Session 7: Politics of Caste

The readings for this session (find the list at the end of the note) broadly deal with political struggles related to, and based on caste-identities. The nature of politics concerns not only the electoral arena, but power relationships within civil society and academia. The overarching theme that seems to tie together the readings is an unpacking of liberal nationalist understandings of India’s history and contemporary, by bringing in the “caste question”.

Introduction: Dalit Studies: New perspectives on the Indian History and Society

In the introduction to the volume on Dalit Studies, Rawat and Satyanarayana provide an overview of the ways in which Indian nationalist elite and academia has (and has not) engaged with the questions of caste, particularly issues concerning Dalits. They then trace the changes that have occurred in the nation and academic scholarship post 1990’s.

One of their key arguments is that historiographic work on India has been so preoccupied with the colonialist- nationalist binary that little attention has been paid to struggles for human dignity. So, even though colonialism did provide conceptual and legal resources for the anti-caste movement leaders, within a nationalist framing, colonialism was only viewed as extractive. While categories of humiliation and dignity had been salient in Dalit vernacular writings, they argue that it has entered south Asian academic discourse only after the 1990’s when there was a substantial reconfiguration of academy, as a large number of Dalit scholars who retained activist sensibilities entered academia.

In examining the various paradigms through which Dalits have been studied, they point to the hegemony of the Harijan perspective, which denies agency to actors. Taking theorisation of Sanskritisation as one instance, they show how an understanding of Dalit lives based on emulation of upper-caste customs and practices “denies agency and autonomous consciousness to Dalits”.

Through the volume, most of whose contributors come from non-elite spaces, attention is drawn to practices caste exclusion, and subsequently an attempt made to refocus Indian historiography and social sciences. Rather than see Dalits as “objects of reform”, the volume attempts to see Dalits as “intellectuals, leaders and active participants in the processes of social transformation, highlighting their interventions in shaping modern India”.

Social Justice and the Question of Categorisation of Scheduled Caste Reservations: Dandora Debate in Andhra Pradesh

By Sambaiah Gundimeda

SambaiahGundimeda, in his article on “The Dandora Debate in Andhra Pradesh”, interrogates questions of social justice by looking at categorizations within Scheduled Caste category. “Through that interrogation, it aimed to reveal paradoxes in the system of positive discrimination for the scs in India”. He shows how certain Dalit castes such as the Malas have been able to acquire greater social mobility through reservations in education and employment, and thus become dominant within the Dalit community. In contrast, castes such as Madigas and Rellis have not had the same opportunities.

Through a detailed consideration of the debates between Mala Maha Nadu(MMN) and Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti(MRPS), Gundimeda shows how MMN opposed internal reservations among Dalits by relying on arguments “similar to those that have been used by Hindu upper castes to oppose reservations”.

 

The Indian nation in its egalitarian conception

By Gopal Guru

Guru argues that post 1990s there has been an increase interest among mainstream scholars in Dalit studies. These scholars, according to Guru have found the vision for Dalit emancipatory aspirations in three sequential spaces of Indian Nationalism, Electoral Politics and Globalisation.

Their argument is that in the space of nationalism a Dalit could let go of his/her identity as an untouchable and become a citizen or in the electoral politics a Dalit could shed culturally attributed identity and acquire a secular identity. Globalisation, it is believed, offers Dalits a unique opportunity to aspire to become consumers of commodities. Globalisation also brings to Dalits an opportunity to assume a homogenous identity of being a global consumer. However, imagining Dalits as global consumers, Guru argues, also contests the intellectual claim that there’s a particular constitution of Dalits as nationalists.

According to these writers, the scholarships on Indian nationalism have neglected the contribution of Dalits in India’s struggle for independence. While Guru sees some merit in this argument, he contests scholars who believe that nationalism is the only sphere that can help Dalits gain some importance in the life of the nation. In reality, nationalism or electoral democracy has not been able to create a positive sense of citizenship among the Dalits, globalisation has not brought in any structural transformation in the lives of the Dalits either.

He points to the paradoxical nature of the nation and argues that while the nation vehemently asserts its geographical boundaries, it ignores the pernicious boundaries that exist between the main village and Dalit Vadas. Guru argues that to understand the nation and its politics we have to understand Ambedkar’s concept of two nations of ‘Puruskrut Bharta’ (ideal, pure India) that represent the twice-born castes and ‘Bahishkrut Bharat’ that represents the untouchables. Ambedkar proposed an alternative called ‘Prabuddha Bharata’ (Enlightened and inclusive Bharat).Guru, argues any subjective imagination that doesn’t take into account the two nations involves an acceptance of nationalist rhetoric of equality and unity.

Guru counters the existing notion of democracy and argues that these scholars sense that the Dalits matter in the national life due to their participation in the deliberative process of democracy. If they are not considered or do not consider themselves to be part of it, then the nation doesn’t exist for them and they don’t exist for the nation. Dalits should participate because of their capacity to contribute and contribute in legitimising democracy.

Building further on this, Guru analyses the politics of ‘Sarvajan’-referring to the equality of all individuals in the context of politics of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in UP in particular and in the general context of Indian politics and politics of the nation.

He argues that in 2007 the BSP, hitherto a party of the ‘oppressed majority’ that included, Dalits, Muslims and other minorities shifted its ideological agenda to ‘Sarvajan’ politics diluting its ethical commitment to fighting on behalf of the Dalit Bahujan. The Brahmins supported the BSP to overthrow SP for its anti-brahmin politics. The Brahmins and caste Hindus accepted the BSP not for their desire for equality or to remove untouchability. They did so because, parties like BJP realised that without the support of the Dalits it cannot form government in UP and in this context the Sarvajan politics is useful to them. Though, the Brahmins and Caste Hindus will show reverence to the statues of Ambedkar and refer Mayavati as behenji, they would disrespect Dalits in their daily interactions. Guru further argues that paradox of Sarvajan model is inherent in the idea of India. The exclusionary nature of nationalism and Sarvajan politics is rooted in simultaneous and hypothetical elevation of people and their real reduction to insignificance. Nationalism constructs the people as an abstract category. Nationalism demands people’s absolute allegiance to national interests, which in turn subordinates people’s existential questions. Therefore, the annihilation of caste and Dalits’ emancipation has to wait for the resolution of the nationalists concern like fight against colonialism. 

In this context, Guru also argues that Gandhi saw an element in Indian nationalism that might threaten the minority groups and the ‘lower castes’. Gandhi’s idea of Ram Rajya had a vision of India which would flatten the caste hierarchies. However, Gandhian hagiography undermines the more substantive aspect of daily interactions and social practices that produces a sense of belonging to the nation. Guru notes that the freedom to engage in social and cultural communication in everyday life plays an important role in the realisation of the nation as concrete entity. The writings of history and intellectual practices have failed to interrogate the persistence of hierarchical practices that endow the world of Bahishkrut Bharat. According to Ambedkar, Gandhism is a paradox. On the one hand it stands for freedom from colonialism and on the other hand seeks to maintain social structures which allows for domination of one class over other. Sarvajan actively highlights universal identity off all people and denies the caste hierarchies that continue to subjugate Dalits and lower castes. Interestingly, Guru notes, that Marxist also do not find Sarvajan politics problematic. He further argues that it is through the Dalits that Sarvajan model and hagiography of Indian nationalism becomes rooted in the society. However, Dalits also play a far greater role than caste Hindus in terms of performing an ideological function and legitimising it.

In the conclusion, Guru maintains that Dalit consciousness is required to understand the paradoxical nature of the nation. However, he warns that there are plenty of examples where those who offered a promise were successfully co-opted by the nationalist. Offering solution to it he argues that the Dalit self has to take moral responsibility in understanding the contradiction. However, besides, moral stamina, one must have a background characterised by deprivation or underprivilege. This would create the potential for state intervention. In a liberal framework, however, he argues it is impossible to create such a moral state.

 The Dalit Recognition of Modernity: Citizens and Castes in the Telegu public space

By Satyanarayana

The author discusses the Dalit literary movement in Andhra Pradesh, especially, in the post Mandal scenario and elite upper caste resistance to it. Satyanarayana points that the argument of the elite writers and literally critiques is to uphold the ‘purity’ of the literature and there has been a conscious effort to downplay the literary work of the Dalits. The argument of the elite bourgeois writers is that the mass production of literature has reduced the quality of the literary work in Andhra Pradesh. The elite critiques often argue that any good literature must be evaluated by ‘proper’ groups and publishing houses with background in literary work (Satyanarayana terms it as Eurocentric approach). The author argues that these ‘proper’ groups comprises of liberal elite bourgeois and are bereft of any organic understanding of the problems and issues faced by marginalised groups. He also argues that the traditional Marxist writes are caste elites. Quite often, these Marxist groups represented the proletariat as they felt the proletariat were unable to represent themselves. For the proletariat to be able to contribute to the literary world requires them to be educated. And hence they rejected and neglected  Dalit literature which emerged from the daily experiences of Dalit groups. He argues that Dalits were not considered as proper citizens and hence the argument that Dalit literature lacks quality.

Post 1990, through new spaces of interaction, Dalit intellectuals managed to create new public spheres. Questions of caste and citizenship could be raised here. One of the important issues in the literary work of the Marxist is their denial of caste as an oppressed group and emphasis on class.  He notes that Dalits and Madiga poets broke this silence and made caste identities opaque in Telegu public spheres.  The Dalits and caste collectives have undergone internal transformation and have emerged as political communities in modern political domain responding to modern institutional cultures and claiming their space.  In the conclusion, he argues that the liberal nationalists and left intelligentsia promote caste privileges and intend to thwart alternative modernities and subjectivities.    

The politics of caste and the deepening of India’s democracy: The case of the Backward Caste Movement in Bihar.

By Jeffrey Witsoe

The writer argues that the present caste politics has its roots in colonial India. He argues that the Colonial state made an alliance with the local dominant caste groups to rule indirectly. These local dominant caste groups collected tax and were agent of the state. The newly formed Zamindars were from the dominant castes. He further argues that the colonial governance supplemented indirect rule with the strategic use of caste representation (Some castes were categorised as criminal castes, recruitment in the army was mostly from specific caste groups). The other aspect of colonial rule in the context of caste is the enumeration of castes in the census. However, the census not only enumerated it also ranked the castes.

Witsoe argues that the colonial period is marked by the beginning of two movements which has its bearing on the caste politics of the present time.  The dominant caste groups or the forward castes reaped benefits during the colonial rule. The dominant position helped them build association with the colonial rulers which in turn helped them in accessing English education and public employment. Lower castes, on the other hand, although less successful in acquiring influence within the state institutions, sought to raise the caste status of their members and therefore, challenged the established order. Witsoe argues that caste identities forged through these movements continue to be the identities that operate within democratic politics.

He argues that to understand the democratic potentials and limitations of caste empowerment, the key is in analysing the relationship between post colonial state, local power and caste identities. Taking the state of Bihar as a case, he argues that abolition of Zamindari and land distribution empowered some of the backward castes in Bihar. This was followed by a social movement led by Ramanohar Lohia. Lohia was the first socialist in India who broke away from the traditional concept of class in socialism and argued that in the Indian context, caste needs to be taken into account. Following this, Bihar formed the first non-congress government, eventually bringing Lalu Yadav to power. However, the author argues that although Lalu gave confidence and voice to the Backward castes, he ignored the state institutions and the Backward castes were deprived of material benefits and social opportunities. Besides, Yadavs benefited more from the rule as compared to other backward castes and Muslims. This created a paradox within the state. Eventhough Backward castes got a political voice, the upper castes occupied most of the positions in state institutions and in bureaucracy due to their historical advantages. On the other hand the neglect of state institutions including education and health did not help the backwards castes either and hence Bihar lagged behind other states in all aspects of human development. He then brings in the politics of Nitish Kumar and argues that Nitish has been prudent in understanding these limitations and has forged uneasy alliance with the old guards to use state machinery to empower the backward castes. In conclusion, Witsoe argues that while backward caste politics has catalysed meaningful democratisation ,the project of social justice remains incomplete.       

Reading list:

S. Rawat Ramnarayan & K. Satyanarayana (eds),  Dalit Studies. Duke UP, 2016:

Introduction : Dalit Studies : New Perspectives on Indian History and Society  pp. 1-31

Chapter 1: Gopal Guru : Indian Nation in its Egalitarian Conception   pp. 53-74

Chapter 6: K. Satyanaryana: The Dalit Reconfiguration of Modernity: Citizens and Castes in the Telegu Public Space. pp. 155-180

Chapter 8: Sambaiah Gundimeda: Social Justice and the Question of Categorisation of Scheduled Caste Reservations: The Dandora Debate in Andhra Pradesh pp. 202-233

Jeffrey Witsoe, The Politics of Caste and the Deepening of India’s Democracy: The Case of the Backward Caste Movement in Bihar In: Social Movements and the State in India :Deepening Democracy, edited by by Kenneth Bo Nielsen and Alf Gunvald Nielsen. Palgrave: Macmillan. pp. 53-75


By Subroto and Savitha