Let's Counter The Argument In Similar Fashion
By Suraj Yengde
24 April, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Rather than getting into the on-going debate over the row of Roy 's introduction to the prophetic text of Ambedkar, I would rather surmise a different approach. It has been over 8 decades that the discussions on Annihilation of Caste has dominated mostly Dalit's upbringing. In this short essay I will attempt to summarise the sentiments of Navayana as I experienced through the text and provide an alternative approach. If this debate continues it will probably be one of the influential debates of twenty-first century literary tradition in India . There are various reasons that make it a special book which is still “in the making.” First, it is a discussion of a book which is unsettles both the Dalits and anti-Dalits. Second, it is introduced by a publishing house which has a good résumé in subaltern works. Third, it is the introduction which sparked the controversy. Fourth, the introduction is almost three times the length of the actual text. Fifth, the legitimacy and authority is questioned which is reminiscent of post-colonial critical studies. And lastly, it is not the book in total which is creating controversy but its introduction. In the last section I will try to reflect on Anand's annotated version which is not discussed much, perhaps because Anand has done as every other author does to a classic writing. He annotated and edited the text to simplify the reading with appropriate and timely footnotes.
Writing is an essential component of activism. It is the communist manifesto that guided millions of unorganised workers to defy the traditional juncture of class war. Writing has always been subjective and one of the only fields which welcomes cycles of criticisms. It is this critical approach which has brought enormous potential to scholarly debates since its evolution. The question of who should write and what has always been central to the debates in revolutionary movements around the world. Be it the anti-caste movement, spearheaded by the colonial contemporaries like Jotirao Phule, or the post-colonial critiques emerging from the colonised world ( politically speaking – the third world ). The authority of producing certain kinds of scholarship has always been a convenient factor for the people on north side of axis.
During one of the history seminars organised by Cambridge University Press here in Johannesburg , an elderly audience member expressed his wish to raise a question. Dressed in a blazers and sweater, he was given the chance to speak. He introduced himself as a professor of history from one of the universities in Botswana . He has worked on the origins of a certain extinct tribe in the Botswana borderlands. His concern was the people representing Cambridge University Press – with some white and one black face was lacking in presenting the accurate idea of the experiences of being with that tribe. The texts written on that tribe according to him were not addressing the real experiences of that tribe. He concluded that it was the distance of scholars that produced a biased knowledge of that tribe. Everyone on the stage looked pale and dumbfounded. He further went to say that, the fashion of scholars from the north working among the tribes in certain parts of Botswana seems a very fascinating, and indeed patronising idea. But for him the time has gone when a white man used to land on their farms with his ethnographic diaries and equipment to report it to the Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute or the American Anthropologist. It is the time when he starts writing about his community in the language understandable to the community. This was very important because he was voicing the shared experiences of the people he was writing about and not to a section of society thousands of miles away which has not been brought up in certain (community) disciplinary upbringing in Botswana . His critique was on the interpretation of the tribal experiences by someone outsider having no or little relevance to them at all. He was not opposed to the idea of scholarly work being produced by some otusider; but he was worried about the unreasonable chapters that sometimes lacked a direct relevance to the tirbals. Moreover, his main concern lay in the idea of a certain text written now which in the future would shine in the corridors of libraries. His fear was the same text becoming a reference point for generations to come and sadly his children and grandchildren would refer to the already established and recognised work. You, as a subaltern class, will always have to submit your pedagogy to a serious challenge and not vice-versa.
The African literary and scholarly tradition has emerged out of the critique of non-black writing. James Africanus Beale Horton a medical doctor of Ghana challenged “scientific racism” during the nineteenth century colonialism. Later the tradition grew until Fanon became an ideal to modern literary critiques. These efforts helped to reach wider audiences within the African continent. The simple question that Fanon had to ask was: who has the right to write about black people and what is the authenticity? Fanon's critical ideas gained alternative attention to the thunderous debates in the scholarly world. It was later continued by radical critiques in the post-colonial world like Paulin Houtondji, Achille Mbembe and others in the African continent. The genealogy of Gramscian approach of the subalternist tradition gained particular attention in the colonised world. It radicalised the thinking and writing aspects which put every foreign reference under strict scrutiny. Starting from the colonial (white) writings, to the government reports and archives, everything was put into question. In the case of India in the 1980s, Bengali Brahmins lead the intellectual struggle which appeared in almost every post-colonial debate in Asia, Africa, Latin America to the First world countries. Similarly the idea of Global South combined a common struggle of the “depressed and oppressed” communities of the world. Latin American literary tradition too gained prominence on the premise of challenging the authority that governed the masses. Public intellectuals like Walter Mignolo, Ileana Rodríguez, José Rabasa and Gereth William offered radical criticism to the South American continent.
However, far before that during the nineteenth century, Jotirao Phule, a champion of Indian subaltern communities challenged the idea of critical writing. Ambedkar followed this tradition wisely and introduced the critiques to the caste Hindu society. However, his challenge all through his life was not against Brahmins per se but Brahminism. Sadly, Brahminism appears in every section of society among the Dalits alike black Africans. On which Roy too expounds in her text referring to the “shudras against the untouchables, untouchables against unapproachable, unapproachable against unseeable.”
Coming back to Roy 's of writing an introduction has generated many mixed reactions. Among certain Dalit groups (mostly left leaning) it is taken as a serious offence whereas on the other it is lauded for having worked around the lines of the Gandhi-Ambedkar debate and brought it to international attention. Since, Arundhati's past is renowned with some internationally acclaimed award,s her presence on the Dalit dais will definitely be an addition to the scholarly works on Dalit studies. Sadly to make Annihilation of Caste an issue of international debate through the stardom of Arundhati appears as if there was no Dalit scholar of international stature that could write the heart wrenching experiences. Like Laxman Mane did, like Dhasal, Dangle, Waman (dada) Kardak, Thorat, Suresh Mane and others in thousands which cannot be mentioned due to the large share of their contribution to the Dalit literature. This is the irony that has to be fought against, if there is no international Dalit scholar as many apologists confirm (pardon to the pity of their knowledge). It is another saddening incident which strengthens the belief in the minds of the world that there is no Dalit who will guarantee publisher's return to his investments.
Also, taking into consideration that a publishing house has to run counting on profits to continue producing other literatures, can the publishing house be bailed out on account of negligence? Since it has received international fame and acclaim with voices from below. There are few questions which need to be posed to Navayana: Does this publishing house hereafter taking the criticisms into account plan to produce an issue of the critiques on Arundhati or plan to encourage young Dalit scholar's compendium about their experiences of caste in modern times? Or if it thinks of providing an alternative to the unheard voices and provide them a platform that echoes the lived horrific experiences? This will encourage the coming generation to start writing for publishing masters to continue producing handsome revenue.
Having said that, in order to march forward taking the current and past mistakes into account, why a publishing house like Navayana should be critiqued only on the scholarly debates and why not produce an alternative publishing house that would consider the ignored but real voices. As it happened in the Soviet Union , black consciousness movement in South Africa too gave a voice to the oppressed. Black consciousness movement heralded by revolutionaries like Steve Biko embarked on the idea of “I write what I like” challenging the normative gesture of white man's knowledge.
Writing is a tough business. You are received with warm reception from one end while the other end always has serious cognizance concerns. It happened with Buddhist literatures in the post-Buddha era in the Brahminical India. It happened with anti-caste literature emerging from the middle ages - through the bhakti movement and presently it has to undergo rigorous scrutiny to pass the test of disapproval - yes I said disapproval. Disapproval of the critiques! Very briefly, talking about Arundhati's introduction to the Annihilation of Caste cannot be taken as only a text produced by a world-renowned author. It has to do with the logical and moral arguments . Annihilation of Caste is guidance for every Ambedkarite movement. It time and again manages to retain into the category of culturally holy text. The question over the authority of producing knowledge still retains in the modern era via by the North-South debate, colonised-coloniser debate or in this case caste. Dalit youth and academic-activists have bounced over the “insulting” take by Navayana . They must have thought of including a few essays of not-so-well-known people from the ghettos of Ambedkar nagars around India along with Arundhati Roy's introduction. The people who document their everyday experiences in the houses of tin shacks and crawl their caste slavery through the floors made of cow dung. This would have definitely gained honest responses of public cultural rights as they often talk about. Also, on the other hand why does a text like Annihilation of Caste, which is a revolutionary document very often referred by the anti-caste revolutionaries require an introduction from someone who has not even applied for a job in the struggle against anti-caste activism. Writing is definitely Roy 's right and she must very bravely undertake it. But without producing a good recommendation certificate from the community or, in this case, a critical progress report from the community would have justified her efforts. Time and again writers like Arundhati have fed on the adjective Dalits, and surprisingly their success rate has been impressive. The fetishism of a non-Dalit being in a Dalit ghetto will still be an attraction until the caste has been thoroughly annihilated. This applies to Arundhathi's too. She being a “non-Dalit” writer writing about something that does not affect her everyday experiences is accused by many Dalits in the media. This guiding principle is perhaps inspired by the Gandhi himself who in 1909 wrote Hind Swaraj defying the modernism and asking the Indians to get back to villages to suffer the brutality of casteism. He is critiqued by Ramchandra Guha in his latest book of someone writing about villages and the mystical-mythical idea of utopian society even without actually experiencing the village life.
However, let's talk about the text. I must commend the writing style of Arundhati who has very eloquently inspired non-Ambedkarites, non-Indians, non-Dalits, non-Adivasis to think over the on-going debate. She has put on record everyday discussions and debates happening in the University campuses, canteens, bus stops and all other institutions. It is a very good critical history lesson for those who haven't seen or understood Gandhi's idiosyncrasy of shying away from the under-privileged. The moments of Gandhi's “shameful” experiments of political compromises in South Africa that were not much discussed in South Africa will now hopefully gain desired attention. The unspoken debates hidden in the archives were direly looking for wider readership, and Arundhati you did it wisely.
I can also understand why Anand must have felt Arundhati was the best person to write. Perhaps he wanted to bring Arundhati's followers attention to the greater and serious debate over the annihilation of caste in India and the world. He has tried his best to invite people to a conference on one subject and then tried to introduce another which he thought important in relation to the subject. Although he is aware that the conference attendees will not be happy with his rather flabbergasting efforts, but he does not care as long as his contribution to the cause continues. More importantly, the writing and discussions over the years in India have often been Gandhi-centric as Roy herself writes. But immediately in the next line and in the following pages of her introduction she confines herself discussing about the “consummate politician” Gandhi. Her work often sounds Gandhi-centric which cynically she too becomes victim of! She tried to hit too many targets in one shot. Her targets included, to introduce Gandhi-Ambedkar debate, debunking the mahatma hood of Gandhi, Annihilating the Caste and introducing Ambedkar's legacy. Too many things happening, it almost seems a confusing but an interesting attempt.
A child brought up in an Ambedkarite tradition is offered to read two prominent texts by Ambedkar as a starting point, first Buddha and his Dhamma and second, Annihilation of Caste . I remember reading the translated version and English version of that book. It attracted me as a child because of its length. I read the English version as a school going kid for a few times but still couldn't make sense of some of the things. Perhaps it was because of Ambedkar's wider engagements with international and national authors, texts, references and examples which you as a reader are not necessarily aware of. However, later Annihilation of Caste which was a translated version had a good preface by some senior Marathi Dalit scholar which started making sense. I also remember winning a poetry prize in my Basti which had Buddha and his Dhamma and Annihilation of Caste as a prize which did not made me happy then as a child, but to my father it was a good sign of my alignment with the on-going struggle. Anand's efforts are evident with his clarifications and attempts to address certain arguments raised by Ambedkar in the AoC. The Sanskrit slokas , Manusmriti critiques and discussions, Radhakrishnan's argument, Mauryan empire's relevance to Ambedkar's reference, Ferdinand Lasalle, J S Mill, D R Bhandarkar, Martin Luther, Prof Bateson, William Morris, Thomas Carlyle, Leslie Stephen, and other figures mentioned by Ambedkar are explained in great length which makes starts sense in this version of AoC for Dalit, non-Dalit, national and international readers. The ones who say that they do not find it necessary to read Roy 's introduction, fair enough to say that. Because in a nutshell, apart from the historical insights of Gandhi's life which many Ambedkarites are aware of. Most of the Roy 's arguments are based on the secondary sources with major references from Tidrick, Lelyved, G B Singh, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi and others. Her thesis is written to address certain audience and that has to be put to the fore. Roy introduces day to day discussions in a comprehensive manner which one might not necessarily find interesting. But yes, one should re-read as they usually do with the AoC the annotated version of Anand.
Finally, a short reflection on Anand's work in AoC (2014). If I want to say something in one word I would very cautiously use “compelling.” He has done a good homework by making sure that the unattended references in Ambedkar's AoC which sometimes do not make immediate sense, start making sense by the lengthy explanatory footnotes. Having to know more about Sant-Ram one had to read his autobiography separately; but Anand takes that effort to present the necessary information. Anand has painstakingly worked on that, and for that one must laud his efforts. Having said that, the expression of unhappiness by the Ambedkarites in the air is still very fresh and on-going. Anand as other Brahmin Dalit scholars-writers had to undergo this test of time. Because history has never been on the side of these unfortunate Dalits, and if they have legitimate concerns they ought to have attended properly. So every effort that will be initiated by the non-Dalits with certain goals in mind will be put to criticism. Anand you've to survive this, like V.T.Rajashekar of Dalit Voice did. The bad luck for Anand alike writers is not being born as Dalit. Don't know if it should be taken as an irony or sarcasm, whichever the case may be. An author has to justify its legitimate authority, Thomas Paine had to do it, Christopher Hitchens had to and in this case perhaps you have too. As the question of right is on par, the publishing house must ensure that they do not ignore the voices from the other side. They must try to discover the reason of revolt perhaps they are saying more than words. Wherever this controversy leads to, the copy of AoC is out there. Controversy has always been supplement to the capitalist production. This will help Navayana too . Only one thing that can be prayed to the readers is that they do not leave the book aside after reading the lengthy introduction with a half-story unsaid.
Over the clouds of debates hovering over the Annihilation of Caste , one thing surely reflects with this incident that, Annihilation of Caste was and still is a profound revolutionary scholarship that attracts the attention of newcomers and experienced generation in (non)-Ambedkarism. As it happened with the second and third edition of Ambedkar's copy, similar thing is happening with Navayana 's AoC. They have similarities of getting sold in a very short time. Ambedkar writes in his preface to the third edition that seeing the popularity of this text, he was planning to include another scholarly work published in the Indian Antiquary journal Vol. XLI in May 1917 titled, “Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development,” which was presented at an Anthropology Seminar taught by Prof Goldenweizer, on 9th May 1916. Anand should have tried to do it. Although I must agree it is importing too much pressure on him as a publishing house, but if he could not do it due to the word constraints by including Roy 's introduction. Someone among the Dalit critiques should undertake this noble task of incorporating these debates for the twenty-first generation of internet savvy readers.
Suraj Yengde is a doctoral candidate at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg . He can be reached at [email protected]
Comments are moderated