Author: P. N. Benjamin
Publication: The Hindu
Date: August 28, 2001
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com//2001/08/28/stories/13280612.htm
I AM provoked to write this after reading
several articles and statements of well known writers and intellectuals and
representatives of NGOs - call them, dalit warriors - in The Hindu for some
time now, criticising the Indian Government's alleged attempts to thwart a
debate on caste-based discrimination in the coming United Nations World Conference
against Racism in Durban.
"The great men, who in France prepared
men's minds for the coming revolution, were themselves extreme revolutionaries.
They recognised not external authority of any kind whatever. Religion, natural
science, society, political institutions - everything was subjected to the
most unsparing criticism. Everything must justify its existence before the
judgment-seat of reason or give up its existence''. (Frederick Engels in Socialism:
Utopian and Science.)
Engels wrote the above lines while defining
the social context of pre-revolution France. We know that the French Revolution
was preceded by stages of renaissance and reformation. We also know that any
intellectual who could be even remotely described as "progressive'' then,
had targeted Church as the fountainhead of obscurantism. Without dismantling
the Church's regulatory authority, the French Revolution, one of the most
celebrated events in world history, may have remained meaningless.
In our country, regulatory authority of caste
or varna institutions is even more decisive than the Church could ever exercise.
But can we recall any phase in our history, comparable with Renaissance or
Reformation? Barring the dalits, what is the track record of intellectuals
on the question of caste division and dominance? Further, most societies that
can claim to be modern today have had at least one rupture or a revolution
that decisively negated value systems and institutions of the past. We cannot
cite even one such event in India's long history.
A milestone
For dalits, January 26, 1950 is the only such
event that, although not a revolution, was definitely a sort of rupture in
our country's history. Adoption of a Constitution that officially abolished
untouchability and caste discriminations, and directs the state to reorganise
Indian society along democratic lines, is a milestone. Lest ambiguity should
become a tool to browbeat constitutional verdict, as spelt out in its Preamble,
the Indian state is directed to accord due representation to out-castes and
tribals, in every branch of the state and complement it with various socio-educational-economic
measures.
Despite the well-defined notion of state in
the constitution and categorical directive to the Republic regarding dalits,
representation in all walks of life, successive governments have mocked at
the constitutional verdict. The Congress Governments confined dalits' representation
to legislative bodies and the executive. They ruled out dalit participation
in the country's economic activities, public institutions, academics in particular,
and areas of mass communications. As a result, the Indian state under the
Congress stood as a mute witness to the continued subversion of its own ideals
spelt out clearly in the Constitution. The situation is not different today.
So, why do the NGOs and `intellectuals' indulge in bashing the NDA Government
alone for its "upper-caste bias" and for "throttling any move
to raise the (dalit) issue in the U.N. conference?''
By definition, any organisation outside the
government, registered or unregistered, that seeks to address issues of society
is an NGO. What we understand by the term "NGO'' (Non- Governmental Organisation)
today are those organisations, registered under the Societies Registration
Act, which seek funds from corporate houses, Government or foreign agencies.
Then there are the foundations or trusts, which do not directly undertake
issues themselves, but create a fund only to support "deserving'' NGOs,
which do "good" work. The money involved in NGO operations is huge.
For example, it is said that the New Delhi office of Ford Foundation alone
has sanctioned around U.S. $ 300 millions to various organisations since 1952.
The NGO concept revolves around the basic
premise that the state, by virtue of being "state", cannot be `sensitive'
and `imaginative' enough to understand and address people's problems. And
another assumption is that the `civil society', by definition, is more `imaginative'
and more forward looking than the state. Both these assumptions do not hold
good in the Indian context.
Pertinent questions
Some pertinent questions could be asked at
this stage. What is the social vision of NGOs? Or, to be precise, what is
NGOs' perception of the Indian Republic and society? Where do dalits stand
today vis-`-vis institutions of the state, and institutions that are outside
the state? Is there any institution or NGOs other than the Indian State that
make specific provision of representation to dalits? What is the proportion
of dalits in the corporate-like offices of the NGOs? What is the position
of dalits in their workforce and what percentage of the money funding agencies
granted has been utilised for the upliftment of dalits? An individual's or
organisation's social doctrine is best reflected by its actions. If an organisation,
as against the constitutional verdict of 22.5 per cent representation to the
dalits, is not prepared to accord at least one per cent representation, it
has no legal sanctity to exist. If NGOs cannot give representation to dalits,
what is the guarantee that they are not working against the interests of the
dalits? The NGOs thrive on state bashing but can we recall one major NGO,
which has produced a worthwhile critique of the varna or caste order?
NGOs have slowly but steadily not only robbed
the state, corporate houses, and foreign funding agencies but also robbed
space available to social movements. If every institution in India must justify
its existence before the judgment seat of the Constitution, can the NGOs which
are only legitimising dalits' exclusion and questioning the state's sovereign
authority, and that too from a higher `moral' pedestal, be permitted to go
scot free?
Be that as it may, the tragedy of the dalits
is that Dr. Ambedkar's legacy, which ought to operate outside Hindu religion,
has also not succeeded in breaking the status quo. Dr. Ambedkar felt that
organisation, education and agitation would enable the dalits to reverse caste
prejudices. As it has turned out, dalit political groups are totally disorganised.
Education has only led to the emergence of a dalit elite class, which has
slowly distanced itself from agitational dalit politics. Dalit movements have
either been absorbed within mainstream parties or else have degenerated into
negative militancy. The deification of Dr. Ambedkar by building statues in
every village appears to have taken precedence over any fight for equal rights.
Self-seeking status quoists.
Dalit activists 20 or 30 years ago may have
been expected to launch agitations to create public awareness against atrocities
against them in various parts of the country. Today, caught up in factional
politics, and bereft of any ideology, these very leaders appear unwilling
to disturb the existing caste equations. These self-seeking status quoists
have only aided in pushing the outcastes out of our society, out of the mainstream.
Dalit politicians holding very high political posts have in practice proved
to be "Uncle Toms" because of the compulsions of Indian polity.
What the dalits need today is an effective
and sagacious leadership and not raising their problems in the UN World Conference
against Racism. What Dr. Ambedkar said long ago about the dalit leaders being
`selfish' and quarrelsome on `petty matters' is still true. There is however
no reason to be despondent because there are still many far-sighted and levelheaded
leaders among them who can guide the dalit community to achieve its aims.
The real protection of the dalits as also
of other underprivileged sections in the community lies in their being organised
and led in active mass movement committed to awaken and activate them in defence
of their interests. This is a task which has always been the primary responsibility
of political parties committed to socio-economic transformation of our present
set-up. Here lies the failure of the Indian Left. In their blind craze for
parliamentary democracy the Left parties have forgotten their primary duty
to mobilise and organise the masses against all forms of vested interests.
Rather, one witnesses today the strange spectacle of the parties of the Left
ganging up with those very forces, which are the political representatives
of gun-wielding rural rich.
