Tags: 
5,092 views
“Chithralekha is a symbol and sign of the marginalization that Dalits face in modern Kerala”, notes the solidarity mission in its report after visiting Payyanur to ascertain the facts about the hoodlums stigmatizing and victimizing Chitralekha. It is salutary that some of the civil society activists and groups in Keralam after some initial fabrication like “we versus aliens” came out actively in support of Chitralekha. The issue has also become a rallying point for the defunct civil society movement in Keralam to resuscitate itself from its visible departure in the wake of Chengara land struggle. The civil society movements in Keralam had its glorious time in the 1980s and 90s. Violations of rights were rampant even after the withdrawal of emergency. They were part of the Leviathan methods of State craft. The surplus value these violations generated were a boon to the media struggling to reclaim the credibility it had lost during emergency.
The nature of violations was such that the elite amongst the emergent middle class were quick in understanding that the extension of the violation may hinder their own private interests. There had been such a brahmanical excitement in the decades just after the British formally left India with the nation-building idea that the displacement of aboriginals and dalitbahujans in the name of mega projects were only sacrifices at altar of the emergent Nation-God. But the saga of nation building progressed in a way that road to its promised land had to necessarily eat into the holy terrains of middle class masses.
Civil society did not dither in properly apprehending the concerns of the middle classes that roundly made it. Ecology got its primacy since then. Meanwhile, the alienation of different classes from the “inliers” of nation-hood facilitated emergence of singular social groupings demanding particular benefits like fisher folk associations. Nevertheless, the benefits were not like the rights demand as it always lacked assertions from the people.
1980s and 90s witnessed political salience of civil society groupings. Many of the groups have its legacy in the Naxalite movement of the previous decade. The individuals who had entrepreneurial acumen and negotiation skills transformed the groups aligned to them as distinct entities prioritizing and minimizing its concern to some basic issues that can rock into the core of urban middle class with political sensitivities.
The pitched battles it fought brought sufficient dividends for both civil society activists group as well as the State. A win-win for both! The ambivalent engagements of State and civil society activism was progressing with a mutuality sometimes co-engineered, some times aided by the judiciary, some times guaranteed by the media. But the days were numbering and its grind halted with the irruption of the march of Adivasis to the precious zone of the state capital in 2001. The civil society sisterhood and brotherhood then split along several lines. The aboriginals lost the innocence the eco- mothers of Keralam had been celebrating for long.
During the time Congress-led UDF was in power and hence for the same reason, the forum had cause-sympathizers ranging from the primitive Left to past-modernizing Left. Past-modernizers, the real ex-centers dual aim was of sustaining one-self through the changing times by free- marketing seventies nostalgia concocted with some secular free-riders and also act as double-agent for one of the “absent ruling class” when the Adivasi struggle was going on.
Now the waning of the civil society is more than visible. The Adivasi movement was the last-straw. New social shakers and movers emerging from the distant remote and disbanded territories led by un-recognizable faces absolutely drain the reserve energy for the enduring of the civil society groups. The emergent new movements prioritized a different set of issues. It subverted the older agenda of “unity and opposition” contracted between State and civil society groups.
Even while not receiving the due publicity, the new subjects did not demand any facilitation from the civil society gathering. On the contrary, it only offered its support to civil society actors to get in touch with the reality as evident in the locale of political action. Clueless about the turn history has taken, some activist and journalist-promoters of the civil society groups transformed their role from “activist” to “mediators” disrobing themselves from the previous avatar of “self-less” civil society service personnel.
Years later the Chengara land struggle diminished the valiant presence of old lords of civil society groups. The most visible aspect of the struggle was the new actors’ refusal to play victim. The patron–client relation that the civil society groups had with the strugglers broke since Chengara. The victim industry stock value dropped. The promoters were left in deep lurch after this great crash.
The Marxist party, as usual, had a different understanding about its relation vis-à-vis new political mobilizations. It did not share the “victim” industry evaluation of new political subjects. The Marxist party was intact in its primordial belief in “public sector monopoly”. It agitated against the idea of Dalits or Adivasis or Muslims organizing themselves for resource sharing. The belief of the Marxist party is firmly rooted in its understanding of new political subjects as ‘Amoral” agents of social change.
Marxist party permitted and entertained civil society “causes” in enabling appropriate technology solutions, ecological minimalism, some small little steps in anti-dam posturing etc. But when it came to greater causes like distribution of land, it was unrelenting in its opposition. The simple, parental, governmental ego of the Marxist party knows what “progressive” is and it could not even think of “Amoral” agents countering the party which had introduced land reforms for the first time in post-colonial Indian history.
Adivasis do not count as ‘victims” in Marxist party agenda since they could not even singularly constitute as active participants of change. Hence with a parental authority its magnificent “working class” or “de-classed” leaders will lead the tribal march to land occupied by private persons.
However, deeper is the problems of the conventional civil society operators. The civil society operands have met with severe challenges. Firstly devoid of a moral victim in pursuant of a justice facilitated by the civil society actors, it could not centre-stage its old agent-provocateur role. Secondly, despite its best efforts in aligning to new political subjects, the fifth estate actors were reduced to much diminishing role as the new agents have calibrated the movement on their own strength. Thirdly, the new political subjects have redrawn the contours of political society as new subjects subverted the old paradigm of civil society clientilism with an influx of new social energy.
(18 votes, average: 4.11 out of 5)
Loading ...
March 18th, 2010 at 7:40 AM
Thanks Damodar for sharing your views and the clear perspective on the subject. I needed it. Regards
March 18th, 2010 at 11:26 AM
I would like to know where does Damodar belong or where exactly did he cut out his space for speaking in so privileged a manner. I think speaking has already lost its privileged position in the contemporary world. What I would like Damodar to do in addition to what he has done is to define the moral character or the derisively critical tone or the elitisitic overviewing role of his writing. By doing this he may not only lay open his respective subjectivity but also help us understand ourselves, i.e., the subjects who try to communicate across without intending or making a community. Otherwise, it is a thought provoking and responsible writing.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:08 PM
On reading the sign board put up by nizar beside the fishpond:
I had never thought that fishing is that much a grave crime that a subject is to be subjected to explain ‘where does the subject belong or where exactly did he cut out his space’before fishing. It reminds one of the sign boards like ‘non Hindus are not permitted to enter’. Characteristically of nizar, he negates himself next moment- as an afterthought of a philosopher- to proclaim that fishing ‘has already lost its privileged position in the contemporary world’. In addition, please read, what else things one has to do as prescribed by him! Definitely nizar has become an authority…
March 20th, 2010 at 6:48 AM
“Chithralekha is a symbol and sign of the marginalization that Dalits face in modern Kerala”, notes the solidarity mission in its report after visiting Payyanur to ascertain the facts about the hoodlums stigmatizing and victimizing Chitralekha. It is salutary that some of the civil society activists and groups in Keralam after some initial fabrication like “we versus aliens” came out actively in support of Chitralekha. The issue has also become a rallying point for the defunct civil society movement in Keralam to resuscitate itself from its visible departure in the wake of Chengara land struggle.”
These starting sentences look incidental to this whole readymade argument.Most of the time such ‘ever prepared’ thoery suppliers smuggle in such ‘vague’,unsupported, idiocyncratic ‘judgements’ in the guise of serious political analysis.As neither Chitralekha nor ‘civil society activists and groups in Keralam” are not only ‘symbols’or ‘signs’, let me raise some priliminary questions to this omnipotent ‘author’. Which activist/group in “Keralam’ intially fabricated ‘we versus aliens’, when and where? I saw the following names coming out actively in support of Chitralekha ‘recently’. Chandraban Prasad,A.Vasu, A.K.Jayasree,BRPBhaskar, K.Ajitha,CSChandrika,Rekha Raj, K M Salimkumar, K K Baburaj, K K Koch,J.Devika,Iniyammal,Resly Abraham,Praveena K P,Amala,Dileep Raj,Civic Chandran,S Sithara, Reshma Bharadwaj,K.Giresshkumar. Vasu,Rekharaj, Ajitha, K K Koch were active at least for three years in connection with this issue, and intervened publicly many times..Chandraban is not from “Keralam”. Misreporting right under the nose of an overarching title like “Civil Society, Victim Industry and Keralam ” is an interseting as that gives away ‘author’s immediate provocation and emotional disturbance behind writing.Better such instant theory suppliers spend some time on what exactly is happening before going ahead with ‘oppositional’ theory constructions.
Let me ask another naive but basic question to the author. Why is it that he decide to support Chitralekha at this point of time? What is the present issue?What will he do in future on this issue ( of course, in addition to surfacing with such readymade writings
whenever some activists or groups do someting on the issue)? I dont demand anything from the author, but am simply curious because he seems to be omnipotent, capable of passing judgement on anything and everything
March 20th, 2010 at 2:24 PM
thanks prasad for these prejudice-free sights and sounds . an essential opening shot. kgs
March 20th, 2010 at 4:48 PM
@George John
I simply cant understand why you are so irritated by Nizar Ahmed’s short but insightful comment. I find it deplorable that you are attacking the author instead of the relaxant point he has raised. To be frank, I consider his comment as more relevant than the whole essay written by Damodar Prasad. He is not exerting authority, but requesting to do away with it. He urged the writer to b self reflexive , which is not a crime!And I could not absolutely understand why being ‘philosophical’ is a sin..Some of your remarks smacks of anti Muslim sentiments. I don’t know who this Nizar Ahmed is,but what is the harm in somebody with seemingly “Muslim’ name being a philosopher? I wish in further comments we could neglect George John’s nasty and personal take on Nizar Ahmed’s wonderful comment. The issue raised by him need to be looked into in depth, as rightly pointed out by he himself, for ‘understanding ourselves’
March 20th, 2010 at 8:21 PM
@KGB
“prejudice free”?????
Take one example
‘the civil society sisterhood and brotherhood then split along several lines. The aboriginals lost the innocence the eco- mothers of Keralam had been celebrating for long.’
Can KGB or Damodar Prasad describe (let alone explain)’eco-mother’s participation in the agitation led by CKJanu? I remember reading in newspapers about both of them joining hands in the struggle. As Jaseela rightly pointed out,once we go to the state of affairs deeply and take a close look,this analysis exposes itself to be nothing but a compendium of prejudiced statements about certain agents whom the author doesn’t like.
Perhaps KGB is on the other side of the table! ( sorry, i dont know who KGB is either)shared prejudices are celebrated as accepted knowledge..
March 20th, 2010 at 11:03 PM
Thank you Jessila for facilitating me to respond to Nizar’s probing queries. Indeed you have helped me!
I was looking whether your name also figures in the list of prominent and visible in your response. I didn’t see your name.
Jessila, I am as “anonymous” as you are.
This “anonymity” is limited to the lack of knowledge of each other. “Anonymity” also helps in being un-reflexive. I am not sure whether is a prescription that only ‘authors” have to be reflexive while in responding one can be “supra-reflexive”.
But there is something called “conditioned reflexity”. But even anonymous are not exempt to this!!
BTW, I don’t know whether you were part of the ‘support” movement. Perhaps you are. But your name doesn’t count to be listed along with eminent people.
This is because both of us share a broader understanding of what constitutes civil society. Are we part of the civil society? Yes, we are. Both of us share the space of the civil society. Both of us are anxious about the issues concerned with civil society. It is we who constitute the civil society. As constituents of civil society and participants thereof its activities, I only gave expression to my own anxieties and crises. The middle-class anchors of the civil society may not feel responsible to express themselves. Perhaps, my “intention” to probe into the contemporary concerns is limited because in the CSA anchors view point I am a subtracted being from what they were/are.
From here, I will drive alone. Again look at the list of the prominent and the visible. Many in the lists were active in the CS movement of last decades. They were in the ‘support side” working along (?) with the main movement, sometime “lobbying” with the government, sometimes doing the PR work, sometimes networking, sometimes fund raising, sometimes even setting the “maximum” and “minimum” agenda of the struggle there of. But there is quintessential difference between the main actors and the supporting actors.
We know that some amongst the list were supporters of the Chaliyar-anti-Grasim struggle. (We also have heard from some documentaries that some in the list had a “difference on view” on the man agenda of the agitation). But where does PMK Chekku figure amongst the list? Do we remember Chekku? Is there any difference between the supporting actor and the real actor?
The history does not stand still. I think the Adivasi and Chengara land strrugles are two greatest moments from contemporary history. My understanding of the epochal changes in political sensibility, I have only tried to outline this with my limitation in the same write-up. The main “intention”, so to say, was to bring this into attention. The disengagement with the leading issue here itself exposes the “ill-fate” of civil society politics. It is an ill-fate, certainly!
On “we versus aliens”, I know I am responsible to answer. But as a response, shall I direct you to the article, “Many vices of Chitralekha” written by J.Devika and the responses to the same in the site “Kafila”. I don’t exactly remember who wrote it but you can see references to some “dichotomy” etc etc. If you find the word “fabrication” improper, you can also read it as “manufacturing”.
I am happy to note your “politically correct” reading of my “emotional disturbance”. This is because I am emotionally involved to issues even as I remain in the back. It has to be contrasted with “calculation disturbance”, which arises from the ‘calculated involvement” while physically remaining where one is throughout.
However, I am sad that you only half-read the write-up. You may also be interested to read about the “unity and opposition” between ruling party and CS activists. I salute each eminent persons listed in your response. I admit my limitations in correspondence to them. But it is an irony that such lists are perhaps used in business networking as well. One can ask what is so objectionable in it. Well!!
March 21st, 2010 at 2:01 PM
thanks for the advise. I did visit the thread you prescribed for me. Sorry, I am more convinced of my previous comments.
“It is salutary that some of the civil society activists and groups in Keralam after some initial fabrication like “we versus aliens” came out actively in support of Chitralekha”
See, its in plural that you allege that ” some of the civil society activists and groups in Keralam” fabricated or manufactured ‘we versus aliens”.
What I learned from reading ‘Many Vices of Chitralekha”is that it is a ‘solidarity group Delhi” which fabricated or manufactured this “we versus aliens” intially. Nobody seemed against Chitralekha and everybody comes out actively supporting her there itself! I sincerely fails to understand what you meant by the above sentence.If you were referring to the Kafila discussion, saying that would have helped. You judged a whole cyber discussion and a collective (extra cyber or non cyber) intervention at one stroke and in one sentence!!! Dont you think you yourself are responsible for interventions like this ( which you believe are triggered by half-read responses)? What do you expect an ideal reader of your writing to do? just skip such references? I feel politically involved and sensitive persons have enough provocations for discussing that single sentence at length.
On anonymity, yes I agree with you that it helps being unreflexive.Interestingly I found “George john” repeatedly
appearing in the kafila thread as well. On all occassions supporting Prasad in that thread and supporting you in this thread. Perhaps ‘split personalities’ fascilitate a displaced discourse? Or mere coincidence? Or some other business?Anyway makes no difference for me.
I didnt read Nizar Ahmed’s response while responding. Now i read it. He is referring to the lack of reflexivity in your writing, right? there anonymity makes absolutely no difference.Three words he uses there are helpful in understanding your writing.i,e: privilege, ‘the derisively critical tone’, ‘ the elitisitic overviewing role ‘
sad that your response is underlining those traits once again, though feigning ‘politeness’.Bad fate indeed
Its PKM Chekku, not PMK , right? Be little more cautious while making references to people living in ‘noncyber world”? ( Or am I wrong?)
March 21st, 2010 at 4:19 PM
two clarifications
@John Abraham
I dont share your viewpoints. Please dont support your arguments by brininging in my name
@Damodar Prasad
Yes, the list was incomplete. Bobby,Jaseela ( not me!),Abhilash, Amala, baby, Usha, Kaveri… Unlike you, I think each individual and their interventions need to be acknowledged, referred to and respected. Your comment lacks that sensitivity.Not that you should come with lists all the time. But avoid clubbing multifarious efforts under some prejudices (about leadership)and assumed unity
March 21st, 2010 at 9:12 PM
jaseela, You say that george john repeatedly appearing in a thread and supporting me consitenntly and also you imply that Mine is a spilt or rather extended personality of george john or otherwise. If you look at the responses here, you could very well see individuals supporting or opposing. Does it mean to you that they are all “extensions” or “splits” of one distinct personality? Do not each persons responded here have a personality of their own? The original “implication” of a individual being a ‘split” or an ‘extensions” arises out of a decease-infected charachter. It is a produce of a pecualiar “mind regime”. One point, I have tried question in this write-up is exactly about this peculiar “mind regime”. Forget reflexivity, but I would kindly request you to at least be “reflective” about this peculiarity in your-Self at your own convinience.
Well, there is something else called making others “subsidiary personality”.This arises out of a meglomaniac desire to control and appropriate anything. It usually appears in the form of ‘approprioating other’s voices” where actually the other(s) is/are able to represent her/him self. But the problem is that individuals with low self-esteem “subject” themselves to this kind of “benevolence”. Hence, it is not exactly the problem of “meglomaniac” himself. It requires an instinctual sense of self-respect to uunderstand this disease. Have you come across any such “personalities”? If you have, pls be sympathetic to them and help them cure themselves of such decease.
I am sure Jaseela must have observed that Nizar’s response to me is ‘applicable’ in all contexts. The words of Nizar perhaps expresses a “universal” axiom, which certainly has a meaning beyond this chat-room! Even as I say this, there is tone of “interrogation” in Nizar’s words. All attempts of “interrogation” accompanies its own unique set of problems.
Thanks for pointing to me the mistake in wrongly putting the intials of Chekku. I admit my error.
That said, I don’t want to make this reponse thread, a one to one discussion betwewen us.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Thanks for the advise. I will take it up and leave this discussion thread for thanksgivings and sabaaashs
While you are writing in a sweeping way about social movements from 1980s to 2010, it is quite evident that almost all detials are overlooked just to ‘arrive’ at predetermined conclusions.Thank you so much for proving one more time that critical engagements are impossible with such judgemental writings.
Let me remind you that you haven’t yet answered my one and only one question. Instead you directed me to another thread (along with lots of misdirected comments. wish you will find the right occassion and person for making it again).
Happy debating to all ( megalomaniac/main, split subsidiaries included)