Community, Common Good and Democracy: Indian Response to Western Communitarianism1

Dr .P. Kesava Kumar, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Philosophy, PondicherryUniversity pkesav@gmail.com

Abstract

In recent times, Communitarianism emerged as a politicaltheory in opposition to ‘classical liberalism’ and‘capitalism’. The communitarian debate is in response toindividual centred liberal democracy. It defines person interms of social bonds and cultural traditions rather thanthrough individual traits. In the West, against John Rawlsliberal philosophy, the communitarian views got expressionin the works of Charles Taylor, Mac Intyre, Micheal Sandeland Micheal Walzer. The communitarian thinkers are findingproblems with Rawls liberal theory and favored community inplace of abstract individual in an emancipatory politicalproject. They believe that a social conception of human lifegives rise to a distinctive set of concepts and value, andleads to a different vision of a good society. Liberalsinsist that democratic self-government requires a fair andneutral political framework in which individuals can enjoyfreedom and be treated as equals. Communitarian views thatdemocracy requires that individuals embody the virtues thatmake them capable of the true freedom of self-government,and that these virtues can be properly nurtured only withinthe context of a proper community. The debate that tookplace in West, between liberals and communitarians hasdifferent meanings in Indian context. In this backdrop, the

1 This paper was published in International Research Journal of SocialSciences, Vol.2 No.2, 2009, pp.199-214, Pondichery University,Pondicherry, India.

indigenous thinkers like Gandhi and Ambedkar may providelots of insights in response to liberal-communitariandebates of the west. However, the position of Indianindigenous thinkers is complex and provides solution to thecrisis of western political theory. Especially, Ambedkar’sphilosophy has a potential to mediate both liberalism andcommunitarianism from the non western context.

Key Words: Communitarianism, Liberalism, Individualism,Community, Embedded self, Modernity, Democracy, Common good,Justice and Globalization

Introduction to Communitarianism

In the West, the political theory based on communityidentified as ‘communitarianism’ has emerged as a newphilosophical thought in opposition to ‘classicalliberalism’ and ‘capitalism’. They consider these traditionsas ontologically and epistemologically incoherent andadvocating phenomenon such as civil society. Communitariansseek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civilsociety. In general, communitarians refers to aphilosophical position that defines a person in terms ofsocial bonds and cultural traditions rather than throughindividual traits. They believe that a social conception ofhuman life gives rise to a distinctive set of concepts andvalues, and leads to a different vision of a good society.The communitarianism has been ranging from conservative toprogressive ideals of collective life. To work out for thedemocratic community, the communitarians have beenphilosophically engaged with the terms such as common good,commitments to particular others, social practices, sharedmeanings and public spiritedness rather than in the terms oftraditional liberalism. In traditional liberal theory,community has understood as non political category. Forcommunitarians of modern times, community has not onlyoccupies the centre of political theory but also argued forthe traditional liberal values of freedom and equality. Inthe west, very particularly Anglo- American countries, theliberal philosophy established as the dominant tradition as

the most of its countries are governed by liberal politicalregimes. Against the Rawls liberal philosophy, thecommunitarian views got expression in the works of AlasdairMac Intyre, Charles Taylor and Micheal Sandel, MichealWalzer.

To certain extent, communitarian theory shares with postmodernists and feminist in their criticism against theabstract individual of liberalism. Both communitarians andFeminists share a common point on the attack of theliberalism on the issue of modernity, on the ground that itdenies the embeddedness in social the social world that isdefinitive of human life. Both claim that the Cartesiansubject ‘disembodies’ in the sense that it denies thecontextual life of the body within a social setting.’ But atthe same time, feminist politics will take differentdirection. Some of the Feminists are even about bothliberalism and communitarianism by suspecting that both mayultimately leads to patriarchy.1 The communitarian politicsare also looked differently in the Middle East, especiallycountries like Iran in its post revolutionary era.2 InIndia, rise of communitarian politics of majoritarian hindunationalism on one hand, marginalized politics based onidentity (Dalit, Women, Telangana etc.) provides an occasionto understand the complexity involved in assessing thecommunitarian politics in practice.

The idea of community

The concept of community is constructed and deployed inrecent social and political theory. Community has very oftencontinued to be articulated in recent political and publicpolicy debates. Today there are many on going strugglescentred around the concept of community. The struggles forrights were based imagination of citizen, nation and1 Hekman, Susan. The embodiment of the subject: Feminism and Communitarian critique of liberalism, The Journal of the Politics Vol.54No.4 November. 1992 2Dalacoura, Katerina. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference to Post -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002) 28, pp.75 -92

community and had implication for democracy. ‘Community’ isinvoked as a justification for reorganization of stateinstitutions, as the source of care and support forindividuals, and as an entity that is valuable in its ownright and must therefore be sustained and defended. AsPutnam identifies that, social capital is a key component tobuilding and maintaining democracy. In the West, thepolitical theory based on community identified as‘communitarianism’ has emerged as a new philosophicalthought in opposition to ‘classical liberalism’ and‘capitalism’. They consider these traditions asontologically and epistemologically incoherent andadvocating phenomenon such as civil society. Communitariansseek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civilsociety. . Communitarians have often embraced one form oranother of ‘social constructionism’.Of course, invariablyone may find tensions and contradictions within the conceptof community. Community is both inclusive and exclusive,both organized and unstructured, both hierarchical andegalitarian. The analysis of the concept ‘community’ revealsthe role of ideas and ideals in shaping political action,and also the barriers to the realization of community inpractical context. It is even to difficult to placecommunitarians either in wholly right or left and manyclaim to represent a sort of radical middle.The strength orweakness of communitarians lies in its advocacy of commongood evolved from the practices of multicultural societies.Common good serves as a substantive vision for ethical lifeof community. This plays a decisive role in articulatingrights and defining democracy.

The word community connotes many meanings depending on thecontext. Community is linked to locality, in the physical,geographical sense of a community that is located somewhere.Communities of place, or communities based on geographicallocation. Communities of memory have refers to imaginedcommunities that have a shared history going back severalgenerations. Besides tying us to the past, such communitiesturn us towards the future — members strive to realize the

ideals and aspirations embedded in past experiences.Psychological communities or communities of face-to-facepersonal interaction have governed by sentiments of trust,co-operation, and altruism. This refers to a group ofpersons who participate in common activity and experience apsychological sense of togetherness as shared ends aresought.

Some of the features of communitarianism are: By nature,human beings are social animals. They always exist in anetwork of other people and within the social institutionsand culture of their society. No sharp distinction can bedrawn between the public and private spheres. The privatesphere is a fluctuating social construct with few if anyintrinsic contents of its own. Although it is important thatthere be a private sphere, to protect against undueencroachments of public pressure and to acknowledge thediversity of human tastes, values, and ways of life, whatcounts as private will be a societal decision. communitarianwill begin with the welfare of a society as a whole as theanalogous starting point—understanding "welfare" in thebroadest sense, as encompassing the traditions, politicalinstitutions, characteristic practices and values, andculture commitments of a society.

The embedded self

Modernism adheres to transcendental subject of Cartesian andKantian tradition. The rational, autonomous, disembodied,and constituting subject of this tradition is theepistemological ground of the search for indubitableknowledge, the search that is the hallmark of modernity. Onone hand post modernists question the transcendent,constituting subject of Cartesian tradition, challenging thecontention that this subject is source of either knowledgeor meaning. They argue for the discursive subject. Thefeminists attack on the Cartesian subject, is thatinherently masculine. Its characteristic rationality andautonomy have been defined as solely masculine, exclusive ofwhich has been defined as feminine. Feminist have argued for

a subject that is connected rather autonomous, constitutedby the necessary connections that binds us as human beingsto those around us. The communitarians argue that autonomousand ‘unencumbered’ subject of liberalism is incoherent. Forthem transcendental subject is unintelligible, andfurthermore fosters the loneliness and alienationcharacteristic of liberal society. These discussions revealsan alternative to modern subject, emerged as it isconstituted rather than constituting, connected rather thanautonomous, discursive rather than transcendental.

Micheal Sandel’s ‘Liberalism and the Limits of Justice’ hadcritique the subject of Rawls. He argues Rawls attempt todefine a conception of self that avoids the pitfalls ofKant’s radically disembodied subject on one hand and aconception of a self that radically situated on the other.

For Rawls we are distinct people first and then that we forrelationship with others, that is, that subjects areantecedently individuated. For Rawls’ subject nocharacteristics are essential; all are contingent. As Sandelpointed out for this subject, community can only be anattribute and never be a constituent element. Despite thefact that self reflection has always been seen as central tothis transcendental subject, Rawls’ subject precludes thepossibility of self- reflection; his subject can neverreflect on its self as self, only on contingent desires.Since the subject has nothing to reflect on, self-knowledgethus becomes a mere awareness of desires, not a truereflection.3 Sandel argues, the liberal theory of Rawls, cannot support its liberal claim that justice is the primaryvirtue of a good society. According to Sandel, a plausiblemodel of a good society must start with fully constitutedmoral subject. He argues Rawls theory rules out thepossibility that the moral person is essentially constitutedby family, culture, friendship, and locality. Sandelcritically examine the Rawls contention that each person3 Sandel, Micheal. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pp 153-160

chooses what values to adopt and what fundamental aims toaccept. On this Sandel asks, what could be the basis forthese choices, if a person has no prior conception of thegood?4

The other conception of the conception of the subject thatopposes the liberalism found in the works of Communitarianthinker, MacIntyre. He proposed an alternative totranscendental subject, that he calls it as narrative self.This narrative self defined by the roles available in agiven community. MacIntyre conception of narrative selfdeparts more radically from the modernist subject than doesthat of Sandel. According him, a person is fully human onlywithin a coherent tradition, since is through a traditionthat an individual gains self understanding and it isthrough social practices that he or she is able to live ameaningful life. Morality is a function of this selfunderstanding and these social practices. In his works, AfterVirtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, attacks the ethicaldiscourse that characterizes modern thought and the conceptof self on which it rests. He identifies the modernistsubject as ‘emotivist self’, a subject devoid of ultimatecriteria or social identity. The premodern self, in contrastwas constituted by its telos and identification with tribeor kinship. Sandel argues that the empty self of liberaltheory is inadequate to the demands of justice incommunities. MacIntyre goes beyond this to argue thatemotivist self and the ethics it represents are a result ofthe failure of enlightenment thought to find a rationalbasis for morality.5Macintyre rejects the individualism andargued for the uncontaminated communalism. He tries toreplace the essentialism of modernist thought with other

4 Sandel, Micheal. Justice and Moral subject In Markate Daley (Ed.) Communitarianism: A New Public Ehic,California:Wordsworth Publishing Company,1994 Pp.79-88

5 Hekman, Susan. The embodiment of the subject: Feminism and Communitarian critique of liberalism, The Journal of the Politics Vol.54No.4 November. 1992 p.1004

alternative essentialism. The life of a person as anarrative set in a particular cultural group and scripted bythe stories and myths of a tradition. He explains that thegood life can never be achieved by a person alone, but onlyas an integrated member of a community. MacIntyre arguesthat the individualism, acquisitiveness and adversarialrelations found in liberal societies, undermine thetraditions through which people develop the social virtuesnecessary to their own well-being and proper functioning oftheir community. It is possible that the romanticization ofpremodern society ignores the hierarchy and oppressionendemic to that society. Embracing the romantic conceptionof the community without scrutiny will not solve theproblems posed by the disembodied self.

Charles Taylor, the other important thinker ofcommunitarians too argues that traditional liberal theory’sconceptualization of individual identity is too abstract,instrumentalist, and one dimensional. The ideally free agentfaces total emptiness, in which nothing can be recognizedany more as intrinsic worth .A more realistic understandingof the "self" recognized what Taylor called "horizons ofmeaning", the important background of social and dialogicalrelations with others, against which life choices gainimportance and meaning. He argued that the institutions ofliberal industrial societies have been strained to thebreaking point by un-ameliorated capitalistdevelopment .People are caught in meaningless jobs, arehumiliated by subordination, and are driven to acquire moreand more commodities, they have very little control overtheir cultural priorities. This leads them, Taylor warns, tofeel anomie and alienation, to experience a loss of self. Byfailing to satisfy its citizens need to direct and realizetheir own personal fulfillment, the institutions, practices,and structures of liberal states are in danger of losingtheir legitimacy. They are undergoing a ‘legitimationcrises’. Taylor identifies that this problem could be tracedto the individualism and pursuit of individual rightsembodied in liberalism. The modern exaltation of individual

freedom ends up eroding the loyalties and allegiances to thewider community which any society needs to survive.According to him, both personal freedom and individual selfdevelopment should be viewed as part of a system of socialattachments in families, neighbors, and communities. Furtherhe problematised the conception of modern identity and onthe rationale that it operates. Our modern identitysustained by our status as citizens with equal rights and asproducers in economy of a given society. Taylor considersthese features of the modern identity a natural basis for arights-based culture. He further identifies the internalcontradictions contained within the modern identity, sothat, by undermining the family, citizenship, and community,it erodes the very conditions of freedom. He considersour(Canadians) agenda will then no longer be defined alimiting or slowing down the progress of modern values, butrather as finding a way to rescue them in their integrity,as against the distortions and perversions that havedeveloped in modern history. 6

On Democracy: Liberal Vs Communitarians

The debate between liberals and communitarians is in part adispute about what democracy requires. Liberals insist thatdemocratic self-government requires a fair and neutralpolitical framework in which individuals can enjoy freedomand be treated as equals. As such, a democratic state mustbe as minimal as possible; its primary function is tomaintain the social conditions and political institutionsunder which free and equal persons can live harmoniouslytogether. On the communitarian view, democracy requires thatindividuals embody the virtues that make them capable of thetrue freedom of self-government , and that these virtues canbe properly nurtured only within the context of a propercommunity. Therefore, the state in a democratic society mustundertake the project of forming its citizens' characters by6 Taylor, Charles. The Modern Identity In Markate Daley (Ed.) Communitarianism: A New Public Ehic,California:Wordsworth Publishing Company,1994 Pp55-71

providing the necessary conditions under which communities,and hence the individuals who compose them, can flourish. Astate that fails to embrace this formative role isillegitimate since it fails to provide the conditionsnecessary for freedom; it "cannot secure the liberty itpromises, because it cannot sustain the kind of politicalcommunity and civic engagement that liberty requires.

Liberals posit a self that is by nature autonomous and thusenters into social associations by voluntary choice. Thedemocratic state is one among many associations that theself may choose to join, and it does so as a way offurthering its own interests. Accordingly, the democraticstate must remain neutral with regard to questions aboutwhat individuals ought to pursue in life, about what kind oflife is good. The individual's capacity to choose aconception of the good for himself is the essence ofliberty. The policies of a democratic state must thereforenot presuppose any specific moral conceptions beyond thoserequired for protecting the individuals it governs.Communitarians argue that such a view of the nature of theself is false. According to communitarians, selves areessentially tied to the social contexts within which theylive. Such contexts form the dispositions, desires,interests, and commitments of individuals. Communitarianthinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and CharlesTaylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overlyindividualistic conception of the self. Whereas so close tous that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all.This insight led to the view that politics should not beconcerned solely with securing the conditions forindividuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice,as we also need to sustain and promote the socialattachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect,many of which have been involuntarily picked up during thecourse of our upbringing.

Both liberals and communitarians have appealed to the ideaof public deliberation as a way of meeting their opponents'

challenges. Liberals insist that democratic self-governmentrequires a fair and neutral political framework in whichindividuals can enjoy freedom and be treated as equals. Assuch, a democratic state must be as minimal as possible; itsprimary function is to maintain the social conditions andpolitical institutions under which free and equal personscan live harmoniously together. Of course, liberals disagreeabout the proper boundaries of state action. Robert Nozickcriticizes John Rawls's Difference Principle for being toointrusive, and Nozick is in turn criticized for reducing theliberal state to a night watchman. Despite disagreementsover the details, liberals maintain that any state actionthat aims for something beyond protecting freedom andmaintaining equal treatment constitutes unjust andunjustifiable interference with liberty. Liberals proposes anegative theory of liberty.

The communitarianism rejects the negative theory of liberty.On the communitarian view, democracy requires thatindividuals embody the virtues that make them capable of thetrue freedom of self-government, and that these virtues canbe properly nurtured only within the context of a propercommunity. Therefore, the state in a democratic society mustundertake the project of forming its citizens' characters byproviding the necessary conditions under which communities,and hence the individuals who compose them, can flourish. Astate that fails to embrace this formative role isillegitimate since it fails to provide the conditionsnecessary for freedom; it "cannot secure the liberty itpromises, because it cannot sustain the kind of politicalcommunity and civic engagement that liberty requires"7

Communitarians argue that such a view of the nature of theself is false. According to communitarians, selves areessentially tied to the social contexts within which theylive. Such contexts form the dispositions, desires,interests, and commitments of individuals. As these initial

7 Sandel, Micheal. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. P 24

contexts are not the products of individual choice, selvesare not essentially apolitical, autonomous, andfreestanding; they are essentially "situated" and"encumbered" 8 Sandel's call for a politics based upon"settled roots and established traditions," Communitariansreject moral epistemology entailed by liberal individualism,arguing that moral values are socially, not individuallyderived.

Communitarians have sought to deflate the universalpretensions of liberal theory. Libertarianism is anindividualist philosophy, with a strong focus on the rightsof citizens in a democracy. Whereas the libertarian Rawlsseemed to present his theory of justice as universally true,communitarians argued that the standards of justice must befound in forms of life and traditions of particularsocieties and hence can vary from context to context. Rawlsargues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing,and revising our own life-plans. He neglects the fact thatour selves tend to be defined or constituted by variouscommunal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to areligious tradition). Communitarians believe that there istoo much focus on these concerns, arguing that "theexclusive pursuit of private interest erodes the network ofsocial environments on which we all depend, and isdestructive to our shared experiment in democratic self-government. They believe that rights must be accompanied bysocial responsibility and maintenance of the institutions ofcivil society if these rights are to be preserved, butlibertarians believe that government actions to promotethese ends actually result in a loss of individual liberty.Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor argued that moral andpolitical judgment will depend on the language of reasonsand the interpretive framework within which agents viewtheir world, hence that it makes no sense to begin thepolitical enterprise by abstracting from the interpretivedimensions of human beliefs, practices, and institutions.

8 Sandel , Micheal. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982 p. 179.

Michael Walzer developed the additional argument thateffective social criticism must derive from and resonatewith the habits and traditions of actual people living inspecific times and places. In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyredefended the Aristotelian ideal of the intimate,reciprocating local community bound by shared ends, wherepeople simply assume and fulfill socially given roles.

In India, there are serious debates on performance ofdemocracy after a half century. There are many socialaspirations and political articulations in building thenation state and its citizenship. On the issues of freedomand rights tensions prevail over liberal and socialistideals. The individual interests are in conflict with theinterests of community. Some times, the politics in the nameof community has seen threat to the very ideals of thedemocracy. In this context, the politics based oncommunitarianism has to be evaluated on different criteriasuch as common good for deliberating democracy.

Communitarianism: An Indian Response

The debate that took place in West, between liberals andcommunitarians has different meanings in Indian context. Inwestern political theory, Liberalism has established as adominant tradition in the line of market logic. Againstthis, Marxist radicalism and religious conservatism leveledtheir criticism from two different perspectives. The formerderives its theory from collective labour and the latterfrom collective life shaped by the age old customs andreligious beliefs. With the changed situation, to addressthe rights and democratic concerns of the groups/individualsin a multicultural set up, communitarianism as a politicaltheory got its importance. It has internalizes bothconservative and Marxist streams, to argue against liberaltheory. As it is identified both liberalism andcommunitarianism had its own limitations. This reflects thecrisis of western political theory. Some of the scholarsargue that the basic foundations of western political theorylied on weak premises. The non- western nations like India

may provide some insights to address this in meaningful waybecause of its different political process. The nationalistthinkers emerged out of anti-colonial struggles willdefinitely broaden the political theory with their rigor ofjustice and democracy. Gandhi and Ambedkar are of two suchthinkers operates on two different realms for realization ofthe common good and democracy of the nation.

The dominant idea prevalent among the West about the Easternsocieties is communitarian and that individualism wasabsent. These societies are based on caste, clan and family.Where as the western societies were built on individual.This idea is often reflects in the 19th century westernscholarship. The trust on individual becomes a feature inlatter discourses after having contact with west. But onecan see the coexistence of the tradition and modernity couldbe seen in the political projects of Indian thinkers. Theyappealed to individualism and reason of modernity ofdifferent kind by withholding the indigenous tradition inarticulating their political demands. In simple terms, moralself plays an important role in their political thinkingeither in fighting against the British colonialism or of thestruggles within. What constitutes the moral self isdebating point. Both Gandhi and Ambedkar, the indigenousIndian thinkers are arguing in favor of moral self butdiffer on its manifestation. This has significantimplications in lager politics of contemporary times inmaking nation state and in persuasion of democratic society.Gandhi’s project of social reconstruction and politics hasbased on ‘Hindu self’, derived from the tradition ofVedanta. He considers this as all inclusive, eternal,permanent, universal and non discriminatory. Ambedkar’smoral self has drawn from the Budhism, another indigenoustradition of India. In principle, this is against theHinduism and its social order, especially against the castesystem. Ambedkar’s ‘Budhist self’ imbibes the principles ofequality, liberty and fraternity and in constant flux.Though both of them are located in same historical context,the social constituency that they are addressing is

different. Thus we may find different positions withinIndian communitarianism.

Debating Gandhi and Ambedkar

Debating Gandhi and Ambedkar in the contemporary Indianpolitical scenario, exclusively in the context ofglobalization, not only provide two different view points oncommunitarian politics, and they had greater implications inunderstanding democracy. The theory and practice culminatedin both leaders and emerged as power symbols of contemporaryindian society. Both of them imbibed strong liberal impulsesand always looked individual in relation to society. Theyargued in favour of reflexive individualism as againstliberal abstractive and possessive individual. Theirindividual is located in the social and cultural context.The individual had source in religion. For them religionacts as a moral community. Both of them differ with Marxismto certain extent by emphasizing on spiritualism.Both ofthem ultimately developed their theories of politics onmoral autonomy of individual rather abstract individual. Themorality has seen inseperable from the shared social beliefslies such as in community, religion or nation. Gandhi as athinker he operated on the imagination of the community ofideal Hindu Society based on varnashramadharma. Gandhi wasneither an uncritical traditionalist nor a dogmatic opponentof all aspects of modernity. The way he drew upon traditionin formulating his worldview was creative and owed much tohis exposure to western values and institutions. Heconsistently claimed to be a sanatani Hindu, but rejected theauthority of even the scriptures on particular issues iftradition offended reason or morality. In regarding reasonand moral sense as the primary sources of good conduct,Gandhi asserted the right of the individual to arrive atjudgments and, if necessary, to defend them againstcollective opinion, whether traditional or contemporary.9

9 Madan .T.N. Gandhi’s Altruistic Individualism , Opinion, Hindu News Paper, October 2, 2002

At the same time Ambedkar is critical about hindu socialorder in any of its form and argued for moral communitybased on Buddhism. Ambedkar’s conception of is very novel.He does not confirm to either Hindu ideal community orMarxist conception of community based on participation inproduction process. His conception of community is moral andethical. It is not automatically available for participationin common affairs. His idea of community has to be createdthrough hard and torturous process of moral transformation.When Ambedkar criticizes Hindu community for its oppressivenature, he does it with a standard of individual liberty andfreedom. When he is talking about suffering of individualmembers of Dalit community he is projecting an ideal moralcommunity based on equality, liberty and fraternity. So itis not correct to call Ambedkar as either fierceindividualis or as a strong communitarianism.10 An idealsociety should be mobile, should be full of channels forconveying a change taking place in one part to other parts.In ideal society many interests consciously communicated andshared and the social practices are grounded in democraticideals.

In bringing Gandhi and Ambedkar into the debates ofcommunitarianism, one has to understand the historicalcontext of these thinkers. The modernity has oftenidentified with the west and its scientific rationality,while looking down other (their colonies) as traditional andirrational. Modernity has equated with industrialization,scientific and technological advancement that was limited towestern countries. The so called modernity suited colonialinterests at the expense of the colonized. Keeping this inmind, the rationale of modernity put forwarded by the westwas questioned. The Indian nationalist thinkers, both Gandhiand Amedkar has overcome the dichotomy of tradition andmodernity and contested the modernity of the West. Gandhi inhis Hind Swaraj tried to integrate new patterns of thought and

10 Kesava Kumar, P. Political Philosophy of Ambedkar: An Inquiry into the Philosophical Foundations of Dalit Movement, 2005. Pp.142-143 (Unpublished Post Doctroral thesis submitted to ICPR as General Fellow)

action on traditional culture. He attempted a merger ofthree levels of Indian social system, viz., socialstratification, culture and polity into a pattern so thatthe break down of Indian tradition could be averted.Gandhi’s critique of western civilization was a critique ofmodernity and his central argument is that no enduringalternative can be pursued unless that alternativenegotiated to the kills, capacities and wisdom of thepeople.11The critique of the tradition is accompanied inAmbedkar by a refusal to accept readymade alternativesmanufactured in the west. He upholds the moral basis of lifewhile allowing critical reason to operate. He considersBudhism as against the Gandhi’s Hinduism as the onlyreligion which can respond o the demands of modernity andculture. In a sense he is a critical of modernity andhighlighted that the priority of social reconstruction cannot be achieved without taking into account the legacy oftradition. He further argues that legal and politicalinstitutions do not have capacity to reconstruct socialsolidarity, and therefore tries to provide a social basisfor the liberal and political ethos which does not mean anuncritical acceptance of western modernity or indigenoustraditionalism.

Both Gandhi and Ambedkar is critical of liberal democracy ofthe west. Ambedkar in proposing parliamentary democracy toIndia, has finds problems with western countries practicingparliamentary democracy. He pointed out the reasons fordiscontent in western countries is due to the realizationthat it has failed to assure to the masses the right toliberty, property or the pursuit of happiness. The causesfor this failure may be found in wrong ideology or wrongorganization or in both.12The idea of freedom of contract is

11 Roudrigues, Valerian. Making a Tradition critical:Ambedkar’s reading of Budhism In Peter Robb, Dalit Movements and Meaning of Labour in India (Delhi: Oxford University Press,1993) p.305

12 Roudrigues, Valerian (Ed.) The Essential writings of B.R. Ambedkar, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002. p 62

one of the responsible factors for parliamentary democracyin terms of ideology. Parliamentary democracy took no noticeof economic inequalities and did not care to examine theresult of freedom of contract on the parties to thecontract, in spite of the fact that they were unequalbargaining power. It did not mind if freedom of contractgave the strong opportunity to defraud the weak. The resultis that parliamentary democracy is standing out asprotogonist of liberty has continuously added to economicwrongs of the poor, downtrodden and disinherited class.13

Ambedkar made another observation about failure ofparliamentary democracy that political democracy can notsucceed where there is no social and economic democracy.Further, he explains democracy is another name for equality.Parliamentary democracy developed a passion for liberty. Itnever made even nodding acquaintance with equality. Itfailed to realize the significance of equality and did noteven strike a balance between liberty and equality, with theresult the liberty swallowed equality and has made democracya name and farce. Ambedkar felt that self government anddemocracy become real not when the constitution based onadult suffrage comes into existence but when the governingclass looses its power to capture the power to govern. Hisemphasis is on moral society and its custom than the writtenlegal law in governing its people He heavily invested onsocial morality for effective functioning of the democraticform of government.

Community and contemporary India

The contemporary debates of communitarian politics of Indiamay be refer to close reading Gandhi and Ambedkar. In India,from late eighties onwards politics are forcefullyarticulating on the basis of community. On one hand, hinducommunalism by projecting the idea of homogeneous Indianidentity, selectively invoking the past. On the other handmarginalized communities like dalits, women and adivasis

13 Ibid. p.62

asserting their identity by resisting the homogeneousidentity projected by the dominant groups. Both ways, thesecommunities felt the ‘loss of self’, and had consciousattempts to ‘assert their self’. This is coincided with therapid globalization phenomenon and it had a threat to thenative cultural past. It is difficult to jump into theconclusion that these assertions are essentially in responseagainst globalization. This is a much more complex andambiguous phenomenon.

The scholars in India (Akeel Bilgrami, Javeed Alam, RajeevBharghava and so on), in the book ‘Multi culturalism,Liberalism and Democracy’, demanding a careful understandingof communitarianism in Indian context.14 They are criticalabout the way communitarian politics in practice. Theyexpressed a view that, if communities are left to somecommunitarians they might turn authoritarian. Javeed Alamcriticizes the communitarian logic on the ground that itlacks egalitarian motivation. Akeel Bilgrami’s criticismoperates at a different level, and felt that communities maynot have an internal reason and hence will have to negotiatewith the help of an external reason, like, the moral state.Bharghava too share with them and reminds the uncomfortablefact that societies remember their heroic deeds but suppressthe memory of collective injustice. These thinkers arecritical about the liberal theory that is operating in tunewith capitalism. In other words critical about modernityfacilitating by the capitalism. And on the other hand ratherrejecting the modernity, argues in favor of reappraisal ofmodernity in Indian contemporary times in support ofdemocratic aspirations and social imagination of theoppressed communities.

Conclusion

This is to conclude that Communitarianism has differentmeanings and different approaches within, based on thehistorical and social/cultural context. In the West, thecommunitarian debate is in response to individual centredliberal democracy. The communitarian thinkers are finding

problems with Rawls liberal theory and favored community inplace of abstract individual in an emancipatory politicalproject. The communitarian thinkers, Charles Taylor andMicheal Sandel are still engaged with the modernity ofdifferent kind as against the dominant western conception ofliberal modernity. The communitarian thinker like MacIntyre, is arguing for premodern virtuous life as againstthe modernity. There is danger that communitarianism mayends up as conservativism. It seems both liberalism andcommunitarianism of the West has its own limitations. Thecommunitarian theory has different meanings in non westerncountries. The third world country like India has history offighting against the colonial dominance and its ideals. Atthe same time, it is transforming from the traditionalsociety and aspiring towards modernity. From late eightiesonwards, on one hand modern liberal project carried bynation state and on other hand political communities basedon ‘religion’ and ‘caste’ actively contesting this kind ofliberal project. Of course, Western capitalism in the nameof globalization has created the environment of loss ofself. In this context, the indigenous thinkers like Gandhiand Ambedkar may provide lots of insights in response toliberal-communitarian debates of the west. Gandhi hasimagined a political community based on ideal Hinduism.Gandhi preferred community life based on village as againstwestern industrialization. Gandhi may close to Mac Intyreidea of valorization of pre modern Homeric society. ButGandhi has operating on different terrain against thewestern modernity. Ambedkar has not only provides a newdimension to the liberal-communitarian debate, but alsocritical about Gandhi. He criticizes Gandhi’s ideal hinducommunity, for its inherently manifested hierarchy,inequality and intolerance. While, he criticizing the hinducommunity for its oppressive nature, the supports apolitical community of oppressed castes. His moral communityhas based on the principles of equality, liberty andfraternity. In this sense, he defends the community forenlarging the space of freedom and equality. He demandsindividual freedom, when the individual was the victim of

dominant community and argues for democratic community asagainst the individual. Ambedkar seems to provide aninteresting point while talking about interrogatingtraditions of dominant groups and also becomes feltnecessary to create critical, rational and democratictraditions of oppressed communities. However, the positionof Indian indigenous thinkers is complex and providessolution to the crisis of western political theory.Especially, Ambedkar’s philosophy has a potential to mediateboth liberalism and communitarianism from the non westerncontext.

14 Bharghava ,Rajeev, Amiya Kumar Bagchi and R.Sudarshan (Eds.) ,MultiCulturalism, Liberalism and Democracy, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Select Bibliography

Bhargava, Rajeev, Amiya Kumar Bagchi andR.Sudrashan(Eds.),1999. Multiculturalism, Liberalism andDemocracy, Oxford University Press.

Buchnan, Allen E. Assesing Communitarain Critique of Liberalism,ethics, Vol. 99, No.4 July (1989) Pp. 852-882

Chatterjee, Partha. Rights of the Governed, Identity, Culture andPolitics Vol.3, No.2, December, 2002

Dalacoura, Katerina.. A Critique of Communitarianism with reference toPost -Revolutionary Iran, Review of International studies (2002)28, pp.75 -92

Dworkin, Ronald. [1978] 1984. "Liberalism." In Liberalism and Its Critics, ed. Michael Sandel. New York: New York University Press.

Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kymlicka, Will. 1998. "Liberal Egalitarianism and Civic Republicanism." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Allen and Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

------. 1998. "Politics, Philosophy, and the Common Good." In The MacIntyre Reader, ed. Knight. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

------. 1985. "Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical." Reprinted in Samuel Freeman, ed., 1999. Pp 1098-1119

------. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

------. 1999. Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. [1984] 1992. "The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self." In Communitarianism and Individualism, ed. Shlomo Avineri and Avner de-Shalit. New York: Oxford University Press.

------. 1996. Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

------. 1998a. "A Response to Rawls' Political Liberalism. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. 1998b. "The Limits of Communitarianism." Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. 1998c. "Reply to Critics." In Debating Democracy's Discontent, ed. Anita Allen and Milton Regan. New York: Oxford University Press.

------, ed. 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press.

Taylor, Charles. 1985a. "Atomism." In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. 1985b. "What's Wrong with Negative Liberty?" In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

------. [1989] 1995. "Cross Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate."In Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

------. 1990. Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.