Pages

Monday, February 22, 2010

A Dalit Activist's Fascist thinking

This is a response to a Dalit activist's theoretical musings. I inserted my comments in red fonts in Shrikant Borker's response to a mail informing of the cut-up of the elected canditdates to the Students Union elections at Tata Instituate of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. Please find the original mail and then Mr. Borkar's comments and then my response to it at the end.
CBP

On 18 February 2010 04:53, shweta barge wrote:

Jaibhim all of you !!!


Here I take opportunity to heartily congratulate and celebrate the HISTORY which students have carved in Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai STUDENT UNION ELECTIONS.

This is the first time in STUDENT UNION of TISS where all members belong to Dalit, Tribe and Minorities.


President : ST
Vice-Prez: SC
Gen.Sec : SC
Treasure : Minority women
Cultural Sec : SC
Literary Sec : ST
Sports Sec : ST.

This success is a huge victory for us and a pioneer of building more self esteem and our say in TISS campus. This has happened first time in history of TISS.

I humbly congratulate all those students, faculties, alumni, well wishers without whom this victory would not be possible.


Love n Faith,

Ms. Shweta Barge
MSW,
TISS,Mumbai. Responding to this mail Shrikant Borkar wrote the following mail. 


Why separate terms Dalit and Tribes ?
Dear Shweta,
Hearty Congratulations on this achievements at TISS, however I am confused about your usage of terms Dalits and Tribes ? 
Do you mean that tribal are not Dalit and vice versa ? Is it possible for us to reach or evolve some comprehensive 'term' signifying the common victims of Brahiminical Social structure and exploitative system,with due consideration to the degree and context of degradation and victimization in our Indian society.
No person thinking on the lines of Ambedkrite nationalistic perceptions would agree to call himself Dalit if it is breaking him away from rest of the common victims of antagonistic anti-national brahminical design, even if it is drawing her/him some economical and  political benefits.
The term Shakti used 'Bahujan' is good to start with. However, even the 'Bahujan' term should not be adulterated with 'Dalit-Bahujan'  or more confusing ' Mulniwasi-Bahujan' as 'Dalit' is inherent in Bahujan and Bahujan is essential component of 'Mulniwasi'.
Here if some intellectual makes a critique of it and says that it is political term and is value leaden, not proper social scientifically, then my question would be 'What is political and apolitical ? I would ask 'is social devoid of political ?' And those who are little read in politics of knowledge, epistemology or politics of pedagogy would know what I mean.
Drawing on the lines of Shakti 'that our ancestors were  once ruler of this country', in the wake of recent massive misappropriation and hijacking of even term 'Bahujan', which has been interpolated by RSS that hindus means Bahujan and Muslims means 'Alpajans' , I would propose that 'Mulniwasi' would be highly appropriate term to use for all of us who have been stigmatized, degraded and ostracized in some way or another by Brahminical Culture and religion.
As it is one of the universal phenomenon which results from the conflict between  protagonist and antagonist groups i.e. the degradation and stigmatization or name calling of each other. Hence, it proves that, it could be concluded that all those communities which are socially considered low like OBCs, excluded like STs and stigmatized like SCs  including the Muslims and Christian and recent convert Buddhists from all these communities must have been at odd with main stream Hinduism aka Brahminical social structure and hence they were degraded.
This warrants a practical  solution and  comprehensive term which will represent the pan-Indian common victims to raise common conscience against their arch enemy.
And I am quite confident that 'Mulniwasi' is the term which satisfies the crucial-social-political need of our emancipatory movement.
Yours in struggle for equality and fraternity
Shri





On 20 February 2010 04:46, Shrikant Borkar wrote:

Why separate terms Dalit and Tribes ? I too feel one single word, Dalit, is enough when we are not particularly talking about issues specific to SCs or STs. But, this should not be at the cost of sidelining the tribal issues. When the greatest combined attack on Tribal lives and livelihood was launched- taking away tribal lands,- and when it encountered problems- the Indian government started first taking tribals away from their lands so that giving away their land to corporations and wealthy sections will be easy. When all of this is happening- it is ongoing and increasing- "Dalit" leaders don't seem to remember that tribals are dalits. Dalit leaders are not at the forefront of the struggle against uprooting and killing and mass raping of tribals. They are not even writing petitions against it holding protest in cities, let alone organizing tribal resistance. We should use Dalit to refer to both Tribals and SCs as long as we don't consider Tribal issues are the area of NGOs, Naxals and Government.

Dear Shweta,

Hearty Congratulations on this achievements at TISS, however I am confused about your usage of terms Dalits and Tribes ?

Do you mean that tribal are not Dalit and vice versa ? Is it possible for us to reach or evolve some comprehensive 'term' signifying the common victims of Brahiminical Social structure and exploitative system,with due consideration to the degree and context of degradation and victimization in our Indian society.

No person thinking on the lines of Ambedkrite nationalistic What is this? Why should we be nationalists? We should be internationalists. Solidarity and a capacity for siding with the all suffering peoples and catagaries irrespective their place of origin or residence should be part of our politics. Era of progressive nationalisms is over. What we now have here is a fascist form of nationalism. perceptions would agree to call himself Dalit if it is breaking him away from rest of the common victims of antagonistic anti-national brahminical design, even if it is drawing her/him some economical and political benefits. "Brahmins" could be accused of anything but anti-nationalism. They played an important part in the ideology of nationalism and probably the biggest beneficiaries of it.

The term Shakti used 'Bahujan' is good to start with. However, even the 'Bahujan' term should not be adulterated with 'Dalit-Bahujan' or more confusing ' Mulniwasi-Bahujan' as 'Dalit' is inherent in Bahujan and Bahujan is essential component of 'Mulniwasi'. This simply means that we should not use the word Dalit even. Why? You seem to suggest, though don't argue clearly, that since the idea of Bahujan is inclusive of Dalits, the very word Dalit is divisive.

Here if some intellectual makes a critique of it and says that it is political term and is value leaden, not proper social scientifically, then my question would be 'What is political and apolitical ? I would ask 'is social devoid of political ?' And those who are little read in politics of knowledge, epistemology or politics of pedagogy would know what I mean. I don't know enough about these things either. But, I think common sense, and reasoning any of us can afford, is enough to settle these matters of terminology. First, you argue that Tribe idenity should be absorbed into Dalit, then you further prescribe the absorption of Dalit into bigger Bahujan identity.

Drawing on the lines of Shakti 'that our ancestors were once ruler of this country', Our ancestors are NOT rulers of the country. First it is not historically accurate to see a single ruling community or cluster of communities through out the history. Second, there was no "country" in the first place until very recently- say later period of colonialism. Even if any of our ancestors were rulers, we should be ashamed of that. Not proudly remember it. We should track that history if we were ever rulers and apologize for atrocities we must have committed and exploitation we must have perpetrated. in the wake of recent massive misappropriation and hijacking of even term 'Bahujan', which has been interpolated by RSS that hindus means Bahujan and Muslims means 'Alpajans', I would propose that 'Mulniwasi' would be highly appropriate term to use for all of us who have been stigmatized, degraded and ostracized in some way or another by Brahminical Culture and religion. Though a moment ago argued like a quasi-RSS person in mentioning nationalism as a positive thing, it is good to hear that you too oppose their designs of appropriating these labels. But what you are proposing is an equally false catagory called Mulnivasi.

As it is one of the universal phenomenon which results from the conflict between protagonist and antagonist groups i.e. the degradation and stigmatization or name calling of each other. Hence, it proves that, it could be concluded that all those communities which are socially considered low like OBCs, excluded like STs and stigmatized like SCs including the Muslims and Christian and recent convert Buddhists from all these communities must have been at odd with main stream Hinduism aka Brahminical social structure and hence they were degraded.

This warrants a practical solution and comprehensive term which will represent the pan-Indian common victims to raise common conscience against their arch enemy. We don't need 'comprehensive' words when the purpose is not comprehensive. For political purposes, to forge a broad coalition of forces of all victims of Hindu order, there is nothing wrong in highlighting Bahujan idenity. But it doesn't have to erase or reject the specificity of Dalit identity. Elections and activities related to securing enough votes is only on sphere of our lives. We want to retain our specific identities in many walks of our lives. Just because we ask for votes we have no right to ask people to give up their identities unless we find any inhuman elements in it. We ask Brahminal people to give up some elements of their identities because they humiliate others and de-humanise themselves. My Dalit identity or Bahunjan identity or even my mala(caste) identity are not such and I don't want to give them up. Can anybody write a 'Bahujan' novel set in a village? Impossible.

And I am quite confident that 'Mulniwasi' is the term which satisfies the crucial-social-political need of our emancipatory movement. I am afraid, this is a most dangerous idea. It is doubly fascist. First it is based on the argument that other identities are to be just deleted because we want to achieve majority votes and seats in politics. Why should anybody want to sacrifice their painstakingly constructed and defended identities? The very idea of coalition is DIFFERENT forces coming together for COMMON MINIMUM goals. Second fascist idea is linking 'origin' to identity. 'Mulnivasi' means autochtonous or at least aboriginal. It is not wrong to talk in those terms when Colonials occupied them and ousted them and denied the survivors any right to live as equal partners of society. But, the idea of rights has nothing to with the place. It is, and must be, based on the idea that each individual is a human being therefore entitled to human rights. Dear Shrikant, you are appropriating the same RSS arguments and reasoning but luckily you are on our side. We should reject not only the authority of the Brahmanical forces but also their ways of thinking. I request you look in that direction.

Waiting for your response,


Chittibabu Padavala, Chennai







Yours in struggle for equality and fraternity

Shri

2 comments:

  1. read with interest Sri Kanchi Illaiah and co's argument. Hindu fundamentalism, brahminism et al. favourite whipping boys. idelogogical bigotry in that there are many brahmins who go all out to support dalit cause and there many self-seving dalit leaders who thrive on the suppression of their brethren. idelogical blinkers too in that they embrace muhammad and jesus forgetting prevalence of casteism in these religions. spite for hinduism will not bring us any respite. as long as u follow the line of exclusivism, the cause suffers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. True, there are genuine friends of Dalits or at least those who are decent enough to think that Hinduism should be cured of this evil of humiliating and oppressing Dalits for no reason. Some of them even go to the extent of realising that oppressing Dalits is not just Dalits' problem but the Oppressing Castes themselves: you become inhuman by oppressing others.
    And, there are people amond Dalits who are not very good at protecting the cause of Dalits. This "thriving on the oppression of their brothern" description I am not very comfortable with. Laying it on a bit too thick is not a very big problem if it is not also misleading besides being an exaggeration.
    About the spite, if there is one problem with Dalits, it is that they don't Hinduism enough. Dalits tend to ask too less. In that sense Dalits are repeatedly failing to fulfil their historical role of democratising the Hinduism in stages before completely doing away with it.
    I don't know of a single major instance where dalit politicians are following a path of exclusivism. They can be blamed for not being exclusive enough and joining the establishment.

    ReplyDelete