involved in controversy all their lives, the contents of their thoughts reached beyond these controversies. They both, if measured by the test of fundamental character set out by Soren Kierkegaard [5] , were persons able to radically reduce the distance between what they understood and what they did.
Both remain legends in their countries. Ambedkar is loved by one section of Indians and is hated equally by another section of his society. His importance is likely to be recognised more as the romantic conceptions of independence from colonialism, symbolised by Mahatma Ghandi, turned into disillusionment and as more and more Indians and others recognise a need for a radical change of perspectives of India, if it is to emerge out of its divisions. Grundtvig is known as one of the three best-known Danish thinkers: Hans Christian Anderson, Soren Kiekegaard and himself. The international recognition of Grundtvig is now growing. What has received more attention at the moment are his ideas on education.
However, the philosophical importance of his ideas, in terms of the later thought of Nietzsche and Foucault, is likely to grow also. In my view, the concept of the primacy of folk life and of the human contained in Grundtvig’s thought bears a deep affinity to Nietzsche’s views on will to power. Above all, in terms of the end of the cold war and the emergence of new democratic movements, interest in the Danish experience is likely to grow. In Denmark itself, as doubts are expressed about the direction that Denmark is taking in terms of the globalisation process, the need to return to its roots and the need to reflect on the past may be felt more. In all crucial moments of their democracy, living Danes cannot avoid facing Grundtvig face to face. The re-interpretation of Lutheran tradition he made has a permanent value. So too is the place of Ambedkar in relation to future generations of Indians.
[3] Theo Van Bovan, People Matter, Published by Meulenhoff-Amstrdam 1982 [back to text]
[4] Focult, Power and Knowledge, Pantheon Books London 1972 [back to text]
[5] Paul Muller- Kierkegaard, Works of Love- Christian Ethics and Meiotic Ideal, Published by C.A. Reitzel, 1993 [back to text]
