Author Archives: notsomeritorios

It has come to my notice that after I called out Gayatri Spivak for her arrogant and casteist behaviour against me in her lecture, another Bengali Bhadralok Bamani has come to the rescue and defence of Spivak .

Bose wrote an opinion piece on the digital media website Scroll titled

“Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and the democratic politics of pronunciation

A controversy broke out on social media when Spivak corrected a student’s pronunciation of WEB Du Bois’s name – after explaining why.”


Let’s begin with the title of her opinion piece itself, which is nothing but a pilloried attempt to act in solidarity with her caste brethren.

Despite being ample proof in the video which I have shared on micro blogging website X (formerly Twitter) that Spivak was being rude against me and humiliating me in from of the entire auditorium, Bose deliberately chose to keep the title of her opinion as “Gayatri Spivak and Democratic Politics of Pronunciation “

Is shutting down a young student for his pronunciation a “democratic politics of pronunciation”? I guess you all know better.

Bose writes “about her alleged “arrogance” directed at a “subaltern” student”.

She is clearly taking side with Spivak here by not accepting that she was arrogant. On the other hand she is absolving her by terming her arrogance as “alleged”.

I must make you all aware of the video which I have shared on my X (formerly Twitter)account and see to if it was not absolute arrogance and not “alleged” arrogance on part of  Spivak in rebuking, chiding and reprimanding me for my pronunciation.

Then how is it that Bose is going to the extent of calling her arrogance as alleged.
It shows she is trying very hard to defend her fellow Bhodrolok Bengali Brahmin.

And that too despite her claiming that she was sitting right next to where I stood in the auditorium.

If she was sitting right next to me, why didn’t she bother to tell the readers what actually happened in those five minutes of arrogance displayed by Spivak against me?

Why did she choose to focus only on the content of the lecture given by Spivak. In a sense Bose has transcribed the entire lecture in order to make a case for defending Spivak.


Bose writes “A lecture against arrogance
Interestingly, and ironically enough, in talking about the acknowledgement of complicity, Spivak’s lecture was against arrogance – the arrogance of taking an “I am Right, You are Wrong” position when the matter is contradictory and complicated – by citing Du Bois as an exemplary case.”


What is ironic here is that Bose has subtitled Spivak’s lecture as a Lecture against arrogance and we all know from the video I have shared already how arrogant Spivak was in her demeanor in correcting my pronunciation.

Bose also makes a point that Spivak’s lecture was against the practice of taking a “I am right and You are wrong” position.

Behold thyself for the unimaginable irony my friends. Do I need to reiterate that during her entire five minutes of shouting on me Spivak was hell bent on “I am right and You are wrong” kind of attitude. Then by what logic has Bose argued that Spivak’s lecture was against arrogance of “I am right and you are wrong”?


Bose argues that Spivak has explained the politics of pronunciation that involved Du Bois’s pronunciation in her lecture and that was Du Bois’s insistence on his name being pronounced as “Du Boys” as in English as against “Du Bwaah” as in French as a mark of protest against French Colonialism owing to Du Bois Haitian (a French colony ) origins.

But Both Bose is deliberately defending Spivak through this politics of pronunciation which stands nowhere close to me as I am nowhere in any context between French and English Colonialism. For me Both French and English are Foreign and in fact the politics of pronunciation was in a context which was Du Bois’s protest against French Colonialism. How that context becomes so important in a third world country that it can justify interrupting me thrice for my pronunciation is something that I can’t fathom.


Bose even went to the extent of accusing me of my lying about Bihari Lal Bhaduri being Great Grandfather of Spivak.

Bose wrote which has now been edited after my complaint to the executive editor of Scroll, that “  such a lineage of privilege. Apparently, however, Bihari Lal Bhaduri was no relative of Spivak’s at all, merely a friend of a relative.”

This paragraph has thus been deleted and edited by the publisher.

I am attaching the article here in which Spivak has herself claimed that She was great granddaughter of Bihari Lal Bhaduri.

So now the question is what made Bose defend Spivak with so much rigor if not the caste solidarity among Brahmins.




https://scroll.in/article/1068311/opinion-gayatri-chakravorty-spivak-and-the-democratic-politics-of-pronunciation


https://sfonline.barnard.edu/heilbrun/spivak_01.htm

As I am writing this, counting for JNUSU polls is underway. The most disturbing thing that happened this election was the cancellation of Swati Singh’s Candidature as General Secretary.

On the intervening night preceding the day of elections, Swati’s candidature was revoked with immediate notice at around 2 AM.

What then followed was a curious case of politics of everyday life being transmogrified into the politics of JNUSU Polls.

United Left Panel in a hurry fielded BAPSA’s Priyanshi Arya as  United Left Panel’s candidate for Gen Sec. Keep it in mind that the new posters released after this proves that Left Unity has broken.

How? The posters thus released have only AISA, SFI and AISF as undersigned for central panel Candidates. DSF is absent.

So, the United Left is no Longer United. Left unity has broken just before the elections.

DSF has taken a stand that they want re-election for the post of Gen Sec. And Swati Singh  has gone on an indefinite hunger strike against what she claims ‘ABVP-Admin’ nexus. Whereas AISA has not cleared their stance regarding the cancellation of Swati’s candidature.

What is even more interesting is that BAPSA has also not officially acquiesced to the fielding of Priyanshi as a Gen Sec Candidate for the now broken United Left Panel. BAPSA has neither supported DSF’s demand for re-election nor accepted the now broken United Left Panel’s fielding of Priyanshi as Gen Sec.

At first it seems ABVP is acting against Swati Singh but why has AISA not taken a stance in support of Swati?

Is AISA literally being true to its Hindi translation Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad?

As we are all aware, last night we saw the rhetorical fight between the candidates contesting for the post of president JNUSU as part of the presidential debate in the historic Jhelum Lawn.

I would like to focus specifically on the speech delivered by United Left Panel’s Dhananjay. In the beginning of his speech he mentions that he is the voice of the farmers against the company Raj of the Indian government and then goes on to say that he is the voice of the struggle of dalit landless labourers in the Bihar region.

It’s quite funny to see that the Left Panel’s Presidential candidate has no understanding about the Indian Agrarian Structure and thus is unfit to contest for the post of JNUSU President.

How can he be the voice of both the “farmers” against the State and the “Dalit Landless Labourers” against the “Farmers”?

If the fight of “farmers” is against the Indian Crony Capitalist State, then the fight of Dalit Landless Labourers is against the feudal category of farmers in India, the Kulakhs of India.

Then, how is he the voice of both of them who stand in antagonism with each other?

If we trace the history of this word “farmer” and how its meaning has been created we need to look at the Punjab Alienation of the Land Act, 1909 of the British Indian regime.

This Act mandated and defined two categories of castes,

1. Agriculturist Castes

2. Non Agriculturist Castes

The motive behind this categorisation was the ease of revenue collection and protection of ‘agriculturist’ castes from the market hegemony of non agriculturist Castes, primarily the sahookars, moneylenders who were exploiting the ‘zamindars’ and affecting the revenue collection from agricultural produce which was a major source of wealth of the British Empire in India.

This act thus provided protection to the land ‘owned’ by these ‘agriculturist’ castes from the moneylenders and further consolidated land holdings in the hands of these agriculturist Castes.

Non Agriculturist Castes also included the untouchable castes  (Chamars, Valmikis, Khatiks etc)  who were mere tillers of land and they were not officially designated as agriculturists.

There were nine Castes in this category of Agriculturalist Castes-:

1. Jats

2. Rajputs

3. Ahirs

4. Sainis

5. Rors

6. Bishnois

7. Gurjars

8. Kamboj

9. Meo (Mewati)

These castes have since then consolidated their identity of ‘farmer’ and even today they have become synonymous with this idea of who is a farmer.

And they have a clear hold over land holdings in the most fertile northern Indian plains even today, for which I don’t have to provide you with enough statistics, and it should be known to you already.

This was the background to the concern I am about to raise. So I questioned Dhananjay on his presidential speech which was uploaded  by ‘aisajnu’ on their Instagram account and posted a comment highlighting that how is a voice of two visibly disparate elements of Indian society, the feudal category of farmers which I have just shown above and the Dalit Landless Labourers?

aisajnu has now deleted my comment and blocked me from following them on their Instagram account.

Is this how the Left Panel Celebrates dissent on this campus?

Your insecurities are evident now. I am your nemesis, keep it in mind.

As I am writing this, JNUSU is about to go to polls on 22nd this month preceded by a presidential debate on the 20th.

JNU is an idea, as it is quite emphatically often repeated in Indian Progressive Circles. And it doesn’t stop at that. What comes next is the romanticisation of this idea of a university as an ideal for the entire India’s higher education as a model.

Even though nowhere it is talked about why should a university like JNU if it is to exist as a national idea be located only in the power centre of Indian nation state, New Delhi.

What then ails this idea? It is a matter of national concern these days that this idea of JNU is under attack through its student organisation ABVP in particular and BJP’s Narendra Modi Government in general. What is often cited as evidence of this attack is physical violence resorted to by ABVP students on Left Oriented Students. Although the left claims that the hindu right is tinkering with the epistemic structure of the Indian higher education in general and JNU in particular, their primary visual to be sent across India is that of physical violence perpetrated by the Hindu right on students who hail from progressive orientations as unlike the Hindu hardliners.

I would like to argue here that it is not the hindu right that ails JNU as staunchly as does and has been done by the Indian Left.

Systematic destruction of a university and it’s idea takes much more than physical violence. It’s in the realm of epistemic violence that ideas are destroyed. And what ails JNU as an idea is the very idea of JNU itself as fashioned by the Indian Left.


JNU founded in 1969 by the then Prime Minister of India was at the centre stage during prominent events India witnessed primarily the 1975 Emergency and the 1991 93 Babri Mandal era.


For much of its existence till the implementation of the Mandal Commission report JNU continued to be an elite club of upper caste students, most of them hailing directly from other elite undergraduate colleges like St Stephen’s, LSR Miranda etc.

Around the time of Mandal and Babri, India was going through a churning. The hold of congress was weakening, the BJP had begun its innings and Kanshiram had established a Bahujan imagination in the minds of the people.

The Congress was losing its ground in the political sphere at both central level and state level in many states.

At this juncture JNU proved to be of undue interest to the Indian Left as a bastion of intellectuals who held sway over whatever knowledge was being produced on and about the Indian populace. But this time it also has to take into account increasing assertion by Dalits in particular and the Bahujan struggle in general.

As a salvage and necessary collateral, JNU saw recruitment of many professors from bahujan background within the benevolent magnanimity of the Indian Left. Most of the professors recruited at that time were members of Left Student organisations at some point in their life in JNU.

This is reflected even today in the politics played by seemingly Bahujan organisations. Their form and substance is both inspired by and modelled on the Indian Left’s revolutionary ideals of Padhai and Ladai, which the Indian Left very subtly plants as a cry for praxis along with theory.

Such implants of revolutionary ideals in the minds of the young students are done without taking into consideration their material social reality. A large number of students from marginalised backgrounds who enter JNU even today are first generation learners whose parents are manual labourers or engaged in petty jobs with uncertainty and insecurity of income and no ancestral wealth.

In such a situation, these students fall victim to this love for revolutionary action being romanticised by the Indian Left. Even today you won’t find a single dalit student who has been actively associated with the Indian Left and has established themselves as an independent thinker, and by independent I mean being able to critique the ignominies of the Indian Left. One or Two exceptions cannot be denied but often they end up being appropriated and assimilated in the schema of Indian Left’s epistemic hegemony.

It is this epistemic hegemony of the Indian Left which is an eyesore for the Hindu Right and the Hindu Right is fighting tooth and nail about it.

The Indian Left has a serious challenge from the Writings of Ambedkar and Phule. I chose not to write Phule Ambedkarite tradition in academic sense as in academia it has already been co-opted by the Indian Left.

Writings of Ambedkar still remain Untouchable for academics trained in the Indian Left. In the name of adding Jai Bhim as a prefix to Laal Salam the Indian Left has already swayed over the rising assertion which could have come about from an intense reading of Ambedkar’s Literature. The academic sphere dominated by the Indian Left is so sanitised and an exclusive elite club that even the BJP gets a complex while attacking them, which can be seen in the diatribes of Modi, ‘Urban Naxals’, ‘Khan Market Gang’ etc

The danger to the Indian Left is from the literature of Ambedkar and Phule and in that tradition whatever is the lineage of untouchables and they are very much aware of it.

They now mask this danger by trying to organise the entire energies of Dalits in this imagined enemy the Fascist Hindu Right.

Much like the BJP  implants the fear and danger of a Muslim Other in the minds of the hindu populace, so does the Indian Left creates insecurity and fear among the progressive populace of an immediate danger of Fascist Hindu Right.

All the energies then are concentrated in countering that immediate danger and rest all issues concerning the nation are shown a door that will be opened post revolution, a revolution which never comes. Isn’t this the same tactic used by the Hindu Right to shift the matter of national concern to the backseat and focus on a fight for Hindu resurgence?

Both the Indian Left and the Hindu Right use the same tactics. The fear mongering done by the Indian Left is seemingly secular as opposed to a communal enemy and the fear mongering done by Hindu Right is seemingly communal as opposed to a secular enemy.

The BJP today hosts the most representative government in Indian History. And this year the Left Unity in JNUSU elections has fielded a Dalit candidate for the post of president.

The Indian Left often disparages those represented in the BJP from among untouchables and other backward classes as foot soldiers of Hindutva. It questions their representation without giving any semblance of agency to the individuals of these communities.

But when it comes to their own politics, the Indian Left claims that the representation they provide is substantive. The question remains to be answered by the untouchable and other backward classes population within the framework of Phule Ambedkarite tradition, with a very careful distance from Indian Academia.

“घीसू और माधव समाज के उस तबके से आते हैं जो सदियों से गरीबी और अभाव में जीने को मजबूर है। उनकी छाया भर से उच्चवर्णी समाज अपवित्र हो जाता है। आज इक्कीसवीं सदी में भी उनकाआर्थिक-सामाजिक-राजनीतिक भागीदारी व बुनियादी हक जैसे सरल सवाल पर वह बौखला उठता है। घीसू और माधव दमन व शोषण पर आधारित इसी घोर असंवेदनशील सामाजिक व्यवस्था की उपज हैं जिसने उनकी सारी मानवीय संवेदनाओं को पत्थर कर डाला है”

तो यह पंक्तियां कोई तो मित्र रंजन की है। जो इन्होंने आपने ब्लॉग जनपथ पर लिखे एक लेख में लिखी हैं! इनकी जाती क्या है मुझे ज्ञात नहीं है लेकिन भाषा से ये सवर्ण ही नजर आ रहे हैं.

तो मैं आपको बता दूं यहां मित्र रंजन सामंत के मुंशी प्रेमचन्द की कहानी ‘कफन’  का जिक्र कर रहे हैं. इस कहानी में संक्षिप्त में बताऊं तो घीसू और माधव बाप बेटे हैं और वह दोनों माधव की बीवी बुधिया को प्रसव पीड़ा में अकेले छोड़ देते हैं जिससे वो मर जाती है. 

यहां मित्र रंजन कह रहे हैं की दमनकारी सामाजिक संरचना में रहकर दलितों की मनोस्थिति का यह हाल हुआ है कि वह अपने बीवियों को प्रसव में मरने को छोड़ दे रहे हैं. 

ये कितनी घृणित सोच है यह आपको स्वयं मालूम पड़नी चाहिए. माना की दलित समाज एक दमनकारी व्यवस्था से जूझता रहा है लेकिन क्या इसका यह अर्थ है की हमारे अंदर मानवीय गरिमा ही नही बची है? क्या हम दलित इतने निर्मम हो गए हैं की अपनी औरतों को जानबूझ कर ऐसे मरने के लिए छोड़ दे रहे हैं?

अधिकांश बिकाऊ लोग और सवर्ण तुष्टिकरण के लोभी दलित लोगों को इसमें प्रेमचंद का मानवीय चेहरा नजर आ रहा है की वो दलितों का दर्द समझ रहे हैं और उसे बयान कर रहे हैं.

मेरा सवाल यह है की क्या जातीय सरंचना में सिर्फ दलित की ही मनोस्थिति प्रभावित होती है? दलित ही मानसिक रोगी बनता है? दलित ही अपंग बनता है? क्या वह सवर्ण जो रोज इतनी जुल्म करते है और मानव को मानव नहीं मानते उनके मनोस्थिती बदतर नहीं होती?

यहां तो सीधे तौर पर सामंत के मुंशी ने और मित्र रंजन ने दलितों को मानसिक रोगी ही घोषित कर दिया है!

जबकि दलित हमेशा संघर्षरत रहा है, इतनी यातनाएं झेलने के बाद भी उसका जीवन सहनशीलता की परम पराकाष्ठा है और सामंत का मुंशी ये साबित करने पे तुला है की दलित जातीय सरंचना में इतना बौरा गया है की वह अपनी औरतों को मरता हुआ छोड़ शराब के नशे में धुत रहता है!

कपोल कल्पना में सामंत के मुंशी ने दलित को इतना निर्मम व मानवीय संवेदना से मुक्त दिखा दिया लेकिन यथार्थ तो यही है की दलित अपनी बीवी को प्रसव पीड़ा में छोड़ उसकी हत्या नहीं करता, दलित दशरथ मांझी है जो अपनी बीवी के लिए पहाड़ तक में रास्ता बना देता है।

इन महानुभावों से कोई पूछे की द्विजों ने तो अपनी औरतें जिंदा जलाई हैं, उनकी मनोस्थिती कैसी है इस पर क्या कहने है उनके?

ठाकुर नामवर सिंह को यह पता होना चाहिए, क्योंकि वो खुद को अंबेडकर से प्रभावित भी मानते है की अंबेडकर ने ज्ञान समझी जाने वाली मनुस्मृति का न सिर्फ एक उम्दा ज्ञान से जवाब दिया था बल्कि मनुस्मृति को जला के राख भी किया था!

तो ठाकुर हमे बामन निराला की पंक्ति “आराधन का दृढ़ आराधन से दो उत्तर” हम दलितों को न सिखाएं!

वैसे भी द्विज साहित्य साहित्य हो सकता है एक बार को, उसको ज्ञान मानने की भूल हम दलित कभी न कियें है और न करेंगे!

“ज्ञान के क्षेत्र में ज्ञान से लड़ाई होती है। लाठी, डंडे, तलवार, बंदूक से नहीं होती है।”

ये बोल हैं ठाकुर नामवर सिंह के जहां वो दलित साहित्यकारों द्वारा प्रेमचन्द के criticism करने पर उनको संबोधित कर रहे हैं!

ठाकुर से पूछा जाना चाहिए की दलित साहित्यकारों ने कोंसे लाठी डंडे चला दिए? कौनसी तलवार बंदूक चला दी?

~दलित अच्छी कहानियाँ लिखकर के दिखायें। क्योंकि ‘आराधन का दृढ़ आराधन से दो उत्तर’।~

ये बोल हैं ठाकुर नामवर सिंह के!

पहली बात तो इन जैसे साहित्यकारों से यह पूछा जाए की सिर्फ इसलिए की प्रेमचंद ने दलितों पर कहानियां लिख दी हैं, तो दलित भी खुद पर कहानियां लिख कर सवर्णों को क्यों दिखाए?

हमने तो नहीं कहा सामंत के मुंशी से की तू हमारे ऊपर कहानी लिख!

क्या दुःखी चमार, सिलियान चमारी, मुन्नू मेहतर से प्रेमचंद ने कंसेंट लिया की मैं तुम्हारी कहानी बयां कर सकूं?

तो ठाकुर और बामनों को अब स्वांग रचना बंद कर देना चाहिए!

ऐसे ऐसे लोगों को साहित्यकार माना जा रहा जो प्रेमचंद को सामंत का मुंशी कहने पर यह कहते है, “प्रेमचंद तो कायदे से कहिये कि मुंशी तो थे लेकिन वे हंस के संपादक थे। जो तमाम लोग कलम चलाने वाले थे हल तो उन्होंने न चलाया न चलवाया “

मतलब ऐसे बेवकूफ आदमी को साहित्यकार माना जा रहा है जिसको शब्दों की समझ तक नहीं है!

इनकी माने तो किस व्यक्ति ने यदि कभी हल न चलाया और न चलवाया तो वह सामंत केसे हो गया?

 तुझ बैल की पूंछ पकडूं की सींग? किधर से पकडू तेरी मूर्खता!

सवाल यह है की जब सामंत का मुंशी प्रेमचंद गर्त में जा चुका है। इसकी सारी मटियामेट की जा चुकी है डॉ धरमवीर द्वारा तो फिर चुनिंदा दलित लेखक व लेखिकाएं प्रेमचंद के बचाव में क्यों उतार आए हैं?

सवर्ण तुष्टिकरण के लिए ये चुनिंदा दलित किसी भी हद तक गिर सकते हैं। आए दिन दलित समाज के नौजवान अंतर जातीय विवाह के चक्कर में आकर अपना जीवन बर्बाद और कई बार तो जीवन से हाथ भी धो बैठ रहे हैं लेकिन फिर भी ये चुनिंदा दलित इस बात पर आमादा हैं कि अंतर जातीय विवाह से जाती टूट जाती है। 

संदर्भ:

1.https://junputh.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/%E0%A4%A1%E0%A5%89-%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%95/

2.https://www.shabdankan.com/2017/03/premchand-remembrance-lecture-by-prof-namwar-singh.html?m=1

Parameswaran Iyer has made a name for himself as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s handpicked choice to lead the Swachh Bharat Mission which led to India becoming Open Defecation Free (ODF).

He was the exclusive choice of Our Prime Minister to lead the Swachh Bharat Mission under the Government of India’s newly launched Lateral Entry scheme to the higher echelons of Indian Administrative Services.

Iyer was working with the World Bank Group before joining as Secretary of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation in 2016. His brief stint of four years has an accolade to his name, when India achieved the goal of becoming ODF free.

He resigned in 2020 and again rejoined the World Bank Group.

Recently he has published his autobiography titled “Method in Madness: Insights from My Career as an Insider Outsider Insider” which covers his life as an insider-outsider-insider in his career spanning over 40 years.

He writes in great detail about his career.

One of the chapters in his autobiography he has dedicated to BSP Supremo Behen Kumari Maywati titled “All it takes is one Woman”.

Iyer writes in detail about a World Bank funded water supply and sanitation project in the (Undivided) UP Hills and Bundelkhand region, which were the most water scarce regions of the State.

In the Chapter devoted to Behenji, he writes how as a formal process his team was supposed to take formal approval from the State Cabinet to approve the 60 million USD project loan from the World Bank. At that time (1996), Behenji was Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Iyer was supposed to present the Project in front of her in a meeting.


He writes, “At that time, in 1996, Ms Maywati was the CM of UP and, from what little I knew of her working, ran the State and her Cabinet in a firm manner. I was, therefore, a little apprehensive when my boss, Indrani Sen, suggested that I, the relatively junior Project Director, make the project proposal presentation to the cabinet chaired by the CM. There was good reason to be nervous, since we were proposing to accept a key condition of the world bank: sharing of the capital cost of the water supply schemes by the Swajal Village communities, as well as taking full responsibility for the operation and maintenance.”

Iyer mentions how in the Cabinet meeting there were only two women, one Ms Mayawati, the CM and the other his boss Indrani Sen. Almost everyone in the meeting was apprehensive of the project and even warned Ms Maywati that they might lose the next election if the project is approved.

Iyer writes ” The CM had said nothing until now but after the last Minister’s rejection of the cost recovery principle, she finally spoke. To my utter surprise, she said, ‘None of you understand the plight of women in our villages. They spend their whole life fetching water from long distances, while the men waste all the family’s money on liquor and gambling. A small contribution by the community to the cost of the scheme is fine since piped water to the village will significantly reduce the drudgery of the Women and girls. Project approved.’ I was very relieved and made a mental note of how the CM had stuck to her instincts and, disregarding the potential political fallout, taken a major policy decision to introduce and element of cost recovery in the rural water supply sector. This was the first instance in the country of cost sharing by the user community for a large-scale rural water supply and sanitation project, and it would have a major cascading effect in times to come. The Swajal project loan was signed with the World Bank in the middle of 1996.”

The Planning Commission, GOI (now NITI Aayog), has named the Swajal Project as one of the successful governance initiatives from Indian States.

“Allyship is a proactive, ongoing, and incredibly difficult practice of unlearning and re-evaluating, in which a person of privilege works in solidarity and partnership with a marginalized group of people to help take down the systems that challenge that group’s basic rights, equal access, and ability to thrive in our society.”¹

The idea of allyship is a very modern phenomenon and has its ideation from the Black struggle against the racial oppression by the whites. Lately, this concept in a hyper globalised world has been imported in the Indian discourse against Caste Oppression.

This has recently been witnessed in the debates and discussion around the movie, Jai Bhim, which was released on Amazon Prime. The movie is based on a real incident of police brutality in Tamilnadu in which tribal persons were murdered in judicial custody. Then, a Marxist Human rights Lawyer takes up the case of the murdered persons on behalf of the wife of one of the victims. The movie ends with the Lawyer being able to win the case fought for the lady and the accused policemen and others complicit in the crime are served a legal sentence by the Supreme Court.

Almost all the reviews of this movie that have been featured in the Indian mainstream media and even in alternative media have one thing glaringly common and that is the praise of the “good hearted savarna” who was indoctrinated and influenced by the ideas of Marx and Ambedkar and had in him the spirit of fighting for the cause of the marginalised, for whom no one stands.

This is indeed a commendable act of love and magnanimity that should be praised but there is something missing here which no one has bothered to dig deep into.

If we talk in the binary of the Oppressor and the Oppressed, in Indian society, the Untouchables and Tribals have been systematically oppressed by the Savarnas. The oppressed and the Oppressor stand in contradistinction to each other.

What happens when such exceptional stories of “good hearted savarna” start trending and the idea of allyship gains prominence? Of Course there is no doubt that there are good hearted Savarnas, but what is the need to emphasise on this fact and unnecessarily keep on harping about it?

If we dig deep into the interpersonal relations between the oppressed and the oppressor, there is hierarchy involved and the relation is highly unequal.

“Social, cultural, and economic structures impact the micro-level behavior of individuals, and mutually, individuals’ behavior affects social structures, for example through sustaining oppression (Ratner, 1994; Makki Alamdari & Bishop, 2020). Social oppression has effects on individuals in terms of perception, cognition, morals, emotions, aesthetics, and reasoning. These psychological effects are value-based. That is, the effects are not disorders such as schizophrenia or low educational performance (Ratner, 2011). Ratner (2011) points out to examples of the value-based psychological effects such as believing superficial and biased news, accepting punitive and fundamentalist religious thoughts, conforming to power and theological dogma, obeying the superordinate at work, endorsing the interests of the elite, becoming obsequious, irrationality, lacking critical thought, working with limited capacity, sensational and crude aesthetic taste, and enjoying vicious entertainments. Further, the oppression causes neglect of individuals’ aptitudes and limits people’s power and abilities (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972; Adorno, 1978; Ratner, 2011). Social structures such as oppression affects individuals’ behavior and mind through a variety of processes including social learning, internalization, labeling, defense mechanisms, and fear of being judged (Akers, 2011; Driskell & Salas, 2013; Lakey & Lakey, 1998; Muenster & Lotto, 2013; Smith, Mackie & Claypool, 2014; Thoits, 2013).

As Akers (2011) argues, social learning theory can explain the interrelated connections among cognition, environment, and behavior. The theory developed by Bandura in 1963
demonstrates that individuals learn behaviors through cognitive processes and in social context. Observation of behaviors or behaviors’ consequences provides patterns for action. Rewards, punishments, and consequences reinforce the behavior (Akers, 2011). In this case, when people in the oppressive society observe that the oppressors get benefits from oppression, the people learn and are encouraged to join the oppressors and repeating their behaviors to get the benefits. Obeying and endorsing superordinate, loyalty to superior, and obsequious behaviors (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1972; Ratner, 2011) might be the results of the social learning. ” ²

From the above articulation by Sara Makki Alamdari it is clear the behaviour of the oppressed in general is regulated to an extent by the unequal power relations of which he is a part in the larger society. His cognition, perception, emotions makes him obey the superordinates, endorse the interest of the elites and become obsequious to the extent of being highly irrational.

In short the oppressed psychology is influenced to a great extent by the oppression he is facing and this is a direct result of the injustice meted out to him by the society. When one is accustomed to so much pain, disabilities and trauma historically it is natural for him to seek moments of love, laughter and happiness and forget the collective wrath meted out in him the oppressor. In so much as he is greatly influenced by even small gestures of kindness and acts of love shown by the Oppressor, even though that kindness and love is something he deserves being a human. The Oppressor is not doing any favour on him through such gestures and acts but the fallen man ends up forgiving the Oppressor community as a whole by observing the kind actions of a few individuals from among the Oppressors.

This makes him loyal to those few good Oppressors and as the interpersonal relations between him and the Oppressor are highly unequal and power laden, it is often the oppressed who ends up internalising the Oppression meted out on him. He forgets that his Oppression is systemic and a few individuals behaving otherwise against him is not akin to the collective psyche of the Oppressor changing in his favour.

1.https://nvcguides.libguides.com/c.php?g=1132585&p=8266498

2. Makki Alamdari, S. (2020). Psychology of the oppressed: Viewpoints. IUPUI ScholarWorks.

Continue reading “On Allyship: How it dilutes the loyalty of the Oppressed to the oppressed and shifts it towards the Oppressor”

There can be no change in the status quo under the leadership of universities. A Universitiy is a universal solvent of dissent, differences of opinions, resistance and struggle from the below.

It is a universal sink. Everything that becomes a part of the university discourse is bound to go down that sink and flushed into the drain, dissipating into free energy which is of no use.

Marek Kwiek, a professor at Poznan University of Poland writes that “The upper echelons of highly productive academics (the upper 10 percent of academics who are ranked highest in terms of their publishing performance in 11 European countries) provide, on average, almost half of all academic knowledge production.”

This points to the fact that there is a monopoly on knowledge production of certain academics from certain specific Universities. Universities act as middlemen of Knowledge Production and there are limitations to bypass the Universities, if one is to produce knowledge that is widely recognised and legitimised.

Historically it has been seen that, knowledge production when it was not institutionalised or centralised, there were lesser chances of human societies being socially stratified or unequal. Knowledge was being produced by everyone and it was an evolutionary necessity. It’s highly probable that fire was discovered individually by different groups of Homo Sapiens living in geographically different locations throughout the world. And as such civilization was not born yet.

As civilization was born, the number of humans living in proximity increased considerably, cities emerged and the human population soared considerably with the advances in innovation like use of fire, agriculture, metallurgy etc. With this the social cohesion increased and with this increased the urge in certain sections of humans to control the resources which are scarce and difficult to obtain and sustain. 

The animosity among different sections to have ownership over the resources must have been a direct result of living in such  proximity as was made possible with the rise of cities, towns and industrial centres.

This was probably the beginning of the idea of private ownership of resources in human societies.  

Now, it was known to them that in order to rule the material realm it was imperative to rule in the realm of ideas. Thus the shift in human involvement from material production to production of ideas, which were de-linked from any material manifestations. This marked the first distinction between material knowledge that was practical and knowledge of ideas which was theoretical and abstract. 

It was now easier to control the means of production and this control and ownership of means of production by the ruling class was justified and legitimised through control over the production of knowledge and ideas.

Although ideas are not anyone’s prerogative, which ideas gain legitimacy and which don’t is decided by the ruling class. So it was important for the ruling class to control the knowledge production to sustain its hegemony.

A Classic example of this is the system of castes which was developed by Brahmins of the Indian subcontinent. They justified their control over means of production through religious scriptures, a realm of ideas.

Nobody but the Brahmins were the sole proprietors of legitimised knowledge and there were severe restrictions on the masses to have access to this legitimised form of knowledge of ideas.

What perpetuates the hegemony of the ruling class is not concerned with whether the knowledge produced is faulty or not but the fact that it is legitimized and credentialed.

An example here could make it more interesting and clear. Brahmins have had control over knowledge production, and we can say it could have been largely faulty too but what made them become the ruling class is not the fact they produced faulty knowledge but they were the sole proprietors of legitimised knowledge.

The idea of universal education is a very recent phenomenon. Historically there has never been a universal education seen in any society. The ruling class has always controlled the centres of knowledge production and Centres of excellence where legitimised knowledge is imparted and the access to these centres was limited and exclusive.

Centres of excellence are in fact centres of power. Excellence is decentralised and needs no central authority to flourish. The existence of Centres of Excellence is a ruling class exigency to contain knowledge production within the niche of ruling ideas.

If knowledge production is not centralised, then it becomes very difficult for the ruling class to hold sway over public opinions and create public opinions that are in consonance with the Status Quo. 

A centralised institution of excellence filters the thoughts of individuals and makes their thoughts align with the thoughts and opinions which the ruling class wants in order to maintain the hegemony over the servile class.

Universities are such centralised institutions that produce and impart legitimised and credentialed knowledge. 

And thus act as middlemen of the legitimised knowledge production and dissemination.

No knowledge can be made legitimate and imparted by  bypassing the Universities. They act as brokers of legitimised knowledge production and even dissemination.

To break this monopoly, we either need to have complete decentralisation of both the production of legitimised knowledge and it’s dissemination or achieve universal education.  Only then we can hope that the ideas coming from the bottom rungs of society will gain legitimacy and the ruling ideas will disintegrate. The legitimacy of control of means of production by the ruling class will be questioned more and more and the men sitting on the pinnacle of the palace will be brought down. Until then universities will keep acting as vehicles which perpetuate ruling class hegemony and even justify that. 

Agriculture shall be State Industry;

(1) That State shall acquire the subsisting rights in such industries, insurance and agricultural land held by private individuals, whether us owners, tenants or mortgagees and pay them compensation in the form of debenture equal to the value of his or her right in the land. Provided that in reckoning the value of land, plant or security no account shall be taken of any rise therein due to emergency, of any potential or unearned value or any value for compulsory acquisition;

(2) The State shall determine how and when the debenture holder shall be entitled to claim cash payment;

(3) The debenture shall be transferable and inheritable property but neither the debenture holder nor the transferee from the original holder nor his heir shall be entitled to claim the return of the land or interest in any industrial concern acquired by the State or be entitled to deal with it in any way;

(4) The debenture-holder shall be entitled to interest on his debenture at such rate as may be defined by law, to be paid by the State in cash or in kind as the State may deem fit;

(5) Agricultural industry shall be organized on the following basis:

(i) The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size and let out the farms for cultivation to residents of the village as tenants (made up of group of families) to cultivate on the following conditions:

(a) (a)The farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm ;

(b) (b)The farm shall be cultivated in accordance with rules and directions issued by Government;

(c) The tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly leviable on the farm.

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless
labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements, manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to—

(a) (a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm:

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements, manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to—

(a) (a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm:

(i) a portion for land revenue;

(ii) a portion to pay the debenture-holders;

(iii) a portion to pay for the use of capital goods supplied; and

(b) (b) to prescribe penalties against tenants who break the conditions of
tenancy or wilfully neglect to make the best use of the means of cultivation offered by the State or otherwise act prejudicially to the scheme of collective farming;

Excerpt taken from “States and Minorities” written by Dr BR Ambedkar

ऐसे लोगों की कमी नहीं है जो अछूतों की दयनीय स्थिति से दुखी हो यह चिल्लाकर अपना जी हल्का करते फिरते हैं कि ‘हमें अछूतों के लिए कुछ करना चाहिए।’ लेकिन इस समस्या को जो लोग हल करना चाहते हैं, उनमें से शायद ही कोई ऐसा व्यक्ति हो जो यह कहता हो कि “हमें सवर्ण हिंदुओं को बदलने के लिए भी कुछ करना चाहिए।’ यह धारणा बनी हुई है कि अगर किसी का सुधार होना है तो वह अछूतों का ही होना है। अगर कुछ किया जाना है तो वह अछूतों के प्रति किया जाना है और अगर अछूतों को सुधार दिया जाए, तब छुआछूत की भावना मिट जाएगी। सवर्णों के बारे में कुछ भी नहीं किया जाना है। उनकी भावनाएं, आचार-विचार और आदर्श उच्च हैं। वे पूर्ण हैं, उनमें कहीं भी कोई खोट नहीं है। क्या यह धारणा उचित है? यह धारणा उचित हो या अनुचित, लेकिन हिंदू इसमें कोई परिवर्तन नहीं चाहते? उन्हें इस धारणा का सबसे बड़ा लाभ यह है कि वे इस बात से आश्वस्त हैं कि वे अछूतों की समस्या के लिए बिल्कुल भी उत्तरदायी नहीं हैं।”

~ अछूत अथवा भारत की बहिष्कृत बस्तियों के प्राणी में बाबा साहेब अंबेडकर

भारत एक अजीब देश है और पश्चम वासियों को पूर्व वासी भारत के सम्मोहन ने हमेशा हैरान किया है। पश्चिम वासी समाजशास्त्रियों ने भारतीय समाज का गहनता से अध्ययन किया है, ऐसा समाज जो प्रमुखता से जाती प्रधान समाज है।

अल बरूनी से लेकर फाहियान, एबे दूब्वाह से लेकर लुई दूमों, सूसन बेली से लेकर निकोलस डर्क्स, कई पाश्चात्य समाजशास्त्री व बुद्धिजीवियों ने हिंदू सामाजिक व्यवस्था को समझाने व प्रतिपादित करने के कई प्रयास किए हैं। इन सभी ने अपने अपने मूलभूत प्रस्तावों के जरिए काफी प्रयास किए हैं जाती के प्रश्न को समझने व समझाने में परंतु ये सभी अनिवार्य रूप से अछूतों के उत्थान के लिए कोई विशेष समाधान देने में असमर्थ रहे हैं।

ऐसा क्यों है कि सवर्णों द्वारा किए जाने वाले सुधार का प्रमुख केंद्र अछूत ही रहते हैं? इस बात पर ध्यान क्यों नहीं दिया जाता है कि सुधार की जरूरत सवर्णों को है। सवर्णों को मानवता सिखाई जानी चाहिए। सुधार का केंद्र बिंदु अछूत न होकर सवर्ण होने चाहिए।

कभी कभी व ज्यादा से ज्यादा, उदार व प्रगतिशील सवर्ण अगर कुछ सोच सकता है तो वह अछूतों का तारणहार बनने की भावना तक ही सीमित है, लेकिन उसके ऐसा सोचने से समाज की मौजूदा स्थिति में रत्ती भर भी बदलाव नहीं आता।

अभी हाल ही में उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने एक फैंसले में अनुसूचित जाति व जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम में दर्ज एक मुकदमे को खारिज कर दिया। ऐसा करने में उच्च न्यायालय ने भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 142 द्वारा उसको दिए गए विशेषाधिकार का उपयोग किया।

न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय में यह कहा की दोषी ने दलित महिला को, जो उसकी पड़ोसी भी है, उन दोनों के बीच चल रहे संपत्ति विवाद के कारण कुंठा में आकर गाली दी।

यह तो अच्छी तरह से सब को मालूम है कि ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से देखा जाए तो हिंदू धर्म शास्त्र मनु स्मृति के अनुसार अछूतों को धन संपदा, संपत्ति व जमीन के अधिग्रहण का अधिकार नहीं था। क्या उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीशों को यह बिलकुल भी नहीं सूझा कि एक अछूत और सवर्ण के बीच हुए संपत्ति विवाद में जातिवादी मानसिकता का प्रच्छन भाव भी हो सकता है।

उस सवर्ण दोषी की वह कुंठा या कहें निराशा कहीं बाहर से नहीं आई। वह अछूतों के प्रति उसकी तिरस्कार व ईर्ष्या की भावना को दर्शाता है।

क्या न्यायधीशो का यह अपेक्षा करना की कोई भी अछूत अपमानजनक जातिवादी टिप्पणियों को सिर्फ इसलिए सुनता रहे क्योंकि कोई सवर्ण निराश है या कुंठित है, नैतिक रूप से अनुचित नहीं है?

नाजी पूर्व यूरोप में यहूदियों के नाम उपहास के तौर पर रखे जाते थे। उनके नाम मखौल का पात्र रहते थे। कोई ऐसा सोच सकता है कि केवल किसी व्यक्ति का गाली से भरे शब्दों से उसका मजाक बनाने व उसकी पूरी बिरादरी का अपमान करने में इतनी शक्ति कहां हो सकती की उस व्यक्ति व उसकी पूरी बिरादरी की जिंदगियां ही तबाह कर दें। परंतु आज पूरी दुनिया यह देख व जान चुकी है कि कैसे यहूदियों के प्रति तिरस्कार व निरादर की भावना, नाजी जर्मनी के कुख्यात तानाशाह हिटलर के शासन में यहूदियों के नरसंहार में तब्दील हो गई।

क्या भारत इसी बात का इंतजार कर रहा है कि भविष्य में कोई जातिवादी श्रेष्ठता में विश्वास रखने वाला तानाशाह आए और अछूतों का भी वही हश्र हो जो यहूदियों का हिटलर के राज में हुआ?

अगर ऐसा नहीं है तो फिर भारत सरकार की ऐसी कोई पुख्ता नीति क्यों नही है जो इस पर बात का ध्यान रखे कि अछूतों की गरिमा की इज्जत की जानी चाहिए। ऐसे सवर्ण जो जातिवादी मानसिकता से ग्रसित हैं, उनको ऐसी शिक्षा क्यों नही दी जाती की वह अपने घरों में सिखाए गए जातिवादी मूल्यों को त्याग दें, अछूतों के प्रति संवेदनशील बनें और एक बेहतर इंसान बनें।

भारतीय शिक्षा प्रणाली में कोई ऐसा पाठ्यक्रम क्यों नही है जो विद्यार्थियों को अछूतों के प्रति होते आए और वर्तमान में हो रहे अत्याचारों के बारे में अवगत करवाए, भले ही वो अत्याचार केवल मौखिक जातिसूचक गालियां हो, जानलेवा हमले हों या फिर जान से मार देना।