comment on article on Shahbag

Comment on 'The Divide over Shahbag: An Effort to Engage the ‘Enemy’by Biswajit Roy published in the latest issue of Frontier

The confusion about left and its position on religious communities aside, what should be clear is that in spite of a clear pro-liberation sentiment in Bengal, the mainstream political parties have passively, if not actively, encouraged the islamists by allowing the anti-Shahbag rallies uncontested. A clear statement from them asserting that democratic, just, trials of war criminals must be pursued and that Shahbag sans the demand for capital punishment, represents a legitimate sentiment, would not have hurt any electoral prospects. In this sense, Biman Bose's pro-Shahbag statement should be welcome. What the general reticence towards speaking against the islamists has done is that it has strengthened both them as well the Hindutwa forces. 

Anyone claiming to have grown up in Bengal for a number of years, getting educated there, and claiming to have not much information or knowledge about the Bangladesh liberation war and the war crimes, is obviously lying. One does not have to accept lies in taking up the cause for the minorities. Such an attitude does more harm to the minorities than good.

proudly there

Hesitantly went up to the stage when Rajiv (next to me in the picture) called my name to join them. Now I feel proud that I was there in the corner. This was the first appearance of Jiten Marandi in an academic setting (University of Hyderabad) after he was released from jail. He spoke well, sang songs. His wife and child have been arrested and jailed as soon as he was released. He sang a song about the child seeking the father's love. Meeting Varavara again with a huge hug from him was another gift of the day. Most of the students are from the tribal students forum in the campus. Rajiv is an AISA activist.

What a pleasant break from an otherwise mundane existence.

Daughters of our Earth, Zindabad

-->

Let us fight

This is a historic moment.

The violence that happened with the 23 year old was nothing new. What is historic is what it has done to us. The battle between us and those who want darkness to engulf our lives is out in the open.

No space to the obscurantists. 

We will fight. 

Women WILL wear what they want, 

Women WILL go wherever they want, wnenever they wish. 

Let the messengers of the dark God keep their 'Bharat' to themselves. We live in our Bharat, not theirs. This Earth is not owned by them. It is ours.

Daughters of our Earth, Zindabad. Women, Zindabad.

Three comments on affirmative action

In a recent discussion in a highschoolscience Google group on under-representation of underprivileged castes in the civil society institutions (initiated by an article written by Jean Dreze), I posted a few comments.

1.  Over the years, I have always found it amusing and at the same time agonising how we non-Dalits discuss the issue of reservation.

First, it is always as if we have a choice in the matter. In some ways, it is justified because we keep on finding ways to counter reservation (by greater privatisation in education sector, for instance). But the fact is that the issue is not something that we can decide. I am not so sure about the OBC, but the Dalit context is and will be determined by Dalits. We happen to control the apparent discourse on it - for now. We were able to keep reservations effectively non-operative (except in states like TN) until about fifteen years ago when the courts started intervening in the matter.

Second, in spite of enough data available (now even on Wiki) on how reservation has changed the percentages of Dalits (and OBCs) in different category of professions (in Govt. jobs - albeit at a slow rate), we keep on wondering if reservation has helped at all.  Enlightened commentaries do not indulge in the more widely prevalent 'in my uncle's office that fellow owning so many houses in the city is taking advantage of reservation' kind of dialogue, but we carry doubts in the deepest corners of our minds. This in spite of the new provisions to weed out the creamy layer.

And the issue of the poor among the forward caste -  Many of them are willing to take up menial jobs far away from their native place, but are they willing to take up the same jobs as what Dalits do in their own villages - NO and that is why reservation for poor among the forward caste is less justified than for Dalits. Nonetheless, there should be reservation for them.

This is not to undermine the serious issues that we should worry about - the gender issues, the extremely neglected groups like nomadic communities, etc.

Finally because of the essentially feudal nature of our society, we remain casteist by default with unwritten reservation for forward castes (taking care of our kin and friends is a mandatory value that we learn from childhood and practice all our lives). Anyone with an open mind can see the effectively large scale reservation for forward castes that is operative in our institutions.

It is useful to compare the situation with African Americans in USA. No average white believes that the average black may be equal to them - there is no quota and yet there is a wide acceptance of the idea that the world has to change. We are so deeply feudal that in spite of quotas and constant talk about the issue, we have kept ourselves an exclusive structure. As a friend used to say - there is one phrase that describes us - khandani badtameezi.

2. comment by Anshumala:

Reservation and the overlap of caste and class is an extremely complex issue for Indian society, requiring very rigorous analysis. i wonder if this has been done in terms of a larger theory of caste by sociologists. Can anyone throw light on such work?

Uma Chakravorty, in a lecture on the matter, gave a very deep insight, which struck me as very perceptive. The question to her was- 'All other social inequalities across the world have been seriously challenged by the oppressed and even been countered to a considerable extent. Why is caste inequality so persistent?'

She said- 'The caste hierarchy is a multi-layered hierarchy and has been designed in such a way that every single layer is below some layers, and above some others (other than the lowest of the low, the untouchables). Since every layer derives some power over those below it, they are loathe to challenge it. It is easier for a two-layered system to be challenged (like gender, like colored/non-colored)  by the disadvantaged. The caste hierarchy can only be seriously questioned by the lowest layer, but they have never been able to gather social strength enough to topple the system. (Of course, Mayawati, using the game of upper castes herself, coming to power is a significant social/historical event, but will it actually challenge the caste hierarchy? Let sociologists and historians comment

My response: If any one is seriously interested in the sociology of caste issues, is this the way to pursue it? Look, do a Google search on caste studies experts and you will find a host of them. In spite of severe neglect of Ambedkar over many decades, there are now several Ambedkar studies centers across the country. All of them pursue Dalit/caste issues in addition to all other visions of the great man. Go to them and seek the answers. In Delhi, where you are located, I can name at least a dozen experts on caste issues, my friend Surinder Jodhka in JNU, for instance. EPW has been publishing articles for aeons for those who really want to read them. I mentioned in my previous mail that even Wiki has some data available now.

I would seriously work on providing links for commentaries and data had I not been convinced that most of us are actually pathologically prejudiced and happily ignorant of this state of mind we possess.

BTW, Uma is right in her arguments in a macro sense. But there is really no contradiction that is two-layered. Certainly, the race is not such a context, the gender is not such a context. Yes, the complexity of the caste layers in South Asia is of a high order, and all that Uma said is correct. But all that only means is that we need to tune the reservations even finer and ensure that the provision is implemented fully (which was not done until the mid-nineties).

And as for the eradication, it is happening and it will be done not by us debating reservations, but by Dalits forcing us to accept the change. The sooner we realise this, the better.

3.  Vijaya's comment-

When I was a young and still in college, I remember telling my father that there was one surefire way to destroy the caste system in just one generation. All that was required was for the government to enact a law that would ban same-caste marriages. You could marry any one you wanted provided your partner was not of the same caste. He just laughed at my naivety. 

I am still not sure that anything less crazy or less drastic has a chance of succeding.

 

Subbu's comment:

 i would like to relate an experience with resource teachers in Hyderabad. these were among the best teachers from schools and DIETs called for a social science book writing workshop.

As a part of a discussion i threw a question on caste - it was a somewhat ambiguously worded question, so that it was not easy to judge my opinion on the matter.

I was shocked to find that almost all participants thought that caste was a good thing - it gave protection to people, gave them support in need, gave them culture and tradition, and if you marry outside caste you are likely to suffer as you wont understand the culture and traditions of the spouse, etc etc. So caste was seen by them as a community and a cultural vehicle. When i questioned them about possible problems in the caste system, they agreed that this idea of high and low was not good - we should treat all as equals. 

I was too shocked to take in the full meaning of this grand and innocent defence of caste system having all along treated it as a bad word. 

Actually, we seldom understand the working of caste in these terms - as a way of integrating diverse communities within a heirarchical framework while allowing them a degree of social and cultural autonomy. Marriage is a part of this system and reinforces it. 

the question of integration today is more complex. If we want to further integrate all these diverse communities by dissolving their individual identities what are we integrating them into. It turns out to be essentially an upper caste/class elite cosmopolitan culture which takes the garb of democracy and equality. To what extent will the future culture be inclusive and give space for the diversity will determine the outcome and not magic solutions.

A second issue is social protection. Our social security systems and civic administrations are so weak and police protection so partial that people resort to caste community protection in times of need. the need for this has actually increased as traditional livelihoods have been eroded and people have entered unstable markets with little skill back up.

Surprisingly this seems true not just of 'socially backward' communities but also very forward communities like Brahmins, Thakurs, Banias and such like.

I dont really understand how reservation and other such mechanism work in this context. They may certainly ensure a more physically inclusive atmosphere in the educational institutions and administration. By physical i mean they accomodate people from diverse communities. However, i dont see a cultural inclusiveness and in fact a cultural cleansing  eliminating  subaltern caste cultures. To some extent we can hold the example of Tamilnadu as scale - the one state which successfully challenged the hegemony of the Brahmins (who fortunately were not supported by an equivalent of Thakurs in the south). The nearest we have to a more inclusive culture and it is rich in problems.

 

 

My comment:
Vijaya's note reminded me how as a young man once I wrote a bunch of postcards (never posted after a couple of friends looking at it ridiculed me) asking friends to commit to a intercaste marriage, adoption of an orphan, etc.

On a more serious note, caste identity is one thing - and inequality based on the identity is another. It is interesting how we mix these two things - why, I wonder.

As concerned citizens, we put serious efforts in countering many social ills, but reservation is something we accept only because laws force us to do so. Let me give an example. I work in an institution where they do not have reservation. There is a lot of emphasis on human values. All students have to take 'human values' courses, which are basically discussions between a couple of elders (teachers/mentors) and a group of students. Responding to sceptics questioning how this may considered a humanities course, a formal syllabus was designed, assignments are given regularly, all kinds of sophisticated material is used as resources, etc. There are Jeevan Vidya shivirs that every student has to go through. Most young students hate the whole thing, but a large amount of manpower and other efforts are used for this. The reason is an awareness that there is a crisis of values and a commitment to a certain perspective on human values.

When it comes to reservation based on caste or religious identities, the clever argument against it is that dont you see what happens to these poor kids in IITs, they have to live with everyone looking down upon them, there are suicides, etc. There is no question of using resources similar to that used in the 'human values' project to address the vulnerability of potential underprivileged entrants.  Not a surprise, we are largely a upper caste Hindu majority institution.  Seen this way, privatisation in education is partly an agenda of the upper castes to counter reservation.

Identity and marriage are not the issues - it is discrimination that reservation aims to counter.  TN is an example where reservation has worked. That there are complications is true, but it has served the purpose and today even in the general category, a large number of OBC and SC/ST candidates (who are not using the reservation provision) are performing as good as forward caste candidates. Prof Ashok Jhunjhunwala of IIT-M talked to us on this a couple of years back.

Other than the laws, what we need is a firm response of rejection to discriminatory casteist and communal mores. And we do not usually have this - far from it. Going around campaigning as a teacher activist in Panjab University a decade ago, I have heard openly derogatory remarks against SC teachers in broad daylight in the middle of public streets. We need laws to prosecute individuals who exhibit such arrogance on caste, communal and gender lines, but we also need the conviction and courage to develop a culture that rejects it. I am not sure we 'liberals' possess such conviction and courage - if anything, my conviction is that we are indifferent to it in practice.  I have the suspicion that not all of the 'identity' discourse is really innocent and devoid of parochial motivations.  The lack of faith in the apparently less cultivated coming from the underprivileged is all around us - all we need to see is the extent of their representation in the bodies that we belong to (as pointed out by Dreze in the article that Anjali posted and many such articles keep appearing). It is a pathology that needs to be addressed head on and reservation is one such approach.

Obama

I will never be able to explain to my daughter why I felt sad when I saw the lead by Romney in the early results of US presidential elections. And the joy of seeing Obama re-elected. When the first black mayor of NY city, David Dinkins, was elected in 1989, we were in a small town, Harda, and we celebrated it. My daughter, born in 1990, does not like Obama for good reasons (she dislikes Romney even more).

I saw on TV how so many people cried when Obama won in 2008. Oh to imagine a man of colour as the president of the USA! Its funny how we felt part of those crowds, even though we are not citizens of their country. Our hopes from him may not have been fulfilled, but we still want him to be there, certainly more so than Romney. A silly desire may be, but still so.

So much has changed in the world. And yet, so much suffering remains. It is only when we think of the past, we realise that things have changed for the better in some areas. And it has been a hard struggle by millions of people to achieve whatever little has been achieved. The bad news is that the struggle must continue. La Luca continua.

ping commentary

The students magazine 'Ping' asked me to write something for them - in 400 words. That was a challenge, to write something in so few words; finally made it in about  600 words. The issue came out a week ago.

**********

Some days back, Rajeev Rajeshuni and Harish Reddy, two UG4 students, presented their experiences of summer internships with culturally/socially active groups sponsored by SPICMACAY. Rajeev spent a month with Tibetan monks in Dharmashala and Harish was with Aruna Roy's MKSS in Rajasthan.

Rajeev's talk was about the serenity of Tibetan Buddhist monks and moments spent with The Dalai Lama. Harish was an angry young man telling us about how miserable the caste, gender and class realities are in rural India.

Both talked about people who are not free and who are struggling for freedom. In one case, the Tibetans, they could run away to India and were provided shelter. In the other case, the people have nowhere to go.

In both the cases, there is a logic that the oppressors present to perpetuate the atrocities. The oppressors do not believe that they are doing anything wrong and they do not accept the logic of the oppressed,who seek freedom and dignity. It is easy for us who are distant from the China-Tibet issue to understand why China is wrong in its logic. But it is not easy for us to see how wrong we are in dealing with our own oppressed.

China has made schools, hospitals, roads, etc., and provided a better quality of life in the modern sense, in Tibet, that may not have happened if it was not under Chinese occupation. The Tibetan society was feudal to the core and most of the pepole lived like slaves, serving the monks or the traders who form the majority of those who escaped. Not everything about the Tibetan society in India is laudable. But this does not make China right in doing what it did. China is an imperial power that has colonised Tibet. We must raise our voice in support of the Tibetan people, who have been fighting a non-violent struggle against the military might of China.

The struggle of the oppressed castes in India is also non-violent. This is surprising, because the intensity of oppression remains high and wide. The constitutional path has provided a solution, not necessarily the best, but one well supported by those who have studied the problem for years. This is the idea of reservation for access to quality education, in employment, etc. For a long time, the policy was not even implemented to an extent that could be called significant. When finally it started looking like a reality and the percentages in jobs started showing, the country went for massive privatisation. In a private educational insititute, there is no reservation policy. It is apparent that privatisation of education is a policy that makes quality education inaccessible to disadvantaged sections.

Ordinarily one expects the youth to question the structure of lies and disinformation that sustains the otherwise untenable institutions of oppression. Our institute provides mechanisms for students to study and question the present. Counterculture is promoted and yet we remain content with extreme underepresentation of large sections of our people in our community. Naturally, the feeling of being a hypocrite is intense in me. In six years of being here, I have motivated only a small number of students to look at real data published in credible journals and inevitably their opinions have changed after a thorough reading. But most of us choose to remain happily gullible because it serves our interests. The arrogance that goes with it is notable. In a more equal society, most if us will not be where we are. With such undeserving power and privileges, how can we be so arrogant?

Insensitivity to issues of social justice indicates a severe crisis of values. The pain of exclusion that a large majority experiences in our country is not going to subside. It will, as Langston Hughes said in his poem 'What happens to a dream deferred', explode one day.

The cartoon yes and no

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.