Search for a sound political philosophy ?

The posting of Feb 18,02.14 AM, "LOKAVIDYA JAN ANDOLAN AND/OR GYAN MUKTI?", fairly accurately captures our collective mind at the end of its tether in dealing with the complex problem of 'What then must we do?'. M.K.Gandhi's solution:

"Be the change you want to see in the world"

ignores 'two' factors, our limited capacity and the recalcitrant nature of the world, identified by Rosseau long ago:

"The flaws which make social institutions necessary are the same as the abuse of them unavoidable".

If,as I am inclined to believe, our Sysiphus-like condition is inevitable, I find the suggestion, "Perhaps the idea of a lokavidya andolan is search for a sound political philosophy which is able to stir the imagination of all those who find contemporary versions of 'The way of Tradition' and 'the way of Modernity' not very attractive or life-enhancing" appealing.Perhaps it can also help identify the half-truths in the various postings.Even more importantly, it may suggest a way out of the performative paradoxes of our (1) communitarian (2) universalist and (3)post-modernist political philosophies.


prkrao

Response from Shamik Sarkar and Jiten Nandi from Kolkata

For several years now the concept of `lokavidya' has been developed by Varanasi ashram and associated people. We are summarizing the concept below, as we understand it :

1) Human social existence compels it to acquire knowledge for its own sake, and the knowledge evolves from social interaction and human interaction with nature. Lokavidya is this fundamental form of knowledge.

2) This fundamental knowledge form never ceases to evolve, rather it's continuously evolving, and originating.

3) This knowledge form doesn't have any organisation.

4) Peasant, workers, artisan, street vendors and women are embodiment of this knowledge.

5) A different knowledge form exists also, broadly it can be defined as organised knowledge. Often it is associated and sponsored by State. Capital favours this knowledge form.

6) This organised knowledge form gathers by taking the fundamental knowledge away from it's embodiement, and through subsequent structurisation of it, thereby facilitating the making of knowledge-fetish to the society as a whole. Then it creates its own structured route of evolution.

7) In the process of fetishisation, the embodiement of the fundamental knowledge form is made to believe in this structured knowledge form as the only form of legitimate knowledge in the society.

8) This systematic robing off the embodiement of fundamental knowledge takes a new and perhaps most predatory shape in the form of information and communication technology.

9) The struggle for emancipation of the society as whole from the shackles of its alienated offshoots (State, Capital, Structured knowledge etc.) must put itself into the stream of fundamental knowledge form.

The idea of Lokavidya Jana Andolon is a rather new one and it is a process of reckoning for the embodiement of fundamental knowledge form about its own, in term of knowledge.

Our observations

a) The concept of Lokavidya, as we perceived, is very important.

b) Lokavidya remains there amidst the embodiment of it. It is the only knowledge form by which large part of human society, particularly societies in our countries, survive.

c) A very large part of humanity, embodiment of fundamental knowledge form, is continuously rejecting organised knowledge forms like religious, scientific etc. The rejection is not a vocal/propagandist one, but a silent refusal to follow and grasp the organised knowledge forms. This refusal is not a conscious one, but from the perception of practicality. Organised knowledge forms are not practically relevant at the level of a petit human being with very little or no means of livelihood, who is trying to survive with social interactions and interaction with nature.

d) Soft database technology is the latest idea of organisation of knowledge. Earlier form, the scientific form took `why' and `how' out of context of fundamental knowledge stream, overblown it, and shaped the organisation. The new idea takes `how' and `what' out of Lokavidya, puts extra-relevance upon it, and is intending to shape a knowledge organisation. The aim of the sponsors of it is very similar to that of the earlier organised knowledge forms, to put forth a knowledge-fetish before the society.

e) Like all other knowledge organisations, this new one is also proving to be incapable to be practically useful for the large part of humanity, may be the absolute majority. Despite all out effort of Capital and State to make it work, it is a large failure till now. Despite everything is perceived as `good' for years what a Mobile phone can deliver, mobile connection is not available to the majority of our countrymen till now (and it's already showing its limit. The switching to 3G from simple phone would hamper mobile's expansion, would facilitate consolidation). And not to forget the fact that people use mobile as a mere mean of broader social interactions, and refuse to consider it as an instrument of knowledge fetish.

f) There is always an effort by the human social existence to make the organised knowledge form a part of fundamental knowledge stream. Often this is done by transforming the purpose of the pieces of an organised knowledge.

g) There is also an effort by human social existence to make the organised knowledge form a knowledge-fetish to the society as a whole. Most of the people who are engaged in that knowledge organisation favour this.

h) Formation of social knowledge-fetish is sponsored by capital, state, and the populace who are survived by other people's social and natural interactions, i.e., labour.

i) In our days, the knowledge fetish has got a new social proponent, which is corporate and elite social existence.

j) It is better to chalk out a strategy/process for the elite and corporate social existence, and not for the social embodiment of fundamental knowledge form.

k) Peasants, adivasis, workers, artisans, pavement retailers and their families (the lokavidyadhar samaj) constitute the informal social existence. It exists side by side of the formal social existence or State. It uses the formal society and associated elite organised knowledge system for its exsistence and creates the stream of fundamental knowledge which is subsequently used by the formal society. People are always `conscious' about their own `knowledge', in their ways. It is the knowledge-fetish, like every fetish, always puts itself as a shackle. So it is not the question of consciosness or claim, but to liberate themselves from the shackle of fetish. It is a matter of long-term struggle/job, not a matter of short-term movement. The mass movements in short-term (even revolutions) may only contribute to this process. We are saying this from our observation of the history of humanity.

l) The strategy/process for the elite social existence must include the deconstruction of knowledge-fetish, the recognition of Lokavidya as fundamental form of knowledge, the dissolution of organised knowledge form into that fundamental form of knowledge. There is a need for reckoning of the elite social existence about its own historical limitation, and destabilize itself.

Agenda Hyderabad Meet 27-28 Feb 2011

Given below is a scheme of the agenda for the meeting on 27-28 Feb. 2011. Filling up the details and also alterations on suggestions from you will go on. However this gives an idea of how and on what themes we are planning to structure the meeting, therefore you may start concentrating on where you come in, in a major way, of course scope for participation generally where ever you desire would always be there.

Also please find the venue details given again below. Outstation participants who want a place to stay may please inform Krishnarajulu immediately.

Proposed Agenda

27th Feb 2011

11:00.-11:30 Welcome, introduction of participants and finalizing the method of participation and discussion

11:30 -1:00 The idea of Lokavidya Jan Andolan
1:00- 2:00 Lunch
2:00- 3:30 Relation between alternatives and Lokavidya

3.30 -3.45 Tea
3:45-5:00 People’s knowledge organizations
5:00- 6:00 Open house-General discussion

28th Feb 2011

10:00-1:00 Building the Lokavidya Jan Andolan
1:00-2:00 Lunch
2:00-4:00 Panel discussion- Is there a politics of lokavidya?
4:00-4:30 Tea
4:30-5:30 Concluding session

The venue of the Vidya Ashram national Meet (27th-28th February 2011) is

Jeevan Jyothi Retreat Home
Street No.2 , Chikoti Gardens
(Lane Opp Shoppers Stop,adjacent to Bus Stop shelter)
Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016
Ph: 040-27762354
email: jeevanjyothi.rh@gmail.com

The venue is about 6 Kms from Secunderabad station and about 2 Kms from Begumpet station and easily reachable by auto.On entering the lane opposite Shoppers stop i.e Street No.2 Chikoti Gardens, proceed to the end of the street and take a short right turn to reach Jeevan Jyothi Retreat House.

Accomodation is available for outstation participants (for about 20+ persons) at the place and has been booked for 27th and 28th( you can plan to reach on 26th night/27th morning and leave on 28th night/1st morning). Please inform me asap if you need accomodation at the venue. Breakfast , lunch, tea and dinner will be provided at the venue.

Sunil Sahasrabudhey

Further on the "andolan" aspect of LJA

A few more comments, part in response to the other posts and comments.
Amit

1. There is relatively greater clarity on what lokaidya is, its location, its relations with other knowledges, its history, its connection with Gandhi.
2. There is much less clarity and also some discomfort with the idea of a lokavidya andolan.
3. One source of discomfort is to do with the charge of elitism that may be leveled against university-educated folk who want to organize a lokavidya andolan. This is related to the issue brought up by Asokeji when he alludes to the contradiction between using cell phones and extolling adivasi lifestyles.
4. Here the response is simply that leadership and initiative of the LJA in fact cannot come from the university-educated. We are bringing the concept and issue into the public domain, not as leaders of a new agitation, but as interpreters and facilitators.
5. Several people have brought up the issue of the relation between LJA and Gandhi. There is one important difference between khadi and swadeshi etc on the one hand and LJA on the other hand. What is latent/implicit in khadi is overt/explicit in LJA, viz. the idea that this is a struggle over knowledge.
6. So the concrete struggles, be they against displacement, or for forest rights or whatever, don't suddenly change. But we see them differently. We see them as knowledge struggles.
7. The LJA can thus be the confluence of already existing andolans who see that it in in their advantage to cast their struggles also as knowledge struggles.
8. This is not only a matter of perspective. Class struggle derives a new potency from the theory of class exploitation. Gender struggles derive new strength when they become conscious of themselves as such. In both cases self-consciousness brings new allies also.
9. LJA is the people's movement that gains consciousness as a knowledge movement because it sees that without bringing knowledge into debate, the battle in only half fought.
10. The idea of gyan mukti, knowledge liberation, seems to be in tune with the times. The recent meeting of university activists called in Paris by Edu-Factory, has resulted in the formation of a group called the Knowledge Liberation Front.
10. Finally, we may also want to reflect on what the Arab revolts mean for us. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain show that civil disobedience and non-violent non-cooperation are not only 20th Century ideas. They carry potency today. Despite the dominant trend in the western media to interpret these as struggles for greater Western-style democracy, in fact the implications with regard to the new organization of society which may emerge, are not clear yet.

Amit Basole

Random Thoughts

These are some random thoughts - reactions to contributions to the blog. Nothing cogent. I suppose that is allowed on a blog.

1. Do we regard LJA as a continuation of Gandhi? I think we have a serious case to do that. But then we cant regard Gandhi's movement as dead. LJA cannot be a continuation of something dead. We will have to connect to specifics in what remains of Gandhian movement. May be the spirit behind khadi which Surendran talks of.

2. The active / positive conception of lok is obviously central to any theoretical / philosophical exercise. It seems to me that the category to which it belongs is materially different from that of the conception of the proletariat. It is nearer to that of human labour. It is 'timeless', if such a thing is allowed. This should be so to the extent that a fresh description / interpretation of history is called for. Also this has something to do with concerns about 'universality' of which timelessness with regard to human societies is surely an attribute. Also this goes well with understanding of history as one of march of human creativity and autonomous nature of this creativity.

3. This autonomy also implies that creative human activity is by its very nature inward looking. It would be impossible to comprehend how lokavidya, its societal form, can be the vehicle for survival in the face of external assault unless it is admitted that the lok is necessarily inward looking. Our case is that the external condition has acquired an overbearing character of such magnitude that this very essence of human creative activity is in danger of extinction. That would be an unthinkable contradiction conjuring up nightmare of robot societies.

4. The perception that people do not want any government is a reflection of that external condition. This perception was actually voiced by the leadership of farmers' movement in Maharashtra. But then it receives a very different meaning when comprehended without an appreciation of the idea of lokavidya.

5. Lok is non-political. Politics is at the interface where lok confronts the external and I think it deeply affects ordinary life. Ordinary life has to engage with politics on a daily basis and from an inferior position. In times like the present this engagement may transform itself into one from an equal / superior position where future of human societies in concerned. The standpoint of lokavidya provides the basis for that transformed political engagement today. This engagement is at the same time purely temporary, eminently required and inevitably christened liberating. We should look at LJA as the effort to define its beginnings.

Girish Sahasrabudhe

irigleen@gmail.com