The ban on Aarakshan in three States offers an opportunity for the Right to distinguish itself by asserting the constitutional morality envisaged by BR Ambedkar. This is the moment for the Right to embrace Ambedkarite constitutionalism as an effective antidote to both the statist policies of Leftist ideologues and the dynastic politics of the Left-leaning Congress.
It began as a game of political one-upmanship by a maverick conscience-keeper but with the Uttar Pradesh Government taking the lead in banning Prakash Jha’s film Aarakshan, the proverbial floodgates it seems have been opened. The ban on Aarakshan by Uttar Pradesh has been followed by two other States at the time of writing this column with several others likely to follow suit. It is anybody’s guess at this time if the movie will hit the theatres as per its intended release schedule. But one thing is certain; the version that will eventually release in India will see much politically correct editing.
Six decades of caste-based quotas later both the quantum of quotas and sensitivity over caste prejudices both remain a hot button political issue. For a while during 2006, much thanks to Arjun Singh’s championship, the nation was once again witness to street protests over caste-based reservations. The near total political consensus on quotas, the long drawn court interventions and the political line pursued by the UPA regime of universalising entitlements, those street protests soon fizzled out. With the exception of Rajasthan which saw fiery caste conflict over quotas, for the most part the last few years have been bereft of any mass political movements on caste.
Political empowerment of specific caste groups in different States has also perhaps contributed to this relative calm. In fact, the dominant political paradigm of the past few election cycles at the State level has been political consolidation based on a stable caste configuration. Ms Mayawati’s Sarvajan strategy, Mr Nitish Kumar’s micro-mandalisation and the latest attempt in Maharashtra to script a grand coalition between the Shiv Sena, BJP and Mr Ramdas Athavale’s RPI are examples of this shift at the State level. But for the occasional noise on quotas in the private sector there hasn’t been much clamour for new quotas.
The demand for communal sub-quotas within existing quotas continues to have some traction, especially from Dalit-Christian groups. The rise of the Dalit entrepreneur and the broader shift to a private sector economy in most areas has also contributed to this relative calm.
The politics of universal entitlements and the politics of empowerment have overtaken the politics over quotas. It is no accident that corruption bred by the twin evils of crony capitalism and crony socialism has become the dominant issue past many months for that corruption is a by-product of these dominant political twins. It would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the politics of quotas is on a graph of diminishing returns. Hence the political brouhaha over Aarakshan defies logic.
It is understandable that in the run-up to the high stakes battle in Uttar Pradesh there is one-upmanship over who is perceived to be the guardian of Dalit interests. This perhaps explains SC/ST Commission chairman PL Punia’s activism against the movie and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s pre-emptive strike to neutralise any potential political dividends to the Congress. But the speed with which this has spread to Punjab and far south Andhra Pradesh makes it all the more curious. Are we back to the days of caste-based mobilisation and street protests or is this political chain reaction an aberration?
Sensitivity to caste prejudice is a political holy cow much like Gandhi’s legacy. The political chain reaction over any perceived slight on Gandhi or, for that matter, Ambedkar has now acquired a predictable trajectory. The chain reaction over Aarakshan is a manifestation of the same political correctness. Some may argue against this from the pulpit of absolute freedom of expression and the tyranny of all identity politics. But a more effective counter-argument to this political correctness would be to hold the protagonists to the Gandhi test or the Ambedkar test.
So what would BR Ambedkar have done if he were alive today in response to the movie ‘Aarakshan’?
Ambedkar’s many interventions during the Constituent Assembly debates offer the best guide to his thought process on contemporary issues. Ambedkar also makes his views on freedoms quite clear in his States and Minorities, calling for no restrictions on freedoms except in the rarest of rare cases involving public order and morality. One can perversely interpret “public order” and “morality” to justify the politically opportunistic pre-emptive actions of the kind we are witnessing today.
However, Ambedkar leaves no room for ambiguity in his ‘Grammar of Anarchy’ speech in which he calls caste prejudices of all kinds “anti-national” because they generate “jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste”. In the same speech he also makes clear his preference for politics of empowerment with his clarion call to “make room for realisation of aspirations”.
It must be said that the Right has been timid and unimaginative in its embrace of Ambedkar. It may pay lip service to him as an icon but has offered little respect to his constitutionalism and unshakeable faith in due process and rule of law. There is much in Ambedkar’s constitutionalism to support a coherent centre-right agenda, if close attention is paid to his interventions in the Constituent Assembly debates and to his writings.
The debate over the ban on Aarakshan is an opportunity for the Right to distinguish itself by asserting the constitutional morality envisaged by Ambedkar. It is time the Right look beyond political Hindutva of the 1990s to embrace an Ambedkarite constitutionalism as an effective antidote to both the statist policies of the Leftist ideologues and to the dynastic politics of the Left-leaning Congress.
Source: The Pioneer
Six decades of caste-based quotas later both the quantum of quotas and sensitivity over caste prejudices both remain a hot button political issue. For a while during 2006, much thanks to Arjun Singh’s championship, the nation was once again witness to street protests over caste-based reservations. The near total political consensus on quotas, the long drawn court interventions and the political line pursued by the UPA regime of universalising entitlements, those street protests soon fizzled out. With the exception of Rajasthan which saw fiery caste conflict over quotas, for the most part the last few years have been bereft of any mass political movements on caste.
Political empowerment of specific caste groups in different States has also perhaps contributed to this relative calm. In fact, the dominant political paradigm of the past few election cycles at the State level has been political consolidation based on a stable caste configuration. Ms Mayawati’s Sarvajan strategy, Mr Nitish Kumar’s micro-mandalisation and the latest attempt in Maharashtra to script a grand coalition between the Shiv Sena, BJP and Mr Ramdas Athavale’s RPI are examples of this shift at the State level. But for the occasional noise on quotas in the private sector there hasn’t been much clamour for new quotas.
The demand for communal sub-quotas within existing quotas continues to have some traction, especially from Dalit-Christian groups. The rise of the Dalit entrepreneur and the broader shift to a private sector economy in most areas has also contributed to this relative calm.
The politics of universal entitlements and the politics of empowerment have overtaken the politics over quotas. It is no accident that corruption bred by the twin evils of crony capitalism and crony socialism has become the dominant issue past many months for that corruption is a by-product of these dominant political twins. It would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the politics of quotas is on a graph of diminishing returns. Hence the political brouhaha over Aarakshan defies logic.
It is understandable that in the run-up to the high stakes battle in Uttar Pradesh there is one-upmanship over who is perceived to be the guardian of Dalit interests. This perhaps explains SC/ST Commission chairman PL Punia’s activism against the movie and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s pre-emptive strike to neutralise any potential political dividends to the Congress. But the speed with which this has spread to Punjab and far south Andhra Pradesh makes it all the more curious. Are we back to the days of caste-based mobilisation and street protests or is this political chain reaction an aberration?
Sensitivity to caste prejudice is a political holy cow much like Gandhi’s legacy. The political chain reaction over any perceived slight on Gandhi or, for that matter, Ambedkar has now acquired a predictable trajectory. The chain reaction over Aarakshan is a manifestation of the same political correctness. Some may argue against this from the pulpit of absolute freedom of expression and the tyranny of all identity politics. But a more effective counter-argument to this political correctness would be to hold the protagonists to the Gandhi test or the Ambedkar test.
So what would BR Ambedkar have done if he were alive today in response to the movie ‘Aarakshan’?
Ambedkar’s many interventions during the Constituent Assembly debates offer the best guide to his thought process on contemporary issues. Ambedkar also makes his views on freedoms quite clear in his States and Minorities, calling for no restrictions on freedoms except in the rarest of rare cases involving public order and morality. One can perversely interpret “public order” and “morality” to justify the politically opportunistic pre-emptive actions of the kind we are witnessing today.
However, Ambedkar leaves no room for ambiguity in his ‘Grammar of Anarchy’ speech in which he calls caste prejudices of all kinds “anti-national” because they generate “jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste”. In the same speech he also makes clear his preference for politics of empowerment with his clarion call to “make room for realisation of aspirations”.
It must be said that the Right has been timid and unimaginative in its embrace of Ambedkar. It may pay lip service to him as an icon but has offered little respect to his constitutionalism and unshakeable faith in due process and rule of law. There is much in Ambedkar’s constitutionalism to support a coherent centre-right agenda, if close attention is paid to his interventions in the Constituent Assembly debates and to his writings.
The debate over the ban on Aarakshan is an opportunity for the Right to distinguish itself by asserting the constitutional morality envisaged by Ambedkar. It is time the Right look beyond political Hindutva of the 1990s to embrace an Ambedkarite constitutionalism as an effective antidote to both the statist policies of the Leftist ideologues and to the dynastic politics of the Left-leaning Congress.
Source: The Pioneer
