[Reader-list] Re: ambedkar:icon:pros and cons

Thu Apr 21 16:29:20 IST 2005

hi prashant, 

ur irritation/discomfort arises from the fact that 
(1)leaders of the past are being appropriated by political factions today and this appropriation is merely for power, not to benefit the lives of the disadvantaged
(2)this iconization is hazardous because the disadvantaged look to these political parties for salvation but get nothing other than 'phony promises for cultural political power'
(3)when compared, u feel the politics of the hindu right might be considered less dangerous than dalit politics because atleast the former does not generate the kinds of self-destructive trends that the latter does. and the most telling sign of the failure of dalit politics is this: that it entails chaos and loss of life/limb/property without having 'helped out' its followers who continue to live in poverty and deprivation. 

firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with figures being co-opted by political groups, and merely this does not spell doom. whether we endorse or resist such party-figure associations, and why, is the important thing. as for me, i find ambedkar's ideas and work have something to offer me, so i am interested in him as an important thinker. to see this interest as 'iconizing' means that i would never be able to justify my interest in anybody's ideas!  

secondly, what constitutes successful politics, prashant? is economic/political power the only thing? why is 'cultural political power' considered phony? by what yardsticks are we measuring the usefulness or hazards of dalit politics? and why are we assuming that these are the yardsticks of the dalit movement as well?!?! you think that effective dalit politics would entail a job, a house and social security for every dalit; what if for a dalit activist, effective politics meant, alongside these material things, attacking and eroding the upper-caste mindset of the public domain? and do u really think that the movement has not resulted in more economic/political power than earlier, even if the difference is marginal? 

if politics for a dalit activist included among other things reversing an oppressive attitude, repressive symbols and icons, an unwritten code of discriminatory behaviours, and the mainstream understanding of politics constituted achieving a house/job/security, this gap tells us something. how do we understand something as nebulous as an attack on attitudes or icons as being 'political'? the exposure of this gap in the mainstream's understanding of politics owes something to the dalit movement... and we're the richer for this! 

parallels with feminist politics come rushing to my mind, and at the risk of collapsing too much too soon, i'll make a slight detour. 

it's too simplistic and reductive to say that political activity is pointless if it does not show immediate and tangible results. a constant refrain one comes across in casual conversations is: what has the women's movement really achieved for us? dowry exists, female foeticide exists, violence against women in the family and outside still exists, so how did the feminists change anything?! what is ignored here is that the struggles of the women's movement have made it possible over time to re-structure the way we speak and think of women's rights, women's issues, representation of women, issues of equality/discrimination, etc. changes occured not just in tangible, material things like access to education or jobs or marriages by choice, but also in our understanding of the family and its gendered hierarchies, of the control of female sexuality, of how women have to carry the burden of culture, of the tense relationship between law and culture, of the intense masculine nature of public spaces, etc. we dont live in a completely egalitarian society now, but we understand more and more the demands we make for 'egalitarianism'. 

an interesting example of how the terms of public debate have changed is that today a large number of debates about sex work focus on 'rights at work' regarding security, health, finances, dependents, etc. and have moved beyond the classic 'victim or villain' paradigm. true, exploitation in sex work exists, and the victim/villain paradigm is not fully dead, but today we have different participants and a differently charged language in this debate... wouldnt we be naive to say that feminist practice has not changed anything?! 

politics need not always be programmatic, with a well-defined goal and step-by-step programme chart. this is how i see it: an act does not exist in a vacuum. what is as important as doing the act, sometimes even more important, is the context of it. who did it; in response to what was it done; did it intend merely to make its presence felt, or then to intervene and destabilize; did it have only one aim, only one target audience? yes, iconizing or glamourizing figures/ideas could be counter-productive, but this doesnt take away from the significance of foregrounding certain things that are best left untouched in mainstream discourse. 

lastly, why is it that we think dalit politics affects its 'followers' only? what does dalit politics do to u and to me, non-dalits? an important aspect of dalit politics is that it makes an active dent in the imaginations of those who have had the privilege of taking too much for granted - power, education, public presence, family background, cultural capital, personal confidence. not that dalit politics is infallible, but surely we cannot direct all our questions/attacks at them, can we? is self-reflection not an effective legacy to uphold?

lakshmi.  

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 Prashant Pandey wrote :
>  HI
>hope u are doin great.their investments might be different(and its natural) but all these figures have been appropriated by political factions...do you know that ambedkars widow is still alive and living a life of poverty.  ? why doesnt BSP,Republican party etc help her out. for me Dalit Politics in india is as hazardous as the hindu right. both have created these big icons (jyotiba phule,sahuji maharaj,valmiki-dalit icons and savarkar,shivaji etc for hindu right,
>with the only difference that the politics of hindu right doesnt take way much from its follower. if i follow BJP i do not do it at the cost of my existence as i am relatively well off and can afford to be amused by the RIGHT Wing but for a poor dalit options are very limited and  sees its salvation in these political formations,which are nothing but a phony promise for cultural political power. pains me to see dalits getting killed in a stampede in a mayawati rally in lucknow. is this the legacy of ambedkars politics?
>
>
>
>
>t, 16 Apr 2005 lakshmi  kutty wrote :
> >prashant,
> >
> >glad to know that u and i share ambedkar's thoughts on the importance of not investing anything with sacredness such that it inhibits re-evaluation!
> >
> >my intention in sending the greeting across was not to suggest that he be treated akin to gods, rather to remember & value an idea that has much to offer our lives and practices today. and it is worth reiterating who/what/where we wish to draw our legacy from, isn't it?
> >
> >also, it would be interesting to discuss how/why ambedkar has come to occupy the same space in public memory (like in yours) as shivaji and savarkar. this would imply an ignorance of the vastly different political investments made by these three figures ('mythic' maybe, but political nonetheless).
> >
> >since i dont want to assume wrongly or misunderstand u, do write back...
> >
> >lakshmi.
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 Prashant Pandey wrote :
> > >this is with due respect to all the politicians and people who have fostered Ambedkars's vision at a tremendous social cost.
> > >i think its time we forget Ambedkar( and other mythic figures like Shivaji,Savarkar etc ) and move on.
> > >what he said applies to himself, isnt it ?
> > >let every 50th year convert our gods into dogs.
> > >i rather belive in "once sacred makes other always scared"
> > >prashant
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 lakshmi  kutty wrote :
> > > >To all those who cherish the spirit of relentlessly questioning and de-stabilizing the status quo... greetings on Ambedkar jayanti!
> > > >
> > > >Ideals as norms are good and are necessary. Neither a society nor an individual can do without a norm. But a norm must change with changes in time and circumstances. No norm can be permanently fixed. There must always be room for re-evaluation of the value of our norms. The possibility of revaluing values remains open only when the institution is not invested with sacredness. Sacredness prevents revaluation of its values. Once sacred always sacred.
> > > >
> > > >-Babasaheb Ambedkar
> > > >(Courtesy 'Insight', a magazine of the Ambedkar Study Circle, JNU)
> > > >_________________________________________
> > > >reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > >Critiques & Collaborations
> > > >To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> > > >List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050421/998160af/attachment.html 