I feel that in many ways all the democratic forum like is an ideal answer for what I have been missing during my years as a politician. I have been missing a common forum where you ready people sharing the same goal, the same idea about the need for comprehensive democracy can really discuss & dealy & not avoiding the contlicis in opinion but just debating & negotiating but taking those small steps towards the same aim so that the politicians are there, representatives of the political parties, and then the researchers – academic world – the people who have really studied these things and then ….. the people’s movements, the NGOs; often what has been frustrating during those years has been the feeling that we are not really meeting each other—I mean the people’s movements 7 politicians –we meet but we are not really meeting because we are not speaking the same language, we don’t take the time to debate & try to see the common pollution’s. We shout or speak past each other, not win, but past. I think much has been achieved it we achieve in that meaning, that common language 7 understanding. For that we need a forum like this. I don’t mean we have to really the consensus of the time. Different opinions are there & the different means of achieving it but still much can be achieved. Another thing is that to be able to really make the difference we have to have this empowerment of people so that we encourage each other so as to really make an impact. That can be done by foiling together much, much better. I would also like to see the returning influence towards the political parties as well because they are supposed to be people’s movements, that’s the original idea. We know that in most countries the situation is like that that political parties need that kind of return inside real democracy, inside the parties the parties as well to be able to influence better & so their job as they have originally meant to one mode thing about comprehensive democracy – I think we haven’t enough discussed democracy in the information society, democratisation of information, now important it is today & finding, ways to speak about the physical divide …………………………….. open space as ……………….& I think that would be very important aspect of developing democracy in today’s world & JD like to really means empowering people to participate in society for phonating democracy.

Prof. Arun Kumar: Thank you, Suresh would you like to, since you have been detailed with ----------- Prof. Shein has already collered all the details. I have nothing new to add to anything. I am also very tired.

Suresh: I just want to reiterate two droteitions as a follow-up of what Dhirubhai said. One, Dhirubhai’s reminder that the idea of the family is something which doesn’t in all situations …. harmony & natural comfort with the idea of democratic transactions because the world of democracy, the substance of it, gets defined by a continuos process of transactions which are going on between different interest groups. But what make these transactions acceptable to both is that the interest itself is reedited, modulated in terms of an overarching reign of rights, a certain overarching notion of rights. The moment it falls below that then it is seen as the result of experiences 7 demands which do meet the criteria of legitimacy & fairness. All this there is also the possibility of opting out as it were. There is also the possibility in democratic transaction of changing your party as it were. You can shift the locus & say, ‘no this is not the party, this is not the view I belong to, this is not …….I belong to some thing else’ because there is space for that in that transaction. But the family in that sense represents the idea of that circle beyond which life ceases to have meaning. It is the kind of intrinsic anchor beyond which human life becomes not worth contemplating. In that sense the word ‘Kutumbakam’ itsef is something more than the idea of the family as it is normally understood in the English language, because the idea by the ‘Nuclear family’ by this small basic unit. But the related point that Dhirubhai made & I want to follow it up: that was the first time an act of imagination as it were because the ancient idea of Vadhaiva Kutumbakam is an idea that the world is your family which in fact in life you may never see all of them. In fact that may not even be necessary but even without seeing, even without knowing the special details of what they are, now they look like, now many of them are there, you can still anchor your sensibility, you can anchor the range of your political & moral choices it you like that this is mine, that the word is one family. And this is a useful thing to remember because not matter now much information progresses, no matter how well it gets organised it will never be humanly possible for the most attuned cognitive apparatus, aided by whatever mechanisms human ingenuity may devise that you’d actually come to know what this large family in its details is I mean that is something not available. So this imaginative act remains the anchor as it were. But we have come to a point, at this point, where the world has indeed been linked up, the world has indeed been, if you like, unified. And this process of unification is not a process which by any stretch of imagination can be called democratic. As a historical process it will be extremely difficult, it not impossible, to posit this quality called democracy to the process of world unification…………….

Dhirubhai: You mean globalisation…………….

Suresh: The modern unification process of the last two hundred years. It is something which has been powered by factors which have to do with productive process, which have to do with a certain technological resilience, which have to go with greed, which have to do with urges that really don’t sit at all with the idea of democracy; that in this very process the expectation ---& this is a strange paradox, I think, of the modern society------the expectation that never mind how this process happened, what were the things which were powering this process, but this gives you the conditions were by either through the rubrics of alternatives, through the rubrics of resistance it is possible for the first time to arrive at arrangements which take into account the rights, which, in a sense, brings about gatherings of this kind, which brings about attempts of this kind. But we have to know that this process of unification itself is not something, which has been powered by the idea of democracy itself. It can be democratised but its………& human existence is so implicated that here is something which has come about through the worst kind of human drives perhaps; but it still does create the conditions ironically, paradoxically & in hope where this human longing that not only the world is one, one family, one communities ---& it is one communities in the sense that human life in any meaningful sense outside this communities is impossible to conceive. The need to the work out actual arrangements----& here I go would like to refer to the point, the kind of proposition that Sattu Hassi was making about the world environmental body, world parliament, one man one vote, you know however limited the role of such a conclave may, of such a body may be because without this unification the imaginative act was enough, The imaginative act was more or less sufficient & the rest could be decided on a kind of a moral threshold of what are the correct ways of conducting yourself. But here for the first time this is something which seems inadequate, something which seems something, something which seems impossible to ignore anymore, is to be able to engage with the details of arrangements which can identity the threshold on which these arrangements, these bodies forums of representation can be considered disruptive.

Prof Anand Kumar: Thank you Suresh. Would you like to say something?

Madan Mohan: Yes in Hindi

Dhirubhai: Somebody should translate.

Madan Mohan: My name is Madan Mohan. I am Ratlam, from ‘Apna Raj Andolan’, i.e. ‘Self Rule Movement’. In our mode of thinking what the base human longing is for selfhood; this sense of the self is possible only in a social context, with a social locus. Their starting proposition was that human beings begin by looking around & whatever lies in their proximity is a Part of their social-----------part of their social------. And if they make the social realm as their family then they’d have no problems in dealing with whatever may-------------------. But such a social realm, to be meaningful must be self-sufficient, must have a sense its self, should be self-ruling & autonomous, & should ‘Apnatva’. The world ‘Apnatva, in a literal sense, means a sense of oneself, & selfhood is both collective & individual. The arena of this social realm can be extended to & has been referred to as the term ‘Chkhla’. Chokhla’ means a group of twenty-four villages as I have mentioned in my pamphlet. Chokhla is a traditional unit comprising twenty-four villages. Within this context one can live with comfort, happiness & a sense of well being.

Suresh Sharma: This number twenty-four will be always multiples of twelve & twelve is a traditional unit of wholeness. It can be 24, 36, 72 etc.

Madan Mohan: Yes, exactly, beautiful. The word Kutumb, really, is spoken of in the plural & it clearly implies the possibility & desirability of different kinds of families, diversity of families & diversity of social existence. There’d be families diverse but living together in the entire world. It one lives this way one could live in peace, harmony & happiness & this is what was been said in the Upanishads & vedic philosophy. But in 19^th century this entire discourse has been reformulated in very individualistic terms; & as a part of this process the great epics as Mahabharat, Ramayan have been designated as religious texts.

Dhirubhai: There’s a problem, Suresh. Madan is not talking of the 19^th century. He is talking of 6^th – 9^th century when, quote unquote the corruption of text beings; the centuries which began strong strands ---in terms of thinking---of individualism; when individualism was transcending happily into communitarian conception of life now it is running parallel to -----------------. Their movement (‘Apna Raj’) is about how to create, or recreate rather, local communities & local democracies in the sense of this collective self with which individual is in harmony; & it such communities are there all over, then it will be literally co-lining rather than fighting among each other ------ I mean this is the sense I get ---- this is not the translation of what you are saying.

Madan Mohan: As the sense of individualism depended there was also enhancement in the political power, of political control over social life. The foundation of modern day democracy is ---- there is need to curb the baser instincts of decision making by political leaders & political parties, it has laws which is enacted by the political leaders.

Dhirubhai: Am I right in understanding that what you are saying is that it you have self-voucrned communities you don’t need democracy.

Madan Mohan: You don’t need democracy, correct.

Suresh Sharma: You don’t need representative democracy.

Dhirubhai: He doesn’t say you need democracy. It will be dead… his position is that you have communitarian, if you have community governance which represents collective self & there is a complete ambience between collective self & individual self, if you have many communities like that you don’t need the kind of democracy or kinds of democracies we are experiencing today, well, that democracy he finds as an evil, external rule. So that is the --------------------. So ‘Apna Raj’, who is self, what is selfhood these are the questions we had now ask of you.

Madan Mohan: Twenty-four villages, Chokhla, is selfhood.

Suresh Sharma: I just want to say what Madan Mohanji was saying is that social governance it is true to the unit which it comprises would obviate the need for any kind of political governance. Political governance itself becomes redundant it social governance is perfect & harmonious. Through in fact you can more or less abolish the political realm, so it is the withering away, it you like, of the state & the withering away is something which is conceivable in a unit proposes as practicable of twenty-four villages. Now here I may add that in the tradition of Indian political practice & Indian political thought twenty-four may not actually be 24, 17 can be 26, 17 can be 56, 17 can be 36 that is, something near to 24…………………….

Madan Mohan: Yes, near to 24….

Suresh Sharma: Near to 24, but it is the idea of wholeness of a certain region of a certain territory & a certain --------------linguistic continuity.

Madan Mohan: If it is not 24, 17, 11 not be strong.

Suresh Sharma: In fact the name ‘Chhattisgarh’ arises from this because it is the idea of 36 forts comprising the kingdom. So that’s now you have ‘Chhattisgarh’; the of Chhattisgarh today is really marking back to a political terminology about a complete, comprehensive unit.

Someone: Like 24 pargana---------

Dhirubhai: I think mast wants to ask some question.

Sattu Hassi: Well, of course it sounds a very beautiful idea to have such harmonious communities of very small scale ---- but do you really think it is possible to have such kind of life combined, for example, with education & medical care & things like that with the more modern society survives whether you think. My question is whether you think that children need education. So you think that these fairly like education & medical care & they’re not self-sufficient then, it you don’t have any kind of political decision making, how do you organize e.g. education & medical care.

Madan Mohan: The conception that people have normally about health care education rests on a premise, which is essentially & lawed. This unit of 24 villages would not need the kind of education & health care, which is seen as essential. They would be able to their needs they’d also be able to develop the kind of education system that would answer ti their situation & problems. And beyond that just as there is communication, interchange, exchange between nation states, there would be interchange & exchange between these units of 24 villages splead all over the earion; & this interchange & exchange can take care of problems & possibilities; which they cannot resolve on their own.

Sattu Hassi: I must say I don’t agree.

Madan Mohan: OK, OK you have a right to disagree.

Dhirubhai: We don’t have time-------I also don’t agree in the sense that there are many things that ----- I mean this 24 villages looks as an ideal picture recreating what you may call pre-9^th century India ----- recreating ---- meaning ‘get back to like’. That 24 villages will have not problems of just health care & education but also problems of production, distribution of production, relationship of who produces what & who get what &, I think it presumes, it seems to me, a certain kind of harmonious, mutually interdependent but a case system; because these 24 villages’ self-sufficiency I so not see possible in today’s time unless you have another version of caste system, i.e. interdependence of people within 24 & interdependence then producing certain kind of hetrarchy & legitimating it. Though, because the fundamental reason is, this assumption totally negates individual self; & anything that negates individual self will privilege, will give greater precedence to some individuals, to other selves of that society. So the inevitable consequence of negationof individual self would be a caste-system.

Madan Mohan: It you are giving precedence to individual how will you make society?

Dhirubhai: Because the individual gives precedence to himself, his not doing so creates dishonesty.

Madan Mohan: But the individual has significance in family, he’d have similar significance in society…..

Dhirubhai: But the individual also gets into conflict with family, also runs away from the family…..

Madan Mohan: He is running away from family in today’s situations…………….. What I want to say is that an individual who’s staying in the family, is a member of that family…………he’ll have the same individuality in society as he has in the family…..you’re staying in your family with enough happiness, fot of peace.

Dhirubhai: We get description of the family prior to even 9^th century. Prior to 9^th century we’ve descriptions of family………………

Madan Mohan: You see, in the Upanishads & Vedic philosophy you’ll not find references to god worship, individualism…………

Dhirubhai: There was an era even people Vedas & Upanishads, which was yet better.

Madan Mohan: It is not a question of better worse but of what we know……what we know is what our sages have searched & said in Vedas & Upanishads………

Dhirubhai: But I call greater the era prior to that………

Madan Mohan: Please do so………..what I’m saying is………

Dhirubhai: Please I think this was a very interesting discussion because we hear the discussion was about conceptions of family & that is why Kutumbakam is important conception of family in two basic senses. Family in which individuality is a challenge, a problem, something which undermines the family……..the whole world has be come family because the destiny has become common…………

Madan Mohan: The whole world cannot be a family. It is a wrog………it has been repeatedly said in the Vedas & Upanishads that the individual should merge in society as rivers do into an ocean.

Ghanshyam: I’ve come from Jharkhand. The debate going on is very important. The point contended by him that the individual is not important………because I am in Jharkhand & work amidst Adivasis. We have constant discussions about the kind of place that individual & collective should have in our life & in our judgment. In this, constantly it is both the collective & the individual & the interests of the collective, with the expectations & aspirations of the collective; & it is together that social life is constituted. It you take one out then social life would get impoverished.

Surabhi Ben: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam needs to be understood in the context of mother & child. Vasudha is world & the mother, Kutmbakam is family members who constitute her children. So, what he said that it is the individual’s responsibility not to violate certain limitations which are set by society. At the same time it is the society’s responsibility to protect the interests of the children. Such is the relationship between Vasudha & its Kutumb. Kutumb is supposed not to harm the Vasudha who is the mother & Vashudha is supposed to protect & nurture each member of the Kutumb. That is how the relationship has to be understood. The word (Vasudh) ‘Aiv’ is not explained in ‘world is one family’. In fact the proper translation is, ‘the mother is the family’, i.e. the world is one family, the world is actually equivalent to the mother & family is equivalent to the children. So the proper translation, the emphasis here has to be here on the word ‘Aiv’. It is only the mother who can be……..who can look after the interest of the children therefore the children are not supposed to violate the sanctity of the mother & the mother is not supposed to harm the individual interests of each member of the family. So it is a question of mutual accommodation.

Suresh Sharma: I think Surabhi Ben’s clarification is wonderful, & I want to dwell just a little bit on that. Here it seems to me Surabhi Ben that the idea of motherhood is the idea of ultimate nurturance. It is the idea of the ultimate resource. It is the idea of that beyond which life itself is not conceivable………….& that which makes the conception & the nurturance of life possible. It the truth & the duty, it is the condition of sanity that each one should know that this ultimate resource of nurturance is not something that can be played around with impunity for long…………..

Dhirubhai: That explicates the ecological………………

Suresh Sharma: May I …….I just wanted to say to Madan Mohanji that your fixation with the number 24 is not being true to the spirit of the traditional discourse on the matter. I may humbly submit; because as I said repeatedly, you see, it is not the number 24 that is important. Now, what is the viable unit in a particular Yoga, in a particular age, in particular conditions is negotiable. It is not a matter, even it terms of traditional discourse, all the problems that Dhirubhai hinted at….but leaving that aside, it is a negotiable thing with no finality about this.

Haidi: I prefer a couple of words to say, before hand, & in fact wanted to start with the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam; & how, why I think from the northern perspective it is a useful concept. But I must start with, that I feel somehow uncomfortable with the word ‘family’, so the word ‘community’ it is for my thinking much better than the word of ‘family’ & exactly because can be so ------------& its an old knowledge that parents & children but it is also the relationship between man & woman which is so often unequal relationship & so it is going to problem-ise in many ways. But whether we use family or community & when we think of this network of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam & the aims of this network, I think in the North when we use the concept of family or community, it we can get this through, its kind of experience…..& I think 17 you really look for change it can’t come from outside, it has to come from inside of the people that they do kind of understand something new, something that, you know, analysing their own actions in relation to the wider context than the own family or own community. When you widen the community to cover the whole world then you can, kind of search for the links of your own actions to the other end of the world. So, I think its is so abstract. However many activists & really well try to spell out what kinds of agreements Finland is signing as a part of European union in relation to WTO, people say, ‘we don’t understand, its not concrete, its not coming to the near. So I think something is that the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam can be a tool, one tool, you know, to concretise the experience that we should ………………..what is going on in the other end of the world & then think what kind of reactions this kind of understanding can bring to our own choices in our own lives. In that sense one purpose be to discuss all the meaningfulness of family or community in the networking & the whole issue. I think we should have to learn to locate our own actions in this global context. It would be really interesting it we have sometime to discuss here all these alternatives of global governance or global & local & national governance. Saddu started with this idea of world government which I think ways to take those steps to whatever it is, is it world government or something else. But I think, because there is the logic of economics working & less & less of political space where the logic of politics or democracy whatever they represent, the deep democracy is working. So I think I find it difficult to go on …………….with one front. I think there are so many institutions we need to democratise it we try to create some kind of new order into the world. And as today we were discussing with Arun Kumar that this is the idea that they sow basic values we have to change it we really want to change things in the world. It is difficult for me believe to create institutions as such as the institutions may be democratic but how to fill up the democratic content for those institutions as we have so many democratic institutions which are not working as democratic institutions. So, how to make the content for democracy in different levels, at the different levels of the interactions. And I suspect 2 other things, or there, I just mentioned three things which I think are…….should be tried to achieve through the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam networking. One is, it comes to the global governance, it is the challenge, the dominant North- South factor we have now. In different ways, have it in many ways & we have it also in many civil societies groups’ cooperation. It comes up to easily. We should get rid of ………………………. & we should try to create equal dialogue & base the new institutions on that or change the older institutions. The other thing is to make plurality reality, to really challenge the universal ideas of western ---------progress to like that they really give space for initiatives to bring up different experiences of good life & so forin. Because the modernity is a big challenge to confront it in the way its spreading now in the world. So, that’s the second thing. And the third is the, I think we need to concretise the different dilemmas of democracy, or dimensions of democracy, because we can have, internationally we can have a dialogue, an interesting dialogue, some necessary dialogues on the different dimensions of democracy as ------- in the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: economic, democracy, political, social & ecological. But I think we’ve to concretise them, what these dimensions mean in the really very specific context where we live & we have our everyday life. I think that’s really a challenge for us. What does mean ecological democracy at the local in Finland in practise. How to put to that the understanding & constructing the ideals we have for those different dimensions for democracy. So I think these are, for example one aims we have in front of us. Thank you.

Nutan: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a holistic view of the possibility for an alternate for society (as translated by Arun Kumar).

Bhuvan: The conception of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, at the root is the conception of --------- the entire earth is a family & not just the human inhabitants of the earth with the earth in its entirety; & the basic constituents of this Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam are constituted by these 5 elements & aby disharmony in these 5 elements creates pollution as it is identified in modern terminology in the environment; & creates turbulence within the family; the 5 elements of earth, air, water, life, space. This is a conception in which at the same time I am an ardent & absolute individualist; & at the same mobility because it is something which partakes the character of both mobility & immobility of the individual & the collective.

Arun Kumar: Anybody else would like to say something?

Dhirubhai: We should conclude now-------------Bhuvan wanted to say something?

Bhuvan: I think the point of interdependence of all the 5 elements ------- interdepindence & each thing being contained in the other-------so there is nothing that can stand, as it were, on its own, by itself. Each thing, the entire ---& the recognition comes in terms of foreground, not in terms of entirely. This is democracy------------------ precedes recognition of interdependence & mutuality.

Arun Kumar: So, I think it is the most interesting discussion that we’ve had on the concept of evolving concept of democracy-------------now this concept is evolving & changing & this notion of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in which we’re trying captive the notion of global democracy. How that can be interpreted in many ways in today’s context. It is in that sense that democracy, to me, has always been an evolving concept. It is not something is evolving. Society is developing a concept. It is not something that there’s an end product towards while society is evolving, something that society is experimenting with its won consciousness, with its own experimentation, with its own experiences. Its trying to evolve this. I mean its in this context that, you know ---------- I won’t say much, but chairpersons are supposed to be seen rather than heard--------- I was thinking that – we’ve always existed in a sense, as far as known history is concerned, with a certain degree of exploitation sometimes more, sometimes less, in changing forums. And that has conditioned, in some senses, our notion of the social, of what is social & how we should go about it. The concept of democracy has evolved, also, with this changing concept of exploitation. In the concept of exploitation itself there’s consciousness also of the exploited. So the exploited & the exploiter have a certain kind of symbiotic relationship. Our notions of what our existence is have gone a long with that. So whether we’ve thought about a feudal society, a capitalist society, whether we think of socialism, we have always thought of different notions, in a sense, of what democracy is. It is this changing concept of democracy that we really need to be concerned about how to move towards ----- in a sense----- a higher context of social existence. In a sense, with the context of democracy there’s a certain voluntarism -----we voluntarily accept certain systems. Now, as to what kinds of systems we accept that is the question; towards what kinds of systems we’re transiting. That is the issue that we’re discussing. In that context very often what we so is we look back at the past, & we look for symbols to illustrate what we are attempting. So in some sense the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is something that we’re taking from the past, we’re trying to look at it & see how we can make it go further in the current context. So, the meaning of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, as it was & as it may be, in the current context as it is evolving they may perhaps change. So, in a sense there is also a need that we need to interpret Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in a very creative way. Given our current context, given our need & the need for a wider collective, & it we move from the collective of a nation if say a collective now we’re thinking of a global collective; so, in a global collective where society is evolving, in the collective of the nation state we’ve been thinking about it for several hundred years, we’ve evolved certain concepts of democracy within the context of nation state. Now the issue is how so we evolve this issue in a global sense where as yet a global society does not quite exist. So, what should we so, how should we move towards it, what are the kinds of institutions that need to be evolved? These 2500 institutions of governance that have come up now. Now they are to be democratised? Then, finally, what I think now is also essential is that the current form of globalisation that we’re witnessing is a particular kind of globalisation; its not than this kind globalisation existed earlier; this is particular kind of globalisation that has evolved out of the globalisation that has been going on for a longtime. And, this globalisation is dominated in some senses by the economic aspects where the economic aspects have become dominant & there is this notion of Homo-economics that it seems to be penetrating our consciousness where we think of ourselves as more & more economically determined. Earlier we thought of ourselves as being determined in different forums but how we’re thinking of ourselves as economically determined where economic relationships are penetrating the consciousness & we in some sense are imitating these economic relations which are based incbtasingly on the marketisation process, on the process of a national individual, rational human being optimising the gains. That is what the concept of Homo Economics is coming to mean, that is what the market & the concept of optimisation is coming to mean. In this context, what is the situation of the market, what is the situation of man & what is the situation of technology today. That would have to be very importantly looked at, & vole need to make an intellectual advance in some sense in my judgement, because this globalisation is based on certain philosophical premises, it is based on certain economic 7 other relationships; it we are to pose challenge to it then we need to think about what kind of philosophical, economic, social & political conception we’ll have which will then pose a challenge to this. And I think that the notion of democracy as we evolve them will also depend on what kind of philosophical, sense I see that Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which has been talking about economical democracy, ecological democracy & the other 3 democracies is trying to creatively, in a sense, interprets the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumabakam as it has been evolving over time or perhaps as it needs to be evolved in the current context. So, in a sense, it also can provide a philosophical basis to the kind of view of society view of society & to the kind of global society that we can have. So it Is in that sense that task before Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is a very creative task, a task which is very philosophical, the challenge is very large because at the philosophical level you need to evolve this idea & move further with it to pose alternatives to the current global context. So, thank you very much. I think its been very interesting & creative & with that we would like to close the session & pass it on to on to Sattu Hassi. As an organiser if you want to say ------------ Pass it back to you?

Sattu Hassi: I’m not really the organisers here. I just came two days back. I’ve fust in the last moment, a helper of the organisers. None of them ahs had time to come here, so I want to say thanks for the Indian group & the Finnish who have been here helping them to organising all this. So thanks should go for them---we were pleased to be here.

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291