04-22-2005, 02:57 AM
http://www.saxakali.com/southasia/activism.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A critical look at Dalit activism
Hindu 12-01-1999 :: Pg: 12 :: Col: c
By Gopal Guru
In recent years, the political radicalism of the Dalits has come to be defined in terms of two major modes. One is that they have shown a remarkable consistency in opposing both in elections and in the streets the Hindutva forces. Two, their politics is considered radical because of their constant efforts at empowering themselves by sharing power with others. It is particularly true in the case of the Dalits of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and the southern States that they have been consistent in taking an un-compromising positions against the Hindutva forces. The anti-Hindutva feeling among the Dalits is so strong that they do not tolerate their own leaders who hobnob with these forces either directly or indirectly. Such leaders who took an ambiguous position vis-a-vis the Sena-BJP Government in Maharashtra and remained quite callous about the killing of the Dalits in police firing in Mumbai in July last year were assaulted. The political radicalism is also being defined in terms of the Dalits' bargaining power that no political party can ignore in parliamentary politics in the country. This is true in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh where the Dalits seem politically organised outside the influence of the mainstream parties. Thus political autonomy is treated as another dimension of this radicalism by certain Dalit political leaders from these two States.
The scenario might be true in a sense, but this kind of reading of the Dalits' activism offers a narrow and uni-dimensional notion of their political radicalism. For it does not tackle the structures of oppression and discrimination that exist within the Dalit situation. For example, Dalits activism in Maharashtra is politically blind to the social practices such as Dalit patriarchy, which seeks to oppress, torture, humiliate and marginalise its womenfolk. This patriarchy in Maharashtra, and even in the entire country, reproduces the upper caste tradition of dowry which commodifies women even from landless Dalit families. The dowry system, which was almost non-existent among the Dalits two decades ago, has now become a serious problem particularly in Maharashtra. Poor parents who cannot afford to give dowry are reported to be ``selling'' their girls outside the State, and those who cannot be sold or married off are ultimately left to be tortured by parents and by the Dalit community, which arrogates to itself the right to ensure the chastity and fidelity of its women. Interestingly, this issue did not find prominence in the recently-held Dalit women's conferences in the State.
Apart from the gender insensitivity among common Dalits, their leaders and even Dalit feminists in Maharashtra, the notion of purity and pollution has deeply divided the community both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, for example, this notion has made the Charmakar (leather worker) despise the Mahar- Buddhists who, in turn, despise the Matangs who are treated as inferior in the social hierarchy not only in Maharashtra but also elsewhere. At the horizontal level, the Buddhists are socially divided among themselves. And the social division prevails in protecting the kinship boundaries. The kinship network that maintains the social distance among the Buddhists operates through marriage practices and other rituals in Maharashtra. But the Buddhists, who are socio-culturally divided, are politically united against the Hindutva forces.
The question one has to raise is why the Dalit leaders avoid addressing themselves to the question of internal critique. How does one understand such incoherent behaviour among the Dalits? In other words, why does this bizarre consciousness which represents their intellectual crisis waver between the conservative and radical modes? There are several reasons that help us understand this. The first and foremost is the threat of the Shiv Sena-BJP dominating their thought and action. This political immediacy dominates the cognitive map of Dalit politics, thus leaving out the question of confronting the oppressive patriarchy.
Moreover, the common Dalits do not undertake the painful exercise of internal critique as it undermines their power of patriarchy. This logical incoherence conforms to the political expectations of the Dalit leaders, who deliberately insulate the private sphere of the common Dalit from public criticism so that they can fill the common Dalit consciousness with emotion and manipulate the community. Their effort to maintain the distinction between the private or social and the political life of the Dalits, in effect, denies the common Dalit consciousness the critical edge that seeks to interrogate both the internal structures of manipulation and the external structures of domination. It is due to this compulsion that the common Dalits refuse to find a new political alternative and choose to pursue their recalcitrant leaders.
It is this curious relationship between the leaders and the led that explains the limits of Dalit politics in Maharashtra. Thus it is ``faith'' rather than reason that determines Dalit politics. It makes the common Dalits more dependent on their leaders and prevents them from launching any decisive attack on erring leaders. In such kind of politics where faith dominates reason, any kind of argument against the leaders becomes futile.
In fact, the leaders and their cadre take extra care to create the ``community of the faithful'' among the Dalits by reinvoking the importance of hero worship and the myth of charismatic qualities of particular Dali leaders. The common Dalits feel that they cannot provide a more competent and sophisticated argument than what their leaders do. The leaders perpetuate this servile attitude by deliberately using an abstract language. This construction of an elite image works everywhere in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh and creates a rather degrading dependence, which necessarily denies both dignity and critical faculty to the thinking of the Dalits.
This lack of enlightenment among the Dalits leads to the legitimisation of Dalit politics which has become self-limiting as it eludes the question of Dalit emancipation. It also makes the Dalits willing partners in supporting their political leaders who lack an ability to offer an alternative vision of politics.
In this regard, it is important to offer a critical comment on the contemporary Dalit feminism in Maharashtra. The Dalit leaders in the State fail to articulate gender equality and are in no mood to confront the Dalit patriarchy.
The Dalit feminist confidence in such a leadership appears misplaced, if not misleading. However, a few feminists have maintained their distance from such leadership.
How can the Dalit leaders feel empowered when they feed on the political passivity of their common people on the issue of internal critique? The lack of internal critique also robs Dalit politics of its universal character of reaching out independently to other oppressed sections which are also in need of a fresh grass roots initiative entailing a new vision of the world based on the concept of truth.
Contemporary Dalit politics, therefore, seeks a definite political departure from Ambedkar, not realising or deliberately avoiding the need for an internal critique. Ambedkar, on the one hand, criticised the communists and the Congress leadership for their sociological blindness to an internal critique of the Hindu social order and, on the other, condemned the Hindu nationalists, who ridiculed and then opposed the need for any internal critique.
This kind of externally-looking Dailt politics, instead of providing a creative context for activism, becomes supplementary to the politics of hegemonic faces in one way or the other.
(The writer is Mahatma Gandhi Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Pune). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the author has atleast attempted to analyse the situation honestly, I think the author has himself fallen into the same 'external looking' trap that he warns people against. IMHO what is required is for dalits to shed this persecution complex and grab the bull by horns. Demand better education - subsidies or what have you. Simply complaining about all and sundry is not going to cut it and living in a world where they allow missionary scumbags to frame their identity will push them into a paki-mindset of forever persecuted lowlies whose only purpose in life is to demand more from the rest. A dalit leader like Sri Ambedkar is absolutely required.
OTOH BJP and Sangh should multiply efforts to look for proper dalit leadership - backed with a "feel good" agenda for dalit betterment, rather then this 'genocide' bullcr@p coming out of missionary scumbags.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A critical look at Dalit activism
Hindu 12-01-1999 :: Pg: 12 :: Col: c
By Gopal Guru
In recent years, the political radicalism of the Dalits has come to be defined in terms of two major modes. One is that they have shown a remarkable consistency in opposing both in elections and in the streets the Hindutva forces. Two, their politics is considered radical because of their constant efforts at empowering themselves by sharing power with others. It is particularly true in the case of the Dalits of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and the southern States that they have been consistent in taking an un-compromising positions against the Hindutva forces. The anti-Hindutva feeling among the Dalits is so strong that they do not tolerate their own leaders who hobnob with these forces either directly or indirectly. Such leaders who took an ambiguous position vis-a-vis the Sena-BJP Government in Maharashtra and remained quite callous about the killing of the Dalits in police firing in Mumbai in July last year were assaulted. The political radicalism is also being defined in terms of the Dalits' bargaining power that no political party can ignore in parliamentary politics in the country. This is true in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh where the Dalits seem politically organised outside the influence of the mainstream parties. Thus political autonomy is treated as another dimension of this radicalism by certain Dalit political leaders from these two States.
The scenario might be true in a sense, but this kind of reading of the Dalits' activism offers a narrow and uni-dimensional notion of their political radicalism. For it does not tackle the structures of oppression and discrimination that exist within the Dalit situation. For example, Dalits activism in Maharashtra is politically blind to the social practices such as Dalit patriarchy, which seeks to oppress, torture, humiliate and marginalise its womenfolk. This patriarchy in Maharashtra, and even in the entire country, reproduces the upper caste tradition of dowry which commodifies women even from landless Dalit families. The dowry system, which was almost non-existent among the Dalits two decades ago, has now become a serious problem particularly in Maharashtra. Poor parents who cannot afford to give dowry are reported to be ``selling'' their girls outside the State, and those who cannot be sold or married off are ultimately left to be tortured by parents and by the Dalit community, which arrogates to itself the right to ensure the chastity and fidelity of its women. Interestingly, this issue did not find prominence in the recently-held Dalit women's conferences in the State.
Apart from the gender insensitivity among common Dalits, their leaders and even Dalit feminists in Maharashtra, the notion of purity and pollution has deeply divided the community both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, for example, this notion has made the Charmakar (leather worker) despise the Mahar- Buddhists who, in turn, despise the Matangs who are treated as inferior in the social hierarchy not only in Maharashtra but also elsewhere. At the horizontal level, the Buddhists are socially divided among themselves. And the social division prevails in protecting the kinship boundaries. The kinship network that maintains the social distance among the Buddhists operates through marriage practices and other rituals in Maharashtra. But the Buddhists, who are socio-culturally divided, are politically united against the Hindutva forces.
The question one has to raise is why the Dalit leaders avoid addressing themselves to the question of internal critique. How does one understand such incoherent behaviour among the Dalits? In other words, why does this bizarre consciousness which represents their intellectual crisis waver between the conservative and radical modes? There are several reasons that help us understand this. The first and foremost is the threat of the Shiv Sena-BJP dominating their thought and action. This political immediacy dominates the cognitive map of Dalit politics, thus leaving out the question of confronting the oppressive patriarchy.
Moreover, the common Dalits do not undertake the painful exercise of internal critique as it undermines their power of patriarchy. This logical incoherence conforms to the political expectations of the Dalit leaders, who deliberately insulate the private sphere of the common Dalit from public criticism so that they can fill the common Dalit consciousness with emotion and manipulate the community. Their effort to maintain the distinction between the private or social and the political life of the Dalits, in effect, denies the common Dalit consciousness the critical edge that seeks to interrogate both the internal structures of manipulation and the external structures of domination. It is due to this compulsion that the common Dalits refuse to find a new political alternative and choose to pursue their recalcitrant leaders.
It is this curious relationship between the leaders and the led that explains the limits of Dalit politics in Maharashtra. Thus it is ``faith'' rather than reason that determines Dalit politics. It makes the common Dalits more dependent on their leaders and prevents them from launching any decisive attack on erring leaders. In such kind of politics where faith dominates reason, any kind of argument against the leaders becomes futile.
In fact, the leaders and their cadre take extra care to create the ``community of the faithful'' among the Dalits by reinvoking the importance of hero worship and the myth of charismatic qualities of particular Dali leaders. The common Dalits feel that they cannot provide a more competent and sophisticated argument than what their leaders do. The leaders perpetuate this servile attitude by deliberately using an abstract language. This construction of an elite image works everywhere in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh and creates a rather degrading dependence, which necessarily denies both dignity and critical faculty to the thinking of the Dalits.
This lack of enlightenment among the Dalits leads to the legitimisation of Dalit politics which has become self-limiting as it eludes the question of Dalit emancipation. It also makes the Dalits willing partners in supporting their political leaders who lack an ability to offer an alternative vision of politics.
In this regard, it is important to offer a critical comment on the contemporary Dalit feminism in Maharashtra. The Dalit leaders in the State fail to articulate gender equality and are in no mood to confront the Dalit patriarchy.
The Dalit feminist confidence in such a leadership appears misplaced, if not misleading. However, a few feminists have maintained their distance from such leadership.
How can the Dalit leaders feel empowered when they feed on the political passivity of their common people on the issue of internal critique? The lack of internal critique also robs Dalit politics of its universal character of reaching out independently to other oppressed sections which are also in need of a fresh grass roots initiative entailing a new vision of the world based on the concept of truth.
Contemporary Dalit politics, therefore, seeks a definite political departure from Ambedkar, not realising or deliberately avoiding the need for an internal critique. Ambedkar, on the one hand, criticised the communists and the Congress leadership for their sociological blindness to an internal critique of the Hindu social order and, on the other, condemned the Hindu nationalists, who ridiculed and then opposed the need for any internal critique.
This kind of externally-looking Dailt politics, instead of providing a creative context for activism, becomes supplementary to the politics of hegemonic faces in one way or the other.
(The writer is Mahatma Gandhi Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Pune). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While the author has atleast attempted to analyse the situation honestly, I think the author has himself fallen into the same 'external looking' trap that he warns people against. IMHO what is required is for dalits to shed this persecution complex and grab the bull by horns. Demand better education - subsidies or what have you. Simply complaining about all and sundry is not going to cut it and living in a world where they allow missionary scumbags to frame their identity will push them into a paki-mindset of forever persecuted lowlies whose only purpose in life is to demand more from the rest. A dalit leader like Sri Ambedkar is absolutely required.
OTOH BJP and Sangh should multiply efforts to look for proper dalit leadership - backed with a "feel good" agenda for dalit betterment, rather then this 'genocide' bullcr@p coming out of missionary scumbags.