|
|
|||
|
P K Ratheeshkumar
Friendships: Ins, Outs and In-betweens“I can’t make friendship with the upper castes”, PMD, a dalit friend told me once. After a few seconds of silence he continued, “I have been reminded constantly by them that I will not fit in their circles as one among them…They had never conveyed this directly, but through their everyday strategies of ‘inclusion’, and then silencing and distancing. They took special care to include me in their circle so that they can display their political correctness – ‘We have dalit friends!”. While saying all these, I didn’t find PMD agitated. He uttered everything as plain statements with no disappointment or discomfort.
This discussion happened about three years ago during the debate of OBC reservation bill, the time of “second Mandal”. Between 1989 and 2006, the marginal productivity of a “progressive” and “politically correct” group of upper castes in the academic circles was consistently balanced and this class of people engaged in an “inclusive policy”, took conscious efforts to invite dalits and bahujans to their academic and friend circles. During our discussion on friendship, PMD reflected on this: “they [the upper castes of the inclusive project] have started showing care and affection to us and I feel good in the beginning”. He then reminded an incident during the OBC reservation debates. He went to his hostel mess for dinner after participating in a pro-reservation march. He was surprised to see his friends’ response when he joined them at their table. They simply shifted to another. But after a while, he said, he felt okay with this straight cut exclusion. But the others–he added: “they try their best to include you and once you are in, they systematically silence you and when you remain silent they will say ‘come on, say something, your silence actually disturbs us’. This is the mode in which they operate. Since we fear that our language habits and body languages are potential targets for humiliation in elite academic circles, we are forced to remain mum. Remember what Kancha Ilaiah said, ‘…our childhoods were mutilated by constant abuse and by silence and by a stunning silence at that…’ our present academic lives are no different! “Don’t you think it’s more comfortable to be remaining outside their circles? Why do you want to suffocate by getting inside?” I remembered Bourdieu’s words: “the anticipation of exclusion may provoke a proactive response of excluding oneself from the place of exclusion”. PMD’s arguments provoked me and I started seriously observing the attitude of my upper caste friends (the so called and self claimed politically correct ones) closely and evaluating my experiences with them. However, I wish not to contend that a generalization of those experiences and branding won’t help to understand the problem. And of course I met with exceptions. But I found many of my upper caste friends falling into PMD’s category. I started getting clues of what Paulo Friere had called ‘false generosity’. When I recall certain instances of academic dealings with some of my upper caste friends, I realize that my role was mostly limited to clerical tasks – exchanging of materials, not ideas. It looks difficult for them to accept that we also have ideas; rather they tune themselves to believe that we can’t produce exciting ideas. As friends, we believe in collectivity, sharing, cooperation and belonging. But when we get into their groups it gets into conflict—our wish for belongingness clashes with their notion of “becoming” a separate individual. But I find it with surprise that they tend to share and keep the notion of belongingness in tact to their groups, when it comes to academic matters in particular. They won’t leave any space for addressing these conflicts by themselves. Another OBC friend reminded me on this “when we take initiatives to bring issues for discussion, to sort out things, they tend to hush up all. When we try to work for changing the existing situation, power structures and hierarchy; they only want to discuss it/live up on it and maintaining it. Thus they have become theoretical and more rational and we, remained just emotional…” They very well theorise the process of exclusion and marginalisation with the language of the elite intellectual domain and deliberately forget how the language that they use can limit the availability of an academic identity to marginalized people. The passion for “helping out” looks equivalent to the attempts of UN developmental agencies for the poor or the colonial anthropologists’ vision – they are good people, with less merit compared to us, we should help them out and bring them to the mainstream. I feel this is exactly how many of the “politically correct” and “progressive” upper caste elite intellectuals think and work. After meeting again recently, PMD and I reached on a common observation—this is more peculiar to the elite academic spaces. We didn’t do empirical research on it, but many of our academic circles consistently confirm this in everyday episodes of interactions. For them, it’s just a question of trust, but for us, PMD says, it becomes a question of survival in academic space. 41 comments to Friendships: Ins, Outs and In-betweens |
Users Online 
This is a 2D-barcode containing the address of our |
|
|
Copyright © 2010 Respective Authors. Unless otherwise specified, content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 India License |
|||
Tags: 
7,720 views
(25 votes, average: 4.16 out of 5)
Loading ...
June 17th, 2009 at 9:35 AM
and one more thing… my problem is not with ur example but the way u described it.. caste and gender can be seen in the way u have chosen the example .. even the way i find problms with it are all good examples for a caste and gender study… in fact, all our actions are located within these cultural locales, i feel. who can go beyond it?
thanks
June 17th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I knew that the example might be viewed as problematic; and it was precisely intended to be viewed as such.
There could be digressions even in the course of casual talks between people within close kinship,for example,within a family where people can have different perceptions of caste ,gender and political economy. In that sense, families betray similarities to ‘the sovereign state’ to some extent with respect to the notions of honour, dignity, security and sovereignty. Certain prescribed limits to the actions and thoughts of individuals’ freedom of expression usually negotiated by the dominant ideology of caste-gender-political economy combined.
In the context of Ratheesh’s post,one could only wish certain inputs to be added that might help the important discussion move ahead; but certainly, it ought to be attempted without killing the thread itself.
Reiteration of a point in different ways at different phases of discussion would have certainly been in bad taste to everybody including the speaker.
Though very much in a mood of withdrawing from this discussion as rather I feel like respecting the sentiments of others than for sharing my own concerns, I feel obliged here to respond to Ranju’s new posts.
It appears a bit paradoxical also, when questions were already raised here why should a man be so much preoccupied with the concerns of the opposite gender. Again, the other question also is sure to be encountered – like a person from a non dalit background attempting to subvert the very dalit identity by over indulgence.
De-casting ,de-gendering and de-classing however, continue to be my dreams, though someone who is not more than a silly, male, and non-dalit dreamer sometimes belongs to nowhere in the real world of power play!
Thanks to ranju and all the others.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
On Venugopalan’s silence on certain critical questions—
1. On the issue of rape—why are you silent on Ranju’s posting that brought more specific issues of the incident?
2. Why there are no answers to Shyma’s posting—trying to be the guardian of the female gender?
In the whole debate, no one tried to wash out the gender factor and its intersections in caste issues. But your writings tend to set the agenda to shut down caste by imposing gender as a replacement game.
And about the question -”Why is it that women only are targeted as witches and not men?” By men, who are you referring to, the upper caste men, a default setting? Because Dalit men are–like Ranju said—always being targeted not as witches, but as potential rapists and sexually violent beings especially towards the caste Hindu women (I remember a similar mode of debate on the sexual desires of an auto driver in kafila.org sometime back). So I just want to ask again what shyma had pointed in her response—“… his position which doesn’t want to acknowledge a dalit male as a male!” Finally on your question- “Why even dalit men are often not able to resist? when dalit women defying or allegedly defying the moralistic pattern…..”–Does anyone here try to suggest that dalit men have come out of their patriarchal selves completely?
June 17th, 2009 at 1:48 PM
My answers to Ratheesh:
1.I was not at interested in going to the specificity.
My point was , that an issue involving( real or alleged )rape of a student by someone from her friends circle transpired to an episode that generated/reinforced political rivalry apparently played out by two groups of men. Before SFI attempted to politicize the episode in the context of an electoral understanding between ABVP and the Ambedkar Students Association(ASA) , the incident remained as a source of shame for each person involved, a subject of timid wispers, far from being a concern of students politics. Ultimately when it came up, still it was not addressed other than in castiest way. The stereotypical ‘dalit rapist vs non dalit woman’ remains a powerful weapon not just with the creators of such stereotype (I refuse to take the blame for that) but also the defenders of dalit praxis, at least in this example.
I think that except for making my argument sufficiently clear, there was no need to go to the specific details about this episode.
2. The second question is quite embarrassing, after my response in the post just prior to the latest by yours.
If you are not satisfied with my response there (which was an allusion to Shyma’s question which I find not deserving a direct answer in the context of this debate).
If you think that sharing a perspective is ” trying to taking up guardianship” I feel much honoured, though I neither enjoy such guardianship nor consider worthy of such honour.
I had a right to share certain aspects of a gender-neutral perspective related to human freedom.
Secondly, I believe it is not biology that constitutes gender and for this perception I am more obliged to women ideologues than men.
Thanks.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:24 PM
The last part of your post I omitted to respond not by design but out of inadvertence.
However,I thought that it was becoming all clear.I did not have to ask the question why only females of the dalits are branded witches and punished, and not the ‘male dalits’.
I find less reasons for presupposing in a big way existence of a stereotype such as dalit male raping UC women, except my understanding that this stereotype is a handy weapon not just for the upper caste men and women, but all those tend to be attracted by a caste determinist kind of identity politics. Even women on both sides of the caste divide sometimes might find this stereotype rather “user friendly”to borrow an expression of witticism used elsewhere in the same thread. However,I like to use the expression with a view to inviting more debates on resisting the stereotypes,rather than euphemistically suggesting to shut the windows toward problems of gender within a discourse of caste.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
it is very easy to brand a particular way of political expression as`caste determinist’.when a dalit,a muslim or a female try to speak out there is always a possibility of negative assertion.always there is `strategic essential ism involved.it could be easily read as determinist. a dalit can not speak without engaging with his own experience of caste.for an upper caste `it is easy to talk against caste because for them `it is always elsewhere’ .according to k m venugopal’s example(dalit male raping uc woman) all dalits are men and the only upper caste women can claim womanhood. there is complete absence of dalit women.so i have difference of opinion regarding this `gender position’.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:11 PM
My identity in comparison with others can be viewed as SYRIAN CHRISTIAN MALE. There can be various other attributes too. How ever I was thinking about the different negotiations with “others” in the spaces I have been involved. (By ‘Others’ I am only referring to caste here)
In my understanding (which can change), I’m not sure whether politically informed upper caste or politically informed lower caste men/ women will be able to engage together in a boat to visualize a brave new world as this togetherness will be a homogenous entity in terms of politics and praxis. Working with friends who belong to other castes have always been in constant conflict in ideological terms as well as in terms of the notion of power and implementation. From the point of view of politically informed upper castes, negotiations have been in the form charitable service. For instance, making a space for scholarship/ recommending the name for a post and so on. This could be seen as not acknowledging the meritocracy of the “other”, but a sympathetic feel of the “giver” which arises from the injustice their ancestors have done in the past. This constituted the language of the “giver” which also resulted in the role assignments which have thoroughly tried to make the “other” loyal to the “giver.
The doubts I have in mind are:
What are the possible spaces of dialogues and engagements and patterns with the politically informed friends (keeping in mind the identity dynamics and positions held)?
What are the narrations of the politically informed upper castes in engaging with the “other”? Is it”politically incorrect” if they will have to narrate?
June 20th, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The hegemony of upper caste is best challenged only when the system of privileges,the caste system itself is challenged..and the hypocrisy in efforts toward the so called uplift of ‘harijans’ has been best X-rayed by none other than Ambedkar.
It is not just the UC mentality of claim for hegemony that Ambedkar has decisively shattered; his major agenda of annihilation of caste by giving formidable challenge to the obscurantist system of belief itself(what is generally called Hinduism), seems deflected by a discourse of identity politics.
However, this is my personal observation thanks to my reading of Ambedkar in a particular way; I not also free from my own apprehensions about negotiating identities in a given field of unequal power relations which are dominated not just by caste but by gender( though mostly embedded in caste but not entirely)and the bourgeois political economy (again, though characterized by caste as its most salient feature, might need extra-castiest parameters for analysis as well).
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Ratheesh
Apologies for not showing the guts to reveal my name. But I am an upper caste male from Kerala.
Reading your post, I am confused. While recounting your bitter experiences with upper caste friends, you’ve mentioned about certain behaviours (of those upper castes) which you found discriminatory. You have narrated how you felt that certain ways in which they treated you were discriminatory, and that they did so because you are a lower caste. (Those experiences include, for eg, those upper castes not respecting you for your ideas, and using you as a clerk etc) My feeling is this: either you seem to be equating ‘making distinctions’ with ‘discriminating’. Or you have not explained well in your post why you felt your upper caste friends behaved with you in that manner precisely because you are a lower caste.
Let me try to explain. I feel all human relationships are founded on making distinctions between people. You value certain people more than certain others. Then make friends/enemy or love/hate, etc, with them. Even within a friendship circle, we consider the ideas of a particular person more interesting/useful than another, etc. This is a process of distinction-making that all of us do, I think. But as we all know, such distinctions are often made on casteist, racist, elitist grounds. Such distinction-makings are understood rightly as discrimination. (In Malayalam, we use the word ‘vivechanam’ for both these. While ‘vivechanam’ in ‘jaathi vivechanam’ stands for discrimination, ‘vivechanam’ in ‘vivechana budhi’ stands for discretion.) And we all know our relationships are not free of these discriminatory ‘distinction-makings,’ though we always deny such things, and get upset when someone points this out.
However, in your post it seems you are easily assuming that since upper castes don’t respect your ideas/don’t care to listen to your ideas, that is precisely because they are upper castes, and you are a lower caste. Or else, you are not giving any clear suggestions in the post why you are sure that they discriminated against you on casteist grounds in doing so. (I am aware of the inability of our discursive practices/scholarship, etc, to express such ‘suggestions’ in the cases of caste/gender discriminations, especially when we talk about our own friends, but still..) Why should I, as a reader, assume that your upper caste friends discriminated against you on casteist grounds when they did not respect your ideas? In my case, I also don’t respect/don’t care to listen to the ideas of a lot of people, and that include a lot of Dalits, lower castes, women, poor, upper castes, elites, men etc. I don’t pretend to have overcome all discriminatory mindsets. I have often found myself (or been rightly pointed out by others) as being discriminatory in such distinction-makings. However, I make sure that I do make distinctions between people on fair (‘fair’ according to my morality) grounds. But when someone accuses me of being discriminatory, I need to be convinced. In your account, I think that is missing.
I also wish to be respected by everyone for my ideas, but I can see easily that very few care about what I have to say. Even when someone cares to listen to my ideas, I have found out that often s/he don’t respect my ideas. At times, I have felt that I am being discriminated against (for various reasons). But more often, I have found out that there are fair reasons why people often don’t care to listen to my ideas, or don’t respect my ideas (and sometimes use me only for clerical purposes too). I can point out at least a dozen people (dalits as well as upper castes) from my small friends circle who approach me only for some help, and have never asked me about my ideas on something; but I can see that most of them do so because they know (rightly) that I don’t have many interesting ideas to share.
I have tried to be as clear as possible about my query. Nevertheless, let me state one thing: It was not my intention to make any comment about the larger political scenario. Nor was I trying to say (like someone here keeps posting) that there are other problems which need attention. I am aware of the various discriminatory practices that are in operation at various levels amongst us, and caste is one of the under-studied and strongly prevalent and extremely complex issues. My response is precisely to this post only. More precisely, about the fourth paragraph, beginning “PMD’s argument…” Hope I won’t be misunderstood.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I,m one among those silenced voices which kept mum for fear of going unheard.
N this is the first time I’m ‘speaking out’
pappu
One question- why do always UCs fear of being ‘mis’understood?
I’m writing this from a place which claims to be one of the most politicaly n intellectually vibrant campuses. I had several UC friends n I had tried to disagree with ratheesh (earlier) referring to them. I had the same argument as put frwrd by you.
But It occurred to me as a shock that all my frnds were so nice to me because they were unaware of my caste identity. As soon as they saw the category mentioned against my name on the admission list for MPhil, I was looked down upon . Some of them asked me why I did not mention my caste to them. I saw a marked difference in their behavior. I was thrown out of that group n they no longer felt me eligible to take part in their discussions.
But to my surprise they were always ready to help me with my work- my synopsis. Their generosity invoked a sense of being worthless in me. They started behaving with me like a child or rather like a junior student who has gone to the seniors to ask some help.n I should mention that my academic record was much better than any of these ‘saviours’.
Nw what do think mr, pappu?
June 29th, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Let me also try to look back and reflect on my experiences.. being both a ‘UC’ and a ‘BC’. And what could make it better.
Like in many CPM families, I was also brought up with a belief that caste did not exist in Kerala any more. But as I grew up I could see that wasn’t the case. I heard even progressive people (who I respected otherwise) making fun of a ‘parayan’ or ‘pulayan’ who got to a position of power (in the recent past there was a critique of an old story by C V Sreeraman on similar lines.. I believe it was a very CPM thing. The times have surely changed, CPM has also started admitting that caste exists. But even in this age there are ‘revolutionary’ films like Mayookham coming out in Malayalam.)
I my school and college I had many friends from dalit and other backward communities, but when I went to engineering college, the difference was stark. ‘Quota’ people suddenly became outsiders. I felt bad about it, but I could not escape it.
During my M.Tech. time I was shocked when a friend’s mother advised me that it is ok to find a girl of your choice, just make sure that she is not a pattika or kazhukkol.
Even when I feel shocked at that comment, I realized that the way our society is designed, it is unlikely that I’d go for a pattika. Even my dalit male friends have complained that it is difficult to find a good girl in their community, because they are all dark. Even in Tamil films, the heroine singing ‘Karupputhaan enakku pidicha kalaru‘ is essentially of the fairer kind. I still work with such issues internally, even though my beauty concepts have changed quite a lot over years.
(I think it is important to work on the discriminatory elements in ourselves, and to find out how others work on it. Rather than dismissing someone completely as having ‘upper caste sensibilities’. It has not been easy, one may not have the energy for that always, but I have tried that whenever I could, and have found that people do change over time. Even if I am most comfortable with people from same/similar communities.)
How all can we address this issue in a more public space is also not a simple one. Bobby was saying in their law college in Bangalore, they fought and achieved a system where the names are not listed separately. It is debatable how much would that help. I feel it is more important to bring about an awareness that reservations are not a favour that we (when I speak as a UC) do to some people, it is something that is essential and beneficial to all of us in many ways.
[I'm leaving it here for now. I know it does look incomplete.. maybe someone else can continue from here.]