Lokayata Vol IV ,No 01 (March 2014)

1|P a g e

ISSN: 2249-8389

LokÄ yata Journal of Positive Philosophy

Volume IV, No. 01(March , 2014) Chief-Editor:

Desh Raj Sirswal

Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS) Milestone Education Society (Regd.), Ward No.06, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)-136128

http://positivephilosophy.webs.com http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

2|P a g e

Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy (ISSN 2249-8389) Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy is an online bi-annual interdisciplinary journal of the Center for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS). The name Lokāyata can be traced to Kautilya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (logical philosophies), Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata.

Lokāyata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio, "criticism") in general and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. The objectives of the journal are to encourage new thinking on concepts and theoretical frameworks in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences to disseminate such new ideas and research papers (with strong emphasis on modern implications of philosophy) which have broad relevance in society in general and man’s life in particular. The Centre publishes two issues of the journal every year. Each regular issue of the journal contains full-length papers, discussions and comments, book reviews, information on new books and other relevant academic information. Each issue contains about 100 Pages. © Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)

Chief-Editor: Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal (P.G. Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh) Associate Editors: Dr. Merina Islam, Dr. Sandhya Gupta Editorial Advisory Board Prof. K.K. Sharma (Former-Pro-Vice-Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong) Prof.Sohan Raj Tater (Former Vice-Chancellor, Singhania University, Rajasthan) Dr. Anamika Girdhar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) Dr.Ranjan Kumar Behera (Patkai Christian College (Autonomous), Nagaland) Fr. V. John Peter (St. Joseph’s Philosophical College, Nilgiris, T.N.) Dr. Aayam Gupta (Kurukshetra, Haryana) Dr. Geetesh Nirban (Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi) Dr. Vaishali Dev (Mahamakut Buddhist University, Thailand) Dr. Narinder Singh (GHSC-10, Chandigarh) Dr. Vijay Pal Bhatnagar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) Mr. Praveen Kumar Anshuman ( Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, Delhi) Declaration: The opinions expressed in the articles of this journal are those of the individual authors, and not necessary of those of CPPIS or the Chief-Editor.

Cover Picture by Stapal Yadav cited from Two-Days National Seminar on “Ambedkarite Quest on Egalitarian Revolution in India” organized by Centre for Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Studies, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra held on 26th & 27th November, 2013.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

3|P a g e

In this issue……………..

Author & Title of the Paper

Page No.

S. Lourdunathan :PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM AND A CRITIQUE FOR LIBERATION RELIGION

04-24

Jayashree Deka: WOMEN AND SWARAJ: RESURRECTION OF WOMEN IN GANDHIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE

24-34

A.Malliga :THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS Surinder Kaur: VALUE BASED EDUCATION: THE KEY TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Navdeep Kaur: VALUE EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION Merina Islam: BOOK-REVIEW NEW PUBLICATION PHILOSOPHY NEWS IN INDIA CONTRIBUTORS OF THIS ISSUE

35-50 51-57 58-62 63-66 67 68-70 71

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

4|P a g e

PHILOSOPHY OF HINDUISM AND A CRITIQUE FOR LIBERATION RELIGION S. Lourdunathan

Introduction This paper is an attempt to explore and systematically present the critique of religion with special reference to Hinduism as found in the writings of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ is a classical work by Ambedkar in which he is engaged in a philosophical critique of Hinduism both as a religion and a social order. Government of Maharastra published the collected works of Ambedkar in the year 1987. This particular work is entitled ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ is “significant and unique in several aspects. Firstly, the contents of this work were hitherto unknown. These are the unpublished writings of Dr. Ambedkar which were in the custody of the Administrator General and the custodian of Dr. Ambedkar’s property. These writings had assumed such significance that it was even feared that they had been destroyed or lost. There is a second reason why this work is significant… his interpretation of the philosophy of and his historical analysis of the Hindu religion … throws new light on his critique of religious thought.

The third important point is that his analysis of Hindu Philosophy “… (is) a definite approach to the strengthening of … the solidarity of Indian society based on the human values of equality, liberty, and fraternity. The analysis ultimately points towards uplifting the down-trodden and absorbing masses in the national mainstream”1.

Indigenous Analysis For a philosophical analysis of Hinduism, Ambedkar uses the academic insights gained by his ardent studies of various sciences particularly of philosophy, history, anthropology of religion, sociology of religion and philosophy of religion. By combining the insights of these social sciences, he employs a multi-disciplinary approach to study, understand, and critically evaluate Hinduism. In the process of his analysis of Hinduism, one could infer the truth that Ambedkar has developed his own theory of (indigenous) analysis of religion in his attempt to understand the nature of Hinduism and evaluate its social function. By specifically analyzing Hinduism as practiced in the Indian Society Ambedkar contributes to a critique of religion for societal liberation by developing a specific theory of analysis or a philosophy of religion in the http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

5|P a g e

contemporary Indian Socio-philosophical tradition. One of the reasons for making such a claim is that, ‘we usually depend upon the western model for analysis of religion, especially of the socalled the ‘Theodicy-Model’2, as employed in the context of Christian philosophy of religion’, whereas, Ambedkar analysis of religion is purely an Indian approach to the problem of Indian society.

In the following lines, we try to unearth the philosophical criterion as employed by Ambedkar and systematically formulate or consolidate his critique of religion for liberation. By studying the methods of analysis as used by Ambedkar, the research-interests of the researcher are as follows:   

Firstly, to identify the method of analysis as employed by Ambedkar.

Secondly to evolve a philosophical criterion for a critique of religion and society for liberation from the standpoint of Ambedkar.

And finally to formulate a theoretical ground of a Philosophy of Liberation of religion and society in the most Indian (indigenous) way possible. These research purposes are interrelated to each other. In fact, this has been the one of the central objectives and intended contribution aimed by this research thesis.

Ambedkar’s Philosophical Analysis of Religion We shall now proceed to analyze the philosophical analysis of religion as engaged by Ambedkar in his work on ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’. In the very first statement itself, Ambedkar clarifies his fundamental socio-philosophical concern of his exposition. He begins by asking, “what is philosophy of Hinduism”3. In order to engage into a systematic analysis of the question, he attempts to seek clarity to two more interrelated questions: ‘what is philosophy and what is religion?’ and what is the relation between philosophy and religion’. In order that his analysis is to be based on certain rational criterion, he rises these questions. He clarifies that his purpose of entering in to such an analysis is to study and to evaluate the philosophy of Hinduism for constructing a social order based on the principles of Justice and equality. Following the writings of Prof. Pringle-Pattison, Ambedkar clarifies his application of the meaning of the termsPhilosophy and Religion and Philosophy of Religion. He then proceeds to point out that his analysis of Hinduism is based on the insights provided by the theoretical perception called philosophy of religion.

An inquiry in to the meaning of meaning (called the problem of meaning) is the basic way that serious philosophical queries have been carried out by philosophers. Clarity of the very question itself is the precondition for clarity of a response. Great philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Descartes and many others functioned in their philosophical tasks only in this manner. Doubting the very doubt itself is the philosophical technique applied by Descartes. Plato in his Dialogues is found engaging into a ‘Socratic irony’4 to clarify the concepts taken for understanding. Clarity of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

6|P a g e

the very question itself would contribute to clarity of the response. This is one of the major reasons that philosophy is considered critical and presupposition-less science. Ambedkar following the same tradition of critical inquiry engages into a serious academic attempt to discuss the meaning of the questions that he has undertaken to study. He says, “One must define (clarify) what he understands by religion (the point of inquiry here) as there are no agreement as to its exact definition”5.

Philosophy, Religion and Philosophy of Religion Ambedkar takes note of the different sense and reference of the use of the terms philosophy, religion and philosophy of religion. He claims that the use of the term philosophy refers to the ‘teachings of great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato and so on.’ It is also used in the sense of a viewing the things together. He says, “Philosophy is an attempt to see things together – to keep all the main features of the world in view, and to grasp them in their relation to one another as part one whole. It is a ‘is a synoptic view of reality; it is a world-view; it is a world-ground’6.

He says, “while religion is something definite, there is nothing definite in philosophy.”

Combining Philosophy and religion, for Ambedkar, it meant “as an analysis and interpretation of the experience in question in the bearing upon our view of man, and the world in which he lives”7. He claims that he uses the term philosophy of religion in the sense that it is a descriptive, normative and critical science that helps towards the authentic understanding of religion. It describes the theoretical nature of the religion for analysis; it proceeds to investigate the given description, and evaluates and suggests the foundational norms of religion. According to Ambedkar “Philosophy of religion is to me … is both descriptive as well as normative. In so far as it deals with the teaching of a Religion, Philosophy of religion becomes a descriptive science… in so far as it involves the use of critical reason for passing judgement on those teachings, it is a normative science”8. According to him, a study of a philosophy of a religion takes into account several important dimensions such as “that it is a study of the Mythical theology or mythical religious truth-claims of a religion; it is a study into the civil (social) theology of a religion; it is a study into the natural theology of religion; That it is a study into the revealed theological claims of a religion. Moreover, it is a study of the historical development of a religion9.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s understanding of Religion Having clarified the different areas of general concerns in an academic analysis of religion, Ambedkar claims that he employs philosophy of religion in the sense of Natural and Social theology. He points out that there are three important theses that form the subject matter of a philosophical analysis of religion both in natural and social theology. They are: ‘(1) The existence of God (2) God’s Providential government of the universe and (3) God’s moral government of mankind (society).’ Ambedkar observes, “I take Religion to mean the http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

7|P a g e

propounding of an ideal scheme of divine governance the aim of which is to make the social order in which men live a moral order. This is the sense in which I shall be using the term Religion in this discussion”10.

However, he notes the difficulty of separating the essential characteristics of a religion from those of unessential due to the historical layers through which a religion has grown to the present day. He quotes Prof. Robertson Smith’s work on ‘The religion of the Semites’ who says, “the traditional usage of religion had grown up gradually in the course of many centuries… the record on the religious thought of mankind … in religious institutions, resembles the geological record of the history of earth’s crust; the new and the old are preserved side by side or rather layer upon layer”11. Due to these factors, it is difficult to enumerate the essentials of a religion. The same thing is true of Indian religions as well. Because of its historical layers, Hinduism has the possibility of containing doctrines that are almost diametrically opposed to each other. He says, “… the Veda, contains not only the records of different phases of religious thought, but of doctrines (that may be) opposed to each other”12.

The Need of an Epistemic Criterion for Analysis of Religion and Society Having defined the content of his use of the concepts of philosophy, religion and philosophy of religion, Ambedkar’s analytical interest is to find out whether Hinduism as a religion and social order is an ideal scheme of divine governance whose aim is to make the social order a moral order. He says, “I shall be concerned within this study of Hinduism … putting Hinduism on its trial to assess its worth as a way of life”13. According to Ambedkar an important dimension of Philosophy of religion is concerned with “the criterion to be adopted for judging the value of the ideal scheme of divine governance for which religion stands. Religion must be put to trial. By what criterion shall it be judged? That leads to the definition of norm”14. He observes that since Hinduism like any other positive religions, has a written form constitution. Its scheme of divine governance is easily deducible from such constitution. Among the Vedas, the sacred book called Manu Smriti, is one such written constitutions that provides the Hindu scheme of divine governance’ easily accessible to the test of social utility morality. It is said to be “the Bible of the Hindus, and containing the Philosophy of Hinduism”15. Hence, he involves himself to the analysis of the Vedic world-view as illustrated in the Vedas relying heavily on the claims made in the Manus Smriti of the Rg Vedas. If so, the query that arises here is to find out the criterion that Ambedkar used for a critique of religion and in particular to the analysis of Hinduism as religion and social order. This is our concern here.

Conceptual and Contextual Revolution Imperative Having insisted the necessity of a philosophical criterion, Ambedkar suggests that a ‘philosophy of a religion must be judged, based on its “Revolution” because the mother of Philosophy is http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

8|P a g e

revolution. Accordingly, Ambedkar holds, “As for myself I think it is safe to proceed on the view that to know the philosophy of any movement or the institution has undergone. Revolution is the mother of philosophy and if it is not the mother of philosophy, it is a lamp, which illuminates philosophy. Religion is no exception to this rule. The best method to ascertain the criterion of which to judge the philosophy of (any) religion is to study the Revolutions which religion has undergone. That is the method I propose to adopt”16. And he adds, “Progress in philosophy has come about by theoretical revolutions that has taken place in the history of philosophy. Therefore, revolution is the criterion by which a religion and its social order need to be critiqued.” For, He says, “To me the best method to ascertain the criterion by which to judge the philosophy of Religion is to study the Revolutions which religion has undergone. That is the method I propose to adopt”17.

What is Revolution - as understood by Dr. Ambedkar However, what does he mean by revolution should be clarified here in order to understand Ambedkar’s philosophical analysis of religion. By revolution, he clarifies that it is meant to be both a conceptual or theoretical and social in nature. By social revolution he means alternative changes in structures of society towards an egalitarian social order. If any religion does not pass the test of ‘such revolutions’ both theoretical and social then, it tends to be not positivistic. Here Ambedkar’s acumen of a quality of a philosopher is worth pondering. Like a good philosopher who opts for an epistemic-criterion to judge any truth-claims, Ambedkar first proposes his criterion of an analysis and then proceeds to employ it in his critique of Hinduism as a social order. Before taking up the study of Hinduism or any other religion, he proposes a specific methodology of analysis to study the nature of such religion. Instead of basing himself on certain presuppositions, Ambedkar like that an analytical philosopher, suggests a methodology of epistemic understanding of the phenomena to be analyzed.

From the above discussion, one could clearly establish that according to Ambedkar, an epistemic criterion is of utmost necessity to accept something to be true. For, he holds that a truth claim of a religion must necessarily pass through the test of reason, that it (religion) should undergo conceptual and socio-structural revolution or at least conceive the possibilities of revolution.

Ambedkar observes that religion at its initial stage is an all-embracing factor. It included geology, biology, medicine, superstition, exorcism, psychology, physiology and so on. However, as times changed, especially after the famous Copernican Revolution, many of these sciences were separated from religion. Then came the Darwinian revolution. This has brought about lots of changes in religious worldviews. Religion by allowing itself conceptual and structural changes in tune with the socio-historical and scientific times, it progresses and becomes more authentic and a ‘great blessing’. “It has established freedom of thought”18. By the process of ‘secularization’, religion has freed itself from its age-old false belief-systems and social practices. Thus for Ambedkar, “Revolution touches the nature and content of ruling conceptions http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

9|P a g e

of the relations of God to man, of Society to man and man to man. How great was this revolution can be seen from the differences which divide savage society from civilized society.” Ambedkar further points out, “there is no doubt that this revolution in religions has been a great blessing. It has established freedom of thought. It has established control of itself, making its own, the world it once shared with superstition, facing undaunted the things of its former fears and so carving out for itself, from the realm of mystery in which it lies, a sphere of unhampered action and a field of independent thought”19.

Two types of Religion After having pointed out that Revolution as one of the criteria for an analysis of religion, Ambedkar proceeds to classify two different types of religions. Such a classification is made based on certain conceptual grounds. The first one according to Ambedkar, is the religion of the Savage society and second one is the religion of the Civilized society. In the religion of the civilized society, Ambedkar introduces two sub-divisions. They are (a) the religion of antique or ancient society and (b) the religion of the modern society. Now, we shall clarify the differences between the religion of the savage and the religion of the civilized society from the point of view of Ambedkar. Ambedkar attempts to highlight the differences between these different types of religion in the following manner.

The Religion of the Savage Society According to Ambedkar, the religion of the savage society does not permit itself to undergo any radical theoretical revolution. It is only “concerned with life and the preservation of life and it is these life processes which constitute the substance and source of the religion of savage society”20. Here, He adopts the explanation provided by Prof. Crowley to explain the religion of the savage society. He says that such a religion, ‘does not enter into his professional or social hours, his scientific or artistic moments; practically its chief claims are settled on one day in the week from which ordinary worldly concerns are excluded. In fact, his life is in two parts; but the morality with which religion is concerned is the elemental. Serious thinking on ultimate questions of life and death is roughly speaking, the essence of his Sabbath; add to this habit of prayer, giving the thanks at meals, and the sub conscious feeling that birth and death, continuation and marriage are rightly solemnized by religion, while business and pleasure may possibly be consecrated, but only metaphorically or by an overflow of religious feeling’. For Ambedkar, the principal things in the Religion of the Savage society are presence of the facts of human existence such as life, death, birth, etc., Through the ritualistic, ceremonial magical, fetishist practices, the religion of the savage seeks for life and its preservation”21.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

10 | P a g e

Characteristics of the Savage Society   

There is no trace of the idea of God. It is a religion without any philosophy of God. There is no bond between morality and religion. Its end is life and the preservation of life.

They “constitute the substance and source of the religion of the savage society”22.

Thus, there is no practical relationship between human life and its everyday suffering and alleviation of such sufferings.

However, this does not mean that the savage religion did not have any morality at all. It had morality in the sense of certain do’s and don’ts or taboos. “In the savage society there is morality but independent of Religion however, morality is present in the form of rules and laid down by the savage society for the preservation of life”23.

Religion of the Civilized Society On the contrary, the religion of the civilized society allows itself to the possibilities of a conceptual revolution. In the religion of the civilized society, “God comes in the scheme of religion (and) morality becomes sanctified by Religion”24. The religion of the civilized society has undergone conceptual changes over the period of History, and it has carried on differences regarding the conception of God, Society and Man. In it, “every social act had a reference to the Gods, as well as to men, for the social body was not made up of men only, but of gods and men”25.

Two Stages of The Civilized Society Ambedkar distinguishes two stages of the religion of the civilized society: The first is the religion of the antique society and the second is the religion of the modern society. In the antique society, religion is founded on kinship between God and its worshippers. It is centered on the way God has been conceived by such society. It is a kind of ontologism applied in such religious worldview; where as, in the modern society the idea of god has been trans-placed from its composition. The idea of God has been conceived from the standpoint of human life and his social existence. In this sense, such a religion tends to be more anthropocentric rather than GodCentric. The former believed in the idea of the existence plurality of Gods. Its gods were an exclusive to each ancient groups of the antique society. God was conceived based on human community. Its idea of God therefore is communitarian. “God had become the god of the community and the community had become the chosen community of God”26. Therefore, the god of Antique society is not a universal god, the god of all. They did not have the idea of humanity in general.

In the ancient society, God was conceived to be ‘the father of his people’ but the basis of this conception of Fatherhood was deemed to be physical, and particular. Whereas in the modern society, the idea of divine-fatherhood has become entirely dissociated form the physical basis of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

11 | P a g e

natural fatherhood. In its place, man is conceived to be created in the image of God. God was given an ontological status whose nature is to transcend and immanent. In such a composition, the idea of God as the creator and governor of universe has emerged in the modern society. He is given an absolute status both morally and existentially. The concept of a morally based humanity was envisioned in the religion of the modern or civilized society.

Two Types of Revolution Ambedkar talks of two types of revolution: the external and the internal types of revolution. The external revolution refers to the factors responsible for conceptual changes in religion regarding its idea of God, morality and social order. The scientific factors like the Copernicus revolution, Darwin’s ideas of evolution are cited as examples. The internal revolution refers to actual the conceptual shifts in the understanding of religion as the result of its response to the challenges or revolt provided by scientific factors. That a true religion should under go these changes in order to be relevant to contemporary needs of human society, is the point of insistence that Ambedkar brings home here.

Main Features of Savage And Modern Societies For the sake of clarity of analysis, we shall systematically cognize the fore-going discussion as follows: According to Ambedkar,    





The Religion of the savage society is group or clan-centered. In it, there is no idea of a universal morality.

The religion of the antique society had the idea of God but, it could only be at the level of national religion.

The religion of the modern society has both the idea of a universal God and universal morality.

Thus, there has been a transformation in the history of religion. There has been conceptual revolution in the truth-claims of religion. From group-identity, there was a change (revolution) to the idea of trans-group identity (national) and from the national identity, there emerged a revolution to the idea of God and morality to be universal and all-embracing of humanity and its social existence.

There has been a revolution or ideological change regarding the notion of God. From no idea of god, to an idea of a god of this or that particular group’s god or gods and from the group-gods to an idea of a national god and from the idea of a national god to the idea of a universal god.

From the concept of a plurality of God, changed from an idea of a singular God of human society. And such a god has been conceived to be creator, governor of morality.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

12 | P a g e



There has been a shift from the mere idea of fear of god to the idea of social existence based on morality.

Ambedkar points out that revolution or conceptual change is the necessary prerequisite to the authenticity of religion. Thus, there has been a change or revolution in the concepts of morality as well as God in the history of religion. Revolution in the sense of theoretical and social has been the hallmark of religion in general. It has undergone changes from ancient to modern society. From the idea of natural gods to supernatural gods, and from the idea of supernatural gods to an idea of a single Creator –God and from the idea of a single creatorgod to an idea of a moral God (who is the governor of morality in society) and from the idea of a moral-God to an idea of humanistic God. Thus, revolution is the way religion has progressed towards the modern society. It is an essential criterion for the authenticity of the truth claims of any religion.

The Principles of Utility And Justice After having clarified the features of the religions of the savage and the modern society and specified that revolution is one of the touch stones of verification to count the progress of religion, Ambedkar proceeds to spell out that the other norms or criterions to judge the authenticity of a religion are the concepts Utility and Justice. Ambedkar adopts Utility as a criterion of religion from his idea of the antique society. The concept of Justice, he says, is adopted from the idea of modern society. He says, “at the one hand of the revolution was the antique society with its religious ideal in which the end is the society. At the other end of revolution is the modern society with its religious ideal in which the end is the individual (concern of the individual in the society). To put the same fact in terms of the norm, it can be said that the norm or criterion for judging right or wrong in the antique society is Utility while the norm or the criterion for judging right or wrong in the modern society is Justice.

The Religious revolution was not thus a revolution in the religious organization of society resulting in the shifting of the center –from society to the individual – it was a revolution in the norms”27.

The concept of utility he claims that he adopts from the idea of the antique society. In the antique society, utility was the criterion to judge right or wrong. The welfare of the tribe as a whole is considered the essential morality of the tribe. In addition, God must be useful in sustenance, and preservation and protection of tribe. The utility God is to protect the tribe not as individual but as society as a whole. He says, “Utility as criterion was appropriate to the antique world in which, society being the end, the moral good was held to be something of social utility”28. Thus, Ambedkar observes, “to my mind there is no doubt that they are the real norms by which to judge a philosophy of religion. In the first place, the norm must enable people to judge what is right and wrong in the conduct of men. In the second place, the norm must be appropriate to current notion of what constitutes the moral good”29. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

13 | P a g e

Having pointed out the types of norms as to be adopted for a critique of religion, Ambedkar proceeds to adopt the norm of Justice to testify the truth of Hinduism both as religion and a social order. Because, according to him, Justice as a criterion is appropriate to the modern world in which the individual in the society is the end and the moral good of the society does justice to the individual. The norm or the criterion of judging the appropriateness of religion according to Ambedkar should not only be ‘Godly’ but also be earthly. These concepts of Ambedkar very well advocate that he is a lover of religion and not a denier of religion.

The Necessity of Religion and the Need for Secularization of Religion Ambedkar is not a denier of the need of religion. For him, religion is necessary; it is a social necessity to provide a moral unity. “Religion is a social force … religion stands for a scheme of divine governance. The scheme becomes an ideal for the society to follow. The ideal may be non-existent in the sense that it is something, which is constructed. However, although non-existent, it is very … it has full operative force, which is inherent in every ideal”30. The norm of utility in religion would promote unity of society as a whole. For Ambedkar, religion must progressively be secularized according to the dictates of the conceptual and scientific changes that occur in human society. He says that religious ideal has hold on humankind, irrespective of any early gain. Its power is to be extended to material benefits. Therefore, to ignore religion is to ignore a live-wire31.

The Criteria for A Critique of Religion 





An authentic religion should undergo revolution both conceptual and social in view of the changing nature of human society because, human society is not a static phenomenon but it has grown from ancient to modern type of society.

An authentic religion should be judged based on an ideal scheme of divine governance. In other words, it should be morally based, the morality of which should do good to the individual in the society. The moral basis of the religion of the ancient society is Utility and the moral basis of the modern society is Justice. Thus, according to Ambedkar, Revolution, Social Justice and Utility are the guiding norms for a critique of religion for emancipation.

In short, the concept of change or revolution and the concept of Justice are principles of verification of the authenticity of religion.

Having clearly formulated the principles that are employable to a critique of religion, Ambedkar proceeds to testify the philosophy of Hinduism based on these criteria. Now the problem before Ambedkar is to analyze whether Hinduism as a religion and social order could be verified based on the above mentioned norms or criterion, namely the concept of revolution, the ideals of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

14 | P a g e

morality.

Revolution as the Principle of Verification in Hinduism According to Ambedkar, the Philosophy of Hinduism is neither based on the notion of revolution nor would allow the possibility of any revolution. Because of its insistence on the infallibility of Vedas as only revealed truth, Hinduism does not contain the possibility of accepting any criticism or theoretical revolution in its thought-pattern. In contrast to Hinduism, the very basis or the philosophical foundation of Buddhism lies on the acceptance of the reality of Change as the ultimate fact of reality. Ambedkar points out, “The Hindu is not prepared to face any inquiry”32 and the fact that he is not prepared to face any inquiry implies that he is not ready to change from his Vedic belief system. ‘The determined notions of morality regulate the life of the Hindu. It orders him how during life he should conduct himself and how on death his body shall be disposed of. It tells him how and when he shall indulge in sexual impulses. It tells him what ceremonies are to be performed when the child is born. It pre-writes what caste category the child is born. It tells him what occupation he can take to, what woman he should marry. It tells him how he should behave in the daily life. In short, the Hindu way of life is deterministic; it is against the principle of any change or revolution or freedom. He is enslaved to his thoughtpattern and its resultant social system called Casteism. “There is no act of the Hindu which is not covered or ordained by (his) Religion”33. Thus, according to Ambedkar, the philosophy of Hinduism does not practice or even conceive the possibility of any revolution.

There is yet another criticism that Ambedkar levels against the philosophy of Hinduism. He says that a Hindu holds the belief that ‘all religions are true and good’34. Upholding such a position according to Ambedkar is “positively dangerous” for it is a convenient way of avoiding the application of reason or criterion to acceptance or non-acceptance of religion. By doing so, Hinduism avoids that criticism that could possibly be pointed against it. It is not ready to face and ‘change of ideas and its social practices’. For Ambedkar, Religion being a social force, is an institution or an influence, which could either be oppressive or not conducive to the growth of the individual in the society. A religion could also be liberative. Whether a religion is oppressive or liberative is revealed only by a methodological rational analysis only and not by any unconditional acceptance of the dictates of that religion. Ambedkar says, “Religion (as) social institution and like all social influences … may help or harm a society which is in its grip”35.

To substantiate his view Ambedkar quotes the words of Prof. Tiele, who observes, “ Religion is … one of the most mightiest motors in the history of mankind, which formed as well as tore asunder nations, united as well as divided empires, which sanctioned the most atrocious … deeds the libinous customs … inspired most admirable acts of self renunciation, devotion which occasioned the most sanguinary wars, rebellions, and persecutions, as well as brought about freedom, happiness and peace of the nations”36.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

15 | P a g e

Religion as Liberative Force Religion, conceives Ambedkar, could function as an instrument of oppression or liberation depending upon its worldview and its social practices. If religion is based on the notion of revolution or change then it is liberative and if religion propagates infallibility and total surrender to its totalitarian perspective then, it would be oppressive. This points towards the need for engaging a methodological reason or applying a standardized criterion to judge whether a Religion is a force of liberation or oppression. A Hindu according to Ambedkar tries to ‘avoid such inquiry’ for the fear of being exposed of its static-oppressive social and moral order.

Religion needs to be dynamic for Ambedkar, because it is concerned with love of truth. “Unless religion is dynamic and begets in us the emotion of love for something, then it better to be without anything that we can call religion; for religion is perception of truth and if perception of truth is accompanied by our love for it, then it were better not seen at all”37. However, this does not mean, Hinduism should be left free from critical analysis. Ambedkar continues to employ the other criteria namely the norms called utility and justice on Hinduism to judge its philosophy.

Consequently, the next pivotal question that he elaborately discusses is this: “I propose to apply both the tests, the test of Justice and the test of utility to judge the philosophy of Hinduism. First, I apply the test of Justice”38.

Justice as a Principle 0f Verification In Hinduism Before applying the criterion of Justice, Ambedkar clarifies the concept of Justice. Adopting the concept of Justice as explained in the writings of Prof. Bergbon, he notes that the principle of justice is a compendious one and it includes most other principles, which has become the foundation of a moral order. Justice has always evoked the ideas of equality, of proportion of “compensation.” Equity signifies equality. … concerned with equality in value. If all men are equal, all men are of the same essence and the common essence entitled them to the same fundamental rights and to equal liberty”39. Ambedkar conceives the principle of Justice as containing the notions of liberty, equality and fraternity. Justice according to Ambedkar implies the notion of individual liberty, social equality and a fraternal human community.

The principle of Justice according to Ambedkar is one of the essential criteria for an authenticity of a religion. He says, “social scientists have examined the philosophy of Hinduism and its social order from various perspectives.” Having clarified the notion of Justice as liberty, equality and fraternity, Ambedkar examines the philosophy of Hinduism on basis of these basic ethical principles: Ambedkar’s analysis of Hinduism is constitutive of the following questions. They are: “Does Hinduism recognize Equality?”40 “Does Hinduism recognize Fraternity?”41 “Does Hinduism recognize liberty?”42 “does Hinduism recognize equality, liberty and fraternity? Does it satisfy the test of social utility?”43 These are the guiding questions for Ambedkar to scrutinize the philosophy of Hinduism on the touchstone of Justice. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

16 | P a g e

Ambedkar establishes the conclusion that the philosophy of Hinduism does not promote nor contain the social value of justice. He justifies this thesis by exposing the caste world-view as enunciated in the Vedas and the Upanishads and other Hindu scriptural tradition. He extensively quotes those verses from Maunsmiriti of the Vedas that propagate caste system as a moral order.

He points out that the moral order grounded in the Vedic world view is not-moral because it promotes a society of graded inequality, value hierarchy and value-dualism and exclusivism of the-social-other.

The Critique of Ambedkar that Hinduism does not promote Justice can be categorized in the following manner: He selects number of verses from the Vedas especially from the Manusmiriti where caste system is justified as a social and religious order and is also provided with a divine sanctity. He is also seen involving in a theoretical discussion on to the axiological basis of Vedic and Vedantic philosophies of Hinduism and systematically establishes the conclusion that the Philosophy of Hinduism is not grounded in justice and therefore, its religion is oppressive. He says, Manu, the author of Vedas, is a “staunch believer in social inequality, and he knew that the danger of admitting religious equality. If I am equal before God why am I not equal on earth? (asks Ambedkar). Manu was probably terrified by this question. Rather than admit and allow religious equality, to affect social equality, the preferred to deny religious equality”44.

Ambedkar observes that the theory of the origin of the different caste groups, namely the theory of Purushasukta, uphold inequality. He says, “it is indisputable that the Vedas lay down the theory of Chaturvarna in what is known as the Purushasukta. It recognizes the division of society into four-sections as an ideal. It also recognizes that the ideal relationship between the four sections is inequality”45. The Caste system practiced in the Hindu society is upheld and sanctioned by its religious texts, namely Vedas. For example, the Manu, the author of Manusmiriti, provides a detailed version caste practices. He confines slavery to the shudras, the discriminated sections in the caste-hierarchy. He is opposed to inter-marriage, advocates endogamy in order to maintain the rigidity of Casteism. He is anxious to preserve the rule of inequality. He prescribes graded laws and punishment for those who disobey the caste regulations. Even more, he provides a divine sanction theory, to the practice of caste. “Manu degrades the birth of the shudras as base-born. They are progeny of fornication and adultery between men and women of the superior caste”46. The theory of Ashramas, illustrated in the Vedas, excludes the Shudras, (dalits) in the scheme of its four stages of life. It prohibits the Shudras from the benefit of the Vedic utterances of Vedas and performances of sacraments.

Thus, it paves way for the practice of excluding the-other, which is opposed to social unity. The Vedas upheld a theory of occupational-determinism, according to which, the Shudras are to remain ever-slaves. Therefore, the philosophy of Hinduism cannot be said to promote of the principle of equality. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

17 | P a g e

Caste is more than the mere division of labour. It is a division of labourers. It determines one’s occupation according to the pre-determined theory of caste-birth. Caste prevents social mobilization. It creates contempt of labour and labourers. It is a division of labour accompanied by the division of labourers”47. Some have also asked, “if as a form of social and religious organization, the Hindu social order stands discredited, does it stand on a different plane in as far as its economic organization is concerned? Does it recognize liberty in the choice of occupations and equality in its selection? Does it provide access to education to all? “the principles on which the caste-system is based, are sound enough to promote economic efficiency, encouraged equality in the distribution of wealth and income and reduce the poverty of the common masses?”48 these questions need to be addressed not only because of their importance but because of Hinduism is probably the only religion to lay down a well articulated framework of economic relations for various caste-groups. Like its social and religious counterparts, the economic base of the caste system was not merely an ideal. The ideal was put in to practice and was, therefore, real. Caste miserably fails to be able to sustain every individual as a fraternal member of the society.

Hinduism does not recognize liberty. Liberty, to be real, must be accompanied by certain social conditions such as social equality and economic security and equality of educational opportunities Denying these social conditions to the discriminated people, it upholds and sanctions the theory that ‘the might is the fittest to survive’. It practices a philosophy of power relations wherein the poor and the weak are progressively silenced and negated. Hinduism does not also recognize fraternity is the opinion of Ambedkar.

Employing insights from the writings of John Dewey, an American philosopher who propounded the theory of instrumentalism, Ambedkar notes that, Hinduism is individualistic and not sociallyoriented. It does not promote fellow feeling. He proves this by pointing out the social existences of different caste groups in the Hindu society. He analyses the characteristic features of caste as hierarchical, which is not structured to promote fraternity. Hinduism does not also promote the spirit and the practice of education for all. Once again, Ambedkar leans very heavily on the Vedic texts, to prove that education or Vedic learning has been kept the priority of high-caste other, in rejection to the low caste-other. Even in education, Vedic learning alone is treated as the highest and the sublime form of learning, Which means, that the Philosophy of Hinduism does not encourage a scientific inquiry of reality. Therefore, Ambedkar observes, “Illiteracy became an inherent part of Hinduism by a process which is integral to it, it denied education to the people, namely the so-called untouchables. The notion of “education for masses” is absent in the philosophy of Hinduism. Thus, it has paved the way for ‘secrecy of knowledge, monopoly of knowledge, and as a result, monopoly of societal power, at the expense denying the right of the suffering-other and sanctioning their denial as divine-based. According to Ambedkar Hinduism does not recognize liberty for, liberty, to be real, must be accompanied by certain social conditions, such as social equality, economic security, education for all. Of all these conditions http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

18 | P a g e

Hindu social order, Ambedkar proves that, it does not promote liberty49. The fact that Hindu social order, namely caste-system ‘denies freedom of vocation’ and it ‘pre-ordains’ it, according to one’s caste category, proves that it does not promote liberty.

Hinduism does not also promote economic security and viability on an equal basis, to every member of the society. Ambedkar argues that, since economy is in the hands of the few, and the poor dalits are made-servants to the system and the high caste people, they are denied of economical security. This paves way for a class of society that remains economically dependent on the high caste-other. Forbidding the educational avenues to the Shudras, is the way, the philosophy of Hinduism has promoted the power interests of the so-called high-caste. It negates the education of the masses. Therefore, it cannot be said to promote liberty.

The denial of the rights of the women is also an issue. The Vedas deny equal and the dignity of women. It considers women to be treated under control of the male supremacy. Therefore, it cannot be said to promote liberty. Fraternity is fellow feeling. It is empathy to identify oneself with the-other in the society. It is ‘relationality’ and against individualism. It is brotherhood. It helps to sustain the moral order in the society. It is a natural sentiment. Ambedkar accuses the philosophy of Hinduism as individualistic and exclusivistic, because of its principle and practice of casteism. It promotes continuos hatred among the different members of the sub-caste groups.

It promotes graded-hatred. The high caste negates the low castes and the low caste avoids the high caste. It is ritualistic and priestly, wherein some are considered to born ‘holy’ because of caste-determinism. Through religious ceremonies such as ‘upanaya’ the social-other is negated.

It requires the instrumentality of the priests. It holds that the role of priests is indispensable and the role of the social other is dispensable. The identity of the Shudra is deniable. Since everything is determined by caste hegemony, Hinduism loses the spirit of sharing. Be it marriage, customs or any other, everything is caste-bound. Therefore, the philosophy of Hinduism cannot be said to promote fraternity. Knowledge, wealth, and labour and the dignity of labour are denied to the so-called Shudras. Therefore, caste-order is not justice-based. In Upanishads, the metaphysical theory of negating the world as Maya, has its social content of practicing a hierarchical negation in the society. Ambedkar observes that, not only Vedas recognize inequality, but also the Bhagavad Gita. Noting some important pronouncements from Gita Ambedkar, says that, “ Gita is Manu in a nut shell”50.

The Ideology of Purity and Pollution For, Ambedkar, the theory of pollution is not originally untouchability, those who shared the caste-world-view, in order to resist those who did not share such ideology, introduced the concept of ‘out-caste’ whose original meaning is not untouchability but it is meant that there is separate group which does not share or which resists the idea of casteism. Ambedkar notes that the Buddhists are one such group of people who do not share the caste-ideology and who were the first to oppose caste and any other forms of segregation. He observes that the institution of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

19 | P a g e

caste is composed of certain universal Hindu ideas. These include the Hindu pollution concept such as the social units of Jatis (endogamous large-scale descent-groups), the cognitive categories of Varnas (ranked classification of jaitis); the associated concepts of caste dharma (varunashramdharma) (religiously sanctioned duties of for the caste members) and sub-caste division of labour”51 all contribute to the practice of the division of human beings as pure versus impure. Such a position can neither be spiritual nor human. According to Ambedkar, Hindu caste social order is invested with the ideas of purity and pollution. This principle pervades and partly explains the hierarchy of castes. People are considered to be endowed with the capacity of pollution, either temporarily or permanently. Those who are closer in the upper ladder towards the Brahmins, are considered to pollute temporarily where as the so-called untouchables are considered to be a permanent pollutants and therefore they are impure and are to be avoided. In recent decade, the concept of Hindu purity-pollution is characterized of Hinduism, by social anthropologists like A. M. Hocart (1950); M.N. Srinivas (1952); Louis Dumont (1970); Mckim Marriott and Ronald Inden (1973, 1977). A central point in Hinduism is that, it sanctions this theory of purity and pollution.

Given to the four-fold caste order, except the Brahmins, all the others are considered to possess the capacity towards pollution. According to Ambedkar, the practice of pollution came to be upheld by the food practices; eating meat is one of the customs that makes one caste as pure or impure, for those who eat meat are treated as impure and those who do not are considered as pure. Ambedkar in his article on ‘Who were the Shudras?’ points out that the principle of graded inequality is the basis that determines the Hindu social order. He clarifies that in the Vedas, the chapter on Purusashkta, provides the instrumental-rational basis for the socio-religious practices of caste system. According to him, “the Arya samajists have made a mistake of preaching the idea that Vedas are eternal without beginning and end, without end and it is infallible”52. The metaphor of the Purushasukta, is a theory of the origin of the Universe. Its cosmogony interpretation of the emergence of the social system is strongly opposed by Ambedkar. He also questions the theory of the divine sanction for the establishment of the so-called ‘sacred institution’. Ambedkar raises strong objection to the claim of Manu, the author of the Purushasukta, that Veda is the only and ultimate sanction of dharma. He charges that it is Manu who has invested the ideal of charutrvarna as a social ideal called dharma, divinely ordered and its truth claims are infallible.

Attempt to provide a divine sanction to caste-stratification by the author of the Vedas, is deliberate attempt to deify the social practice and by deifying caste-stratification it is meant to promote a collective consciousness that casteism is moral. Thus, Hinduism has paved a way for permanent system graded inequality that alienates every individual with the-other. We shall take note of the analysis of Ambedkar regarding purushasukta as follows: a) Real is elevated to the dignity of an ideal. b) No community has given the de facto state of class composition a legal effect by accepting as a dejure connotation of an ideal society. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

20 | P a g e

c) No society has accepted d the class composition as an ideal. At the most, they have accepted it as being natural. Purushasukta goes farther. It not only regards class composition as natural and ideal, but also regards it as sacred and divine. d) The number of classes has never been a matter of (religious) dogma in any society known in history. The scheme of purushasukta makes the division of society into four classes a matter of dogma. e) The scheme of Purushasukta fixes a permanent warrant of procedure among the different classes, which neither time nor circumstances could alter. The warrant of procedure is based on the principle of graded inequality among the four classes”53.

Scriptural Basis Given to these analyses, Ambedkar points out that the scriptural basis of Hinduism, namely the Vedas, preaches the political idea of class-divided or composed society as its ideal’54. The chapter on Purushashukta is hence a politically motivated and religious sanctioned class-division whose main purpose is to provide a scheme of graded inequality. In such a class-division, there is not a single possibility of progress. One’s position in the society is doomed forever, allowing no possibility of self-improvement. It is a “permanent occupational categories”55, whose aim is to perpetuate socio-political profit in favor of the dominant class, at the expense of the dominated class. The fixed gradation in the caste system is to serve the fixed motives of the so-called superior classes throughout their life. Therefore, the concept of chaturvarna is not only a functional classification but it is an attempt to consolidate the value-graded system, where in those who occupy the higher order are the privileged class to enjoy the labor of those who occupy the lower strata of the society.

In the four-fold social classification, the Brahmins are placed in the highest order, as custodians of knowledge, the ksatriyas are meant for protection or fighting and the Vaishyas are meant to do the trading and the Shudras are determined to serve the above three-others, by their unconditional obedience to do the menial types of jobs, like scavenging, cleaning and so on.

Thus, the scheme of Chaturvarna, according to Ambedkar is a social practice of the denial of the human dignity and fundamental rights of the lowest sections, namely the dalits (oppressed community) of the Indian Society. How does it (Hinduism) practice the denial of the rights of the dalits, is the query we shall try to respond from the findings of Ambedkar? Ambedkar clearly summarizes the socially degraded status of the dalits, as sanctioned in the Vedas as follows: Social Degraded Status of Dalits Ambedkar observes as follows: 1. ‘that a Shudra (dalit) was to take the last place in the social order.

2. Since he is impure, from birth onwards, he is not sacred, and no sacred act must be performed in his presence. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

21 | P a g e

3. He must be debarred in hearing or listening to religious utterances.

4. He does not deserve any social or individual respect.

5. His life is of no of worth, and therefore, could easily be put to an end, if and when situation demands.

6. Education is prohibited he must not acquire knowledge of any kind and especially the knowledge of Vedas and Sanskrit. He should be kept ignorant. By keeping ignorant, he may easily be domesticated for the socio-political interests of the dominant group.

7. A dalit should not possess or acquire property. If he does, a Brahmin is religiously empowered to take away the property from him at his pleasure.

8. He should not hold administrative position in the society or state.

9. The only duty of a dalit is to obey, and such obedience is unconditional and nonquestionable.

10. Obedience to the caste-hierarchy is his religion, dharma, and morality.

11. The higher caste people should not intermingle with the dalit community and possibly practice the method of exclusion, as to avoid pollution from the dalit community.

12. If the rule of exclusion is broken by not adhering to the dharma or morality of Chaturvarna by any individual there is a corresponding punishment, depending upon the caste one belongs to. If one is a dalit, the punishment is severe, and if it is a non-dalit, the punishment is not very severe.

13. A Brahmin is not supposed to live in a country ruled by a Shudra’56.

According to Ambedkar, “ for Hinduism, inequality is a religious doctrine adopted consciously and it is preached as a dogma”57. “It is a divinely prescribed way of life, it has become incarnate in Hindu society and is shaped and moulded by its thoughts and its deeds. Indeed, inequality is the Soul of Hinduism. He adds, “ the social and religious analysis of Hindu religion and of its social order reveals that it is not based on these principles, … goes against the framework of justice. On the other hand, it openly recognized inequality in the social and religious fields, denied liberty and severely lacked moral elements for the development and sustenance of fraternity. While philosophy of Nietszche is capable of producing Nazism, the Philosophy of Hinduism is capable of producing ant-socialism. While Nietszche intended the racial supremacy, Manu, the so-called law giver of Hinduism, intended Brahminical supremacy. He observes, “Hinduism is not interested in the common man. … not interested in the society as a whole. The centre of its interest lies in a class-interests, and the interests of the social-other is sacrificed or denied to serve the needs of the high-caste-other. Hence, according to Ambedkar, the philosophy of Hinduism cannot be called as the religion of humanity.

In the final part of his work, after having analyzed Hinduism on the rational and ethical and practical grounds of revolution, justice and utility, Ambedkar is inclined to ask, “what is the value of such religion to man?” And he adds: Could Hinduism offer consolation (compassion/affirmative justice) to those who have been crushed by Casteism?”. In conclusion http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

22 | P a g e

of his critique of the philosophy of Hinduism, he observes, “In Hinduism, there is no nourishment for ordinary souls, no comfort for human sorrow, no help for human weakness, … it leaves men divorced from all communion with God. Such is the philosophy of Hinduism. It is the common man’s damnation” 58. Thus, we could infer the conclusion of this research inquiry as follows:

Characteristics of an Authentic Religion  For Ambedkar, a critique of religion must be based and regulated on certain rational, practical and moral principles.  The practical principle that verifies an authentic religion is that it should be guided by the principle of revolution. The revolution is classifiable into external and internal elements.  An authentic religion should take into account progressive secularization of its foundations, in the sense that it should be relevant to the changing times and needs of human society.  The metaphysical foundation of a true religion is constitutive of the metaphysics of change.  An authentic religion must be grounded on the principles of justice and utility. It should be regulated by the practice of liberty, equality and fraternity.  Religion is a human necessity. It could contribute social unity, provided it is based on the principles of revolution and social Justice. Since the philosophy of Hinduism can not be said to have founded on these principles, to consider it as a religion of societal liberation is not possible. The philosophy of Hinduism, as found in its scriptural tradition is not constitutive of the principles of revolution, justice and social utility. Given to its Casteworld view, and the social practice of Casteism, its philosophical ground is oppressive and therefore, cannot have the conceptual strength of promoting liberation of the socially weaker sections.  Hence there arises the need for a religion that is based on the principles of social liberation that restores dignity, and affirms the life of the suffering-other in the society.  A critique of religion in the Indian context presupposes a critique of Casteism in its social order. An authentic religion and religious is a critique of Casteism in favor of those who have been historically conditioned to the phenomenology of thrown-ness. That is to say it has to promote social justice as its ethical basis.  A philosophical critique of religion should necessarily be a practical critique of discrimination in the society. And a critique of discrimination aims at the promotion of praxis of liberation.  In brief, an authentic critique of religion and its social order addresses the problems of human society based on a philosophy of societal liberation.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

23 | P a g e

Notes and References: The present paper is an analysis of the original Text of Ambedkar, on the philosophy of Hinduism. Hence most of the references are bound to be from the same original text.

1. Moon, Vasant (ed.) (1987). B.R. Ambedkar :Writings And Speeches, Vol. 3, Govt. of Maharastra, p. xi.

2. Theodicy – Model. Refers to the scholastic attempt to explain the nature of God through transcendental categories. It is mainly a problem regarding the concept of God and his relation to world.

3. Ambedkar, B.R. (1987). , Philosophy of Hinduism, Govt. of Maharastra Publication, p. 3.

4. It is the Socratic method of inquiry that is engaged to elucidate correct responses.

5. Ambedkar, B.R., Op. cit., p. 8.

6. Ibid, p. 9.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid, p. 5.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid, p.6.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid, p. 5.

14. Ibid, p. 8.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid, p. 8.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid, p. 9.

20. Ibid, pp. 10,11.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid, pp. 12-15.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid, pp. 22-23.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid, pp. 23-87.

31. Ibid. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

24 | P a g e

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid, p. 25.

39. Fernandes, Walter, (ed.), The Emerging Dalit Identity, (Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, p. 9.

40. Ambedkar, B.R., Op. cit., p. 25 41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid, pp. 36-80.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid, p. 67.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid, p. 29.

49. Ibid, p. 87.

50. Pauline ,Kolenda, Caste in Contemporary India, Rawat Publications, p. 62.

51. Ambedkar, B.R., Who were the Shudras? Vol. III, pp. 18.

52. Ibid. p.8.

53. Ibid. p.5.

54. Ibid. p.6.

55. Ibid. p.43.

56. Ibid, p. 66.

57. Ibid,p.77.

58. Ibid, p. 78.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

25 | P a g e

WOMEN AND SWARAJ: RESURRECTION OF WOMEN IN GANDHIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE Jayashree Deka

INTRODUCTION: This paper discusses the idea of ‘Swaraj’ and the role of women envisaged by Gandhi in achieving it. Explicitly and implicitly his understanding of swaraj and his views about women show that their participation for the achievement of swaraj seems to be necessary. This paper shows how their participation becomes an indispensable factor for the achievement of swaraj. Gandhi could identify that in what kind of activities their participation can be employed or in what way they can be involved in the freedom struggle. He deviced a different programme for their participation in freedom struggle. To achieve swaraj in every respect, participation of women is necessary in Gandhian philosophy. The means through which Gandhi wanted to achieve swaraj is based on truth, non-violence, satyagraha etc. and in Gandhi’s view women are the possessors of the these qualities. Gandhi could recognize that in what kind of activities women’s participation can be invited or in what way they can be involved in the freedom struggle. The paper traces the Gandhian ways of devising and implementing various programmes to achieve swaraj through active participation of women. It also discusses how he could successfully invite women into the national politics from the four walls of the home. In this context a brief explanation about the Gandhi’s conception of swaraj, swadeshi, satyagraha, ahimsa or nonviolence is given to understand how women’s role can be helpful to achieve swaraj.

Swaraj ‘Swaraj’ has multi-semantic value. Its meaning cannot be limited to its English translation ‘selfrule’ though it captures the root meaning. It also means individual autonomy, self-respect and selfdiscipline. Various associated meanings defy the possibility of coming with an exact definition. To have a broad understanding of swaraj, best way is to look various usage of this term by Gandhi. He gives an account of swaraj by making a contrast between this term and the term ‘independence’.

Gandhi says, “The root meaning of swaraj is self-rlue. Swaraj may, therefore, be rendered as disciplined rule from within and purna means complete ‘Independence’ has no such limitation.

Independence may mean license to do as you like. Swaraj is positive. Independence is negative.

PurnaSwarajdoes not exclude association with any nation, much less with England. But it can only mean association for mutual benefit and at will. The word swaraj is a sacred word, a Vedic word, http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

26 | P a g e

meaning self-rule and self-restraint, and not freedom from all restraint which “independence” often mean.”1 Traditionally Indian political thought understood swaraj as “own government” or “self-rule.”

Swaraj is the particular mode of securing self-determination.’2 Gandhi while retaining this meaning, however, adds an important sense by extending the application of the term. Gandhi did not introduce this term, it was Dadabhai Naoroji who used it first and B.G.Tilak popularized it. Naoroji andTilak utilized this term to refer to “independence”3 and confined its sphere to politics and did not take into consideration economic, moral and social dimensions. Gandhi used this term as including these different dimensions. This effort by Gandhi gives unique credibility to the usage of this term.

Swadeshi ‘Swadeshi’ for Gandhi is ‘the use of all home made things to the exclusion of foreign things'.4 Although the literal meaning of swadeshi is “belonging to one’s own country”5, he gives special significance where its application extend to social, political and economic aspects of life. Swadeshi which includes ahimsa uses spinning, weaving, wearing khadi and boycotting foreign goods. For Gandhi, swadeshi is the mean to achieve the ultimate end which is swaraj. In his theoretical framework swaraj is of higher order than swadeshi though conceptually they are complementary and practically swadeshi is more significant than the other. Swaraj is the ultimate end that cannot be realized without swadeshi as means whose denial according to him would imply “English rule without English man.”6 Swaraj and Women The political system that is developed by Gandhi cannot bear results unless women are given an adequate status in every sphere of human life, be it social, political or economical. There is a necessary relation between swaraj and participation of women. According to Gandhi, women’s active participation is necessary for some of the movements like swadeshi, boycotting of foreign clothes, wearing khadi, spinning, picketing etc. which are necessary for the swaraj.

There are claims by Gandhi that shows the necessity of women’s participation for the attainment of swaraj. He says, “So long as women in India do not take equal part with men in the affairs of the world and in religious and political matters, we shall not see India’s star rising. To take an illustration, men who suffer from paralysis of one side of the body can do no work.”7

Implicatively it means that ‘man alone can do nothing’ and also it can mean that an inactive community of society will constitute a half paralyzed society. Gandhi had confidence that if women participate in the movements then there is no way swaraj can be away from us. He develops such kind of attitude towards women by taking the example of the sacrifice of women in the history of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

27 | P a g e

India. He says, “When the women in the country have woken up, who can hinder swaraj? Dharma has always been preserved through women. Nations have won their independence because women had brave men for sons. By preserving purity of character, they have kept dharma alive. There have been women who sacrificed their all and saved the people.”8 In some of the cases, according to Gandhi, women can do better than man in the struggle for the freedom. This is because his idea of struggle for freedom has no place any kind of violence. Rather, he included ahimsa, satya, and love as the basis for freedom movement. In such kind of non-violent war women has more share than man. Purnaswaraj involves not only political independence but also economic and moral independence, without which swaraj would be incomplete. For Gandhi, it is through women we achieve economic and moral salvation.

Swadeshi Movement and Women Gandhi envisaged a close relation between the swadeshi movement and the active participation of women. There are claims by Gandhi that shows women’s participation as a necessary factor for swadeshi movement. He says, “The swadeshi vow, too, cannot be kept fully if women do not help.

Men alone will be able to do nothing in the matter. They can have no control over the children; that is the women’s sphere. To look after children, to dress them, is the mother’s duty and, therefore, it is necessary that women should be fired with the spirit of swadeshi.”9 The nature of swadeshi movement enumerated and the steps taken by Gandhi was such that the participation of women was necessary for its implementation and its success. The most important step taken for swadeshi is the boycotting of foreign goods especially foreign cloths. Gandhi clearly states that, “India has to part with 60 crores of rupees annually to foreign countries. Four crores are wasted in this manner on silk and the remaining 56 crores on cotton fabrics.”10 This was the case in 1919. It does not require much time to conclude that in order to reduce such a huge amount of expense both men and women should work together and there is the need for the co-operation between two. As it is the sphere of women to look after the children, it is they (women) who have to decide about the clothing of children. He also claims that the cloths that are used by women are more expensive than men. It may not affect that much even if women do not become the part of main stream politics. But sitting at the home if they are not ready to abandon such expensive clothes for themselves and for children reducing loss of 60 crores rupees would be impossible which in fact will directly affect the movement.

By giving the example of Sita from Indian epics Gandhi came up with some interesting ideas in order to increase the intensity of the swadeshi movement. He urges the Indian women by citing the example of Sita that just as she could consciously refrain herself from the luxurious items those were provided by Ravana, in the same way Indian women too should have the courage to reject things those that are foreign to India.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

28 | P a g e

Swadeshi movement involves the act of spinning in which women have a great role to play. In Gandhi’s view, spinning as an activity can play different roles in different people. From the following lines of Gandhi we can find the multi-dimensions of spinning; “For the middle class it should supplement the income of the family, and for very poor women it is undoubtedly a means of livelihood. The spinning-wheel should be as it was the widows’ loving companion. But for you who will read this appeal, it is presented as a duty, as dharma.”11 Spinning-wheel is to be used religiously by women every day as the part of their duty that would help them to put their full share in the struggle for freedom. One of the interesting points which Gandhi makes here is that spinning wheel will bring the ideal status of women. He says, “The spinning-wheel gives the status to which a women is entitled and it quickens the conscience both of men and women and enables man to understand his duty by the women of India.”12 Gandhi depicts the spinning-wheel as the greatest instrument that is capable of bringing the better conditions for women which according to him is the symbol of purity and independence. According to him, on spinning women have a natural advantage over man and it is slow and comparatively silent process. More patience is required for such kind of activity where women can play more role than man. This is clear when he says, “Men may well spin, but for generations the profession of spinning has been practiced by women and men’s hands do not possess the same skill in this that women’s do.”13 What is interesting here is, through swadeshi movement Gandhi aimed at not only swaraj but also an honorable status for women in the society. According to him, not only the protection of wealth of nation, but also protection of the honor of women can be made possible. Gandhi says; “swadeshi would give honourable employment to women at their very homes and, at the same time, enable them to render a valuable service in the cause of country.”14 Gandhi regards excess use of foreign cloths and the negligence to the swadeshi cloth as the responsible factors of the degradation of women’s identity. According to Gandhi, degradation of identity of women happened because of the violation of dharma. The violation of dharma happened mostly because of the illiteracy of women.

In one of his speeches delivered in Rajkot (1919 September) he told women that they as a rule had been using foreign cloths for fashion etc. more widely.15 They are forced to use foreign cloths because they stopped spinning. Gandhi relates the act of spinning with the notion of chastity. He says, “the spinning-wheel is the symbol of chastity of the womanhood of India”16 in the absence of which the degradation of women happened.

According to Gandhi, use of foreign goods leads to the adharma which degraded the status of women and the status of nation. Gandhi shows the close link between swadeshi and dharma. The fundamental principle from where he develops this kind of approach is the following; none who neglects a neighbour can serve a distant man. He who serves the neighbour serves the world. 17 According to him, it is irreligion to neglect our own artisans and encourage the foreign ones. Under the British rule India had no other option than to neglect our own artisans which consequently replaced our own with foreign ones. In this way just on cloths around 60 crores of rupees were sent to foreign country which according to Gandhi brings shame to India. In order to avoid such kind of

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

29 | P a g e

problems he asks to do what was done exactly 100 years back by our ancestors that is spinning and weaving.

Gandhi points out that Tulsidas describes compassion as the root of dharma. For him, this way of compassion to India implies having compassion to the neighbor which will enable one to go for swdeshi rather than importing. We can never find any dharma by neglecting neighbor and giving the work to someone else. But depending on the foreign goods India had neglected their own people which caused not only national degradation but also the degradation of women. Now according to Gandhi, “women must make it a religious point not to use foreign cloths and fineries at all because they are the source of the national degradation.”18 In this way we can find that the “protection of dharma is in the hands of women”19 So there is a close relation between attainment of swaraj through swadshi and the role of women.

For him there is no swaraj without the participation of women. The role envisaged for them in the national movement made them to come out from the four walls of the house hold activities to the mainstream politics and enabled them to realize their strength and abilities for the achievement of swaraj.

Non-violence and the Role of Women Non-violence and satyagraha were the two important means through which Gandhi wanted to achieve swaraj. Non-violence and satyagrahaare so intrinsically related to swaraj that without this not only the achievement of swaraj but the conception of swaraj itself ceases to be. Three main principles through which Gandhi wanted to achieve swaraj were: truth, non-violence and satyagraha whose practice involved the nature of self-sacrifice, suffering and self-control upon which women have natural advantage more than men. The natures of the activities that come under the domain of non-violence and satyagraha have a very natural relation with the nature of women.

Ahimsa which is the highest duty of a human being has positive and negative meanings which Gandhi clearly distinguishes it. Negatively it means 'not injuring' or 'not killing' which constitute the etymological and literal meaning. In its positive sense it means 'the largest love' and 'charity' which is wider than the literal meaning that is inclusive of the idea of love towards enemy and strangers.

Non-violence and love is one and the same. In its positive sense Gandhi extended the meaning of Ahimsa.

The concept of satya is central to Gandhi. The term ‘satya’ is derived from the word ‘sat’ whose literal meaning is ‘being’. According to Gandhi truth is logically prior to all the other human virtues and excellences. Non-violence and truth are closely related. In fact while truth is the end, ahimsa is the mean. The objective, namely truth, is to be reached through ahimsa.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

30 | P a g e

Swaraj cannot be attained without ahimsa. Throughout his political career he consistently practiced ahimsa. It is through ahimsa, freedom is possible. This absolute freedom implies the freedom of every single individual. Non-violence is the law of love and it embodies the suffering and sacrifice of the highest type. He always stressed the fact that violence was against the fundamental nature of women. She is considered to be the embodiment of sacrifice which according to Gandhi would bring civilizing effect in every field like politics, education, and economics. Women for him “is the embodiment of sacrifice and suffering, and her advent to public life should, therefore, result in purifying it, in restraining unbridled ambition and accumulation of property.”20 In Gandhi’s theoretical framework, the concept ahimsa is related with women in such a way that he considers them as the incarnation of ahimsa. Positively ahimsa means infinite love which implies capacity to suffer unlimitedly. To quote: “Woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means infinite capacity for suffering. Who but women, the mother of man, shows this capacity in the largest measure? She shows it as she carries the infant and feeds it during nine months and derives joy in the suffering involved. What can beat the suffering caused by the pangs of labour? But she forgets them in the joy of creation. Who again suffers daily so that her babe may wax from day to day?”21 Ahimsa involves moral power without which the execution of the non-violent struggle would not be possible or the peaceful struggle cannot be maintained. Gandhi portraits very strongly women as the possessor of moral power. He says, “renunciation and non-violence come naturally to women.”22 Through the following example he explains that a woman is endowed with the nature of nonviolence. He says, “You marry your daughter aged fourteen, fifteen or sixteen into a strange new family and hand her over to a stranger; the girl becomes one with the new family or after a short while even becomes the mistress of that household. How does this happen? God has blessed her with a loving heart. She can win over everyone with her love, affection and non-violence…women have the remarkable capacity for sacrifice.”23 Gandhi was very much convinced of the unique strength of women in matters of morality. Unless this moral strength is employed in the peaceful struggle for freedom swaraj cannot be achieved.

Gandhi by considering their unique power for non-violence and self-sacrifice always insisted women not only to participate but also to take up leadership in different movements. In this context he felt that women are more superior to men. According to Gandhi, women are the messengers of the gospel of non-violence who are sent by God. Gandhi asserts that for women the dharma of non-violence is something innate or they are naturally gifted for being non-violent by birth. This particular idea about women makes him to bring them to the mainstream politics. He says, “A man understands the dharma of non-violence through his intellect whereas a woman has imbibed it even before her birth. A man escapes with very little responsibility, but women have to serve their husbands, their children and other members of the family.”24

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

31 | P a g e

Thus, according to him it is not natural to women to be violent. Gandhi does not consider “being non-violent” as the matter of weakness for women but considers it as the matter of courage and strength. He says, “I feel they will be worthier interpreters of non-violence than men, not because they are weak, as men in their arrogance believe them to be, but because they have grater courage or the right type and immeasurably greater spirit of self-sacrifice.”25 Satyagraha and the Role of Women The term satyagraha which was coined by Gandhi in 1906 to distinguish non-violent resistance from passive resistance has its literal meaning “firmness in truth”. The word agrahais derived from the root “grah” which has the following meaning; “to seize or to grasp, to get hold of”26. In that sense satyagraha means “a relentless search for truth and a determination to reach truth.”27 As satyagraha holds on to the idea “truth” for Gandhi it means “truth force” or “soul force” that excludes the use of violence. Exclusion of the use of violence is due to the inability in knowing the absolute truth which itself makes man non-competent in punishing others. Gandhi says; “satyagrtaha excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and is, therefore, not competent to punish.”28 Satyagraha cannot be considered as the weapon of weak and it consists of only courageous activities which are characterized by non-violent resistance to stand for the truth. Gandhi considered satyagraha as a nonviolent mean to give solution for any conflicting issues which involved different activities like civil disobedience, picketing and so on whose employment was necessary for the achievement of swaraj. For him satyagraha was an attempt to introduce a religious element, it is considered as a “soul force”. Satyagraha which is a peaceful resistance requires the observance of perfect chastity, adoption of poverty, following the path of truth and the cultivation of fearlessness. Gandhi lists some prerequisites for the application of satyagraha. They are:       

There can be no satyagraha for an unjust cause, because satyagraha by definition is a commitment to uphold truth.

Satyagraha by definition excludes the use of violence in any shape or form, whether in thought, speech or deed. Satyagraha demands absolute non-violence.

Satyagraha presupposes a reasoned and willing obedience to the laws of the state.

It presupposes the capacity and willingness to suffer.

In order to apply satyagraha in practical life one should be disciplined.

Satyagraha requires the unassuming humility.

It cannot be resorted to personal gain but only for others welfare.

All these are necessary for the idea of satyagraha. They are required for the complete understanding of concept satyagraha. If the application of the satyagraha required all of them then for the effective application of satyagraha women’s participation is required. By keeping aside the role of women one cannot think of the application of satyagraha. Consider the prerequisite; we can claim that basically all of them match with the nature of women than men. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

32 | P a g e

Satyagraha has different forms like civil disobedience, picketing and fasting into which participation of women added special strength. In many of the cases women really wanted or they had the strong urge to participate in all these especially in civil disobedience. But Gandhi knew it very well that they cannot participate in all the activities which made him to design a different domain where they can render their service through participation. That is why Gandhi says, “the impatience of women to take part in civil disobedience, I felt that if women truly wished to take risks, if they wished to leave a stamp not only on the history of India but on the history of the world, if they wished to see a resurgence of the civilization of India, they should find an exclusive field for themselves.”29 While referring to the exclusive domain for women, Gandhi also mentions very clearly that they should not enter into some of the activities where he is sure that if they do so then it will create negative impact rather than the positive one. He says; “I am not interested in inviting them to offer civil disobedience against the salt law. Even if women participate in this, they will be lost amongst the men.”30 In all those fields which were exclusively assigned for women by Gandhi they could perform better than man, especially in the case of picketing. Women can bring a lot of changes in the character of man who is a drunkard. This is what makes Gandhi to consider it as the special field of women. He says, “I feel that it is, or it can become, the special field of women to bring about a change of heart in these people (the drink addicts). History testifies that man cannot conquer hearts as speedily as woman can.”31 He was not interested in men participating in such kind of activities and he asked them to move out. He says, “all men should step aside.”32 In some of the cases he not only asks to step aside but they are asked to work as the subordinate to woman. In this context he gives women such a position that they decide how the movement should move further and how men should be incorporated into these movements. He says, “they may take and should get as much assistance as they need from men, but the men should be in strict subordinate on to them.33 Through picketing Gandhi makes it sure that women should stop not only those who sell liquor but also those who consume it. If there are people to drink then there will be people to sell and if there are people to sell then there will be people to drink. If either of these stopped then both can be stopped. But Gandhi tries to stop both in order to bring more effect.

Gandhi ensures the participation of women in different ways by assigning different roles to them.

He invites the trained women to take initiative in the case of staring different satyagraha units in different places. Gandhi wants women to take initiative in many of the activities. The reason for Gandhi’s interest in making women participate in the form of taking initiative in some of the activities cannot be just reduced to their capacity to be non-violent. Rather the other reason could be this; they can change the heart of the people. In a way we can say that here women being nonviolent alone do not constitute the sufficient reason but their natural ability to change the heart of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

33 | P a g e

the people is also a reason for Gandhi to prompt them to take participation. Gandhi says, “their appeal to the merchants and buyers of foreign cloth and to the liquor dealers and addicts to the habit cannot but melt their hearts.”34 Gandhi is more convinced about the advantages of the participation of women when he experienced the failure of the movement in 1921 which was lead by men. Though it was successful in certain level, it could not reach the culmination because of the reason of violence which had crept in the movement for which man alone is responsible. Movement needs to be peaceful towards the end of it. Otherwise the required fruit will not be yielded. It means the movement should have the nature of being non-violent towards the end for which women’s participation is necessary. The success and the failure of the freedom movement depend entirely on the employment of self-control of people who participate. The assumption behind this is that men cannot easily control their anger, cannot easily practice non-violence, while women can do so. Gandhi considers it as the duty of men to make the atmosphere congenial for women to do their work. Women’s participation in the national movement gives a new dimension to the struggle for the freedom.

Conclusion To conclude, any movement without the participation of women would be incomplete or imperfect.

In Gandhi’s conception of national framework of freedom struggle, participation of women seemed to be an indispensable factor. So in all the movements which he devised for the freedom struggle, attempts to show the significance of the women’s participation and at the same time he created conditions for their active participation. He could bring women’s freedom movement and the national freedom movement under the same platform and could proceed towards the achievement of swaraj. In this way by making women participate in the national movement he tried to bring India’s freedom and the freedom of women themselves simultaneously. The success of Gandhi, particularly at the grass root level is to be analyzed. How much successfully he could bring women into the national movement needs a critical study. The role devised by Gandhi for women in the national movement was superior. But the question is in what way their participation was employed in national movement remains as an open question.

References: 1. Gandhi, Mohandas K. (March 1931) Young India.

2. Iyer, Raghavan Narasimhan. (1973) The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.347 3. Gill, S.S. (2001) Gandhi a Sublime Failure. New Delhi: Rupa and Co, p.132 4. Lal, Basant Kumar. (1989) Contemporary Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, p.155 5. Ibid, p. 154 6. Gill, S.S. (2001) Gandhi a Sublime Failure. New Delhi: Rupa and Co, p.132

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

34 | P a g e

7. Joshi, Pushpa. (1988) Gandhi on Women. Ahmedabad :Navajeevan Publishing House, p.22 8. Ibid, p.59 9. Ibid, p.23 10. Ibid, p.23 11. Ibid, p.180 12. Ibid, p.177 13. Ibid, p.225 14. Ibid, p.36 15. Ibid, p.36 16. Ibid, p.88 17. Ibid, p.31 18. Ibid, p.89 19. Ibid, p.31 20. Ibid, p.316 21. Ibid, p.316 22. Ibid, p.228 23. Ibid, p.355 24. Ibid, p.217 25. Ibid, p.220 26. Iyer, Raghavan Narasimhan (1973). The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.270 27. Ibid, p.270 28. Ibid, p.270 29. Joshi, Pushpa. (1988) Gandhi on Women. Ahmedabad :Navajeevan Publishing House, p.218 30. Ibid, p.218 31. Ibid, p.219 32. Ibid, p.219 33. Ibid, p.223 34. Ibid, p.223.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

35 | P a g e

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS A.Malliga Introduction The expression ‘epistemology’ is derived from the Greek root episteme, which means knowledge. It is also known as gnoseology, which is derived from the Greek root gnosis, which means the science of cognition. Epistemology becomes inevitable to substantiate the metaphysical or ontological presuppositions of any philosophy. The fundamental task of any philosophy in general is to understand the reality as a whole. In the process, philosophy aims at understanding the nature of man, and man’s place and role in reality. In an attempt to interpret the nature of man, of reality and man’s place and role in reality, philosophers advanced several theories. The diversity of these interpretations resulted in the construction of the various metaphysical and epistemological theories. For any kind of philosophical or metaphysical investigation epistemology is necessary. If philosophical investigation aims at understanding the reality as a whole, it must see that the means and methods it employs for understanding it are valid. A philosopher is not merely satisfied with knowing something but knowing that something rightly. Thus epistemology has to be an integral part of philosophy. Although the epistemological issues have been more or less the same in the Western and Indian philosophical traditions, their approaches towards the issues of epistemology have been sometimes different.

Aristotle believed that knowledge started with wonder. This is so because men are endowed with rationality, and it is this essential feature of humans that arouses inquisitiveness in them.

This unique feature distinguished humans from other living creatures. This is the reason the expression ‘know’ in its epistemic sense is exclusively reserved for humans but not to other living creatures. The earliest thinkers whom we regard as philosophers wondered about the nature of knowledge and advanced various theories concerning the nature and genesis of knowledge. Our interest in knowledge begins when there is a doubt or uncertainty about the fundamental aspects of reality. The ancient Greek philosophers encountered such a problem and in their sincere efforts to resolve this they were led to reflect on the ultimate nature of knowledge. In the process, they invented the subject of epistemology.

Any reflection upon the nature of knowledge gives rise to a number of interesting philosophical issues. One of these issues is to determine the very subject-matter of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

36 | P a g e

epistemology. As a science of cognition, epistemology is primarily concerned both with cognitive acts and cognitive results. The former are certain mental activities such as perception, remembering, judging, reasoning, reflecting, inferring and so on. Scientific assertions can serve as the best example for cognitive results. Scientific results cannot be equated with mental activities; therefore, they cannot be part of cognitive acts. For instance, the law of gravity or the Pythagorean Theorem cannot be treated as mental phenomena, but are the meaning of the statements in which these laws are formulated. It is clear from the history of the theory of knowledge that both cognitive acts and cognitive results constitute the subject-matter of epistemology, for they are the subject of epistemic investigation.

If epistemology is merely concerned with cognitive acts, then it becomes a part of psychology, for psychology is concerned with mental phenomena and consequently with cognitive acts.

Although psychology and epistemology overlap to some extent, there exists a fundamental difference between them. The main objective of psychology is to inquire into the very genesis of the cognitive acts, while epistemology is concerned with the justification of the results of these cognitive acts. Of course, both cognitive acts and their results are the subjects of evaluation. An epistemologist evaluates them from the point of view of their truth claims and the degree justification associated with those claims. The very occurrence of cognitive processes is of no interest to an epistemologist. An epistemologist is basically concerned with the standards of evaluation of our cognitive contents in terms of truth or falsity. Then the question arises: What is truth? This is the most fundamental problem of epistemology.

Epistemologists have advanced several theories of truth such as correspondence theory, coherence theory, pragmatic theory, homophonic theory, subjectivist theory, redundant theory, and so on. Both the classical and modern theories of truth have their own advantages as well as disadvantages. The philosophers like Alfred Tarsky held that truth can never be defined in any natural language, and any attempt to define it results in liar paradox. The classical and modern theories of truth only laid down the criteria or conditions under which a statement is said to be true, but never defined what truth is. The second important problem is the problem of the sources of cognition. Philosophers in the West as well as in the East recognized the various sources of cognition. By and large, perception and reason, especially inferential reason, are accepted by both the traditions. But in the Indian tradition there are as many as six important sources of cognition. Of course, each source is thoroughly examined to establish its legitimacy in producing valid cognition that ultimately led to the knowledge of reality. The third problem is the problem of the limits of cognition. It calls for an answer to the question: ‘What can be the subject of cognition? It is followed by another interesting question: ‘Does reality exist independent of the subject of cognition?’ If it were so, ‘is it possible to cognize (know) it’?

These classical problems in epistemology constantly haunt an epistemologist.

Further, it is also discussed by epistemologists whether there exists any distinction between knowledge and true belief. For instance, a person has made a lucky guess, but does not really know, and another person knows but does not say. In other words, he need not guess. In that http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

37 | P a g e

case what is that the second person has which the first one does not have? One may say that the second person has evidence and the first person does not have it. But, what is it to have evidence? This is another interesting issue in epistemology. This issue assumes more importance when we deal with the distinction between a priori and a posteriori forms of knowledge. Do we dispense with the notion of ‘evidence’ in the first case, for it is not possible to advance evidence? This issue would be taken up later.

A large portion of Western epistemological tradition can be covered by dealing with the fundamental problems of epistemology, analysis of knowledge, skepticism, and possibility of knowledge and also some major epistemic traditions like rationalism, empiricism and transcendentalism.

Fundamental Problems of Epistemology There are three fundamental problems of epistemology. They are: 1. nature of knowledge, 2. sources of knowledge, and 3. limitations of knowledge. Under the first problem we study different conditions that are essential for any knowledge claim. The objective behind this is to differentiate knowledge from belief. Epistemologists have debated on this issue threadbare. If knowledge is certain and universal, then belief, on the contrary, leaves scope for doubt or uncertainty. There is always a fundamental distinction between knowing something and believing something. Although it is admitted by the epistemologists that knowledge presupposes belief, the former is not identical with the latter. Plato in his Theaetetus tried to show that a jury truly believes that a defendant is guilty, but he lacks evidence to convert his true belief into a knowledge claim. Therefore, true belief can never be equated with knowledge.1 Interestingly, A.P. Griffiths identifies belief with a state of mind that is appropriate to truth. And Peter Geach calls belief a mental or inner saying.2 The second problem is concerned with the valid means of knowledge. There is much controversy among the epistemologists regarding the sources of knowledge and this gave way to different epistemological schools such as rationalism, empiricism, realism, naĂŻve realism, transcendentalism and so on. The genetic or Continental rationalists hold the view that reason is the only legitimate and genuine source of knowledge. This view is foreshadowed in the epistemological doctrines of Plato. While giving importance to mathematical knowledge, Plato held that knowledge obtained by reason alone qualifies as knowledge for it is impeccable.

What is obtained by means of sense-experience is mere opinion and belief, for there is no consistency in what we perceive. Thus he suspected the testimony of the senses. Similar view is also expressed by Descartes. According to him, the ideas that are clear and distinct to human mind alone are true ideas. Such ideas are either innate or obtained by means of reason.

Although one finds some deviations in the epistemological doctrines of Spinoza and Leibniz from those of Descartes, by and large, the continental rationalists are unanimous in giving due credit to the knowledge obtained by reason for all three are well-acknowledged mathematicians http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

38 | P a g e

of their respective periods. It is in the epistemological doctrines of the Continental or genetic rationalists the a priori form of knowledge found its strong locus, although the seeds of a priorism were sown by Plato in his theory of knowledge long before the Continental rationalists. Thus they relied more on a priori cognition for their claims to knowledge. On the contrary, the British empiricist tradition did not accept the role of a priori cognition as the sole or ultimate base for our knowledge claims. Both the classical and modern empiricists have given priority to sense-experience and held that it is the only legitimate and genuine source of knowledge of reality. The classical empiricists like Locke, Berkeley and Hume, the modern empiricists such as logical atomists and logical positivists have given top priority to the knowledge that is obtained by means of sense-experience. However, Hume and the modern empiricists admitted the a priori form of knowledge too as valid. According to empiricists, sense–experience informs about objects and events of the external world (the physical world).

Thus the content of our sense-experience consists of the knowledge of the external word. Also, there are sensory experiences which we owe to introspection inform us of our own mental states. In other words “empiricism might be said to be the thesis that all knowledge of substantial kind above the world is derived from experience.”3 The transcendental idealists like Immanuel Kant held that knowledge is the combination of both rational (formal) and empirical (material) elements. In his Critique of Pure Reason Kant clearly stated that his problem in this Critique is the problem of knowledge. According to him, rationalism on its own cannot provide us the knowledge of reality for it is confined to reason alone. There is no apparent contact between the thought and the reality. If this were true thought cannot represent the reality. Similarly, empiricism has its own shortcomings. Our sense-experience provides us with the percepts, but these percepts cannot be conceptualized without proper conceptual schema, which he calls the categories of understanding, namely, quantity, quality, relation, and modality. And each of these categories is further divided into three sub-categories resulting in twelve categories of understanding which remain as an a priori precondition for the possibility of any knowledge for Kant. This a priori precondition is known as the transcendental element in Kant’s philosophy. Thus both rationalism and empiricism have their own defects. Therefore, Kant thought it would be necessary to bring them together to arrive at the genuine knowledge of the reality which exists in judgmental form. Kant held that all knowledge necessarily starts with sense-experience, but does not necessarily arise out of sense-experience.4 Kant did not want to undermine the role of reason as well as sense-experience in epistemology. This is very clear from his statement that concepts without percepts are empty and percepts without concepts are blind. Thus he gave equal importance to reason and sense-experience.

The realists in general are of the opinion that there is an external world independent of the perceiving subject. In the absence of the external world and the objects in the external world there would not be any perceptual activity at all. There is always a contact between senses and the external objects. Thus there is always a distinction between the idea of an object from the object itself. The idea is a representation of the object in question through sense-perception. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

39 | P a g e

The naïve or direct realists hold the view that whenever we perceive an object we perceive only the external features of it. Such a view was advocated by the commonsense-realists like G.E. Moore. In recent times one of the most important representatives of this position is D.M. Armstrong. According to direct realists what we are directly aware of in our perceptual experience is the physical reality that exists independent of our awareness of it. Most of these doctrines aim at substantiating the view that there are certain valid sources of knowledge and anything obtained other than from these sources cannot be considered knowledge at all.

The third important problem is the limitations of knowledge. Our limitations of knowledge are ultimately dependent upon the limitations of the sources of knowledge. For instance both reason and sense-experience have their own limitations. What cannot be reached by reason or sense-experience does not form part of our knowledge of the reality. In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke held that even if the primary and secondary qualities of an object are known, yet the nature of the substratum is unknown and unknowable. In other words, the qualities are dependent on the substratum, but they do not represent its nature. Kant debated on the limitations of pure reason in his Critique of Pure Reason. It is not necessary that everything can be brought under the purview of reason. There are certain elements of reality which cannot be apprehended by pure reason. When reason tries to venture into a domain which is not its domain then it gets completely lost. Thus Kant held that things-in-themselves are unknowable. The result is we have antinomies and paralogisms. Similarly, senseexperience too has it limitations. An eye has a visual field. It cannot perceive anything beyond this visual field. By and large, the scope and limitations of our knowledge of the reality is determined by the kind of sources of knowledge that we entertain. For instance, in the Indian epistemology, Śruti as a pramāņa has a distinctive role to play. What cannot be obtained by other pramāņas is apprehended by Śruti. At times it may be the case that epistemologists are so rigid not to accept unconventional sources of knowledge like intuition, verbal testimony, and revelation. What cannot be obtained by the conventional sources of knowledge may be obtained by the unconventional ones. But the problem is with the justification of the knowledge that is obtained by the unconventional sources. A consistent epistemologist believes that all our epistemological endeavours are amply supported by proper logical reasoning. Thus logic and epistemology are complementary to each other. Especially, the modern Western epistemologists are unanimous in their view that all forms of knowing must by reduced to logical reasoning. Such an approach to epistemology is quite conspicuous in the writing of the twentieth-century epistemologists in general and analytical philosophers in particular. Even in the Indian tradition, the epistemology developed by Gautama in his Nyāya-sūtra shows the inter-connectedness between epistemology and logic. This does not mean that knowledge derived from every source must be subjected to logical scrutiny. This issue would be discussed in the subsequent chapters. Further, it is necessary to discuss the following issues that fall under epistemology. They are: analysis of knowledge, truth condition, justification condition, and skepticism and possibility of knowledge. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

40 | P a g e

Analysis of Knowledge Progress in our knowledge is chiefly dependent on our doubting the validity or sufficiency of what is already known. To realize our ignorance is the first step to knowledge. Not only that, even if we possess knowledge we must possess that ‘right to be sure’ about what we possessed. This right to be sure about what we possessed counts as evidence or justification in general. A rigorous exercise has been done by the epistemologists in recent times to provide sufficient conditions for any knowledge claim. They hold the view that any piece of information in order to obtain the status of knowledge must fulfill certain conditions so that knowledge can be distinguished from mere belief. Also, it must be kept in mind that all knowledge is informative, but all information may not really count as knowledge. The central objective behind the analysis of knowledge is to evaluate the claims of the metaphysical dogmatists and the epistemological skeptics. Analysis of knowledge in its rudimentary form first appeared in Plato’s dialogues Meno and Thaetetus. Plato in his Meno holds the view that all forms of knowledge are a case of being acquainted with something in this or in some previous existence. Knowledge, Plato held is recollection or reminiscence. The state of mind produced by mere collection of previous knowledge is only a form of belief, which must be subject to repeated questioning for reinforcing it; and this in turn enables the person concerned to provide a rationale for his belief; this belief attains the status of knowledge. In his Thaetetus Plato argued against the identification of knowledge with true belief.

This point is already analyzed in the beginning. In recent times Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, Wittgenstein, A.J.Ayer, Brand Blanshard, and Edmund Gettier are concerned with this problem. In general we can say that, until the time of Gettier, the epistemologists have accepted three conditions of knowledge. They are: 1. Truth conditions, 2. Acceptance condition (which in turn includes belief condition) and 3.Justification. Let us take a look at these conditions.

Truth Condition Any piece of information in order to gain the status of knowledge, in the first instance, must be true. If it is not true, then it turns out be false and in turn cannot be regarded as knowledge. It is essential to understand the meaning of truth. There are four important approaches to truth.

There may be many more, but these are the approaches, by and large, discussed by the Western epistemologists. They are as follows: correspondence theory, coherence theory, pragmatic theory, and redundant theory.

Correspondence Theory This classical theory of truth advances the view that the truth of a thought consists in its agreement with reality. According to this theory, a proposition is considered to be true if it corresponds to a fact or a state of affairs. For example, if it is a fact that I have a car and if I say that I have a car, my statement is true because it corresponds with the fact or some existing situation. But what is this agreement of thought and reality that results in the definition of http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

41 | P a g e

truth? Is thought identical with reality that it depicts? Certainly not. Then what does one mean by ‘correspondence’? May be “that this thought is a likeness of something real, is a reflection of a reality.”5 The demerit of this theory lies in the ambiguity of the word ‘correspondence’.

The agreement of thought with reality seems to be absurd to some philosophers for there cannot be any correspondence between the entities belonging to two different categories. Thus we are not clear in what sense the word ‘correspondence’ is used between a non-empirical proposition and actual state of affairs. Thought has mere time-dimension but not others, and it cannot be likeness of something that is spatial. The defenders of the correspondence theory hold that one has to distinguish between a process and its contents. The process is the act of thought and it does not resemble reality, but the content of the process resembles reality. This is what they mean by the expression ‘correspondence’. But this explanation does not really satisfy the critics, for they hold that the expression’ likeness’ is ambiguous. Also, it is not clear how far this likeness between thought and reality must extend for a thought to be true.

Therefore, the view that truth consists in the agreement between thought and reality must be given up. This is an unattainable ideal. In spite of these short-comings, correspondence theory of truth has been given its due importance in epistemology.

Like any other British empiricist, Austin has his own way of defending truth as correspondence between thought and reality. To put it in the words of Austin: “A statement is said to be true when the historic sate of affairs to which it is correlated by the demonstrative conventions (the one to which it ‘refers’) is of a type with which the sentence used in making it is correlated by the descriptive conventions.”6 Austin maintains that the correspondence between thought and reality is often misconstrued by the critics. There is nothing wrong ion holding the view that there is correspondence between thought and facts (reality). Thought represents a fact. The true representation of a fact makes a thought true. And a true thought finds its expression in language (proposition). And a proposition is significantly said to be either true or false. As held by Diogenes, all theories are highly pretentious. Therefore, a theory is always subject to alteration.

Coherence Theory Unlike correspondence, this theory holds that a proposition is considered to be true only when it coheres with a proposition or set of well established system of propositions. Thus “the coherence theory of truth defines truth as agreement of thoughts among themselves.”7 By coherence we understand a relation among propositions and not a relation between proposition and something else which is not a proposition. This sort of view was suggested by Spinoza, Leibniz, and Hegel and explicitly formulated by F.H. Bradley and Brand Blandshard. The adherents of this theory hold the view that the criterion that determines whether a given statement is held to be true or false is completely dependent upon its agreement with other propositions which are already accepted as true. The agreement between a proposition and a set http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

42 | P a g e

of propositions consists in this, that the statement in question does not contradict the set of propositions but harmonizes with the rest of the system. It may seem that the verdict of experience is the final criterion, but it is not really so. Above the verdict of experience, there is something higher which is the criterion of agreement. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume a small ten paise coin is submerged in a glass of water. The visual experience tells us that the coin is big in size, and the tactile sense tells us that the coin is small. Why do we believe in the sense of touch here rather than in the sense of sight? This is because the statement generated on the basis of the sense of sight does not go well with our commonsense view. It is a well-known fact that the ten paise coin cannot be bigger than its actual size. On the other hand, the statement generated by the tactile sense perfectly harmonizes with our commonsense view of the size of the coin. Now the question arises: How do we arrive at initial truths at all?

The critics of this theory say that in coherence theory the truth of a roposition either guarantees or is generated by the truth of a member or members of the set. This seems to be circular, for the critics, since coherence theory defines truth in terms of coherence when truth is already presupposed. Also the expression ‘coherence’ is vague like the expression ‘correspondence’.

Pragmatic Theory Pragmatic theory finds fault with correspondence theory as well as with coherence theory. Apart from the objection that the notion of ‘correspondence’ is vague, the correspondence theory can at best be called a copy-view theory of truth, for it mainly relies on the structural aspects of reality but not with its functional aspects. Similarly, the expression ‘correspondence’ is also vague.

Pragmatic theory was developed in the writings of William James and John Dewey. However, it cannot be treated as a homogenous doctrine, for its adherents define truth in different ways. But in its radical form, as a point of departure, pragmatism contends that the truth of any statement consists in its final criteria. These final criteria are to be the utility of a given statement for action.

In other words, the truth of a proposition is to be found in its practical consequences. William James extended the application of pragmatic analysis to religious phenomena. He is of view that the criterion of religious truth is in no way inferior to that of truth in other spheres. And this is to be based on satisfactoriness of a religious belief to the believer. If it is asked, in what sense can the proposition can the proposition that “god exists” be verified? James response will be that this proposition may be considered true in so far as it provides the individual with “vital benefits” that is, it may satisfy the individuals religious and spiritual needs. Broadly speaking the pragmatist argument is as follows: “Our intellectual functions, and thus for example our convictions, are not independent of our practical activity. Our convictions influence our action; give it a direction point out to the agent means leading to his intended aim.”8 To put it in a crude manner, the influence of our convictions on our actions makes our actions fruitful. An action is regarded as fruitful when it achieves the intended aim. It amounts to saying that our conviction is true. Therefore, convictions (ideas) are not true but truth happens to a conviction (idea).

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

43 | P a g e

There are few objections against this theory. They are as follows: First of all, the notion of ‘working’ is something ambiguous. Secondly, if ideas are held to be true just because they work in one’s own life, then truth becomes purely subjective or personal. Thirdly, pragmatic theory of truth involves relativism since what works for one individual may not work for another.

Redundancy theory This theory was propounded by F.P. Ramsay who is of view that one can always eliminate the predicates like “true” and “false” without any loss of meaning since they are semantically redundant. Thus, when it is said that “it is true that p” means the same thing as “p” and when it is said that “it is false that p “means the same thing as “not p”. In his interesting paper “Facts and Propositions” Ramsey argues that the word “true” as a prefix or as a suffix of a statement is always redundant. What difference does it really make to a statement when “true” is added as a suffix or prefix to a statement? According to Ramsey, “It is evident that ‘It is true that Caesar was murdered’ means no more than that Caesar was murdered.”9 Tarski claims that his semantic theory of truth is akin to the correspondence theory. Both Ramsey and Tarski view that their theories of truth are extended versions of the correspondence theory. Tarski’s main objective is to solve the paradox of the liar by distinguishing between what is said in the object language and what could be said about this in the meta-language or second order language.

From the above discussion regarding the various theory of truth, it appears to us that it is not very easy to go beyond what Aristotle had stated regarding truth in his metaphysics: “to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that, that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true”10. In other words, we can say that knowledge requires truth, but it is very difficult to say whether it is truth derived from correspondence or from coherence or from sheer utility or from some other means. What John Mackie suggested regarding truth is apt.11 to say that a proposition is true is to say that things are as they are stated to be by that proposition.

Acceptance Condition The next necessary condition for knowledge is acceptance. For example, if I claim that my professor had been to U.S.A. in 2000, but at the same time I do not accept it, then it amounts to saying that I do not know that my professor had been to U.S.A. at that time, even if he had been to U.S.A. then, hence, if I do not accept P, then it is tantamount to my not knowing P. if S knows that P, then S accepts that P. This acceptance condition automatically includes belief condition of knowledge. Thus the formula is S accepts that P, if and only if S believes that P. This amounts to saying that all knowledge presupposes belief, but not vice-versa. Keith Lehrer is of the view that it is better to accept acceptance condition than belief condition since it is true that an appropriate kind of acceptance is a kind of belief, but it is not true and appropriate to say that all kinds of beliefs are the requisite sort of acceptance. 12 http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

44 | P a g e

Justification Condition As discussed elsewhere knowledge is not simply true belief, since true beliefs are sometimes the outcome of some lucky guess-work, and hence they cannot be considered as knowledge.

There are cases where a groundless conjecture might be true. And believed by a person, but still it does not constitute knowledge. Satisfaction of belief condition has to be appropriately related to the satisfaction of truth condition; and this gives way for the justification condition of knowledge. A true belief can be considered as justified, if and only if it is based on good justifying reasons.

This way of thinking first appeared in Plato’s Thaetetus. A jury may truly believe truly that a defendant is guilty, but he has no sufficient evidence to prove the belief and hence, his claim cannot be a knowledge-claim. In short, it cannot be said that knowledge is completely justified true belief or acceptance. Hence the formula can be,” S knows that P”, if and only if it is true that P, and S is completely justified in accepting that P. But the above argument has been disputed by Edmund Gettier. He gives a counter example to establish his standpoint. Suppose a teacher wonders if any member of her class possesses a car. She gets proper evidence from one of her students namely, X, and that X possess a car and she has no evidence from any of her other student possessing a car. So, her statement, that one of her students possesses a car is true. But the truth is X does not really possess a car though he showed all kinds of evidences either to deceive his teacher or raise his social status. On the other hand, it is Y who actually possesses a car though he does not have any evidence to prove. Here, says Gettier, even though X does not possess a car still the statement of the teacher that one of her students possesses a car holds good since ‘Y’ her student possesses a car, but the statement is based on false justification since it is only her good luck that ‘Y’ statement is based on false justification since it is only her good luck that ‘Y’ possesses a car so, actually the teacher has no knowledge of her students possessing a car.

In order to avoid the above difficulty a fourth condition has been added by him: “justification without falsity”. It means that our justification should not be based on any false statement. So, our final analysis of knowledge runs like this: S knows that P if and only if, 1. It is true that p 2. S accepts that p Therefore, S is completely justified in accepting p in some way that does not depend on any falsity. This is where the problem crops up. It would be difficult for a person to judge whether justification is based on truth or falsity.

Skepticism and Possibility of Knowledge Epistemologists have taken it for granted that there is knowledge; and having accepted the existing of knowledge, they have discussed other epistemological problems from various http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

45 | P a g e

angles. Since knowledge involves certainty, for certainty to survive there must also exist uncertainty or doubt. Thus skepticism becomes a bogey to epistemology. How do epistemologists tackle skepticism? If skepticism is entertained beyond a limit, then we cannot just think of knowledge in any form. Therefore, it is necessary for epistemologists to tackle the strong horns of skepticism. The skeptics questioned the very possibility of knowledge itself.

They describe themselves as those who search for truth-but so far they have not found it. To a great extent, all the problems of the theory of knowledge arise from skepticism and are discussed keeping skepticism in the background.

In the history of philosophy we come across two major forms of skepticism namely, (1) systematic or methodological skepticism, and (2) philosophical or psychological skepticism.

The methodological skepticism is positive in its approach. Here, the skeptic uses doubt as a means to arrive at certainty. Here doubt is genuine, and it reaches the climax and comes to a point where absolute certainty is established. So, certainty acts as a secure foundation. The best representative of systematic skepticism is René Descartes who successfully applied the method of doubt extensively in order to arrive at the secure foundations of philosophy, namely, the “cogito” or thinking, the starting point of certainty. Thinking implies thinker. Hence, he arrives at the formula, “I think, therefore I am” (“cogito ergo sum”).

On the other hand, in contrast to methodological skepticism, there is philosophical skepticism which denies the very possibility of knowledge. This kind of skepticism is based upon the ambiguous chance of error. According to the votaries of this skepticism, we unusually tend to overlook the possibility of error existing in our most trusted conviction which we term as certain knowledge. For them, it is possible that there is some kind of error underlying what we call true knowledge. This is the most fundamental and primary skeptical premise.

But the critics of skepticism are against the standpoint of philosophical skepticism. According to them, a wholesale and universal skepticism is untenable. They contend that we can be skeptical about a particular claim of knowledge or knowledge relating to particular branch but we cannot question the very possibility of knowledge itself. We know very well that, at least in some fields, we have certain knowledge, example mathematics. Hence, wholesale skepticism is meaningless since there are no grounds for its acceptance. The critics of philosophical skepticism bring forth two important arguments to show the untenability of the skeptical position. They are (1) argument from polar concepts, and (2) argument from paradigm case.

According to the first case, there are certain words that go on in pairs; and in such case some word obtains meaning in contrast to its opposites e.g., real/unreal, knowledge/belief, doubt/certainty. In the case of doubt and certainty, the meaning of the word “doubt” is understood only with reference to the meaning of the word “certainty”. Likewise, the paradigm-case argument holds that any given concept receives its meaning only when it is applicable to a certain instance. In this case every claim to knowledge presupposes what is not the case. For instance, someone may say that this particular stone is not a diamond. In order to http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

46 | P a g e

state that he must be in a position to identify how a real diamond looks like. This is how the skeptic loses their stand in accepting wholesale skepticism. Again if it is understood that the above arguments are sound enough in providing certain and uncertain claims to knowledge, then the conflict between a skeptic and a non-skeptic is balanced. Gilbert Ryle correctly argues that the question of counterfeits does not arise unless there are some real ones. Likewise, the question of uncertainty does not arise unless there is something called certainty.

G.E. Moore and Wittgenstein are two staunch opponents of philosophical skepticism that questions everything. According to them, it is impossible to have universal skepticism, but the sense in which skepticism is impossible for Wittgenstein is quite different from what it is for Moore. Moore in his article, “a defence of commonsense” gives a list of truisms conveying of the truth of certain proposition. Commonsense is not to be identified to with a body of common knowledge and propositional knowledge. But it expresses our shared insights in recognizing what is obvious and what is not so. Though Wittgenstein did not fully agree with Moore’s notion of commonsense, he appreciated the tendency which is implicit in such a notion.

According to Wittgenstein, commonsense understanding of the world is capable of solving, in serious philosophical discussions, problems concerning knowledge and certainty since it recognizes that philosophical problems are to be posed and answered within the limits of the worked view. For him, commonsense recognizes on the one hand the primacy of life and the way we live it, and on the other hand it formulates the very ways of life as the yardstick, which functions the standard to resolve all philosophical disputes. When we actually claim to know or imagine something to be not to be, there is a foundation for such common insight which guarantees certainty. These insights are founded upon the various ways in which we live our life, that is, the forms of life which have their roots in our culture, in our practice of judging and not in our reasoning or intellection.

So, what is implicit in the notion of commonsense becomes a focal point in the forms of life in the sense that it recognizes that human understanding and judgements are not possible in isolation. It requires an accepted common ground which we must share with other people. It is not reasoning or knowing, but forms of life that guarantees certainty. It also decides whether a doubt is genuine and reasonable or idle. It is our life in the context of which our certainties and doubts are determined.

If one considers the traditions of rationalists and empiricists, one finds that certainty is seen in the first person terms either as consisting in the immediately given sense-experience (the empiricist option). This exclusive emphasis upon the “knowing subject” made certainty a matter of first person possession. “Certainty” is something which is uniquely associated with the “knowing subject”. My being certain about my having particular experience is a unique episode in my life; and whether I am really certain in having that very experience is to be determined by me and by none else. Wittgenstein had already exposed this line of argument of in his Philosophical Investigations. Moore also exposes this first person epistemological http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

47 | P a g e

account of certainty, though in a different way. He says that not only he knows with certainty the truth of a vast number of commonsense propositions, but he also knows that other human beings too, likewise, are certain about the truth of those very propositions. Moore says that he is certain about this proposition precisely because others too share in these judgments. It is his participation with others that makes this proposition certain for each other.

The above idea of shared common beliefs on which certainty is asked finds its fuller expression in the notion Wittgenstein’s form of life. According to Wittgenstein, in every situation where a claim to knowledge is established, there stands fast a corpus of propositions that are taken for granted. Such propositions form a kind of system that is presupposed. These propositions “stand fast” for all the participants in that situation seen in this way. Certainty becomes an attribute of the common pattern of knowing, doing and feeling. Thus, certainty becomes a matter of sharedness.

Moore thought that the ground for the accepted meanings would be the common sense itself, whereas for Wittgenstein more adequate way for explaining the second person epistemological certainty would be that of forms of life. Moore’s claim of knowledge of his truisms is still under the shadow of some doubt against such need arise s in the case of forms of life because now what we have (presupposed answered propositions), are neither true nor false and again they themselves are not object of knowledge or certainty. They provide us with a firm epistemic foundation which is pre-epistemological or pre-theoretical in nature. It is here that the epistemology was revolutionized. For Wittgenstein, epistemology presupposes preepistemology or knowledge presupposes pre-knowledge. The general crux behind his argument is that whenever we claim to know or doubt, we are already equipped with a background of propositions which are not only beyond doubt, but even logically more fundamental than knowledge itself. They constitute a kind of “logical receptacle” within which all other language-games of empirical and theoretical investigation occur.

A question may be asked: “what is that which equips these anchor-propositions which are at the background of all epistemic activity with certainty?” The answer is that it is the praxis. So, it is not a case of cognitive, but practical certainty. What constitute the basic structure of knowledge and language is a set of practices. The contemporary critics of skepticism like D.W. Hamlyn and Keith Lehrer bring out the untenability of wholesale skepticism in their own way.

Hamlyn strongly opposes skepticism saying that there is no one opposition that may be called “skepticism”. He asks whether a skeptic knows when he says “we never know anything” if the skeptic is positive in his reply, it leads to him to self- contradiction, and if he is negative in his reply, then it robs the initial assertion of his point. But a skeptic may escape by not committing himself to any position, but only questions the very possibility of knowledge. But a skeptic who insists on questioning any claims to knowledge cannot taken in this manner from the critiques demand an answer of some kind. General skepticism seems possible in a theoretical

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

48 | P a g e

sense as long as it remains negative, but it is difficult to maintain in practice. According to Aristotle, it is the mark of a foolish man to demand a proof for everything.

Lehrer solves the problems of wholesale skepticism in a neutral manner. When skeptics justify their position by bringing in the chance of error in all forms of knowledge, then it leads to the most fundamental skeptical premise that is: if S accepts that p, then there is some chance that S is incorrect. Lehrer comes forward with the argument that on the analysis of knowledge there is no possibility of having such a premise. He says that even if S accepts that p, nevertheless he may be reasonable in accepting p in addition. He says our fallibility is an insufficient basis for skeptical victory. To quote Lehrer: “of course, what we accept may be wrong – we are fallible but if enough of what we accept is correct, then our justification will be undefeated and we will have knowledge, if we are sufficiently correct”.13 Transcendentalism Kant’s transcendental method came into picture as a reaction to Hume’s extreme skepticism. Kant says that it is Hume’s theory of causation which works him up from his dogmatic slumber.

According to him, all our knowledge of the world is possible. Kant challenges this view’s of Hume’s.

Kant defines genuine knowledge as universal and necessary. But do we have such knowledge?

To answer this, Kant goes on to examine the analytic and synthetic judgement. Though knowledge appears in the form of judgement, says Kant, not every judgement yields knowledge. Analytic judgements are those whose truths can be ascertained without reference to any experience or facts. They are a priori in nature. Here, the predicate of the judgement does not give us any new information. On the other hand, it only elucidates what is already contained in the subject. For example, “All bodies are extended”, “A triangle has three sides” etc. if a judgement is to qualify as knowledge, it must be synthetic, which adds to our knowledge. But, says Kant, not all synthetic judgement gives us genuine knowledge though this us some new information. Any ordinary kind of synthetic judgement is called by Kant as synthetic a posteriori judgement. Judgement like “My house is green”, “X is taller than Y” etc., which gives us only probable knowledge fall under this category. And only synthetic a priori judgements can yield such knowledge since they possess both necessity and universality.

Hume denied the existence of or possibility of such judgements but Kant never entertained any doubt regarding the possibility of such judgements. According to Kant made clear that we do have synthetic a priori judgement. But how does happen? Kant answers this question by applying this unique transcendental method. We can understand this method of Kant by his theory of sense perception, understanding and the unity of self- consciousness.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

49 | P a g e

Nature of Perception Kant says that in order to perceive, we must have sensation, but mere sensations cannot form any knowledge. It will be mere modification of consciousness unless it is formed within spatiotemporal framework. Space and time are, thus regarded by Kant a priori preconditions for any experience by which every experience has spatial and temporal character. Space and time are recognized by as forms of intuition. Hence, Kant contends that the “form” and “order” experience are necessary and universal.

Nature of Understanding According to Kant, the spatio-temporal organization of our experience is necessary, but not sufficient to form any judgement about experience, in order to make judgement about experience, there must be a priori preconditions which can organize the unrelated and disconnected percepts. These a priori preconditions are called by Kant as “the categories of understanding or pure concepts” and logical functions of judgements. Without these pure concepts we will be mere spectators. Knowledge would be impossible without the cooperation of sensations and perceptions and understanding. On the other hand these two, preconditions of knowledge are functionally different, but supplement each other. Kant aptly says: “percepts without concepts are blind and concepts without percepts are empty” The Unity of Self-consciousness Kant’s transcendental method culminates in his doctrine of the transcendental unity of apperception. This unity of self-consciousness is presupposed by the categories the way the categories are presupposed by experience. There could be no knowledge and no connected world of experience without a unifying consciousness which operates with the categories.

The essence of Kant’s transcendental method is the argument from experience to its necessary presuppositions. For Kant, knowledge begins with experience, but does not arise from experience. The whole transcendental method of Kant is confined only to phenomensa (things as they appear to us), but not noumena or things-in-themselves. According to Kant, we cannot transcend our experience. Knowledge involves perception, but things-in-themselves cannot be perceived by the senses. They cannot be intuited by the intellectual intuition since we do not possess intellectual intuition. If we apply categories to things-in-themselves, we cannot justify their claim to validity since perception can afford no evidence of the application of the category. So essentially things-in-themselves are unknowable because of the limitations of our faculties of knowledge. But it does not imply, argues Kant that things-in-themselves are nonexistent. Unknowability of a thing does not necessarily imply its non-existence. Kant applies the same argument in the case of metaphysical concepts like god, soul and so on. The reason why we are not able to discover any metaphysical knowledge is that we have no means of ascertaining it since the forms of intuition (space and time), the logical functions of judgement http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

50 | P a g e

and categories cannot be applied only to the phenomenal world or the realm of possible experience. When we attempt to proceed from the necessary knowledge of the phenomena to the necessary knowledge of the noumena, says Kant, either we end up in logical fallacies or self-contradictory conclusions.

The analysis given above as regards the scope and aim of knowledge would help us in analyzing the nature and the fundamental distinction between the a priori and a posteriori forms of knowledge.

References: 1. D.W.Hamlyn(1970). The Theory of Knowledge, London: Macmillan, p.79 2. Ibid, p.87 3. Ibid, p.36 4. N. A. Nikam (1970). Sense, Understanding and Reason: A Digest of Kant’s First Critique, Delhi: Asia Publishing House, p.3 5. K. Ajdukiewicz, (1975). Problems and Theories of Philosophy, London: Cambridge University Press,p.9 6. J.L .Austin (1970). Philosophical papers, J. O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, OUP, p.122.

7. K. Ajdukiewicz, (1975). Problems and Theories of Philosophy, p.13 8. Ibid, p.16 9. F.P. Ramsey (1927). “Facts and Propositions,” Proceedings of Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume.

10. Paul K. Moser and Arnold Vander Nat (1987). Human Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, p.11 11. Ibid, p.1 12. Keith Lehrer (1978). Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.12-3 13. Keith Lehrer (1974). Theory of Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Ely House, London, p.179

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

51 | P a g e

VALUE BASED DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATION:

THE

KEY

TO

SUSTAINABLE

Surinder Kaur Abstract India's needs are very visible i.e. removal of poverty, providing' health services ,food to all, providing education and skills , providing employment opportunities for all and arranging value based education for sustainable development and to be self-reliant in national security and to build up other capabilities for future also. Value education is the fine art of moulding the consciousness of children towards nobler and fine living. And this education encompasses the traditional values of moral science and much more.

Regular academic is "information" whereas value education aims at "transformation "and emotional selfreliance. This education complements and completes academics subtly guiding students to become useful and supportive members of the society. And this groomed human resource army will be the foundation of all action packages for the country in the near future.

Introduction It is through socialisation that the culture, traditions customs, mores, norms, values are being transformed to the younger generation. They are the important factors affecting the personality make up of individuals. A harmonious society needs individual with values, working towards developing the nations towards sustainable development. Values help to integrate a personality.

They provide means by which conflicts tend to be solved and also help in maintaining order in the social structure. Present educational programmes should be designed in such a way to realise the aim of creating a society with sustainable development, as such our National goals of education are: 1.

Increasing productivity

2.

Social and emotional integration

3.

Democratisation and modernisation

4.

Development of social moral and spiritual values

Our Indian Constitution has certain important value based national goals such as secularism, democracy, equality, liberty, fraternity, sovereignty, justice, national integration, patriotism http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

52 | P a g e

assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation. If all these are reflected in education, it influences the total development and becomes the true education. So it is an unique investment in the present and excellent planning for the future.

Education Education is a powerful instrument of change and progressive improvement of human behaviour.

It has played an important role in shaping the destinies of societies. It tends to create a social order based on values of freedom, social justice and equal opportunity and fits a man perfectly for the time. Education in 21st century has to meet the emerging needs of mankind, as it progresses from the local community to a world society, from social cohesion to democratic participation, from economic growth to human development, from unsustainable development to sustainable development.

Values in Ancient India In ancient India, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the epics manifested and upheld the values of Indian society. In India, education is called as 'Vidya' which is derived by combining two words 'vid' and 'ya' 'Ya' means what and 'Vid' means light. So, that which gives light is 'Vidya'. In the olden days the preceptor used to be called 'Guru' and pupil was called 'Sisya'. The pupil gained education from the guru in the hermitages called 'Gurukulam'. In those days education was given to create supreme wisdom. In the Gurukulas of the past, instructions were provided for right living, spiritual advancement and moral conducts. Students were trained to lead lives marked by humility, Self-Control, virtue and discipline. 'Vidya' dealt more with truth and totalities. The system of education helped our culture to grow and also helped to purify the process of learning.

And in the ancient hermitages after the pupil had finished his studies under the Guru, the Guru gave him such exalted advice as no pupil in any other country received from his master i.e. , Mathru Devo Bhava ( may the mother be your God), Pithru Devo Bhava ( may the father be your God), Acharyo Devo Bhava ( may your preceptor be your God), Sathyam Vada (speak the truth), Dharmam Chara (act righteously), Na Itharaani ( do not adopt other ways). These were the commands given to the pupils by the Guru. ) The Present Education System in India The population in India has been constantly rising, it has crossed one billion by 2001. Due to the explosion of population, advancement in science and technology, knowledge expansion, medical knowledge in curing diseases, industrialisation, urbanisation, mobilisation, IT revolution, globalisation, flow of western culture—the present society is rapidly changing and the life is centred round the wonders of science. Society is shaped by technical change. It is going through modernisation process thereby human life is full of problems, anxiety and struggle and became helpless victim and so he is at the cross roads of modernisation living in the midst of social, http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

53 | P a g e

economic, political environmental and value crisis—which are all threatening the humanity in the society. Modernisation has led to the change of life styles, thinking processes, traditions and cultural norms. Inequalities persist between rich and poor, men and women, urban and rural.

Over consumerism, selfishness, materialistic complex detaching man from real values of life. In a world based on science and technology, it is education that determines the levels of prosperity, welfare and security of the people.

But today's education system has ignored instructions in morals. It depends upon western education system which deals more with concepts and conjectures. Education is only on material objective field of knowledge. Today education is soaked in textual scholarships forgetting the values. The old culture is ignored and materialism is prevailing in the society. And the relationship between students and teacher is not cordial and deteriorating day by day Even these days students do not give due respect to teachers.

Mahatma Gandhi firmly believed that Indian education is unique to the task of societal change and development. In such a process the need to de-emphasise the material aspect of life on the one hand, and re-emphasise the spiritual aspect of life on the other, is of great significance.

Gandhi was of the opinion that education is not an end in itself but a powerful instrument which creates men and women of strong character with the qualities of firmness, truthfulness, patience etc. Education degenerates like a fully blossomed flower without any fragrance. Gandhi also stressed that discipline is an important aspect of education. Education without discipline is like a boat without rudder. He advocated on the necessity of training students for manual work under the supervision of teachers. He also laid on the 3's H (Head, Heart, and Hand) rather than 3's R (Reading, Writing and Arithmatic).

Sustainable Development The true concept of development is the sustainability of man and environment on the entire globe by promoting harmony within humanity and between humanity and nature. Human welfare is the goal of development. Development without destruction of environment and human values is real development. Sustainable development seeks to meet the need and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future. This can be done only with valueoriented human beings. For sustainable development there should be balance between science and humanity, ecology and economy, prosperity and peace. Sustainable development in-turn develop sastainability of man in particular, humanity in general. This stress the need for valueoriented education at all levels—family, community, local, national and global.

Strategies for Sustainable Development For sustainable development, we have to give importance for the following areas of development: 1.

Development of human resources http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

54 | P a g e

2.

Maintaining biodiversity

3.

Importance of biotechnology

4.

Development of rural energy technology

5.

Harnessing of solar and biomass energy

6.

Gandhian concept of Gram Swaraj

7.

Vocational education

8.

Gardening and farming

9.

Management of local resources by local people

10.

Development of water harvesting and conservation of natural resources

11.

Rural development

12.

Cottage industries

13.

Afforestation

14.

Development of waste lands

15.

Skilled manpower development for future

The philosophy underlying all these are work is worship, unity, co-operation, humanity, harmony, morality, character, self-confidence, self-reliance, democratic feeling, equality, creativity, self-sufficiency, dignity of labour etc. Everybody must attempt to understand human society, its cultural foundation, its unity and diversity, aspirations and missions. We should also balance the spirituality and science to bring harmony in the human society.

Ministry of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Government of India ( GOI) has also implemented the scheme of strengthening existing institutions and establishment of new institutions for non-corporate and unorganised sectors. To cater to the needs of these sectors, the New Education Plocy of 1986 has emphasized the following: 



To encourage students to consider self-employment as a career option, training in entrepreneurship will be provided through modular or optional courses, in degree and diploma programmes.

In order to increase the relevance of management education, particularly in the noncorporate and under managed sectors, the management education system will study and document the Indian experiences and create a body of knowledge and specific educational programmes suited to these sectors. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

55 | P a g e



Continuing education, covering established as well, as emerging technologies, will be promoted.

In recent years a tremendous need has been felt for value education to be integrated with educational curriculum. Keeping in view the changing needs of society-individual, economical and cultural-it is necessary that curriculum be developed in tune with the rapid developments which are taking place in all the above sectors. Therefore, curriculum need to be dynamic i.e. changing with time and should be under constant review. It should be more so in technical/entrepreneurial oriented which suits the industrial and societal demands. Thus, there should be mechanism at educational institutions at state and national level to obtain information regarding developments taking place in above areas and keeping the curriculum in tune and updated on priority basis.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

56 | P a g e

By analyzing the above model, it can be inferred that need based inputs be encouraged for value based and job oriented education by involving all sections like students, parents, faculty, industry, administration and society at large.

SUGGESTIONS 1.

Higher educational institutions should be divorced from party politics.

2.

Students' participation in management should be encouraged.

3.

Students' welfare services be started and strengthened.

4.

Poor students should be given scholarships and other financial aids on need basis.

5.

Examination system should be improved.

6.

Values and ideals should be promoted among students.

7.

Hostel facilities be improved and all institutions be properly staffed and be equipped with library and laboratory facilities.

Co-operative and integrated efforts should be made by the teachers, the parents, the political parties, the public, the press, and the educational administrators to check indiscipline.

8.

9.

Students should be associated with various academic councils and even with Executive council/BOG to make them realize their responsibilities in the day-to-day functioning of the institute.

Conclusion For sustainable development, we need value-based education, spiritual education, ethical education, need-based education, global education for Vasudaiva Kutumbam, is what is necessary for making a man a human being with integrity. As all the famous, educationists visualised education is for the liberation of human mind, development of national consciousness and reconstruction of society. New education system is necessary to achieve all these and to meet new challenges. So, for sustainable development balance between science and human values is necessary, and hence value-oriented education is need of the day for all on the globe for development of integrated and balanced personalities.

References Readings: 

Ansari, M.M. (1987). Education and Economic Development. New Delhi: A.I.U. Publication.



Blaug, M. (1926). Introduction to Economics of Education. London: Penguin Books.



Bauman, Z (1992). Intimations of Postomdernity. London: Routledge. http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

57 | P a g e



Kumar, Radha Krishnan. (2002). Garden of Like. Chennai: Macmillan India Ltd.



Solow, R.M. (1962). Technical Progress, Capital Formation and Economic Growth,



American Economic Review, Vol. 52 (2), pp. 76-86.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

58 | P a g e

VALUE EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION Navdeep Kaur

Abstract Values are influenced by the changing philosophical ideologies, sociological perspective social conditions doctrines. In modern India there has been a revolutionary change in the field of values due to many factors in addition to the influence of the western culture, industrialisation, moderanisation urbanisation and other international transactions. It is necessary for us to preserve our traditional values. It is also necessary to make efforts to present a new scheme of values in a clear and complete form. One of the chief task of the contemporary Indian society is to bring about a synthesis of the traditional social values and the modern social values.

Introduction Values education means inculcating in the children a sense of humanism, a deep concern for the well-being of others and the nation. This can be accomplished only when we intill in the children a deep feeling of commitment to values that would build this country and bring back to the people pride in work that brings order, security and assured progress. Value education teachers us to preserve whatever is good and worthwhile in what we have inherited from our culture. All roungg development of the child its head, heart and hand is emphasiesed in basic education proposed by Gandhi. He identified certain values as he basis for the establishemtn of a new social order in India. They are truth, non-violence, democracy, svadharma, equality, selfrealization, self-discipline and cleanliness.

The National Policy on Education 1986 document has given the following justification for value education: 1.

2.

The growing concern over the erosion of essential values and an increasing cynicism in society has brought to focus the need for readjustment in the curriculum in order to make education a forceful tool for the cultivation of social and moral values.

In our culturally plural society education should foster universal and eternal values oriented towards the unity and integration of our people. Such value-oriented education should help eliminate obscurantism, religious fanaticism violence and superstition.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

59 | P a g e

3.

Apart from this combative role education has a profound positive content based on our heritage national goals and universal perceptions.

Varios committees and commissions set-up by government of India before and after independence have beein highlighting the urgent need for incorporating appropriate programmes in our educational system that would directly or indirectly develop among the students an integrated growth of body, mind and spirit.

Social Reconstruction and Value Education in India Value education means inculcating in the children a sense of humanism, deep concern for the well being of others and nation. This can be accomplished only when we instill in the children a deep feeling and commitment to values that would build this country and bring back to the people price in work that brings order, security and assured progress. Value education is a broad framework of sensitising the educational community towards human excellence based on personal experiences. It gives inner direction to man for his all round development centered in moral and spiritual consciousness. It involves three components of human personality viz., cognitive related to thinking; affective related to emotions; feelings and sentiments and; conative related to action, physical manipulation. Further value education has three bases: 1.

Philosophical or metaphysical: Faith and ideal/aim of life and directional and operative concepts for development of values.

2.

Psychological: Self awareness based on needs, motivation, inner capacities, self perceptions and reflections determine the nature of values.

3.

Socio-cultural: Societies cultural heritage, wisdom and ethos enrich the value system.

Value education is a process which provides personal experience to the learner; valuing is the central concept which leads to development of values while internalising one's experience.

Valuing i.e., process of value development follows specific behavioural operations—choosing freely, choosing from among alternatives, choosing after thoughtful considerations of the consequences of each alternative, prizing, cherishing, affirming, acting upon choice and repeating. Value education is a total programme to bring out the best in the learner while inculcating awareness through (a) value judgement strategies; (b) integration of course content; (c) development of personal vision; (d) resolving value; (e) study of Indian Ethics and culture; and (f) comparative study.

Social values refer to those values concerning society. These values are cherished and practiced because of our association with others, the practice of social values necessitates the interaction of two or more persons. Social values are always practiced in relation to our neighbours, community, society, nation and the world. For example, accountability, brotherhood, concerns of environment, courtesy, dialogue, dutifulness, forgiveness, freedom, friendship, gratitude, http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

60 | P a g e

hospitality, justice, love, respectability, service, sharing, sportsmanship, sympathy, team spirit, tolerance etcrqmong all irrespective of caste, community, creed, race and sex.

Objectives of Social Reconstruction Reconstruction of social systems signifies elimination of social scum pollutants and horror .system defects to prevent the production of social filth and pollution. It implies removing their vulnerability to decay deterioration and disintegration. It signifies restoration of their capability for facilitating the social existence of man. Human needs are both existential and developmental.

Social systems are meant to meet both types of needs through inter-human acts and relationships.

Developmental needs consist of man's creative potentialities and spiritual urges. They are reflected in the maxim: man does not live by bread alone. But bread or material needs are also existentially important. The objectives of social reconstruction hence be seen as the fulfillment of man's material needs, creative aspirations and spiritual urges. Social systems are the only entities in and through which such fulfillment is possible.

Social system comprise patterned human interactions and therefore their reconstruction can meaningfully be appraised from this perspective. Human relationships and interactions in delaying and collapsing social systems are characterised by egotism, instability, dishonesty, greed, distrust, jealousy, selfishness, manipulation, tension, antagonism, opprobrium, chauvinism, disorder, conflict, violence, exploitation, destruction, loneliness, depression, helplessness, misery, suffering and sorrow. In reconstructed social systems, these characteristics should be replaced by hope, goodwill, benevolence, understanding, help, regard, respect, sympathy, friendliness, kindness, trust, stability, harmony, satisfaction, grace, sharing, sacrifice, joy, emotive fulfillment and love. Social reconstruction thus involves a polar transformation of existing characteristics of human relationships and interactions.

Values and Social Reconstruction 1.

Truth: Provides mankind with a common super ordinate identity based on divinity.

Realisation of his unity with God becomes the prime goal of man. The appreciation of shared common identity by man thence in principle serves to eliminate socially divisive based of his self-concepts and images, caste, class, community, creed, culture, language, race, religion, sect and political ideology become irrelevant as the cohesive forces of human groupings. The whole mankind is seen as belonging to a single caste of humanity.

All persons become kin through their common fatherhood in a loving God.

2.

Love: Love orientation begins to permeate social relationships and interactions. With its growth and extension, the social orbits of individual come to be increasingly pervaded by love. Social relationships and transactions come to be characterised by the positive symptoms of warmth, mutual, regard, sincerity, kindness, co-operation, help, supportiveness, benevolence and soon under such conditions, individual motivations for crime, cruelty, exploitation, enmity, violence and destructions etc., are smothered. Love http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

61 | P a g e

orientation also helps in effective repair and restoration of damaged and broken interpersonal relationships. Expansion and mutualisation implied by love transmutes the very nature of bonds between man and man.

3.

Inner Calm: This orientation protects the mental and physical health of individuals. It also prevents the deterioration of inter human relationships. An internally serene person can withstand situations; of great psychological stress without being mentally damaged.

Sustained psychological stresses involving frustrations, failures and crisis usually turn people into neurotics and psychotics.

Inner clam orientation also helps to halt an aggravation of worsened social relationships.

An internally peaceful person does not react to perceived provocations, harm and humilitations in terms of hate, rage expectations of others who anticipate similar and matching actions from him.

4.

Righteous Action: This consists of quiet and selfless service to others. Its other major component is doing one's duty sincerely without expectations of recognition and reward.

The potential impact of these conative orientations is tremendous. If everyone renders loving, unselfish and silent service to others, it would generate an unprecedented upsurge of inter-human goodwill and co-operation. It would also materially contribute to the task of social amelioration i.e., meaningful help to the poor, deprived, infirm, sick and miserable.

5.

Duty: Sincere performance of one's duty without thought of reward would revolutionise the function of organisation in every sector of society. Economic development, effectiveness of administration and efficiency of public services would benefit tremendously from such a perspective. Production productivity and benefits from development programmes would be enhanced dramatically. They would thence substantively contribute towards the removal of poverty and backwardness.

Inculcation of Values The inculcation of values is by no means a, simple matter. Value Education with all its comprehensiveness involves developing a sensitivity to values; an ability to choose the right values, internalising them, realising them in one's life and living in accordance with them.

Therefore it is not a time-bound affair. It is a life long quest.

In inculcating values, all human faculities such as head, heart and hand should play a role. Thus role education covers the entire domain of learning, the cognitive, affective and psychomotor.

Inculcation of values is influenced by a complex net work of environmental factors such as home, school, peer group, community, the media and society at large. Home takes the higher position in the hierarchy followed by school. As the home, so the society and within the home— http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

62 | P a g e

as the parents so the children and within the school—as the teacher, so the taught, are common sayings.

In the pursuit and promotion of values, the teacher has the most vital role to play. It is the teacher who is the guide, friend and philosopher and the first interaction of children after the parents, is with the teacher. Teachers with vision, dealing with curricular subjects such as languages, science, social science, music, art, work experience and co-curricular activities such as NCC, Scouts and Guides community service, Red Cross, field trips, sports and games can develop suitable strategies and methods which would enable proper transmission of values.

Value could be integrated properly with different subject areas and educational programmes.

Through physical education emphasis on health, strength, agility, grace and beauty can be laid.

One would also develop right attitudes friendliness, self-control, acceptance of victory or defeat, discipline, obedience, order and team spirit. Likewise, work experience will help in perfecting skills, utilising: materials, tools and processes of work, dignity of labour etc.

Conclusion The problem of social reconstruction should be founded on the principles of social justice, the most important of which is the establishment of socio-economic equalities. This means the implementation of all the truth, love, inner calm, righteous action and duty. No piece-meal social engineering would help solve the crisis of modern civilisation. Education while attempting to inculcate the values of social justice through teaching etc., should develop general social awareness that the problem of social reconstruction is for deeper and more complex than that what is required in this context is a system approach i.e., realisation of interconnectedness of preaching and action and the necessary implementation on the concrete plane what is preached.

Reference Readings: 

Gupta, N.L. (1986) Value Education Theory and Practice, Ajmer: Krishna Brothers.



Ruhela, S.P. (1990) Human Values and Education. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited.



Sorokin, P.A. (1958) The Reconstruction of Humanity. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan.



Taneja, V.R. (1986) Inculcation of Human Values. Educational Approach and Strategies in Human Values and Education (ed.) Ruhila, New Delhi: S.P. Sterling Publishers,



Venkataiah, N. (1998) Value Education. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

63 | P a g e

BOOK-REVIEW Merina Islam Manoj Kumar (Ed.) Human Rights for All by Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS), Pehowa (Kurukshetra ) 2012 ISBN 978-81-022377-3-2 pp xv+215 Price: Rs. 500/Human Rights for All highlights the human rights situation in India .The book contains valuable and authoritative information on human rights. This book starts with the basic concepts of human rights and then goes deep into analyzing different aspects of human rights. It is an important work by academicians including research scholars, practitioners and teachers .its and edited book by Manju Kumar. It discusses all angles of human rights scenario as seen in India today. The book contains valuable and authoritative information on human rights In this book various theoretical and practical aspects dealing with human rights violation and implementation touched by the contributors. The book under review is consists of thirty different articles in the field of Human rights and social problems.

The book begin with the chapter “Genesis of International human Rights Regime “ by two writers Dr. Rinka The author has taken account of its international status and gross violation of its internationally recognized norms. The chapter deals with the basic concept of Human rights, universal declaration of human rights, international covenants of human rights.

The second articles by Dr. Vijay Phogat on Human rights and the Indian constitution .the writer shows that how Indian constitution adopted fundamental Rights to safe guard individual liberty and also ensuring social ,economic and political justice for every member of the community .constitution provides the base of human rights and the court explin it according to new conditions Good Governance : A Key to Human Rights by Chander Mohan Mahajan and Chhavi Katyal shows that good governance and human rights are mutually reinforcing. Human rights principles provide a set of values to guide the work of governments and other political and social actors.

They also provide a set of performance standards against which these actors can be held accountable. Moreover, human rights principles inform the content of good governance efforts: they may inform the development of legislative frameworks, policies, programmes, budgetary allocations and other measures. From a human rights perspective, the concept of good

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

64 | P a g e

governance can be linked to principles and rights set out in the main international human rights instruments.

In Human rights and NGO by Kamini Tayal India has a long tradition of social service, social reform and voluntary agencies. , NGOs participate actively in various political, economical and social matters as well as promoting and protecting human rights in our country.

Applied Drama and Activism : Upholding Human rights through Dialogue is really a new dimensions of Human rights. The article very lucidly highlights the importance of the media in highlighting Human right Issue.

Dr. Surjit Singh Dhaliwal discusses the Concept of Human Rights in Guru Granth Sahib .he discusses how Guru Nanak’s philosophy of protest against the inequalities of the existing social system and the oppression of the political set- up provides the seed of a vital and progressive vision of human rights. Sikhism introduced an objective and universal vision of human rights in the 16th century India. The Bani of Guru Nanak is, in facts a cultural index of the awareness of human rights of the early 15th and the 16th century Sikhs. The potentialities of Guru Nanak’s vision of human rights can be explored in the perspective of his scathing attack on contemporary social and political conditions depicted in his Asa-di-var. Guru Nanak says: "Neither caste nor political power can confer real status upon any person."

Human Rights Education and teachers by Savita Arya and Mohinder Kumar intends to discuss how teacher can play a decisive role in selecting and assigned projects on human rights and even they can take initiatives to enrich the school library and personal collection with books and materials on human rights. Education as a Human Rights: position in India by Amita Shmarma and Gagandeep Dhaliwal also focused on almost same issue . The then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan rightly said "Without education, we cannot see beyond ourselves and our narrow surroundings to the reality of global interdependence. Without education, we cannot realize how peoples of other races and religions share the same dreams, the same hopes.

Without education, we cannot recognize the universality of human aims and aspirations.

Reema Kushwaha on Teaching Human Rights to Indian Girls : A Great challenge …….My experience share her experience regarding teaching Human rights to Indian Girls Though Indian Women are gradually assuming their position in the society .But still ill factors existing in the society which can be eradicated by Human rights education and creating awareness among people.

Shivani Batra On Human Rights and the Aged : A Grim Reflection discussed in her article how elderly people are often subject to discrimination and abused by the people and discuss the role of Government ,NGO and Individuals for the welfare of older persons .

Dr. Ranjay Vardhan Discusses Human Rights and Domestic Violence against women.

Domestic violence against women is a human rights violation. While domestic violence is often http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

65 | P a g e

treated as a private matter, the human rights framework provides a tool to challenge this perception and reframe it as a collective problem that society as a whole must address.

Every Rights for every Child : Human Rights Of Domestic and Orphan children by Jyoti Ahuja focus on children of addicts suffer deprivation as the earning member squanders away family income on his vices. Children are increasingly becoming destitute and orphans as parents lose their lives to AIDS, another devastating consequence of substance abuse.

Incidence of Honour Killings Psycho- Social implications on Fundamental Human Rights by Kanika Sharma is a new perspective in the Human Rights .Modernity in today times restricted to consuming latest goods in the market, rather than espousing progressive value .Such a dichotomy has allowed retrograde practices like honour Killing, female foeticide and dowry to gain grounds in contemporary urban societies in redefined ways.

Other Articles on Rights of Students ,by Vivek Torgal talk about students are the human rights of students with particular attention to the rights of special protection an care afforded to the persons studying in educational institutions.

Human Rights of Mentally disabled by Neeti Kamlesh that mentally retarded person has a right to a qualified guardian when this is required to protect his personal well-being and interests. The mentally retarded person has a right to protection from exploitation, abuse and degrading treatment. If prosecuted for any offence, he shall have a right to due process of law with full recognition being given to his degree of mental responsibility.

The Human Rights of People Living with HIV /AIDS : Looking beyond Stigma and Discrimination by Rakesh Thakur is a good paper which discusses some important Human Rights violation of patients suffering from HIV/ AIDS. Sexual Harassment at work place by Pooja Sahni discussed that the majority of the working women have been suffering by partial behaviour of their male superior. Women are legally protected but in daily practice struggling a lot physically and mentally to protect themselves.

The author conclude his paper by saying that if sexual harassment is reported or observed, organization must take a significant action in the investigation and punish a harasser.

Casteism, Social Security and Violation of Human Rights by Desh Raj Sirswal. The writer started his article with a quotation of Dr. B.R Ambedkar that slavery doesn’t merely mean a legalised form of subjection. It means as state of society in which some men are forced to accept from others the purposes which control their conduct. The Evil of Casteism is a biggest threat to Indian Society an attempt is made by author to describe that casteism cause social insecurity and is a form of violation of human rights. He said that when come the present conditions of

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

66 | P a g e

Indian society, it is painful to say we find lots of discrimination and violations of human rights is a common problem. He concluded his chapter with the wording of J.N Mohanty words.

Human Rights victims : Rehabilitation measures of corporate in Orrisa by Manosmita Mahapatra and Prof. C. Aruna .Here the writer explain how POSCO project has faced strong resistance from a vigorous peoples movement on the ground comprised of villagers apprehensive of losing lands and livelihoods .The company located at three districts of Orissa even noforest rights acts has been implemented Reformatory Measure under Indian Criminal Justice System by Sunil Kumar and Jaspal Sigh and Prisoners’ Rights and Humanisation of Criminal justice by Mona Arora shows that victims must have the right to be treated with fairness compassion and respect .There should be coordination between victim,police and justice delivery system that protect the rights and interests of victims and witness including protection of rights of the accused also .

Capital Punishment : A blind Justice by Sukhpreet Kaur where discussion is made on historical background of capital punishment, constitutionality of capital punishment and argument for the abolition of capital punishment.

International Criminal court: scope and analysis of its structure and functions by Upneet Kaur Mangat. He discusses the world needs an ICC for various reasons and the support of the creation of an International Criminal court and finally draw a beautiful conclusion that The ICC has been suffering from functioning of the ICC .

As a whole, if we discount, the minor weakness such as at some places typographical and grammatical mistakes, references and footnote is not well and coherently arrange, the book (edited) is worth reading . The cover page of the book don’t depicts its title, It’s a simple cover page which can be beautifully design with the title above all This book should be appreciated for providing us comprehensive study of various current issues related to human rights and novelty of theme.. This book must be read by every Indian where Human Right is in crisis.

.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

67 | P a g e

NEW PUBLICATION

The Philosophy of Dalit Liberation [Kindle Edition] Desh Raj Sirswal (Editor) Kindle Price (US$): $2.88 You Save: $0.10 (3%) Kindle Price (INR): Rs. 183.00 includes free international wireless delivery via Amazon Whispernet Product Details 

File Size: 642 KB



Print Length: 71 pages



Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited

Publisher: Centre for Studies in Educational, Social and Cultural Development (CSESCD), Milestone Education Society (Regd.), Pehowa (Kuruk (March 26, 2014)  

Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.



Language: English



ASIN: B00JB2DCU8 Link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JB2DCU8#reader_B00JB2DCU8 http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

68 | P a g e

PHILOSOPHY NEWS IN INDIA Society for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (SPPIS), Haryana Second Online Session on the theme Development of Philosophy in India 24th June, 2014 Call for Paper: We are pleased to invite research papers on following themes and related areas. The abstract should not be more than 300 words. Last date of abstract submission is 15th April, 2014 via email id cppiskkr@gmail.com and last date for full paper with registration fee is 15th May, 2014.

Subthemes: The following themes are selected for this session: Philosophy in the Vedic Period ; Philosophy in the Epic Period ; Philosophy in the Sutra Period ; Philosophy in Medieval Period; Philosophy in the Scholastic Period; Philosophy in Modern Period ; Philosophy in 21st Century; Development of Philosophy of Dalits; Development of Muslim Philosophy; Development of Christian Philosophy; Development of Sikh Philosophy; Development of Lingayata Philosophy; Development of Philosophy of Social Sciences; Development of Indian Psychology; Development of Philosophy of Culture; Development of Philosophy of Humanism; Development of Philosophy of Human Rights; Development of Applied Philosophy; Recent Trends of Philosophy in India; Any other topic relevant to theme.

Guidelines for Submission of Paper: Font style : Times New Roman (MS word) Title : Font Size 14 in capital Author’s Name , Designation and Affiliation : Font Size 12 Key words : Not more than five Abstract : Font Size 12, single spacing Full Paper : Font Size 12, one and a half spacing Length of the Paper: 2000-2500 words.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

69 | P a g e

The acceptance of the paper will be communicated to the author via e-mail within fifteen days of submission. Selected papers will be published in a book having ISBN later.

Contact: Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal, Near Guga Maidi, House No. 255/6, Balmiki Basti, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)-136128 (Haryana) Mob. No.09896848775, 08288883993 Email: cppiskkr@gmail.com.

Visit this site for details: http://sppish2session.wordpress.com/

Call for Papers Milestone Education Review (The Journal of Ideas on Educational & Social Transformation) ISSN: 2278-2168 Respected Faculty/Scholar/Professor, Milestone Education Review (The Journal of Ideas on Educational & Social Transformation) is an online peer-reviewed bi-annual journal of Milestone Education Society (Regd.) Pehowa (Kurukshetra). For us education refers to any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character, or physical ability of an individual. The role of education must be as an instrument of social change and social transformation. Social transformation refers to large scale of social change as in cultural reforms and transformations. The first occurs with the individual, the second with the social system. This journal offers an opportunity to all academicians including educationist, social-scientists, philosophers and social activities to share their views. Each issue contains about 100 pages. This is a special call for papers for Milestone Education Review, Year 05, No. 02 (October, 2014) issue.

Theme: Higher Education in India The education system in India, especially Higher Education is rapidly changing due to the policies of privatization followed by the Govt. of India. This accompanied by the thrust on increasing the enrolment ratio in higher education, has helped in opening of more colleges and universities based upon public, private and public-private funding models. The influx of foreign universities also expected to challenge the existing curricula and notions about higher education.

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

70 | P a g e

In light of the above, the coming issue of Higher Education by Milestone Education Review will aim at a comprehensive understanding of the contemporary issues in higher education in India.

Article/Research papers are invited on the following themes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Challenges before Indian Higher Education RUSA – the Concept and Practical Implications Higher Education and Challenges of Globalization Higher Education and Character building of the Youth Employability of the Youth in the Current System of Education Changing Meaning and Ideologies in the Philosophy of Education Gender Sensitization and Awareness of Human Rights through Higher Education Higher Education and Social Implications Any other issue related to Higher Education

Kindly submit your original/unpublished articles on the above themes .

Guest Editor: Dr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Professor, P.G. Department of Sociology, P.G.Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh. (manojsociologist@yahoo.co.in) Last date for paper submission: 31st August, 2014 Format of Submission: The paper should be typewritten preferably in Times New Roman with 12 font size (English) in MS-Word 2003-2007. They should be typed on one side of the paper, double spaced with ample margins. The authors should submit the hard copy along with a CD (or email) and a certificate of originality of the paper to be sent to the editorial address. Kindly use APA Reference Style.

All contributions to the Journal, other editorial enquiries and books for review are to be sent to: Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal, Near Guaga Maidi, Balmiki Basti, H.No.255/6, Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra (HARYANA)-136128 (India) Mobile No.09896848775, 08288883993, E-mail: cppiskkr@gmail.com, mses.02@gmail.com, Website: http://milestonereview.webs.com For more details of seminars, conferences, jobs and workshops etc. kindly visit to Philosophy News in India: http://newsphilosophy.wordpress.com

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

71 | P a g e

CONTRIBUTORS OF THIS ISSUE Dr. S. Lourdunathan, Associate Professor & Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai.

Ms. Jayashree Deka, Research Scholar, Department of Philosophy, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, A.P. (India).

Mr. A.Malliga, Research Scholar, Department of Philoosphy, Pondicherry University.

Dr. Surinder Kaur, Associate Professor, Khalsa College of Education, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Dr. Navdeep Kaur Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.

Dr. Merina Islam, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Cachar College, Silchar (Assam)

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

72 | P a g e

Instructions to the Contributors LokÄ yata: Journal of Positive Philosophy (ISSN 2249-8389) welcomes contributions in all areas of research proposed by the Centre. All articles are sent to experts who evaluate each paper on several dimensions such as originality of the work, scientific argument, and English style, format of the paper, references, citations and finally they comment on suitability of the article for the particular Journal. In case of review articles the importance of the subject and the extent the review is comprehensive are assessed. Prospective authors are expected that before submitting any article for publication they should see that it fulfills these criteria. The improvement of article may be achieved in two ways (i) more attention to language (ii) more attention to the sections of the article.

Format of Submission: The paper should be typewritten preferably in Times New Roman with 12 font size (English) and Kruti Dev (10) with 14 font size (Hindi) in MS-Word 2003-07 and between 3000 to 5000 words. They should be typed on one side of the paper, double spaced with ample margins. The authors should submit the hard copy along with a CD and a certificate of originality of the paper to be sent to the editorial address.

Time Line: The last dates of submission of the manuscript are as follows: For April to September Issue: 31stAugust every year.

For October to March Issue: 31st January every year.

Reference Style: Notes and references should appear at the end of the articles as Notes. Citations in the text and References must correspond to each other; do not over reference by giving the obvious/old classic studies or the irrelevant. Give all journal titles in full and not in an abbreviated form, LJPP follows APA format for references. The following style of reference may be strictly followed: In case of Journal: Venkona Rao,A.(1980) Gita and mental sciences. Indian Journal of Psyhiatry, 22, 19-31.

In case of a Book: McKibben, B. (1992). The age of missing information. New York: Random House, 23-24.

Chapter in an Edited Book: Hartley, J. T., Harker J. O.,& Walsh, D. A. (1980). Contemporary issues and new directions in adult development of learning and memory. In L. W. Poon (Ed.), Aging in the 1980s:Psychological issues . Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,250-253.

For unpublished work: Gould, J. B. (1999). Symbolic Speech: Legal mobilization and the rise of collegiate hate speech codes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1999),54-55.

In case of institution/Govt. Report: Administration on Aging. (1984). Alzheimer's disease handbook (DHHS Publication No. OHDS 84-20813). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 65.

For detailed reference-style sheet follow our CPPIS Manual for Contributors & Reviewers available at http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

73 | P a g e

CPPIS, Pehowa (Kurukshetra) Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies(CPPIS) Pehowa is a joint academic venture of Milestone Education Society (Regd.) Pehowa and Society for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (SPPIS), Haryana (online) to do fundamental research in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences.

SPPIS Newsletter The Centre also circulates a Newsletter which includes new information related to events, new articles and programme details. One can register himself on the below given address and will get regular updates from us.

Link for registration: http://positivephilosophy.webs.com/apps/auth/signup

All contributions to the Journal, other editorial enquiries and books for review are to be sent to: Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal, Chief-Editor, Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy, Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS), Milestone Education Society (Regd), Valmiki Dharamshala, Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra (HARYANA)-136128 (India) Mobile No.09896848775, 08288883993 E-mail: cppiskkr@gmail.com, mses.02@gmail.com Website: http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

“My objective is to achieve an intellectual detachment from all philosophical systems, and not to solve specific philosophical problems, but to become sensitively aware of what it is when we philosophise.”- Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com