TWENTY MINUTES TO FREEDOM

Sumit Ghosh  

[First Published: presently defunct 'Now' magazine, 2017

Author's Note: I wrote the original article in 2017. Owing to changing socio-economic and political context, the present article has been updated from the original one, with several omissions and new additions. For example, a paragraph on the analysis of 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections has been removed in this updated text. The paragraphs on experiences with the ISF and Tripura's Gana Mukti Parishad are new inculcations. Study and inclusion of Com. Dasharath Dev's organizational innovation for social inclusion has strengthened Com. Ranadive's call of class struggle. Hence, the concluding statement has been modified accordingly.]

At present, most of the Dalit organizations endorsing Ambedkarite ideology are quite leader centric and ideologically fluid. Some schools strongly oppose the Manusmriti while the others are more concerned with their rights, the tactics being to support any political formation irrespective of their position within the left-right spectrum to reach immediate goals. Most of the far-right parties in Indian Politics (eg. BJP, Shiv Sena etc) have strongly supported the Manu doctrine and continue to oppose the reservation policies. In spite of these fallacies, the question arises as to how then can the Dalit community consider to side with them? To dissect out the source of such sentiments, a closer look at the political stances of the Left as an alternative is also necessary.

The Dalit leaders criticize the mainstream Left for relying on abstract theorization thereby failing to integrate the Dalit cause within their brigade of the oppressed. On the other hand, the small Left groups have no structured program on this issue. Ambedkar once said, “The Communist Party was originally in the hands of some Brahmin boys – Dange and others. They have been trying to win over the Maratha community and the Scheduled Castes. But they have made no headway in Maharashtra. Why? Because they are mostly a bunch of Brahmin boys. The Russians made a great mistake to entrust the Communist movement in India to them. Either the Russians didn’t want Communism in India – they wanted only drummer boys – or they didn’t understand.” In contrast to Ambedkar’s views, the life and struggle of most of the Communist leaders still remain an inspiration to those who are fighting against different modes of oppression. The Namboodiri Brahmin tradition limiting marriage within their own caste led to the practice of hypergamy with the Nair community. The differences in caste ranking in a relationship between a Brahmin man and a Nair woman meant that the woman was unable to live with her husband in the Brahmin family and so remained with her own family. The children resulting from such marriages always became Nairs and were denied access to paternal property. Elamkulam Manakkal Sankaran Namboodiripad, the first non-Congress Chief Minister of India was born in an aristocratic upper caste family but came out against such moribund caste practices of the Namboodiris. Puchalapalli Sundarayya, one of the main leaders of the Telengana movement was recorded to have sat on a hunger strike in his own village against the upper caste landlord discrimination of the Dalits in his youth. Though both came from upper caste landlord families, their empathy for the oppressed made them deeply involved with the agrarian question.

In his critical work “Towards an Aesthetic of Dalit Literature”, Sharan Kumar Limbale provides a detailed view on the various perspectives of Dalit Literature. "Savarna literary critics opine that Dalit Literature must be evaluated strictly and should not be conferred any extra literary traditions. Limbale is opposed to this view stating that middle class criticism can never do justice to Dalit Literature which is the literature of the oppressed. Savarna critics question the monopoly of Dalit Writers in Dalit Literature. Limbale opines that it is impossible for a non-Dalit to write Dalit Literature as this Literature is the product of Dalit consciousness that is shaped by the live experiences of Dalits. Savarna critics argue that Dalit Literature must follow the universal aesthetic principles to render itself credible for a proper framework of evaluation. Limbale states that since Dalit Literature is unique in its insistence of social upliftment and the realistic portrayal of Dalit experiences of pain and suffering, critics must develop different artistic standards for evaluation of such literature.  Such differences in opinion of Limbale and the Savarna critics show how the right wing perpetrators trap the Dalit sympathizers with the existing notions of evaluation thereby  acting as a catalyst for the resurrection of Dalit sectarianism". Such sectarianism progresses further to criticizing the long list of upper caste leaders of the progressive Left parties sidelining the question of class.  It must be acknowledged that upper caste dominance amongst the progressive Left is a serious setback for the revolutionaries. Community exclusion is still a major problem and the incidences of Rohith Vemula and Muthu Krishnan still point out towards the urgency of organizational cleansing within the Left parties to accommodate the Dalit cause. But it is also imperative to understand that sectarianism as a policy will isolate the Dalits from the common people, preventing them from entering into the sphere of organized activism.  

The Manu doctrine which forms the foundation to the caste based oppression in the Indian subcontinent, had gained support from Gandhiji as well, in his articles published in the Gujarati daily, “Dinabandhu”, though he has been found to negate this Brahminical discourse in the English daily “The Harijan”. On the other hand, the mainstream Left has failed to denounce the postulates of Hindutva openly owing to their electoral benefits while the Hindu supremacist BJP continues to propose the Manu doctrine, thereby proving themselves to be both sides of the same coin, to the Dalits. Such deceit, both from the Left and the progressive bourgeoisie has formed the foundational basis for Dalit opportunism. 

Failing to find a distinct barrier between the ideological bases of the Hindu supremacist as well as the Left parties, the organized Dalits have resorted to pragmatic solutions to their oppression. Such solutions, owing to their idealistic characteristics have failed to meet the demands of the community as a whole, thereby leading to greater frustration and disillusion among the activists.  Some historical causes have also contributed to their right opportunism. For example, the leaders of the Matua (Namashudra) community, the second largest Scheduled Caste community in West Bengal have expressed anti-Muslim views many a times, owing to their plight of migrating to India after the Bengal partition of 1947 and the ensuing riots in East Pakistan. 

The domination of Hindutva ideology has failed to organize the Dalits into radical movements. Ambedker had emphasized on the concept of “graded inequality” to explain such failure. According to this concept, the quantized form of inequality introduces a sense of superiority amongst a particular section of the Dalits over the other oppressed sections lying below them in the high-low radar and such views of sectarian supremacy continue to persist among the entire community. Such cultural barriers have prevented them to organize themselves.  On the other hand, the tribal populations, owing to their existence independent of the Hindu discourse, have been successful in maintaining a primitive mode of egalitarian society. Though not a part of the civilized ‘system’, such marginalized populations do enjoy a mode of autonomy. Such differences among the tribals and the Dalits seem to answer the intriguing question as to why couldn’t we see any militant Scheduled Caste movement in the last 100 years whereas the resistance of Sidhu, Kanu and Birsa Munda still continue to inspire us.

Ambedkar put forward the question of basic human rights for Dalits and emphasized more on socio-economic democracy over political democracy. He stated that the concept of caste being specific to the Hindu society of India, Nepal and their NRIs, the western notions of democracy are not sufficient for these countries; the concept of social justice must be incorporated into the ideals of democracy.

Deviating from the concept of class struggle, historians like Kosambi have put forward the idea “Caste is Class”. However, a more scientific approach would be to state that caste and class overlap owing to the following differences between the two terms: Caste is more complex and rigid while class is more mobile across a social system; caste is integrated with religion but not class; class exploitation is more rationalized and justified in the bourgeois society but not caste; class is an economic category of the state while the caste that of religion.

The growing consciousness among the Dalit community and their increasing urge for social respect has given rise to the modern forms of Dalit theology. The Brahminical belief of afterlife and the concept of transmigration of the soul dominate the Hindu society, including the Dalits, who consider themselves to have been born an unfortunate because of their deeds in the previous life and so must follow the customs and rituals with respect, in order to ensure a better living in the next life. Their increasing consciousness as a community has resulted in wide spread theological implications. For example, Dalit Bishops of southern India claim Jesus to be a Dalit. On the other hand, the rituals of upper caste Hindus are dominated by abstract demands like peace, a respectful afterlife, mercy from sins etc. However, the Dalit rituals are dominated by basic demands to ensure their own survival and accordingly, some outcaste Gods have come into the sphere of worship. For example, the rise of Shitala (to evade pox), Ghantakarna/ Ghentu (to avoid skin diseases), Manasha (to ensure protection from snake bite), BonBibi and Dakkhin Ray (to ensure protection from the Royal Bengal Tiger in the Sundarban regions) point towards the gradual evolution of the vision of the Almighty based on the occupation oriented demands of the Dalits  who are involved in honey collection, fishing etc and thus, face greater chances of encountering snakes, different wild animals and suffering from various diseases. The rituals involved are far more simplistic and usually evade Brahmin domination in cases of worship. Rabindranath Tagore has justly portrayed this shift of dominance from the Vedic Gods to the Local “Loukik” Gods in the Heavens in his comedy drama “Shorge Chokro Tebil Boithok” (Round Table Conference of the Heavens) to metaphorically represent “Shudro Jagoran”. However, such consciousness is beset with the domination of the Hindu notions and thus, prevents them from understanding the socio-economic significance with respect to their suffering.

While the right wing groups openly endorse Hindutva, thereby placing the constitutional concept of secularism into bankruptcy, the Left has been accused of declining to campaign in favor of the main tenants of ‘Atheism’. Though most scholars argue that Atheism is essential in caste movement, the mass appeal for Atheism has dissolved over time. Thus, the Left standpoint of clinging to the Leninist view of “complete separation of state and religion” is a more scientific approach.

With time, most of the radical ideological stances of the caste movements have faded, giving space to pragmatism and opportunism.  The call for the ‘Vaikom’ Satyagraha and the self-respect movement initiated by Ramasamy Periyar led to the development of the ‘Dravidar Kazhagam’ and the demand of the Dravidian nation among the people of the Madras Presidency. Though an atheist and radical, Periyar was not theoretically structured and confused. Periyar’s ideas were anti-caste but his reforms were mainly concerned with the touchable Shudras. Owing to such shortcomings, the movement he initiated later went on to the hands of Conjivaram Natarajan Annadurai who went on to establish the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The DMK went on to face squabbles between the two power centres, one led by Muthuvel Karunanidhi and the other by Marudur Gopalan Ramachandran, soon after Annadurai’s demise. The latter went on to establish the AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) which denounced all pro-Shudra, anti-Brahminical ideologies of its predecessor and yielded to right wing agendas. The DMK also faced ideological decline and the leadership became more and more dynastical. Veeramani of the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) is the present successor of Periyar ideology, though the party is not quite influential at present in the Tamil society.

Inspired by the Black Panther Party, a socialist organisation against racial discrimination of African-Americans, the Dalit Panther Movement was developed by Namdeo Dhasal, J.V. Pawar, and Arun Kamble in Maharashtra in 1972. They combined the Ambedkarite spirit with a broader Marxist framework and herald the rise of autonomous Dalit perspective in post-Independence India. In the 1970s, Ramdas Athawale was an activist of the Dalit Panthers. He used to fight street battles with Shiv Sena. In the mid-80s, the then Maharashtra chief minister Sharad Pawar persuaded Athawale to become a minister for social welfare in his government. This paved the way for his opportunism. Presently, he is a Rajya Sabha MP nominated by the BJP from Maharashtra. This example shows how a leader of an initially radical movement later became ideologically disillusioned and is now within the NDA. The movement itself split into several splinter factions in 1977 and the leader centric activism diluted its significance.

Kashi Ram was the most charismatic figure in the Dalit movements that took place in the caste ridden society of northern India. In 1978, he formed the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees' Federation (BAMCEF), a non-political organization to catalyze the formation of a ‘Bahujan’ bureaucracy for serving Dalit interests. In 1984, he founded the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which found electoral success in Uttar Pradesh. The party claims to be inspired by the philosophy of B. R. Ambedkar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Narayana Guru, Ramasamy Periyer and Chatrapati Shahuji Maharaj. Kashi Ram criticized the Dalit leaders like Jagjivan Ram or Ram Vilas Paswan for being political stooges of the Congress and BJP. He denounced the Congress, BJP, Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Janata Dal as equally corrupt forces. He also followed Ambedkar’s path and converted to Buddhism. Owing to Ambedkar’s inclusion of a clause of establishing a commission for the Dalit cause under section 344 of the Constitution, the Kallekar Commission in 1953, had proposed 70% reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes only to be deceived by the Nehru cabinet. Similar attitude was replicated against the Mandal Commission Report in 1978 by the Indira government. It was Kashi Ram’s contributions to the resurgence of Dalit movements that forced the Janata Government to introduce 27% reservation for 52% of the depressed classes in 1990, based on a Supreme Court verdict restricting reservation demands below 50%. Though 50% seats were still open for 17% of the upper castes, Biswanath  Pratap Singh’s government got dissolved owing to the withdrawal of support by the reactionary saffron forces.

In 2001, Mayawati succeeded Kashi Ram as the next leader of the BSP. Mayawati’s leadership helped in bridging the gap between Dalits and Other Backward Classes (OBC). In 1993, Mayawati formed a coalition government with the Samajwadi Party President Mulayam Singh Yadav as the Chief Minister but withdrew support from his government to become the Chief Minister herself with the support of the BJP in 1995. The BJP soon withdrew support not allowing her to remain in power for more than a few months. In 2007, she led the BSP government with an absolute majority for a full five-year term only to be toppled by the Samajwadi Party in 2012 due to heavy corruption charges. Such electoral developments clearly point out the ideological bankruptcy and power politics in Mayawati’s leadership.

Amidst many years of deteriorating social status of minorities, the ongoing grassroot politics of religion-centric appeasement and the rise of the BJP, Abbas Siddiqui had raised the flag of secularism by floating the Indian Secular Front (ISF) in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly Elections. Its alleged funding ally was the All India Majlis-e Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) i.e. Asaduddin Owaisi, the B-Team of BJP. In the name of secularism, Abbas tried to gain political advantage by crowding in, some Dalits and Adivasis, and fielding CPI(M) workers in their own banner in several constituencies. The politics of Abbas is nothing new. In the name of anti-NRC movement, the pro-TMC Manik Fakir and the 'Damal' had earlier tried to implement the dangerous, post-modern and narrow political line of electorally targeting only Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits. Abbas just hijacked this politics of identity and managed to gain victory in Bhangar; the remainder of the ‘Samyukta Morcha’ (Left Front+INC+ISF) remaining at a big zero. According to many, Abbas is the leader of Ahale Sunnatul Jamaat and the ISF is a completely different and independent party. If this is indeed the case, then the ISF could have ‘directly’ condemned Abbas's recent provocative statements and expelled him from the party. Instead, the ISF chose to give indirect statements with the Bhangar MLA and Abbas kin, Pirjada Nawsaad Siddiqui, acting as the social pacifier. Early in his political career, Abbas called the TMC MP Nusrat Jahan (who had helped a Park Street gang rape convict to flee), “Brazen! Shameless!”, for going to a Hindu temple, even though being a Muslim. According to his current statement in the context of communal riots of Bangladesh, why would Durga Puja Pandels of the Hindus look like the Kaaba and if they fancy holding the Quran, then the Hindus ought to adopt its teachings. In other words, Abbas has repeatedly voiced in favor of Hindus not attending Muslims festivals and ceremonies and vice-versa. It is nothing but a clause of religious divisiveness and minority communalism. Consideration of ISF as an organ of socio-economic emancipation of the Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits stems from the post-modern concept of creating an alliance of different isolated, divided and narrow social representations (identities) by simple linear addition of representatives of one social factor after another. The problem with this line is that this simple linear addition does not take into account the contradictions and complex interactions between these individual factors, i.e., in other words, organizing the oppressed without the essence of class struggle.  

Marx in his essay, “The British Rule in India” had beautifully painted the picture of labour division based on the existence of Patels, Karnams, Talwars, Todis and Simanadars in India. He opined that such division were the true legacy of the Manu doctrine on caste and were the basis of the undisturbed economic system of rural India. The establishment of the railways and the development of modern industries were considered by him as the material basis for the initiation of class consciousness of the oppressed in India.  Marx also commented that all victorious communities like the Arabs, Mongols etc were easily influenced by the superiority of the Indian civilization except the British, they being socio-economically more superior than the Indians. Even philosophical revolts against the staunch Hindu ideals in the form of Buddhism, Jainism etc failed owing to their inability to establish themselves independent of the main tenants of Hinduism. Historically, they got themselves positioned within the Hindu sphere. Rise of Christian, Buddhist and Muslim Dalits as castes also point towards the fallacy behind religious conversions among Dalits. 

Based on Marx’s remarks, the most comprehensive view put put forward was by Balachandra Trimbak Randive in his essay “Untouchables’ in Freedom Struggle”. Randive criticized the Congress and Gandhiji for failing to include the Dalit cause in their national demands due to their understanding of the Dalit issue as an internal problem of the Hindu community.  He supported the political empowerment, greater involvement in Law formulation and Education and demand for a separate electorate for the Dalits. Consideration of a separate electorate as a communal agenda of the McDonald Award provoked Gandhi to go for a fast unto death, thereby bullying Ambedkar and his followers to sign the Poona Pact in 1932. This ensured the inclusion of the Dalits within the Hindu electorate but its aftermath included two major implications. Firstly, the upper caste domination over the Dalit demands was ensured and secondly, owing to such deceit, the spontaneous involvement of the untouchables in the national movements was lost forever. Com. Randive supported the 6 point demands of the Nagpur Congress of the Scheduled Caste Federation held in 1942.  However, he criticized the Dalits for refraining to demand for total independence and also Ambedkar’s tendency in supporting the Dominion Status of India though acknowledging the fact that they had never directly spoken out against the call for Independence.

Dalits being a source of cheap labour, are a boon to capitalist economic development. Therefore, Com. Randive pointed towards the necessity of Dalit involvement in the Freedom Struggle and the Communist Movement since land reforms, industrial development and revolutionary changes in the agricultural system were the prerequisites for their socio-economic upliftment. The necessity of land reforms as cited by Com. Randive has also echoed in the Mandal Commission Report. However, Com. Randive had also pointed out that the members of the Scheduled Caste Federation headed by Ambedkar  represent the same classes (businessmen, bureaucrats etc) as empowered by the Congress and the Muslim League. Com. Randive’s prescription to establish a strong United Front of the oppressed masses and  the working people included the call to the Dalits for joining the class organizations of  workers and peasants movements i.e., the Krishak Sabha and the Trade Unions. The overwhelming majority of the Dalits falling within these two classes will find these organizations as their true weapons in their fight against oppression and exploitation. However, practice of the Ranadive line faced the difficulty of upper-caste hegemony within the intra-party organizational politics. Hence, the Ranadive line needed to be in consonance with an organizational arrangement allowing social inclusion. 

In the pre-independence period, the tribals of Tripura went to war against the monarchy and faced the oppression of the British. After independence, the Indian government tried to silence the voices of the indigenous people through military rule. In this situation, the Gana Mukti Parishad (People's Liberation Council) was formed in 1948. The refugee Bengalis and the majority of the tribals simultaneously engaged in an armed struggle against the oppression of the Indian government. The Gana Mukti Parishad joined the Communist Party in 1950 and withdrew from the armed movement. During the Liberation war of Bangladesh, when a large number of Bengali refugees started crossing the border in search of a permanent home in Tripura, some separatist tribal organizations sought to regionally exterminate the Bengalis. One of the leaders of the Left Front, the first Tiprasa Chief Minister of the state and the founder of the Gana Mukti Parishad, Com. Dasharath Dev, through his proactive efforts, extinguished the fire of separatism within the tribal society and guided them towards economic prosperity. A proposal was passed by the Communist Party to bring the Gana Mukti Parishad under the fold of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS). However, Dasarath Dev stated that the organization of the Adivasi community need to be kept within the jurisdiction of the Kisan Sabha because the Kisan Sabha would act as their class organization, the Adivasis being mainly involved in farming; but at the same time, the semi-independent existence of the Gana Mukti Parishad and the corresponding tribal youth and student organizations (although they would serve as regional units of the central youth and student mass organisations of the party) was also necessary for the social upliftment of the indigenous people on their own. This demand of Dasarath Dev was accepted by the party. In the 1967 Conference, Gana Mukti Parishad passed a resolution asserting itself as a Tiprasa organisation under AIKS (however, owing to split of CPI & CPI(M), Gana Mukti Parishad also got divided into two separate organisations with the part allying with the CPI(M) acting as the dominant one). Through this arrangement, on one hand, it was possible to bring the tribals under class politics, on the other hand, it also helped to maintain the platform to fight for their own community based demands. This new organizational innovation of Dasaratha Dev within the Communist Party introduced a dialectical praxis in the party structure through which separatism began to stagnate among the tribals. During the chief ministerial tenure of Dasharath Dev, the Left parties tried to uplift the socio-economic condition of the Adivasis, but later the politics of protecting the rights of the Adivasis turned into the politics of neglect and electoral charity. The aftermath of this shift and the present socio-political condition of the state coincide in logical inference. 

These twenty minutes of reading has surely established the significance of Com. Randive’s call and its need to shake hands with Com. Dasharath Dev's organizational innovation, since reservation alone cannot solve the problem, movements for social justice are also necessary.

 

References:

1. Dr. Debi Chattopadhyay, retired Professor, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University

2. “The British Rule in India”- Karl Marx

3. “Untouchables’ in Freedom Struggle”- B. T. Randive

4. Mandal Commission Report

5. “Towards an Aesthetic of Dalit Literature”- Sharan Kumar Limbale

6. https://criticalaesthetics2015.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/1-critical-summary-of-the-dalit-literature-and-aesthetics-by-sharankumar-limbale/

7. “Kosambi and Questions of Caste”- Kumkum Roy

8. “No Casteism without Capitalism”- Yuvraj Bagare

9. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's Writings and Speeches- Vol. I

10. Mukti Parishad er Itikotha - Dasharath Dev

[Updated: 24th April, 2023]