Towards an Indian theory of change

॥ श्री गणेश ॥

Change is nice actually.

There is nothing new about it. It is such a basic fact of nature and life that to recognise change is simply to acknowledge the movement of time across time. This is why a theory of change, to allay all confusion, must begin by first of all locating the locus of its intention. The ‘Indian’ theory of change here makes India both the subject and object of this process, it is both the mover and the moved. Then again the dreaded question of what India is, which I will skip to declare that India here refers to its deep processes - civilisation, religion, culture, philosophy.

Only a particularly dumb person will deny that India needs to change, and in a very substantial way. The need for transformation is obvious. Everywhere there is feeling of stagnation, inertia, being held back against one’s will, denial of nature in one way or another. Most people realise something should change, many are vocal about it, few people think about the question in a non-superficial way, and only a tiny percentage of those few ever reach any kind of conclusion. The need of a structure for discussing change is self-evident. This post is a basic contribution to that structure.

Nature of Change

Sometimes change of one thing is made necessary because some other associated thing has changed and there is no other way to go on existing without going through the same process. Brought about by compulsion, this is a reactive and negative change. The other kind of change is positive, there is no compulsion here, it’s free, addressed only to itself and to no one else. It feels like growth, is there anything more free than growth? There is nothing.

Most healthy change is a mixture of these positive and negative drives. The former gives it its spirit and originality, the latter drives it and sets the lower limit.

All living things want to not die, a certain part of this inertia is expressed in a resistance to all change. Without the negative drive, there would probably be no change and everything would eternally exist as it is. This is actually the nature of reality before Purush and Prakriti come together. Nothing exists, nothing happens, nothing changes. But since we are living inside a creation, we are subject to change and nothing can stop it. This compulsion is not bad, it drives creation forward, giving identity to Purush and expression to Prakriti.

Without the positive drive, there is no direction. Things are not stuck but ideas are. There is net movement but to where? This is hard to understand. Let us look at the Indian case. ‘Modernisation’ is simply an aspiration, it does not mean anything more, it needs content. ‘Westernization’ is one such content, it is pure negative change, there is a logic to it but it’s not we who are the masters here, we are driven only by a force of compulsion on a path we don’t understand. But ‘Modernisation with Indian characteristics’, this is the healthy mixture of drives. Modernisation is negative, the characteristics are positive. What does ‘Westernization’ have that ‘Modernisation with Indian characteristics’ lacks? It needs content: a method and a goal.

Goal of Change

Let us now get into the thick of it. I don’t wish to dwell on the many debates (and the non-debates and the un-debates) on what is the goal of Indian change, so much as just express what it has been and must be in my opinion.

Change is a paradoxical thing. In this process there is an implication of things being altered but if everything was altered then complete loss of identity will take place, a completely new and distinct thing will emerge and change would have no meaning. A discussion about change is thus also at the same time a discussion of integrity and conservation. What does not change? What is essential?

The core of Indian civilisation, the distinctive element about India, I locate it in a set of ideas:

1. Living beings have an essence (aatma).

2. Universe has an essence (parmatma).

3. A logic higher than human logic pervades the world.

4. The aim of good life is to live and progress in harmony with this logic, at all levels of existence - human, societal, civilisational, global, and in all spheres of activity - moral, cultural, economic, scientific, etc.

This is the most exhaustive and abstract formulation possible for the ideas that animate our civilisation. The specific number and form can be subject to discussion but the most important thing is that at the core only ideas exist. It is these core ideas that gives us distinction and identity, everything else exists for them. It is the idea that is आर्य, that is the noble.

Aesthetics exists so that these ideas may manifest in the realm of sound and sight. Society, with all of its systems, exists so that we may lead a good life embodying the set of core ideas. Nation and territory exists so that such a society can exist. All of these systems, even the ideas that are not at the core, they are all subject to change. They must constantly reinvent themselves in the interest of core ideas. Any insistence on retaining an anachronistic form of such peripheral systems that goes against a healthy regeneration and expression of core ideas, is जड़. Death itself.

Model of change

A Chinese philosopher once divided world cultures into three models - the Indian, the Chinese, and the Western. The Westerns, he said, accessed reality at a material level, the Chinese did so at a social level, but the Indians had a direct perception, they touched reality at the pure *metaphysical* level. This division can be misleading in some ways because of its radical essentialization but what I love about it is that it abstracts away all detail and. When you take away everything only an elemental frame of comparison remains.

It’s true. The Indian mind has deep love for metaphysics. In many invisible ways, through ritual, through festivals, through language itself, the Indian mind is seeped in metaphysics. The history of tradition and post-tradition in India tells us that one metaphysical reality can only be replaced by another metaphysical reality, not a bland material reality. Indra gives way to Vishnu, the fire sacrifice becomes a chanting of sacred names, the Vedas are regenerated through Puranas, if the old metaphysics is replaced it is replaced only by a metaphysics of Bhakti. This is how core ideas continue to be lived. The structure of change should account for this dimension.

The maturation of Hindutva reflects such a journey. Savarkar was not a metaphysical man but Gandhi was. Modi is both material and metaphysical, he has to be. He performs public ritual in Varanasi, bows down while entering the parliament, has an attitude of worship towards the constitution. The originally material Hindutva is already wearing half a layer of metaphysics.

This is its maturation, this is what the Indian mind demands, a philosophy of change will have to cater to it. This is the way.

॥ इति ॥