Re-viewing the seedling April 2010 Himal Magazine

By: Prashant Kadam

Locating the ‘untouchable’ in Shyam Benegal’s Ankur.

Published at:

http://himalmag.com/component/content/article/119-Re-viewing-the-seedling.html

In reading the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema descriptions of Shyam Benegal’s renowned trilogy – Ankur (1973), Nishant (1975) and Manthan(1976) – one might be led to imagine the ‘straightforwardness’ of the narratives of the films. Ankur, for instance, to be about a young man’s affair;Nishant, about a woman who is abducted and raped by rural feudals; andManthan, about corrupt politicians and their struggles with new technologies and milk cooperatives. In general, if one were to read such synopses without prior knowledge about the larger social relevance of these films, one could tend to believe that they have nothing to do with caste or untouchability. The reality, however, is that these films have layers of subtle references to the dynamics of caste in rural India. Unfortunately these crucial yet understated elements have ambiguously been omitted by film critics.

To test this claim, let us explore the caste indicators of Lakshmi and Kishtayya in Ankur, and then look closely at how the synopses addressed this. The morning after his arrival into the village, Surya (a newly married city-bred young man played by Anant Nag) asks Lakshmi (played by Shabana Azmi, the wife of a deaf-mute labourer, Kishtayya) to make tea for him. She hesitates, asking him whether he would drink tea that she made saying: “Mere haat ki chai piyengey aap?” Confused as to why he would not, Surya asks, “Kyun, kya baat hai?” and she responds, “Woh, hum loga kumhar hai sarkar”, telling him that she belongs to the kumhar, or potter caste, considered ‘low’ born.

Although castes involved in skilled professions such as carpentry (sutar) and ironsmithing (lohar) are technically, in the government parlance, considered to be ‘backward’ classes/castes, they were not necessarily considered as ‘untouchables’ or Dalits. In other words, a Kumhar might be considered to belong to the ‘lower’ Shudra caste, but the practice of untouchability was by and large reserved for the ati-shudra, the Dalits. The working mechanism of the caste system, however, systematically laid down ‘inherent’ notions of caste/occupational hierarchy, leading to what B R Ambedkar termed ‘graded inequality’ within Indian society. Thus, for example, Sutars consider themselves to be superior to Lohars, who consider themselves to be superior to chamars (leatherworkers) and so on.

Of the various ambiguities in Ankur the lived reality of untouchability that the Dalits faced was imagined for the Shudra couple Lakshmi and Kishtayya. Therefore, depicting them as Kumhars and ‘untouchables’ was perhaps erroneous. Not that it was completely inaccurate, as Shudras (ie, Bahujans) might also have encountered such discriminatory treatment. Nonetheless Kumhars being treated as ‘untouchables’ highlighted yet another dimension of the practice of untouchability that can be thought of as permeating Indian society. On being asked about the caste identity of Lakshmi and Kishtayya and their depiction as ‘untouchables’, Benegal recently told this writer that although Kumhars might not now be considered Dalits, they were treated as ‘untouchables’ in the Telengana region of the 1950s, the period in which the film was set.

Productive skills
In the critical analysis of Ankur that has been published over the past three decades, Kishtayya is often referred to merely as a ‘labourer’. There is no doubt that both he and Lakshmi are ‘labourers’. But failing to mention their caste backgrounds – perhaps the primary reason for their being on the margins, and the reason for being virtual slaves of the landlord – subverts a vital element that consolidates the economic, social, cultural and political positions of the subjugated couple. Furthermore, labourers are generally remunerated; but during the entire course of the film, one never sees either Lakshmi or Kishtayya being paid a fair remuneration for their work, for which Benegal may have intentionally maintained an element of ambiguity.

The story of Lakshmi and Kishtayya begins when a self-indulgent Surya arrives in the village, supposedly to look after his family’s estate. However, he displays little interest in following agricultural pursuits, for which he has neither the will nor the required skills, and he is thus largely dependent on the labour done by Lakshmi and Kishtayya. In this context, it is interesting that film historian Sangeeta Datta has written, “Living on the verge of poverty, Lakshmi steals grain from her master’s storeroom – her survival instincts are stronger than any moral qualms.” It is rather unfortunate that Lakshmi’s act is labelled as ‘stealing’. Datta not only fails to comment on the dependency of the ‘master’ upon his ‘slave’, but also neglects to comment upon the non-payment of a fair remuneration for their productive labour. Had Lakshmi been duly paid for her services as a housemaid and field labourer, she would not have had to ‘steal’ grains – produced, incidentally by her own labour.

Datta, while questioning Lakshmi’s ‘morality’, does not fail to highlight Surya’s seeming modernity. “Surya displays liberal ideas when he eats food cooked by the ‘untouchable’ Lakshmi,” Datta writes, “and sends off the village priest who protests.” Hailing from a patriarchal background, where sons often do not learn to cook, Surya’s ‘liberalism’ comes at the price of Lakshmi’s subjugation. After cooking food regularly for Surya in his house, their relationship eventually becomes sexual. On this point, Datta attributes this sexual relationship to Surya’s supposed liberalness: “Despite his earlier display of progressive views, Surya’s claim on Lakshmi is a replay of his father’s ownership of the village woman Kaushalya.” In other words, Surya’s father ‘owned’ a mistress in a similar manner. It is pertinent to note here that, after Kishtayya is caught stealing toddy, Surya makes sure that Kishtayya is publicly humiliated, after which he disappears. It is in Kishtayya’s absence that Surya and Lakshmi become sexually involved, at Surya’s hollow promise to Lakshmi that he will “look after” her.

Although we see Kishtayya perpetually drunk, there is a significant scene that highlights aspects of his productive skills. In his ‘usual’ drunken state, Kishtayya climbs a tall tree to drink toddy, from which he then descends with a pot full of the drink. Both of these manoeuvres are done with notable ease and agility, despite Kishtayya’s full knowledge that one false move would mean a number of broken bones, if not death. For most Dalitbahujans, such productive skills are learned at a young age, and one tends to become an expert by youth. Although the film depicted various aspects of this skilled-though-marginalised Dalitbahujan consciousness, critics have rarely if ever commented on its significance, particularly from a Dalitbahujan perspective.
In another subtle yet telling scene, Surya follows an unknown noise by a nearby well. It is broad daylight, and he stands by a wall looking at a few women by the water. Suddenly, Surya is frozen at the sight of a snake and, terrified, he calls out to Lakshmi for help. Without much ado, Lakshmi calmly picks up a stick and shoos the snake away. Here again, it is significant to read this scene as reflecting Dalitbahujan culture and knowledge of the often-undermined rural underclass/caste. Not only does Lakshmi not hurt the snake; but by not being intimidated by it, she displays a far deeper sense of understanding of nature – again, a critical example of the Dalitbahujan consciousness. In contrast, the educated, urban, middle-class, ‘upper’-caste Surya is speechless at the mere sight of the snake. Yet while the focus for critics has remained largely on the negative facets of ‘lower’ caste characters, positive and productive skills apparent in the narrative have systematically remained unseen.

Kishtayya’s child?

After Kishtayya’s humiliation and subsequent disappearance, Surya and Lakshmi gradually become sexually involved. The time between Kishtayya’s disappearance and his return (close to the end of the film) is left ambiguous, due to which a viewer might tend to believe that Surya impregnated Lakshmi – likewise, the reference made by the title, Ankur, or ‘seedling’. When Surya and Lakshmi argue over her pregnancy, Surya expects her to go through with an abortion, but Lakshmi refuses. Surya asks, “Don’t you feel ashamed?” to which she retorts, “Must I only feel ashamed and not you?” Although the claim to paternity here is not clear, it is apparent that Surya does not consider having sex with an ‘untouchable’ an act of shame – as long as it is not made public. It is only when Lakshmi’s pregnancy would reveal their involvement that he wants Lakshmi to feel ashamed. Lakshmi, meanwhile, is bold enough to question Surya’s stance, and brave enough be a single mother. Critics hailed Priya Bakshi’s character from Kya Kehna (2000), played by Preity Zinta, taking a similar stance; however, when a ‘lower’ caste Lakshmi took such a stance 26 years ago, was it not worth the mention?

Most critics have taken a rather simplistic approach to this complex dynamic. Some have suggested that Lakshmi had always wanted a child; or implied that Kishtayya was naive, as he seems to be joyous seeing Lakshmi pregnant when he returns. But it is important here to note how ambiguous the narrative actually is with regards to the ‘seedling’. Early on the film alludes to Lakshmi and Kishtayya having sex; but because the film does not explicitly reveal how much time has passed during Kishtayya’s absence, the viewer cannot be conclusive with regards to the paternity. At the same time, what will follow after birth is perhaps much more important – and oddly, one of the least commented upon aspects of the film. There is no doubt that Lakshmi’s and Kishtayya’s child will bear an invisible signifier as the child of an ‘untouchable’. But the narrative also implies that the ‘seedling’ is ‘sown’ in their family: leaving claims of paternity ambiguous, Ankur leaves the lower-caste Lakshmi with the hope of a future generation. On the other hand, at the end of the film we see Surya and his wife virtually trapped in their own house, with no apparent hope in the narrative for their family to grow. Ankur thus leaves the deprived and subjugated couple on the margins, but with the hope of a family.

For her pivotal essay “Can the Subaltern speak”, noted Indian theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s perspective was hailed as a ‘voice of concern’. Implicit in her work, however, was the presupposition that the marginalised is “inherently mute”. In real life, as in innumerable films, the Dalitbahujans have spoken, sung songs, murmured, acted and reacted; if they remained mute, it was perhaps in protest. If only Spivak had considered the complexities and implications of caste along with class, she would have found that, indeed, the subaltern often speaks. Whether they are being heard, of course, is often another matter altogether. Prashant Kadam is pursuing his master’s degree in Cinema and Media Studies at York University, Toronto, and is working on a documentary on the representations of Dalits in Hindi cinema.


The word ‘Dalit’

Following are my thoughts on the appropriateness of the word ‘dalit.’

Pursuing my interest in Dalit Studies I wish to share a few thoughts on this issue of what is there in the word Dalit.
Lalit mentioned:
>I certainly feel that ‘dalit’ word has negative connotation. But I am not sure, >how close it is to stigma of word ‘Black’, as this word emerged from the Black >panther vis-a-vis Dalit panther movement.
____________________________________________
I would first like to know how and where does the word ‘dalit’ suggest a negative connotation?
Secondly it is a terrible mistake to assume that the word ‘Black’ is a ‘stigma’. There is a plethora is black literature and black scholars who have struggled to establish their identity and canon. They now annually celebrate Black History month, are you suggesting that even today they are ‘celebrating’ a stigmatized word?
The world ‘Black’ has absolutely no inherent negative connotation to it whatsoever. The society, especially the Euro- American world propagated a ‘White Supremistic’ attitude and with it privileged ‘whiteness’ and alongwith it followed a hegemonic practice we all know as ‘racism.’
If a person is black then he or she is ‘black’ in complexion and there is nothing negative about that. Just as if somebody is ‘white’ does not make him or her negative or positive. These are ascribed qualities.
It is surprising that we are doubting the term ‘dalit’ that has been coined in various discursive ways by nobody other than Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and He has defined it in a very comprehensive way.

I strongly encourage reading chapter 4 by Prof. Gopal Guru, titled ‘The Language of Dalit-Bahujan Political Discourses’, in the book ‘Dalit Identity And Politics,’ Vol. 2, edited by Ghyanshyam Shah. This chapter clearly addresses the very meaning, nature and implications of what Dalit identity and collectivity means.
I am sure after reading that, this question of whether the world ‘Dalit’ is appropriate or not should not arise. In Dr. Gopal Guru’s words, the Dalit category has to be viewed in terms of its hermeneutic function, its epistemic roots and its ontological basis.
Lalit, I suggest some books on discourses of race and racism shall clarify notions of blackness and whiteness for a better understanding of its implications. It would be very insulting if you say to someone that, to be black is a ‘stigma.’
The word Dalit has been used and should be used consciously, and it is up to us to ascribe it a positive meaning and pride to it. From what I have read, it has a discursive quality which makes it more significant to exercise that word as per the context.
We will look at it (the word dalit) as we want to see it!
We should be proud to be dalits, shouldn’t we?
Regards,
Prashant

“Dr. K. Jamanadas” <kjmndas_cha@sancharnet.in> wrote:

WHAT IS THERE IN A NAME?
THERE IS A LOT IN THE NAME

Dear Lalit,

Sorry, I am late in responding.

I am not that great that my suggestion counts. The very fact we are discussing the name for us suggests that we have been awakened and we do not wish to be called what the others called us in the past. That is certainly commendable. But I do not think that the issue is so important that we waste our time in on this issue. I would only point out certain facts and leave the great people who like to debate on the issue.

Ancient name ‘antajya’ was discarded because the old Law books had prescribed harsh and derogatory connotations. So all old names like antyaja etc. are out of question.

Our ancestors, during British days organized under various names by adding prefix of Adi before the regional or religious name. [like Adi Andhra etc.]

Some of us fought for changing their names to “Namo Sudras” from “Chandalas”. I have a feeling that including ‘Shudras’ in their name, they agreed that they are a part of ‘Hindus’. In my humble opinion, “Chandalas” was better name to denote our aloofness from everything at is ‘Vedic’, Brahminic, or Hindu.

In my childhood, Mahars of Maharashtra were referring themselves as Chokhamela and not as Mahars. Chamars of UP, I believe, refer themselves as ‘Raidas’ even today.

Babasaheb used various names and that he opposed the name Harijan given by Hindus. Why? Because, as I understand, the name Harijan was used by medieval saint poet of Gujarat  Narsi Mehta  for the fatherless children of temple prostitutes  the Devadasis  thus carrying the notion of ‘BASTARD’. This name was suggested purposefully by Gandhi, knowing fully well the Gujarati meaning. If Gandhi was not a Gujarati and did not know the fact of this name being to given to the children of Devadasis and was in vogue for about four centuries, perhaps there could not have been much objection to this name.  This is because, HARI is the name for GOD, more specifically for VISHNU. But it was also used for the BUDDHA. And if it was innocently used with good intention by some non-Gujarathi unlike Gandhi, perhaps Babasaheb would not have rejected it.

DALIT is the name popularized by Dalit Panthers around seventies, but it was not coined by them. Around 1950s, Jagjivan Ram had formed some organization by that name and the name DALIT was associated with his name.

Kancha Ilaiah has suggested ‘Dalitbahujan’. Kanshiram used Bahujan to include SC, ST, OBC and Minorities and newly registered BAMCEFs have been trying to popularize ‘Mulnivasi’ for denoting the same people.

Yashwant Manohar and his followers had opened a movement to call it ‘Ambedkarite Literature’ to denote what was called “Dalit literature”. Even now they call it Ambedkarite to same literature what others call ‘Dalit Literature’. There was a big debate on the issue for some time.

And there are many who prefer to call ‘Buddhist’. But they oppose the word ‘Nav-Buddha’. I do not know why? How do you differentiate followers of Ambedkar from old Buddhists then?

It must be kept in mind that the meanings of the words change. The original meaning of the word “Hindu”, they tell me, was not all that glorious and was ‘dark’, ‘thief’, etc. But today they say, “garv se kaho hum hindu hai

The word “DHED” is supposed to have originated from “THER”, a respected Buddhist monk. So Brahmins coined many derogatory names from Ther in Marathi, like ‘Therda’ ltc.

The important point is to see who is using the name and for which people and is any derogatory sense implied. If you are using the name for legal purposes like claiming facilities etc, there is no other choice than using “Scheduled Castes” for (?ex-) untouchables and “Scheduled Tribes” for Adivasis and “OBCs” for respective castes etc. as per schedules.

The difference between ‘Bahujan’ and ‘Mulnivasi’ seems to be due to ego of leaders of registered BAMCEF(s). The Mayawati BAMCEF people continue to call themselves Bahujans. They practically refer to same people by that name. Mulnivasi, in my humble opinion it could be applied to ALL people of India including Brahmins, as all had been integrated during the period of Asoka. But I could not convince Ashish Jivane about this.

But the Adivasi leaders, like L. K. Madvai prefer to call themselves ‘Mulnivasi’ [and RSS wants to call them Vanvasi]. I had discussed the point with L. K. Madavi. He insists that only Adivasis are Mulnivasi and not others. He also insists that the difference is RACIAL. I could not convince him also that the present day ‘Adivasis’ (at least in Schedule V) are not that ancient and they are post-Buddhistic, as the sociologists claim. I think except perhaps the residents of Andaman Nikobar, all the Adivasis  especially under Schedule V areas  are all post Buddhistic and are created during Rajput Age after death of Harshavardhan in seventh century by the newly formed ‘jamindars’ and the Brahmins pushing away the borderline peasants to interior away from Brahmadeya villages.  I have written a book on the subject and also as introduction to PATANA.

I do not know whether the (Regd) BAMCEF(s) people have ever thrashed out the point with Adivasi leaders, whether only Adivasis are Mulnivasis or all except Brahmins are Mulnivasi.

Let us confine ourselves to ex-untouchables. The choice falls on two names. Harijan should be for followers of Gandhi and Dalits for the followers of Ambedkar, whether they are converted to Buddhism or not.

It is true that Gandhi used the following words about Babasaheb while criticizing his “Annihilation of castes”.

‘…a man who has carved out for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.’
It was certainly not in his praise. If you read it correctly, what Gandhi said was that Dr. Ambedkar is hankering after cheap publicity by publishing his speech when conference was cancelled and sarcastically observed that cost of the book should have been kept 4 annas instead of eight annas. Babasaheb read that correctly and replied in a fitting language that it was Gandhi who always craved for publicity.

The word Dalit does not mean “broken”, as is suggested. It means ‘depressed’ or ‘oppressed’ or ‘pushed down’. It does not show bad quality of the ‘depressed’, it shows the bad quality of the ‘depressor’. After being depressed or pushed down, the depressed could tolerate meekly or oppose the depression. Those who tolerate meekly by the Gandhi’s advice are ‘Harijans’.  Those who jump back to oppose are Ambedkaerite ‘Dalits’. That is how I see it.

So it is preferable to say ‘lowered’ castes to saying ‘lower’ castes. Or say ‘privileged castes’ to saying ‘upper’ castes. But this does not happen always, and we use the words loosely. Dr. Annamalai had suggested use of word ‘evil caste’ instead of ‘upper caste’ but it did not work.

The word INDIGENOUS came into vogue, (and translated into Marathi etc.) after UNO declared 1993 (I think) as the year for them. But their meaning was slightly different. Perhaps they meant a people of “threatened race”. May be I am wrong. Or am I?

Ultimately, the use gets confined to certain words, which are practiced regularly. The words DALIT and JEWS need not be taken literally. They are used by VTR symbolically. Everybody knows there are at least three meanings to every word. The words could be used literally, symbolically and even sarcastically.

Words could also change the meaning by the way you pronounce it. Just try the word “OK” to pronounce it in different ways!  (Thanks Pralhad, you had suggested that)

I think this should suffice. I, myself, do prefer the word DALIT to denote SCs, ADIVASI to denote STs, and BAHUJAN to denote SC, ST, OBC and Minorities together.

I prefer “Nav-Boudha” to denote Buddhists converts after advice of Ambedkar and I prefer “Buddhist” while referring to the world’s Buddhist population in general. There are many types of Buddhists in the world. I hope some day, they would become one, and then we could all call ourselves BUDDHISTS. But that is a different subject.

This is my opinion for whatever worth it is.

Thanks!

Dr. K. Jamanadas, “Shalimar”, Main Road, Chandrapur – 442 402

Friday, November 23, 2007

=========================
At 07:58 PM 10/13/2007 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Dr. Jamanadas Ji Jai Bheem,

There is huge debate from long time about nomenclature of word ‘dalit’. I am still reading a lot different views of people about this word.

I certainly feel that ‘dalit’ word has negative connotation. But I am not sure, how close it is to stigma of word ‘Black’, as this word emerged from the Black panther vis-a-vis Dalit panther movement.

We all know Dalit literally means ‘broken people’, which is again Hindu caste definition. If ‘Black’ word is also derogatory, why we should use this word ‘Dalit’ even if there are parallel stigma attached with these two nomenclatures.

Moreover Dalit world certainly has Hinduistic origin.

But can we really have alternative word for Dalit, considering its wide usage.

Apart from ‘Scheduled Caste’ I don’t see any other word feasible to represent our population.

I know , when I visit home people will identify me as Chambhar, and others as Mahars and so on….but still this ‘Dalit’ term itself has remained largely academic.

Whatever it may be but you are right that what we want to be called that nomenclature must be out of Hindu fold.

I have few more queries related to this issue.

Then there are other nomenclatures like, ‘Ambedkariates’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Mulnivasi’ or ‘Indigenous’, ‘Bahujan’, but non of them seems to be inclusive for  Schedule Castes.

Though ‘Mulnivasi’ ‘Indigenious’ word is inclusive but Dr. Ambedkar in his renowned paper ‘annihilation of caste’ refered to Mr. D.R. Bhandarkar’s research on foreign element in the Hindu Population” has stated that

“There is hardly a class or Caste in India which has not a foreign strain in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior classesthe Rajputs and the Marathasbut also among the Brahmin who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements.”

Hence no caste or race is pure in this world, so eugenic through maintaining ‘purity’ and ‘caste superiority’ is redundant argument because it is impossible in in normal affairs of day to day lives.

There is another argument of people who try to associate Zionist or Jews with that of ‘Brahmins’ e.g. V.T Rajeshekhar. How fair is this argument, saying they (Brahmin and Jews) play hand in hand. Through such argument, while fighting for our rights, are we ourselves propagating that Jews and Brahmins you get together against us?

So  I have few questions if BAMSEF use this word ‘Mulnivasi’ which is politically significant, but will it unite people across castes.

We agree that continued using of nomenclature ‘Dalit’ is not fair? then what is possibility of alternative nomenclature.

Suggest !

Best regards.

Lalit Khandare
Ph.D. Student(Social Work & Public Policy)
Indiana University

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Saint <upliftthem@yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2007 6:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: NOMENCLATURE.
To: lalitkhandare@gmail.com, nitin_salve@yahoo.cok, Nitin Salve < nitin6@gmail.com>, Arun Gaikwad < arun_gaikwad@yahoo.com>

Saint < upliftthem@yahoo.com> wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Saint < upliftthem@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: NOMENCLATURE.
To: Rathnam A <erimalairathnam1@yahoo.com >, Ramaiah A <ramaiah@tiss.edu>,
benjamin_kaila@yahoo.com, buddha@ndf.vsnl.net.in,
Nagasena Chelladurai < nagasena1710@gmail.com>,
“Chellaurai.E” <chella_sr2006@yahoo.com>,
Satinath Choudhary < satichou2@yahoo.com>,
Mangesh Dahiwale < mangesh.dahiwale@gmail.com>,
dalit-international@yahoogroups.com, dalitconference@googlegroups.com,
dalits-international@yahoogroups.com,
kancha ilaiah < kanchailaiah@yahoo.co.in>, sakyagroup@yahoogroups.com,
newleed@yahoo.com, newleed@hotmail.com, lal@kennedykrieger.org
CC: v_nirala@yahoo.com, paul@blackbuddhist.com, premchumber@yahoo.com,
buchanna@gmail.com, devadasc2002@yahoo.com, charlesksd@aol.com,
lakshmanpp@hotmail.com

Jaibheem to all,

I appreciate Bro Rathnam’s frustration with the word “Dalit”, few people changing this term or stop using it …is not going to help us in anyways.

It should be a concerted effort of all the activists, socialists and Ambedkarites, someone must take a lead to organize this weedout of the nomenclature effort, otherwise, what we say on messages and boards will go as heresay?

I once intervened about the same issue with Bro Rathnam, but after a year, I here the same message.  I WISH PEOPLE WHO ARGUE ON ISSUES TRY TO COME OUT WITH AN IDEA THAN JUST PONDERING ON IT.

THE TRUTH IS “DALIT” is not a Hindu word or nor it was brought to this world by Hindu’s, which is absolutely not true. The leaders of the Panthers group during their conception of a brigade organization similar to the Black panthers of America, came out with an idea to abandon all the terms in use so far, but put forward the word “Dalits”. It is no demeaning than the 600 different caste terms the hindu’s use and cause severe mental agonies to dalits.

Therefore, one must beware of the usage and who coined this term and popularized it, it is coined by our Dalit Panthers during early 1970s. I WANT SOMEONE PROVE ME OTHERWISE, I WILL ABANDONE RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT TO USE THIS TERM, HELP ME FIND OUT THE TRUTH.

In a pathological society and a culture like India, certain things takes a very prolonged procrastination period to correct the mistakes the previous generation made, if this is going to take place in various steps, why not use Dalit than some other demeaning terms.

Until we find out a solution for it, this word is very commonly and popularly used. I MADE SOME EFFORTS THROUGH MY BLOG, CONSTANTLY WRITING BY USING THE TERM “Ambedkarites”. But, no one was ever forthcoming to find a way, even the dalits who are in forefront did not care much about any reformation.

Why don’t somone organize an effort, I will help them in any ways I may?.

In Dhamma,
Muni

Rathnam A < erimalairathnam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nomenclature.

“In dealing with this part of the question we
would like to point out that the existing nomenclature
of Depressed Classes is objected to by members of the
Depressed Classes who have given thought to it and
also by outsiders who take interest in them. It is
degrading and contemptuous, and advantage may be taken
of this occasion for drafting the new constitution to
alter for official purposes the existing nomenclature.
We think that they should be called “Non-caste
Hindus,” “protestant Hindus,” or “Non-conformist
Hindus,” or some such designation, instead of
“Depressed classes. …” (Poona Pact Nov 4th, 1931)

Bombay Legislative Assembly
Debate.(1938)

” Dr. B.R . Ambedkar: I am very sorry, but I
think I can not help saying that this is a matter on
which the wishes of this group ought to have prevailed
with Government. Nobody would have been hurt; the
interest of the country would not have been injured if
the amendment moved by my honourable friend Mr.
Gaikwad had been accepted. In view of the fact that
the Government wishes to use its majority in a
tyrannical manner, I am afraid we must show our
dissatisfaction by walking out in a body and not
participating further in the day’s proceedings.
The honourable Mr. B.G. Kher: I hope the
honourable member (Dr. Ambedkar) will give an
opportunity of saying a few words.
It is very sad commentary that feeling in this
country, where even the slightest question of caste or
creed is concerned, is so very touchy. As the
honourable the leader of the Independent Labour Party
knows, since a long time an attempt has been made to
take away from currency in our language the words
“Asprishya”, because the very idea is a remainder of
the most painful associations, of what has been
universally now admitted to be a stain on Hinduism. I
quite agree with the honourable member Mr. Gaiwad by
merely changing the name we will not achieve this
object. The present section is an attempt in that
direction. To remove the question of untouchability,
we tried an alternative expression; we wanted to say
“Parishista Varg.” Is the translation of the English
expression “scheduled class”, and we thought that
“Parishta Varga” would be a very inappropriate
expression to introduce into the Marathi language. If
instead of using the English expression “Scheduled
classes”, we wanted to have a synonym for that
expression, we had to accept this expression
“Parishista Varga” as the only alternative to denote
what class we meant. I can quite understand, feeling
as they do, that they do not like any attempt to
differentiate them from the rest of the Hindus, but
even for the purpose of legislation, to achieve this
result even for bettering the condition of this class,
we have to designate them as apart from other
Hinduswe may call them Ashprishya or by any other
name, and the fewer the expression we use to
differentiate and classify as different such a large
body of Hindus the better; but I know that since last
four or five years the word “Harijan” has now gained a
currency in the whole if not in the whole of the
country, at least in many parts of the country. This
is an attempt to substitute a word for the expression
“Scheduled Class” which ought to have met with the
approval of the honourable member, the leader of the
Independent Labour Party. It is extremely unfortunate
that he does not look at this question in that light,
but if he suggests an alternative which is suitable
for the expression “scheduled class”, I do expect it
will be possible to spare his feelings. In the
alternative, I do appeal to him, at any rate, to read
into the section no desire to hurt the feelings of a
large class of people, who are unfortunately known as
“untouchables”, but merely a desire to recognize an
expression which has, for a long time, gained currency
would appeal to him no to see in the word “:Harijan”
and in the definition, an attempt to cast any
reflection on his community.

B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, as you have ruled that this
is not an occasion for making speeches, I will not
make any speech. All that I will say is this that I am
not in a position to suggest any better name, but I
must say that the name “Harijan” has now become
practically equivalent to the term “Ashprisya”;
beyond that there is nothing remaining in that name,
and I would think that the honourable the Prime
Minister had felt in the same way in which we feel
that the word “Harijan” has now become identical with
the expression “Scheduled Cass” then it is his duty,
for the movement, to have withdrawn that word, and
latter on he could have discussed the matter with us
with a view to find out some alternative term. His
arguments, however, have not carried any conviction to
us. I will, therefore, leave the Hall.”
(Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and other members of the
Independent Labour Party then walked out of the
House.)_ Vol, 2. writings and speeches.

” One last word. The reader will find that I have
used quite promiscuously in the course of this book a
variety of nomenclature such as Depressed Classes,
Scheduled Castes, Harijan and servile Classes to
designate the Untouchables. I am aware that this is
likely to cause confusion especially for those who are
not familiar with the condition in India. Nothing
could have pleased me better than to have used one
uniform nomenclature. The fault is not altogether
mine. All these names have been used officially and
unofficially at one time or other for the
Untouchables. The term under the government of India
Act is “Scheduled Castes.” But that came into use
after 1935. Before that they were called “Harijans” by
Mr. Gandhi and ” Depressed Classes” by Government.”
(What Congress and Gandhi have done to the
untouchables. 1945)

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar started a party in the year
1936, and named it as ‘Independent Labour Party”, then
in the year 1942 he started “scheduled Castes
Federation.”

During time of British regime in India,
In the “India Act 1935” the name scheduled Castes
were introduced. It is very clear that the name of our
community were denoted by many names. Since we are not
coming under the Brahminical system of Varnashrama it
is crystal clear that we are out of the caste system,
and therefore, we are also called “Out castes”

” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a brilliant academician,
a popular attorney , an erudite scholar, a great Legal
Luminary, a powerful writer, journalist, a great
constitutional pundit, emancipator, and champion of
the rights and liberties of the dumb, down trodden
and oppressed people, from whose very rank he sprang.
But all this attainment seemed to be inadequate to
wipe out the stigma of ‘untouchability’ that was
attached to the caste into which he was born.

Nevertheless, it was his privilege to be ranked as one
of the top dozen great Indians of the century. No less
a person than Mahatma Gandhi, with whom Ambedkar had
acute political differences and crossed swords aften,
wrote of Ambedkar as follows:

‘…a man who has carved out for himself a unique
position in society. Whatever label he wears in future
Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be
forgotten.’

Such an unforgettable man Dr. Ambedkar said in
the year 1935: ‘ I was born as a Hindu , but I will
not die as a Hindu. He fulfilled his promise and
embraced Buddhism in the year 1956,October, 14th, with
five (500000) of his people, and made them as
Buddhists.

To wipe out the stigma of untouchability he
converted the people from Hindu fold to Buddhism. From
the historical event given above (Round table
Conference to 1956) he never used the word ‘Dalit’.
But today even the converted Buddhists call them as
dalit, which means a Hindu name and also contradicts
the principles of Buddhism as well as the ideology of
the great savior Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.

If you do not
want call yourselves as Scheduled castethe
constitutional name you may call in any name as whims
and fancies. But my sincere and humble request to the
converted Buddhists that they should not call the
Hindu name ‘Dalits’.

JAIBHIM! JAIBUDDHAM!

YOURS FRATERNAL,
A.RATHNAM.

What Indians Mustn’t Study

Originally published in Tehelka: link

ENGAGED CIRCLE

dalit window

Filmmaker PRASHANT KADAM relates his encounters with academic prejudice

View finder Waghmare in a
still from The Bioscopewallah

My family has been in love with photography for three generations now — my father learnt it from his father and in turn taught it to me. Even today, there are huge portraits in our ancestral home that were photographed, developed and printed there around the 1950s.

After I graduated from Fergusson College in Pune, majoring in history, I did a Masters in Social-Cultural Anthropology at the University of Pune. In the first year, we had to visit a “tribal” community and study various aspects of “their culture”. The department zeroed in on Bothe village in Pandharkavda in Maharashtra’s Yavatmal district. We were all to select subjects of our choice — I decided to do a photo-essay and maybe even a short video. I discussed my project extensively with my guide before I left for the trip.

I had been in Bothe three days when the professor in charge of the trip told me I should not be doing a photo essay and should take up a “conventional” ethnographic subject instead. This made me very uncomfortable. I had nobody to consult with for my new topic. I was merely told not to continue with my photo/video essay. The nearest telephone was some eight km away, but I managed to access it anyway and called up my guide in Pune to tell him about what had happened. He told me it would be unwise to go against the field professor, and it was therefore decided that I should study dropout rates in the area, collecting data from local ashram schools.

The field professor simply failed to understand the difference between ethnography (a textual account of an anthropologist’s observation of cultures) and visual ethnography (which uses photography/video to portray the anthropologist’s cultural experience). It has been a decade now since the incident, but I do not think conditions in Indian academia have changed much.

I moved to Canada few years ago. To pursue my interest in visual communications, I enrolled in a course in independent filmmaking, during which I studied the history of film and even made my own digital movie. In 2005, while on a visit to Pune, I read an article in a local newspaper that made me nostalgic about the bioscope, a precursor to the film projector, hardly seen today even in small towns. I thought it important to document it before it faded utterly from memory. Tracking Rau Waghmare, the bioscopewallah featured in the article, took some doing, but when I finally managed to meet him, I was amazed by his zest for life, his struggle for survival and his pride in his work. He lived a hand-to-mouth existence — his cheerful demeanour, his energetic singing and his pride in his bioscope were in complete contrast to the poverty and ill health that dogged his life. Born to a Dalit family in Dev Dhanora, a remote village in Osmanabad district, he had been a tamasha artiste until 1971, when drought forced his troupe to disband. The skills of the tamasha continued, however, to be integral to his repertoire.

Rau is someone I consider a genuine performing artist, quite as much of a one as Pandit Birju Maharaj. This, as I discovered, was not an opinion that would go down well with Indian academia. While I was researching the history of the bioscope, I met an “expert” in the field who taught at the Film and Television Institute of India. He brushed me aside saying, “Whom are you calling a performing artist? I don’t think you know what you are doing. Tomorrow you may call a beggar a performing artist.”

I realised that even a decade after I was told to change my field research topic in 1996, questions of hegemony and ideology persisted in our society, however subtly and covertly. Questions like why I was the only student among 18 others who was discouraged from pursuing the research of my choice remained unanswered. Why, 10 years later, would a media studies expert belittle my efforts to document an unexplored but significant aspect of film history? Why have certain issues historically remained unaddressed? Why do we have this academic gate-keeping and with what intentions?

Nevertheless, I completed The Bioscopewallah, which will have its world premiere on October 5 at the Independent South Asian Film Festival in Seattle. I am now working on my thesis in the faculty of Cinema and Media studies at York University, Canada. My research looks at the representation of Dalits in popular Hindi cinema. It will put to scrutiny select films to understand larger cultural debates about questions of Dalit identity and collectivity. Quantitatively speaking, the Indian film industry is a world leader, producing the maximum number of films annually.

However, Dalits, comprising a huge mass of the population, are either under-represented or simply rendered invisible in these films, although their behind-the-scenes labour towards film production cannot be denied.

writer’s email: explore@prashant.ca

Oct 13, 2007