Dalit emancipation needs concrete ideas not empty slogans
Anand Singh
http://hastakshep.com/?p=31499
Although Mr. Vidya Bhushan Rawat has quoted extensively in his article to show that Ambedkar did not claim infallibility and he was opposed to Hero worship, reading his article one gets the feeling that he is hell bent on making him an infallible hero.
At the Chandigarh Seminar, what were subjected to criticism were Ambedkar's ideas. One would expect anyone who believes that Ambedkar was not infallible and who does not believe in hero worship to respond to the specific points of criticism. But Mr. Rawat instead chose to term the entire debate as a 'vicious debate'. He even goes on to attribute to some"fringe groups (it seems people on the fringe of journalism have taken the contract to term who is on the fringe of what!)" the things which were not even said during the seminar.
Neither in the approach paper, nor in the debates was it ever mentioned that 'Ambedkar has not worked for the cause of Dalits.' Nobody said during the seminar that it is time to call Ambedkar bluff". As regards the influence of an American Economist in Columbia University, it was Ambedkar who himself had said that he owed his entire intellectual life to John Dewey.
What was said during the seminar and in the debates afterwards that despite making a contribution in bringing the caste question on the national agenda, Ambedkar could not provide any comprehensive project for the emancipation of Dalit and that his ideas could help only a small minority of Dalits who have been co-opted by the ruling classes? Instead of responding to the critique and informing us as to how Ambedkar's ideas have the potential to emancipate more than 90 percent population of Dalits who toil hard in the farms and factories of this countries, Mr. Rawat first distorts the debate as per his convenience and then goes on with the hollow eulogy of Ambedkar.
In the Para 3 and 4, Mr. Rawat tries to show the socialist side of Ambedkar with the fact that he was for the nationalisation of land and against the individual farming. If Mr. Rawat had cared to read the seminar papers and if he had even bothered to follow the debates held during the 5 day seminar, he would have known that this issue was discussed at length. The nationalisation of land per se does not take any country towards socialism. It only shows Ambedkar's half-baked understanding of socialism which borders on utopian and Fabien stream. What matters is the class character of the state. Even the industrial capitalist class dreams for nationalisation of land so that it gets the raw material at low cost and enhance its profits, but it does not do so because targeting one aspect of private property would put into question the entire edifice of the system based on private property.
Anand Singh, writer is associated with Arvind memorial trust. He writes regularly for Bigul Mazdoor Akhbar and Ahwan magazine.
In Para 5 Mr. Rawat mentions about the contributions of Ambedkar, Periyar, Phule etc. But he seems to have no information or he has willingly overlooked the role of revolutionary communists in the anti-caste movements. The communists did carry out thorough and effective anti-caste propaganda and fought against the upper caste landlords during the Telengana struggle and wherever the revolutionary groups were active. In the eastern UP and Bihar, the communists were called as 'Chamar' party as they espoused the cause of the Dalits fearlessly.
In Para 6, Mr. Rawat says something which clearly shows that he has not bothered to even read the approach paper. He finds it strange that the "meeting did not discuss what failed communism in India and rather it focussed more on Ambedkar's failed mission and his ideology.' He then goes on to preach about the importance of introspection for any ideology. If he had bothered to read the approach paper he would know that the Indian communist movement was also critically analysed and its dogmatist understanding of the caste question was subjected to criticism. In fact more space was given to the critical analysis of communist movement than to Amedkar's ideas. So applying his own preaching he must first do introspection as to whether one should write an article about a seminar without even reading its approach paper. In so far as the other issues about the failure of communism in China, Russia and Eastern Europe are concerned, Mr. Rawat again departs with a prejudice that no communist think about these issues. If Mr. Rawat has an open mind, he can read the papers presented in the 1st and 2nd Arvind Memorial Seminar which were based on the problems and challenges of the labour movement and also our other literature in which we have thoroughly analysed various burning issues and challenges faced by of the communist movement at the international and national level.
In Para 7, Mr. Rawat repeats the typical accusation about the caste origin of the communists. He might claim that he is opposed to Brahmanism but he forgets that any analysis of deciding about the virtue of a person based on his caste at the time of birth is itself a Brahmanical approach. Such kind of analysis fails to understand that what is essential for a communist is not belonging to a certain lower caste at the time of birth but his ability to make a radical rupture with all property relations whichever caste he may have taken birth into. Mr. Rawat must mention whether he has conducted any survey to reach to the conclusion that 'All those who claim to work in the name of proletariat in these parties are either the too rich landed peasantry or the middle class bhadraloks of brahmanical variety who are expert in 'articulations' but their relationship with the Dalits and Shudras remain the same'. Such kind of sweeping statements reflect a certain kind of inferiority complex and do not deserve any response.
In Para 8 Mr. Rawat tries to justify why Ambedkar chose not to fight with the British but instead chose to fight the caste system. Mr. Rawat wants us to believe that Marxists talk in jargons and rhetoric, but will he enlighten us in his jargon free and non-rhetorical language as to why Ambedkar could not understand the fact that the caste system was actually strengthened during the British rule due to the unholy alliance between the British and the feudal and Brahmanical elements in India. His fear about Hindu Raj could be understood, but why was he not so fearful about the British Raj. Mr. Rawat himself writes that Ambedkar wanted to negotiate the interest of Dalits during the transfer of power. This statement itself makes it clear that Ambedkar did not want the transfer of power into the hands of the oppressed toiling people of India, he just wanted to 'negotiate their interest' with the rulers!
In the succeeding paragraphs, Mr. Rawat tries make a ridiculous attempt to defend Ambedkar's constitutionalism. He has quoted Ambedkar to prove the futility of the extra-constitutional methods. It was precisely this 'class-free' understanding of constitution and politics that was subjected to criticism during the Chandigarh Seminar as this kind of glorification of the constitutional methods and demonization of the extra-constitutional methods only ends up strengthening the rule of the exploitative ruling class. While Ambedkar was busy making the constitution, a revolt was going on in Telengana by the peasants many of whom dalits. The Indian army was brutally crushing this revolt and Ambedkar, the great Messiah of oppressed community did not speak a word against the gruesome violence committed by the bourgeois state. After all he was opposed to bloody methods, but only those of revolutionaries, not of the repressive state power!
Mr. Rawat is enamoured with the flexibility of the Indian constitution. The reality is that this flexibility has actually helped the ruling classes only as it gives them power to take away people's right as per its whims and fancies. So the people's fundamental rights are not inalienable but at the mercy of the ruling class, thanks to the Indian constitution and its supposed flexibility. Mr. Rawat is also ecstatic about the achievements of Indian democracy and its ability to give representation to the OBCs and Dalits. Curiously he does not mention that this so called Indian democracy (bourgeois democracy to be more precise!) and the Indian constitution have enabled the handful of exploiters and oppressors to gain immeasurable private wealth at the cost of the toiling masses of this country. It has actually helped only a miniscule proportion of the vocal section of lower caste to co-opt them and marginalised further the overwhelming majority of the OBCs and Dalits who are condemned to toil hard in the inhuman conditions in the factories and farms of this country.
In the last couple of paragraphs, Mr. Rawat has taken resort to empty words and hollow jargons to euolize Ambedkar and compare his vision of 'humanist India' with that of Gandhi's India. Here he wants us to believe that we only have two visions of India to choose from. He needs to be reminded that the people of India are not bound to choose from the visions propagated by the ruling classes. Although Mr. Rawat concedes that the Indian constitution is failing and the Dalit movement is not growing but curiously he does not hold 'father of the Indian Constitution' and 'Father of modern India' responsible for this. But he does not even inform us as to which particular idea of Ambedkar has not been tried and implemented so far and what specifically we need to take from his ideas. Interestingly, in a Brahmanical manner he ends up preaching about 'Prabudh Bharat' without any substance.
Anand Singh, writer is associated with Arvind memorial trust. He writes regularly for Bigul Mazdoor Akhbar and Ahwan magazine.
MUST READ
Personal attacks are bad for healthy and scientific debate
To the Self-proclaimed Teachers and Preachers : debate on 'Caste Question and Marxism'
विचारधारा और सिद्धान्त जाति हित में बदल जाते हैं !
बहस अम्बेडकर और मार्क्स के बीच नहीं, वादियों के बीच है
दुनिया भर में अंबेडकर की प्रासंगिकता को लोग खारिज करके मुक्ति संग्राम की बात नहीं करते।
'हस्तक्षेप' पर षड्यन्त्र का आरोप लगाना वैसा है कि 'उल्टा चोर कोतवाल को डांटे'
यह तेलतुंबड़े के खिलाफ हस्तक्षेप और तथाकथित मार्क्सवादियों का षडयंत्र है !
भारतीय बहुजन आन्दोलन के निर्विवाद नेता अंबेडकर ही हैं
भावनात्मक कार्ड खेलकर आप तर्क और विज्ञान को तिलांजलि नहीं दे सकते
कुत्सा प्रचार और प्रति-कुत्सा प्रचार की बजाय एक अच्छी बहस को मूल मुद्दों पर ही केंद्रित रखा जाय
Reply of Abhinav Sinha on Dr. Teltumbde
तथाकथित मार्क्सवादियों का रूढ़िवादी और ब्राह्मणवादी रवैया
हाँ, डॉ. अम्बेडकर के पास दलित मुक्ति की कोई परियोजना नहीं थी
अम्बेडकरवादी उपचार से दलितों को न तो कुछ मिला है, और न ही मिले
अगर लोकतन्त्र और धर्मनिरपेक्षता में आस्था हैं तो अंबेडकर हर मायने में प्रासंगिक हैं
हिन्दू राष्ट्र का संकट माथे पर है और वामपंथी अंबेडकर की एक बार फिर हत्या करना चाहते हैं!
- because of the hatred for the Brahmanism, Ambedkar failed to understand the conspiracy of colonialism
- All experiments of Dalit emancipation by Dr. Ambedkar ended in a 'grand failure'
- Ambedkar's politics does not move an inch beyond the policy of some reforms
- दलित मुक्ति को अंजाम तक पहुँचाने के लिए अम्बेडकर से आगे जाना होगा
- ब्राह्मणवाद के विरुद्ध अपनी नफरत के कारण अंबेडकर उपनिवेशवाद की साजिश को समझ नहीं पाये
- अंबेडकर के सारे प्रयोग एक ''महान विफलता'' में समाप्त हुये – तेलतुंबड़े
No comments:
Post a Comment