Arguing against Inclusion Author(s): Anupama Rao Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.

32, No. 8 (Feb. 22-28, 1997), pp. 427-428 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405129 . Accessed: 29/05/2012 04:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

DISCUSSION

Arguing against Inclusion

Anupama Rao
IN a recent piece 'Gandhi-Ambedkar Interface: When Shall the Twain Meet?' (EPW,August3, 1996), SuhasPalshikarhas suggested that we locate Gandhi and Ambedkar within a common discursive field by highlighting their [Gandhi and Ambedkar's]intense commitmentto emancipatory ideologies. He notcs: "The discourses of Gandhi and Ambedkarwere not antithetical.Therefore it is possible to think in terms of common concerns and potentialgrounds for dialogue between the two discourses"(p 2072). He arguesthatthe problem casteandtheanalysisofcapitalism of - commonly perceived to be the two sites of major disagreement and divergence in Gandhianand Ambedkarite thought- might actually contain nodes of convergence betweenthe two thinkers.Palshikarasks that we go beyond the "assumptionthatGandhiAmbedkar clashes resulted from their personalities, as well as their respective positioning in the contemporary political contexts" (p 2070), to focus on the "[visualisation]ofacomunity basedonjustice andfraternity" 2072), thatunderwrote the (p Gandhian and Ainbedkarite project(s). In brief, the author asks us to ignore the contditionts production that made these of discourses possible, asking instead for a reading of Gandhi and Ambedkar as ideologues of emancipation. In this brief response, I suggest that Gandhi and Ambedkar'sthought was situated within a historical and political context, and that themin termsof anabstract notion evaluating of emancipation is distorting. Further, Palshikar does not offer his re-evaluationin the spiritof proposingtheir interventionsas viable for political action today. His interest in bringingthese thinkerstogether is often confusing and contradictory,and does not servetoemphasisethepoliticalcommitments, and the historical context, that underwrote their struggles. A majorproblemwith Paishikar'scall for convergenceliesin arguingforitatanabstract level, withouta clarificationas to what was concretely shared between Gandhi and Ambedkar'semancipatoryideology. Hence an emancipatoryideology is perceived in broadhumaniststrokes as a commitmentto social justice, equality, the communitarian good,etc. In fact, the essay is full of attempts to cover over ideological stances that were activelyantagonisticto each other.Take for instancethe discussion of satyagrahawhere Palshikarmaintains first, that it was not extended to the struggle against "caste and caste-based inequality";second, the satyagraha "as a political weapon is adequately demonstrated by Gandhi's thought and practice": third,thatwhile Gandhiargued and that the moral responsibilityof eradicating caste lay with caste Hindus, it was carried as stigma by the untouchablebody (p 2070). Througheach of these instances,the lack of fit between a radicalagenda for the annihilation of caste such as Ambedkar's, and Gandhi's moral condemnation of caste hierarchyand oppressionbecomes evident, and disallows the charting of a common agenda.Thereis also a problemwith the way Palshikarreads Gandhi as "not trappedin formulatinganti-west nationalism",yet engaged in a devastatingcritiquenf capitalist relations of production(p 2071). The connectionsbetweennationalism thecritique and of capital are not at all clear, and confuse the readeras to whether we are to concentrateon the problem of nationalism and modernityat all, since nothingmore is said of the matterin the rest of the essay;I What is meant really by 'anti-west nationalism'? In the context of colonialism can there be another sort? Again, in the reading of Ambedkar, wouldseem as thoughPalshikar it conflates the problem of modernity for Ambedkar with his understandingof the work of the economy. He writes "He [Ambedkar]might have looked upon forces of modernityas cutting at the root of caste society and thereforewas not convinced of the 'evils' involved in modernity".But the next paragraph begins with "...it would be wrong to believe that Ambedkar upheld capitalismuncritically" 2071). In making (p a connection between capitalism and modernity without arguing about their connections in the historical context of colonial India, Palshikar elides the entire problemof nationalism,what the discourse of modernity can look like in a colonial situation, and the problem that caste raises for the project of modernity in particular. Paishikarhas arguedfor a theoryof reading which is blind to the particularities the of socio-political production of personalities and ideas. He suggests that to support the commitment to social justice and emancipationin evidencetodaynecessarilyinvolves the attemptto bridgethedifferencesbetween Gandhiand Ambedkar.But clearly, serious historicalanalysisandpoliticalcritiquedoes not proceed from the assumption that 'personalities'and great men make history;

historyis not merelythe productof factional rivalries and personal clashes. The, attempt to read as emancipatory ideology the political analyses that mark these discourses is ratherdisturbingin other ways as well. Forinstance,ourunderstanding of the historic confrontationbetween caste struggles and nationalism as played out in the Poona Pact, for example, is compromised.2(Oddly, Palshikarsuggests that the problem of separate electorates is an unimportantpoint, since it "[did] not form (p thecore of Ambedkar'sthoughts" 2070).3 There can be no denial of the problem of caste for representative democracy. The entrance of this historically and culturally specific formof inequality(orcastedisability it) as Ambedkarunderstands into the sphere of unmarkedand disembodied citizenship, thinkingregarding is criticalfor Ambedkar's question the problemof representation.4The for him is, who will representthe depressed classes, ratherthan who will representthe nation at large? It is difficult to see how the problemof when electoratesbecomesincidental separate in fact Ambedkar's demand pointedly critiques the abstractand empty notions of animatinguppercaste elites. representation the Ambedkarasks for rethinking veryspace of politics when he suggests that for truly democracy,compensationfor representative historical injustice must exist alongside receivednotionsofcitizenship.5Themoment one asks how Gandhi and Ambedkar understood their respective emancipatory ideologies to be p)olitical. one will have to make a distinctionbetween theirdiscourses. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that in Palshikar'sown analysis of the Gandhian and Ambedkariteagendas, there is a great effort to reconcile radically different ideological premises; that the exercise succeeds only at the level of some notion of 'the common good' that braid together these discourses. The content of these discourses (i e, Palshikar's exposition of Gandhi and Ambedkar'sactual analysis of caste and capitalism) itself reveals the gulf that separates the two thinkers. To returnto the problemof politics. The difference in the understandingof caste is fundamentalsince it underpinsGandhiand Hindu Ambedkar'sunderstandingofcapital, society, historical process, and modernity. Palshikarnotes Ambedkar'scrucial underas standingof untouchability bodily stigma. The presenceof the untouchablesignals the existence of untouchabilityas practice,and caste as critical to constitutingpersonhood. Incontrast, Palshikar as himselfnotes,Gandhi opts for a view of Hindusociety as a system where the main contradictionhappensto be

Economic and Political Weekly

February22, 1997

427

its decisions on caste crime, i e, untouchability, ofan Ideology:Ambedkar'sPoliticala the non-inclusion of Harijansin the Hindu ndSocial and reify it in the game of identification and Thought, Sage, New Delhi, 1993; Eleanor fold. While Gandhi's analysis rests on a numbersthat is reservation,for instance. But Zelliot, 'Dr Ambedkar and the Mahar sense of Harijan deprivation, it is fundasucha reviewof selectedaspectsof Ambedkar's Movement' (doctoral dissertation,University mentallyunableto incorporatethe elements thought is fraught with risk, in that it might of Pennsylvania, 1969). of structured violence and coercion that too easily become grist for a dominant anti- 4 See Etienne Balibar, 'Subjection and characterise Ambedkar' s analysis. dalit and anti-Ainbedkarite sensibility Subjectivation'in JoanCopjec (ed), Supposing Ambedkar'sanalysis of caste as lived pracin uninterested exploringtheproblematic the Subject, Verso, London, 1986:1-15. Also sphere tice grounded in violence contrasts with ofpoliticscreatedbyacolonial andbrahminical Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studieson Politics and order. For an excellent critique of "casteism Philosophy Before andAfterMarx,Routledge, Gandhi'sunderstanding caste as abstracof from the left", see SharadPatil, 'Democracy: New York, 1994. ted system, whose (negative) effects are to Brahminicaland Non-Brahminical',Fr(ontier, 5 The term 'compensatory discrimination' is a be ameliorated through the moral reSeptember 30-October 21, 1995: 42-46. term used by Marc Galanterin his important education of the upper castes. If we are 3 See JayashreeGokhale, From Concessions to work on caste and the law. Marc Galanter, asked to see these two discourses as being Confrontation: The Politics of an Indian CompetingEqualities: Law and the Backward is only by risking a complementary, it Unttouchable Cotinmunity, PopularPrakashan, Castes in India, Universityof CaliforniaPress, historical amnesia regarding the various Bombay, 1993; M S Gore, Thte Social Context Berkeley, 1984. challengesto a homogeneous national identity posed by struggles aroundvarious markers of difference (caste, gender, region and so SAMEEKSHA TRUST BOOKS forth),which have contributedto a differentiated entry into the domain of citizenship. Selections of Articles from Economic and Political Weekly If we are to talk about a rapprochement General Editor: Ashok Mitra between Gandhi and Ambedkar, it is necessaryto work throughthis fundamental contradiction, between an abstract notion of the citizen bearing universalised values, Editedby and the diverse and discrepantparts it contains in practice. Deepak Nayyar How might we differently position these thinkersas debatingthe problem of politics A selection of essays presenting the main strands in the debate on and citizenship, ratherthan engaging them industrialisationin India.The contributorsanalyse the factors underlying in a discussion of emancipationwhich does the deceleration in industrialgrowthfromthe mid-1960s to the mid-1970s not ask concrete questions tor the present? and discuss the conditions and policies for a return to the path of I want to suggest that it might be more sustained growth. Alternative hypotheses about the macroeconomic fruitfulto look into the interests that might determinantsof and constraints on industrialgrowthin Indiaare examined, be served by eliding the significant diffocusing on the performance of the agriculturalsector, intersectoralterms ferences between Gandhi and Ambedkar; of trade between agricultureand industry,disproportionalitieswithinand that we struggle to maintain the tension between sectors, the level of investment in the economy, the nexus between their political agendas. It is in the between public and private investment and the relative significance of space between them that we might find an supply and demand constraints. answerto the problemsof caste, culture,and democracy that continue to haunt us. 362 pages Rs 275

Industrial Growth and Stagnation

Notes
I For one argument about Gandhi's location
outsidethediscourseof colonial modernity,see Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thoutght tile and ColoniialWoirld: Derivative Discourse? Zed A Books, London and New York, 1986. 2 1 am arguingagainst the Gandhianreading of caste as a social evil, and for a deeper understandingof the politics animating his constructionof the category of 'society'. It is only by understanding problemof caste as the political, as Ambedkar does, that we can illuminate his view of representative democracy as an institutionof modernitycrucial for the annihilationof caste and caste disabilities. We can, of course, critique Ambedkar's commitment to parliamentaryprocess and to the law as a key locus for the arbitration caste of identity. One thinks especially of the contradictoryand problematicways in which the historyof the UntouchabilityOffences Act of 1955, and its successors, have interacted with the history of policies of 'compensatory discrimination',as Marc Galantercalls them, culminatingin Mandal.Herethe legal apparamus has both sought to erase caste stigma through

Poverty and Income Distribution

Editedby

K S Krishnaswamy
While there has been, over the years, a perceptible increase in per capita income and expenditure and possibly some decline in the incidence of poverty in India, what still remains is massive and of a kind that is not remedied quickly or smoothly. Even with radical policies, the shifts in income and occupational structures to make a serious dent on it will take more than the rest of this century. Inthe welter of recent exchanges between the government and the opposition as well as between planners and marketadvocates on the strategy of growth, these issues have been largely obfuscated. It is therefore more than ever necessary today to recognise the magnitude of the problem and the inadequacy of the measures adopted so far to deal with it. pp viii + 420 Available from OXFORD UNIVERSITYPRESS Bombay Delhi Calcutta Madras Rs 240

428

Economic PoliticalWeekly February 1997 and 22,