http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand020811.htm Reflecting Dalit Movement In The Era of 'Globalization'
Anand Teltumbde Interviewed By Yoginder Sikand
02 August, 2011
Countercurrents.org
Mumbai-based Anand Teltumbde is a leading scholar-activist, who
has written extensively on issues related to caste, class, imperialism
and 'globalization'. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he
reflects on the Dalit movement in the era of 'globalization'.
Q: You have written extensively on what you regard as the crises
facing Dalits and the Dalit movement in contemporary India, seeking to
articulate a caste-class analysis of Indian society. One of your major
focuses has been the challenges Hindutva poses to the Dalits. You
regard Hindutva as extremely inimical to Dalit interests and their
struggle against 'upper' caste/class hegemony. Given, as you have
written, Hindutva groups have made deep inroads among Dalits, how do
you feel a progressive counter-cultural alternative can be presented
to and popularized among Dalits in order to counter the attraction
that Hindutva seems to offer them?
A: While Hindutva is a form of Brahminism and is definitely geared
to suppressing the Dalits and serving the interests of the 'upper'
caste/class elites, one should be clear that Hindutva is not entirely
a cultural phenomenon. It is more of a political phenomenon. So,
challenging Hindutva cannot be limited only to articulating a
counter-cultural alternative, as some have sought to do in the name of
Dalit identity-politics. Rather, Hindutva needs to be challenged
politically.
As regards a counter-culture to Hinduism from the Dalit
perspective, I am not sure if we have the resources for this or if
sufficient attention has been paid to how to popularize this
alternative given the immense hold of the Hindu framework. We may say,
and rightly so, that the conflict between Brahminism and Shraminism,
as represented by Jainism and Buddhism, has been present throughout
Indian history. On this basis, we may invoke the Shramanic tradition
to critique Brahminism. However, we also have to admit that despite
the immense popularity of the Shramanic traditions for over 10
centuries, the Brahmanic castes have survived; nay they have thrived.
How does one explain it? These religions—particularly Buddhism—did
offer alternatives to Brahminism at the philosophical level but,
despite this, caste as a social reality did not vanish. I think the
same can be said of the conversion of Dalits to other religions as a
means for liberation from caste oppression. Dalits have converted to
Islam, Christianity, Sikhism to escape caste bondage of Hinduism but
this did not make much difference to their lives. Caste has rather
infected these seemingly egalitarian religions, keeping its Dalits at
the lowest rungs. In objective terms, not much is changed for the
converts. While they continue to remain Dalits for others, among
themselves they appear to follow the same cultural paradigm laid out
by the Hindu framework, albeit with cosmetic changes. Babasaheb
Ambedkar did expect a new cultural paradigm for the Dalits based on
scientific rationality, but it remained an unfulfilled dream like many
others. That is perhaps why many Dalits in Maharahstra have,
unfortunately, not been averse to joining hands with Hindutva forces.
Even many well educated Dalits with some social recognition did not
see anything wrong in jumping onto the RSS's Samarasata platform which
talked of the 'unity' or 'assimilation' of castes. Politically,
Ambedkarite Dalits have been joining the Hindutva forces with
impunity. The current alliance between Ramdas Athwale's RPI and the
Shivsena-BJP combine under the guise of Bhimshakti+Shivshakti is a
case in point. The fact that there is not much opposition to such
ideas and actions bespeaks volumes about alternative culture. So, I
would say, the hegemonic influence of the Hindu or Brahminical
worldview still remains, and Dalits, as a whole, continue to operate
within that cultural framework.
Q: If that is the case, then what is the alternative in terms of a
counter-cultural challenge to Hindutva?
A: I think the alternate is only possible from the Left—not the
parliamentary Left that still appears to cling to the idea,
notwithstanding their wordy acrobatics, that religion and caste are
simply 'superstructural' issues or of little or no importance, but a
Left that is rooted in Indian social realities and recognizes the
salience of these issues. Fortunately, some sections of the radical
Left is developing such an understanding organically. If Dalits also
review their journey so far objectively, I am sure they also will
reach similar radical understanding. That said, I do not negate the
importance of culture in both perpetuating as well as challenging an
oppressive system, but, at the same time, I disagree with some Dalit
ideologues who insist that cultural revolution must necessarily
precede political revolution. The two must go together, working in a
dialectical fashion. Alternate cultures do not develop in vacuum, just
by wishing for them. They are born in the process of peoples'
struggles over the material issues of their living—essentially
politico-economic struggles. I am sure the counter-cultural to
Hindutva will also emerge from these sorts of mass-based struggles. I
don't see it as a question of one preceding the other in time in a
mechanical way.
Q: Some analysts argue that focusing mainly on the issue of
reservations and critiquing Brahminism, which, of course are
necessary, sections of the Dalit movement have ignored the material
issues and concerns of the Dalit poor. Do you share that analysis?
A: There is considerable truth in that assertion. By and large,
the Dalit movement has been led and controlled by urban-based petty
bourgeoise Dalits, and has tended to neglect Dalits living in
villages. If you consider the demographic profile of Dalits, you will
find that Dalits are predominantly rural people; some 89 percent of
them still live in villages. More than half of them are landless, 26
percent are marginal farmers and the rest are artisans. Of the 11
percent urban Dalits, a vast majority lives in urban slums and work
preponderantly in the informal sector. Over the last six decades, a
small layer—certainly not exceeding 10 percent of the total—has
emerged out of them who could be considered as 'arrived', thanks to
reservations, political nexus and their enterprise. This small layer,
however, has effectively hijacked the agenda of the majority of the
Dalits and revolved it around the single issue of reservation. It
reflects the urban- and class-bias of the Dalit movement that has
persistently ignored the issues of rural Dalits. Reservations did have
a utility for the first generation of Dalits but thereafter it
increasingly became the monopoly of those who have come up, leaving
the really needy out of its reach. It is a widely acknowledged fact
that the caste issue is entangled with the skewed distribution of land
or the high incidence of landlessness of Dalits. Even Babasaheb
Ambedkar, towards the end of his life, had realized this fact and
influenced some of his followers to take up the first land struggle in
Marathwada. Thereafter, Dadasaheb Gaikwad, who was his close confidant
and perhaps real political heir, had led a countrywide struggle for
land. But, thereafter, we never hear of the land issue being raised
within and by the Dalit movement. Lack of land, quality education,
non-farm employment, proper housing and sanitation are the material
issues that have historically been related to Dalit deprivation, and
these have only been aggravated by the elitist 'globalization' over
the last two decades. There is not a slightest reflection of these
issues in the dominant Dalit discourse. Surprisingly, when
reservations have effectively ended—statistically, from 1997 onwards
the total employment in the public domain has been consistently
decreasing—they shout louder about it.
So, yes, I sincerely think in the post-Ambedkar phase, the Dalit
movement, driven by small elite among the Dalits, has completely
ignored the material issues of most Dalits.
Q: But now that government jobs are rapidly shrinking in the wake
of privatization and 'globalisation', which means that jobs for Dalits
in the public sector are even more limited than they hitherto were, do
you see a shift in the focus of the Dalit movement? Given that
'globalisation' and privatization are hitting the poorest of the poor,
particularly Dalits, the most, is the Dalit movement responding by
widening its concerns and addressing the challenges posed by
globalization, thus moving out of what you consider as its major
concern with reservations?
A: I do not see a major shift happening, barring the fact that
Dalit groups are now demanding reservations in the private sector and
curiously campaigning about 'Dalit Capitalism'. This, once again,
illustrates their elite, urban focus. I do not see them interrogating
'globalisation' and mobilizing Dalits against the havoc that is
causing to the poor, leading to mass pauperization and rapidly
widening social-economic inequalities. Statistics reveals that the
incidence of landlessness has been increasing among Dalits during the
last two decades of globalization. But, they are oblivious of these
facts. The question of land, or the issue of landless Dalits and their
forced displacement by mega-projects, has been a virtual taboo in
Dalit movement because most Dalit 'leaders' think it is a 'communist'
issue. They have been programmed into believing that communists are
their enemies! They have been fed on lies, by many Dalit intellectuals
and leaders, that Babasaheb Ambedkar was viscerally opposed to
communism as such—although it is well-known that Babsaheb did see the
importance of land issue and was a confirmed socialist, as is evident
from his monumental book States and Minorities. They have
systematically constructed an Ambedkar icon sans the radicalism of
Ambedkar, with superfluous embellishments of Ambedkar ideology,
projected it as a virtual god-like figure to the Dalit masses, and
invoking it in support of whatever they do. This icon is used and duly
supported by the ruling classes to build a kind of 'bhakti' cult in
the Dalit masses. Now, it is absolutely clear that Babsaheb hated the
'bhakti' cult around him and explicitly said that that he did not want
bhaktas but sincere followers. This cult facilitated 'brokers' among
Dalits to sell their wares in his name, and the Dalit masses simply
bought their wares. This is the unfortunate paradigm that has
degenerated the Dalit movement and has effectively thwarted sincere
elements from coming up. It is entirely because of this that there
seems to be little or no effort to re-read or contextualize
Babasaheb's thoughts in the contemporary context, including on issues
related to class-based deprivation. At a time when the Indian state,
Hindutva forces and the forces of imperialism are playing such havoc
with the livelihoods of millions of Dalits, whose conditions are
rapidly going from bad to worse, I see few Dalit groups taking these
crucial economic issues seriously. Instead, they remain fixated on
reservations—because this is a convenient populist slogan—and on
invoking the name of Babasaheb while refusing to re-read him in the
context of the contemporary situation of caste/class deprivation.
Babasaheb Ambedkar said that he was against Brahmanism and not
Brahmans, and even explained that Brahmanism could be found in any
caste, including Dalits. Dalits have conveniently forgotten this
essence and picked up the superficial. Today, the situation is such
that groups whom they include in their Bahujans, the superset of
Dalits, are the real perpetrators of atrocities on Dalits. They are
the real baton holders of Brahmanism in villages. But this sort of
political-economic analyses just do not appeal to Dalits, who are
enamoured with identitarian discourse. To oppose Brahmanism is to be
anti-caste; but to hate Brahmans is casteist. Paradoxically, swearing
by Ambedkar, many Dalits today unconsciously reflect casteist
behavior, and thus act against Ambedkar.
That said, we must remember that the anti-materialist outlook of
Dalits is actually born out of their encounter with the Left movement,
which refused to acknowledge caste question as something basic to the
class struggle in India. Babasaheb Ambedkar was no Marxist. He had
genuine problems with Marxism but at the same time he ardently
believed in socialism of the Fabian kind. This was a good enough basis
for working together with the Left and enriching the strategy for
class struggle in the concrete situation obtaining in this country.
But the Left continued undermining Dalit movement and, in the process,
completely alienated it. The onus thus squarely lies with the Left for
the fact that today we are faced with the divergent, almost
antagonistic, movements of the proletariat, bogged down with an
idiotic duality of class and class.
The Left movement needs to rethink its perspective on the Dalit
question. There is an urgent need for a dialogue between the Dalit
movement and the Left, so that they can learn from each other and
cross-fertilise each other. This will certainly help the Dalit
movement in responding in a more appropriate manner to the changing
nature of caste and helping it realize the importance of class issues
and the need for class-based mobilization as well. I am uncomfortable
with Dalit identity politics which only make the Dalit movement more
sectarian and lead it away from the material problems, as experience
shows. Caste as essentially a divisive category cannot viably serve
even identity politics, not to speak of the goal of annihilation of
caste. I am surprised that this basic understanding is yet to dawn on
our social scientists as well as activists.
Q: How do you assess the role of the Dalit media in raising and
communicating these issues which you feel Dalit groups have failed to
take up?
A: There is not much of a Dalit media actually. There are several
small magazines and periodicals run by Dalits all over the country.
Some of them do raise valid issues faced by Dalits, but many others
are simply tails of this or that political group. This connection may
not be always visible but it does exist in terms of direct or indirect
support coming from these sources. During the last decades, a curious
development took place in Maharashtra in this regard. Some Dalits
started daily papers, one after another. Today, there are at least
half a dozen full-sheet daily papers run by Dalits in Maharashtra.
They do satisfy rhetorical need of having our own media. One does not
know how their economics is managed, however, given that newspapers
basically run on advertisement revenue, which is largely absent in
their case. The content analysis of these newspapers does not indicate
that they have significantly contributed raising the live questions of
Dalits or catalysed any movement around it. They just meet the
identitarian need of having 'our' own media.
I do not know whether a media owned and operated by Dalits could
really be called a 'Dalit media'. Most of Dalit papers reflect the
concerns and interests of their readership—the 'reservationist'
middle-class—and that is why they deal mainly with religio-cultural
issues, besides, of course, reservations. They pay little attention to
the issues of rural Dalits. Many of them are averse to taking up
economic issues or to considering the need for a contextually-rooted
class-cum-caste analysis of Indian society. Basically premised on the
identity of Dalits, they often ignore other issues.
The media reflects to some degree the state of our intellectual
activism. The tragedy is that we have few organic intellectuals who
can articulate the concerns and interests of the Dalit masses.
Instead, we have a whole lot of cut-and-paste intellectuals whose only
task, it seems, is to rehash what others have written before them,
refusing to engage in any creative intellectual work. The Dalit media
eventually mirrors it.
Q: In recent decades, a number of NGOs have taken up Dalit issues
and concerns, and Dalits are one of their major 'target' groups. How
do you see the impact of this NGO-isation process on the Dalit
movement in terms of highlighting Dalit issues and empowering the
Dalits?
A: In terms of highlighting, and even internationalizing, Dalit
issues, I think many NGOs have played an important role. Even
documenting Dalit problems and issues I think is a major contribution,
giving that little of this sort was being done by others. But, beyond
that, especially in political terms, I think that, barring some cases,
the role of NGOs has been problematic. At a fundamental level, NGOs
depend upon donors, and, according to the dictum "He who pays the
piper calls the tune", they have to eventually confirm to the agenda
of their donors. And the fact of the matter is that NGOs have been
deliberately promoted as a vehicle of 'globalization' in the context
of the declining role of the state in the social sector. Naturally,
then, NGOs work, by and large, to depoliticize radical people's
movements. They work in a fragmentary manner, taking up discrete
issues, and this promotes fragmentary consciousness in people around
them, which is what neo-liberalism wants. By remaining confined to
funded projects, they inherently lack a macro political-economic
perspective, which again serves the interest of global capital.
Moreover, they also attract youths who might otherwise have gone into
people's movements or radical politics, by providing them salaries and
job security, and in this way also work as agents of depoliticisation.
You are right in terming this the NGO-ization of the Dalit movement.
Before the Dalit movement could introspect on its degeneration, the
influx of NGOs complicated the matters and made any such review
extremely difficult.
Q: In your writings, you argue that 'globalisation' spells doom
for Dalits. In this context, how do you see the argument, made by a
group of Dalit 'intellectuals', who have been much-highlighted in the
'mainstream' media, of the need for the state and multi-national
corporations to promote what they term 'Dalit Capitalism'?
A: I think this argument is completely fallacious and dangerous.
It buys into the imperialist logic, and is geared to serving the
interests of foreign capital and the Indian ruling classes, who are
well aware of the pauperisation of the Dalits and their mounting
opposition to the system that is destroying their already shattered
lives in the name of 'development'. This slogan of 'Dalit Capitalism'
is being actually sponsored by some Western organizations linked to
global capital. There is not much of guess work needed to see who the
sponsors and supporters of this idea are. As a matter of fact, the
idea has been floated by a bunch of individuals who are projecting
some Dalit entreprenneurs as though they were the new breed produced
by globalization. And this is being propped up by the 'mainstream'
media, which is otherwise shy of touching anything Dalit. The Economic
Times has published a series of features on it, and the rank
neo-liberalist Swaminathan Ankalesvaria Aiyer wrote several pieces
extolling the idea. As for the Indian state, the Planning Commission,
which otherwise refuses to move on the continued stealing of special
component monies meant for Dalits, has been enthusiastically
considering how to channel the public funds to these Dalit
capitalists. It is a pity that Dalits do not see through the game and,
instead, are getting enamoured with the idea because of their
identitarian fixation.
I do not think there is anything intellectually appealing about
the notion of 'Dalit Capitalism'. I would rather say that this notion
is itself a contradiction in terms and smacks of ignorance of both
Dalits as well as Capitalism. The Dalit entrepreneur is not a new
species. Dalits have historically been entrepreneurs, grabbing
whatever opportunities that came their way and made progress. Rich
Dalits are also not a new phenomenon. There have been many rich Dalit
individuals since colonial times. So, to claim that Dalits have only
started progressed now as a result of supposedly benefitting from
'globalization' is simple and pure falsehood. To impute the progress
that a small number of Dalits have made in recent years to 'Dalit
Capitalism' suggests is fallacious. Although, knowing the systemic
character of capitalism, I would never be the votary of capitalism, I
am not so dogmatic as to discard it either merely for ideological
reasons. After all, there is a dialectics that will determine the time
of its death. I do not have any quarrel, therefore, about Dalits
becoming big capitalists and amassing their billions. But what irks me
is this motivated attempt by the proponents of the notion of 'Dalit
Capitalism' to create a patently false impression that Dalits have
benefitted by 'globalization', that Dalits have now 'arrived', that
Dalits have abandoned socialism and have embraced capitalism. The vast
majority of Dalits still live in horrendous conditions in villages and
urban slums as the wretched of the earth, and their conditions are, as
I said earlier, going from bad to worse, rather than improving, as a
result of the ravages of capitalism and 'globalization'. The relative
distance between Dalits and others on most developmental dimensions
was reducing until the 1990s but the recent trends clearly show that
the gaps are widening. By WHO standards of body-mass index, Dalits
would be famine-stricken community. To speak about such people in
terms of 'Dalit Capitalism' is nothing but an unpardonable cruel joke.
------------------------------------
----
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/
