 Dot Talks in collaboration with the Department of Political Science brings you an online lecture series titled the relevant science significance of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar today and tomorrow. In continuation with the lecture series, we have a very wonderful person with us and expert professor Dr. Scott R. Stroud from Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas, Austin Program Director for Media Ethics Center for Media Engagement. Dr. Scott R. Stroud is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. He writes on various topics in ethics, rhetoric and philosophy. He is the author of two Academy books, John Davy and the Artful Life and Kant and the Promise of Rhetoric. He is the co-founder of the first center for John Davy Studies in India at Savitri Bhai Phule Pune University. Currently, Dr. Stroud is completing a book manuscript that tells us the story of Dr. Ambedkar's brush with Davian pragmatism at Columbia University during 1913 to 1916 and how it shape his innovative pursuit of social justice in India. Professor Stroud is going to be our fifth speaker in the lecture series. So I, Dr. Anil Tababhar from Department of Political Science and also the Co-Neutral Docs, I welcome Dr. Stroud and request Dr. Stroud to please kindly begin his lecture. Professor, this virtual stage is all yours. We are really eager to listen to you. Thank you so much. Well, thank you. Thank you, Professor Babbar and thank you, Tetsuo College for having me talk about my research on John Dewey and Baba Sahib. The project is very exciting and I think it is an exciting project for both India and for America because they're both struggling with the idea of how to make democracy work in an age of misinformation, heated partisan feelings, groups and political parties that do not like each other. So, you know, in many ways the challenge of democracy is the same for both these countries, how to get along with people who don't automatically like you. So today I want to talk a little bit about the historical roots of my answer to this question in the philosophies of Dr. Mbedkar and Dr. Dewey. So I have some slides here because oftentimes pictures are more exciting than, you know, my own verbosity. So let me share my screen and I assume this will work. In a second you should see a PowerPoint slideshow. So my topic today is on Bimrao Mbedkar, John Dewey and the challenges of social democracy. And like I said, this is an exciting topic and it's an exciting topic for a variety of reasons. One is anyone who studies Dr. Mbedkar knows that there are these tantalizing clues in his corpus of thought to John Dewey, his professor at Columbia University. So for instance in 1952 he writes Savita Mbedkar upon learning the death of John Dewey that, you know, he was looking forward to meeting him when Dr. Mbedkar got back to New York in 1952 because he owes all his intellectual life to him. Yet he doesn't spell out what this debt is and we know Dr. Mbedkar did not mince words. So what exactly did he get or learn or take or appropriate from John Dewey and John Dewey's pragmatism? In 1936 we've probably all come across this line in the annihilation of caste text, the undelivered speech Dr. Mbedkar wrote. You know, he has a line where he explicitly quotes Professor Dewey, who is my teacher and to whom I owe so much. So all these things have led me to the question, what does Dr. Mbedkar get from John Dewey's philosophy? Obviously it's not the same. These are two different great thinkers, but there was a relationship, an intellectual relationship between these two. So how do we spell this out? That's one of the goals I'm working on in my current book. And the second question, which always intrigues me, being an American where religion in some ways plays an important role in politics and in other ways doesn't play much of a role in politics, you have the question of Mbedkar's Buddhism. So there the question could be something like this. What unique role does Buddhism play in Dr. Mbedkar's notion of democracy? Now this question has led me and this book that I'm currently finishing up has led me to India many times in search of every scrap of paper I could find where Baba Sahib is underlined, something annotated his own books, or written out draft manuscripts or notebooks. And so this has been a wonderful quest to get into the mind as expansive as it is of Dr. Baba Sahib and Mbedkar. And so I've met a variety of wonderful people who've helped me in so many ways, sharing their knowledge, sharing access to these documents, or just showing me around some of the sites that I only have read about in Dr. Mbedkar's life. So let's get to the larger question here. Some folks out there may not know much about pragmatism. Now in America, a lot of people have heard of this term. It's associated with a tradition of thought that got initiated in American circles after the American Civil War. And some of the main figures, but not the only figures of it, are Charles Sanders Purse, William James, and John Dewey. These are very important thinkers in a variety of fields. James and Dewey, for instance, touched many fields from education to psychology to philosophy. Jane Adams inspired and influenced John Dewey on conflict resolution and ideas of peace. So it's this wonderful group of thinkers that were all different, but they all had a commitment to pluralism. And that's another question you can ask. What makes someone a pragmatist? Part of it is the historical lineage you're in conversation with, even if you did not agree with, certain people. But you could also think of it in terms of doctrines. So let's start zooming in, focusing in on John Dewey. And we see that John Dewey, if you wanted to give the largest scale view of his philosophy, you could say he was committed to these four things. One, that democracy matters. We'll talk more about democracy in a second with both Dewey and Mbedkar's notion of social democracy. Two, science is a useful tool. All the pragmatists were convinced that science and the revolutions wrought by Darwin were essential for human thought and the liberal arts, not to mention technological science. Three, community assumed a valuable role. And this is related to the idea of democracy, but it's also related to science, because how does science progress? It's through community or group inquiry. And then fourth, and not unrelated to the previous three themes, is education. Dewey was known as the philosopher of education, and there's no, you know, it's not a mistake, because he was known as this. He penned many important works that were formative with experiential education and education in the 20th century. So John Dewey loved these themes. They were all interrelated, and they come out in various ways through his eight million words that he penned over the course of his lifetime. Now, let's start talking about one specific topic here that will then will follow this thread out in Dr. Mbedkar's thought. Let's ask a simple question. What is democracy? What is democracy for someone like John Dewey or for pragmatists in general? Is it simply a decision making procedure? Everyone votes. Everyone's vote counts for one. You know, is that the idea of democracy? That's, you know, typically what we think of in America when we think of democracy. You know, the access to the vote or making sure the vote is legitimate or these are kind of questions of the democratic structure of political life. Who's in Washington DC representing people? So these are questions of democracy as a voting procedure, where either the people make the decision or the people that the people elect make the decisions. But notice that these are very periodical notions, periodic notions of democracy. Democracy only happens when you take a vote. Now, that's not wrong, but from the perspective of someone like John Dewey, as early as 1888 when John Dewey was just a young assistant professor in Michigan, he started to question and criticize this notion of democracy. Again, he didn't dispute that voting was a valuable procedure, but he did dispute the idea that that's all that democracy meant. So in 1888 in a text, which I have evidence influenced Dr. and Bedcar through his whole life, Dewey pens these words. Democracy in a word is a social, that is to say an ethical conception. And upon its ethical significance is based its significance as governmental. Democracy is a form of government only because it is a form of moral and spiritual association. This theme doesn't leave Dewey in 1916 in a very important book, both for American educational reform and for Dr. and Bedcar, Democracy in Education. Dewey writes these famous words. A democracy is more than a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living of conjoint communicated experience. So democracy is a habit. It's a habit of how we interact, a habit of how we communicate with other people. These underlines, by the way, are from Dr. and Bedcar's copy. One of his copies, he owned about five copies of Democracy in Education. You see in the bottom corner of my slide, that's his original notation indicating where he got that copy in 1917, January in London after he got through with his classroom experience with John Dewey. Later on in Dewey's life in a essay, which turns into a chapter called Creative Democracy, The Task Before Us. Another essay I have evidence that Dr. and Bedcar had access to and was influenced by. John Dewey changes the way he says this, but he's getting at the same point. Democracy is a way of life, says John Dewey. And only as we realize and thought and act that democracy is a personal way of individual life, that it signifies the possession and continual use of certain attitudes forming personal character and determining desire and purpose in all the relations of life. So you start to get this expansive view of democracy from John Dewey that plays out through his whole life where democracy is about our social interactions as much as or more so than just our political decision-making procedures. Now let's zoom back to 1913 at Columbia University. This is the time period in Dr. and Bedcar's life where he first became exposed to many wonderful progressive thinkers in the United States academic system. Columbia was a hotbed of sharp thinkers that were redefining their fields. One of those thinkers was John Dewey. And that's who we will spend a lot of time on talking today. That doesn't mean that other thinkers didn't influence Dr. and Bedcar. Of course, a lot of people influence Dr. and Bedcar, but the challenge always is, is how did someone influence Dr. and Bedcar? So today I will spend the next 30 minutes explaining to you, you know, from my research how Dr. John Dewey influenced him around Bedcar. And others are very welcome to spell out the stories that lie behind his other teachers. So the questions that can guide us in thinking about Dr. and Bedcar's experience at Columbia University and in the subsequent years where he remained in contact with the ideas of John Dewey are these. What did in Bedcar learn from John Dewey? And two, what creative additions did in Bedcar make as an Indian pragmatist? That's one thing I want to emphasize to my American colleagues who often talk about the range of people that are part of the pragmatist tradition, ranging from John Dewey to Jane Adams to Mary Simkovich, all the way over to China, who sure, a student of Dewey's right after in Bedcar's time at Columbia. There's a range of people that are influenced by or reacting to the pragmatist tradition, not simply echoing it, of course. And I want to say that in Bedcar is another figure we should put into this pantheon of pragmatist thinkers and all of its diversity. And in Bedcar is going to obviously have a very unique philosophy that adds to what we know of pragmatism's capabilities. But again, let's think about Columbia University. What do we know about in Bedcar at Columbia University? We know we studied there in 1913 to 1916. From his transcripts, you can find in the archives in Mumbai and elsewhere, you know he took a bunch of classes over 50 in so many subjects. And three of those classes were classes you can trace to the instructorship of John Dewey. One is Philosophy 231, Psychological Ethics and Moral and Political Philosophy. And that was in fall of 1914. A second one was Philosophy 131 to 132, Moral and Political Philosophy. And that was 1915 to 1916. That was a whole year long course. There is no evidence that in Bedcar, while he was at Columbia, took any classes on education from John Dewey. We know he got democracy and education after he was done with classes at Columbia University. So we start to see what he had in terms of exposure. Now we'll dive into these, but let's organize our inquiry. Let's think about this in three ways or three key themes to in Bedcar's pragmatism. And in Bedcar's pragmatism is different from that of John Dewey's. It's different from that of William James. It's different from that of Purse or Jane Adams, etc. So to give it a new title, I have started to use in my own work the idea of Navayana pragmatism. Because in many ways in Bedcar uses some themes from John Dewey and supplements it with other themes and other concerns and other problematics. And he makes this new type of philosophy just as he did in Buddhism with Navayana Buddhism as it's called. So let's talk about three key concepts in in Bedcar's Navayana pragmatism. One, cast as a habit. Two, force as paradoxical. And three, religion as a means to social change. First, cast as habit. In that philosophy 231 course, psychological ethics, I found the notes for this, the lecture notes and student notes. And so you can see what John Dewey was telling the students in his classes. And it's quite fascinating. He's talking to them about the ethics that John Dewey subscribed to at that time in 1915. And it has some terms that you see throughout the latter Dewey's thought, such as the place of intelligence and behavior, not correctness, not the goodwill, but the idea of intelligent adaptation to social conditions. And it really foregrounds the role of attitude or habit. This class is about the individual psychological standpoint. So Dewey maintains a laser focus on the idea of the attitudes or habits of individuals, individuals as part of a community, of course. But how much these matter and how much these can change. This is a theme that in Bedcar also saw in William James. I've held the copy of William James's principles of psychology that Baba Sahib owned. And so we obviously knew about James's wonderful reading of habit, being a guide to our life and something that we can change or optimize. So anyway, if you start looking in the 1930s and you know what to look for, you start to see echoes of this kind of psychology of habit and individual attitude. In Annihilation of Cast, Baba Sahib famously says, Cast is a notion that's a state of mind. And any reform of this will be a notional change. So something about changing the ideas in people's heads, not simply changing laws or banning something like cast. That's important, of course, but that doesn't get rid of the actual cause of this problem, which is many people rank each other by cast birth. So if you look again at another part of Annihilation of Cast, you see this wonderful passage where in Bedcar says, all reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiments and mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. And he says, it's common experience that certain names or labels or concepts become associated with certain notions and sentiments. And what does he say there? Well, he says something that John Dewey wouldn't have read into his ethics, which is the idea of cast and cast labels, making certain people feel honored and bringing a vomiting sensation when other cast labels are mentioned into someone's mind. So his idea here is simple, right? That cast structures what we see and what kind of value and meaning we give to the objects in front of us. So this is Dewey in psychology, but it's Dewey in psychology with a ameliorative twist. He's looking for the attitudes that drive the cast system. John Dewey, of course, wasn't concerned about the cast system. And so his ethics kind of go a different path. Both in Bedcar and Dewey, however, subscribe heavily to the idea of reflection. You know, their idea was not that people need one answer for moral problems or know the right moral book, but it's that they develop the right habits of inquiry or reflection as Dewey puts it in this period of his life. And so you see this echo, this kind of value of the skill of inquiry echoed in Baba Sahib's Annihilation of Cast. And you see this passage that I've put on the slide. Reflective thought, in Bedcar writes, in the sense of active, persistent, careful consideration of any belief or supposed form or knowledge in the lights of the grounds that support it and further conclusions to which it tends is quite rare and arises only in a situation which presents a crisis or a dilemma. What in Bedcar is doing here is taking Dewey's very well known notion of a problematic situation where certain habits or certain expectations or certain attitudes lead you to a jarring of experience. And then reflection comes in to solve the problem and to perhaps reaffirm the habits, millerate or correct the habits or optimize the habits. So this is Dewey's idea of how you can constantly grow to meet situations, how education can lead you to be a reflective individual. So, and Bedcar takes this idea of reflection, and he starts to apply it in areas that John Dewey would have never thought about, such as the battle against caste and caste attitudes. Now let's move to the second thing that is force and the idea of social democracy. In that second course or series of courses really a one year series of course, in 1915 to 1916, and Bedcar sits in a classroom with John Dewey for a whole year. And there he learned some valuable things. Now up until about a year or so ago, I don't think anyone could have told us what happened in that classroom. I've been able to find the other students who took notes in these classrooms and I confirm that and Bedcar was among them. How do you know this? Well look at a couple of the pages, I've circled one here and you see that the notes are indicated as from a substitute note taker and it says in Bedcar. So you know for a fact that this series of notes over the course of a whole year of two courses, you know, was to students, one of which was Dr. in Bedcar. And so you can see a day by day recounting of all of these lectures. And what you see are a range of themes, some of which don't matter a bit to Dr. in Bedcar. And some of them make sense of what Dr. in Bedcar does later in his life. So I want to highlight two of those to you. One, Dr. Dewey brings up in the class the idea of forces energy forces violence. We'll see that in the second with embed cars evolving thought in the 1910s. But Dewey also brings up in kind of a passing reference the idea of liberty equality and fraternity. Now we all know that these are three terms that become of very valuable use for embed car and his pursuit of social justice. So for instance, in the Constitution, he is the architect of in the 1940s, you see these three values appear in the preamble. You also see these three values, liberty, equality, fraternity appear in the Buddha and his Dhamma, a book that gets published shortly after Dr. in Bedcar's death that he wrote in the 1950s quite furiously. And then you also see them in 1949, when he gives a speech on the hopes of democracy in India. And he says, you know, he says, what does social democracy mean? And his answer draws upon these three concepts, a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles, and not just one of them above others, but all three of them. Now it's important to note that if you read quite a bit of John Dewey's philosophy, you won't see these three values that much. These are not touchstones for Dewey. And so it's one of these vicissitudes of fate, where John Dewey brings these three things up in an April lecture in his class in 1916. And then he, you know, Dewey largely leaves them behind, but in Bedcar sees these things and starts using them in new and creative ways to flesh out the idea of social democracy. So let's summarize social democracy before we move on. If you want to say what in Bedcar's Naviana pragmatism is dedicated to in terms of social democracy, this is how I would put it. One, it's dedicated to these three values, achieving these three values in group life, and not just achieving the presence of each of these, but a balance among them. And that balance is what he denotes as justice. So it's not simply equality and achieving a quality that means a state of justice. If there is no equality, there is no justice, but you need justice, equality among these other two values to truly have justice. That, I believe, is in Bedcar's kind of flexible pragmatist view of what justice is. It also, social democracy concerns individuals, the habits we have and how we talk to other people on Facebook, on Twitter, or on the street corner, and communities, because our communities influence what we think of ourselves and what we think of other people. He also believes that social democracy doesn't just necessitate people who follow leaders or are trained in certain ways, but are trained to think in certain ways. So I think that's why we could say that he needs reflective individuals in these communities. Now let's go to theme two, force and reform, or the other aspect of theme two really. And in 1918, and Bedcar reviews Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher's book, Principles of Social Reconstruction. And that's a 1916 book. Now this is a fascinating work in Bedcar's review, because it's one of the few book reviews he did. I think it's the only book review he's ever done in his career. So there's a real question on why he did this and what importance it is. I think it's a very, very important work, and it's an early work. He just got through with his education in Columbia and London, and then returned to India. So in that book that he's reviewing, Bertrand Russell has a fascinating view on conflict. So you look at this passage I've highlighted for you, where Russell is kind of skeptical, and he's skeptical because of what's happening in World War I, the Great War, where everyone said the other side is awful, let's kill them or let's defeat them. And Russell quite honestly says each side always believes that it deserves to triumph, but when they gain power, when the oppressed win freedom, they are as oppressive as their former masters. So Russell had this kind of interesting dialectical view of how the oppressed can quite easily become the oppressor. And I'm sure in Bedcar he read this, and this was part of his review, this idea of how do you achieve justice? Or how do you have a reform of society that doesn't create more problems than it solves? Now what's interesting from the notion of social democracy and pragmatism here is that this book review in 1918 is the first case of where Bedcar refers to the ideas and language of Professor Dewey explicitly. Now in this book review, and Bedcar says he's concerned with Indian readers reading in Bertrand Russell's book, Quietism as the best path. And he refers to John Dewey and Dewey's distinction on force's violence or force's energy. And for in Bedcar as well as for Dewey, the first one is bad. Force's violence is bad. But force's energy is a necessity. So in Bedcar, along with Dewey, think that people like Tolstoy or Gandhi are slightly misled in thinking that you just need to get rid of all force. You need some kind of effective means to achieve change. What is wrong with violence is not that it's forceful, but that it destroys too many ends. So for instance, if you look at those lectures that John Dewey was giving that young and Bedcar was hearing as an audience member, as a student, he says this, Dewey says this. In the case of force, which is a means, you have words which make a distinction. Energy and violence. Energy is the ability to work. Violence connotes destructive power or force. And then interestingly enough, Dewey starts criticizing the view that wants to get rid of all force as the policy of passive inaction. And he then makes some vague references to nirvana. So you can imagine young in Bedcar interested as he might be in Buddhism from an early age, hearing this kind of reference of nirvana as a passive inaction. And of course, if we know anything about Baba Sahib's philosophy, it's that Buddhism is a socially engaged forceful way of achieving social democracy. I'll get to that in a second. So at any rate, you start to see from this early book review, the challenge for Dr. and Bedcar's Naviana pragmatism from 1918 onwards is simple, but complex. How do you achieve social democracy? What are the means, what are the forces you can employ while not destroying the balance among quality, liberty and fraternity? That's a deceptively simple question, because it is a very difficult balancing act for social democracy. Now let's go to theme three, the final theme. And that is where we talk about Naviana Buddhism and Bedcar's form of Buddhism as an intelligent means of democratic reform. In other words, Buddhism as a way to achieve social democracy. Now we all know that Dr. and Bedcar penned in the last few years of his life, a wonderful gift to humanity. That is his vision of the gospel of the Buddha. That's the Buddha and his dharma. The early edition, the early draft was literally called the Buddha and his gospel in 1951. In the second edition, right, or the edition that's eventually published, the Buddha and his dharma, we see a new section, book four is totally new. And in that section, you have a new edition, a new reading of Ahimsa, Non-Violence. So this is part of the fascinating pragmatic evolution of Baba Zahib's thought. And I can only touch on some parts of it. But let's look at that section real quick. And you see there, he starts talking about Ahimsa in an interesting way. He says, well, the question is, has the Buddha's Ahimsa, is it absolute in its obligation or only relative? Is it a principle or was it a rule? Now, if you are like me and you read a lot of John Dewey, this has a certain meaning to you because John Dewey had a very well known distinction in his moral philosophy between principle and rule. But first, don't make any mistake. This reading of Ahimsa was very controversial at the time. In 1959, I believe, this is a copy of one of the early reviews of the Buddha and his dharma, and it's quite negative. He says the reviewer says in bedcar becomes positively dangerous. And that the reading of Ahimsa's mealy mouth and it reads as an incitement to acts of violence. I believe that this reviewer did not quite understand the distinctions and limits that in bedcar was working with in rereading Ahimsa. But nonetheless, it's a controversial rereading. So if you look at John Dewey on principle and rule, you start to see what in bedcar was getting at. John Dewey wrote a famous book in 1908 called The Ethics. Now, this is why I think it's important to pay attention to what exactly we are saying in bedcar was exposed to with John Dewey. Because in bedcar did not read the second edition of Dewey and Tufts book Ethics in 1932, which is a radically different version of Dewey's moral philosophy. What in bedcar had access to what he quoted, what he echoed, what he drew from was the 1908 edition. And I found at Siddharth College, he had at least two copies of this 1908 edition. And in that edition, you see the same part, I circled it here on my pictures, the same passage annotated by Dr. Embedkar in the margins. And that's Dewey and Tufts distinction between rules and principles. Here's a bigger version of that passage. And this is also a line that appears in Annihilation of Cast and Bedcar's text. Rules are practical, they're habitual ways of doing things, but principles are intellectual. They are useful methods of judging things. In other words, principles are useful habits of reflection. They're not just simply habits of reaction. Okay, so back to the Buddha and his dharma. And then we start to make more sense of what Embedkar is doing with his Buddhism. If we if we have this kind of idea of rules are they tell you exactly what to do, but they're not flexible. They're not adaptive. They're not encouraging of reflection and problematic situations. So look back at Buddha and his dharma and you see this passage in that newly added book four. Buddha, Embedkar says, said love also that you may not wish to kill any. And this Embedkar says, is a positive way of stating the principle of a hymsa. From this it appears that the doctrine of hymsa does not say kill not, it says love all. So Embedkar starts to turn a hymsa from non harm into a principle of loving all. And he comes back at the end of the section to bring it back to this kind of conceptual distinction from Dewey, which in Dewey's mind had nothing to do with the hymsa. So to put it differently, Embedkar writes in the Buddha and his dharma, the Buddha made a distinction between principle and rule. He did not make a hymsa a matter of rule. He enunciated it as a matter of principle or a way of life. And then Embedkar says this wonderful phrase at the end, a principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. A rule either breaks you or you break the rule. So the idea here is very clear and it's a very pragmatist idea, which is the guidelines to thinking in the future need to be flexible because the future is not always like the past. And so a hymsa as a blunt rule of don't harm becomes too limiting for a social reformer like Embedkar, although Embedkar clearly doesn't want to encourage violence in many, many occasions. We'll see that in a second. So Navayana Buddhism, by emphasizing tools such as a hymsa becomes a religion of principle, a religion of principle that he wanted in the annihilation of caste. And it's going to be that way to reconstruct your habits of communication and others habits of communication such that you can achieve equality, liberty and fraternity. And so Buddhism starts to put more emphasis in Embedkar's reading on the forces of persuasion and not simply on violence or very forcefully changing other people to be what you want them to be when it comes to social democracy. So now you look back to the 1950s and the final years of Embedkar's life, he pens a few works very furiously trying to get them finished before his end. He knew he was not having many more years left. And one of those works was a enigmatic 30 some page, you know, beginning of a book really called Buddha or Karl Marx. So think this is not the speech by the same title, but think of the manuscript by that. And in that manuscript, he has referred once again to Professor Dewey explicitly. And once again, he refers to Dewey's distinction from those lectures in 1916 on force, ends, means, violence and energy. And so he wraps the thought of Dewey back into this Buddhist vocabulary and starts asking these questions. Buddha would have probably admitted that it is only the end which would justify the means very similar to Professor Dewey's way of cutting it up, of course. What else could Embedkar continues? He would have said that if the end justified violence, violence was a legitimate means for the end in view. So what he's trying to do here is not to read Buddha as, you know, pro violence, but the idea of self-defense is not categorically excluded. And more importantly, Embedkar wants to emphasize the idea that these rules distract us. They distract us from the challenges of social democracy. And if you read on in that book, you start to see more references to Professor Dewey. And Bedkar says, Dewey has pointed out that violence is only another name for the use of force. And although force must be used for creative purposes, a distinction between the use of force's energy and use of force's violence needs to be made. The achievement of an end involves the destruction of many other ends, which are integral with the one that is sought to be destroyed. So the important thing for Embedkar's pragmatism in the 1950s, and you see this in the second passage, is that the use of force may be so regulated that it should save as many ends as possible in destroying the evil one. So what he's getting at here is that Buddha was not against all use of force, not all use of violence, but he was particularly against those uses of force that we label as violence that eliminate too many ends in pursuit of one end in a fanatical fashion. And this is typically what happens with political revolutionaries or people that want to use violence to radically change a political scenario, is that they're wiping away the values and the goals and the projects of too many other people in community. And they're just focusing on their achievement of what they believe is their end. So, you know, with this in a summary fashion, Embedkar's pragmatism only says use force, force's energy really, that is intelligent or constructive, that does not foreclose the present or future end of community with those you like and those you dislike. So Embedkar as well as Dewey, we're very much on the same wavelength. You don't solve today's problems in a way that create new problems tomorrow. So think back to that essay on Buddha or Karl Marx that Embedkar penned in his last years. There he refers explicitly to the Russian revolution, the communist revolution in Russia. And Embedkar praises some aspects of it. So it's, you know, it seems to want to produce equality. But then Embedkar says something vitally important, but it cannot be too much emphasized that in producing a quality society cannot afford to sacrifice fraternity or liberty. Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can only coexist if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one according to Embedkar, but not all three. So you see that the idea here is simple, that certain ways of using force might seem effective in achieving freedom or getting you your liberty or getting you your equality, but they sacrifice something else. And that's something else so often is fraternity. You know, and this is, you know, he says the communists can kill certain people and solve their problems, but that definitely doesn't engender friends among the living people who oppose them. So, I mean, Embedkar was very, you know, against uses of force that tried to violently solve problems because they created new problems, people that hated you all the more people that wanted to resist you in new ways tomorrow. So what does he say in this manuscript that's so important? He says, Buddha's way was different. His method was to change the mind of man, to alter his disposition so that whatever man does, he does voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion. And the way he did this was dhamma and preaching. So you see that, you know, basically Buddha was important because he was a persuader. He was a retor. He was an orator, like Embedkar was in so much of his life. And this is what we do in democracy. Embedkar believes, you know, if you have problems, you try to solve them through communication. You can't solve everything, but you try to solve them and you try not to resolve the problem in a way that creates new problems. And that's what violence does. So he concludes his passage as I've highlighted with this idea, the Buddha's way was to not force people to do what they did not like to do, although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so they would do so voluntarily what they would not otherwise do. So you see in 1950s, in Embedkar's Navayana Buddhism, the kind of integration of this psychology that he saw parts of in John Dewey's class, the idea that the key battle for social reform so often is the mindsets and the habits of the people that make up societies and groups. So change the habits, change the group customs, change the social setting, achieve social democracy. So into the Buddha in his Dhamma once again, we start to see hints of this, right? Something that jars with some of our instincts as social formers. You see, for instance, Embedkar said, cherish no anger, forget your enmities, win your enemies by love. That is the Buddha's way of life. And he also talks about the fire of anger should be stilled. And Embedkar explicitly says, one who harbors the thought, he reviled me, maltreated me, overpowered me, robbed me, and him anger is never stilled. And so the idea is to still that anger. Enemy works enemy, evil to enemy, hater to hater. But who is the evil? Let a man overcome anger by love, let him overcome evil by good. So you get this fascinating new reading of force and persuasion as force and love as a forceful sort of persuasion in Embedkar's final years in Embedkar's Buddhism. So to start to wrap up, Buddhism and social democracy form an integrated pair in Embedkar's thought. Social democracy, if it's about what I say it's about, which seems to be creating a community animated by shared interests and respectful individuals who all achieve their full potential, we get this kind of limit on our activities. We must not destroy existing communal bonds and create animosity in striving to create a community animated by respect and without animosity. So you cannot solve unjust society by creating the conditions for future injustice in the future. So we must in other words maintain and nurture the basis of community and accept the limits to our will and power. I truly believe in Embedkar thought that you'd push hard like he did in his life for social democracy but you might not achieve it. You might not achieve it. Why? Because as he said in the 1940s to students at Siddharth College in a special lecture he gave on parliamentary democracy, he said you cannot, he said this to the students there, you cannot win over the minority or the opposition in houses of parliament let's say by giving your opponents a black eye. This is a very physical pugilistic metaphor but the idea is simple. You cannot destroy your opponents and hope to make community with your opponents. This is the tactic of violence. This is the tactic of communists as he saw them. So the idea of social democracy is you need to pursue vigorously change injustice but you must always remember the end goal that is the creation of a community with those around you that has free flowing communication. So in summary if you were to ask me the larger question what is Embedkar's pragmatist Naviana Buddhism about and what are the kind of integrations it has with democracy and social democracy? Here's how I'd outline the picture. One it's an obviously socially engaged philosophy. Suffering, dukkha on Embedkar's reading becomes in many cases poverty or social disrespect or disempowerment. Two it focuses on problematic habits or attitudes in itself and also in others. Three as a religion Buddhism becomes a means to achieve social democracy. There might be other means of course but Embedkar thought this was a very good one. Why? Because it gave principles that guide our individual engagement with others in trying to achieve social reform. One of those principles four was ahimsa and it became a principle of love for Embedkar not simply a rule that you just don't harm anything microorganism or beyond. Five there must be hope. You must give hope in organizing. You must give hope in persuasion and advocacy but you can't have any hope in violence or coercion on Embedkar's line of thinking. And I think that means at some point you recognize democracy is tragic. You know what it could be to get a quality but you just can't get that right now. That's why Embedkar at the end of his life said he's not got many years to live but he's pushed the caravan forward and he hopes his followers push the caravan forward a bit more or at least don't make it go backwards. And so I think this is the tragic in Embedkar. The idea that social democracy is an ideal. It's a very flexible ideal. It's a very useful ideal but it's not an ideal we can expect to achieve tomorrow or next month. And sometimes democracy means knowing how to lose as well as knowing how to achieve victory and reform. So I will leave you with that in terms of the wonderfully complex notion of Embedkar's social philosophy. And we have some discussion over it but it's a wonderful view of social democracy. It's a beautiful vista of what society could be and I think it adds to what we think of the pragmatist lexicon from John Dewey and Purse and James and Jane Adams and beyond. Thank you for your attention and I welcome questions and discussions. Thank you so much Professor Stroud for this enlightening lecture. We learned a lot about the relationship between Dr. B. R. Embedkar as well as Professor John Dewey but most importantly we also understood the various dimensions of the Buddhism, the devokaristic principles of John Dewey which inspired Dr. Ambedkar to construct his philosophy. So now please Professor allow me to open this platform for the question and answer session. I open this platform, I request the participants to share their thoughts, ideas and also please do ask questions. We are willing to listen to you. Thank you. Either you can switch on your microphone or you can even write your questions in the chat box. Okay so before the question comes Professor Stroud, you know I remember one of Dr. B. R. Embedkar's quotes right he said that the best friends I have in life were some of my classmates at Columbia and my great professors John Dewey, James Shotwell, Edwin Seligman and James Harvey Robinson. I don't know but I always remember this quote whenever I teach my own students. I mean the kind of camaraderie and relationship that Dr. Ambedkar has developed with great minds in the history like Professor Seligman and Professor John Dewey is really commendable and that my observation takes me to believe that the Protestant Buddhism that Dr. Ambedkar is putting forth before us, I would love to call it like a Protestant Buddhism. So this Navayana Buddhism basically don't you think that it could be a deviant Buddhism or deviant version of the Buddha, the social Buddha which we have never thought of before. We speak about spirituality, we speak about salvation, we often speak about Karuna right that is compassion but here the Buddha that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has shown to us is a different Buddha. He's a social reformer right so what is your take on it? I mean it's really lovely to observe that how Professor Dewey has inspired young Ambedkar that he you know you know inspired to develop a different structure all together. How do you see it Professor? Over to you. Yes it's an excellent question Professor Bavar and really that's I've figured out I can't include all the things I want to say about Ambedkar's Buddhism in my current book which is too long. I got to cut it down before I send it back to the publisher but so my next book is going to be on Ambedkar's Buddhism but it's just a fascinating story. John Dewey knew very little about Buddhism you know so what his mentions were grossly off you know Nirvana is just a giving up of life and bliss and negation of yourself and so so you know Dewey did not give Ambedkar one bit of you know of Buddha's thought. What I think Ambedkar saw in Dewey was this kind of pragmatist idea of religion as a means and religion as hopefully inculcating reflection in people versus just mere following and then Ambedkar himself merged it with his own unique reading of Buddhism. So like you're saying you could think of Buddhism Buddha as a Dewey figure but you know I don't want to encourage people to think that Dewey gave Ambedkar the contents of Buddha and his Dhamma. He gave him conceptual distinctions like principle and rule. For instance Dewey wrote a book in the 30s on Christianity and religion called A Common Faith where he basically tries to find a version of religion that's not otherworldly but that engages us with this world and that would be a wonderful book for Ambedkar to have read. I found no evidence that Ambedkar had that book or read it but you know the ideas are still there kind of going in parallel. Dewey's looking for religion that's socially engaged and Ambedkar finds Buddhism and writes it with its emphases being on social engagement. So yeah in a way you could call it Protestant Buddhism. I like to call it you know a pragmatist form of Buddhism. Other people will focus on other things a socially engaged form of Buddhism but at the end of the day we're all talking about the same thing which is this fascinating reading of Buddhism as an engaged philosophy of life not as an otherworldly pursuit not as a focus on godlike figures but as kind of a social philosophy with a different vocabulary that helps us envision the society we want to create. So it's a fascinating topic I think. No indeed indeed I mean I do really agree with you and I also mean the same that the principles which John Dewey has given to Dr Ambedkar I mean as his professor you know adds opinions intellect as a catalytic aspect you know and this is how it flourished further. Another aspect that I would like to I would like you to share your ideas on is about the democracy you know the Ambedkar's vision of democracy. So basically his democratic ideas and the principles are that of social democracy so he visualizes democracy as a form of a model right on one hand he speaks about social Buddhism right again a greatest experiment in the history now he's talking about the social democracy okay and it is also have been considered as a model. So it is really wonderful to see that Dr Ambedkar is working on two models on one hand the model of the Buddhism social Buddhism and on the other hand the model of democracy the social democracy now as a scholar of Dr Ambedkar studies and thoughts okay how do you see whether these models are still relevant to what extent they are relevant to solve the contemporary problems because you know we are sometimes we are trying to when we try to contextualize Professor Devi and Dr Ambedkar in the modern perspective right we sometimes get stuck somewhere regarding considering the dynamic challenges that we are facing today right. So what is your take on it considering the Buddhist model and the social democratic model will they be able to solve the problems of today the problem that you and I are facing you know in the liberal democracy. I you know as much as any philosophy can solve a problem they're wonderfully useful if we put them into practice and this is what I try to tell my western colleagues about Ambedkar he is not just an Indian thinker or some people will say oh he was a Dalit thinker no he's he's a global thinker he's a Indian thinker he's also a global thinker he's a philosopher like we still value Plato's thoughts you know 100 years 200 years from now we're still going to value Dr Ambedkar's thoughts and so and he knew this I think I think he knew that his message went beyond solving the awful caste problem in India so for instance he gave all these lectures in the 50s to what I call international audiences people that were not oppressed by caste many of them were not even in India you know so he would go to these Buddhist conferences or he'd give you know it talks in Nepal or other neighboring countries he'd give them in English he would give these over BBC or Voice of America you know so he would give these lectures that were not you know organized towards his fellow Dalits who were oppressed and he wouldn't talk about conversion he would just talk about democracy and Buddhism and communism so he really thought that you know this this this was a global philosophy that was organized towards democracy and solving democracy's problems whether it's caste I believe whether it's racism or it's some new problem that we're going to discover 100 years from now and I think one of the most enduring themes if you want to look at Ambedkar as a global thinker you know someone that's beyond anyone historical period of India you know it's this idea of fraternity fraternity is part of the end you're seeking you want what does social democracy mean it means a group of people that all get along together that value each other that respect each other that don't see people from this group or this race or this caste or this gender or this sexuality as lower than another group but it also is a means fraternity is not just an end it's also a means it's part of the attitude we have towards others and that's what I think he's getting at with all this love talk in his Buddha and his dharma a book remember was authored in English you know so that's another thing that's fascinating he intended Buddhism as a global faith he wrote it in the language of the globe of the day which was English you know he didn't write it first in Marathi or Hindi he wrote it first in in English and so you know he really thought beyond the problems he was trying to solve problems he knew were important but you know there's more after that so so he was looking at himself and his thought is hopefully a global philosophy or global approach so that's one thing I try to emphasize you can definitely focus on embed car as an anti-caste thinker and that's incredibly valuable but you can also think of him as a general theorist of democracy and what do I find very important in that kind of reading it's this emphasis that you cannot solve problems of community in a way that destroy community in the future you know so you cannot solve things problems of inequality let's say and sacrifice fraternity so you have to find a way to solve inequality and maintain or enhance fraternity so this is a fascinating new view on embed car I believe well very true and that is the reason when we read the Buddha and the Karl Marx we get to see his insight on you know the communism as well and as you rightly quoted what Dr Ambedkar has mentioned that the violence is not a solution right so you cannot sacrifice the value of brotherhood you cannot sacrifice the values of love and compassion to create an artificial equality which you know the communism propagates you know so so when you think about the communism or the communist idols we know that you know this the ideology which is based on the the fractured you know the concepts and the ideas you know the class struggles and you know its culmination into operation and the kind of solution which has been prescribed right so when we read Buddha and Karl Marx we really understand in what way Dr Ambedkar has really dissected the you know the the communist philosophy okay so here the question is we speak about love we speak about compassion and we are correlating the justice or the principles of natural justice which is which are flourishing out of this natural love and compassion okay which Dr Pierre Ambedkar originates in the Buddhist philosophy right so who do you think considering the Ambedkar's philosophy that has Ambedkar succeeded in his quest because I know that at the end of his life he was very disturbed and he was quite unhappy with himself as well right this is what we learn from his writings so considering Dr Ambedkar's overall life his work as well as his visions for the country and for the common man and as you rightly mentioned that Dr Ambedkar is a universal figure right everybody has something to take from Ambedkar so what do you how do you see Ambedkar you know as a politician as a statesman as a political scientist as a lawyer as a social reformer as a really as someone who's like a Moses you know how do you see that's something a lot of my colleagues who don't know much of Ambedkar but let's say know a lot about John Dewey they don't understand you know John Dewey was a very important person he met presidents he you know gave all his speeches but he wasn't a religious leader he wasn't a politician himself he didn't write the constitution of the United States and so Ambedkar had so many roles and his time was divided I don't I do not know how he had the energy to do this and like Dewey he wrote so many volumes of works published and unpublished and so he's just a tough thinker a complex thinker and and this is one thing that some people say ah Stroud he's more than a pragmatist well of course he was of course he's more than a Buddhist you know he has he's a politician he was a author of the constitution in some ways and I mean he was so anything you say about him you have to have the caveat that there are going to be other ways to get at it but the important thing I think is to realize that he was energized in all these missions and he never thought he solved any of these problems right I mean that's the I think the only time you worry I've heard this about academics you say the only time you worry about academics are when they're happy you know so there's there's kind of a dissatisfaction with deep thinkers perhaps like in bed car and you know he knew at the end of his life he had not solved all his problems on the other hand you know I'm sure he was satisfied in the struggle you know in the struggle forcefully pursued with the certain limits you know so he was pushing as hard as he could he didn't make everyone his friend but I believe he had a vision of democracy and he tried to give this to people and he in some of his speeches he literally said to his followers one speech to him harsh he said the books I leave you with will be a guide when I'm gone and this was in the 1930s and so in the 1930s he knew he wasn't going to be around forever but his writings are going to be around for a long time so so this is a fascinating situation we can now kind of access the mind of embed car but partially and he's a complex figure so none of us should ever think we could exhaustively capture the mind of embed car but let's try to find the useful aspects I think social democracy is one of those things that just so important because India like the US is trying to form a community a shared community and that is tough it's tough to get along with people you think are your enemies it's tough to get along with people who you don't love and you know in bed car Jesus you know Dewey a lot of these thinkers and religious traditions you know the challenge is to like the people who you don't like or love those who don't show you love so this is a challenge and embed car is part of that tradition and he has this unique way of spelling it out well yeah I do agree I mean this is something which is unique and embed car has shown that it is possible you know he lived what he actually preached well it seems there are no questions coming up from our participants okay so Professor I would like you to share something about your Professor Dewey Research Center which you have established in Pune University of Pune so please tell us something about it what is this about and how is this working functioning how is it yeah yeah so I believe it was about a year and a half or two years ago Professor Vijay Kare at Savitvay Phule Pune University and I started this first center and you know it was on I flew over there and I took in my luggage Dewey's collected works which like Baba Sahib's collected works are a lot of pages a lot of weight but I didn't want to trust them to the postal service to mail so I you know we carried them over there and so those books are now being used by students at Pune University because Dewey's works are hard to get a hold of it's you know the these editions are expensive so this set of 38 volumes was donated by the John Dewey Society a group of mostly American academics and you know I hope to start more Dewey centers in India but the point is two-fold and some of this has been put on hold because the pandemic so you know first is to enhance the knowledge of John Dewey in India and that is you because we like embed car in America I think people in India could benefit from you know agreeing with or disagreeing with or thinking about arguing with the ideas of John Dewey and so getting access to those ideas is the first step also programming that might expose Dewey and thinkers to Indian audiences would be good and like I said it's been difficult to have events over in India because of the pandemic and you can do zoom events but a lot of people are are fatigued on zoom so this is something we're going to ramp up in the future and the second thing would be to encourage more American thinkers involved in Dewey to see Dr. Embed Car as part of that you know legacy a very important new part of that legacy and to take his thought seriously and study it so so really that kind of bi-directional influence is what I want to start to do with the establishment of these Dewey centers to get more Dewey into Indian discussions and more embed car into American discussions and to get scholars and thinkers and just ordinary folks on both sides interested in the other because I think embed car and Dewey are both on the same wavelength they're on the same team and they're both very interested in democracy and its challenges that's very true that's very true because see the ideas needs to be propagated the ideas needs to be studied ideas needs to be talked about as well otherwise they would die and we know that very well now see why I'm so happy today Professor I'll tell you because you're talking about John Dewey right see my father was the first one who introduced me to John Dewey and John Dewey's writings and his relationship with Dr. Embed Car I mean to say the academic as well as serious kind of relationship right so it's through the writing through the influences and when I look at the embed correct scholarships in India right my humble submission is that it is very rare to find you know that people are working on John Dewey's ideas I mean as a research topic you know or as a research project so maybe people like you and those who are interested in John Dewey and bringing embed current Dewey together we can really do something you know for the people to help them understand Dewey and Embedkar together and individually okay in the most effective way in the better way of course in the interest of the needs of the ever-changing democratic settings not only of India not only of America but all over the world right so Embedkar and Dewey are truly relevant they are the global figures and need to be they need to be understood in that sense so with these words Professor Stroud you know I really congratulate you for this lecture and I'm really grateful for that because you have taken out your time it's it's morning over there I don't know what exactly the time is but yeah still so you took out your time and enlightened us maybe we'll keep on meeting and I don't know when you are coming back to India but you happen to visit please do visit Nagaland that the north eastern part of India you know I think it would be really great to invite you in our institution you can meet our students and help them understand the ideas and thoughts that shape this world thank you so much definitely I'd love to visit Nagaland and I every time I visit India a lot of times in Maharashtra but across India I learned so much and I meet so many wonderful people and I just I the one of the worst things in the pandemic for me personally has been not being able to visit my friends in India worrying about their health in India and so I I hope to make new friends like you in Nagaland always you are always welcome you're always welcome I'm always in search of people you know who could I could learn something from them all right thank you so much and thank you all the participants I could see the insha mustak is there Komal Rajik is there Swati Ugade is there our professor Tatam Kola is there and many more we're participating they're left now but I'm really thankful to all of them for participating thank you so much and professor have a great morning have a great day I thank you so much all right thank you my friends jai beam