Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Caste -Lokavidya perspective

A discussion is being started with this post on 'Strategies to transcend caste in order to create and strengthen  new bonds within Lokavidyadhar Samaj".

Caste- a Lokavidya perspective

Jati(Caste) refers to the social identity of members of Lokavidyadhar Samaj. It defines the role and obligations of a member of the Samaj. It denotes the active knowledge-base possessed by the members of the jati on which their livelihoods are based ,which in turn determines their role and obligations in the productive life of society. Each jati, therefore had a fairly clearly defined position in the productive, distributive and service processes of society and there is no evidence to believe that this participative status was ever denied to any jati. In almost all important social functions- births,marriages,harvests and deaths, each section had a role to play and we see that, to this day, every 'traditional' function has roles for different jatis to play.The dalits, tribals and 'untouchables' also had clearly defined roles and concomitant obligations, however, at some point(s) in time they were excluded from mainstream society and lived a largely marginalised life fraught with great exploitation and misery.

This social identity, which is self-perpetrating (through birth), is very strong and has formed the basis for social organisation, especially in the colonial and post-colonial era. Caste hierarchy, the origins of which are not clearly understood; especially the origin and continuation of untouchability, has been around for a very long time. Various dubious theories to sanctify this heirarchy have been put forth. In practice, however, it appears that in the pre-British era, caste discrimination never became a factor for social disruption, though the abominable practice of untouchability kept out sizable sections of people from ordinary social life all over the country. The neo-hierarchical classification of castes into 'forward' and 'backward' categories is a colonial phenomenon and goes hand-in-hand with the debunking of Lokavidya.

The 'scramble' for 'employment' in the colonial and post-colonial era, at the cost of delegitimising Lokavidya and all livelihoods based thereon, has led to a fierce struggle for the 'backwardness' tag in order to become eligible for the reservations/concessions/feebies etc given by centre/state/public instituions-some of which are even Constitutionally mandated. This has led to a perverse 'strengthening' of caste-identity and caste-hierarchy. The British used this nascent social discordance to politically divide the people and the current political dispensation also actively encourages this discordance. Our understanding is that, this encouragement of discordance is aimed at completely
delegitimising Lokavidya(even in their own eyes) and reducing Lokavidyadhar Samaj to a slave society. Lokavidyadhar Samaj has to transcend caste-hierarchy and recapture the imagination that can lead to the establishment of a truly egalitarian society where knowledge is in command and equal respect for practitioners of all aspects of knowledge/skills is the norm.

A general survey of the political liberation movements of last century will show that their primary aim ( and to whatever extent, also achievement) was economic equality. This resulted in a certain adhoc perception popularised by the system that economic status will act as the uniformisation agent for social equality. That is, sections of the Samaj economically well off by dint of the strength of the connection with the exploitative system – a rich farmer setting up auctioning/processing produce, a blacksmith or a sthapati setting up a “production” unit, a woman employing women in a “manufacturing” unit, a labourer becoming a “contractor” or aworker in a private/public/ multinational industry, a young educated in a government job, ... - accepted the same values as the dominant ruling /political /economic class. This also gave rise to the most retrogressive welfare measure of money distribution, household goods or food. These measures kept the social inequalities intact and indeed worsened with the added accelerated movements for reservation systems at every level of organization in every department of life. This state of affairs seems to be a result of absolute no-confidence in the dialectics of processes and directions of change. In turn, this meant the loss of certain cardinal principles from the public view, principles which alone demand, every moment of life, the “truth” that is sought through the dialectic. These measures got the direct and indirect approvals from economists and social scientists, domestic and foreign , and also the world finacncial market system facilitating globalization and growth of domestic capitalist class. It became increasingly clear that the radical change and political imagination which we conceive of can not possibly take place via the economic uniformization route , but rather the social uniformization route. That is, while the economic uniformization necessarily led to debate and discourse on the development models and planning, leading to adhoc monetary measures, often on the edge of hopelessness, because of the globalization overheads and the intrinsic charactristics of the new technologies.

It appears that political mobilization based on certain active principles of social uniformization as opposed to economic uniformization measure may be the effective route to unleash a process for achieving social justice for the Samaj. In the context of our knowledge of the history of the Samaj, the following three principles ( and others) seem to have that capacity. They are not demands to the existing ruling power, but by the Samaj on itself. They are formulated in this fashion in the context of the way the ruling system exercises control by framing “laws” and the “code for administration” of the laws which the samaj is subject to. The options mentioned below are deemed to enable the society to counteract in a, possibly long and ardous , process of dialogue with those processes that seem to have acquired a certain quality of “untruth” from lack of reflection and plain ignorance.

  1. The practice of assigning Jati or Caste of the child at birth ( via certificate) be abolished.

       Instead only the Jati or Caste of the parents ( individually or together) will be recorded. Also the name will be recorded not as Son of Father, butas Born to the Mother , whose name as entered in the hospital/panchayat , is say, Kalyani Krishnan; and Father's name comes through the name of mother the way she registers it. Such a child will be given compulsory education of whatever type by the community until at the age of 12/14 ( to be related to the best age of termination of coeducation and or educational content regarding public life, family life etc.) and will be having the same status as a sant, as being caste neutral ( in the classical Indian thought, as pure embodiment of the spirit). At the end of this period, the child will be eligible to choose any caste of his choice for the purpose of earning a livelihood and/or acquiring the status accorded in society and be deemed eligible for any prevailing reservation on the basis of the economic condition of his parents or any such criteria of the state. However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.

        The children of the samaj will have the second choice of choosing a caste/jati for the express and very important purpose of entering into union in marriage ( whatever type) for availing of possible subsidies, choices for getting employment, settling in the natural geographical location of the spouse available with centre/state/public institutions etc. to setup family life and also be deemed eligible for grants for medical services and child care and early education ( see para above). However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.

        The adult members of the samaj, considering the rather terrible difficulties they face in the twilight of their life without any assistance, will have the third and final choice to choose jati/caste for the purpose of being deemed eligible of availing concessions on retirement ( interpreted appropriately) for being eligible for medical/survival/group benefits available or by their autonomous faith based on their life and experience thus far, so that justice is served. However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.
2. The practice of identifying women as a separate jati/community/problem within the general political/development discourse- be abolished.
   The First item having been formulated for any child, women are automatically part of the samaj as understood there. Compulsory education until age 12/14 with no gender discrimination will be subject to some extra criteria arising out of early onset of puberty in females. And any girl child at the age of 14 or a mature girl while getting married or a woman at any time of her life may exercise the option of choosing a jati/caste for the purpose of utilizing the subsidies or other grants available under ay special category currently existing, including choosing her groom. She may also register for any special categories under which survival , nutrition and medical help is freely available under the present ruling order. And just as the child is caste neutral, being adopted either by the king or by the mendicant etc., so also the woman is caste neutral by dint of being inherently capable of bearing the of child of any male ( following the dharma of any caste etc.) . Thus we add woman to child and sant as being caste neutral. And route to social justice runs through the estate of these three categories.

3. The Natural Inheritance of private property and Natural Transfer of public property into private hands be abolished.

In the above, the second adjective “Natural” connotes the same sense as the first. The above is not a fundamentally new principle, but requires serious formulation after deep reflection in the context of the “truth” realized by the samaj that all things in the world are “public”and are deemed “private” by the society in some context, for some purpose, either forgotten or too obvious. And just as the individual “does not know” who/what he/she is and exists on the strength of the “knowledge of identity” given by the family/society , similarly any kind of wealth ( material/otherwise) is not born with the self-declaratory identity, that is, wealth is born owner-neutral just as in the above we considered the child is born caste-neutral and the woman and sant are caste neutral.

We have demanded the 'Right to livelihood based on Lokavidya' that, in practice, translates to a demand for an equal minimum wage for ALL occupations/livelihoods based on Lokavidya and/or modern knowledge. Can Lokavidyadhar Samaj move toward a demand for a Right to an Equality-based Identity? The suggestions made could be seen as the active aspect of such a demand.

These principles if reflected upon and adopted ( in appropriate form) with the right spirit , will unleash hitherto unimagined churning in the social fabric of the Samaj, infusing strength into it with unimaginable revolutionary consequences. It may enable the Samaj to launch a One-point Satyagraha or Constitutional demand, by combining the above neutality into a hitherto impossible limit of meaning for human life. Such satyaghahis may constitute the new core for creating the mass base for social justice in our country.

B. Krishnarajulu & K.K.Surendran
January 2014


  1. Motherhood is supreme undisputed truth, therefore the child‘s natural registration is as born to ‘woman’ and then she may declare child’s father’s name to the registering authority.

    Instead of choosing a caste, one may choose a profession of his/her choice, having been imparted with the basic education relevant to the society. His/her profession will earn livelihood for each one and that profession shall identify the person; that profession may be his/her caste. If the profession is such that it caters to certain requirements of the society that alone shall fetch him/her a status in the society.

    I am, 1) a scavenger and that is my caste; 2) a weaver and that is my caste; 3) a blacksmith and that is my caste; 4) a farm labour and that is my caste; 5) a farmer and that is my caste; and so on & so forth.

    I am a farm labour and if I learn the art & science of farming & agriculture while laboring in the fields, I shall be a farmer & that shall be my caste. If I learn any other skill or craft or trade that alone shall define my caste. Respectability for a profession (relevant to the needs of the society) shall bring respectability to the caste because both merge in to one.

    If scavenger is looked down upon in the society then that profession is not relevant to that society and therefore scavengers may choose a different profession and concomitant identity for themselves. The society that disrespects scavenging need own the consequences of it.

    Caste based discrimination and politics gained ascendancy in the last 300 years because Lokavidhyadhar Samaj was not only annihilated, but also kept out of the main stream politics and its various institutions. That process is still very much on. Had caste system been such a bane then India would not have been the most sought after land for the ‘explorers’. It has been turned in to a non contributing mass that is looked upon as a burden and peace is bought by throwing some crumbs at them by way of schemes.

    Lokavidhyadhar Samaj has to transform itself in to a live, energetic, and ever contributing mass based on the strengths of their Lokavidya. An arrangement wherein each professional has a space available to excel in his/her domain of knowledge seems to be the only way whereby caste based inhuman behavior shall cease to exist. One may have an arrangement where in need for the other one’s knowledge is indispensable to the prosperity and well being of the Samaj. Interdependence is the only adhesive that can ensure respectability to each and every caste.

    For the sake of benefits if one has to adopt a caste, I do not know how well it goes with the basic tenets & premise of LJA.

    Lalit K Kaul

  2. I have read it ones and am trying to grasp the meaning, potential and scope of such a proposition. The opening paragraphs do establish the connection between lokavidya and jati and do say how the British policy and the policy of governments of independent India damaged this connection in a huge way, naturally to the disadvantage of the lokavidyadhar samaj. But it is not clear how the three propositions should be seen as woven around liberation from this disruption leading to rejuvenation of both lokavidya and the samaj. It would help if we are able to identify social movements in modern India, whether pre-independence and/or now, with which the proposed ideas can be seen in positive relationship, not that it is necessary, but some dynamic social location may be needed in which such sense may be identifiable.

    May be you should place these ideas for discussion in our Multai meeting, where we can also then decide on some concrete forms to take this discussion forward and into more open and larger social locations.
    Sunil Sahasrabudhey

  3. The Vaikom Satyagraha(1924–25) in Travancore led by TK Madhavan, KM Pannikar, Periyar Naranaswamy Naicker and others, was the first systematically organized agitation in Kerala against orthodoxy to secure the rights of the depressed classes and against untouchability. The movement was centered at the Shiva temple at Vaikom near Kottayam.The Satyagraha aimed at securing freedom of movement for all sections of society through the public roads leading to the Sri Mahadevar Temple at Vaikom. For the first time in history, the agitation brought forward the question of civil rights of the 'low caste' people into the forefront of Indian politics. No mass agitation in Kerala acquired so much all-India attention and significance in the twentieth century as the Vaikom Satyagraha.

    This is one example of a social movement where the idea of 'social equality' was debated in public.

  4. Every one born in to this world is born without any tags like caste and religion. It is the indoctrination , post birth, over the years that one is made to accept that this is his/her caste and religion. I have no hesitation in saying that this process of indoctrination fundamentally deprives an individual from his/her freedom to interact in this world as he/she looks at / understands it. Therefore, I am quite comfortable with the idea of anyone renouncing his/her caste and / or religion and choosing to define his/her own outlook and get activated in accordance with that. Defiance is perhaps best form of defense; renouncing the traditional identities may have the potential to shake the very foundations of extant civilization & question the basis of preceding ones. In my understanding defiance of the extant set up can be due to many reasons, but if it is to acquire/gain benefits then it is not going to transform anything for the better.

    It is my considered opinion that not only caste, but also religion one must choose of his/her own accord sans expectations of benefits. We are witness to conversions. Such conversions have only given rise to concepts like 'Dalit Christians', 'Dalit Muslims', 'Dalit Buddhists', 'Dalit Sikhs'; whereas the fact remains that there is not supposed to be any caste system in the said religions; all this to derive benefits & we need to think where it has led our societies to.

    Benefits shall anyway accrue if the societies get transformed to have a predominant ingredient of 'Insaniyat'; to begin with they can wait.

    Lalit K Kaul

  5. I don't have much of an understanding of jati but here are a few thoughts for connecting jati and knowledge in society.

    We can understand society as formed of a multiplicity of knowledge traditions in the sense that all social activities take place within these knowledge traditions. Each knowledge tradition though has within itself several other knowledge traditions. For example, Buddhism will have philosophical traditions, meditational traditions, literary traditions etc. within itself in a heirarchically subdued position. Knowledge traditions are permeable and they are not bound to some time and space necessarily.

    A community or a society in time and space is formed and associated with a hierarchy of knowledge traditions. These hierarchies (which may or may not be stable to different degrees) constitue actual communities. Maybe we can think of the relations of jati, knowledge, and samaj in this light.

    But we cannot be mechanically equating jati with knowledge traditions. For example, scavenging, at least in the modern sense of people removing, carrying and disposing human excrement from open latrines (I grew up in Katihar with such toilets), can hardly be called a knowledge tradition. It would be safe to assume that no body involved in scavenging will take pride in it and will want to continue doing it. May be the presence of a knowledge tradition can be seen as a criteria to distinguish legitimate divisions is society from forced ones.

    I have one specific suggestion as one step in dealing with such issues in depth. Navjyoti has developed a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding society, justice, politics based on Vaisesika philosophy. I think we should have an extended interaction with him. We will find some formulations and conjectures which might prove fruitful, even in opposition. Navjyoti does not talk about lokavidya at all, but in my reading, his system has important place for ordinary life. Society is seen to be constituted by ordinary activities, manners, etc. What I found most interesting is his defense of jural autonomy (judgment of good, bad, justice, injustice) of each human being. Power centres in society are seen to germinate and grow when people cede this autonomy to others and to institutions. We need to think in somewhat comprehensive terms in order to deal with questions of jati, samaj and knowledge. It is very difficult to do so with reference to western philosophies, at least to begin with. A Vaisesika-based framework offers good opportunity for dialogue. I realised in June when I met Sunil ji with Navjyoti that they have never had a conversation about these aspects of Navjyoti's work.

    Similarly we should organise some intense dialogues with some others too. I am sure we can find 2-3 other very good people to have such dialogues.


  6. I think that in many complex situations, the limits of understanding are much much less than the limits of action, contrary to our notion of understanding opening avenues for action!

    For example, a man may never understand being a woman, a brahmin never understands being an untouchable,... And the king never understands being the scavenger; yet by lifting one finger he can abolish scavenging overnight if he is equipped with the right mind!

    I often felt that in political imagination it is this possibility which is truely significant.


  7. You are quite right in that action is not limited by some comprehensive well-established understanding. I suppose the word 'imagination' in political imagination points to that.

    But there must be some understanding behind the demand with respect to caste that you have formulated. Perhaps you should articulate that. To begin with, I find a disconnect between the freedom to choose any caste at a certain age on the one hand, and availing of special benefits for certain castes on the other. Benefits for certain castes are there precisely because the freedom to choose your caste is absent. Do you mean to say that a new caste configuration will emerge if such an exercise is carried out? Or, will jati become irrelevant?Is an analysis of society in terms of knowledge sufficient to understand jati? (I don't mean that you are saying so.)

    I just feel that certain dialogues will help us sharpen our political imagination, especially dialogues with certain philosophical viewpoints.


  8. There is no argument against having dialogues of any kind, including philosophical and metaphysical even. There is no suggestion of any such hurry, even remotely. What is written is suggested by the very telling fact that understanding the origin of caste system, even 'knowing it', is of very little relevance for LJA, in perhaps the same manner as the theory of evolution ( origin of species) has done nothing to make human beings vegetarian. In fact in has done just the reverse. And the same holds for the division of labor in economics, the reason why it was necessary for Marx to bring in the concept of alienation ( "For on this premise it is clear that the more the worker spends himself, the more powerful becomes the alien world of objects which he creates over and against himself, the poorer he himself – his inner world – becomes, the less belongs to him as his own.") to write the manifesto. I believe, tomorrow, if LJA writes a manifesto, there is no point in putting down our understanding of the origin of caste system (which of course will be reflected in whatever else it contains).

    The simple three tier classification is the most basic, used since time immemorial- the pre-reproductive, reproductive, and post-reproductive populations in any species, area, group, state etc. In bridging the gap to developmental thought, we make the rough replacement of the above with - the pre-productive, productive and post-productive human populations. With that we extend the boundaries of these appropriately, to include pathological or natural transgressions - children and the very aged engaged in production - of the boundaries.
    Thus, a just society is one, in which these two groups are looked after in myriad ways by the middle group. But the middle group was split vertically by the functionality of the reproductive roles, the natural division among the animals, evolved into into the realm of idea and practice in the case of humans. And we have many variations of the story of the ensuing battle, in different societies. But what, perhaps, we read as having happened in the world scale as slavery, happened in the subcontinent, continuously for long time, a glimpse of which one gets in stories such as the run up to adivasi rebellion in Jharkhand - the story of perennial displacement up the heights of the jungle by the plains people and the wars among the plains for control of this process. And we can see the origin of castes, the displaced and the vanquished, a process taking place again and again for very long. And one principle, that seems to confound and aid understanding equally is "longer is different", very much like the principle "more is different" for those trying to describe properties of matter. This is the longest story ever!


  9. Now, when we also bring in the traversal of LJA into the precincts of Sant Prampara, which is precisely that which understands the above process NOT as the inevitable war of growth of human populations, but invokes alienation of a different kind - still resulting in the diminishing of the inner being - we may envision some processes which seek to present the "longer is different" principle in action. And are we going to convince anyone of the epic dimension of this, which is not different from, say, Shiva Purana. Hence we demand what the Samaj can do to itself, assert its autonomy, by not being just a category of census of India, for the planning commission to declare a minimum wage,... but to burn the house down, by choosing caste like enrolling for BCom LLB instead if BA Fine Arts. We mix-up categories in a manner to express the truth that is perceived. Why does one choose it, to attract some provision of the law as it exists,-like employability, being XXXX to get married to XXXX etc. Of course it challenges the authority of various forces, religious, upper caste, etc. in each of the three instances. And the LJA having perceived the real truth of displacement after long in creating caste distinction as a convenient principle to pander to democracy of equality. it is not difficult to find the complete analysis in terms of vote-bank politics for the implemention of the reservation system etc.

    And any such lending voice to perceived truth sooner or later catches the political imagination resulting in something like Abolishion of Slavery OR Non-killing of All beings OR All languages are equivalent and in LJA All Knowledges are equivalent. By declaring the child to be Born to a mother who is caste neutral by herself and assumes one by virtue of marriage etc, the caste is abolished in her mind, and joins the caste neutral front rank consisting of women, children and sants.

    I think I'll try to continue later sometime.I am not sure I have answered your questions. The disjunct will often be like that between Gandhis' dress at the Round table Conference or Ambedkar's three piece suit and conversion - statements of complete disconnect.


  10. In the Vidya Ashram Trust Meeting in Multai on 12th Jan 2014, Krishnarajulu presented his and Surendran's ideas on caste and in this respect a campaign that needs to and should accompany or be part of LJA. It was agreed there that Krish and Surendran should formulate the strategy of taking forward this debate and the desired action on this. It was also felt that they may form a group for this, drawing LJA activists from different places and adding others. Girish volunteered right there.

    I myself feel, and said so there, that ideas and practice in this respect are extremely important for LJA. Central to what Krishnarajulu said, in my understanding, was that there should be freedom to choose one's caste and that fixing it by birth was oppressive. The important question then is whether it should be an individual's freedom or there are conceivable ways in which this freedom can be framed in a social way. In the ultimate analysis modernity recognizes only the individual and the State, that means all other formations, institutions etc. ought to be reducible to the individual and/or the State. This has been understood as robbing the people of the power that they must justly command. So we observe the non recognition of or steady decline in the recognition of social panchayats, caste, religious institutions etc. Complete elimination of the traditional village panchayat is a telling case. Gandhi it seems is at great pains to find ways of organizing the social space, move towards new and just social formations. The great challenge therefore remains of discovering, inventing, constructing, finding new paths towards social formations that are just as well as not reducible to individual and/or state. The lokavidya movement takes on squarely the world of knowledge to find starting points to be able to imagine organizational forms that are not even worthy of consideration in the world of organized (modern) knowledge. The question that will have to be answered is whether this exercise can be done around jati . This discussion can be concrete if it is done in the context of contending ideas, for example, गाँव (village), अंचल ( region?) or some non-territorial ideas of social formation relevant from the point of view of the knowledge claims of lokavidya.


  11. The point about the reduction of identity to the individual and seeing a relationship ONLY between individual and state characterizes capitalism, democracy and the modern Science based knowledge system.
    Lokavidyadhar Samaj, on the other hand recognizes (and the individual finds identity in) only 'collective' identities, jati has long been this collective identity.

    When we say that,now, the individual be given the right to 'choose' an identity we are opening up a space for the creation of a new collective social identity-a sort of transcending of jati to a newer and more purposeful identity. capitalism and democracy. The alienation that capitalism has brought about( that Marx refers to) and the identity that is being forced upon the individual(Jefferson's formulation of democracy) has to be countered by the collective will and desire of Lokavidyadhar samaj. This is what, I believe, Gandhiji was alluding to when he spoke about his support to the varna system and when he argued with Ambedkar to allow the Hindu community to sort out the Dalit question (separate electorates) and not allow the modern state to interfere in this identity-forming process.

    This transcending of jati certainly involves emerging non-territorial social formations- a real definition of Aam Aadmi, that has to be allowed to and done by Lokavidyadhar Samaj and NOT left to the definitions being pandered about by different sections of modern(capitalism based) society and knowledge.


  12. Coming to Krish's mail I would broadly tend to agree with what he says, noting that this means that one of the major locations of building the new social formation is that where jati is located today. In other words it is through addressing jati and transcending jati that the society needs to transition into a new world which is a making of the lokavidyadhar samaj.


  13. The bringing together of farmers, adivasis, karigars, artisans of various ilk, and small time retailers, etc, under one umbrella and giving them a collective identity ' Lokvidyadhar samaj' itself transcends discrimination based on caste, religion, etc.

    The class of people I belong to; I cannot be a member of Lokvidyadhar samaj, because I am not 'swami' of lokvidya; it is this kind of respectability that the name 'Lokvidyadhar samaj' brings to more than 90% of the Indian populace.

    The very basis of the samaj is Lokvidya & therefore this vidya transcends jati/religion, because identification is by 'vidya'.

    That is why I had suggested that there should be freedom to choose the 'vidya' one wishes to acquire & the choice of caste becomes secondary, because it may so happen that one may retain the caste yet acquire vidya not traditionally associated with that caste.

    Caste may be disrespected, but can vidya be disrespected, is the question in my mind.

    Lalit Kaul

  14. I think it is essential to emphasize that the 'demand' for choice of caste is voiced under a system which is using the instrument of reservation to perpetuate rule of a oligarchic democracy, to create agents of power ( read - representatives, bargaining agents, liaison officers for interest groups, lawyers and pundits who interpret the books,...). And what is its real basis? The life span division into three is, as we saw elsewhere, the natural order. It is only the establishment of choice itself that 'demands' explanation. And one needs to go to the basics, before the establishment of the order, as it were. I see primarily two things :

    1. The knowledge conveyed through lokageet and arts and literature portraying the continuous story of displacement and the practice of dealing with the vanquished/conquered as lower class, devoid of power and rendered as service people - kings stripped of powers...becoming a 'raja-harischandra' at the cremation ghat , landlords becoming agricultural labourers, nobility becoming slaves, sisters and wives huddled into dungeons of vice and debauchery of the winners, and so on - the mythology of modern man. And the knowledge of this process is 'ordinary knowledge' with in lokavidya. That is, lokavidya has a knowledge not only of survival under the forces of nature, but also of history of perennial displacement and evolution of caste divisions, the origin of strands of sant parampara - one chela following the guru, another establishing a new order- lokavidya does not take sides.
    In short, there is an alternative interpretation of history at work, more real than what economists created in the context of industrial revolutions. And lokavidya considers this to be the natural order arising from the human nature, such that exemplary order and creative pursuits are deliberate actions of the mind - like the sculpting of Lord Gomanteswara at Sravanabelagola. And having known the 'true history' of the people in its imagination it is voicing in the social realm what constituencies and reservations did (and continues to do) in the economic realm.

    2. Is its inherent lack of future-orientation in the sense of the developmental democracy or economy driven systems. In the urban developmental imagination what is the orientation of future, what is the driving force of the construction and reconstruction of order we encountered in lokavidya? Nothing! people see nothing except themselves, a stronger form of themselves, a clone of the prevailing order, just like humans see their children - just the same. To see future in children only the sants can do- the sants in the lokavidya parampara. Thus we are instead imagining a society in which the humans beings are made humble from their reflections on the laws yet to be found out, the unknown accomplishments of the future generations , their children's goals and their gods, the possibilities which escape them now, ... not the replication of the forgotten and the practiced or possibly untrue.

    So, to some extent at least, it is these two aspects, which one may call the meta-knowledge of lokavidya which must be amplified to visualize the dynamics of the social route to human liberation.