Rahul Sonpimple
The post-Ambedkar Dalit discourse can be broadly outlined through three key developments in the Dalit movement: 1) the struggle for constitutional rights, 2) the mission for political autonomy, and 3) the quest for alternative culture through Ambedkar’s Buddhism. While mainstream Dalit politics has largely remained fragmented, there is noticeable strengthening in both non-political aspects, such as social movements and grassroots leadership. Drawing inspiration from James Scott’s concept of everyday resistance, I term this leadership in the Dalit movement ‘Everyday Leadership’.
This everyday leadership operates within the strong ideological boundaries of post-Ambedkar times, creating public spaces and events for legal rights and, more notably, for an alternative, dignified identity and culture. However, the Popular Dalit Discourse, which encompasses English Dalit autobiographies, mainstream cinemas, academic literature, and popular artistic work, primarily revolves around proving or searching for ‘what is ethical in Dalit life’. This ethical quest in popular Dalit discourse is sourced from liberal political correctness, working in tandem with a capitalistic version of post-ideology.
Although it’s futile to argue the existence of something called post-ideological, as Zizek contends, “The fundamental level of ideology is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself. And at this level, we are of course far from being a post-ideological society.” Thus, the subject, not the state, now serves as the locus of ideology. Moreover, my distinction between ideological and post-ideological in Dalit discourse, although not derived directly from Zizek’s emphasis that ‘today we live in a more ideological world than in the past’, takes cues from his understanding. It aims to comprehend how, in popular Dalit discourse, it’s not structure/state/caste anymore, but individual agency and subjectivity itself become authentic sources to legitimize one’s ideological position. For instance, a recent controversy involving Yashica Dutt, a Dalit woman writer, asking for credit for her ideas (Coming Out as Dalit) in ‘Made in Heaven’, took an ugly turn when another Dalit academic, Sumit Boudh, claimed that ‘Coming Out Dalit’ was his original idea. What is more important here is not the content, and therefore the controversy, but the structure of thoughts and ideas that allows one to fetishize the very concept of the ‘victim self’. While such claims and an individual’s ‘observer self’ within popular Dalit discourse locate caste more as a psychological phenomenon, at the grassroots, caste still appears as the objective socio-material reality. And against this socio-material reality, the movement works within the ambit of ideological boundaries in the Dalit movement.
If you have noticed, one constant movement, mostly standing against state (caste), is the religious conversion of Dalits to Buddhism, which has remained a constant act to claim the glorious ‘collective self’ of Dalits. The recent mass conversion of Dalits by denouncing Hinduism in Gujarat, Delhi, and also in several parts of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra shows how ideology at grassroots and post-ideological ‘Dalit self’ stand opposite. While the self in popular Dalit discourse attains supreme authority to begin and ends with, I must say, in Fukuyama’s sense of the end of ideology, the grassroots Dalit discourse emphasizes the evolutionary vision—our last goal is to make India a Prabuddha Bharat, as observed in my PhD fieldwork.
Autobiographical Self
The concept of the self can be argued to be universal and composed of what Badiou refers to as multiplicities of multiplicities belonging to a set. Although the self can be relativized to particular contexts such as gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, and caste, there exists a preconditioned self, which I believe is universal. More importantly, this self cannot be separated from the surplus. This surplus encompasses passion, fantasy, perversion, kindness, fear, evil, etc. It is not merely a part of the unconscious, as Freudian theory would argue, but is mostly expressed through more conscious acts. For instance, we can see double-meaning jokes or subtle expressions of sexual desire through art and aesthetics. After reading the recent English Dalit autobiographies that focus on what they call the ‘Dalit self’, I wonder how Dalits can remain so untouched in their development of the cognitive self with basic natural growth. The only self these autobiographers present is the perfect self. They describe what the world has done wrong to them, but they don’t dare say what they themselves may have done wrong to others. Furthermore, through their autobiographical selves, they prohibit Dalits of the most innate, immediate basic human act, which is to acknowledge that Dalits too can be evil. They too can be violent, dominant, selfish, etc. And this is anti-human and unnatural. The English version of the Dalit self appears to be in tune with all the political correctness that exists in popular discourse. So far, these Dalit autobiographers only speak through their observer selves, only looking outside, and they don’t dare touch their ‘observed selves’. Therefore, by lamenting only in victim stories fashioned with political correctness, I call these new English Dalit autobiographies a cheap fiction-pervert guide to understanding reality.
Brahminism is not about Brahmins?
This is the category that celebrated Dalit intellectuals have popularized by referring to their own Brahmin friends or the few Brahmins who supported Babasaheb’s movement. Can there be good Brahmins? Of course, there can be. But this is about personalizing caste and, therefore, making caste more spiritual than treating it as a ‘system’. Babasaheb used the terms ‘monopoly’ and ‘colonization’ to describe the function of caste. Moreover, caste, if one is at all serious about understanding it, will tell you that it must be performed in public. It is a part of your political economy and cannot be separated from your so-called modern institutions. The very idea of decasting is a mere spiritual claim. However, caste as a system is out there, and I believe it can sustain itself even without the internalized structures that Pierre Bourdieu calls the ‘Habitus’. It is a structure beyond the individual’s capacity to control its influence. So even if you have a few so-called ‘good Brahmins’, it is of no importance in transforming the system. But in this time of political correctness, it creates a true commodity to consume as well as to claim oneself as different from the larger system. Sadly, this personalization of caste by popular yet intellectually poor Dalit autobiographers gains more attention as it suits the ideological consumption of the upper caste. I mean, if a few good capitalists for Marxist scholars do not lead to the conclusion that capitalism can survive even without capitalists, I wonder what leads these popularity-seeking Dalit scholars to argue that Brahmanism can survive without Brahmins.
Buddhism as a Way of Life: Surplus Enjoyment
In my Ph.D. fieldwork in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, I encountered two contrasting assertions regarding the role of Buddhism in the everyday lives of Dalits. The first assertion, claiming, “Buddha is our god; Babasaheb gave us; we are not Hindus,” was prevalent among poor and illiterate Dalits in slums and villages. The second assertion, emphasizing Buddhism as a way of life without deifying Buddha, was more common among educated, middle-class, and urban, upwardly mobile Dalits. Interestingly, the ritualistic practices of birth, marriage, and death ceremonies in the context of New Buddhism were predominantly found among working-class converted Dalits, while the educated and middle-class Dalits were more drawn to popular notions of Buddhism, such as meditation, self-awareness, and nirvana. These ideas seem more aligned with Western interpretations of Buddhism. It appears that these notions of Buddhism in the present time have become central to Western forms of Buddhism. Although the educated middle class considers Buddha a guide rather than a god, there seems to be a surplus attraction to Buddha, creating a sense of divinity between these meditation practitioners and Buddha. This trend, resembling a post-material capitalist consumption of emotional needs, is notable. In Western spiritual circles, Buddhism often serves as a post-ideological way of life without forming an organized religion or countering dominant ideologies. This consumption of Buddhism, with a focus on meditation and the fetishization of the concept of ‘self’, has also gained popularity among upper-class caste Indians and found a respectable place in the discourse of ‘self-care’ and ‘self-love’. Buddhism in India, portrayed as a ‘Way of Life’ rather than a religion, seems to align seamlessly with the structural dominance of the upper-class caste. Its celebrated tenet of non-violence perfectly suits the interests and cognitive balance of ruling liberal elites, from political leaders to corporate figures. Surprisingly, this popular yet passive understanding of Buddhism towards structural socio-economic and cultural change has been endorsed by the post-Ambedkar mainstream Dalit-Bahujan intelligentsia. Ambedkar, however, rejected the traditional view of Buddhism as merely a way of life and presented it as a systematic religious philosophy for reconstructing the world. Ambedkar went beyond the spiritual mystique associated with Buddhism, reframing its fundamentals to address real questions posed by Marxism in the external world. He compared Buddha and his religion with Marx and Marxism, presenting a radical political and economic philosophy against structural inequalities and oppression.
Concluding Remarks
Unlike other systems and times, capitalism in our time operates on two extreme axes. On the one hand, it offers immense possibilities for consuming material goods and services, which are innately ingrained in some mystical experience; on the other hand, it also opens the door to self-discovery, meditation, ultimate spirituality, and nirvana. However, what makes it all the more special is the feeling of guilt. You can’t consume without guilt, and that guilt ultimately feeds into authentic subjectivity in the consumer. The absence of guilt in consumption can lead a person to self-contempt, which is one of the strongest negative emotions to live with, and as Nietzsche argued, it compels one to look beyond the existing normativity. Isn’t political correctness the same? Who consumes it? Besides, who needs it? The ruling class needs it more than anyone; the liberals need it to carry out the smooth daily functioning of their socio-psychological cycle. And to satisfy the guilt, you need the authentic subject—the true victim.
Political correctness not only creates authentic subjects, but it also opens up a transcendental-spiritual space for the members of the ruling class with its new language-terminologies like complicit intersectional oppression, etc. For instance, the use of the word ‘complicit’ in the context of the ruling caste-class underlines two major meanings. Firstly, it makes a surprising assumption that a member of the ruling class acted in an allegedly unanticipated manner against marginalized class-community interests. And second, the use of the word by the oppressed against the individual of the ruling class opens up a transcendental space for the entire ruling class. The indiscriminate use of the term, especially by English-speaking academics from marginalized communities, is a misrepresentation of the objective reality of both the ruling caste-class and the oppressed working class. Dalits are the new authentic subjects of this global political correctness. English Dalit autobiographies, academic literature, and Dalit criticism of the upper caste in liberal public forums create an authentic experience of guilt, which is crucial for the liberal upper caste to consume political correctness. And as mentioned above, it helps them avoid self-contempt.
~~~
Rahul Sonpimple has done his PhD in Dalit movement from JNU. He is also the President of the All India Independent Scheduled Castes Association.
