'The class brokering Dalit interests should be eliminated'

OneIndia: Do you think that a typical top-down model of socio-political development has evolved in the Dalit society? The general view is that the Dalit development model should evolve from below. Doesn't the top-down model make it easier for the mainstream to manipulate the prospects of growth for the downtrodden?

Dr Teltumbde: You are right but only partly. A top-down model of development has not evolved but was intrinsic to the Dalit movement. It was somewhat natural to imagine that if some Dalits reached the positions of power, they would safeguard the interests of other Dalits. Dr Ambedkar exactly envisaged this process when he demanded reservations. One has to concede that there was no better option available for him which would have worked under the circumstances.

He spoke in favour of land reforms and a socialist form of economy with a strong constitutional approval, which would have empowered the masses and reversed the developmental model. But how does one do such things without a revolution? The Fabian influence on Ambedkar, rooted in the belief that revolution can be brought about peacefully, was not amenable to revolutions.

He developed, therefore, a representational logic that if a highly-educated Ambedkar could do so much for the Dalits, a few more people would do much more! He, thus, stressed higher education, opened colleges but not schools and emphasised on bureaucratic jobs for educated Dalits instead of mass employment.

But in reality, the political reservation that formed the bedrock to orient politics in favour of Dalits became more detrimental to Dalit interests. It only created stooges, brokers for Dalit interests. But it was quite late by then and Dr Ambedkar could not do much to undo it. The political reservation, which he had wanted only for ten years became a perennial affair. Obviously the ruling classes gained from it. The similar thing happened with education and other reservations; in sense that they helped only the better-off to monopolise them leaving the needy high and dry. Like Macaulay's scheme, they also proved beneficial to the ruling classes.

I agree that the development model should be bottom-up. Land reforms would have been the most important measure for economic independence and empowerment of the Dalits for they are mainly rural people attached to land. Land in our country is not only an economic factor but also a key determinant of social status.

Universal free and compulsory education through common schools, free health care and labour-oriented industrialization could have facilitated the development model but it did not happen. The to-down model, instead, helped the better-placed to manipulate those placed below. A logic works in such an approach that seeks to throttle the development of the backward by various means.

OneIndia: Do you think that the political elite, which identify itself the messiah of the Dalits today, can really deliver any justice to those who are really at a disadvantage? Is there a possibility that a new force, claiming itself as the 'real saviour' of the downtrodden, emerge to replace the leadership which has been more absorbed in the mainstream today?

Dr Teltumbde: There is little possibility of the elite delivering justice to the Dalit masses. I said the Dalit political elite are brokers of their interests, who work on behalf of the ruling classes. But they have done little in reality. No original bill for the betterment of the Dalits was ever tabled in the parliament by these worthies. These brokers never articulated concerns for the Dalit masses on their own in the parliament and have only remained loyal to the masters' voice.

Instead of raising voices over issues like atrocities, problems of manual scavengers, deprivation of Dalit children of education and others, these elites have been found supporting policies detrimental to the Dalit interests, including those on globalisation. Feigning their intellectual capacity, the elite has disputed key issues like land reforms, basic education in mother tongue and pushed the masses deeper into the morass of identity. This 'broker class', I am using the term with absolute responsibility, surely needs to be eliminated. But how can it be done in the current political system?

I don't see a new force emerging from within such a degrading system. I am not saying this out of pessimism. The basic model of Dalit emancipation needs to be reconceived. The model, which is based on caste identity, isn't viable theoretically as well practically. Because caste as a category seeks hierarchy and is therefore disintegrative. No radical change can be brought about on the basis of such a category.

Over the years, the incipient identity of Ambedkar's 'Dalit' as a quasi-class of the organic proletariat here could not be created on the basis of caste. Jotiba Phule's bahujan comprising shudra and ati-shudras (Dalits) did not last beyond his death. Of course, the idea worked well for the BSP for its electoral gains but it made it a ruling-class party.

Honestly looking at the Dalit movement over the last century, one will conclude that caste can never be the basis for any radical transformation. It has to be the class then. Mahatma Phule and Babasaheb Ambedkar knew it but lack of ideological resources stopped them from conceiving their 'class' without referring to the 'caste' identity. With an advantage of hindsight, today we can say that the poisonous identity of caste must be discarded. I am aware that It is a difficult task but unfortunately there is no easy option.

Dalit emancipation should be identified with that of similar other people in terms of class. The current blockade that the communist and Dalit movements face makes such development more necessary. It is only through ideological pursuits that a new force can be expected to rise.