Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars

ISSN: 0007-4810 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcra19

Review essay: Chattopadhyaya's Marxian

interpretation of Indian philosophy, history, and
society

Douglas Allen

To cite this article: Douglas Allen (1987) Review essay: Chattopadhyaya's Marxian interpretation
of Indian philosophy, history, and society, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 19:2, 60-66, DOI:
10.1080/14672715.1987.10409893

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.1987.10409893

Published online: 05 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 809

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcra20
Review Essay:
Chattopadhyaya's Marxian Interpretation of
Indian Philosophy, History, and Society
by Douglas Allen
Although the Calcutta philosopher and historian of sci-
ence Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya has been the major twenti-
eth-century Indian Marxist philosopher, he has never received
the recognition in Indian philosophical circles commensurate
with his scholarly contributions. Such lack of status and rec-
ognition is an indication of the nature of Indian academic
philosophy, of those who have had the power to define the
profession and the discipline.
Twentieth-century philosophical debates have tended not
to be between competing idealist and materialist approaches
but between variations of idealism. Indian materialism has
been dismissed as a minor aberration, sometimes granted one
small (early) chapter in a history of Indian philosophy. Earlier
in this century, the most influential "professional" Indian
philosophers (Radhakrishnan, K. C. Bhattacharyya, Hiri-
yanna, Mahadevan, Murti, and others) were idealists who
tended to be Hindu (most frequently Vedantist) traditionalists.
More recent Indian idealists have often been more influenced
by British and other Western idealism; indeed, their philoso-
phical approaches are sometimes indistinguishable from vari-
eties of contemporary Western idealism. Within such a set-
ting, it is not surprising that Chattopadhyaya, who identifies
himself as a historical and dialectical materialist and uncom-
promisingly attacks Brahmanism and all other idealistic and
metaphysical outlooks, has not received sufficient profes-
sional status and recognition.
60
Nevertheless, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya has been an
extremely significant Indian philosopher, challenging the con-
ventional interpretations of the history of Indian philosophy
and of Indian science and technology (his present project). He
is best known for his first important book, Lokayata: A Study in
Ancient Indian Materialism (first ed., 1959). Other significant
works include Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction
(1964), Indian Atheism (1969), What Is Living and What Is
Dead in Indian Philosophy (1976), and Science and Society in
Ancient India (1977).
Knowledge and Intervention is a slightly revised collec-
tion of lectures and publications from the past two decades.
These essays often present analysis identical with more ex-
tended formulations in Chattopadhyaya's most important
books. Therefore, this volume offers an excellent overview of
many of Chattopadhyaya's major scholarly contributions.
About half of the book deals with philosophy in general,
equally relevant to Indian and other philosophical concerns;
the other half focuses specifically on Indian philosophy. We
shall consider a central theme, which appears and reappears
throughout these essays, before turning to the studies directed
specifically to Indian philosophy.
Chattopadhyaya's central theme is that with the historical
emergence of the division of society into antagonistic classes,
involving the separation of mental from manual labor, there
emerges in human consciousness what Marx called the
"metaphysical mystification of reality," an illusory creation
which develops into philosophical and other forms of idealism
and inhibits or even negates empirical, rational, scientific
efforts to understand and control nature. As long as human
beings remain under the influence of such metaphysical and
idealistic illusions, arising from and necessary for the perpetu-
ation of class-divided society, knowledge will not be fully
utilized for the benefit of humankind. Therefore, active in-
tervention to overthrow class-dominated society and create a
classless society is needed.
In '~The Future of an Illusion: Heraclitus and Hegel,"
Chattopadhyaya describes the early philosophers in the West,
from Thales to Heraclitus, as expressing a "primitive" natural
materialism and a dialectical view in which change was taken
as real. The first decisive break occurs with Parmenides, who
establishes a metaphysical-idealistic outlook "of pure reason
cut off from the sensuous human activity or practice, of mental
labor completely detached from manual labor." The meta-
physical-idealistic outlook, which has dominated most of
philosophy since the Eleatics, is "the expression, in its most
general form, of the false consciousness or the metaphysical
mystification of reality, the characteristic intellectual product
"There must be more to life than pursuing the meaning of life." *
of the class divided society, or more properly, the ruling ideas
of class society."
In "The Future of an Illusion: Engels on Philosophy,"
Chattopadhyaya develops this central theme by concluding socialist society, free from avoidable human suffering and
that "just as Marx and Engels stand too near the end of the possible only by understanding nature and changing the
career of class society to remain any longer under the spell of world? We are faced with two major obstacles reflecting what
its characteristic illusion, these philosophers of ancient Greece is dead in Indian philosophy: the dominant idealistic outlook,
stood too near the beginning of the career of class society to be as the "most prominent philosophical deception" which
fully overpowered by its characteristic illusion." Elsewhere, renders the material world unreal, and the metaphysical out-
as we shall see, he argues that the history of Indian philosophy look, which renders the concept of change untenable.
demonstrates this metaphysical-idealistic outlook to the ex- In "Idealism in Indian Philosophy," Chattopadhyaya
treme and that the Buddha, like the early Greek philosophers, contends that Indian idealism needed its ultimate sanction in
was still close enough to the beginnings of class-divided soci- terms of some supernatural authority or scriptural revelation,
ety to react against many of its metaphysical, idealistic, illu- and he demonstrates how persistent the "myth of divine sanc-
sory constructions. tion" for idealism has been by examining early Upanishadic
The real remedy for "this pathological condition of phi- speculations, developments in the Buddhist Mahayana-
losophy" involves transforming the class-divided world, re- sutras, and finally Brahmanism as formulated by Advaita
quiring the mystification of reality, into a classless society or Vedanta. For example, the idealist doctrine of "two levels of
communism. In "Knowledge and Intervention," Chattopad- truth," in which pragmatic or empirical truth is contrasted
hyaya shows why for Marx philosophers must assume this role with ultimate or metaphysical truth, is analyzed as a simple
of active intervention (necessary both for the emancipation of deception (two kinds of truth, one real and the other after all
philosophy itself and for the success of the working-class false) and a cover-up "to explain away the glaring absurdities
revolution) and how Marx formulates this new understanding involved in their philosophical stand."
of the function of philosophy. For example, in examining the Next Chattopadhyaya examines the real sources of such a
dialectical relationship between theory and practice, knowl- life-rejecting idealistic outlook, the "real genealogy" dis-
edge and power, freedom and necessity, we realize not only guised under the "pretense to a divine genealogy." Unlike the
that consciousness is conditioned by the material world but earlier Rigveda, Upanishadic India reflected a new socioeco-
also that consciousness has an active role in the philosophy of nomic situation: a fully established caste-divided society ruled
intervention necessary to change the world. "Intervention is by a Kshatriya (noble) caste with Brahmans (priests) living
blind and self-defeating without knowledge, just as knowledge under royal patronage (on a portion of surplus in the form of
cut off from action ends at best in furious but empty phrases." gifts plundered by the royal castes from the direct producers or
In the first essay devoted specifically to Indian philos- low castes) and serving as their ideologists. The main clue for
ophy, Chattopadhyaya argues for a normative "defence of the understanding the later development of Indian idealism, such
Marxist impact" on determining what is living and what is
dead from the history of Indian philosophy. Such a history is
not of some dogmatic, homogeneous "Indian wisdom" but
rather of struggles between materialism-idealism, dialectics-
metaphysics, atheism-theism, logic-mysticism, etc. What * From the Saturday Review, 10 April 1965, p. 61, courtesy of Doug
from the philosophical past is useful for building a new Allen.

61
 Modern scholars have disagreed on whether the Buddha
was a radical social reformer identifying with the oppressed or
whether he aligned himself with the nobles and the rich. In
whether
"Problems
"Problems of Early Buddhism,"
Buddhism," Chattopadhyaya suggests a
new approach. First he identifies
identifies the form of democracy still
widespread during the Buddha's
widespread Buddha's lifetime: the more egalitar-
ian, pre-class, tribal forms of "primitive
"primitive communism,"
communism,"
~

~
which still survived during the emergence of state power with
«: its monarchical
monarchical despotism. Next Chattopadhyaya contends
~ that in a time of incredible suffering, with the emergence of
c
Q antagonistic
antagonistic classes, private property, and the plunder plunder of the
'& tribal societies, the Buddha looked at these primitive com-
[
k.
::
munistic societies as his basic source of inspiration
inspiration and pat-
terned his classless organization of monks, the samgha, after
8 them. These classless organizations
organizations of the spiritual elite
~
~
,,,...a existed within a gt::neral
general socioeconomic
socioeconomic context of the class
:;: society with its t:emendous exploitation
exploitation and suffering. This
0()
~0
::
c
Buddhism, with its
helps us to understand the success of early Buddhism,
Q more egalitarian samghas where monks could live the teach-
£ ings of the Buddha in a way denied the suffering masses in
2c their'
their" 'real
real life,
life,"" but also its limitations,
limitations, the illusory character
~
I:l.. of the Buddha's
Buddha's solutions, and why Buddhism became a state
religion.
Hindu ascetics
ascetics sitting
sitting on plaOeorms
platforms on the holy Ganges River
holy Ganges River in In his longest essay, "Science, Society,"
"Science, Philosophy and Society,"
Varanasi (Banaras}.lndia.
Varanasi (Banaras), India, 1986.
1986. Chattopadhyaya examines a most important question: Why did
natural science, with its impressive beginningsbeginnings in ancient
India, fail to develop? He argues that the principal anti-science
factor was political, arising from the need to maintain and
as Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, is that all these
reproduce a class-divided
class-divided Indian society.
idealistic philosophers
idealistic philosophers were separated from the labor of pro-
By citing the Caraka-Samhita and Sushruta-Samhita,
Sushruta-Samhita,
duction
duction and lived a contemplative life made possible by the
Chattopadhyaya shows how ancient medicine (Ayurveda)
patronage of the ruling class.
patronage
took the first decisive step to a positive natural science by the
Chattopadhyaya's
Chattopadhyaya's main contention in advocating mate-
sixth century B.C. or earlier. The early medical compilations
compilations
rialism is that Indian philosophy, and philosophy generally,
were basically secular, empirical,
empirical, rational, and materialist.
must now progress to a dialectical-materialist philosophy in
Their methodology was based on a bold materialist generaliza-
order to overcome
order overcome the metaphysical-idealist illusions so that
ti.on in which doctors examined the interconnections
tion interconnections and in-
human
human beings can understand and control nature and move
teractions between environmental
teractions environmental matter and bodily matter.
toward a classless society in which our accumulated knowl-
toward
Therapeutic
Therapeutic technique, based on knowledge of of natural sub-
edge (science, technology) can be used for the benefit of
stances and their causal actions, consisted in restoring equilib-
humanity. In "Materialism
"Materialism in Indian Philosophy,"
Philosophy," his focus is
rium by readjusting matter within the body.
more specific: We have misinterpreted the history of Indian
Such an ancient medicine was risky, political,
political, and had to
philosophy
philosophy as almost totally idealist and spiritual with materi-
be destroyed. For example, the medical view of the intrinsic
alism an insignificant aberration represented by a few minor
efficacy of medicine based on laws of of nature (svabhava),
(svabhava) ,
thinkers. The essay consists of two significant counter-illustra-
explaining why a natural substance affects the matter composi-
tions. First, following Walter Ruben, Chattopadhyaya argues
tion of a human body in a specific
specific way, rejected the view of
that Uddalaka Aruni in the Chandogya Upanishad expresses a
adrishta (supernaturalism)
(supernaturalism) and the law of karma at the founda-
"primitive materialism," and the contrast between Uddalaka
"primitive materialism,"
tion of the hierarchical society. By citing the Indian legal
and Yajnavalkya (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad) reveals the
literature (Dharma-sutras, Manusmriti) and also the Vedic
literature
early philosophical
philosophical struggle between materialism and idealism.
scriptures (Yajurveda and Upanishads), Chattopadhyaya
scriptures
Most of the essay examines Kautilya's classification in
documents the undermining of direct observation and knowl-
documents
censored Arthashastra of recognizing only four branches
the censored
edge of nature and the contempt for scientists scientists and doctors
of knowledge (vidyas), with the first (anvikshiki)
(anvikshiki),, constituting
, 'impure beings"),
(("impure beings"), a contempt necessary to validate the
philosophy proper, upholding the independent status of logic
philosophy
priestly class norms of hierarchical varnashrama society. The
and reason. Under anvikshiki, Kautilya, omitting Buddhism
ideological requirement of this hierarchical social norm, in-
ideological
and Jainism, recognizes only three systems of philosophy:
tended to validate the powers and privileges of a ruling minor-
Samkhya, Yoga, and Lokayata. Chattopadhyaya shows that
ity over the majority of direct producers,
producers, had to mystify nature
this""Yoga"
this notto
Yoga" refers not to Patanjali's
Patanjali' s Yoga but rather to Nyaya-
and distort reality. It not only crippled science but also cor-
Vaisheshika. His conclusion
conclusion necessitates a drastic revision of
rupted Indian philosophy as hostile to the growth of natural
usual views of materialism in ancient Indian philosophy: All of
philosophies classified by Kautilya under philosophy science.
the philosophies
We may now raise a number of questions and possible
proper are, "in
proper "in their original form, distinctly materialistic or at
criticisms
criticisms as to Chattopadhyaya's studies. There is no need to
least precariously close to materialism."
materialism."

62
comment
comment on the obvious displeasure of those with metaphysi- Most important, there are essential, general, related val-
cal and idealistic
idealistic outlooks at Chattopadhyaya' s uncompromis- ues found throughout these studies which reflect a general
ing attacks; he would have completely failed in his purpose if philosophical orientation
philosophical orientation now open to many questions: a tre-
they had been pleased. In addition, we shall not attempt to mendous
mendous confidence in the power of reason and in a concept of
evaluate specific interpretations in the diverse essays, such as objective
objective knowledge, a tremendous scientific and tech-
tremendous faith in scientific
whether original Nyaya-Vaisheshika was really so materialis- nological progress, and a goal of the domination and control of
nological of
tic or whether the Buddha was really so inspired by tribal nature to achieve freedom and benefit humanity. It is possible
primitive communism. Instead we shall raise several concerns to see this general orientation
orientation (not necessarily a dialectical-
relevant to all of these essays and to Chattopadhyaya's phi- materialist post-Enlightenment development
materialist outlook) as a post-Enlightenment
losophy in general. which defined major nineteenth-century approaches and con-
tinues to define some "traditional"
"traditional" Marxist and other con-
temporary approaches. Critics of of such an orientation
orientation need not
II Ill I II
be metaphysical-idealists, irrationalists, subjectivists,
metaphysical-idealists, irrationalists, sub jecti vists, etc.,
but even include scholars who generally agree with Chat-
topadhyaya's
topadhyaya' s criticisms and goals but who no longer find such
Chattopadhyaya is justified in attacking the anti- a general orientation
orientation completely adequate. We shall provide
science bias in much of Indian philosophy and in
of lndian but two illustrations.
illustrations.
resisting an anti-science tendency among certain commitment to
Chattopadhyaya repeatedly affirms his commitment
contemporary
contemporary Indian scholars (including acti- developing forces of production
developing production and the growth of natural
vists), some of
of whom have concluded that science science and technology as the key to creating a classless
itself society with maximum freedom. He is certainly aware of such
itself is inherently oppressive and have sometimes
developments as massive ecological destruction, and in one
developments
romanticized
romanticized nature and various views (pre- essay he emphasizes
emphasizes the real possibility of nuclear holocaust,
modern, pre-colonial, pre-technological, etc.) of
modern, of but he tends to analyze such "evils" capitalist perversion
"evils" as a capitalist
India. Nevertheless, in Chattopadhyaya's general of
of true science. Chattopadhyaya
Chattopadhyaya is justified in attacking the
approach to objective knowledge of
approach of nature, to the anti-science bias in much of Indian philosophy and in resisting
anti-science
need to dominate and control nature, and to sci-
need an anti-science
anti-science tendency among certain contemporary Indian
scholars
scholars (including activists), some of whom have concluded
entific and
and technological growth and progress, that science itself is inherently oppressive
oppressive and have sometimes
sometimes
one may question whether his general orientation romanticized nature and various views (pre-modern, pre-
romanticized
has been too uncritical and whether he needs to colonial, pre-technological, etc.)of
colonial, pre-technological, etc.) of India. Nevertheless, in
revise and modify some of of his analysis. Chauopadhyaya's objective knowledge of
Chattopadhyaya' s general approach to objective
nature, to the need to dominate and control nature, and to
scientific and technological growth and progress, one may
scientific
III I II I III I II ........ I I I II II
question whether his general orientation
question orientation has been too uncriti-
cal and whether he needs to revise and modify some of his
analysis.
There can be no doubt that Chattopadhyaya's
Chattopadhyaya' s approach is A second related illustration
illustration concerns Chattopadhyaya's
highly polemical, and he often formulates opposing positions
in a most unsympathetic manner. This may be an understand-
able reaction to an Indian context in which materialist and
dialectical
dialectical approaches have been so completely suppressed. It
is also certainly true that we usually extol the highly polemical
nature of the history of Indian philosophy in which philoso-
phers established
established their positions by refuting unsympathe-
tically-formulated opposing positions. For Chattopadhyaya,
with his activist orientation of decisive intervention, there ~
~
would be little concern with sympathetic formulations of phi-
~
losophies
losophies seen to provide an ideological justification
justification for, or at
the minimum an acquiescence in the face. face. of, the oppression
~
~
and suffering of hundreds of millions of human beings.
Chattopadhyaya has described himself as rather "old- "old- ~:=
%

fashioned"
fashioned" when it comes to his sources, and this is clear from 8
the sources he cites most extensively without criticism or
reservation: nineteenth-century works by Engels (especially ~
Dialectic ofof Nature) and the anthropologist Lewis Morgan ~
(especially Ancient Society), Lenin's Materialism and ~
K.

Empirico-Criticism, supplemented by the archaeological ~

works of V. Gordon Chi Ide and the studies
Childe studies of ancient Greece ~
by George Thomson. Chattopadhyaya has not felt the need to s:<:J
revise any of his formulations in terms of criticisms of the ~
above works and other scholarly developments in recent
decades. Rural India,
India, March 1987.
March 1987.

63
emphasis on reason and rational knowledge (in understanding
laws of nature, etc.). Through direct observation, empirical
and rational knowledge, reality is to be understood in as clear,
transparent, and objective a manner as possible. Certainly one
transparent,
can understand
understand Chattopadhyaya's reaction against a denial of
reason
reason and rational knowledge which has led to the mystifica-
tion of
of nature and the illusory distortion of reality. But one can
argue against another type of possible (rational) illusion: a
rational reductionism which impoverishes reality and renders
rational
impossible the development of the whole human being and of
impossible
total human emancipation.
This is clear from Chattopadhyaya's
ChaUopadhyaya's frequent dismissals
of mythmaking as pure illusion in which he assumes a clear
of
dichotomy between myth versus science and reason (a typical
dichotomy
"modern," post-Enlightenment formulation). Even our views
of a future classless society or communism, as the negation of
of
the negation, may not be such a totally "rational"
"rational" (and "sci-
"sci-
entific")
entific") formulation. Such a formulation may be in part an
imaginative and symbolic creation, pointing to a "reality"
"reality" not
fully reducible to clear rational knowledge and at the same
time a historical creation, open to criteria of practical verifica-
tion, and not committing one to metaphysical idealism.
While raising a few of these general concerns, it is im-
perative not to lose sight of the importance of Knowledge
perative Knowledge and
Intervention and of Chattopadhyaya' s scholarly contributions.
Without even taking into consideration such diverse essays as
Without
"Crisis in Physics,"
"Crisis Physics," in which ChaUopadhyaya
Chattopadhyaya analyzes the
philosophical significance of modem scientific discoveries,
philosophical
especially breakthroughs in elementary particle theory in
physics, one cannot fail but to be impressed by the incredible
incredible·
range of his philosophical,
philosophical, historical, and scientific interests
and by the quantity and diversity of material he has mastered.
Within the Indian context, Chattopadhyaya
ChaUopadhyaya provides a
forceful challenge to traditional interpretations and to those
with power, reclaims views that have been long suppressed,
and offers possible new directions. For example, he totally
rejects a common interpretation,
interpretation, most frequently formulated
by modern Hindu revivalist philosophers,
philosophers, which interprets the
history of Indian philosophy as a unilinear evolutionary
spiritual progression,
progression, culminating in the essential wisdom of
Indian spirituality, most frequently identified with the
monistic metaphysical idealism of Advaita Vedanta. Instead
Chattopadhyaya
Chattopadhyaya interprets the history of Indian philosophy as
consisting of real dynamic conflicts and struggles, reflecting
real dynamic historical conflicts and struggles in Indian soci-
ety, and he attempts to explain why and how the metaphysical-
idealistic outlook finally gained hegemony.
In short, what is most striking about Chattopadhyaya's
Chattopadhyaya's
approach
approach when contrasted with most past interpretations
interpretations of the
history of Indian philosophy is his attempt to utilize anthro-
pological,
pological, sociological, historical, and scientific research, and
socioeconomic and polit-
to relate his philosophical analysis to socioeconomic
ical developments.
Although Chattopadhyaya never discusses Indian left
parties in Knowledge and Intervention, it may be of some
value to situate his approach within the context of contempor-
ary left struggles in India. Our brief formulation is necessarily
very incomplete, certainly not doing justice to the complex and
diversified nature of the struggles and crises defining the pres-
ent situation of the Left in India today.
It is possible, as Gail Omvedt has done in the Journal of
Contemporary Asia (Vol. 15, No. No.2,
2, 1985), to analyze the Left
in India in terms of three major trends or groupings: the
"traditional"
"traditional" communists, consisting primarily of the Com-
munist party of India (CPI) and the Community party of

:::
~
-«:
~
~
Q
'&
~
t::::
k.

8ka
:::
~
:;;::
~
c
Q
.s
~
~
-:::c:,..

An untouchable
An untouchable (outcaste) extended family in Varanasi (Banaras). India. 1986. The
(Ban-----aras), India,
husband/father
husband~father is a bicycle-ricksha
bicycle-ricksha waUah. family is standing
wallah. The family standing in front of of the door
of
of their one-room
one-room living quarters.
quarters. Since
Since the entire family cannot
cannotfit
fit in the one room. several
room, several
of sleep outside
of them sleep outside where they are standing.

64
India-Marxist (CPI-M or CPM); the Naxalites, consisting pri-
marily of a large number of Communist party of India-
Marxist-Leninist (CPI-ML) groups, who often occupy an am-
biguous and complex place situated between the traditional
and nontraditional Left; and the "post-traditional" commu-
nists, consisting of a large number of diversified groups em-
phasizing such struggles as those around caste, tribals and
oppressed nationalities, sexism, and ecological devastation.
I I I lll I I I I
There can be no doubt that Chattopadhyaya's ap-
proach is highly polemical, and he often formu-
lates opposing positions in a most unsympathetic
manner. This may be an understandable reaction
to an Indian context in which materialist and dia-
lectical approaches have been so completely sup-
pressed. It is also certainly true that we usually
extol the highly polemical nature of the history of
Indian philosophy in which philosophers estab-
lished their positions by refuting unsympathe-
tically-formulated, opposing positions. For Chat-
topadhyaya, with his activist orientation of deci-
sive intervention, there would be little concern
with sympathetic formulations of philosophies
seen to provide an ideological justification for, or
at the minimum an acquiescence in the face of, the
oppression and suffering of hundreds of millions
of human beings.
I II I I I
In terms of Indian Marxist, socialist, and communist
parties and movements, Chattopadhyaya, as a committed
Marxist, has been part of the "traditional" communist party
orientation. At present the "traditional" CPI and the newer
and stronger traditional CPI-M are suffering from serious
decline and crisis; they are vulnerable to many criticisms from
the Left. Smaller parties and nonparty movements of the
"non-traditional" and "post-traditional" Left (leaving aside
the not insignificant role of the CPI-ML groups), attack the
traditional parties for being narrow, rigid, corrupt, and con-
servative. They charge that the traditional parties do not pay
sufficient attention to caste oppression and do not support
adequately the dalit movements of those still mistreated as
untouchables; do not respond adequately to women's oppres-
sion (such as rapes and bride-burning or dowry deaths); ignore
or even oppose legitimate struggles of tribals and oppressed
nationalities; rigidly oppose new analyses and new social
movements regarding science, technology, and industrializa-
tion; and downplay environmental concerns (such as dam-
building and forest devastation) and new ecological
movements.
Many of the key assumptions and values that were seen to
define Chattopadhyaya's approach in Knowledge and Inter-
vention--such as an almost unlimited confidence in the power
65
of reason, a commitment to developing the forces of produc-
tion and a faith in scientific and technological progress, and the
need to dominate and control naturemhave often been uncriti-
cally, rigidly, and dogmatically upheld by the traditional
parties. This has often led to the disastrous position that strug-
gles around caste, sexism, and ecology were at best diversion-
ary or even reactionary. Because of this outlook, the tradi-
tional left parties often occupy a "rearguard" status in which
the most militant mass movements of workers and peasants are
not led by communist or left parties and in which the traditional
Left is sometimes forced reluctantly to take up some of these
causes because of the strength of the mass movement struggles.
Within this context, a number of nontraditional and post-
traditional leftists have simply dismissed Chattopadhyaya as
dogmatic, noninnovative, and superficial. This seems unjusti-
fied. Chattopadhyaya, unlike some within the traditional left
party framework, has not been a narrow economic reductionist
and determinist; he has been an intelligent, reflective, produc-
tive, and creative scholar, who has contributed greatly to our
understanding of Indian philosophy and history.
A larger number of nontraditional leftists seem to con-
clude that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya at an earlier time was
innovative and made great contributions to our understanding
of Indian history and philosophy but that developments in
recent decades have rendered his approach and his party orien-
tation no longer adequate. And, of course, there remain many
leftists in India who consider Chattopadhyaya to be the most
important Indian philosopher and find little to disagree with in
his Marxist approach and interpretations.
Without minimizing legitimate criticisms of the tradi-
tional Left, it should be noted that the traditional communist
parties remain the largest left parties in India, even if they are
not growing, and that the smaller post-traditional parties and
movements themselves face all sorts of present crises, often
appearing fragmented, factionalistic, vague, eclectic, and
even occasionally reactionary. A number of these crises are
specific to the post-traditional trends and orientations, but the
deeper crises define the situation of the Left in general.
Also in fairness, and without minimizing legitimate criti-
cisms, we may comment on our previous observation that
Chattopadhyaya's sources often appear "old-fashioned," and
viewed from the perspectives of contemporary scholarship,
some of his formulations may seem "traditional" and old-
fashioned. In terms of scholarship in Marxism and philosophy
of science in recent decades, one should, for example, be more
critical of some of the nineteenth-century, rather positivistic,
and nondialectical formulations by Engels in the Dialectic of
Nature.
Nevertheless, it does seem that much of the recent Marx-
ian and other scholarship by leftists often dismisses, say,
Engels and Lenin and even sometimes Marx in the most arro-
gant and facile manner, frequently without any indication of
having struggled with the "classical" texts. Many leftist
scholars have learned to identify with the latest leftist fad and
cultural fashion, such as the recent proliferation of works on
"analytical Marxism" in Great Britain and the United States
and especially the endless stream of popular leftist figures and
trends in France and Germany. Such recent scholarship some-
times appears rather obscure, eclectic, and elitist, often with-
out any compelling reason to identify it as Marxian or even
socialist and leaves the reader with serious doubts as to
whether it will have any historical significance in the long run.
 Today, when most philosophy, East and West, is either
vague or trivial or both (leaving aside Chattopadhyaya's criti-
cism of its ideological justification or acquiescence), there is
much to be said for a philosophical outlook, as formulated in RADICAL TEACHER
Knowledge and Intervention, that is clear, coherent, forceful, 9 "Radical Teacher's activist perspective confronts the real issues of classroom and
and relates to the most important concerns and struggles facing community... A practical and valuable journal, based on solid research and theory."
humanity. ,~ The Guardian

9 Previous issues on: Back-to-Basics, Lesbian and Gay Studies, Health Sciences Educa-
tion, The Politics of Literacy, Mass Culture, Black Women's Studies, Marxist
Teaching, Feminist Pedagogy

9 Radical Teacher is an independent socialist and feminist magazine that focuses on

three critical areas: the politics of teaching; the political economy of education;
feminist, Marxist and third world perspectives in literature, history, biology, sociology
and other disciplines.

NARMIC/American Friends Service Committee is proud to announce a new

slideshow, "Fragile Ground: The Continuing Struggle for Philippine Independence."
FRAGILE GROUND is the first audiovisual to document current events and crucial
issues in the post-Marcos era Philippines. Composed of interviews with seven
eyewitness observers, FRAGILE GROUND highlights: the struggle of Filipinos to
overcome the legacy of poverty and hunger, the role of the United States in the
Philippines, the continuing war in the countryside, the role and impact of the New
Peoples Army, and the increasing role of Philippine women in challenging the policies
of underdevelopment.

FRAGILE GROUND is beautifully illustrated and includes photographs from Susan

Meiselas, an award winning photojournalist.

The slideshow runs approximately 24 minutes and includes a cassette tape. For
a fresh look at the Philippines, please contact NARMIC/AFSC, 1501 Cherry Street,
Philadelphia, PA., 19102. (215) 241-7175. (Slideshow $65.00, Filmstrip $50.00,
Rental $20.O0/Week.)
Add: $8 for airmail delivery overseas; $2.50 for surface delivery overseas; $2.50 for Canada or Latin
America.
(Because of increased bank charges for foreign exchange, all checks (including Canadian) must be in U.S.
dollars.)