Thursday, September 15, 2011

The Idea of India: Derivative, Desi and Beyond (Gopal Guru)

http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/190393/The Idea of India: 'Derivative, Desi and Beyond'By: Gopal Guru

Vol XLVI No.37 September 10, 2011

The dalit discourse in India presents a sharp contrast to the "derivative" and the "desi" discourses governing nationalist thought and the "idea of India". The dalit discourse goes "beyond" the two in offering an imagination that is based on a "negative" language which however transcends into a normative form of thinking. The dalit goes beyond both the derivative and desi inasmuch as it foregrounds itself in the local configuration of power, which is constitutive of the hegemonic orders of capitalism and brahminism.

In this essay I would like to make two interrelated arguments. First, socio-political thought in colonial India represents a multiplicity of ideas from India. Thus in the "affirmative" imagination, the idea of incredible India can be arguably attributed to Jawaharlal Nehru,while we need not have any hesitation in associating the idea of "village India" or "Ram Rajya" with M K Gandhi. Similarly, we need not hesitate to relate the idea of mother India with nationalist thinking in the 19th and 20th century nationalist imagination in West Bengal.In another shade of Hindu nationalist thought the idea of "father India" and "holy India" can be undoubtedly attributed to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. There is an alternative imagination as well. In this kind of imagination, we have Jyotirao Phule's India of Baliraja (the benevolent peasant king who existed in myths) and Babasaheb Ambedkar's prabuddha Bharat ("enlightened India").

The alternative imagination of India as proposed by Phule and Ambedkar follows a particular methodological route. The conception of an alternative or affirmative imagination of India seems to be preceded by what could be termed as oppositional imagination. For example, Ambedkar also imagines India as "bahishkrut Bharat" "ostracized India".

Second, the thinkers who have imagined India use a particular language, which this essay argues is articulated via three routes the methodological, the conceptual and the hermeneutic.

Taking a cue from some leading scholars,1 I would like to argue that the methodological language plays an important role in terms of deciding the epistemic calibre and evaluating the universal standards of nationalist thought. At another level, methodological language seeks to characterise the autonomy of nationalist thought. To put it differently, the methodological device is deployed to decide the "authenticity" of nationalist thought. Authenticity in this contextinvolves the question whether a particular thought is original or imitative? In the present context, originality is contingent upon the conditions (cultural and intellectual) that fix the territorialboundaries around the nationalist thought. What is being suggested here is that spatiality as well as epistemology foreground the question whether a particular thought has an alternative point oforigin or is it a "lazy" extension of the "modular" form of nationalist thinking, which is already available in the west and waiting to be replicated in India. Thus, the methodological categoriesadopted by some of the noted scholars seek to designate certain distinct character to Indian thought. Let me put this point in a more dramatic fashion. Does the nationalist thought in India don those categories that are cast off by western modernity? Do we "shop" in second hand? What is wrong in borrowing the used and abused categories from the west?

Thus, the methodological language is suggestive of a characterizing function that certain categories tend to acquire. It could be argued that the category "derivative" as adopted by one of the leading scholars on nationalism, Partha Chatterjee seems to be performing thefunction of characterising nationalist thought in India. According to Chatterjee (1986: 41), the nationalist thought in India is essentially a derivative in the sense that it fashions itself on the modular formof nationalism as developed in the west. However, Chatterjee qualifies this argument particularly in two respects. First, he does not suggest that nationalist thought in India indulges in wholesale" borrowing from the west. It is quite selective in such borrowings. Chatterjee rightly points out that the nationalist thought, at least for political reasons (my expression), needs to assert its autonomous character. Thus, for him, a nationalist thought would not constitute as nationalist if it is absolutely imitative (my expression) of the west (Chatterjee 1986: 8). He makes an indirect reference to the moral dimension of nationalist thought, which according to his own reading is internal to the derivative character of this thought. This is clear from the following observation that Chaterjee makes in his widely referred work. He says, "Nationalist discourse is historical in form but 'apologetic' in substance" (Chatterjee 1986: 9). Thus, the nationalist problematic in India is replete with a dilemma willing to keep distance from the west but unable to retain the autonomy.

The 'Derivative' and the 'Desi'

It is true that the "derivative" as characterising category plays an important role in foregrounding the dilemma that the nationalist thought confronts particularly within the colonial configuration of power. It suffers from a dilemma in the sense that while it has a will to carve out for itself an autonomous epistemological space well outside the influence of western discourse, at the same time it is unable to escape the epistemological grip and gaze of the western discourse. However, the logic of such rather innovative methodological moves does not necessarily exhaust all the reference points that may bring into focus the hidden dimension of nationalist thought. Thus oneneeds to cast the net of methodological language a little wider so as to capture within its range some other categories that can throw some light on the hidden character of nationalist imagination. The central argument of this essay, thus, is this: "derivative" as a methodological language is necessary but not sufficiently capacious so as to unfold to us the differential nature of nationalist thought in India. Thus, at the methodological level, it becomes necessary to add to "derivative" two other categories "desi" and "beyond". This semantic extension, in my opinion, is necessary to bring out what could be called a "distinct" character of nationalist thought in India. Let us therefore examine, to what extent and in what context, the "desi" acquires a character which is different from the derivative.

I would like to argue that both desi and derivative are different from each other in the following respects. First, taking a cue from the very instructive insights provided by Sudipta Kaviraj (1995) it could be argued that the desi seeks to reverse the logic of orientalism thus making the west an object of not only its own inquiry but also for establishing both autonomy from and superiority over the west. Second, as a corollary to the first, a particular strand of Indian thought could be characterised as desi precisely because it is self-referential. It is self-referential to the extent that it develops itself within the intellectual conditions that are historically available in the specific territorial context of India. However, in this regard it is necessary to qualify this argument by making two other additional points.

First, the claim for self-referentiality emerges in the context of a desi response to colonial epistemological challenge that in fact shakes the desi out of its intellectual complacency if not slumber. Second, "desi" for its self-definition requires the west as an epistemological shadow as characterised by Uday Mehta (1998). To put it differently, the desi for its own "authentic" articulation requires the west as a negative reference point. Finally, desi, like the derivative does not suffer from a dilemma as mentioned above. The desi mode of thinking does not have a desire to follow the west and at the same time remain autonomous. On the contrary, it acquires itsintellectual confidence whereby it does not allow the western vocabulary to float into the minds of the desi thinkers who drawing on Bhikhu Parekh's (1989) classification could be characterised as either traditionalists or critical traditionalists. The desi thought articulates supreme confidence to the point that it, as mentioned above, becomes self-referential, or a source of reference for theother. It acquires the status of a classic having timeless essence and relevance. One could interpret the element of confidence in the desi thinking as a moral source, which therefore chooses to operate on its own without necessarily making any association with other contendingthoughts.

In fact, desi thought is epistemologically inegalitarian inasmuch as it seeks positive dissociation from other contending intellectual traditions. It does not find it necessary to exist as a contending and competing intellectual tradition. At another level of its intellectual existence and in the need to remain hegemonic both across time and space, it seeks to assimilate those intellectual traditions that are heterodox in character. Assimilation of one strand of Buddhism in brahminical Hinduism is one such example in the premodern period and the Gandhian attempt to assimilate the dalit discourse within its hegemonic framework is another attempt in modern time. However, there is a striking difference between brahminical Hinduism and the Gandhian project. While the former was successful in its mission the latter was not. The desi, unlike the derivative, thus seeks to avoid the charge of being apologetic.

Finally, the desi thinking in India acquires its autonomy from the west primarily because it has privileged access to the Sanskrit language which provides the necessary vocabulary for developing an alternative theoretical thinking. The exclusive access to Sanskrit by definition questions the claim of desi thought as being complete and universal. For it can claim to be complete only in the absence of that thought which developed with the marginal support of Sanskrit or even without it. The dalit and shudra thought developed by Ambedkar, Jyotiba Phule and "Periyar" E V Ramasamy Naicker respectively is a case in point. It is in this sense that the dalit shudra thought could be considered as beyond the framework of desi which is exclusivelybased on Sanskrit. However, this idea of desi is certainly different from the idea of desi as developed by one of the leading Marathi literary novelists and critics, Bhalchandra Nemade. He would call all the silenced but subaltern or little traditions like saint traditions as desi. Although the "subaltern" as desi warrants critical attention, here for the sake of convenience I do not propose to assign full treatment to that perspective.

However, it is important to mention here that such a thought falling outside the framework of both "desi" and to some extent "derivative" has a strong moral significance. It has emerged and developed in adversarial intellectual conditions where thinkers like Ambedkar and Phule did not have resources to fall back on and hence were forced to draw on those produced by the collective cultural and intellectual practices of the "shudra-atishudra communities". It is the experience and not the already available text that led to the reflective intellectual consciousness among the thinkers from the shudra-atishudra community.

Thus, within the Indian tradition of thought, there is an intellectual trend, which goes beyond both the derivative as well as the desi. In the following section, I would like to argue that the category "beyond", that can function through the conceptual language is more sensitive in terms of capturing the historical form and normative substance of sociopolitical thinking which emerged in India despite heavy odds. It faced heavy odds in the sense that it was pushed bothbeneath and beyond the desi as well as the derivative.

The Category of the 'Beyond'

I argue here that the category of "beyond" is distinctive from both the "desi" and the "derivative" inasmuch as it seeks to characterize the nationalist imagination radically differently. It is alsodifferent from the other two in the sense that it suggests the possibility of a parallel problematic of nationalist thought. I will explain what is a "parallel problematic", but before I do this let meexplain the underlying characteristics of the category "beyond".

First, the category "beyond" seeks to render the thinking that otherwise is pushed beneath and beyond the public imagination. Such rather coercive seclusion and separation of a particular thinking is analogous to the dalit literary imagination which in its self-description claims that its poems belong to what is called in Marathi, gao kusa baheril kavita (poems from beyond the margin). The category "beyond", however, is the result of the intellectual practice of those who were privileged to have been involved in such practice. Scholars and commentators of political thought in modern India seem to have either completely omitted (Mehta 1996 for example) orrhetorically accommodated (Pantham and Deutsch 1986) certain social and political thinking particularly that has originated from the subaltern intellectual traditions. An alternative mode of thinking from the "margin" has been actively pushed beyond both the derivative and the desi which have been treated as the hegemonic terrain of public inquiry characterising "argumentative India". Thus, according to this particular reading, thinkers like Phule and Ambedkar fail to fit into the definitional framework of political thought. Second, the thought which is made to exist in the "beyond" is different both in terms of style and substance. It is different in style as it expresses dissonance, difference and defiance. The assertion of "no" and an element of anti-scepticism that is so prominent in such thought creates interruptions in the conceptual stability and universal validity of the hegemonic thought. Third, sociopolitical thought seems to exist beyond both the desi and the derivative to the extent that the concepts that inhibit this thought play an important role of recasting the real (largely un-thought) into reflection.

The experience of untouchability forms the part of "un-thought" as it fails to get fully accommodated in or fails to become the part of conceptual vocabulary of the desi as well as the derivative. Its systematic articulation had to wait till the arrival of Phule and most particularly Ambedkar into the intellectual imagination in the 19th and 20th century India. Thus, in Ambedkar's thought one finds several concepts and categories like bahishkrut Bharat,untouchability as lokvigraha, "broken men", "depressed classes", "pad-dalit", hinatva (servility), and vital (ritual pollution) that receive intellectually sophisticated treatment from him. Thus, inAmbedkar the concept of hinatva is different from the concept of durbalata (weakness). For him the former is the state of being of a particular self while the latter is the condition that has a limited impact on this self.

Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar as reflective thinkers seek to recast a particular reality into reflection thus elevating it from mere description to its universal abstraction. For example, the concept of bahishkrut in Ambedkar is the reflection of the real, i e, mal-apportioned untouchables. As is evident from the conceptual vocabulary mentioned in the preceding sentences, the concepts and categories constitutive of the discourse "beyond" access this ideal only through the reflection on the real. Fourth, the thought from the margins also acquires the character ofgoing beyond the derivative and the desi to the extent that for its articulation it adopts a vocabulary, which might appear to benegative or grotesque to the latter. This might appear to be negative to both the derivative and the desi thought which claims to be articulating itself through the canonised language of self-rule,swadeshi, home rule and swarajya. The thought from the margins looks much beyond identical and affirmative language for its expression as mentioned in the preceding sentence. We will talk more about the role of negative language in shaping the thought in the discourse of the "beyond" later.

Fifth and finally this particular thought not only goes beyond the derivative and the desi in terms of its style and substance but it also goes beyond itself particularly in terms of its search for analternative normative ideal. The category "beyond" does not suggest that the thought from the margins does not have its own ideal. In fact, it does have its own idea of ideal (Guru 2009). For example, Phule moves from gulamigiri (slavery) to sarvajaniksatya dharma (religion based on universal truth) and Ambedkar moves from "bahishkrut Bharat" (India of the ostracised) to "prabuddha Bharat" (enlightened India) or from "lokvigarha" (untouchability) to "lokangraha" (annihilation of untouchability). This particular thought also adopts an affirmative language for the articulation of this ideal. But the intellectual project of subaltern thought aimed at preparing the masses for the realisation of a normative ideal becomes discernible through a particular dialectic. It chooses to operate through the negative language as an initial communicative condition. Negative language as the grotesque form of expression makes both the derivative and the desi as an object of its criticism. It thus seeks to undercut the significance of canonised language as the only legitimate form of expression.

'Negative Language'

The thought hailing from the "beyond" seeks to challenge this canonisedlanguage by deploying the negative language. For example, this invokes the language of untouchability in order to undercut the political significance of the affirmative language of loksangraha mooted by Sri Aurobindo.2 The negative vocabulary seeks to challenge the mechanical language of unity as proposed by the nationalist thinkers.

The political thought residing in the beyond as an hermeneutic space, thus, performs an ethical function in as much it causes an embarrassment to nationalist thought and seeks to puncture the moral confidence of the canonised thought. At another level, through the adoption of an alternative affirmative language of self-respect and dignity it seeks to posit opposition within a person (in the present case untouchables) who is otherwise immune to the normative desire forself-definition.

The invocation of an affirmative language in the subaltern thought leads to reconstruction of consciousness whereby every being existing at the margins becomes his/her own opposite. The reconstructive process facilitated through subaltern thought thus involves, for example, an attempt to overcome the state of servile being and radically transform the servile into a subversive entity. The redemption of subversive entity becomes a possibility primarily through the complex interplay between the modernist dimension of social thought and its corresponding framework, i e, the local configuration of power. The local configuration of power is constitutive of brahminism and capitalism in Phule's language "shetji-bhatji'' and in Ambedkar's language "brahmanshahi" and bhandwalshahi.

To put it differently, the redemption of the subversive entity through the subaltern thought or the thought of the "beyond" takes place within the context of this local configuration of power constitutive of capitalism and brahminism. Ambedkar's thought entails modern vocabulary such as equality, justice, self-respect and more importantly dignity. The internal structure of nationalist thought as argued by Chatterjee and endorsed by Kaviraj is extremely complex because according to these scholars it contains critiques within critiques. While there is no problem in accepting the validity of this reading of nationalist thought, the associative problem of this "critique within the critique" is that it does not exhaust its logic in the sense that it pays rhetorical attention rather than offering substantive treatment to the question of caste.

This language in its affirmative mode seeks to not only interrogate the local configuration of power, but it also aims at mobilizing Indian society initially against itself and essentially for itstransformation into the distant future. The derivative and the desi, on the other hand, hesitate to engage with the local but show an extraordinary urgency to confront the imperial State in the colonial configuration of power. The derivative and desi, thus, make huge concessions to native capitalism and most particularly brahminism that regulate local configurations of power.

'Postcolonial' Critique

It is interesting to note that some of the postcolonial scholars seem to have used the much celebrated framework, i e, the derivative discourse as a potent methodological resource to critique Ambedkar's modernist moves for political mobilisation of the dalits (Ganguly 2005: 115). Some of them obliquely critique Ambedkar for having indulged in unconditional borrowing from the western modernist paradigm. But if Phule and Ambedkar borrow it, what is wrong? They certainly have incorporated the western in their thought. One cannot object to such borrowing particularly on moral grounds. They were forced to borrow because they were denied access to the desi category that was locally available. For example, they were denied access to learning Sanskrit that arguably happened to be the potent field of conceptual vocabulary.

The postcolonial critique of Ambedkar as mounted by scholars likeGanguly needs to take into account the constraining impact of localconfiguration of power that has produced the following predicament forthe dalit thinkers. It says in Marathi, and I quote "aai jeyailawadat nahi, ani bap usanwari karu det nahi". In this context, aai isunderstood as a stepmother. Sanskrit language is a stepmother, andaccording to the proverbial understanding, exclusion, discriminationis in her nature. Thus, Sanskrit as a stepmother does not offerconceptual food (and creates conditions of intellectual starvation)and the postcolonial theorist also does not allow borrowing ideas fromthe west. In fact, Chatterjee's recent work on Babasaheb Ambedkarcertainly contributes to our understanding of thought that exists onthe edge of thought corresponding to the "beyond". In his recent workon Ambedkar (Chatterjee 2006: 83) he argues that Ambedkar does nothave a problem existing in the homogeneity of India but is alsoreduced to suppressed heterogeneity.

The above description thus involves three claims. First, that thesociopolitical thought which exists in the realms of the "beyond"essentially suggests a possibility of a parallel problematic of theidea of India. Second, it adopts a negative language for thearticulation of the "parallel problematic". Finally, this thought doesnot remain pathologically stuck in the framework of negative language.On the contrary it progressively transcends the negative and developsan affirmative language for fashioning out an alternative conceptionof India. These claims make it necessary to explain the nature of the"parallel problematic" within which the new questions implicating theidea of India are framed and a non-identical, grotesque language isdeveloped for the articulation of these questions.

The Parallel Problematic

The term problematic in the Althusserian framework,3 designates thetheoretical/ideological framework, which puts the basic concepts intorelation with one another, determines the nature of each concept byits place and function in this system of relationship, and thusconfers on each concept its particular significance.

Althusser further argues that the concept of the problematic acquiresits own significance by determining what it includes within itsfield, and thereby necessarily determines what is excluded therefrom.The concepts which are excluded and the problems which are not posedadequately or not posed at all are therefore as much a part of thenationalist problematic as are the concepts and problems that arepresent in the nationalist thought. It could be argued that the"parallel problematic" providing intellectual space for theemergence of the subaltern thought in turn results from thedeficiency that is internal and endemic to the nationalistproblematic.

The nationalistic problematic provides a negative reference point thattriggers off a parallel problematic. Thus, the parallel problematicseeks to bring into the forefront questions relating to normativeconcerns like justice, equality and dignity that get buried in thebackyard of nationalist thought and hence the nationalisticproblematic which raises different order of questions relating toself-rule and political freedom. The nationalistic problematic thatemerged during the colonial times has failed to either adequatelypose the question of annihilation of caste or sought to completelyexclude these social questions.

The nationalistic problematic produces sovereign concepts such asself-rule, elite democracy and political freedom, which is fine butthese sovereign concepts tend to crush under their weight certainother conceptual vocabulary such as self-respect or dignity, whichseeks to preserve the universal normative aspirations of theuntouchables. This silencing of the alternative vocabulary has thusgiven rise to the parallel problematic of the dalit subaltern. Thenationalist thought in India tried hard to bury the dalit question,but failed in its effort because the subaltern thinkers did not allowit to happen. In fact, thinkers like Phule and Ambedkar dragged thesocial question from the depths it had reached in public discourse.

The expression of dalit thinking as a body of thought particularly innegative language looks grotesque to the mainstream nationalistthought which has been canonised through the language that isconsidered as the affirmative language. The nationalist thinkers andleaders during the colonial time and the modernising elite in thepost-independent period, did not show any hospitality towards thenegative/grotesque language deployed by Ambedkar and later on byother dalit literary figures. The nationalist leaders showed deepresentment with this language used by the dalit subalterns (Guru2007). This resentment about the negative language did not go downwell with the nationalist imagination as it caused embarrassment tothe moral order of the nation.

Significance

The negative language in dalit discourse is significant for thefollowing reasons. First, the principle of dalit thought seeks togovern the communicative use of language. The language used byAmbedkar and dalits assumes assertiveness inasmuch as it asserts thatthe nationalist thought "is not" historically sensitive to the dalitquestion. The words "is not" thus constitute assertion. The assertivemoves and the negative language are based on the distinctions betweenthe nationalist thought and the social thought that foregrounds dalitvision. The language also brings out the distinctive character ofdalit thought by placing it in a different configuration of power. Thedistinctiveness in thought particularly that in modern India becomes discernible in two configurations of power the colonial andthe local.

The colonial configuration of power produces and shapes conceptuallanguage that tends to subsume within itself other conceptualassertions. For example, the language of political freedom overshadowsthe concept of social freedom or the concept of self-rule as sovereignconcepts subsume in them the non-identical concepts such asself-respect.

Second, the use of negative language like untouchability or bahishkrutor hinatva brings into focus the relationship between the formation ofconcept and the construction of physical space. In this regard, it isinteresting to note that Michel Foucault seeks to endorse the role ofspace in producing and shaping the conceptual language. Foucault(1989: Preface), says, "the thought that bears the stamp of our ageand our geography". For example, the concept of untouchability orbahishkrut comes up in Ambedkar's social thought because it reflectsthe experience of repulsion and exclusion that emanates from the spacethat is stigmatised. One cannot imagine the emergence of the categoryof "hinatva" in Savarkar's (2003: 113) idea of India as "holy land".

Let me further argue that in the case of Ambedkar and even Gandhi thespace determines the emergence and the efficacy of thought. The sociallocation of Ambedkar a social ghetto that is historically producedand reproduced would awaken Ambedkar only to the language ofdiscrimination, humiliation and segregation, inequality and injustice.Hence at the cognitive level, the conceptual vocabulary in Ambedkar'sthought seeks to organise social relations around contradictions andto motivate dalits to offer much sharper responses to thesecontradictions. It is in this sense, that a body of thought exists"beyond" and entails concepts and categories related to struggle andthat acquires meaning and significance in the realm of socialstruggle.

However, in Gandhian thought, the concepts, due to their moralorientation acquire a non-cognitive character. This in effect, tendsto shape social relations around the idea of seva (service),sahanubhuti (compassion) and care; not struggle or contradiction.Since Gandhi's political existence operates through a seamlessspatiality, it tends to create only corresponding concepts like "seva"or trusteeship. In the Gandhian case it is seamless because forGandhi, every space becomes quite hospitable and receptive. That is tosay Gandhi can move in and out of any space, even the "Bhangi colony".This choice to walk in and out has a bearing on Gandhi's thought. Itchanges the character of his thought thus making it more placid.Ambedkar, on the contrary, does not have a choice and hence has toopen up spaces that are not only hostile but are also fragmentedaround social stigma. Thus physical spaces which are otherwise emptyget constructed through negative or positive meaning depending uponwho is assigning this meaning. In India, it was the socially powerfulwho till the arrival of colonial modernity assigned meaning to thespaces they inhibited (agrahara) and also to the spaces that they didnot reside in but held in deep repulsion (cherry, hulgeri andmaharwada or chamar tola). But the enabling aspect of colonialmodernity empowered the untouchables to seek new meaning for theirphysical space (Bhimnagar, Buddhawada, Ramabainagar andSiddhartanagar). The politics of acquiring new names to social spacesassumed the possibility of producing cognitive categories thatsought to interrogate and then undermine what could be described asthe patronising and hence non-cognitive category such as "harijanwada" the name given by Gandhi.

Political Freedom Alone?

These cognitive categories suggesting the oppositional imagination inturn seeks to expose the discursive character of nationalist thought.The nationalist thought acquires a discursive character to the extentthat different strands of thought (liberal, Marxist, Hindu) however,tend to rally round the single concept of political freedom. Theyrally round this single concept for intersecting purposes. Thecognitive categories that are internal to dalit thought seek todeflate this discursive character of nationalist thought. It connectsthe production of thought to the production of spaces, which in turnaffect the hermeneutic capacity of thought. As a result Ambedkar'sthought finds its audience basically in the dalit bastis (ghettos).The cognitive categories also define themselves and acquire salienceagainst the use of non-cognitive categories that are constitutive ofGandhian thought. The dalit thinking seeks to polarise the discursivefield of nationalist thought and chooses to exist in the heterogeneoustime with the negative intention to question the homogeneous timewithin which the nationalist thought seem to be operating. It thenacquires potency in terms of the cognitive and hence it becomesdeeply political rather than moral.

In Gandhian thought the moralising language like "seva", care,harijan, and trusteeship seek to dissolve the contradiction andeliminate the possibility of polarisation and oppositionalimagination. It is driven by an element of appeal rather thanassertion. Moral appeal finds its basis in the language of duty,whereas assertion is driven by the language of rights. Assertion, asmentioned above, involves a firm negation rather than affirmation andconfirmation of the established claims. The language of sevaessentially foregrounds duty driven action that necessarily emanatesfrom the humble side of human nature. The language of right, on theother hand, is constitutive of assertion. Seva as a non-cognitivemoral category also possesses a discursive character. That is to say,it is available to different social forces for intersectingpurposes. For example, it makes a "guest appearance" in Hindupolitical thought. It acquires a thick presence in Gandhian thoughtand it is also available to the native capitalist as well.

Finally, it is taken seriously by the Christian missionaries who havebeen active in India for a long time now. In fact, the concept of"seva" genealogically belongs to Christian religious discourse and hasbeen subsequently borrowed by the new Hindu discourse. As has beenargued by some scholars, the category of "seva", connects with the newHindu ethics. Those Hindus who sought to defend Hinduism in an eventof a challenge from colonial modernity and Christianity offered totreat dalits decently. They showed some degree of concern, care and anattitude towards "seva". Gandhi among all the other Hindus, offeredrather substantive treatment to the category of "seva". Theconstruction of dalit into harijan was to invoke a sense of "seva"among the orthodox Hindus. Seva thus connotes a kind of passiverevolution, which becomes feasible because "seva" facilitates thereconstruction of Hindu ethics while preserving caste Hindu dominance.Other Hindus had only rhetorical association with the category ofseva. The native capitalist also supported "seva" as a hegemonicdevice to pacify the dalit masses (Srivatsan 2006: 107). It is forthis reason, the capitalists donated generously to Gandhi's HarijanSevak Sangh.

Struggle and Self-help

As against the language of seva, the dalit thought contains thelanguage of struggle and self-help, which promotes normativeaspirations among the dalits. Self-help connotes the idea ofself-respect as a moral good to be pursued by social groups that aremarginalised. Unlike the category of seva, which suggests anasymmetrical relationship and denies a sense of autonomy to thedalit. In fact, it suggests a dependence that presupposes the elementof patronage. The early efforts made by dalits to start educationalinstitutions for the dalits show that dalit thought contained theradical morality that brought out a sense of agency that would keepthe notion of "free riders" away.

Third, the negative vocabulary plays an important role in shaping theidea of dalit self and the other. In the case of India it is the twiceborn or the touchable who is constructed as the other of dalit,through deploying the negative language. The deployment of negativelanguage denies the hegemonic language, for example, of nationalismand secularism. For example, the language of bahishkrut Bharat used bydalits and Ambedkar would render the description of "modern"multicultural India as incomplete. The negative language alsoquestions a dominant form of identical language that constructs themoral order of India as the nation which is based on social harmony.In fact negative language seeks to historicise the identical language,which seeks to avoid the question of historical injustice. Theidentical language seeks to construct the nationalist self. Thenegative language constitutes the source of moral embarrassmentprecisely because the twice born castes treat themselves as theconstitutive core of modern India. The reactions to Ambedkar andKatherine Mayo's Mother India bring out this element of embarrassmentclearly.

Fourth, negative language at the ontological level, seeks to unite thedalit, subaltern with herself or himself. It saves the self fromgetting alienated from its authentic experience that is given to itby the structures that physically exist outside but seek to confinedalits within what could be called a barbed wire. This confinementbehind barbed wire is both from inside and from the outside. It raisesthe cultural walls around dalits by deploying negative language intheir discourse which is quite unintelligible to the upper castes.Thus they protect the authenticity of their discourse from outside.They are also protected from within in the sense that they are stuckin the historical question that is produced and reproduced by thelogic of structure.

The question that needs to be answered is that do dalits remainconfined in the negative? Or do they move out from behind their barbedwired existence? Language is not accidental but is integrally involvedin the form of life and thought and it explains the negativity ofperception whereby one organises one's experience. All experiencedsituations as represented in language are structured situations basedon concept. Therefore, when subordinated groups articulate theirexperience, they use concepts derived not from the positive oridentical language narratives but from commitments embedded withintheir own language that had hitherto gone unrecognised. The negativelanguage first negates the fixed character of the identical languageor the categories of common sense. For example, the concept of "motherIndia" has been negated first by Ambedkar and later on by severaldalit writers (Guru 2011). Negative language thus seeks to reveal thelimitations of the identical hegemonic vocabulary that seeks toconstitute India as an epitome of glory and incredibility. It showsthe existence of "things" taken as isolated particulars that arebasically negative or incomplete.

Thus, the idea of bahishkrut Bharat forms the logical part of theakhand (socially) Bharat or insulated India of untouchables as thepart of incredible India of the urban upwardly mobile upper castes.Thus the negative language grasps the true (and negative) real whichuniversal thinking seeks to avoid. This avoidance can be explained interms of moral reason. Negative language causes moral embarrassment toboth the derivative as well as the desi.

Conclusions

Social and political thought which exists in the sphere of the"beyond" has an epistemological capacity to make reality adequateenough to fit the concepts. For example, the concept of freedom withinthe nationalist problematic is adequate only in the absence of socialfreedom. The concept of freedom becomes adequate only in terms of itscapacity to accommodate within itself untouchability or caste questionas social reality. Thus, the concept of freedom becomes more capaciouswhen propelled from the launching pad of the discourse of the"beyond". Thus, the thought coming from this framework does not treatconcepts just symbolically but offers them a more substantivetreatment. The derivative or the desi on the other hand seek to avoidor rhetorically accommodate the dalit question in the margins of thehegemonic terrain of its thought. This rhetorical accommodation ismotivated by the need to protect the moral order of Indiannationalism. The desi does not feel morally embarrassed by theexistence of the dalit question as its main target is the westernmodernity that asserts itself within the colonial configuration ofpower. Dalit thinking goes beyond both the derivative and desiinasmuch as it foregrounds itself in the local configuration ofpower, which is constitutive of the shetji and bhatji (capitalismand brahminism). Dalit thought also goes beyond itself in the sensethat it transcends the limits of its particularity in which itexpresses as an initial condition. It also goes beyond its ownnegative language from bahishkrut to the puruskrut. However, dalitthought articulates itself through the initially negative andessentially affirmative language.

Notes

1 See two influential works by Chatterjee (1986 and 2006), Kaviraj(1995), Kaviraj (1986: 209-35).

2 See Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity, Sri Aurobindo AshramPondicherry, first published in 1919 and in 1998. In this regard alsorefer to Parekh (1989: 21).

3 Western Marxism A Critical Reader, ed. New Left Review, London,1977, pp 244-45.

References

Chatterjee, Partha (1986): Nationalist Thought and Colonial World: ADerivative Discourse (Delhi: Oxford University Press).

(2006): "B R Ambedkar and the Troubled Time of Citizenship", V RMehta and Thomas Pantham (ed.), Political Ideas in Modern India,Thematic Explorations (Delhi: Sage).

Foucault, Michel (1989): The Order of Things: An Archaeology of HumanSciences (London: Routledge).

Ganguly, Debjani (2005): Dalit Literature and Their Life World (Delhi:Orient Longman).

Guru, Gopal (2007): "Social Justice: A 20th Century Discourse from theQuarantined India", Sabyasachi Bhattacharya (ed.), Development ofModern Indian Thought and the Social Sciences (Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press).

(2009): "The Idea of Ideal in Ambedkar", special lecture, deliveredin an International Conference on Caste and Ambedkar, Organised byInstitute of South Asian Studies (New York: Columbia University), 15and 16 October.

(2011): India's Liberal Democracy and Dalits Critique, SocialResearch, Vol 74, No 1 (New York: Spring).

Kaviraj, Sudipta (1986): "The Heteronomous Radicalism of M N Roy" inThomas Pantham and Kenneth Duetsch (ed.), Political Thought in ModernIndia (Delhi: Sage).

(1995): "The Reversal of Orientalism: Bhudev Mukhopadhyay and theProject of Indigenist Social Theory" in Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrichvon Stietencorn (Delhi: Sage).

Mehta, Uday (1998): Liberalism and Empire (Delhi: Oxford University Press).

Mehta, V R (1996): Foundations of Indian Political Thought (Delhi:Manohar Publication).

Pantham, Thomas and Kenneth L Deutsch, ed. (1986): Political Thoughtin Modern India (Delhi: Sage).

Parekh, Bhikhu (1989): Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysisof Gandhi's Political Discourses (Delhi: Sage).

Savarkar, V D (2003): Hindutva, Hindi Sahitya Sadan, Delhi.

Srivatsan, R (2006): "Seva, Amelioration, Welfare: The NationalistPassion to Develop the Tribal", an unpublished PhD thesis, submittedto Dr B R Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad.