Instant ebooks textbook Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st Edition Daya Krishna download all chapters

Download the full version of the ebook now at ebookultra.
com
Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st

Edition Daya Krishna
https://ebookultra.com/download/civilizations-
nostalgia-and-utopia-1st-edition-daya-krishna/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Utopia Thomas More
https://ebookultra.com/download/utopia-thomas-more/
ebookultra.com
The Future Of Nostalgia 1st Edition Svetlana Boym
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-future-of-nostalgia-1st-edition-
svetlana-boym/
ebookultra.com
Brodsky Abroad Empire Tourism Nostalgia 1st Edition Sanna

Turoma
https://ebookultra.com/download/brodsky-abroad-empire-tourism-
nostalgia-1st-edition-sanna-turoma/
ebookultra.com
Egypt Lost Civilizations Christina Riggs
https://ebookultra.com/download/egypt-lost-civilizations-christina-
riggs-2/
ebookultra.com
Egypt Lost Civilizations Christina Riggs
https://ebookultra.com/download/egypt-lost-civilizations-christina-
riggs/
ebookultra.com
Essentials of Allergy 1st Edition M Thirumala Krishna
https://ebookultra.com/download/essentials-of-allergy-1st-edition-m-
thirumala-krishna/
ebookultra.com
Business Analysis and Valuation IFRS Edition Krishna G.

Palepu
https://ebookultra.com/download/business-analysis-and-valuation-ifrs-
edition-krishna-g-palepu/
ebookultra.com
African Civilizations 3rd Edition Graham Connah
https://ebookultra.com/download/african-civilizations-3rd-edition-
graham-connah/
ebookultra.com
The Greeks Lost Civilizations Philip Matyszak
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-greeks-lost-civilizations-philip-
matyszak/
ebookultra.com
Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st Edition Daya
Krishna Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Daya Krishna
ISBN(s): 9788132108917, 8132108914
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 51.78 MB
Year: 2012
Language: english
Civilizations
...
NOSTALGIA AND UTOPIA

Civilizations
Civilizations
Nostalgia and Utopia
DAYA KRISHNA
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY

Shimla
Copyright © Indian Institute ofAdvanced Study, 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
fointly published in 2012 by
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd and ~ Indian Institute of

BlIl-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area • Advanced Study
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044, India Rashtrapati Nivas,
www.sagepub.in Shimla 171 005
SAGE Publications Inc

2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320, USA
SAGE Publications Ltd

I Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road
London ECIY ISP, United Kingdom
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

33 Pekin Street
#02-01 Far East Square
Singapore 048763
Published by Vivek Mehra for SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, typeset in 1O/12pt
Calisto MT by Star Compugraphics Private Limited, Delhi and printed at Rajkamal Electric
Press, Kundli , Haryana.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available
ISBN: 978-81-321-0891 -7 (HB)
The SAGE Team: Gayeti Singh, Aniruddha De, Rajib ChatteIjee and Umesh Kashyap
Dedicated
to the memory of
Late Professor M. M. Bhalla
***
To Francine
for Love Ever Received
and
Ever Aspired For
Thank you for choosing a SAGE product! If you have any comment,
observation or feedback, I would like to personally hear from you.
Please write to me at [email protected]
-Vivek Mehra, Managing Director and CEO,

SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi
Bulk Sales
SAGE India offers special discounts for purchase of books in bulk.
We also make available special imprints and excerpts from our
books on demand.
For orders and enquiries, write to us at
Marketing Department
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
Bl II-I, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, Post Bag 7
New Delhi 110044, India
E-mail us at [email protected]
Get to know more about SAGE, be invited to SAGE events, get on

our mailing list. Write today to [email protected]
This book is also available as an e-book.

---&)03---
Contents
Foreword by Shail Mayaram 1X
Introduction by Daniel Raveh xv

A Notefrom the Author xxv
Part I Social Philosophy: Past and Future
1. The Concept of Society 3
2. The Two Predicaments 12
3. Reflection on Action 22
4. Perspectives on Freedom 33
5. The Search for a Measuring Rod 43
6. Society: Reality and Utopia 57
Part n Civilizations: Past and Future
7. Civilizations: Past and Future 71

8. Understanding Civilizations: Two Case Studies,
Indian and Western 90
9. Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia 105
Index 117
About the Author 120
Foreword
This collection of the Shimla lectures by Daya Krishna is the second

major posthumous work by the author that has been placed in the
public domain. The first consists of his articles published in the volume
titled Contrary Thinking.l The Shimla lectures are being brought out
as part of a collaborative arrangement between the Indian Institute of
Advanced Study (lIAS), Shimla, and SAGE. A third work that has
also been supported by the lIAS involved a seminar convened to reflect
on the work of Daya Krishna and Ramchandra Gandhi. 2 It focused
on the concepts of samviid and svariij that one might translate as deep
dialogue and genuine freedom respectively, which were central to the
visions of both philosophers, however divergent their approaches! With
the publication of Daya Krishna's letters and his last book, Towards
a Theory of Structural and Transcendental lllusions, 3 readers will have a
comprehensive sense of his oeuvre.
The first set of Shimla lectures on Social Philosophy brings out how
important the idea of freedom was to Daya Krishna's work. In the
Preface of Contrary Thinking, I mentioned that freedom was one of his
central philosophical concerns. In these early lectures, Daya Krishna
contrasts 'the Faustian quest' of Western man for freedom and power
with the 'inward Faustian Odyssey of the 'Hindu spirit over the ages'.
In the West, he points out, freedom is ~een in terms of action, as
something external contrasted to the Hindu view of freedom, which
views it as a state of being or consciousness. The bondage comes from
outside that includes others, but is also from within and is due to one's
own body and mind. Freedom, he maintains,
is a state of continuously enjoyed consciousness which does not seek

any end whatsoever and whose freedom is an immediately felt real-
ity expressing itself in the twin facts of being calm and joyous, on the
one hand, and of being essentially unaffected by anything else, on the
other.
The latter fact, he adds, 'does not mean that one becomes incapable
of entering into any relation with the other but, rather, in K.C.
Bhattacharyya's classic phrase, in relating oneself to the other without
getting related' .
Many scholars have speculated on Daya Krishna's 'tum' to Indian
philosophy, but this set of lectures delivered in 1969 indicates that
even in this 'early' period of his work, Indian categories animated
his thought. Any exercise in thinking was for him intrinsically com-
parative, even as it must distance itself from indigeneity or nativism.
Thinking creatively, as he put it elsewhere, meant freedom also 'to
free one's conceptual imagination from the unconscious constraints
of one's own conceptual tradition'.
The second set of Shimla lectures bring out the centrality of the
category of civilization in Daya Krishna's philosophy. Recent com-
mentators such as Arif Dirlik have been critical of the preoccupation
with civilization that they refer to disparagingly as 'civilization talk'. 4
But other scholars have held that civilization theory is an alternative to
theories of globalization and multiculturalism, provided it is divested
of its Eurocentricity and the allied theories of progress and primitivity.
Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, for instance, used the category of 'civilization'
rather than culture being crucially aware of the German (mis)use of
the term kultur. 5 Eisenstadt focuses on epochal change in civiliza-
tions as also on intra-civilizational change and sees the Axial Age
Revolution as a rupture that marked all civilizations. More recently,
Said Atjomand recommends that scholarship on Islam shift from the
Medinean paradigm to the civilizational paradigm in order to take on
the importance of kingship in addition to prophecy. 6
Daya Krishna's lectures on civilization need to be read against
the backdrop of his earlier effort to use Indian categories to theorize
cultures and civilizations. 7 'At the heart of any civilization', he asserts,
'lies the drama between consciousness and self-consciousness that
assumes multifarious forms, the most subtle of which stems from rea-
son itself'.8 'The dialectics of faith and doubt is fundamentally the dia-
lectic between consciousness and self-consciousness ... '9 Human beings,
like animals, live largely at the conscious level and have only rare
moments of self-consciousness. Cultures are characterized, he argues,
by silpa or a repertoire of skills and smriti or memory. Cultures become
civilizations as self-consciousness predominates over consciousness
along with systematization and as 'reflection takes precedence over
experience' ,10 resulting in siistra formation and distinctions such as the
x Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

desz and the margz or the provincial and the universal. This is done by
elite groups in a civilization 'who lay down norms in the various fields
of human endeavour'. 11 The puru~arthas of a culture now undergo
transformation, becoming 'objects of self-conscious reflection and
critical evaluation along with a newly emerging problem of hierarchy
and inter-relationships' .12 But the life of reason can also tum against
itself, he points out, as was the case with Kant in the Western trad-
ition and NagaIjuI).a and Sn Har~a in the Indian, who challenged the
validity of Paninian linguistics. More recently, Richard Rorty has
refused 'to engage in any real dispute for to do so would be to accept
the conditions of rational debate and discussion which to him seem
unacceptable in principle' and Derrida has also contributed to the
subversion of reason along with the assertion that no text can have a
'determinate meaning' . 13
City and context were extremely important for Daya Krishna and
this is foregrounded by his lectures. His location in Jaipur marked
his work. His rereading/reinterpretation of the ~gveda was called the
'Jaipur edition of the ~gveda. 14 Similarly, the Introduction to the vol-
ume titled India's Intellectual Traditions: Attempts at Conceptual Reconstruc-
tions speaks of the 'Jaipur experiment' at analysing foundational texts
of Indian philosophy such as the NatYaSastra and ArthaSastra. 15
The footnotes need to be read in much of his writing as indica-
tive of the web of relations that was the city for him. Both Francine
(my mother) and he dearly loved Jaipur and would often walk long
distances, such as to Niros and dinner was always followed by Ram
Singh's special pan bought from his tiny stall next to the restaurant!
In the mid-sixties, Mohan Singh Mehta had lovingly established the
University of Rajasthan with rolling lawns and a lovely rose garden
with a lily pool! Mohan Singh Mehta was responsible for their move
to the University and remained a close friend. The dedication of the
1969 version of Social Philosophy to M.M. Bhalla, then Professor of
English, marks a special friendship with many mornings and evenings
of discussion over coffee or even engaged in discussion at the gate of
their university home. Other friendships grounded in campus life,
such as with Professors Raj Krishna and Govind Chand Pande, also
shaped philosophical reflection.
I must urge the serious reader of this book to examine closely the
connective tissue of Daya Krishna's other work written between the
two sets oflectures delivered in 1967 and 2005. Reading the author in
Hindi is highly rewarding as it forces one to brush away cobwebs of
Foreword xi
the mind, to combat presuppositions and reinforce critical thinking!
Bharfiya Darsana: Eka Nayf DrHi 16 is translated as 'Indian Philosophy:
A New Approach', but he has a completely different book with the lat-
ter title as the Hindi volume is not a translation of the English work.
Daya Krishna strongly decries the reduction of Indian philosophy
to its history and the typical story that divides it into astika and nastika
perspectives, which with the exception of Carvaka are viewed as
oriented to mok$a with its quest seen as one for 'Truth'. In contrast,
Western philosophy is seen as being mind-centric and trapping one
in a maze of logic. 'But is all that philosophers did in a long tradition
of reflection that was 2,500 years old! Did they have nothing new
to say? And why do their texts always begin with the piirvapa~,'
Daya Krishna asks. Regrettably, there is little description of individual
thinkers and instead there is a focus on so-called schools such as Nyaya,
Vedanta and Sa1)khya. Sadly, much of the material is in Sanskrit and
it is primarily literature students who know this language and rarer
still is the person who can read Pali and Prakrit! Hence, a massive
injustice has been done to Indian philosophy.
Currently, only the surface of the developments after AD 1200
is considered in explorations of Dvaita, Visi~ta Advaita, Advaita,
Sa1J.khya and Acinta Bhedabhed. Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha,
Madhva and Caitanya are talked of. But the story of what happens
from U dayan to Gangesa and on to Gadadhara remains to be written.
The story ofNyaya after Gadadhara is ignored as are the contributions
of Gokulnath Upadhyaya, Girdhar Upadhyaya, Kri~J)abhatta Arde
and Parvate Sastri 17
The story of Indian philosophy is a long and difficult one, Daya
Krishna asserts, and until many people work on it, a clear picture can-
not emerge. One must partake of the rasa and enjoy the debates that
have taken place over 2,500 years. His own work offers us beginnings.
As Mukund Lath, who was one of the participants in the dialogue
with the pandits, expressed it, 'Dayaji wanted the samvad to become
a movement.' 18 The task remains unfinished and needs to be taken
forward.
NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Nalini Bhushan, Daniel Raveh and Jay Garfield (eds), Contrary Thinking: Selected
Essays ofDaya Krishna (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
2. Shail Mayaram (ed.), Philosophy as Samviid and Svariij: Dialogical Meditations on Daya
Krishna and Ramchandra Gandhi (New Delhi: SAGE, forthcoming).
xii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

3. Daya Krishna, 'Towards a Theory of Structural and Transcendental illusions',
Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture (forthcoming).
4. Arif Dirlik, 'Civilization-talk, Contemporary Global Relations, and the Humani-
ties: Predicament and Promise' , in S. Mayaram and R. Sundaram (eds), Untitled
Festschrift (Delhi: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
5. Shamuel N. Eisenstadt (ed.), Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations (New
York: State University of New York, 1986); S.N. Eisenstadt, Comparative Ct'viliza-
tions and Multiple Modernities II (Leiden: EJ Brill, 2003); J.P. Amason, S.N. Eisen-
stadt and Bjorn Wittrock, 'General Introduction' , in J.P. Amason, S.N. Eisenstadt
and B. Wittrock (eds), Axial Ct'vilizations and World History (Leiden: EJ Brill, 2005),
pp. 1- 14.
6. Said Arjomand, Presentation to Panel on Transforming World Religions, 40th
World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Centre for the Study
of Developing Societies, New Delhi, 2012.
7. D. Krishna, Prolegomena to Any Future Historiography of Cultures and Ct'vilizations
(New Delhi: Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture,
1997).
8. Ibid., p. 233.
9. Ibid. , p. 224.
10. Ibid., p. 217.
11. Ibid., p. 218.
12. Ibid., p. 219.
13. Ibid., p. 227.
14. Daya Krishna, R,gveda: The Mantra, the Sukta and the Ma1Jdala or the J1..si, the Devtii,
the Chanda (forthcoming).
15. D. Krishna, Ed. , India's Intellectual Traditions: Attempts at Conceptual Reconstructions
(Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987).
16. Daya Krishna, Bhiirffya Dariana: Eka Nay! Dr* (Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat,
2000).
17. Ibid. , Preface.
18. Mukund Lath, 'Panel on the Philosophy of Daya Krishna and the Burden of
English' , Jaipur Literature Festival, Jaipur, 2012. Video link: http://jaipurlitera-
turefestival. org/ program-2011/ 22-jan-20 12-program/
Shall Mayaram
Foreword xiii
Introduction
It was in September 2005 that Daya Krishna (henceforth DK) was

invited to the Indian Institute of Advanced Study (lIAS), Shirnla,
as a visiting professor by the then director of the institute, Professor
Bhuvan Chan del. DK sustained warm relations with the lIAS ever
since his 1967 lecture series in the institute, titled 'Social Philosophy:
Past and Future', which was published as a book with the same title
by the lIAS Press in 1969 (second edition in 1993). The title which he
chose for the 2005 lecture series was 'Civilizations: Past and Future',
wherein both the title and the subject matter correspond with and, at
the same time, broaden the scope of the lectures delivered back in the
sixties. DK's Shirnla lectures, old and new, are closely intertwined.
Their structure is similar: Now, as then, DK constructs a double-sided
mirror through which both the Indian and the Western civilizations
reflect one another and are reflected one by the other; now, as then, he
emphasizes thinking about action; he is interested in the interlacement
between action and knowledge, between what the Indian tradition
refers to as karma and jfiana; now, as then, he expresses his convic-
tion that a philosophical inquiry cannot be complete if it excludes the
'active' dimension encapsulated in the social, political and economic
realms. Focusing on the Indian civilization, DK further suggests that
'active values' are as significant as 'contemplative values'. He was
mutually interested in the profound and the profane, in the ideal and
the actual. Moreover, he believed that the Indian civilization had been
anaesthetized by its own spiritual tendencies, and hence firmly rejected
notions such as dul;kha and maya, 'suffering' and 'illusion', with refer-
ence to life and living in the world. Finally, in both lecture series, DK
speaks of past and future, nostalgia and utopia, pleading his listeners to
rise up to the challenges of the now, as the present consists not merely
of past achievements but also of the yet to be achieved goals of the
future. The continuity between the two lecture series, despite an almost
four-decade gap between them, illustrates DK's belief that 'thinking'
is an ongoing dynamic process, contrary to 'thought' as its tentative
'final' product. Thinking, for him, is therefore fresh and creative in
essence, always aiming at the not-yet-known, always producing new
questions and 'problems', always heading forward.
In 'Civilizations: Past and Future', DK corresponds not merely with
himself in the earlier lectures, but also with his dear friend Professor
D.P. Chattopadhyaya (henceforth DPC), the founder and chairperson
of the Centre for Studies in Civilizations, New Delhi, India, and the
visionary behind and the general editor of 'The Project of History of
Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture', to which DK contributed two
books: Prolegomena to Any Future Historiography ofCultures and Civiliza-
tions (1997) and The Development ofIndian Philosophy from the Eighteenth
Century Onwards (2001). In fact, DK's Shimla lectures took place
when the Journal ofthe Indian Council ofPhilosophical Research (JICPR),
the editorship of which he inherited from DPC, was approaching its
20th year of publication. The two editors, past and present, toyed with
the idea of publishing a special issue on 'The Future of Philosophy in
the Postmodern Age'. In a letter to DPC,l dated 12 August 2005, DK
explains that according to him, 'the special issue cannot be confined
to persons proficient in philosophy alone, but we should invite other
"concerned thinkers" in their own fields'. His attempt to expand the
breadth of the discussion finds further expression in the new title he
suggested for the journal-to-be in another letter to DPC, dated 3 Sep-
tember 2005. "'The Future of Philosophy in the Postmodern World"
is alright,' he wrote, 'but why should we not think about "The Future
of Civilization in the Postmodern World," which seems to be the basic
issue confronting all societies and polities now.' The new title reflected
DK's vision not merely of the special issue, but also of his forthcoming
Shimla lectures, which he saw as partaking of the same effort. In yet
another letter to DPC, dated 8 July 2005, DK delineates his vision for
new directions which philosophy must undertake to remain 'relevant'
in today's 'postmodern world':
I feel that the task is to think of the 'future' in the context of the 'present' .
It is, of course, true that we stand on the contributions that the thinkers
of the past have made and on what civilizations have achieved in the
understanding of man, nature ,and society and the 'reflection' on them
xvi Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

which goes by the name of 'philosophy' . But the very foundation of the
edifice of knowledge in the past is being questioned and rejected by the
practitioners of knowledge on the one hand and by a host of thinkers
starting from the late nineteenth century till the modem period whose
thought has now become explicit in the context of postmodernism on
the other hand. The rejection of existentialism and 'foundationalism'
had started right from the time when non-Euclidian geometries came
into being resulting in the replacement of axioms by postulates. The
study of atoms and elementary particles in nuclear physics questions the
notion of substantive entity called a 'thing' or 'substance' and replaces
it by the concept of 'force' which has properties very different from
the older conception of matter. Wittgenstein rejected even the notion
of 'ostensive' defmition and Quine, as is well known, made ontology
relative to the values of bound variables permitted under the quan-
tification rules of a particular system. This, of course, occurred long
before postmodernism appeared on the scene and rejected the notion of
logo-centric thought and thus the thinking based on it. In one stroke, it
rejected the notion oflogos and the notion of 'science' based on it. The
writings of Derrida and many others have articulated this in a literary
fashion peculiar to the Parisian intellectual life, something which had
already been done by thinkers and writers earlier. Derrida enacts the
theatre of the absurd in philosophy, as done by Beckett, Ionesco and
others on the stage. The absurdity of the human situation was of course
also 'argued for' powerfully by French existentialists such as Sartre and
Camus in their literary and philosophical works. Today we have re-
ached a position which I would like to call 'postmodern modernity'.
Philosophy functions as the 'cognitive conscience' of all the realms of
'knowing', 'feeling' and 'action', and has to come to terms with it. The
challenge which we have to address ourselves to, if we are to relate
ourselves to contemporary concerns, is how to deal with this situation.
To put the same thing differently, philosophy as it has developed up till
now has become irrelevant to the emerging situation where 'engineered
transformation' of all reality, including man himself, life in general,
along with the exploration in space are questioning everything. The
'earth-centricity' and 'bio-centricity' of man has determined his thinking.
In the realm of nuclear physics, new forms of matter are being created
with properties which question the old notions of matter, space, time
and causality. In the field of economics and to some extent of politics
the situation is even more alarming. The basic parameters on which the
science of economics and sociology were based are in jeopardy, as the
notions ofland, labour, capital and organization have gone a sea-change
as they are not there as something 'given' or as a constraint, but instead
as something which can be overcome by human ingenuity and effort.
Introduction xvii
This is the challenge to philosophers, as I see it. Whether we can come
to terms with it in any meaningful way is difficult to say, but we must
become aware of it and try to deal with it so that our thinking may be
relevant to the incoming generation which increasingly finds all past
knowledge irrelevant to their 'living' concerns.
In retrospective, these lines are an overture to the lectures delivered by

DK in Shimla shortly after; an overture, in the sense that he touches
on most of the points which he later developed in Shimla. His genuine
concern, expressed in his letter to DPC and underlying his Shimla
lectures, was that philosophy, as we know it, is becoming irrelevant;
that science has overtaken philosophy and left it far behind. N everthe-
less, DK believed that philosophy remains essential in the emerging
(global world', a world of atomic energy, genetic engineering, cloning,
artificial intelligence and Internet; a world in which (east' and (west'
are no longer isolated. He genuinely believed that the (postmodern
world' needs the philosopher's critical eye, and that philosophy can
and should accept the challenge and think the world as well as the insti-
tution of (knowledge' anew. Hence DK's concern was not about the
future of philosophy as a discipline or a (professional guild'. Rather, a
world without philosophy was the focus of his concern; a world whose
philosophers are in love with Plato and Descartes, Yajftyavalkya and
Sailkara, with the past, with (the wonder that was', to the extent that
they are deaf and blind or simply unaware of the consequences of the
developments around them. In a Q&A session following one ofDK's
lectures in Shimla, which focused as the whole series did on a (new
philosophy' for a (new world', one of the listeners, a (classical pandit',
was trying to protect the familiar and the known, quoting at length
from the Mahiibhiirata and drawing extensively on BhI~a. (Why don't
we forget about Mr BhI~ma,' DK told him, (and concentrate on con-
temporary physics, technology, cloning, internet etc.?' His response
and especially the phrase (Mr BhI~a' shocked quite a few listeners.
DK, who at the time was already working on his last grand project,
The Jaipur Edition of the ~gveda, putting the classic of classics under
his magnifying glass, contemplating on, being absorbed in, and devot-
ing most of his time and intellectual capacity to rethinking the Vedic
tradition, was not (anti-traditional' as some of his listeners might have
thought. Instead, he wanted to awaken his listeners and readers, in
Shimla and elsewhere, from their 'dogmatic slumber' and make them
think anew. (Mr BhI~a' was a speech act intended to free his listen-
ers from the bonds of the past, or as he himself puts it, (to free one's
xviii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

conceptual imagination from the unconscious constraints of one's own
conceptual tradition. '2 As the Shimla lectures imply, DK believed in
the necessity of continuity between the past and the present for the
future. Continuity, in the sense that the past should be acknowledged,
not indulged in; that one should not be obsessed either with the past
or the future, but instead 'travel' freely between them.
In his Shimla lectures, DK tried to sketch a prolegomenon for
'postmodern philosophy', but not in a Derridian or a Rortian sense.
He referred to their work in his lectures as 'the theatre of the absurd'
and considered it as reaction and response to the rejection of Western
'modernist' attempts to 'change the world' in terms of democracy,
secularism, liberalism and 'reason and values'. The fact that these attempts
were rejected by non-Western thinkers as colonialism and exploita-
tion, resulted, according to DK, in guilt which led to licentiousness
and total abandonment of ideals such as universality and objectivity.
Critical as he was towards postmodernism in its 'standard' denota-
tions, DK felt-as his letters to DPC, his Shimla lectures and his last
articles indicate-that the 'new', 'postmodern' world deserves, even
requires new 'postmodern' thinking. In his lectures as well as in the
letter quoted earlier, DK mentions thinking in terms of 'forces' instead
of 'substances' or 'things' as an instance of exploring thinking anew.
He tried to develop the notion of 'thinking without things' in his last,
uncompleted article, on which he was working when he suddenly
passed away, intriguingly titled 'Thinking Without Things, Without
Identity, Without Non-contradiction, and Yet Thinking Still'. For
DK, Derrida and Rorty epitomized 'postmodern sophistry', contrary
to his own vision of 'postmodern philosophy'. Therefore, he was more
than surprised upon reading Derrida's Eyes o/the University: The Right
to Philosophy to discover that his French piirva-pak#n shared his own
concern about the future of philosophy in the postmodern world. He
enjoyed the metaphor of philosophy as the 'eyes of the university'
and was deeply worried about the phrase 'the right to philosophy'
implying that just like him, Derrida felt that this 'right', the 'right' to
reflect, to question, is under danger. Shortly before he passed away, DK
accidentally encountered a passage from another of Derrida's works,
titled 'White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy', stat-
ing that philosophy is dead 'like a dead heliotrope flower put inside a
book to be relived any time' .3 'Derrida proclaims a death sentence on
philosophy', DK told me with a smile, 'and in the same breath revives
it'. A 'dead' flower kept between the pages of a book is very much
Introduction xix
alive. Its beauty prevails and its scent is always there to be enjoyed
whenever one opens the book. Philosophy, agreed DK with Derrida,
is a flower. Philosophy, agreed DK with what he read or wanted to
read between the lines of Derrida, cannot die.
Recently I came across one of Richard Rorty's-DK's other 'post-
modem piirva-pak$in' -latest writings, an essay titled 'Philosophy and
the Hybridization of Culture'.4 Like DK's Shimla lectures, Rorty's
paper is 'futuristic' or rather he attempts to face the 'brave new world'
in which we live instead of clinging onto pasts. DK would certainly
not agree (to say the least) with Rorty who suggests that 'we would
do better to think of philosophy as a genre of cultural politics than
as the search for wisdom'.5 Nevertheless, Rorty shares DK's feeling
that times are rapidly changing, that 'east' is no longer just east and
'west' is no longer just west, that something new is happening, hence
we should view the world and ourselves in the world differently,
afresh, innovatively. 'I do not see any point in mourning the likely
disappearance of many distinctive local cultures and languages any
more than in deploring the loss of those that have already vanished',
writes Rorty and adds:
A hundred years from now, the term 'cultural difference' may have
outlived its usefulness. If nuclear war has somehow been avoided,
and if the sociopolitical changes we lump together under the rubric of
'globalization' continue, our descendants may no longer have much
use for it. They may think of both differences between cultures and
differences between currencies as inconveniences that affiicted their
benighted ancestors. 6
Rorty's point corresponds with DK's third lecture, 'Civilizations-

Nostalgia and Utopia'. Like Rorty, DK refuses to indulge in nos-
talgia. Unlike Rorty, he visions the emerging 'global civilization' as
something more pluralistic, attentive to a wide spectrum of different
voices, negotiable and less American and English-language centred.
The over-dominance of English or 'the burden of English' , as Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak beautifully puts it, 7 was a major concern for DK.
The problem, he suggests in his Shimla lectures, is that in too many
ways, to exist today is to exist in English, and moreover, that this
limited mode of existence jeopardizes the autonomy of other cultural
identities. Drawing attention to the over-dominance of English and
its consequences, DK's concern was not expressed merely from an
Indian or non-Western point of view. He was as worried about the
xx Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

French and German language identities. His concern urged him in
2004 to publish a book in Hindi (after a long break) titled Bhartrya
Darsana: Eka Nay! Dr~{i (Indian Philosophy: ANew Approach) and to
consider inaugurating a Sanskrit section in the JICPR. This initiative,
intended to promote an alternative to the hegemony of English, was
never fulfilled in his lifetime and still awaits realization.
Another concern of DK, shared with his listeners in his Shimla
lectures, was the urgent need to rethink what I referred to above as
'the institution of knowledge ,. This concern he touched on in a recent
article titled 'Knowledge: Whose Is It, What Is It, and Why Has It to
Be "True"?, Here he suggests that if thinking is a dynamic, ongoing
process, it must 'result in' or facilitate 'knowledge which is subject to
continuous revision, modification, extension and emendation. Hence
the discussion [about knowledge]' , he argues, 'has to take a new tum
as the discussion up till now rests on the assumption that reality is
there, finished and completed to be known, and that human action
has nothing to do with it'.8 DK, then, was not confined to 'classical'
formulations of 'knowledge' as trikalabiidhita (,ultimate', 'irrefutable'),
but rather included in his reflection contemporary institutions, methods
and technologies of knowledge, newly created, invented and even com-
mercially manufactured. He invited his readers to rethink knowledge
in terms of constant change, plurality and the constant interaction
between different and multiple types of knowledge.
The special issue of the JICPR on 'The Future of Civilization in the
Postmodern World' was never to materialize. The project was dropped
due to DPC's tight schedule and endless responsibilities and DK's
insistence on the indispensability of his friend's editorial presence in
the issue he had in mind. Nevertheless, it did materialize-or at least
this is my feeling-if not in a journal format, then in the Shimla lectures
compiled here. To share with you the atmosphere at the lIAS when
the lectures were delivered, I would like to name or 'introduce' some
ofDK's interlocutors during those stimulating two weeks. Among us
were Vivek Data, DK's 'close friend' from their 'ancient' college days
in Delhi and an independent scholar-poet-experimentalist; Bettina
Baumer, KasmIra Saivism scholar, comparative philosopher, translator
and adherent of Swami Abhishiktananda; Neelima Vashishta, DK's
beloved cousin and art theoretician; S.C. Pande, Allahabad-based
Sanskrit scholar and an Alatikara-sastra specialist; Doodhnath Singh,
writer and literary theoretician; Yogendra Singh, sociologist; Sushil
Kumar, political scientist; Ishwar Singh,journalist, media person and
Introduction xxi
political philosopher; and Francis Arakal, an Advaitic Christian and
Sanskrit scholar from Kerala. We used to have our lunch together
under the tree near the dining hall, and gather in DK's room in the
evenings to further discuss the innumerable questions he had raised
in his talks. Daya and Vivek went for afternoon walks in the woods,
holding hands and giggling like the college boys they used to be. We
often visited the Indian Coffee House on Mall Road for old times' sake
and for a dosa or sambar-vada. Coffee (a 'postmodern' espresso or cap-
puccino) we had at Barista next door. It was perhaps an illustration of
the above-mentioned 'free travel' between past and future.
When I sit down to reread and finally prepare the Shimla lectures
for publication, three years after they were delivered and almost a
year after DK's untimely death, Jiddu Krishnamurti (whom DK never
met) suddenly comes to mind. Krishnamurti used to open many of
his public talks with the following words, here quoted from a talk at
Benares in 1981:
The speaker is not giving a lecture. You are not being talked at or being
instructed. This is a conversation between two friends, two friends who
have certain affection for each other, certain care for each other, who
will not betray each other and have certain deep common interests.
So they are conversing amicably, with a sense of deep communication
with each other, sitting under a tree on a lovely cool morning with the
dew on the grass, talking over together the complexities oflife. That is
the relationship which you and the speaker have- we may not meet
actually; there are too many of us-but we are as if walking along a path,
looking at the trees, the birds, the flowers, breathing the scent of the air,
and talking seriously about our lives; not superficially, not casually, but
concerned with the resolution of our problems. The speaker means what
he says; he is not just being rhetorical, trying to create impression; we
are dealing with problems of life much too serious for that. 9
This is how I felt with DK in Shimla. Amidst the beautiful natural

surroundings, he took each of us on a 'philosophical walk'. He wanted
to think with his listeners, not to lecture at them. It was, indeed, a DK
type of samvada: open dialogue, discussion and (often severe) debate.
He constantly encouraged his interlocutors to ask questions, to raise
objections, to take issue with him. His contagious enthusiasm about
philosophizing affected all those who were fortunate enough to attend
the lectures. None of the listeners remained unmoved, untouched,
xxii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

untransformed. He addressed the participants as 'friends' and as he
was sharing his thoughts and concerns, as he verbalized his thought-
stream, he tended to exclaim 'imagine!':
'Imagine! Even the Buddhists and the Jains had to write in Sanskrit in
order to be considered not merely knowledgeable, but to pave their way
to the central arena of discussion in this country.'
'Imagine! We live in language.'
'Imagine! The attempt to find consistency and completeness through
proofs, failed!'
'Imagine! When a person tells her name, so much is hidden in it, layers
upon layers of memory and hope.'
'Imagine! Even today people are called Bhardwaj, Bhargava etc. Can
you imagine such continuity?'
'Imagine! When Alexander came to India, what was he requested by
Aristotle? To bring back to Greece a wise man from the east, from
India!'
'Imagine! With this one word, vyavahiira, you reject everything. But
Friends, the vyavahiira matters!'
These are just a few of the 'imagines' which you will encounter as you
read the transcribed lectures. The phrase 'imagine', in my reading,
indicates DK's endless curiosity and deep involvement in all that he
was talking about. Often in the lectures he says: 'I cannot go into the
details' or 'this is another story which I will not go into today', only
to go into the details despite his former 'excuse'. He simply could not
resist the temptation; he was too interested; he felt that it was worth-
while calling the listeners' attention to several vital issues even if they
were not the central focus of the discussion. He was communicating
with his listeners in several channels simultaneously and invited them
to join him in a multifaceted all-embracing interdisciplinary concep-
tual inquiry.
Special effort has been made to keep the Shimla lectures 'untouched'
as much as possible, to enable the reader to 'listen' to DK instead of
reading a heavily edited volume. I hope that the dialogic, samvadic
spirit in which the lectures were delivered is aptly conveyed. For 'lay'
readers unfamiliar with the 'language of the gods', I added footnotes
'translating' or explaining Sanskrit terms interwoven with DK's
language. So please imagine that you are sitting around the long
wooden table of the seminar room in the lIAS, Shimla, the chairperson
inviting Professor Daya Krishna to deliver his lecture, and Dayaji in
Introduction xxiii
his perpetual kurta-pajama and chappals rising up, taking his place at
the podium and proclaiming: 'Friends!'
Daniel Raveh
Jaipur, August 2008

1. I am grateful to Professor D.P. Chattopadhyaya for his kind permission to quote
from the letters sent to him.
2. Daya Krishna, 'Comparative Philosophy: What Is It and What It Ought to Be?'
in G .J . Larson and E . Deutsch (eds), Interpreting across Boundaries: New Essays in
Comparative Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989), p. 83 .
3. Jacques Derrida, 'White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy' , in Jacques
Derrida, Margins ofPhilosophy, translated by Allen Bass (Brighton: The Harvester
Press, 1982), p. 271.
4. Richard Rorty, 'Philosophy and the Hybridization of Culture' , in Roger Ames and
Peter Hershock (eds), Educations and Their Purposes: A Philosophical Dialogue among
Cultures (University of Hawaii Press, 2008), pp. 41- 53 .
5. Rorty (2008), p. 41.
6. Ibid., pp. 41-42 , 44.
7. Gayatri C. Spivak, 'The Burden of English', in Gregory Castle (ed.), Postcolonial
Discourses (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 53- 72.
8. Daya Krishna, 'Knowledge: Whose Is It, What Is It, and Why Has It to Be "True"?'
Indian Philosophical Quarterly XXXII, No.3 , p. 187.
9. J. Krishnamurti, The Flame of Attention (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984),
p . 32.
xxiv Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

A Note from the Author
The chapters in this book continue the theme of my earlier book,

Considerations towards a Theory of Social Change, though they form a
self-contained whole and possess a unity of their own, independent
of the earlier work. They seek to focus on an aspect of thought about
man and society which most scientists and philosophers happen to
miss, that is, the effect of man's thought in shaping the human and
social reality itself. Man's thought about himself and society is not
causally ineffective. But if this be accepted, its implications have to
be understood by all those who concern themselves with society and
man in any capacity whatsoever. The chapters in this book attempt
to spell out these implications for the attention of the social scientists
and philosophers for consideration and discussion.
The past civilizations, in this context, are treated as the result of the
ways in which men conceived of themselves and the society and two
of the most significant among them, the Indian and the Western, have
been singled out and discussed as paradigmatic cases illustrating the
basic contentions of these chapters. An attempt is made to provide a
focal concept around which the thinking in the social sciences may be
organized, which may bridge the gap and provide continuity between
the great typal civilizations of the past and open the way for their
fecundating relationship with the present and the future.
Freedom, it is suggested, is such a concept; if it is given an opera-
tional definition and subjected to quantitative criteria of measurement,
it might provide an effective guide to the policy sciences which seem
so much in demand today by the planner and the politician. The link
between the mathematical concept of model and utopia is explained
and it is suggested that the building of scientifically articulated utopias
should be the task of the social scientist of the future.
All these chapters were delivered as lectures at the invitation of the
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla, and I am thankful to the
authorities for providing me with the opportunity to crystallize my
thought on the subject.
The indirect presence of my friends and colleagues at the University
of Rajasthan would be evident to an attentive reader of these pages. To
one of them, the late Professor M.M. Bhalla, this book is dedicated. His
sudden death has deprived us all of a mind so versatile and sensitive
that it is difficult to think of another like him. I still remember vividly
the time when he made the point referred to on page 47 standing
on the gate of the garden one morning. Who could have thought,
then, that soon there will be no more mornings or evenings or late
nights with their subtle intellectual delight over cups of coffee and an
element of charm, sparkle and grace which is so rarely found these
days in company-private or public?
Daya Krishna
Jaipur, 29 January 1969
xxvi Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

PART I
Social
Philosophy
Past and Future
1
The Concept of Society
What sort of a thing is society, which the social scientist so avidly

studies? Is it something completely independent of the way human
beings think about it and conceive of it? Or is it affected in its very
being by the way man thinks about and conceives of it? Has it, so to
say, an essence of its own which men have only to find and discover?
Or is it something like what the existentialists say about man, that
is, something that has no essence of its own, but something which is
made and created out of the infinite choices of diverse men? What
we confront as society is, in this view, not something given by nature
but rather that which was created by men in the past and that which
is being made and re-made by men in the present. It is like the habits
of a man's own character, created by choices made in the past, but
now confronting him and others as something 'given', something to
be taken as 'datum', something to be worked with or worked against,
but in any case inevitably to be taken into account.
The analogy with existentialist thought may be carried a step further.
To say that society has no essence of its own is not to say that one can
make or remake it as one likes, that there are no limits or constraints
within which alone the creative choice may operate and make itself
felt. Neither in respect of the human individual nor in respect of human
society has the denial of essence ever meant, or perhaps could ever
mean, the absolute absence of all limits and constraints. Not even in
art, which is the symbol of all that bespeaks human creativity at its
highest, is there an absence of limit or constraint, which has not to be
adapted, used and overcome. In fact, there would be little meaning in
creative activity if there were no material to be shaped, no resistance to
be overcome. The notion of grenzsituationen, then, remains as relevant
in the case of society as it has been found in the case of the individual
by existentialist thinkers.
The question 'What is Society?' then seems far more akin to the
question 'What is Man?' than, say, 'What is Nature?' However much
the dichotomy between Nature and Man may go against our instinct
for seeking a unified knowledge and abhorrence of anything but a
unitary reality, we cannot but note the radical distinctions between
them even with respect to the processes of knowledge. The way we
conceive of Nature does not seem to affect in any significant way
the natural processes themselves. Their independence of knowledge
is the very condition of the seeking of truth in this realm. But can
we say the same with respect to either Man or Society? Will it really
be true to say that the way we conceive of man and society does not
affect the way they are, the way they have been or even the way they
will be? Is not the way we conceive of them intimately bound up with
what they actually come to be? In case this is the situation to even
the least imaginable extent, it would be positively disastrous to foster
the illusion that our conceptual activity with respect to these objects
can be value-neutral in the same sense as our conceptual activity with
respect to natural objects is supposed to be. If it is true in any sense that
man and society are deeply affected by the way we conceieve of them,
then it is imperative that we make ourselves and others aware of the
value-implications of our conceptions and hold ourselves responsible
for the same.
The distinction between those subject matters that are affected by
the way we think and those that are not is an important one for the
cognitive enterprise of man. Even if it is contended that the distinc-
tion is only a relative one and that Man and Society are, in this sense,
continuous with that which is studied in the natural sciences, the dif-
ference between what is only marginal and what is relatively central
remains. The essential and inescapable disturbance of the object in the
subatomic realm by the instruments that seek to observe it, usually
described by Heisenberg's principle of indetenninacy, is something in
the realm of Nature that is analogous to the one found in the study of
Man and Society too. Yet, though analogous, it is essentially different
in important respects from the one that obtains when Man, whether
individually or in Society, is the object of determination and study. In
the latter case, it is not a physical instrument such as a light ray that
makes a difference in the object but the act of consciousness itself.
4 Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

In nuclear physics, up till now, no one has argued that it is man's
consciousness, his act of trying to know the object, the way he tries
to conceive of and formulate it, that affects the object and introduces
an element of indeterminacy in it. In the study of Man and Society,
it is consciousness itself that makes a difference to that which is the
object of knowledge and study. Further, because of this, the difference
that is made is basically qualitative, rather than quantitative as in
the case of the physical phenomena. Yet, the parallel, though differing
in certain essential respects, assures us that the said limitation need
not stand in the way of a more effective study and knowledge of the
phenomenon concerned. The limitation revealed by the Heisenberg
principle has not stood in the way of the advance in our knowledge of
nuclear phenomena. Similarly, the limitation, if any, in our knowledge
of Man and Society need not prove a hindrance in the progress and
pursuit of knowledge in these domains.
Is there, then, a choice in the way we may conceive of Society? Is
this a choice which is not governed solely by considerations of what
more easily and adequately conforms to, or articulates well, the spe-
cific object or domain it refers to? Can the possible consequences of
a concept relevantly enter into its formulation and be the ground for
our preferring it to another? And if we do so, will it be in accordance
with the highest rigours of what we have come to regard as the scien-
tific method? These are some of the questions that we have to ponder
and find answers for, if we are not to open the floodgates to fancy
and prejudice.
Before we do this, however, let us reflect a little on the notion of
the adequacy of a concept without any reference to those domains or
subject matters where the concept-forming activity may itselfbe said to
make a difference to what is being attempted to be grasped or formu-
lated in that concept. In other words, what makes for the adequacy of
a concept? Shall we say that it is the correctness of its reflection of the
reality it concerns itself with? Or is it the success of the action based
on the presupposition that the concept correctly reflects the causal
relationships obtaining among phenomena? Or is it just a tool whose
adequacy is basically judged by what we want to use it for? Even in
the context of cognitive activity, there may be a diversity of concepts
having essentially different functions that cooperatively help in lead-
ing the activity to a successful conclusion. Whatever be the choice
we make between these and even several other alternatives, at least
one characteristic shall be found implicitly or explicitly in them all.
The Concept of Society 5

This basically consists in their judging the adequacy of a conceptual
formulation in terms of its capacity to lead to successful action. But
what exactly is the success or failure of action in terms of which the
adequacy is to be judged?
The Hindu answer to the question has traditionally been found ulti-
mately to lie in the absence of even the possibility of suffering and/ or a
state of undisturbed positive bliss. However, even if this or some other
version of it were to be accepted, the question remains as to how this
criterion is to be applied to societies rather than individuals. It will be
difficult to say that societies are happy or unhappy and, in any case,
the idea of the absence of the possibility of any suffering seems not
only meaningless but also impossible, even if some meaning were to
be found for the expressions concerned.
The question, I should like to urge, is rather important. Weare
talking about society and, frankly, what sort of failure would it be that
would reveal the falsity of our knowledge of society? False knowledge,
let us remember, is causally effective. It does positively affect our
behaviour and action and lead us in certain directions. It is not like
absolute non-being, which, because it is such, is supposed to make
no difference to the universe as we know of, either in the present or
in the future. In fact, as far as man's future is concerned, whether it
is individual or collective, the results of false knowledge are perhaps
even more important than the results of knowledge deemed to be
true. In any case, it is bound to be admitted that the results of false
knowledge confront us as recalcitrant facts shaping our destiny in an
even more intimate way than the results of true knowledge. Is not
the history of individuals, societies and nations full of the past they
would wish to get rid of and yet which hangs around their neck like
Coleridge's albatross with perhaps not even the possibility of ultimate
release through love or suffering or both? An individual may perhaps
find release through what we can only call transcendent grace, but as
far as societies are concerned, it is difficult even to conceive of what
it could possibly be.
Falsity of knowledge is supposed to be intimately related to failure
of action. But the failure of action is itself judged in terms of what
we want to achieve, and what we want to achieve may not only
be multiple, but also incompatible in its different directions. Is it not
true that so many times all of us want, as the saying goes, to have
our cake and eat it too? But if this is true, then the failure of action
would not, in such a situation, be due to the falsity of knowledge, but

rather to the nature of what we want to achieve. Could there, then,
be such a thing as the falsity of what we want to achieve? If the term
'falsity' seems too awkward, would 'adequacy' or 'legitimacy' seem
more relevant? In each case, there are bound to be difficulties, but the
adoption of 'falsity' , I should like to suggest, would ultimately provide
deeper insight into the matter.
The idea that failure of action may be due not only to the falsity
of our knowledge but also to the falsity in what we want to achieve
deserves some further exploration. Have not we all known the situ-
ation where we have achieved what we wanted to achieve and yet
remained unfulfilled and dissatisfied? How shall we understand and
adequately articulate such a situation? There is nothing wrong with
our knowledge, for it has led us to the particular end that we wanted
to achieve. Where, then, is the snag? Where have things gone wrong?
Have not we got what we wanted? Why, then, do we feel unfulfilled
and dissatisfied? Surely, something must have been wrong with
what we wanted or, perhaps, with the process of wanting itself. This,
at least, was the direction taken by Indian thought. Either one did not
want what one really ought to have wanted to reach satisfaction or
fulfilment in life or one did not see that 'wanting' was an intrinsically
self-defeating process as it was basically analogous to something like
a self-contradictory proposition. It was contended, therefore, that
ultimately one could either want only God or a transcendent state
of one's own being. The only other alternative to this was to get rid
of wanting itself, to destroy the very root from which desire or want
sprang again and again. The various schools of classical Hinduism and
Buddhism may be distinguished by the relative weight and emphasis
they give to these alternatives in their diagnostics of the fundamentally
unsatisfactory situation of man, whatever he may think or do.
The search for the criterion of the falsity of our knowledge about
society is important. But even more important is the question as to
what we would do in terms of knowledge with those realms that are
affected by the way we think about them. In these realms, the very
act of forming the conception is a valuational act. It is, so to say, a
constituent part entering into the framing of the thing we are think-
ing about. The conception itself becomes an active ingredient in the
forming of reality in these domains. When Descartes said' cogito, ergo
sum', he could easily have added that what I become is what I think
myself to be. In the case of societies the same equation may be said
to hold, though with a certain difference. Here, the conception has to

be shared or accepted by a significant minority to become effective in
the shaping of the reality we call society. Anthropologists have given
us the distinction between society and culture and yet it is they who
have also made us aware that a society is specifically what it is because
of the particular and distinctive culture it has. Culture is what gives
uniqueness to a society and, ultimately, culture is nothing but the way
a society conceives of itself. The diversity of societies is rooted in the
diversity of cultures, and the various cultures that anthropologists and
historians have studied are distinguished by the differing conceptions
of man and society that have been held at different places and times. If
any proof were needed for the contention that the way we conceive of
man and society affects the type of men and societies we have, a brief
look at the Human Relations Area Files l should suffice for the answer.
The act of conceiving the nature of society is, then, a valuational act.
It is not merely a free building of a hypothesis which shall be verified to
be true or false by the data about social facts that we would encounter
in our investigations. Rather, it is a choice and a decision as to which
type of society one would like to have. Society may never be shaped
in the way one conceives of it. There may be many reasons for this.
One of the most obvious ones is that it may not be communicated to
others; even if communicated, it may not reach a sufficient number of
people; or, even if it reaches, it fails to inspire their imagination. The
people it reaches may not be significant in terms of causal effectivity,
though it may inspire them to be such. But, whatever the obstacles,
a thinker cannot forswear the responsibility of possibly shaping the
society in the way he conceives of it. This itself, therefore, he has to
take into account in formulating his conception of society.
The value-neutrality which the cognitive attitude is usually supposed
to imply may possibly be safeguarded in such a situation by spelling
out the diverse value-perspectives that the different conceptions of
society involve. It would be only by giving up the surreptitious claim
that the conception of society one is urging is a purely factual one
and by bringing into the open the various value-perspe.ctives involved
that one would do justice to the claim of objectivity that all science
involves.
The freedom of conceptual construction is recognized these days
by what is known as 'model-building' activity in the sciences. But this
is a freedom through which we are supposed to comprehend a given
reality. However, where the reality is supposed to be affected by the
way we conceive of it, there the freedom is bound to be of a different

kind. First, the freedom is a sort of responsible freedom. One can-
not just assume for the sake of assuming, for what one assumes has
actual consequences which one may not desire or approve of. Second,
there is therefore at least a moral demand for spelling out the value-
dimension explicitly. The pose of there being no value-dimension in
the conceptual formulations of the social scientist is not only dishonest,
but may produce disastrous consequences for himself and others in
that the society may increasingly come to conceptualize itself as he
has conceived of it and approximate nearer to that conception. The
likelihood of this happening increases in proportion to the agreement
in the conception of society that the social scientists begin to reach
among themselves. The more such an agreement is reached, the more
likely it is that people at large conceive of society in a similar way and
thus help in bringing it into being.
However it be, if once it is admitted that certain sorts of questions
may reasonably be asked about society that cannot be so asked with
regard to natural objects, then a basic difference in their logical type
has to be admitted. We can, for example, reasonably ask ourselves
and others as to what sort of society we would like to have, a question
that seems meaningless when asked with respect to Nature. Similarly,
exhortations to improve one's society and make it a subject of intel-
ligent moral concern have meaning, while if they were to be made with
respect to the world of Nature, they would appear nonsensical.
If the distinction between nature and society is conceded and if it is
admitted that the way we conceive of society tends to shape the society
in that direction too, then the necessity for a self-conscious explica-
tion of the value-presuppositions and the value-consequences of the
particular way in which society is proposed to be conceptualized will
have to be admitted by everybody. 2 It would then be an interesting task
to delineate, given this background, the various ways in which society
has been or can be conceptualized and the ways in which these diverse
conceptions have affected or can affect the shaping of societies.
However interesting and tempting such a task may seem, I do not
propose to undertake it in here. Rather, I should like to draw atten-
tion to a basic difference of type in the way in which society can be
conceived. The only difference that I would like to emphasize and
bring to explicit consciousness for consideration here concerns the
way in which we ultimately conceive of society. It may be conceived
of either as the last term in our thought in terms of which we want to
understand everything else, or only as an intermediate term beyond

which there are other terms to which it is instrumental or subservient
in a final sense. In a sense, we live, move and have our being only in
and through society. What we think, feel, consider beautiful or ugly,
right or wrong is determined by the fact that we are social beings. It
is thus conceived of as the equivalent of God, and many sociologists
think and proclaim it to be so. In fact, God Himself is supposed to be
a projected image of the society in the mind of a particular individual.
On the other hand, it seems difficult to believe that society would show
even its specific traits were it not constituted of human individuals
who must at least be conceived of as possessing the latent potential
for engaging in ideal pursuits.
The question 'What is Society?' is closely linked to the question
'What is a human individual?' and one cannot be answered independ-
ently of the other. The sociologist is, in a sense, an interested party
in the debate. Through his training and profession, he gradually gets
committed to the idea of the ultimacy of society as the last term of
human thought in terms of which everything else is to be understood.
He sees everything as rooted in a social nexus and as subservient to
a social end. Whether it is science or religion, art or morality, love or
friendship, each is rooted in society and serves a social function or end.
Durkheim's name is classically associated-with such a standpoint. But
he is not alone, nor even in a minority. Rather, he articulates explicitly
what is implicit in the writings of others. Every sociologist subscribes
to his dictum, whether implicitly or explicitly. Society is his God, at
least professionally.
But, however persuasive, it is not necessary. Society need not be
conceived of as the last term of human thought. The centrality may
be restored to the human individual who, then, may be viewed as
the nucleus of the social cell from which all creativity emanates and
originates. In this perspective, then, society would be conceived of as
a facilitating mechanism so that the individual may pursue his trans-
social ends. Instead of art or religion, friendship or love being seen
as the lubricating oil for the functioning of the social machine, the
machine itself would be seen as facilitating the emergence and pursuit
of various values; its efficiency judged in terms of that performance.
The two conceptions are opposed ways of conceptualizing society
and tum basically on the primacy given to the individual or society
in our thought. As the way we conceive of things affects the way we
become, the choice between the two becomes a valuational one. The
cognitive task in such a situation is to make the value-implications

explicit and to spell out the possible achievements and perversions
within the ambit of one conception or the other. Ideal type construc-
tions may be helpful in throwing into bold relief the diverse possibilities
involved in the various choices. Similarly, if one could find some rough
parallels in historical cultures which have predominantly conceived
of society in one way rather than the other, it might be helpful in giv-
ing a concrete feel to the things one says. Keeping both these things
in mind, I shall designate the two ultimate contrasts I have sketched
above as the Western and the Indian respectively. These give rise to
two types of value-achievements, two types of value-perversions and
two types of predicaments, which I shall try to delineate in the fol-
lowing chapters. Each society, in this perspective, may be seen as the
perversion of a basic value-insight which is apprehended by a few and
vulgarly interpreted by the many.

1. Available online at http://www.bu.edu/library/guides/hrafhome.html (accessed
on 7 January 2012).
2. It has been contended by some that the very way in which nature is conceived of has
usually been the result of the way (a) society has been conceived of. (See especially
Hans Kelsen, Society and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry [London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co. Ltd, 1946] .) However true this may be in some cases, the possible
divergence between the two could hardly be denied.

2
The Two Predicaments
In the last chapter, I dealt with the two ways in which one may
conceive of society in relation to the individuals that compose it. I also
argued that the choice that one makes with respect to either of these
conceptions profoundly affects the social and individual reality one
may hope to encounter in the future. The decision between the two,
thus, is not to be made in terms of their adequacy to reflect some pre-
existent reality, but rather in terms of what we want that reality to be.
Either choice, in true human fashion, leads to its own predicament in
which it involves the society and the individuals who have opted, con-
sciously or unconsciously, for that conception. No choice, at least for
a human being, proves an unmixed blessing. In this chapter, it shall be
my attempt to explore the predicaments generated by the two choices
and, for purposes of illustration, I shall use examples from the 'ideal
type' schematizations known as Western and Indian cultures which
correspond to a great extent to the actual historical cultures too.
The view that conceives of society as the last term of our thought
in terms of which and for which everything else is to be understood
gives rise to what I have elsewhere called 'the socio-centric predica-
ment' .1 The predicament primarily results from viewing the human
individual as having nothing in himself that he does not owe to society
and, therefore, from seeking the justification for each of his acts in
terms of its social consequences. In this perspective, the individual is
basically defined as a social animal. He achieves his humanity only
through the social and cultural tradition in which he grows and which
alone makes of him a human being, as distinct from a biological ani-
mal. Man's humanity is thus seen as derived from his sociality and
it is the process of socialization which really humanizes him in the
strict sense of the term. Further, the individual is seen as something
ephemeral, which comes into being and passes away. What endures
is the society of which he is a mc:mber. He has become what he is
because of the society into which he happened to be born or reared
and what survives of him is what he has left to society, which endures
after he is dead and gone.
The socio-centric perspective which makes man conceive of himself
and society in this way leads to the socio-centric predicament in that
the individual, who is supposed to have nothing in himself which is
not derived from society, is simultaneously supposed to be burdened
with the absolute responsibility for all that happens to society too. The
Greek, the Christian and the Communist versions are merely variations
on this one theme which lies at the heart of Western culture. Man is
essentially and intrinsically responsible not just for his own self but
also for others, and this not because he is free and his actions have
consequences for others, but because he is social or communal at the
very heart of his being and cannot be conceived of as apart from society.
It is Adam's sin that Christ has to redeem. But Christ, at least, was the
son of God. Not so in the vision of Marx. Here, it is man-conditioned
by the society and the class into which he is born-who is expected
to usher in the reign of freedom and hold himself responsible if he
does not do so. For man to have such a burden of others' actions on
his shoulders is certainly to develop a sense of community, but it is
a community more in guilt than in redemption. Christ, it is true, is
supposed to have redeemed humanity by his supreme sacrifice on the
Cross and thus established a community in Redemption. However,
first, the humanity which is supposed to have been redeemed by
Christ's sacrifice is basically confined to the circle of those who have
faith in Christ and, second, even after the supposed redemption of the
faithful, it is more the original sin which weighs on the individual and
collective consciousness of the West than the freedom from that guilt,
which the Redemption presumably provided.
The idea that one may be responsible for actions that have not been
taken by one's own self and that one may be redeemed by someone
else's action may seem positively outrageous to a sensibility that treats
the individual as essentially apart from his relationships with others,
relationships in which he may happen to be accidentally involved.
The doctrine of kanna in traditional Hindu thought primarily reflects
this basic presupposition that it would be an immoral world indeed
The Two Predicaments 13

if one were to reap the fruits of someone else's actions. The monadic
morality of the Hindu is thus conceived of in an essentially asocial
manner. It does not derive from an other-centred consciousness in
which the consequences of one's actions on others are the subject of
one's focus of attention. Rather, it is the consequences of one's action
upon oneself which provides the main ground for morality in Hindu
thought and thus paves the way for a very different kind of perspec-
tive on the entire issue of action and one's relations with others. At
the deepest level, not merely does what one does have consequences
upon oneself but, conversely, whatever happens to one could only be
the result of one's own actions. Thus, not only do one's own actions
have consequences on oneself but also, if the world is to be a moral
world, nothing else could.
The socio-centric perspective, which the predominant Western
tradition may be said to exemplify to a great extent, may thus be
contrasted with what may be called, for want of a better word, the
Atman-centric perspective which finds its most persistent and effective
exemplification in what is known as Hindu civilization and culture.
The two perspectives are basically two ways of conceptualizing soci-
ety and each of them, once formulated and accepted by a significant
number of people, tends to shape the particular society in that direction
also. The two perspectives, to the extent that they get actualized, in tum
give rise to two fundamental predicaments which may respectively be
called the socio-centric and the Atman-centric predicaments.
The relation of the foundational guilt-consciousness as exempli-
fied in the Christian and Marxist variations of Western culture to the
socio-centric predicament, though logically understandable, has yet
been found to be empirically contingent. The Greek, Judaic and Islamic
cultures, though essentially socio-centric in their nature, do not display
any essential guilt-consciousness according to those who have closely
studied them. It is supposed to be impossible for a person to be a real
Muslim without being a member of the Muslim community. If Plato
is to be believed, Socrates refused to get out of prison even when he
was convinced that his imprisonment was unjust and that there was
a danger to his life just because it might have endangered the laws of
the society of which he was a member and on which, according to
him, society ultimately rested. The Jews, of course, believe themselves
to be a chosen race and though one may become a Jew, Judaism as a
religion is not missionary in character.

The Greeks, of course, were pagans. But Judaism and Islam both
subscribe to the Old Testament and thus to the doctrine of Original
Sin which implicates all humanity in a collective guilt. It seems
surprising, therefore, that they do not suffer from this sense of guilt
to the same extent as the Christians. The reasons for such a state of
affairs, if it actually obtains, need investigation. But it is not my task to
undertake that investigation here. Whatever be the internal differences
between these various cultures, they are all basically socio-centric in
character. Between them, the Christians and the Communists have
carried the logic to its extreme and thus exposed it to the predicaments
and paradoxes that are only half-hidden in the other traditions. But
the Christian still has a soul which, though essentially involved with
others, yet has an independent relation to God through the Church,
which ensures for the Christian tradition at least some sort of privacy
and individuality, both of which are missing in the Communist vision.
Orwell's Nineteen Eightyfouris not so much an exercise in imagination
as the complete working out of the logic of the socio-centric view about
man and society. The completely secularized view of man as a social
animal divested of all the trappings of transcendental faith reduces
man essentially to what society makes him to be and, at another level,
to what it permits him to be.
As against this, in the other perspective, man is basically seen as a
transcendent being. His sociality is only an accidental feature which
defines him no more than, say, his erect posture. He is the son of God
or, perhaps, God himself. When Aristotle said that outside society one
is either a God or a beast, he was not giving alternatives that would
create any dilemma for the Atman-centric thinker. Man is obviously not
a beast and if sociality is to be accidental, then he must be a god, and
so he is, in spite of all appearances to the contrary. Parenthetically, it
may be added that some animals are supposed to be essentially social,
for example, the ants and the bees.
However it may be, society is ultimately secondary in this perspec-
tive. Man is essentially asocial, or rather, trans-social in nature. The
relationship with the other, which is at the heart of sociality, is thus
secondary too. The issue, thus, is not the distinction between what
Martin Buber in his felicitous phrase has called the 'I-thou' and the
'I-it' relationships. Rather, it is between these two on the one side and
what can perhaps only be called the 'H' relationship on the other. The
two 'I's' in the equation are, at one level, the empirical and the tran-
scendental self, the two birds which the Upant$ads refer to. At another
The Two Predicaments 15

level, they may be conceived of as referring to the self-as-subject and
the self-as-object and the relationship between the two. At still another
level, the problem may be posed in terms of the identity of a being that
is essentially conscious or, rather, the identity of consciousness itself.
Whatever the way one conceives of it, the three are closely related to
each other and the central focus remains on the relation of the Self
with itself and not with what constitutes the other.
With the devaluation of the relation to the other, the whole realm of
the moral, which is essentially constituted through the consciousness
of one's obligations to others, also gets devalued. At best, it is seen
as a means for the realization of the higher and the deeper obligation
to one's own Self. At worst, it is seen as a hindrance in the way of
the realization of one's obligation to one's own Self. Society, in an
equivalent manner, is seen either as a facilitating instrument for the
pursuit of man's asocial or trans-social ends or as an obstruction to the
realization of one's transcendence from an essentially other-centred or
socio-centric consciousness. The other, even when he happens to be
a person, is, after all, an object that takes one away from one's own
Self. At the lower egoistic level, this is known to everybody, but that
this is so at the higher Atman-centric level also is a subject of active
awareness only among a few. The conflict between the egoistic and
the moral consciousness is familiar to all who have achieved any level
of self-conscious awareness at all. But the conflict between the moral
and the spiritual consciousness is known only to those who have heard
the call of the transcendent spirit. Buddha, leaving his wife, child and
kingdom, may be taken as the paradigmatic example of such a situ-
ation. The world of social, political and familial obligations is given
up at the call of something that the individual cannot quite clearly
formulate even to himself. What is clear is the dissatisfaction one feels
with one's own state of affairs and not what one actually wants or what
one is going to get by the giving up of such obligations.
The contrast between the moral and the spiritual has been effec-
tively drawn in the context of the Western tradition by Kierkegaard.
Abraham's sacrificing of his son at the command of God is given
as the classic example of such a conflict. However, at least two things
should be noted in respect of this example. First, the conflict here is
not between one's obligation to others and the obligation to one's own
self. Instead, it is between obligations to others; the 'other(s)' in this
case being 'son' and 'God' respectively. The example, therefore, does
not, as Kierkegaard claims, illustrate 'the suspension of the ethical' , but

Other documents randomly have
different content
bright and fresh; while before they had been looking pulled and weak,
outgrowing their strength.
“Sunny” is the picture of robust health, and sweet little “sister Maly” sits
up quite alone, and is very neat and rosy, with such quick eyes, and two deep
dimples in her cheeks—a great pet, and so like my poor Frittie.
The return here has been very painful, and days of great depression still
come, when I am tormented with the dreadful remembrance of the day I lost
him. Too cruel and agonizing are those thoughts. I dwell on his rest and
peace, and that our sufferings he cannot know. What might not life have
brought him? Better so! but hard to say, “God’s will be done.”
Kranichstein, September 15th.
* * * ——’s conversion has created no smaller sensation with us than
elsewhere, and the Times criticised his step so sharply. It remains a
retrograde movement for any Protestant, how much more so for a man of his
stamp! Quite incomprehensible to me.
* * * This Catholic movement is so un-English. I think, among those
Ritualists there are bonâ fide Catholics who help to convert. * * *
I will send you sweet little Maly’s photograph next time. * * * Baby has a
very fair skin, light-brown hair and deep-blue eyes with marked eyebrows,
not much color in her cheeks, but pink and healthy-looking altogether.
Kranichstein, September 24th.
* * * People with strong feelings and of nervous temperament, for which
one is no more responsible than for the color of one’s eyes, have things to
fight against and to put up with, unknown to those of quiet, equable
dispositions, who are free from violent emotions, and have consequently no
feeling of nerves—still less, of irritable nerves. If I did not control mine as
much as I could, they would be dreadful. * * * One can overcome a great
deal—but alter one’s self one cannot. * * *
October 31st.
* * * I always think, that in the end children educate the parents. For their
sakes there is so much one must do: one must forget one’s self, if every thing
is as it ought to be. It is doubly so, if one has the misfortune to lose a
precious child. Rückert’s lovely lines are so true (after the loss of two of his
children):
Nun hat euch Gott verlieh’n, was wir auch wollten thun,
Wir wollten euch erzieh’n, und ihr erzieht uns nun.
O Kinder, ihr erziehet mit Schmerz die Eltern jetzt;
Ihr zieht an uns, und ziehet uns auf zu euch zuletzt.[123]
Yesterday Ernie was telling Orchard that I was going to plant some
Spanish chestnuts, and she said: “Oh, I shall be dead and gone before they
are big; what a pity we had none sooner!” and Ernie burst out crying and
said: “No, you must not die alone—I don’t like people to die alone; we must
die all together!” He has said the same to me before, poor darling. After
Lenchen’s [Princess Christian’s] boys were gone, and he had seen Eddy and
Georgy [sons of the Prince of Wales], his own loss came fresh upon him, and
he cried for his little brother! It is the remaining behind the loss, the missing
of the dear ones, that is the cruel thing to bear. Only time can teach one that,
and resignation to a Higher Will. * * *
Darmstadt, November 9th.
* * * The new Church laws (similar to the Prussian) go through our
Upper Chamber to-morrow, and will meet with great opposition. Louis is, of
course, for accepting them, as a check must be put on the Catholics; for the
Catholic clergy are paid by the State as well as the Protestant, so that the
State has an equal right over both; but this right the Catholics have for years
managed to evade. The Bishop of Mayence is doing his utmost to create
every possible obstacle, but it is to be hoped that one will not here have to
have recourse to the method of fines and imprisonment as in Prussia * * *
November 16th.
Many thanks for your dear letter, and for the advice, which, as a mark of
your interest in our children, is very precious, besides being so good! What
you mention I have never lost sight of, and there is, as you say, nothing more
injurious for children than that they should be made a fuss about. I want to
make them unselfish, unspoiled, and contented; as yet this is the case. That
they take a greater place in my life, than is often the case in our families,
comes from my not being able to have enough persons of a responsible sort
to take charge of them always; certain things remain undone from that
reason, if I do not do them, and they would be the losers. I certainly do not
belong by nature to those women who are above all wife; but circumstances
have forced me to be the mother in the real sense, as in a private family, and
I had to school myself to it, I assure you, for many small self-denials have
been necessary. Baby-worship, or having the children indiscriminately about
one, is not at all the right thing, and a perpetual talk about one’s children
makes some women intolerable. I hope I steer clear of these faults—at least I
try to do so, for I can only agree in every word you say, as does Louis, to
whom I read it; and he added when I was reading your remarks: “Das thust
Du aber nicht. Die Kinder und andere Menschen wissen gar nicht, was Du
für sie thust” [“But you don’t do so. Neither the children nor anybody else
knows what you do for them”]. He has often complained that I would not
have the children enough in my room, but, being of your opinion, where it
was not necessary, I thought it better not. * * *
December 12th.
I enclose a few lines to Mr. Martin.[124] I have only had time to look at
the preface, and am very glad to hear that you are satisfied.
With what interest shall I read it! You will receive these lines on the 14th.
Last year I had the comfort of being near you. It did me real good then, and I
thank you again for those short and quiet days, where the intercourse with
you was so soothing to my aching heart. There is no Umgang [intercourse] I
know, that gives me more happiness than when I can be with you—above
all, in quiet. The return to the so-called world I have barely made. Life is
serious—a journey to another end. The flowers God sends to brighten our
path I take with gratitude and enjoy; but much that was dearest, most
precious, which this day commemorates, is in the grave; part of my heart is
there too, though their spirits, adored Papa’s, live on with me, the holiest and
brightest part of life, a star to lead us, were we but equal to following it! The
older I grow, the more perfect, the more touching and good, dear Papa’s
image stands before me. Such an entire life for duty, so joyously and
unpretendingly borne out, remains for all times something inexpressibly fine
and grand! With it how tender, lovable, gay, he was! I can never talk of him
to others who have not known him, without tears in my eyes—as I have
them now. He was and is my ideal. I never knew a man fit to place beside
him, or so made to be devotedly loved and admired. * * *
December 14th.
Before this day is over, I must write a few words—my thoughts are so
much with you and with the past, the bright, happy past of my childhood,
where beloved Papa was the centre of this rich and happy existence. I have
spent nearly the whole day with the precious volume which speaks so much
of you and of him.
What a man in every sense of the word; what a Prince he was—so
entirely what the dear old Baron [Stockmar] urged him always to be! Life
with him must have seemed to you so secure and well-guarded. How you
must have loved him! It makes one’s heart ache again and again, in reading
and thinking of all dear Papa was to you, that you should have had to part
from him in the heat of the day, when he was so necessary. Ihm ist wohl
[With him it is well]. A life like his was a whole long lifetime, though only
twenty-two years, and he well deserved his rest!
The hour is nearing when we last held and pressed his hand in life, now
thirteen years ago. How well I recollect that last sunrise, and then the
dreadful night with you that followed on that too awful day! But it is not
well to dwell on these things, when we have the bright, sunny past to look
back to. Tennyson’s beautiful Dedication[125] expresses all one feels and
would wish to say. I can only add, with a heavy-drawn sigh, “Oh, to be
worthier of such a Father!” How far beneath him, if not always in aims, at
least in their fulfilment, have I always remained!
December 17th.
My best thanks for the letter of the 15th. Poor Colonel Grey’s[126] death
is shocking, and Bertie and Alix are sure to have felt it deeply. Dear Bertie’s
true and constant heart suffers on such occasions, for he can be constant in
friendship, and all who serve him serve him with warm attachment. I hope
he won’t give way to the idea of Sandringham being unlucky, though so
much that has been trying and sad has happened to them there! Superstition
is surely a thing to fight against; above all, with the feeling that all is in
God’s hands, not in ours!
How interesting the book is [“Life of the Prince Consort”]! I have
finished it, and am befriedigt [satisfied]. It was a difficult undertaking, but
Mr. Martin seems to have done it very well.
I am sure dear Osborne is charming as ever, but I can’t think of that large
house so empty; no children any more; it must seem so forsaken in our old
wing. I have such a Heimweh [yearning] to see Osborne again after more
than six years. * * *
1875.
Each year the Princess Alice endeavored by some public effort or other
—either a dramatic or musical performance—to collect funds for her many
charitable institutions which, as they extended their field of usefulness, were
more and more in need of pecuniary help. Artists as well as amateurs gladly
offered their services on all such occasions.
In the beginning of this year the Prince and Princess and their children
went to England for two months, spending part of the time with the Queen,
and part with the Prince and Princess of Wales. The two eldest daughters,
Victoria and Elizabeth, accompanied their grandmother to Balmoral in May.
The whole family returned to Darmstadt at the end of June. In July the
Prince and Princess Louis were present at the “coming of age” of the
Hereditary Grand Duke of Baden. The rest of the summer was spent at
Kranichstein.
In 1874 the Hessian Government had amended their educational laws for
the schools, and had established, as a fundamental principle, that needle-
work in all its branches should be taught in all girls’ schools, and that
suitable teachers for this purpose should be engaged. To meet this necessity,
a course of lectures and instruction in the art of needle-work was instituted
by the “Alice Society,” open to women and girls of all classes. This has
proved in its results of real blessing and benefit to the whole country.
[The next two letters arose out of the expression of an opinion on the part
of some of the Prince Consort’s friends, that the publication of his Life under
the sanction of the Queen, with unreserved fulness of details, had been
premature.]
Darmstadt, January 3d, 1875.
* * * It is touching and fine in you to allow the world to have so much
insight into your private life, and allow others to have what has been only
your property and our inheritance.
People can only be the better for reading about dear Papa, such as he was,
and such as so feelingly and delicately Mr. Theodore Martin places him
before them. To me the volume is inexpressibly precious, and opens a field
for thought in various senses.
For the frivolous higher classes how valuable this book will be, if read
with real attention, as a record of a life spent in the highest aims, with the
noblest conception of duty as a leading star.
To this letter Her Majesty replied:
Osborne, January 12, 1875.
Dearest Alice:—* * * Now as regards the book. If you will reflect a few
minutes, you will see how I owed it to beloved Papa to let his noble
character be known and understood, as it now is, and that to wait longer,
when those who knew him best—his own wife, and a few (very few there
are) remaining friends—were all gone, or too old, and too far removed from
that time, to be able to present a really true picture of his most ideal and
remarkable character, would have been really wrong.
He must be known, for his own sake, for the good of England and of his
family, and of the world at large. Countless people write to say, what good it
does and will do. And it is already thirteen years since he left us!
Then you must also remember, that endless false and untrue things have
been written and said about us, public and private, and that in these days
people will write and will know: therefore the only way to counteract this is
to let the real, full truth be known, and as much be told as can be told with
prudence and discretion, and then, no harm, but good, will be done. Nothing
will help me more, than that my people should see what I have lost!
Numbers of people we knew have had their Lives and Memoirs published,
and some beautiful ones: Bunsen’s by his wife; Lord Elgin’s, by his (very
touching and interesting); Lord Palmerston’s; etc., etc.
“The Early Years” volume was begun for private circulation only, and
then General Grey and many of Papa’s friends and advisers begged me to
have it published. This was done. The work was most popular and greatly
liked. General Grey could not go on with it, and asked me to ask Sir A.
Helps to continue it, and he said that he could not, but recommended Mr.
Theodore Martin as one of the most eminent writers of the day, and hoped I
could prevail on him to undertake this great national work. I did succeed,
and he has taken seven years to prepare the whole, supplied by me with
every letter and extract; and a deal of time it took, but I felt it would be a
national sacred work. You must, I think, see I am right now; Papa and I too
would have suffered otherwise. I think even the German side of his character
will be understood.
One of the things that pleases people most is the beautiful way in which
he took all good Stockmar’s often very severe observations. And they also
admire so much good old Stockmar’s honesty, fearlessness, and are pleased
to be shown what a dear warm-hearted old man he was. Your devoted Mama,
V. R.
January 18th.
* * * The service in Dr. Weber’s study before the open coffin, filled with
flowers, was very affecting. He was truly beloved and respected. His
sufferings must have been intense, and for many years borne heroically—not
a word said; not a complaint; always ready to bear the sorrows of others with
them, yet bearing his own unassisted! Wonderful self-command and
unselfishness! He knew his illness was fatal; even to the latter weeks
considered his days as but few, and put all in order, without letting his family
and friends know what he himself only too well foresaw.
It was a stormy afternoon with pouring rain when he was buried. Louis,
his poor boy, and many were out. * * *
We have April weather. I have a very heavy cold, and feel so weak and
done up. It is too warm and unhealthy; every place smells, our house
especially.
January 27th.
* * * My little May has such a cold, which lessens her usual smiles. She
is a fine, strong child, more like what Victoria was, but marked eyebrows,
with the fair hair and such speaking eyes. She and Aliky are a pretty
contrast!
February 14th.
You say of the drains just what I have said from year to year; and this
summer—if we can get away in the spring, when it is most unwholesome—
what can be done is to be done, and I hope with better success than what has
hitherto been attempted.
My little May cannot get rid of her cough, though she looks pink and
smiling. I shall be so glad to show her to you—she is so pretty and dear.
My father-in-law has for the first time got the gout in his feet, and is so
depressed. Uncle Louis suffers dreadfully from oppression at night, so that
he can’t remain in bed. He is a good deal aged, and stoops dreadfully. * * *
March 14th.
Louis gave me a dreadful fright last week by suddenly breaking through
the ice, and at a very deep place. He laid his arms over the thicker ice, and
managed to keep above water till some one was near enough to help him out.
He said the water drew immensely, and he feared getting under the ice. The
gentleman, who is very tall, lay down and stretched his arms out to Louis,
another man holding the former: and so he got out without ill effects. As it
was at Kranichstein, he undressed and rubbed himself before the stove in the
Verwalter’s [land-steward’s] room; and he came home in the Verwalter’s
clothes, which looked very funny. * * *
Marlborough House, May 15th.
I did not half thank you yesterday for our pleasant visit. I could not trust
myself to speak. I felt leaving you again so much. It has been a great
happiness to me, so wohlthuend [doing me so much good] to have been with
you, and I can never express what I feel, as I would, nor how deep and
tender my love and gratitude to you are! The older I grow, the more precious
the Verhältniss [relation] to a mother becomes to me, and how doubly so to
you!
Louis feels as I do; his love to you has always been as to his own mother;
and my tears begin to run when I recall your dear face and voice, which to
see and hear again has seemed so natural, so—as it ought to be! that it is
quite difficult to accustom myself to the thought that only in memory can I
enjoy them now.
How I do love you, sweet Mama! There is no sacrifice I would not make
for you! and as our meetings are of late years so fleeting and far between,
when they are over I feel the separation very much. * * *
Marlborough House, June 15th.
* * * God bless you, my precious Mother, watch over and guard you; and
let your blessing and motherly interest accompany us and our children!
Louis’ tenderest love; many, many kisses from all children, and William’s
respectful duty!
Kranichstein, June 20th.
* * * All Victoria and Ella tell me of their stay at Balmoral—the many
things you gave them and their people—touches me so much: let me thank
you so many times again. I feel I did not half say enough, but you know how
much I feel it!
Our journey did very well; no one was ill, after that dreadful storm—a
piece of luck. You are now again at Windsor. How much I think of you and
of dear Beatrice!
July 10th.
* * * We got home from Carlsruhe at eleven o’clock last night. We went
there on Thursday; arrived at two; were received there by Fritz and Louise
and the Emperor; found dear Marie Leiningen and Hermann and Leopoldine
there. Fritz W. arrived half an hour afterwards from Vienna, having met with
a railway accident in the night; but he was, thank God, unhurt—barely
shaken.
It was frightfully hot! Family dinner at five; then a drive about the town,
which was decked with flags. At nine in the evening a large soirée and
continual circle! and supper—such a heat! At eight next morning in gala,
church service. Fritz (son) for the first time in uniform with the Black Eagle;
then at ten a very fine parade, in which Fritz marched past as second
lieutenant with his regiment. The troops were so fine; the Emperor led his
own regiment past, and it was a very moving sight, with a great deal of
cheering. At two there was a large banquet, at which Fritz made a beautiful
speech, and the Emperor a very good answer.
All Fritz’s (son) former school-fellows, and the different schools and
masters, came by in procession, and the day was very fatiguing. He is such a
good boy. His former tutor, who finished his task of education yesterday,
said to me: “Er ist ein guter Mensch und die Wahrheit selber” [He is a good
man, and truth itself]. He was very self-possessed, modest, and civil, talking
to every one. He is full of promise, and has been carefully and lovingly
brought up by his parents, who are such excellent people. I have the greatest
regard for them.
I told the Emperor the fright we had about the war. He was much
distressed, that any one could believe him capable of such a thing; but our
Fritz and Fritz of Baden agree that, with Bismarck, in spite of the nation not
wishing it, he might bring about a war at any moment. Our Fritz spoke so
justly and reasonably—quite anti-war—and I told him all the opinions I had
gathered and heard in London; and he was much grieved and worried, I
could see; but it must and can be prevented, if all are against it, I am sure.
This enormous and splendid army, ready at any moment, is a dangerous
possession for any country. * * *
Kranichstein, October 7th.
* * * To-day my eyes will not remain dry; the recollection of five years
ago, which brought us joy and promise of more in our sweet second boy, is
painful in the extreme. The sudden ending of that young life; the gap this has
left; the recollections that are now but to be enjoyed in silent memory, will
leave a heart-ache and a sore place, beside where there is much happiness
and cause for gratitude. The six children and we, with endless flowers and
tears, decked his little grave this morning, and some sad lines of Byron’s
struck me as having much truth in the pain of such moments—
But when I stood beneath the fresh green tree,

Which living waves where thou didst cease to live,
And saw around me the wide field revive
With fruits and fertile promise, and the Spring
Come forth her work of gladness to contrive,
With all her reckless birds upon the wing,
I turn’d from all she brought, to those she could not bring.[127]
The weather is fine; it was much like this five years ago, but round Metz
it rained. Louis was turning into quarters with his troops from a sortie, and
he called the news out to the regiments as he rode along, and they gave a
cheer for their little Prince!
It was a dreadful time of trial and separation for both of us, and Frittie
was such a comfort and consolation to me in all my loneliness.
How sorry I am for poor Alix at this long separation![128] For her sake I
grieve at the impossibility of her accompanying him.
We hope to get back to our house by the 19th, though there will be an end
of nice walks for the next eight months—the town grows so, and is all
railroad and coal heaps where we had our walks formerly, and the town
pavement in the streets is most unpleasant walking. * * *
Schloss Kranichstein, October 16th.
For your dear letter and for the inclosures I am so grateful, but distressed
beyond measure at dear Fannie’s [Lady Frances Baillie]. I had a long letter
from her some weeks back, when she was more hopeful about dear Augusta
[Stanley]. This is too much sorrow for them all! Fannie I loved as a sister,
and dear Augusta’s devotion and self-sacrifice to you, and even to us in those
dreadful years, was something rare and beautiful. Her whole soul and heart
were in the duty, which to her was a sacred one. The good, excellent Dean!
My sympathy is so great with these three kind and good people so sorely
tried. I grieve for you too! God help them!
October 26th.
How sorry I am for dear good old Mrs. Brown and for her sons.[129]
Please say something sympathizing from me; her blindness is such a trial,
poor soul, at that age. How gloomily life must close for her!
1876.
Although this new year brought no actual change to the usual routine of
the daily life in the Princess’ home, and although the Princess was able to
fulfil her social duties, traces of serious illness now began to show
themselves by repeated attacks of exhaustion and weakness. These attacks
were partially relieved by a short stay in the Black Forest in June, and by a
visit to England and Scotland, which she made without her husband. The
Prince had been detained in Germany by the great manœuvres, on the
conclusion of which he fetched her from England, in the autumn. On their
way back to Darmstadt they stopped at Brussels. They also visited Coblenz,
to pay their respects to the Empress of Germany, who had been to see their
children at Darmstadt in October.
January 18th, 1876.
No words can express how deep my sympathy and grief is for what our
dear Augusta and the Dean have to go through. With her warm, large heart,
which ever lived and suffered for others, how great must her pain be in
having to leave him! I can positively think of nothing else lately, as you
know my love for Augusta, the General [her brother, General Bruce], and
Fanny has always been great; and when I think back of them in former
times, and in the year 1861, my heart aches and my tears flow—feeling what
you and we shall lose in dear Augusta. My pity for the dear, good, kind Dean
is so deep. I sent him a few words again to-day, in the hope he may still say a
few words of love and gratitude to dear Augusta from me.
Darmstadt, January 22d.
* * * Yesterday morning Ernie came in to me and said, “Mama, I had a
beautiful dream; shall I tell you? I dreamt that I was dead and was gone up to
Heaven, and there I asked God to let me have Frittie again; and he came to
me and took my hand. You were in bed, and saw a great light, and were so
frightened, and I said, ‘It is Ernie and Frittie.’ You were so astonished! The
next night Frittie and I went with a great light to sisters.” Is it not touching?
He says such beautiful things, and has such deep poetic thought, yet with it
all so full of fun and romping.
February 9th.
* * * I am so sorry and shocked about excellent Mr. Harrison.[130] What a
loss! He was so obliging and kind always in the many commissions for us
children. Poor Kräuslach,[131] too—so sad! It is too grievous; how one well-
known face—with its many associations—after another, is called away; and
on looking back, how short a space of time they seemed to have filled!
Wolfach, June 7th.
* * * The heat here is excessive; the wild flowers covering every field are
more beautiful than I have ever seen them anywhere—such quantities of
large forget-me-nots. The streams are very much like Scotch ones; the
valleys are partly very narrow, and the hills wooded to the very top—rather
like the Thüringer Wald, but more different greens: such lovely coloring. I
admire the country so much.
Darmstadt, June 23d.
* * * How sorry I am for good, kind old Mrs. Brown—to be blind with
old age seems so hard, so cruel; but I am sure with your so loving heart you
have brightened her latter years in many kind ways. It is such a pleasure to
do any thing for the aged; one has such a feeling of respect for those who
have the experience of a long life, and are nearing the goal.
* * * Yesterday, again, the Emperor Alexander spoke to me, really
rejoicing that the political complications were clearing peacefully: “Dites à
Maman encore une fois comme cela me réjouit, et de savoir comme c’est
elle qui tient à la paix. Nous ne pouvons, nous ne voulons pas nous brouiller
avec l’Angleterre. Il faudrait être fou de penser à Constantinople ou aux
Indes!” He had tears in his eyes, and seemed so moved, as if a dreadful
weight was being lifted off; so happy for the sake of Marie, and Affie, too,
that matters were mending. He showed me after dinner the buttons you gave
him; spoke also so affectionately of Bertie. * * * I thought of you—thirty-
nine years of rule not to be envied, save for the service one can render one’s
country and the world in general in such an arduous position.
Private individuals are, of course, far the best off—our privileges being
more duties than advantages—and their absence would be no privation
compared to the enormous advantage of being one’s own master, and of
being on equality with most people, and able to know men and the world as
they are, and not merely as they please to show themselves to please us.
***
Darmstadt, July 5th.
* * * We dined with Uncle Louis, the Emperor, etc., and Grand Duke of
Weimar, at Seeheim yesterday. The Emperor said he had written to you, but
Prince Gortschakoff seemed only half-happy, and said to me: “Franchement
puis-je vous le dire, je désirerais voir l’Angleterre grande, forte, décidée
dans la politique, comme l’était Canning et les grands hommes d’état que
j’ai connus en Angleterre il y a quarante ans. La Russie est grande et forte;
que l’Angleterre le soit aussi; nous n’avons pas besoin de faire attention à
tous les petits.” He said we made our foreign policy and despatches for the
Blue Book, and not an open decided policy before the House of Commons
and the world. It may interest you to hear this opinion, as it shows the
temper of his policy.
September 5th.
It is long since I have felt such pain as the death (to me really sudden and
unexpected, in spite of the danger inherent in her case) of my good, devoted,
kind Emily[132] has caused me. My tears won’t cease. Louis, the children,
the whole household, all mourn and grieve with me. She was singularly
beloved, and richly deserved to be so! Her devotion and affection to me
really knew no bounds. I cannot think what it will be to miss her. I have
never been served as she served me, and probably never shall be so again. It
is a wrench that only those can estimate who knew her well—like poor Mary
Hardinge. She came first in Emily’s heart, and the loss for her is quite, QUITE
irreparable! Had I but seen dear Emily again! This sudden, cruel sort of
death shocks me so.
How I should have nursed and comforted her had I been near her! She
always wished this, and told me she had such a fear of death. There never
breathed a more unselfish, generous, good character.
September 6th.
* * * I fear you will find me so dull, tired, and useless. I can do next to
nothing of late, and must rest so much. Poor Emily! My thoughts never leave
her. I cannot yet get accustomed to the thought of her loss.
P. S.—Just received your dear note. The accounts of my dear Emily’s sad
end have just reached me, and I am terribly upset. You can hardly estimate
the gap, the blank she will leave—my only lady, and in many ways homme
d’affaires. We had been so much together this last waiting; every thing
reminds me of her, and of the touching love she bore me. Surely some years
more she would have lived.
Darling Mama, I don’t think you quite know how far from well I am, and
how absurdly wanting in strength. I only mention it, that you should know
that until the good air has set me up I am good for next to nothing; and I fear
I sha’n’t be able to come to dinner the first evenings. I hope you won’t mind.
I have never in my life been like this before. I live on my sofa, and in the air,
and see no one, and yet go on losing strength! Of course this unexpected
shock has done me harm too, and has entailed more sad things. * * *
Douglas’ Hotel, Edinburgh, Sunday, September 11th.
* * * I hear Ernie is still so dull and melancholy at missing me; he always
feels it most, with that tender loving heart of his. God preserve and guard
this to me so inexpressibly precious child! I fancy that seldom a mother and
child so understood each other, and loved each other, as we two do. It
requires no words; he reads in my eyes, as I do in his, what is in his little
heart.
It is so wonderfully still here, not a soul in the streets. The people of the
house have sent up several times to enquire when and to what church I was
going; so I shall go, as it seems to shock them, one’s staying away. I shall
see the Monument this afternoon, and go and see Holyrood again. The whole
journey here brought back with the well-remembered scenery the
recollection of my childhood, all the happy journeys with dear Papa and you.
How the treasured remembrance, with the deep love, lives on, when all else
belongs to the past!
I seem, in returning here, so near you and him in former happy years,
when my home was in this beloved country. No home in the world can quite
become what the home of one’s parents and childhood was. There is a
sacredness about it, a feeling of gratitude and love for the great mercies one
had there. You, who never left country, Geschwister [kindred], or home, can
scarcely enter into this feeling.
In the hopes of meeting you soon, kissing your dear hands, with thanks
for all goodness, and many excuses for having caused so much trouble. * * *
Buckingham Palace, October 19th.
I was so sad at parting with you yesterday. I could not half thank you for
all your love and kindness during those weeks. But you know how deeply I
feel it; how truly grateful I am to you; how happy and contented I am to be
allowed to be near you as in old days. Darling Mama, once more, thousand
thanks for all and for every thing!
The journey went quite well, and I am not particularly tired.
Buckingham Palace, November 19th.
Thousand thanks for your dear letter received this morning! I feel leaving
dear England, as always, though the pleasure of being near the dear children
again is very great.
Let me thank you once more from my heart, darling Mama, for all your
great kindness, and for having enabled me to do what was thought necessary
and best. I return so much stronger and better than I came, in every way—
refreshed by the pleasant stay in dear Balmoral with you, and then much
better for the time here. I feel morally refreshed, too, with the entire change,
the many interests to be met with here, which is always so beneficial, and
will help me in every way when I get back to Darmstadt. All this I have to
thank you for, and do so most warmly.
Louis, who, as you know, is full of love and affection for you, is very
grateful for your kind words, and has likewise derived profit and enjoyment
from his stay in England.
* * * My color and strength have so much returned, that I do not doubt
being well again this winter.
I went with Dean Stanley to see Mr. Carlyle, who was most interesting,
and talked for nearly an hour. Had I had time, I would have written down the
conversation. The Dean said he would try and do so.
With Louise I visited Mr. Motley also, who in his way is equally
interesting, and has a great charm. * * *
Many thanks for your last letter from Balmoral, received yesterday
morning! I know you feel leaving the dear place, but without going away
there is no Wiedersehen [meeting again]. The happiness of our meeting with
the dear children was very great on all sides—they eat me up!
They had made wreaths over the doors, and had no end of things to tell
me. We arrived at three, and there was not a moment’s rest till they were all
in bed, and I had heard the different prayers and hymns of the six, with all
the little different confidences they had to make. My heart was full of joy
and gratitude at being with them once more, and I prayed God to make me
fit to be their real friend and stay as long as they require me, and to have the
insight into their different characters to guide them aright, and to understand
their different wants and feelings. This is so difficult always.
Victoria is immensely grown, and her figure is forming. She is changing
so much—beginning to leave the child and grow into the girl. I hear she has
been good and desirous of doing what is right; and she has more to contend
with than Ella, therefore double merit in any thing she overcomes, and any
self-sacrifice she makes.
Ernie is very well, and his birthday was a great delight. Sweet little May
is enchanting,—“my weet heart,” as she calls me. Aliky is very handsome
and dear.
Darmstadt, December 12th.
I see this letter will just arrive on the 14th—day never to be forgotten!
How deeply it is graven in my heart—with letters of blood; for the pain of
losing him, and of witnessing your grief, was as sharp as any thing any child
can go through for its beloved parents. Yet God’s mercy is to be found
through all, and one learns to say “Thy will be done,” hard though it is. * * *
1877.
The health of Prince Charles of Hesse (father of Prince Louis) had for
some time past given cause for great anxiety. He had always suffered from
violent headaches and a delicate throat. On the evening of the 11th of March
he was seized with erysipelas, and died peacefully on the 20th. The Princess
shared the grief of her mother-in-law and family most truly; for Prince
Charles, though outwardly shy and retiring, was a man of great cultivation
and refinement, and had made himself beloved by all who knew him. He
was buried in the Mausoleum at the Rosenhöhe on the 24th of March. The
Grand Duke, who was deeply affected by his brother’s death, and all the
family were present.
A month had scarcely passed since Prince Charles’ death, when the Grand
Duke himself was attacked by serious illness at Seeheim, one of his summer
residences, near Darmstadt, and died on the 13th of June at the age of
seventy-one.
Prince Louis was the next heir, and ascended the throne as Grand Duke
Louis IV.
The total change of circumstances, the heavy duties and responsibilities
of her new position, came most unexpectedly upon the Princess, and she
scarcely felt herself equal to them. With her well-known conscientiousness
and high feeling of duty it was not surprising that they weighed heavily upon
her, more especially as her health had of late become very delicate. Still, the
hope of being able to carry out many a plan for the welfare of her adopted
country encouraged her greatly.
After the official receptions held by the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess
were over, they left Darmstadt for the quiet little watering-place of Houlgate,
in Normandy. The Grand Duke was only able to accompany the Grand
Duchess as far as Metz, but he followed her later on with the children. The
rest and quiet were good for them all; and, apparently much improved in
health, the Grand Duchess returned for the first time as “mother of the
country” [Landesmutter] to Darmstadt. Her reception was of the warmest
and most enthusiastic nature, which she took as a good omen for the future.
The Emperor of Germany and the Crown Prince visited Darmstadt at the
end of September, for the purpose of assisting at the cavalry manœuvres, to
the great satisfaction of the country.
The change in Princess Alice’s position in no wise affected her relations
to her many charitable institutions, though she had, of course, many new
responsibilities thrown upon her. Her constant endeavor was to be just and
free from prejudice, to recognize what was good, no matter where, and to
promote and further it to the best of her power.
The Grand Duke and Grand Duchess saw much of the Crown Prince and
Crown Princess of Germany during the latter part of the year, as they were
living at Wiesbaden.
Fräulein Louise Büchner, who had been for ten years so intimately
connected with the Grand Duchess, not only as working with her for the
good of others, but also by ties of the truest friendship, died on the 28th of
November. Her death caused a gap which was sorely felt. A few days before
her death, when she was already confined to her bed, she received a letter
from the Grand Duchess herself, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of
the opening of the “Alice Bazaar,” thanking her for all she had done.
The Grand Duchess had caused many of the pamphlets written by Miss
Octavia Hill to be translated, in the hopes of encouraging in Darmstadt the
authorities, and those at the head of private undertakings, to further exertions
for improving the condition of the poor.
Whilst in England she had become acquainted with Miss Octavia Hill,
“the warm-hearted friend of the poor,” and had visited with her many of the
poorer parts of London. She felt the sincerest admiration and respect for
Miss Hill, and entirely shared her view, “that we must become the friends of
the poor to be their benefactors.” The Grand Duchess did not wish to copy
exactly in Germany what Miss Hill had done in London: but she hoped that
the knowledge of what had been done in other places would be an incentive
to work in the same direction.
At the beginning of this year the Grand Duchess had visited in strictest
incognito the worst houses (in sanitary respects) in Mayence, and
determined to make a plan for the erection of new dwellings for the working
classes there.
Darmstadt, January 1st.
* * * How beautifully Max Müller’s letter[133] is written and expressed,
and how touchingly and truly he puts the point of view on which we all
should learn to stand. To become again pure as children, with a child’s faith
and trust—there where our human intellect will ever stand still!
I have been reading some of Robertson’s sermons again, and I think his
view of Christianity one of the truest, warmest, and most beautiful I know.
***
Darmstadt, March 23d.
Thank you so much for your dear and sympathizing letter. These have
been most painful—most distressing days—so harrowing.
The recollections of 1861, of dear Frittie’s death, when my dear father-in-
law was so tender and kind, were painfully vivid. My mother-in-law’s
resignation and touching goodness, doing all that she could during the illness
and since for all arrangements, is very beautiful!
The poor sons gave way to bursts of tears during those agonizing hours;
yet they held their father alternately with me, and were quiet and helpful for
their mother and for him, just as their simple, quiet natures teach them. I
begged Bäuerlein to write to you meanwhile. I am feeling so exhausted, and
there is so much to do, and we are always going from one house to the other.
It was heart-rending from Monday morn till Tuesday eve to see the
painful alteration in the dear well-known features augmenting from hour to
hour, though I believe he did not suffer latterly. He was not conscious, unless
spoken to, or called very directly.
My mother-in-law never left his bedside day or night, and we were only a
few hours absent on Monday night. Before we went home she called our
names distinctly to him as we kissed him, and he seemed to notice it; then
she knelt down, and distinctly, but choked with tears, prayed the Lord’s
Prayer for him, calling him gently.
The next day at six we were there again, and till half past six in the
evening never left the bedside. She repeated occasionally, as long as she
thought he might hear, a short verse—so touching! and once said: “Bist Du
traurig? es ist ja nicht auf lange, dann sind wir wieder zusammen!” [“Art
thou sad? It is not for long, and then we shall be together again”] kissing and
stroking his hands. It was very distressing.
When all was over we four were close to her, and she threw herself on
him, and then clasped her sons to her heart with words of such grief as you
so well understand!
Early the next morning we went with her to his room. He lay on his bed,
very peaceful, in his uniform. Louis had clasped the hands together when he
died, and I arranged flowers on the bed and in the room round him.
There is a terrible deal to do and to arrange, and many people come, and
we are much with my poor mother-in-law. Yesterday we went for the last
time to see the remains of what had been so precious. She read a “Lied” [a
hymn], and then kissed him so long, and took with us the last look.
Yesterday evening the coffin was closed in presence of the sons.
We are going to the Rosenhöhe [the Mausoleum] now, before going to
Louis’ mother, to put things straight there, and see if one can get by dear
Frittie—it is so small.
The three brothers are dreadfully upset, but able to arrange and see after
what is necessary. Aunt Marie [the Empress of Russia] wanted to come, and
is in terrible distress; she loved that brother beyond any thing. In her last
letter to my mother-in-law she says: “Ich habe solche Sehnsucht nach dem
alten Bruder” [“I have such a yearning after my old brother”].
His was a singularly delicate-minded, pure, true, unselfish nature, so full
of consideration for others, so kind. My tears flow incessantly, for I loved
him very dearly.
My dear mother-in-law has such a broken, ruined existence now—all
turned round him! She knows where to find strength and comfort—it will
not fail her. * * *
Darmstadt, June 7th.
* * * We are going through a dreadful ordeal. The whole of Monday and
Monday night, with a heat beyond words, dreading the worst. Now there has
been a slight rally.[134] Whether it will continue to-morrow is doubtful. He is
always conscious, makes his little jokes, but the pulse is very low and
intermits. I was there early this morning with Louis. * * *
The questions, long discussions between Louis and some people, as to
complication and difficulty of every kind that will at once fall upon us, are
really dreadful, and I so unfit just now! The confusion will be dreadful. * * *
I am so dreading every thing, and above all the responsibility of being the
first in every thing, and people are not bienveillant.
I shall send you news whenever I can, but I am so worn out. I shall not be
able to do so much myself.
I know your thoughts and wishes are with us at so hard a time. God grant
we may do all aright! * * *
Telegrams.
June 7th.
Going to Seeheim, as great weakness has come on. Am much tired by all
that lies before us, and not feeling well.
Seeheim, 13th.
Dear Uncle Louis is no more. We arrived too late.
Darmstadt, 6.20 o’clock, 13th.
Such press of business and decisions. Feel very tired.
15th.
We are both so over-tired; the press of business and decisions is so
wearing, with the new responsibility.
18th.
Last ceremony over! All went off well, and was very moving.
Alice.
Darmstadt, June 19th.
Only two words of thanks from both of us for your kind wishes and
letters! Christian and Colonel Gardiner bring you news of every thing that
has been and is still going on. But we are overwhelmed, over-tired, and the
heat is getting very bad again.
* * * Will tell you what a very difficult position we are in. It is too
dreadful to think that I am forced to leave Louis in a few weeks under
present circumstances, but, if he wishes to keep me at all, I must leave every
thing and this heat for a time. These next weeks here will be very anxious
and difficult. God grant we may do the right things!
June 28th.
* * * To have to go away just now, when the refreshment of family life is
so doubly pleasant to Louis after his work, I am too sorry for. If I were only
better; if I only thought that I shall have the chance of rest, and what is
necessary to regain my health! Now it will be more difficult than ever, and I
see Louis has the fear, which I also have, that I shall not hold out very long.
July 15th.
* * * I leave on Tuesday, but stop on the way. The children go direct and
join me in Paris, when we go on together on Friday or Saturday to Houlgate.
The trains don’t fit, and one has some way to drive from Trouville.
Houlgate, July 25th.
* * * This place is quite charming—real country, so green, so picturesque
—a beautiful coast; the nicest sea-place I have been at yet. Our house is
“wee” for so many, and the first days it was very noisy; and it was so dirty.
The maids and nurses had to scrub and sweep; the one French housemaid
was not up to it. All is better now, and quite comfortable enough. The air is
doing me good, and the complete change. I have bathed twice, and the sea
revives me.
I follow as eagerly as any in England the advance of the Russians, and
with cordial dislike. They can never be redressers of wrongs or promoters of
civilization and Christianity. What I fear is, even if they don’t take
Constantinople, and make no large demands as the price of their victories
now, the declaration of the independence of Bulgaria will make that country
to them in future what Roumania has been for Russia now, and therefore in
twenty years hence they will get all they want, unless the other Powers at
this late hour can bring about a change. It is bad for England, for Austria, for
Germany, if this Russian Slav element should preponderate in Europe; and
the other countries must sooner or later act against this in self-preservation.
What do the friends of the “Atrocity Meetings” say now? How difficult it
has been made for the Government through them, and how blind they have
been! All this must be a constant worry and anxiety for you!
The children are so happy here—the sea does them such good. I am very
glad I brought them.
Houlgate, July 28th.
* * * Though we have rain off and on, still the weather is very pleasant,
and we are all of us charmed with the place, and the beautiful, picturesque,
fertile country. The life is so pleasant—real country—which I have never yet
found at any bathing-place abroad yet. I have bathed every other day—
swim, and it does me good. I feel it already. Ella is getting her color back,
and the little ones look much better.
I send you the last photos done of the children; Ella’s is not favorable, nor
Irène’s, but all in all they are a pretty set. May has not such fat cheeks in
reality; still it is very dear. The two little girlies are so sweet, so dear, merry,
and nice. I don’t know which is dearest, they are both so captivating.
I have been to an old tumble-down church at Dives—close by here—
where William the Conqueror is said to have been before starting for
England. His name and those of all his followers are inscribed there—names
of so many families now existing in England. It was very interesting.
August 22d.
* * * How difficult it is to know one’s children well; to develop and train
the characters according to their different peculiarities and requirements!
***
Darmstadt, September 9th.
* * * I must tell you now, how very heartily and enthusiastically the
whole population, high and low, received us yesterday. It was entirely
spontaneous, and, as such, of course, so very pleasing. * * * I was really
touched, for it rained, and yet all were so joyous—flags out, bells ringing,
people bombarding us with beautiful nosegays; all the schools out, even the
higher ones, the girls all dressed in white. The Kriegerverein, Louis’ old
soldiers, singing, etc. In the evening all the Gesangvereine joined together
and sang under our windows.
We are very glad to be at home again, and, please God, with earnest will
and thought for others, we together shall in our different ways be able to live
for the good of the people entrusted to our care! May God’s blessing rest on
our joint endeavors to do the best, and may we meet with kindness and
forbearance where we fall short of our duties.
Darmstadt, October 30th.
* * * I had to receive sixty-five ladies—amongst them my nurses—and
some doctors from here and other towns, all belonging to my Nursing
Society, which has now existed ten years. Then I was at the opening of my
Industrial Girls’ School, where girls from all parts of the country come, and
which is a great success. I started it two years ago. On Sunday I took the
children to hear the Sunday-school, which interested them very much.
I have been doing too much lately, though, and my nerves are beginning
to feel the strain, for sleep and appetite are no longer good. Too much is
demanded of one; and I have to do with so many things. It is more than my
strength can stand in the long run. * * *
December 13th.
For to-morrow, as ever, my tenderest sympathy! Time shows but more
and more what we all lost in beloved Papa; and the older I grow, the more
people I know, the more the remembrance of him shines bright as a star of
purer lustre than any I have ever known. May but a small share of his light
fall on some of us, who have remained so far beneath him, so little worthy of
such a father! We can but admire, reverence, long to imitate, and yet not
approach near to what he was.
We are going with the children to-day to Wiesbaden until Saturday; and I
mean to tell Vicky that she had better give up the hope of my being able to
come for the wedding.[135] I could not do it. I only trust the why will be
understood. Do write to the dear Empress about it when next you write. How
sorry I am to be absent at a moment when, as sister and a German
Sovereign’s wife, I should be there; but the doctor would not hear of it, so I
gave it up. * * *
Darmstadt, December 21st.
* * * You say all that happened after the dreadful 14th is effaced from
your memory. How well I can imagine that! I remember saying my utmost to
Sir Charles Phipps in remonstrance to your being wished to leave Windsor—
it was so cruel, so very wrong. Uncle Leopold insisted; it all came from him,
and he was alarmed lest you should fall ill.
How you suffered was dreadful to witness; never shall I forget what I
went through for you then; it tore my heart in pieces; and my own grief was
so great too. Louis thought I would not hold to my engagement then any
more—for my heart was too filled with beloved, adored Papa, and with your
anguish, to have room or wish for other thoughts.
God is very merciful in letting time temper the sharpness of one’s grief,
and letting sorrow find its natural place in our hearts, without withdrawing
us from life!
THE END.
1878.
“Life is serious—a journey to another end.” (December 12, 1874.)
T HE state of the Grand Duchess’ health prevented her from accompanying

the Grand Duke to Berlin on the occasion of the marriages of Princess
Charlotte of Prussia (eldest daughter of the Crown Prince and Princess of
Germany) to the Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Meiningen, and of Princess
Elizabeth of Prussia (sister to the Duchess of Connaught) to the Hereditary
Grand Duke of Oldenburg. Although she was unable to go out much into
society, or to take an active part in social gayeties, her interest and sympathy
were unabated, particularly in all matters concerning art and science. She
received many guests, and Prince William of Prussia (then studying at Bonn)
often visited her.
The celebrated portrait painter Heinrich von Angeli came to Darmstadt in
the spring to paint a family picture of the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess
and their children by command of the Queen of England. Princess Alice
greatly enjoyed his acquaintance, and was charmed as well by his musical
talent as by his wonderful genius in painting. Angeli’s picture of Princess
Alice was the last ever painted of her.
The repeated attempts on the life of the old Emperor of Germany affected
the Grand Duchess very nearly, as from her childhood she had ever been
greatly attached to him.
The Grand Duke and Grand Duchess with their children spent the
summer months of this year at Eastbourne. Sea-bathing and sea-air had again
been recommended as necessary.
The Grand Duke had to return to Darmstadt soon after their arrival at
Eastbourne, but toward the end of the stay there he rejoined them.
The whole family visited the Queen at Osborne.
Although the Grand Duchess had, during all her former visits to England,
shown her lively personal interest in all charitable institutions in London,
visiting many herself, she seems on the occasion of this, her last, visit to her
beloved native land, to have taken a more than ordinary interest in these
matters, and to have also gone minutely into the subject of the exertions
which were being made to relieve the pressing wants of the poor.
The Grand Duchess had scarcely arrived at Eastbourne (an eye-witness
tells us), when she at once made enquiries as to the condition of the poorer
parts of that town, and determined to visit them herself. She loved to wander
about that part of Eastbourne which is inhabited by the fishing population.
She often entered their cottages, visiting the sick, and showing her sympathy
to all. The visits to the Sunday-school were a great pleasure to her. The
Princess often remarked, “How much good such instruction must do!”
She attended divine service at a church some little way off, not because
the service was particularly attractive, but because the church and its
congregation needed support and help.
Amongst those good works which from year to year had specially
occupied her were the Refuges and Penitentiaries for those poor women and
girls who most need our help. Much had been done in this way in England,
and the Albion Home at Brighton, founded and managed solely by Mrs.
Murray Vicars, had proved of the greatest service and blessing. The Grand
Duchess invited Mrs. Vicars to come and see her at Eastbourne, and tell
herself about her work, and showed her, when she came, the greatest
sympathy and kindness, entering with the warmest interest into all details of
the working of the Home.
Before leaving Eastbourne the Grand Duchess went incognita to
Brighton, and paid a private visit to the Albion Home. “I only come as one
woman to visit another” were the Princess Alice’s own words, when Mrs.
Vicars begged her to be allowed to tell the poor Penitents who their visitor
was.
The Grand Duchess was greatly impressed, after her visit to the Home, by
Mrs. Vicars’ wonderful power and practical knowledge, and by her gentle,
loving way toward those poor girls; and this in a great measure induced her,
with the Grand Duke’s consent, to become Patroness of the Albion Home. At
first, when asked by Mrs. Vicars to become the Patroness, she had refused to
do so; but, having reconsidered the subject, she wrote to her the following
letter from Darmstadt:
New Palace, Darmstadt.
Dear Mrs. Vicars:—I have returned from visiting the Home so
convinced of your excellent management of it in every respect, that, if you
still feel my becoming Patroness of the Home (and of the Ladies’
Association connected with it) can further the good and noble work, I am
most willing to comply with your request. The spirit of true, loving,
Christian sympathy in which the work was begun by you, and with which it
is carried out; the cheerfulness you impart, the motherly solicitude you offer
to those struggling to return to a better life, cannot fail to restore in a great
measure that feeling of self-respect so necessary to those voluntarily seeking
once more a virtuous life, and by so doing regaining the respect of their
fellow-creatures. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these
my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.” In this spirit may the Home, as well
as the Association connected with it, continue its good work. My entire
sympathy and good wishes will ever be with it.
Ever yours truly,
Alice.
After the Grand Duchess’ return to Darmstadt, she devoted herself with
redoubled energy to all her charitable institutions; but, alas! she felt more
and more that her bodily strength was no longer equal to her exertions.
In the autumn she had the happiness of seeing several of her family at
Darmstadt, the last of them being her brother, Prince Leopold.
Darmstadt, January 26th.
Though I have no letter, and expect none at such a moment, still I must
send you a few lines to tell you how constantly I think of you, and of my
own beloved and adored country. The anxiety you must be going through,
and the feelings you must experience, I share with my whole heart. * * *
God grant it may be possible to do the right thing, for it is late, and the
complication is dreadful!
I have barely any thoughts for any thing else; and the Opposition seems
to me to have been more wrong in its country’s interest, and to have done her
a greater harm than can ever be redressed. It is a serious, awful moment for
Sovereign, country, and Government; and in your position none have to go
through what you have—and after all so alone!
I hope your health bears up under the anxiety.
April 9th.
* * * Angeli has arrived, and will begin at once. We thought Ernie and
Ella—Victoria is too big, though she is the eldest and ought to be in the
picture; she would be too preponderant. Angeli is quite lost in admiration of
Aliky and May, who are, I must say myself, such a lovely little pair as one
does not often see. He will begin our heads to-morrow. * * *
* * * I am but very middling, and leading a very quiet life, which is an
absolute necessity. It is so depressing to be like this. But our home life is
always pleasant—never dull, however quiet. Only a feeling of weariness and
incapacity is in itself a trial.
On the 8th of November Princess Victoria was suddenly attacked with
diphtheria. How and where she caught the illness remains unexplained. The
Grand Duchess, always so courageous in illness, and fearing none, had,
however, always had a great horror of diphtheria. Princess Victoria was at
once isolated from her family and the others in the house; but, alas! to no
purpose. Princess Alice superintended the nursing, aided by the nurses and
the Lady Superintendent of her hospital. The terrible anxiety of the poor
mother during that illness is best described by her own telegrams and letters
to the Queen.
Telegrams.
November 8th.
Victoria has diphtheria since this morning. The fever is high. I am so
anxious.
November 10th.
Victoria is out of danger.
November 12th.
This night my precious Aliky has been taken ill.
This is dreadful! my sweet, precious Aliky so ill! At three this morning
Orchie called me, saying she thought the child was feverish; complaining of
her throat. I went over to her, looked into her throat, and there were not only
spots, but a thick covering on each side of her throat of that horrid white
membrane. I got the steam inhaler, with chlorate of potash for her at once,
but she was very unhappy, poor little thing. We sent for the doctor, who lives
close by, and who saw at once that it was a severe case. We have put her
upstairs near Victoria, who is quite convalescent, and have fumigated the
nursery to try and spare May and the others. It is a terrible anxiety; it is such
an acute, and often fatal, illness. * * * Victoria has been graciously
preserved; may God preserve these [the younger ones] also in His mercy!
My heart is sore; and I am so anxious.
Telegram.
November 13th.
Aliky tolerable. Darling May very ill; fever so high. Irène has got it too. I
am miserable; such fear for the sweet little one!
On the 14th of November Prince Ernest and the Grand Duke were
attacked with diphtheria, so that, up to that time, Princess Elizabeth only had
escaped the infection. She was sent to her Grandmother’s, Princess Charles
of Hesse’s palace.
Telegram.
November 15th.
My precious May no better; suffers so much. I am in such horrible fear.
Irène and Ernie fever less. Ernie’s throat very swelled. Louis no worse;
almost no spots. Aliky recovering.
Evening.
Darling May’s state unchanged; heart-rending. Louis’ fever and illness on
the increase. The others, as one could expect; all severe cases. May’s most
alarming.
The sympathy with the Grand Duchess in her great anxiety was universal.
In many of the churches special services were held, praying for the recovery
of that dearly beloved family. The well-known suffering state of the Grand
Duchess’ own health, so sorely tried at this moment, caused the gravest fears
to be entertained on her own account.
On the morning of the 16th of November sweet little Princess “May”—
the Princess’ sunshine, as she ever called her—was taken from her doting
parents. The Grand Duchess telegraphed as follows to her mother:
November 16th.
* * * Our sweet little one is taken. Broke it to my poor Louis this
morning; he is better; Ernie very, very ill. In great anguish.
Telegrams.
November 16th; evening.
The pain is beyond words, but “God’s will be done!” Our precious Ernie
is still a source of such terrible fear. The others, though not safe, better.
November 17th.
Ernie decidedly better; full of gratitude.
November 18th.
My patients getting better; hope soon to have them better. Last painful
parting at three o’clock.
The coffin had to be closed very soon. It was entirely covered with
flowers. The Grand Duchess quietly entered the room where it had been
placed. She knelt down near it, pressing a corner of the pall to her lips; then
she rose, and the funeral service began.
When it was over, she cast one long, loving look at the coffin which hid
her darling from her. She then left the room and slowly walked up-stairs. At
the top of the stairs she knelt down, and taking hold of the golden balustrade,
looked into the mirror opposite to her to watch the little coffin being taken
out of the house. She was marvellously calm; only long-drawn sighs escaped
her.
When all had left the palace, she went to the Grand Duke, who was to be
kept in ignorance of all that was going on. The Grand Duchess had herself
arranged every detail of the funeral.
Telegram.
November 19th.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
ebookultra.com

Instant ebooks textbook Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st Edition Daya Krishna download all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant ebooks textbook Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st Edition Daya Krishna download all chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant ebooks textbook Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st Edition Daya Krishna download all chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook now at ebookultra.

Civilizations Nostalgia and Utopia 1st

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

Utopia Thomas More

The Future Of Nostalgia 1st Edition Svetlana Boym

Brodsky Abroad Empire Tourism Nostalgia 1st Edition Sanna

Egypt Lost Civilizations Christina Riggs

Essentials of Allergy 1st Edition M Thirumala Krishna

Business Analysis and Valuation IFRS Edition Krishna G.

African Civilizations 3rd Edition Graham Connah

The Greeks Lost Civilizations Philip Matyszak

NOSTALGIA AND UTOPIA

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY

fointly published in 2012 by

SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd and ~ Indian Institute of

SAGE Publications Inc

SAGE Publications Ltd

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Available

ISBN: 978-81-321-0891 -7 (HB)

-Vivek Mehra, Managing Director and CEO,

Get to know more about SAGE, be invited to SAGE events, get on

This book is also available as an e-book.

Foreword by Shail Mayaram 1X

Introduction by Daniel Raveh xv

Part I Social Philosophy: Past and Future

1. The Concept of Society 3

2. The Two Predicaments 12

5. The Search for a Measuring Rod 43

6. Society: Reality and Utopia 57

Part n Civilizations: Past and Future

7. Civilizations: Past and Future 71

This collection of the Shimla lectures by Daya Krishna is the second

is a state of continuously enjoyed consciousness which does not seek

x Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

NOTES AND REFERENCES

xii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

It was in September 2005 that Daya Krishna (henceforth DK) was

xvi Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

In retrospective, these lines are an overture to the lectures delivered by

xviii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

Rorty's point corresponds with DK's third lecture, 'Civilizations-

xx Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

This is how I felt with DK in Shimla. Amidst the beautiful natural

xxii Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

NOTES AND REFERENCES

xxiv Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

The chapters in this book continue the theme of my earlier book,

xxvi Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

The Concept of Society

What sort of a thing is society, which the social scientist so avidly

4 Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

The Concept of Society 5

6 Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

The Concept of Society 7

8 Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

The Concept of Society 9

10 Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia

NOTES AND REFERENCES

The Concept of Society 11