First Published on: 11 Apr 2016
 
On his 189^th Birth Anniversary, April 11, we bring to you excerpts from Jyotiba Phule’s path breaking work, severely criticising Brahminism and the Caste System

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

If a Bhat happened to pass by a river where a Shudra as washing his clothes, the Shudra had to collect all his clothes and proceed to a far distant spot, lest some drops of the (contaminated) water should be sprayed on the Bhat. Even then, if a drop of water were to touch the body of the Bhat from there, or even if the Bhat so imagined it, the Bhat did not hesitate to fling his utensil angrily at the head of the Shudra who would collapse to the ground, his head bleeding profusely.

On recovering from the swoon the Shudra would collect his blood- stained clothes and wend his way home silently. He could not complain to the Government Officials, as the administration was dominated by the Bhats. More often than not he would be punished stringently for complaining against the Bhats. This was the height of injustice!

It was difficult for the Shudras to move about freely in the streets for their daily routine, most of all in the mornings when persons and things cast long shadows about them. If a `Bhat Saheb’ were to come along from the opposite direction, the Shudra had to stop by the road until such time as the `Bhat Saheb’ passed by – for fear of casting his polluting shadow on him. He was free to proceed further only after the `Bhat Saheb’ had passed by him.

Should a Shudra be unlucky enough to cast his polluting shadow on a Bhat inadvertently, the Bhat used to belabour him mercilessly and would go to bathe at the river to wash off the pollution. The Shudras were forbidden even to spit in the streets. Should he happen to pass through a Brahmin (Bhat) locality he had to carry an earthen-pot slung about his neck to collect his spittle. (Should a Bhat Officer find a spittle from a Shudra’s mouth on the road, woe betide the Shudra!)…….

[[The Shudra suffered many such indignities and disabilities and were looking forward to their release from their persecutors as prisoners fondly do. The all-merciful Providence took pity on the Shudras and brought about the British raj to India by its divine dispensation which emancipated the Shudras from the physical (bodily) thraldom (slavery). We are much beholden to the British rulers. We shall never forget their kindness to us. It was the British rulers who freed us from the centuries-old oppression of the Bhat and assured a hopeful future for our children. Had the British not come on the scene (in India) (as our rulers) the Bhat would surely have crushed us in no time (long ago.)]]

Some may well wonder as to how the Bhats managed to crush the depressed and down-trodden people here even though they (the Shudras) outnumbered them tenfold. It was well-known that one clever person can master ten ignorant persons
(e.g. a shepherd and his flock). Should the ten ignorant men be united (be of one mind), they would surely prevail over that clever one. But if the ten are disunited they would easily be duped by that clever one. The Bhats have invented a very cunning method to sow seeds of dissension among the Shudras. The Bhats were naturally apprehensive of the growing numbers of the depressed and down- trodden people. They knew that keeping them disunited alone ensured their (the Bhats’) continued mastery ever them. It was the only way of keeping them as abject slaves indefinitely, and only thus would they be able to indulge in a life of gross indulgence and luxury ensured by the `sweat of the Shudras’ brows. To that end in view, the Bhats invented the pernicious fiction of the caste-system, compiled (learned) treatises to serve their own self-interest and indoctrinated the pliable minds of the ignorant Shudras (masses) accordingly.

Some of the Shudras put up a gallant fight against this blatant injustice. They were segregated into a separate category (class). In order to wreak vengeance on them (for their temerity) the Bhats persuaded those whom we today term as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (tillers, peasants) etc. not to stigmatise them as untouchables.

Being deprived of their means of livelihood, they were driven to the extremity of eating the flesh of dead animals. Some of the members of the Shudras community today proudly call themselves as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (peasants), gold-smiths, tailors, iron smiths, carpenters etc, on the basis of the avocation (trade) they pursued (practised), Little do they know that our ancestors and those of the so¬called untouchables (Mahars, Mangs etc.) were blood-brothers (traced their lineage to the same family stock).

Their ancestors fought bravely in defence of their motherland against the invading usurpers (the Bhats) and hence, the wily Bhats reduced them to penury and misery. It is a thousand pities that being unmindful of this state of affairs, the Shudras began to hate their own kith and kin.

The Bhats invented an elaborate system of caste-distinction based on the way the other Shudras behaved towards them, condemning some to the lowest rung and some to a slightly higher rung. Thus they permanently made them into their proteges and by means of the powerful weapon of the `iniquitous caste system,’ drove a permanent wedge among the Shudras.

It was a classic case of the cats who went to law! The Bhats created dissensions among the depressed and the down- trodden masses and are battening on the differences (are leading luxurious lives thereby).

The depressed and down­trodden masses in India were freed from the physical bodily) slavery of the Bhats as a result of the advent of the British raj here. But we are sorry to state that the benevolent British Government have not addressed themselves to the important task of providing education to the said masses. That is why the Shudras continue to be ignorant, and hence, their ‘mental slavery’ regarding the spurious religious tracts of the Bhats continues unabated. They cannot even appeal to the Government for the redressal of their wrongs. The Government is not yet aware of the way the Bhats exploit the masses in their day to day problems as also in the administrative machinery. We pray to the Almighty to enable the Government to kindly pay attention to this urgent task and to free the masses from their mental slavery to the machinations of the Bhats.

I am deeply beholden to Shri Vinayak Babji Bhandarkar and Rao Saheb Shri Rajanna Lingu for their continued encouragement to me in the writing of this treatise.

(From the Introduction to ‘Slavery’ by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule)
­­­­­­­

The post Jyotiba Phule’s Trenchant Critique of Caste: Gulamgiri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Shudras have opened up a new anti-caste battlefront in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The trigger came from a doha or lyrical verse in Goswami Tulsidas’s famous epic poem, Ramcharitmanas, which says the Shudras, animals, drums and women should not be allowed near anything respectable—and punished if they cross boundaries. In this way, the Ramcharitmanas abuses the productive agrarian Shudras as people of animal status who do not deserve education and reputable employment.

Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya in Uttar Pradesh and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Prof Chandra Shekhar, the education minister of Bihar, flagged off this battle. Now it has spread to Shudra-OBC and Dalit organisations. Chandra Shekhar said the Ramcharitmanas “spreads hatred” and discrimination against the non-elite or lower castes.

The idea is catching on like wildfire. Shudra-OBC leaders have burnt copies of the book, challenging the RSS-BJP’s Dwija or twice-born leaders, saints and sadhus. There is little role for productive work in their lives, which most Sangh Parivar members spend around temples and RSS organisations. Some saints from UP have issued “fatwas” to kill Swami Prasad Maurya for a price. In Bihar, there are demands to dismiss and arrest Chandra Shekhar, but he has refused to apologise.

However, book-burning and banning are no solution—the authentic way out is to rewrite Indian history to include the contributions of the Shudras.

According to the protesters against the abusive language in the Ramcharitmanas, India does not just belong to Dwijas or the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Kayastha, Khatri and Nania, who believe the Shudra, Dalit and Adivasi communities must live as second-grade citizens in Hindu society. The latter do not want their children to learn those ancient or medieval books that abused these identities. They are rejecting syllabi of the kind the RSS-BJP has designed and presented as the “New” Education Policy. They are rebelling against ideas that humiliate them in classrooms and beyond—for example, the books circulated and published by the Gita Press, which promote casteism and Dwija authority in modern India. The New Education Policy wants to systematically promote the regressive ideas in such books.

In Lucknow, several banners appeared with the caption “Garv Se Kaho Hum Shudra Hain—Say with pride, we are Shudras”. They are harking back to the term “Shudra”, which referred to food producers and artisans in ancient and medieval Sanskrit books written by Brahmin saints and priests. These writers imbued the term to mean that the Shudras were unworthy of respect and human dignity, starting with the Rigveda and expanding after that. But the Shudra term is being redeployed by the productive communities as a concept worthy of positive identity. This Shudra movement is like the Black movement in America to rediscover their humiliated past as a weapon to fight for equality.

The Shudras were construed as born of the feet of Brahma, an Aryan war hero given the status of the highest god, while the Shudras were turned into perpetually enslaved people. In the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Ramcharitmanas and so on, food producers and artisans were condemned to perform hard labour while kings, priests and saints were asked to shun food production and any other form of labour. But it is the labour-power of the Shudras that built this nation. Wealth cannot be produced by books that do not promote human equality and productive work ethics.

The RSS-BJP calls the Shudra and Chandalas (former untouchables) Hindus but does not go beyond making verbal claims. In practice, it denies them equal spiritual rights in temples or access to their Utopian visions of life after death. The power to control temples has remained in the hands of Brahmin priests, and the RSS never sought equal rights for Hindus of other castes—except the three elite classes—to enjoy this power.

Since the 2014 parliamentary election, the RSS-BJP forces have divided the Shudras into lower, middle and upper OBCs. It has mobilised them within the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Bania voting blocs, which favour the BJP in every election. It did this to weaken the regional parties and strengthen its own power at the cost of the disadvantaged Shudra, Dalit and Adivasis. Make no mistake—even national wealth is being transferred to the hands of Dwija industrialists, as the Hindenburg report, published not from India but overseas, has exposed in the Adani Enterprises case.

The RSS-BJP combine wants to organise Hinduism precisely on the lines of conservative Muslim systems in, say, the Middle East, Pakistan or Afghanistan, where kings, dictators or religious figures control the wheels of power. That is why we hear of so-called religious “leaders” in North India issuing fatwas against Shudra leaders.

We must redefine the Shudra category as a dignified, productive force with a role in the political, social, economic and educational fields. Without mass mobilisation around this historical category, the productive status of the masses will get pushed back to Tulsidas’s time. This is why “Say with pride, we are Shudras” is the right slogan for these times.

When Chandra Shekhar put Manu Dharma Shastra, the Ramcharitmanas and the RSS’s ideological guru MS Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts in the same basket, clarity about this situation emerged. Promoting such knowledge will automatically make classical Shudra-Dalit enslavement the norm. Today, OBC-Dalit schoolchildren do not realise that the Shudra category refers to their productive, labouring parents. We need a new cultural battlefront to stop their modern enslavement.

Periyar Ramasamy started this fight in Tamil Nadu, unifying the Shudra-Dalit categories as Dravidians. The RSS-BJP plan is to break Dravidian unity and Shudra-Dalit-Adivasi unity by putting the Muslims up as enemies of Hindus. The Shudras and Dalits have bought into the RSS-BJP’s claims about a Muslim threat to the nation and voted them to power in Delhi and several States. But its undeclared agenda is to relegate the Shudra-Dalit forces to classical Brahmanical hegemony.

For all these reasons, India must start an intellectual battlefront by reading and re-reading Sanskrit texts. BR Ambedkar did this during his time, but the RSS-BJP are trying to co-opt his ideas by selectively quoting him on the minority question. A new discourse around the foundational books of the RSS-BJP—what they call Sanatan Dharma books—must also begin. Many Dalit scholars in North India do not want to enter this debate since they believe the Dalits are Buddhists and need not fight with Hindu religious ideology. But Shudra intellectuals and leaders have to fight this ideological battle.

In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, Shudra leaders have realised that the New Education Policy reimposes the classical slavery of Shudra-Dalits in the garb of nationalism. Through it, the RSS-BJP regime wants to impose anti-Shudra and anti-Dalit books as sacred texts and lessons in schools, colleges and universities, where children and youth from these backgrounds study.

The slogan, “Garv Se Kaho Hum Shudra Hain”, shows a way out. Reuniting all productive communities, split into reserved (OBC) and unreserved Shudras, is necessary. If regional parties join this battle, it will signal definite hope for transformation. Once a historical category transforms into a category for social change—like the category ‘Black’ discarded ‘African-American’ and ‘Negro’—the Shudra identity will develop the next stage of social movement in India after the Mandal revolution. This new path is filled with hope, and Mahatma Phule, Periyar Ramasamy Naikar and Ambedkar are its guiding lights.

The author is a political theorist, social activist and author of ‘The Shudras: Vision For New Path’ with Karthik Raja Kuruppusamy. His next book will be The Shudras: History From Field Memories. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post A New Shudra Movement Arrives in North India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 3, 1831, 176 years ago Savitribai Phule, arguably India’s first woman teacher and forgotten liberator was born. With the first school for girls from different castes that she set up in Bhidewada, Pune (the seat of Brahmanism) Krantijyoti Savitribai as she is reverentially known, by the Indian Bahujan movement, blazed a revolutionary trial. There have been consistent demands to observe January 3 as Teachers Day. Without her, Indian women would not have had the benefits of education.
 
To mark the memory of this remarkable woman we bring to you her letters to life partner Jyotiba. Jyotiba and Savitribai were Comrades in Arms in their struggle against the emancipation of India’s disenfranchised people.
 
Translated from the Original Marathi with an introduction Sunil Sardar Reproduced here are the English translation of three important Letters – (originally in Marathi and published in MG Mali’s edition of her collected works, Savitribai Phule Samagra Wangmaya) – that Savitribai wrote to her husband Jyotiba in a span of 20 years.

The letters are significant as they write of the wider concerns that drove this couple, the emancipation of the most deprived segments of society and the struggle to attain for them, full human dignity and freedom.

This vision for a new and liberated society – free from ignorance, bigotry, deprivation, and hunger – was the thread that bonded the couple, arching from the private to the personal.

Theirs was a relationship of deep and shared concerns, each providing strength to the other. When large sections of 19^th century Maharashtrian society was ranged against Phule’s reconstructive radicalism, it was the unfailing and shared vision and dedication of his life partner that needs have been emotionally sustaining.  In our tribute to this couple and the tradition of radical questioning that they harboured, we bring to our readers these letters.
 
1856. The first letter, written in 1856, speaks about the core issue: education and its transformative possibilities in a society where learning, had for centuries been the monopoly of the Brahmins; who, in turn, used this exclusive privilege to enclave, demoralize and oppress. Away at her parental home to recuperate from an illness, Savitri describes in the letter a conversation with her brother, who is uncomfortable with the couple’s radicalism.
 
October 1856
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
 
After so many vicissitudes, now it seems my health has been fully restored. My brother worked so hard and nursed me so well through my sickness. His service and devotion shows how loving he really is! I will come to Pune as soon as I get perfectly well. Please do not worry about me. I know my absence causes Fatima so much trouble but I am sure she will understand and won’t grumble.
 
As we were talking one day, my brother said, “You and your husband have rightly been excommunicated because both of you serve the untouchables (Mahars and Mangs). The untouchables are fallen people and by helping them you are bringing a bad name to our family. That is why, I tell you to behave according to the customs of our caste and obey the dictates of the Brahmans.” Mother was so disturbed by this brash talk of my brother.
 
Though my brother is a good soul he is extremely narrow-minded and so he did not hesitate to bitterly criticize and reproach us. My mother did not reprimand him but tried instead to bring him to his senses, “God has given you a beautiful tongue but it is no good to misuse it so!” I defended our social work and tried to dispel his misgivings. I told him, “Brother, your mind is narrow, and the Brahmans’ teaching has made it worse. Animals like goats and cows are not untouchable for you, you lovingly touch them. You catch poisonous snakes on the day of the snake-festival and feed them milk. But you consider Mahars and Mangs, who are as human as you and I, untouchables. Can you give me any reason for this? When the Brahmans perform their religious duties in their holy clothes, they consider you also impure and untouchable, they are afraid that your touch will pollute them. They don’t treat you differently than the Mahars.” When my brother heard this, he turned red in the face, but then he asked me, “Why do you teach those Mahars and Mangs? People abuse you because you teach the untouchables. I cannot bear it when people abuse and create trouble for you for doing that. I cannot tolerate such insults.” I told him what the (teaching of) English had been doing for the people. I said, “The lack of learning is nothing but gross bestiality. It is through the acquisition of knowledge that (he) loses his lower status and achieves the higher one. My husband is a god-like man. He is beyond comparison in this world, nobody can equal him. He thinks the Untouchables must learn and attain freedom. He confronts the Brahmans and fights with them to ensure Teaching and Learning for the Untouchables because he believes that they are human beings like other and they should live as dignified humans. For this they must be educated. I also teach them for the same reason. What is wrong with that? Yes, we both teach girls, women, Mangs and Mahars. The Brahmans are upset because they believe this will create problems for them. That is why they oppose us and chant the mantra that it is against our religion. They revile and castigate us and poison the minds of even good people like you.

“You surely remember that the British Government had organised a function to honour my husband for his great work. His felicitation caused these vile people much heartburn. Let me tell you that my husband does not merely invoke God’s name and participate in pilgrimages like you. He is actually doing God’s own work. And I assist him in that. I enjoy doing this work. I get immeasurable joy by doing such service. Moreover, it also shows the heights and horizons to which a human being can reach out.”

Mother and brother were listening to me intently. My brother finally came around, repented for what he had said and asked for forgiveness. Mother said, “Savitri, your tongue must be speaking God’s own words. We are blessed by your words of wisdom.” Such appreciation from my mother and brother gladdened my heart. From this you can imagine that there are many idiots here, as in Pune, who poison people’s minds and spread canards against us. But why should we fear them and leave this noble cause that we have undertaken? It would be better to engage with the work instead. We shall overcome and success will be ours in the future. The future belongs to us.

What more could I write?

With humble regards,

Yours,

Savitri
 
The Poetess in Savitribai
 
The year 1854 was important as Savitribai published her collection of poems, called Kabya Phule (Poetry’s Blossoms).
Bavan Kashi Subodh Ratnakar (The Ocean of Pure Gems), another collection of what has come to be highly regarded in the world of Marathi poetry was published in 1891. (The Phules had developed a devastating critique of the Brahman interpretation of Marathi history in the ancient and medieval periods. He portrayed the Peshwa rulers, later overthrown by the British, as decadent and oppressive, and Savitribai reiterates those themes in her biography.)
Apart from these two collections, four of Jyotiba’s speeches on Indian History were edited for publication by Savitribai. A few of her own speeches were also published in 1892. Savitribai’s correspondence is also remarkable because they give us an insight into her own life and into the life and lived experiences of women of the time.
 
1868. The Second letter is about a great social taboo – a love affair between a Brahman boy and an Untouchable girl; the cruel behavior of the ‘enraged’ villagers and how Savitribai stepped in. This intervention saves the lives of the lovers and she sends them away to the safety and caring support of her husband, Jyotiba. With the malevolent reality of honour killings in the India of 2016 and the hate-driven propaganda around ‘love jehad’ this letter is ever so relevant today.

29 August 1868
Naigaon, Peta Khandala
Satara
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
I received your letter. We are fine here. I will come by the fifth of next month. Do not worry on this count. Meanwhile, a strange thing happened here. The story goes like this. One Ganesh, a Brahman, would go around villages, performing religious rites and telling people their fortunes. This was his bread and butter. Ganesh and a teenage girl named Sharja who is from the Mahar (untouchable) community fell in love. She was six months pregnant when people came to know about this affair. The enraged people caught them, and paraded them through the village, threatening to bump them off.
 
I came to know about their murderous plan. I rushed to the spot and scared them away, pointing out the grave consequences of killing the lovers under the British law. They changed their mind after listening to me.

Sadubhau angrily said that the wily Brahman boy and the untouchable girl should leave the village. Both the victims agreed to this. My intervention saved the couple who gratefully fell at my feet and started crying. Somehow I consoled and pacified them. Now I am sending both of them to you. What else to write?
Yours
Savitri
 
1877. The last letter, written in 1877, is a heart-rending account of a famine that devastated western Maharashtra. People and animals were dying. Savitri and other Satyashodhak volunteers were doing their best to help. The letter brings out an intrepid Savitri leading a team of dedicated Satyashodhaks striving to overcome a further exacerbation of the tragedy by moneylenders’ trying to benefit.  She meets the local District administration. The letter ends on a poignant note where Savitribai reiterates her total commitment to her the humanitarian work pioneered by the Phules.
 
20 April, 1877
Otur, Junner
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
The year 1876 has gone, but the famine has not – it stays in most horrendous forms here. The people are dying. The animals are dying, falling on the ground. There is severe scarcity of food. No fodder for animals. The people are forced to leave their villages. Some are selling their children, their young girls, and leaving the villages. Rivers, brooks and tanks have completely dried up – no water to drink. Trees are dying – no leaves on trees. Barren land is cracked everywhere. The sun is scorching – blistering. The people crying for food and water are falling on the ground to die. Some are eating poisonous fruits, and drinking their own urine to quench their thirst. They cry for food and drink, and then they die.

Our Satyashodhak volunteers have formed committees to provide food and other life-saving material to the people in need. They have formed relief squads.
Brother Kondaj and his wife Umabai are taking good care of me. Otur’s Shastri, Ganapati Sakharan, Dumbare Patil, and others are planning to visit you. It would be better if you come from Satara to Otur and then go to Ahmednagar.

You may remember R.B. Krishnaji Pant and Laxman Shastri. They travelled with me to the affected area and gave some monetary help to the victims.

The moneylenders are viciously exploiting the situation. Bad things are taking place as a result of this famine. Riots are breaking out. The Collector heard of this and came to ease the situation. He deployed the white police officers, and tried to bring the situation under control. Fifty Satyasholdhaks were rounded up. The Collector invited me for a talk. I asked the Collector why the good volunteers had been framed with false charges and arrested without any rhyme or reason. I asked him to release them immediately. The Collector was quite decent and unbiased. He shouted at the white soldiers, “Do the Patil farmers rob? Set them free.” The Collector was moved by the people’s plights. He immediately sent four bullock cartloads of (jowar) food.

You have started the benevolent and welfare work for the poor and the needy. I also want to carry my share of the responsibility. I assure you I will always help you. I wish the godly work will be helped by more people.

I do not want to write more.
Yours,
Savitri
 
(These letters have been excerpted with grateful thanks from A Forgotten Liberator, The Life and Struggle of Savitrabai Phule, Edited by Braj Ranjan Mani, Pamela Sardar)
 

Bibliography:

Krantijyoti : Revolutionary flame
Brahmans: Priestly “upper” caste with a powerful hold on all fairs of society and state including access to education, resources and mobility (spelt interchangeably as Brahmins)
Mahars:The Mahar is an Indian Caste, found largely in the state of Maharashtra, where they compromise 10% of the population, and neighboring areas. Most of the Mahar community followed social reformer B. R. Ambedkar in converting to Buddhism in the middle of the 20th century.
Mangs: The Mang (or Matang -Minimadig in Gujarat and Rajasthan) community is an Indian caste historically associated with low-status or ritually impure professions such as village musicians, cattle castraters, leather curers, midwives, hangmen, undertakers. Today they are listed as a Scheduled Castes a term which has replaced the former the derogatory ‘Untouchable’
Satyashodhak Samaj:  A society established by Jyotirao Phule on September 24, 1873. This was started as a group whose main aim was to liberate the shudra and untouchable castes from exploitation and oppression
Shudra: The fourth caste under the rigid caste Hindu system; these were further made more rigid in the Manu Smruti
Ati Shudra: Most of the groups listed under this category come under the untouchables who were used for the most venal tasks in caste ridden Hindu society but not treated as part of the caste system.
Jowar: The Indian name for sorghum

How the Education for girls was pioneered

The Phule couple decided to start schools for girls, especially from the shudra and atishudra castes but also including others so that social cohesion of sorts could be attempted in the classroom. Bhidewada in Pune was the chosen site, a bank stands there today. There is a movement among Bahujans to reclaim this historic building. When the Phules faced stiff resistance and a boycott, a Pune-based businessman Usman Shaikh gave them shelter. Fatima Shaikh Usman’s sister was the first teacher colleague of Savitribai and the two trained teachers who ran the school. The school started with nine girl students in 1848.

Sadashiv Govande contributed books from Ahmednagar. It functioned for about six months and then had to be closed down. Another building was found and the school reopened a few months later. The young couple faced severe opposition from almost all sections. Savitribai was subject to intense harassment everyday as she walked to school. Stones, mud and dirt were flung at her as she passed. She was often abused by groups of men with orthodox beliefs who opposed the education for women. Filth including cow dung was flung on her. Phule gave her hope, love and encouragement. She went to school wearing an old sari, and carried an extra sari with her to change into after she reached the school. The sheer daring and doggedness of the couple and their comrades in arms broke the resistance. Finally, the pressure on her eased when she was compelled to slap one of her tormentors on the street!
 
Once the caste Hindu Brahmanical hierarchy who were the main opponents of female education realized that the Phule couple would not easily give in, they arm-twisted Jyotiba’s father. Intense pressure was brought by the Brahmins on Phule’s father, Govindrao, to convince him that his son was on the wrong track, that what he was doing was against the Dharma. Finally, things came to a head when Phule’s father told him to leave home in 1849. Savitri preferred to stay by her husband’s side, braving the opposition and difficulties, and encouraging Phule to continue their educational work.
 
However, their pioneering move had won some support. Necessities like books were supplied through well wishers; a bigger house, owned by a Muslim, was found for a second school which was started in 1851. Moro Vithal Walvekar and Deorao Thosar assisted the school. Major Candy, an educationalist of Pune, sent books. Jyotirao worked here without any salary and later Savitribai was put in charge. The school committee, in a report, noted, “The state of the school funds has compelled the committee to appoint teachers on small salaries, who soon give up when they find better appointment…Savitribai, the school headmistress, has nobly volunteered to devote herself to the improvement of female education without remuneration. We hope that as knowledge advances, the people of this country will be awakened to the advantages of female education and will cordially assist in all such plans calculated to improve the conditions of those girls.”
 
On November 16, 1852, the education department of the government organised a public felicitation of the Phule couple, where they were honoured with shawls.
On February 12, 1853, the school was publicly examined. The report of the event state: “The prejudice against teaching girls to read and write began to give way…the good conduct and honesty of the peons in conveying the girls to and from school and parental treatment and indulgent attention of the teachers made the girls love the schools and literally run to them with alacrity and joy.”
 
A Dalit student of Savitribai, Muktabai, wrote a remarkable essay which was published in the paper Dyanodaya, in the year 1855. In her essay, Muktabai poignantly describes the wretchedness of the so-called untouchables and severely criticizes the Brahmanical religion for degrading and dehumanizing her people.
 

The post Love-Letters like no other appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Remembering Jyotiba Phule, on His 189th Birth Anniversary Today, April 11

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827. He along with his wife, Savitribai Phule are known as the Pioneers of Women’s Education in India. Articulation of structured Caste Oppressions and Denials also came to the fore with the sharp intellectual activism of the Phules

Reading Phule – No More Silences Now !

“Lack of education lead to lack of wisdom,
Which leads to lack of morals,
Which leads to lack  of progress,
Which leads to lack of money,
Which leads to the oppression of the lower classes,
See what state of the society one lack of education can cause!”
– Jyotiba Phule
 
..Most people do not realize that society can practise tyranny and oppression against an individual in a far greater degree than a Government can. The means and scope that are open to society for oppression are more extensive than those that are open to Government; also they are far more effective. What punishment in the penal code is comparable in its magnitude and its severity to excommunication? Who has greater courage—the Social Reformer who challenges society and invites upon himself excommunication or the political prisoner who challenges Government and incurs sentence of a few months or a few years imprisonment?

(Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, Address delivered by Dr Ambedkar on the 101st birthday celebration of M G Ranade, 18th January, 1943)
 
 
Introduction
Understanding or rereading a historical figure, whose life and times have impacted generations of scholars and activists, who has been subjected to praise as well scrutiny by the best brains of our times, becomes a challenging task.  One gets a feeling that whatever has to be said has already been said and perhaps there is not much novelty left. An added challenge comes when you are face to face with scholars/activists who could be considered experts on the issue having done more detailed and thorough work on the subject.
Today when I begin my presentation I find myself in a similar quandary.

Would it be a repetition of what the earlier scholar just said? Or a glimpse of what the coming activist is going to present? And to avoid the possible monotony of any such ensuing discussion – where all of us would be doing ‘kadam tal‘ (a lexicon used in NCC parades) around similar arguments and similar insights and would be lamenting in similar voices, I have decided to flag off few queries which have been bothering my mind since quite some time. It is possible that it would be considered rather blasphemous to raise such questions, or maybe they will be considered so mundane that participants can just exchange smiles about their content. Anyway, whatever might be the outcome I would like to raise them with a sincere hope that they would possibly generate a conversation.

1. 1848 happens to be a year of historic importance for the exploited and oppressed of the world, as it was the year when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – young German revolutionaries – published ‘The Communist Manifesto’. “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” still reverberates around the world.

For all those radicals and revolutionaries – individuals, formations, organisations – who yearn for a fundamental social transformation in this part of the earth, 1848 has an added significance. It was this year when another young man – Jyotiba Phule along with his wife Savitribai and a family friend/fellow traveller Fatima Sheikh – opened the first school for the socially discriminated and historically despised ‘untouchable’ community’s girls in Pune. And things were never the same for the Shudras-Atishudras and women.

Today when we look back at the more than four decade journey of this young man, who was given the honorific ‘Mahatma’ in the presence of thousands of people, a few years before he breathed his last in 1890, we are amazed to learn the expanse of his vision and the tremendous innovativeness and creativity which was exhibited in his actions. Miles ahead of his own contemporaries, he had the courage to raise his finger at the pressing problems of his time and had no qualms in attacking internal asymmetries of our society and no illusion about the ‘great traditions’. There was no hiatus between what he spoke and  what he practised in his personal as well as his social-political life.

Apart from teaching his wife Savitribai – who became a close comrade of the work he had initiated and later metamorphosed into a writer as well as an independent activist ( a rarity in those days), or opening the doors of his own house for those considered lowest among the low, or coming to the defence of the scholar-activist Pandita Ramabai about her right to convert when she embraced Christianity and had to singlehandedly face the conservative onslaught , one comes across many instances in his life, which are worth emulating in today’s times.

In fact when the moments of crisis came, he had the courage to question and challenge the wrong understanding of his own colleagues. For instance, in his devastating critique of another comrade Bhalerao, when he attacked the important monograph ‘Stree-Pusush Tulana’ by Tarabai Shinde ( who herself was a product of the Satyashodhak movement) as it raised questions of gender equality and patriarchal oppression. Or the manner in which he went ahead with the publication of ‘Cultivators whipcord’ independently when his colleague in the movement – Lokhande (another legendary figure who was a pioneer in building the first union of workers in Bombay named ‘Bombay Millhands Association) along with others found it too radical to be given space in the organisation’s publication after just two instalments.

Modern India cannot be imagined without the path breaking contributions of Phule and other social reformers/ revolutionaries who came after him, who fought against heavy odds to convince the people about challenging existing social practices and questioning old modes of thinking and exposing millennial old oppressions which had religious sanctions and encouraging them to look beyond.

In his introduction to ‘Selected Writings of Jotirao Phule’ G.P Deshpande tells us
‘Phule’s canvas was broad, his sweep majestic. He identified and theorised the most important questions of his time – religion, Varna System, ritualism, language, literature, British rule, mythology, gender question, conditions of production in agriculture, the lot of peasantry etc….Was Phule then a social reformer ? The answer will be ‘no’. A social reformer is a liberal humanist. Phule was more of a revolutionary. He had a complete system of ideas, and was amongst the early thinkers to have identified, in a manner of speaking, classes in Indian society. He analysed the dvaivarnik structure of Indian society, and identified the shudra/atishudras as the leading agency of a social revolution.’ [i]

2. It has been exactly 125 years since Mahatma Jyotiba Phule died. (28th November 1890).
If one goes by the mainstream media one learns that barring some stray programmes not many celebrations/programmes were held in his commemoration. Was it unintentional or inadvertent?  Or part of fatigue being experienced by people active in transformatory (revolutionary) movements?

And the lack of action on the  part of the state, should it be interpreted as a rather crude manifestation of identity politics –  when great leaders, especially those belonging to the oppressed communities have been reduced to becoming ‘Heroes’ only of their respective castes/communities. And in such an ‘identity loaded’ ambience perhaps Phule – who was born into the numerically not very strong Mali (gardener) caste, did not have much chance to be ‘remembered’ by the wider populace. Or should it be considered part of deliberate silencing of all such voices whose agenda is found to be inconvenient or subversive by the ruling classes?

Anyway, the apparent amnesia around his name does not reduce the importance of the path breaking work he did. It was an interesting coincidence that Phule’s anniversary was around the same time that the august parliament of the country was holding a special two day session focussing on ‘Constitution day’ and acknowledging the seminal role played by Dr Ambedkar in its making. History bears witness to the fact that Dr Ambedkar had called Phule the ‘Greatest Shudra’ and openly admitted that Buddha, Kabir and Phule constituted the triumvirate which was the source of his inspiration. People who are always in search of silver linings can also say that the august parliament was in this way indirectly appreciating the historic contribution made by Jyotiba Phule as well.

Modern India, cannot be imagined without the path breaking contributions of Phule and other social reformers/ revolutionaries who came after him, who fought against heavy odds to convince the people about challenging existing social practices and questioning old modes of thinking and exposing millennial old oppressions which had religious sanctions and encouraging them to look beyond.”

Silence around Phule and year long celebrations around Ambedkar can be considered two sides  of the same coin – tactics that the ruling elite use with ease.

Whether you celebrate Ambedkar or maintain a silence about Phule, one thing can be easily discerned – that the ruling classes are not bothered about the real concerns of Phule, Ambedkar or other social revolutionaries. Perhaps they do not want people to remember that both Phule and Ambedkar had raised destabilising questions about nation, nationalism, culture, and challenged the ‘tremendous fascination among the elite of their times about our great civilisation’. One of their key posers which still rings true, which focuses on our caste ridden society – based on privileges for a few and disabilities for the broader masses – suggests  the near impossibility of the emergence of ‘a nation’ from amongst its midst.

The ruling elite are more keen to carve out a ‘suitable’ Ambedkar or a ‘convenient’ Phule to further their agenda. The present ruling dispensation at the centre led by the BJP – part of the broader Hindutva family – especially seems to be only too eager to lay claim over his legacy. They want people to forget the fact that when Ambedkar was alive they had been in the forefront to oppose him on every count.

Any student of the politics of the oppressed would vouch that there comes a time when the many, or most of the leaders of the exploited and oppressed can no more be ignored by the dominant forces in any society. In fact, we have been witness to a similar process which unfolded in the USA where a very sanitised image of Martin Luther King, has been made popular. Instead of the King who opposed the Vietnam War, looked at capitalism as the source of all evil, who  struggled for workers’ rights, we have before us an image of King which seems more amenable to the ruling classes there.

There is an interesting commonality on how ruling classes try to co-opt/appropriate images of leaders of the oppressed. It is a three step process: First, they try to ignore them ; second, when this tactic fails they grudgingly acknowledge them ; third, they try to carve out a ‘suitable’ revolutionary for their own ‘use’. They are adept at what a scholar describes as a deliberate process of ‘mythologising the (great) wo/men and marginalising their meanings.’

3.  It is really easy to blame the cunning of the ruling classes for this state of affairs – which in fact can create lot of heat but does not throw any light on the matter. The most difficult part of the whole exercise is  first of all to see how we – who claim to be the radical inheritors of their legacy – let it happen and second, whether there are any elements in the world view of these greats themselves which have made their ‘appropriation’ easier.

It is possible that few amongst us would ‘appreciate’ the fact that the ‘powers that be’ talk about these greats, organise celebrations around them, are keen to publish their collected works or even ready to make them part of curriculum.  It may also give them satisfaction that they claim to be walking in their footsteps or fulfilling their dreams. But in fact, one should be wary of all such claims and should look at the hiatus between what they claim and what is the actual situation on the ground.

Should not this question really bother us,  that is, how the official incorporation of these greats could be done so easily or how these revolutionaries – which were of a different kind and who could have been part of our arsenal in our fight against inequality and discriminations of various kinds today –  seem to be ‘sitting cosily’ with our adversaries.

Coming back to the original focus, the question remains as to why and how the radical agenda of Phule which had a very broad canvas could not be taken further with the same vigour, zeal and focus, and how it metamorphosed first into the non-Brahmin movement and later got submerged easily into the national movement.

Dr Ambedkar offers an explanation while discussing Justice M G Ranade, who was a contemporary of Phule.

The decline of Social Reform was quite natural. The odium of Social Reform was too great. The appeal of political power too alluring. The result was that social reform found fewer and fewer adherents. In course of time the platform of the Social Reform Conference was deserted, and men flocked to the Indian National Congress. The politicians triumphed over the Social Reformers. I am sure that nobody will now allow that their triumph was a matter for pride. It is certainly a matter of sorrow. Ranade may not have been altogether on the winning side, but he was not on the wrong side and certainly never on the side of the wrong as some of his opponents were[ii].

While it seems apt in the case of Justice Ranade, one definitely needs to go deeper to understand the later metamorphosis of the Phulevian movement.

4.  History bears witness to the fact that Jawalkar, (1902-1932) a leading champion of the non-Brahmin movement – who was no less a radical – had called Gandhi a ‘Satyashodhak’  when the non-Brahmin movement decided to ‘merge’ itself with the national movement.

Was it just part of political expediency or did he really believe that Gandhi who called himself a sanatani (orthodox) Hindu and firmly believed in Varnashram Dharma was really taking forward Phule’s mission.? And this despite the fact that by the time this stream had joined the Congress it was very clear that it was careful enough to sideline all those issues pertaining to the internal asymmetries of Indian society, scuttle all such attempts which challenge them – which were the ‘key concerns of the Satyashodhak movement –  under the grand slogan of ‘fighting the British’. In fact, Phule had rather prophesied this state of affairs when he had raised very important questions about the nature of the Congress party which was founded in 1885.

There cannot be a ‘nation’ worth the name until and unless all the people of the land of King Bali – such as Shudras and Ati-shudras, Bhils (tribals) and fishermen etc, become truly educated, and are able to think independently for themselves and are uniformly unified and emotionally integrated. If a tiny section of the population like the upstart Aryan Brahmins alone were to found the ‘National Congress’ who will take any notice of it ?[iii]

A critical look at Gandhi is important because it was in this period  that the mixing of religion with politics gained a new legitimacy, despite his avowed respect for all religions. Under his leadership the task of reforming Hinduism was brushed aside and Ambedkar, a consistent modernist and a relentless critic of Hinduism, was pushed to the wall.

Looking back it becomes clear the side-lining of voices of internal reform in Indian society had started during Phule’s time itself.

In its early stirrings, Lokmanya Tilak, who happened to be a key leader of the Congress movement then, had vehemently led the Conservative reaction against all those concerns which Phule stood for. It is widely known how it was because of Tilak’s insistence – or should we say threat – that the Pandal holding the Social Conference would be burnt down, and the tradition of holding the Social Conference after the Congress Conference – which was initiated by the likes of Ranade etc. was discontinued. His opposition to the Sarda Act is also known, where he opposed any British intervention in deciding the age at which girl can be married.

To say the least, it is rather baffling that the other face of Tilak’s work – where he firmly opposed the spread of education among girls, where he opposed moves by social reformers/revolutionaries which challenged age old traditions/customs of Indian society or where he exhibited clear cut Brahminical bias, has not received the attention that it deserves.

Whether you celebrate Ambedkar or maintain a silence about Phule, one thing can be easily discerned – that the ruling classes are not bothered about the real concerns of Phule, Ambedkar or other social revolutionaries. Perhaps they do not want people to remember that both Phule and Ambedkar had raised destabilising questions about nation, nationalism, culture, and challenged the ‘tremendous fascination among the elite of their times about our great civilisation

In a voluminous work titled ‘Foundations of Tilak’s Nationalism’ – Parimala Rao who has based her work mainly on ‘The Mahratta’ the newspaper brought out by Tilak – raises many important questions, which exhibit a great hiatus between his image and reality. Two of the questions which she raises in the Introductory chapter ‘Encountering the Myth’ are worth quoting here :

Why did Tilak’s 25 year long anti-peasant struggle fail to enter the pages of history while his token no-tax campaign in ryotwari areas has been extolled ? Why is his 40 yearlong effort to stop women and non-Brahmin from receiving education is pushed under the carpet ?’[iv]

In fact, Tilak’s ideological opposition to Phule went to the extent that the newspapers which he brought out then – namely ‘Kesari’ and ‘Mahratta’ – did not even publish the news about his death in 1890. He even preferred to gloss over the fact that when young Tilak and Agarkar were jailed for the first time, it was Phule who had organised a public felicitation programme for both of them when they were released in1881.

Ranging from the Left on the one hand to the other end of the spectrum, Tilak’s image as a ‘militant’ face of the nationalist movement as opposed to the ‘moderates’ has been glorified, but his ideas and actions which clearly present an anti-dalit, anti-women, anti-Muslim bias and a voice which is consistently against social reform, has never come under the scanner. 

5.  Coming back to the on-going debate a very valid question at this juncture could be why does one want to ‘excavate’ old history? It can be said that it is better to let bygones be bygones.

The fact is that many questions regarding one of the most tumultuous periods in India’s history still linger on and we are yet to reach any definitive conclusion about them.

For example, one is always amazed by the pioneering work which broke new grounds on the road to emancipation for the broad masses of the country done by the social revolutionaries, in this part of Western India, but always baffled by the simultaneous/ staggered emergence of reactionary/status quoist movements which also became a ‘light house of a different kind’ to the right-wingers elsewhere.

As an aside one may note that the leading ideologue of the Islamist Right – Maulana  Maududi, whose influence extends to the wider Muslim world, also had his beginning in this region . Maulana Maududi who founded the Jamaat-e-Islami, was born in Aurangabad and had his initial forays into social-political life here only. As rightly said Abul Ala Maududi is to ‘Political Islam’ what Karl Marx was to Communism.

Perhaps this query regarding the not so silent emergence of social revolutionary and social reactionary trends from the same part of Western India can be further probed if we revisit this period.

We need to revisit it not only to scrutinise the image of Lokmanya and how skilfully the grand agenda of social transformation put forward by Phule was side-lined (which helps us  understand the resistance to social change encountered by Phule) but also to revisit nationalist movement post-Tilak which could not make a radical rupture with the overwhelming Hindu discourse – despite the fact that two of its senior-most leaders, Gandhi as well as Nehru were die hard seculars.

Revisiting Tilak is important in order to understand  the genesis of Hindutva Right today because under the name of opposing the Britishers he inadvertently helped strengthen status quoist forces in Indian society and helped to further a very regressive social agenda. In fact his imaginary vis-a-vis the Hindu Nation or his mobilising a  Hindu constituency through the organisation of festivals or his extolling of the Manusmriti in ‘Gita Rahsya’ (his critique of the Bhagwad Gita which he penned down during his prison days), or the fact that a section of the Hindu Right took inspiration from him has largely remained unaddressed.

While the triumvirate of Savarkar, Hedgewar and Golwalkar is rightly pointed out for their ‘leading role’ in Hindutva politics, we should not forget two things: one, that the ‘pioneers’ of Hindutva also claimed Tilak’s legacy. Dr Munje, who was one of the founders of RSS and a key leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, was considered a staunch Tilakite and dissociated himself from the Congress after the death of Tilak as he was not convinced about the idea of secularism as proposed by Gandhi and supposedly abhorred his politics of non-violence.

An added complexity about the unfolding situation is the wide acceptance of an illusion packaged as truth which veers around what people call ‘Purogami  Maharashtra’- Progressive Maharashtra.

You mention assassination of activists, scholars – who were working within the bounds of the Constitution, you mention ascendance of Hindutva rightwingers in all their ferocity today, or their growing ‘normalisation’ in the society, you mention the rise in Dalit atrocities or the growing legitimacy of caste councils and all such talk can bounce back upon you by calling them ‘aberrations’ and the ‘great tradition of Phule-Ambedkar’ would be invoked to blunt your argument. (Perhaps it can be reminded here that Com Govind Pansare, who was assassinated by Sanatan Sanstha terrorists had rightly called upon people to come out of this illusion.)

6.   Looking back is important also to revisit the controversy which is often raked up to denigrate Phule’s contribution which veers around his approach towards British rule. And disturbingly, the traditional Left which upholds Karl Marx’s dialectical assessment of the British rule where he talks about its ‘crimes’ as well as its ‘causing a social revolution’,  also seems to follow the same track.

A representative sample of the Left’s criticism of Phule can be had from G P Deshpande’s introduction to ‘Selected Works of Jyotirao Phule’.  (We should not forget how in the same Introduction Deshpande praises Phule in glowing terms, a glimpse of it can be seen in section 1) which is basically a masterly translation of Phule’s selected writings in English. Deshpande writes

Phule did not see imperialism dialectically. He did not see that the British ruling classes were not kind to the lower classes in Britain. The British legal system, in which he had invested his faith, was no less exploitative and unjust when it had to deal with the British peasantry and the working class. His enthusiasm for British rule made him sceptical of even the shudra/atishudra uprisings against British rule in his own time, for instance the uprising led by Umaji Naik. It also prevented him from seeing the material basis of what he would brand as ‘Brahman’ nationalism….Phule did not see, for instance, the significance of Vasudev Phadke, a brahman, working with the ramoshis. The result was that Phule and his comrades and followers ended up taking softer and softer positions on British imperialism and ultimately lost ground to the nationalist movement.[v]

Perhaps a more nuanced understanding of Phule’s more than four decade old social-political journey – which should include his exposure of the British government’s policies from time to time or his assessment of the Congress Party’s then brand of nationalism, or his envisioning an alternate conception of nationalism – is in order to put things in proper perspective.

And before coming to discuss Phule, it is also important to comprehend what Marx meant by ‘social revolution’ in India. Could it be limited merely to what he called ‘..brutal interference of the British tax-gatherer and the British soldier, as to the working of English steam and English free trade’  or something deeper. Marx was definitely explicit regarding these changes:

“All the civil wars, invasions, revolutions, conquests, famines, strangely complex, rapid, and destructive as the successive action in Hindostan may appear, did not go deeper than its surface. England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstitution yet appearing. This loss of his old world, with no gain of a new one, imparts a particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindoo, and separates Hindostan, ruled by Britain, from all its ancient traditions, and from the whole of its past history. …..

 ..We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.”[vi]

The impact of the British rule on the Indian society could be better understood if one takes a look at the then existing society. In his speech ‘Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah’ Dr Ambekdar has described the situation present then when Ranade – a contemporary of Phule – came on the scene.

“Is there any society in the world which has unapproachable,, unshadowables, and unseeables? Is there any society which has got a population of Criminal Tribes? Is there a society in which there exist today primitive people, who live in jungles, who do not know even to clothe themselves? How many do they count in numbers? Is it a matter of hundreds, is it a matter of thousands? I wish they numbered a paltry few. The tragedy is that they have to be counted in millions, millions of Untouchables, millions of Criminal Tribes, millions of Primitive Tribes!! One wonders whether the Hindu civilization is civilization, or infamy.

…Tilak’s image as a ‘militant’ face of the nationalist movement as opposed to the ‘moderates’ has been glorified, but his ideas and actions which clearly present an anti-dalit, anti-women, anti-Muslim bias and a voice which is consistently against social reform, has never come under the scanner.

The rule by the Peshwas which essentially practised Manusmriti was more vicious especially for all those who did not belong to the Chitpavan Brahman caste (the caste to which Peshwa belonged). Forget right to education or right to wear clothes according to one’s own choice, it even prohibited them from using the greeting ‘Namaskar’. The lowly of the low then – namely the ‘untouchables’ – had to carry an earthen pot in their neck so that their spit does not spoil the street, their entry to the city was limited to few hours only as it was feared that their shadow may fall on the Brahmins and ‘pollute’ them.

In such a background colonialism was not simply a change from one set of rulers to others, it involved a move from one kind of society to a qualitatively different one. Colonial rule definitely meant strengthening the mechanisms of colonial exploitation but it did try to superimpose minimum capitalist relations on the old order. The prevalent social norms subordinated individual to the institution of caste. The daily life of the Hindus was regulated by the religious texts. Colonialism prepared the ground to ‘break asunder’ these relations.  It was under this regime that India encountered Modernity for the first time, albeit the attempts to curb/limit its spread in very many ways.

The differential experience of the change in rule vis-a-vis Brahmins and the rest could be easily understood. And it was not for nothing that Phule ‘welcomed’ the defeat of the Peshwas in the war of 1857 (variously described as ‘war of independence’ or ‘sepoy mutiny’ etc) and said that if Britishers would have lost ‘Peshwa rule would have returned’. The issue of millennia old social-cultural oppression and denial of basic civic rights to a large section of people had finally triumphed over the issue of gaining of political rights by ‘outsiders’. For the lowly among the low what was the difference in material as well as social life if you were oppressed under an ‘insider’ called Peshwa which denied them every sort of human right, versus an ‘outsider’ called the British, which for its own reasons granted limited civil rights to them.

As an aside one may note how for the Brahmin elite viewed the end of Peshwa rule (1st January,1818) in the final battle against the British at Koregaon and ushered us into the colonial regime, but how the same event was interpreted entirely differently by the Atishudras. Battle of Koregaon has a deep significance to Mahars and other Dalits in India, who remember it every January 1 as a mark of their triumph against the dehumanising rule of the Peshwas and as the first step in their on-going struggle against caste-based oppression. When Dr Ambedkar was alive he use to visit Koregaon (very near to Pune) yearly on 1st January to remember the heroic role played by dalit soldiers. It is said that on New Year’s Day in 1818, about 500 soldiers of the East India Company’s Bombay Native Infantry regiment led by Colonel FF Staunton waded across the Bhima river and, at Bhima Koregaon, routed a superior force of 25,000 well-equipped soldiers of the Peshwa[vii]Another important point which normally gets missed is how Phule ‘looked’ at nation and nationalism or how he thought about the transfer of power.

If in the worldview of the traditional elite, which was the fulcrum around which nascent emergence of ‘nationalism’ could be traced, it basically meant ‘transfer of power’ in their hands, for Phule

.[‘]nation was a democratic society. The birth of a nation required the growth of a civil society, the celebration of citizenship, and the beginning of the process of empowerment of the marginalised.’[viii]

Phule was wary of the basic postulates of these nascent nationalists who talked of reviving ancient glory or the merits of the classical caste system and envisaged a future which would replicate a social system where everybody will faithfully adhere to their respective caste duty.
In ‘Shetkaryacha Asusd’ (Cultivators Whipcord) he writes :
..If the Brahmans really wish to unite the people of this country and take the nation ahead, then first they must drown their cruel religion, which is customary amongst both the victors ( Brahmans) and the vanquished ( shudras), and they publicly and clearly, must cease using any artifice in their relationship with the shudras, who have been demeaned by that religion, and trample on inequality and the Vedanta opinion, and till a true unity is established, there will be no progress in this country.[ix]

His forthrightness in criticising the Congress and emphasising his radical social agenda was no exception. When Justice Ranade invited him for the plenary session of the Conference of Marathi authors in 1885, he not only expressed his inability but also underlined that he sees no point in participating in such Conferences as they would not benefit downtrodden masses. [x].

All great revolutionaries of yesteryear are judged on the anvil of time.

It is part of the on-going evaluation, summation of work of earlier revolutionaries, movements .

Buddha – the great social revolutionary – and Anand, his very close comrade, popularly known as his disciple, present perhaps one of the earliest examples in written history, when Buddha’s exclusion of women from Viharas became a talking point. It was only because of Anand’s insistence that they were included and we were saved from critical references about the position of women in Buddha’s thinking.

Kabir, the radical Saint, who with his uncompromising attack on religious hypocrisies of his times, still inspires young generations, but it does not overshadow his negative opinion about women.

We very well know how the Jacobins – which formed part of the revolutionary political movement that had been the most famous political club of the French Revolution – were/are strongly criticised for their patriarchal views.

And thus whether we like it or not, neither Phule, nor Marx, not even Bhagat Singh or Ambedkar-  can save themselves from scrutiny by later day followers, critiques.

If the Left movement in the country which has made tremendous sacrifices for the benefit of the people, can be (rightly) criticised for its failure to integrate the social, cultural question in its overall vision of transformation – which has proved to be an important reason for its stagnation, the ambiguity of the later day social revolutionary camp vis-a-vis state power and search for its origins should also be considered part of this ongoing process of review and reflection.

8.  The times in which we are passing through are challenging ones.

Times when unbridled forces of neoliberalism coupled with forces of Communal fascism are playing havoc with the lives of the people.

Times when all such forces who are fighting for equity, democracy, secularism are finding themselves on the defensive.

And in such an ambience Phule’s teachings – his words and actions – the way he looked at challenges in his own times, definitely provide a window of opportunity.

As GPD states, Phule was a ‘system builder’ and he understood the then existing situation in a ‘dwaivarnik’ fashion, a binary in his own words. Is it possible for us to fashion a ‘new binary’ of our times.

Phule’s social- cultural work, – which has been rightly termed as ‘Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society’ – which anticipates not only the work of the Rightwing – may be the Hindutva or the Islamist types – but the work undertaken during anti-colonial struggles, is another important arena worth emulation.

Interestingly this Phulevian agenda which was later taken forward by Ambedkar and other social revolutionaries has largely been dropped/forgotten by people/formations claiming allegiance to their legacy and it has been swiftly taken over by the right. It has been well documented how forces like RSS/Jamaat-e-Islami or other status quoist or reactionary organisations have been very clear about their ‘exclusivist’ agenda which they tried to bolster through intervention in culture in a strategic manner. 

Phule’s critique of religion and caste and his daring to stand apart and get counted, his approach towards question of gender, his interest in agriculture, education, his proposal to the British government for prohibition, his flair for writing literature – there are many many aspects of his life and struggles which need further study and contemplation and perhaps emulation.

9.   The manner in which the later day social revolutionary movement developed and the way the Left responded then to it has created rather an unusual situation which can be said to be typical to India. Another manifestation of what scholars term as ‘Indian Exceptionalism’.
Instead of a convergence of the Phule-Ambedkarian movement with the Left on the broader agenda of social transformation – which involves attack not only on Capitalism but Brahminism/ Mullahism, Patriarchy and related issues of deprivation and hierarchy – we witness them being posited as being in adversarial relation.

Yes, there was definitely a time during the anti-colonial struggle that a possibility existed that both these streams would come together (e.g. Jawalkar, who was one of the key figures who helped revive Phule’s project of emancipation albeit in a different form, had a very positive opinion about the developments in the then Socialist Russia , even Ambedkar had talked of ‘fighting Brahminism and Capitalism together) but the Left’s intransigence and adamant and mechanical understanding of Marxism became a stumbling block in the path of emergence of a broader alliance.

And looking at the hiatus which has developed between both the streams, the ruling classes have also tried to widen the chasm, so what we witness is a section of those claiming to be carrying forward the legacy of Phule-Ambedkar getting cosy with formations, forces which are essentially communal, Brahminical and have no qualms in keeping themselves aloof from any alliance with various streams of the left.

This growing chasm needs to be bridged if the radical agenda of social revolutionary movement has to reach its fruition and the Left has to fight its growing irrelevance and marginalisation in the Indian polity.

The situation as it exists before us today is such that neither the stream(s) owning allegiance to Marx seem to be on the ascendance nor those formations who are keen to take forward the agenda of social revolutionaries are gaining new grounds and the combined onslaught of neoliberalism and communal fascism – which is inimical to voices of democracy, secularism, equity, harmony – has created new grounds for their coming together.

As mentioned in the beginning young Marx – who with his Communist Manifesto (1848) – became a voice of the exploited and the oppressed the world over- died in 1883 whereas Young Jyotiba – who started with the first public intervention by opening a school for Shudra-Atishudra girls way back in 1848 – died in 1890.

Today, more than 125 years after their demise, when a real possibility exists for the coming together of both these streams, the question arises of whether they will be able to take the benefit of it or not ?

(Revised and expanded presentation made at a two day National Seminar on ‘Reading Jotirao Phule : In and For Our Times’, 11-12 December 2015, Phule-Ambedkar Chair, University of Mumbai)
 
Notes :
Brief Chronology of Phule’s life
1827 – Born in Pune
1834-38 Primary Education
1840 – Marriage to Savitribai
1841-47 – Secondary Education
1848 – established first

The post Remembering Jyotiba Phule, on His 189th Birth Anniversary, April 11 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

 
The poll outcome has indicated that India might be under a longer spell of the Hindutva party as it has strengthened brick by brick. It also reflects what I have been saying about a strong, solid, arrogant Savarna block throughout the country.
 
After the Mandal one, in 1990, we saw, the unity of the Dalits and OBCs all over the country and people were talking about the Uttar Pradesh experiment but now this is completely rescinded. Mandal forces have completely lost their battle. The biggest disappointment is from Bihar where RJD and allied parties are thoroughly routed. This indicates clearly that except for the bhakts, diverse sections of castes compete with each other and many will never go along together. The Bahujan challenge was to bring them together which is not possible without their participation in the power structure.
 
BJP’s electoral plan was engagement with diverse OBC communities in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. In Uttarakhand, they became a nationalist party, attracting ex-servicemen, while in UP, they actually got support from all the segments and the party exists on the ground.
 
I never believed in jumlas and I saw our friends, including many senior ones, giving their ‘decisive’ verdict. A huge number of their bhakts on social media would feel as if they are making the government. Most of them were just calculating on the basis of their caste and numbers while the Sangh worked on the ground. To counter or fight the Sangh or RSS, we need to have a cultural narrative and solid work on the ground, outreach with those communities who have been left out of the broader Dalit Bahujan movement and not insulting them for their faiths or mode of worship.
 
Not that I am shocked with the results but what has convinced me is that most of those writing about the on-ground situation don’t actually know the ground realities. See how the language of the ‘expert’ has changed now in the media, hailing this huge victory of Narendra Modi transcending all the barriers of caste, class, gender, region. My question is when they travelled all over the country and were reporting, why did none of them report that there is this massive ‘Tsunami’ for Narendra Modi.
 
And yes, to strengthen democracy, I would again say, we must ban the Exit Polls and there should be stricter guidelines for media reporting on the issue. Opinion polls must not be allowed before two months of the poll schedule. Election Commission must again focus on rebuilding its credibility and try to rectify the fault lines.
 
Let us not wish ‘death’ for political parties. We are already in an age of a one-party hegemony. What Congress was in the 1960s, the BJP has become today. And definitely they have not come merely on their strength and Savarna reaction alone, all parties including Congress with their lacklustre form of government and party functioning have resulted in this affair.
 
What is important is to build parties in the state, focus for next round of elections, infuse new blood, discard family and caste nepotism, build strong cultural and intellectual groups, engage with those who can give you an honest opinion which you may not like yet will be beneficial for you.
 
Rahul Gandhi’s Chowkidar Chor Hai slogan boomeranged. In a heavily dosed and intoxicated nationalist framework, Rahul Gandhi can’t challenge Narendra Modi. Given Congress party’s own track record on corruption, perhaps Rahul’s raising a corruption issue did not work. A good strategy would have been to leave the issue to be raised by Prashant Bhushan and likes. The second and most important message which BJP and Narendra Modi gave was against ‘political families’. If the results are any indication, I can say, political families will have to think seriously as to how many members of their family will be joining politics and if yes, they need to work. They can’t take people for granted.
 
I think most of us were just calculating caste numbers while Amit Shah was making strategies to take the people to the booths. We can’t take people for granted. People’s vote is not ‘transferable’. Let me say this very categorically, that in the 21st century, people want the unity of forces on a long term basis and social cohesion. If unity does not result in having good candidates in the party, people don’t vote for the same. I can bet SP BSP-RLD votes did not get transferred to each other. it does not happen. It is not easy.
 
The Bahujan narrative will have to rebuild and spread across the country. Baba Saheb, Phule, Periyar, Bharat Singh, Birsa Munda need to be taken to people. Celebrate their work and socialise their ideologies on the ground. There is no respite. Our fight is for an inclusive, equal and humane society based on Constitution, which must go on irrespective of the electoral outcome. But let us realise that answer to these issues and challenges before us do not come from jumlas and we need to have a serious discussion. Not just on social media but we need to meet physically and share our ideas regularly on various platforms.
 
Wish all of you power. The struggle for dignity and human rights will continue.
 

The post Opinion: Bahujans need to spread Phule and Periyar’s message in person, not just on social media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Love Letters like no other. Letters from Savitribai to Jyotiba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is clear that without fighting the forces that represent Hindutva, both ideologically and politically, the legacy of Rohith Vemula cannot be carried forward. The larger challenge lies in envisioning and struggling for a caste free society.

If anyone not of our own
Happens to read this manuscript:
Heads will roll
Hearts will beat to death
Brains will curdle.
All that one has learned
Will be lost.
Now, I have placed curses
On my own words.
 
– NT Rajkumar
(translated from the Tamil Panirendhu Kavithaigal)

A Preface to the Current Discussion
 Rohith Vemula’s death – an institutional murder of the casteist-communal combine – has led to numerous discussions and debates around the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the political ideology of Hindutva.
 
This is not the first time that the BJP-RSS combine has surfaced in controversies in recent times. Nor is it the first case of suicide by a Dalit-Adivasi in higher educational institutions. In recent decades the RSS along with it’s frontal organisations rose to prominence with three incidents starting with the anti-reservation riots in Gujarat in the 80s, followed by Advani’s rathayatra and the attempt to demolish the Babri Masjid, leading up to the Muslim genocide in Gujarat in 2002.
 
Vemula’s death has raised eyebrows all over the  world, as it is the continuum of the Hindutva assault on Dalit assertions. In many ways the radical Dalit politics espoused by groups like the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) is diametrically opposite to that of Hindutva. Nothing else punctures the pompous claims about Hindu civilisation, culture and rashtra, as effectively as radical Dalit politics.
 
The present phase of fascism is a more organised and systematic blend to sustain the caste-class-communal legacy for a prolonged period.

Ever since the articulation of the Phule-Ambedkar discourse, radical Dalits have pointedly questioned the very existence of a Hindu society, culture and civilisation. Against tall claims of Brahmanical spirituality, this discourse laid bare the inhumanity of the Vedas[1] and Smritis in justifying and establishing the system of caste brutality.
 
Against claims of a unified Hindu world existing through the millennia, this discourse highlighted the continued opposition to Brahminism in history through Charvaka philosophy, Buddhism, Sramanic traditions and radical sections of the Bhakti movement. Thus, Hindutva forces cannot accuse radical Dalit politics of being a conspiracy of a westernised elite, or of de-classed intellectuals. It is organically Indian, and is a result of the real life experiences of one sixth of the most marginalised and poor sections of Indians.
 
The radical Dalit discourse has also resisted the culture of domination, and rejected the patronising overtures of reformist caste Hindus as for example, Gandhi re-christening erstwhile untouchables as Harijans, or the more recent claim of Narendra Modi who said in the book Karmayogi (published in 2007), that cleaning garbage is a spiritual experience for scavenger castes.
 
Golwalkar praises Manu as the greatest lawgiver mankind ever had. It was the same lawgiver Manu's book, which was burnt by Ambedkar in his pursuit of getting justice for the Dalits. In current times Golwalkars’ successor also demanded a throwing away of Indian constitution.

Ambedkar's announcement that ‘though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu,’ encapsulates the relationship of radical Dalit consciousness to Hindu religion. The hegemony of upper caste Hindus over Indian society in modern times grew out of the failure of the Ambedkarite radical separatism in the face of Gandhian intimidation that led to the 1932 Poona Pact. While there indeed is a generalised hostility towards Dalits among caste Hindus, the contradiction of radical Dalit consciousness is sharpest with Brahmanical Hindutva.

Radical Dalit consciousness, in its Ambdekarite form, stands for rational humanism and liberation of all irrespective of caste, gender and ethnicity. Brahmanical Hindutva’s motivating force is communal hatred, and its organising principle is religion based, patriarchal and violent nationalism.
 
No wonder the British never repressed the RSS. The collusion between religion based nationalism and colonialism can be understood from such statements.

It would not be out of place to state that these philosophical and ideological postulations have not arisen out of the blue, rather they had a steady and thorough progress in history.
 
It is time to examine these ideological positions, which essentially have a communal colour. Examining them from the Dalit-Adivasi viewpoint is crucial since it would unfold the dynamics of the social, and religious politics of communal fascism to the lowest level.
 
In a broader perspective, communalism of polity is preliminary to fascism of polity. In today’s context what is going on in India is not mere communalism of polity –  rather it is the politics of fascism under the Hindutva brigade married to corporate capital. Hence, as a critical outlook, I would like to emphasis some of the major threats faced by the Dalits and Adivasis (or Indigenous people).

From left to right: Manu who inspired Friedrich Nietzsche who inspired Adolf Hitler

Fascism and the Political Theology of Dominance
 

Before getting into a detailed discussion let me place what fascism espouses. Fascism is a construct of entrenched political domination capable of infringing any eligible rights of any individual or group to an unpredictable degree, or magnitude. Historically it took different shapes and forms, depending upon the particular social order. Although it was coined as a political ideology in 1919 with the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, it has much older roots in India and some parts of the world (George 2006).
 
Never before in history have we witnessed such a period of deliberate drift of further confusing and disempowerment of Dalits and Adivasis.

Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation, or the race, as an organic community that transcends all other loyalties. It emphasises a myth of a national or racial puritan to be celebrated as a natural higher being. It could also be the resurgence of a particular race after a period of decline or destruction.
 
To this end, fascism calls for a ‘spiritual revolution’ against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge ‘alien’ forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism as a rule celebrates masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, except in exceptional situations, it resorts to racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged races or nations (George 2006).
 
Fascism's approach to politics is both populist and elitist. While the former seeks to activate ‘the people’ as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies, in the latter it treats the peoples’ will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organise a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of an organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and as a regime, fascism uses mass organisations as a system of integration and control, and uses organised violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely (George 2006).
 

Understanding Fascism of Caste in Indian Perspective

In the Indian context historical fascism could be widely observed in caste domination and feudal relationship, championed by Hindutva. This is more vibrant than the modern paradigms of communal fascism. The mythical stories of killing of Shambhug by Ram, denial of Eklavya of his right to education and the subsequent chopping off of his right thumb, the counterfeited assassination of Asur king Ravana, the deceitful murder of Bali are only some impulses of this trend of domination over indigenous people. Further these communities were addressed as rakshashas (wild), mleccha (filthy) barbarian, uncivilised, and so on. Both Vedic and Sanskrit texts have justified the invasion and exploitation of Aryans and explicitly supported the superiority of the Aryan race and Vedic philosophy to the extent that their fate of being in the higher beings is considered as god given (George 2006).
 
The political successes of Hindutva are growing out of the casteism, patriarchy, insecurities and superstitions of the generalised Hindu common sense. It is high time social forces fighting against Hindutva realise its casteist core, and understand the nature of its assault on anything that is different or radical.

The present phase of fascism is a more organised and systematic blend to sustain the caste-class-communal legacy for a more prolonged period. In modern times it started with the emergence of Hindu Chauvinism and Cultural Nationalism under the leadership of the RSS led camp. This camp learnt various things from different sectors. They learnt the skills in organising and mobilising from Communist parties, mastered the management techniques from Churches and Christian institutions, the one-man dictator model of Adolph Hitler and the methods of maintaining private militia.
 
In a nutshell, the whole exercise was to sustain and strengthen the same old ideology of purity of the three upper varnas and to consider the Shudras and Panchamas as impure and polluting. This has resulted in a twin strategy of dictating to the ex-untouchables and non-Hindu groups, which is the present form of communal fascism in India. The current mode of ensuring a deeply polarised and communal polity coupled with sustained casteism apparently speaks of this truth (George 2006).
 

MS Golwalkar (left) and KB Hedgewar: Inspired equally by Manu and Hitler

The Ideological Upsurge of Hindutva

In modern times the ideological upsurge of Hindutva has got a definite periodicity which can be traced from the early nineteenth century. It arose as a system to put a break on the increasing reforms within the Hindu religion. These reforms could be listed as advocating freedom to women through abolition of sati, child marriage, opening the boundaries of educational institutions to women and to a certain level opening up educational space for the Shudras and untouchables.
 
However since the Muslims constituted a sizeable population, they were considered as a big threat to the Hindu society. Christians who opened health and educational institutions for all, particularly in Dalit and Adivasi areas, thus threatened the social fabric of caste.  On the other side Christianity was accepted as the mainstream faith by these oppressed groups – as a means to escape the order of caste. Thus Christian conversion turned out to be a major threat to the Brahminical social hierarchy of caste. Hence a counter ideology was obligatory for the sustenance of Hindutva. The ideological formulation in the Indian context could be seen in three different phases – first is the sowing of seeds of communalism through articulations and practice of a Hindutva worldview in modern India included its consolidation (Hindutva) as an ideological tool, and third through devised programmatic patterns (George 2006).
 
Perhaps Bankim Chandra Chatterjee first sowed the seeds of communalism through his novel ‘Anand Math’. This novel could be considered to be the foundational text of the current Hindu Cultural Nationalism.
 
There is a specific backdrop of this novel during British rule in India, where the context is projected against the white supremacy applying for a prolonged process of piecemeal conquest and prudent consolidation. This text fuelled discontent, resentment and resistance at every stage, wherein deposed Rajas, Nawabs or uprooted Zamindars and landlords often led a series of rebellions during the first hundred years of British rule. Peasants, ruined artisans, demobilised soldiers and discontented people formed the backbone of such rebellion. These rebellions were generally localised involving armed bands of a few hundred to several thousands. The civil rebellions grew in Bengal and Bihar as British rule was gradually consolidated and further spread to other places. There was hardly any year without an armed rebellion in some part of the country. From 1763 to 1856 there were more than forty major and hundreds of minor rebellions. Dispossessed peasants and demobilised soldiers of Bengal were the first to rise.
 
One of the major rebellions was the sanyasi (saint) rebellion of Bengal, which was described artfully in Anand Math. This is the background from where a clear divide between the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal began. It is in this novel that the song Vande Mataram first surfaced, which the Indian nationalists chose to sing in praise of ‘Mother India’. It comes from a tradition of mythologising a fictive imagined nation personified as a Devi (goddess). In the novel the context of the anthem was overtly anti-Muslim and treated them as a separate nation. Invocation of the deities like Durga, Kali and Lakshmi all run counter to the secular credentials. This was basically meant to instil inspiration among the Hindus to work for the destruction of the Muslim rule in Bengal.
 
The hero of the novel, Bhawan and is an ascetic. He recruits men for his mission. He meets a youth, Mahender. He then tries to explain to him the meaning of Vande Mataram and warns him that unless the Muslims are banished from the Indian soil, his faith will be in constant danger. Mahender asks him if he would face the Muslims alone. Bhawanand replies by  asking whether 30 crore voices with 60 crore swords in both their arms would be enough for the mission. (vide the third stanza of Vande Mataram) When Mahender is not satisfied even then, Bhawanand takes him to Anand Math (the title of the novel). The Brahmachari of the Math takes Mahender inside the Math.
 
The Math is half-illuminated with a narrow entrance. He enters the Math where he sees a big idol of Vishnu flanked by Lakshmi and Saraswati on either side. The Brahmachari introduces it to Mahender as the Mata and asks him to say Vande Mataram. He then takes him to another chamber where he describes the female deity as Jagatdhatri, the sole keeper of the Indian soil. He exhorts about the glorious past of India, symbolised by these goddesses, then he takes him to a chamber where he shows him the naked Kali. She is black, unclothed and wears a garland of skulls, symbolising death, decay and impurity.
 
Kali is described here as crushing Mahadeva, who is the said symbol of peace and unity. He synonymises the present state of the country with Kali. Finally he takes him to a chamber where a magnificent idol of goddess Durga is kept symbolising the future of the nation, which is to be upheld by her. Here the Brahmachari prays to the goddess chanting: ‘we worship ye, O Mata Durga, who possesses ten hands. Ye are the Lakshmi whose abode is lotus. Ye are the bestower of knowledge.’ (Vide the fourth stanza) Now Mahender receives the inspiration and takes a pledge (Islamic Voice: 1998).
 
The eighth chapter in the third part contains incidents of arson and bloodshed, which inspires the Hindus to turn the lives of the Muslims difficult. Voices are being raised to loot the Muslims and kill them. The atmosphere is filled with Vande Mataram. As a result, the Muslims try to take shelter far and near. The devotees of the Mata ask, ‘when would the time come when we would destroy the mosques and construct the temples of Radha and Mahadev?’ To this the hero of the novel replies, ‘now the English have arrived who will protect our life and property’ (Islamic Voice: 1998). The pertinent question that arises in this text is eventually to ask who is the aggressor, against whom is the aggression aimed at, and at which levels is it perpetrated? The convenient political negotiations and suitability of crude nationalist assimilatory purposes sow the seeds of a divisive politics at every level, which finally culminates in the division of East and West Bengal.
 
Yet, Hindutva was not established as a political ideology, neither in theory nor in practice. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar carried strains also present earlier in Bankim Chandra’s work. Hindutva became an ideology through his writings when his book ‘Essentials of Hindutva’ came into the public domain in 1924.
 
Savarkar (1924: 43-44), stated that an Indian could be only that person who could claim his pitribhumi (fatherland), and who addresses this land of his religion as punyabhumi (Holyland) both lay within the territorial boundaries of British India. These are the essentials of Hindutva – a common rastra (nation) a common jati (race or caste) and a common sanskriti (culture). Furthermore, there had to be a commitment to a common Indian culture, inevitably defined by Hindutva (ibid. 33-37). These qualifications automatically led to Muslims and Christians being regarded as foreigners.
 
Subsequently Golwalkar (1939: 89) added Communists to this list. Both Savarkar (1924) and Golwalkar (1939) introduced race and language as qualifiers of supremacy. While comparing these ideas and symbols with that of their European counterparts, both were contemporaries in the Indian context that reflected emerging and dominant fascist tendencies. Thapar (2004) refers to this as the periods of confusing change where the preference is for a theory that simplifies the social world into ëusí and ëthemí (Thapar 2004). Savarkar along with Golwalkar was the early ideologue of the entire thesis of Hindutva.
 
It is with this intention that the Hindu Mahasabha was formed. Further Savarkar was the inspiration behind the formation of RSS. Hedgewar, an Andhra Brahmin settled in Maharashtra, a disciple of Balkrishna Shivram Moonje and a close friend of Savarkar, established the RSS in 1925 at Nagpur. Hedgewar was sent to Kolkata by Moonje in 1910 to pursue his medical studies and unofficially learn the techniques of terror from the secret revolutionary organisations like the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar in Bengal. He became a part of the inner circle of the Anushilan Samiti to which very few had access. In 1915 after returning to Nagpur he joined the Indian National Congress and engaged in anti-British activities through the Kranti Dal. He was also a member of the Hindu Mahasabha till 1929 (Ramaswami 2003).
 
Although, Hedgewar established the RSS, it was Golwalkar who was the man behind the entire growth of RSS. Like Savarkar he took this idea of Hindutva further. In his book ‘We or our Nationhood Defined,’ he gives an outline of his ideology. Later his articles were published as a compilation, ‘Bunch of Thoughts.’ In both these books (Golwalkar 1939; 2000) and also in various other outpourings of his, he denigrates democracy and pluralism on one hand and upholds fascist concept of nationhood and sectarian version of culture on the other. His writing is most intimidating to the outcastes and minorities in particular. He was the chief of RSS for 33 long years and was instrumental in giving RSS a direction, which assumed menacing proportions in times to come. He strengthened the foundations of the ‘hate minorities’ ideology resulting in the consequent waves of violence, undermining the democratic norms in the society. He can also be credited with giving the sharp formulations which laid the ideological foundation of different carnages in India (Puniyani 2006).
 
Golwalkar praises Manu as the greatest lawgiver mankind ever had (Golwalkar 1939: 117-118; 2000; 239, 258, 264). It was the same lawgiver Manu's book, which was burnt by Ambedkar in his pursuit of getting justice for the Dalits. In current times Golwalkars’ successor also demanded a throwing away of the Indian constitution, to be replaced by the one which is based on Hindu holy books, implying Manusmriti, of course (Puniyani 2006).
 
Golwalkar’s formulation of Hindutva fascism is so blatant that even his followers struggle hard to cover many of his ostensive judgments. He portrays an ornate love of caste, naked hatred for minorities and eulogises Nazi Germany. Curran (1979: 39) in his classic study says that the ideology of Sangh is based upon principles formulated by its founder, Hedgewar. These principles have been consolidated and amplified by Golwalkar through critical indoctrination of Sangh volunteers (Puniyani 2006). What does Golwalkar say in this book?
 
He rejects the notions of Indian nationhood or even India as a nation in the making. He rejects the idea that all the citizens could be equal. He goes on to harp on the notions of nationhood borrowed from Hitler's Nazi movement. He rejects that India is a secular nation and posits that it is a Hindu rashtra. He rejects the territorial-political concept of nationhood and puts forward the concept of cultural nationalism, which was the foundation of Nazi ideology. He admires Hitler's ideology and politics of puritan nationalism and takes inspiration from the massive holocaust, which decimated millions of people in Germany. Golwalkar uses this as a shield to propagate his political ideology. It is this ideology, which formed the base of communal common sense amongst a section of the population (Puniyani 2006). He builds a parallel between Hinduism and Nazism.
 

 
Today the Modis and Togadias brought up on these lines, do believe in all these ideological propositions, but the language of expression is more polished so that the poison is coated with honey and administered with ease. Golwalkar (1939: 104-105) goes on to assert,
 

Interestingly these sections never participated in the national movement. As a matter of fact RSS and Golwalkar were very contemptuous towards the anti British movement. There is no mention of the presence of RSS in the anti British movement even in the most sympathetic accounts written about it. Since Golwalkar propounded religion-based nationalism, there was no place for anti British stance. Nor did it have any sympathy for the anti-caste movement led by Ambedkar, Periyar, Iyyankali, Mangu ram and others.
 

 
No wonder the British never repressed the RSS. The collusion between religion based nationalism and colonialism can be understood from such statements. Later the world saw that in tune with this pro imperialist ideology, Golwalkar was to support the US aggression on Vietnam and his successor Sudarshan defended the US aggression against Iraq while Modi is the champion of communal genocide in Gujarat.

Domineering Indigenous Life
Controlling all avenues of life at large is the general strategy of RSS and this is part of the larger design of ‘cultural nationalism’, an idea that stretches to the domains of power and political life. At the present time the most crucial aspect of the communal segment is to control the wholesome dynamics of indigenous life and its systems. These champions of the communal-caste brigade applied the stratagem of taking over all the possible institutions of the community and civil society, right from primary schools to the electronic media, in order to create a sense of inferiority and thus to manipulate the masses.
 
Among the indigenous people two processes went in parallel.
 
One was the deliberate formation of institutions such as Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Ekal Vidyalaya, Bal Bharti, Saraswati Sishu Mandir and Dalit and Adivasi Sanghs at the lowest level to train-up children and youth cadres and thus to inculcate a feeling that indigenous traditions and cultures are too little and inferior to that of Hindu religion.
 
Thus Hindu culture and civilisation is and was held up as the only standard and ideal option left for such groups; perpetuating a caste view that says that the duties assigned under their caste are mandatory to attain a higher janma (birth) in the next round of birth. Ardently following the dictums of the ideal culture and religion become the doctrinal duty of all caste groups. Secondly, an open support to capitalist forces through corporates thereby inducing a consumerist culture within such communities and in such areas. Both these processes went in parallel and are inter-related. One of the outcomes of these aggressive tendencies has been a crucial osmosis of ‘Hindu civilizational strains’ with all its flaws among the indigenous people plus a bonus of corrupting them as units of the consumer market (George: 2006).
 
This fondness for controlling the indigenous has had its own logic – to perpetuate social and cultural slavery along with the clear establishment of political power and to take over the control over community life though legitimising the social mechanics at one end. On the other to establish an unquestioned command over the resource zones spread over regions with indigenous populations.

Therefore a complete enslavement of social, cultural, political and economic nature remained part of the overall diabolic design. This could easily evade the precipitate of geo-centricity of the hitherto-untouchable strata. Another vicious conspiracy is the development of internal colonisation to cohere the Dalits into the upper caste fold in order to continue the historical mode of oppression in new forms and incarnations.
 
Contrary to the status of Dalit, Adivasis were never part of the Varnashram. The life of the Adivasis, a wonderful model of egalitarianism and naturo-centricity, who had a lively past in proximity and harmony with nature are today a target, given the mode of ‘development’ being adopted. Unlike Dalits, they have hardly experienced the life of slavery. Uprooting them from their natural habitats and uprooting them from their culture was and is part and parcel of this concocted design.
 
The result is that an egalitarian society is being transformed into an exploited class. Jharkhand, Odisha and Bastar are the best examples that reflect the impact of such trends and processes. Thus both Dalits and Adivasis have been placed in the category of exploited strata. Earlier these aspects were efficiently engineered through the socio-religious structures, but today it is taking significant political formations too, which in fact is resulting in the communalisation of the polity and the  inculcation of the culture of fascism among the indigenous masses.
 

Dalits and Adivasis – the Logical Targets

Communal-fascism has been exploring its way to elaborate its base, activities and action by building of philanthropic and religious institutions other than the ones mentioned above. Institutions like Deen Dayal Shodh Sansthan, Sanskriti Bihar, Vikas Bharit, Gayatri Pariwar, Brahmakumari Samaj and Samajik Samarasta Manch are some of the intervention points to create inroads among the Dalits and Adivasis.
 
Such institutions essentially engage in the recruitment of young boys from these communities into the cadres of the RSS, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP; International Hindu Council), Bajrang Dal,  and arming them with hatred and intolerance against minorities. Another plot has been the steady and systematic capturing of the community panchayats and organisations.
 
Mobilising Dalits and Adivasis against Muslims in Gujarat (2002), operations such as ghar wapasi andolan (return to home movement or reconversion movement) in Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand or the creation of vigilante army like Salwa Judum (peace movement) are the  clearest examples where there has been a complete stranglehold.
 
All these have added impelling force to the Hindutva card among Dalits and Adivasis. By and large this consists of concepts like de-Dalitisation and de-Adivasisation. Eventually this tendency empowers the fascist forces and broadens its space and influence.
 
This expansion of fascism is disintegrating the Dalit-Adivasi ideology, theology, identity and threatening their very existence. This has also ruptured the sense of community, affected more communitarian notions of sharing, caring and co-operation, has expanded more entrenched notions of patriarchy and battered the belief in community ownership over resources and every single aspect of commons property.
 

To Conclude…

Never before in history have we witnessed such a concerted and deliberate disempowerment of Dalits and Adivasis. The ideology of Hindutva is backed by a formidable organisation and techniques of mobilisation methods that have successes in crushing the energy of people or diverted them from their own struggles for rights and emancipation; their ability to resist injustice. It is in this context that the case of Rohith turns more prominent.
 
It is clear that without fighting the forces that represent Hindutva, both ideologically and politically, the legacy of Rohith Vemula cannot be carried forward. The larger challenge lies in envisioning and struggling for a caste free society. The Indian constitution has tried to effect an internal reform of Hinduism, outlawing untouchability but not caste. Its half way measures have failed to stop caste brutality against Dalits. In the meanwhile caste domination has acquired newer forms in the seemingly modern institutions of the market, within the bureaucracy, within schools and universities.
 
These political successes of Hindutva have grown out of the casteism, patriarchy, insecurities and superstitions of an accepted ‘Hindu’ common sense. It is high time social forces fighting against Hindutva realise its casteist core, and understand the nature of its assault on anything that is different or radical. The specific patterns and form of Dalit oppression in modern India need to be confronted head on. The nature of injuries the caste system inflicts on sensitive spirits in modern spaces is largely unpredictable; often a means of ‘ramified oppression’, where human rights and alienation turn out to be the core of it.
 
The big challenge is to continuously engage with the liberation movement and shatter the vice-like grip of caste on Indian society. Under these  circumstances, where humanitarian norms and values are degenerating and the indigenous people stand at the receiving end, is it possible for us to go back to the communities and unveil the wolf inside the goat’s skin?
 
Dr. Ambedkar had shown the way by burning Manusmruti. Do we have the courage to engage? Can the Adivasis rediscover their own sense of socialist, secular, democratic and decentralised egalitarianism?
 

References

George, GM (2006). Fascism Versus Indigenous People; accessed from www.countercurrents.org/dalit-george020906.htm on November 10, 2013
Golwalkar, MS (1939). We or Our Nationhood Defined; Nagpur: Bharat Publications.
Golwalkar, MS (2000), Bunch of Thoughts; Third Edition 1996 (reprint 2000) Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, Bangalore
Islam, S. (Undated) Undoing India: The RSS Way; Accessed from http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/Shamsul%20Islam-Undoing_India-the_RSS_Way.pdf on November 14, 2013
Islamic Voice (1998). Vande Mataram – A Historical Perspective. 12 (144) December
Puniyani, R (2006). MS Golwalkar: Conceptualising Hindutva Fascism; accessed from www.countercurrents.org/comm-puniyani100306.htm on November 9, 2013
Ramaswami, S (2003). Hedgewar and RSS – Revising History in the light of BJP Perception; The Statesman, 26 June
Savarkar, VD (1924). Essentials of Hindutva; accessed from http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/essentials_of_hindutva.v001.pdf on November 10, 2013
Thaper, R (2004). The Future of the Indian Past; Seventh DT Lakdawala Memorial Lecture, 21 February, New Delhi: Institute of Social Sciences.

*Goldy M. George is an activist for Dalit and Adivasi rights for the past 25 years. He holds a PhD in Social Science from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The author can be contacted at goldymgeorge10@gmail.com)   

The post How Rohith Vemula was an Obstacle to Hindutva’s Hegemonic Agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bahujan politics is not new to India. Based on the reality of caste and social backwardness a (political) strategy (for organisation) appears to have been developed, based on crucial factors. While the fundamental issue behind the mobilisation was the opposition to the upper castes, the goal set included earning a share in political power. The kindling of caste identities among followers of Bahujan formations was also important.
 
(Over the past decades), this Bahujan politics has been getting considerable support. A process has been evident: the coming together of various backward castes on a strong identity and sentiment, entering the electoral fray, and thereafter, also splitting on similar grounds;  leading to the inevitable political splintering. The sense of identity of respective castes or sub-castes works as the common factor in forging unity and (causing) disunity, cohesion and dispersal.
 
The splintering of the Republican Party of India in Maharashtra is a case in point. The sub-groups within the Mahar caste are considered to be the reasons or basis behind this splintering. Dr. Ambedkar was himself defeated in the elections to the Bhandara  Loksabha constituency in Vidarbha! One main reason for this is purported to be the difference between Dr. Ambedkar’s sub-caste and that of the bulk of the voters there.
 
History
 
If we are to understand a concept properly, we need to understand its history; we should know the changes in it and the causes behind those changes. We should be able to separate circumstantial causes from subjective causes. We should be able to separate the right tendencies from the wrong ones and point to a further advancement.  To develop this kind of understanding, we need to go back to Mahatma Phule.
 
The concept of Bahujan becomes amply clear even if we map it in terms of inclusion, exclusion and opposition. Phule advanced three pivotal points (axis’) for his definition – the shudra, the atishudra and women. He opposed what he called “Shethji and Bhatji”, the  moneyed class and the Brahmin priest.
 
Phule used the language of those whom he wanted to organise. Therefore we need to understand the meaning of the words he used and update them from the present time and context.
 
Shahu, the people’s king, advanced his own concept, which is evident in his 1902 ordinance giving 50 per cent reservation in his state to backward castes. He defined the Bahujan in this ordinance as ‘all those excluding Brahmins, Prabhus and Shenvis’. The followers of Mahatma Phule established the first Non-Brahmin Party in Maharashtra and began organising non-Brahmin castes. Shahu was the leader of this movement. The formation was based on the opposition to Brahmin caste and unity of all the remaining castes.
 
Vitthal Ramji Shinde was against the division along this axis of ‘Brahmin – non-Brahmin’. We need to discuss this in detail.
 
Dr. Ambedkar founded different political parties at different times To further different objectives. His concept of the Bahujan becomes clear from the names he gave to those parties – the Independent Labour Party, Scheduled Castes Federation and the Republican Party.
 
Speaking to G. I. P. Railway Workers at Manmad in 1938 he said, “Brahminism and Capitalism are our two enemies”. One recalls Phule’s terms – Shetji and Bhatji. We must not forget that Dr. Ambedkar used Brahminism and not just Brahmins. Similarly, Phule’s terms point at the professions of those castes or classes. Shetji suggests the profession of money lending and Bhatji suggests the ‘priestly’ profession (not Brahmins, the people/individuals).
 
The first manifesto of the Dalit Panther Party takes Dr. Ambedkar’s definition further to clarify concretely his concept of Brahminism and Capitalism.
 
Kanshiram–Mayavati’s concept becomes clear from a slogan Kanshiram developed before he founded the Bahujan Samaj Party. The slogan was: Baman, Baniya, Thakur Chor; Baki sab DS4. DS4 meant Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti. Although the name of the organisation contains the word Shoshit, the exploited, the meaning of the slogan is very clear. There are no exploited, shoshit, among the Baman-baniya-Thakur castes, and if at all there are exploited among them we are not concerned with them. Everybody among the castes belonging to Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishyavarnas are exploiters; none of them is exploited. If at all there are any, we are not bothered; such is this position.
 
Basing the strategy of uniting Bakward Castes (BC’s) and Other Backward Castes  (OBC’s) and opposing the rest, Kanshiram founded the Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP) on April 14, 1984. The BSP is a distinct political party, especially in electoral politics. Since it uses the word, its intention of widening its base and scope becomes evident.
 
Congress, Socialists, Communists and other parties have been claiming to further politics of the downtrodden, even for the emancipation of the Dalits. They have been raising their (Dalit) issues and fighting for them. But that is a different discussion. They do not base their politics on only ‘caste’ as a unit and have never been confined to doing politics of raising the issues of the backward castes alone.
 
Vitthal Ramji Shinde’s concept of the Bahujan
 
V. R. Shinde published the manifesto of the Bahujan Samaj Paksha on September 1,  1920. In it he has defined very clearly the scope, organisation, objective etc. of this party.
 
It is necessary to explain the background of the foundation of this party. The programme of elections to the provincial assembly, which had limited powers,  had been declared. The electoral roll of the voters too was very limited. Members to general and reserved seats were to be elected. The reserved seats included a group consisting of ‘Maratha and similar castes’. There were seven seats reserved for this group in Bombay Province. There were also reserved seats for other categories.
 
There is an interesting anecdote. The elections to the Provincial Assembly were in the November of 1920. A meeting of various groups from the Maratha community was held at Jedhe Mansion in Pune. V. R. Shinde firmly declared at the meeting that “I will not contest on the reserved seat since I am against the caste system”. Actually, Shinde was Maratha by caste. But he was opposed to contest on the seat reserved for the Maratha caste. Another leader, N. C. Kelkar, a follower of Tilak, was Brahmin, but he was the editor of the journal Maratha. He claimed that since he ran a paper called Maratha he should be selected for that seat. This is an example of the typically Poona-ite logic.
 
On the other hand, Shahu’s reaction to Kelkar’s claim is typically Kolhapuri. He wrote a letter to Shinde in which he made fun of Kelkar. Shahu writes, “(I can answer Kelkar’s logic.) Suppose I name my bullock ‘Britannia’, my favourite horse ‘Turkish Flag’ and my cow ‘Japanica’ would it be proper for me to claim the leadership of Japan or Turkey?”
 
Shahu tried to persuade Shinde to contest from the reserved seat. But Shinde stood his ground, inspite of Shahu’s insistence. He contested from the general seat and was defeated. Shahu supported another candidate, one Gupte, and got him elected. This action on part of Shinde indicates his concept of Bahujan. This was already clearly defined in his manifesto of the Bahujan Party and it left no scope for ambiguity.

The concept of Bahujan becomes amply clear even if we map it in terms of inclusion, exclusion and opposition. Phule advanced three pivotal points (axis’) for his definition – the shudra, the ati-shudra and women. He opposed what he called “Shethji and Bhatji”, the moneyed class and the Brahmin priest.

Shinde founded the Bahujan Party against the background of these elections. His manifesto is actually an exposition of various ‘interests’. He pointed out that the parties and organisations founded on the basis of castes and sub-castes orient their practice towards ‘sentiments’ (identity, in contemporary parlance). Their practice was not based on their social and economic interests. The castes brought together by these parties have their respective interests, and also within the castes there are various separate interests. Yet, they unite as castes. There are sections within castes outside them which have identical interests with the sections in another caste. But there was a general tendency of ignoring these identical interests dispersed in various castes.
 
That is why Shinde wrote in his manifesto, “the Bahujan Party does not stand merely on vacuous sense of identity but on solid interests. The Party undertakes to unselfishly support and encourage those interests. . . . Our colleagues may be Brahmins or non-Brahmins, they could be moderates or extremists, and they could be even Indians or foreigners . . . as long as they honestly and strongly support these interests we would cooperate with them. Otherwise we will bid adieu to them.”
 
The breadth of vision of his Party is evident when he identifies the sections he wants to organise: “Indian populace can be divided politically in two parts. One class advanced in knowledge, wealth and authority; and the other class backward in all these respects, or, Bahujan samaj.”
 
Shinde’s division is very clear. It is not based on the varna or caste distinction alone. It is based on the possession of three powers – knowledge, wealth and authority. It is obvious that the so-called advanced castes also have sections within them which do not possess these powers of knowledge, wealth and authority. These sections also become part of Shinde’s definition of the Bahujan. This is important. Some sections within the backward castes are also acquiring the powers of knowledge, wealth and authority. These cannot be included in Shinde’s concept of Bahujan. This is the reason why he firmly rejected to be called Brahminetar – Non-Brahmin.
 
Concepts like non-Brahmin, non-Maratha are once again being advanced in Maharashtra. These words are being used to indicate castes determined by birth. As the use of caste words/descriptions have become problematic owing to the constitutional provisions, political parties are wary of using them in in their names. They try to circumvent constitutional constraints. The fact is that there are separate political parties and organisations in Maharashtra championing the sectarian interests of various castes, both advanced and backward. Once the veil is thrown open, the caste concealed within is laid bare.
 
Shinde included eight classes (varga is Shinde’s word) within the ambit of his Bahujan Party. They were:
 

 
We have noted how Shinde excluded the powerful and dominant sections among these categories from his concept of Bahujan.
 
The task ahead
 
Various parties basing on caste identities are trying to test their electoral strength even today. They are dividing society on the basis of caste and religious identities instead of uniting them around common ‘interests’. They use the names of Phule and Ambedkar. Let them do so. But they should seriously take into account Vitthal Ramji Shinde’s concept of Bahujan. If they do not find it useful, they are free to reject it. But they should reject it after serious consideration. They should reject it on empirical evidence; if it is possible to do so. My only appeal is Vitthal Ramji Shinde should not be ignored. It will not be in the interests of the Bahujans. Many do not include Shinde’s name along with Phule–Shahu –Ambedkar. This is being unjust to him.
 
(Translated from Marathi by Dr. Uday Narkar; excerpted from The Republic of Reason published by SAHMAT, New Delhi and released on November 1, 2015; we have edited the copy)

The post Its time for a Bahujan rethink appeared first on SabrangIndia.

So, for instance, the same textbook pays lip service to political correctness through a fleeting reference to the fact that the varna system later became hierarchical, but in the same chapter, a few paragraphs later, literally extols the virtues of the intent of the varna system itself.

There is also no attempt nor desire, either in this text or the ICSE texts to explain the inhuman concept of ‘untouchability’ (based on the notion, “so impure as to be untouchable”) that Jyotiba Phule and B.R. Ambedkar made it their life’s mission to challenge, socially and politically. In understanding and teaching about caste, both this text and other ICSE texts display a marked reluctance to admit or link the ancient-day varna system to modern-day Indian social reality.

“The ‘Varna’ System: The Varna system was a precious gift of the Aryans to the mankind. It was a social and economic organisation of the society built on the basis of the principle of division of labour. Learning or education, defence, trade and agriculture and service of the community are inseparable organs of the social fabric. The Aryans divided the society into four classes or ‘varnas’. Those who were engaged in the pursuit of learning and imparted education were called ‘Brahmins or Purohits (the priestly classes). Those who defended the country against the enemy were called the Kshastriyas or the warrior class. Those who were engaged in trade agriculture were called the Vaishyas. And those who acted as servants or slave of the other three classes were called the Shudras. In the beginning, there were no distinction of ‘high’ and low. The varna or class of a person was decided not on the basis of birth but on the basis of his work or karma. Thus a person born of a Shudra father could become a Brahmin by acquiring learning or by joining the teaching profession…In course of time however, the varna system became corrupted and ‘birth’ rather than ‘vocation’ came to be accepted as the distinguishing feature of the varna system. Thus society was permanently divided into a hierarchy of classes. The Brahmins were regarded as the highest class while the Shudras were treated as the lowest. These distinctions have persisted in spite of the attempts made by reformers to remove them. Yet, the importance of the ‘Varna’ system as an ideal system of building the social and economic structure of a society cannot be overlooked”. (Emphasis added).

(Social Studies text, Gujarat State Board, Std. IX)
The only reference in this standard IX text to the indignities of the caste system as it exists today is through an attempt to blame the plight of the untouchables on their own illiteracy and blind faith.
“Problems of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Of course, their ignorance, illiteracy and blind faith are to be blamed for lack of progress because they still fail to realise importance of education in life. Therefore, there is large-scale illiteracy among them and female illiteracy is a most striking fact. (Emphasis added). ” 

(Social Studies text, Gujarat State Board, Std. IX)
The ICSE texts are similarly non-critical and evasive. 
The New ICSE History and Civics, edited by Hart and Barrow, Part 1 has this to say.
“The Caste System: The division of society into four varnas (classes) had its origin in the Rig Vedic period. Members of the priestly class were called brahmins; those of the warrior class, kshatriyas; agriculturists and traders, vaisyas; and the menials, sudras. It is said that the caste system in the Rig Vedic times was based on occupations of the people and not on birth. Change of caste was common. A Brahmin child could become a kshatriya or a vaisya according to his choice or ability…

“Varna in Sanskrit means the colour of skin and the caste system was probably used to distinguish the fair coloured Aryans from the dark coloured natives. The people of higher castes (brahmins, kshatriyas, and vaisyas) were Aryans. The dark skinned natives were the sudras, the lowest class in society, whose duty was to serve the high class. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 1999, Anniversary Issue (6th) Year 7  No. 52, Cover Story 2

The post ‘Caste is a precious gift’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.