Interview With Ashis Nandy
`Every tradition has its dark side'

The past cannot be romanticised, says noted sociologist, psychologist and writer Ashis Nandy. All talk about traditional systems of knowledge is not honest. For instance, the BJP and Sangh Parivar go on and on about tradition. But why do they discard our traditional systems of knowledge for resistance to external aggression and violence -- expounded by Gautam Buddha or Gandhi -- in favour of ultra-modern nuclear technology?

by Parshuram Ray

Ashis Nandy, Senior Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and Chairperson of the Committee for Cultural Choices and Global Futures, is one of India's best-known sociologists and psychologists. His books include Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias, Alternative Sciences, The Tao of Cricket and The Savage Freud and Other Essays in Possible and Retrievable Selves.

Alongside the rush towards the `extra-modern' and `super-scientific' we see a very strong trend, at least in some sectors and spheres of life, of people trying to go back to the past. For example, there are a large number of initiatives to revive traditional methods of agriculture -- the use of indigenous seeds and implementation of traditional water-harvesting systems. Also, people are reverting to traditional health practices; there's the sudden craze for yoga and meditation. What are the broader implications of these trends?

First of all, I object to the expression "going back to the past". This is not going back to the past. This is moving on to another part of the present. These are people who have knowledge of traditional agricultural practices, traditional water-harvesting systems, traditional healing systems. They are not dead, they are living, and millions of people go to them. We are reaching out to our next-door neighbours whom we have ignored till now, who possess systems of knowledge, who have access to this knowledge. We like to think of them as dead and gone, part of the past. And people talk of the romantic side of the past. It is absolutely bogus. This is the new slave trade of our times where we are exporting to the past people who are living in the present. We do not want to recognise the fact that they live in the present and that we have something to learn from them. So we export them psychologically to the past and talk of them as if they are part of history. It is not history, it is the contemporary politics of knowledge.

I think very highly of these efforts because we have seen how, in some ways, certain practices that are fashionable and dominant in contemporary times have reached a dead-end. We know that modern agronomy is not environment-friendly. We know that modern medicine is not patient-friendly. We know that the poor cannot get access to the best healthcare systems, despite modern medicine. Modern medicine is reserved for the rich, for the super-rich. We have seen how our present water-management system has led to continuous cycles of droughts and floods. So we are searching for other forms of knowledge that will protect us from the excesses of contemporary knowledge systems. And these excesses have partly been generated because contemporary knowledge systems have failed to recognise the existence of other systems. They have faced only internal criticisms, they have never confronted external criticisms. Only now we see an effort to mount criticism against some of these systems from the outside. And, in that particular form of criticism and social audit, certain forms of traditional knowledge systems have come in handy. That is the significance of this so-called return to the past.

As a futurist, do you foresee these traditional systems regaining their rightful place, at least in public consciousness if not in macro-policies?

Yes, I do see this happening to a great extent. Even in macro-policies I see some influences. Because certain problems are so acute that we just cannot avoid exploring all possible means of addressing them. Only the ignorant (and the ignorant are almost invariably self-confident) will ignore this crisis in modern systems of knowledge. I think the sensitive modern scientist, whether he be an agronomist or hydrologist or doctor, knows better. Armed with the professional knowledge of their respective fields, these people are more open to other schools of thought, other ways of looking at problems. And although this different way of looking is sanctioned by tradition and enveloped in a language and metaphor that many people do not fully understand, such people still attempt to learn something from traditional systems and cross the barrier. Do not forget that many of the major efforts in identifying traditional herbs now are mounted by major multinational pharmaceutical companies whose advisory boards include a galaxy of scientists, many of them Nobel laureates. The criticisms mainly come from third-rate scientists and fourth-rate social scientists.

What is the role of ecological crises in inspiring or compelling people to look for alternative systems and practices that existed in the past that were relatively sustainable and sound?

Yes, I think the environment has played an important role in making people sensitive to these existing tools of knowledge. But I think there are other forces too. I think many people, all over the world, have become extremely sensitive to the kind of violence that is associated with some of the modern systems of knowledge. They are also aware that after being on the world stage and dominating our consciousness for nearly a hundred years these systems of knowledge have developed a vested interest and are capable of being misused much more easily than they used to be. In large parts of the world, modern medicine has become something of a racket. You don't have to go very far: go to a private clinic near you and ask them what proportion of women get Caesarean sections done, and what proportion actually need them; what proportion of people undergo cardiac bypass and what proportion actually need them. You will immediately become aware of the kind of chicanery, wheeling-dealing and simple greed that exists in the culture of modern knowledge systems.

Institutions like the World Bank, at least on paper, have accepted the role and relevance of traditional water-harvesting practices in tackling the water crisis. What do you think of this recognition?

First of all, they have not recognised the value of traditional knowledge systems on their own. They have been forced to recognise the value of traditional knowledge systems because of developments that have taken place over the last decade or so. On their own, I do not think they would have gone this far. Even now, I am not sure whether they truly support such systems or are simply paying lip service to them in order to neutralise some of the criticisms that have been directed against their institutions. I would like to wait and see.

Still, is such recognition a positive sign?

Oh yes, it certainly is a positive sign because it creates a political space where you can talk about these systems, where you can bring these systems to the attention of the people. Perhaps you can get some students to study them. That's not a bad beginning. And it would partly depend on us to make use of that space and create a different kind of political situation where these systems of knowledge will be given their due and gain more respect. Incidentally, all talk about traditional systems of knowledge is not honest. On the one hand, we have the World Bank and the IMF with their very instrumental concept of traditional systems; on the other, there are people who accept traditional healing systems but want ultra-modern weaponry for the protection of the Indian state. I don't grant any honesty to the BJP and the Sangh Parivar as far as their commitment to traditional knowledge systems goes. There are traditional systems of knowledge for resistance to external aggression and violence too. From Gautam Buddha to Gandhi, this part of the world has produced a whole galaxy of people who have shown us how to fight oppression and violence without becoming like the enemy and borrowing their technology. If you are honest about your commitment to traditional systems of knowledge, you should show some commitment to that too.

Are traditional knowledge systems and indigenous wisdom ever likely to become as highly respected as the so-called `scientific' systems?

I do not know. But I like to believe that they will be. And this is true not only of Indian systems of knowledge. Hundreds of systems of knowledge all over the world are being marginalised. If you really want to give due respect to your own systems of knowledge, you must learn simultaneously to respect the knowledge systems of others too. You cannot say that you will protect only Indian healing traditions (ayurveda) but that you will not touch the healing systems of tribals. Or unani because it is popular in Pakistan. You cannot say that you don't have respect for the Tibetan systems of healing because you don't have a responsibility towards it as it belongs to Tibet. That is an absurd proposition. You have to empower alternative systems of knowledge by establishing alliances with other systems of knowledge that have been marginalised and are weak politically.

Do you see enough work being done in terms of research and implementation of these traditional practices?

Well, there is a lot of work going on. A lot of people practise traditional systems in this part of the world. It is not just the amount of work, it is the kind of work being done that is important. If you marginalise them, if you corner them and expect them to continue on their own, they will go into their shells because they have no confidence and cannot accept internal criticisms. They are in no position to establish a dialogue with the other systems of traditional knowledge available in this part of the world. So they don't learn from each other either and they get kind of frozen in time. I think that situation has to be changed. It is not only the volume of work, it is the quality of work that will afford confidence. They have to recognise that they too have to learn, they too have to change, they too have to interact with other systems of knowledge and learn from them. Traditional systems of knowledge have had this dialogue going for centuries, even as late as the middle of the last century, the '30s and the '40s. This sort of dialogue was common and they knew how to live with each other. I do not see that kind of dialogue today; they have become defensive and have retreated into their shells.

Do you think the Traditional Science Congresses organised by the PPST (Patriotic and People-oriented Science and Technology) have played a significant role in popularising traditional sciences and indigenous practices?

Yes, I think they have done very good work and we should be grateful to them. I wish they had as much respect for all the different communities in India that produce this traditional knowledge. Unfortunately, some sections think otherwise; they have very Brahminical concepts regarding tradition. Fortunately, these are also the sections that have politically moved closer to those groups that are culturally chauvinistic and exclusivist. I do not think that the future of the PPST lies with them. I think the future of the PPST lies with those with an in-built check against Brahminism and against such religious chauvinism.

What future role do you foresee for traditional sciences and indigenous wisdom in tackling ecological crises? Is it possible to restore the ecological balance and ensure the environmental security of our planet without delving into the treasure trove of indigenous practices and their knowledge systems?

Yes and no. Some environmental problems can be contained directly. We do not need any knowledge systems to tackle them. If there is massive pollution due to certain kinds of industries, you do not need traditional knowledge systems to stop them. For certain kinds of environmental intervention, however, you need certain kinds of traditional knowledge. For instance, I don't think India's water problems and problems of flooding and drought can be solved without recourse to traditional systems of knowledge. That is just not possible. However, it is the political presence of the systems of knowledge - building mechanisms that is important. Because most of the damage we have inflicted on the environment has been done not because we have lost track of traditional knowledge systems but because we have had too much confidence in modern systems of knowledge. They are not acts of omission, but acts of commission. India would not have built 1,500 dams had we been aware that we could live without dams. After all, people have lived in this part of the world for 5,000 years. They managed to survive with the water they had. The kind of water, the kind of crops, how to best utilise the existing water -- all these would have been thought about. We should have realised that one billion people could not live in such a small landmass -- smaller than the United States -- by employing American water-harvesting technologies. We have to fall back on something else. We didn't think of such things at that time; we were foolish.

Some ghastly crimes have been carried out in the name of tradition. There are many stories in the newspapers about village panchayats or community panchayats openly passing death sentences on people `guilty' of an inter-caste or love marriage. Poor dalit or tribal women have been paraded naked in villages after being labelled witches. People have also used tradition to create communal tension and breed inter-caste hatred. Would you call these exceptions, aberrations, or is this the negative side of traditional wisdom and practices?

Of course every tradition has its dark side. You have to fight for change. How do you fight for change? By police baton or by using the power of tradition itself? People who commit such crimes are people who are immersed in tradition. The dalit woman who has been raped does not live in a modern society. She lives within a traditional society; she too has traditional concepts of knowledge. A dalit woman is not without tradition. She too has her gods and goddesses; her grandmother too told her stories. She has her epics, her Puranas, her own style of cooking and her own style of bringing up the children. We have to learn these things. It is a question of empowering that tradition also. As I have told you already, no tradition can any more hope to survive entirely on its own, in the contemporary world. It has to establish alliances with other traditions in order to survive. This sort of argument, this perspective, offers us a different angle on the same problem. Instead of trying to handle the problem through police methods, you try to use a different social reform method right there. Because, if you employ social reform methods you will not be using categories the people cannot comprehend. Affirmation of traditional systems of knowledge is also affirming an idiom, a way of life, a language, a worldview. And this is the idiom, this is the language, this is the way of life, this is the worldview our people use, whether you like it or not. Unless you enter their world, and are willing to talk with them and establish a dialogue with them, how can you mobilise them? How will you use their democratic rights to remedy the ills of their system? By sitting here and passing laws in Delhi you will not be able to remove those ills; many people have tried. Untouchability has been illegal for the last 50 years but it hasn't disappeared. It has not worked. For that you need social reform. People who say that only the modern state has the power to intervene are only increasing the power of the state. They assume that more policing and more laws are required to solve these problems. Then they see that the laws are not working and the police is corrupt. They don't trust the police to be able to do anything for them, but they recommend that the police beat those poor `backward' people up. That is the argument. And it is unending. The people who don't understand secularism want a greater dose of it; they are the ones who shout stridently that secularism is good. As though this will make a difference to the victims of riots.

But do you think that crimes committed in the name of tradition are only incidental and not intrinsic to traditional systems per se?

No. I don't believe that any ideal system has the right to disown responsibility for what is being done in its name. I do not believe that you have the right to say that this is only accidental -- a by-product of tradition. The same as I don't agree that nuclear weaponry is an accidental by-product of modern science. The same as I don't believe that Stalin's concentration camps were an accidental by-product of Marxism. I think every ideal system must own up to its responsibilities for what is done in its name and re-examine its stand.

Finally, what do you think needs to be done to revive these indigenous practices and traditional systems of knowledge?

Frankly I don't think it is enough to simply revive them, as though we are doing a great service to the country by doing so. I think people are already reviving them. Our job is to empower those who are doing so and, in fact, recognise that people have the democratic right to live with their own worldviews, in their own systems of knowledge. And that they have the right also to shed them should it become necessary. They have a right both to have the system and to not have the system. Our aim is to democratise the world of knowledge. That is our job. We have to clear a path for this democratisation of knowledge, politically. Once we do this, the practitioners of the older system, the clientele of the older system and the communities that live by these systems will take care of the rest. We don't have to give them this so-called gift of ours. We -- well-meaning, good-hearted, well-educated activists -- have to create the political space for them to affirm themselves. That is our job.

Published in Humanscape, January -2001.