Followers

Tuesday, December 06, 2022

Mahaparinirvan Diwas: What Ambedkar said about Buddhism ‘being better than Marxism’

 December 6 is observed as the Mahaparinirvan Diwas, or the death anniversary, of Dr BR Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution. ‘Parinirvan’ can be translated as ‘nirvan’ after death, or freedom from the cycles of life and death. Dr Ambedkar breathed his last on December 6, 1956, less than two months after he had converted to Buddhism, fulfilling his declaration of “I will not die a Hindu”.

With his trenchant criticism of major religions, Ambedkar is often mistaken to be against religion, when he was deeply spiritual and conscious of the importance of religion in public life. While his views on Buddhism being superior to other religions are well-known, Ambedkar also believed the Buddha’s path to be superior to the popular religion-rejecting philosophy, Marxism. In an essay, written in his lucid and methodical style, Ambedkar has compared Buddhism with Marxism, saying that while both strive for the same end of a just and happy society, the means propounded by Buddha are superior to those of Marx.

The Marxists may easily laugh at it and may ridicule the very idea of treating Marx and Buddha on the same level. Marx so modern and Buddha so ancient! The Marxists may say that the Buddha as compared to their master must be just primitive…. If the Marxists keep back their prejudices and study the Buddha and understand what he stood for I feel sure that they will change their attitude,” Ambedkar writes.

Similarities

In showing the similarities between Buddhism and Marxism, Ambedkar first condenses the basic philosophy of both into neat bullet points.

For Buddhism, he lists, among 25 points: “The function of Religion is to reconstruct the world and to make it happy and not to explain its origin or its end; That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another; That it is necessary for the good of Society that this sorrow be removed by removing its cause; and All human beings are equal.”

Of Marx, he says all that is left “is a residue of fire, small but still very important.” The residue he summarises in four points, including, “The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world; That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation; That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property.”

Means

Dr Ambedkar says Buddhism’s commitment to abolishment of private property is apparent in how its ‘Bhikshus’ give up all worldly goods. He says the rules for Bhikhshus owning property or possessions are “fTo establish a happy and fair society, the Buddha had laid down a path for believers. Ambedkar writes, “It is clear that the means adopted by the Buddha were to convert a man by changing his moral disposition to follow the path voluntarily. The means adopted by the Communists are equally clear, short and swift. They are (1) Violence and (2) Dictatorship of the Proletariat…It is now clear what are the similarities and differences between Buddha and Karl Marx. The differences are about the means. The end is common to both.”

The driving force of India’s Constitution also says Buddha was a democrat. “As to Dictatorship the Buddha would have none of it. He was born a democrat and he died a democrat,” Ambedkar writes.

Importance of religion

Ambedkar writes that while Communists claim the State will eventually wither away, they don’t answer when that will happen, and what will replace the state.

“Communists themselves admit that their theory of the State as a permanent dictatorship is a weakness in their political philosophy. They take shelter under the plea that the State will ultimately wither away.”

Of the two questions, says Ambedkar, what is more important is what replaces the state, and if it is anarchy, then the building up of the Communist state would have been a useless effort

“If it cannot be sustained except by force and if it results in anarchy when the force holding it together is withdrawn what good is the Communist State. The only thing which could sustain it after force is withdrawn is Religion. But to the Communists Religion is anathema. Their hatred to Religion is so deep seated that they will not even discriminate between religions which are helpful to Communism and religions which are not,” Ambedkar writes.

‘Buddhism ultimate aid to sustain Communism’

Ambedkar makes distinctions between Buddhism and Christianity, which he says Communists “hate”, and claims Buddhism has not the faults of the older religion. Instead of glorifying poverty and suffering in this world and making people dream of the hereafter – as he claims Christianity does – Ambedkar says Buddhism talks of being happy in this world and of earning wealth through lawful means.

“The Russians do not seem to be paying any attention to Buddhism as an ultimate aid to sustain Communism when force is withdrawn… they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was a communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do…The Buddha’s method was to change the mind of man: to alter his disposition: so that whatever man does, he does it voluntarily without the use of force or compulsion,” Ambedkar writes.

He goes on to add that while “Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit”, equality “will be of no value without fraternity or liberty”, and “It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all.”

Source: Indian Express, 6/12/22

This Quote Means: ‘You don’t step into the same river twice’

 We often come across thought-provoking quotes that make us sit and think about life in a more philosophical sense than we usually do. Or, if nothing else, inspire us to click photos that we can share with that quote on social media. One such popular quote is “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”, which has its roots in Ancient Greek philosophy (predating Socrates), and has inspired people throughout the ages to reflect on how things change, and how we change along with them.

The philosophy behind the quote has also been a part of philosophy courses in universities, while the quote was used by the UPSC-CSE in its essay paper this year.

What is the full quote?

Even though in popular culture the quote is often written as “You can’t/don’t step into the same river twice” or “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”, it is usually translated directly from Greek as “In the same river we both step and do not step, we are and are not”, according to F E Baird’s book Philosophic Classics: Ancient Philosophy (2010). It was first written by the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus, who was born sometime in the 6th century BC and died in the 5th.

It is evident that the quote has resonated across centuries–even today, it is widely used on social media, especially in travel-related posts. It was also used in the UPSC Mains examination essay paper in 2022. For many, the quote also serves as their first introduction to philosophy, specifically the pervasiveness of change in our lives.

Decoding the quote

To put it simply, the quote reflects the ever-changing nature of life: the water in the river is constantly flowing, which means that even within a few minutes, water at a particular spot won’t be the same as it was earlier. Similarly, human beings are always undergoing change internally; apart from this, we are exposed to new things every day (a common saying for this is “You learn something new every day”). Humans are regularly processing and internalising new information about themselves and their surrThe quote also shows how change is in fact necessary for things staying true to their nature. If a river stops flowing, it won’t be a river anymore, and in the same way, if humans stop evolving, a very vital part of their humanity would cease. To fight against change is to fight against nature itself; another important related saying is “the more things change, the more they stay the same”, which also points towards how change is necessary for things maintaining their essence.

Heraclitus, the author of this quote, also has another famous philosophical aphorism (a concise statement containing a general truth) attributed to him: “Panta rhei”, or “Everything flows”. Together, these two quotes represent Heraclitus’ concept of flux: this means that the philosopher saw the world as in a constant state of impermanence, even though it remained the same.oundings– thus, we are never the “same”, even though physically we might not have changed much.

This is a large part of the Heraclitean philosophy of the unity of opposites: this simply means that the existence of a thing or a situation is dependent on a set of at least two conditions which oppose each other, yet are dependent on each other and lend each other meaning. For example, in the river quote, this means that in order for the river to stay the same, it must constantly be changing. While staying the same and changing are two opposite states, they are in fact together necessary for the river to exist and have its identity.

Some examples of where it can be used

This quote would be most appropriate in introspective contexts, as well as situations requiring an analysis of how change is omnipresent. For example, an individual going to their college reunion 25 years later might enter the same building they did all those years ago–but the fact that the person, the building, and the institution have all undergone drastic changes cannot be ignored. In this case, the individual might reflect inwards and say, “You really cannot step into the same river twice.”

The quote can also be used in a more abstract and philosophical realm. Writing for The Indian Express, educationist and philosophy scholar Ritu S said that the river is all about movement and flow, which means that no two things in life are ever alike. She added, “To assume that our situation is permanent, whether good or bad, is to take the river for a pond or a lake. And when we do so, we experience staleness… Whereas, the river is ever fresh because it is ever flowing, ever changing.

She further said, “Sooner or later we are bound to reach the destination, because that is what we are here for. It is the promise of the river, to take us to our specific destination, irrespective of our given situation. The given situation is our backdrop, the scenery through which we pass along the way. And which keeps changing constantly, sometimes favourable, sometimes unfavourable. But how we travel the distance — with trust or in fear, decides how smooth or rocky our journey is.”

Who was Heraclitus?

Heraclitus was a pre-Socratic philosopher from Ancient Greece. The eldest son of a rich family, he resided in the city of Ephesus, which was a part of the Persian Empire, and now comes in present-day Turkey.

Not much is known about his life– only fragments of his single work have survived, in other people’s writings. His philosophy is full of paradoxes (such as in the unity of opposites mentioned above) and cryptic phrasings.

In his 1979 book The Art and Thought of Heraclitus (An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary), classicist and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Charles H Kahn writes that Heraclitus was not really in favour of democracy, but was also not “an unconditional partisan of the rich.”

Written by Arushi Bhaskar

Source: Indian Express, 4/12/22


Counting India’s poor: Numbers suggest the need for a welfare state

 

Madan Sabnavis writes: In such a situation, it is but natural that the government has to assume the role of a welfare state. But the focus has to be on job creation. A joint effort between the Centre and states is needed to push this agenda forward.


The Global Hunger Report has caused a lot of controversy with questions being raised as to what exactly we are talking about. India is definitely the fastest growing economy and has received praise when it comes to reaching out to the needy during Covid or in technology-led innovations like UPI. We are an attractive market for foreign investment and can be reasonably confident of taking up where China has left. Can such a country be so low down the hunger index?

There is a need to introspect on who exactly is poor in India. The concept is nebulous. There was a time when calorie intake was the yardstick. But converting only 2,400 calories a day into a monetary value was always challenging. Besides, people cannot live with just calories. They need access to other amenities like housing, clothing, education and so on. Hence the calorie concept, though a possible criteria, is not really workable today. We need a broader concept.

The World Bank uses the concept of income per day, which is now taken at $1.90. Roughly, this translates to Rs 160 a day in India, and for a family of four would mean Rs 640 a day. On a monthly basis, this will come to around Rs 19,200 or Rs 2.3 lakh for a year. Such an approach runs the risk of using a universal yardstick across the world which is not right. While a weak currency can give a high value in India, this amount may be too low for a developed country (in the US a burger costs more than $1.90). Besides, using either the calorie or income approach runs the risk of extrapolation as it is not possible to get these numbers for the entire population.

Income tax data, while useful in indicating who pays tax, captures only a small segment as it leaves out the big universe of rural people. Hence one cannot even use the Rs 2.5 lakh per annum criterion as a cutoff for measuring the poor.

If, however, the concept of poor is broadened to represent the needy or the vulnerable section of society, there can be some ideas from government action. The government has been aggressive in reaching out to the vulnerable during the pandemic, providing them free food as well as income through cash transfers. This can be a good starting point to assess the population that requires support to maintain their minimum needs. But, here the support has been limited to cash transfers or free food. It does not cover education or health, which are supported through other schemes.

According to IBEF, the PMGKY covered 800 million people. Intuitively, this means that nearly 60 per cent of the 1,350 million population required support from the government and would have found it hard to survive without that. That this has been extended till December 2022 means that the vulnerable population is still very high. This number also includes the 136 million families that were covered under MGNREGA.

In fact, the National Portal of India in September 2020 had put out a statistic that 42 crore poor people benefited from PMGKY which means that around 30 per cent of the population was declared poor by this yardstick. The PM Kisan Scheme involves outlays of between Rs 60,000-70,000 crore. Considering that all the retired urban population does not make a claim by becoming farmers, the cut-off for the pension was put at Rs 10,000 per month. One can assume that the same yardstick was followed for cherry picking the farmers for delivering this benefit.

Here it has been highlighted that 110 million farmers were registered and drew the benefit of Rs 6,000 per annum. Using this policy as a measure to figure out the vulnerable class, which would be restricted only to the farming community, would yield a number of close to a third of the population, assuming that families comprise four members. This will not cover the vulnerable non-farming class, especially in urban areas where there is little information available as there are few urban support programmes run by even the states.

The government programmes are structured well and the use of technology has ensured that there is targeted delivery of benefits. Leakages can be ruled out. Putting all these numbers together, the proportion of vulnerable people in the economy would range between 30 per cent to 60 per cent. The higher end would be more time specific and the revelation of the number of beneficiaries of free food in the last quarter would give a more nuanced number of the vulnerable.

It can, hence, be said the size of the needy population is close to 60 per cent of the total with at least 30 per cent or half of this amount being most vulnerable. In such a situation, it is but natural that the government has to assume the role of a welfare state. But the focus has to be on job creation. Agriculture in particular should be commercialised — the farm laws sought to do so. State governments have a big role to play here. Also, manufacturing has to be revived to create meaningful jobs. A joint effort between the Centre and states is needed to push this agenda forward.


Source: Indian Express, 6/12/22

Monday, December 05, 2022

Quote of the Day December 5, 2022

 

“Most of the successful people I've known are the ones who do more listening than talking.”
Bernard M. Baruch
“अधिकांश सफल व्यक्ति जिन्हें मैं जानता हूं वे ऐसे व्यक्ति हैं जो बोलते कम और सुनते ज्यादा हैं।”
बर्नार्ड एम. बारूच

Economic & Political Weekly: Table of Contents

 

Vol. 57, Issue No. 49, 03 Dec, 2022

Recrafting India’s nutrition initiative

 

Amarjeet Sinha writes: Nutrition as a subject does not lend itself to narrow departmentalism. It calls for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Technology can at best be a means. Monitoring, too, has to become local.

The Registrar General of India has confirmed that India’s maternal mortality rate was 97 during 2018-2020. During 2001-03, it was 301. The infant mortality rate was 58 in 2005. In 2021 it was 27. While we have reasons to be less unhappy, we still have a long way to go. The pace of decline, however, has gained momentum post-2005.

The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was launched in 2005 to provide accessible and affordable healthcare through a public system of primary healthcare. And to provide secondary and tertiary care services in public systems alongside the private capacity to ensure good quality services at effective rates. Unfortunately, allocations for NRHM did not keep pace. But, it seems to have had a positive impact on many indicators. Health facilities started looking better with untied funds, doctors, drugs and diagnostics became a reality, institutional deliveries jumped, vacancies of ANMs (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) and nurses started getting filled up, and the community’s ASHA worker started putting pressure on public systems to perform by getting patients there.

First, NRHM had a clear thrust on crafting credible public systems in primary health. Community connect, human resource capacity mattered and flexible financial resources were available at all levels. Second, the central, state and local government partnership with civil society, with the full involvement of frontline workers was a thrust. Planning had to begin from below. Community monitoring was civil society led. Third, the approach was pragmatic and provided for diversity of state-specific interventions. The decentralised planning process, where the states came up with their annual plans on the basis of district health action plans, became the norm.

Fourth, institution building was facilitated in work with panchayats and facility-specific Rogi Kalyan Samitis or hospital management committees. Civil society was engaged in community action through the Population Foundation of India. Professionals were brought in to improve processes. Over 60 per cent of funds were to be spent at the district level and untied grants were made available to every level of the health institution.

Unfortunately, nutrition has not seen this kind of initiative. The fifth National Family Health Survey 2019-21 reports 35.5 per cent of children under 5 are stunted, 19.3 per cent are wasted, and 32.1 per cent are underweight. These are unacceptable levels. The Poshan Abhiyan, though innovative, is still not addressing the institutional decentralised public action challenge yet.

Unfortunately, in our initiatives for nutrition, we have remained compartmentalised and fragmented. The ICDS is seen as a nutrition initiative, but the institutional role of local panchayats and communities with untied financial resources is still lagging. Nutrition does not lend itself to narrow departmentalism and such non-institutional wider partnerships are destined to fail.

The multi-dimensionality of under-nutrition makes it imperative that ICDS is revamped to converge with health, education, water, sanitation, and food security at all levels, under the local government umbrella. Given the diverse conditions, it is important to allow for context-specific and need-based prioritisation at every Anganwadi centre by allowing flexibility through decentralised local action, made possible by accountable decentralised financing.

The 12 reorganisation principles for nutrition success, should be the following: (i) Let the gram panchayat, gram sabha, women’s collectives of livelihood mission and other community organisations be responsible for education, health, nutrition, skills and diversified livelihoods; (ii) panchayat-led committees of the concerned wider departments are needed at the block and district zila parishad levels as well; (iii) operationalise village-specific planning process with decentralised financial resources; (iv) allow simultaneous interventions for all wider determinants of nutrition; (v) assess for additional care givers with capacity development to ensure household visits and intensity of monitoring needed for outcomes in nutrition; (vi) encourage diversity of local food including millets, served hot; (vii) ensure availability of basic drugs and equipment for healthcare and growth monitoring in each village; (viii) intensify behavior change communication; (ix) institutionalise monthly health days at every Anganwadi centre with community connect and parental involvement; (x) create a platform for adolescent girls in every village for empowerment and for diversified livelihoods through skills; (xi) decentralised district plans based on village plans should be the basis for interventions to ensure anganwadis face no deficits like no buildings or no untied resources; and (xii) move to a “leaving no one behind”, rights-based approach to ensure universal coverage of the under six, adolescent girls and pregnant women for all needs.

The challenge of undernutrition can be tackled effectively over a short period if the thrust is correct. The recently released NFHS-V brings out the unfinished agenda and the slow rate of decline in undernutrition. Nutrition as a subject does not lend itself to narrow departmentalism. It calls for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Technology can at best be a means and monitoring too has to become local. Panchayats and community organisations are the best way forward. But the nutrition challenge is also a women’s empowerment challenge. It requires a behaviour change in favour of exclusive breastfeeding, natural foods instead of junk food, and clean water and sanitation.

We should never give up efforts at crafting a credible public healthcare system. Let us begin re-crafting our nutrition initiative, learning from the hits and misses.

Source: The Indian Express, 5/12/22

India’s hunger problem: Why the Global Hunger Index, FAO data aren’t to blame

 

India’s ranking results from the use of the Indian government’s official statistics, the National Family Health Survey, which reveals disconcertingly high rates of child mortality and chronic malnutrition in India, despite clear progress in the past few years. The Global Hunger Index was informed by the same official source.


This refers to the article, ‘Trivialising hunger‘ (IE, November 10). The article is spurred by the Global Hunger Index 2022, which ranks India 107th out of the 121 countries monitored in 2021. The report is published by Concern Worldwide, an international NGO, using one of FAO’s statistics, among others, to compute its index. While we agree with the seriousness of hunger and the importance of rigorous monitoring to inform policy, the article contains several serious errors.

FAO is committed to valid and reliable food security measures. Food security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. It is only by identifying those who are food insecure that effective policies can be designed to address the root causes of the problem.

The article attempts to undermine technical aspects of the way FAO measures food security to argue that the report’s ranking doesn’t reflect the reality and that food insecurity is not a problem in India. The fact: India’s ranking results from the use of the Indian government’s official statistics, the National Family Health Survey, which reveals the rates of acute malnutrition in children under the age of five to be among the highest in the world. The same official data source also confirms that disconcertingly high rates of child mortality and chronic malnutrition persist in India, despite clear progress in the past few years. The Global Hunger Index was informed by the same official data source.

“Is an increase in child stunting and child wasting necessarily bad?”, the article asks. The stunted and wasted children are those who would have died, it contends, had it not been for the decline in child mortality rates. We argue that falling child mortality rates are not a consolation for the fact that a large proportion of children still suffer from the devastating consequences of acute and chronic malnutrition. The article also criticises an indicator FAO uses to measure food security, the prevalence of undernourishment. This indicator was scrutinised and approved by countries through the UN Statistical CommissiThe article makes two fundamental mistakes. First, it wrongly assumes that the prevalence of undernourishment is simply based on survey data collected by FAO using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). The fact is, it is computed using data on national food balances and consumption at the household level. The most recent food consumption data available for India is from 2011, when the results of the 68th round of the NSS were released. Regrettably, FAO does not have access to more updated data, including the results from the 75th round of the same survey on consumer expenditures conducted in 2017-2018, which is not publicly available. The second mistake is a lack of understanding regarding how FAO’s FIES data are processed to ensure valid, reliable measures of the severity of food insecurity across countries. In 2013, FAO started the “Voices of the Hungry” project, engaging global academic and political communities, because the international community didn’t have a way to identify and monitor food insecure households and individuals in a comparable manner across countries.on and the UN Economic and Social Council in 2015 to monitor the UN’s SDGs.

This effort resulted in the development of statistical protocols that ensure the different translations, adaptations and nuanced interpretations of the FIES survey questions in 180 languages — such as the difference between “running out of food” and “having less food,” which the article mentions — do not affect the information obtained.

All of the methodological details regarding the way FAO measures food security are public knowledge and explained every year in the technical notes of the UN’s annual food security and nutrition report and FAO’s data and statistics website. Moreover, for the last four years, FAO has been actively collaborating with the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to include FIES data into official national data collection initiatives and to align the national SDG indicators to the global SDG monitoring framework. We stand ready to continue working with the government of India to strengthen food security statistics and achieve the common mission of a sustainable and food secure world for all.

Written by Carlo Cafiero

Source: The Indian Express, 3/12/22