An Indian Perspective Of Social Work

Special Articles / Shankar Pathak / Social Work and Social Welfare

During the past several decades, there has been much talk of the need for developing an indigenous model of social welfare. Very rarely this idea has been pursued seriously to the point of making a beginning in that direction. The reason for this is obvious; it is easy to criticise but difficult to create. G.R. Banerjee is one of those very few Indians who has tried patiently and persistently to be creative by continually thinking and writing on an Indian perspective of social work. Her contributions have been brought together in a book of essays-Papers on Social Work-An Indian Perspective. In the first thirteen papers, she propounds the basic concepts which form part of Indian social work. They are: concepts of social welfare as kalyan or  mangal; concepts of love, duty or Dharma and Ahimsa; Concept of detachment or Nishkama Karma; concepts of self, professional self, self-help, and Karma theory; concept of social functioning and social consciousness. According to Banerjee, the ancient Indian concept of social welfare was broader in scope than the western concept. It included not only remedial but also preventive measures. It was not restricted to a particular group or class but was meant for all, rich, or poor, normal or handicapped. The goal of human activity was the welfare of all human beings; i.e. loka sangraha. It was the duty of human beings, particularly the leaders to work for the welfare of society.

Banerjee is critical of the overemphasis on the rights of an individual in western societies. She equates rights with concern for material comforts, though it implies obligations or duty, which is neglected. She asks whether this extreme craving for material comforts based on conviction of individual rights, can bring about human happiness. An individual cannot be made to love another person by emphasizing the right or by legislation. The Indian concept of duty or Dharma is superior to the concept of right. While right makes people selfish and thus divides them, the concept of duty with its emphasis on obligation, unites people. But the concept of duty is not based on social pressures. In that case it will be bitter. It becomes sweet when "love greases its wheels". Duty also implies self-denial.1

Self is an indivisible whole which provides continuity to the otherwise changing personality. It includes body, mind, intellect and awareness or consciousness. It has a spiritual element, the soul, which is immortal. Dichotomy of self, as professional self which operates in one's work life from the 'other' self is not valid. It is the same self whether in private life or professional sphere. When we speak of professional self we refer to the manifestation of self in our work life. Self cannot have a different set of values and behaviour in private life and in professional work. Love is not a quantity or a thing to be bargained or negotiated. It is a quality of the self developed on the basis of awareness of its identity with the whole of humanity. It implies imaginative emphathy. Ahimsa is an aspect of love. It does not mean non-killing or avoidance of physical violence. It has a positive meaning. Ahimsa is not possible without love. It is akin to the western social work concept of acceptance.

Banerjee's description of the concept of rights is too narrow. It is not correct to say that the rights emphasize only the privileges and comforts of the individual. The concept of rights of man originated in the context of a social philosophy based on man as a rational being, capable of taking decisions in his best interests. It implied freedom of action consistent with the rights of other men. As noted by Banerjee, it implies obligations or duty. Such rights as freedom of speech and worship refer to the non-material aspects of human life which are overlooked by her. If there was an overemphasis on rights to the neglect of obligations, on material aspects of the rights rather than the non-material, then we could take the same position as Banerjee takes regarding the misconception of karma theory:  to reinterpret correctly the concept of rights so that a proper balance is maintained between the material and non-material, and between rights and obligations. It is true that recourse to rights will not ensure love and affection to others. Affection cannot be provided by legislation. Is it also not true that one cannot love another because it is his duty? The problem then, is inherent in both the situations, one where there is an over-emphasis on rights and the other, on duty. Banerjee recognises this difficulty which is met by her by stating that love has to grease the wheels of duty to make it sweet. By this, she makes love a quality, analytically at any rate, independent of duty. By the same logic is it not possible to temper the concept of right with love as an essential accompanying element?

At this point we need to refer to the karma theory and its implications. In the paper, "Karma Theory and Social Case Work" she gives a fairly comprehensive and correct exposition of Karma theory. This theory is postulated on the ideas of immortality of the soul and the existence of a series of births, through which the soul has to pass before reaching it's ultimate goal of Moksha, i.e. uniting with the Absolute, thus ending the chain of births and deaths. Man's life is determined by his actions. What he is today is the result of his past actions and what he will do now will influence what he becomes in the future. There is no fate or god which determines his life. The responsibility is on the individual. This, according to Banerjee, is not a fatalistic theory as wrongly criticised by some western writers. By its emphasis on action, it also discourages lethargy or inertia. All this is true in a strict sense of the theory. Banerjee says, if people have misunderstood this to mean fatalism, inaction and helplessness, let the social worker correctly reinterpret it to stimulate the people to act i.e. to do their duty. But there are some problems here which are not taken into account by her. 

The modern social worker works in a secular context in his professional sphere. He is concerned with the present condition of misery and its solution not only in this life, but in the foreseeable future. The problems of unemployment, poverty and parent-child conflict etc. need to be solved as promptly as possible, from the point of view of the client. But according to Karma theory, the present miserable condition is unchangeable as a matter of strict necessity of cause and effect. It is the phala aspect of the Karma theory which a person has to go through, since it is the product of actions in the previous birth or births. The hope of a better future based on the individual's right actions or duty now is to be realised in the next birth. It refers to the sanskara aspect which states the tendency of action to bring about 'a result in future.2 It is then little comfort to a client to be told that during this birth he has to undergo whatever the suffering which cannot be undone. Even if the theory, strictly speaking, is not fatalistic and pessimistic, it tends to create that effect. As social scientists and social workers, we are concerned with reality and its implications. The client's perception of his situation, however incorrect it may be from our objective assessment, is an important factor to reckon with. The problem is not so much the incorrect understanding of the Karma theory which also obtains in many cases and a reinterpretation of it to correct it, but of what effect it will have on the clients. Does it hold out hope? Does it stimulate him to act? Banerjee's answer is in the positive. I can only agree partially. This may be the effect  on some people. On the other hand, quite the opposite effect may be there on some other people.

There is another difficulty, were we to agree with Banerjee's answer completely. That is the question of defining what is the correct action of the client in the present situation. The Gita is quite clear on this. The action to be taken is based on the Varna of the individual. The concept of Dharma originally meant during the vedic  times, ritualistic behaviour.3 By the time of writing of Gita, it came to have the meaning of right or good conduct. The moral element became dominant. What is the right conduct or Dharma for an individual in any situation? How can this be identified by a social worker? According to Gita, Dharma or right conduct can be recognised on the basis of varnashrama dharma. The implications of this are quite serious. How can we say what is a client's Dharma, when he traditionally belonged to one of the twice-born varna, a brahmin, who is now employed as a peon and has to perform his duty which belonged to a sudra and not to him? What answer does one have, again for an unemployed brahmin, who refuses a job which he badly needs, but will not take it because it is against his Dharma? This is not to say that the Indian society is not changing and people are not doing what they were not supposed to do according to the varnashrama dharma. On the contrary, there is some noticeable change, which is all for the good. It is to point out that solution to the questions posed above, if they arise, are not likely to be found in the correct interpretation of the Karma theory. Even if attempted, such reinterpretation may not be accepted by the client if he is a brahmin and the social worker a Sudra, or a person of another religious faith. 

Banerjee is correct when she states that the Indian culture emphasizes the value of integration with the group through confirmation to group norm. The concept of Dharma, which is akin to the modern sociological concept of role, plays an important part in this process.4 At the same time, the emphasis on confirmation and obligations may stifle individual creativity and freedom thus becoming a barrier in bringing out social change. At several places, Banerjee expresses her conviction in the need to bring about social change so that the social conditions that contribute to human problems are changed. I am in complete agreement with this view. Social change, however, is not likely to be achieved by emphasizing the concept of duty in the context of varnashrama dharma or Karma theory. 

Again, I agree with her that the modern concept of client's self-determination is applicable to Indian culture. We have to view it in a different perspective than in the west. This concept needs a little elaboration. The principle refers to freedom, capacity  and power of a unit called 'self'. It permits widest possible choice of action. Its origin is to be traced to Kant's view of man as a rational being, to the Puritan ethic, modern democratic political theory and the Freudian psychoanalytical theory. The crucial point here is the definition of the unit 'self'. Self need not refer only to the individual. It could refer to a group, a community or a nation. The struggle against colonial rule in our country and elsewhere was based on their right of self-determination of the people as a national collectivity. Traditional Indian society with its group orientation did not have the concept of individual as a free independent unit. A human being did not exist and could not exist outside of a group, whether a family, kinship group, caste or a village community. He existed as part of a whole. The whole was always a group. The only possible exception was the Sanyasin.5 Even though there has been major changes in the Indian society, this view of man as inextricably linked to a group which is the unit, still persists to a great extent. So, the unit self in Indian society is likely to be much wider in size than the individual in the western society. This means involvement of the family members, relatives and significant others in the decision-making process concerning a person's problem. But this may pose a problem for social change as already pointed out. Banerjee's statement, however, that the root of self-determination is to be found in the Karma theory is debatable. Karma theory permits freedom to a person only in the spiritual sphere.6

While I do not agree with Banerjee completely regarding the superiority or advantages of the concepts of duty and Karma, I do recognize that in some situations they are extremely helpful to social workers as well as to the clients. I may now briefly explain the advantages. Even though the country is wedded to the goals of a welfare state and a socialistic society, we have a long way to go to reach them. There are not as yet, adequate social security provisions to all people to protect them from the unforeseen contingencies of life such as unemployment, accident and death of the breadwinner. Some people may not be able to make provisions against the foreseeable situation like old age and illness, due to various factors. Also, organized social welfare services are extremely meagre. In such situations, a social worker is often able to help a client by emphasizing the duties and obligations of members of a joint family, kinship group or caste, by securing for him if not love and affection, at least the basic necessities of life, and physical care. This is particularly true of social workers working in rural areas and backward regions. 

The modern social worker claims that his work is scientific. The scientific ethos includes a strong belief in man as a maker of his own destiny, and in his power to control and influence the physical and human environment. It is an essentially rationalistic and optimistic view of man. But it cannot be denied that despite the rapid and remarkable scientific advance in recent years, there still remain many human problems for which science has no solutions to offer. These are not only in the spiritual realm such as the fundamental questions of the purpose of human existence and death. For people who suffer from incurable physical or mental illness or those who live in misery and poverty despite hard work, what scientific answers are there to their question, 'why should these things happen to me'. And what hope can be held out for a better future? As Bertrand Russell has said science can only explain the efficient causes, how they happened (and even this is not possible always) but not the fundamental cause, why they happened.7 And yet, it is human nature to seek answers to such questions. 

If science has no solutions or no realistic hope to offer to such people, one of two things may happen. They may suffer acute mental agony and even breakdown or attempt suicide. On the other hand, religion and philosopy may have answers which some of them find satisfying and which give them strength to bear the unchangeable adversity with mental equanimity and peace. It is in these situations that the theory of Karma, even if incorrectly understood, may be helpful to the practice of social work. It does not pose the problem of either advocating or reinterpretation of a religious concept. Most people believe in some religion and as social scientists we have to reckon with this reality. For this reason, despite my personal views on religion, I agree with Banerjee that social work practice has to be linked with religion and philosophy. Karl Marx may be right when he said that religion is the opium of the masses and as scientists we also know, that opium can be good medicine too.8

​Banerjee has made a major contribution toward developing an Indian perspective of social work. Her advocacy of an active approach in social case work, emphasis on the intellectual and spiritual aspect of the human personality, criticism of the recent trend among Indian social workers to baorrow heavily from the psychoanalytical theory, a conviction in social workers' concern with social change and a continual effort to link western concepts of social work to the ancient Indian sources of knowledge, are all part of this major contribution. In attempting a synthesis of western social work and the Indian heritage of social work she relies mostly on Hindu religious philosophy, especially the upanishads, and the Bhagwadgita, and her own experience of social work practice. For the development of an Indian perspective of social work, we need contribution from others who can draw upon the religious and philosophical traditions of other segments of our society as well as the empirical studies of Indian society.

Subscribers please login to access full text of the article
New 1 Year Subscription to Digital Archives at just Rs.500

Book Review

Subscribe

Register