The Idea of India: 'Derivative, Desi and Beyond'
By: Gopal Guru
Vol XLVI No.37 September 10, 2011
The dalit discourse in India presents a sharp contrast to the
"derivative" and the "desi" discourses governing nationalist thought
and the "idea of India". The dalit discourse goes "beyond" the two in
offering an imagination that is based on a "negative" language which
however transcends into a normative form of thinking. The dalit goes
beyond both the derivative and desi inasmuch as it foregrounds itself
in the local configuration of power, which is constitutive of the
hegemonic orders of capitalism and brahminism.
In this essay I would like to make two interrelated arguments. First,
socio-political thought in colonial India represents a multiplicity
of ideas from India. Thus in the "affirmative" imagination, the idea
of incredible India can be arguably attributed to Jawaharlal Nehru,
while we need not have any hesitation in associating the idea of
"village India" or "Ram Rajya" with M K Gandhi. Similarly, we need not
hesitate to relate the idea of mother India with nationalist thinking
in the 19th and 20th century nationalist imagination in West Bengal.
In another shade of Hindu nationalist thought the idea of "father
India" and "holy India" can be undoubtedly attributed to Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar. There is an alternative imagination as well. In
this kind of imagination, we have Jyotirao Phule's India of Baliraja
(the benevolent peasant king who existed in myths) and Babasaheb
Ambedkar's prabuddha Bharat ("enlightened India").
The alternative imagination of India as proposed by Phule and Ambedkar
follows a particular methodological route. The conception of an
alternative or affirmative imagination of India seems to be preceded
by what could be termed as oppositional imagination. For example,
Ambedkar also imagines India as "bahishkrut Bharat" – "ostracised
India".
Second, the thinkers who have imagined India use a particular
language, which this essay argues is articulated via three routes –
the methodological, the conceptual and the hermeneutic.
Taking a cue from some leading scholars,1 I would like to argue that
the methodological language plays an important role in terms of
deciding the epistemic calibre and evaluating the universal standards
of nationalist thought. At another level, methodological language
seeks to characterise the autonomy of nationalist thought. To put it
differently, the methodological device is deployed to decide the
"authenticity" of nationalist thought. Authenticity in this context
involves the question whether a particular thought is original or
imitative? In the present context, originality is contingent upon the
conditions (cultural and intellectual) that fix the territorial
boundaries around the nationalist thought. What is being suggested
here is that spatiality as well as epistemology foreground the
question whether a particular thought has an alternative point of
origin or is it a "lazy" extension of the "modular" form of
nationalist thinking, which is already available in the west and
waiting to be replicated in India. Thus, the methodological categories
adopted by some of the noted scholars seek to designate certain
distinct character to Indian thought. Let me put this point in a more
dramatic fashion. Does the nationalist thought in India don those
categories that are cast off by western modernity? Do we "shop" in
second hand? What is wrong in borrowing the used and abused categories
from the west?
Thus, the methodological language is suggestive of a characterising
function that certain categories tend to acquire. It could be argued
that the category "derivative" as adopted by one of the leading
scholars on nationalism, Partha Chatterjee seems to be performing the
function of characterising nationalist thought in India. According to
Chatterjee (1986: 41), the nationalist thought in India is essentially
a derivative in the sense that it fashions itself on the modular form
of nationalism as developed in the west. However, Chatterjee
qualifies this argument particularly in two respects. First, he does
not suggest that nationalist thought in India indulges in "wholesale"
borrowing from the west. It is quite selective in such borrowings.
Chatterjee rightly points out that the nationalist thought, at least
for political reasons (my expression), needs to assert its autonomous
character. Thus, for him, a nationalist thought would not constitute
as nationalist if it is absolutely imitative (my expression) of the
west (Chatterjee 1986: 8). He makes an indirect reference to the moral
dimension of nationalist thought, which according to his own reading
is internal to the derivative character of this thought. This is clear
from the following observation that Chaterjee makes in his widely
referred work. He says, "Nationalist discourse is historical in form
but 'apologetic' in substance" (Chatterjee 1986: 9). Thus, the
nationalist problematic in India is replete with a dilemma – willing
to keep distance from the west but unable to retain the autonomy.
The 'Derivative' and the 'Desi'
It is true that the "derivative" as characterising category plays an
important role in foregrounding the dilemma that the nationalist
thought confronts particularly within the colonial configuration of
power. It suffers from a dilemma in the sense that while it has a
will to carve out for itself an autonomous epistemological space well
outside the influence of western discourse, at the same time it is
unable to escape the epistemological grip and gaze of the western
discourse. However, the logic of such rather innovative methodological
moves does not necessarily exhaust all the reference points that may
bring into focus the hidden dimension of nationalist thought. Thus one
needs to cast the net of methodological language a little wider so as
to capture within its range some other categories that can throw some
light on the hidden character of nationalist imagination. The central
argument of this essay, thus, is this: "derivative" as a
methodological language is necessary but not sufficiently capacious so
as to unfold to us the differential nature of nationalist thought in
India. Thus, at the methodological level, it becomes necessary to add
to "derivative" two other categories – "desi" and "beyond". This
semantic extension, in my opinion, is necessary to bring out what
could be called a "distinct" character of nationalist thought in
India. Let us therefore examine, to what extent and in what context,
the "desi" acquires a character which is different from the
derivative.
I would like to argue that both desi and derivative are different from
each other in the following respects. First, taking a cue from the
very instructive insights provided by Sudipta Kaviraj (1995) it could
be argued that the desi seeks to reverse the logic of orientalism
thus making the west an object of not only its own inquiry but also
for establishing both autonomy from and superiority over the west.
Second, as a corollary to the first, a particular strand of Indian
thought could be characterised as desi precisely because it is
self-referential. It is self-referential to the extent that it
develops itself within the intellectual conditions that are
historically available in the specific territorial context of India.
However, in this regard it is necessary to qualify this argument by
making two other additional points.
First, the claim for self-referentiality emerges in the context of a
desi response to colonial epistemological challenge that in fact
shakes the desi out of its intellectual complacency if not slumber.
Second, "desi" for its self-definition requires the west as an
epistemological shadow as characterised by Uday Mehta (1998). To put
it differently, the desi for its own "authentic" articulation requires
the west as a negative reference point. Finally, desi, like the
derivative does not suffer from a dilemma as mentioned above. The desi
mode of thinking does not have a desire to follow the west and at the
same time remain autonomous. On the contrary, it acquires its
intellectual confidence whereby it does not allow the western
vocabulary to float into the minds of the desi thinkers who drawing on
Bhikhu Parekh's (1989) classification could be characterised as
either traditionalists or critical traditionalists. The desi thought
articulates supreme confidence to the point that it, as mentioned
above, becomes self-referential, or a source of reference for the
other. It acquires the status of a classic having timeless essence and
relevance. One could interpret the element of confidence in the desi
thinking as a moral source, which therefore chooses to operate on its
own without necessarily making any association with other contending
thoughts.
In fact, desi thought is epistemologically inegalitarian inasmuch as
it seeks positive dissociation from other contending intellectual
traditions. It does not find it necessary to exist as a contending and
competing intellectual tradition. At another level of its intellectual
existence and in the need to remain hegemonic both across time and
space, it seeks to assimilate those intellectual traditions that are
heterodox in character. Assimilation of one strand of Buddhism in
brahminical Hinduism is one such example in the premodern period and
the Gandhian attempt to assimilate the dalit discourse within its
hegemonic framework is another attempt in modern time. However, there
is a striking difference between brahminical Hinduism and the Gandhian
project. While the former was successful in its mission the latter was
not. The desi, unlike the derivative, thus seeks to avoid the charge
of being apologetic.
Finally, the desi thinking in India acquires its autonomy from the
west primarily because it has privileged access to the Sanskrit
language which provides the necessary vocabulary for developing an
alternative theoretical thinking. The exclusive access to Sanskrit by
definition questions the claim of desi thought as being complete and
universal. For it can claim to be complete only in the absence of that
thought which developed with the marginal support of Sanskrit or even
without it. The dalit and shudra thought developed by Ambedkar,
Jyotiba Phule and "Periyar" E V Ramasamy Naicker respectively is a
case in point. It is in this sense that the dalit shudra thought could
be considered as beyond the framework of desi which is exclusively
based on Sanskrit. However, this idea of desi is certainly different
from the idea of desi as developed by one of the leading Marathi
literary novelists and critics, Bhalchandra Nemade. He would call all
the silenced but subaltern or little traditions like saint traditions
as desi. Although the "subaltern" as desi warrants critical attention,
here for the sake of convenience I do not propose to assign full
treatment to that perspective.
However, it is important to mention here that such a thought falling
outside the framework of both "desi" and to some extent "derivative"
has a strong moral significance. It has emerged and developed in
adversarial intellectual conditions where thinkers like Ambedkar and
Phule did not have resources to fall back on and hence were forced to
draw on those produced by the collective cultural and intellectual
practices of the "shudra-atishudra communities". It is the experience
and not the already available text that led to the reflective
intellectual consciousness among the thinkers from the
shudra-atishudra community.
Thus, within the Indian tradition of thought, there is an intellectual
trend, which goes beyond both the derivative as well as the desi. In
the following section, I would like to argue that the category
"beyond", that can function through the conceptual language is more
sensitive in terms of capturing the historical form and normative
substance of sociopolitical thinking which emerged in India despite
heavy odds. It faced heavy odds in the sense that it was pushed both
beneath and beyond the desi as well as the derivative.
The Category of the 'Beyond'
I argue here that the category of "beyond" is distinctive from both
the "desi" and the "derivative" inasmuch as it seeks to characterise
the nationalist imagination radically differently. It is also
different from the other two in the sense that it suggests the
possibility of a parallel problematic of nationalist thought. I will
explain what is a "parallel problematic", but before I do this let me
explain the underlying characteristics of the category "beyond".
First, the category "beyond" seeks to render the thinking that
otherwise is pushed beneath and beyond the public imagination. Such
rather coercive seclusion and separation of a particular thinking is
analogous to the dalit literary imagination which in its
self-description claims that its poems belong to what is called in
Marathi, gao kusa baheril kavita (poems from beyond the margin). The
category "beyond", however, is the result of the intellectual practice
of those who were privileged to have been involved in such practice.
Scholars and commentators of political thought in modern India seem to
have either completely omitted (Mehta 1996 for example) or
rhetorically accommodated (Pantham and Deutsch 1986) certain social
and political thinking particularly that has originated from the
subaltern intellectual traditions. An alternative mode of thinking
from the "margin" has been actively pushed beyond both the derivative
and the desi which have been treated as the hegemonic terrain of
public inquiry characterising "argumentative India". Thus, according
to this particular reading, thinkers like Phule and Ambedkar fail to
fit into the definitional framework of political thought. Second, the
thought which is made to exist in the "beyond" is different both in
terms of style and substance. It is different in style as it expresses
dissonance, difference and defiance. The assertion of "no" and an
element of anti-scepticism that is so prominent in such thought
creates interruptions in the conceptual stability and universal
validity of the hegemonic thought. Third, sociopolitical thought
seems to exist beyond both the desi and the derivative to the extent
that the concepts that inhibit this thought play an important role of
recasting the real (largely un-thought) into reflection.
The experience of untouchability forms the part of "un-thought" as it
fails to get fully accommodated in or fails to become the part of
conceptual vocabulary of the desi as well as the derivative. Its
systematic articulation had to wait till the arrival of Phule and
most particularly Ambedkar into the intellectual imagination in the
19th and 20th century India. Thus, in Ambedkar's thought one finds
several concepts and categories like bahishkrut Bharat,
untouchability as lokvigraha, "broken men", "depressed classes",
"pad-dalit", hinatva (servility), and vital (ritual pollution) that
receive intellectually sophisticated treatment from him. Thus, in
Ambedkar the concept of hinatva is different from the concept of
durbalata (weakness). For him the former is the state of being of a
particular self while the latter is the condition that has a limited
impact on this self.
Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar as reflective thinkers seek to recast a
particular reality into reflection thus elevating it from mere
description to its universal abstraction. For example, the concept of
bahishkrut in Ambedkar is the reflection of the real, i e,
mal-apportioned untouchables. As is evident from the conceptual
vocabulary mentioned in the preceding sentences, the concepts and
categories constitutive of the discourse "beyond" access this ideal
only through the reflection on the real.
Fourth, the thought from the margins also acquires the character of
going beyond the derivative and the desi to the extent that for its
articulation it adopts a vocabulary, which might appear to be
negative or grotesque to the latter. This might appear to be negative
to both the derivative and the desi thought which claims to be
articulating itself through the canonised language of self-rule,
swadeshi, home rule and swarajya. The thought from the margins looks
much beyond identical and affirmative language for its expression as
mentioned in the preceding sentence. We will talk more about the role
of negative language in shaping the thought in the discourse of the
"beyond" later.
Fifth and finally this particular thought not only goes beyond the
derivative and the desi in terms of its style and substance but it
also goes beyond itself particularly in terms of its search for an
alternative normative ideal. The category "beyond" does not suggest
that the thought from the margins does not have its own ideal. In
fact, it does have its own idea of ideal (Guru 2009). For example,
Phule moves from gulamigiri (slavery) to sarvajaniksatya dharma
(religion based on universal truth) and Ambedkar moves from
"bahishkrut Bharat" (India of the ostracised) to "prabuddha Bharat"
(enlightened India) or from "lokvigarha" (untouchability) to
"loksangraha" (annihilation of untouchability). This particular
thought also adopts an affirmative language for the articulation of
this ideal. But the intellectual project of subaltern thought aimed at
preparing the masses for the realisation of a normative ideal becomes
discernible through a particular dialectic. It chooses to operate
through the negative language as an initial communicative condition.
Negative language as the grotesque form of expression makes both the
derivative and the desi as an object of its criticism. It thus seeks
to undercut the significance of canonised language as the only
legitimate form of expression.
'Negative Language'
The thought hailing from the "beyond" seeks to challenge this
canonised language by deploying the negative language. For example,
this invokes the language of untouchability in order to undercut the
political significance of the affirmative language of loksangraha
mooted by Sri Aurobindo.2 The negative vocabulary seeks to challenge
the mechanical language of unity as proposed by the nationalist
thinkers.
The political thought residing in the beyond as an hermeneutic space,
thus, performs an ethical function in as much it causes an
embarrassment to nationalist thought and seeks to puncture the moral
confidence of the canonised thought. At another level, through the
adoption of an alternative affirmative language of self-respect and
dignity it seeks to posit opposition within a person (in the present
case untouchables) who is otherwise immune to the normative desire for
self-definition.
The invocation of an affirmative language in the subaltern thought
leads to reconstruction of consciousness whereby every being existing
at the margins becomes his/her own opposite. The reconstructive
process facilitated through subaltern thought thus involves, for
example, an attempt to overcome the state of servile being and
radically transform the servile into a subversive entity. The
redemption of subversive entity becomes a possibility primarily
through the complex interplay between the modernist dimension of
social thought and its corresponding framework, i e, the local
configuration of power. The local configuration of power is
constitutive of brahminism and capitalism in Phule's language
"shetji-bhatji'' and in Ambedkar's language "brahmanshahi" and
bhandwalshahi.
To put it differently, the redemption of the subversive entity through
the subaltern thought or the thought of the "beyond" takes place
within the context of this local configuration of power constitutive
of capitalism and brahminism. Ambedkar's thought entails modern
vocabulary such as equality, justice, self-respect and more
importantly dignity. The internal structure of nationalist thought as
argued by Chatterjee and endorsed by Kaviraj is extremely complex
because according to these scholars it contains critiques within
critiques. While there is no problem in accepting the validity of
this reading of nationalist thought, the associative problem of
this "critique within the critique" is that it does not exhaust its
logic in the sense that it pays rhetorical attention rather than
offering substantive treatment to the question of caste.
This language in its affirmative mode seeks to not only interrogate
the local configuration of power, but it also aims at mobilising
Indian society initially against itself and essentially for its
transformation into the distant future. The derivative and the desi,
on the other hand, hesitate to engage with the local but show an
extraordinary urgency to confront the imperial State in the colonial
configuration of power. The derivative and desi, thus, make huge
concessions to native capitalism and most particularly brahminism that
regulate local configurations of power.
'Postcolonial' Critique
It is interesting to note that some of the postcolonial scholars seem
to have used the much celebrated framework, i e, the derivative
discourse as a potent methodological resource to critique Ambedkar's
modernist moves for political mobilisation of the dalits (Ganguly
2005: 115). Some of them obliquely critique Ambedkar for having
indulged in unconditional borrowing from the western modernist
paradigm. But if Phule and Ambedkar borrow it, what is wrong? They
certainly have incorporated the western in their thought. One cannot
object to such borrowing particularly on moral grounds. They were
forced to borrow because they were denied access to the desi category
that was locally available. For example, they were denied access to
learning Sanskrit that arguably happened to be the potent field of
conceptual vocabulary.
The postcolonial critique of Ambedkar as mounted by scholars like
Ganguly needs to take into account the constraining impact of local
configuration of power that has produced the following predicament for
the dalit thinkers. It says in Marathi, and I quote "aai jeyaila
wadat nahi, ani bap usanwari karu det nahi". In this context, aai is
understood as a stepmother. Sanskrit language is a stepmother, and
according to the proverbial understanding, exclusion, discrimination
is in her nature. Thus, Sanskrit as a stepmother does not offer
conceptual food (and creates conditions of intellectual starvation)
and the postcolonial theorist also does not allow borrowing ideas from
the west. In fact, Chatterjee's recent work on Babasaheb Ambedkar
certainly contributes to our understanding of thought that exists on
the edge of thought corresponding to the "beyond". In his recent work
on Ambedkar (Chatterjee 2006: 83) he argues that Ambedkar does not
have a problem existing in the homogeneity of India but is also
reduced to suppressed heterogeneity.
The above description thus involves three claims. First, that the
sociopolitical thought which exists in the realms of the "beyond"
essentially suggests a possibility of a parallel problematic of the
idea of India. Second, it adopts a negative language for the
articulation of the "parallel problematic". Finally, this thought does
not remain pathologically stuck in the framework of negative language.
On the contrary it progressively transcends the negative and develops
an affirmative language for fashioning out an alternative conception
of India. These claims make it necessary to explain the nature of the
"parallel problematic" within which the new questions implicating the
idea of India are framed and a non-identical, grotesque language is
developed for the articulation of these questions.
The Parallel Problematic
The term problematic in the Althusserian framework,3 designates the
theoretical/ideological framework, which puts the basic concepts into
relation with one another, determines the nature of each concept by
its place and function in this system of relationship, and thus
confers on each concept its particular significance.
Althusser further argues that the concept of the problematic acquires
its own significance by determining what it includes within its
field, and thereby necessarily determines what is excluded therefrom.
The concepts which are excluded and the problems which are not posed
adequately or not posed at all are therefore as much a part of the
nationalist problematic as are the concepts and problems that are
present in the nationalist thought. It could be argued that the
"parallel problematic" providing intellectual space for the
emergence of the subaltern thought in turn results from the
deficiency that is internal and endemic to the nationalist
problematic.
The nationalistic problematic provides a negative reference point that
triggers off a parallel problematic. Thus, the parallel problematic
seeks to bring into the forefront questions relating to normative
concerns like justice, equality and dignity that get buried in the
backyard of nationalist thought and hence the nationalistic
problematic which raises different order of questions relating to
self-rule and political freedom. The nationalistic problematic that
emerged during the colonial times has failed to either adequately
pose the question of annihilation of caste or sought to completely
exclude these social questions.
The nationalistic problematic produces sovereign concepts such as
self-rule, elite democracy and political freedom, which is fine but
these sovereign concepts tend to crush under their weight certain
other conceptual vocabulary such as self-respect or dignity, which
seeks to preserve the universal normative aspirations of the
untouchables. This silencing of the alternative vocabulary has thus
given rise to the parallel problematic of the dalit subaltern. The
nationalist thought in India tried hard to bury the dalit question,
but failed in its effort because the subaltern thinkers did not allow
it to happen. In fact, thinkers like Phule and Ambedkar dragged the
social question from the depths it had reached in public discourse.
The expression of dalit thinking as a body of thought particularly in
negative language looks grotesque to the mainstream nationalist
thought which has been canonised through the language that is
considered as the affirmative language. The nationalist thinkers and
leaders during the colonial time and the modernising elite in the
post-independent period, did not show any hospitality towards the
negative/grotesque language deployed by Ambedkar and later on by
other dalit literary figures. The nationalist leaders showed deep
resentment with this language used by the dalit subalterns (Guru
2007). This resentment about the negative language did not go down
well with the nationalist imagination as it caused embarrassment to
the moral order of the nation.
Significance
The negative language in dalit discourse is significant for the
following reasons. First, the principle of dalit thought seeks to
govern the communicative use of language. The language used by
Ambedkar and dalits assumes assertiveness inasmuch as it asserts that
the nationalist thought "is not" historically sensitive to the dalit
question. The words "is not" thus constitute assertion. The assertive
moves and the negative language are based on the distinctions between
the nationalist thought and the social thought that foregrounds dalit
vision. The language also brings out the distinctive character of
dalit thought by placing it in a different configuration of power. The
distinctiveness in thought – particularly that in modern India –
becomes discernible in two configurations of power – the colonial and
the local.
The colonial configuration of power produces and shapes conceptual
language that tends to subsume within itself other conceptual
assertions. For example, the language of political freedom overshadows
the concept of social freedom or the concept of self-rule as sovereign
concepts subsume in them the non-identical concepts such as
self-respect.
Second, the use of negative language like untouchability or bahishkrut
or hinatva brings into focus the relationship between the formation of
concept and the construction of physical space. In this regard, it is
interesting to note that Michel Foucault seeks to endorse the role of
space in producing and shaping the conceptual language. Foucault
(1989: Preface), says, "the thought that bears the stamp of our age
and our geography". For example, the concept of untouchability or
bahishkrut comes up in Ambedkar's social thought because it reflects
the experience of repulsion and exclusion that emanates from the space
that is stigmatised. One cannot imagine the emergence of the category
of "hinatva" in Savarkar's (2003: 113) idea of India as "holy land".
Let me further argue that in the case of Ambedkar and even Gandhi the
space determines the emergence and the efficacy of thought. The social
location of Ambedkar – a social ghetto that is historically produced
and reproduced – would awaken Ambedkar only to the language of
discrimination, humiliation and segregation, inequality and injustice.
Hence at the cognitive level, the conceptual vocabulary in Ambedkar's
thought seeks to organise social relations around contradictions and
to motivate dalits to offer much sharper responses to these
contradictions. It is in this sense, that a body of thought exists
"beyond" and entails concepts and categories related to struggle and
that acquires meaning and significance in the realm of social
struggle.
However, in Gandhian thought, the concepts, due to their moral
orientation acquire a non-cognitive character. This in effect, tends
to shape social relations around the idea of seva (service),
sahanubhuti (compassion) and care; not struggle or contradiction.
Since Gandhi's political existence operates through a seamless
spatiality, it tends to create only corresponding concepts like "seva"
or trusteeship. In the Gandhian case it is seamless because for
Gandhi, every space becomes quite hospitable and receptive. That is to
say Gandhi can move in and out of any space, even the "Bhangi colony".
This choice to walk in and out has a bearing on Gandhi's thought. It
changes the character of his thought thus making it more placid.
Ambedkar, on the contrary, does not have a choice and hence has to
open up spaces that are not only hostile but are also fragmented
around social stigma. Thus physical spaces which are otherwise empty
get constructed through negative or positive meaning depending upon
who is assigning this meaning. In India, it was the socially powerful
who till the arrival of colonial modernity assigned meaning to the
spaces they inhibited (agrahara) and also to the spaces that they did
not reside in but held in deep repulsion (cherry, hulgeri and
maharwada or chamar tola). But the enabling aspect of colonial
modernity empowered the untouchables to seek new meaning for their
physical space (Bhimnagar, Buddhawada, Ramabainagar and
Siddhartanagar). The politics of acquiring new names to social spaces
assumed the possibility of producing cognitive categories that
sought to interrogate and then undermine what could be described as
the patronising and hence non-cognitive category such as "harijanwada"
– the name given by Gandhi.
Political Freedom Alone?
These cognitive categories suggesting the oppositional imagination in
turn seeks to expose the discursive character of nationalist thought.
The nationalist thought acquires a discursive character to the extent
that different strands of thought (liberal, Marxist, Hindu) however,
tend to rally round the single concept of political freedom. They
rally round this single concept for intersecting purposes. The
cognitive categories that are internal to dalit thought seek to
deflate this discursive character of nationalist thought. It connects
the production of thought to the production of spaces, which in turn
affect the hermeneutic capacity of thought. As a result Ambedkar's
thought finds its audience basically in the dalit bastis (ghettos).
The cognitive categories also define themselves and acquire salience
against the use of non-cognitive categories that are constitutive of
Gandhian thought. The dalit thinking seeks to polarise the discursive
field of nationalist thought and chooses to exist in the heterogeneous
time with the negative intention to question the homogeneous time
within which the nationalist thought seem to be operating. It then
acquires potency in terms of the cognitive and hence it becomes
deeply political rather than moral.
In Gandhian thought the moralising language like "seva", care,
harijan, and trusteeship seek to dissolve the contradiction and
eliminate the possibility of polarisation and oppositional
imagination. It is driven by an element of appeal rather than
assertion. Moral appeal finds its basis in the language of duty,
whereas assertion is driven by the language of rights. Assertion, as
mentioned above, involves a firm negation rather than affirmation and
confirmation of the established claims. The language of seva
essentially foregrounds duty driven action that necessarily emanates
from the humble side of human nature. The language of right, on the
other hand, is constitutive of assertion. Seva as a non-cognitive
moral category also possesses a discursive character. That is to say,
it is available to different social forces for intersecting
purposes. For example, it makes a "guest appearance" in Hindu
political thought. It acquires a thick presence in Gandhian thought
and it is also available to the native capitalist as well.
Finally, it is taken seriously by the Christian missionaries who have
been active in India for a long time now. In fact, the concept of
"seva" genealogically belongs to Christian religious discourse and has
been subsequently borrowed by the new Hindu discourse. As has been
argued by some scholars, the category of "seva", connects with the new
Hindu ethics. Those Hindus who sought to defend Hinduism in an event
of a challenge from colonial modernity and Christianity offered to
treat dalits decently. They showed some degree of concern, care and an
attitude towards "seva". Gandhi among all the other Hindus, offered
rather substantive treatment to the category of "seva". The
construction of dalit into harijan was to invoke a sense of "seva"
among the orthodox Hindus. Seva thus connotes a kind of passive
revolution, which becomes feasible because "seva" facilitates the
reconstruction of Hindu ethics while preserving caste Hindu dominance.
Other Hindus had only rhetorical association with the category of
seva. The native capitalist also supported "seva" as a hegemonic
device to pacify the dalit masses (Srivatsan 2006: 107). It is for
this reason, the capitalists donated generously to Gandhi's Harijan
Sevak Sangh.
Struggle and Self-help
As against the language of seva, the dalit thought contains the
language of struggle and self-help, which promotes normative
aspirations among the dalits. Self-help connotes the idea of
self-respect as a moral good to be pursued by social groups that are
marginalised. Unlike the category of seva, which suggests an
asymmetrical relationship and denies a sense of autonomy to the
dalit. In fact, it suggests a dependence that presupposes the element
of patronage. The early efforts made by dalits to start educational
institutions for the dalits show that dalit thought contained the
radical morality that brought out a sense of agency that would keep
the notion of "free riders" away.
Third, the negative vocabulary plays an important role in shaping the
idea of dalit self and the other. In the case of India it is the twice
born or the touchable who is constructed as the other of dalit,
through deploying the negative language. The deployment of negative
language denies the hegemonic language, for example, of nationalism
and secularism. For example, the language of bahishkrut Bharat used by
dalits and Ambedkar would render the description of "modern"
multicultural India as incomplete. The negative language also
questions a dominant form of identical language that constructs the
moral order of India as the nation which is based on social harmony.
In fact negative language seeks to historicise the identical language,
which seeks to avoid the question of historical injustice. The
identical language seeks to construct the nationalist self. The
negative language constitutes the source of moral embarrassment
precisely because the twice born castes treat themselves as the
constitutive core of modern India. The reactions to Ambedkar and
Katherine Mayo's Mother India bring out this element of embarrassment
clearly.
Fourth, negative language at the ontological level, seeks to unite the
dalit, subaltern with herself or himself. It saves the self from
getting alienated from its authentic experience that is given to it
by the structures that physically exist outside but seek to confine
dalits within what could be called a barbed wire. This confinement
behind barbed wire is both from inside and from the outside. It raises
the cultural walls around dalits by deploying negative language in
their discourse which is quite unintelligible to the upper castes.
Thus they protect the authenticity of their discourse from outside.
They are also protected from within in the sense that they are stuck
in the historical question that is produced and reproduced by the
logic of structure.
The question that needs to be answered is that do dalits remain
confined in the negative? Or do they move out from behind their barbed
wired existence? Language is not accidental but is integrally involved
in the form of life and thought and it explains the negativity of
perception whereby one organises one's experience. All experienced
situations as represented in language are structured situations based
on concept. Therefore, when subordinated groups articulate their
experience, they use concepts derived not from the positive or
identical language narratives but from commitments embedded within
their own language that had hitherto gone unrecognised. The negative
language first negates the fixed character of the identical language
or the categories of common sense. For example, the concept of "mother
India" has been negated first by Ambedkar and later on by several
dalit writers (Guru 2011). Negative language thus seeks to reveal the
limitations of the identical hegemonic vocabulary that seeks to
constitute India as an epitome of glory and incredibility. It shows
the existence of "things" taken as isolated particulars that are
basically negative or incomplete.
Thus, the idea of bahishkrut Bharat forms the logical part of the
akhand (socially) Bharat or insulated India of untouchables as the
part of incredible India of the urban upwardly mobile upper castes.
Thus the negative language grasps the true (and negative) real which
universal thinking seeks to avoid. This avoidance can be explained in
terms of moral reason. Negative language causes moral embarrassment to
both the derivative as well as the desi.
Conclusions
Social and political thought which exists in the sphere of the
"beyond" has an epistemological capacity to make reality adequate
enough to fit the concepts. For example, the concept of freedom within
the nationalist problematic is adequate only in the absence of social
freedom. The concept of freedom becomes adequate only in terms of its
capacity to accommodate within itself untouchability or caste question
as social reality. Thus, the concept of freedom becomes more capacious
when propelled from the launching pad of the discourse of the
"beyond". Thus, the thought coming from this framework does not treat
concepts just symbolically but offers them a more substantive
treatment. The derivative or the desi on the other hand seek to avoid
or rhetorically accommodate the dalit question in the margins of the
hegemonic terrain of its thought. This rhetorical accommodation is
motivated by the need to protect the moral order of Indian
nationalism. The desi does not feel morally embarrassed by the
existence of the dalit question as its main target is the western
modernity that asserts itself within the colonial configuration of
power. Dalit thinking goes beyond both the derivative and desi
inasmuch as it foregrounds itself in the local configuration of
power, which is constitutive of the shetji and bhatji (capitalism
and brahminism). Dalit thought also goes beyond itself in the sense
that it transcends the limits of its particularity in which it
expresses as an initial condition. It also goes beyond its own
negative language from bahishkrut to the puruskrut. However, dalit
thought articulates itself through the initially negative and
essentially affirmative language.
Notes
1 See two influential works by Chatterjee (1986 and 2006), Kaviraj
(1995), Kaviraj (1986: 209-35).
2 See Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity, Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Pondicherry, first published in 1919 and in 1998. In this regard also
refer to Parekh (1989: 21).
3 Western Marxism – A Critical Reader, ed. New Left Review, London,
1977, pp 244-45.
References
Chatterjee, Partha (1986): Nationalist Thought and Colonial World: A
Derivative Discourse (Delhi: Oxford University Press).
– (2006): "B R Ambedkar and the Troubled Time of Citizenship", V R
Mehta and Thomas Pantham (ed.), Political Ideas in Modern India,
Thematic Explorations (Delhi: Sage).
Foucault, Michel (1989): The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human
Sciences (London: Routledge).
Ganguly, Debjani (2005): Dalit Literature and Their Life World (Delhi:
Orient Longman).
Guru, Gopal (2007): "Social Justice: A 20th Century Discourse from the
Quarantined India", Sabyasachi Bhattacharya (ed.), Development of
Modern Indian Thought and the Social Sciences (Delhi: Oxford
University Press).
– (2009): "The Idea of Ideal in Ambedkar", special lecture, delivered
in an International Conference on Caste and Ambedkar, Organised by
Institute of South Asian Studies (New York: Columbia University), 15
and 16 October.
– (2011): India's Liberal Democracy and Dalits Critique, Social
Research, Vol 74, No 1 (New York: Spring).
Kaviraj, Sudipta (1986): "The Heteronomous Radicalism of M N Roy" in
Thomas Pantham and Kenneth Duetsch (ed.), Political Thought in Modern
India (Delhi: Sage).
– (1995): "The Reversal of Orientalism: Bhudev Mukhopadhyay and the
Project of Indigenist Social Theory" in Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich
von Stietencorn (Delhi: Sage).
Mehta, Uday (1998): Liberalism and Empire (Delhi: Oxford University Press).
Mehta, V R (1996): Foundations of Indian Political Thought (Delhi:
Manohar Publication).
Pantham, Thomas and Kenneth L Deutsch, ed. (1986): Political Thought
in Modern India (Delhi: Sage).
Parekh, Bhikhu (1989): Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis
of Gandhi's Political Discourses (Delhi: Sage).
Savarkar, V D (2003): Hindutva, Hindi Sahitya Sadan, Delhi.
Srivatsan, R (2006): "Seva, Amelioration, Welfare: The Nationalist
Passion to Develop the Tribal", an unpublished PhD thesis, submitted
to Dr B R Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad.
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment