Sunday, April 15, 2012

OPINION The Left’s Untouchable Why was Ambedkar’s critique of caste anathema for Indian Marxists? MANASH BHATTACHARJEE

ILLUSTRATION BY SORIT
OPINION
The Left's Untouchable
Why was Ambedkar's critique of caste anathema for Indian Marxists?


EMS's reaction to the Poona Pact was in consonance with his reading of Indian history in Marxist terms. Borrowing crudely from Marx's understanding of the history of slavery, EMS found the caste system, despite its exploitative structure, to be "a superior economic organisation", which facilitated organised production through a systematic allocation of labour. He didn't note Ambedkar's sophisticated distinction between "division of labour" and "division of the labourer" (including the hierarchy within that division) in the casteist relations of production. The eternal fixedness of the labourer with regard to his birth (as the "subject" who "will bear its Father's name"), and the religious sanction behind such an identity, were deemed unimportant. Being mostly from the upper castes, Left scholars avoided examining the assumptions of caste.

Since before Independence, the mainstream Left framed the class question safely within the nationalist question; for EMS and his comrades, this issue was not a diversion.

Ambedkar had the courage to push for a radical division within the framework of nationalist politics, by asking for separate electorates. By calling Ambedkar's cause "mundane", EMS drew a specious distinction between the working class and Dalits, holding the former to be "superior". Through this, EMS betrayed his predominantly upper-caste mindset. He is an exemplar of progressive casteism in the history of Left politics and thinking in India. This led to lower castes and Dalits not finding a place in the party hierarchy.

The most insidious form of caste solidarity ignores and hides the stark fact that caste is part of what Althusser calls the "apparatus" of ideology and is based in material existence. Every form of social practice (and exploitation) in India is contextually casteist. It creates conditions of multiple prejudice between the bourgeois and the working class (where the scavenging class/caste goes unnamed). And this prejudice becomes part of the relations of production as caste introduces elements of segregation and humiliation within those relations. In the case of untouchables, one might in fact call it relations of waste, where the disposing of sewage, etc, is not accorded even the minimum standard of dignified working conditions.

Ambedkar pointed out how the class system had an "open-door character", whereas castes were "self-enclosed units". He gave a brilliant explanation of caste's forced endogamy: "Some closed the door: others found it closed against them." The image throws up a phenomenon opposite to the Kafkan idea of law: the (Hindu) gatekeeper of law, in Ambedkar's explanation, is also the lawgiver, and he allows entry by birth, but no exit. Once entry has been secured in Hindu society, as Ambedkar argued, everyone who is not a Brahmin is an other. Hinduism is a uniquely self-othering social system, whose (touchable) norms are secured by declaring a brutal exception: untouchability.

In his comparison of Buddha and Marx, Ambedkar bypasses Marx's idea of private property and keeps out the question of capital ownership. He also does not complicate the relation between 'law' and 'government'. These appear to be limitations of the historical conjuncture of Dalit politics. But Ambedkar finds the materialist and non-violent character of Buddhism to be evoking another thinkable historical version of a Marxist society.

Some critics in the Indian Left see the Dalit movement as being merely a 'politics of recognition' and having no revolutionary potential. It is a shallow view of the movement against segregated exploitation that seeks to penetrate entrenched hegemony. The politics against untouchability demands more than good wages and working conditions: it asks for a reconfiguration of the socio-cultural space and the elimination of a violated and untouchable 'bare life'.

Ambedkar had warned that the Indian socialist would have to "take account of caste after the revolution, if he does not take account of it before the revolution".

In a discussion after the screening of his film, Jai Bhim Comrade, Anand Patwardhan said that even though Gandhi erred on the caste system, he did more against untouchability than the Left. Under the stark light of this observation, the Left must rethink its ideological history. Or else, the crisis of its political legitimacy may not outlive the warnings.

TRANSLATE INTO:
Powered by Translate
 
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
DAILY MAIL
1/D-10
APR 15, 2012
12:50 AM

EMS Nambudiripad's love for caste issue understandable---he was in favour of perpetuation of  vested interest. His forefathers, if not he himself, roamed around the country and had sex with women of other castes with impunity,  no shame attached to it nor was a demur heard from their husbands. Even the non-Brahman Raja of Malabar  invited Nambudiri Brahman to spend first night with the King's wife after his marriage and had her deflowered by the rogue. Then only her legitimate husband had opportunity to sleep with his newly wed bride. More inquisitive men may read Malabar Manual by Logan. And I refrain from naming the caste who happily allowed the Nambudiri Brahmans for the grotesque job for his wife. So much was the blighting influences of caste. Why does anybody expects  EMS to forego the advantages of caste?

Marxism has remained a Brahminical party without exception. From Manabendra Roy alias Narendranath Bhattacharya, [founder of Communist Party of India in Taskent] down to Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Sitararm Yechury, Prakash & Brinda Karat all vouch for what is true about the ideology in India. They have been using the lowest castes as ladder to capture power  and enjoying fruits of it.

The sooner the Marxian parties is thrown to the occean the better. They are sleek white color exploiters.

As for Poona Pact and reservation under it, one word is enough to explain, the machanism put in place has made dalit/tribal communities political slaves of the upper castes. Their MLAs, MPs, Ministers, elected on joint electorates  have no voice. They are shunted out if and when they fight for the rights of the dalits/tribal communities. Their rights can be redeemed but it invariably militates againsty non-dalit interest. Hence the reserved seat representatives do not do anything for their communities. Any attempt will bring casteist level for them. But this does happen with Brahman, Kayasth or Rajput etc. if they promote their own caste men with impunity. 

It is time to give a goobdbye to the joint electorate system. In UP Mayawati Government won less reserved seats than SP or Congress because upper caste who are majority in every constituency had opposed BSP. Hence BSP got less reserved seats. The liberal, patriotic and foresighted people of this country should raise voice to end joint electorates and bring in its place separate electorates for uplift of the dalit and tribal communities. This is why no national political parties ever nominate any educated and articulate dalit or tribal for any elective post.  All reserved seat representatives are indolent, ignorant and useless as people's representatives.

SANKET BISWAS
KOLKATA, INDIA
2/D-80
APR 15, 2012
05:47 PM

In today's 'Dalit' politics Mahatma Gandhi is an unwanted personality and the left politics is irrelevant to most of the activists. This is so because of the perception that Mahatma Gandhi supported the 'Chaturvarna' or the caste system. The left ideology does not appeal to most of today's Dalit activists as I feel that it has simply not been able to capture their minds. But unfortunate casualty of this development, if I may say so, is lack of a frank discussion about future of Dalits' political activism of the kind envisaged by Dr. Ambedkar. He wanted the Dalits to increase their clout by educating themselves. It is for Dalits to say whether they have done justice to his legacy. 
In an article by an American professor about Dalit participation in today's media industry, the conclusion was that it was negligible. But strangely, the blame was laid on high castes for this state of affairs. 
I always feel that if an individual wants to join any discussion on Dalit politics of today or of the past, that individual's right to have a contrary view must fist be recognized. In the recent past, I have noticed on many occasions that Dalit activists are not always ready to accept that right. Hence a free and frank discussion does not take place.

NARENDRA M APTE
PUNE, INDIA

No comments: