Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:02]
Athletic Brewing Company Announcer
Athletic Brewing Company crafts award winning non alcoholic beers for those who want to be part of every round. With over 185 flavor awards, they're exceptional NA beers that fit your lifestyle and any social occasion. Summer's full of good times and Athletic fits right in. Go to athleticbrewing.com to have brews delivered to your door or find them at a bar, restaurant or store near you near Beer Athletic Brewing Co. Fit for all times.
- [00:39]
Ajanta Subramanian
Welcome to the CAST pod where we assemble scholars, activists, community organizers, artists and others to make sense of what CAST is, how it works, how it's experienced, and how it has traveled and taken root inside and outside of South Asia. What have people done to perpetuate, transform and even attempt to abolish caste? I'm your host, Ajanta Subramanian, a professor of anthropology at the City University of New York. And joining me today is Rahul Son Pimple, founder of the All India Independent Schedule Caste association and former student leader of Jawaharlal Nehru University's Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association. Rahul has an MA in Dalit and Tribal Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai and MPhil and PhD degrees in Sociology from JNU. Apart from his political organizing work, Rahul is a prolific writer and speaker whose essays can be found on the site Ambedkar Chronicle. So welcome to the podcast, Rahul.
- [01:43]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah, thank you, Professor. Thank you very much.
- [01:46]
Ajanta Subramanian
Okay, I wanted to start with a little history. I mean, what I've one thing that I've gathered from reading your essays and listening to various podcasts that you've done is that you're someone who takes a long view of anti caste politics. So I'd like you to start by giving our listeners a sense of how you understand this sort of longer arc of anti caste mobilization.
- [02:13]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah. So yeah, thank you for this very pertinent question. I mean, I don't know if I can answer very directly here, but. Okay, let me try. So, yes, so see if I don't know, like even if you go into the trajectory of anti caste movement, what we call anti caste, although the very word anti caste has become kind of, you know, the very popular word among, you know, civil society organizers and the social media activists and also among academician, which I find a lot of problem while using even that word, you know, like I try to compare. People always say why do you compare with the Indian trajectory, with the Western thought? But, but I like to compare because it also tells you that how history unfolds and how which is supposed to Be unfolding does not unfold because of particular reason. So why I'm saying this, for instance, I can see the Western history. Even some Foucaultian may not agree with me, but I see the Western history mostly the history of a thoughts is also the linear history that how you know, from pre Socrates to Socrates and then from Socrates to the medieval and then the. You know, even to the modern time, you see there's a linearity in the thought. You see some ladder going on step by step. You know, you can just climb and see the world how it unfolded. And now we have reached, you know, there in the Western society. If I take the same ladder here and I want to try to climb and see how the Indian history has unfolded, it's difficult for me to, you know, to. To see that. So rather you know, more than a linearity, I see the conflict. So in not in the Marxist sense, I'm saying that the history is nothing but the history of a conflict of two classes. I'm not necessarily saying that in very that restricted sense, but I'm saying even in the process of thought and there are many good authors who have written about Buddhism. Ambedkar himself has portrayed the Indian history is nothing but the conflict between Buddhism and Brahminism. So you do not see the linearity. Rather you see this conflict which is not allowing to have the complete unfolding of a thought. Now in this trajectory, what we say anti caste people who talk or the worked little bit against the caste system maybe radically or also like in Bhakti movement. I must say there was not much radicality involved into it. Because no saint spoke about using of a force except Buddha for that matter, who Baba Ambedkar quotes that why Buddha said from the Mapada high courts that why Buddha said the force is important for the destruction of any oppressive structure for that matter. And force in this in today's context I must say the use of the counter violence for that matter. Right. So what I'm trying to say that the anti caste history, what we even the very word carries a lot of passivity which does not carry the construction of a force. And I must say the history, what history tells us is basically all. When I say that when I read Western history, I also read the history of a force for a recreation for unfolding of a history here in anti caste history that you do not see this use of a force not in terms of let's say in practicality but also in. In philosophicizing or in. In understanding the antikaas history for that Matter except what the Ambedkar is trying to reread Buddha. So for me, then again for me, then therefore to understand what you say anti caste, I generally go again to Buddha and Ambedkar because Buddha for me through Ambedkar allows me to. Because when you say anti caste, what is anti caste? I mean, for instance, now let's say I am a LGBTQ pro person. What does it mean? It means nothing. I am the pro women person. You know, I may say I'm even feminist. It means nothing. It means simply the position that I'm creating for myself so that I can sit with you and have tea and so that you can allow me to have a seat with, you know, tea with you. Otherwise it means nothing. It may means I know you are saying I'm your anti caste. I am saying I'm pro women. So now this is the kind of a transaction we both can do. Have coffee and then just, you know, go to our respective place. It means nothing. It means that let's not hurt each other. Let's become the politically correct sanity caste. The very word, the terminology of anti caste is, you know, it's, you know, it's not complete enough. You know, it does not say anything much beyond creating the other politically correct commodity either for liberals or for academician or even for that matter even Dalit academician who mostly are engaged in the rhetoric.
- [07:35]
Ajanta Subramanian
I want to ask you a little bit about this distinction between conflict and force, right? So for you, the way you see the unfolding of Indian history is as a history of conflict without the requisite force. And for you, conflict is not reducible to class dynamics. Can you say a little more about what you, how you understand the distinction between conflict and force? And if, if the kind of primary engine of Indian history is conflict, who is in conflict?
- [08:10]
Rahul Son Pimple
If you see the history from Buddha to what we call Bhujan, so it's a Brahmi who is into the conflict with any, let's say progressive changes that exist in the society. So now when you're asking me when I'm seeing the history, let's say the Indian history through conflict, why what is the place of a force or how I'm understanding the very concept of force, my argument is this, except Buddha who is allowing the very use of a force to reestablish, I must say, or to establish, let's say, the commune of Bahujans, no other, the anti caste philosopher or let's say the icon have said it in that way. So what I'm trying to say that the Unlike in the Western society where the oppressed or the marginalist community have used the force in. In a manner of making it more divine to establish equality or the to basically eliminate the oppressor somehow in the anti caste history after Buddha, I must say the use of force has been criminalized and moralized in very. In very passive way, I must say. And that. And, and I find a problem in it. And therefore I'm again, again going back to Buddha who is allowing to use of force, who does not see force necessarily as bad.
- [09:41]
Ajanta Subramanian
Right?
- [09:42]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah.
- [09:44]
Ajanta Subramanian
And by force do you mean militancy or do you have a more expansive conception of what force is?
- [09:50]
Rahul Son Pimple
I. I do not even want to use this modern term of militancy, but let me say this is more spiritual in a manner of that you do not then annihilate simply the operation, but you also annihilate the oppressor for forever. Right. So I must say this is more spiritual in that matter. You know, you are not just so using of force is not simply sake of using it, but it has rather more divine purpose. And that divinity I'm saying is larger emancipation of the oppress masses. Again, I will reiterate what Ambekar quotes from Buddhism even in his text Buddha Isma where you know, Buddha tells to his king that it is your duty to protect your people. So there is no conflict between ahimsa and Ahimsa. What is the duty? The duty is first. So I must say that in anti caste history or in anti caste trajectory, the duty has not been defined in much clearer way which I somehow find. Ambedkar tells this the duty is for you is to not tolerate the operation. And therefore I don't know if you read his interview. I guess then Times of India where he's and his organization Samta Sai Nikdal was basically, you know, argued by the Hindu Brahmin upper caste that how Samta Senigdal is a basically the hooligans or militant force. So where in that interview Ambitka said no that I make a difference between ahimsa and the meekness. I am all pro to any quotes Buddha that you know, I'm all pro to Ahimsa, but not pro to the meekness, you know, so. So I'm saying that no community in the world should have this meekness should not become the virtue. Unfortunately the meekness has become the virtue. What we today call anti casteism or ambedkarism also in the popular sense.
- [11:53]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah, I wanted to pick up on this idea of divinity. I heard an interview that you gave where you distinguished sort of conceptions of authority during the Bhakti period and how it was accorded a kind of divinity. When you're talking about force in terms of spirituality, is there a through line from the Bhakti period to now in your conception of what authority is like? Do you think of authority in terms of a kind of divine power?
- [12:35]
Rahul Son Pimple
When I'm saying the force is a spiritual, it also gives the strain to the oppressed to say that when he or she is using the force, it's not about just the individual gain, but for the larger cause which is going to emancipate people. Right? And I must say that the very right of using that force more than in midweel or in the Bhakti Pidde in modern time, we may. We could have claimed more of using that force in. In terms of. In terms of, let's say in the context of even the modern constitution. I mean, Bhakti time, you would only invoke the morality of oppressor. You know, like the Chokamela is asking David Thala that I am the most laborious, laborious Bhakt, most hard working Bhakt. But still you're not allowing me to enter and touchy right of. And. But yes, that changed some kind of a grammar of the discourse then. But not radically. I mean, even the Kabir or Ravidas for that matter, of course they were more radical than Chokameda. But yes, this had a limit. They did not have a larger master, which is a modern state, that who could, who could, who could, who could intervene, you know, into what the upper caste would claim the village divinity, that no one is allowed to enter. And that's what even they today claim. Oh, you are not allowed to enter in a village. It's a village matter. It's a sacred matter. So the sacredness of caste broken down during the colonial time, if not completely, but at least through different intervention. Sometime I wonder why do Dalit celebrate even Bima Korega? I mean, isn't it that it was even accidentally, someone can argue in historical sense, it was a colonial power who gave you to allow you to use the very basic right of any human being to become militant, you know, I mean, the humanity is not allowed, is not all about to become human or let's say to become nice or good. I mean, human beings, you have even right to a will, you know, the ability is a part of a humanity. It is not, you know, it is. You cannot separate it. And the most basic right from the operas in Brahmanical system, what they take from you is basically that you cannot behave. And there is a larger morality in that way. We could see the modern post post colonial state could have given, if one understand the constitution to, to allow Dalits to become kind of, you know, this use of a force for their protection, for their dignity. Unfortunately, the post colonial discourse in large, in, in, in larger way, but also in the context of what we call Ambedkarism that also became the part of larger upper caste, you know, part of upper caste discourse. Why I'm saying uppercase discourse because uppercase discourse always give you one moral framework to judge everyone. Right? They made the constitutional sacred document. So, so you do not save the life of your neighbor whose house is burned by the upper caste, but you save the constitution. So that becomes the ambitarism in present time. I mean if, if Dalit would have given the stronger example that we want to have a right to protect ourselves, I mean the number of atrocities would have been very less in India. But Dalits or what we call Ambedkarates, they did not choose that. And whoever tried to do that, like Namdur Hassan, they were moralized by saying that your communists, they were moralized by so called new Buddhist, you know, or on the world of why, why to use word Dalit or not. I mean all these nonsensical debate that became the significant part of what they call ambedkarism and which is the tragedy. The entire discourse became about the recognition and not about the redistribution.
- [16:52]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah, I mean you had, you said that part of the, that what could be a more far reaching politics is sometimes reduced to just naming, right? What do you call yourself? This or that. But I did have a question about naming colonial state use the term depress classes, right. To refer to groups historically subjected to untouchability. And then of course with independence, the official term becomes scheduled caste. In reference to Article 351, 341 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the government to maintain a schedule or list of castes who are eligible for constitutional safeguards. And Bahujan, which you've already mentioned, is another Pali term that means the many or the majority and which is supposed to refer to this demographic majority right of Dalits, Adivasis and other backward castes. This term gained popular force in the 1980s with the Bahujan Samaj Party. Now your organization is called the All India Independent Schedule Caste Association. Why did you choose schedule cast as the term, as the term of self definition.
- [18:04]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh yeah, good. I mean like I really like to answer this question. Because I'm very clear with that. If at all Dalits in majority, you know, like Dalits in. You know, in sociological sense. The Indian democracy can only do anything good for them with the negotiation. And the negotiation has to be very clear. It is not an abstract. I mean Bahujan where the multiple OBC cast even there are many other community who can be the part of Bahujan is good for the electoral politics which Kansiram Sahib used it also, right? And now from that in UP you see now the. Even the smaller OBC caste has their own party to basically. So what I'm trying to say with the scheduled cast I get. We get more larger space to unite scheduled cast into one umbrella. They may have their difference within the schedule caste. Many people argue during even Babasai time. Although there were many scheduled caste leaders from Zhongyanath Mandal to, you know, Raja from Tamil Nadu or the Kamli from either central India and other places. Particular category of actually gave some larger homogeneity, right? And there it's all basically again the sociologically can come together. They have more potential to come together under one platform than the very category of baojet. I may say that the OBC can become the potent. The potent political class. But they cannot become the potent social revolutionary class schedules can become. Because the Brahminical system or let's say today's Hinduism do not have much to offer to them. OBC may have some positioning into that system. So what I'm saying that I find the Shedulu caste is the most immediate revolutionary class in that matter. They have potential to rebuild or reform the system completely. So and yes, as I said, when you are living in a democracy, what we an electoral democracy, what we call parliamentary democracy in Baba Sahib's word, what becomes important is the negotiation. So the scheduled caste has to come together at least for a negotiation. They should not be fooled all the time either by opposition, by ruling party, by opposition to save the constitution, by ruling party saying we got the Dalit president or tribal, you know, president, something like. They should be equally thinking like a Bania because in Bania supports any party. He supports that. Okay. Do not bring foreign direct investment in retail. Because retail is a lalajika business. So Lalaji does not want FDI into retail. They're very clear about their even the small rights. I want Shulkas to think like that. They should not fall for larger moral what the liberal, you know, propagate the moral responsibility. Our responsibility to unite ourselves for our basic rights. Because we are the most marginalized community Whose majority is landless, whose majority women are, you know, malnourished. Whose majority children are out of the school. Whose majority is facing the caste discrimination. We have all right to become selfish. We have all. And this is not even selfishness. This is a basic human tendency. But unfortunately in all these years this has not been done. I mean our ideologue intellectuals have fall for this false discourse or I must say the meek discourse.
- [21:48]
Ajanta Subramanian
I mean do you think that in order to advance the material interests of scheduled castes, right as a collective. Do you think that that has to be done through an autonomous Dalit politics Or do you think it's possible to do it through a coalitional politics?
- [22:10]
Rahul Son Pimple
I mean even the coalition politics, solidarity, this is all become the secondary. The problem with schedule caste and their intelligentsia is that they do not agree on the one position that the scheduled caste has to become the first one, you know, national movement. They should first become or comes in, you know, in a condition where they can come into the power of negotiation. Then you can negotiate with anyone.
- [22:37]
Ajanta Subramanian
Right?
- [22:37]
Rahul Son Pimple
Right. I mean. I mean why the government had to bow to the upper caste during ugc. You know, Bill, the upper caste student came on the street and the BJP had to say okay no boss, it was a mistake. Let's go to supreme court. And supreme court will do do his duty. Because they know that it is a negotiation between BJP and the upper caste.
- [23:01]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah, right.
- [23:03]
Rahul Son Pimple
So where is that negotiations of scheduled caste? Or they are simply these moral bodies for everyone. Their body is a site of revolution for so called revolutionary for liberals, for Gandhian. Their body is a site of, you know to sacrifice for so called nation or for right wing. Their body is a surplus body. You know on whose body the atrocity can be. You can do commit the atrocity and the state will give in return. The state will say okay fine. I mean the way even the prime minister once said the PM Modi that you know the to going in together cleaning the dirt is basically the. The godly work or the divine work. So we are a. So how long this will go? I mean therefore I say that this entire discourse is a very make discourse. And this discord does not hurt anyone. Sometimes you say you be are busy into saving the constitution which is. Which has been very well used by the ruling caste in this country. I mean. I mean the same constitution has been used to grab the land of tribes or to dismantle the Islams. The same judiciary has been used. The same bureaucracy has been in operational is in operation to dismantle the slums or grab the lands of tribes. So which constitution and which system which you want to say and for whom?
- [24:28]
Ajanta Subramanian
So I, I actually wanted to come to sort of your understanding of sort of political economic changes and how those have affected the possibility of a sort of autonomous schedule class politics. Okay. Yeah. So I wanted to look at two periods. One is the period from the 1950s to the 80s, right. Which was the sort of heyday of state developmentalism, expanding public sector, caste based affirmative action in public institutions. And this is a period that saw the emergence of a small but significant Dalit dilute.
- [25:10]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah.
- [25:11]
Ajanta Subramanian
Middle class. So how do you, how did this process of class differentiation shape Dalit strategies?
- [25:21]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, it changed. As I said, this entire discourse is nothing but the discourse of Dalit tiny middle class. The discourse of, you know, as I said, you know, the meekness become the virtue is also the discourse of, you know this because you see like you know, for instance as you come rightly noted down that how like you know, during let's say the initial periods of post independence where the government was introducing the public education or let's say through the public sector unit, they were providing reservation for you know, and, and this, this tiny middle class, they of course thought okay, education is. Is the things to move to for a mobility. Okay. They thought okay, nicely taking education nicely then following let's say meditative Buddhism, this is all fine, going well. And they even formed the many organization around that. For instance Bombsek which believed that through what they call in Marathi Prabhudhan. Through Prabhudhan, I know preaching, let's say preaching right. Very loose word, you know, they can change the society or they can form what they call the Bahujiran Samaj the majority which, which basically failed because this on the one hand till 90s you, you see the emergence of tiny middle class. And these middle class who were the primary beneficiary of reservation policy, the government, let's say socialist policy. Their children then started going into IITs or some good places who joined the corporates are Ivy League University. You see there in your, you know, in abroad also. And so they, you know, the post 90s it was not simply upper caste who changed it. You know the language. I mean the Brahmin who got, who was a beneficiary of the subsidy education from IITs to you know, other government institutions suddenly became the pro market and the, you know, the pro, you know, less governance and you know, more market. All idea. Similarly even the rich middle class did the same. And throughout, throughout they thought not protesting on the street is good because the state is giving reservation. The state is giving the public education. Fine. But post 90s, what we witness when the government started doing privatization, you see, the. The less employment, government employment, the, the backlog remain as it is. The. The government, universities and the schools, you know, they transform into private one. And we all know that they. The data on the leads about their economic status, about their landlessness, their condition in cities. Majority are living in poverty. But can you imagine the poverty is not. Did not become the discourse of any Dalit middle class movement or organization. For instance, for bamse, poverty was never issue because their organization was completely based on government employee. So government employee can come listen, go back and preach, cannot come on the street. Otherwise government will, you know, kick them out from the job. So your condition, your employment condition becomes the virtue of the movement. So they. Even if you talk to them, why not to protest on the street? They tell you the entire morality around it. Right?
- [29:17]
Ajanta Subramanian
I mean, which goes back to your. Which goes back to your point about force.
- [29:23]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah. So I. I like. I do not know Maharashtra which slum in Nagpur or Mumbai or in Pune got even the slum stated without people coming on the street. I mean, I grew up in my slum. I still remember women fighting for electricity and are either fighting for the concrete road or the rickshaw cycle. Rickshaw. Fighting against the demolition of Ambedkar statue. I mean, all these people who came on the street. Okay, fine. Organizing is something very important. That is something very important. The ideological part of it. Doing it through categorization is very important. But criminalizing the entire mobilization on the ground, like for instance, criminalizing the organization like Dalit panther. It happened mostly by this middle class Dalit Buddhist. People may criticize Dasal, but Dasal could mobilize thousands. Brian. Any Dalit middle class Buddhists who do meditation, who has no use for a community or he can watch the house burning and still do the meditation in his AC room. And, and that is a more violent position for me than someone who is standing with the sword and saving the slum getting attacked by the upper caste gun.
- [30:44]
Ajanta Subramanian
You know, if part of becoming this middle class. That is an experience that detaches the middle class from the rest of Dalit society. I'm just, I'm wondering how you see leadership. Like where. What is your theory and practice of leadership? So in. There's a really interesting essay you wrote after the 2024 general election in Roundtable India. And I'm just going to quote from that essay. You say this 2024 election also sent a strong message that it's not only charismatic leaders, but also issues concerning everyday life that matter. Sadly, even after such a long standing journey, Dalit politics still revolve around excessive celebration of a leader's charisma. There exists little or no space in contemporary Dalit politics and discourse for the need for organizational leadership. And in other venues you've also criticized the model of a purely horizontal politics, you know, and you've argued for the vat, the, the. The need for an intellectual vanguard that can provide a kind of meta narrative that can provide a political ideology. So yeah, can you say more about what, how you understand leadership? What kind of leadership is necessary for a movement that actually advances the interests of everyday Dalits, Right, of the Dalit poor.
- [32:17]
Rahul Son Pimple
So yes, of course, for, for, for initial time there was a need for symbolic battle that you know, to, or maybe the battle of recognition either from state or from, let's say from the civil society for that matter. But I'm saying that, you know, but I'm also saying that our positioning being, let's say the lowest of the low is also the positioning which caste reproduce through its materiality, right? And for that you cannot simply go with this. The symbolic charismatic leadership, for instance. So in a right wing movement to say Jai Sri Ram or you know, just to wear the Bhagwa kapla or to hate Muslim is becomes a parameter to become a leader in local or even in bigger way. It should not be the case with what we call Ambedkite politics that only wearing the blue kurta Singh Jai Bhim and you know, or just going into one protest, doing one protest. No, this needs, this requires a quite a rigorous, you know, engagement with the caste itself. You know, quite a rigorous engagement with the ideology in itself. So when I'm saying this, I'm trying to say that, okay, charisma can. Only the leader can be charismatic, but the charisma has to be sustained within the organizational politics. When I'm saying this, I'm saying that the Dalits politics, social movement should be the movement of organized a movement of adalit majority who are poor. And when you engage or when you lead the movement of poor, the first thing you need to have the very clear understanding of what is their material condition. Unfortunately, with Dalit politics, the material expression of a Dalit condition does not becomes a primary thing. What becomes a primary, the symbolic recognition. So leadership itself becomes very shallow for that matter. Right Here, for instance, I don't know if you have read the Haitian Revolution, have You have checked what happened in Haiti?
- [34:40]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yes. Yeah.
- [34:42]
Rahul Son Pimple
So the free, you know, slaves who became free, who bought their freedom when they. And it was a French colony, when they went to France or Paris, when they got the idea that there is something called liberty, equality and fraternity, something like that, they brought the same idea to the other slaves and they rebuilt. And when they rebelled, they were singing the song of a French. They were singing the French slogan against the French army. What I'm trying to say, with Dalits, the liberation is not the agenda. With Dalit politics, with Dalitshu movement, the liberation is not the agenda. The only agenda is basically this liberal recognition. And that's a problem for me. Again, I'm saying this thing and when I'm saying liberation, the liberation comes with the majority. And if your majority is in the poverty. So the caste should have, for you should have become the question of material, not of identity alone, not of this debate of whether to. You call yourself Buddhist or Dalits. And I'm not saying this was not the question. I mean, initial days of Srilkas penetration, they did the land, right protest in their initial days before forming Republican Party of India. But after that, the post ambit cry, other leadership. Because it also happened because by that time you had, if not substantial, but let's say the good number of educated middle class Dalit. For them, the poverty did not become the significant issue. The neighboring government school did not become the primary issue. And when I'm saying liberation, what then the liberation? When I'm saying liberation. Liberation is simply does not mean just taking education. The liberation is also means in other way that you know that the enemy still exists, but enemy also fears from you, you know, that, you know, somehow tribal did it, if not in complete sense, but they try to do that. They gave some threat to, to the group which wanted to grab their land. And they're still fighting, maybe in fractured way, but they're still fighting. But among Dalits or Dalit discourse, this concept of liberation does not exist. Although in the speeches they talk about liberation, but in its very code the liberation does not exist. And therefore the Dalit movement, Dalit organization, Dalit politics, Dalit leadership revolves around more around recognition. The Dalit, even the Academicia for that matter, you see more about recognition.
- [37:36]
Ajanta Subramanian
You had said earlier that part of what your, your movement is trying to do is strengthen the negotiating power. Right. Of scheduled costs through consolidating them. Right. So you, you're in a diff, you have more leverage vis a vis the state. Right?
- [37:55]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah.
- [37:57]
Ajanta Subramanian
How do you see that? I mean, and so much of that is baked into parliamentary democracy. Right. You have to become a representative force that then negotiates with the political authority. So what is. How do you see the relationship between just electoral democracy, Right, which sets certain limits, I would say.
- [38:22]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah, right.
- [38:24]
Ajanta Subramanian
And what you're calling liberation.
- [38:27]
Rahul Son Pimple
I mean, it may look quite contradictory as you also presented that I'm talking about liberation. On the other hand, I'm also trying to talk about the negotiation with the state. But the negotiation, it does not simply means recognition. The negotiation also comes when there's a. When the state or the political authority also realizes that there could be some imbalance within the hierarchy that can be produced by the one vibrant group who is talking homogeneously about rights, about safety, not just on the level of politics, but also at the level of society. Right. I mean, you know, we are, if one counts us very clearly in this country, we are around 23, 24 crores of this country. Right? Just a schedule cast. I mean, we can form one country altogether, two, three countries, a huge force who is laboring, whose majority is into the pain, whose majority is not into the pain of. Of a tiring day, but also the pain of humiliation. You know, we need, we need more the spiritual revolution as well as the physical revolution. What I'm trying to say that the state has to come into the negotiation with this community. If you do not want, I mean, if you want to prevent the radical or something beyond the constitution, you have to come into negotiation with this community, either politically, electorally, but also at socially. I mean, if you know, like that has to be done, if you are giving the tribal some autonomy in the constitution, that tribal can have their Panchayat, they can have some autonomy, you know, through PISA and so on other act. One can have debate about that. I am talking about Dalits or the Shelukas in that particular sense, that there are boundaries for us. You're not supposed to cross them. And if you cross them, then there is a trouble. I mean, the Supreme Court or the local judiciary, some Misra or Dube or some Brahmin cannot say that the rape cannot happen with Dalit women because upper caste has not touched Dalit of Dalit women. I mean, that judge, before even reading the constitution, should read our mind automatically. I mean, it should be so, so much present there that he should not even dare to say that in the court. He should know that after the court the life will be different for him. He can only say this because he knows the life is same inside the court and outside the court. He should Know, the life will be different out of his house or when he's on the street. I'm talking about that kind of negotiation. It should be there into the consciousness which is not there now, what Dalits are saying into TV debates or everywhere or even in autobiography, that they're poor, they are victim, you know, they are this, they are that. I mean, it's good for a consumption, but how long, how long it will go on? My question is this. So my idea with my organization is this, that if the state is failing to safeguard you, if the state is failing to safeguard your economic right, then you have all the right to safeguard yourself as a community. And therefore for that you need to come together.
- [42:18]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah, I had a question about. Because so much of your argument is about shifting the terms of political mobilization from a recognition to redistribution. Right?
- [42:32]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah.
- [42:33]
Ajanta Subramanian
Economic justice. And I just wondered what your relationship is to Marxism. So you did a show with Ravikanth Kisana on his podcast and you said something really interesting. Well, two things you said we have developed a disdain for materialist analysis, which is automatically labeled as Marxist Marxism. But you also have been very critical of the Indian left for Brahminizing Marxism. Right. So where. Oh, and then the other, the other really interesting comment you made was about how this focus on diversity or intersectionality can, some can sometimes prevent Dalits from clearly identifying a class enemy. Right. So, and, and for you, there is something about this recourse to what you call a post ideological discourse. Right. That sidesteps a kind of materialist critique in favor of intersectionality. You have a problem with that? So I wanted to understand more a. What you mean by intersectionality and why you think that's a problem. But also if part of the problem with the Indian left is that it Brahminizes Marxism, and for you it's still important to have a materialist critique. What kind of materialist critique are you talking about?
- [44:14]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, yes, unfortunately, the Indian Marxists are not the Marxist enough. I mean, rather, understanding caste through materialistic perspective, they reduce caste as a part of a superstructure, as a part of a culture. And that's a problem. You know, they are, therefore I'm saying they're not good enough Marxist. Right. So, and, and, and the Ambitkarides are not good enough. You know, again, I mean, what they call ambitarism, it does not consider, does not consider caste as a material end question. You know, it, it mostly becomes a question of identity. Right. So for Marxist, there is politics about identity politics. For Dalits, Marxist politics is about the question of economy, not about caste. I have problem with both of this group. I mean if you say the Indian society is a caste based society where the caste is. And I always also argue this. See caste cannot exist if you are a Brahmin and practicing all rituals in your house. I mean then I don't have any one problem. And you cannot even reproduce caste like this. The problem is caste has to be the public. Then only caste can be reproduced. So caste does not just control minutely the public or the public resources. Your river, your water, your land, your tree, your house. But it also very minutely controls the body in itself. I mean Manuspurthi is a very minute document in that way. I mean it even talks about how one can shade, how one can have sex. It talks about the minute thing. It is not simply. I mean of course it is a bad document one can say, but it's also a minute document for that matter is going into controlling the minute thing. So what I'm trying to say. So the reproduction of caste has to be also the reproduction of public or the public resources for that matter. So now if for Marxist the caste is simply about an identity and therefore one can transgress that identity. Like for instance, many Marxists would say I'm a Brahmin but I do not practice caste. I'm saying I don't give a damn about it because it is. Caste is not like that. The caste is not about the casting one sin. The caste is about annihilating the hegemony of upper caste on resources, on a land, on. On capital, on political power and so on and so on. So. So you and you transgressing yourself from. From Brahmin to Dcast I have no use of it. I mean so. So system does not work like that. System does not go with the exception. System goes with the, with the majority right and ruling caste always reproduce it through public. Therefore as I said, like you know, the Marxists are not good enough Marxists to understand caste through material culture. And they have made it just mere identity. And therefore they talk about the silly thing. I am a Brahmin, but I am, I do not practice caste or I am Brahmin, but I eat with Dalit. All this coming from this spiritual indigel claim, but I have no use of it. Similarly Dalits or the what they call ambitkarite, they think because the Marxists talk about the class or the material question, they do not address the caste. So therefore in opposing to Marxist analysis or the not even Marxist the material analysis of a Caste, they go very far to make us all about immortality. Something that, you know, one, one has to simply do with then let's say Buddhism. So all or they have gone so far, so far that they even justify the meditation. They think through meditation people can change. Right. I mean, in a world where meditation itself is a commodity, you know, I, I must say, the meditation does not become popular because of Buddhism. Entire world meditation become popular because the US white rich people thought the meditation consume meditation as a commodity and it become the discourse of everyone. Similar like yoga. So what I'm trying to say that the two, both the camps have gone so far. Like for instance, Marxists often say the Dalit worker unity. They think Dalits are different, workers are different. I am saying the majority of Dalisa workers, how their question is, becomes different. Right?
- [49:12]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah.
- [49:13]
Rahul Son Pimple
Dalit intellectuals, they think worker question is different than Dalit question. How it is different? The same question. You cannot separate the very materiality of a caste from. From itself. It is, you cannot separate them. They are, they are there. They're one. You know, it is one stone. You cannot say two stones are coming and then becoming one stone. No, it's similar with the gender, for that matter, in India.
- [49:35]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah.
- [49:35]
Rahul Son Pimple
You cannot say gender meets caste. Caste is inseparable from the gender. It does not intersect. It is inseparable. And that's what Dhambedka talked in his famous, you know, argument that the caste and the Indogami, you cannot separate them. Right. So. So I'm. So I'm saying that. So. So this very intersectionality allows you to basically, you know, talk separation. Right? Yeah, yeah. Which is not the case. I'm saying the majority of poor are from so called SCST OBC community. The majority of reach are from the upper caste community.
- [50:12]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah.
- [50:13]
Rahul Son Pimple
So. So the Marxist argument that the class is different than the caste is, is the very intellectually poor understanding, I must say. And that particular understanding of Marxist helped right wing in much better way to even implement reservation for upper caste. Calling it AWS and the Supreme Court. Without any concrete data that how many upper castes are poor, they implemented this reservation.
- [50:43]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah.
- [50:43]
Rahul Son Pimple
This is what the Marxists are understanding. Because these Marxists are mostly uppercast who are afraid of asking the real question. They would simply reduce the caste to the individual. Oh, see, I am a landlord Marxist, but I have left the land. But what is the use of saying all these things? I mean, I am a bani about that. I have left my own business and become the Sadhu. Isn't it the same argument?
- [51:04]
Ajanta Subramanian
Right?
- [51:05]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah. This individual Spiritual claim. It does not, you know, it does not lead us to anywhere, to nothing. What I'm trying to say that you cannot separate this thing. I mean, have you seen how many Adivasi you have seen the business as doing the big business. Then how come the Adivasi question is separate from the larger political economical Question is he's been oppressed by the same group of pro league caste.
- [51:29]
Ajanta Subramanian
Right?
- [51:29]
Rahul Son Pimple
Now unfortunately some people treat the Adivasi question very differently. No, they. Because Dalit is not in a position to grab the land of Adivas is. They are not be corporate. They are not sitting in the state power. They are not someone, they are not a group who are creating the morality in a society where you see your food becomes impure at the other station. First time when I reached Mumbai, I saw one boat. I was hungry, you know, first time I reached in Mumbai for my taking admission in Tata Institute. And when I, you know, was walking down from the other station and was hungry to see somewhere I can eat. I saw so many boats of pure vegetarian. I mean, I did not understand how come vegetarian becomes a pure. I mean what I'm trying to say. It's not Dalit in a position to create the morality for your society. It's not Adivasi who is there. It's not obc. So. So who is there in the power whose hand controlling your civil society? Your morality, your state, your economy is the same caste. Now what Marcus are saying then what do they want to say? The state exists in some isolation. Does the political economy of your country exist in some isolation? So. So calling the Bania as a class enemy Marxist has a problem because they think then I am targeting one caste. But the same caste is controlling the audio economy, all your resources destroying the tribals land, grabbing their land. The Brahmin bureaucracy justifies that the Brahmin civil society moralize or give the morality of such. You know, the destruction. The Brahmin judiciary justifies it. The Brahmin intellectual justifies it. On the TV debate the anchors. So the entire society is this Brahmin banya. So you do not want to call. You want to use the Lenin's imperialism but do not want to call the India is a Brahmin banya imperialist. It's a Brahmin Banya imperialism. It's the caste colonialism that we are facing. Marxists do not want to use this terminology. Then you are not good enough Marxist. And lastly, if the Marxists are considering the Dalits as their ideological opponent then they are not even Marxists. Because for Marx it. It is a proliterate who can fight for themselves. They have to fight for themselves. He understood all other classes are one just Vyakshari mass. He said that the emancipation of the proletate must be the responsibility of proletariat, the Brahmin or the upper caste. They had a good negotiation with the state, with all ideology in the name of Marxism. They had. They enjoyed political power in the name of feminism. They grab all university women's department, no in. In the name of doing good for poor. They grab all NGO money, you know, and ultimately now when the BJP so called fascists in the power, they are thinking where is Dalit in their organization? Make them partica general secretary. Make some Dalit, you know, put some Dalit forward and Adivasi forward. But coming to theoretical sense of understanding caste and class differently. I don't agree with this theoretical understanding. I think you cannot separate the caste and class. The majority of what you call SST OBC Bhujans are poor. And the majority of what you call upper caste, middle class or ruling caste is come from the upper caste. So they are class enemy in that way only. There is a contradiction, Effy.
- [55:05]
Ajanta Subramanian
So I mean in terms of your. You have such a strong critique of representational politics, the reduction of Dalit politics to the problem of representation. How has your movement been received by other Dalits? I mean, what is, what is the base of your movement and to what extent are you interacting with other Dalit political formations? What has been the. What has been the dynamic there?
- [55:41]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, I'm not interacting much with any Dalit political formation for that matter. I'm interaction mostly with the community people. I mean our organization, our cadre, our little local leadership, all of them, you know, are engaging mostly people on the ground, you know, trying to build a practice through this. The working class Dalits, I must say, of course Dalit middle class who have the existing organization, they have problem with our formation because they are too much of. Into the politics of recognition right there. They have not. It's difficult for them to move beyond that. Right? So for them still, as I said, the government's school becoming private is not the question. Right. So of course for when we talk about this, it does not become the primary question for them anyway. So what I'm trying to say that our engagement is mostly with the people. And fortunately people on the ground who live in slums and villages, they receive good support from them. They think that what we are saying is basically expressing what they want to say. So that's a good thing for us. I must say, unlike the Dalits who have a time on Sunday, employed Dalits or corporate Dalits who have time on Sunday and those who want to do meditation or who want to sit in front of Buddha and do all good talks here they understand our anger. I mean that anger what we the anger or the issue that we represent in front of working class? Daddy, they think yes, this is true. This is what is happening. And therefore what they are saying we need to support them for a large change. So I believe that this will grow faster. This is. This will go faster with the more clear ideology on the ground. Or lastly, I mean, I one point I want to add. There is nothing called ambit criticism which is defined. I mean, if you ask Ambedkarai tell me the five thing this defines Ambedkarism. I mean, you will not able to find what does that mean? Right? That's a problem because again, the middle class did not Dalit middle class did not find in did not fail the need of defining what is ambedkarism at a larger level. Right.
- [58:17]
Ajanta Subramanian
How do you define it?
- [58:18]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, I'm first step to believe that the reformation or recognition cannot give us any space. What needs for our larger. Let's say emancipation is to unite collectively as a force. Who is not simply asking the Ambedkar statute, but who is also asking the neighboring school, government school, completely free for poor. I mean, therefore the caste is not simply about a statue or the symbolic battle. The caste is about material. For me, that is one thing. Because if you read Ambedkar small holding is very clear about Indian economy. You know, so or what Ambedkar writes in the Buddha or Karl Marx. He's saying that the Buddha is not what he's saying the Buddha is not about non violence merely. It is also about force. So the first thing to tell the elite that the force is very important for the reconstruction of society. I mean, if you even read Ambedkar's critic on Burton Russell of using the force, therefore war. I mean, he's criticizing the Burton Russell liberal position of that how war is bad. Ambedkar saying even it is bad, it has to be fought or a larger cause. And that is how with only force you reconstruct the society. So if you want to reconstruct the society for ourselves, the force is something very important. That is for me the ambitism, you know, the ambitism for me is also to ask to give the clear positioning who is your enemy and not simply saying annihilation of caste in abstract way. Then and the annihilation of caste is not simply about the ideas. It is not simply about the mind as relation of caste also talk about the body. So to basically. To basically come into this positioning, the mental positioning, the spiritual positioning, that the mind and the body is both important to annulate our operation and their forecast is something very important. I must say, this is what the Ambedkarism is for me. When I read Buddha or Kalmas, or when Ambedkar quotes or Buddha for a force from Dhammapatha on Dhammapad, or when he talks about the use of a force in his principle of reconstruction of a society in the critic of Burton Russell. Right. Or even when I read his small holding, where he talks about the collectivization of a land which is not anymore the question of Dalit politics, Dalit movement, or Dalit literacy for that matter. Farmers movement. Okay, let's go for farmers movement. Without asking the same farmer are snatching the land of Dalits. The Jat farmer is snatching the land of Chamar. You know, that does not become the question. So I am saying these are our questions which needs to be fought very clearly, which needs the clear imagination, not in the abstract annulation of caste of what? How I can, as I said, I can be the best person for anyone. I can be the supporter of. I mean, the Karanjore can be considered as a part of larger LGBTQ movement. Right. But in the intersectionality, it becomes a problem if I call him a class enemy. I mean, the people living in Dharavi who is facing the problem of demolition is not simply the Adani is doing, but also the Karan Johar or the people or the community of a Karan Johar who justifies a certain class condition. I mean, there is no clear articulation. And somehow I believe this intersectionality discourse, this political correct discourse, somehow only can be become more operational, more significant against the working class.
- [62:34]
Ajanta Subramanian
Well, this was amazing. Thanks, Rahul.
- [62:37]
Rahul Son Pimple
Yeah, thank you.
- [62:39]
Ajanta Subramanian
Very, very just thought provoking conversation. And I'm really grateful that you came on the podcast.
- [62:49]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, yes, thank you, Professor. Thank you for this wonderful opportunity. After a long I. It's been long that I'm not reading much because I'm traveling mostly on the ground.
- [62:59]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah.
- [63:00]
Rahul Son Pimple
But yes, after giving this podcast, I failed again to start my, you know, reading. Whatever I was, I left in between. Yeah, thank you for this wonderful opportunity and this energetic conversation which is forcing me to read more once again.
- [63:20]
Ajanta Subramanian
Yeah, no, but I mean, I think you have a movement. So these are not just ideas in the abstract. I mean, you're putting them into practice, which is incredibly powerful. Yeah.
- [63:31]
Rahul Son Pimple
Oh, yeah. I'm trying. Maybe that gives me more satisfaction or the meaning in a life to live.
- [63:38]
Ajanta Subramanian
Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, thank you.
- [63:42]
Rahul Son Pimple
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
- [63:55]
Ajanta Subramanian
Thanks to all our listeners for joining us. The cast pod can be accessed through our website, thecastpod.org and and through our partner, the New Books Network. Sound editing and website design are managed by Siddharth Ravi. And the opening and closing theme music is from the song Combat Breathing written by Vijay Iyer and performed by Vijay Iyer. Linda May Han. Oh, and Tishan. Sorry. If you enjoyed today's episode, please be sure to share it on social media and send us your suggestions for Future episodes@thecastpodmail.com this is Ajantha Subramanian signing off. Until next time.