CASTE VIOLENCE AS CULTURAL REPRODUCTION AND LEGITIMIZATION: READINGS FROM AMBEDKAR VIS-À-VIS POSTMODERN DISCOURSE FOR A

PHILOSOPHY OF DALIT LIBERATIONS. Lourdunathan

[May I profoundly thank and congratulate Rev. Dr. A. Selvaraj SJ for organizing this a Regional Seminar on “Dalit Movements and Violence: An Analytical-Critical Approach” sponsored by IIAS, Shimla at Indian Social Institute, Bangalore. I record my sincere appreciations to the Chairman and his council/team at IIAS, Shimla, for providing this socially relevant intellectual opportunity. Thanks to the director and all the members of ISI, Banglore for this occasion]

-o0o-

The present paper/reflection aims at a theoretical discussion for evolving a Discourse on Dalit

Emancipation from the Readings of Ambedkar vis-à-vis Postmodern Discourse. The paper

intends to argue three vital positions with reference to caste-violence.

(i) Firstly I contend that the socio-political Caste-violence deeply rooted within the

cognitive structures of Indian philosophical ethos. There is specific sense of

metaphysics of dominant presence that go to pattern Indian caste cultural ethos

that legitimize caste-based atrocities against the Dalits. If so, the task here is to

show how caste is deeply embedded in the Indian philosophical axiomatic that is

projective and pro-active towards the legitimization casteism and construct it as a

‘way of (Indian) life’.

(ii) The second important purpose is to show how caste-violence is acted out within in

Indian society as a form of cultural reproduction as to retain self-invested high

caste-supremacy over and against the downtrodden (Dalits). Hence the question is

what is meant by cultural reproduction and self-legitimization’. To this task,

Lyotard’ essay on ‘Post modern Conditions: A Report on Knowledge’ is situated

to argue that caste-violence is continue to religiously reproduce itself (karma-

(Action) transmigration(reproduction) by specific modes of cultural repetitions

and thereby gains a sort of cultural legitimacy hence casteism solidifies itself as

the way of being ‘social’(?) in India.

(iii) To confront this cognitive cum cultural ‘violence’ it is imperative, I hold, that we

need to intersect Ambedkar vis-à-vis postmodern discourse for provision of a

philosophy of Dalit liberation (theoretical skill) to confront sustainable

intellectual/ethical agenda for Dalit movements’ action-for-liberation.

Dr. S. Lourdunathan, Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar (Autnomous) College, Karumathur, Madurai – 625 514 , e-mail: nathanlourdu1960@gmail.com

Caste/State Violence against Dalits

Sept 11/12, 2011: Tension gripped southern districts of Tamilnadu, following the death of

five Dalits in police firing in Paramakudi on Sunday when they went to pay homage to Dalit

leader Immanuel Sekaran on his death anniversary. In all, police firing has been reported in

three places – Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district, Ilayankudi in Sivagangai district and

Chinthamani in Madurai district. While three were killed in the firing at Paramakudi, one

succumbed at the government hospital in Ilayankudi. Several other Dalits were injured. In

Madurai district, two Dalit youths – Balakrishnan and Jayaprasath sustained injuries in the

firing. ADSP V.Mylvahanan said, “Police resorted to firing only in self-defence only after a

woman constable was harassed and an inspector was attacked.” He said about 50 persons

have been detained in the district. Third firing occurred in Ilayankudi when the people of

Keelaiyur and neighbouring Dalit-dominant villages blocked a police vehicle… A police

source said, “The villagers rounded up his vehicle forcing the police to open fire at them.”

Dinesh, 17, a Plus Two student suffered pellet injuries in the incident. The news of the

“untimely” arrest of Dalit leader John Pandian in Thoothukudi on the day when Dalits were

flocking towards Paramakudi from various southern districts to pay homage at the memorial

of Immanuel Sekaran sparked tension among the members of the community. Several Dalit

outfit leaders including Krishnasamy of Pudhiya Tamizhagam, Murugavelrajan of Makkal

Viduthalai Katchi and Suba Annamalai of Mallar Kazhagam and MDMK general secretary

Vaiko called on the injured at the Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai. Vaiko demanded a

judicial enquiry into the firing at Paramakudi. Madurai collector U.Sagayam also visited the

injured at the hospital. Earlier, their relatives blocked his vehicle condemning police firing.

He has ordered an RDO inquiry into the Madurai firing. Meanwhile, Ramanathapuram

district remains totally cut off. Bus services have been suspended in the district and buses

proceeding from other districts to Ramanathapuram, Paramakudi, Rameswaram and

Ilayankudi have been halted. Trains running between Madurai-Rameswaram-Madurai and

Karaikudi-Manamadurai have been cancelled while Rameswaram-Tiruchy passenger is

partially cancelled between Ramanathapuram and Tiruchy. Lathicharge was reported in a few

places including Madurai. Several buses and police vehicles were damaged. Police prevented

the reporters and photographers from covering the violence in Paramakudi. Almost all top

police officials remained incommunicado to the press.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/tension-grips-south-districts-105

Issues

Is Caste/State Violence against Dalits incidental or a way of cultural reproduction and

Legitimization Caste power relations?

How or in what manner we need to re-look at the Dalit Problematic?

What are the Approaches to Dalit search for emancipation in Indian Social History

and what is the approach that Ambedkar envisaged for Dalit Movements?

Is there any intellectual agenda for the Dalit Movements that can be debated and

cultivated by interesting the postmodern/postcolonial and Ambedkar’s discourse for

Liberation?

Focusing the Trinitarian Dalit Problem

The Dalit problem, namely the practice of disabled sociability, a specific kind of thrown-

away-ness’ (The idea of Thrownawayness refers to the out-caste-experience of Dalits due to

the totalization of Caste totality) is increasingly recognized as a universal affliction that is

hazardous to human autonomy and identity. In its cognitive and cultural totality, the Dalit

problem is a totalization of alienation, resulting from/by the specific ontologism of the

orthodoxy of Indian philosophical culture. The Dalit within the pan-Indian caste culture is

historically reduced extent of deeming the Dalits sub-humans or no-humans. To the Dalits, to

be (what is) social is denied by means of the Caste-cultural violence which in turn finds its

rootedness, strength and expression in/through Indian social cum philosophical categories or

structures. Within such patterns there is the ontological locus of a specific sense of denial of

the vulnerable Other namely the Dalits, within which there is a sentience of precariousness,

fragility, broken-ness, an experience of out-caste-ness, oppressed-ness and contingency of

one’s separated-ness from one’s own cultural and social home. The practices of

discrimination or deprivation and subtle forms of ill-treatment meted out to Dalits enforces a

sense of epistemological vacuum structured through by Indian Cultural Cognitive patterns,

which in turn constructs a sense of loss of identity for Dalits as People. The life-experience

of every Dalit perceived through the caste mind-set is a (sad) shared-story of such sense of a

loss or denial of identity and meaningfulness (epistemological vacuum).

The life of Ambedkar is a phenomenal illustration of this epistemological vacuum (a sense of

worthlessness) but against which he crusaded throughout his life. Ambedkar observes that

the gradation of the polarities within Casteism is the pre-condition or the prism in/through

which most dominant Indian cultural/religious philosophies have been constructed that

continuously reinforce social separatism between any individuals in the Indian society. Caste

for Ambedkar is a mind-set, a cultural lens that constructs any Indian social self. Evolving a

philosophy and practice of Dalit liberation importantly cognizes and contextualizes this prism

that produces social outcastenss or thrown-away-ness within the dominant ethos of Indian

culture. Ambedkar’s engagement of the ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’, the ‘Riddles of

Hinduism’, ‘Annihilation of Casteism’, etc are analytical works that are set in this direction

only. The social and psychological disintegration that a Dalit is made to experience in the

context of the dehumanizing caste-world is to be exchanged for a new philosophy of

liberation against the onto-locus and onto-logos of Casteism.

The Dalit problematic is trinitarian. The Dalits (inclusive of the Dalit Christian & Muslims)

more specifically are faced with (i) Caste as Cultural Reproduction for Domination

Discourse leading to Social Subjugation, Osterization of Dalits (ii) Existential Deprivation

consolidated and perpetuated by specific Ideological (Philosophic-theological) sanctifications

both within ideological presuppositions/premises which cumulatively reduce the Dalit

Subject/Person as No-Person (iii) Caste as Radically Interiorized and Subjectivised entity that

result in an Ambivalence of Dalit Identity. [The claims of cultural domination and the

practices of existential deprivations against the Dalits are historically and socially

innumerable in continuum and hence for specific reasons I may be permitted not to instantiate

the same in recurring evidences, however we need to theoretically clarify the principles the

construe radical interiorization and subjectivisation that propel the ambivalence of Dalit

Identity].

Caste as a Cultural Discourse Constituting Cultural Power Structures in Continuum

The use of the term discourse here needs some preliminary clarification. ‘A discourse is a

social language created by particular cultural conditions, and it expresses a particular way of

understanding human experience.’1 For Foucault, discourse operates in four basic ways: ‘(i)

Discourse is a socially constructed perceptual reality that influences our ideas and life-world

marked by a chain of linguistic, cultural and ideological (philosophical) signifiers; (ii)

Discourse generates knowledge and truth. Discourse constitutes not only the world that we

live in, but also all forms of knowledge and truth-effects. And knowledge for Foucault is not

something value-neutral, that exists independently of language and culture but intimately

1 Lois Tyson, Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1999), p. 281

produced by structures and interconnections of social structures and language. Thus

Discourse operates, by being intimately involved with socially embedded networks of power.

(iii) Discourse is not only a structural system of knowledge but it does ‘inform’ the person

who speaks the discourse, of his ‘power-positions’ within the construed worldview and

thereby a discourse is interactively connected with power and knowledge. (iv) Discourse is

multiple and operates in multiple ways. (v) Cultures are constructed out of numerous

competing discourses shaping the cultural perceptions infiltrating into different levels of life.

Discourses too are modules of rules that are designed to spread from mind to mind and take

over key operations.’2

Clarifying Diverse Approaches to Caste Question

The trajectory towards the rejection of casteism, implicitly implying issue of Dalit Liberation

within the Indian social history need to be exposed. The historical attempts against casteism,

accompanied violence and by its implication to the practices of social

discriminations/exclusions for reasons of clarity may be classified into three major

approaches They are the (i) Reformists, (ii) Rationalists, and (iii) the Radicalists approaches

against forms of caste discriminations. However, the underlying query is ‘what is the

theoretical/practical position that Ambedkar while projecting the ‘annihilation of Caste’

embarked upon in order to protest against Caste Violence.

Rationalist Approach: Attempts of exclusive rejection to the dehumanising social practices

of casteism and its allied forms of untouchability purely from secular or non-religious or

atheistic platforms. Such an attempt conceives annihilation of poverty through economic

modes of development as the basis of eradication of social discriminations. The attempts of

some of the rationalists like Nehru, M.N. Roy, EVR Periyar and Marxian(s) might fall within

this category.

Reformist Approach: Attempts of against casteism with the pretexts of winning and

occupying social & political and cultural space for Religions (such as Hinduism and

Christianity) without radically questioning the ideological foundations of their ideological

and social hierarchy. The attempts of some of the reformists thinkers like Rajaram Mohan

Roy, Gandhi, Vivekananda and the many of the Christian Church’s attempts perhaps may be

2 Such a comparison is made by the philosopher Daniel Dennet in his book Consciousness Explained (Back Bay Books, 1992), pp. 187-226.

said employ this approach to the question of casteism. Within the reformist types of approach

there are specific varieties could be identified in terms of the purpose of this paper. (a) The

early Christian missionary Christianity in India to a large extent employed the

‘conversion‘strategy without questioning caste hierarchy on the contrary retaining the

same‘however for reasons of evangelization. (b) In the recent past some Christian preachers

employ these reformist scriptural approaches by way of biblically signifying the Dalits

context with reference to Biblical Narratives like Exodus of Israelites and Gospel ethics

enabling scriptural narrative space for Dalit Liberation discourse within the Church. (c)

Establishing the plight of Dalit on par with that of the so called scheduled caste within the

Hindu social structure and embarking upon either/or or both charity or developmental

approaches to the question Dalit Liberation. (d) Perceiving and placing, lobbying Dalit

Liberation as a legal issue to be contested with, proved against/for and protected in favour of,

simultaneously placing the Dalit Liberation issue as a Human Rights Programme of Action

accompanied by Reservationism as a remedial measure in terms of Dalit Development on the

touchstone of Social Justice.

Dr. Ambedkar against mere Reformation: [1:] But there is a set of reformers who hold out

a different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists, and their ideal of social

organization is what is called Chaturvarnya, or the division of society into four classes

instead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and to

disarm opposition, the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to point out that their

Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must confess that

notwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot

reconcile myself.

Radical Approach: Attempts towards radical annihilation of caste by critiquing ideological

underpinnings of casteism within the roots of cultural and religious roots of Hinduism and

alternatively suggesting counter ideological and social praxis based on the philosophical

principles of justice, equality and social change. The forerunner of such an attempt is

traceable to the contribution of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It is a dialectical engagement on the

patterns of knowledge that structure Dalit’ giveness‘ in terms of exclusion or inclusion

employing specific modes of Deconstructing and Reconstructing for Dalit Discourse of

liberation from the clutches of casteism. Within this paradigm the emerging paradigms

includes reconstruction of Dalit History, Dalit Sociology, Dalit Social Dynamics, Dalit

Politics, Dalit Philosophy, Religion & Theology, Dalit Arts & Aesthetics, Dalit Feminism

Dalit Social Engineering, Dalit literature etc,.

However we need to be aware of the fact that these attempts do overlap and not exclusive of

each other but only conceptual categories of understanding. Moreover we need to critically

evaluate of the fact to what extent these approaches radically address the problem of Caste

Discrimination and by extension the social deprivation of Dalits. To what extent these above-

mentioned approaches to Dalit Liberation is foundationally radically capable to address the

problem of discrimination and oppression both within the Social hierarchy itself is an

ongoing contested issue. What is the intellectual/theoretical ground that Dr. Ambedkar

envisages for Dalit Movements to warfare against Caste Violence - is the fundamental issue I

would like to discuss in this paper. Allied with this issue is the necessity of analysis of Caste

Violence as cultural reproduction and legitimization from the point of view of Dr. Ambedkar

cumulatively what is the ethical cum metaphysical ground of Dalit Movements that

Ambedkar visualized, in other words, what is the intellectual agenda from the stand point of

Ambedkar to ‘annihilate caste violence’

Rejection of ‘metanarrative’ and Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste metanarrative’

Jean-Francois Lyotard’s postmodern writings are often summed up to the idea of ‘incredulity

toward metanarratives,’ (Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, xxiv). Lyotard’s statement

meant that postmodern thought would reject any sort of grand narrative that claims to make

sense out of any and all life using universal reason. He specifically focused on the “Idea of

emancipation” (Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 1992, 24). Lyotard put everything from Christianity, to Marxism,

Nazism, and Capitalism in the same metanarrative bucket and kicked it out the window. He

said that in all of them, “[the] end, even if it remains beyond reach, is called universal

freedom, the fulfillment of all humanity” (Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern

Explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. P.25). These metanarratives

are all trying to universally fulfil humanity’s desires. Like Marx, Lyotard was concerned

with those who were oppressed, the disadvantaged of society. Lyotard felt that metanarratives

that claimed to explain everything created a society that listened to some people and ignored

others. Gaston says this, “Lyotard’s point was to critique all grand narratives that claim too

much and therefore potentially hamper political and social justice” (Gaston, Ray. “Re-reading

Babel and Pentecost–A Postmodern Polemic.” Modern   Believing . 40.2 (Ap 1999): 36-41).

Lyotard thought that these metanarratives silenced the stories of the disadvantaged of society.

They “prize unity and sameness over plurality and difference” (Macquarrie, 18). This unity

and sameness is based in knowledge, which has become a commodity in the enlightenment.

Cultural Reproduction through Self Legitimization of Caste metanarrative

For Lyotard, metanarratives are a distinctly modern phenomenon: they are stories that not

only tell a grand story but also claim to be able to legitimate or prove the story’s claim by an

appeal to universal reason”. It is this legitimation that allows the myth of progress to become

a metanarrative. Science, the age of discovery and explanation is all based on reason. Smith

says, “…modern legitimation has recourse to a universal criterion: reason-a (supposedly)

universal stamp of legitimation”. Lyotard says that reason itself is a narrative. A good

example of this that Lyotard had issues with is that of the universal rights of man. Lyotard

explains that “these rights are themselves relative” (Macquarrie, John. “Postmodernism in

philosophy of religion and theology.” International Journal   for Philosophy of Religion . 50.1-3

(D 2001):  9-27. He would question how one group of people were able to say what the

‘universal rights’ of all were. Lyotard asks, how could the grand narratives of legitimation

still have credibility in the face of something like Auschwitz? (Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The

Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. P. 19).

(omsherwood.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/lyotards-postmodern-critique-of-metanarratives)

Ambedkar perceives that the caste worldview (like that of a ‘metanarrative’) as both self-

alienating and other-alienating; as subjectifying vs. objectifying; as sanctifying and reifying; -

such polarities, need to be erased or resisted with Dalit collective consciousness and

wisdom. Ambedkar in the Annihilation Caste says:

“One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the Germans enjoyed

singing their hymn of hate against the English during the … World War I]. The literature of the

Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and

an ignoble origin to other castes. 

“But the present-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins … The present-

day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers by

the forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due? Obviously to the Caste System. The

existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past feuds between

castes green, and has prevented solidarity. Hindu Society as such does not exist. It is only a collection

of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of its existence.

Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, except

when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. .. caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself

from other castes. … Caste has however done one thing. It has completely disorganized and

demoralized….. This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper and has

poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. This anti-social spirit, this spirit of protecting

its own interests, is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their isolation from one another

as it is of nations in their isolation. The … primary concern is to protect their (caste) interests against

those of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes, but are so many

warring groups, each living for itself and for its selfish ideal.” (Annihilation of Caste)

Value Dichotomy as the Principle of Categorical Violence for Social Exclusion

A dichotomy is a hierarchical opposition, characterised of four features: (i) Opposition

between two identities – alienated form of differentiation– antimony - dichotomy is a

polarization of with discontinuity where in differences are seen to be more interesting than

similarities and there is a tendency to see the differences as absolute. (ii) A hierarchical

ordering of the pair (iii) The idea that between them this pair sum up and define a whole (iv)

The notion of transcendence (achieved by set of category by the denial of other category –

transcendence implies both an ‘overcoming of self’ that is detachment and the achievement

of an abstract and universal impartiality by the denial of the Other, the world or woman as

corrupting.3

Within the Indian culture one can situate foundations of metaphysics of violence that form

the basis of a discourse of exclusion, the centrality against which Ambedkar’s attempts to

codify The ‘Philosophy of Hinduism’ and to embark upon ‘Annihilation of Caste’ stems from

these vantage points. The practical violence against the socially excluded, (namely the Dalits

and the Other deprived sections of Indian society do not need any evidence as to prove the

factuality of the practices of exclusion) at the social, political and cultural facets do have

philosophical sanctification and how they are construed as our perspectives remains to be one

of the basic areas of research and critique in Ambedkar. His critique of Indian caste culture,

points out that a discourse for power domination is deeply structured within the metaphysical

and epistemological fabrics of Indian philosophical traditions. It is through constructing

3 Raia Prokhovnik, Rational Women: A Feminist Critique of Dichotomy (Manchester University Press, New York 2002.

dichotomies or value-hierarchical dualities as philosophical lenses, a majority of Indian

Philosophical traditions construe a culture of domination and subjugation to be perceived

‘normal’. These philosophical lenses form the basis of perceiving Indian social reality which

simultaneously go to provide legitimization of/or the practice of exclusion in terms of

Casteism.

There exist a multiple sets of dichotomies within the Indian philosophical constructs which in

turn constitute an overarching binary way of perceptions. Exclusively oppositional categories

are theoretically loaded as to construct a society based of oppositional or mutually exclusive

cum inclusive relations. To begin with, to position the Vedic texts within the realm of

‘revealed truth’ inherently veils and excludes any other texts as either not-revealed or not-

sufficiently-revealed which in turn consolidate the primacy of Vedic supremacy in

comparison or contrast with the non-Vedic texts or ‘Contexts’4 of other cultural traditions.

Such Vedic and non-Vedic classification as revealed vs. not revealed primarily purports a

kind of ‘class’ division between those who adhere to the teachings of Vedas and those who

are not in a manner of antagonistic relations.

The metaphysical exclusivism(s) such as Brahman vs. World, Being vs. Non-being,

Purusha vs. Prakriti, the Ontological vs. cosmological, the Transcendental vs. non-

transcendental, Soul vs. body, Rational vs. non-rational, Prohita vs. the lay, Male vs. the

female, the classical elite vs. the laity, the Caste Touchable vs. the outcaste untouchable, and

so on cumulatively merge together towards the propelling of the principle of exclusion as

foundational categories of our understanding. Within this dichotomy the former is politically

spaced to endorse a sense of ‘privileged presence’ over or against the latter to endure a sense

of differentiation. These apriori categories of understanding, treated as not posterior

implicitly and succinctly construe an onto-locus-logos, a philosophy of domination of what is

construed as the primary as against the hierarchical secondary. The cultural externalization of

this philosophical construction is but the hierarchical value division between high-caste vs.

low- caste.

4 The term of context is used here with the sensibility of Derrida’s use of the term. For him, It's the assertion that "there is nothing outside the text" (il n'y a pas de hors-texte), which means that “there is no such a thing as out-of-the-text”, in other words, "there is nothing outside context”. We can call "context" the entire "real-history-of-the-world," if you like, in which this value of objectivity and, even more broadly, that of truth (etc.) have taken on meaning and imposed themselves. That does not in the slightest discredit them. It's the assertion that "there is nothing outside the text" (Derrida (1988) Afterword, p. 136) which means that “there is no such a thing as out-of-the-text”, in other words, "there is nothing outside context".

Given to these structures of thought, the subjugation of the excluded people, the Dalits, is

fundamentally /theoretically grounded and historically expressed through social and cultural-

institutional forms of violence through violations, practices, ritualism and symbolism.

Defining Self for the practice of the Social Exclusion of the Dalit

Generally stated the notion of Self within the broader frame work of orthodoxy of Indian

philosophy is defined as diametrically opposed to what is relegated as non-self and by

extension, the realm of non-self theoretically and geo-politically includes the locus of an

excluded realm. Among the broad philosophical categories of what is deemed Self (atman)

and non-self (Anatma) in most orthodox and heterodox Indian philosophies, is there a space

for the selves of the excluded or in what manner the excluded realm is devoid of having any

Self-worth and how the realm of non-self is systematically construed as to fall outside the

political borders of what is deemed as self is the persistent issue here. The Vedantic concept

of self is the very foundation, the centrality and the basis of which most philosophical

perceptions are constituted. According to the scholars of the tradition, Advaita speaks about

the nature and existence of Self in exclusive categories as against the not-self, namely the

perceptual world of illusion. The Advaita of Sankara, (comments S. Radhkrishnan) insists on

the transcendent nature of ultimate reality of the non-dual Brahman and duality of the world

including Iswara who presides over it. Reality is Brahman or Atman. No predication is

possible of Brahman as predication involves duality and the Brahman [self] is free from

duality”5 According to Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad, ‘That Self is not this, not this’. It is

indestructible, incomprehensible, unfettered. Brahman is incomprehensible because it goes

beyond the attributes of effects. (sarva-karya-dharmatitah)’6 Sankara himself points out, that

the ultimate reality is the Brahman, which is ‘Sat (Pure Existence), Cit (Pure Consciousness)

and Ananda (Pure Bliss)’.7 Such defining claims regarding the nature of self as non-dual,

different from the Other etc are placed to enunciate specific modes of perceptions namely the

famous classificatory pattern of the transcendental (paramarthika) from the empirical

(vyavaharthika), the really real and the unreal.

The denial of the world or the treatment of it as illusion or maya is made possible only from

the point of view of the transcendental and therefore Brahman as only transcendental reality

5 Radhakirishnan. S (ed.), The Principal Upanisads,(George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1953) pp.25-26.6 Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad III.9.26.7 Sankara, Brahmasutra Bhasya, I.

is non-dual and the rest of the reality is either no-reality or not sufficiently real. Though the

Vedantic claim is non-dualistic, but regarding the perception of reality of world as illusory

conceives the political possibility of constructing dualistic perception. The Vedantic and pro

Vedantic claims regarding the nature of self is quite enveloping and one can evolve a spiritual

speculations like cosmic unity, cosmic consciousness of the unity between the individual self

with the social and cosmic self, realization of the Atman-Brahman nature as the Indian way to

self realization etc, however a Dalit reading/rendering of such a positions in fact

problematizes the very notion of what is deemed as Self. Even if the metaphysical oneness of

the transcendental reality does not deny the possibility of an empirical world per se, but

perceived as appearance from the paramarthika standpoint8 in no way escapes any binary

constructions or perceptions. This amounts to position that the transcendental reality because

it is defined transcendental, is conveniently placed in the realm of the primary and there by

excluding what is deemed as non-transcendental as secondary and by application such a

perception go concretely contribute the idea that one’s perception about reality ‘ought’ to be

dualistic and to be dualistic is the ‘one’ and only way of acclaiming the higher reality. This

means that exclusion seems to be way the reality of the world has to be perceived and

conceived and thereby the question of addressing the social exclusion is conveniently escaped

within the philosophical frontiers of the notion of Self. If exclusion is the theoretical ground

of one’s perception, where then is the possibility of addressing social exclusion and hence the

question of the empirical, the social etc remains to silent, and a culture of silence seems to be

the only possible way of being towards the being of the really-real-self. The Dalit issue of

exclusion is expediently escaped in such philosophical frames. Hence the problem social

exclusion of Casteism finds no serious attention in the axiological foundations of Indian

philosophies. Moreover the Vedanta’s do claim that the world is an appearance from the

stand point of the transcendental but real from an empirical standpoint. The question is

whether there is any philosophical space in such ‘empirical space’ reduced to the dimension

of not-sufficiently-real.

The argument is that the Vedantin by elevating the nature of Self, as transcendental

simultaneously forecloses any possibility or ‘sensitivity’ to social-empirical problems and

after all the empirical or social space for an him is something to be denied or negated in

continuum through specific mode of ‘neti neit’ to the attainment of Brahman nature. 8 Pradhan.R.C, Professor Balasubramanian on the Advaita Vaedanta of Sankara and the Philosophy of Wittgensteing in the Tractatus: The Search for a Metaphysics of Being, (National Seminar Paper on the Thought Works of Prof. R. Balasubramanian, March 223, 2001) p.2

Therefore it is not only a truism that the non-dualistic position is incapable of addressing the

question of exclusion rather it forecloses the possibility of addressing it. When perceptual

optical is (pan-optican) is optimized in terms of ‘discrimination’ or binary ways of

perception, where there is the possibility to address the problem of discrimination. This is the

sole reason, Ambedkar finds himself stating that ‘he will not die within the folds of

Hinduism’. The orthodox position thus tactically construed as to avoid any issue discussion

regarding problems concerned with dehumanization for de-humanization (denial of the

human-world in order project the Brahman-world) seems to be the very foundation on the

basis of which the entire edifice is built upon. The metaphysical oneness of the transcendental

reality, amounts to the exclusion of the social and the exclusion of the Social amounts to the

denial of the least ones, the Dalits, in subtle sophisticated manner. Hence what is

philosophical here is but a politics/tactics of evading the social particular. Such philosophical

position

This means that the majority of Indian Philosophical positions deprive themselves to address

the problem of exclusion for reasons of emancipation and hence Dalit liberation hence is not

only far cry in Indian philosophy but an ‘illusion’ in Indian philosophical constructs. The

very mental constructs needs to resurrect – is a way towards emancipatory project while

addressing the problem of exclusion. The Vedic Claim that Ekam Sat if/when interpretatively

rendered it would also imply the Brahman/Self as Ekam and it is Sat (the really real) and by

its enclosure and extension, the realities of the world, is deemed Asat, un real. The cognitive

space between Sat and Asat is the cultural/social space between the High Caste and low caste,

having the intermediary territories of upper caste groupings. Dalits occupy the territory of

non-real, an illusion to be detested with, yet such an ‘illusion’ is needed to maintain the very

notion called Sat or the really real. There are two things happening here. (i) First, Such a

philosophy of the Hindu orthodoxy reifies the Dalit into a realm of absolute condemnation,

robbing of Self-worthiness to the Dalit-self. (ii) And secondly, the enclosed-self of the High-

Caste loses any sense of consciousness or awareness to the sensibility of human rights,

libertarian ethics, and existential values. As a result both the in-caste-self (non Dalits) and the

out caste self (Dalits) imbibe a culture of negation of each other or a culture of resignation to

each other (termed as tolerance) and renunciation. The women or the Dalit (body-symbol),

though a speaking body, connote a ‘culture’ of a culture of silence abnegated of its capacity

to affirmation and self-expression. Re-reading Indian philosophical culture from the

perspective of Ambedkar and the question of Dalit emancipation, it can be emphasized that

the Being (?) of a Dalit is always treated as insufficient being, that which cannot exist in itself

(in-substantial) therefore, an entity-for-exploitation. Thus exploitation is philosophical

(Knowledge-Structured), unfortunately epitomized as ‘spiritual’. The Dalit-Self, though a

constructed on is always constructed in-dependency off or antagonistic to what has been

construed as the categories of Self with in this predominant philosophical traditions. The

Dalit-Self is within this construct, is a sort of non-self or sub-self, to be appropriated or if

needed, to be annihilated.

Derrida refers the primacy or domination of the rational or spirit category, embedded in the

history of western philosophical thinking, as ‘metaphysics of presence’9 that serve as the

basis or principle of exclusion of the Other. The conceptual subtleties ingrained within these

theoretical bearings tint the Indian cultural perceptive world(s) whose consolidate social

reality is Casteism. These dichotomies have dominated our thinking, perceptions, language,

culture and social relations. These dichotomise define the universe through the lens provided

by their pair. These dichotomies ‘contain a set of implicit assumptions that assign a

prominence and a dominant value to the term in the position of A at the expense of not-A’

(Gatens 1991:93). The assumption is that there are two distinct realities mutually exclusive

and incompatible with primary secondary positions, each of which occupy self-contained and

self-enclosed spheres. [A is defined as only A; as being not-B; as the negation of B]. Such

difference according to both Sassure and Derrida, are mass thoughts that engenders a system

of values as he says, “In language there are only differences.[...] without positive terms.

Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that

existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have

issued from the system. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less

importance than the other signs that surround it. [...] A linguistic system is a series of

differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas; but the pairing of a

certain number of acoustical signs with as many cuts made from the mass thought engenders

a system of values”10 Ambedkar writings needs to relocated within such theoretical contexts

of categorical oppositions that exclude each other but intact by ways of inclusive logic for a

continued discourse of exclusion. The Dalit or the socially excluded here according to

9 The concept of the metaphysics of presence is an important consideration within the area of deconstruction. The deconstructive interpretation holds that the entire history of Western philosophy and its language and traditions has emphasized the desire for immediate access to meaning, and thus built a metaphysics or ontotheology around the privileging of presence over absence10 Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916 [trans. 1959]). Course in General Linguistics. New York: New York Philosophical Library. pp. 121–22.

Ambedkar exist as that-by-which-the dominant-define-themselves-as-beings (sue generis) in

opposition of the not-sufficiently-being, namely the excluded people]. Such dichotomisation

categorically and necessarily involve both domination and suppression of what is culturally

perceived and placed as secondary or inferior.

These binaries are but the ‘radical dichotomy’ pervasively and persuasively function as

‘metaphysics of presence’ to maintain the imposed or assumed order; there are latent

conceptual connections in the dominant Indian cultural traditions which can be explored

between reason, masculinity, truth and intellect on the one hand and sense, untochability,

femininity, error and emotion on the other. The binaries positioned as eternal truths/logos

promote a persistent discourse of exclusion by which what is relegated as ‘outcaste’ has to be

epistemologically and morally reduced to the realm of continuous negation. No wonder

Casteism as a socio-cultural order is but the social signification of the philosophical eidos, the

supremacy of A-category at the expense or in relation to the inferiority of B-category, thus

forming a categorical opposition relation of both domination and repression. These horizons

inevitably influence the way we live in the moment. Ideas aren’t always present either; they take shape from

prior ideas and memories, work themselves out, come to fruition, and become transformed into different

ideas. Ideas have history and trajectory — just like human lives. The present moment is only a trace of

temporal duration as it moves from the past into future’.11 To define one’s conceptions, oneself, one’s

position, and one’s community (caste) in opposition to, in rejection of, and in a hierarchy

with something else, rather than in connection or relation to it, entrenches a politics of social

exclusion. It is a Berlin Wall Mentality. It has a repressive effect on our modes of thinking

and socially behaving through specific modes of ‘speech-acts’.

The western modern progressive notions such as autonomy, reason, science, freewill etc is

absent in such enclosures. In that place, memory, repetition, ritual and cultural practices,

caste-dharma etc are replaced and deemed superior value here. This is the reason why, the

notion of freedom, equality, fraternity, though enshrined in Indian constitution (thanks to the

efforts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar) is absent in the very ethos of Casteism. Instead it revolves

around a morality of caste-grounded dharma, purusarthas 12 where in caste-duty is a

categorical imperative of the people of Indian culture. By the stretch of the same logic,

11 http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/derrida-on-the-metaphysics-of-presence/12 Prurusarthas literally means the ends that are sought after by the Self, that constitutes the meaing of life of the individual. Indian orthodoxy treats this concept as fundamental moral to Indian culture, but the notion is questionable.

Ambedkar argues that a Caste-Hindu is bound to remain to be a closed totality. The Caste

Hindu totality is a totality devoid of any social relation. It does not possess the capacity to

relate, to face the face of the other, and to look at the speaking eyes of the other, whether the

other is female or Dalit or any one for that matter. If it does, it can only do so, by a practice

of exploitation and reduction of the-other. A philosophy of Dalit liberation is an expression of

resistance to such exploitative ‘looks’ and world-outlook. Within this structure of thought and

culture, violence, hatred, denials or subjugation etc is deep-rooted. Since the high caste self

is a closed totality, the sensibility of the social is alarmingly absent in the caste-mind-set and

its world. Since the very logical construct of caste-pattern is constituted of I-(despised)It

relation, it could only regulate a relation of categorical hierarchy, by which it justifies the acts

of violence, subordination and manipulation of the untouchables.

Most Indian philosophical cultural trends, language and social systems are characterised by a

whole set of hierarchical oppositions, all allied to a primary elevation of ‘privileged presence’

at the expense of, and by excluding ‘unprivileged’ need to be eroded. Such dichotomies are

not only inherited constructions but quite operative within symbiosis of caste endogamous

social relations. Ambedkar evaluates anthropology of Casteism within the parameters of

endogamy is but a clear-cut explosion of the incoherency of these inherited value-dualistic

and hierarchical conceptualities. A definitive epistemological foundation of such rationalities

entails not only the omission of the untouchables or the out castes but all the socially

excluded sections by way of expulsion, banishment and exile of them relegated to the realm

of the material, the earthly, the dirtily, the sinful, the natural, emotional, passionate, bodily,

disorderly, formless, subordinate, passive, sometimes dangerours, and therefore the Other,

whose ‘otherness’ needs to be consciously, culturally, socially and of course religiously be

abnegated.

Ambedkar’s contributions have to be situated as a call for an end to the repression of pluri-

dimensional systemic cum symbolic thought-violences. For Ambedkar, all such conceivable

(conceptual) ways of thinking and communicating should be explored as to evolve a

meaningful engagement in terms of emancipation of those who are deemed secondary and

therefore excluded. Dichotomous thinking in which the excluded is seen as subordinate is not

only conceptual or logical constructions, but also historical, social, political and cultural. The

untouchables in favour of whom Ambedkar crusaded, held that they are historically relegated

to the realm of a domesticity (domestic unpaid servants) as that of the feminine reduced to the

realm of ‘private’ such as family, reproduction and sexuality. These relegations are ‘seen’

and are philosophically perceived as if they are governed by ‘natural’ rhythms, social norms,

morality (varnasharma dharma) rather than subjects for a discourse and reclamation of

emancipation in terms of their own identity and social justice. These philosophical

dichotomies are but socially construed truth-claims that are functional to reproduce caste

society as normative social order. This seems to be strongest argument that runs through the

writings of Ambedkar.

Theory and practice are integrated, in a culture, by the presuppositions involved in a

dominant metaphor, through which ideas, actions and practices are seen as meaningful and

understood and coherent. Mind and Body is such metaphor instrumental in setting out the

conditions and structure of thinking, and of ‘possible’ thoughts. Such metaphors contains

inherent explanatory force, if naturalized and used unselfconsciously, can operate to

predetermine the meaning of A and not-A. We experience the world, in a default mode,

through an ‘implicit habitual understanding’. We are socialised in such default world. Such

perception is conflated as ‘self-evidence’. It is a sort of a mapping process of exclusion

creating mind set to consider that caste is morally right and a cultural privilege and social

identification. Derrida considered that when encountering what he called a "classical

philosophical opposition", one never encounters "peaceful coexistence" of the two opposing

concepts, but rather a "violent hierarchy", where one of the two dominates over the other. "In

a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis-

à-vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiological

and logical) or has the upper hand." 13 The problem with Dichotomy as a constituent category

is both instability and internal irreconcilability. It stabilizes hegemonic convention. It leads to

the denigration and disintegration of human existence as excluded vs. included in continuous

opposition.

The dualistic categories patterned within philosophical trends provide the basis for caste

cultural hegemony. The term hegemony employed by Gramsci is of some importance here.

The hegemony of the dominant class for Gramsci is achieved not by force but be getting the

concern of the dominated class through cultural modes such as religion, education and allied

social political practices by projecting a monolithic frame. Ambedkar held that the major

problem of Indian society is the system of caste and it is a dominant structure that shapes the

13 Jacques Derrida, "Interview with Julia Kristeva" in "Positions" (The University of Chicago Press, 1981, p.41.

perception of the individual in the Indian society. Caste system according to Ambedkar is

perpetuated by the cultural modes of religion and other social practices. Both Ambedkar and

Antonio Gramsci converge on the issue that domination is achieved by a system of cultural

practice which enjoys a social concern both by the oppressor and the oppressed. They hold

that cultural hegemony serves as a means of maintaining the power of politics of the

ruling/dominant class. For Gramsci fascism and capitalism remain to the ruling cultural

hegemony against which the working class have to promote a counter cultural hegemony to

pave way for the establishment of civil society. For Ambedkar Casteism with its social

practice of high and low caste division is the cultural hegemony that operates in the Indian

society. Both Ambedkar and Antonio Gramsci stressed the need for emancipatory education

which promotes ‘socially engaged intellectual’ to strive towards social transformation. For

both these thinkers, hegemony or social supremacy is both ideological and socially structural.

Gramsci holds that hegemony of the dominant class is achieved by specific ideological

apparatus. Drawing from Machiavelli, Gramsci argues that 'The Modern Prince' – the

revolutionary party – is the force that will allow the working-class to develop organic

intellectuals and an alternative hegemony within civil society. Ambedkar identified that

Brahmanism as an ideological apparatus operates within caste social structure to maintain the

supremacy of upper castes against which a discourse of emancipation is a necessary

predicament which has to be constituted on the principle of fraternity, secularism, democracy,

equality and justice.

It is interesting note that both Ambedkar and Antonio Gramsci are strong of critique of

‘economism’ of the capitalism. Economism is mode of economic structure designed to serve

the profit interests of the capitalists which in turn is achieved by the exploitation of the

working class. Ambedkar holds that capitalism and Casteism are the twin evils that structure

Indian society and hence they are antithetical to equality and justice. Antonio Gramsci

highlights the notion of historicism. In Gramsci's view, (historicism) all meaning derives

from the relation between human practical activity (or ‘praxis’) and the ‘objective’ historical

and social processes of which it is a part. Ideas cannot be understood outside their social and

historical context, apart from their function and origin. Ambedkar analysis of Indian society

is not merely a criticism alone; rather it is a critique of Indian society from a philosophical

cum historical perspective. His writings such as ‘Annihilation of Caste’, State and

Minorities’, The Problem of the Rupee, its Origin and its Solution’ etc deeply reflect the

historical sensibility with which Ambedkar engaged an analysis of Indian Society.

Within the philosophical patterns of Indian culture and its cultural/institutional pattern-

Casteism, a specific logic of domination is veiled and hidden. Outcasteness is the social

expression of logic of domination and exclusion stems from the ontologism of Indian

orthodoxy. The construction of the Brahman-Self as the Primary alternatively structures the

secondary-ness of the matter (prakriti), and by extension the Non-Self, namely the Dalit. The

Brahman-Self is symbolic of the High Caste Self in upper gradation in thought and action.

The high caste if and when s/he is placed as primary self, over and against the low caste or

outcaste person (the-Other), implicitly construes a graded oppositional relation of domination

for subordination and subjugation. To put it logically, it is this: Between X and Y if and when

X is placed superior to Y, then X by the virtue of having its higher locus, is justified in

subordinating Y 14. Between the high and low caste persons, there is a gradation of low caste

persons, each occupying a territory of his own in antagonism to and subjugation of who is

deemed as lower caste, the Other. This construction of a logic of domination attributes

outcasteness and treated as a necessary precondition of incasteness of the same caste (Caste

groupings), like that of the political territory of a ruler(s) is preconditioned by the political

periphery of the ruled people. The totality of such onto-logical is levied heavily on to the

shoulders of Dalit person. Given to this depth grammatology of domination, to Ambedkar,

the perception of the removal of the problem of casteism and its alleged untouchability or

disabled sociability within the parameter of Caste functional structuralism is a categorical

contradiction. Therefore the logic of liberation lies outside the parameters of orthodox Indian

philosophies.

Between and Beyond Tradition and Modernity and the Emancipatory Discourse of

Ambedkar

The emancipatory discourse that Ambedkar engage can be summarised as a Discourse of-

Between and Beyond Tradition and Modernity. The type of modernity discourse that

Ambedkar entertains in his writings though one could find influence of western modernism, it

is not exclusively western modernist, in the sense that he deconstructed the modernism of the

west as to suit Indian society. For instance the western modernity discourse propel a sort of

dominant secular rationality, whereas Ambedkar projects a sense of Indian modernity,

meaning that to be secular in Indian culture is to do away with the dominant religious and 14 Enrique Dussell employs this concept of logic of domination, in his work, Philosophy of Liberation, (Orbis Books) to argue that western philosophical structures implicitly construe such domination whose practical expression is colonialism and economic and political exploitation.

cultural ethos. The tradition of Casteism and its ideological bearings, namely the

dichotomous cultural lens, while radically eroded by Ambedkar, he as well engaged a

serious sense of returning to the tradition, in the sense of hermeneutically rendering Renewed

Buddhism as a possible mediation to pro-act emancipatory project without losing the

progressive sight of modernity. This is why i do contend that Ambedkar’s emancipatory

discourse to be captured with in the boundaries of tradition and modernity and beyond

modernity with a serious sense of transcendence and yet rooted to Indian cultural ethos.

By embarking upon a philosophy of emancipation foregrounding between and beyond

tradition and modernity, Ambedkar evolves a discourse of emancipation. For him, this is a

conscious and perspective-attempt to destabilize what has been construed as knowledge and

cultural power. Organically it is an intellectual attempt to inroad into cognitive constructions

of domination and it proclaims the death of super-self paving way for the birth of plurality of

Selves in-simultaneous-presence of the Other 15. Ambedkar’s emancipatory project is not

again a cognitive totality that totalizes the Dalit world as the self-same centre. Rather it is an

attempt to de-write the written text, a political attempt depoliticize the cultural power of the

privileged self. Socially it is both a destruction of the old order by strategic interventions for

the emergence of the proximate speaking face of persons as persons in relation. To this, we

need to wage a war against cultural dominations by mode of mediation (intellectual agenda)

for emancipation. The platforms of such ‘war against war’ are multiple – the intellectual, the

cultural, the economic, the religious, the political and even the spiritual. The politics of such

realms needs to be exposed if we really mean a discourse of liberation, a sense of liberation

not only of Dalits, primarily of them, but the liberation from of any cultural forms of

totalities. For Paulo Friere, it is specific a pedagogy of the oppressed for liberation. In the

language of Ambedkar, Dalit liberation is praxis of resistance to isolation, to discrimination,

to subjugation, to subordination, to exploitation etc, is foundationally a socio-spiritual action.

Given to the ontological ground, the fore-ground of Indian caste cultural violence, the Dalit

struggle for liberation, I believe, is both intellectual and social. We need to re-search and re-

read Ambedkar vis-à-vis the recent trends of empancipatory discourse at the international

level.

Thank you

15 Refer the writings of post structuralism, according to which meaning is neither a matter of representation (repression) nor essence-centre (cognitive), but a matter of simultaneity in mutuality.