Books
POLITICS OF INCLUSION: Castes, Minorities and Affirmative Action
by Zoya Hasan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009.INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE: Field Studies from Rural India edited by B.S. Baviskar and George Mathew. Sage, New Delhi, 2009.
WHEN a country as diverse as India embarks on its democratic journey, it is time, as Jawaharlal Nehru said, to ‘redeem our pledge’, ‘(t)o bring freedom and opportunity to the common man.’ However, despite the emphasis that ‘the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now’,
1 structures of the past are as difficult to dismantle as it is to build a new architectural edifice for the future. The deeply ingrained exclusionary social structures in India were one such set of arrangements that were expected to come in the way of equality, justice and ‘dignity of individual’ that was politically and constitutionally promised in free India, including representative democracy. This was well anticipated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who minced no words in stating this during his thoughtful penultimate day speech at the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949: ‘On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.… We must remove this contradiction at the earliest moment, or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.’2Jawaharlal Nehru too was aware of this. However, his distaste for casteism, communalism and religious bigotry was phenomenal. No wonder, despite his concerns for pockets of impoverishment and backwardness, he was not inclined to ‘reservation’ as an instrument of affirmative action. However, he agreed to protective discrimination for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with 15 per cent and 7.5 per cent job quota respectively, as he conceded historical discrimination and oppressive exploitation they suffered and the consequent structural backwardness that engulfed their communities. Yet, even when he conceded a commission to consider backwardness based protective discrimination, he did not allow the use of caste; the commission chaired by Kaka Kalelkar was named the Backward Classes Commission. And, since he was not in favour of job reservations, he let its report gather dust, rather than act.
The second report of the Backward Classes Commission headed by B.P. Mandal revived the political debate on the extension of the politics of inclusion in the late 1970s and the 1980s, culminating in its acceptance in 1990 and its further extension in 2006. The Prime Minister’s High Level Committee on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community in India headed by Justice (retired) Rajinder Sachar, gave the debate a new dimension.
The findings of two recent books under discussion here, which present a useful and topical context to discourse inclusion and exclusion in panoramic as well as contemporary political, constitutional processual frames of reference, give us an understanding of the meta-politics as well as micro-politics of inclusion and exclusion. India’s politics of the past two decades has brought the issues of inclusion and exclusion to the foreground in a variety of ways. The rise of the politics of Hindutva championed by the BJP, and its majoritarian focus, has questioned extant minority welfare policies, which have been weak in any case. Unfortunately, the politics of the minorities has been unable to cope with it. On the other hand, the rise of Dalit and OBC politics independent of the prevailing national and regional party systems, spearheaded by ‘original’ parties such as the BSP and leaders who were never part of the mainstream parties, has added hitherto unseen flamboyant hues to the inclusion discourse. The two studies acquire an added significance in the context of the 15th general elections, which is certain to make the debate and politics even more intense. The brief discussion here, more than review the books, attempts to underscore the issues that emerge from them and stress the need for further social science investigation that looks for problem solving and policy options.
Zoya Hasan’s meticulously documented, neatly chronicled and dispassionately analyzed work critiques the emergence of the politics, debate and mindsets on inclusion of the communities that were either excluded (e.g., Dalits and Adivasis), or were apprehensive of exclusion (such as minorities, particularly Muslims) in an emerging democratic India. The framework of preferential inclusion for the former emerging during the British rule had acceptance given historic wrongs; that of the latter was caught into unacceptability of the framework blamed for Partition. While affirmative action for the Dalits and the Adivasis was acceptable across the political spectrum, it was not acceptable, as it is not even now, for the minorities. The two sets of communities also had different notions of self as well as what they expected from the post-independence Indian state. ‘For minorities, knowledge and concern are invariably centred on issues of security and identity, and not of equity and justice, whilst the problem of lower castes are squarely located in the context of justice, equality, and democracy’ (p. 9).
Hasan’s analysis of policies, programmes and politics brings out that these differing conceptions and perceptions of inclusion amongst the leaders and the parties have come in the way effective realization of the goals of economic upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes too. The biases have indeed melted a bit in a cosmopolitan milieu, but they run deep in the country, a fact that the Baviskar-Mathew collection brings out rather starkly (we shall come to the details in a while), and have come in the way of social, political and economic amelioration of deep-rooted exclusionary prejudices and frameworks. That the Muslims need state action ensuring justice, equality, and democracy and their politics needs to go beyond identity and security came out unambiguously only after the Sachar Commission Report. Indeed, the discourse on Mandal I and Mandal II too had indicated that backwardness amongst the Muslims was endemic. Hyphenated identities such as Dalit-Christians, Adivasi-Christians and Dalit-Muslims continue to remain hot potatoes for both the government and parties. The rise of the politics of Hindutva has further queered the pitch in rationalizing politics and policies in treating their problems.
However, the discourse on affirmative action, which has been equated only with reservations in jobs, and now in educational opportunities, has become complex. What kind of preferential policies, or affirmative action, beyond job reservation could be conceived to deal with the extreme economic and social backwardness persisting amongst the Muslims and other minorities? Does the representational deficit of these communities, who have been unable to compete in the employment arena with better-off communities, leads to prejudice and dereliction of duty visible amongst the police and general administration, as witnessed during social, communitarian and collective violence across the country? That they should have representation and a fair share of the national cake is unexceptionable, but whether that would by itself mitigate violence and elicit a better response from the public services dealing with such conflictual situation is a matter deserving debate. The merit of Zoya Hasan’s exceptional effort is an unprejudiced and dispassionate analysis of such issues. Without placing majoritarianism against minorityism, the clarion call of the Hindutva forces for two decades, she makes a case for rational choice by the government, parties, leaders and civil society in the matter. The exclusionary mindset must give way to rational inclusionary policies is the unmistakable message that the study underlines.
As one puts aside Hasan’s study and leafs through the Baviskar-Mathew collection emerging out of field studies on exclusion and inclusion in the realm of Panchayati Raj post-73rd Amendment in twelve states, the fifteen essays (including Introduction) in the volume indicate that the minorities – Muslims, Christians and others – are not part of this story. This not only indicates the representational shortfall that Hasan has succinctly pointed out, but also the democratic deficit at the grassroots institutions. It must also be underscored at the outset that political parties are the first forum and institutional framework that must operationalize and practice inclusion in its most comprehensive manifestation; an act that does not need any legal instrument. However, the parties that should be the first forums have based themselves on the prevailing structures of exclusion and have even violated any statutory instrument that they themselves created for garnering electoral support. The tussle over gender representation in the Parliament and legislatures gives ample proof of this. The political parties, which have a constitutionally ordained presence in the local arena since the 73rd and 74th Amendment, appear to blink over, if not approve of, the continuing deficits. In many cases they use it for gaining a stranglehold over the panchayat bodies.
The structures of dominance existing in rural India, lorded over by dominant families in different degrees in different parts of the country, have been strengthened through party politics. They had traditionally captured the emerging democratic spaces since independence. Now that they have been compelled to cede the vantage points in local institutions to women, Dalits and Adivasis, they have found new ways to keep their dominance intact. Indeed, what is true in the twelve states discussed in the Baviskar-Mathew volume, is equally valid for other states not discussed within these covers. Needless to say that experiences from the other sixteen states would have added value to the book. The Left politics in West Bengal, for example, as Manasendu Kundu’s study points out, has created a partisan inclusion; the party’s control is absolute. The issue of party identity comes up in other case studies too and indicates that genuine democratization is difficult unless parties are themselves democratized. Without substantive changes in the party recruitment at the grassroots and the creation of an open platform for the blossoming of the leadership, the process will experience a bumpy path.
The stories of ‘panchpati’ in panchayat after panchayat since the inception of the 73rd Amendment are legendary. There have been hints in certain cases that women have managed to emerge out of that shadow. The Baviskar-Mathew volume appears to argue otherwise. However, the methodology used does not appear nuanced enough to capture subtle changes that may be occurring. Even a minor aberration from this model should have been recorded.
Ensuring representation, office and political rights statutorily to Dalits and Adivasis has increased their visibility. However, they not only face structures of dominance forcing them to be proxies, they still suffer the humiliation of untouchability. At best, it is their distanced presence that is accepted in the panchayats now. Obviously, over six decades since independence and the nearly six decades since the Republic, India has still to overcome this scourge. The constitutional requirements, affirmative action legislations and the democratic discourse on inclusion have given them space, but they have yet to travel a good distance. Unfortunately, the Dalit leaders too have displayed a tendency to turn proxies. B.B. Mohanty’s analysis of Orissa, for example, points out that ‘the inclusion of members of the SCs and women in panchayats has only helped the rich to consolidate their economic position’ (p. 66). It also brings out that the process of political inclusion has given them participation, not empowerment.
The two studies highlight the difficulties inherent in operationalizing inclusive policies in India. The discourse on inclusion in India has several inherent complexities. The lines of identities, segregation, rights and so on intersect each other at several points, making policy options complex. Taking the call for minority-inclusive policy as an example, we would do well to recall the discourse during the terror acts in Jaipur, Delhi and Mumbai, particularly the Batla house encounter in Jamia Nagar in Delhi. The incidents brought new focus on Azamgarh, related earlier with the name of poet Kaifi Azmi, as a terror hub. In place of an informed debate, it became part of a blame game from both sides. Similarly, as succinctly brought out by Hasan, the hyphenated exclusionary identities become victims of policy neglect.
The discourse on exclusion and inclusion in India in the past few years has been enriched by the Sachar Committee Report. The merit of the committee’s report in suggesting inclusionary frameworks beyond caste and religion by framing a diversity index and creating an Equal Opportunity Commission has been lost in the unwarranted political heat. Consequently, the Madhava Menon Expert Group’s recommendations on Equal Opportunity Commission and the Amitabh Kundu Expert Group’s recommendations on a diversity index, and their operationalization and institutionalization have neither been discussed politically, nor academically. We need to move beyond the structured barriers in our journey towards inclusion. The two books make a valuable academic contribution in that direction.
Ajay K. Mehra
1. From Nehru’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech.
2. Constituent Assembly Debates, New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1989, vol. IX, p. 979.
MUSLIMS AND MEDIA IMAGES: News Versus Views edited by Ather Farouqui. Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2009.
THIS edited volume questions the prevalent representation of Indian Muslims, especially in print media and popular Bollywood films by bringing together varied perspectives and opinions. The editor has tried to initiate a discussion on the complexity of the theme, well reflected in the selection of articles arranged in four parts of the book.
The book makes a broad assertion that nation building, which has been the dominating agenda of almost all forms of media in post-colonial India, conceptualises the idea of mainstream in such a way that a well-defined Indian identity becomes the representative of progress, entrepreneurship and happiness, while those who were/are outside this fold actually turn out to be the other – symbols of violence, intolerance, obscene, backwardness, and fanaticism. The Muslim image, which has been a contested political issue since the Partition of British India, should be seen in this larger perspective as a revealing example of the ‘other’.
The book revolves around four important issues. First, there is a contradiction between the images of Muslim community and the reality of their actual socio-cultural domain. Rajni Kothari, Mrinal Pande and Siddharth Varadarajan more broadly suggest that the negative Muslim image should be seen in relation to the wider power structure of Indian society/polity as a result of which certain socio-cultural images are constructed and disseminated. The Muslim image, therefore, is also a product of an interaction between the political power structure and media.
The internal power dynamics of the Indian Muslim community and its relationship with the media is the second important concern. According to Vinod Mehta and Kuldeep Nayyar, the media, particularly the English media, has its own operational logic based on certain unavoidable commercial compulsions. Moreover, media also faces problem in reaching out to the real Muslim concerns. They further argue that Muslim socialites, who dominate the social and religious domain, either misrepresent the community or are distant from the real Muslim issues. The lack of genuine and real Muslim voices in the public sphere due to the relative educational backwardness further intensifies the problem of Muslim image. Therefore, they suggest that educated Muslims must come forward to break the existing negative image of the community.
The role of Urdu press in the making of Muslim image is the third important objective of the book. Ather Farouqui and Robin Jeffery’s articles suggest that the decline of Urdu as a language has seriously affected the prospects of Urdu journalism. Farouqui argues that Urdu journalism has failed to perform its role as a possible community media. It has shaped the Muslim social and political discourse in a negative, sectarian direction while ignoring the changing social-economic realities of Muslims in India. Limited career opportunities for Urdu journalists, their inefficiency and specific financial constrains are also highlighted by the contributors.
Finally, the book examines the media representation of Muslims at regional, national, and even international levels. Contributors somehow agree that the regional as well as international media has played a non-responsive and insensitive role in constructing a negative image of the Muslim community and Islam. Despite the regional diversity of Muslims, there are some set images of Muslims in media. Growing pan-Islamism and the so-called Islamic terrorism, which reflect the global crisis of Muslim identity, are the dominant signifiers of Muslims and Islam in the international media.
The two articles on Bollywood by Moinuddin Jainabade and John W. Hood further elaborate this broad argument. They problematize the ways in which Muslim issues are tackled or entirely ignored in mainstream as well as in parallel cinema. Jainabade notes that apart from films, Muslims are even ignored in TV serials, commercials and advertisements. Hood on the other hand, writes about some serious efforts in Bengali and Malayalam art cinema which have dealt with Muslim issues sensitively but, at the same time, admits that these efforts are limited.
The book makes a courageous effort in bringing out the views of a diverse group of contributors on the issue of Muslim image, always a sensitive matter in general intellectual discourse. The different articles highlight the complex positions, compulsions and politics of mainstream media, given the nature of Indian politics, the commercial aspects of media and above all, the multiplicity of issues affecting the Muslim image.
The book, however, raises a few fundamental concerns. The editor, in his rather lengthy introduction, makes a broad and somewhat obvious generalization that ‘Muslim image is indeed negative.’ In his opinion, though the contributors ‘offer different causes and solutions for the phenomenon… they all feel that this is a matter of urgent necessity’ (p. 20). This generalization, somehow presented as the argument of the book serves to undermine the editor’s own efforts since all contributors are not necessarily responding to so-called Muslims grievances. More disappointingly, the editor fails to capture the rich diversity of arguments advanced by the different contributors.
This point leads us to a second problematic aspect. While questioning the given media image of the Muslim community as one homogeneous entity, the editor, it seems, is not clear about his own intellectual response. On the one hand, he argues that Muslims are depicted as backward and ghettoized, while on the other, he keeps reiterating that the ‘pressing need is to make Muslims understand that modernization and reform are the only answer to their problems’ (p. 335). So, we are left with two contradictory premises in relation to Muslim reality: (a) Muslims are really not backward but the media depicts them as such; (b) Muslims are really backward and they need to modernize their society. In an effort to show the ‘Real Muslims’, the editor does attach a rejoinder as appendix at the end of the book telling us about the corrupt ‘Muslim leadership’ and ‘backward looking Mullah’, but this criticism is highly polemical and does not offer any serious analysis. In addition, the editor does not offer any conceptual explanation to terms such as media, representation, image construction and so on. He simply relies on the prevalent notions and the collection of different views on this theme. Since the ‘production’ of Muslim image is the central concern of the book, this lack of conceptual clarity makes a crucial relationship between the real and the represented highly ambiguous.
This conceptual ambiguity is further seen in the discussion on the idea of Muslim community. The editor problematizes the contradiction between the reality of a diversified Muslim community and the represented image of a homogeneous Muslim community in India. He suggests that the negative portrayal of Muslims is inextricably linked to the idea of Muslim homogeneity and media has to represent Muslim diversity. This formulation leads to a basic problem: how could the representation of Muslim diversity contribute to a positive Muslim image? After all, media has its own politics and a commercial logic of survival. He fails to recognize the fact that the production of images is a complex process and the negative/positive and/or homogeneous/diversified Muslim images are not constructed in newspaper offices and film production units!
Despite these editorial limitations, the book offers a rich discussion on the relationship between Muslims and the Muslim image(s) in media. In fact, it provokes the reader to think how communities are imaged through media, and how these images are received in the complex post-globalized public sphere of media dominated contemporary India.
Nazima Parveen
THE NO NONSENSE GUIDE TO MINORITY RIGHTS IN SOUTH ASIA by Rita Manchanda. Sage Publications, New Delhi, 2009.
THE book provides insights into minority questions from the standpoint of ‘non-domination’ and ‘powerlessness’ of communities in six South Asian countries, namely India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Bhutan. Among other significant questions that this book addresses are: How minorities and majorities are constructed in a nation state. How minorities are recognized and why they need special rights. What are the processes of creation of new minorities and what is the situation of minorities within minorities and majorities. And how has minority rights been instrumental in enhancing cultural identity, diversity, equality and equity in the region? Drawing from constitutional, legal and policy frameworks and empirical evidence, the author extensively discusses these and other questions.
The book is presented in four chapters. The first chapter discusses in-depth issues of recognition and minority rights. Rita Manchanda provides a useful historical account of the debate on the recognition of minorities, with a special focus on colonial rule and the formation of independent nation states in South Asia. For instance, the colonial government in India chose to introduce religion as the fundamental category of administrative classification, whereas in Sri Lanka it was ethnic identities. She argues that the processes of post-colonial nation building in the region tended to focus on creating national identities around constitutional patriotism, religion or cultural nationalism and thus ‘created’ minorities. Rights of minorities, as she notes, consequently became conflictual amidst majority national identities and individual citizenship rights.
The second chapter looks at the political organization of the South Asian countries and critically examines their constitutional and legal provisions as agents of both protecting and discriminating against minorities. Citing the example of Pakistan, she sheds light on the discriminatory elements inherent in its constitution. Religious, political, civic and cultural rights of Hindus, Christians, Ahmadias, Sikhs and Parsis who together constitute around 3.5 per cent of population are therefore subject to some of the special provisions in the Constitution. Drawing on empirical evidence, she argues that although the Constitution of Pakistan assures freedom of religion and right to language, and institutions for minority rights are in place, minorities face discrimination on the lines of religion, language and ethnicity. Bangladesh, conversely, is a ‘secular state’ according to its Constitution. However, she notes that the idea of ‘one religion one language’ calls for a cultural homogenization, thereby excluding other communities. Similarly the ‘one nation one people’ philosophy in Bhutan undermines its multi-ethnic and multi-religious character.
Though in India, the term minority refers largely to Muslims in the mainstream discourse, Christians, Sikhs, and Parsis too constitute a minority in terms of demography. Manchanda, however, includes all minority groups and most importantly, Dalits and tribals as analytical categories and addresses the Dalit, tribal and, to an extent, gender questions from their position of ‘powerlessness’. She argues that the minority question in Sri Lanka is linked with the concerns of autonomy and special rights of its multi-ethnic groups. While detailing, she refers to the discriminatory laws by the state against Indian Tamils. Similarly, she highlights that the Constitution of Nepal does not (so far) recognize its multi-ethnic and multi-religious character. The minority question in Nepal, hence, refers largely to the exclusion based on caste and ethnicity.
Drawing from official data and media reports, the third chapter highlights the forms of exclusion that minority groups face in the region. The author extensively discusses the discrimination faced by Dalits, other backward groups and Muslims in Nepal and its implications for their social and economic status. Referring to the social and economic backwardness of Muslim, Christian and Sikh communities in general and Dalits in particular, she points towards the contemporary forms of discrimination and exclusions prevalent in the Indian society. Similarly, besides highlighting the shrinking space for democratic rights for Tamils, she probes into the social and economic exclusion of minorities within minorities such as Tamil Muslims and Hill Tamils in Sri Lanka. The situation of Hindus, Ahmadias and Christians in Bangladesh and Pakistan are also discussed in detail in this chapter. She further explicates on the issues of identity and discrimination of ‘ethnic Nepali Bhutanese’. Gender comes as an analytical category at several instances in this chapter. Developmental concerns of indigenous people including India’s adivasis, Nepal’s janajatis, Bangladesh’s indigenous population and Sri Lanka’s Wanniyala-Aetto are discussed separately in the last chapter. Distinguishing ‘indigenous people’ from ‘minorities’, she highlights the issues of displacement, land alienation, autonomy and identity.
The book links the debate on minoritization and minority rights to the larger questions of democratic citizenship and development. Equally, the book also highlights the marginal positions of minorities within minorities and majorities, a thematic often left unexplored by most commentators. Overall, the book constitutes a valuable reference resource for students and civil society groups working on minority rights.
Sobin George
AMBEDKAR IN RETROSPECT: Essays on Economics, Politics and Society edited by Sukhadeo Thorat and Aryama. Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2007.
IT is the considered view of this reviewer that Dr. Ambedkar and Pandit Nehru were perhaps two most complete intellectuals produced by the contingencies of Indian politics during the colonial decades of Indian history in the previous century. By complete, I mean the philosophical ability to develop a worldview compatible with the exigencies of modernity. This description automatically excludes romantics like Gandhi. Both the present Indian Constitution and the democratic state, with flaws which cannot really be attributed to either Nehru or Ambedkar, bear the unmistakable stamp of these two individuals. Both believed in the ability of the democratic system to eventually deliver the goods of modernization to the masses and both advocated, with important differences in their views of course, a gradualist path towards social emancipation and political empowerment.
In their commitment to education, science and technology and affirmative action both Nehru and Ambedkar thought along similar lines. Both were secular and gender sensitive. However, as this well-conceived volume proves, Ambedkar’s views emanated from a position of social criticism which emerged distinctly from below. In his criticism of caste society from the viewpoint of the depressed classes, Ambedkar broke the intellectual limits attained by a Fabian like Nehru. Not only was he was more accomplished than Nehru as an academic, being a Dalit he faced the kind of discrimination which Nehru never did. This discrimination, representative as it was of a universal social condition in caste Hindu society, infused a typical subaltern rigour into his writings, marked for their intellectual force and impatience with the caste system.
The contributors to the volume under review are distinguished scholars of Dalit studies and their reading of Ambedkar from a variety of perspectives is commended to both academics and lay readers. The volume also provides an opportunity to the readers to go through interesting extracts chosen by the contributors from the copious works on numerous subjects written by Ambedkar.
The title and contents of the book establish Ambedkar not only as the foremost Dalit intellectual produced in India but also as an economist, educationist and political theorist par excellence. The admirable introduction to the volume has been written by Sukhadeo Thorat who convincingly argues that Ambedkar remains critically relevant to our times. This conclusion is arrived at after a summary of Ambedkar’s role in India’s anti-colonial freedom struggle which highlights the differences between Ambedkar’s politics and the main concerns of the Gandhi-Nehru led Congress movement. Of particular significance here are the differences in the reading of caste offered by Gandhi and Ambedkar. It is important to note that these differences have maintained their salience even several decades after Ambedkar’s death. The introduction comprises a brilliant essay on the ‘democratic socialism’ advocated by Ambedkar as well as his differences with the Communists, with whom he developed close contacts during the 1930s.
Part One of the volume, inspired perhaps by the fact that Ambedkar began his career as a professional economist, contains essays by Thorat, G. Nancharaiah, Aryama, and Bhalchandra Mungekar on Ambedkar’s views on economic development and planning. These essays highlight several dimensions of Ambedkar’s thoughts on political economy and on economic subjects such as planning, exchange rate, trade balance, economic distribution, economic exploitation and inequalities, labour policy and even policies on water and power.
Social justice and a ‘socialistic’ pattern of economic development in which a democratic state would actively work against economic exploitation of the depressed working classes were the cornerstones of Ambedkar’s economic thought. The quasi Keynesian flavour of Ambedkar’s economic thinking is explained by the period of global economic crisis within which he formulated most of his welfare economics. The essays in this section remind us of the powerful role Ambedkar played in fashioning India’s resilient mixed economy – an attribute which first developed India during the decades following independence and later saved it from a complete melt-down during the global recession of 2008-09.
The book presents a thematic selection of essays on Ambedkar’s thought and its current relevance. Part Two has three essays on his views on ‘Democratic Socialism’, rights, and overall conception of political power. Part Three comprises four well written articles on caste, nationalism, reorganization of states in India and even views on panchayati raj. Part Four has two excellent contributions by Ghanshyam Shah and Gail Omvedt on Ambedkar’s theory of caste and untouchability. It is also pertinent to observe that Ambedkar’s understanding of caste was radically different from that of leaders like Gandhi who ultimately favoured a reconciliation of castes. This difference was predicated upon Ambedkar’s revolutionary understanding of Indian history. This important aspect of his philosophy of praxis is touched upon in Part Five which contains three erudite essays on his perspective on Indian history by Y.S. Alone, G. Hargopal and Sukumar Muralidharan and Kancha Ilaiah. Finally, and to complete the sweep of ideas, Part Six deals with Ambedkar’s ideas on the question of women.
In sum, this volume of well-researched essays re-establishes the political centrality of Ambedkar’s thought in contemporary India. As long as castes discrimination, untouchability, unemployment, general economic insecurity and patriarchy continue to blight India’s transition to a truly humane society, Ambedkar will remain relevant. If a just society is indeed created in future, his thoughts will continue to sound a warning against a possible return to the past. The volume reinforces the fact that democracy must be social in order to be politically effective.
Anirudh Deshpande
THE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDIA: Exploring institutional structures, processes and dynamics edited by Rashmi Sharma and Vimala Ramachandran. Routledge, Delhi, 2009.
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, India’s flagship programme in the elementary education sector, comes to an end this year. While it has demonstrated considerable success in expanding both infrastructure and enrolment in the elementary sector, available data suggests that its other goals – providing all children in the 6-14 age group with a ‘useful and relevant’ education, and bridging social, regional, and gender gaps – continue to be elusive.
This book examines the situation in two states – Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan – to explain why problems in the elementary education sector appear both intractable and largely impervious to variations in context. As the editors point out in their introductory chapter, ‘The fact that the successes and failures of elementary education in India are not fully explicable in terms of levels of economic growth, ideologies of political regimes and even policy thrusts… Indicates that there are issues embedded more deeply in the "system" or the institutional structures, processes and dynamics, which need to be closely examined.’ After presenting a detailed overview of relevant policies and indicators at the national level (ch.1) and in each of the two states (ch.2), this is what the contributors to this volume set out to do.
In chapter three, J.B.G. Tilak examines public expenditures on elementary education. It comes as no surprise to learn that in AP and Rajasthan, as elsewhere, elementary education is chronically underfinanced and subject to considerable fluctuation in budgetary allocations. Contrary to what one might expect, however, we learn that Rajasthan has in recent years spent more on elementary education than Andhra Pradesh in both absolute and per capita terms and has overtaken Andhra in terms of mean years of schooling of the population, at least among males. Nevertheless, in both states, in 2004-05 zero per cent of the total expenditure was allocated to textbooks, scholarships, or teacher training, whereas over 90% was spent on staff salaries. The conclusion as to the ability or willingness of these states to engage with issues of educational quality is self-evident.
District-level planning for education has been a centrepiece of SSA, and substantial resources – funded mostly through the two per cent education cess – are channelled directly to autonomous ‘societies’ at the district level. Analyzing the extent to which this important change in financing strategy has in fact enabled funds to be targeted to locally identified priorities would have been a useful addition to this chapter. Information emerging from the PAISA project collaboration between the Accountability Initiative and the National Institute for Public Finance and Policy, for example, suggests that district level planning is constrained by extremely restrictive norms, insufficient information among schools and communities, as well as by the bureaucratic norm of operating on the basis of orders from above, rather than an analysis of the situation on the ground.
This latter aspect of bureaucratic functioning is extensively explored in the following chapter, titled ‘The internal dynamic’. Here, Rashmi Sharma examines both the formal regulations and the informal practices that govern the internal functioning of educational institutions in these states. Readers familiar with the working of the government bureaucracy will recognize her characterization of these institutions as centralized, hierarchical working environments driven by orders from the boss. This analysis of the official ‘rules of the game’ is complemented by an extensive look at how patronage and rent-seeking operate as an informal, unstated but equally powerful dynamic that governs the behaviour of the people within the system.
Using examples from institutions and individuals within the department of education in both states, she argues that ‘the informal dynamic is not an aberration; it is highly organized, has its own unstated rules, processes and "disciplinary mechanisms" and is widely prevalent.’ Thus she finds that in both states the internal hierarchy operates not only on the basis of individuals’ positions within the formal system (defined by rank and seniority), but also within the informal system (access to the patronage and rent-seeking networks). And neither system incentivizes responsiveness to the needs of schools, teachers, and children.
In this environment, what happens to teachers and children, teaching and learning? In chapter six, Hridaykant Dewan (Hardy) analyzes teaching and learning practices in these states against the ideas and values contained in national policy documents. At every level, he contrasts the ‘lofty ideals’ of national policy and curriculum documents with the values and actions of those who work in the state system – academics, administrators and teachers. He describes a system ‘lost in rituals and logistics’, where students and their families are blamed for poor learning outcomes: ‘Overall, the perception across the system seemed to be that children [from poor or weaker communities]… did not understand the language of the teacher, were not able to negotiate the textbooks, and made no effort to fulfil the expectations of the school.’ The teacher’s objective is merely to complete the syllabus, not to help children learn. But the teacher is only the lowest level of a huge and complex apparatus within which no individual is ever required to ask or answer the question: What are children learning?
It is a pity that this book does not systematically address this question either. Both NCERT and the Annual Status of Education Report data show that trends in learning outcomes in these states are somewhat different: better in Andhra, worse in Rajasthan. An attempt to relate the many differences pointed out between the states in terms of structures, processes and dynamics to differences in school and classroom practices and thereby in learning outcomes, would have been an interesting, if difficult, exercise.
In a concluding chapter, the editors argue that attempts to reform the system over the years, whether through changes in policy, in curriculum, by increasing the participation of non-state actors, or through decentralizing the system have all failed to address the central issue – the need for systemic reform. The key to this process is acknowledging and tackling the issue of the ‘informal system’ of patronage and rent-seeking through increased internal and external accountability. A second key recommendation refers to the need to define a separate, professional space for elementary education in order to promote an informed professional discourse on teaching and learning issues specific to this sector.
Few would argue with these recommendations, but how are they to be achieved? As every chapter of this book ably demonstrates, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where ‘the system’ will voluntarily reform itself to the point where it is actually accountable to its clients – children from economically and socially weaker sections of society. But even within this depressing scenario, at the ground level there are spaces for action and individuals, both within and outside the government, who are engaged in changing aspects of the system in ways that are largely invisible: para teachers and parents, district officials and DIET lecturers. In the final analysis, perhaps it is only by working with and strengthening the hand of individuals like these that sufficient pressure for systemic reform can be generated.
Suman Bhattacharjea
THE SIKHS: Ideology, Institutions and Identity by J.S. Grewal. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009.
THE present collection of essays examines nearly five centuries of the Sikh tradition by one of its most celebrated chroniclers, J.S. Grewal, whose scholarly contribution for over half a century has been singular in shaping Sikh Studies. Alongside his adherence to rigorous empirical investigation, he has laboured hard to equip the Sikh panth with a coherent narrative of its own past. The extent to which he has been instrumental in shaping this sensibility speaks for his distinction as an institutional systematizer, interpreter as well as its principal organizer.
Articulated through the mode of narrative history and informed by the choice of highlighting the civilizational particularity of the Sikh community, the collection engages with the contentious issues of doctrinal originality, institutional innovations and politico-ideological initiatives. Since Grewal’s task is to demonstrate in both time and space the vital unity of the Sikhs, he resorts to a minimalist position which, for instance in the treatment of gender and caste, enables him to maintain the doctrinal thrust of equality in canonical Sikh works in contrast to other religious traditions. Equally, it wilts when attempting to illuminate such phenomena as the Khalsa-Sahajdhari dichotomy from 18th century onwards or the variegated responses to the colonial encounter in the Punjab.
The McLeod School of Sikh Studies divides the Sikh movement into two phases: a pre-colonial or early phase of ‘diffused, heterogeneous, ludic, amorphous’ or sanatan universe and the second phase of colonial modernity which displays an ‘epistemic rupture, crystallization and ritual drawing of religious boundaries.’ Empirically contesting the claims of historians W. H. McLeod, Harjot S. Oberoi, Louis E. Fenech and Doris Jakobsh, Grewal counters their version through his meta-narrative illustrating the necessary unity of early Sikh tradition with the institution of the Khalsa, culminating in the Lahore kingdom of Ranjit Singh. Post-1849, the Singh Sabha movement provides a ‘comprehensive interpretation… combining it with modern outlook’, thus gaining influence over other attempts. The Akalis emerge from the 1920s onwards as the legatees of this effort in which ‘Sikh identity was emerging as the basis of Sikh politics.’ The strength of this meta-narrative is augmented by advancing the twin doctrines of Guru Granth and Guru Panth in the post-Guru period. The Singh Sabhas, as seen from this perspective, do not represent a rupture for Grewal. His discussion of J. D. Cunningham’s A History of the Sikhs as the first attempt to view Sikhism in terms of the growth of ‘a nation’ propelled by the vigorous Jats is supplemented by his positive treatment of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha who, at the end of 19th century, published Hum Hindu Nahin to mount a rigorous defence of the claim of a distinct Sikh identity from the 16th century onwards. He thus argues that the subsequent Arya Samaj-Sikh controversy should not be given undue epistemic importance.
This compilation which begins with comparativist explorations into medieval India, Nanak’s enunciation and its milieu, the social vision of the succeeding Sikh Gurus, institution-building in the Sikh traditions and so on, finally narrows down to the domain of high politics alone while discussing the panth in the 20th century. Somewhat intriguingly, there is a marked reluctance to engage with stimulating conceptualizations of Sikh praxis like the one articulated by J.P.S. Uberoi, viz. the ‘martyrdom vs. kingdom’ complex and its bearing on the nature and character of the Sikh movement, as well as its correspondence with an alternative modernity.
One is also intrigued by his use of the heuristic categories employed by the McLeod School without, however, delving into their social content. Take for instance the Khalsa-Sahajdhari dichotomy in the panth which fails to explain why the different sections of Sikhs opted for either of these two groupings. Until 1849 the rural peasantry was a mainstay of the Khalsa. However, in the late 19th century, it was the urban petty bourgeoisie – professionals, merchants and the salariat – who became the principal protagonists of the (Tat) Khalsa while the rural peasants were visible only in the canal colonies’ agitation. How should we account for this transition in Sikh Studies which, as a sub-discipline, has shown little inclination to explore this question in any meaningful sense.
Similarly, the Namdhari coinage of the category ‘Sant Khalsa’ as their self-identity in an attempt to distinguish themselves from the decadent ‘Malechh Khalsa’ including sections of Sikh aristocracy, ‘debauch’ Sikh soldiers as well as the pro-British sections of Sikhs, remains to be properly understood. The claims of the Khalsa as ethically different and superior too cannot be taken at face value, as Grewal seems to do. Overall, in focusing exclusively on the dominant Khalsa tradition, the author runs the risk of silencing the many disparate narratives, traditions and episodes which go into the making of the larger Sikh story. One only wishes that Sikh Studies, as a discipline, is able to cultivate a sufficiently sensitive approach so that we are finally able to build a coherent and meaningful picture.
Sumail Singh Sidhu
