Abstract
Several authors working on cross-cultural philosophy underscore that a cross-cultural conversational space, which breaks away from dominant theoretical frameworks, is necessary for a genuine cross-cultural dialog. This paper too seeks to contribute to the development of such a space. To this end, its focus will lie on one salient representation of Indian philosophy in the postcolonial context: the ‘Report of the University Education Commission’ of 1948–1949 (Report 1950). The paper will analyze how this document marries shared values like freedom and equality with the role of philosophy for the Indian nation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kaviraj (2015) convincingly shows how such a “time-intrinsic” framework can be developed for the purposes of a global intellectual history.
In a thought-provoking article, Purushottama Bilimoria (2018, forthcoming) argues that Radhakrishnan took classical Greek thought as his model and ‘spent a good part of his speculative life trying to tailor Indian thought to fit the vesture, or maybe the toga, of his Greek heroes, namely Plato and Plotinus.’ Bilimoria goes on to suggest that Radhakrishnan believed that Greeks and Indians were in a historical sense “bhai-bhai” [brothers] (2018, forthcoming).
Writing about Nehru, Radhakrishnan and G. S. Mallik, Peter Schreiner (1978, p. 34) states that they ‘share their desire to assert themselves in their national identity; their intellectual endeavors are motivated by a certain pride; their belief in evolution and reform may be seen as a basic requirement for all efforts to improve the social and political conditions of and in India. The philosophical generalizations about India are foreshadowed in the political programs of nationalism, the conceptual efforts to identify a particular philosophical point of view as Indian are paralleled by the unity of India as a political ideal.’ As we shall see in this paper, Radhakrishnan seems to have been aware of the social and historical reasons for postulating a close relation between philosophies of India and its national identity.
As an example of such a truth, the Report (1950, p. 59) notes how the figure of Śiva, which in its reckoning has been part of the Hindu imaginary since before the common era, calls upon us to gain control of our own selves.
According to the Encyclopaedia Iranica, ‘erfān’ is used in 20th century scholarship ‘for intellectual developments that combine Sufi thought and Twelver Shiʿite philosophy. The modern use of the term (1) emphasizes the mystico-philosophical side of Sufism and Shiʿism, in contra-distinction to the organized practice of Sufism (taṣawwof) and to the rational speculation and legalistic reasoning of Shiʿite theology (kalām) and law (feqh); (2) it stresses the intuitive side of Islamic thought and wisdom (ḥekma), traced back to Šehāb-al-Dīn Yaḥyā Sohravardī and Ebn al-ʿArabī, as against the tradition of deductive philosophy (falsafa), associated with Ebn Rošd (d. 595/1198); (3) it seeks its roots in the bāṭen, the inner and hidden side of Islamic religiosity, that is understood, together with the generally more prominent, outer and manifest side (ẓāher) of Islamic law and religion, as shaping the totality of Islam’ (Böwering 2012). ‘ʿIlm’ on the other hand means knowledge, it results from the process of learning. ‘The verb ʿalima is used in the Ḳurʾān both in the perfect and in the imperfect, and also in the imperative, with the meaning of “to know”, but in the imperative and in the perfect it seems often to mean basically “to learn” (without effort, the fifth form taʿallama being used when a nuance of laborious study is implied); ʿilm is the result of this action’ (Bearman et al. 2012).
In their fascinating study about the ‘Indian Renaissance’ in precolonial India, Nalini Bhushan and Jay Garfield (2017, p. 215) draw attention to how the Hindu and Muslim intellectual communities engaged in ‘parallel play.’ While they were driven by similar interests to develop plausible notions of an Indian modernity, their intellectual interactions in this regard were largely confined to their counterparts in Europe. The Report, as we see, attempts to bridge this gap. The political partition between India and Pakistan could possibly have been one factor in this regard.
‘The soul of the caste system has departed, and what India is now worshipping with awe and veneration is a dead corpse’ (Radhakrishnan 1919, p. 187).
Minor (1997) notes how a modified notion of caste continued to play a vital role in Radhakrishnan’s understanding of an organic society.
‘India is a symphony where there are, as in an orchestra, different instruments, each with its particular sonority, each with its special sound, all combining to interpret one particular score. It is this kind of combination that this country has stood for’ (Radhakrishnan 1946).
Over the course of his career, Radhakrishnan’s respect for Gandhi seems to have grown; he thought of Tagore as his mentor right from the beginning. See Hawley (2003).
Radhakrishnan was the first Indian to hold the Spalding Chair at the University of Oxford between 1936 and 1952. About the endowment of this chair, Ram-Prasad Chakravarthi (1992) rightly notes: It ‘was an act which bequeathed intellectual representation to the East; but, paradoxically, precisely because of that, it could not have been an act of empowerment.’
Radhakrishnan’s (1919, p. 257) tribute to Tagore also includes stray thoughts on his understanding of the relation between the sexes. These thoughts, which postulate strict (perhaps even insurmountable) differences between men and women seem quaint today. From today’s perspective, it is interesting to note how Radhakrishnan traces the so-called rebellion of women to ‘the masculine character of the present civilization’ (Radhakrishnan 1919, p. 259). Instead of imitating the competitiveness of their male counterparts, they, he suggests, should teach men the power of love so that ‘man will learn that love is of more value than power’ (Radhakrishnan 1919, p. 260). Cooperation would result.
For another fascinating take on the Indian nation at this point in its development, see the paper by Nalini Bhushan and Jay L. Garfield in this volume.
‘We have been kept apart. It is our duty now to find each other’ (Radhakrishnan 1946).
As our discussion illustrates, it would be hard to make a case that Radhakrishnan’s views in the Report foreground Neo-Vedanta. His position on the same does, however, run into difficulties in bridging castes and religions. See my analysis in Kirloskar-Steinbach (2002).
‘[S]imilarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, is not enough to constitute men into society’ (Ambedkar 2014a [1936], p. 51).
In this vein, Ambedkar would less optimistic about the Report’s claim that: ‘The absolute religious neutrality of the State can be preserved if in State institutions, what is good and great in every religion is presented, and what is more important, the unity of all religions. It is in the detached atmosphere of an academic institution that we can study, analyse and eliminate the prejudice and misunderstandings which dis-figure inter-religious relations’ (Report 1950, pp. 302–303).
Cf. Peetush (2017). The Riddles was published posthumously.
References
Ambedkar, B. R. (2014a/1936). Annihilation of caste: with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi. In V. Moon (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: writings and speeches, Vol. 1, 2nd edition, New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, 22–96.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2014b). Riddles in Hinduism: an exposition to enlighten the masses. In V. Moon (Ed.), Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: writings and speeches, Vol. 4. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Bayly, C. (2015). The ends of liberalism and the political thought of Nehru’s India. Modern Intellectual History, 12(3), 605–626.
Bearman, P., Bianquis, T., Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E., Heinrichs, W. P. (2012). ʿIlm. In P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_3537. Accessed on 31 August 2017.
Bhushan, N., & Garfield, J. L. (2017). Minds without fear: Philosophy in the Indian renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bilimoria, P. (2018). S. Radhakrishnan: “Saving the appearances” in East-West academy. Sophia, forthcoming.
Böwering, G. (2012). Erfān. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/erfan-1. Accessed on 17 October 2017.
Ganeri, J. (2001). Indian logic and the colonization of reason. In J. Ganeri (Ed.), Indian logic: A reader (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.
Hawley, M. (2003). The making of a Mahātma: Radhakrishnan’s critique of Gandhi. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 32(1–2), 135–148.
Kaviraj, S. (2015). Global intellectual history: meanings and methods. In S. Moyn & A. Sartori (Eds.), Global intellectual history (pp. 295–319). New York: Columbia University Press.
Kirloskar-Steinbach, M. (2002). Toleration in modern liberal discourse with special reference to Radhakrishnan’s tolerant Hinduism. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30(4), 389–402.
Minor, R. N. (1997). Radhakrishnan as advocate of the class/caste system as a universal religio-social system. International Journal of Hindu Studies, (1–2), 386–400.
Peetush, A. (2017). The ethics of radical equality: Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan’s neo-Hinduism as a form of spiritual liberalism. In S. Ranganathan (Ed.), The Bloomsbury research handbook of Indian ethics (pp. 357–382). Bloomsbury: London.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1919). The philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore. MacMillan and Co (Reprint): London.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1927). The Hindu view of life. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd..
Radhakrishnan, S. (Ed.). (1939). Mahatma Gandhi: essays and reflections on his life and work, presented to him on his 70 th Birthday, 2 nd October 1939. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Radhakrishnan, S. (11th December 1946). Speech at the first constitutional assembly meetings. In Constitutional assembly debates. http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol1p3.htm. Accessed on 17 October 2017.
Raghuramaraju, A. (2017). Modern frames and premodern themes in Indian philosophy. London: Routledge.
Ram-Prasad, Ch. (1992) Philosophy and the reconstruction of one’s culture: The case study of the Indian Spalding professors. https://www.academia.edu/32145398/Radhakrishnan_and_Matilal.pdf last accessed on 27 June 2018.
Report (1950). The report of the university education commission (December 1948–August 1949). Vol. 1, Shimla: Government of India Press.
Rosemont Jr., H. (1988). Against relativism. In G. J. Larson & E. Deutsch (Eds.), Interpreting across boundaries: new essays in comparative philosophy (pp. 36–70). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Salkever, S. G., & Nylan, M. (1994). Comparative political philosophy and liberal education: “looking for friends in history,”. Political Science and Politics, 27(2), 238–247.
Schreiner, P. (1978). The Indianness of modern Indian philosophy as a historical and philosophical problem. Philosophy East and West, 28(1), 21–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kirloskar-Steinbach, M. Representing Indian Philosophy Through the Nation: an Exploration of the Public Philosopher Radhakrishnan. SOPHIA 57, 375–387 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0676-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-018-0676-3