Ashansa Mulmi
The popular belief is that the idea of liberty as a whole was first grasped and conceived in the West, particularly in historical Greece, while eastern civilizations do not have an equivalent origin. Further, eastern societies have been characterized by a lack of emphasis on individual rights as well as on institutions that safeguard these rights against authorities [1]. But is this the entire truth?
The concept of individual freedom in the ancient East is often overshadowed by the vehement practice of order, discipline, and authority that characterize many Asian societies. This perception leads to the belief that Asia historically lacked the emphasis on individual liberties. However, this view risks ignoring the diverse philosophical, religious, and political landscapes of the Asian continent. Perhaps the institutions that protect individual liberties may not have been embedded in history, but the presence of authority does not mean the absence of liberation. The question that has to be asked, rather, is whether historical Asian countries shared the common feature of being skeptical of freedom and liberty while also emphasizing order and discipline.
The discourse on individual freedom in the east is widely misunderstood by contemporary societies, often perceived as lacking autonomy in deciding one’s own morals; however, a deeper exploration shows a different picture.
Confucianism, one of the most influential philosophies in ancient China, is frequently associated with the promotion of social harmony, order, and hierarchical relationships. The emphasized importance of duty, respect for authority, and the role of the family and the state in maintaining social stability often leads to the misconception that Chinese philosophy entirely neglects individual freedom. However, Confucian thought does not completely disregard the individual’s role. Confucius himself advocated for the importance of personal virtue and moral self-cultivation, suggesting that individuals have the responsibility to develop their character and moral understanding. This focus on personal development implicitly supports a form of individual freedom, where the pursuit of virtue is a personal endeavor [2].
Criticizing Confucianism for not having been individualistic enough, Taoism, particularly as supported by Lao Tzu, presents a more explicit celebration of individual freedom. Lao Tzu’s philosophy revolves around the concept of non-action (wu-wei), advocating for minimal governmental interference and allowing individuals to live in harmony with the Tao, or the natural order of the universe. Lao Tzu viewed excessive laws and regulations as oppressive, arguing that they lead to societal turmoil and impoverishment. His vision was deeply individualistic, proposing that the happiness and fulfilment of the individual should be primary. He believed that societal institutions that hindered individual freedom and happiness should be reduced or abolished. His assertion that “the more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become” highlights his critique of authoritarian governance and his advocacy for a more liberated and spontaneous individual existence [3].
Likewise, Buddha in the Indian subcontinent, rejected the doctrine of blaming the supernatural behind certain events, questioning the idea of time, nature, and God to be the hand behind every course of action. He did so to inquire about the role of humans, as the doctrine allows people to be less accountable for their actions. He believed that human beings are behind every occurrence, and after enough time and knowledge, one can find the answer to the unknown. Buddhism’s emphasis on individual effort and the personal pursuit of enlightenment underscores the value placed on individual freedom. The Buddha encouraged his followers to question authority, think for themselves, and find their own path to liberation. This emphasis on personal responsibility and autonomy resonates with the broader theme of individual freedom [4].
Building on this understanding of personal freedom, another significant aspect is the emphasis on human agency and meritocracy. In Confucianism, this focus invited individuals to believe that through determination and hard work, anyone could transcend social barriers and reach the highest levels of society. Here, the concept of individualism differs from that in the West as Confucian individualism focuses more on how an individual achieves their goals while also maintaining their bonds with others; it is more about appreciating one’s sense of individuality without extricating oneself from others [5]. Huang Zongxi, a prominent Confucian scholar during the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, was a vocal critic of autocratic rule. In his work “Waiting for the Dawn,” Huang Zongxi argued against the absolute power of the emperor and proposed a system where the ruler’s authority is checked by the law and the will of the people. He envisioned a more participatory form of governance where individuals had a greater say in political matters and more responsibilities, thus promoting a form of political freedom that challenged the existing autocratic structures [3].
Historical Asia also saw movements that challenged traditional doctrines and emphasized intellectual freedom which allowed people to explore diverse paths in life and pursue their own happiness. Ancient India followed the traditional Hindu theory of Varnasram that enforced the caste system and the Vedas which had determined the day-to-day life of Indian society. Cārvaka, also known as Lokayata, rejected this dogma authority and the concept of an afterlife. Thinkers of this philosophy argued that direct perception (pratyaksha) is the only valid source of gaining knowledge. This philosophy greatly emphasized the importance of individual autonomy in pursuing their own happiness and pleasure without any interference from external forces. By promoting critical thinking and empirical evidence over passed-down superstitions and faith, this philosophy has since then contributed to a broader discourse on intellectual freedom and individual liberty [6].
Individual freedom manifests in various forms, including religious freedom and harmony. The Indian philosophies can be broadly categorized into two groups: the heterodox (nāstika) and orthodox (astika) schools. The orthodox systems acknowledge the validity of the Veda. On the other hand, the heterodox systems do not recognize the authority of the Veda and often challenge traditional beliefs to promote intellectual freedom and diversity of thought; within this category, we mainly find the Cārvāka, and Buddhism philosophies. The coexistence of these diverse philosophical traditions points to a society that valued free thinking and allowed for the flourishing of different perspectives [7].
The Mughal Emperor, Akbar is too greatly known for his policies of religious tolerance and pluralism. His policy of universal peace (Sulh-e-Kul) promoted a culture of tolerance and dialogue among different religious communities. This policy not only allowed for the peaceful coexistence of various religious groups but also fostered an environment where intellectual and spiritual freedom could thrive. Akbar’s court became a hub of cultural and intellectual exchange, attracting scholars, artists, and thinkers from diverse backgrounds. He believed that no one should be persecuted on account of their religion and that individuals should have the freedom to practice and convert to any faith they chose [8].
The history of Asia is vast, and these examples merely touch upon the broader quest for individual expression. Just as a single spark can ignite a great fire, these philosophies and individuals set forth an undeniable force within Asian societies to question authority and set their own principles. Now, coming to the modern times, there are a few figures whose names must always be mentioned in this discourse. Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a prominent social reformer and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, drew upon the principles of Buddhism to advocate for social justice and individual freedom. Ambedkar criticized the caste system, which he saw as a denial of individual liberty and equality. Having been in the minority caste, he faced all the stigma that came with it, and so he stood against the rigid caste hierarchy that restricted individuals’ freedom to choose their occupation and pursue their aspirations [4]. Ambedkar noticed that Hinduism-influenced political ideology that characterized Indian nationalism alienated and depressed the socially marginalized communities, especially the Dalits. He looked into India’s ancient philosophical traditions and suggested that the revival of Buddhism would humanize the current social order better and make it compatible with modernist changes. Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism was a deliberate choice to embrace a religion that emphasized rationality, moral integrity, and individual agency. By striving toward the abolition of the caste system and promoting the principles of liberty and equality, Ambedkar sought to reconstruct Indian society in a way that upheld individual freedom and social justice [9].
Across the Indian subcontinent, B.P. Koirala, Nepal’s first elected Prime Minister, stands out in the discourse on individual freedom. He led the country’s democratic socioeconomic development by challenging the rule of the Ranas, traditional monarchs of the time. He distinguished himself as an advocate for individual liberty also through his literary works. According to him, the new human being of the new era is a rebel against both society and socially evolved laws. Humans are now important in themselves and not as a unit of society. In his novels, worn-out values are inadequate and the individual’s quest for freedom of choice and identity has significance. According to his biographer Chatterji, Koirala felt that “There are two aspects of human beings. One is their social instinct, which makes them members of society. There is another instinct, which is the nonconformist instinct, that propels them to refuse to be a member of a society, to abide by any of the rules of society. So they are both rebels as well as conformists” [10].
In the 1990s, Madan Bhandari strived to reshape Nepal’s political landscape by introducing the People’s Multiparty Democracy (PMPD) aiming to replace the totalitarian dictatorship with a more democratic framework. He is known as the only major political leader who did not organize or participate in any violent struggle, nor was he arrested at any point in his career. Known for his nonviolent approach, he never organized or participated in violent struggles, nor was he ever arrested. His leadership in the CPN (UML) showed his commitment to individual freedom by democratizing the left movement, encouraging ideological discussions, and transforming the party from a marginal extremist group into a more inclusive and moderate organization. He emphasized minority viewpoints to be heard and respected, reflecting his belief in adaptable Marxist principles that prioritized the best interests of the country and its people [11].
Another prominent figure who advocated for individual rights to be greatly safeguarded and promoted was Dr. Bholanath Chalise. He envisioned a democratic framework that would enhance individual freedoms and uphold human rights in Nepal. His commitment to democratic ideals was reflected in his efforts to establish institutions and policies that prioritized individual liberty and personal autonomy. Chalise believed that democracy should not only be about political participation but also about ensuring that individual rights and freedoms were protected and promoted. His vision included reforms that would provide citizens with greater opportunities to express themselves freely and participate meaningfully in the governance process [12].
In addressing the cardinal question, why didn’t the East value individual liberty as the West did, it is apparent that personal liberty was actually integral to different philosophical, religious, as well as political frameworks in the eastern societies. The concept of individual liberty in eastern society is not one that had to necessarily be learnt from other places because it emerged as a spontaneous order. Iconoclasts, emerged in response to the authoritarian regimes, went against the orthodox norms to live life on their own terms and set great examples for generations to come. Furthermore, it is a mistake to measure the idea of individuality in the East as per the Western standards; in the west, individuality often means seeking personal freedom without necessarily considering one’s contribution to society. In this scenario, the Eastern region will fail to live up to standard and it would be safe to assume that the concept of individuality was wholly absent. However, this is not the case. Eastern societies embrace a different form of individualism that balances personal liberty with social responsibilities. Therefore, it is overdue that the historical discourse on individual liberty gives recognition to the contributions of Asian societies.
REFERENCES
[1] The Idea of Liberty Is Western, Mises Institute, 2022
[2] Confucius: More Individualistic Than You Think, ChinaUS Focuses, 2017
[3] Libertarianism in Ancient China, Mises Institute, 2009
[4] Rethinking the Importance of Buddhism: An Analysis of Ambedkar’s “What the Buddha Taught”, All about Ambedkar Online
[5] Confucianism without confusion: Between individualism and social harmony, Everett Nana
[6] Cārvāka Philosophy, the first philosophy of dissent, Savio E. Saldanha SJ Kwame Ofori, 2021
[7] Intellectual Freedom in Ancient India, T.S Rukmani
[8] Human Rights and Asian Values, Amartya Sen, 1997
[9] How Ambedkar Bridged the Gap Between Religious Identity and Western Modernity Through Buddhism, The Wire, 2023
[10] B. P. Koirala: A major figure in modern Nepali literature, V. Sharma, 1992
[11] Madan Bhandari and His Theory of People’s Multiparty Democracy, Tika Prasad Dhakal
[12] अल्पविराम, Dr. Bhola Nath Chalise, 2016