It all started with a simple insignificant cartoon in the secondary school text book. The great tamasha that Indian parliamentary politics has unfortunately evolved into made it a complicated issue for intellectuals. If you say no to the cartoon, to many it appeared playing into the hands of the opportunist politicians. What followed at first was pure intimidation from the academic elite. Dont you dare say no - if you do, you are part of the crowd deifying Ambedkar. If you point out the possibility that the otherwise useless cartoon could be used as yet another tool by upper caste kids to harass the dalit children in the school, then you are an age-ist not allowing the adolescents the intelligence due to them. The Hindu published an editorial basically calling all opposition foolish.
In my comments on some FB posts, I argued - to me, the issue was very simple. I do something, and a large number of people object to it. I will think - is my action really significant that the objection from a large number of persons should be ignored - if yes, I will stick to it. If not, I will erase the marks of my action. Removing the cartoon from the text book did not seem to have any impact on the chapter at all. It does not matter whether or not the demand to remove is justified or not - if it is not greatly significant, we should remove it - just a matter of plain simple decency.
Actually there was a lot of merit in the demand for removing the cartoon.
I wrote an article in a Hindi newspaper- perhaps that was the first such article - seeking a dialogue with nondalit intellectuals, reminding them by quoting examples from African American history, the seemingly bizarre consequences of the pain of sustained exclusion. I argued that we need not respond to the politicians, we must respond to our own sense of empathy for the other. Then there were more elaborate articles in English by Dalit intellectuals. Soon the environment changed a bit. But you could bend only so far. Petitions and counter petitions followed. The Hindu continued a debate by leading social scientists.
The arguments for yes were mainly academic and the arguments for no were cries seeking justice. I was reminded of this American saying in Howard Zinn's masterpiece work on people's history of the united states: 'The cry of the poor may not be always just, but if you do not listen to it, you will never know what justice is.' (I am quoting from memory - the words may be a little different).
Now that intimidation will not work any more, adjectives and a bit of emotional blackmail remain. I am as puzzled today as when it all started - what is it behind all the academic arguments, the thoughtlessly used adjectives; surely it is not prejudices - these are intellectuals with impeccable progressive credentials. I do not know, is it just the way academic activism is done in social sciences today? The little I know about post-modern thought, the yes part of the cartoon debate was a post-modern defence and the opposition appeared more rooted in reality. Ironically, the beginnings of post-modernism were in the counterculture, in taking sides against the mainstream, in being with the marginalised.
