Author: P. N. Benjamin
Publication: The Hindu
Date: August 28, 2001
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.
