El silencio en los diccionarios de lengua

Silky Tyagi

We are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we shall have equality and in social and economic life, we will have inequality …we must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else, those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structures of political democracy, which we have so laboriously built up.1

—Ambedkar, 1950.

INTRODUCTION

In the 1980s, voices were raised by the Narmada Bachao Andolan activists against the Sardar Sarovar dam construction on the Narmada River. This led to large-scale displacement of adivasis who were neither relocated to a proper area nor granted proper compensation. Besides, the dam was causing serious environmental hazards. Why did no political party take up the issue? Or, for example, in the 1980s itself, we saw women from various strata of the society raising their voices against violence perpetrated against them. Why did no political party take up the issues they raised or why did they just pay lip service to their cause?

Democracy is largely understood as popular sovereignty where people have control over the decisions made by the State. Since it is not practically possible for the people in the modern

democratic societies to participate in the decision-making process of the State directly, they do so through representatives. This representation gets its institutional form in political parties and it is through political parties that the people wish to articulate and represent their demands. But when political parties become ineffective in representing the interests of the people, we see the emergence of social movements (SMs).²

Context

In the 1970s, the political parties failed to adequately represent the interests of the people within a state, which was entrusted with the responsibility of nation-building, economic growth and social justice. What really happened? Why did we arrive at such a crisis?

When India became independent, it expressed its full faith in the State, its institution and its policies. The State, in fact, came up as a promising figure that would take care of its people. In the two decades following Independence, the Congress was considered the legitimate representative of the people by a majority; after all, it was associated with the freedom struggle. People, therefore, had high hopes that the party would deliver to all basic primary education, health services, generate jobs and incomes, remove poverty and inequality and protect the needy, poor and the vulnerable. But all these hopes were dashed as the Congress party not only failed to fulfil its promises but also became

authoritative and imposed an internal emergency in 1975. The period was, therefore, marked by agitation against prevailing corruption, food scarcity, unemployment and the imposition of internal emergency by the Union government. In fact, discontent spread to major parts of the country by the late 1960s onwards.³

In fact, this very crisis of representation that resulted from failure of political parties to perform its duties properly led to the emergence of, in the words of Rajni Kothari and D. L. Sheth, ‘non-party formations .⁴ There was growing frustration among people who found that their most basic demands as citizens of this country were not being met. As a result, many new groups emersed as a ‘new social force’ and launched agitations against the State to press for their demands and rights, leading to the emergence of ‘new social movements’ (NSMs)⁵ in India. The prominent movements that came up during this time included the civil liberties movement, Dalit movement, adivasi movement, women’s movement and environment movement. These movements⁶ became the thrust of Gail Omvedt’s work, Reinventing Revolution.

These new social movements that came up in the late 1970s and, more particularly, in the 1980s were different from the political parties as they did not seek State power and were largely anti-State, criticizing the policies of the State and articulating the interests of the disadvantaged sections of the society. They were different from various pressure groups because they did not function as lobbies that depended on various political parties to protect their interests.

NEW SOCIAL FORCES AND NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

A social force in general can be defined as any entity that has the capability to enforce, bring about, inhibit, direct or extend any change in society When social lobbies exert pressure, they create a force that leads to social movements. These social movements then bring about change in the social,

economic and political environment and, thereby, become a social force themselves. Ghanshyam Shah argues that the term social movement has no precise definition and that it is seen differently by

different social activists, political leaders and scholars.⁷ However, there have been a few broad definitions of the term. M. S. A. Rao defined social movement as a ‘sustained collective mobilization through either informal or formal organization and which is generally oriented towards bringing about change’.⁸ In fact, Shah also cited a broad definition given by Paul Wilkinson who called it, a

‘deliberative collective action to promote change in any direction and by any means … which evince a minimal degree of organization, though this may range from a loose, informal or partial level of organization to the highly institutionalized … its commitment to change and raison d’etre of its organization are founded upon conscious volition, normative commitment to the movement’s aims or beliefs and active participation on the part of the followers or members’.⁹

Social movement, involves:

a. collective mass mobilization b. collective mass support c. formal or informal organization

d. a conscious commitment towards its aims and beliefs e. deliberative collective action towards change

In India, we have witnessed various social uprisings even in the pre-Independence era; early tribal movements like the Santhal uprising and Tebhaga movement of the peasants are cases in point.¹⁰ But what made the movements of Dalits, OBCs, women, adivasis of the late 1970s and the early 1980s different from the earlier social movement was a change in the kinds of issues and in the language of assertion. One of the major and largely accepted differences is that the old social movements (SMs) followed the Marxist paradigm and stressed on raising its voice against class domination, while the new social movements were not just about opposing class domination but also the domination of caste, race, gender, ethnicity and community. It, therefore, brought up the issues of human rights, civil rights and issues of identity and specific interests to the forefront and expanded the realm of

democracy. While the SMs were class based (subsuming other issues and groups) and mainly aimed at taking over State power, the NSMs took up various issues (social, economic, political) of distinct groups and plural in character (for example, women’s movement, environment movement, etc.) and they did not seek to take over any state or class.

However, not all are in agreement with this view and do not even identify these movements as

‘new’. For example, Shah in his criticism of the concept argues that we can find struggles for identity even in the pre-modern society and that the contemporary environmental movement, women’s

movement and the Dalit movement have an economic context as well. He asserts that even though there has been a change in the nature of classes and class relationship in the present global capitalism, the classes still carry relevance in the perception of people towards the dominant ideology and

power.¹¹ Similarly, what Katzenstein, Kothari and Mehta find distinctive about earlier movements are their links to political parties and the electoral process while, in the (chronologically) newer

movements, the identity movements have captured the space of electoral politics and the non-identity movements of the poor and underprivileged have carved out institutional spaces, depending on

bureaucracy, courts, or global institutional fora.¹²

However, it can be counter-argued that when we talk of Dalits, OBCs, adivasis and women forming a ‘new social force’ leading to the emergence of ‘new social movements’, we neither deny the fact that there were earlier movements by these groups nor suggest that class character is removed from contemporary movements. But what makes them stand apart from the earlier movements is the fact that the contemporary movements have highlighted the autonomous issues of each of these specific groups apart from the class character that it may entail. For example, take the case of

women’s movement in India: during the pre-Independence era, they were connected largely through the national movement and would demand independence by supporting the ideas of liberty and

equality as a part of the mass movement. After Independence, for example in the Tebhaga movement, which re-emerged in the 1960s, women were an important force, but their voices largely faded away in the peasant’s struggle. This was also true in the case of the Naxalite movement¹³ in which, again, women were an active participant. But the major difference that one could encounter in the women’s movement during the 1970s and more particularly in the mid-1980s is that we see women’s voices were raised not for freedom for all or in relation to questions of land or class issues but specifically for women; women as an autonomous group raised issues specific to them. Thus, the women’s

movement during this period had participants that cut across class character and had women from

elite, poor and middle-class sections. The issue that brought them together was not class but gender relations. Again, it does not mean that the class character vanished but rather it was given a new dimension, that is, women as a class was largely an economically dependent class—and that became an issue of protest.

These social movements, therefore, sought to alter the prevailing structures of power, project

values of justice, equality and freedom adding new dimensions to them¹⁴ and marked the rise of a new social force in India. In fact, Omvedt suggests that ‘Marxism has been called the historical

materialism of the proletariat; what is needed today is a historical materialism of not only industrial factory workers but also of peasants, women, tribals, Dalits, and low castes, and oppressed

nationalities.’¹⁵

BOX 12.1

NSMs have the following characteristics:

a. They are SMs as they entail all its characteristics.

b. They are a response from the civil society that largely deals with the issues of human dignity and his/her relations with nature.

c. NSMs radically alter the Marxist paradigm of explaining conflicts and contradictions in terms of class, thereby leaving groups with issues like gender, ecology, race, ethnicity, etc. Thus, NSMs take up issues beyond class.

d. NSMs not only abandon the industrial workers model of union organization, but also the political model of political parties.

Now, within the paradigm of new social movements (NSMs), Andre Gunder Frank and Marta Fuentes described new social movements as largely ‘grassroot’ and apolitical whose main objective is social transformation rather than State power. According to Dhanagare and John, this is a process of

depoliticization of the social realm.¹⁶ Dhanagare and John argue that Frank and Fuentes conspire to take away political consciousness from exploited classes.¹⁷ That the anti-caste movement in India has political power as core thrust and that women’s movement having women from all classes and not just grassroot sections negates the very argument of Frank and Fuentes that NSMs are apolitical and grassroot. New social movements, therefore, are not only social but can have varied dimensions like political and economic and that it may not necessarily be grass-root but can include various other sections too.

In this chapter, Part II will concentrate on the contemporary movements of Dalits, OBCs, adivasis and women in India and each movement will also deal with the question of representation of each of these groups in Indian polity. However, the issues of representation in relation with social justice will be taken up in Part III of this chapter. Finally, Part IV will provide a concluding remark on the role played by these new social movements, the issues raised by them, their present status and where we can look ahead from these experiences.

The Rise of New Social Forces

A Brief History of the Dalit Movement:¹⁸ The Dalit movement in India began around the mid-19th century. It was Jyotirao Phule, a middle-caste, social revolutionary from Maharashtra, who

questioned the caste system itself and its evil practices.¹⁹ By the end of the 19th century, there were a number of anti-caste movements in various parts of India—Phule’s Satyashodhak movement,

Namashudra movement,²⁰ the Adi-Hindu movement, the Adi Dharma movement, the Ezahava

movement of Sree Narayan Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam, the Sadhu Jana Paripalana Samajam (SJPS) and the Pulaya Mahasabha.²¹

However, these movements were largely socio-religious in nature. Later, Dalit movements got politicized in the early decades of the 20th century, and especially, when the Britishers introduced the system of a separate electorate in the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909. By 1917, Dalit movements (DMs) got separtated from non-Brahmin movements (NBMs)²² and they got a further fillip after a resolution was passed in the Indian National Congress (INC) in the same year.²³ The resolution stressed on bringing the attention towards the socio-economic conditions and with the presidency of Gandhi in 1920, this process gathered momentum.²⁴

By the 1930s, Gandhi and Ambedkar had emerged as competing spokesmen and leaders of the depressed classes in India. Gandhi thought that untouchablility was a moral issue, which is internal to the Hindu religion and that there should be a peaceful and gradual abolition of untouchability. To Gandhi, there was nothing wrong in the varna system and that ‘ati-shudras’ should be included in it too as they also constitute the part of the Hindu religion. On the contrary, Ambedkar found

untouchability to be a political and economic issue. He felt that abolition of the caste system was essential for abolishing untouchability. Ambedkar favoured the issue of a separate electorate of

MacDonald’s proposal of 1928. But, Gandhi was vehemently against it and went on a fast-unto-death.

At last, Ambedakar had to give in and signed the Poona Pact that gave reservations to Dalits within the Hindu community.²⁵

Nevertheless, Ambedkar formed the Indian Labour Party (ILP) in 1936 bringing in all the

depressed sections of the society—Dalits, non-Brahmins, peasants and workers. However, unable to consolidate and resolve differences between Dalits and non-Brahmins, he dissolved it and formed the All India Scheduled Caste Federation (AISCF) in 1942. Later, we find disintegration within the

AISCI? as some of its non-Brahmin members got disillusioned and joined the Congress.²⁶ Finally, Ambedkar had a plan to establish the Republican Party of India (RPI), which got established posthumously in 1956. But, eventually, it too met the same fate as the earlier ones, with most of its members disintegrating and joining the Congress.

New Anti-caste Movement: The Emergence of Dalit Panthers (1970s): The first wave of the new anti-caste movement began with the emergence of the Dalit Panthers in 1972.²⁷ It mainly comprised ex-untouchable youth of Maharashtra. The formation of the Dalit Panthers took place against the background of continued atrocities by the upper-caste elites and ‘such oppressive developments—

namely, the repeated failure of the Republican party to fulfil any of the hopes of the Dalits, rising of tensions on the countryside and of the revolutionary inspiration provided by the Naxalbari

insurrection, which was crushed by the State’.²⁸

The movement was largely concentrated in cities like Bombay and Poona, which began with the publication of creative literature (in socialist magazines such as Sadhna²⁹). It was militant and aimed at power in its manifesto, yet it did not really carry any political strategy.³⁰ However, the Dalit

Panthers fought their battle on two fronts: at the symbolic level against Brahminism and at the concrete level against Hindu peasants and artisans who were directly responsible for numerous atrocities committed against ‘ati-shudras’.³¹

But like many earlier Dalit movements, it too got engulfed in party politics. There was a split in the organization when Raja Dhale and Namdev Dhasal (two prominent leaders of Dalit Panthers)

developed differences of opinion. Differences arose over whether Dalit Panthers should be a caste-based movement of Scheduled Castes or a class-caste-based movement including the poor people of all classes. Here Dhale was representing the Ambedkarite’ position and Dhasal a ‘Marxist’. The Communist Party of India (CPI) wanted to bring Dalits in its fold. But, in the end, it was the

‘Ambedkarite’ position that easily won this battle, when in 1974, the Dhale group took control and expelled Dhasal. This was largely due to the very real fear of the Panthers ‘of the control by Brahmin leftists of supportive organizations, platforms, money for campaigns, even the media. Their deep-seated suspicion was that they were now given only hypocritical support by communists.…’³²

While the Marxist left accepted the idea that middle-caste or OBC rich farmers were the worst enemies of Dalits and ‘rhetorically pose the contradiction as savarna/Dalit’ or ‘caste Hindus versus Dalits’, to this they simply added the need for a working-class alliance leadership of the working class party and so forth.³³ Naxalites too, had fallen victim to this strategy of posing a dichotomy of

‘caste-Hindu’ versus ‘Dalit’ and even landholding peasants versus agricultural labourers.³⁴ In fact, the Marathwada rioting in 1978 asserted this contradiction when Maratha Kunbis attacked and assaulted the Dalits over the issue of renaming Marathwada University after Ambedkar.

However, many failed to realize that it was a Congress strategy to divide the Dalits and OBCs;

after all, the Congress in its bid to woo the Dalit community was working well under its KHAM (Kisan, Harijan, adivasi, Muslim) strategy³⁵. At the same time, the continued propaganda that reservations are for Dalits who are responsible for the unemployment of low-caste poor was effective.³⁶ However, this situation got transformed with the proposals of the Mandai Commission (appointed by Janata government in 1978), which led to violent protests by the higher caste ‘including high-caste intellectuals who continued to emphasize that the backwards were the principal enemies of the Dalits’.³⁷

As far as the Dalit Panthers was concerned, it was more symbolic and cultural in focus. Though militancy continued against the atrocities inflicted on Dalits, but at the broad political level, ‘Panthers like earlier Dalit leadership continually fell victim to Congress blandishments and Congress

progressive rhetoric: both Dhasal and Dhale supported Indira Gandhi during Emergency and even the reorganized Panthers gradually came to be a kind of political reserve army of the Congress’.³⁸

Dalit Movement in the 1980s: The 1980s can be seen as a period of Dalit and OBC unity. It was prominently marked by the emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) as the party of Dalits,

backwards and minorities. BSP emerged as a political wing of the Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), launched by Kanshi Ram in 1978.³⁹ It made its appearance particularly in the northern states of India, such as Uttar Pradesh (UP), Rajasthan, Bihar,

backwards and minorities. BSP emerged as a political wing of the Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), launched by Kanshi Ram in 1978.³⁹ It made its appearance particularly in the northern states of India, such as Uttar Pradesh (UP), Rajasthan, Bihar,