SOCIAL MEDIA, SOCIAL ACTION & MAHATMA GANDHI

Gandhi would have understood. As the rapidly rising influence of social media has brought our students into an early and dramatic contact with human rights issues around the world—from famine to genocide to torture—our best students have responded with an overwhelming sense of urgency. Overwhelming, because the problems their social networks are delivering hourly to their smart phones seem, at times, simply unsolvable. And the urgency? They want to alleviate the suffering they see staring back at them from the 1080i video screens they’re holding in the palms of their hands.

Fact: an iPad wedges that starving child from the Horn of Africa into places of the heart that my old black-and-white television never touched.

So who can blame them? They feel unequal to the task, of course, because they measure themselves against the great figures of history: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Aung Sang SuuKyi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela.

But we have to remember that none of these figures began their careers as social activists by trying to touch the sheer numbers of people they ultimately touched.

Take Gandhi, for example. Most people don’t know that he began his career as a young lawyer in South Africa. Those who do know something about that part of life usually know that he was thrown off a train in Pietermaritzburg because he had the wrong skin color, even though he had legitimately acquired a ticket for his first-class compartment. It’s seen by most scholars—and by Gandhi himself—to be the incident that changed his life.

After being thrown from the train, Gandhi passed a very cold night in an empty station. But the next morning he sent two telegrams: one to the manager of the railroad and one to his sponsor who awaited him at Durban. When the next train rolled into Pietermaritzburg 24 hours later, Gandhi reclaimed his first-class compartment without incident.

Later in the journey, after the train had gone as far as it could go, Gandhi boarded a stage coach to complete the trip, and once again, his place was challenged. Gandhi resisted, and when the stage coach stopped for the night, he sent out an urgent message to the general manager. When Gandhi arrived the next morning, he was allowed his seat without incident.

His first social campaigns were successful, and they were accomplished with relative ease.

No one talks much about these incidents now because they pale in comparison to the great upheavals that Gandhi would initiate later in his life. But those who are contemplating social action of any sort should pay a great deal of attention to these events. They can be seen, after all, as the prelude to the Salt March of 1930 that engaged the British Empire and ultimately founded the modern Indian nation.

What do we notice about these early campaigns? First, Gandhi addressed the injustice that lay directly in his path. He didn’t attempt to alleviate suffering a world away; he didn’t attempt to deliver an entire population to safety. He corrected the wrongs that were hindering the completion of the work he had been assigned. Period.

Second, in the early stages, he worked within the channels that were available to him. Mainly, he wrote letters, telegrams, essays, and pamphlets. He talked. He listened. He read. He used his own social media to their fullest extent.

And third, he seems from the beginning to have exercised remarkable self-control, which meant he survived set-backs with his hope intact, and he resisted, when he was victorious, the blinding sense of self-importance that such victories often bring with them. He was always practical.

So: begin where you live; use the social media available to you; and learn from your setbacks how you might better begin again, and from your successes how deeply your debts run to those who helped you fashion those successes. That will keep you balanced.

Gandhi's Ideas: A Basis for Dialogue and Action

There are five major ideas from Gandhi's teaching and example, and their implications for dialogue and social action.

1. Leadership By Example:

Gandhi exercised leadership by example. There was nothing he expected his followers to do that he himself was not prepared to do. There are many such instances when he took the lead. His sheer dedication and commitment inspired his followers. They quickly recognized that nothing deterred him. Here are three examples.

First: When he agreed to a political compromise in 1908 with the Boer leader Jan C. Smuts, some of his supporters accused him of expediency. He remained firm that it was the right thing to do, and so set out to be the first to register for a new identity document and thereby honour the compromise. On his way, however, he was severely assaulted by one of his compatriots. When he regained consciousness, he insisted on fulfilling his promise to be the first to register, and asked that the registrar be brought to him.

Second: He headed the column of 2000 marchers during the Great March of 1913 in South Africa. He dressed like them, ate what they ate, and was prepared to experience all the hardships that they endured.

Third: At the age of 61, Gandhi set out on the Salt March of 1930 with 78 loyal supporters. They marched 241 miles at the rate of 10 to 15 miles per day over 24 days. It was “child’s play” to him, but his feat of endurance was illustrative of what could be done with the courage and determination that were hallmarks of his leadership by example.

Based on Gandhi's leadership by example, here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: How would Gandhi's example be seen in your community? Would those trying to lead by his example have followers? How does experiencing hardships prepare us for leadership? In your community today, what sort of example would best fit the leadership needed to address what matters to local people?

2. Serving as a Moral Symbol:

Gandhi was himself a moral symbol: his dress, his language, mode of public speaking, food, bodily gestures, ways of sitting, walking, talking, laughter, humour, and staff or walking stick. Each evoked deep cultural memories, spoke volumes, and conveyed highly complex messages. He hoped to reach the "whole being" and thus to mobilize their moral energy. In this world that he created, the colonial world had no access. No other leader before Gandhi had such a clear and complete strategy of action. None possessed either his self-confidence or his organizational and communication skills.

Gandhi evolved a distinct mode of discourse. He appealed to the emotions by judiciously selecting culturally significant symbols drawn from the daily lives of ordinary Indians. The symbols were: khadi, cow, Gandhi cap, spinning wheel. The spinning wheel was not only intended to rebel against modern technological civilization, but was affirming the dignity of rural India. It also affirmed the dignity of manual labour and social compassion. By supporting the spinning wheel he was promoting the needs of the poor. It was infinitely more moral than asking for financial donations.

Consistent with the idea of Gandhi serving as a moral symbol, here are some questions to guide dialogue and action: In your community, what dress, language, and manner of speaking and acting would bring out the rich culture of the local people? What beliefs and values should be represented in our leaders (and followers)? What are the traps or challenges of being seen as a "moral' leader? How might it benefit (or harm) the cause of a group?

3. Non-Violence:

Rational discussion worked when different parties recognized their fallibility and were prepared to be self-critical and understood the psychological and moral context within which they operated. When this did not work, it was necessary to appeal to the heart to expand the range of sympathy and understanding for the other party. The recourse must not be violent. The use of violence denied that all human beings had souls, and that they were capable of appreciating and pursuing good, and that no one was so degenerate that he could not be won over by appealing to his fellow-feeling and humanity. Violence presupposed infallibility and this was not the case. The consequences of violence were irreversible. Morality suggested otherwise, and ends do not morally or otherwise justify the means.

Following Gandhi's practice of non-violence, here are some questions to promote dialogue and action: How was Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States influenced by the idea of non-violence as a means for social change? How has this idea influenced social change movement throughout the world? Are there conditions under which violence might be justified?

4. Satyagraha (Passive Resistance):

The way out of the dilemma of effecting change without violence is to use soul force. Mobilize the enormous latent energy of the soul, and thus bring to bear spiritual power to the issue. The new method should open up the opponent's heart and mind and thus renew rational discussion. However degenerate a person might be, he has a soul, and thus he has the capacity to feel for other human beings and to acknowledge their common humanity. Satyagraha was a "surgery of the soul", a way of activating "soul-force" and "suffering love" was the best way to do it since "moral nobility" disarmed opponents. A sense of common and indivisible humanity was necessary as an article of belief; as well as the feeling that degrading another degraded oneself. So the community's moral capital was necessary. Gandhi would say that it is always present no matter appearances to the contrary. Satyagraha has resonance in both Hindu and Christian traditions: spiritual nature of human beings, the power of suffering love, and the deliberate and skillfull use of suffering love to reach out to and to activate the moral energies of others.

In reflecting on Gandhi's idea of Satyagraha (Passive Resistance), here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: Under what conditions might passive resistance be more likely to be effective as a change of strategy? Under what conditions might it fail? For example, would we expect it to work in a Holocaust in which the Nazis killed millions of Jews?

5. Compromise and Negotiations:

A satyagrahi (or a practitioner of Passive Resistance) observed basic principles: study rationally, carefully, and methodically the situation; convince opponents of the passion of his feelings; keep open channels of communication; use intermediaries; observe rules and principles, be courteous; be ready for compromises; be prepared for suffering love. When the stakes got high (that is suffering love alone was not enough), the satyagrahis used additional methods: defiance of laws, non-payment of taxes, non-cooperation, and strikes. Gandhi's vocabulary changed when the reality proved intractable: "non-violent warfare", "peaceful rebellion". He also introduced fasting as a tactic for purification and attracting public support.

Gandhi's example of communication and compromise suggests several questions to guide our own efforts: How do we come to understand the situation in which we do community work? How do we demonstrate our commitment to bringing about desired change while being open to compromise? When do we use more aggressive approaches to change (e.g., strikes, boycott)? How do we keep communication open during a "battle" with others?

Conclusion: Applying Gandhi's Ideas in Today's Social Action

The modern industrial civilization is characterized by rationalism, secularization, science, technology, and globalization. Gandhi saw the impact of modern civilization essentially through the eyes of its victims. For him, all civilizations are inspired and energized by specific human conceptions, which, if corrupted could become sources of evil. The corruption he spoke of related to the neglect of the soul as a consequence of the emphasis on materialism and reason. It made for an aggressive, violent, and exploitative world sustained by regimentation and abuse of the natural environment in which the poor and the weak were treated with contempt.

Gandhi was prepared to accept the role of the state as a trustee within defined limits in which the local community could determine its own needs. In India’s case, the village community was a basic unit of economy. Large-scale industries were necessary, but they should be located in a city and restricted. Local communities should have the power to redefine their own institutions.

Gandhi’s notion of a good society held that human beings are informed by the spirit of piety and recognize their interdependence. They are governed by moral and spiritual powers. They cherish plurality of reason, intuition, faith, and traditions, and appreciate the individual’s need for autonomy. It places morality at the center of individual behaviour. The spirit of reverence and broad-minded tolerance is the hallmark of a society that Gandhi helped us to see.

Gandhi's Vision and Technique of Conflict Resolution

By Y V Satyanarayana

THIS ARTICLE IS intended to explore Gandhi's technique of conflict resolution and his vision of an ideal society. I have also made an attempt to analyse and compare the vision of Marx and Gandhi about the future of mankind. Since Marx and Gandhi are the outspoken champions of the interests of the down-trodden and exploited humanity, who fought in their own way against social suffering, political subjugation, and economic exploitation, it is quite natural for them to have some similar views, if not identical ones. They are not only concerned for the poor and oppressed humanity, but also revolutionised the character of philosophy and brought it to the realm of social action. The history of mankind shows how great men have always struggled and fought against prevailing social evils and human sufferings. Of such great men in human history, the 19th century produced two outstanding personalities―Marx and Gandhi. These great men, while being products of history, also act as the agents of history. Marx and Gandhi responded to the challenges of the given historical situations, realized the historical necessities of their times and tried to actualize the needs and aspirations of the people of their times in their own way. Describing the nature of great men, Hegel says:

The great man of the age is the one who can put into words the will of his age, tell his age what its will is, and accomplish it. What he does is the heart and essence of his age, he actualizes his age"¹

What is a conflict? A conflict may be said to be a serious disagreement between the opinions or interests of two persons or two groups of persons involved in an issue.

Gandhi wanted to evolve a revolutionary approach to political action and social change. His originality lay in the formulation of a new technique of non-violent non-cooperation or Satyagraha for social action. He believed that Satyagraha is an infallible means for resolving all social, political, and economic evils. As a technique of social action, satyagraha may be applied to resolve the following type of social conflicts:

i. conflict between one individual and another individual

ii. conflict between an individual and a group

iii. conflict between one group and another group or between two classes

iv. conflict between a section of the community and the state

v. conflict between one nation and another nation

Unlike Marx; Gandhi never regarded all history as the history of class struggle or all social conflicts as fundamentally antagonistic in their nature. Nevertheless he was aware of the class conflicts and wanted to resolve them or minimise them by nonviolent means. Marx and Gandhi held a similar view that no social conflict can be resolved unless the sufferers realise their suffering and their strength, constitute themselves into a class or an organisation, refuse to cooperate with evil and demonstrate their power to the evil-doers or exploiters. Thus arousing of consciousness and continuing with a powerful organisation are the essential phenomena in the Marxian and Gandhian techniques of social action.

Both these thinkers recognised the existence of social conflicts as a fact and advocated their own methods to resolve them. They believed that exploitation of the masses can be extinguished by the exploited class itself and, therefore, they put the burden of their programme of action on the shoulders of the exploited class. To that extent the "nonviolent non cooperation or satyagraha" of Gandhi and the "class struggle" of Marx are based on the same technique of social action.

Gandhi identified two areas in which class conflict is more conspicuous:

i. conflict between capitalists and workers in industry.

ii. conflict between landlords and tenants in agriculture.

Gandhi's method of conflict resolution is based on a greater understanding and love between the two parties involved in it. He prescribed the trusteeship formula to the rich and the weapon of nonviolent non-cooperation or Satyagraha to the poor and exploited to bring about a change in the attitude of the rich. Satyagraha is a technique of action wherein the ideal of love would reign in the place of hatred and killing. It is based on truth, works through nonviolence and achieves its end by converting or compelling the opponent through self-suffering.

Capital and Labour

Gandhi pleaded for mutual love between capital and labour. He demanded equal status and dignity for capital and labour to avoid conflict between them. Why should a million rupees put together be more than million men put together?, he questioned. Without labour gold, silver, and copper are a useless burden. A nation may do without its millionaires and without its capitalists but a nation can never do without its labour. Labour is far superior to capital because it is less dependent on capital than the latter is on labour. The capital at present is able to control labour because it has learnt the art of combination before labour. Gandhi thought that if all the labourers could combine in the true nonviolent spirit, capital would inevitably come under their control. He advised the workers to refuse to serve under degrading conditions and for insufficient wages.

Gandhi, like any other socialist thinker, believed that all forms of property and human accomplishments are either gifts of nature or products of collective social effort. As such, they must belong not to the individual but to society as a whole and therefore should be used for the good of all. He made a distinction between legal ownership and moral ownership. Legally wealth belongs to the owner, but morally to the whole society. In this sense of moral ownership, the labourers are also the owners of the wealth possessed by mill-owners.

Marx and Gandhi have similar views regarding the institution of private property and they intended to abolish not only private property but also the inheritance of property rights. Marx held that communism "wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property." Gandhi also expressed a similar view and said: "I can only possess certain things which I know that others who also want to possess similar things, are able to do so"

Class Collaboration

Unlike Marx, Gandhi did not believe in class war. He said there may be conflicts between workers and employees but there was no reason why they should be fomented or intensified. His belief in the innate goodness of man and his capacity for improvement implies that mutual conflict cannot be regarded as the dominant or governing principle of human life. Therefore he considered "class war" as superfluous and unnecessary. He thought that only through class collaboration can the interests of both the individual and the society as a whole be advanced. If the idea of trusteeship is accepted and implemented by capital and labour, there will be no scope for conflicts. If the workers non-cooperate with the evil of capitalism, it must die of in-animation. Thus Gandhi mainly relied on the nonviolent non-cooperation of the workers to bring about the conversion of capitalists.

Exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the destruction of a few millionaires but by removing the ignorance of the poor and teaching them to non-cooperate with their exploiters. That will convert the exploiters also.⁴

Moral Conversion

Gandhi emphasized the need for adopting pure means for achieving goals in life. His approach was indeed moral transformation of the individual heart, which is the basis of all social dynamics. He believed that the duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the beast and held that "man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men."⁵ The means proposed by Gandhi are based on voluntary conversion of the exploiting class to the cause of socio-economic justice by moral appeal to their conscience. His emphasis on moral conversion not only includes the moral transformation of the exploiter but also the awakening of the workers and peasants to realize their moral strength. He felt that most of the evils of the modern economic system existed because we co-operated with them or tolerated them. Cooperation with the good and non-cooperation with the evil should be the duty of every citizen. The exploiters would be deprived of their power of exploitation if the labourers realized that exploitation could take place only with their cooperation.

Unlike Gandhi, Marx did not plead for a change of heart because he considered it to be a substitute for one set of illusions to another. He believed that men just simply do not give us their riches on hearing a socialist sermon. Marx, therefore, relied on revolutionary means rather than on reformist means of Gandhi.

Gandhi's method of Satyagraha is based on three fundamental assumptions:

i. Man's nature is not beyond redemption and it can be perfectible.

ii. Human nature is one in its essence and responds to love, and

iii. What is possible to do for one man is equally possible for all.

Salient Features of Satyagraha

i. The underlying principle of satyagraha is not to destroy or injure the opponent, but to convert or win him by sympathy, patience, and self-suffering.

ii. The doctrine of satyagraha is based on the metaphysical belief that the tyrant may have power over the body and material possessions of a satyagrahi, but not over his soul. Hence the soul can remain unconquered and unconquerable even when the body is imprisoned.

iii. Satyagraha, as a tool of social action, is based on a strong moral content. Self-suffering is its unique character which distinguishes it from all other forms of violent methods of action. Self-suffering is infinitely more superior and powerful than the law of the Jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears to the voice of reason.

iv. Self-sacrifice of one innocent man, in a satyagraha movement, is a million times more potent than the sacrifice of a million men who die in the act of killing others.

v. Nonviolence is not a negative virtue. It is not merely abstaining from violence or harmlessness, but a positive state of love or doing good even to the evil-doer. In other words, to resist his evil acts without hatred or harm to him.

vi. The underlying principle of nonviolence is "hate the sin but not the sinner." The philosophy of nonviolence is aimed at reconstructing, remoulding, and reshaping human nature.

vii. Nonviolent non-cooperation should not be equated with inaction or non-action. It is an active condemnation of untruth, without violence, anger, or malice. It is an active fight against all wickedness or pitting of one's soul against the will of the tyrant to win him over by love.

viii. The scope of satyagraha is much wider as it can be applied against our dearest and nearest since there is no hatred or anger or violence in it.

ix. A significant feature of the satyagraha method lies in arousing consciousness of the masses, continuing education, maintaining the unity of the sufferers and to make them into fearless soldiers, providing them with a powerful organization and then to throw them into heroic battles.

x. The multi-class or non-class character of satyagraha movement is distinct from other methods which mainly consist of the same class.

Thus the basic aim of the Satyagraha movement is to educate the masses, make them conscious of their exploitation, prepare them into a broad front, provide them with a powerful organization and finally lead them in their struggle against the exploiters. Gandhi's satyagraha method fulfils all the necessary requirements for a revolution, no matter, whether that revolution is nonviolent or violent. Once the masses realize their strength and become conscious of their exploitation they would certainly revolt against the existing social order. Gandhi, as a man of practical affairs, visualized this possibility and rightly predicted that:

Whether Satyagraha is a universal panacea or not, it served some positive function in a specific historical context in India. On the political front it contributed as a major share for achieving independence of the country, on the social front it minimized the evils of untouchability and communal riots, but it failed to bring results on the economic front.

Theory of Trusteeship

Gandhi's theory of trusteeship is based on two basic premises:

i. The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the cooperation of the poor.

ii. Western socialism and communism are not the last word on the question of mass poverty.

He developed the theory of trusteeship as an alternative to capitalism and scientific socialism. He was opposed to the western capitalism, which necessarily leads to oppression, exploitation, concentration of wealth and inequality. At the same time, he was against an increase in the power of the state which, in his opinion, is essentially based on violence. Gandhi, therefore, wanted to provide the institution of trusteeship as a compromise between private enterprise and state controlled enterprise.

As an ardent advocate of democracy and adult franchise, he believed that the poverty-stricken people would be able to bring their electoral pressure on the government to restructure the society on the basis of trusteeship. He thought that the only alternative to trusteeship would be bloody revolution and put before the capitalists a choice between class war arid trusteeship. He warned them:

A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and of power that riches give and sharing them for the common good.

Conclusion

Gandhi's thought process was an outcome of his political struggle; first in South Africa as a revolt against the practice of aparthied and later in India as a battle against British imperialism for national independence.

Gandhian thought, as a philosophy of life, did not believe in a set of doctrines claiming finality. It is neither a dogma nor a closed system of thought. Since human knowledge and achievements are a continuous process, they need not stop growing with Gandhi. Hence we may not necessarily stick to the ideas of Gandhi expressed in a particular historical situation and from his own experiences of his life. It should be the duty of a true follower of Gandhi, to elaborate, amplify, and even revise his ideas in the light and experiences of contemporary changing situations in the national and international spheres. In this context, it seems to be more appropriate and necessary, to re-read and re-judge his ideas from a new angle of vision on various aspects.

THANTHAI PERIYAR

Social Reformer

Periyar Ramasami (1879-1973) was known as the Voltaire (1694-1778) of South India, particularly, in Tamil Nadu. Both were rationalists who aroused their people to realize that all men are equal and it is the birthright of every individual to enjoy liberty, equality and fraternity. Both opposed religion virulently because the so called men of religion invented myths and superstitions to keep the innocent and ignorant people in darkness and to go on exploiting them. In one of his articles, Voltaire said “They (the religious men) inspired you with false beliefs and made you fanatics so that they might be your masters. They made you superstitious, not that you might fear god but that you might fear them”

Voltaire and other French Philosophers of the 18th century awakened their countrymen to the fact that handful of People who had money and power kept them in a state of stupor, as it were, and went on treating them like animals. The awakening of the People brought about the French Revolution in which the heads of those who had exploited the People for generations, rolled to the ground. This revolution turned bloody” because it was mainly political. Because it was violent, its purpose was achieved in a short time.

The “revolution” which Periyar brought about was a bloodless one and he had to spend more than fifty years of his life opening the eyes of People to their want of education-and consequent backwardness, their faith in superstitions, the deception and exploitation to which they are subjected by cunning people and also on the need for them to develop self-respect and self-confidence. It is interesting to note the Term ‘self-respect’ as used by Periyar includes the three concepts liberty, equality and fraternity which Voltaire and other French revolutionists exhorted their countrymen to acquire. Periyar repeatedly and feelingly spoke about Women’s liberation.

Periyar was born in an affluent family on 17th September 1879. His parents were deeply religious and they frequently arranged religious discourses to be given at a temple or in other Public places. While all the other members of the family listened to the discourses with great devotion even in his early teens Ramasami displayed a keen rationalistic tendency and ridiculed the pundits who gave the talks, by pointing out the contradictions in their statements and also their incredible exaggerations. Referring to this early experience of his, Periyar wrote later in one of his autobiographical articles: “It gave me extraordinary pleasure to fling at the pundits their own contradictions and Thus perplex Them. It also gave me the reputation, among our neighbours of being a clever speaker. I believe that it was this experience which deprived me of faith in castes and communities, in religion, in “puranas”, in “sastras” and in god. “It is an irony that the religious discourses which were intended to Kindle piety and religiosity in all listeners produced the opposite effect on Ramasami. As he grew up, he became convinced that some people used religion only as a mask to deceive innocent people. That was why he took it as one of the duties in his life to warn people against superstitious and priests.

Education Policy

Rajaji introduced a new education policy based on family vocation which its opponents dubbed Kula KalviThittam (Hereditary Education Policy). As per this policy schools will work in the morning and students had to compulsorily learn the family vocation in the afternoon. A Carpenter’s son would learn Carpentry, a priest’s son chanting hymns and a barber’s son hair cutting and shaving after school in the afternoon. EVR felt that the scheme was a clever device against Dalits and Other Backward Classes as their first generation was getting educated only then. EVR demanded its withdrawal and launched protests against the Kula KalviThittam (Hereditary Education Policy) which he felt was caste-based and was aimed at maintaining caste hegemony. Rajaji quit in 1954 and Kamaraj scrapped it after becoming chief minister.

Rationalism

Ramaswami was a believer till the age of 28 and managed (dharmakartha) a temple. He became an atheist and followed western philosopher Nietzsche and claimed that God is dead. His anti-Brahmin rhetoric was carefully camouflaged in atheism. This won him considerable following in Tamil Nadu. He portrayed the Brahmins as villains of the society. Soon political parties saw an advantage in his rhetoric and began imitating him. Except a few, the majority of the people who listened to him did not give up religion or idol worship. Even today, his followers clandestinely offer prayers in Hindu temples and to swamis.

Ramaswami’s rationalism was focussed on deriding the ritualistic practices by the priests, who were all Brahmins, in Sanskrit. His rhetoric always steered clear of Christians and Muslims.

Anti-Hindi Movement

Hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu started in 1937 when the Congress Government of the Madras Presidency under Rajaji introduced Hindi in the school curriculum. Tamils opposed Hindi immediately and the Justice Party under Sir A. D. Panneerselvam and Periyar organized anti-Hindi protests in 1938 and were arrested and jailed by the Rajaji government. More than 1200 people, including women and children, were imprisoned in 1938, of which two, Thalamuthu and Natarasan, lost their lives. In 1939 the Rajaji government quit due to the decision of the Indian National Congress to protest India’s participation in World War 2. The teaching of Hindi was withdrawn in 1940 by the British governor.

Modern Tamil Alphabet

He instituted Tamil alphabet reforms and his reasons are as follows:

In writings and publications of 70 or 80 years ago, the vowel ‘ee’ (i:), indicated today as ‘ ¼ ‘, was a cursive and looped representation of the short form, ‘ ¬ ‘ (i). In stone inscriptions of 400 or 500 years ago, many Tamil letters are found in other shapes. The older and the more divine a language and its letters are said to be, they, in truth, need reform.

Just as some compound characters have separate signs to indicate their length as in ‘ æè ‘ , ‘ îæ ‘ (ka: , ke:), why should not other compound characters like ‘ æ¨ ‘ , ‘ æ© ‘ , ‘ Æ ‘ , ‘ Ô ‘ (ki, ki:,ku, ku:) (indicated integrally as of now), also have separate signs? This indeed requires consideration.

Changing the shape of letters, creating new symbols and adding new letters and similarly, dropping those that are redundant, are quite essential.The glory and excellence of a language and its script depend on how easily they can be understood or learnt and on nothing else.

Anti-Brahmanism

Periyar’s self-respect movement was founded on a principle of intense anti-Brahmanist racism, while nominally claiming to be a movement espousing “rationalism” and “athieism”.Tamil Brahmins (Iyers and Iyengars) were frequently held responsible by followers of Periyar for direct or indirect oppression of lower-caste people on the canard of “Brahmin oppression” and resulted in innumerable hate attacks on Brahmins and which amoung other reasons started a wave of forced mass-migration of the Brahmin population. Periyar is alleged to have called for “Brahmin killing”s and burning down Brahmin homes. Later, in regards to a DK member’s attempt to assassinate Rajagopalachari, he “expressed his abhorrence of violence as a means of settling political differences”. The canard of “Brahmin oppression” rationalized conspiracy theories and pointed to Brahmins as enemies against whom the radical movements pitted themselves. The legacy of the anti-Brahmanism of the self-respect movement was taken over by the later Dravidan parties. Growing anti-Brahmanism in Chennai provided a rationale for polarization of the lower castes in the DMK movement. Eventually, the virulent anti-Brahmanism subsided somewhat with the replacement of the DMK party by the AIADMK. EVR’s followers have broken temple icons, cut sacred threads and tufts from Brahmin priests, and have often portrayed Brahmins in the most derogatory manner in their meetings and magazines.

Self-Respect Movement

Periyar’s philosophy is that different sections of a society should have equal rights to enjoy the fruits of the resources and the development of the country; they should all be represented, in proportion to their numerical strength, in the governance and the administration of the state. This principle had been enunicated earlier by those who stood for social justice, particularly by the South Indian Liberal Federation, popularly known as Justice Party. Periyar’s unique contribution was his insistence on rational outlook to bring about intellectual emancipation and a healthy world-view. He also stressed the need to abolish the hierarchal, graded, birth-based caste structure as a prelude to build a new egalitarian social order. In other words, he wanted to lay a sound socio-cultural base, before raising a strong structure of free polity and prosperous economy.

It was in this context, the Self-Respect Movement, founded in 1925, carried on’ a vigorous and ceaseless propaganda, against ridiculous and harmful superstitions, traditions, customs and habits. He wanted to dispel the ignorance of the people and make them enlightened. He exhorted them to take steps to change the institutions and values that led to meaningless divisions and unjust discrimination. He advised them to change according to the requirements of the changing times and keep pace with the modern conditions.

Self-respecters performed marriages without Brahmin priests (prohits) and without religious rites. They insisted on equality between men and women in all walks of life. They encouraged inter-caste and widow marriages. Periyar propagated the need for birth control even from late 1920s. He gathered support for lawful abolition of Devadasi (temple prostitute) system and the practice of child marriage. It was mainly due to his consistent and energetic propaganda, the policy of reservations in job opportunities in government administration was put into practice in the then Madras Province (which included Tamilnadu) in 1928.

Though the Self-Respect movement was started in 1925, the first provincial conference was organised by Periyar at Chengalpet (near Chennai and Kanchipuram) only in February 1929. It was presided over by W.P. Soundarapandian. M.R Jeyakar was the president of the second conference conducted at Erode in 1930. Sir RK. Shanmugam occupied the chair in the third provincial conference that met at Viruthunagar. Apart from enthusing the people, these conferences passed resolutions meant to promote Caste eradication, Social integration and equal rights to women.

Since the British rulers in India had no vested interest in perpetuating the inequitable Varna-Jaathi social structure based on Vedic Sanathana Dharma, Periyar and his followers found that they could influence or pressurise the alien government to take measures to remove social inequality. So they adopted a moderate policy in the struggle for political independence.

From the beginning of 1930s, Periyar added the programme of fighting for economic equality to his original programme of working for social equality and Cultural Revolution. Along with the veteran communist leader Com. M.Singaravel, he organised industrial and agricultural labourers to stand against the exploitation of big capitalists and landlords. In mid -1930′s, the central and provincial governments took steps to ban the Communist Party and the organisations purported to have similar programmes. They started to stop the activities of the Self-Respect Movement. Periyar had to take a crucial decision. He had known by experience that there were supporters for the work to carry on the freedom struggle and to organise the labourers. But only a few came forth to expose the religion based traditional evils, and struggle against the exploitation of the powerful Brahminical upper castes. Under this circumstance, he toned down his socialist activities in order to be free to carry on the task of the socio-cultural emancipation of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden sections.

In 1934, there was an unsuccessful move through C.Rajagopalachari, known as Rajaji, to bring Periyar back into the fold of the Congress Party. Periyar prepared a programme of action consisting of measures to promote Social Justice, through reservations, to implement socialisation of vital and large-scale commercial and industrial activities, and to remove the hardships of the debt-ridden peasants. He sent the programme to the ruling Justisce Party and the Congress Party that was growing popular. The Congress Party did not accept it, as the policy of reservation was not agreeable to it. As Justice Party agreed to most of the measures including communal representation to uphold Social Justice, Periyar continued to support it.

In 1937, Justice Party that was in power in the then Madras Province from 1921, except for a brief period, lost the elections to the Congress Party. Rajagopalachari who introduced compulsory study of Hindi language in the high schools headed the Congress Government. Those who opposed this effort to make non-Hindi speaking people second-class citizens organised a vigorous agitation under the dynamic leadership of Periyar. More than 1200 persons including women with children were imprisoned in 1938, of which two, Thalamuthu and Natarasan, lost their lives due to the rigours in prison. When the agitation gained momentum Periyar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, though released in six months (Periyar was in gaol five times in 1920s and four times in 1930s).

In November 1938, a women’s conference in Madras (now Chennai) passed a resolution to refer to E.V.Ramasamy always as Periyar (the great man.).
While undergoing imprisonment, the Justice Party elected him as its President on 29th December 1938.

Periyar who opposed compulsory study of Hindi in the then Madras Province was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. But he was released after about six months of confinement from 26th November 1938 to 22nd May 1939. After his release, he announced that he would continue his agitation against the imposition of Hindi.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDAR

Swami Vivekananda’s message of social service for the Youth of India

February 12, 2011

Youth is that wonderful time in life when energy is limitless, human creativity is at its best and the ’never say die’ spirit is at its peak. Today, one keeps seeing and reading about the achievements of hundreds of young people in practically all spheres of life. Demographically, the India of today is at its youngest best. Nearly 78% of our country’s population is less than 40 years old. Imagine the potential energy in these millions of young Indians and you can then fathom the fact that we could face any challenge as a Nation. But are we doing anything to internalize and understand the potential of this enormous power that could make us one of the leading Nations in the world, not just in material terms but also in every conceivable way that the human mind can think of?

Youth is also an impressionable age wherein we try to model our life against that of a ‘role model’ or ‘icon’. This is the time when one is ready to take on tasks however onerous they are; the time when our ideals can drive and determine one’s actions; the time when we believe that we can do anything under the sun. This is the time when we are easily motivated by the environment and by what we see and value around us. A few years ago, one reputed International magazine had written that India is possibly the only nation with so many young and educated people. They had written about a situation wherein India would have retired young people in a few years from now. While it does make one feel warm that our young are so capable of creating enormous wealth in such a short period of time, it also makes one wonder if ‘making wealth’ is the only value that is driving our young today. India is a land of tremendous contradictions. On one hand, one sees such enormous prosperity and wealth while on the other hand one-third of Indians go without a second meal every day. While India’s scientific achievements in the field of telecommunication, information technology and space is enviable, it makes one’s heart bleed when you know that only 10% of rural Indians have sanitation facilities and 22% of them are able to get potable water to drink. Even today nearly 42% of our children in the villages find it difficult to access schooling while many children are still labouring away in the fields and factories to make their family’s ends meet. While we are able to find solutions to all kinds of technical and software problems all over the world, we still are grappling with having nearly 25% of the world’s poor in our country. While we are finding more young achievers in the field of sports, music, arts, technology and wealth creation, we find very few young people leading us in the political and social arenas. Finding solutions to the complex social, economic, infrastructural, political and poverty-related problems is indeed a great challenge. This challenge needs enormous energy, a fresh perspective, a grandiose vision and superhuman effort. While on the one hand, we could safely say that our youth has the ability to meet and face up to these challenges, we also need to accept the difficult fact that this is not high on the list of their priorities. How do we get our young whose role models and icons today are mostly from the economic, technology, music, cinema and sports arenas to consider Nation-building as an important facet of our productive lives? How do we get them to address the myriad problems facing us? While there is no one correct way to do this, I feel that we need to begin by understanding our youth and the environment in which we live presently.

Swamiji was a great observer of the human mind and the human society at large. He understood that undertaking any social change needed enormous energy and will. Hence he called upon the youth to not only build up their mental energies, but their physical ones as well. He wanted ‘muscles of iron’ as well as ‘nerves of steel.’ He wanted the youth to possess indomitable will and the strength to drink up the ocean. What he wanted was to prepare the youth both physically and mentally to face the challenges that would lie ahead of social workers. He was also practical enough in warning the young of the pitfalls ahead and the way Society reacts to such endeavours. To quote him:

All good work has to go through three stages. First comes ridicule, then the stage of opposition and finally comes acceptance.

What the young need is the purity, patience and the perseverance to go through these stages in whatever they do. Society, though slow and sometimes treacherous in its reactions, finally comes around and accepts the good work that goes on for its own sake.

The young today are extremely result oriented and need to understand the reasons for what they need to do as well as the benefits of what they do. To them Swamiji had a simple formula. He laid down in clear and simple terms the three levels of service that one can do. The first is that of the Physical – taking care of the human body and undertaking activities to ameliorate human physical suffering. Running hospitals, orphanages, old-age homes and various income generation programs would qualify for this level. The next higher level was that of Intellectual service. Running schools, colleges and awareness and empowerment programs would operate at this level. And finally for the evolved – he prescribed the highest level of Spiritual service. He did not forget to warn us of the pitfalls of undertaking such service activities. He understood the human ego and its extraordinary potential for creating problems. He repeatedly warns us against placing ourselves higher than what we should. His famous quote of not standing on the pedestal and offering the poor man five cents is legendary. He clearly wanted the young to undertake these activities, not merely for the betterment of society but for the evolution and growth of the person undertaking the same. This to me is clearly the end of what he extolled the young towards. He saw the ‘means’ of serving society leading on to the ‘end’ of spiritual growth of the person doing it. And he so beautifully advised us to ‘Serve God in man’. All his philosophy so elegantly and simplistically packed into one statement, in such simple and lucid language that makes it at once achievable and attractive to the youth. This ideal not only looks within the reach of each one of us but makes it so emotionally appealing and motivating to undertake.

Swami Vivekananda is mainly popular as a flag bearer of India, monk par excellence. He is generally credited with putting forth the soul of India to the Western society. He is referred to as the spokesperson of the Hindu Religion. He had a two fold personality- spiritual and social. Often it has been seen that his spiritual self has got the better of social self. It may seem that "Vivekananda", was fully drowned under the immense weight of "Swami".

On-Poverty
Although Swami Vivekananda was a man of meditation and religion, he was game for activity and work that would lead to rise in productivity and eradication of poverty. He along with his mentor, has always said that "religion is not for empty stomachs." He has literally helped to shock people out of their comfort zone and inspired them into action. So we see that Swamiji triggered the course of life in modern India by motivating the Rajasic virtues in the Indian denizens. He also inspired them to enhance their present condition and not be content with the current life of degradation and poverty. According to Vivekananda, religion had to be the primary and steering force in executing al the social changes in the country.

There is no doubt that Swamiji took immense pride in the India`s inheritance from the past. But he was totally against the fact that almost everything that came from the past was worth admiration. To him, India was a representation people, and people meant masses. Eradication of poverty, removal of illiteracy, restitution of human dignity, liberty from fear, availability of spiritual and secular knowledge to all, irrespective of their class, caste, and ending of all the monopolies, economic, religious, intellectual, cultural and social- all these together made up a part of what he got from his Vedantic Socialism or Vedanta.

With his re-interpretation of Vedanta, and is deep rooted concern for the masses and their issues, Swami Vivekananda gave India a new lease of life. He raised his voice against the feudal and colonial oppression, and at the same time Swamiji looked for answers regarding the India`s historical destinies, and ways to transform it into strong, wealthy and independent state. He always reiterated the fact that India could only be built with the help of masses, small groups of energetic patriots, brave and strong with "muscles of iron and nerves of steel and gigantic wills".

On Women
Swami Vivekananda was never in active politics, yet he had a political sense on the modern India which was far superior and much ahead of his time. He expressed immense outrage over exploitation of rights and showed genuine concern for uplift of women mass and other socially backward people. He wanted a distinct social reform with the help of Western ideas and technology, yet not entrapped us with slavish imitation of the Western ways of life. In his book, "On India and Her Problems", he wrote: "Remember that the nation lives in the cottages. But, alas, nobody ever did anything for them. Our modern reformers are very busy about widow-remarriage. Of course, I am a sympathiser in every reform, but the fate of a nation does not depend upon the number of husbands the widows get, but upon the condition of the masses". Vivekananda went a step further and said, "So long as millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every man a traitor." The revolutionary doctrine he propounded has serious influence on the social reformers that followed- dynamism of Mahatma Gandhi and the socialistic ideas of Jawaharlal Nehru were highly inspired by Swamiji`s ideas and teachings.

On Religion
Swami Vivekananda`s thoughts on religion were unique. He gave India, its secularist ideas which now form an integral part of Constitution of India. His views on religion were based on common objective. He propounded all religions were but different paths that led to the same goal. His ideas were an extension of what is present in India. His thoughts were not only based on mutual respect and tolerance, but mutual realization of basic truth that underscores all individual religions. He was completely against the practise of untouchability. His learning from Vedanta made him a staunch critic of the concept of untouchables. He found neither religious sanction nor secular logic behind the terrible practice of untouchability and he went all out to condemn it.

On Education
Swami Vivekananda`s ideas on education are modern than the educationists that prevailed in ancient India. Right from the beginning he was instrumental in mass development and uplift. Furthermore, he had conceived of so many decades back what we now call informal education. He laid special stress on technical education and industrial training which have now become an essential part of the educational system of modern India.

Vivekananda worked towards educational rights for women. He laid special stress on conventional values of family life and chastity for women, but was totally against their subjection. He passionately pleaded for the extension of all educational facilities to women. His social reform ideas reflected greatly on his efforts to give India its traditional religions a new orientation of social service. With the establishment of Ramakrishna Mission, he propounded a new path for Indian monks and Sanyasins. So now we see that Hindu monks do not live an isolated life, on the contrary they are concerned with proving their service to the society. They have set up hospitals, educational institutions, dispensaries, orphanages and other community institutions for alleviating human misery.

As a Role Model
Thus, one sees Swami Vivekananda is a pioneering figure in India who has played in integral part towards shaping of modern India. Socialism, secularism, mass uplift and mass power, treating the untouchables with compassion, universal literacy, informal education, women`s liberation and inculcation of social service as a part of religious worship- these constituted the basic points for reforms by Swami Vivekananda. His famous words; "Awake, arise, and stop not till the goal is reached" - still resonated among the youth of the nation, rousing their social consciousness and kindling their damp spirits.

DR. AMBEDKAR’S Strategies Against Untouchability and the Caste System

Introduction

Dr. Ambedkar analyzed Hindu society before starting his struggle against untouchability and the caste system. He was a scholar as much as a man of action – in any case before becoming one. In his writings, Ambedkar tried hard to show the mechanisms of the caste system and clarified the origin of untouchability in order to support his fight for equality. For him, if the lower castes were not in a position to overthrow their oppressors, it was because oftwo reasons: they had partially internalised hierarchy; and because of the very characteristics of caste-based inequality. The internalisation of hierarchy was largely due to what M.N. Srinivas was to call the sanskritisation process that Ambedkar, in fact, had identified more than 20 years before. As early as in1916, Ambedkar presented his first research paper at Columbia University and explained that the caste system could not have been imposed by the Brahmins over society, but that it took shape when they were able to persuade other groups that their values were universally superior and that they had to be emulated by others, including endogamy, a marital rule which closed the system upon itself

The kind of inequality inherent in the caste system is called “graded in equality” by Ambedkar in a very perceptive way. In Untouchables or the Children of the India’s Ghetto, he contrasts it with other varieties of inequality which were not so difficult to abolish or correct. In the Ancient Regime, the Third State was able to raise itself against the aristocracy and the monarchy. In industrial societies, the working class can raise itself against the bourgeoisie. The type of inequality from which the caste ridden society suffers is of a different kind because its logic divides the dominated groups and, therefore, prevents them from overthrowing the oppressor. In a society of “graded inequality”, the Bahujan Samaj is divided into the lower castes (Shudras) and the Dalits and2Indian Institute of Dalit Studiesthe Shudras and the Dalits themselves are divided into many jatis. One of themain objectives of Dr. Ambedkar was first to unite the Dalits and, then, the BahujanSamaj and, second to endow them with a separate identity that would offer them an alternative route out of sanskritisation.

Identity Building: Untouchables As Sons of the Soil

Ambedkar tried to endow the lower castes with a glorious history of sons of the soil to help them acquire an alternative – not-caste based – identity, to regain their self respect and overcome their divisions. In The Untouchables, who were they and why they became Untouchables? (1948), Ambedkar refutes Western authors explaining caste hierarchy by resorting to racial factors. His interpretation is strikingly complicated. He explains that all primitive societies have been one day or the other conquered by invaders who raised them selvesabove the native tribes. In breaking up, these tribes as a matter of rule give birth to a peripheral group that he calls the Broken Men.

When the conquerors became stationary then, they resorted to the services of these Broken Men to protect themselves from the attacks of the tribes which remained nomadic. The Broken Men therefore found refuge, as guards of villages, in the suburbs of the latter because it was more logical from a point of view of topography and because the victorious tribes did not accept foreigners, of a different blood, within their group. Ambedkar applied this theory to India by presenting the Untouchables as the descendants of the Broken Men (Dalit, in Marathi) and, therefore, the original inhabitants of India, before the conquest of this country by the Aryan invaders

According to Ambedkar these Broken Men were the most constant followers of Buddha soon after he began his teachings in the 6^th century BC. And they remained Buddhists when the rest of the society returned to the Hindu fold under the pressure of Brahmins. Ambedkar drew two conclusions from it:

“It explains why the Untouchables regard the Brahmins as inauspicious, do not employ them as their priests and do not even allow them to enter into their quarters. It also explains why the Broken Men came to be regarded as Untouchables. The Broken Men hated the Brahmins because the Brahmins were the enemies of Buddhism and the Brahmins imposed untouchability upon the Broken Men because they would not leave Buddhism.

Dr. Ambedkar’s Strategies Against Untouchability and the Caste System Christophe Jaffre lot Thus, Ambedkar did not contend himself with elaborating a theory of castes which culminated in the idea of graded inequality; he also devised an untouchable tradition susceptible to remedy the former. If they recognised themselves as sons of the soils and Buddhists, the Untouchables could better surmount their divisions into so many jat is and take a stand together as an ethnic group against the system in its entirety. Omvedt underlines that by the end of his life Ambedkar was working on a grand theory of the origin of the Untouchables and the conflict between their civilisation and Hinduism. The notion of auto chthony played a key role in this theory. Ambedkar argued that if Hindu India had be eninvaded by Muslims, Buddhist India had been subjugated by Brahmins out siders much before. Omvedt considers that there was ‘a racial ethnic element in allof this, in which Ambedkar identifies his heroes to some extent with non Aryans, for instance, arguing that the Mauryan empire was that of the Nagas.

AMBEDKAR ON HUMANISM

‘Action, Reflection, Action’

One should always cherish some ambition to do something in the world. They alone rise who strive.” That was B R Ambedkar in ‘Dr B R Ambedkar : Life and Missions’. There are two fundamental types of human nature–creative and possessive. Creative humans use human intellect for creative endeavors which enriches human thought; knowledge and wealth thereby contribute to the development of human heritage for the posterity. Possessive people, on the other hand do not believe in the use of human intellect for creative purpose. Gautam Buddha, Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Kabeer, Ravidas, Tukarama, Phule, Periyar and DrBabasaheb Ambedkar they all belong to the great class of Creative humans called as Humanists in Indian context.

DrAmbedkar’s mind was deeply imbued with Kabeer’s philosophy in the childhood days. On passing his matriculation examination, he was felicitated by his teacher and was presented with a copy of a book on the life of Buddha. This gift must have made a profound impact on the mind of young Ambedkar. Apart from his father, three names or figures—Gautam Buddha, Jotibha Phule, and Kabir—are the most important. They were regarded by Ambedkar as his three masters or gurus. He said, “My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words : Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. …I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha.”

Dr Ambedkar stayed in America, the land of liberty, for his higher studies. There he studied the western liberal thought and the humanitarian philosophy expounded by great thinkers such as Prof John Dewey, who was also his teacher, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Prof Harold Laski to name a few. The impact of these original thinkers on DrAmbedkar’s mind is evident from the frequent quotations one comes across in his writings and speeches. Whereas the West gave Ambedkar his ‘weapon’, the Indian masters gave him his soul force. According to Sonawane, “Dr BabasahebAmbedkar’s personality had strong humanistic underpinnings. It is only regrettable that the press in the past as well as the contemporary has projected Ambedkar mainly as a great social rebel and a bitter critic of the Hindu religion. Critics of Dr Ambedkar have ignored his basic humanistic instincts and strong humanitarian convictions behind his every act or speech throughout his life. It is important to trace the origin and consolidation of his humanistic convictions.”

Dr Ambedkar fought a relentless battle against social order and was one of the very few Indian leaders who was forthright, and called a spade, “I hate all injustice, tyranny, pompousness and humbug.” Dr Ambedkar believed that if he succeeded in his struggle —struggle for a just social order—it will prove a blessing for all Indians, not merely any group or community. He wanted the dominating section of Indian people to adopt a strong position against the hierarchical social order. Regrettably, not many have taken a position. “My ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words, there must be social endomosis.”

Karl Marx has scientifically analyzed this conflict by applying the principles of dialectical materialism to the sphere of social phenomenon and described it as the historical materialism. Slavery, apartheid, gender bias and caste system are the abominable creations of possessive peoples for the exploitation of creative people. These are man made evils created by man for the exploitation of man. Those, who have raised their voices against these evils and given a relentless fight against the prevailing social order of their times in order to free the creative peoples from the shackles imposed on them have become immortal personalities in the human history. Dr Ambedkar gave the central slogan of his life :

“Educate, Agitate and Organize”. This electrifying message truly captures the spirit of the Marxian concept of praxis, of “action, reflection, action”. In the Indian context, education assumes a crucial role because the vast majority of untouchable masses are illiterate. Further, it is not just literacy that he calls for, but education; and not education alone, but agitation and organization too.

Dr Ambedkar’s quest for social justice can be visualized in the philosophy, policy and ideals of the constitution of India. The substance of justice, liberty, equality and benefiting human dignity of individual are made more elaborate in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. A fleeting glance at the constitution as a whole reveals the quest of Dr Ambedkar for social revolution for the reconstruction of an egalitarian and classless society. The fundamental rights as a whole foster the social reconstruction by generating equality, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, abolishing untouchability and making its practice in any form is an offence punishable by law, and banning trafficking in human beings and forced labour, which furnished a solid basis for social inequalities and injustices.

The Government of Bombay constituted a committee in 1928 to enquire into the educational, economic and social conditions of the depressed classes to recommend measures for their uplift. Dr Ambedkar was a prominent member of the committee.

There is some points which reflect his views about education:

1. Give up the idea that parents give ‘janma’ to the child and not destiny(karma). They can mould the destiny of their children by giving them education.

2. Knowledge is the foundation of man’s life.

3. Education is as necessary for females as it is for males.

4. If one’s education is detrimental to the welfare of the poor, the educated man is a curse to the society.

5. Character is more important than education.

He has enumerated the evils of Hinduism in the following manner:

1. It has deprived moral life of freedom.

2. It has only emphasized conformity to commands.

3. The laws are unjust because they are not the same for one class as of another. Besides, the code is treated as final.

Dr Ambedkar embraced Buddhism because the Buddhist dharma is based on scientific reasoning, it seeks to achieve human freedom, equality, liberty and fraternity. According to him Buddha taught, “social freedom, intellectual freedom, and political freedom. He taught equality, equality not between man and man only but between man and woman. His concern was to give salvation to man in his life on earth, and not to promise it to him in heaven after he is dead.”

After a comparative study of different religions, he concluded that Buddhism was the best religion from this point of view. In his article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, Ambedkar has summarized his views on religion and on Buddhism in the following manner:

1. The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, the society is sure to go to pieces.

2. Religion, if it is to survive, it must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.

3. It is not enough for religion to consist of moral code, but its moral code must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity.

4. Religion must not sanctify or make a virtue out of poverty.

SAUL DAVID ALINSKY

Saul Alinsky

Born	Saul David Alinsky January 30, 1909 Chicago, Illinois
Died	June 12, 1972 (aged 63) Carmel, California
Cause of death	Heart attack
Nationality	American
Education	University of Chicago, Ph.B. 1930 U. of Chicago Graduate School, criminology, 1930–1932
Occupation	Community organizer, Writer
Known for	writing on politics
Notable work(s)	Rules for Radicals
Influenced	Ed Chambers, Tom Gaudette,Ernesto Cortes, Cesar Chavez,MichaelGecan, Wade Rathke,Patrick Crowley
Religion	Jewish agnostic
Spouse(s)	Helene Simon of Philadelphia, m. 9 June 1932 – her death Jean Graham, 15 May 1952 – div 1970 Irene Alinsky, May 1971
Children	Katherine and David (by Helene)
Parents	Benjamin Alinsky (tailor andlandlord) Sarah Tannenbaum
Relatives	two half brothers and a half sister from his father's earlier marriage a younger brother died in childhood
Awards	Pacem in Terris Award, 1969

Saul David Alinsky (1909-1972) was a leading organizer of neighborhood citizen reform groups in the United States between 1936 and 1972. He also provided philosophical direction for this type of organizing movement.

SAULALINSKY, community organizing and rules for radicals

Saul Alinsky's work is an important reference point for thinking about community organizing and community development. His books Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971) were both classic explorations of organizing and remain popular today. Mike Seal examines Alinsky's continuing relevance to the activities of informal educators, community organizers and animateurs.

Only two kinds of people can afford the luxury of acting on principle, those with absolute power and those with none and no desire to get any...everyone else who wants to be effective in politics has to learn to be ‘unprincipled’ enough to compromise in order to see their principles succeed. (Rogers 1990: 12)

Liberals in their meetings utter bold words; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement 'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.' They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.(Alinsky 1971: 4)

The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people. (Alinsky 1946: 23)

His thoughts on the nature of work with communities are challenging, and yet relevant. In this article I want to expand on three areas. On:

· the place of principles and morality in community work;

· what it is to be a liberal or a radical; and

· rules for how to engage with power structures effectively.

The three quotes above are meant to encapsulate his thinking on these subjects. I will go on to expand on the ideas that stem from them.

Saul Alinsky's life and work

Saul Alinsky was born in Chicago on 30 January 1909, the child of Russian-Jewish immigrant parents. Saul Alinsky's parents divorced when he was 13 years old, and he went to live with his father who had moved to Los Angeles. At an early age he was interested in the dynamics of power and the interaction between those who are denied resources and those who deny. 'I never thought of walking on the grass,' he recalls, 'until I saw a sign saying 'Keep off the grass.' Then I would stomp all over it.'

He earned a doctorate in archaeology from the University of Chicago in 1930. However, it was spending a summer helping dissident miners in their revolt against John L. Lewis's United Mine Workers that influenced his future direction. Upon graduation he won a fellowship from the university's sociology department which enabled him to study criminology. He went to work for Clifford Shaw at the Institute for Juvenile Research and soon found himself working at the State Penitentiary (at which he stayed for three years). At this time he married Helene Simon, with whom he had a son and a daughter. He had met Helene while studying at the University and they married in 1932. As Horwitt (1989: 17) has commented, the Depression and the growing turbulence of the 1930s politicized both of them. Helene, a social worker, was a strong organizer and gained a considerable reputation in the labour movement.

Saul Alinsky died on June 12, 1972 in Carmel, California. He had been to visit Jean, gone to a bank, and then collapsed outside of a heart attack.

Alinsky on means and ends

Saul Alinsky had a particular take on the subject of means and ends, or in the terminology of informal education, on process and product. He was specifically impatient with people who would not take action for reasons of principle. As he says in his chapter 'Of Means and Ends' in Rules for Radicals.

He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of 'personal salvation'; he doesn't care enough for people to ‘be corrupted' for them. (Alinsky 1972: 25)

He thought that the morality of action needed not to be judged in or of itself but weighed against the morality of inaction. As Saul Alinsky states at the outset of the chapter:

The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. (Alinsky 1972: 24)

Alinsky then proceed to develop a set of rules regarding the ethics of means and ends. Given his take on morality the idea of a set of rules about them seems ironic and this was part of his idiosyncratic style. Saul Alinsky can seem very amoral in his statements. I think that it is helpful to treat them as questions upon which to reflect when considering the morality of means and ends. For him the point was not to dwell on the morals people should hold, but to understand the morals which guide people in practice.

Here I want to highlight the key elements of his approach – as outlined in Rules.

1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene of conflict (Alinsky 1972: 26). Saul Alinsky was critical of those who criticized the morality of actions they were not involved in, were dispassionate about or were not touched by. For him, the further people are away from the conflict, the more they fuss over the moral delicacies. Furthermore, such moralising and distancing denies one’s own culpability. He agreed with Peck that the demonizing of and moralising about the soldiers in the Mai Lai Massacre in the Vietnam War (where soldiers massacred 400 civilians) was hypocritical. For Alinsky the questions were how do people got to the point of committing atrocities, how people were socialised into the army, its cultures of responsibility, who becomes a soldier and ultimately why the war was being fought. Sadly such concerns are still relevant today.

2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgement (Alinsky 1972: 26-9).Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the Devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray. (Alinsky 1972: 3)

Yet nowadays, with the need for propaganda over, the declaration is still taken to be self evidently true. For Saul Alinsky, both parties in a dispute will claim, and need to claim, that the opposition's means are immoral and their own means are ethical and rooted in the highest of human values. This seems to be true of the wars in the Falklands, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. We portray ourselves as fighting for reasons such as freedom, democracy, protecting the innocent and portray the ‘insurgents’ as displaying the opposite moral characteristics.

3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30). For Saul Alinsky people are expedient in the moment, and then find ways to justify this as consistent and moral after the fact. For example, Churchill was asked how he could reconcile himself to siding with the communists, given his stated opinions. He responded, 'I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby.' Yet prior to the war he said ‘One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievements. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations' – (Great Contemporaries: 1937). During the war the allies, and Britain in particular supported the communist led resistance in Greece. Yet after the war Churchill turned British guns on communist partisans who had fought with the allies in the second world war in the Greek Civil war and supported the return of a monarchy for Greece.

Saul Alinsky uses the example of the American Declaration of Independence to elaborate on this statement: To the Colonists who drafted it, the Declaration was self evidently true; to the British, it deliberately ignored the benefits of the British presence. The colonists recognized at the time that the document was not balanced and was to some extent propaganda.

4) The judgement of the ethics of means must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point (Alinsky 1972: 30-2). Saul Alinsky uses the example of the Boston Massacre to illustrate his point. Patrick Carr, one of the townspeople shot dead by the British, stated on his deathbed that the townspeople had been the aggressors and that the British fired in self-defence. This admission threatened to destroy the martyrdom that the Revolutionary Leader, Sam Adams, had invested in the townspeople. Adams thereby discredited Patrick Carr as 'an Irish papist who had died in the confession of the Roman Catholic Church.' For Alinsky it would be easy to condemn Adams, but as he says, we are not today involved in a revolution against the British Empire. Alinsky says we have to judge the act through the lens of the times.

5) Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available (Alinsky 1972: 232-34). Saul Alinsky said that moral questions may enter the equation when one has alternate means. If one lacks this choice, one will take what options one has. He was talking at a time when there was condemnation of the tactic of the Viet Cong of sending children to plant bombs in bars frequented by American soldiers. He would have probably have understood the actions of suicide bombers, or at least would have said the question is not 'how could anyone do this'? but what drove them to see these actions as their only effective tactics.

6) The less important the end, the more one engage in ethical evaluations about means(Alinsky 1972: 34). This is similar to Saul Alinsky’s first point, the question being how people’s moralizing changes according to how important the end is to them. As a parallel, many informal educators I have worked with moralise very differently about, for example, the young people they work with compared to their own children. With the young people they work with, they recognise that they will experiment with drugs, alcohol and sex as a part of their ‘means’ of growing up; and have ways of reacting to the young people when they do these things. However they react to their own children using drugs and alcohol and having sex quite differently! Such ‘means’ are not an options for them.

7) Success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics (Alinsky 1972: 34).

Yesterday's immoral terrorist is today's moral and dignified statesman of high standing -- because he was successful. Yesterday's moral statesman is sitting in front of a 'war crimes tribunal' today -- because he lost. (Connachie 2001)

Saul Alinsky saw this as an extension of the old adage that history favours the winners. I am sure Churchill would be remembered very differently had we lost the war. He also identified 'winners' as those in power, not necessarily in a complimentary way, but simply in recognition that at present, those with power are winning. From this perspective, whether groups are defined as terrorists or freedom fighters, is normally determined by those in power.

8) The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory (Alinsky 1972: 34-5). This relates to point five and says that we should judge different acts differently at different points. If a person cheats because they are desperate, we should judge it differently than if they cheat when they are winning. Similarly if a person steals to feed their children, it is different from theft by someone who already has a lot of money. Interestingly, at present, for a first offence or a small amount, both are likely to receive a fine in the UK. This seems the opposite of Alinsky's principle in that the poor person would be less able to pay the fine, and have a greater (admittedly only financial) impact on them than on the richer person.

9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical(Alinsky). Alinsky sees one of the tactics of those in a battle is to judge the other side as being immoral. We will find ways to judge their methods as unethical even if they are also used by our side. We will, of course, be using them is a slightly different, more moral, way. As a youth worker I remember having a battle with a certain management committee about the use of the building, in particular about whether we needed the full-size snooker table that dominated one room – and which no young people used. At first they questioned whether I was being truly representative of the young people in their views about the table, despite this being my role in the meeting. When I brought the young people to express their own views to the management committee they said I had put them on the spot in a meeting, which was not appropriate, despite them having invited them. When the young people wrote in to express their views, the management committee said that while they were the young people in the club, they questioned whether they were representative of the young people ‘in the community’. The snooker table stayed.

10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45). Interestingly while this may seem the most morally redundant, Saul Alinsky uses the example of Mahatma Gandhi's concept of 'passive resistance' as an illustration. He points out that, perhaps 'passive resistance' was simply:

Alinsky on liberalism and radicalism

As we can see from the opening quote, Saul Alinsky was contemptuous of the kind of liberal thinking that led to inaction. Indeed, he devoted a significant part of Reveille for Radicals comparing the radical and liberal orientations. He was also equally contemptuous of what he termed ‘suicidal’ or ‘rhetorical’ radicals. He starts the prologue toRules for Radicals by addressing what he sees as the new generation of radicals, and the folly of some of their approaches.

The Revolutionary force today..are reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book. (Alinsky 1972: xiii).

He then goes on to analyse how the radicals of his generation, to a large extent, either did not survive, or did not move beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism, a set of beliefs that he also thought had had their day. He also had sympathy for the new radicals, and the rejection of the lifestyles they had settled for that lead their parents to tranquillizers, alcohol, long-term-endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure, ulcers, frustration and the disillusionment of the 'good life,'. He then gives some quite poignant analysis of the ‘generation gap’ between radicals, and how they fail to communicate with each other. He has some sympathy with why the new radicals have rejected the standpoint of their older comrades. However, he is also scathing of some of the tactics employed by some of the new radicals as alternatives.

Some panic and run, rationalizing that the system is going to collapse anyway of its own rot and corruption and so they're copping out, going hippie or yippie, taking drugs, trying communes, anything to escape. Others went for pointless sure-loser confrontations so that they could fortify their rationalization and say, 'Well, we tried and did our part' and then they copped out too. Others sick with guilt and not knowing where to turn or what to do went berserk. These were the Weathermen and their like: they took the grand cop-out, suicide. To these I have nothing to say or give but pity - and in some cases contempt, for such as those who leave their dead comrades and take off for Algeria or other points. (Alinsky 1972: xvii).

He particularly lamented their lack of communication, and alienation of the bulk of the masses who might otherwise have supported them. At the time there was trend for burning the American flag, something he saw as going outside of, and alienating the bulk of the masses. 'The responsible organizer would have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the symbol of America's hopes and aspirations,. He takes the analogy further saying that the radical needs to work within the experience of his or her community. He built this, and other ideas into his ‘rules for radicals’ saying that while 'there are no rules for revolution any more than there are rules for love or rules for happiness …. there are certain central concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of the scene or the time' (Alinsky 1972: xviii). Before I expand on these rules, it is worth noting that, for Saul Alinsky it is important that the radical, at least in the first instance, works within the system. This is important as it was a challenge to many radical groups who were quite separatist at the time, advocating communities, or even just the active militants in a community, withdraw and organize internally. He again liked the approach to the distinction between being a realistic and a rhetorical radical.

As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system. (Alinsky 1972: xix).

He postulated that for radical change to happen the great mass of people need to be in favor, even passively of change. However he also thought people are naturally fearful of change and that unless they feel 'so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future', revolution will not happen. He called for alliances between radicals and ‘blue collar’, or ‘hard hat’ workers, who may still have an investment in the system, even if this meant a compromise on ones goals. Otherwise,

Furthermore, he felt that people should not underestimate the room to manoeuvre in democratic systems. Saul Alinsky did not deny government harassment, but still felt that the system had potential to be reformed. More to the point unless the masses thought that these avenues had been exhausted, they would not embrace change. He felt that many of the new radical movements, erroneously, wanted to skip the organising phase and go straight for revolution, turning potential allies, and even those communities they were meant to be representing, against them. For Alinsky, to take such a suicidal approach means 'there is no play, nothing but confrontation for confrontation's sake - a flare-up and back to darkness' (op. cit.). He saws the involvement and active participation of citizens in issues where they had real concerns, as the key, both to radicalism and democracy.

Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are as germane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclear-powered, mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedy airport. (Alinsky 1972: xxv).

Tactics for radicals

The bulk of the rest of Rules for Radicals is concerned with tactics, which he sometimes also refers to as the rules of power politics. I will expand on each in turn. I will also give examples from Mark Thomas, a UK-based socialist comedian who I think uses these techniques in his show.

1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have (Alinsky 1972: 127). In the book he says that if one has mass support, one should flaunt it, if one does not one should make a lot of noise, if one cannot make a big noise, make a big stink. Mark Thomas uses this technique frequently. When complaining about the tube privatization he formed a band of famous names and asked them to perform on the tube singing protest songs about it.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people (Alinsky 1972: 127). Mark Thomas makes extensive use of such techniques as getting the public to ring up their elected representatives or have mass letter writing campaigns. He will also put familiar mechanisms to other uses. When complaining about the use of organophosphates he put up yellow appeals for witness signs to draw attention to the public. When investigating Crown immunity to murder, when a person was run over by an army Landrover he put up tiredness kills signs all over the front of the army base.

3) Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy (Alinsky 1972: 127). Mark Thomas would continually try and dumbfound people. When complaining about the building of a dam that was to displace 15,000 people in Turkey he built an ice sculpture of a dam in front on the headquarters of the company building it.

4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128). This is one of Mark Thomas’s favorite tactics. He found out that people who inherited expensive paintings could avoid inheritance tax by allowing the public to have access to the painting. He got the public to ring up numerous people who had done this and request to see the paintings. When they refused, or refused everyone he managed to get the law changed.

5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128). Mark Thomas was complaining about the exporting of guns to Iran, where the government had claimed that they did not know the pipes were going to be used for that purpose because they had been put down as something else for export terms, despite the fact that they could not have been used for that purpose. He protested by painting a tank pink, put a plastic ice-cream cone on the top of it and tried to export it as an ice cream van.

6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy (Alinsky 1972: 128). When some pensioners had arranged to have, what could easily have been a boring meeting with a health minister, he got them to ask questions in the form of a dance routine. He also get a group of people to protest against GM crops by wearing radioactive protection gear and running around with Geiger counters.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag (Alinsky 1972: 128). Mark Thomas confesses to using a series of ‘stunts’, to make his points. He tends to use a lot of small actions, as illustrated about, rather than a prolonged action. This approach leads into the eighth rule.

8) Keep the pressure on (Alinsky 1972: 128). Saul Alinsky says not to rest on ones laurels if one has a partial victory. He says we should keep in mind Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to a reform delegation, 'Okay, you've convinced me. Now go on out and bring pressure on me!' For Alinsky, action comes from keeping the heat on. When protesting about the use of human protein in baby milk by Nestle Mark Thomas asks questions in a public meeting with the CEO presentation about corporate responsibility, he has a protest at an international conference, he writes letters to the board, he interviews specialists and the scientists from the company, he has protests with animal impersonators, visits the farm where the herd of cows being used are kept and drives round to the ministry of agriculture in a milk tanker and starts cleaning the windows with the milk.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself (Alinsky 1972: 129). When Saul Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation. Again, when challenging the avoidance of inheritance tax, Mark threatened to have more and more people requesting to see the paintings if a change did not happen.

10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition (Alinsky 1972: 129). Such pressure is necessary, Saul Alinsky argued, in order to get reaction from the opposition. He argued that 'the action is in the reaction' (op. cit.).

11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside(Alinsky 1972: 129). Essentially, this is to not give up and be afraid to concentrate on the negative aspects. In many cases Mark’s pushing of the negative aspects led to changes, such as a change in the law for the paintings, Nestle reconsidering their production of milk and Channel Four producing a website for posting up MEP’s interests (which is compulsory in other countries). He also succeeded in getting some serious questions asked about corporate killing in Parliament.

12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (Alinsky 1972: 130). This is the other side of the previous rule. If one does push the other party through to changing one has to offer some kind of solution. This would be one of my criticisms of Mark Thomas; he rarely offers solutions to the issues that he raises. It probably highlights the difference between an entertainer and a community organizer. It would also be one of Saul Alinsky’s main criticisms and goes back to the distinction he made between a real and a rhetorical radical. He had little time for some on the ultra left who knew what they were protesting against, but had little idea what they were fighting for. It is noticeable that Mark Thomas does achieve concrete things, when he has concrete demands.

13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972: 130). This is perhaps Saul Alinsky’s most controversial rule and is the counter to the common idea that we should not make things personal. When pursuing the changes in the inheritance law for paintings he targets one individual. He will often find out who the CEO is in a company and hound that person. In the organophosphates debate it is one scientist that he targets and the validity of his findings.

Conclusion

Saul Alinsky’s ideas could be seen as controversial, but he was effective and practical as a community activist, and his work and writing deserves to be more widely known among those involved in informal education, community development work and social pedagogy. Not that his principles and rules are unquestionable or right for every situation, but they are a practical toolkit to effect change though leverage in those with power, potentially of great worth to those engaged in community work and education. In addition, next time one hears someone make a moral judgment about another, or make a claim to be a radical, I would encourage the reader to think about Saul Alinsky’s ideas.

PAULO FREIRE

Paulo Freire influenced thousands of people, hundreds of grassroots organizations, and has ultimately created a system of liberation where people are encouraged to share individual experiences with the aim of creating a greater collective understanding of present reality with the intention of acting towards social change.

He devised a philosophy or social theory of education that is widely known as Popular Education. It has been distinguished from conventional methods of education by the distinction between what Freire called "the banking methods of education" and "liberatory education" which is a process of critical social change. It is not a method of education but what Donaldo Macedo describes as "illustrated education (that) is inherently directive and must always be transformative" (p. 25 Pedagogy of the Oppressed). It is a social theory that empowers the participants and challenges their world view, motivating people to move for critical social change through education.

http://www.trentu.ca/academic/nativestudies/courses/nast305/image6I7.JPG

    Paulo Freire, born in 1921, was brought up in a middle class environment within Recife, an area of Brazil that was severely impoverished around the time of his birth. His parents taught him the importance of dialogue, and respecting the choices of others. Both of which are important elements in popular ed. When the great Depression hit Brazil in 1929, Paulo knew the pangs of hunger. He has said that "in spite of our hunger that gave is solidarity… our playtime, as far as the poor children were concerned, ranked us as people from another world." (p13, Pedagogy of the Oppressed). At nine years old, Paulo Freire decide that he would dedicate his life to the struggle of ending hunger. This realization of class borders at such a young age stuck with Freire, and was a main influence in his rejection of class based society, and neo-liberal ideology. Freire maintained that it is imperative for anyone who would like to join to fight on oppression to take a ‘detour through class analysis’. and anyone who denies that class boundaries exist - MUST look again.
    After Freire finished his Law degree from the University of Recife in Brazil, where he studied philosophy and the psychology of language. He turned to the Field of Education, where he began to develop a process of study and reflection that was new to the educational system. Education has traditionally been perceived of as ‘neutral’, a position which does not allow for critical analysis of a situation, event, or prescribed identities. This is a social construction of ‘not seeing’, not seeing the cause, or not seeing the connections of many oppressive actions to the effects of those actions on people, or our environment. Freire saw that this practice fostered a ‘culture of silence’ of the dispossessed, and kept people ‘submerged’ under social, economic, and political domination. A paternalistic presence of the state kept an image of the oppressed as a ‘victim’, as lethargic, ignorant and incapable of being subjects. Freire worked to counter this belief through dialogue to raise consciousness, and act with reflection. He believed that action was the source of education, not the reverse .
    As the first director of the University of Racife’s Cultural Extension Service, he brought literacy programs to thousands of people in the Northwest, and established, directed, and designed the National Literacy Campaign with the Government of Brazil. At that time, the Government of Brazil had created a policy to enable the illiterate majority to become responsible democratic citizens. These educational initiatives fell apart in 1964, when the political power shifted hands to the military coup. Freire was immediately jailed, and seventy days later he was exiled from Brazil. Freire was finally allowed to return after fifteen years in 1979 under a political amnesty.
Freire went to chile and worked for five years with the Chilean Institute For Agrarian Reform and Adult Education which was recognized by UNESCO (united nations educational school co-ordinated organizations) as one of five nations in the world to have most succeeded in overcoming illiteracy.
He also went to the united states to work as a consultant in Harvard’s School of Education. the time he spent in the united states allowed Freire to move his philosophy from a geographic perspective to a more political perspective. He was the assistant secretary of education for the World council of churches in Geneva, Switzerland and lectured all over the world. He devoted his time to helping literate programs in newly independent countries in Africa and Asia. These transformative travels and political experiences greatly influenced the writing of his most celebrated book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970).
After his return to Brazil, Freire continued to develop his legacy of education and social action. He was eventually appointed Minister of Education in Sao Paulo in 1988, and became responsible for school reform in major urban areas. During his tenure, he affected approximately 2/3 of the schools within Brazil.
    He efforts continued in this vein until, sadly in 1997, Paulo Freire died of a heart attack. He left behind a testimony to a lifelong struggle having touched millions of people through his philosophy.

MSW learning tutorials....!

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

SOCIAL ACTION BY SOCIAL REFORMERS