[Reader-list] Fwd: Interview of Anand Teltumbde by Bhupen Singh

[Asit Das]

*1.** **How would you trace the historical reasons of caste system?***

Many scholars have attempted to reason out the bewildering phenomenon of
castes in India but there is no unanimity on any of them. Some kind of
social stratification is observed in all ancient societies that lead some
people to belittle the uniqueness of the Indian caste system but that
should be dismissed as ignorance or motivated opinion. The uniqueness of
the caste system lies in its persistent survival; whereas all other
societies have rid themselves of such stratifications, the Indian caste
system still defies solution. Neither people know how this vile system
originated nor do they seem to know how it would be annihilated.

Therefore, I need not pretend to have a precise answer to this question.
However, I do reckon that the answer must be searched in India’s unique
material endowment than the notions like some Aryan coming and imposing
their ideas over the vast tract of the subcontinent. I tend to see India’s
natural endowment as unique in its flat lands, plentiful rainfall and
sunshine; fertility of land, etc. which enabled the wandering tribes to
settle for agriculture without undergoing any structural change. Elsewhere,
they gave rise to serfdom, etc. because their natural endowment provided a
narrow window for cultivation and harvesting, which warranted therefore
large tracts of lands and huge army of serfs to accomplish the task within
the available time. To avoid contention for the surplus product, they
accepted some division. This primary division evolved over time into an
elaborate caste system with the rise of monarchy. The Untouchability may
have been the result of subjugation of alien tribes through fierce battles
when geographical expansion took place with monarchical logic. In brief,
this is my own way of understanding the historical reason for the caste
system.

*2.** **With reference to caste annihilation, how do you analyze Gandhi,
Ambedkar and Marxism? ***

Gandhi’s concern for castes and communities emanated basically from his
anxiety to establish social harmony which was vital for constructing India
for the progress of the emergent capitalist class, of which he was a
representative. He was not against the caste system as such. He rather
tried to glorify the caste dharma by adopting the *bhangi*ship himself to
stress the point that people should discard the notion of
inferiority/superiority associated with their caste vocation and continue
to perform their caste duty. His entire action is oriented to brush all the
contradictions under carpet with such ephemeral notions such as trusteeship
(labour-capital contradiction), communal harmony (hindu-muslim
contradictions) and harijan (glorification of the untouchables). He did not
try to resolve any of them.

Ambedkar, as we all know, specifically came out with the slogan of
‘annihilation of castes’. He was the first visionary who saw that India
cannot have future with castes being alive. His analysis of castes however
was constricted by his ideological proclivities, which saw their roots in
the Hindu religious scriptures (Dharmashastras). It drove him to see
religious conversion as the solution. It reflected a kind of ‘communitarian
strategy’ to merge into an existing religious community, as he had
explained to his activists in 1936. Alas, his prescriptions also have not
worked and castes keep on teasing us with its ever increasing complexity.

Marx aimed to eliminate all familiar evils of the human world through a
scientific approach of dialectical materialism, which he saw underscoring
all changes in history. His reference to castes occurs in his journalistic
writings and his theorizations on Asiatic mode of production (AMP). Marx
saw castes as feudal contrivance which will be destroyed in the onslaught
of capitalist development. Many people, particularly those who would like
to see him failed, think that he is irrelevant as far as caste system is
concerned. I think this sweeping judgement is wrong. Capitalist development
did impact caste in their ritual aspects and the castes that we encounter
are much of the intrigues of the ruling classes who gave them new lease of
life through the modern institutions. Marx is much misunderstood because of
his metaphor’ base and superstructure’, which the Marxists, particularly
the Indian Marxists have turned into a veritable dogma to ignore the caste
issue and belittle all non-economic struggles, including Ambedkar’s. This
was hugely unfortunate, creating a permanent rift between the proletarians
of this land.

My take on this issue is that castes being essentially a divisive category
cannot be the basis of articulating any struggle aimed at radical social
change and therefore needs to be shun altogether. In corollary, one needs
therefore to look for another category, necessarily class. I would see
Marxist tools of analysis greatly aiding our endeavors in accomplishing
Ambedkar’s dream of annihilation of castes.

*3.** **What are your views on identity politics especially in the Indian
context? ***

Man, as a social animal, wears several identities right from his birth,
which survive for varied lengths of time. These identities have varied
political significance and hence it might appear natural that they are used
for politics by identity holders. But in my opinion all identity politics
is basically divisive and deflective from the core emancipatory issue. Even
the identities such as nationality, which assumes universal valorization is
no exception. There could be motivated debate on what is core emancipatory
issue but I do not think there could be much dispute over it if one
objectively analyze the human situation. The root of the evil in human
society is to be traced to accumulation drive in man and identities are
just the contrivance to serve it. Therefore, focusing on identities become
treating mere symptoms ignoring the disease. For the argument sake, some
identities may be tactically viable as a basis for politics in some
historical phase (as in case of nationalities against colonialism) if one
is acutely conscious of it. But some identities are intrinsically unviable.
I consider caste identities one such.

*4.** **Keeping in mind the myth of Mahisasurand latest politics which is
being played out around this symbol. Do you think a fight can be combated
against caste system while ignoring the political economy? ***

No. I do not consider caste system can be effectively combated deploying
myths of Mahisyasurs or Macaulay. Those who try such things tacitly reflect
the notion that caste is just a myth that can be countered by counter-myth.
They as such belittle the vileness of the caste system. Such propositions
create sensation and therefore attract attention of media and people. They
get huge publicity. I heard some time back of a myth raised in the form of
English goddess and Thomas Babington Macaulay being the benefactor of
Dalits. Such idiosyncratic propositions have huge sensational value and
hence received huge publicity in media. It serves the interests of the
ruling classes also in much enduring ways inasmuch as it deflects attention
of the victims from the perpetrators. It targets abstraction and hence
appeals to vast middle classes which relish mouthing slogans without
risking anything. From time to time such myths are manufactured projecting
them as cultural weapons to combat the caste system but they have only
served the purpose to deflect the attention of Dalits from the systemic
wrongs being perpetrated by the entrenched classes and castes and their
instrument, the Indian state.

*5.** **A section of people claim that Marxism can not address the caste
issue. Your views? ***

Marxism, as a ‘science’ can and must address the issue of caste as well as
all other evils provided it is rid of dogma its practitioners made it to
be. Marxism or whichever name you may give it, in my conception is a
science of society, quite like natural science, and should be dynamically
correcting itself taking into account new evidence. Marxism is not
something fossilized body of opinion expressed by Marx or Engels. Much of
Marx’s formulation begs for correction today in view of the changes that
have befallen the world particularly as a result of advances in science
technologies. Unfortunately, the adherents of Marxism have made it into
quasi religion. The class approach characterizes Marxism was surely useful
to tackle castes but it required proper class analysis of the Indian
society incorporating castes as the ‘life world’ of people. But the early
communists, true to their brahmanic culture used the Russian moulds for
mapping the Indian society and conceived classes leaving behind an idiotic
duality of class and caste. This is not Marxism. Even if they had used
Lenin’s definition of classes, theIndian classes could have incorporated
castes and the Indian class struggle therefore would have incorporated the
caste struggle, eliminating the parallel (or divergent) streams of
anti-caste and class struggles or at least making them complementary.

*6.** **How do you analyze the idea of‘Dalit Capitalism’ and its ideologues?
***

It is a non-sense pure and simple. It is also an idiosyncratic idea to
create sensation in media and create identitarian confusion in masses. But
I suspect it is not even that. It is a deliberate ploy to promote the
interests of global capital. The media upholds it for its sensation value
and its neoliberal content. The Dalit middle classes relish it because it
gives them identitarian kick and the Dalit masses follow them in
bewilderment as they did all these years. The Indian state is overjoyed and
welcomes its proponents with red carpet. Which other burning issue of
Dalits was promptly acted upon by the Indian state as it instituted
reservations for these upstarts, the so called Dalit entrepreneurs in
public procurements and contracts. Look, there have been rich individuals
all the time and even Dalit entrepreneurs. The official definition of
entrepreneurship is one who follows self employment. In that sense, even a
roadside cobbler mending shoes is an entrepreneur. Government’s economic
censuses so far from 1990, 1998 and 2005 reveal that the proportion of
Dalit entrepreneurship in total has been falling during the globalization
period, contrary to the lie propagated by these dalit capitalists. There is
nothing wrong if Dalit individuals take up capitalist vocation for their
progress. But given the fact that 90 % of Dalits are faced with basic
problems of survival, to propagate idiotic ideas that dalits should turn
capitalists, or globalization has benefitted Dalits, etc. are the worst
sins that could be committed against them. I am speaking with authority of
one who is formally trained in technology and management from the best
institutes in the country, as practitioner who reached the highest position
as CEO of a holding company surely knowing what modern business and
entrepreneurship is, as a professor of International management in equally
high ranking institute and with huge credentials as an activist and
theoretician of issues of downtrodden people. I am not dishing out rhetoric
with my petty personal interests and half-baked theories feigning
intellctualism.

*7.** **Some Flag bearers of Dalit politics do justify the colonialism,
notably the education system of Lord Maculae. They also sing praises of
English language and culture against the cultural hegemony of Brahmanism.
How would you respond to this?***

I think I have covered this issues above. There is no doubt that cultural
combat is necessary in anti-caste struggle but it is not at the cost of the
political economy. To cultural argument could be very slippery if it is not
attuned to the material argument. It may massage identitarian egos of
people but in ultimate analysis, they could be injurious to their
interests.



*                        8. How do you look atthe caste based reservation
policy of Indian state? Is it                                 really
helpful in theannihilation of caste or it is just a safety valve of ruling
class?***

Reservations must have been a veritable dilemma for Babasaheb Ambedkar who
had rationally come to the conclusion that castes needed to be completely
annihilated but had to simultaneously empower dalits to accomplish that
goal. The latter could be done necessarily on the basis oftheir caste
identity and hence there was an inherent contradiction betweenthese two
goals. The contradiction could be reconciled as the contradiction
betweenthe long term and the short term. While one strived for annihilation
of castes, one had to ensure that the Dalits survive in prevailing society
and reservations were meant for their survival and empowerment. While I
concede that there was no easy solution to this dilemma unless the Left
forces had internalized their historic responsibility and waged a
revolutionary class struggle embedding the anti-caste struggle as its
integral part, which the Left miserably failed in because of their
brahmanistic attitude, there was still scope to creatively conceive the
support system like reservation so as to make it complementary to the
project of annihilation of castes. There is no doubt that given the
societal attitudes, reservations to the dalits was necessary. But this
consideration itself should indicate whose disability is warranting
theantidote of reservations. It was the disability of the Indian society
that warranted the countervailing force of the state to ensure that dalits
got their due share. If it was conceived in this manner, theonus of
annihilation of castes could have been borne by the larger society, as it
should be. The society should have internalized its guilt and striven to do
away its disability as soon as possible. It could thus have been sans
social stigma that cast so much psychological burden on dalits boys and
girls that they perpetually lack in competition. That way, the exceptional
policy of reservation could have been self terminating, as it ought to be.
While caste basis could not be avoided one could still make family unit as
the beneficiary, eliminating the fallacy of making the caste pay the costs
while individual receivesthe benefit. By this family that availed of
reservation could have been progressively excluded from the future
reservations and avoided the sub-caste dynamics that has come to the fore
because of the nature of policy that benefits increasingly smaller and
smaller numbers. In absence of any other basis than caste, naturally people
could be instigated to see things in caste terms. This is what is behind
the conflicts among Dalit sub castes, negating the Ambedkar’s dream of
annihilation.

The prevailing policy, apparently premised on thebackwardness of dalits
puts a premium on backwardness, opens a pandora’s box of claims of all
castes to be backward and thereby wanting reservations. Theprevailing
policy seen as undue favour to dalits and thereby makes them subject of
grudge of the entire society. In the ensuing conflictual context Dalits
wouldzealously preserve their privilege and make the policy perpetual and
thereby extending the life of the caste system. The second logic behind the
reservation is representational logic, which again appeals naturally to
anyone unless one is well-equipped to see transition in class of the
beneficiaries. If one objectively assess the experience, this logic has not
worked at all. Therefore I would say that within the given constraints and
limitations also the policy could have been devised to serve the goal of
annihilation of castes. But it did not happen. Perhaps the ruling classes
intrigued to have it that way. many ills that we confront vis-à-vis
reservations would have been eliminated. Coming back to your question,
there is no doubt that the prevailing policy has served theruling class
interests more than it did dalits’.

Standing at this moment, one could see that reservations have been rendered
meaningless by globalization. The total jobs in the public sector have been
consistently declining from their peak in 1997, which clearly means that
the reservations in net terms have ended in 1997 itself. But thevested
interests among dalits do not let the masses know this. Perhaps they
themselves do not now it or do not wish to know it. It is extremely
unfortunate.



*9.** **In your opinion, which is the most logical approach to abolish the
caste? ***

Castes today operate largely as a cultural residue on the one hand and on
the other as a contrivance of the ruling classes to perpetrate exploitation
of people. There could be multiple strategies to combat castes. One of the
structural methods that can effectively achieve it is to involve people in
production system such as cooperatives that will intermingle their material
interests. Cooperative farming proposed by Ambedkar in *States and
Minorities*could have been a good example of this. There should be
persistent education of people against the myths and decadent traditions
and religious rituals. The Left and Dalits have a big role in building sans
caste movement of people based on material issues of people. These are some
of the measures that will surely weaken castes. But despite that a section
of people may defy all of them and may commit caste atrocity. They need to
be dealt with force, as a shock treatment. The movement should be able to
strike them physically to teach a lesson. This is not an emotional
response; it is based on solid scientific basis which I can explain to
anyone*. *This is the near scientific package I can suggest as a anti-caste
strategy.