Pratyush Chandra reads The Observer’s story about Dalit entreprenuer Hari Pippal and wonders if untouchability is symptomatic not so much of capitalism but of semi- feudalism.
Linked by bhupinder. Join Blogbharti facebook group.
It shows how stratification specific to a society is reproduced and even intensified under capitalism, with competition being generalised. Caste, race and all other hierarchical identities of yesteryears are transformed into competitive identities, as well as inducing market segmentation – the upper caste/race seeks to maintain its supremacy utilising every brutal means, while the lower caste/race tries to assert itself.
the author would rather like the lower castes to remain subdued and ..wait until an upper caste messiah from the nearest iix comes over and organizes them, i guess.
I don’t see what leads you to believe that the author even indicates what you seem to have concluded, if its speculation, its ok- everyone is free to speculate.
And even if this is true, I don’t see what is wrong in this, in general.
bhupimder,
that’s what the post indicates – weren’t the identitiies reproduced earlier? in a totally state controlled era? was that okay then? those questions need to be answered – market segmentation means the market recognizes these castes as consumers, and consumers in a market will possibly have more rights than ‘also-citizens’ in a state run economy.
if any weaker section asserts itself in a democracy, i’d consider it a maturing of that particular section and of democracy in the given society itself. why do they, the weaker section, need any interpreters who appropriate their voice and build it into a grand narrative against an unseen, implausible ‘enemy’? if the iixs had any purpose in a state-controlled economy (and i don’t think they do/did, but…)it was for their alumni to serve to build that nation/economy- work in industry, civil service or any other determined vocation – where was the need for them to work among the weak? so why do we need these modern day rishis?
The belief that post 1991 heralds a new era that redefines social relationships purely in economic terms (producer/consumer) is nothing but a continuation of the Nehruvian-era belief in economic determinism. ‘Caste and communalism will disappear with economic development]- I will say little except that this is naive, to say the least.
>where was the need for them to work among the weak? so why do we need these modern day rishis?
Who do you have in mind as modern day ‘rishis’? Or is it merely a rhetorical statement.
However, if people from such institutes do take to activism, what is wrong in that? I would rather say that it is good. There is no doubt that the IIXs have been projected as ideals for the Indian middle classes. If there are folks from these institutes speak up for the ’subalterns’, it lends additional weight to the criticism of the legitimacy of ruling institutions.
‘Caste and communalism will disappear with economic development]- I will say little except that this is naive, to say the least.’
that was nehru’s belief – he thought it’d have a salutary effect on the upper castes, perhaps? well, there was little economic development , at least for the lower castes – so that hypothesis was never fully tested. but whatever lttle development that had percolated down to the disprivileged seems to have helped build a tiny dalit middle class which is now asserting itself in no small measure.their ambitions seem to go far beyond what the original ‘planners’ themselves had envisaged… now, there’s a possibility that there’d be far greater economic expansion – perhaps this would result in far greater assertion and this’d have its effects in fields other than the merely economic?
‘it lends additional weight to the criticism of the legitimacy of ruling institutions.’
that is exactly the problem. their work actually lends additional weight to the ruling institutions, and does not help criticize them. the rti act, for instance, diverts attention away from such basic questions as – why do certain resource-guzzling, cumbersomely large, inefficient institutions actually exist?