On 29th August, 2024, Department of Political Science organized a talk on ‘Sri Aurobindo and Ambedkar’, delivered by Prof. Anant Kumar Giri from Madras Institude of Developmental Studies, Chennai. Prof. K K Kailash, head of the department, (political science) opened the talk with an introduction of the speaker, mentioning his wide-ranging scholarship and publication of more than fifteen books on various subjects.
Prof. Giri’s talk revolved around the emancipatory potential and transnational, planetary visions that both these thinkers offer. Recalling Confucius’ injunction to ‘study together’, he played on the words, urging us to read ‘together’ thinkers who are not conventionally brought into conversation with each other. Ambedkar and Aurobindo form one such dyad. Aurobindo had, already in 1900s, questioned the compatibility of caste with democracy. Speaker cited his life-long aversion towards rigidities of caste-order to establish parallels with Ambedkar.
Ambedkar, along with Nehru, is often called ‘statist’, but Prof. Giri pointed out, after a close reading of ‘Buddha and His Dhamma,’ that Ambedkar was keenly aware of the limits of state, and modernity in general, which is also characteristic of Aurobindo. Constitutional morality, lauded by Ambedkar, lends itself to be transformed into a ‘constitutional spirituality’, the need for which is evident in today’s world. As the post-modern alternative has proven inadequate and possibilities of trans-modernity are being explored, a re-reading of thinkers from the Global South becomes extremely relevant. The primacy of the ‘political’ over ‘moral’ in political theory is no more an obvious, unanimous, truth.
Prof. Giri cautioned the audience against simple appropriation of these thinkers, compromising their internal complexity and subtlety. Ambedkar’s criticism of tradition co-exists with fragments that open up possibilities of a different reading- an example being his discussion of Upanishads and Brahmaism. He resisted being classified as the intrinsic human-ness cannot be ‘pigeon-holed’. If pursued, these open ends can lead us to see the parallels between ‘Bhikkhu Ambedkar’ and ‘Yogi-revolutionary Aurobindo’. He claimed that the ‘trampling’ of Savitri on the ‘laws of death’ with her ‘living feet’ echoes with Rohith Vemula’s last words. In a larger sense, Adi Shankar’s ‘na me jati-bheda’ in Atma-Shatakam, Aurobindo Savitri, Ambedkar’s Annihilation of caste and Vemula’s last letter can be read together, despite myriad differences of context and content, as being animated by a same transcendental, emancipatory possibility.
The discussant, Rajat Pratap, from MA Political Science, highlighted the important arguments of the lecture. He also pointed out the two very different readings that both these thinkers offer of a central text, Bhagwat-Gita. The mystifying reverence of Aurobindo, his acceptance of violence as a cosmic principle for existence and creation, seems fundamentally at odds with Ambedkar’s demystifying critique and revelation of the ‘intimate violence’ hidden and legitimated by the very tradition that Aurobindo builds on. In his reply, Prof. Giri reiterated the need to focus on subtleties and reminded that Aurobindo builds on a heterogenous tradition ranging from Thiruvalluvar to Nietzsche and Heraclitus.
Audience raised some insightful points, ranging from the nature of ‘Shudra-Shakti’, to the need for reinterpreting both tradition and modernity. Ganeshwar pointed out the discomfort of Indian scholarship in acknowledging Ambedkar’s embrace of modernism. Prof. Arun Patnaik, faculty in department of Political Science, offered Gramscian understanding of ‘organic-unity’ that Aurobindo celebrated, and distinguished between cultural and a-cultural modernisms. Prof. Giri graciously responded to these questions, and urged not to approach a thinker with already firm beliefs and closed minds. The lecture came to an end with a vote of thanks by Ann Varughese (MA Political Science), and a lively, informal interaction with the students afterwards.
Rajat Pratap (23spma67)
Department of Political Science