Community, Common good and Democracy :
Indian Response to Western Communitarianism

Dr .P. Kesava Kumar
Lecturer, Dept. of Philosophy
Pondicherry University

Introduction to Communitarianism
The concept of community is constructed and deployed in recent social and political theory. Community has very often continued to be articulated in recent political and public policy debates. Today there are many on going struggles centred around the concept of community. The struggles for rights were based imagination of citizen, nation and community and had implication for democracy. ‘Community’ is invoked as a justification for reorganization of state institutions, as the source of care and support for individuals, and as an entity that is valuable in its own right and must therefore be sustained and defended. As Putnam identifies that, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. In the West, the political theory based on community identified as ‘communitarianism’ has emerged as a new philosophical thought in opposition to ‘classical liberalism’ and ‘capitalism’. They consider these traditions as ontologically and epistemologically incoherent and advocating phenomenon such as civil society. Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. . Communitarians have often embraced one form or another of ‘social constructionism’.Of course, invariably one may find tensions and contradictions within the concept of community. Community is both inclusive and exclusive, both organized and unstructured, both hierarchical and egalitarian. The analysis of the concept ‘community’ reveals the role of ideas and ideals in shaping political action, and also the barriers to the realization of community in practical context. It is even to difficult to place communitarians either in wholly right or left and many claim to represent a sort of radical middle.The strength or weakness of communitarians lies in its advocacy of common good evolved from the practices of multicultural societies. Common good serves as a substantive vision for ethical life of community. This plays a decisive role in articulating rights and defining democracy.
The word community connotes many meanings depending on the context. Community is linked to locality, in the physical, geographical sense of a community that is located somewhere. Communities of place, or communities based on geographical location. Communities of memory have refers to imagined communities that have a shared history going back several generations. Besides tying us to the past, such communities turn us towards the future — members strive to realize the ideals and aspirations embedded in past experiences. Psychological communities or communities of face-to-face personal interaction have governed by sentiments of trust, co-operation, and altruism. This refers to a group of persons who participate in common activity and experience a psychological sense of togetherness as shared ends are sought.

Communitarians have sought to deflate the universal pretensions of liberal theory. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, with a strong focus on the rights of citizens in a democracy. Whereas the libertarian Rawls seemed to present his theory of justice as universally true, communitarians argued that the standards of justice must be found in forms of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from context to context. Rawls argues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing, and revising our own life-plans. He neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition). Communitarians believe that there is too much focus on these concerns, arguing that "the exclusive pursuit of private interest erodes the network of social environments on which we all depend, and is destructive to our shared experiment in democratic self-government. They believe that rights must be accompanied by social responsibility and maintenance of the institutions of civil society if these rights are to be preserved, but libertarians believe that government actions to promote these ends actually result in a loss of individual liberty. Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor argued that moral and political judgment will depend on the language of reasons and the interpretive framework within which agents view their world, hence that it makes no sense to begin the political enterprise by abstracting from the interpretive dimensions of human beliefs, practices, and institutions. Michael Walzer developed the additional argument that effective social criticism must derive from and resonate with the habits and traditions of actual people living in specific times and places. In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre defended the Aristotelian ideal of the intimate, reciprocating local community bound by shared ends, where people simply assume and fulfill socially given roles.

Some of the features of communitarianism are: By nature, human beings are social animals. They always exist in a network of other people and within the social institutions and culture of their society. No sharp distinction can be drawn between the public and private spheres. The private sphere is a fluctuating social construct with few if any intrinsic contents of its own. Although it is important that there be a private sphere, to protect against undue encroachments of public pressure and to acknowledge the diversity of human tastes, values, and ways of life, what counts as private will be a societal decision. communitarian will begin with the welfare of a society as a whole as the analogous starting point—understanding "welfare" in the broadest sense, as encompassing the traditions, political institutions, characteristic practices and values, and culture commitments of a society.
In India, there are serious debates on performance of democracy after a half century. There are many social aspirations and political articulations in building the nation state and its citizenship. On the issues of freedom and rights tensions prevail over liberal and socialist ideals. The individual interests are in conflict with the interests of community. Some times, the politics in the name of community has seen threat to the very ideals of the democracy. In this context, the politics based on communitarianism has to be evaluated on different criteria such as common good for deliberating democracy.

Liberal Vs Communitarian Debate
The debate between liberals and communitarians is in part a dispute about what democracy requires. Liberals insist that democratic self-government requires a fair and neutral political framework in which individuals can enjoy freedom and be treated as equals. As such, a democratic state must be as minimal as possible; its primary function is to maintain the social conditions and political institutions under which free and equal persons can live harmoniously together. On the communitarian view, democracy requires that individuals embody the virtues that make them capable of the true freedom of self-government , and that these virtues can be properly nurtured only within the context of a proper community. Therefore, the state in a democratic society must undertake the project of forming its citizens' characters by providing the necessary conditions under which communities, and hence the individuals who compose them, can flourish. A state that fails to embrace this formative role is illegitimate since it fails to provide the conditions necessary for freedom; it "cannot secure the liberty it promises, because it cannot sustain the kind of political community and civic engagement that liberty requires.
Liberals posit a self that is by nature autonomous and thus enters into social associations by voluntary choice. The democratic state is one among many associations that the self may choose to join, and it does so as a way of furthering its own interests. Accordingly, the democratic state must remain neutral with regard to questions about what individuals ought to pursue in life, about what kind of life is good. The individual's capacity to choose a conception of the good for himself is the essence of liberty. The policies of a democratic state must therefore not presuppose any specific moral conceptions beyond those required for protecting the individuals it governs. Communitarians argue that such a view of the nature of the self is false. According to communitarians, selves are essentially tied to the social contexts within which they live. Such contexts form the dispositions, desires, interests, and commitments of individuals. Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overly individualistic conception of the self. Whereas so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. This insight led to the view that politics should not be concerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice, as we also need to sustain and promote the social attachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing.
Both liberals and communitarians have appealed to the idea of public deliberation as a way of meeting their opponents' challenges. Liberals insist that democratic self-government requires a fair and neutral political framework in which individuals can enjoy freedom and be treated as equals. As such, a democratic state must be as minimal as possible; its primary function is to maintain the social conditions and political institutions under which free and equal persons can live harmoniously together. Of course, liberals disagree about the proper boundaries of state action. Robert Nozick criticizes John Rawls's Difference Principle for being too intrusive, and Nozick is in turn criticized for reducing the liberal state to a night watchman. Despite disagreements over the details, liberals maintain that any state action that aims for something beyond protecting freedom and maintaining equal treatment constitutes unjust and unjustifiable interference with liberty. Liberals proposes a negative theory of liberty.
The communitarianism rejects the negative theory of liberty. On the communitarian view, democracy requires that individuals embody the virtues that make them capable of the true freedom of self-government, and that these virtues can be properly nurtured only within the context of a proper community. Therefore, the state in a democratic society must undertake the project of forming its citizens' characters by providing the necessary conditions under which communities, and hence the individuals who compose them, can flourish. A state that fails to embrace this formative role is illegitimate since it fails to provide the conditions necessary for freedom; it "cannot secure the liberty it promises, because it cannot sustain the kind of political community and civic engagement that liberty requires"[i] Communitarians argue that such a view of the nature of the self is false. According to communitarians, selves are essentially tied to the social contexts within which they live. Such contexts form the dispositions, desires, interests, and commitments of individuals. As these initial contexts are not the products of individual choice, selves are not essentially apolitical, autonomous, and freestanding; they are essentially "situated" and "encumbered" [ii] Sandel's call for a politics based upon "settled roots and established traditions," Communitarians reject moral epistemology entailed by liberal individualism, arguing that moral values are socially, not individually derived.
To certain extent, communitarian theory shares with post modernists and feminist in their criticism against the abstract individual of liberalism. Both communitarians and Feminists share a common point on the attack of the liberalism on the issue of modernity, on the ground that it denies the embeddedness in social the social world that is definitive of human life. Both claim that the Cartesian subject ‘disembodies’ in the sense that it denies the contextual life of the body within a social setting.’[iii]But at the same time, feminist politics will take different direction. Some of the Feminists are even about both liberalism and communitarianism by suspecting that both may ultimately leads to patriarchy. The communitarian politics are also looked differently in the Middle East, especially countries like Iran in its post revolutionary era.[iv] In India, rise of communitarian politics of majoritarian hindu nationalism provides an occasion to understanding of the complexity of communitarian politics in practice.
A response to Western Liberal vs. Communitarian debate
The debate that took place in West, between liberals and communitarians has different meanings in Indian context. In western political theory, Liberalism has established as a dominant tradition in the line of market logic. Against this, Marxist radicalism and religious conservatism leveled their criticism from two different perspectives. The former derives its theory from collective labour and the latter from collective life shaped by the age old customs and religious beliefs. With the changed situation, to address the rights and democratic concerns of the groups/individuals in a multicultural set up, communitarianism as a political theory got its importance. It has internalizes both conservative and Marxist streams, to argue against liberal theory. As it is identified both liberalism and communitarianism had its own limitations. This reflects the crisis of western political theory. Some of the scholars argue that the basic foundations of western political theory lied on weak premises. The non- western nations like India may provide some insights to address this in meaningful way because of its different political process. The nationalist thinkers emerged out of anti-colonial struggles will definitely broaden the political theory with their rigor of justice and democracy. Gandhi and Ambedkar are of two such thinkers operates on two different realms for realization of the common good and democracy of the nation.
In India, from late eighties onwards politics are forcefully articulating on the basis of community. On one hand, hindu communalism by projecting the idea of homogeneous Indian identity, selectively invoking the past. On the other hand marginalized communities like dalits, women and adivasis asserting their identity by resisting the homogeneous identity projected by the dominant groups. Both ways, these communities felt the ‘loss of self’, and had conscious attempts to ‘assert their self’. This is coincided with the rapid globalization phenomenon and it had a threat to the native cultural past. It is difficult to jump into the conclusion that these assertions are essentially in response against globalization. This is a much more complex and ambiguous phenomenon.
The scholars in India (Akel Bilgrami, Javeed Alam, Rajeev Bharghava and so on), demanding a careful understanding of communitarianism in Indian context. They are critical about the way communitarian politics in practice. They expressed a view that, if communities are left to some communitarians they might turn authoritarian. Javed Alam criticises the communitarian logic on the ground that it lacks egalitarian motivation. Akeel Bilgrami’s criticism operates at a different level, and felt that communities may not have an internal reason and hence will have to negotiate with the help of an external reason, like, the moral state. Bharghava too share with them and reminds the uncomfortable fact that societies remember their heroic deeds but suppress the memory of collective injustice. These thinkers are critical about the liberal theory that is operating in tune with capitalism. In other words critical about modernity facilitating by the capitalism. And on the other hand rather rejecting the modernity, argues in favor of reappraisal of modernity in Indian contemporary times in support of democratic aspirations and social imagination of the oppressed communities. The contemporary debates of communitarian politics of India may be revisited by reading Gandhi and Ambedkar.
Debating Gandhi and Ambedkar in the contemporary Indian political scenario, exclusively in the context of globalization, not only provide two different view points on communitarian politics, and they had greater implications in understanding democracy. The theory and practice culminated in both leaders and emerged as power symbols of contemporary indian society. Both of them imbibed strong liberal impulses and always looked individual in relation to society. They argued infavour of reflexive individualism as against liberal abstractive and possessive individual. Their individual is located in the social and cultural context. The individual had source in religion. For them religion acts as a moral community. Both of them differ with Marxism to certain extent by emphasizing on spiritualism.Both of them ultimately developed their theories of politics on moral autonomy of individual rather abstract individual. The morality has seen inseperable from the shared social beliefs lies such as in community, religion or nation. Gandhi as a thinker he operated on the imagination of the community of ideal Hindu Society based on varnashramadharma. At the same time Ambedkar is critical about hindu social order in any of its form and argued for moral community based on Buddhism. He does not confirm to either Hindu ideal community or Marxist conception of community based on participation in production process. His conception of community is moral and ethical. When Ambedkar criticises Hindu community for its oppressive nature, he does it with a standard of individual liberty and freedom. When he is talking about suffering of individual members of Dalit community he is projecting an ideal moral community based on equality, liberty and fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In ideal society many interests consciously communicated and shared and the social practices are grounded in democratic ideals.

End Notes
[i] Sandel, Micheal. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. P 24
[ii] Sandel , Micheal. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 179.
[iii] Hekman, Susan. The embodiment of the subject: Feminism and Communitarian critique of liberalism, The Journal of the Politics Vol.54 No.4 November. 1992
[iv] Dalacoura, Katerina. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference to Post -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002) 28, pp.75 -92
Select Bibliography
Bhargava, Rajeev, Amiya Kumar Bagchi and R.Sudrashan(Eds.),1999. Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy, Oxford University Press
Buchnan, Allen E. Assesing Communitarain Critique of Liberalism, ethics, Vol. 99, No.4 July (1989) Pp. 852-882
Chatterjee, Partha. Rights of the Governed, Identity, Culture and Politics Vol.3, No.2, December, 2002
Dalacoura, Katerina. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference to Post -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002) 28, pp.75 -92
Dworkin, Ronald. [1978] 1984. "Liberalism." In Liberalism and Its Critics, ed. Michael Sandel. New York: New York University Press.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kymlicka, Will. 1998. "Liberal Egalitarianism and Civic Republicanism." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Allen and Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
------. 1998. "Politics, Philosophy, and the Common Good." In The MacIntyre Reader, ed. Knight. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1985. "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical." Reprinted in Samuel Freeman, ed., 1999. Pp 1098-1119
------. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
------. 1999. Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. [1984] 1992. "The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self." In Communitarianism and Individualism, ed. Shlomo Avineri and Avner de-Shalit. New York: Oxford University Press.
------. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1998a. "A Response to Rawls' Political Liberalism. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1998b. "The Limits of Communitarianism." Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1998c. "Reply to Critics." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Anita Allen and Milton Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.
------, ed. 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1985a. "Atomism." In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1985b. "What's Wrong with Negative Liberty?" In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. [1989] 1995. "Cross Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate." In Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1990. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.

[1] Sandel, Micheal. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. P 24
[1] Sandel , Micheal. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 179.
[1] Hekman, Susan. The embodiment of the subject: Feminism and Communitarian critique of liberalism, The Journal of the Politics Vol.54 No.4 November. 1992
[1] Dalacoura, Katerina. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference to Post -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002) 28, pp.75 -92
Select Bibliography
Bhargava, Rajeev, Amiya Kumar Bagchi and R.Sudrashan(Eds.),1999. Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy, Oxford University Press
Buchnan, Allen E. Assesing Communitarain Critique of Liberalism, ethics, Vol. 99, No.4 July (1989) Pp. 852-882
Chatterjee, Partha. Rights of the Governed, Identity, Culture and Politics Vol.3, No.2, December, 2002
Dalacoura, Katerina. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference to Post -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002) 28, pp.75 -92
Dworkin, Ronald. [1978] 1984. "Liberalism." In Liberalism and Its Critics, ed. Michael Sandel. New York: New York University Press.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kymlicka, Will. 1998. "Liberal Egalitarianism and Civic Republicanism." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Allen and Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
------. 1998. "Politics, Philosophy, and the Common Good." In The MacIntyre Reader, ed. Knight. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1985. "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical." Reprinted in Samuel Freeman, ed., 1999. Pp 1098-1119
------. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
------. 1999. Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. [1984] 1992. "The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self." In Communitarianism and Individualism, ed. Shlomo Avineri and Avner de-Shalit. New York: Oxford University Press.
------. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1998a. "A Response to Rawls' Political Liberalism. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1998b. "The Limits of Communitarianism." Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1998c. "Reply to Critics." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Anita Allen and Milton Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.
------, ed. 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1985a. "Atomism." In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1985b. "What's Wrong with Negative Liberty?" In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. [1989] 1995. "Cross Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate." In Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
------. 1990. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.

'INSIGHTS' INTO INDIAN NATIONALISM

Dr.P.Kesava Kumar

Lecturer in Philosophy

Pondicherry University

The little magazine 'INSIGHT' of Ambedkar Study Circle, a group of Dalitstudents of JNU, needs encouragement from Indian intellectual communityworking for egalitarian and democratic society. So far most of the Indianintellectuals and social scientists either kept silent about the issues ofcaste or explained in a mild way. There is no much theorization aboutvarious problems of Dalits and their struggles till the day. That vacuumis filled up by the initiative of young Dalit intellectuals. Now, we canfeel proud that there are many organic intellectuals coming up from theDalit community and raising debate on various issues in civil society.This Insight magazine is the testimony for this. The young scholarscommitted to the struggles of liberation of Dalits felt that there is aneed to bring scholarly publication at popular level to negotiate variouspolitical groups of university campus exclusively from the Dalit point ofview. They have succeeded so far in bringing the six issues of INSIGHTthough they are facing severe financial problems. The last issue ofINSIGHT was focused on nationalism and raised many questions in relationto Dalits. INSIGHT set the intellectual debate on the question ofnationalism in India.The word nationalism is loaded with emotions and had the capacity tomanipulate Indian politics. Any claim or struggle has to be silent infront of the nationalism. Most of the radical struggles like naxalitemovements are forced to maintain silence on this issue, otherwise dubbedas anti-national. Parties like BJP came to power so easily withexploitation of sentiment of nationalism. They are consciously propagatedand succeeded to certain extent by equating Indian with hindu throughtheir middle class propaganda machinery. In the name of our nation, Indianidentity attracted people from all castes including Dalits and Adivasis.This coincided with people's experience of threatening loss of culture andcollective life in the wake of globalization. Within no time peoplerealized that hindutva forces limited to cultural nationalism in aselected way, but not connected nationalism in economic and socialdevelopment. They never bothered about swadeshi economy. Social equalityand social justice are not in their project of nationalism. Culturalnationalism has no meaning unless and until it connects to social andeconomic equality. In the scheme of this upper caste Indian nationalism,social aspirations and imagination of Dalits, Adivasis, Women gotmarginalized. Reflecting on this kind of situation, INSIGHT focused on theissue of nationalism and debated various questions in relation to this.On the question of what makes a nation, Telugu writer Gurujada Appa Rao,first modernist writer, said that, 'Nation is not just land, it is ofpeople'(Desamante matti kadoyi, Desamante manushuloyi). Bendict Andersonargues that nation is nothing but the imagination of a community. Takingclue from this Partha Chatterjee explains that building of the nationstate was taking place simultaneously, one from the social aspiration andanxieties of uppercaste hindu middle class from the above and so farmarginalized lower castes from the below.Dr Ambedkar confronted with Gandhi and so called nationalist congress onthis issue of freedom of the depressed castes. He held the opinion thatsocial precedes the political. Social equality only guarantees thepolitical equality. From Gandhi to BJP hindutva are not interested inaddressing this question. Rather they feel irritated when Dalits raisedthis question. When Dalits are asserting national identity through theirpolitical struggles, it needs critical and creative intervention on thisissue. Otherwise it ends up with dominant discourses. The Editorial andEditorial Collective reflects that INSIGHT is clear in understanding thequestion of nationalism and raised the relevant questions in making DalitNationalism.Anoop Kumar's 'Jai Ram to Jai Bhim' is the experience of any ordinaryDalit. His social experience provides the transformation of his self fromramsevak to conscious Dalit. He put it openly without any inhibitions. Oneshould not forget that in theorizing anything Dalit social experienceplays a significant role. I hope his article helps other Dalits too speakopenly about themselves. As Frantz Fanon said to speak is to assume one'sown culture. Milind Awad has explained so nicely how hindu nationalists'target against minority Muslim, that has implications for the Dalits,OBCs, Adivasis and women. Excerpts from G.Aloysious' celebrated book'Nation without Nationalism in India' are really helpful in providing rightperspective to the readers about the discourse of nationalism. After allany nation come into existence, with the struggles of the people.Struggles shape the nation. History of the people could not be manipulatedfor ever. I hope with the intense struggles of Dalits and othermarginalised groups Democratic Nation will come into existence.

(This letter is in appreciation of dalit students magzine named 'Insight' ( special issue on nationalism), from Ambedkar Study Circle, JNU)

Negotiating caste and gender:
An Experience of Andhra Politics

Dr. P. Kesava Kumar
Lecturer in Philosophy
Pondicherry University

The decade of eighties, there is a strong identity politics took place in India. Dalit movement and women’s movements are emerged as the struggles of serious identity politics. The debate in the civil society influenced the politics of Andhra Pradesh in a significant way. In the name of identity politics they are sharing the same theoretical platform to assert their identity. Where as dalit movement brought the issue of caste and its oppression and the women’s movement brought the issue of gender and its oppression. Both of them are critique of liberal politics of ‘universal man’ and to certain extent with politics of class struggles. At least in Andhra, both the movements have understanding in countering the ideology of left struggles. Both the struggles are succeeded in establishing their own philosophical position and in taking their struggles further. The struggles generated good amount of literature. The conscious dalits considers that women too are the oppressed people and victims of the same upper caste hindu ideology which is patriarchal in nature. So the dalit groups considering the women too as a ‘dalit’. The conscious upper caste women of the women groups too felt to extend their support for the struggles of dalits. From the women group of Asmita, writers like Volga and Vasanta Kannabiran endorsed that the dalit connotes conscious people who are struggling against the dominance of caste, religion and patriarchy. The word dalit came into existence with struggle. It is the symbol of struggle. For the broad based alliance in fighting against common enemy these kind of attempt are necessary. In practice there are conflicts between these in society in general.
There are questions and confrontations on the issues of women reservation, issue of obscenity and rape of women and the question of usage of language in literature. It provides the understanding that ‘dalit’ and ‘women’ are not a homogenous category. As K. Sanjeevi points out, even though they are dalits, men are always men, but never be women and the same applies to women. It is a fact that there exists patriarchy in dalit men and caste hatred among the non-dalit women’
In this paper I would like to look into the issues, Besides their struggles targeting the hindu social order as a source of oppression for the both in different forms, I would like to look into the tensions prevailing among the upper caste women and dalit men in their everyday life experiences. Further I would like to extend my argument that how does the women as moral capital used by upper caste men to counter dalit political assertion. The need to build up the movements to counter the hegemony of dominant classes/castes by creating the hegemony of the oppressed .This needs a healthy dialogue among the all the oppressed sections of Indian society.
In the context of increasing claims of dalits and women (upper caste) to gain access to public institutions, the problems are generally posed as the conflict between the two. On the one side women entering the universities are relatively better economical positions compared to men in general and dalits in particular. They pretends to be ‘independent’, ‘self assertive’, ‘confident’ and are able to ‘speak in English’. Where as dalits are mostly came from rural and the first generation to enter to the universities. The cultural environment for the dalits is new and at the same time assertive because of the influence of ongoing dalit struggles. They painted by others as ‘unskillful’, ‘reservation fellows’, ‘black’, ‘ugly’, ‘non meritorious’ and ‘mannerless people’. In the class room they are projected as ‘dumb’, because of they couldn’t speak in English. There is an attack silently going on psychologically. There is a general hatred towards the dalits in the period of competition for resources and opportunities. It is generally believed by the upper caste students that the dalits are grabbing their opportunities without having merit. On the other side any assertion of dalits have seen as negative, violent undemocratic and anti development of the nation. To hold this kind of attitude women from upper caste are not exception. In a caste dominated society, any proposal from the lower caste boys to uppercaste women have dubbed as indecent and vulgar and not worth acknowledging. For dalit men in the emotional front, the access to upper caste women is socially and culturally restricted. It is women too share their prejudice against dalits. There is a large scale mobilization of uppercaste students can be seen against the dalits at the time of Mandal agitation. In which women student have played an active role.
The rural India is no way different from the university. At most the difference may be in the form. For the uppercaste men of the village, dalit women is easily available and vulnerable prey. There are everyday sexual harassment and rapes on dalit women going unnoticed. There is no chance for dalit women to protect themselves from the sexual exploitation. The state, and its machinery police, judiciary never paid any serious attention to the issues of violence against dalit women. In case of dalit men , the response is quite contrary.
In post independent India most of the conflicts between dalits and uppercastes, some way or other connected to women. One way or other dalit men assert in public space by making their visibility. The uppercaste women always feel threatened psychologically somebody will attack them. While walking at public places feel insecure. This somebody may read as the image of rowdy. It is obvious that their imagination meets the lower caste men. It is the popular perceptions that ‘rowdies’, ‘goondas’, ‘criminals’ are essentially drawn from lower castes. This situation is got coincidence with upper caste womens’s objections for obscenity in films. The films of nineties have depicting the aggressive, masculine subaltern hero (dalit male) in mass cinema pursuing for fleshy, well nourished white skinned female bodies. Exactly these situations received enormous public approval as obscene frames. The middle class upper caste audience seen it as the theatres is no more place to sit decent people in these days since the films are more obscene.
In contemporary times dalits are self asserting and struggling for their rights. They demand self respect and dignity for their life. With the rise in dalit consciousness they are resisting the dominance and cultural hegemony of upper castes. The upper caste people are unable to tolerate this kind of situation. They are attacking the dalits both physically and psychologically. In most of the cases they are justifying their attack that these dalits are harassing the (their) women. Women become used as a moral capital in settling scores with dalits. They are suddenly change into the saviours of women. In public press they circulate this kind of concerns for women. Infact, these are the people responsible for the oppression of women along with nurturing the ideals of caste system. The classic example for this is Tsundur massacre, where eight dalits were killed in the year 1991 by uppercaste Reddy community with some others support. In response to this dalits were organized rallies and shown their protest against upper caste dominance. To counter this upper caste people mobilized all the upper caste on the pretext that dalits activists are raped their women and sexually assaulted. By doing this are not only consolidated their base and mobilized support in their favor. At the same time they succeed in minimized the support for dalit victims from the progressive non dalit sections. The women groups are forced to maintain silence.
The issue of women reservation bill generated much debate in the realm of politics. There is a serious confrontation between women groups and dalit groups. It is argued that though the women population is half of the nation, there is no proper political representation for women in legislative bodies. The bill is proposed in parliament one govt. after another and till now the bill is not passed. There are many reasons for the delay. One of the reasons is consideration of sub-quota for dalits/OBC in the quota of women reservation. The dalit leaders and the leaders from backward communities are stressing for this. They put forward the argument that in the name of women, mostly upper caste women will enter into the Pariliament. The lower caste women will be marginalized forever. Further they argued that women are not a homogenous category. They too divided in terms of caste, religion, class. The women groups and some of the women parliamentarians like Mamata Benerjee countered this argument that, political parties are not sincere enough in this issue and are finding strategies to not to pass this bill. The women leaders mainly argued that irrespective of the caste, the patriarchial dominance and exploitation is everywhere. For this dalit men are no exception. The feminists leaders, Vasanta Kannabiran like many women activists of the country felt that let the women reservation bill pass in the parliament in existing form. Later one can discuss about caste (OBC women) and religion (minority women).The leaders who are arguing for the pasing for the bill after incorpoaration of sub quota for OBC, dalit and minority women are considered and propagated by the women activists as ‘anti- women’. They are accusing them as not sincere for women cause. Further, these women leaders shouting at them that all women are same, why do you people create division among us, which are not there.’ The media too helped them to portraying leaders like Mulayam singh, Lallu Prasad Yadav and Kanshiram as ‘villains’ in this whole episode. It is the wellshared opinion in media and uppercaste middle class that these dalits are ‘fools’, ‘jokers’, can’t speak English properly, and doesn’t have either skill or eligibility to rule the nation. Because of these people only our Indian politics become corrupt, criminalized, and become violent, all together moral values are degraded. Their anxieties and aspirations are considered as nonsensical and undemocratic.
One should not forget that these lower castes leaders not only challenged the hegemony of uppercaste in politics, but also gave new meaning to the Indian politics. It is known reality that these leaders have more experience and access to their respective castes than the upper caste women. In a society where the social relations are defined/ constructed on the basis of caste, it is uncontested truth that people (women) within the caste will speak wholeheartedly than with upper caste women came from cities. It doesn’t mean that there is no dialogue between dalit women and conscious urban upper caste women.
Dalit women are victims of both caste dominance and patriarchy along with poverty. Caste dominance relatively plays an important role than patriarchy in the liberation of dalit women. There is a criticism against the feminist groups that they are urban centred and mostly confined to the problems faced by upper caste women. They don’t have touch with the problems of rural women. Very particularly problems of dalit women are quite different from the urban upper caste women. By realizing this, there is organizations of women in affiliation to revolutionary parties got activated. Anti arrack struggle of women is one such example in this context.
Politically conscious groups of dalits and women are mutual sensitive to the concerned issues. They understood that contradiction between two are delicate and need creative intervention. There are occasions in Andhra supporting each other by correcting their positions. They treat the contradiction between them is friendly contradiction. I would like to mention two such occasions, one is in literary debate and other women reservation issue in University of Hyderabad.
I feel it worth considering the struggles relating to the issue of women reservation in students union of university of Hyderabad in the year 1999, in the backdrop of controversy of women representation bill. The active negotiation of women’s invisibility in student electoral politics underwent a radical transformation when issues of caste were addressed simultaneously with those of gender. With the consistent pressure of womens’ group on campus, the general body meeting was announced to discus the amendment of the students’ union constitution. Few dalit women immediately raised the issue of representation of dalit women in students union. A representative post for women that didn’t take into account the differences between women (specifically between dalit women and uppercaste women) was as guilty of practices of exclusion as the students’ union had for the last twenty five years. The difference here is with the parliament is that dalit women asking for themselves. This situation has the implications for both womens organisation and dalit organization of the campus. ‘The women’s movement, that has been largely upper caste, and the dalit movement that has been largely male, will both be forced to listen, will both have to reexamine their agendas, revise them and negotiate space for the dalit women’(JAC.EPW October 28, 2000, p.3846.)
With the forceful entry of dalit women, the demand changed to women’s representation on a rotational basis for one post in the union. Interestingly, the upper caste women who are predominant in the movement has been distinctly uncomfortable with the word ‘reservation’ and are willing to discuss the same as ‘the special problems’ faced by women, where as dalit women and men became active participants in the struggle the word reservation became imbued with new meaning- it came to signify a history of struggles and became a word to be used with pride. On this issues joint action committee of all progressive, dalit and women organizations are formed to negotiate this issue further. The students union had been willing to discuss th gender question in its intial GBM, as soon as the issue of caste came up with a post on rotational basis, refused to take it seriously. ‘This alliance between dalit women, upper caste women, dalit men and progressive upper caste men is remarkable also because it offers possibilities that are different from those before parliament today.’( p.3847).
There are other groups who are resisting the women reservation are upper caste and pro hindu groups and continued their alliances. As expected, reservations for women didn’t get the requisite two third majority to force an amendment. At the same time, the uppercastes and hindutva organizations who voted for outright denial of the women reservation too failed to get the two third majority to oppose it. It is a moral victory for the joint action committee of women, dalit and progressive forces consolidated their identity by opposing the uppercaste men’s stand in this issues.
This provides an example of an active alliances of forces of dalits and women groups along with progressive groups in negotiating social justice. At the same time, it reveals the problems within and to think of the strategies to be adopted to realize their agendas.

The feminist writers objected the words of slang used by the dalit writers and asked them to correct. They appeal to the dalit writers who are struggling for the liberation of dalits to reform their language. Since most of the slang or obscene words in circulation are targeting the women. They are centred around the body parts of women. They are the words of insult to women. They too agree that when their women are raped and sexually humiliated by uppercasate men, the anger of dalit men can be understood. Let the dalit women speak how to retaliate to such situations. They cautioned the male dalit writers to think about the words used by them like- ‘we will rape your mothers and sisters’. As the feminist writers said, To take revenge in religious and caste conflicts bodies of women are using as an instrument. In the liberation struggles if Women are seen as instruments of revenge than the individual, then what meaning we are giving for the liberation struggle? Can’t we think about other alternative than imitating the language of enemy. We can’t win the battle with owner by using the tools of owner’.

In telugu literature, the feminist writers conceptualized the body politics in their writings. Female body is identified as a site of oppression. They countered the patriarchal constructions of women bodies. From feudal time to till the day men controlled the women through the ideology of patriarchy. To sustain this rules of hindu social order played a vital role. The philosophies and religious doctrines contributed for the sub ordination of women and allowed the hegemony of male dominance. The patrirchy got strengthened its foundation by continuing the caste system. Ambedkar realized very earlier that patriarchal system is inseparable relation with caste system. The freedom of the women, status of women in family and civil society is directy linked with the hindu caste system. This caste sustained through the maintance of hierarchy and the principles of endogamy. This endogamy rules out any interaction and intermarriage with the other castes. Ambedkar has forseen that women is centrally located in the struggle against caste system. He proposed hindu code bill in the parliament for the codification of laws in empowering women socially and economically. The hindu code bill discussed hindu marriage act, divorce and inheritance of property rights for the benefit of women. This bill is opposed by majoritarian caste hindus. There is no difference after the fifty years of this episode. But the uppercaste hindus succeed in putting the women to counter the dalits. This can be seen in the case of women reservation issue and Tsundur massacre issue. The hindu uppercaste pick up the liberal language(contrary to its spirit) to negate the claims of dalits.
At the same time there are attempts to come together the conscious forces of dalits, women and progressive groups. This can be seen in case of struggles of women representation in students union of university and mutual reciprocation of feminist and dalit writers against the common enemy. In this effort either women or dalits should be maintain exclusiveness in articulating their problems and political position and at the same time should maintain inclusiveness of all progressive groups in building the struggles against oppression and hegemony of dominant castes and classes.

Community, Nation and Social Justice:
Interface of Gandhi and Ambedkar

Dr. P. Kesava Kumar
Lecturer in Philosophy
Pondicherry University

Introduction
This paper is an attempt to discuss the political legacy of Gandhi in relation to dominant western political traditions as well as the political practices of contemporary Indian society. It is argued that western political theory is in crisis and its dominant liberal tradition based on weak foundations. The political insights provided by the indigenous thinkers may answer this crisis. The communitarian streak of the Indian thinkers with a blend of liberalism to certain extent resolves this crisis. Gandhi as a leader led the nationalist movement against the dominance of British colonial rule, and as a thinker he operated on the imagination of the community of ideal Hindu Society. At the same time Ambedkar is critical about hindu social order in any of its form and argued for moral community based on Buddhism. In the light of social justice the strength of these thinkers will be assessed by locating them in the context of nationalist movement.

The relation between individual and collective has explained by the many scholars, in different contexts with different concepts. The ‘social’, ‘community’, ‘nation’, ‘religion’, ‘language’, ‘region’ is the markers of collectivism. Each of these terms has different connotation and meaning. In the contemporary political theory, concepts of ‘community’, ‘nation’ and ‘social justice’ got attention and there are several attempts to redefine these concepts. These three concepts, seems to be distinct on their own, but are interrelated in building nation and strengthening democracy. Against the liberal individual, community becomes discussion point. And against the western colonialism, the discourse of nationalism got its importance. The problems are identified with both extremes and evaluated the strength and weakness of these positions on the basis of justice, common good, rationality or freedom.

With a specific purpose to evolve a theory of justice, this paper has probing into notion of ‘community’ and ‘nation’ by explaining through contemporary Indian thinkers such as Gandhi and Ambedkar. The intervention of these thinkers into larger streams of political philosophy provides some insights in exposing the weakness of dominant liberal political tradition by offering a solution to the crisis of liberal theory. Historically both of these thinkers are exposed to western education and its value system and challenged the western colonial rule as nationalists. Though they have agreement on common point for the freedom of the nation, but have differences in conceptualizing the Indian social reality. The world views of these thinkers have different implications in contemporary struggles of Indian society with the rise of hindu religious nationalism and dalit movement.
In understanding their political philosophy, the following questions will help in articulating the ultimate meaning and purpose of these thinkers: What is his conception of the human being and society? What are the cultural and historical roots of these conceptions in his thought? In what way does he connect democracy and social inequality? How does he resolve the question of individual and community? What are his conceptions of rights, freedom and justice that flows in both his thought and action? What kind of theory does he propose in bringing out the relationship between State and religion?

Both Gandhi and Ambedkar argued infavour of reflexive individualism as against liberal abstractive and possessive individual. Their individual is located in the social and cultural context. The individual had source in religion. For them religion acts as a moral community. Both of them differ with Marxism to certain extent by emphasizing on spiritualism. Gandhi invokes Hinduism and upholds its varnashrama dharma. Of course he argued for reformed Hinduism by opposing untouchability and treating women as equal. The ultimate end for Gandhi is Ramarajya through ahimsa, satyagraha and sarvodaya. Ambedkar considers Hinduism doesnot qualify to be called as religion for its anti social functioning and it could not be reformed. For him the ultimate end is equality, liberty and fraternity. One may found these values in Buddhism. Gandhi romanticizes the village for its simplicity and strong collective traditional values against the modern mechanistic world. Ambedkar argued that village is a centre of maintaining hierarchy and practicing untouchability. Gandhi gave utmost importance to political reform in the programmes of nationalist movement and tried to postpone the social reform in a given situation. For Ambedkar social precedes political. However, both the thinkers overcome the western model of tradition-modern dichotomy and viewed moral community, nation and social justice in their writings and actions from different perspectives.
It is well recognized and debated that contemporary western liberal political theory is in crisis. As it is noticed by some scholars the western liberal tradition based on the weak foundations. And at the same time, argued that different notions of modernity exist prior to the liberal tradition. It had the implication that west does not had monopoly over its claims of modernity and had different trajectories in different socio cultural contexts. In this context, the Indian thinkers like Gandhi and Ambedkar offers a solution to overcome this crisis from different perspectives. The theory and practice culminated in both leaders and emerged as power symbols of contemporary indian society. Both of them imbibed strong liberal impulses and always looked individual in relation to society. Both of them ultimately developed their theories of politics on moral autonomy of individual rather abstract individual. The morality has seen inseperable from the shared social beliefs lies such as in community, religion or nation. Debating Gandhi and Ambedkar in the contemporary Indian political scenario, not only provide two different view points on communitarian politics, and had greater implications for democracy.
Building of Nation state
Nationalism is an ideology that places the nation at the center of its concerns and seeks to promotes its well being. The definition of nation ranges from objective to subjective factors. The objective factors are such as language, religion, customs, territory and institutions, and the subjective factors such as attitude, perceptions and sentiments. As the Joseph Stalin explains from the former position, ‘A nation is an historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make up manifested in a common culture.’ The subjective position as reflected in Benedict Anderson, ‘it is an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. Both of them have limitations in terms of including certain nations as nation. However, nation is not state and it is not an ethnic community. Nations are felt and lived communities whose members share a homeland and a culture. Nation is not an ethnic community despite some overlap in that as both belong to the same family of phenomenon of collective cultural identity. The ethnic community usually has no political referent and in many cases lacks a public culture and even territorial dimension. The nation on the other hand, must occupy a homeland of its own, at least for a long period of time, in order to constitute itself as nation. It also needs to evolve a public culture and desire some degree of self determination.[1]The nationalism of the 19th century Europe emerged out of the breakdown of the societies which embraced diverse ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups into relatively homogeneous communities. Where as nationalism of the 20th century India led to the fusion of people who spoke different languages, who belonged to different culures, and who subscribed to distinct historical traditions, into a single political community called nation[2].

The word ‘nation’ and political ideologies based on nation is loaded with emotions and had the capacity to manipulation Indian politics. Any claim or struggle has to be silent in front of the nationalism. Most of the radical struggles like Naxalite movements are forced maintain silence on this issue, otherwise dubbed as anti-national. For Parties like BJP came to power so easily with exploitation of sentiment of nationalism. They are consciously propagated and succeeded to certain extent by equating Indian with hindu through their middle class propaganda machinery. In the name of our nation and Indian identity attracted people from all castes including dalits and adivasis. This is coincided with people’s experience of threatening loss of culture and collective life in the wake of globalization. Within no time people realized that hindutva forces limited to cultural nationalism in a selected way, but not connected nationalism in economic and social development. They never bothered about swadeshi economy. Social equality and social justice are not in their project of nationalism. Cultural nationalism has no meaning unless until connects to social and economic equality. In the scheme of this upper caste Indian nationalism, social aspirations and imagination of dalits, adivasis, women got marginalized. Reflecting on this kind of situation, insight focused on the issue of nationalism and debated various questions in relation to this.
On the question of what makes a nation , Telugu writer Gurujada Appa Rao first modernist writer said that, ‘Nation is not just land, it is of people’(Desamante matti kadoyi, Desamante manushuloyi).Bendict Anderson argues that nation is nothing but the imagination of a community. Taking clue from this Partha chatterjee explains that building of the nation state taking place simultaneously, one from the social aspiration and anxieties of uppercaste hindu middle class from the above and so far marginalized lower castes from the below.
Ambedkar confronted with Gandhi and so called nationalist congress on this issue of freedom of the depressed castes. He hold the opinion that social precedes the political. Social equality only guarantees the political equality. From Gandhi to BJP hindutva are not interested in addressing this question. Rather they feel irritated when dalits raised this question. When dalits are asserting national identity through their political struggles, it needs critical and creative intervention on this issue. Otherwise ends up with dominant discourses. The editorial and editorial collective reflects that Insight is clear in understanding the question of nationalism and raised the relevant questions in making dalit nationalism. After all any nation came into existence, with the struggles of the people .Struggles shapes the nation. History of the people could not be manipulated for ever. I hope with the intense struggles of dalits and other marginalised groups democratic nation will come into existence.

Crisis of western political philosophy


Western social and political philosophers, since its beginnings, in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, have been primarily concerned with a set of basic questions about the nature of authority and political obligation, the idea of liberty and its proper limitations, conceptions of the just and good society, and the best form of government. These problems naturally arise when the perceived interests of individuals, groups, or institutions came into conflict, particularly in the times of general social change and political instability when people became increasingly aware of new possibilities. Individuals, groups, or nations will demand more freedom, recognition of rights, greater justice in the distribution of goods, or a larger share in political decision-making. For the social contract theorists of the early modern period- Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others- the problem of political obligation was fundamental. They aimed to give a general account of why individuals are obliged to obey the laws of certain governments, at least under some conditions. The grounds of obligation is its morality, rationality or common good?
Historically, Greek thought followed the Christian natural law. In the west, Christian natural law was undermined by the individualism of seventeenth century. This period was informed by the new vision of progress and freedom. Science had revolutionized people’s life and thinking. Technological inventions brought in new wealth to society. Centralized and efficient nation states emerged in the world. Colonizing efforts of Europeans were happening in large scale. Relationship between individual and god was replaced by the relationship between individual and individual as the foundation of social enquiry. This individualism become the basic characteristic of the subsequent liberal tradition. The idea of social initiative and social control surrendered to the idea of individual initiative and individual control. In simple terms, new material conditions gave birth to new social relationships and new philosophy was evolved to afford a rational justification for the new world which had come into being. This new philosophy became known as liberalism. Liberalism acquired different flavors in different national cultures. Several non-western countries from 1950s onwards, have their own versions of mixed liberalism, not only borrowed from the west but also blended with their own cultural practices.

Freedom of an individual is a basic value and many thinkers tried to explain the restriction on freedom. Philosophers such as J.S. Mill have tried to give an account of what makes freedom valuable, under what conditions. An adequate theory of this type can serve as the basis for rational and principled restraint when liberty conflicts with other basic values. Justice is sometimes said to be the primary virtue of social institutions. It is one of the most significant respects in which legal and political arrangements, as well as economic systems and social hierarchies may be evaluated. Debate over the questions of distributive justice, especially-i.e. who is entitled to what share of benefits of social co-operation, and who must bear what burdens has always been in the forefront of western political philosophy. Libertarians such as Nozick follow classical liberals (particularly Locke) in defending a right to private property based on conceptions of legitimate acquisition and voluntary transfer.[3] The representative thinkers of egalitarians like Rousseau, Rawls and Ronald Dworkin emphasize the arbitrariness and deprivation, which appear to be a necessary part of such a system of ‘natural liberty’. They argue for more equal distributions of wealth and opportunity through political means, based on conceptions of equal worth of human beings.[4]

The difficulties in liberal theory lies in its basic foundations of seventeenth century individualism and its quality of possessiveness. The possessive quality lies in the conception of the individual as essentially the proprietor of his own person or capacities owing nothing to society. The individual was seen neither as a moral whole, nor as a part of a larger social whole, but as a proprietor of himself. The basic assumption of possessive individualism –that man is free and human by virtue of his sole proprietorship of his own person, and that human society is essentially a series of market relations, were deeply embedded in seventeenth century foundations. This theory may correspond with the market society of seventeenth century. In this relation of ownership, the actual freedom and actual prospect of realizing their full potentialities lead backwards to recognising the nature of the individual. The individual, it was thought, is free in as much as he is proprietor of his person and capacities. The human essence is freedom from dependence on the wills of others, and freedom is the function of possession. Society becomes the web of free equal individuals related to each other as proprietors of their own capacities. Society consists of relations of exchange between proprietors. Political society becomes a calculated device for the protection of this property and for the maintenance of an orderly relation of exchange. We could not say that seventeenth century concepts of freedom, rights, obligation and justice are all entirely derived from the concept of possession. But it can be shown that they were powerfully shaped by it.
Later theories of politics tried to articulate from the point of community or individual in relation to community. The inconsistency lies inherently in the market society itself. Market society automatically brings the class differentiations. The propertied class would like to hold power over the subordinate classes. Men no longer saw them selves fundamentally equal in an inevitable subjection to the determination of market. Alternatives emerged for the market system. Articulation of proletarian politics gave a serious blow to the liberal politics. There are altogether different assumptions about man and society. The community has replaced individual. Marxist theory aims at the radical change in society and its human relations. Human society has seen from the perspective of the class considers human being as primarily a producer. His relations are determined by his involvement in social production. Other than the Marxist notion there is a conservative political theory would like to see society from the point of view of community. Conservatism has reverence for tradition, religion and age old custom. Edmund Burke is the one of the examples for conservative tradition. Burke more than any thinker of eighteenth century approached the political tradition with a sense of religious reverence.

Conservatives stress the importance of tradition, custom and of network of longstanding groups and associations, all pre- requisites of social order. State plays a central role in conservative thought. It is the backbone of social order and authority, the guarantor of social hierarchy. As per the conservative views, the inherent imperfections of human nature make a strong state necessary. It is needed to control the anti-social impulses of the individual. State has been seen as a crucial institution necessary to prevent society from dissolving into disorder and chaos. The conservative thinkers consider the forms of inequality and privilege as ineradicable and necessary elements of society. ‘Inequality of function, role and power is as necessary to the social order as a whole as to the family’. According to conservative thought without hierarchical structure no society can survive. As per the traditional conservative perspective, social order is not and can never be achieved spontaneously by the free play of individual activities as claimed by liberals and anarchists. Social order has to be maintained through the strong leadership of those who hold positions of political responsibility. It does not mean that state is the only agency which maintains social order. The individualist position is ‘radical’ because of the implicit commitment to subject all beliefs and institutions to review, according none a privileged status of critical immunity. The communitarian position is ‘conservative’ in the sense that it accepts the validity of central categories of moral self-description that are entrenched within the practices and institutions of society.
In the late1970s political scientist Fred R. Dallmayr reiterated the statement of Peter Laslett, “the great tradition of theoretical literature stretching from Hobbes to Bosanquet had been broken and that for the moment, anyway, political philosophy is dead.”[5]This is not exactly true. But it shows there is no break in development of political philosophy and existing theories got some setbacks. Of course there are struggles of 70s, students revolt and Vietnam debacle changed the purpose and meaning of public life. Political thought shares the affliction of philosophy. True philosophy makes us to learn again to see the world. It seeks to render political life intelligible, political theory has to remain attentive to the concrete sufferings and predicaments of people and cannot pretend prematurely to knowledge or understanding. The crisis in political philosophy may be understood with the changed socio- economic developments and the unrelatedness of intellectual to the politics. In twentieth century, western political philosophy is marked with its defense of liberal democracy and legacy of civil rights against totalitarian or repressive forces. The economic practices and scientific rationality of west got different meaning in the developing nations. In recent times, the culmination of western science and economics leading towards dominance over other parts of the world invites competition and confrontation at global level. This situation has compelled the west to rethink and reformulate its central premises of its philosophy, and its conception of ‘reason’. And at the same time, there is a need to critically understand what constitutes ‘subjectivity’ and its cognitive activity. This dilemma seems to be aptly captured by Fred Dallmayr, ‘In the domain of political thought, the contemporary dilemma can be phrased broadly in terms of the relationship between ‘contract’ and ‘community’.”[6] Society is of collectives and generates political community. Far from involving only the aspect of inter subjective or inter individual contracts, a revision or modification of individualism in the light of communal bonds necessitates a general reconsideration of man’s relation to the world and nature-a reconsideration that inevitably conjures up the peril of objectivism and naturalism. Contemporary political theory appears precariously lodged at the cross roads of liberal individualism and post individualist communalism.[7]Christian Bay elaborates this in his article ‘from contract to community’, he links up the major predicaments of post-industrial society with the basic assumptions and preferences of ‘individualistic contract liberalism’ as inaugurated by Hobbes and Locke and it manifested in different forms. He notes that, liberals have ‘persistently tended to cut the citizen off from the person’, putting on their pedestal ‘a cripple of a man’ without a ‘moral or political nature’ and without ‘moorings in any real community’[8].
Communitarian critique of liberalism
Communitarians have sought to deflate the universal pretensions of liberal theory. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, with a strong focus on the rights of citizens in a democracy. Whereas the libertarian Rawls seemed to present his theory of justice as universally true, communitarians argued that the standards of justice must be found in forms of life and traditions of particular societies and hence can vary from context to context. Rawls argues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing, and revising our own life-plans. He neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition). Communitarians believe that there is too much focus on these concerns, arguing that "the exclusive pursuit of private interest erodes the network of social environments on which we all depend, and is destructive to our shared experiment in democratic self-government. They believe that rights must be accompanied by social responsibility and maintenance of the institutions of civil society if these rights are to be preserved, but libertarians believe that government actions to promote these ends actually result in a loss of individual liberty. Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor argued that moral and political judgment will depend on the language of reasons and the interpretive framework within which agents view their world, hence that it makes no sense to begin the political enterprise by abstracting from the interpretive dimensions of human beliefs, practices, and institutions. Michael Walzer developed the additional argument that effective social criticism must derive from and resonate with the habits and traditions of actual people living in specific times and places. In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre defended the Aristotelian ideal of the intimate, reciprocating local community bound by shared ends, where people simply assume and fulfill socially given roles.
The debate between liberals and communitarians is in part a dispute about what democracy requires. Liberals insist that democratic self-government requires a fair and neutral political framework in which individuals can enjoy freedom and be treated as equals. As such, a democratic state must be as minimal as possible; its primary function is to maintain the social conditions and political institutions under which free and equal persons can live harmoniously together. On the communitarian view, democracy requires that individuals embody the virtues that make them capable of the true freedom of self-Government, and that these virtues can be properly nurtured only within the context of a proper community. Therefore, the state in a democratic society must undertake the project of forming its citizens' characters by providing the necessary conditions under which communities, and hence the individuals who compose them, can flourish. A state that fails to embrace this formative role is illegitimate since it fails to provide the conditions necessary for freedom; it "cannot secure the liberty it promises, because it cannot sustain the kind of political community and civic engagement that liberty requires.
Liberals posit a self that is by nature autonomous and thus enters into social associations by voluntary choice. The democratic state is one among many associations that the self may choose to join, and it does so as a way of furthering its own interests. Accordingly, the democratic state must remain neutral with regard to questions about what individuals ought to pursue in life, about what kind of life is good. The individual's capacity to choose a conception of the good for himself is the essence of liberty. The policies of a democratic state must therefore not presuppose any specific moral conceptions beyond those required for protecting the individuals it governs. Communitarians argue that such a view of the nature of the self is false. According to communitarians, selves are essentially tied to the social contexts within which they live. Such contexts form the dispositions, desires, interests, and commitments of individuals. Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overly individualistic conception of the self. Whereas so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. This insight led to the view that politics should not be concerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice, as we also need to sustain and promote the social attachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing.
There is a strong liberal stream exists in Indian political thought and the activities of state as it is adopted some of the features of western liberal democracy. And at the same time, there are historic nationalist struggles against the British colonialism based on the imagination of Indian community grounded on its shared history, culture and philosophy. In the late sixties, against liberal democracy, radical left movements came to forefront, by emphasizing working class as community. It had its limitation by down playing caste, religion and region. In the decade of eighties, the communitarian politics came to lime light with its full potential. This happened on one hand, with the rise of hindu nationalists attempt to define Indian nation as par with cultural traditions of hindu social order at the cost of marginalizing subaltern groups such as dalits, adivasis and women in a political process. On the other hand, the identity politics centred on caste, gender and region articulating their democratic social aspiration and provided a vision to reconstitute the social and political institutions. In this context, the communitarian politics has to be evaluated rationally, keeping the idea to strengthen the democratic nation. The common good plays a decisive role in pluralistic context.
Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj

Gandhi rejects collectivist theories of both state and society. He argued that only the individual could exercise conscience, and therefore morally legitimate power. The individual always to be treated as end in itself, while social institutions are always to be treated as colligible means to some greater end. The satyagrahi should be active politics if he can stand firmly for social justice and initiates constructive change. Where he can not, he must practice non cooperation.[9] He firmly believing in the fundamental unity of life, he rejected any distinction between public and private, between secular and sacred, and ultimately between politics and religion. Religion for Gandhi signifies spiritual commitment which is total but intensely personal, and which pervades every aspect of life.
India is known for its diversity in terms of caste, religion, language and region. He managed to derive a romantic political community which embraces many caste groups, religions into a common shared tradition. The structure of Indian society as understood by Gandhi, is characterized by social groups with diverging instead of converging social loyalties. But it was possible Gandhi argued, to devise a focus of loyalty that could knit such social groups into a creative political society. The nationalist movement he launched against British has operated on this loyalty principle.[10]

Gandhi interpreted ‘swaraj’ as self rule, i.e. also self control exercised by the individual. For Gandhi individual is the focus of the nation and interpreting the nation as essentially consisting of individuals who feels that they belong to it. Further by emphasizing the spiritual unity of all individuals Gandhi could pre suppose an immanent solidarity which was much stronger than abstractly conceived national sovereignty. This spiritual unity and self control is attained by right action, restraint and discipline. Self control can be attained only if there is complete freedom from all passions such as anger, hatred and selfishness which may arouse violent action that leads the self into bondage.[11]


In Hind Swaraj Gandhi equates modernism with sensual self-gratification, and condemns it primarily for this reason. The modern world view not only alienates us from nature, but also alienates our desires from any moral end. The teleology of the ancients, that which gave their life its ultimate meaning and purpose, has been eliminated in modernism.
In Hind Swaraj, as Anthony J. Parel has pointed out, makes a significant difference between a genuine nation formed as community (praja) and a nation of individuals merely held together by state power (rashtra). As opposed to the received view that it was British administration and British railways that made India a nation, Gandhi claimed that "India has been one country right from ancient times." Pilgrim saints, who walked the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent, unified India centuries before it was linked by iron rails. The fact that Gandhi claims a pre modern origin for the Indian nation does not necessarily mean that his political views are pre modern. His views on nationhood are not modernist either, for the modern state, as we have seen, is seen as analogous to the individual social atom writ large on the international level. As Parel states: "[Hind Swaraj] does not propound the modern concept of nation in so far as the latter is based on the notions of brute force, the priority of national interest, and a principle of exclusiveness based either religion, or language, or race." Even the relatively innocuous state apparatus of liberal democracy does not escape Gandhi's critical eye. Gandhi's vision of nationhood is one based on decentralized local control, assimilation and tolerance of cultural differences, and above all, nonviolence.
Complete independence through truth and non violence means the independence of every unit, be it a humblest of the nation, without distinction of race , color and creed. This independence is never exclusive. Sarvodaya rejects the utilitarian principle of greatest good of the greatest possible number’, because it does not admit any sacrifice. Gandhi’s emphasis on sarvodaya, on sacrifice and social harmony, has led some observers to believe that thewas against the individualism. According to Gandhi man alienates himself from the identity of god, man and the world.

Mission of Social Justice: Ambedkar
Unlike the dominant Indian philosophical traditions, his political thought is rational rather than speculative. In assessing the political philosophy of Ambedkar, the existing language of political traditions is not enough to capture his thought. He does not mean that his philosophy has an affinity and difference with the liberal, conservative and radical characterization of existing political traditions. This pragmatic approach is an innovative contribution to Indian political theory and practice. The essence of his pragmatism is to make Dalits, a center of any emancipatory project. His conception of community is very novel. He does not confirm to either Hindu ideal community or Marxist conception of community based on participation in production process. His conception of community is moral and ethical. It is not automatically available for participation in common affairs. His idea of community has to be created through hard and torturous process of moral transformation. When Ambedkar criticises Hindu community for its oppressive nature, he does it with a standard of individual liberty and freedom. When he is talking about suffering of individual members of Dalit community he is projecting an ideal model community based on equality, liberty and fraternity. So it is not correct to call Ambedkar as either a fierce individualist or as a strong communitarian. Ambedkar argued infavor of ideal community by pointing out the hindu community for its inhuman, oppressive and anti democratic ideals. The caste system prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has prevented the hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being.’[12]An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. It is an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contacts with other modes of association. …fraternity, another name for democracy.. it is a primary more of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience[13].only when hindu society beces casless society that it can hope to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength, swaraj for hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery.[14]
Overcoming Tradition and Modernity dichotomy
The modern world view is characterized by universalism, rationalism and secularism. Modernity is opposed to the religious world view which is traditional. Tradition involves uncritical acceptance of the past which is in the form of dogmas, beliefs and super structures. Tradition is accumulated knowledge of the past which comes to its inheritors in the form of patterned hought and formula. Basically tradition isvested in religion and its irrational and mythical astructures. It is argued that contrary to tradition, modernity brings change in the attitudes, values and orientation of thinking and mental make up of the individual so as to make him/her rational , secular, liberal, self confident in a changing world. Modernity certainly involves break with the past. Reasoning plays predominant ole to evaluate beliefs, opinions, dogmas etc. modernity assumes that scientific thinking should have precedence over emotions and non-rational thought. Modernity also involves changes in the socio-economic and political structures facilitating industrialization , urbanization and democratization. From the economic point of view, modernity involves reorientation of the social structure bringing about material prosperity through increasing expansion of the productive forces of society and by equitable distribution of wealth. In short modern world view is based on empirical and scientific knowledge, and is incompitable with tradition on all important aspects of life.
It is argued by some thinkers that there is a dichotomous opposition between tradition and modernity. Modernity is considered to be the anti- thesis to tradition. But many scholars for different reasons contested the view that there is any dichotomy between tradition and modernity. Also some of the nationalist thinkers questioned the dichotomy between tradition and modernity. They challenged the hitherto dominant perspectives on modernity. Nationalist thinkers argued that modernity which is equated with industrialization, scientific and technological advancement was limited to western countries. the so called modernity suited colonial interests at the expense o colonized. Keeping this view in mind, which was put forward by the western colonial countries, was questioned. Gandhi’s ‘Hindu Swaraj’ in a fundamental sense, contested the above view. We can see in the thought of Gandhi a blend of tradition and modernity. He tried to integrate new patterns of thought and action on traditional culture. He attempted a merger of the three levels of Indian social system, viz., social stratification, culture, and polity into a pattern so that the break down of Indian tradition could be averted. Gandhi’s critique of western civilization ‘was critique of modernity and his central argument is that no enduring alternative can be pursued unless that alternative negotiated to the skills, capacities and wisdom of people.’[15]
When Vivek Pinto calls Gandhi’s work "critical traditionalism" and when Madhuri Sondhi suggests that Gandhi integrates Hindu dharma into modernism and that Hind Swaraj represents both a critique and an appropriation of modern ideas, both these authors are moving towards a constructive postmodern Gandhi. Indeed, Thomas Pantham has already arrived at this interpretation: "[Gandhi's] project . . . is one of overcoming modernism without regressing to traditionalism. In his approach, there is a merging of the reconstruction of Indian tradition and the reconstruction of Western modernity."

The contemporary Indian thinker, Ambedkar, also tried to overcome the tradition-modernity dichotomy. The critique of the tradition is accompanied in Ambedkar b refusal to accept readymade alternatives manufactured in the west. His philosophy is essentially ethical and religious and he keeps away from western thought. And at the same time, he attacked Hinduism and its claims as religion. His comment on Hinduism is illustrative of his position. ‘it is a misnomer to call it religion. Its philosophy is opposed to the very thing for which religion stands.’ Hence he considers Hinduism as anti-religious as for him, religion is love of truth. He upholds the moral basis of life while allowing critical reason to operate. He considers Buddhism as the only religion which can respond to the demands of modernity and culture. For him, Buddhist teachings are infallible and they are not making a claim to supernatural origin or authority. Buddhist teachings, he believes, appeal to reason and experience. By holding on to religiousness, he transcends the tradition-modernity dichotomy. He is critical of modernity and highlighted that the priority of social reconstruction can not be achieved without taking into account the legacy of tradition. He further considers that legal and political institutions do not have the capacity to reconstruct social solidarity, and therefore tries to provide a social basis for the liberal and political ethos which does not mean an uncritical acceptance of western modernity or indigenous traditionalism.

Conclusion:
How the issue of caste and untouchability viewed by Gandhi and Ambedkar is decisive in assessing their political philosophy. The manner in which they differ from western liberal tradition and their proposal of moral community is crucial in initiating a dialogue with communitarian politics. The striking difference exists between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the conception of moral community/individual .Gandhi approached this problem from the caste hindu point of view and made an attempt to transform them at individual level. Ambedkar is critical about hindu social order from the point of dalits, the oppressive communities.
It is true that for Gandhi, Swaraj is unattainable without removal of the sins of untouchability as it is without hindu-muslim unity.[16] Gandhi claimed that the heart of the caste hindu could be changed by applying moral pressures within the framework of the hindu tradition. As Bikhu Parekh rightly pointed out, Untouchability was both moral and political problem. Gandhi’s campaign was conducted only at the moral and religious level. He concentrated on caste hindus rather than harijans, as appealed their feelings of shame and guilt, and succeeded in achieving his initial objections of discrediting untouchability and raising the level of hindu and, to a limited extent, harijan conscience. Since he did not organize and politicize the harijans, stress their rights and fight for a radical reconstruction the established social and economic order. Gandhi’s campaign was unable to go further. It gave harijans dignity but not power; moral and to some extent, social but not political and economic equality; self respect but not self confidence to organize and fight their own battles. It integrated them into the hindu social order but did little to release them from the cumulative cycle of deprivation. [17]
Unlike the unity argument put forwarded by Gandhi , Ambedkar’s critique provides a justice argument against caste system. Ambedkar makes difference between a (voluntary) political community, within which an individual exercises his legal rights, and a (coercive)cultural community within which individual could not even formulate their aims.A political community, argued Ambedkar may not be co-extensive withone cultural community, as is envisaged by the nation state. Ambedkar by arguing for the rights and basic needs of dalits, he challenges the assumptions of both nationalistic politics and indigenous communitarian politics.[18].
Ultimately truth for Gandhi as explained by Akeel Bilgrami, is not a cognitive notion at all. It is an experiential notion. It is not propositions purporting to describe the world of which truth predicated, it sonly our own moral experience which is capable of beingtrue..it is what in the end underlies his opposition to the enlightenment, despite the undeniably enlighten elements in his thought including his humanism and the concern that our moral judgments to be relevant to all people.[19] Ambedkar seems to provide an interesting point while talking about interrogating traditions of dominant groups and also becomes necessary to create critical, rational and democratic traditions by interrogating uncritical aspects of socio – cultural traditions of Dalit communities. The moral community of Ambedkar satisfies both test of reason and justice. Democracy needs not only equality at spiritual realm and should extend to every channel of life by providing equal opportunities to everybody to participate in it.
[1] Davis,Niva Yuval. Gender and Nation, Sage : London, 1997 p.13
[2] Kumar, Ravinder. Class, community or Nation ? Gandhi’s quest for a popular consensus in India. Modern Asian studies III, 4, pp.357-376

[3] Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. (pp.95-155).
[4] Knowles, Dudly. Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2001. (P: 177-237).
[5] Dallmayr, Fred R. ‘Political Theory at Cross Roads’ in From Contract to Community, Marcel Dekkar, Inc, New York, 1978. p.1
[6] Ibid.p.9
[7] Ibid p.9
[8] Bay, Christian, “Thoughts on Liberalism and Post- Industrial Society” in From Contract to Community. P.29-45.
[9] Iyer Raghavan Moral and political writings of MahatmaGandhi Vol.1 OUP, Delhi, 1986, p.7
[10] Kumar, Ravinder. Class, community or Nation ? Gandhi’s quest for a popular consensus in India. Modern Asian studies III, 4, p.376
[11] Rothermund, Indira The individual and society in GHandhi’s political thought , Journal of Asian studies Vol.28. No.2 (Feb.1969) pp.313-320.
[12] Dr.babasaheb ambedkar writing and speeches. Vol. 1 p.51
[13] Ibid p.56
[14] Ibid.80
[15] Rodrigues, Valerian , “Making aTradition critical: Ambedkar’s Reading of Budhism”, In Peter Robb, Dalit Movements and Meanings of Labour in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993), p.305
[16] Gandhi (young India, 29th December 1920)quoted in Dr.babasaheb ambedkar writing and speeches.
Vol. 9 p.37

[17] Parekh, Bikhu colonialism, Tradition and reform an analysis of gandhian political discourseSAge ;, 1987 p.245-246
[18] Verma, Vidhu Colonialism and Liberation- Ambedkar’s quest for Disrtibutive Justice, EPW, September 25, 1999
[19] Bilgrami, Akeel Gandhi, the Philosopher, EPW, September27,2003