The author makes a careful analysis of the ways in which Dalits aspire to rebuild their identity.
FOR understandable reasons, some social scientists and activists believe that caste-based discrimination will dry up as people overcome poverty and climb up the economic ladder. This outlook is, however, true only up to a point. Education, employment, adequate income and decent living standards no doubt give people the required resources and self-confidence to stand up to discriminatory attitudes and practices. Yet many citizens across India continue to suffer from untouch ability, social exclusion and the stigma of backwardness because of deep-seated symbols of domination and cultural stereotypes. Economic mobility, political leverage and legal provisions are therefore necessary but not sufficient conditions for a fuller realisation of social justice.
Drawing on more than three years of fieldwork and empirical analysis of caste dynamics, C. Joe Aruns monograph Constructing Dalit Identity makes the perceptive observation that Dalits in India are in a new era of defining the ir positive identity and offers compelling evidence as to why Dalits as well as the Indian state should think beyond traditional ways. This new era is quite unlike earlier times when Dalits seemed to have easily and passively accepted the low status and self-image imposed on them by higher castes. This is also rather different from the phase of Sanskritisation a term the eminent sociologist M.N. Srinivas introduced in the early 1950s to describe how people at the bottom of the caste hierarchy sought upward mobility by imitating the rituals, values and lifestyles of those at the top.
The book, which originated as a doctoral dissertation at Oxford University, is primarily an ethnographic study based on research conducted at Pappanallur village in Tamil Nadu, but it assumes a wider significance for the overall situation of Dalits in India because of the way in which the author marshals and interprets the empirical data and combines them with theoretical insights and discussions. The central findings of the book are new and challenging and, hence, will interest not only researchers and social scientists but also public officials and policymakers looking for a refreshing view of identity politics, social change and group conflicts in contemporary India.
The study particularly makes a careful analysis of the ways in which Dalits aspire to rebuild their identity. One important way is the process of symbolic reversals. Realising the powerful influence that symbols and myths generate in the actual world of social relations and group interactions, Dalits and their leaders are increasingly concentrating on conventional symbols of domination such as the drum, beef eating and land. Not only do they challenge the meaning of impurity and inferiority that some non-Dalits have so far attributed to them, but they also actively reverse their meaning, transforming them into symbols of self-respect. When it is realised that these symbols are human artefacts and that their meanings are constructed rather than intrinsic, there is no reason why a just society should not modify their meanings.
For instance, some Dalit groups that have customarily been playing the drum at funerals have now decided not to render this service as it perpetuates a relationship of domination. Instead, they prefer to play it on propitious occasions such as marriages and festivals and are eager to develop it as their art form to communicate freedom and liberation.
Earlier, beef eating was considered pollution, but now in order to do away with this social stigma, Dalit groups organise common meals to celebrate beef eating.
In a largely peasant society such as India, land is not just land but also social and political power. Previously, land was used to assert power over Dalits and socially exclude them from the mainstream. By creating counter-myths that portray Dalits as sons and daughters of the soil, concerted efforts are being made to acquire pieces of land.
In all these, what is aimed at is neither a rejection of old symbols nor a search for new ones. The symbols remain the same but only their meanings are converted so as to embody a renewed identity.
Along with symbolic transformation, the study examines conflict as another occasion for the formation of positive identity. Conflict in the first place opens up the self-consciousness of the dominated, making them aware of their unequal social status. Also, it offers them the opportunity to embark on the creative task of constructing an identity that is truly their own despite resistance, backlashes and unwillingness on the part of the dominators. This is why conflicts are often centred on key symbols that signify power relationships in the community. When some Dalit groups create conflict over the playing of the drum, beef eating and land, what they mostly intend is not conflict and disharmony for their own sake but a recuperation of their agency and dignity as non-polluted equals on a par with others. Moreover, conflicts are not intended as a permanent feature of social living but are often sought to be resolved within the framework of democratic and other community practices.
If symbolic reversals and conflicts, as Aruns anthropological study seems to suggest, signal the onset of what we can call a post-Sanskritisation era in Indias progress towards social justice, it becomes even more important to view the empowerment of backward classes, particularly that of Dalits, in a broader perspective. One cannot deny that there is a strong material and political base to the cultural liberty that people enjoy.
A group of people would have better prospects of exercising their cultural freedom with regard to language, traditions, art, customs and lifestyles when they also have sufficient economic resources, respectable living standards and access to political power. Hence, policies and programmes that specifically target the economic development and political participation of the marginalised would positively enrich their culture and social standing. And yet, we must be aware that these policies and programmes cannot serve as a proxy for a cultural road map that counteracts the entrenched symbols and practices of domination.
