A positive secularism should be based not on Gandhi and Nehru but on Phule, Ambedkar and Periyar Sociologist Dr. Gail Omvedt, emails answers to BIJURAJs queries on Mayawati, dalit movements, Hindutva and the modern-day communists. What is the position of Dalits now in general? Is theirs a story of progress or setbacks? I think there are many instances of progress. One of these is Mayawati’s victory. Questions could be raised about her strategy but there is little doubt she has electrified dalits all over India and sent a scare to Congress and other parties in the establishment. This carries a speck of dalit movement in politics, and it should not be ignored. A dalit woman as CM, in striking distance of becoming the PM, is a major achievement. But there are also many negatives too. Many activists may feel the need of ‘Shudra’ or a ‘Bahujan’ alliance, a dalit-non Brahman alliance, to annihilate caste. But this alliance appears to be in tatters today. The mental backwardness of the backward castes, their ongoing mental slavery to Brahmanism, remains a problem, illustrated by Khairlanji and numerous other atrocities. Unless this is overcome, there can be no real victory. The UP majority was possible because of the particular caste equations there – 20% SCs, 12% Brahmans, 12% Thakurs. This is true of much of the “Chamar” belt, and so BSP’s strategy makes sense. But the same strategy cannot work elsewhere. There are also differences within the Dalit castes. The Mala-Madiga conflict has become so severe in Andhra that some Madigas are demanding that Malas be taken off the reserved list. Similar splits can be seen elsewhere, for example among Matangs and Buddhists in Maharashtra. Nor is there any sense of a Dalit unity in regard to demands to include Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims in the reserved list. While the courts are barring additional reserved seats, the response of many dalit organizations has been entirely negative. There is the need for a sense of solidarity. There is the other side to Mayawati’s victory: corruption, nepotism, opportunistic alliance. Also ‘sarvajan samaj’, her controversial slogan. Politics is a dirty game; I don’t think she is more corrupt than any of the other political leaders. When Babasaheb said that dalits should become a ruling community, he meant that they should not simply take up their own demands but keep the interests of the entire society in mind. He continually stressed the harm that the caste system has done in terms of not just oppressing the subalterns, but in ruining the entire society. In this sense, Dalits can and do represent the “sarvajan.” It also has to be remembered that a political party does not represent a section of the society but should set the agenda for entire country. The call for a “sarvajan samaj” is part of an effort to mainstream the BSP. I, for one, would be delighted if the BSP could emerge as the real alternative to Congress, not just as a party protesting for the dalits. BSP used Hindu upper caste symbols and depictions for its election campaign. Yes, but Dalits also need to use the symbols. They could point out that “Naga” was also a word for elephant in the Pali literature (see the Dhammapada) and that Buddha was called “mahanag.” “Hathi naahi Ganesh hai…” Ganesh is, originally, a non Aryan deity. It can be used to symbolise the original casteless, classless society— ganvyavastha din, gan pati as “the people as ruler.” How can the caste system be annihilated? How do you go about it, politically? Babasaheb Ambedkar had given two methods in his essay on the subject. One is inter-caste marriage. Once this has gone far enough castes are rendered meaningless. He also argued that it is necessary to renounce Brahmanic Hinduism. Become a Buddhist, Christian, Sikh or a Muslim but renounce the shastras. I’m not sure if it is enough to be an atheist since Brahmanism has been effective in absorbing atheism. Sociologically speaking, atheism does not provide the kind of family support that is necessary. People go back to old ways. Of course, it may be argued that Brahmanism also absorbs and co-opts Buddhism and Christianity. But when the majority of the country is consciously non Hindu, we will see a different picture. This has to begin from within the political sphere. There should be an end to Brahmanic Hinduism practised in schools, appearing in texts, and in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Policies of affirmative action are needed to break the historical links of caste and economic occupation and position, to bring the people on an equal footing. This should apply to the defence, science and the corporate sector. I don’t think changing names makes much difference. My analogy is “Harry Potter”. These English names bear the imprint of old occupations, but nobody takes them seriously anymore. In American culture and, to some extent, the English culture people take pride in having ancestors who were working class. We rose by our own efforts, they say. This is not true in India, where people prefer royal or Brahmanic ancestors! How are the Sangh Parivar and fundamentalism faring at the moment? I think they have had setbacks, but unless there is some positive response these could be only temporary. The problem is that the Hindutva feeds on the disgust people have with the Congress; and the “soft saffron” position adopted by so many Congressmen. So as long as Congress remains what it is, and there is no real alternative party, the opposition BJP and the Parivar will benefit. The basic problem here is that we cannot really distinguish between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva,” Why, for instance, was it the land of Gandhi, Gujarat, which had the pogroms? My disillusionment with Gandhi really climaxed then. And in this sense Congress is the child of Gandhi, more than of the so-called “secular” Nehru. A positive secularism has to be fostered, based not on Gandhi and Nehru but on Phule, Ambedkar, Periyar and other dalit-bahujan intellectuals. Do you believe that the dalit movements have nothing to draw from Gandhis legacy? Was Gandhi’s role totally against Dalits? Yes, almost entirely. It is a fact that Gandhi was the first major opponent of Ambedkar. After the round table on the issue of separate electorates, and when Ambedkar announced his conversion, it was Gandhi who was his most vocal opponent. The Hindu Mahasabhba accepted his conversion to Buddhism. One of the serious criticisms against Dr. Ambedkar is that he didn’t take the Freedom Movement seriously. His priority lay in the uprooting of the caste system. Without annihilation of the caste system there is no real freedom. Is there a place for nationality, language and culture in caste movements? Do you think that dalits should go back to own culture to find the basis for emancipation? What has to be remembered is that local cultures and languages are so heavily colonised by Brahmanism that it is hard for dalits to find their own traditions. Caste discouraged change and innovation, forced people to remain in their place. Of course there are positive elements, the histories of rebellion and dissent, but these have to be recovered from brahmanic cooption. For example, in Maharashtra the varkari movement— with Namdeo, Cokhamela, Tukaram and the like—symbolized a revolt against caste, but much of this has been lost to history. The temple remains controlled by Brahmans. In Karnataka, the Lingayat movement began with Basava’s revolt against ritualism, polytheism and caste, symbolised by an inter-caste marriage that led to a state repression and a popular revolt. But now the situation is such that when a writer proposes that Basava may have been a dalit, he is met by strong protest. Thus the traditions have to be fought for. This can be done, I think, only with the help of a universalistic culture: dalits need to use the world as their stage; learn computers, English – all of which are necessary to transform the local cultures. What is your view on the Communists and the Left in India? They are hardly communists. I don’t know if they even read much of Marx any more. Their protest against globalisation, for example, had tended to seek solace in the old state capitalist societies, looking to the nation as an alternative to a global order. I remember their predictions about globalisation in 1991 – that the Indian capitalists would be “eaten up” by international imperialism, there would be overwhelming price rise and so on. This, of course, has not happened. Indian capitalists are doing quite well, though inequalities have increased. They have failed to focus on the real problems of globalisation, the way old imperialism based on the competition of dominant nation-states with their colonies, has transformed itself into Empire (in the words of Antonio Negri), and is taking on new forms of integration, developing new methods of production. We have to go forward, not backwards. They seem to waver between simply accepting all the multinationals and investment – leading to Nandigrams – and holding to the old forms of state capitalism, in which a Brahman-controlled public sector was perceived to be socialistic. And there is no evidence that they have really changed their old positions on Ambedkar, dalits, caste and gender. Should caste struggles be violent or non violent? Whether a struggle is nonviolent or violent depends on the response of the class/caste enemy, and what people are ready for. Switching to violence when there are opportunities for peaceful mass struggle and parliamentary politics doesn’t work, I think – except in backward societies such as Nepal. Once we saw an active Dalit Panther movement. Any lessons to be learnt there? We can say that the Dalit Panthers were an immature though militant and energetic movement. They were not organised enough; they very quickly broke up into factions. They represented the aspirations of the period but had no real strategy. Afterwards, the youth from those Mumbai slums said, “We didn’t know what was in the manifesto. All we knew was that if someone put his hand on your sister, it was to be cut off!”
Posted on: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 23:43:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015