table of contents

04/06/2016

Aishwary Kumar on Gandhi and Ambedkar – Part 2

Aishwary Kumar is assistant professor of history at Stanford and works as an intellectual and political historian of modern South Asia.    He works in areas of legal and political thought, political philosophy and democratic culture, religion, caste, and moral psychology, in addition to global histories of empire, constitutionalism, and citizenship.    A parallel set […]

download transcript [vtt]
00:00:00.000
[ Music ]
00:00:04.000
This is KZSU Stanford.
00:00:06.640
Welcome to entitled opinions.
00:00:09.000
My name is Robert Harrison and we're coming to you
00:00:11.560
from the Stanford campus.
00:00:13.020
[ Music ]
00:00:24.000
Hannah Arendt who thought a lot about the Vida Aktiva,
00:00:28.000
distinguished between thinking, conducted in solitude,
00:00:31.400
and thinking as a dialogue of thought with others.
00:00:34.840
Here on entitled opinions we engage in the latter.
00:00:38.640
We submit things to consideration,
00:00:41.440
like is thinking a form of action.
00:00:44.440
That's a vexed one to be sure.
00:00:46.920
Heidegger, in his letter on humanism, declared
00:00:50.720
that the essence of action is accomplishment,
00:00:53.760
and that thinking accomplishes the relation of being
00:00:57.320
to the essence of man.
00:00:59.320
I can live with that as long as we don't spend all our time
00:01:03.400
thinking about what being means, and what the essence of man is,
00:01:08.040
and what on earth their relation might consist in.
00:01:11.080
Heidegger did a lot of that in his later years,
00:01:15.080
none too cool, stating thinking does not produce practical wisdom.
00:01:21.120
Thinking does not solve the riddles of the universe.
00:01:24.560
Thinking does not endow us with the power to act.
00:01:28.360
We live because we are living beings, and think
00:01:32.080
because we are thinking beings.
00:01:35.840
All that might be true from one point of view,
00:01:39.040
but thank goodness for entitled opinions
00:01:41.280
where we can think these issues through,
00:01:43.640
and submit them to the dialogue of thought with others
00:01:47.240
between us and them, between me and you.
00:01:50.240
[MUSIC PLAYING]
00:02:07.280
It's bizarre that Heidegger would claim that thinking does not
00:02:10.840
produce practical wisdom.
00:02:13.320
Documents like the American Constitution and Declaration
00:02:16.600
of Independence do not come into being thoughtlessly.
00:02:21.240
The practical wisdom informing them
00:02:23.640
contains a greater quotient of lucid thinking
00:02:26.920
than transcendental meditation or unwworldly contemplation
00:02:32.000
in my impatient opinion.
00:02:34.600
And in the final analysis, modern nations
00:02:37.000
are based on ideas which are crystallizations of thought.
00:02:40.960
Today, we're especially concerned with the role
00:02:46.040
that thought plays in the founding of one modern nation
00:02:49.120
in particular, the Republic of India.
00:02:52.960
We're going to discuss some of the most critical ideas
00:02:55.440
that led to the creation of that republic,
00:02:58.080
which came into being in 1950, some three years
00:03:01.960
after India achieved independence from Britain.
00:03:06.040
How much thinking went into the establishment of modern India?
00:03:10.440
A great deal, it turns out, and it took the form precisely
00:03:14.400
of that dialogue of thought with others as Hannah Arendt called it.
00:03:20.040
There were a great many participants in that dialogue,
00:03:22.880
the prodigious plurality of voices.
00:03:25.600
But today, we're devoting our show to two of the main ones--
00:03:29.600
BR, and Bedcar, and Mahatma Gandhi.
00:03:34.240
Gandhi was the leader of India's independence movement,
00:03:37.480
and Bedcar, one of India's great jurists,
00:03:40.960
economists, and political activists, was charged
00:03:44.320
with drafting India's constitution, adopted in 1950.
00:03:49.960
The guest who joins me today has just
00:03:51.600
published a book about these two founding fathers
00:03:54.000
of the Indian Republic.
00:03:55.560
Ashwadi Kumar is an assistant professor of history
00:03:58.480
here at Stanford.
00:04:00.000
His fascinating book is called Radical Equality,
00:04:03.760
Bedcar, Gandhi, and the risk of democracy,
00:04:07.600
published in 2015 by Stanford University Press.
00:04:12.440
He is here to share his thoughts about two thinkers
00:04:15.480
who had a great deal of practical wisdom,
00:04:18.480
and who, although frequently at odds,
00:04:21.160
were engaged in a tense and intense dialogue of thought
00:04:25.280
with one another.
00:04:26.320
Ashwadi, welcome to the program.
00:04:27.920
Thank you, Robert Sonan, for being here.
00:04:31.440
In the first sentence of your book, you write,
00:04:33.520
quote, "Modern India, apart from naming a time and place
00:04:37.600
has come to stand in for an interminable struggle
00:04:40.480
with history, the struggle to formulate
00:04:43.360
an ethics of justice for the present,
00:04:46.560
and to affirm a belief in democracy that is still to come."
00:04:51.480
And then you go on to write, and this is a rather long quote,
00:04:54.000
but I think it bears getting through to the end.
00:04:58.840
This book examines the intellectual and political history
00:05:02.360
of the encounter between B.R. and Bedcar and Mohandas
00:05:07.120
Gandhi, two of the most formidable non-Western thinkers
00:05:10.280
of the 20th century whose visions of moral and political life
00:05:15.120
have left the deepest imprints on that struggle
00:05:17.920
and the paradox that sustains it.
00:05:20.800
One was a prodigious untouchable who
00:05:23.680
lifting himself against the exclusion and violence
00:05:26.200
that surrounded him became a revolutionary constitutionalist,
00:05:30.480
a thinker whose laborious draftmanship and exegetical rigor
00:05:34.760
produced a new constitution for the free republic in 1950.
00:05:39.360
The other born in a community of Hindu,
00:05:42.400
Vashnava merchants was an inept lawyer who galvanized
00:05:47.040
through the sheer force of his convictions and prose,
00:05:50.040
and as yet unformed people against the most powerful empire
00:05:55.200
of his time.
00:05:56.960
Never had the colonial world's right to justice
00:05:59.800
been formulated in such proximity by two thinkers who
00:06:04.080
had otherwise struggled so ceaselessly with such
00:06:07.560
scruple and hostility against each other.
00:06:10.680
But perhaps more crucially, never had this right to justice
00:06:14.480
been sought in the shadows of a religion
00:06:17.680
known to be so persistently oppressive and violent
00:06:20.760
towards those it claimed as its very own.
00:06:22.880
So you pack a lot into those opening sentences of your book.
00:06:29.320
So why don't we take up these issues maybe one at a time,
00:06:32.720
starting with a bedcar who was less well known in the West
00:06:36.600
than his counterpart Gandhi, who was a bedcar, what role did he
00:06:42.240
or more precisely what role did his thinking
00:06:45.120
play in the founding of India?
00:06:47.560
And why were on bedcar and Gandhi so frequently
00:06:50.200
a loggerheads with one another?
00:06:56.040
To most people who know about the iron bedcar
00:06:59.320
and there is now thankfully a very large number of them,
00:07:04.240
B. Ironbaitker is known to be the architect
00:07:08.520
of the world's longest written national constitution.
00:07:12.520
He was a master jurist draftsman of the first order,
00:07:17.000
but also someone very aware of legal and constitutional
00:07:22.080
nuances.
00:07:23.360
In that sense, the idea that a bedker
00:07:25.440
was first and foremost a constitutional terrorist is not inaccurate.
00:07:32.000
Although I believe that he is also in the same vein,
00:07:37.200
one of the greatest thinkers of constitutional principles
00:07:40.280
and constituent power in modern times.
00:07:45.040
B. Ironbaitker is also known as a social reformer,
00:07:50.760
as a person committed to the eradication of caste inequality
00:07:55.640
and especially untouchability.
00:07:58.200
In all its forms, legal, political, and social,
00:08:03.920
as it existed and tragically still exists,
00:08:07.360
despite him in India.
00:08:11.640
But one of the great occlusions in this narrative
00:08:17.360
about B. Ironbaitker is the unwillingness to approach
00:08:22.760
a baker as a thinker of politics.
00:08:26.640
And it is there that I think B. Ironbaitker stands out
00:08:33.600
as perhaps the tallest among those who were responsible
00:08:39.440
for the foundation of the modern Indian Republic.
00:08:43.440
Apart from that, he was also, in my view,
00:08:46.600
one of the greatest non-Western thinkers of the relationship
00:08:51.040
between violence and politics in modern times.
00:08:58.280
A terrorist of politics, a thinker of democracy
00:09:02.760
in the truest sense of those terms and categories.
00:09:06.360
Baitker's biography is fascinating in that, as I say,
00:09:10.480
in the opening lines of the book already.
00:09:12.960
He is not someone who is born into privilege.
00:09:17.080
He is not someone who has already access
00:09:21.440
to the institutions of education and higher learning,
00:09:26.280
like many of those who will become his fellow travelers
00:09:30.160
over the following five decades.
00:09:32.480
He is born into a caste called the Mahars of Western India
00:09:39.000
in Bombay presidency to a family of a colonial soldier
00:09:47.200
who used to teach in a military school.
00:09:50.720
A Mahars of the Baitker had experiences
00:09:52.360
of being thrown out of school, students, and friends
00:09:57.040
refusing to share food or eat with him,
00:10:00.760
having to travel alone, changing homes
00:10:04.680
between cantoanment towns in colonial military,
00:10:11.280
along colonial military postings, and so on.
00:10:14.920
But from there, it is the sheer force of his thought.
00:10:19.800
And I do not use force casually.
00:10:23.200
It is the sheer force of his thought.
00:10:26.120
His ability to craft sentences and give them,
00:10:32.040
lend them a certain philosophical density that broke through
00:10:36.720
all the social prejudices of his type,
00:10:39.560
that takes him to first to New York on the scholarship,
00:10:44.280
and then eventually to London before he returns to India
00:10:48.520
in the early 20s with two doctorates.
00:10:53.080
A Mahars studies with John Dewey,
00:10:55.680
the Doyne of American pragmatism at Columbia.
00:10:59.200
And that fact is widely known.
00:11:02.480
One of the important things to remember about Dhambaitker
00:11:05.240
is that he is one thinker who is never
00:11:09.080
a sum total of his influences.
00:11:12.560
The freedom and the sheer autonomy of his thought
00:11:17.880
is what places him among the greatest
00:11:20.800
of political thinkers of the last century.
00:11:24.160
But when you insist on this role of thinking
00:11:27.160
in his place, in his stature, this is not that on the one hand,
00:11:31.200
he was a constitutionalist and a social reformer
00:11:34.480
and someone engaged in thinking about violence and politics.
00:11:38.840
And on the other hand, he was also a great thinker.
00:11:40.800
No, that his thinking took the form of thinking
00:11:47.120
about constitution, drafting a constitution,
00:11:49.720
and a sustained critique of the caste system in India
00:11:53.840
and so forth.
00:11:54.880
These were not just two independent aspects of his mental life.
00:12:01.840
Absolutely not.
00:12:02.880
I mean, I think you're right in connecting these two.
00:12:06.480
In fact, these are inseparable.
00:12:08.760
And if we translate these into some of the paradigmatic
00:12:14.000
questions or tensions within the modern political tradition,
00:12:17.680
one might even argue that Dhambaitker
00:12:19.760
is one of those great intervenres in the tension
00:12:22.760
between freedom and equality.
00:12:26.520
Equality as it is disrupted by caste injustice,
00:12:33.280
caste oppression, by racism and slavery,
00:12:36.760
freedom as that which structures the very possibility
00:12:40.200
of modern political life of modern republics at large.
00:12:45.120
The essential question that connects,
00:12:47.720
I think, on Baitker's biography,
00:12:51.920
and Baitker's thought, and they are, again, inseparable,
00:12:57.280
is simply his concern with violence
00:13:01.760
not in their visible manifest forms,
00:13:06.240
but an entire constellation of practices and experiences,
00:13:10.960
what we might call the phenomenology of violence
00:13:14.800
as it structures modern life.
00:13:17.440
At what point-- and this is a question that brings him
00:13:20.800
into the most direct conflict with Gandhi, who, again,
00:13:24.960
in a rather simplified manner, I would argue,
00:13:28.080
is known to be a theorist of nonviolence.
00:13:31.880
All in all, it seems like nonviolence
00:13:34.520
over determines Gandhi in the same way
00:13:37.200
that cast over determines on Baitker.
00:13:40.200
And they're both more than these two things.
00:13:42.760
But what brings them together and then tears them apart
00:13:46.360
is precisely the question that on Baitker
00:13:48.320
asks relentlessly, especially when he encounters Gandhi
00:13:54.560
and his commitment to nonviolent passive resistance,
00:13:57.920
namely, at what point, what vanishing line or limit
00:14:04.760
does an abstract commitment, no matter how truthful,
00:14:08.840
but an absolute discommitment to nonviolence,
00:14:11.960
itself become a form of violence.
00:14:15.200
So when you talked about his thinking
00:14:17.680
about the manifold forms that violence takes,
00:14:20.840
you don't mean violence there as something which
00:14:23.280
occurs when a whole polity breaks down
00:14:27.800
or that there's moments of disorder.
00:14:30.520
Are you talking about institutionalized violence,
00:14:32.400
for example, as something like the caste system,
00:14:35.040
or other forms of repression that have been now
00:14:38.120
incorporated into the social order as such?
00:14:42.320
Yes, when we speak of those constellation of practices
00:14:47.320
that constitute violence, we are speaking
00:14:51.560
generally of social exclusion, of systemic marginalization
00:14:58.640
and prejudice, we are speaking also of epistemic biases
00:15:04.200
that structure our very commitment to justice.
00:15:07.560
With Baitker, this is why he marks such a decisive rupture
00:15:14.000
within any tradition that you place him in,
00:15:17.680
any tradition of thinking about justice.
00:15:20.280
Because with him, it is not simply a question
00:15:23.760
of reorganizing, reconstituting, perhaps even
00:15:27.720
refounding the social order.
00:15:30.280
It is the question of how one cannot think
00:15:34.720
even of social justice without calling into question
00:15:38.920
some of the founding principles of modern republicanism
00:15:42.000
itself.
00:15:43.160
That is to say, on the one hand, when we say of violence
00:15:46.960
as a breakdown of law.
00:15:50.040
And on the other, when we speak of violence as prejudice,
00:15:53.800
we often separate them as we just did.
00:15:57.240
With Baitker, they become inseparable.
00:16:01.080
You cannot have a republic grounded in visions
00:16:05.000
of security, of collective life, of collective solidarity
00:16:11.760
without actually, and highlighting
00:16:15.600
the founding prejudices of the cast order.
00:16:19.320
So in that sense, for him, justice and sovereignty
00:16:21.840
are related.
00:16:23.840
So one of his main concerns, as a thinker,
00:16:28.640
was to abolish the caste system in India.
00:16:33.000
Am I correct on that?
00:16:34.120
So he writes this very important treatise
00:16:37.080
that you would spend a lot of time dealing with in your book
00:16:39.800
called the Annihilation of Cast, which
00:16:42.080
you find important enough to give it, at least,
00:16:48.800
intense focus at the opening of your book,
00:16:51.440
because through that analysis of the Annihilation of Cast,
00:16:55.880
if you go on then to follow his career in general.
00:17:03.280
So what is it about the Annihilation of Cast
00:17:05.360
that lecture, which then became a kind of treatise?
00:17:08.760
What is it that's so important about that piece of reasoning
00:17:11.920
or that kind of thinking that goes into that piece?
00:17:16.520
There are two dimensions of that text
00:17:18.800
that I find absolutely fascinating.
00:17:22.280
The first is methodological.
00:17:26.840
Approaching and high-lation of cast
00:17:30.320
as a particular event in the history of Indian thought
00:17:34.960
allows us to approach the very narrative of freedom
00:17:41.120
on which anti-colonial movements were grounded or founded
00:17:45.160
in a new way.
00:17:47.400
We know, for example, that one of the classic texts
00:17:50.720
in this long tradition of thinking about freedom
00:17:54.240
or what Gandhi calls Swaraj,
00:17:56.800
is Gandhi's own 1909 work, Henswaraj, or Indian homeroom.
00:18:01.880
And to many thinkers of anti-colonialism
00:18:05.920
and to many scholars of these histories of movement
00:18:12.080
for self-determination, Henswaraj is a beginning point
00:18:17.200
of something decisive, something shifts
00:18:20.120
with Henswaraj.
00:18:21.520
One of the arguments I make is that if you approach
00:18:28.640
on high-lation of cast as that text
00:18:30.760
where something shifts, something decisive occurs,
00:18:34.920
then it allows you to think of another freedom itself.
00:18:40.680
It allows you to approach and understand
00:18:44.240
the moral, the political, the conceptual density of freedom
00:18:49.920
in a way that has been itself freed from the tyranny of nationalism.
00:18:56.680
But you said earlier that he did not
00:19:00.240
subscribe to the traditional forms of republicanism,
00:19:04.800
that he was quite original when it came to the thing
00:19:08.360
about republicanism.
00:19:10.200
So you're not-- I take it that you're not
00:19:12.600
suggesting that his rethinking now,
00:19:15.080
after through the annihilation of cast,
00:19:17.280
would take the form of Western notions of the equality
00:19:21.520
of citizens before the law, of the equality of women
00:19:27.640
and people of all stations in life,
00:19:31.920
that how do you see his thinking about the republic
00:19:36.960
as different from the mainstream Western republican
00:19:40.480
thought in this regard?
00:19:42.920
That is a question that on May it curve perhaps never
00:19:49.880
resolved himself.
00:19:50.920
Let us put that on the table.
00:19:56.080
It is a question he did not resolve,
00:19:58.320
not because he wasn't sure what he was asking for
00:20:01.440
or what his vision of politics was.
00:20:04.600
It was because there were certain things
00:20:08.480
about the Western tradition, including the republican
00:20:11.200
tradition, without which no modern democracy he believed
00:20:16.040
could thrive.
00:20:18.120
In that sense, he remains a very important, very astute,
00:20:23.920
interlocutor receptor modifier of some
00:20:29.320
of these founding principles of modern republicanism.
00:20:35.160
Equality is something that he takes from there.
00:20:38.440
So does Gandhi, but he also spends it or refracts it
00:20:45.640
through a whole series of readings and engagements
00:20:49.920
with the Indian tradition.
00:20:52.400
So when we say equality of women,
00:20:55.520
a microb was perhaps one of the most militant egalitarian
00:20:58.960
when it came to the rights of women.
00:21:01.080
So much so that he was forced to resign
00:21:05.320
from the government in the early fifties,
00:21:09.720
because of his, because of women's equality,
00:21:13.880
because of this very lengthy piece of legislation called
00:21:17.160
the Hindu Code Bill he was working on.
00:21:20.320
And what was that bill essentially?
00:21:22.680
It was essentially about women's rights to property
00:21:25.880
and other such, it was a host of procedural mechanisms
00:21:33.480
that would have ensured what we today call gender equality.
00:21:37.760
- Right, and it's very progressive, I have to say,
00:21:39.600
from what a little I've seen of the provisions
00:21:42.560
and his commitment to it.
00:21:43.960
- Yeah.
00:21:44.800
- And you were telling me in conversation that Gandhi
00:21:49.520
had written in various places that you can judge a society
00:21:53.320
by the way it treats its animals.
00:21:55.000
- Right.
00:21:55.840
- And that bet-cars revision of that is that you judge a
00:21:59.320
society by the way it treats its women.
00:22:01.440
- Yes, absolutely.
00:22:03.000
- Which is right, and I'm with him entirely on that basis.
00:22:07.640
- Right, and the tragedy of B.R.M. Baker is that,
00:22:12.640
not only is he forced to resign because,
00:22:20.960
because the Indian Republic and the parliament in particular
00:22:26.680
would not pass some of these provisions,
00:22:29.640
but also because he is so in his ideas,
00:22:33.760
so in so many powerful and fundamental ways,
00:22:38.240
always out of time, out of joint with time, so to speak.
00:22:43.240
He's someone who is often arguing against nationalism.
00:22:48.440
He is often arguing against consensus and unanimity.
00:22:55.880
He is someone who often believes that it is precisely in disagreement.
00:23:00.880
It is precisely in resistance and even insurrection
00:23:06.200
that authentic citizenship might find it very Arrentian,
00:23:11.240
in that sense.
00:23:12.080
- Right, you have a plurality.
00:23:13.920
- Yes.
00:23:14.760
- That's freedom.
00:23:16.720
Freedom, disagreement is one of the dominant modes
00:23:21.800
of expression of freedom as such.
00:23:23.440
And of course he's doing all this in the great fervor
00:23:25.680
of nationalism in India,
00:23:27.200
and where there is a strong drive towards consensus
00:23:31.160
and conformism by ideas.
00:23:34.040
- Yes, and that is what I think in many ways,
00:23:38.080
almost condemns him to being what he himself called a part,
00:23:43.080
he was routinely questioned by nationalism,
00:23:52.360
thinkers of nationalism and Indian nationalist themselves
00:23:55.800
about his loyalty to the nation.
00:23:57.800
And in one brilliant formulation,
00:24:02.720
which I reconstruct in the book,
00:24:05.360
he calls himself a part apart.
00:24:07.440
And I think this ability to be outnumbered
00:24:12.240
without giving up on your fundamental political principles.
00:24:18.640
- I wonder if you ever read that,
00:24:22.080
because Dante after his exile and his disillusionment
00:24:25.200
with the trying to get back to the Florence
00:24:27.040
with these different factions,
00:24:28.200
he said he made a party of himself.
00:24:30.960
It's a part of a part.
00:24:32.480
- Right.
00:24:33.960
- A part apart.
00:24:34.800
- I will not be surprised if I made her head
00:24:38.720
actually read Dante because you can see
00:24:41.880
these great literary figures,
00:24:43.600
these great philosophical figures
00:24:46.520
all over his writings.
00:24:49.160
His use of Shakespeare while he was still a master's
00:24:52.000
student at Columbia is for example,
00:24:55.440
one of the most brilliant pieces of student writing
00:24:59.440
in the annals of Indian thought,
00:25:01.760
exile of course becomes a very fundamental motive
00:25:05.640
in the way unbeker understands politics.
00:25:08.640
You have to critique,
00:25:11.200
you have to relinquish your love for place
00:25:15.080
in order to find that place that is just.
00:25:18.560
He reconstructs for example the long episode
00:25:23.040
that leads to the exile of the Buddha
00:25:27.120
in his final work, the Buddha and his Dhamma.
00:25:30.880
And we know that within the Buddhist tradition,
00:25:34.800
Parivraja or wandering,
00:25:37.280
the state of wandering is absolutely essential
00:25:40.800
to an ethical life.
00:25:42.760
This is what I meant when I said that he receives
00:25:47.080
and perhaps even more derates
00:25:50.840
some of the fundamental principles
00:25:53.760
of modern civic republicanism,
00:25:55.640
refracting them through the prism
00:26:00.600
of his own engagement with the classical Indian tradition.
00:26:03.600
- So the annihilation of caste,
00:26:06.760
what is the reasoning process
00:26:11.280
that he advances in that work?
00:26:14.120
- The first I think,
00:26:15.640
and the fundamental idea there,
00:26:20.640
is has this great stream of nationalists,
00:26:26.760
this great anti-colonial tradition really actually
00:26:34.080
thought about what authentic freedom might mean.
00:26:37.160
The structuring sentence comes
00:26:42.360
towards a slightly later half of the text
00:26:44.560
where he says, is a Hindu actually free to use his reason?
00:26:48.120
And this is why you suddenly see
00:26:54.560
how the text is so, so placeless and at once
00:26:59.560
so placeless and timeless because this is a question
00:27:03.320
that will haunt shall we say,
00:27:06.120
the Indian political life.
00:27:09.360
- The question of reason.
00:27:10.520
- The question of the relationship between freedom
00:27:13.920
and reasoning that can be asked freely.
00:27:18.920
Can I, am I today free to ask
00:27:25.240
perhaps even question what my freedom really means?
00:27:30.240
And this is the question he poses
00:27:33.880
to the cast reformers.
00:27:36.400
The book is not actually written
00:27:39.160
to the vast mass and multitude of the so-called untouchables
00:27:44.160
and lower cast alone.
00:27:46.800
The book was actually written as a lecture
00:27:50.240
to be delivered to a body of reformers
00:27:54.200
called the Jatpat Torak Mandel based in Lahore.
00:27:58.280
So he's actually asking the cast reformers
00:28:01.760
whether they have understood
00:28:03.880
what freedom really means.
00:28:07.560
And around this axial question,
00:28:12.200
I'm a curator of a series of smaller sections
00:28:16.000
close to two dozen of them
00:28:17.520
where he talks about the question of place and space
00:28:23.400
in caste, where he talks about the question
00:28:26.480
and the problem of sovereignty within caste system
00:28:30.360
where he talks about the heuridical
00:28:33.800
and the punitive laws that enforce and entrench
00:28:38.800
this kind of prejudice,
00:28:43.120
often in very mystical and invisible forms.
00:28:46.440
There is a powerful moment in annihilation of caste
00:28:51.360
where
00:28:51.800
and scholars of apartheid and racism
00:28:56.160
will perhaps relate to it when a white cross says,
00:29:00.920
caste is so different,
00:29:03.200
precisely because you are not fighting barbed wire fences,
00:29:09.600
right?
00:29:13.440
Caste is not simply physical barrier,
00:29:15.920
caste is a form of cognitive enslavement.
00:29:19.560
And without this ability to think freely
00:29:24.320
about what freedom is,
00:29:26.800
without the ethics of sharing freedom
00:29:30.360
when it might come for India,
00:29:32.400
that ethics of sharing freedom equally
00:29:36.800
is what alone might annihilate caste.
00:29:42.320
Would it require also the annihilation of Hinduism
00:29:46.360
in which the caste system has its roots?
00:29:48.880
I think on Bitcoin is very certain
00:29:52.520
that
00:29:53.000
the moment you take,
00:29:57.760
the caste out, the evil and the cruelty,
00:30:01.480
the lawlessness as he calls it, of caste out,
00:30:04.720
there would be no Hinduism left.
00:30:06.520
And this is where I think his disagreements
00:30:10.280
with Gandhi
00:30:11.040
become absolutely reconcilable.
00:30:14.560
- Yeah, can you talk a little bit now about that disagreement?
00:30:17.360
- Especially on the caste question,
00:30:21.400
to start with a caste question,
00:30:22.720
then,
00:30:23.560
- Right, follow.
00:30:25.000
- In so many ways,
00:30:27.000
the disagreement is often
00:30:30.200
seen to be about the modality of caste reform.
00:30:34.160
And I think it begins there
00:30:36.800
in a very powerful sort of a way.
00:30:38.920
If we go back a few years,
00:30:44.080
this is Ambedkar and Gandhi's first meeting.
00:30:47.480
- What year are we talking about?
00:30:48.480
- We're talking about 1931,
00:30:51.640
just on the eve of the aroundable conferences in London,
00:30:54.400
that the British government has about independence.
00:30:57.560
About both the transfer of power,
00:30:59.520
but eventual transfer of power,
00:31:01.040
but also about the question of franchise,
00:31:03.600
about how is it that the franchise has to be configured
00:31:06.720
in India?
00:31:08.080
Partly because the great war has already shown
00:31:10.960
how big in the future and already at that time,
00:31:13.640
the question of minorities will be.
00:31:15.760
Ambedkar visits Gandhi,
00:31:20.840
they talk legend has is
00:31:23.280
that Gandhi almost doesn't even look at Ambedkar,
00:31:27.320
but they have a polite conversation.
00:31:30.240
Ambedkar fiercely uncompromising
00:31:33.320
and absolutely articulate in his sheer logical force.
00:31:38.320
Gandhi no less so,
00:31:42.120
but it seems like Gandhi was trying to evade
00:31:45.480
the much deeper kind of demand,
00:31:47.840
moral demand and make us making
00:31:50.000
on the nationalist cause at that time.
00:31:53.040
At any rate,
00:31:57.280
once Ambedkar leaves and they fail to come to an agreement,
00:32:02.280
an agreement on the cast,
00:32:04.920
on the franchise, on the question of separate electorates.
00:32:08.400
Gandhi asks his one of his aides sitting in the room,
00:32:16.320
but I don't understand why Dr. Ambedkar is so aggressive
00:32:22.200
or anxious about the lower cast.
00:32:25.440
And his eight-dell's Gandhi because he's one.
00:32:31.920
And Gandhi's taken aback because his entire approach
00:32:37.600
to casting equality, his entire approach to who've
00:32:41.520
where these untouchables was such that he was unable to ever,
00:32:46.520
even imagine that it was likely that Ambedkar,
00:32:52.520
the master theoretician, the argumentative force
00:32:56.800
that he was was actually one of them.
00:32:59.200
- Because he was too well educated and too knowledgeable.
00:33:01.400
- Yes, so that is one might argue that that is
00:33:04.840
by and large Gandhi's own casteism,
00:33:08.680
rearing its ugly head,
00:33:10.080
not for the first nor for the last time.
00:33:11.880
- Because Gandhi belonging to the Brahmin class.
00:33:14.040
- No, Gandhi himself belonged to a non-Brahin
00:33:17.320
of our caste, a caste of merchants.
00:33:21.040
In the classical idiom, one might say,
00:33:27.200
he belonged to the veshears,
00:33:29.200
but the ancient or the classical notion of whirna,
00:33:33.280
which quite interestingly can be translated as color.
00:33:39.600
It does not map on as cleanly onto the modern notion of caste,
00:33:44.600
but Gandhi, either way, was not from a lower caste,
00:33:48.560
but it is, and therefore it is his prejudice.
00:33:51.240
Things are also complicated because Ambedkar's own surname
00:33:56.680
was a gift from his Brahmin teacher when he was a student.
00:34:01.680
Ambedkar is a surname he had been gifted rather than inherited.
00:34:08.360
Now, we know that the disagreements were simmering for a while.
00:34:12.360
They come to a head around the Pune-A-Pak negotiations
00:34:19.360
as it's famously or infamously known,
00:34:23.720
when Gandhi goes on to fast until death,
00:34:27.240
until Ambedkar withdraws.
00:34:30.040
- With draws what?
00:34:30.880
- His demand for separate electorates for the lower caste.
00:34:33.320
- Separative electorates for the lower class.
00:34:35.240
- Right.
00:34:36.080
- The lower caste depressed classes,
00:34:37.960
there are many ways in which these groups and communities
00:34:42.640
are described now known as assertively known as Dalits.
00:34:47.640
- So Ambedkar's reasoning for why there should be special elections
00:34:53.120
for the lower caste is that they could not participate
00:34:57.240
in the larger polity.
00:34:58.840
- Take, take.
00:34:59.680
- Fairly.
00:35:00.840
- Yes, at the most fundamental level,
00:35:03.640
it's the systemic prejudice itself.
00:35:06.560
Gandhi was willing to concede reserved seats for these candidates,
00:35:11.560
for representatives of lower caste and Dalits and depressed classes,
00:35:16.800
as they were known.
00:35:17.720
Ambedkar wanted the entire electorate to be separate.
00:35:22.040
Only the depressed classes would vote for elections of representatives
00:35:31.880
who would represent only the depressed classes.
00:35:34.680
- For Gandhi, that was an internal partition.
00:35:37.280
For Ambedkar, that partition had already been there, always.
00:35:41.400
- And Gandhi wins this.
00:35:43.840
- Gandhi wins it.
00:35:45.400
Gandhi wins it because of his brilliant, remarkably well-cultivated
00:35:50.840
ability to die for a cause.
00:35:53.440
He is willing to sacrifice himself,
00:35:56.560
pressure, mount sonam baker,
00:36:01.040
as his health deteriorates.
00:36:03.520
And then he, he, he, he, and following that,
00:36:07.360
the British government, which was the provision.
00:36:10.640
- Well, forgive by,
00:36:11.520
ignorance about this matter in terms of speculation now,
00:36:16.240
but and it seems to me, or let me ask you the question,
00:36:20.160
the name of the show is entitled opinions.
00:36:22.400
In your opinion, right?
00:36:25.720
Do you think Gandhi was right on this issue?
00:36:28.280
And I'll tell you why I just have a suspicion
00:36:30.360
that he might have been on the right side,
00:36:32.240
that if you instituted a system that had, you know,
00:36:35.080
a special elections for a special class,
00:36:38.000
that it would perpetuate their difference
00:36:42.040
and their depression.
00:36:43.920
And that the insistence that the nation be,
00:36:46.920
be really institutionally as one,
00:36:50.160
it seems to be a rather enlightened view.
00:36:54.160
- Right.
00:36:55.960
- But there are any number of opinions on this issue,
00:36:59.560
I'm sure. - Sure.
00:37:00.400
- Yes, there are, there are a host of opinions
00:37:05.400
and a host of disagreements around what,
00:37:12.720
what might have been.
00:37:15.520
I think what is interesting here is not whether
00:37:19.120
Edgar was right or wrong,
00:37:20.600
whether Gandhi was actually in the long run proven right.
00:37:24.800
I think what,
00:37:27.560
what is interesting at this moment is
00:37:31.560
how on May it correspond to a mental point
00:37:35.960
about the tyrannical structure
00:37:38.720
of the anti-colonial movement is revealed
00:37:43.440
in its brightest, most unequal vocal form.
00:37:47.560
Gandhi may have been right about separate electorates.
00:37:55.400
It's difficult to say, even in hindsight.
00:37:59.960
And I do not think he was entirely right
00:38:04.960
or entirely wrong.
00:38:06.800
What I do believe is that the manner in which
00:38:11.800
this argument was one and lost
00:38:15.880
actually proved,
00:38:22.440
that there is a debate on betkers much deeper problem
00:38:25.440
with the tradition of democratic thinking
00:38:28.320
that was taken ground in India.
00:38:30.600
- Do you mean the fasting? - The fasting until death.
00:38:34.720
Subsequently, in the constitution,
00:38:39.920
he calls it the grammar of anarchy.
00:38:42.480
- Gandhi does not. - No, I'm very concerned.
00:38:45.800
- I'm very concerned. - Ambedkar,
00:38:47.800
relates to this entire tradition of thinking about politics
00:38:51.320
the language or compresses them within the expression grammar
00:38:55.560
of anarchy.
00:38:56.400
And there we are on to another register altogether
00:39:00.040
that we might not want to go straight away.
00:39:02.840
But the much fundamental issue here,
00:39:07.560
apart from the correctness of their opinions,
00:39:12.560
was the method and the form of struggle that was deployed.
00:39:19.560
And I think the disagreement,
00:39:21.360
even Ambedkar's disagreement with Gandhi,
00:39:24.600
eventually is not always about Gandhi's opposition
00:39:28.360
to separate electors.
00:39:29.320
I mean, this is one fact that is often ignored
00:39:31.720
by scholars of political thought.
00:39:33.640
Partly because this disagreement and this event itself
00:39:37.560
is seen to be,
00:39:38.840
seen to be the framing device
00:39:45.600
around which their disagreement is constructed.
00:39:48.840
- Is it the main disagreement between them?
00:39:50.400
- It is, in my view, not the main disagreement.
00:39:53.400
- What is the main disagreement?
00:39:54.240
- The main disagreement between them is the question
00:39:57.800
or the relationship between freedom and equality.
00:40:02.800
That to me is the fundamental,
00:40:05.000
and within that sure, it is absolutely right.
00:40:09.040
And I agree with the generations of scholars who argue
00:40:13.360
that they had a certain difference
00:40:15.680
over the question of cash reform.
00:40:17.880
But I think Ambedkar was committed to
00:40:22.880
and geared towards a much more fundamental thinking
00:40:28.320
about political life, about politics as such.
00:40:33.320
- So you would say that even politics as such,
00:40:37.200
even though, well, if you take that,
00:40:40.360
again, a rent-to-end distinction,
00:40:42.120
I keep going back to my own canon here,
00:40:45.920
the distinction between the political and the social
00:40:49.320
that Ana had it makes,
00:40:51.360
where it would seem that much of Ambedkar's life work
00:40:56.360
as a jurist, constitutionalist,
00:41:01.280
was in the realm of social reform,
00:41:04.640
rather than, let's say, political foundation as such.
00:41:10.600
Now, this distinction might not apply in this case
00:41:14.040
that maybe the context is so different
00:41:16.640
that you can't make this distinction,
00:41:18.360
but one could say that politics is one thing,
00:41:23.360
founding the nation, what its laws are,
00:41:27.920
and the other is all the series of social reform.
00:41:32.440
- About casting equality, about destitution,
00:41:34.800
and poverty, about injustice, and so on.
00:41:37.480
To him, these questions are inseparable,
00:41:44.920
from the founding, perhaps, as you might say,
00:41:47.720
the public realm, and the founding laws of the republic.
00:41:52.600
It is in this sense that he finds it
00:41:55.080
very difficult to separate questions of freedom
00:41:58.440
and sovereignty from questions of equality and justice.
00:42:01.640
He's both in that sense, if, again,
00:42:07.280
I go back to your canon.
00:42:09.880
He's also somewhere adjacent to her anti-and-conceptions
00:42:15.600
of politics, but this politics has to be understood
00:42:20.160
slightly differently in the way he understands it.
00:42:24.680
Ambedkar has this remarkable, and often,
00:42:28.360
scandal-red, a set of meditations
00:42:33.000
on what majority means in a democracy.
00:42:36.720
And one of the things that fascinates me about him
00:42:39.120
is taking over his whole question sort of a way.
00:42:42.240
He's also a terrorist majority in the most political sense
00:42:45.720
of the term.
00:42:47.200
Does the sovereignty, the mass-read domination
00:42:50.400
that defines a political majority in a political space
00:42:55.400
within a political nation?
00:42:58.440
And India is a very politicized, political republic.
00:43:02.680
And he makes a very interesting distinction there
00:43:07.120
that complicates some of the other normative ways
00:43:10.120
of understanding the relationship, the numerical relationship
00:43:13.760
between majority and minority.
00:43:15.800
Where he says in India, there are two major words.
00:43:18.640
There's a political majority, which is who we vote for,
00:43:24.880
reducible to or identified with the numbers it has
00:43:29.640
in the parliament or the councils and so on.
00:43:31.920
And then there is the communal majority.
00:43:35.400
And this communal majority has nothing to do with the political
00:43:38.320
majority, although it runs away.
00:43:40.680
That's the expression he uses.
00:43:42.560
He runs away with the mandate that actually
00:43:44.920
the political majority has.
00:43:46.720
What is this communal majority?
00:43:49.800
It is that which is invisible.
00:43:52.800
It is that which is pernicious.
00:43:54.800
It is that which structures not simply the laws
00:43:59.040
of the republic, but it's everyday life.
00:44:01.920
- Are these the embedded prejudices of the,
00:44:05.120
of the people as such?
00:44:06.400
- It is the embedded prejudice of the people as such.
00:44:11.040
Yes, I think that's absolutely accurate.
00:44:15.040
It is also that, and this is where I'm made
00:44:18.080
and Gandhi perhaps have some striking resemblance.
00:44:23.080
It is also that which can never be transformed or converted.
00:44:28.880
It has to be destroyed.
00:44:34.320
Which means that no law will be adequate to the task of undermining
00:44:39.320
or resisting this communal majority.
00:44:43.120
It already punches way above its monstrous weight
00:44:46.960
because in numerical terms it doesn't show itself on paper.
00:44:52.000
But the entire sword of including people on the left
00:44:57.000
and among liberals are part of this communal majority.
00:45:01.440
- So how does one destroy it?
00:45:04.160
- That is where annihilation of caste,
00:45:06.720
especially in the way
00:45:08.600
on which it deploys the term annihilation becomes operative.
00:45:12.560
It is only through an unconditional commitment
00:45:17.560
to giving up on all sorts of privileged cast springs.
00:45:23.800
And the question is whether India is capable of that.
00:45:26.760
And one might feel disillusioned
00:45:31.840
by the way contemporary political life
00:45:36.760
in India is structured because America has been proven right.
00:45:44.760
It has been very difficult to dislodge
00:45:50.640
through some sort of legal intervention,
00:45:56.360
through some sort of rest-intuitive
00:45:58.400
or even constitutional intervention.
00:46:03.400
This kind of caste prejudice that structures Indian life.
00:46:09.560
And it doesn't simply structure Indian social life
00:46:15.800
when we say political life,
00:46:18.760
I mean it in the strongest sense of the political.
00:46:22.720
That it undermines the very foundations
00:46:28.120
of a possible republic.
00:46:29.720
- I've always believed that democracy is not very well
00:46:36.040
understood by certain other countries
00:46:40.640
that presume to have a democratic system.
00:46:43.840
So for example,
00:46:45.280
just take Turkey out of the one.
00:46:50.800
He wins a majority of votes
00:46:54.440
and he says the majority has spoken.
00:46:56.440
And now it's got blanche for anything that he wants to do
00:47:00.360
regardless of the rights of the minority.
00:47:04.000
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding
00:47:05.880
of what a democratic republic is where it's based primarily
00:47:10.880
on the protection of the rights of minorities
00:47:14.160
against the tyranny of the majority.
00:47:16.400
- Right.
00:47:17.400
- And it's not enough to have a numerical majority
00:47:22.400
voting for you that the minorities
00:47:25.600
can be disregarded.
00:47:27.240
I think the Muslim Brotherhood made the same mistake
00:47:30.360
in Egypt where you have a numerical majority
00:47:33.520
and they think that now it's any concerns of the minority
00:47:38.520
opposition or have been neutralized.
00:47:40.960
Well, no, it doesn't work that way.
00:47:42.480
Even in Italy, Bad Luzconi, when he was in the prime minister,
00:47:45.720
he thought that as long as he was,
00:47:47.160
his party was winning a majority of the votes
00:47:49.480
among the other parties he could do as he pleased.
00:47:51.680
But that's, I think, is a misunderstanding of how the,
00:47:56.880
at least the American version that it takes about
00:48:00.360
the rights of minorities is fundamental,
00:48:02.520
even foundational for a certain kind of democracy.
00:48:05.480
So in the title of your book, Radical Equality,
00:48:08.560
that I'm taking it that you believe that there's something
00:48:14.080
about radical equality, which is very difficult
00:48:17.680
to conjugate with freedom in the political spheres.
00:48:20.760
Is that correct?
00:48:21.800
That's one of the tensions or even what you call an "antinomy"
00:48:27.960
in your book.
00:48:29.280
Yes, in the most schematic sense one might argue
00:48:36.120
that radical equality is equality taken
00:48:41.520
outside of the limits of the social question.
00:48:46.360
To the extremities of the very limits of thinking
00:48:51.360
where it becomes inseparable from questions
00:48:56.640
of freedom and sovereignty.
00:48:57.880
The way equality is thought through,
00:49:02.400
especially in these two thinkers,
00:49:05.760
is not simply transformative in the social sense,
00:49:10.400
but it transforms the very nature
00:49:12.400
of how we understand equality.
00:49:14.360
If we understand equality fundamentally as commensibility,
00:49:18.640
as an abstract sameness,
00:49:21.400
as a certain principle of quantity,
00:49:24.440
then these are things that are very difficult to find
00:49:27.320
in these two thinkers.
00:49:29.240
They are absolutely committed to difference.
00:49:32.200
They have a respect for plurality,
00:49:37.040
but that plurality is not reducible to mere respect
00:49:41.160
or reverence.
00:49:43.440
And perhaps most importantly, this equality
00:49:46.200
cannot be understood without political freedom.
00:49:50.320
And it is in this sense that they radicalize the question
00:49:55.400
of equality but also of democracy.
00:49:59.360
And this is the risk, as I say often,
00:50:01.360
it is a democracy is a risk in many senses of the word.
00:50:06.160
But in these two figures,
00:50:08.800
what you often see is a disenchantment
00:50:11.640
with the representative form of government too.
00:50:13.960
And Beethoven, in fact, is very categorical
00:50:18.480
when he says that in India,
00:50:20.440
one of the things we might perhaps lack
00:50:23.600
is constitutional morality.
00:50:25.600
Simply having a representative form of democracy,
00:50:30.360
simply having representative institutions
00:50:33.000
will not ensure.
00:50:34.440
- That's the risk of democracy.
00:50:36.920
The risk of democracy is that you might have communal
00:50:39.440
material in a society.
00:50:41.440
And the second risk, which is perhaps a global risk.
00:50:46.440
And we see it nowhere more than in the United States.
00:50:52.520
And this is what I'm very curious about in the '40s,
00:50:55.560
is he's, again, to pick up a thread
00:51:00.080
that we had begun with.
00:51:03.680
In a very classical Republican manner,
00:51:07.960
a baker sees the greatest threat to democracy
00:51:12.400
from the alliance between politics and money,
00:51:16.680
between privilege and franchise.
00:51:21.400
It is from that insurrectionary angle he is coming,
00:51:27.720
because nothing contaminates the possibility
00:51:35.640
and the promise of democracy more than its absolute compromise
00:51:40.640
with money interest.
00:51:42.040
And yet he never seems to have been tempted
00:51:44.320
or seduced by Marxism, no?
00:51:46.280
- No, he was never.
00:51:47.960
In fact, with the Ghanaian and Middle-Kewia,
00:51:50.520
we are as we often are in the vicinity of two thinkers
00:51:55.120
who are irreconcilable and yet inseparable,
00:51:59.120
as I think they are.
00:52:03.760
Partly because for a Baker class doesn't actually capture,
00:52:08.760
or the rhetoric of class doesn't really capture
00:52:13.800
the fundamental truth about prejudice and privilege.
00:52:16.960
It is no more, classes no more abstract
00:52:21.960
and no less given to these forms of privileges.
00:52:32.680
- The caste is different from class in that regard.
00:52:35.880
One can look at various socioeconomic indicators
00:52:40.160
and find some parallels there beyond doubt.
00:52:45.160
But if we are thinking in terms of how a baker thinks
00:52:51.120
of these things, I think he's,
00:52:53.240
the theoretical category,
00:52:55.560
the classes in epistemic category is different from class.
00:52:59.640
- Right, so when you write,
00:53:00.680
and I quoted that earlier, but perhaps more crucially,
00:53:03.480
never had this right to justice been sought
00:53:07.160
in the shadows of a religion known to be so persistently
00:53:10.320
oppressive and violent towards those
00:53:12.080
it claimed as its own.
00:53:14.240
There are the references to Hinduism
00:53:16.080
and that this religion, it's oppression and violence
00:53:21.920
is because it serves as the foundation for the caste system
00:53:27.600
and for a great many other kind of social ills
00:53:31.800
that are very difficult to overcome,
00:53:33.600
even if you come up with a constitution
00:53:36.880
of a Republican form of government
00:53:39.040
and you put in the kind of equality of citizens to vote
00:53:44.120
and so forth, but still there is some other
00:53:47.400
force at work, which neither Gandhi nor I'm better
00:53:55.400
than what I understand wanted to have a complete separation
00:53:58.680
of, so on the one hand there's a commitment
00:54:00.440
to a secular Republican, a bit car,
00:54:02.920
but there is not this kind of repudiation
00:54:07.520
of traditional religion and the past.
00:54:12.520
This is not like Adhat Turk who when he becomes
00:54:16.080
the drivers of Turkey, he abolishes the imams
00:54:18.920
and the veil and says we're gonna Westernize,
00:54:21.280
changes the alphabet and all this past of ours
00:54:24.280
is going to turn our backs on it, this is not
00:54:27.600
the kind of secular republicanism that I'm bettar
00:54:31.800
is embracing, right?
00:54:33.160
Yes, one of the great paradoxes as I say,
00:54:42.160
that sustains Indian democratic life is precisely
00:54:45.240
its ambiguities towards secularism as such.
00:54:50.240
In principle, the constitution will eventually define
00:54:55.240
their public as a secular one, but in practice,
00:55:02.200
neither on Bitcoin nor Gandhi either believe
00:55:10.640
or are committed to the question of an absolute
00:55:18.560
relinquishment of religion.
00:55:21.160
Because it's not because they believe
00:55:23.560
that there has to be a necessary moral, spiritual force
00:55:27.640
that has to be preserved and in that sense
00:55:32.640
that it's more than merely political
00:55:36.040
in the reductive sense of the term political, no?
00:55:38.480
Yes, it is more than, this is the point
00:55:43.640
where it becomes very difficult to separate their politics
00:55:48.640
from their ethics and their understanding of the religious.
00:55:54.920
In fact, an annihilation of caste has this brilliant sentence
00:56:00.880
where a baker is giving a call for the destruction
00:56:03.640
of Hinduism and he says, how can the destruction
00:56:11.520
of such an oppressive religion be irreligious?
00:56:16.640
Isn't the duty of religion as such first and foremost
00:56:21.640
to destroy a tradition that mas creates itself as a religion?
00:56:26.720
And he calls it a religion of rules or religion,
00:56:33.200
Hinduism as a religion that has become a law unto itself.
00:56:38.560
Now, the two very interesting and strained threads running
00:56:43.560
through and made presentations on religion.
00:56:46.560
One is clearly his firmly secular idea
00:56:51.560
that religion can destroy the integrity of political life.
00:56:57.600
And here he's very close to Hobbs,
00:57:02.120
or Rousseau whom he reads and often cites.
00:57:05.560
In fact, the expression religion as law is from Hobbs
00:57:10.560
and Ambedkar read Hobbs at other moments for other purposes.
00:57:15.560
The other tradition here is the Marxian one.
00:57:18.480
For example, the expression essence of religion,
00:57:23.320
which appears in annihilation of caste,
00:57:25.280
is taken from Ambedkar's reading of Marx's
00:57:28.960
on the Jewish question.
00:57:30.800
Now, that said, he has something rather original
00:57:35.280
in the second half of their sentence,
00:57:37.720
towards the more defining and closing sentences
00:57:44.120
of that paragraph, that series of mutations,
00:57:46.120
where he says,
00:57:46.840
"There is nothing irreligious in the destruction
00:57:52.600
of such a religion."
00:57:53.880
Because Hinduism is a religion that prevents us from
00:58:00.280
understanding our responsibility.
00:58:05.120
Hinduism and highlights not just faith or belief.
00:58:09.360
Hinduism makes impossible the very idea of responsibility.
00:58:14.360
In order to understand obligation,
00:58:17.320
one has to first religiously destroy religion religiously.
00:58:22.400
And I say this often because it's somehow taken as granted
00:58:27.400
that here is a thinker who is a complete
00:58:32.400
unequal, secularist in 1936.
00:58:35.680
And then after a series of defeats and disillusionment
00:58:40.280
turns to religion in 1956 before he dies,
00:58:43.760
that is not actually what happens.
00:58:46.360
What happens is a struggle between Ambedkar and Gandhi
00:58:50.040
to think about religion as such.
00:58:53.800
And that religion alone,
00:58:56.720
this is not a civil religion clearly.
00:58:58.560
It's not a religion that insinuates itself
00:59:01.480
in municipal functions.
00:59:04.400
It is a religion that will lead to a fundamental realignment
00:59:09.560
of what political truth is.
00:59:12.400
It's a religion that will restructure
00:59:15.840
the very relationship between politics and truth.
00:59:19.840
And that strand, that strain, that tension,
00:59:25.680
is already powerful in Ambedkar in the 20s and 30s.
00:59:30.040
It's a running strain which eventually leads him
00:59:33.760
to produce his masterwork, the Buddha and his summer in 1956.
00:59:38.760
But again, as I was saying,
00:59:45.400
one has to re-align
00:59:50.600
the way we understand the anti-colonial tradition
00:59:57.120
in order to reconstruct, recreate this richness
01:00:02.360
of the debate around questions of freedom.
01:00:04.960
- Right.
01:00:06.360
Well, Ashvadi, we've come getting beyond our allotted hour.
01:00:11.360
And let me just say that we have not dealt very much
01:00:16.800
with Gandhi in this hour.
01:00:19.320
So maybe we can come to an agreement
01:00:22.760
that you will come back on the show very shortly
01:00:24.760
and that we'll have a part two where we will focus more on Gandhi
01:00:29.520
and the relation between the two.
01:00:31.280
It would be an honor to do so.
01:00:34.120
And one last question for you as we wrap it up
01:00:38.800
for someone who is as critical of Hinduism
01:00:41.800
as Ambedkar was.
01:00:45.000
How do you explain the fact that he is still regarded
01:00:49.840
very widely in India as a national hero?
01:00:52.720
And in many ways venerated for someone who has attacked the heart
01:00:57.720
of the Hindu religion, it seems unlikely
01:01:06.960
that he could retain this enormous stature
01:01:12.080
that he still has today.
01:01:13.360
- I am so glad we have come to this question to us
01:01:19.480
at the end because one of the great paradoxes of
01:01:22.660
Ambedkar's political and philosophical legacy
01:01:25.240
is that he was not considered to be a mainstream
01:01:31.600
thinker for a very long time.
01:01:34.440
As late as until a decade ago,
01:01:38.320
when I started working on this book,
01:01:43.680
the broad question was,
01:01:47.240
well, what is there to say about Ambedkar's political thought
01:01:50.960
but more importantly, of Ambedkar as a thinker
01:01:53.520
that might be worthy of reconstruction
01:01:58.400
of yielding and lending moral and political density.
01:02:03.400
So for a very long time,
01:02:08.560
the consecration, not simply the hegographic construction,
01:02:14.680
but the consecration of Indian nationalism,
01:02:18.200
the great tradition of anti-colonial struggle
01:02:21.240
has ensured a certain marginality for Ambedkar.
01:02:26.080
He might have been very happy about it to say the least.
01:02:30.760
As we know, he says, I'm not part of the whole,
01:02:34.400
I'm a part apart, there is a way in which
01:02:38.000
Ambedkar's insurrectionary political thought,
01:02:42.800
especially insurrectionary when it is thinking of citizenship
01:02:46.360
and civic virtue.
01:02:47.440
In fact, he's thinking of citizenship as insurrection,
01:02:51.080
has been very, very problematic for a very vast
01:02:55.480
what of
01:02:56.760
of nationalists, of liberals in India,
01:03:02.280
of Marxists who have not paid any attention
01:03:05.840
for a very long time and are now doing so to Ambedkar.
01:03:09.560
So he's a very, very powerful, very tragic,
01:03:15.400
very enigmatic and very in-electable thinker right now.
01:03:19.800
And his legacy comes out of very, very powerfully
01:03:24.560
emancipatory social movements, the Dalit movements,
01:03:28.280
the Dalit-Astrad movements in literature,
01:03:31.440
in sometimes in cinema, in certainly in art forms,
01:03:37.480
in theater and so on.
01:03:39.320
Ambedkar is a revolutionary who has been for the best part
01:03:44.320
of the last century, difficult to reconcile
01:03:47.960
with some of the aggressive violence
01:03:51.760
certitudes of Indian nationalism.
01:03:54.320
And one of the problems of his resurgence,
01:03:58.200
I do want to end with a caution
01:04:02.600
that one of the problems with the resurgence of Ambedkar,
01:04:08.440
is that he will be now sought out,
01:04:12.600
if not completely or who created,
01:04:16.800
by groups, including the Indian National Congress,
01:04:22.600
that had resisted him for the longest time
01:04:25.560
and the Hindu right,
01:04:27.280
who want to use his legacy as a way for electoral advantage,
01:04:35.720
there is a very real danger of that eclecticism
01:04:40.000
that is so fundamental to anti-colonial thought,
01:04:43.600
that eclecticism can take extremely monstrous forms.
01:04:48.280
And it is that eclecticism of thought
01:04:51.360
that Ambedkar warns first and foremost against the greatest
01:04:55.120
risk of democracy comes from the nation state.
01:04:58.400
- Well, I have to say that his mark as a true thinker
01:05:03.600
is most credibly confirmed for me
01:05:06.760
by the fact that he doesn't fit in any pre-established category
01:05:10.240
as such, either the revolutionary or the nationalist
01:05:13.360
or the Marxist or so.
01:05:16.320
And therefore, he's a part of part is what the thinker is.
01:05:20.520
And we've been doing some of that thinking here
01:05:23.280
on this show with Professor Ashwadi Kumar
01:05:26.520
from the Department of History here at Stanford.
01:05:29.400
So we have a deal, we're gonna come back
01:05:31.840
and we're gonna talk about Gandhi next time
01:05:34.160
and we're gonna talk about Gandhi primarily
01:05:36.600
like we did today with Ambedkar as a thinker, you know?
01:05:40.040
So thanks again for coming on.
01:05:41.520
I'm Robert Harrison for entitled opinions
01:05:44.080
and tune in next week.
01:05:45.480
- Thank you, Robert for having me.
01:05:46.800
- Bye-bye. - Bye.
01:05:47.960
(upbeat music)
01:05:50.540
(upbeat music)
01:06:15.540
(upbeat music)
01:06:36.140
(upbeat music)
01:07:01.140
(upbeat music)
01:07:26.140
(upbeat music)
01:07:51.140
(upbeat music)
01:08:16.140
(upbeat music)
01:08:41.140
(upbeat music)
01:09:06.140
(upbeat music)
01:09:31.140
(upbeat music)
01:09:56.140
(upbeat music)
01:10:21.140
(upbeat music)