Abstract
The west-centrism in approaching the knowledge systems of east has been sufficiently highlighted and problematized. This paper argues that the attempts have often been restricted to a framework of colonial gaze that prevents the Indian classical philosophy from gaining a vantage of its own. The approach to the classical traditions have been largely fragmented, catering to the pressure of proving its “relevance” either as a knowledge system or as texts with useful resources and answers to contemporary problems. This “problem solving” framework at the very outset de-recognizes the capacity of an entire philosophical tradition of problem identification and formulation, unsettling terrains of knowledge by asking new questions. The article presents a case for theorizing relevance as a prerequisite to resolving some of these issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Chaterjee (1993, Pg. 16).
Amartya Sen, in his work Indian Traditions and the Western Imaginations, argue how different approaches from colonial power whether curatorial, magisterial or exoticist, despite their varied motivations converged in their emphasis on the distinctive elements. Sen (1997). This was reemphasised by a dominant bloc of response from the colonies that sought to claim a superior, interior world, as Partha Chatterjee points out. In fact, a reduced importance of rationalist, argumentative traditions like nyaya in Indian intellectual tradition is also seen as a result of such assertions. Ganeri (1996).
Coleridge (1966).
Sen (1997, Pg: 2).
Nigam (2020).
Ramani (2011).
Skinner (1969).
Berlin (1978, Pg 12).
Crick (1967, Pg 49).
Subrata K. Mitra and Michael Leibig note, in the context of The Kautilyan tradition, that post-colonial Indian policies and institutions are a hybrid of 're-use' of the legacy of the past and the contemporary western political and social theories. In their words, "Symbolic presence of the past constitutes a link of modernity with collective memory”. Vohra (2018).
Balbir S. Sihag has written about, among its other economic dimensions, the Scope and methodology of accounting in Kautilyan theory. Sihag (2004). Charles Waldauer, Willaim J. Zahka and Surendra Pal argue that Kautilya anticipated classical economic thought by some 2000 years in the areas of international trade, taxation and a labor theory of value. Waldauer et al. (1996). P.K. Gautam has written how Kautilya's Arthashastra is the guide, as in many other domains of statecraft, on how temple wealth may be used by the state to shore up an economy. Gautam (2015).
Savransky (2014).
Quentin Skinner writes, “The most persistent mythology is generated when the historian is set by the expectation that each classic writer (in the history, say, of ethical or political ideas) will be found to enunciate some doctrine on each of the topics regarded as constitutive of his subject.” The incidental remarks or what constitutes a part of the philosophy is often then confounded with the philosophy itself. Skinner, Quentin. "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas." Pg 7.
Nigam (2020).
The emphasis of the paper is not to claim that the western concepts are unsuitable to Indian contexts, or Indian concepts have superior explanatory merit. Such dichotomizing that does not take into account the dialogue between the traditions quickly spirals into parochial chest thumping. The limited claim of this paper is that the demands of relevance being made on the Indian Philosophy emerge from a hierarchy of values (in which the western values are clearly hegemonic), which put the former on a defensive. The selective engagement with concepts and ideas strips the philosophy of its essence and hence also of its critical faculties. The paper, recognizing that the demands for relevance are inescapable makes a case for relooking at relevance as a concept.
Ashish Nandy in his work 'An Anti-Secularist Manifesto', has argued in the context of secularism, that secularism as a primarily western ethic, when introduced in the context of a society with profound religious sensibility like India, banished religion from the public sphere as parochial, ascribed identities in favour of liberal identities like individualism and merit. However, this inhibits dialogue between the two domains, thus leaving both impoverished. Religious identities hardly remain confined in the private domain. Rather, in a situation where their debate with other religions on one hand, and modern values of democracy etc. on the other, the religious identities take a rigid, reactionary, and fundamentalist form, made available for their use by political forces for their partisan ends. Chandhoke (2010).
Savransky. "On Relevance (The Very Idea).".
References
Berlin, I. (1978). The purpose of philosophy. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Concepts and categories: Philosophical essays. Hogarth Press.
Chandhoke, N. (2010). Secularism. In P. B. Mehta & N. G. Jayal (Eds.), Oxford handbook to politics in India (pp. 333–346). Oxford University Press.
Chaterjee, P. (1993). Nation and its fragments. Princeton University Press.
Coleridge, S. T. (1966). Vol. IV. In Griggs, E. L. (ed.) Collected letters of Samuel Taylor coleridge, (p. 917). Clarendon Press.
Crick, B. (1967). Philosophy, theory and thought. Political Studies, 15(1), 49–55.
Fox, M. (1973). The "relevance" of philosophy and its relevance for teaching. Metaphilosophy, 4(3), 261–268.
Gadamer, H.G., & Risser, J. (1979). Practical philosophy as a model of the human sciences. Research in Phenomenology, 9(1), 74–85.
Ganeri, J. (1996). The hindu syllogism: Nineteenth century perceptions of indian logical thought. Philosophy East and West, 46(1), 1–12.
Gautam, P. K. (2013). One hundred years of Kautilya’s Arthasastra. IDSA monograph series. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
Gautam, P.K. (2015). Using Temple Gold for Shoring up the Economy: Learning from Kautilya's Arthashastra. Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense and Security Analysis. April 17. Retrived March 19, 2020, from https://idsa.in/idsacomments/UsingTempleGoldforShoringup_pkgautam_170415.
Leask, N. (1992). British romantic writers and the East: Anxieties of empire. Cambridge University Press.
Liebig, M. (2013). Kautilya's relevance for India today. India Quarterly, 69(2), 99–116.
Liebig, M., & Mitra, S. K. (2007). Nehru and Kautilya. In S. K. Mitra & M. Liebig (Eds.), Kautilya’s Arthashastra: An intellectual portrait: The classical roots of modern politics in India (pp. 197–235). Nomos.
Nehru, J. (1982). Glimpses of world history. Oxford University Press.
Nehru, J. (1989). Disocvery of India. Oxford University Press.
Nigam, A. (2020). Theorizing the political: Mandala and the social polity. In A. Nigam (Ed.), Decolonizing theory: Thinking across traditions. Bloomsbury.
Okeke, C. O., & Abakare, V. C. (2016). Philosophy in contemporary time: Relevance vs. public perception. Journal of African Studies, 6(1).
Raina, D. (2012). Decolonisation and the entangled histories of science and philosophy in India. Polish Sociological Review, 178, 187–201.
Ramani, S. (2011). Decolonising knowledge systems. Economic and Political WEEKLY , XLVI(30), 17–19.
Savransky, M. (2014). On relevance (the very idea). Somatosphere. October 13. Retrieved November 4, 2019, from. http://somatosphere.net/author/martin-savransky/.
Savransky, M., & Stengers, I. (2016). The adventure of relevance: An ethics of social inquiry. Macmillan Publishers.
Schreiner, P. (1978). The Indianness of modern Indian philosophy as a historical and philosophical problem. Philosophy East and West, 28(1), 21–37. University of Hawai’i Press.
Sen, A. (1997). Indian traditions and the western imagination. Daedalus, 126(2), 1–26.
Sihag, B. S. (2004). Kautilya on the scope and methodology of accounting, organizational design and the role of ethics in ancient India. The Accounting Historians Journal, 31(2), 125–148.
Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), 3–53.
Vohra, A. (2018). Kautilya's relevance in contemporary world. The tribune. April 1. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/book-reviews/kautilya-s-relevance-in-contemporary-world-566227.
Waldauer, C., Zahka, W. J., & Pal, S. (1996). Kautilya's Arthashastra: A neglected precursor to classical economics. Indian Economic Review, XXXI(1), 101–108.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monika, Akanksha A Case for Theorizing Relevance: A New Entry Point to Indian Classical Political Philosophy. J. Indian Counc. Philos. Res. 38, 397–405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-021-00246-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-021-00246-6