|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Sunday, February 18, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Features
| Previous
| Next
Dynamics of change
The last two decades have seen many successful grassroots
movements led by the intelligentsia. And Dalit politics has its
own concerns and objectives. The success of a future secular
alliance would depend to a large extent on the integration of
these movements into formal politics, says noted historian
RAVINDERKUMAR in this concluding part of his three-part essay.
FINALLY, we need to highlight two phenomena which, too, have
surfaced since the 1980s and contributed substantially to what
has been termed as the winds of change blowing across our
country. I refer here to the social movements, somewhat distinct
from formal politics, that have come to life over the past two
decades. I also refer to the highly commendable fashion in which
dalit communities across India have - through a skillful exercise
of their right to vote - created for themselves a position in
politics whereby they may very well decide who rules over some of
the States of the Indian Union, as well as over the Republic as a
whole. These two distinct types of movements need to be treated
severally since their support structures, concerns and objectives
are quite different. Besides their induction into a pan-Indian
liberal and secular alliance, which could provide the basis for
democratic governance, calls for very different sorts of
strategies.
Let us, in the first instance, dwell upon the social movements,
as they have been categorised in this essay. Such movements reach
out to a wide range of issues; just as they also affect different
constituencies, deprived or self-sufficient, which are located
within different regions of the Republic of India. Another
distinctive feature of these social movements is the refusal of
their leaders, mostly drawn from the intelligentsia, to be
coopted into organised parties, national or regional. These
leaders also refuse to contest elections, preferring to function
outside the arena of organised parties and representative
institutions. Instead, they regard themselves as loosely
structured, yet morally intense, pressure groups, which take up a
variety of issues as the basis of popular protest in the public
domain. Mostly, the issues taken up by them pertain to ecology or
the environment, adult/primary education, human resources
development or religious conflict. They also take up other issues
capable of being resolved on non-party lines. The dalit question,
of course, stands apart from conventional social movements for
the reason that dalit organisations focus sharply on questions
relating to caste and status. They are, again, explicitly
political, and claim - very legitimately so - to speak on and
about a problem unique to Indian society and tenaciously rooted
in its past.
The social movements which have surfaced in the last two decades
stem largely from the heavy handed attempts at "development" by
the State in India. They also touch grassroots survival at its
most deprived and vulnerable flanks. The most significant social
movement of all is the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) led by Medha
Patkar, a charismatic member of the intelligentsia wedded to neo-
Gandhian discourse. The distinctive features of the NBA are too
well-known to be spelt out afresh. Suffice it to recall that it
rests on three basic premises: first, the rejection of formal
politics as the mechanism of reaching out to the popular classes
and organising them as a significant force; secondly, the need to
rethink drastically some of the principles of development that
have crystallised since the 1950s, particularly as they concern
questions pertaining to ecology and the environment and, last but
not the least, the belief that the resolution of these problems
lies within Gandhian discourse. The latter discourse repudiates
the basic axioms of western technological knowledge, and its
normative notions of progress. The varied constituencies to which
the NBA reaches out differ from relatively self-sufficient
peasant communities to impoverished tribal groups, subsisting on
marginal cultivation, or pastoral activity, or scarce forest
produce.
The dalit communities of India, on the other hand, have adopted a
very different stance on questions pertaining to social status
and political emancipation. Very different, too, is the practice
and vocabulary of politics which they practice. The single most
significant factor about the dalits is the manner in which, four
decades after the adoption of adult-franchise, they have
liberated themselves from the tyranny of the upper/middle castes
in Hindu society. In doing so, the dalits have achieved political
autonomy for themselves,as well as for the parties with which
they identify as their true representatives.
To comprehend contemporary dalit politics, we need to look back
to the epic debate between Gandhi, as the moral voice of the
caste Hindus, and Ambedkar, as a role exemplar for the dalits, in
the 1930s. The Mahatma unambiguously condemned the gross
institutions of untouchability, and the economic indignity heaped
upon dalits within Hindu society. He, therefore identified the
untouchables as the Harijans, or the "People of God." He also
proposed that the solution to the Harijan problem lay in the
thorough social and moral revolution within Hinduism. Ambedkar,
as is well-known, utterly rejected the Gandhian prescription. He
believed, as a political actor, a jurist and a social scientist,
all three rolled into one, that only the total destruction of the
Hindu social order could liberate the lowly castes from their
life of misery and deprivation.
In the short term, Gandhi emerged as a victor in his bitter
conflict with Ambedkar, over the question whether the untouchable
communities should vote as an electorate distinct from the caste
Hindus. But, in the span of a generation and a half, those whom
the Mahatma dubbed as the Harijans repudiated the condescending
identity thrust upon them by the "Father of the Nation." They
adopted instead the Ambedkarite identity of the dalits, or the
oppressed; an identity signifying intense social anger. At the
same time as they identified themselves as the oppressed, the
dalit elites organised their caste fellows, in the last two
decades of the 20th Century, as a distinct political formation,
seeking to create in the Bahujan Samaj Party, or the People's
Party, a "grand alliance from below" of the deprived, the
discriminated and the destitute classes in Indian society.
Where, we may in conclusion profitably ask ourselves, does our
survey of the winds of change across India take us? We have
focussed upon the diverse, the impoverished and the restless
social constituencies which have been thrown up, over a period of
four decades and more, through the institution of popular
democracy and economic development (or lack thereof) within
India. There is in this brief survey, also the implication,
implicit rather than explicit, that these diverse social classes
and communities should be brought together in a grand federal
alliance, which can transform in a sane, democratic and secular
fashion, the social and economic configuration for Indian
society. That such a political consensus of the restless and
deprived can be wrought is true. That it would not be a easy task
to do so is also true. Small wonder, then, that the manner in
which the creative political actor brings about such a
consolidation is a question to which there is no simple answer.
Before we finally consider the question of a liberal, secular,
and democratic coming together of Indian society, it must be
frankly stated that the NDA is emphatically not the political
formation that can achieve the task that has been spelt out in
the course of this essay. The creative energy and the bold vision
required for such a grand initiative can only come from a federal
coalition of the political actors who sit today, on the
opposition benches in the Lok Sabha, plus the grassroots
leadership which has, so far, notwithstanding its widespread
intelligentsia and popular base, refused to embark upon the path
of formal political activity. The leaders of grassroots social
movements, who command considerable moral authority in our times,
should not forget that the tallest Indian of our era, Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi, too, commenced his pilgrimage of hope and
grace as relatively obscure outsider. Inevitably, however, he was
drawn into the very heart of organised politics. In such a grand
coalition, today, between those who control the "Centre" and the
"Left" of organised politics; and those whose formidable moral
authority reaches out to the wretched of the (Indian) earth; lies
the salvation of our troubled Republic.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Features Previous : Exploring the universe Next : Balancing national priorities | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|