Rohith Vemula’s Suicide Shows The Need For A Politics Of Intersection
By Kishalaya Mukhopadhyay
21 January, 2016
Countercurrents.org
Rohith Vemula’s suicide is part of a long procession of incidents of systematic violence and discrimination against the Dalits of the country. It would be far too simplistic to just pin the blame flatly on the state or the Hindutva brigade, both of which certainly are partially responsible for the institutional murder of Rohith. As an article in Countercurrents points out (Pattanayak, 2016), even the progressives, liberals and the Left, who are supposed to be the flag-bearers of the struggle against all forms of oppression, have to shoulder the blame. As the article referred to argues, it is indeed true that the Indian academicia is largely dominated by upper caste “left liberals”. This is not to suggest that instead of people like Romila Thapar we should rather have historians who suggest that ancient India had developed aeroplanes or nuclear bombs. The point is that while the leftists, largely dominated by the Marxist Leninist variety, claim to be the vanguards of all those who are marginalized, they have historically considered identity issues like those of gender, caste, ethnicity to be subordinate to class. One can still find many veteran or even young communists walking in a rally related to gender oppression who will reveal their dogmatic class reductionist mindset.
But why are we discussing this now? Shouldn’t we be protesting and condemning Rohith’s murder? There, this is precisely what the left, old and rusty and impervious to new ideas, would love to cry out loud. They would bring forth concepts like “reactive” politics, as in giving an immediate reaction to an act of injustice, as opposed to “proactive” protest, which is supposedly a long term political project. But this is really old wine in a new bottle. We are fairly familiar with the distinction traditionally drawn between “economistic” and “political” goals, “reformist” and “revolutionary” approaches and so on, especially by our Marxist Leninist comrades. The point is, while it may be useful at times to set apart the “short term” from the “long term” to arrive at a consensus over “what to do next”, what is problematic is the total suspension of the latter for facilitating the former. This actually translates into “presentism” – an obsession with “immediate action” by totally avoiding a dialectical engagement with ideological principles. A clichéd question arises at this point with a rather clichéd answer to it, but nonetheless needs to be reiterated as the matter stands unresolved –why do the leftist forces do this? The answer to this lies somewhere in the spectrum between “they are opportunists” and “they are well intentioned but they sometimes get temporarily derailed”. The intention of this essay is not to make a moral assessment of the left, but to point out some stark realities which need to be reflected upon. The bitter truth is that a large section of the leftist organizations see some new recruitments to their cadre base or as one leftist comrade pointed out once, the mere creation of a spectacle (you know, media attention and all) as “success”. Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that a movement is a “failure” just because it doesn’t achieve some desired goals. But it is equally ridiculous to start blowing trumpets just because some University VC has resigned.
Which brings us back to Rohith Vemula’s suicide. The left in India has already started putting the blame squarely on the fascist state, the Sangh parivar and so on. They are happy to have created a “spectacle” – injured protesters after clashes with police who have generously returned the favor with baton charge and water cannon. But once again, the left has emphasized on showing “immediate reaction” without any sincere engagement with the complexity of the issue. The practice of having sectarian squad rallies, for instance, in which effigy of a convenient and tangible “enemy” is burnt (in this case, perhaps VC of University of Hyderabad or BJP Minister Bandaru Dattatreya), must be seen as a logical extrapolation of the reductionist compulsiveness of leftist political praxis. One may object at this point, saying if we instead burn effigy of an abstract “target” like Brahmanical hegemony, most people will not be able to relate. But what are the leftists doing to help people “relate”? Let alone engaging with society at large, even within their own organizations, there is a lack of sensitization and engagement on “complex” issues especially relating to identity, as it would either mean questioning their own long standing views which they hold as gospel truth and are ready to defend by spewing quotes and jargon with little regard to coherence or relevance, or pissing off some cadres embracing conservatism. There is a culture of imposed-from-above consensus building within the organizations, which discourages critical thinking. The inevitable result of this is that a vast number of people are still not able to figure out the difference between a Rahul Gandhi offering solidarity with Rohith Vemula, obviously doing so purely for narrow parliamentary power politics and the left’s ritualistic rallies, barricade breakings, voluntary arrests, sloganeering and burning of effigies without clarifying their politics. It is tempting to ask if there is effectively any difference at all! It is perhaps not so surprising then that sections of the Dalit activists find the slogans of upper caste dominated leftist organizations much like the mantras of the Brahmin priest!
But it is not just the left of the orthodox Marxist variety but those pursuing identitarian politics (like LGBTQAI community activists, Dalit activists, ethnicity based separatist activists etc.) who need to introspect as well. There may be many approaches towards the meaning of identity, but one interesting way to look at it would be from the angle of oppressor or oppressed identity. Context decides whether a particular identity is oppressed or oppressor. Add to this formulation the understanding that all of us are carrying multiple identities all the time. So a person may have to face discrimination as a Dalit but if he is a capitalist, he is also an oppressor in a different dimension. Depending on the context, the person or others may choose to give emphasis on any of these identities as the relevant site for offering resistance. If a Dalit capitalist faces some kind of social boycott because of his Dalit identity, this is the identity that may become the focus of the immediate political reaction, but without forgetting the other identities that he may carry (capitalist or worker, fat or slim, beautiful or ugly) and the meanings they carry in different contexts. There is an obvious advantage of this approach over the one that uses an analytical framework that universalizes the primacy of a particular identity as the “core” site of oppression (and consequently resistance). This formulation resolves the problem of finding a practical political expression of the theoretical position of intersection among various forms of oppressions and identities.
One of the main reasons why a Dalit activist would tell a non-Dalit leftist also interested in fighting caste oppression that the latter “just won’t get it”(what is often called “standpoint politics”) is because of a lack of trust, which is not surprising given the current practices and track record of the left with regard to identity issues (other than class) which was discussed a little earlier. Much of identity politics also uses the same approach as the dogmatic Marxist one – that of giving primacy to a particular identity as the “main” one (the fallacy of such an approach has already been outlined – no such overarching identity exists that can account for all forms of oppression within that category) – partly as a reaction to the Marxist or orthodox class reductionist dogmatism, it may be argued. An important disclaimer is in order at this juncture – it is not being suggested as some indeed do, that no “meta narrative” can be offered. Instead, the above formulation is an invitation to paying closer attention to multiple identities that co-exist simultaneously and have complex interactions among each other. Instead of sweating over trying to find the “common minimum program” based on interests, it would be much easier to forge solidarity on the basis of mutual empathy.
Kishalaya Mukhopadhyay, independent activist and blogger; associated with an initiative called The Commons; teaches Media Studies and pursuing MPhil in Development Studies from Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata.
Pattanayak, S. (2016, January 19). Rohith Vemula: Indian Left And the Dalit Student Suicides. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from Countercurrents: http://www.countercurrents.org/pattanayak190116.htm
Marx, K. (1970). Preface. In A contribution to the critique of political economy. New York: International.