B.R. Ambedkar is the foremost theory builder and a point of departure in dalit politics. Prior to him, dalit assertion was only in the form of a reform movement. With the advent of Babasahab the entire movement got its ideology, power-centricity and a ‘dhamma’. In fact it is hardly surprising that it is now a vibrant reference point of contemporary dalit politics. The dalit behaviour is also not much different from Ambedkar's political behaviour. Nevertheless Marx needs to be understood for a clear grasp of Babasaheb’s politics.
This is how the Marxian thesis goes: class-in-itself is a historically inactive social entity which needs to be transformed into a class conscious ‘class-for-itself’. This transformation is not possible without a history-centric world view and ideology. Without this the liberation of the down trodden and oppressed is not possible. It is one thing to be oppressed, it is entirely another to have the consciousness of that oppression and to invent ideological and organizational instruments (history-based) for their liberation. With an aim to make such inventions Karl Marx presented serious philosophical, historical, political-economic, aesthetic-literary criticisms of capitalism. He, along with Engels, formulated a political programme also. It was his perception that without class-conscious organized activity the labour cannot transform itself into a history-maker ‘class-for-itself. Indeed, his essential point was that the liberation of the working class was necessarily connected to the liberation of man. It is not surprising that Marxism, for at least 150 years, continued to be the main ideological basis for all the labour -led-movements of the world.
Ambedkar performed the same role vis-à-vis India’s dalits. It was a mark of his ingenuity that he distinguished dalits from the general mass of exploited labourers. His logic was that the Indian dalit was not just a culprit of class-exploitation but also of caste-varna exploitation. He was untouchable and ‘antyaj’ (last born). With this distinction in mind Ambedkar developed and consolidated an Indian dalit perspective presumably parallel to Marx’s proletariat world view. In the process he prolifically critiqued the Hindu social system, its philosophy, social code and religion. And in the light of the emerging dalit perspective he organized an autonomous dalit politics too. His books such as ‘Annihilation of Caste’ ‘Who were the Untouchables’, ‘What Gandhi and His Congress Have Done for the Untouchables’, ‘Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah’ and such political or organizational documents as ‘Independent Labour Party’, ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’ and ‘Republican Party of India’ …… should be read carefully in this regard. It was his ideological-political campaign that Babasaheb transformed shudras, that is, the ‘dalit-in-itself’ from an exploited inactive social existence into an organized, thinking, active, history-making dalit consciousness of ‘Shudra-for-itself’. Not only this, with social liberation of India in mind, he also wrote ‘Buddha and His Dhamma’ because he dreamt of a caste-class free India only as a Buddhist India. Thus, in this way Babasaheb’s social vision was India-centric.
Babasaheb’s socio-political position is debatable. Some term him as revolutionary. To some he is anti-Brahmin, rather anti-upper caste, while others perceive him as casteist, even fundamentalist. But on deeper analysis, he seems to be none. Rather than being anti-upper caste or anti Brahmin, he was an anti-varna or anti-caste dalit ideologue, scholar and statesman. He was revolutionary in the sense that he wanted to uproot the Hindu caste system. On economic issues he was certainly close to the socialists but his democratic sense kept him away from the communist revolutionary fervour.
He had chosen Buddhism primarily because of its socio-economic ethical predilections which are viewed by the communists, as a communitarian alternative and termed as a contradiction in the pro-modern Ambedkar. In fact, Babasaheb, like Nehru, was a radical democrat. The only difference was that the latter emphasized the ‘class’ factor and nurtured the confidence that such instrumentalities of modernity as industry, education, development and rationalism will transcend and in the process do away with caste inhibitions. But on the contrary, Ambedkar was of the opinion that without obliterating caste and communitarian prejudices neither modernity nor class transformation was possible. That is why he wanted the politics of free India to be dalit-centric. Post-Ambedkar politics has faithfully adopted this viewpoint. Indeed this is the reason why Ambedkar’s dalit politics should be understood well before one strives to understand today’s dalit politics. The following paragraph from his speech on 12th November 1930 in the Round Table Conference will make this point clear:
“We are often reminded that the problem of the Depressed Classes is a social problem and that its solution lies elsewhere than in politics. We take strong exception to this view. We hold that the problem of the Depressed Classes will never be solved unless they get political power in their own hands. If this is true, and I do not think that the contrary can be maintained, then the problem of the Depressed Classes is, I submit, eminently a political problem and must be treated as such. We know that political power is passing from the British into the hands of those who wield such tremendous economic, social and religious sway over our existence.”1
It is clear that politics was not Ambedkar’s major concern till the British were the rulers, nevertheless the fact that ‘power’ was slipping into the hands of the upper caste Indians, did perturb him. For him, the fact that Brahmins were dominating the Congress was important. He, therefore apprehended that immediately after coming into power the Congress would ignore the agenda of social-reform on the one hand, and would revive the Manusmriti based varna-caste system on the other. In fact it was he who associated the varna-caste question with political power which was never combined in this manner by any of the dalit or non-dalit reformer earlier to him. Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress (under his influence) kept the issue of social-reform outside the purview of politics. For, they thought that this was a highly sensitive, fissiparous issue which was exploited by the British for their own interest.
Delivering the Kale Memorial Lecture in Gokhale Institute, Pune on 29th January, 1939, Ambedkar made his political philosophy clear:
"You must not misunderstand me. I am not an impatient idealist. I am not condemning the gradualist, who is prepared to wait and take thing by instalments, although the gradualist, who has a valid claim for a rupee, demands an anna and proclaims a great victory when he gets a pie, must become an object of pity. All I want is that if circumstances force us to be gradualists we must not fail to be realists. Before accepting an instalment we should examine it carefully and satisfy ourselves that it contains an acknowledgement of the whole claim. Otherwise, as often happens what is good for the moment turns out to be the enemy of the better."2
His intent is clear. Baba Saheb was not an impatient idealist as revolutionaries tend to be. He was almost infatuated with the liberal political ideas of Europe. Burke, Mill and Dewey were his source of inspiration. The three were hardly revolutionary by any stretch of imagination. The truth is that Baba Saheb was basically a ‘realist’, a person extremely deft at political manipulation and hard bargaining. These skills made him exploit to the maximum the contradictions inherent in the relationship between the British Raj, the Congress and the Muslim League; while at the same time, keeping himself aloof from the revolutionaries. Immediately before the lecture mentioned above, a sentence from Tolstoy has been quoted. It signifies well Babasaheb's political orientation: “the distance covered by you is less important than the direction in which you are moving.” This reminds one of Gandhi’s well known dictum- “to me one step (in the right direction) is enough."
There is an important passage in the lecture Ambedkar delivered in the Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1949, while presenting the final draft of India’s constitution to its president Dr. Rajendra Prasad.
These are my reflections about the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been the monopoly of a few and the many are not only beasts of burden, but also beasts of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life. Those downtrodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the downtrodden classes must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For, as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, "a House divided against itself cannot stand very long." Therefore, the sooner room is made for the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance of its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only by done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life.3
Here the term ‘class-struggle’ is redundant. It cannot be avoided in an unequal society. Babasaheb himself was an outcome of it. His major contribution lies in preventing the class-struggle of the country from getting aggravated into class war. The faith of the dalits in the Indian constitution is its proof. On 18th January, 1943, on the occasion of Ranade's 101st birthday, he quoted the British constitutionalist Walter Bagehot. He referred to the latter's insight that there is no need to be disappointed with evolutionism] for mankind has traversed the journey from tribalism to democracy through the rough despotic monarchies only in a gradual manner.4
Dr. Ambedkar insisted on right directionality, not the immediate ‘rational completeness of the revolutionaries. It is not surprising that he kept on discussing some achievements of Soviet Union but also continued to be critical towards its violent revolution and infringement of civil rights of its citizens. In one of his well known essays- “Buddha or Karl Marx” he says, by way of quoting the American philosopher John Dewey that power can be employed in two ways: in the form of violence, in the form of energy. The Marxist revolution used power in the form of violence but Dr. Ambedkar was in favour of tapping power in the form of energy. Democracy gives an opportunity for it and the Buddha way gives it a theoretical basis.5 There was no difference regarding ends between Buddha and Marx. If there was any difference, it was only with regard to means. In fact on deeper analysis, it appears that essentially the difference between Marx, Gandhi and Babasaheb is not as glaring as it was made to appear by Ambedkar. His superficial differences with Gandhi echo occasionally in the contemporary dalit consciousness and politics. Because of his dalit-centricity he could not fully understand Gandhi. It was because of this centricity that he failed to include the tribals in his future plans on Indian Constitution. Replying to certain objections on 6th May, 1945 he said very candidly that he had never claimed to be the universal leader of oppressed humanity and that for his ordinary capacities, the problems of the untouchables were more than enough-
"I have never claimed to be a universal leader of suffering humanity. The problem of Untouchables is quite enough for my slender strength ... I do not say that other causes are not equally noble. But knowing that life is short, one can only serve one cause and I have never aspired to do more than serve the Untouchables."6
Babasaheb’s absolute dalit-centricity gets reflected in the self-centeredness and consequential exclusionism of dalit movements. Perhaps these were the reasons why the dalit-left dialogue also got strained.
There is one more important dimension to Babasaheb’s politics---the strains of which are also joined to subsequent dalit politics. The dalit issue was so prominent for Ambedkar that other issues such as party, ideology---left or right---were made insignificant. At the juncture of transfer of power in 1946 he raised the issue of tripartite agreement. He made it amply clear that whether Congress or Hindu Maha Sabha, he was ready to join any one who is willing to accept the dalit side.7
Not only this, after the resignation of the Congress cabinet in 1939 he celebrated Mukti Divas (Day of liberation) jointly with the Muslim League; during the ‘Quit India’ movement of 1942 he remained one of the strongest members of the Viceroy’s Council. But in 1946 he did not hesitate in joining unconditionally Nehru’s cabinet. His wife, Savita Ambedkar’s letter reveals that he was an ardent power-lover. It is hardly surprising that in the Bombay Provincial Assembly elections of 1937, he entered into a pact with the high class (Chitpavan Brahmin) L.B. Bhopatkar of Swaraj Party just to ensure the victory of his Independent Labour Party. No doubt he was highly successful in his move. During the entire freedom struggle he vehemently opposed the Congress but continued to be the well wisher of the British Raj without the social liberation of the dalits, the idea of India’s liberation was unpalatable to him.
As compared to the Congressrule, he had more faith in the social sagacity of the British Raj. It was unfortunate that a talented person like Dr. Ambedkar could not perceive the changing perspectives of history. The bitter outcome of it was that he could not strike an adjustment between his Dalit politics and the freedom movement. He seemed to receive his impetus from the Communal Award of 1908-9 and the Congress-Muslim League Pact of 1916. Such narrowly based politics, very naturally, could not transcend communitarianism. The dalit leader Kanshiram also made such opportunistic agreements in order to consolidate his dalit vote bank.
Many are of the opinion that aberrations have appeared in dalit politics after Ambedkar. The case in point is the present agreement between Mayavati and Satish Mishra. Although it should also be remembered that BSP-BJP alignment had taken place even during the lifetime of Kanshiram. These pacts may appear unscrupulous but there is no doubt about the fact that they have been affected under the pressure of practical politics. Moreover, as mentioned above, such agreements had already taken place in Ambedkar’s time. It would not be wrong to say that after the ineffectiveness of R.P.I in Maharashtra, the resurgence of BSP under the captainship of Mayavati is the representative dalit politics. And this politics is also bound to have an all-India expansion. This representative dalit politics is Ambedkarite in its genesis as well as in its extension. BSP’s historical vision is not different from RPI’s because it confirms the progressive nature of the British Raj. Indeed, this perception is not very wrong if only the sinister imperial intentions lurching behind the social designs of the British are kept aside.
Much aberration is not there on the cultural plain too. Dr. Ambedkar, after much deliberation, ultimately opted for Buddhism, repudiating the attractive alternatives of either Christianity or Islam. He chose Buddhism because he did not want to denationalize dalit cultural consciousness. In fact, among all the socio-ethical systems of India, he found Buddhism to be the best. Not only this, he dreamt of a Buddhist India, and hoped that sooner or later, all Hindus will be sensible enough to embrace it. On this point there was immense possibility of a dialogue between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Of course, one such dialogue did take place in Sewagram in 1936. It should be noted that post Ambedkar dalit politics is also not averse to the ida of a Buddhist India. The promptness with which BSP is conserving Buddhist symbols, immediately after coming to power is in spirit a furtherance of Ambedkar’s stand.
Indeed Ambedkar tried to give dalit centricity to his politics by focusing it on the identity of dalits and their socio-economic depravity. By founding the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in 1935 he not only fostered the labour movement by cooperating with many other labour organizations, but gave due importance to such dalit-centric issues as social discrimination, untouchability etc. He had noted that the labour class fought its economic battle together but the upper caste labourers evinced caste discrimination in their social interactions with their dalit counterparts. He felt that although revolutionary on economic issues, the caste Hindu labour was reactionary on social issues. Thus he emphasized on formation of dalit leadership even within the fold of labour movements. Giving a solid manifestation to his own perspective, he founded the Scheduled Caste Federation in 1945. Since it was becoming increasingly clear that the British were about to leave, it was essential, Ambedkar felt, that through the forthcoming elections of 1946, dalit interests were secure in the new emerging India. (That is why, before the elections in 1937, be had formed The ILP)
Due to his own abilities, due as well to the momentum of the Federation and the cooperation of Congress members, Ambedkar was extremely successful in securing as far as possible, dalit interests in the Indian Constitution. But as it became increasingly evident that independent India had different expectations, he did not hesitate to disband his Scheduled Caste Federation (by 1951) and found The Republican Party of India (RPI). This party, while preserving its preeminently dalit character, was open to all religions and castes. On the occasion of Dhamma Chakk Pavattan on 14 October, 1956, many of Ambedkar’s Brahmin friends also became Buddhists. In fact he envisaged liberation from such stagnant institutions as caste and Varna and not from Indian culture per se. It is another thing that within the latter he was clearly inclined towards Buddhism. His cultural embodiments were Buddha, Kabir and Phule, not Vashishtha, Yagyavalkya, Ramanand, Tulsi, Vivekananda or Gandhi. The socio-cultural initiatives of contemporary dalit politics are undoubtedly Ambedkarite. The present politics of Dalit Brahman alliance has its root in the Ambedkar-Bhopatkar alliance of 1937.
It is also noteworthy that on the pattern of Dr. Ambedkar's Scheduled Caste Federation, Kanshiram, on December 6, 1978, after about five years of groundwork, formally organized the Bamsef and then on the pattern of the IPI on September 24, 1982, tried to widen his political base by organizing the 'DS-4' (Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti). The date of September 24, 1982 was also fixed with care and concern. This data signified the fiftieth anniversary of the Poona Pact which the Congress wanted to celebrate as an important national achievement. But Kanshiram, by establishing DS-4 declared that the day in dalit politics symbolized the beginning of the 'Chamchayug' or the 'psycophancy era'. Describing the non-BSP leaders as the 'chamchas' or the psychophants of the caste Hindus was actually repeating what Dr. Ambedkar had said while describing the Congressite dalits. Kanshiram also wrote a book entitled, 'the Chamchayug'. Finally the BSP or the Bahujan Samaj Party was organised in 1984. Its temper, in the beginning, signified trenchant opposition to the caste Hindus but soon after a clash with the backward leader Mulayam Singh the severity of the opposition to caste Hindus lessened somewhat and the latter were accorded place in the party. By the advent of the year 2006 the party openly entered into a Dalit Brahmin agreement. Actually for the sake of political expediency and expanding its political base this political co-living started. The result was that for the first time the BSP attained full majority in Uttar Pradesh Assembly. What is important from the Ambedkarite view point is that the BSP, at the level of its policy and leadership, has maintained its leading role among the dalits. This is also important that it has also added the elephant and the blue colour, two symbols dear to Baba Saheb, to its political identity. Thus despite certain variations a basic thread of continuity exists between Baba Saheb's political behaviour and that of the BSP. What is still more important is that the dalit politics has gained self confidence and by transcending 'Dalit-in-itself' it is proceeding via 'Dalit-for-itself' towards 'sarvajan' or Dalits for the country. Without this its effective role at the national level is not possible. Such was the feeling with Baba Saheb as well. For him the Scheduled Caste Federation had become irrelevant by 1951 and he had organised a political party like the Republican Party of India.
But Baba Saheb had a lot of many other worries also. He had raised the question: 'Who will rule India---Wealth or human beings? His worry also centred round the point that democratic politics does not mean mere elections but it also denotes creation of a potentially constructive and really democratic society. He had also pointed to the dangers of elected dictators also. What he actually wanted was socialism with multi party parliamentary democracy. His viewpoint was that the real danger does not consist in ownership but in disparity in the distribution of comfort and wealth. In fact, he wanted equality and freedom to go hand in hand. This is why he went on repeating the aims of the French Revolution---Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In India he wanted an organic social system wherein the injury felt by one part would send tremors in all other parts. This was not possible through the traditional caste and Varna based Hindu social system because within this the castes undergo their pain and pleasure in closed narrow grooves. He was also correct in holding that this segregation was the main reason behind India's political, social and intellectual defeat in history. It was also this which had been clarified by Karl Marx in the 1850s itself. But Baba Saheb Ambedkar, unlike Marx, did not want a revolution for India. Quite like John Stuart Mill, he preferred a democracy. This means that he wanted political power not as a means to violence but to power and effulgence. In this context he was a satyagrahi of his own type.
It is possible to point out self-contradictions in Baba Saheb's corpus of thought. Self-contractions do exist in the politics of Baba Saheb and that of the BSP. But such self-contradictions are apparent in Gandhi, Nehru, the Congress, Lohia and the Socialist Party of the Mulayam Singh brand. They are obvious in Shyama Prasad Mukherjee's Bharatiya Janta Party. As a matter of fact times have changed. Personal property and multi-party democracy has attained amazing acceptance credibility. The West is again in the form of an ideal model before us. So far we do not have even a proper critique of the corporate democracy, marketisation and globalisation.
All is in a state of uncertainty. All thoughtful parties, by safeguarding their basic postulates are facing the challenge to make themselves up-to-date. The Congress is vexed with its Nehru legacy while BJP with the Golvalkar one. The Marx, Lenin and Mao legacies are undergoing a clash among their own selves. The Dalit Movement too is not free from this turmoil. There is seeming difficulty in collaboration between Kanshiram's Bamsef and DS-4 with Mayawati's BSP. In Maharashtra many of the one time Ambedkarite stalwarts appear to have forged relationship with BJP and Shiva Sena whose severe criticism had once provided them a political footing. Many of the Dalit thinkers today are talking in terms of taking Baba Saheb and Karl Marx together---a possibility which was dismissed by Dr. Ambedkar himself by bringing Gautam Buddha's towering personality before one and all. Thus turmoil persists in the realm of Dalit thought as well. But this much is beyond controversy that the Dalit politics in Uttar Pradesh has attained self-confidence and by transcending the concepts of 'Dalit' and 'Bahujan' it is proceeding towards 'Sarvajan'. This is also indicative of the expansion of the Dalit Samaj's political ambition. The roots of this ambition can be traced back to Baba Saheb's political dispensation.
----------------------------------------
1 Das, Bhagwan. Thus Spoke Ambedkar, Dalit Today Prakashan, Lucknow (U.P.) India, Ed. 2002 Page 18.
2 Ambedkar, B. R., Federation Verses Freedom, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches, Vol. 1 Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra 1979, Page-334.
3 Das, Bhagwan. Thus Spoke Ambedkar, Dalit Today Prakashan, Lucknow (U.P.) India, Ed. 2002 Page 225.
4 Ambedkar, B. R., Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches, Vol. 1 Education Department, Govt. of Maharashtra 1979, Page-231.
5 Ambedkar, B. R. Buddha or Karl Marx Dr. Babasaheb Writing and Speches Vol. 3 Education Department Govt. of Maharastra 1987, page 451-452
6 Keer, Dhananjay, Dr. Ambedkar Life and Mition, Popular Prakashan Mumbai, Third Edition 1971, page 370.
7 Ibid- page 441
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें