"SWADHYAYA - THE ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM"

Pawan K. Gupta

March 1999

SIDH, Hazelwood, Landour Cantt., Mussoorie, U.P. 248179 INDIA

The first time I went to see the swadhyaya movement (on a prayog darshan) was in 1997. I was greatly moved by what I saw and experienced in those six days, in which we must have visited about 25 odd villages and bastis in coastal Saurashtra and Ahmedabad. It was obvious that swadhyaya had brought about a revolutionary change at the personal and community level. It was also apparent to me that it was not just a religious movement even though the heavy stress on religious symbolism was obvious everywhere we went. I kept thinking about swadhyaya for a long time after returning from the trip. I had this lingering doubt that I had not fully comprehended either the philosophy or the implications. I felt there was much more to it than I had understood. This is what prompted me to go on another prayog darshan this year (1999). I am glad that I went the second time.

Dadaji Pandurang Shastri Athavale, the pioneer of swadhyaya, has shown a powerful alternative for others to learn and derive confidence from the possibility of a distinctly Indian paradigm. At the same time the fact that he has named each and every one of his programmes as a prayog (experiment) looks significant to me. Experiments do not convey finality. Dada has shown an alternative by laying the foundation of an Indian paradigm or may be an Eastern paradigm. He has demonstrated some of the effects through his various experiments. By deliberately using the word experiment for each of his programmes, he is showing the possibilities. It is for others to take the idea forward and experiment in their own ways as long as the foundations are rooted in our own soil.

The primary drive of an individual is to attain sukha or happiness. Every action, good or bad emanates from this drive. But sukha has many dimensions, of which the material dimension is only one, albeit an important one. Ignoring the spiritual dimension, and focussing only on the material, is bound to give rise to individualism, where each individual tries to accumulate more than the other, at the cost of nature. It gives rise to the principle of ‘might is right’. There is an inherent conflict between individualism and justice on the one hand and individualism and preservation of nature on the other. Therefore in societies where individualism is supreme, justice needs to be imposed from outside through legislation, to keep some kind of order in the society (the capitalist societies) or to bring about a just social order (in socialist states). Individualism will necessarily have to be curbed by law to provide a just social order, be it the market or the state controlled economy.

Indian thought recognised that individualism was in conflict with the very idea of sukha. It was understood long ago that happiness could remain elusive, even after accumulation of vast amounts of material wealth and that it was not possible to be happy by remaining self-centred or if one’s neighbour or the family members remained unhappy. It also concluded that exploitation of the immediate environment - which gave sustenance to all living beings - could never be to the advantage of everyone. The idea of surplus was therefore rejected, in the interest of the majority and to preserve nature. The need for a balance between the spiritual and the material was recognised. And the seers laid the foundations of a system that believed that ‘God pervades everything’ and the notion of ishavasyam idam sarvam…was introduced. If the same God resides in everything then at one level, everyone becomes equal. This was the baithak of dharma - the Indian paradigm. The concept of equity and justice became imbedded in the very foundations of this paradigm. There was no need to impose justice from outside, as in the western paradigm.

But under the influence of the western scientific paradigm, we have forgotten the basic foundations of our paradigm. Gandhiji was the only national leader who understood this and did not come under the influence of the West. All other progressive leaders - from rightwing thinkers to the socialist liberals in the middle to those at the extreme left – consciously or unconsciously, were under this influence. They never questioned the philosophical assumptions built into the heart of the culture and the text of western scientific paradigm. Only Gandhiji understood it from the very beginning, but was unable to communicate it effectively even to his own disciples, at least to those who remained active in politics and did not withdraw into ashrams.

Unfortunately after Gandhiji’s passing away Gandhism has been appropriated by the ‘Gandhians’or the Sarvodayis just like Hindu dharma has been appropriated by the Sanghis or the RSS. All of us have become ‘secularists’ and are scared to talk of dharma, patriotism and all such issues because it is no longer politically correct to do so. And by this action, on the one hand we have allowed the RSS to have a field day and on the other played into the hands of the West. We need to look at some of Gandhiji’s speeches, for instance the ones he gave in Haripad and Kottayam on Ishavasya Upnishad and published in the 30^th January 1937 issue of the Harijan.

This is where swadhyaya has shown a distinct and vibrant possibility. The baithak in Swadhyaya is dharma, which is distinctly non-western. Swadhyaya makes a distinction between dharma and religion, as it is normally understood. This is why I feel that swadhyaya can not be compared with other religious and social movements. Dadaji, Pandurang Shastri Athavale, the pioneer of this idea, seems to me, to be a man with tremendous vision. It is difficult to put him and swadhyaya in any of the categories available in the modern lexicon. He can not be termed political, religious or social activist, yet he is all of them. He is a visionary and a philosopher, and yet he is more than that. All I can say is that his approach is radical and holistic.

The swadhyayis go to people with a very different motive, with the sole objective of establishing a true brotherly relationship. The swadhyayi does not visit the other for ‘doing good’ to the other, but for the sake of his/her own self-learning (swadhyaya). The swadhyayi while visiting another person is aware of his own feelings of inferiority, fear, anxiety etc., while constantly remembering that the other is a brother/sister as the same God resides within everyone. This exercise serves two purposes: it helps the person to understand his/ her own nature better and assists in dissolving the ego to a great extent.

The swadhyayis do not go to the other, for any kind of reform or upliftment, be it economic, social or any other kind. But radical impact in all such spheres is visible wherever the swadhyayis have been active for 20 years or more. Even the cynics, and there were many in the two groups who went on prayog darshan of which I was a part, were unable to deny the tremendous transformation both at the individual and at the community level.

I have been engaged in community work in the villages of Jaunpur in Tehri Garhwal district for the last 10 years and have had a fair amount of experience of villages in North Bihar, plains of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. From my experience in these areas I find there are two typical reactions of villagers when they come face to face with strangers belonging to the educated urban class (most of us in the two groups belonged to this class). There is a sense of suspicion and/or there is feeling of inferiority in most villagers on encountering such people. In the 20 odd villages and bastis (in Ahmedabad) that I visited in the two trips, I found both these reactions totally absent.

The self-esteem, which the average swadhyayi villager exudes is amazing and also heartening. All efforts of ‘empowerment’, in which NGOs are involved, fade miserably in comparison with what swadhyaya has achieved. The tremendous self-confidence and a deep sense of self-worth among the common villager have come about without any planned drive towards literacy, economic upliftment or against oppression of gender, class or caste. And yet all this has happened but as a mere by-product of the individual transformation. This according to me is the biggest achievement of swadhyaya.

The dramatic transformation at the individual level which swadhyaya has brought about is illustrated by an experience I had. In my earlier trip, I visited Kripa Nagar, a basti of Devi Poojaks (Baghris, a dalit community) in Ahmedabad. There we met Mangu Behen, a middle-aged woman and her husband. They narrated how they came into swadhyaya and how their lives changed thereafter. Mangu Behen’s husband was earlier a very volatile person, very suspicious of the upper caste people. It took him a long time to be convinced that swadhyaya did not discriminate along caste lines. Even after he became an active swadhyayi himself, the suspicion lingered somewhere at the back of his mind. Then during Diwali time, the family joined one of the prayogs (experiment), where a family visits another family for 24 hours, as their guests. The families do not know each other from before. They meet for the first time during this prayog. The condition for joining this prayog is that the guests are to be treated as the Divine for those 24 hours. This Baghri family of Mangu Behen found out that they were to visit the home of Justice Desai of the Gujarat High Court. When they located the house, the sight of the police, the car and the size of the house intimidated them. They were initially apprehensive of rough behaviour at the hands of the guards, but then mustered the courage to enter the house, remembering that they were visiting the house of a fellow swadhyayi and not that of the Judge of Gujarat High Court. However they were completely taken by surprise, by the welcome they received. Justice Desai himself washed the feet of his guests, the food was personally cooked by Mrs. Desai and was served by their daughter while Justice Desai sat fanning his guests. They were made to sleep in the master bedroom of the house. Mangu Behen and her family were overwhelmed when they left the next morning.

But further surprise awaited them. After two days of this experience, it was the turn of Justice Desai’s family to visit the home of an unknown Swadhyayi. It was a coincidence that Justice Desai and his family were to visit the home of another swadhyayi in Mangu Behen’s basti. In this basti, in those days, there were no public toilets or bathrooms. One had to bathe in the open and use the open drain as public toilet. But Justice Desai along with his wife and daughter stayed happily for 24 hours in this basti in the home of a fellow swadhyayi. This really transformed Mangu Behen’s husband. The suspicion, which had kept lingering in his mind for so long, finally disappeared.

During this trip, Mangu Behen also told us that she was working in SEWA, a voluntary organisation of repute. She was a field co-ordinator mobilising poor working women. She said that she was contemplating leaving SEWA, because she was struggling with a dilemma, ever since she had started understanding the philosophy of Dada. In swadhyaya no one was to be pitied, everyone was an equal, human beings had dignity and were capable of helping themselves. She felt there was a very subtle contradiction, between the philosophy of swadhyaya and her work. In swadhyaya people were perceived to be fully capable of helping themselves as the same God was within them. But in her work with SEWA, as a mobiliser, she went to the women with the idea of helping them. There was a conflict here. Then there was another doubt. When she used to go on bhakti pheris every 15 days as part of her devotion to God, to establish relationship with another human being and talk to women, she used to be assailed with a nagging doubt. She wasn’t sure if the women she was visiting were listening to her and being nice to her because of their selfish interest, whether they saw her as a co-ordinator in SEWA and someone in a position to grant them small credit or a fellow swadhyay –a sister. Mangu Behen being a sensitive woman said that she was contemplating leaving SEWA, even though it was a major source of income for her family and she liked the organisation.

I was very impressed with Mangu Behen and after coming back from the trip narrated this incident to many of my colleagues. I often used to wonder if Mangu Behen really took such a decision. I was curious also because many of us working in the voluntary sector often face moral dilemmas but most often we opt for the more convenient choice and rationalise it.

On my second prayog darshan, we were in a big group of 24 people and we split into two in Ahmedabad. It was a coincidence that I was in the group that visited this Baghri basti among other places. In the crowd of 250 odd people I immediately recognised Mangu Behen, though she did not. In a way, I thought that was good, as I was curious to hear what she had to say to a different group. Our group sat chatting with the people and then Mangu behen was requested by the group to explain to the visitors the impact of swadhyaya in their lives. Somewhere at the back, I felt a nagging feeling of suspicion crawling within me that perhaps the swadhyayis stage the same drama every prayog darshan. I was all ears. She rose to speak, full of confidence, in front of the elders, though she had her head (not the face) covered with her pallu. There was a difference in her and her husband from last time. They both appeared more confident, a confidence that came from within and not from any of the outer instruments of power. They also appeared kinder than before. She explained the condition of the basti, the community before swadhyaya entered their lives and how it was now.

She mentioned nothing about her personal story this time. Perhaps because this was a public meeting, unlike the last time. But I was keen to know how she had resolved her dilemma. I was somehow sure that she was still continuing with her work at SEWA. Finally one person from our group asked her what she was doing and she said that till a few months ago she was with SEWA but that now she had left the job. She did not elaborate, but I knew the reason. This left a great impression on me. To me she looked happy at having resolved her personal crisis. I went and congratulated her, when she recognised me and understood why I was doing so.

In swadhyaya families we noticed tremendous confidence in both men and women, with a sense of solidarity. Like Ramila Behen, who said that earlier she used to have purdah or ghunghat from her mother-in-law but at the same time they used to frequently fight using foul language sometimes verging on violence. Now after coming into swadhyaya, both the ghunghat and the fighting had stopped. Or the case of another family where the woman narrated, in front of her husband, how he used to get drunk and beat her up and how it had all changed dramatically. Or the case of a dalit youth when asked what had swadhyaya done for the cause of dalits, answered that Dada had trained lacs of people and sent them to us. He has restored our dignity. Dada has made Baba Saheb’s (Ambedkar) dream a reality.

Many cases of oppression of caste and gender were narrated and how their lives had changed radically after swadhyaya. The unique feature of these sessions was that both the exploiter and the exploited were present and participated in the narration. What came across very forcefully was the confidence of young and old women speaking without inhibitions in front of elders from their own community and strangers from urban areas. These are examples of holistic treatment.

I think all us working in the area of women’s empowerment and gender sensitisation should particularly take note of this and visit swadhyaya villages. Among ‘development workers’, till two decades ago, the family was looked upon as the smallest unit of the community. But then this began to be questioned after awareness about gender differences increased. The argument was that there is inequality within the family and therefore the assumption - that if the family benefits it spreads to all members equally - was defective. It gave rise to working with men and women separately. It was believed that their needs, desire and problems were entirely different. (Now the same argument is being extended to the issue of children.) One can not deny that this argument has a ring of truth. But this kind of approach where solutions are being sought by dividing the family into different segments has hardly yielded any long lasting results, which are conducive to happiness of individuals, family or the community. It is like the treatment under modern medical system. You cure one ailment and begin many other harmful side effects. But swadhyaya, instead of addressing problems in a fragmented fashion has taken a fundamentally different approach and the results are wholesome.

III

In most of the swadhyaya villages the economic condition of individuals and the community as a whole has improved remarkably, because of two reasons. The money that was earlier frittered away in gambling and drinking is now being saved and productively deployed. Also through the powerful concept of apaurusheya laksmi introduced by Dada, the community has started generating wealth belonging to no individual but to God. One day in a month is devoted to puja or shram-bhakti, in the service of God. The swadhyayi works on this day according to his/ her skill, by going out into the field, if they are farmers or into the sea, if they are fishermen, serving God in innumerable other ways, each according to their personal skills.

This is called shram-bhakti, which is different from shram-daan (voluntary work). In Dada’s lexicon one does not hear the word daana (donation), instead it is bhakti (devotion). The baithak of shram-bhakti is very different from that of shramdaan. Daana unconsciously inflates the ego while bhakti has a humbling effect. Daana is given to a cause or to another person, there may also be a sense of competition. But in bhakti, the relationship has a totally different dimension - it is with the divine. In shramdaan, the group, which puts in their effort sometimes resents those who refuse to contribute because the fruits of their labour also benefit those who haven’t put in any effort. And there are always a few people who refuse to co-operate, which has a negative impact on the volunteers. But in swadhyaya, the work is not done for another human being or for the benefit of the community. One puts in the effort as a devotion (or puja) to God. The person putting in the effort is not concerned about the other person’s contribution – he/she puts in the labour as his/her puja. The fruit of this shram-bhakti is called apaurusheya laksmi. All this has resulted in the economic transformation of individuals and community.

I was part of the prayog darshan group, which comprised of people, each with a different set of beliefs, perceptions, their own concerns and reasons for looking at Swadhyaya. I can say without doubt that all of us were impacted in some way or the other. I know of one fellow participant from an NGO, who was keen in discovering the key to the social transformation in the villages, so that she could use a similar ‘strategy’ in her own area. However somewhere during the trip, the sight of confident and happy faces of each member of the family she visited, impressed upon her so much that she wanted to only share their secret. As she kept saying, ‘I came as an observer, to study Swadhyaya as an effective strategy, but I’m leaving it as a devotee. I want to be a Swadhyayi, I want to be as happy as the people I saw." A sentiment felt by more than one visitor.

Swadhyaya is the best example of true empowerment. It demonstrates how the fundamentals of Indian thought can transform whole societies, if the essence is taken to the people personally, just as Dada did. The approach is wholesome. Unfortunately, our intellectuals have not recognised the dormant life force pulsating in our own culture and completely distanced themselves from the people. On the other hand, our NGOs and activists have been struggling with analysis of problems and chasing cause and effect in a vicious cycle. In an attempt to analyse the causes of social injustices they have broken it down to gender, class, caste discriminations. This has led to greater divide within the society and added to the existing set of problems. Swadhyaya has demonstrated that if the root of all problems is nurtured the rest of the ailments in society get corrected automatically.

This remarkable transformation has been possible because the individual is convinced that God dwells within him/her. This is key to the success of Swadhyaya. Dada, has been extremely successful in convincing the people of this basic idea. Everything else has followed almost organically. The swadhyayi has an unshakeable faith in the presence of God within him/herself and this has given them a tremendous sense of self-worth, confidence and courage. And this confidence does not smack of arrogance. Nor does it rely on external instruments (of power) such as money, qualification or post. It is rooted firmly within. Those who perceived themselves as poor, dalit, downtrodden and incapable of helping themselves now use a different language and idiom, which does not have even a trace of self pity. As God dwells in everyone, all are equal. The idea of ishavasyam idam sarvam… propagated by Gandhiji and all the seers before him is being actualised.

The problem with dharma as understood and practised by the common man in this country is that it has got ritualised. As a consequence bhakti turned into andhbhakti and faith turns into blind faith. Dada has given the concept of vicharshila bhakti. He extorts people to use the intellect along with bhakti. The average swadhyayi uses the language of reason rather than faith. Reasoning, based on sound principles, just like the reasoning of any branch of knowledge, be it modern science or traditional knowledge. After all, every knowledge system is based on certain assumptions and principles, which are unique and built into the heart of the system, on the foundations of which the rest follows.

If we look at knowledge systems this way, modern science stands at par with other knowledge systems. But somehow it has been successful in creating a false impression as if it is the only knowledge system based on reason. This has led to its dominance over all other systems as well as cutting into the credibility of other systems. It is true that modern science made tremendous progress in the past 250 years. But this has been possible because of the dominance of the colonial rulers and the patronage modern science received from them. At the same time, other systems did not get any chance of developing and making progress within their own belief systems. In fact, they have been under threat and in a desperate need to keep alive their belief systems, they got stagnated and fossilised. Fossilisation also led to double standards, hypocrisy and unhealthy clinging to certain ritualistic practices. This coupled with the strategy of disproportionately highlighting the social evils of certain traditional practices was successful in completely discrediting all other knowledge systems leading to complete domination of the Western scientific paradigm. Swadhyaya has shown us an alternative that works because it is based on our own ground.

Dada has been successful in infusing energy in a decaying system and demonstrating that it is possible to think, plan and design systems based on a different paradigm, distinctly our own. But our intellectuals are not yet giving the movement the kind of attention it deserves. Over the past two hundred years our minds have been completely colonised to the extent that most of us are not even aware that our thinking is not free anymore. The great socialist leader, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia made a very important distinction between charitra dosha (fault or defect in the character) and buddhi dosha (fault or defect in thought or intellect). Out of the two defects, Dr. Lohia considered buddhi dosha, more dangerous in nature. People suffering from charitra dosha are at least aware of the defect, though they may not be willing or able to rectify it. But people suffering from buddhi dosha are not even aware of the defect in their thinking. The biggest harm inflicted by the colonisers has been the complete subjugation of the mind culminating in budhi dosha. Macaulay was immensely successful in doing this through the instrument of modern education system.

We have been living our lives and making our policies based on the scientific paradigm of the West for the past 200 years in the hope of a better tomorrow. It is high time we got rid of this illusion and started building afresh upon foundations that belong to us and not borrowed from others. Dada has certainly shown us a very sound alternative paradigm, the foundations of which are grounded in dharma. He has also shown how when budhi dosha gets rectified then it also corrects the charitra dosha, and how it spreads from the individual to the community. For deliverance at the national level, perhaps it is time we corrected our budhi dosha. Swadhyaya certainly gives a glimpse of the possibilities – of an alternative paradigm.