Justice for the Excluded and Education for Democracy in B. R. Ambedkar and A. Gramsci

Abstract

Building on the author’s previous works discussing Gramsci’s and Ambedkar’s political philosophies in favor of subalterns and Dalits as well as the concept of “spirituality” through which they affirm their full humanity, this essay explores their envisaged role of education in allowing the excluded to achieve participation in the democratic process. After discussing scholarship around education and Gramsci, the essay examines the same topic for Ambedkar, noting their commonalities, with the help of work from Padma Velaskar and Shaikaja Paik. After examining Dewey’s influence on Ambedkar’s ideas on education, the essay emphasizes the latter’s originality in adapting his teacher’s pragmatism to the Indian milieu and considers those authors who have explored a closeness between Gramsci and Dewey. The conclusion suggests a return to the practical educational philosophy of Gramsci and Ambedkar as still indispensable in the contemporary scenario for making democracy effective for all.

Key Words:

• B. R. Ambedkar
• Democracy
• John Dewey
• Educational Philosophy
• Antonio Gramsci

Notes

1 As Carlucci (2017, 36) notes: “The student of linguistics consecrated himself entirely to political activity.”

2 References to Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks will follow the internationally established standard of notebook number (Q), number of note (§), and page number, according to the Italian critical edition (see Gramsci 1975). The English translation of this edition, currently including Gramsci’s first eight notebooks in three volumes, is still a work in progress (see Gramsci 1992, 1996, 2007). A partial English translation is also available (see Gramsci 1971).

3 The “schooling question” refers here to the reform of the educational system—known as Riforma Gentile—devised and implemented in 1923 by the Minister of Education of the Fascist Government, the philosopher Giovanni Gentile.

4 “The development process is dependent on a dialectic between the intellectuals and the masses; the stratum of intellectuals develops both quantitatively and qualitatively, but every jolt towards a new ‘breadth’ and complexity of the stratum of intellectuals is linked to a similar movement made by the mass of the simple, which rises to higher levels of culture and simultaneously enlarges its circle of influence towards the stratum of specialized intellectuals, producing outstanding individuals and groups of greater or less importance” (Q11§12, 1386).

5 From 7 December 1926 to 20 January 1927, Gramsci spent forty-four days on the island of Ustica, off the northern coast of Sicily, in political confinement. Here, with Amedeo Bordiga, he organised a “Prison School” for the inmates (Scuola dei confinati). Bordiga was in charge of the sciences while Gramsci took care of history and literature. The story is recounted in the recent documentary film Gramsci 44 (2016).

6 See Peter Mayo’s (2017, 36–8) “Reading Gramsci Holistically.”

7 Only lack of space prevents us from also discussing here the relevant essay by Pietro Maltese (2017) that also appears in Pizzolato and Holst’s edited collection.

8 This terminology, coming from vernacular Marathi, has been brought to light by Shailaja Paik (2007, 2014) so as to underscore—as we shall see—conceptual frames used by Dalits themselves, thus revealing a remarkable level of self-consciousness and self-determination.

9 For a general discussion of Ambedkar’s vision of Dalit education, see Chalam (2008), Shukla (1998), and Mahapatra (2004); for the wider context of education, see also Rodrigues (2002), Jondhale and Beltz (2004), Thorat and Kumar (2008), and Bhattacharya and Chinna Rao (2017).

10 This is indeed similar to what I have elsewhere labeled the “double burden of untouchability” for Dalit women.

11 See Janata, 15 December 1945, quoted in Paik (2014, 77).

12 “Teachers were in fact saarathi [guides and leaders] who were to mould individuals and societies” (Ambedkar 1927b [Nayaya tari dya (At least give justice). Bahishkrut Bharat, 3 June], quoted in Paik 2014: 96).

13 Paik (2014, 104n28) mentions here that Gramsci “refers to teachers as ‘cultural workers’ actively involved in a cultural struggle of the oppressed,” inspiring some contemporary authors (Giroux 1988, 2002; Apple 1988) to consider the teacher as a “transformative intellectual.”

14 However, Paik (2012, 341) also recognises that “the shame of being a Dalit and a woman is thus implanted in the classroom—and a consciousness is forged. A girl, as she becomes a woman, may use this consciousness to fight back, as some have done, or she may—as most do—keep her head down and get on with her life.”

15 A parallel reflection on this score is offered by Gopal Guru (2002) who, commenting on the academic hierarchies present within Social Sciences in India which divides a few privileged theorists from a vast mass of empiricists (‘theoretical brahmins and empirical shudras’), maintains that ‘Dalits need theory as social necessity’ as much as they need it for ‘inner necessity,’ while appealing also to Gramsci to make his point.

16 Moreover, rather than confining their thoughts to the archives of history, we might want to find inspiration for the solutions to problems that still affect our contemporary situation, given the little progress made in affirming democracy and education—also taken in conjunction—as cornerstones of our common living.

17 The Siddhartha College contains Ambedkar’s personal books “on Indian culture and philosophy, communism, religion, and philosophy … as well as books by J. S. Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Vladimir Lenin” (Stroud 2017, 81).

18 I certainly agree with Hinchliffe (2016) that, “for Gramsci, an educative order simply fails if it merely consolidates common sense. Pedagogies that fail to move learners on from common sense, no matter how benign and comfortable, also fail to recognise that ‘all men are philosophers.’”

19 From a Gramscian perspective, as Crehan (2011, 245) maintains, we could add that “there is no simple recipe, however, for cultural transformation; it is a complex historical process in which there needs to be an active dialogue between intellectuals and nonintellectuals. Those who live the harsh realities of subordination, however capable they may be of everyday resistance, cannot, in Gramsci’s view, themselves come up with the coherent, effective counter-narratives necessary if the existing hegemony is to be overcome.” For this very reason, Gramsci insists on the importance for subaltern groups to create and promote their own intellectuals.

20 On 2 March 1930, Ambedkar led a Satyagraha “temple entry protest” at Nashik in order to allow Dalits to enter the Kalaram Temple. As Ambedkar later explained, it was not a matter of “entering the temple” but to have the right to do so.

21 “This speech was published and sold in print versions, including Gandhi’s negative response and Ambedkar’s rebuttal in later editions” (Stroud 2017, 102n51). The speech text can be found in Ambedkar (1979) under the title “Annihilation of Caste.”

22 Baldacci (2017a) develops even further Dewey’s pedagogical insights in a chapter that is part of the edited volume John Dewey e la pedagogia democratica del ’900.

23 “By the onset of World War II, Dewey seemed on the verge of a better understanding of American racism … He challenged the belief that racism could be grounded in nature and used the experience of women’s suffrage to prove his point, that women were not by nature inferior to men” (Stack 2009, 25).

24 In chapter 5 of Education and Experience (“The Nature of Freedom”), Dewey asserts that the freedom of intelligence—the act of freely thinking, observing and judging—is the only freedom of enduring importance. He discusses this within the schooling system and the relationship between student and teacher. Once again, Ambedkar would have taken the discussion beyond formal education so as to include all spheres of Dalit life where freedom and the ability/right to think were not solely at risk but often negated.

25 “Mr. Gandhi wants Swaraj as did President Lincoln want Union. But he does not want Swaraj at the cost of disrupting the structure of Hinduism … as President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves if it was not necessary to do so for the sake of the Union. … Mr. Gandhi’s attitude is, let Swaraj perish if the cost of it is the political freedom of the Untouchables” (Ambedkar 2009, 4409; quoted in Singh Rathore 2017, 204n9).

26 It would be pertinent to discuss at this point also Gramsci’s writings on the question of race in the United States, but I prefer to refer here to the excellent article on this topic by R. A. Judy (forthcoming).

27 For instance, this is the case for the philosophy underpinning the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” in which the “universality” is provided almost exclusively by Anglo-European philosophy.

28 For a reflection on Ambedkar’s contribution to cosmopolitan insights and his thought “on promoting democratic unity across linguistically and culturally diverse political units, as well as on pursuing domestic rights protections through suprastate institutions,” see Cabrera (2017).