Jaikant Tiwary
Conceptual Certification
social
categorization is the beginning of constructing ‘the
others’, Who are assumed to be different , based on race,
religion, language, caste, gender, class, life style and so
on (Van Dijk, 1987 : 196). The others may be different in
physical appearance (White, Black, Yellow, Brown), of alien
origin (immigrant, parasite) or of different behavioral
orientation (aggressive, deviant inimical). They may be
perceived to be unvalued in competition or may pose a threat
to each other (Miles and Phizacklea: 1979). However, all
such categorization could be negative, natural as wall as
positive, depending upon different value orientation. One
can visualize the nation of ‘otherness’ in terms of
hierarchy as well. For instance, I like my son better than
my neighbours, my neighbours better than strangers and
strangers better than enemies.
Oommen
(1994:162) formulated the following typologies of the
others: (a) equal, (b) Internal others, (c) deviant others,
(d) outsiders unequal others. The equal others may have
variations in terms of culture but they are neither inferior
nor superior. For instance, the French may not consider the
Germans inferior or the Tamils may not accept the Bengalis
as superior. The internal others are those perceived as
inferior in a particular society by the superior others and
vice versa. For instance the Blacks in the United States of
America or the lower castes in India. It is signified that
the internality of the inferior others is not questioned by
the superior others. The deviant others are also insider to
the system but they consist of those whose life style is
drastically different form and disapproved by the cultural
mainstream. For instance the drug addicts, the homosexuals.
The lesbians, et. al. The outsider unequal others are
cognized as superior/inferior but also defined as external
to the society. For instance the colonial Britishers in
India.
‘The Others’ in India.
The
construction of ‘the other’ invariably assumes the existence
of an unambiguous collective self identity. From the Indian
nationalist perspective the Britishers were the foremost
‘the other’ during the colonial ere. The national liberation
movement was in fact anti-imperialist movement agents the
other. The history of national movement in India reveals
quite clearly what the empire meant to India: Exploitation
of India’s resources for the benefit of Great Britain. Thus,
the nationalist ideology insisted on India’s inalienable
right to regain her independent.
Second,
India is seen as the accredited homeland of the Hindus and
from their viewpoint the Muslim belongs to the religious
other. The Christians, Jews, Bahais, Zoroastrians also
represent the religions others category. We may say that in
constructing the religious other, the basic cleavage is made
out to be the one bet win those religions. Faith which
originated in India and those which are of alien origin.
That is why the conversion from Hinduism to Sikkim, Jainism
or Buddhism have never been objected to by the Hindu
mainstream as all these are viewed as being of Indian origin
and there for encompassing within Hinduism. In contrast,
conversation to Islam and Christianity from Hinduism has
always been of a contentious nature as they represent
conversion to religion of alien origin.
Third,
Indian society applying Louis Dumont’s terminology, is ‘Homo
Hierarchicus.’ Dumont argues that hierarchy does not stop
short at the boundaries of caste or even the subcaste, but
penetrates and permits its interior. Indeed the three
principles of caste (hierarchy, separation and division of
labour) are reducible to a single true principle, namely
opposition of pure and improve. From this perspective, the
Bhangis (scavenger), the Doms and the likes who were engaged
in dirty and impure jobs, were called exterior castes or
untouchable. The caste society treated them as ‘the others.’
The practice of untouchability in its traditional from has
now declined significantly even though it has not
disappeared altogether. At times we observe recurrent
outburst of violence against them. Beteille (200: 367) calls
it as a change when the pervasive practice of untouchability
is replaced by the sporadic practice of atrocities.
There may
be many distinct construction of ‘thee others’
categorizations in Indian perspective like the linguistic
others, the ethnic and the tribal others, the gender others,
the regional others, etc. In other to construct ‘the other’,
there must exist actual or imagined differences between
‘them’ and ‘us’. Secondly, interaction with those who are
different is not prerequisite to construct them as the
other, other those who re not even seen are often
constructed on the basis of hearsay, folklore, art,
literature and the like , today this is done on the basic of
reports in the mass media. Thirdly, the other need not
necessarily invoke fear of hostility, but will invariably
create prejudices. The transformation of the distance other
into the immediate other and the perception that the latter
is endangering one’s interest is the starting point for the
crystallization of hostility towards and fear about the
other.
Gandhi’s Response Towards
‘the others’
Gandhi’s
own model of behaviour patterns towards ‘the others’
constituted a social behaviour structure impinges on Indian
society as s whole. Against the British colonizer, the
nationalist movements led by Gandhi were definitely imbued
with an anti imperialist content. Under Gandhi’s leadership
the nationalist movement spread considerably when he sought
to bring within its fold not only a wider section of the
lower middle class living in towns, but also the peasants
and workers. But the peculiar trait of mass awakening
brimmed over the limits of ahimsa of satyagraha, as the
workers and peasants started organising fresh militant
struggles, as the non-cooperation movement started gaining
the character of violent mass uprising, Gandhi stopped the
movement on the ground that the masses had resorted to
violent. Of the two streams of national liberation movement
– the bourgeois nationalist stream and the revolutionary
democratic stream-Gandhi decidedly represented the former.
Towards
the religious other Gandhi reacted “my whole soul Rebels
against the idea that Hinduism and Islam Represent two
antagonistic Cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a
doctrine is, for me, denial of God. For I believe with my
whole Soul that the god of the Koran is also the God of the
Gita, and that men are all, no matter by what name
designated, children of the same God.” (Rosario, 1990: 91)
Communal violence erupted in Naokhali and in Bangal on the
eve of partition and his padayatra provide futile, Gandhi
began his fast unto death. Slowly, violence subsided and
finally stopped completely. He believed that regional is the
path to union with the absolute. Union with the absolute
immediately put on in relation to all humanity in such a way
that all sufferings of human beings become one’s concern.
During
khilafat movement, Gandhi was sought by the Muslims to
address their meetings and to be a member of their
commission to represent there case to viceroy. Gandhi
supported the khilafat movement to secure Muslim
participation in the national movement. He played on the
religious sentiments of the people in order to unite them in
the struggle agents the common enemy, the British
colonizers. He strove to keep India one and undivided,
offering to Jinnah post of prime Minister of India. On
account of the division of the country on the day of
Independence, Gandhi was a sad man.
Gandhi
could speak in an idiom the people understood. The word
Ramrajya is evocative and brings before the people a certain
vision. But in using these image and symbols, Gandhi was
taking the risk of being misunderstood by some. Historians
like Bipin Chandra, criticizing Gandhi, offers the logic
that under highly religious and saintly Mahatma, Indian
nationalism spoke a language that was largely Hindu with a
liberal use of the idiom and symbolism of Hinduism, that in
the end. Gandhi failed to keep Muslim masses with him and
that the partition of the country and the unprecedented
bloodbath that accompanied it proved the final failure of
Gandhi’s method in securing Hindu Muslim unity. We believe
that the central problem of India secularism is that of
evolving a minimum consensus about the basic values, goals,
institutions and ground rules of society. What is the source
of these rules and values? Gandhi derived these mostly from
his Hindu heritage and it is probable that this has the
consequence of alienating section of the Muslim masses from
the Gandhi led nationalist movement.
Towards
the internal others i.e., the shudras, the chandals, the
untouchable exterior castes, Gandhi maintained that man’s
duties or vocational in society did not in any way imply the
nation of touchability. He used to call them Harijans (a man
of god). By taking up the cause of untouchables, Gandhi was
challenging much of the traditional and orthodox ideas
concerning the caste system and deep rooted customer. He
believed that our own fellow beings have become untouchables
because of evil in us. The evil does not lie in them; rather
lies in those who have reduce them to a poor miserable
beastly life. He made it his life’s mission to live and die
for them. He said “If I have to be reborn, I should be born
an untouchable so that I may share their sorrows, suffering
and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may
endeavour to free my self and them from that miserable
condition.”
Gandhi
initiated the process leading to the liberation of
scavengers and raised their status and position in society.
When Gandhi attended the volunteers not to engage
scavengers. Surprisingly enough, the volunteers expressed
their inability to do any thing about it. Mahatma Gandhi set
the pace by cleaning his own night soil with the help of a
broom. It made a grate impact on the minds of the volunteers
and thereafter, whenever the All India Congress convention
was organized, the volunteers themselves had to take up the
task of disposing of the night soil. In 1918, when Gandhi
started his Ashram at Sabarmati, he advised the inmates of
the Ashram to tackle the problem of disposal of night soil
themselves and not to engage professional bhangis for that
work. In 1984 Mrs. Indira Gandhi disclosed in the Lok Sabha
during the question hour that she herself had to cline night
soil while living as an inmate of the Sabarmati Ashram. It
shows the concern of Gandhi about the plight of scavengers.
To the
issue: were Gandhi and Ambedkar really different in their
perceptions of the Harijan/Dalit problem? Nagraj (1990:79)
opines that they were not different. But the general
impression one gets from the external details of
contemporary history is that Gandhi and Ambedkar confronted
each other bitterly on the question of Harijan/ Dalit. The
historical irony is that both of them perceived it as a
problem of the value structure. But the root of the
confrontation lies on the ground that while Gandhi did
approve of a society with functional distinction of varna
vyavastha, he lacked a radical critique of the caste system.
Gandhi believed that both Harijans and cast Hindu society
are organically intertwined; ‘the self’ and ‘the other’ are
indivisible. The notion of untouchability has to disappear
from the mind and heater of the caste Hindu society. ‘The
other’ should change. His emphasis was on clinging to the
other. To Ambedkar, on the other hand, the entire Hindu
society was an anathema, an evil. Ambedkar ruled out the
path of interaction with the other, of inevitable clinging
to the other. His logic of separate electorate for the
scheduled casts are based on his belief that if Dalit
society becomes militant and aggressive, cast Hindu society
will be forced to come to its senses. This mode of action
rejects the Gandhian obsession ‘with the other’.
Conclusion
Gandhi
represents a new source, a new beginning in Indian history.
It was who harnessed the spiritual religion potential
tolerance and endurance in dealing ‘with the others’. He had
holistic approach to reality. He did not make two
compartments of ethics and politics. He stood for a value
based politics and an ethics that is politically oriented
There were many constraints and limitations which Gandhi was
subject to, especially those imposed by the struggle for the
independence. He had to make tactical compromises. He had
also limitations arising from his caste, class and religious
background. But Gandhi sought visibility to the values which
he and his action embodied and symbolized. That is how he
could win belief in, and adoption and limitation of, the
values of he stood for. Gandhi was seeking to transform his
behavior in social structure. He died in the very process,
for this very purpose, of instituting a non-violent
behavioral structure as an alternative to the violent one in
the interest of survival of every suspect of life. In
nutshell, Gandhi’s response to ‘the others’ is a message to
the mankind.
References:
Beteille, Andre (2000),
“The schedule castes”, Journal of the Indian School of
Political Economy, 12 (3 and 4): 367-79.
Dumont, Louis (1966),
“Homo Hierarchieus”, Paris: Gallimard.
Gandhi, M. K. (1931),
Young India, 6th August, 1931.
Miles, R. and phizacklea, A. (eds)
(1979), “Racism and Political Action in Britain”,
London: Roultedge & Kegan Paul.
Nagraj, D. R. (1990),
“Gandhi and the Dalit Question: Comparative Reflection on
the Gandhian, Ambedkar and Marxist Approaches”, in Kappen,
Mercy (ed), “Gandhi And Social Action Today”, Sterling
Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Oommen, T. K. (1994),
“The Changing Trajectory of Constructing the other: West
Europe and South Asia”, Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 43, No
2, Sept. 161-62.
Rosario, Rupert M. (1990),
“Gandhi and Secularism”, in Kappen, Mercy (ed) op. cit.,
pp.91.
Van Dijk, T. K. (1987),
“Communicating Racism”, Sage: Newbury Park.
-
Cuba, For Example, has a better social medical system
for its citizens than any other country. Yet, it is
never counted among the developed lot.
-
This also implies that we maintain our standard of
living by stealing from the future-our children, and our
grandchildren.
-
It would be interesting to note 84% of never to Farmer
in Minnesota (a State in USA) was from federal subsidies
and the like. That is the kind of subsidies and safety
nets that farmers in the USA get to stay ‘competitive’.
Who say free trade or free market is really free?
-
Krishna Patnaik, ‘Vikalpheen nahin hai duniya’, This is
a set of essays in Hindi. The title can be translated to
mean ‘The world is not without alternative’.
Source: “Gandhian Perspectives”, Vol. XI, No. 1&2, Jan-June
& July- Dec, 2003 |