Caste Violence and Reproduction Philosophical Readings Shimla Paper S. Lourdunathan

8/12/2019 Caste Violence and Reproduction Philosophical Readings Shimla Paper S. Lourdunathan

1/16

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

PHILOSOPHY OF DALIT LIBERATIONS. Lourdunathan

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

-o0o-

The present paper/reflection aims at a theoretical discussion for a Discourse on DalitEmancipation from the Readings of Ambedkar vis--vis Postmodern Discourse for aPhilosophy of Dalit Liberation. I would like to contend that (i) Caste is both cultural and

political violence deeply rooted within the cognitive structure of Indian philosophical ethos(metaphysics of dominant presence).(ii) Caste violence is a form of cultural reproduction(metanarrative) perpetuated through specific modes self-legitimization in order to retain theself-invested caste-cultural supremacy. (iii) To confront this cognitive cum cultural violenceit is imperative that we intersect Ambedkar vis--vis postmodern discourse for a philosophyof Dalit liberation as to continuously situate sustainable intellectual/ethical agenda for Dalitmovements.

Rewriting/Reproducing a syllabi of Caste/State Violence against DalitsSept 11/12, 2011: Tension gripped southern districts following the death of five Dalits in

police firing in Paramakudi on Sunday when they went to pay homage to Dalit leaderImmanuel Sekaran on his death anniversary. In all, police firing has been reported in three

places Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district, Ilayankudi in Sivagangai district andChinthamani in Madurai district. While three were killed in the firing at Paramakudi, onesuccumbed at the government hospital in Ilayankudi. The death toll is likely to increase, say

police. Several other Dalits were injured and over 15 policemen including top officialssuffered injuries in the mob violence. In Madurai district, two Dalit youths Balakrishnanand Jayap rasath sustained injuries in the firing. ADSP V.Mylvahanan said, Police resortedto firing only in self-defence only after a woman constable was harassed and an inspector wasattacked. He said about 50 persons have been detained in the district. Third fi ring occurredin Ilayankudi when the people of Keelaiyur and neighbouring Dalit-dominant villages

blocked a police vehicle in which injured deputy commissioner K.A.Senthilvelan was beingrushed for treatment to a private hospital in Madurai. A police sourc e said, The villagersrounded up his vehicle forcing the police to open fire at them. Dinesh, 17, a Plus Twostudent suffered pellet injuries in the incident. The news of the untimely arrest of Dalit

Dr. S. Lourdunathan, Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar (Autnomous) College, Karumathur,Madurai 625 514 , e-mail: [email protected]


2/16

leader John Pandian in Thoothukudi on the day when dalits were flocking towardsParamakudi from various southern districts to pay homage at the memorial of ImmanuelSekaran sparked tension among the members of the community. Several dalit outfit leadersincluding Krishnasamy of Pudhiya Tamizhagam, Murugavelrajan of Makkal Viduthalai

Katchi and Suba Annamalai of Mallar Kazhagam and MDMK general secretary Vaiko calledon the injured at the Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai. Vaiko demanded a judicialenquiry into the firing at Paramakudi. Madurai collector U.Sagayam also visited the injuredat the hospital. Earlier, their relatives blocked his vehicle condemning police firing. He hasordered an RDO inquiry into the Madurai firing. Meanwhile, Ramanathapuram districtremains totally cut off. Bus services have been suspended in the district and buses proceedingfrom other districts to Ramanathapuram, Paramakudi, Rameswaram and Ilayankudi have

been halted. Trains running between Madurai-Rameswaram-Madurai and Karaikudi-Manamadurai have been cancelled while Rameswaram-Tiruchy passenger is partiallycancelled between Ramanathapuram and Tiruchy. Police strength has been stepped upfollowing the violence at various places. Lathicharge was reported in a few places includingMadurai. Several buses and police vehicles were damaged. Over 40 vehicles were set ablazein Paramakudi alone, police said. Police prevented the reporters and photographers fromcovering the violence in Paramakudi. Almost all top police officials remainedincommunicado to the press.

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

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

Legitimization Caste power relations? How or in what manner we need to re-look at the Dalit Problematic? What are the Approaches to Dalit search for emancipation in Indian Social History

and what is the approach that Ambedkar envisaged for Dalit Movements? Is there any intellectual agenda for the Dalit Movements that can be debated and

cultivated by interesting the postmodern/postcolonial and Ambedkars discourse forLiberation?

Focusing the Trinitarian Dalit Problem

The Dalit problem, namely the practice of disabled sociability, a specific kind of t hrown-away- ness (The idea of Thrownawayness refers to the out-caste-experience of Dalits due tothe totalization of Caste totality) is increasingly recognized as a universal affliction that ishazardous to human autonomy and identity. In its cognitive and cultural totality, the Dalit

problem is a totalization of alienation, resulting from/by the specific ontologism of theorthodoxy of Indian philosophical culture. The Dalit within the pan-Indian caste culture ishistorically reduced extent of deeming the Dalits sub-humans or no-humans. To the Dalits, to

be (what is) social is denied by means of the Caste-cultural violence which in turn finds itsrootedness, strength and expression in/through Indian social cum philosophical categories orstructures. Within such patterns there is the ontological locus of a specific sense of denial ofthe vulnerable Other namely the Dalits, within which there is a sentience of precariousness,


3/16

fragility, broken-ness, an experience of out-caste-ness , oppressed-ness and contingency ofones sepa rated- ness from ones own cultural and social home. The practices ofdiscrimination or deprivation and subtle forms of ill-treatment meted out to Dalits enforces asense of epistemological vacuum structured through by Indian Cultural Cognitive patterns,

which in turn constructs a sense of loss of identity for Dalits as People. The life-experienceof every Dalit perceived through the caste mind-set is a (sad) shared-story of such sense of aloss or denial of identity and meaningfulness (epistemological vacuum).

The life of Ambedkar is a phenomenal illustration of this epistemological vacuum (a sense ofworthlessness) but against which he crusaded throughout his life. Ambedkar observes thatthe gradation of the polarities within Casteism is the pre-condition or the prism in/throughwhich most dominant Indian cultural/religious philosophies have been constructed thatcontinuously reinforce social separatism between any individuals in the Indian society. Castefor Ambedkar is a mind-set, a cultural lens that constructs any Indian social self. Evolving a

philosophy and practice of Dalit liberation importantly cognizes and contextualizes this prismthat produces social outcastenss or thrown-away-ness within the dominant ethos of Indianculture. Ambedkars engagement of the Philosophy of Hinduism, the Riddles ofHinduism, Annihilation of Casteism, etc are analytical works that a re set in this directiononly. The social and psychological disintegration that a Dalit is made to experience in thecontext of the dehumanizing caste-world is to be exchanged for a new philosophy ofliberation against the onto-locus and onto-logos of Casteism.

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

more specifically are faced with (i) Caste as Cultural Reproduction for DominationDiscourse leading to Social Subjugation, Osterization of Dalits (ii) Existential Deprivationconsolidated and perpetuated by specific Ideological (Philosophic-theological) sanctifications

both within ideological presuppositions/premises which cumulatively reduce the DalitSubject/Person as No-Person (iii) Caste as Radically Interiorized and Subjectivised entity thatresult in an Ambivalence of Dalit Identity. [The claims of cultural domination and the

practices of existential deprivations against the Dalits are historically and sociallyinnumerable in continuum and hence for specific reasons I may be permitted not to instantiatethe same in recurring evidences, however we need to theoretically clarify the principles theconstrue radical interiorization and subjectivisation that propel the ambivalence of DalitIdentity].

Caste as a Cultural Discourse Constituting Cultural Power Structures in ContinuumThe use of the term discourse here needs some preliminary clarification. A discourse is asocial language created by particular cultural conditions, and it expresses a particular way ofunderstanding human experience. 1 For Foucault, discourse operates in four basic ways: (i)Discourse is a socially constructed perceptual reality that influences our ideas and life-worldmarked by a chain of linguistic, cultural and ideological (philosophical) signifiers; (ii)

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


4/16

Discourse generates knowledge and truth. Discourse constitutes not only the world that welive in, but also all forms of knowledge and truth-effects. And knowledge for Foucault is notsomething value-neutral, that exists independently of language and culture but intimately

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

Discourse operates, by being intimately involved with socially embedded networks of power.(iii) Discourse is not only a structu ral system of knowledge but it does inform the personwho speaks the discourse, of his power - positions within the construed worldview andthereby a discourse is interactively connected with power and knowledge. (iv) Discourse ismultiple and operates in multiple ways. (v) Cultures are constructed out of numerouscompeting discourses shaping the cultural perceptions infiltrating into different levels of life.Discourses too are modules of rules that are designed to spread from mind to mind and takeover key operations. 2

Clarifying Diverse Approaches to Caste Question The trajectory towards the rejection of casteism, implicitly implying issue of Dalit Liberationwithin the Indian social history need to be exposed. The historical attempts against casteism,accompanied violence and by its implication to the practices of socialdiscriminations/exclusions for reasons of clarity may be classified into three majorapproaches They are the (i) Reformists, (ii) Rationalists, and (iii) the Radicalists approachesagainst forms of caste discriminations. However, the underlying query is what is thetheoretical/practical position that Ambedkar while projecting the annihilation of Casteembarked upon in order to protest against Caste Violence.

Rationalist Approach: Attempts of exclusive rejection to the dehumanising social practicesof casteism and its allied forms of untouchability purely from secular or non-religious oratheistic platforms. Such an attempt conceives annihilation of poverty through economicmodes of development as the basis of eradication of social discriminations. The attempts ofsome of the rationalists like Nehru, M.N. Roy, EVR Periyar and Marxian(s) might fall withinthis category.

Reformist Approach: Attempts of against casteism with the pretexts of winning andoccupying social & political and cultural space for Religions (such as Hinduism andChristianity) without radically questioning the ideological foundations of their ideologicaland social hierarchy. The attempts of some of the reformists thinkers like Rajaram MohanRoy, Gandhi, Vivekananda and the many of the Christian Churchs attempts perhaps may besaid employ this approach to the question of casteism. Within the reformist types of approachthere are specific varieties could be identified in terms of the purpose of this paper. (a) Theearly Christian missionary Christianity in India to a large extent employed theconversionstrategy without questioning caste hierarchy on the contrary retaining thesamehowever for reasons of evangeliz ation. (b) In the recent past some Christian preachersemploy these reformist scriptural approaches by way of biblically signifying the Dalits

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


5/16

context with reference to Biblical Narratives like Exodus of Israelites and Gospel ethicsenabling scriptural narrative space for Dalit Liberation discourse within the Church. (c)Establishing the plight of Dalit on par with that of the so called scheduled caste within theHindu social structure and embarking upon either/or or both charity or developmental

approaches to the question Dalit Liberation. (d) Perceiving and placing, lobbying DalitLiberation as a legal issue to be contested with, proved against/for and protected in favour of,simultaneously placing the Dalit Liberation issue as a Human Rights Programme of Actionaccompanied by Reservationism as a remedial measure in terms of Dalit Development on thetouchstone of Social Justice.

Dr. Ambedkar against mere Reformation: [1:] But there is a set of reformers who hold outa different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists, and their ideal of socialorganization is what is called Chaturvarnya, or the division of society into four classesinstead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and todisarm opposition, the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to point out that theirChaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must confess thatnotwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannotreconcile myself.

Radical Approach: Attempts towards radical annihilation of caste by critiquing ideologicalunderpinnings of casteism within the roots of cultural and religious roots of Hinduism andalternatively suggesting counter ideological and social praxis based on the philosophical

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

traceable to the contribution of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It is a dialectical engagement on the pat terns of knowledge that structure Dalit giveness in terms of exclusion or inclusionemploying specific modes of Deconstructing and Reconstructing for Dalit Discourse ofliberation from the clutches of casteism. Within this paradigm the emerging paradigmsincludes reconstruction of Dalit History, Dalit Sociology, Dalit Social Dynamics, DalitPolitics, Dalit Philosophy, Religion & Theology, Dalit Arts & Aesthetics, Dalit FeminismDalit Social Engineering, Dalit literature etc,.

However we need to be aware of the fact that these attempts do overlap and not exclusive ofeach other but only conceptual categories of understanding. Moreover we need to criticallyevaluate of the fact to what extent these approaches radically address the problem of CasteDiscrimination and by extension the social deprivation of Dalits. To what extent these above-mentioned approaches to Dalit Liberation is foundationally radically capable to address the

problem of discrimination and oppression both within the Social hierarchy itself is anongoing contested issue. What is the intellectual/theoretical ground that Dr. Ambedkarenvisages for Dalit Movements to warfare against Caste Violence - is the fundamental issue Iwould like to discuss in this paper. Allied with this issue is the necessity of analysis of CasteViolence as cultural reproduction and legitimization from the point of view of Dr. Ambedkarcumulatively what is the ethical cum metaphysical ground of Dalit Movements that

Ambedkar visualized, in other words, what is the intellectual agenda from the stand point ofAmbedkar to annihilate caste violence
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6811.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6840.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6840.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6840.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6840.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6811.html


6/16

Rejection ofmetanarrative and Ambedkars Annihilation of Caste metanarrativeJean- Francois Lyotards postmodern writings are often summed up to the idea of incredulit ytoward metanarratives, ( Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, xxiv). Lyotards statementmeant that postmodern thought would reject any sort of grand narrative that claims to makesense out of any and all life using universal reason. He specifically focused on the Idea ofemancipation ( Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Explained. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1992, 24). Lyotard put everything from Christianity, to Marxism,

Nazism, and Capitalism in the same metanarrative bucket and kicked it out the window. Hesaid that in all of them, [the] end, even if it remains beyond reach, is called universalfreedom, the fulfillment of all humanity ( Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The PostmodernExplained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. P.25). These metanarrativesare all trying to universally fulfil humanitys desires. Like Marx, Lyotard was concernedwith those who were oppressed, the disadvantaged of society. Lyotard felt that metanarrativesthat claimed to explain everything created a society that listened to some people and ignoredothers. Gaston says this, Lyotards point was to critique all grand narratives that claim toomuch and therefore potentially hamper political and social justice (Gaston, Ray. Re -readingBabel and Pentecost A Postmodern Polemic. Modern Believing. 40.2 (Ap 1999): 36-41).Lyotard thought that these metanarratives silenced the stories of the disadvantaged of society.They prize unity and sameness over plurality and difference (Macquarrie, 18). This unityand sameness is based in knowledge, which has become a commodity in the enlightenment.

Cultural Reproduction through Self Legitimization of Caste metanarrativeFor Lyotard, metanarratives are a distinctly modern phenomenon: they are stories that notonly tell a grand story but also claim to be able to legitimate or p rove the storys claim by anappeal to universal reason . It is this legitimation that allows the myth of progress to becomea metanarrative. Science, the age of discovery and explanation is all based on reason. Smithsays, modern legitimation has recour se to a universal criterion: reason-a (supposedly)unive rsal stamp of legitimation . Lyotard says that reason itself is a narrative. A goodexample of this that Lyotard had issues with is that of the universal rights of man. Lyotardexplains that these rights are themselves relative (Macquarrie, John. Postmodernism in

philosophy of religion and theology. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 50.1-3(D 2001): 9-27. He would question how one group of people were able to say what theuniversal rights of all were. Lyotard asks, how could the grand narratives of legitimationstill have credibility in the face of something like Auschwitz? (Lyotard, Jean-Francois. ThePostmodern Explained. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. P. 19).(omsherwood.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/lyotards-postmodern-critique-of-metanarratives)

Ambedkar perceives that the caste worldview (like that of a metanarrative) as both self -alienating and other-alienating; as subjectifying vs. objectifying; as sanctifying and reifying; -

such polarities, need to be erased or resisted with Dalit collective consciousness andwisdom. Ambedkar in the Annihilation Caste says:


7/16

One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the Germans enjoyedsinging their hymn of hate against the English during the World War I]. The literature of theHindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste andan ignoble origin to other castes.But the present-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins The present -day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers bythe forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due? Obviously to the Caste System. Theexistence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past feuds betweencastes green, and has prevented solidarity. Hindu Society as such does not exist. It is only a collectionof castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be-all and end-all of its existence.Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes, exceptwhen there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. .. caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself fromother castes. Caste has however done one thing. It has completely dis organized anddemoralized.. This anti -social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper and has

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

its own interests, is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their isolation from one anotheras it is of nations in their isolation. The primary concern is to protect their ( caste) interests againstthose of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes, but are so manywarring groups, each living for itself and for its selfish ideal . (Annihilation of Caste)

Value Dichotomy as the Principle of Categorical Violence for Social ExclusionA dichotomy is a hierarchical opposition, characterised of four features: (i) Opposition

between two identities alienated form of differentiation antimony - dichotomy is a polarization of with discontinuity where in differences are seen to be more interesting thansimilarities and there is a tendency to see the differences as absolute. (ii) A hierarchicalordering of the pair (iii) The idea that between them this pair sum up and define a whole (iv)The notion of transcendence (achieved by set of category by the denial of other category transcendence implies both an overcoming of self that is detachment and the achievementof an abstract and universal impartiality by the denial of the Other, the world or woman ascorrupting. 3

Within the Indian culture one can situate foundations of metaphysics of violence that formthe basis of a discourse of exclusion, the centrality against which Ambedkars attempts tocodify The Philosophy of Hinduism and to embark upon Annihilation of Caste stems from

these vantage points. The practical violence against the socially excluded, (namely the Dalitsand the Other deprived sections of Indian society do not need any evidence as to prove thefactuality of the practices of exclusion) at the social, political and cultural facets do have

philosophical sanctification and how they are construed as our perspectives remains to be oneof the basic areas of research and critique in Ambedkar. His critique of Indian caste culture,

points out that a discourse for power domination is deeply structured within the metaphysicaland epistemological fabrics of Indian philosophical traditions. It is through constructingdichotomies or value-hierarchical dualities as philosophical lenses, a majority of IndianPhilosophical traditions construe a culture of domination and subjugation to be perceived

3 Raia Prokhovnik, Rational Women: A Feminist Critique of Dichotomy (Manchester University Press, NewYork 2002.
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6826.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6887.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/9599.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6835.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6788.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6788.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/6835.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/terms/9599.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6887.htmlhttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/ambedkar/web/groups/6826.html


8/16

normal. These philosophical lenses form the basis of perceiving Indian social reality whichsimultaneously go to provide legitimization of/or the practice of exclusion in terms ofCasteism.There exist a multiple sets of dichotomies within the Indian philosophical constructs which in

turn constitute an overarching binary way of perceptions. Exclusively oppositional categoriesare theoretically loaded as to construct a society based of oppositional or mutually exclusivecum inclusive relations. To begin with, to position the Vedic texts within the realm ofrevealed truth inherently veils and excludes any other texts as either not -revealed or not-sufficiently-revealed which in turn consolidate the primacy of Vedic supremacy incomparison or contrast with the non- Vedic texts or Contexts 4 of other cultural traditions.Such Vedic and non-Vedic classification as revealed vs. not revealed primarily purports akind of class division between those who adhere to the teachings of Vedas and those whoare not in a manner of antagonistic relations.

The metaphysical exclusivism(s) such as Brahman vs. World, Being vs. Non-being,Purusha vs. Prakriti, the Ontological vs. cosmological, the Transcendental vs. non-transcendental, Soul vs. body, Rational vs. non-rational, Prohita vs. the lay, Male vs. thefemale, the classical elite vs. the laity, the Caste Touchable vs. the outcaste untouchable, andso on cumulatively merge together towards the propelling of the principle of exclusion asfoundational categories of our understanding. Within this dichotomy the former is politicallyspaced to endorse a sense of privileged presence over or against the latter to endure a senseof differentiation. These apriori categories of understanding, treated as not posteriorimplicitly and succinctly construe an onto-locus-logos, a philosophy of domination of what is

construed as the primary as against the hierarchical secondary. The cultural externalization ofthis philosophical construction is but the hierarchical value division between high-caste vs.low- caste.Given to these structures of thought, the subjugation of the excluded people, the Dalits, isfundamentally /theoretically grounded and historically expressed through social and cultural-institutional forms of violence through violations, practices, ritualism and symbolism.

Defining Self for the practice of the Social Exclusion of the DalitGenerally stated the notion of Self within the broader frame work of orthodoxy of Indian

philosophy is defined as diametrically opposed to what is relegated as non-self and byextension, the realm of non-self theoretically and geo-politically includes the locus of anexcluded realm. Among the broad philosophical categories of what is deemed Self (atman)and non-self (Anatma) in most orthodox and heterodox Indian philosophies, is there a spacefor the selves of the excluded or in what manner the excluded realm is devoid of having anySelf-worth and how the realm of non-self is systematically construed as to fall outside the

4 The term of context is used here with the sensibility of Derridas use of the term. For him, It's the assertionthat "there is nothing outside the text" ( il n'y a pas de hors-texte ), which means that there is no such a thing asout-of-the- text, in other words, "there is nothing outside context. We can call "context" the entire "real-history-of-the-world," if you like, in which this value of objectivity and, even more broadly, that of truth (etc.)

have taken on meaning and imposed themselves. That does not in the slightest dis credit them. It's the assertionthat "there is nothing outside the text" (Derrida (1988) Afterword , p. 136) which m eans that there is no such athing as out-of-the- text, in other words, "there is nothing outside context".


9/16

political borders of what is deemed as self is the persistent issue here. The Vedantic conceptof self is the very foundation, the centrality and the basis of which most philosophical

perceptions are constituted. According to the scholars of the tradition, Advaita speaks aboutthe nature and existence of Self in exclusive categories as against the not-self, namely the

perceptual world of illusion. The Advaita of Sankara, (comments S. Radhkrishnan) insists onthe transcendent nature of ultimate reality of the non-dual Brahman and duality of the worldincluding Iswara who presides over it. Reality is Brahman or Atman. No predication is

possible of Brahman as predication involves duality and the Brahman [self] is free fromduality 5 According to Brhad- aranyaka Upanisad, That Self is not this, not this. It isindestructible, incomprehensible, unfettered. Brahman is incomprehensible because it goes

beyond the attributes of effects. (sarva-karya- dharmatitah) 6 Sankara himself points out, thatthe ultimate reality is the Brahman, which is Sat (Pure Existence), Cit (Pure Consciousness)and Ananda (Pure Bliss). 7 Such defining claims regarding the nature of self as non-dual,different from the Other etc are placed to enunciate specific modes of perceptions namely thefamous classificatory pattern of the transcendental (paramarthika) from the empirical(vyavaharthika), the really real and the unreal.

The denial of the world or the treatment of it as illusion or maya is made possible only fromthe point of view of the transcendental and therefore Brahman as only transcendental realityis non-dual and the rest of the reality is either no-reality or not sufficiently real. Though theVedantic claim is non-dualistic, but regarding the perception of reality of world as illusoryconceives the political possibility of constructing dualistic perception. The Vedantic and proVedantic claims regarding the nature of self is quite enveloping and one can evolve a spiritual

speculations like cosmic unity, cosmic consciousness of the unity between the individual selfwith the social and cosmic self, realization of the Atman-Brahman nature as the Indian way toself realization etc, however a Dalit reading/rendering of such a positions in fact

problematizes the very notion of what is deemed as Self. Even if the metaphysical oneness ofthe transcendental reality does not deny the possibility of an empirical world per se, but

perceived as appearance from the paramarthika standpoint 8 in no way escapes any binaryconstructions or perceptions. This amounts to position that the transcendental reality becauseit is defined transcendental, is conveniently placed in the realm of the primary and there byexcluding what is deemed as non-transcendental as secondary and by application such a

perception go concretely contribute the idea that ones perception about reality ought to bedualistic and to be dualistic is the one and only way of a cclaiming the higher reality. Thismeans that exclusion seems to be way the reality of the world has to be perceived andconceived and thereby the question of addressing the social exclusion is conveniently escapedwithin the philosophical frontiers of the notion of Self. If exclusion is the theoretical groundof ones perception, where then is the possibility of addressing social exclusion and hence the

5 Radhakirishnan. S (ed.), The Principal Upanisads,(George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1953) pp.25-26.6 Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad III.9.26. 7 Sankara, Brahmasutra Bhasya, I.8

Pradhan.R.C, Professor Balasubramanian on the Advaita Vaedanta of Sankara and the Philosophy ofWittgensteing in the Tractatus: The Search for a Metaphysics of Being, (National Seminar Paper on the ThoughtWorks of Prof. R. Balasubramanian, March 223, 2001) p.2


10/16

question of the empirical, the social etc remains to silent, and a culture of silence seems to bethe only possible way of being towards the being of the really-real-self. The Dalit issue ofexclusion is expediently escaped in such philosophical frames. Hence the problem socialexclusion of Casteism finds no serious attention in the axiological foundations of Indian

philosophies. Moreover the Vedantas do claim that the world is an appearance from thestand point of the transcendental but real from an empirical standpoint. The question iswhether there is any philosophical space in such empirical space redu ced to the dimensionof not-sufficiently-real.

The argument is that the Vedantin by elevating the nature of Self, as transcendentalsimultaneously forecloses any possibility or sensitivity to social -empirical problems andafter all the empirical or social space for an him is something to be denied or negated incontinuum through specific mode of neti neit to the attainment of Brahman nature.Therefore it is not only a truism that the non-dualistic position is incapable of addressing thequestion of exclusion rather it forecloses the possibility of addressing it. When perceptualoptical is (pan- optican) is optimized in terms of discrimination or binary ways of

perception, where there is the possibility to address the problem of discrimination. This is thesole reason, Ambedkar finds himself stating that he will not die within the folds ofHinduism. The orthodox position thus tactically construed as to avoid any issue discussionregarding problems concerned with dehumanization for de-humanization (denial of thehuman-world in order project the Brahman-world) seems to be the very foundation on the

basis of which the entire edifice is built upon. The metaphysical oneness of the transcendentalreality, amounts to the exclusion of the social and the exclusion of the Social amounts to the

denial of the least ones, the Dalits, in subtle sophisticated manner. Hence what is philosophical here is but a politics/tactics of evading the social particular. Such philosophical position

This means that the majority of Indian Philosophical positions deprive themselves to addressthe problem of exclusion for reasons of emancipation and hence Dalit liberation hence is notonly far cry in Indian philosophy but an illusion in Indian philosophical constructs. Thevery mental constructs needs to resurrect is a way towards emancipatory project whileaddressing the problem of exclusion. The Vedic Claim that Ekam Sat if/when interpretativelyrendered it would also imply the Brahman/Self as Ekam and it is Sat (the really real) and byits enclosure and extension, the realities of the world, is deemed Asat, un real. The cognitivespace between Sat and Asat is the cultural/social space between the High Caste and low caste,having the intermediary territories of upper caste groupings. Dalits occupy the territory ofnon- real, an illusion to be detested with, yet such an illusion is needed to maintain the verynotion called Sat or the really real. There are two things happening here. (i) First, Such a

philosophy of the Hindu orthodoxy reifies the Dalit into a realm of absolute condemnation,robbing of Self-worthiness to the Dalit-self. (ii) And secondly, the enclosed-self of the High-Caste loses any sense of consciousness or awareness to the sensibility of human rights,libertarian ethics, and existential values. As a result both the in-caste-self (non Dalits) and the

out caste self (Dalits) imbibe a culture of negation of each other or a culture of resignation toeach other (termed as tolerance) and renunciation. The women or the Dalit (body-symbol),


11/16

though a speaking body, connote a culture of a culture of silence abnegated of its capacityto affirmation and self-expression. Re-reading Indian philosophical culture from the

perspective of Ambedkar and the question of Dalit emancipation, it can be emphasized thatthe Being (?) of a Dalit is always treated as insufficient being , that which cannot exist in itself

(in-substantial) therefore, an entity-for-exploitation. Thus exploitation is philosophical(Knowledge-Structured), unfort unately epitomized as spiritual. The Dalit -Self, though aconstructed on is always constructed in-dependency off or antagonistic to what has beenconstrued as the categories of Self with in this predominant philosophical traditions. TheDalit-Self is within this construct, is a sort of non-self or sub-self, to be appropriated or ifneeded, to be annihilated.

Derrida refers the primacy or domination of the rational or spirit category, embedded in thehistory of western philosophical thinking, as metaphysics of presence 9 that serve as the

basis or principle of exclusion of the Other. The conceptual subtleties ingrained within thesetheoretical bearings tint the Indian cultural perceptive world(s) whose consolidate socialreality is Casteism. These dichotomies have dominated our thinking, perceptions, language,culture and social relations. These dichotomise define the universe through the lens provided

by their pair. These dichotomies contain a set of implicit assumptions that assign a prominence and a dominant value to the term in the position of A at the expense of not- A(Gatens 1991:93). The assumption is that there are two distinct realities mutually exclusiveand incompatible with primary secondary positions, each of which occupy self-contained andself-enclosed spheres. [A is defined as only A; as being not-B; as the negation of B]. Suchdifference according to both Sassure and Derrida, are mass thoughts that engenders a system

of values as he says, In language there are only differences.[...] without positive terms.Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds thatexisted before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that haveissued from the system. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of lessimportance than the other signs that surround it. [...] A linguistic system is a series ofdifferences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas; but the pairing of acertain number of acoustical signs with as many cuts made from the mass thought engendersa system of values 10 Ambedkar writings needs to relocated within such theoretical contextsof categorical oppositions that exclude each other but intact by ways of inclusive logic for acontinued discourse of exclusion. The Dalit or the socially excluded here according toAmbedkar exist as that-by-which-the dominant-define-themselves-as-beings (sue generis) inopposition of the not-sufficiently-being, namely the excluded people]. Such dichotomisationcategorically and necessarily involve both domination and suppression of what is culturally

perceived and placed as secondary or inferior.

9 The concept of the metaphysics of presence is an important consideration within the area of deconstruction . The deconstructive interpretation holds that the entire history of Western philosophy and its language andtraditions has emphasized the desire for immediate access to meaning, and thus built

a metaphysics or ontotheology around the privileging of presence over absence10 Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916 [trans. 1959]). Course in General Linguistics . New York: New YorkPhilosophical Library. pp. 121 22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotheologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotheologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotheologyhttp://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/cf3324/saussure.htmhttp://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/cf3324/saussure.htmhttp://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/cf3324/saussure.htmhttp://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/cf3324/saussure.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontotheologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction


12/16

These binaries are but the radical dichotomy pervasively and persuasively function asmetaphysics of presence to mainta in the imposed or assumed order; there are latentconceptual connections in the dominant Indian cultural traditions which can be explored

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

femininity, error and emotion on the other. The binaries positioned as eternal truths/logos promote a persistent discourse of exclusion by which what is relegated as outcaste has to beepistemologically and morally reduced to the realm of continuous negation. No wonderCasteism as a socio-cultural order is but the social signification of the philosophical eidos , thesupremacy of A-category at the expense or in relation to the inferiority of B-category, thusforming a categorical opposition relation of both domination and repression. These horizonsinevitably influence the way we live in the moment. Ideas arent always present either; they take shape from

prior ideas and memories, work themselves out, come to fruition, and become transformed into differentideas. Ideas have history and trajectory just like human lives. The present moment is only a trace oftemporal duration as it moves from the past into future. 11 To define ones conceptions, oneself, ones

position, and ones community (caste) in opposition to, in rejection of, and in a hierarchywith something else, rather than in connection or relation to it, entrenches a politics of socialexclusion. It is a Berlin Wall Mentality. It has a repressive effect on our modes of thinkingand socially behaving through specific modes of speech -acts.

The western modern progressive notions such as autonomy, reason, science, freewill etc isabsent in such enclosures. In that place, memory, repetition, ritual and cultural practices,caste-dharma etc are replaced and deemed superior value here. This is the reason why, thenotion of freedom, equality, fraternity, though enshrined in Indian constitution (thanks to the

efforts of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar) is absent in the very ethos of Casteism. Instead it revolvesaround a morality of caste-grounded dharma, purusarthas 12 where in caste-duty is acategorical imperative of the people of Indian culture. By the stretch of the same logic,Ambedkar argues that a Caste-Hindu is bound to remain to be a closed totality. The CasteHindu totality is a totality devoid of any social relation. It does not possess the capacity torelate, to face the face of the other, and to look at the speaking eyes of the other, whether theother is female or Dalit or any one for that matter. If it does, it can only do so, by a practiceof exploitation and reduction of the-other. A philosophy of Dalit liberation is an expression ofresistance to such exploitativ e looks and world -outlook. Within this structure of thought andculture, violence, hatred, denials or subjugation etc is deep-rooted. Since the high caste selfis a closed totality, the sensibility of the social is alarmingly absent in the caste-mind-set andits world. Since the very logical construct of caste-pattern is constituted of I-(despised)Itrelation, it could only regulate a relation of categorical hierarchy, by which it justifies the actsof violence, subordination and manipulation of the untouchables.

Most Indian philosophical cultural trends, language and social systems are characterised by awhole set of hierarchical oppositions, all allied to a primary elevation of privileged presence

11 http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/derrida-on-the-metaphysics-of-presence/12

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


13/16

at the expense of, and by excluding unprivileged need to be eroded. Such dichotomies arenot only inherited constructions but quite operative within symbiosis of caste endogamoussocial relations. Ambedkar evaluates anthropology of Casteism within the parameters ofendogamy is but a clear-cut explosion of the incoherency of these inherited value-dualistic

and hierarchical conceptualities. A definitive epistemological foundation of such rationalitiesentails not only the omission of the untouchables or the out castes but all the sociallyexcluded sections by way of expulsion, banishment and exile of them relegated to the realmof the material, the earthly, the dirtily, the sinful, the natural, emotional, passionate, bodily,disorderly, formless, subordinate, passive, sometimes dangerours, and therefore the Other,whose otherness needs to be consciously, culturally, socially and of course religiously beabnegated.

Ambedkars contributions have to be situated as a call for an end to the repression of pluri-dimensional systemic cum symbolic thought-violences . For Ambedkar, all such conceivable(conceptual) ways of thinking and communicating should be explored as to evolve ameaningful engagement in terms of emancipation of those who are deemed secondary andtherefore excluded. Dichotomous thinking in which the excluded is seen as subordinate is notonly conceptual or logical constructions, but also historical, social, political and cultural. Theuntouchables in favour of whom Ambedkar crusaded, held that they are historically relegatedto the realm of a domesticity (domestic unpaid servants) as that of the feminine reduced to therealm of private such as family, reproduction and sexuality. These relegations are seenand are philosophically perceived as if they are governed by natural rhy thms, social norms,morality ( varnasharma dharma ) rather than subjects for a discourse and reclamation of

emancipation in terms of their own identity and social justice. These philosophicaldichotomies are but socially construed truth-claims that are functional to reproduce castesociety as normative social order. This seems to be strongest argument that runs through thewritings of Ambedkar.

Theory and practice are integrated, in a culture, by the presuppositions involved in adominant metaphor, through which ideas, actions and practices are seen as meaningful andunderstood and coherent. Mind and Body is such metaphor instrumental in setting out theconditions and structure of thinking, and of possible thoughts. Such metaphors containsinherent explanatory force, if naturalized and used unselfconsciously, can operate to

predetermine the meaning of A and not-A. We experience the world, in a default mode,through an implicit habitual understanding. We are socialised in such default world. Such

percepti on is conflated as self -evidence. It is a sort of a mapping process of exclusioncreating mind set to consider that caste is morally right and a cultural privilege and socialidentification. Derrida considered that when encountering what he called a "classical

philosophical opposition", one never encounters "peaceful coexistence" of the two opposingconcepts, but rather a "violent hierarchy", where one of the two dominates over the other. "Ina classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with the peaceful coexistence of a vis--vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms governs the other (axiological


14/16


15/16

cum historical perspective. His writings such as Annihilation of Caste, State andMinorities, The Problem of the Rupee, its Origin and its Solution etc deeply reflect thehistorical sensibility with which Ambedkar engaged an analysis of Indian Society.

Within the philosophical patterns of Indian culture and its cultural/institutional pattern-Casteism, a specific logic of domination is veiled and hidden. Outcasteness is the socialexpression of logic of domination and exclusion stems from the ontologism of Indianorthodoxy. The construction of the Brahman-Self as the Primary alternatively structures thesecondary-ness of the matter (prakriti), and by extension the Non-Self, namely the Dalit. TheBrahman-Self is symbolic of the High Caste Self in upper gradation in thought and action.The high caste if and when s/he is placed as primary self, over and against the low caste oroutcaste person (the-Other), implicitly construes a graded oppositional relation of dominationfor subordination and subjugation. To put it logically, it is this: Between X and Y if and whenX is placed superior to Y, then X by the virtue of having its higher locus, is justified insubordinating Y 14. Between the high and low caste persons, there is a gradation of low caste

persons, each occupying a territory of his own in antagonism to and subjugation of who isdeemed as lower caste, the Other. This construction of a logic of domination attributesoutcasteness and treated as a necessary precondition of incasteness of the same caste (Castegroupings), like that of the political territory of a ruler(s) is preconditioned by the political

periphery of the ruled people. The totality of such onto-logical is levied heavily on to theshoulders of Dalit person. Given to this depth grammatology of domination, to Ambedkar,the perception of the removal of the problem of casteism and its alleged untouchability ordisabled sociability within the parameter of Caste functional structuralism is a categorical

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

Between and Beyond Tradition and Modernity and the Emancipatory Discourse ofAmbedkarThe emancipatory discourse that Ambedkar engage can be summarised as a Discourse of-

Between and Beyond Tradition and Modernity . The type of modernity discourse thatAmbedkar entertains in his writings though one could find influence of western modernism, itis not exclusively western modernist, in the sense that he deconstructed the modernism of thewest as to suit Indian society. For instance the western modernity discourse propel a sort ofdominant secular rationality, whereas Ambedkar projects a sense of Indian modernity,meaning that to be secular in Indian culture is to do away with the dominant religious andcultural ethos. The tradition of Casteism and its ideological bearings, namely thedichotomous cultural lens, while radically eroded by Ambedkar, he as well engaged aserious sense of returning to the tradition, in the sense of hermeneutically rendering RenewedBuddhism as a possible mediation to pro-act emancipatory project without losing the

progressive sight o f modernity. This is why i do contend that Ambedkars emancipatory

14

Enrique Dussell employs this concept of logic of domination, in his work, Philosophy of Liberation, (OrbisBooks) to argue that western philosophical structures implicitly construe such domination whose practicalexpression is colonialism and economic and political exploitation.


16/16

discourse to be captured with in the boundaries of tradition and modernity and beyondmodernity with a serious sense of transcendence and yet rooted to Indian cultural ethos.

By embarking upon a philosophy of emancipation foregrounding between and beyond

tradition and modernity, Ambedkar evolves a discourse of emancipation. For him, this is aconscious and perspective-attempt to destabilize what has been construed as knowledge andcultural power. Organically it is an intellectual attempt to inroad into cognitive constructionsof domination and it proclaims the death of super-self paving way for the birth of plurality ofSelves in-simultaneous-presence of the Other 15 . Ambedkars emancipatory project is notagain a cognitive totality that totalizes the Dalit world as the self-same centre. Rather it is anattempt to de-write the written text, a political attempt depoliticize the cultural power of the

privileged self. Socially it is both a destruction of the old order by strategic interventions forthe emergence of the proximate speaking face of persons as persons in relation. To this, weneed to wage a war against cultural dominations by mode of mediation (intellectual agenda)for emancipation. The platforms of such war against war are multiple the intellectual, thecultural, the economic, the religious, the political and even the spiritual. The politics of suchrealms needs to be exposed if we really mean a discourse of liberation, a sense of liberationnot only of Dalits, primarily of them, but the liberation from of any cultural forms oftotalities. For Paulo Friere, it is specific a pedagogy of the oppressed for liberation. In thelanguage of Ambedkar, Dalit liberation is praxis of resistance to isolation, to discrimination,to subjugation, to subordination, to exploitation etc, is foundationally a socio-spiritual action.Given to the ontological ground, the fore-ground of Indian caste cultural violence, the Dalitstruggle for liberation, I believe, is both intellectual and social. We need to re-search and re-

read Ambedkar vis--vis the recent trends of empancipatory discourse at the internationallevel.

Thank you

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

Caste Violence and Reproduction Philosophical Readings Shimla Paper S. Lourdunathan

Documents

Transcript of Caste Violence and Reproduction Philosophical Readings Shimla Paper S. Lourdunathan