Problems of Dalits--(Google Book-"Social Issues")

Problems of Dalits
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=9GFnYMnH_SQC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=sabareesh+social+issues&source=bl&ots=uKm3Zf7UGV&sig=-pF0D6cIPcfXzzFF6Ae8QQ5CmY8&hl=en&ei=2AYqTM-PF8-OcYXquO4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sabareesh%20social%20issues&f=false

   dalit women at a rally; power of organisation, a route to empowerment

"Identity and class"(EPW)-Economic & Political Weekly

*http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/14841.pdf** (only subscribers)
"Identity and class"-- original unedited article
A treatise on internal debate within Marxism(it will amuse only those interested in academics-- purely for an academic purpose of studying Marxism as a theoretical formulation)

“Identity” and “class"

                                                                                           Sabareesh Gopala Pillai

                                                                                                  pillai.sabareesh@gmail.com

(Sabareesh Gopala Pillai is a research scholar in Sociology with the University of Kerala)

              There has been a recent debate within the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI(M)) in Kerala, whether identity-based politics is part and parcel of communism or is communism entirely about class-based politics. The ideological leanings of a certain section of the intelligentsia towards post-modernism has probably prompted them to vouch for identity based politics within communism.  But the state secretary of the CPI(M), Pinarayi Vijayan immediately clarified that the ideological basis of the party is rooted in class struggle and there was no base for a demand for a broad-based discussion on identity politics.  He elaborated this position by pointing to the role of class struggle in eliminating social evils such as untouchability and ushering in social development in the state of Kerala.

              This official position of the state unit of the CPI(M) is in tune with the original Marxist theory, which considers development of “other” identities as symptoms of weakening of class solidarity.  Multiple identities will only intensify what Marx called “false class consciousness”, thereby weakening class solidarity and ultimately acting as a deterrent against revolutionary tendencies. Marx had rightly distinguished between a “class in itself” and a “class for itself”.  A “class in itself” is simply a group of people who share the same relation to the forces of production.  It is a class only in the objective sense and the social group will fully become a class only when it becomes a “class for itself”.  At this stage the members acquire class consciousnesses and class solidarity.  Class consciousness means that false class consciousness has been replaced by full awareness of the true situation of exploitation and dominance of the ruling class over the subject class.  Hence, at this stage a new class identity is formed as the members of the group find that they share common interests which are more important than other identities based on religion or other primordial ties.

              Identity politics will only ensure the continuation of a “class-in-itself” because class consciousness is diluted through the development of identity consciousness.  A dalit bourgousie may get support of the dalit proletariat class and this will aid him in exploiting the entire working class under him.  Similarly a woman bourgousie entrepreneur can bolster her position by building gender-based solidarity within her company and thereby dividing the working class on the basis of gender.  Thus identity-based politics can be used cleverly as a strategic tool by the capitalists for the illusory and partial “incorporation” of a section of the working class into the bourgousie domain, thereby weakening and ultimately exploiting the entire working class.

             

 Rather than considering the categories of “identity” and “class” as binary entities, it has to be understood that the concept of “identity” is subsumed under the concept of “class”.  This will in fact help in bringing together people belonging to different idenetities and ultimately result in a broad-based harmony and unity of the entire working class.  Class-based politics, if implemented properly, has the extraordinary ability to obliterate to a great extent the parochial divisions within the society based on caste, creed and race.  Moreover, this doesn’t mean that class based politics is silent about the social realities of race, caste and gender.  It strongly acts against all form of exploitation but the modus operandi is different.

              Discrimination against dalits is countered not by strengthening dalit identity but by integrating them into the wider sections of the society under the label of working class.  Similarly, gender-based identity politics will only intensify what sociologist Ulrich Beck calls the “battle between sexes” and weaken institutions such as the family.  This can create myriad problems for social harmony.  Radical feminists who stand for strong gender-based identities have called for the abolition of the family and mothering role while Marxist feminists have taken a more pragmatic viewpoint like calling for restructuring of the family, the end of domestic slavery and the introduction of some kind of collective method of carrying out child-rearing and household maintenance.  However, Marxist feminists believe that these solutions will be an obvious reality once a communist society based on true equality is established.

              Thus, class can be effectively used as an instrument for the hitherto non-existing integration of excluded sections in the society. The dalit, who is considered an outcaste in the Hindu social organization were not allowed to have any kind of identity in society. Class based organisation gives them the opportunity to acquire a new identity which is not exclusive to them alone. They will be able to identify with other groups in society and interaction between diverse groups will strengthen class solidarity.  While caste system in traditional India had maintained social equilibrium through hierarchy, exclusion and exploitation, class-based politics will help society in moving towards a stage of harmonious egalitarianism by weakening the erstwhile differences based on primordial identities.  Thus, class based politics has the potential of ushering in a caste-free India. Identity based politics can turn out to be extremely divisive and has the potential of threatening social equilibrium in the long run.  On the other hand, class can be used as an effective tool for integrating a plural society with multiple identities.

Dialectics of economic development in India(The Hindu Open Page)

(co-authored with Dr.G.C.Gopala Pillai.) http://www.hindu.com/op/2010/03/07/stories/2010030750011400.htm

                                           The concept of 'dialectical ' change


Dialectics of economic development in India

A broad consensus has emerged among experts in India that the government's focus should be on the larger concept of economic development rather than on the narrow, quantitative concept of growth. This is also a vindication of the fact that “trickle down” and social responsibility cannot be taken as a natural process within the ambit of free market and the political system in the country should execute a well-designed programme for the redistribution of resources. The mammoth loan-waiver scheme, the seemingly successful MGNREGS and the huge spending on other social sector programmes are classic examples of the government actively involving itself in a planned process of redistribution.
The impetus has come from the democratic forces acting in the country. The first decade and a half of economic reforms had led to a situation of jobless growth and increasing disparities. The public at large reacted sharply to this lopsided, exclusive model of development and the government was forced to introduce various policies to ensure social justice. People gave the green signal to this renewed interest in social spending and the incumbent government was voted back to power in 2009.
It is to be noted that this new “inclusive model” of development does not reject the objective of achieving high economic growth. In fact, it considers economic growth as one of the most important parameters without compromising the wider goals of social justice and environmental protection. The sustainable development paradigm that is emerging in India is a result of a long drawn out process of dialectics. Analysing at the macro level, the Nehruvian concept of planned, centralised economic development changed into a developmental model based on economic growth during the post-1991 reform period and, finally, it has synthesised into a model that takes into account both growth and redistribution. The active participation of civil society, the media, NGOs and environmental activists in the developmental process has forced the government to take care of the environment as well.
At the micro level, the dialectical process of development in India is now heading towards another direction. It has been widely agreed among all sections of society that industrialisation is necessary, at least to a limited extent, in ushering in economic development. The larger question that is emerging now is whether it is necessary to deprive the resources of a small group of people in order to bring in development, which may be beneficial to the public at large in the long run. Is development a zero-sum game, at least in the short run? Singur and Nandigram are living examples of this debate.
The people have rejected the zero-sum thesis and the focus has suddenly shifted to rehabilitation. The Central government came up with a comprehensive Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Policy. But the success of industrialisation of rural India lies in the efficacy of implementing and operationalising this policy. Whether the emotional value an Indian attaches to his land can be compensated materially or not is altogether another debate by itself.
The industrialisation experience in the state of West Bengal can be a valuable case study model, especially in the context of the series of electoral defeats to the ruling party. It is said that the worst time for a government is when it has initiated some reforms and has gone half-way.
When eco-development starts to pick up, the aspirations of people go up and the process of relative deprivation operates strongly in the minds of the people. They feel that their situation could have been better, although their “real” situation has already improved. It is this feeling of relative deprivation that projects itself as protests and movements and finally would opt for a change in government, especially when a substitute is available. It is to be remembered that a static society that lives in sustained chronic poverty would never witness any protest because the people cannot visualise any alternative and hence there is no relative deprivation. It is apt to remember George Orwell's line, “people never had a housing problem until they were told about it.” Thus it takes real courage for an incumbent government to embark on a hitherto non-existing policy of industrialisation.
The macro-dynamics of the dialectics of development is at a stage today where a new anti-thesis is emerging to counter the huge social spending of the government. The corporate sector has demanded a drastic reduction in fiscal deficit and the recent budget aims at fiscal consolidation. At the micro-level, the focus should be on evolving innovative ways of rehabilitation, prompt compensation and timely implementation.

Gender----"Men of the world, reverse your role" (The Hindu Open Page)

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/article600546.ece

Men of the world, reverse your role

Few people outside academic circles may have heard about Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain. In 1905, she wrote a short story ‘Sultana's Dream', which is probably the first piece of science fiction writing in India and perhaps the first by a woman. Sultana, the protagonist, visits a dreamland where there is a total reversal of gender roles. Men are engaged in household drudgery and observe ‘purdah', while women are super-scientists flying ‘air-cars' and inventing the most sophisticated devices. Indeed, Sultana's dream was just a dream.

The reason for male domination is attributed to a host of reasons including biological aspects like hormones, chromosomes and even brain size. But biological differences have frequently been misused for justifying male domination and chauvinism. Gender is primarily concerned with the psychological, social and cultural differences between men and women. It is a social construct and the preponderance of patriarchy has a social basis. Women have been historically debilitated due to their responsibility of childbirth, which automatically got extended to child care and ultimately domestic work. Men, on the other hand, were the breadwinners for the entire family. This historical conditioning may have led to significant differences between the so-called typical male and female personalities. But purely social processes have played a significant role in the subjugation and exploitation of women. Women in India, regardless of their caste or class, have been discriminated against on different grounds. High caste women were subjected to severe forms of social exclusion (like sati) while low caste women were ruthlessly exploited.

Fortunately, technology has been a great liberator for women. It is said that the contraceptive pill and the ignition key of the car have revolutionised gender hierarchies. But in India we still find that women, inside the family, are largely subordinated. It is true that today women working outside the family is no taboo and there is a certain level of economic independence. But they are still expected to do all the household chores, famously described by one writer as ‘the second shift'. This multiple responsibility is both physically and mentally exhausting, especially in our competitive service economy where work pressures are increasing day by day.

Radical feminists in the West, reacting to this condition of women, called for the abolition of the family and the power relations that typify it. This is an unrealistic over-reaction that may prompt us to think whether they want freedom from exploitation or freedom from womanhood itself. A proactive approach based on equal division of labour within the family is the best way to deal with the situation.

Leading role

In order to initiate this social change, men should pay the leading role. They should volunteer themselves to do household errands. Emotional nucleation of the nuclear family will definitely aid in promoting this joint management of the household. ‘Sultana's Dream' talks about a “Ladyland free from sin and harm” where men are shut indoors. But rather than having a feeling of ‘he' vs. ‘she', it is the feeling of ‘us' which is more harmonious for both the family and society as a whole. It is high time men stood up and declared ‘I wanna be a good wife.'

(The writer's email: pillai.sabareesh@gmail.com)

Live-in relations(The Hindu Open Page)

http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/article402260.ece

Where there is love, do labels matter?

Two friends were walking along the pavement in Lutyens Delhi. Nisreen (NIS) is happily married for over a year now to Jacob, while Soudabi (SOU) is ‘living in' with her boyfriend, Saran. Here is a conversation between them.

NIS: Look dear, you are living in society and not in a cocoon. You need to respect certain practices and rules and marriage is a supremely important institution. Marriages are made in heaven, my girl, and later sanctified on earth.

SOU: You know that I don't believe in such stuff. These statements are purely made to glorify the social institution of marriage. In fact, what is marriage? It is a social ceremony after which the couple settles down and lives according to the diktats of society. Sorry, in our case, we live our lives. It seems the Supreme Court has given the green light to live-in marriages. I am least concerned, but I think it will perhaps protect others belonging to conservative families from harassment.

NIS: Oh! Why do you want to be a reactionary? It seems that you ‘live-in' to prove a point.

SOU: No, that's not true. We are not ‘living in' to project our ideology or political leanings. We just slipped into this relation and we are very comfortable. It suits us perfectly both in economic terms and emotionally. It helps us to manage our hectic schedules, lifestyles and budgets in Delhi. Moreover, I feel there is more of an inbuilt commitment in ‘live-in' relations. You don't take your husband or wife for granted. After marriage, there can be a tendency to neglect your spouse; since whatever you do, he or she is not going away from you.

NIS: Sou, you are just rationalising. There is no commitment in ‘live-in' relations. People ‘live-in' because there are afraid of making commitments. This commitment is divine. The entire West looks up to our ethos and values which structure the family in India. These ‘live-in' relations are ephemeral and in many cases the girl gets estranged and deserted. Hey, I am not talking about you, dear.

SOU: That's wrong; ‘live-in' actually liberates the woman. Do you know that 45 per cent of married woman in India are subjected to domestic violence? Divorce is difficult and a taboo in India and women eventually suffer. They are enslaved within the walls of the patriarchal family.

NIS: Look, I told you that you are being political. Remember, ideology is just partial truth. It blinds you of the practicalities of life, dear. How do you propose to have a child?

SOU: Nis, we didn't deliberately decide to ‘live-in' and continue it forever. We just slipped into it and when we want to step out, we will marry, perhaps. I know the practical difficulties of bringing up a child without getting married.

NIS: But don't end up just as couples like the hippies. I strongly believe that when you ‘live-in' you forget to live your lives.

SOU: Hey, do you think that I am not enjoying my life? Nisreen, this whole concept of ‘marriage' and ‘live-in' are just labels. Beneath the labels, there are relationships. It is the strength of these relations that matter than the labels.

NIS: Yes, maybe that's true. I just want you to be happy, dear, and never regret later.

SOU: I promise you that. Now, give me a hug, dear.

The Nature-nurture debate; alternate sexualities.(The Hindu-Open Page)

MILK,Harvey- An adaptation of the Stonewall riots at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City.

The Riots...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Alternate sexualities--HINDU
http://www.hindu.com/op/2009/08/02/stories/2009080250041400.htm

The Nature-nurture debate

Celebrations broke out in the streets of Delhi when the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377 of the IPC which criminalises homosexuality is unconstitutional and thereby void as it violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The liberals hailed it as ‘true freedom’.
On the other hand, Islam and Christianity along with some Hindu organisations, vociferously opposed it as a threat to the institution of ‘family.’ The government which initially favoured the repeal of such a law did a volte-face and called for a ‘larger debate’. Societal consensus is the best way to bring about social reformation. No law superimposed from above would be able to reform a system, unless it gets the voluntary co-operation of the citizens on whom it is exercised. The most important point which made the court declare Section 377 as unconstitutional was that it considered ‘sexual orientation’ analogous to ‘sex’. Thus any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation amounts to discrimination ‘only’ on the basis of sex, thereby blatantly violating provisions in the Indian Constitution.
Here, the most potent question that arises is, ‘what is the reason for having a particular sexual orientation?’ The issue now treads into an area which is part of an age old debate not only in social sciences but also in the biological sciences.
Focal point of debate

Is a homosexual, a homosexual by birth or does circumstances make him a homosexual? If it is the latter, then undoubtedly those circumstances have to be eliminated.
The general conclusion of any nature-nurture debate is that, both play a role and if that’s the case which is more important, the natural (genetic) factors or the environmental factors.
For instance, in the aspect of intelligence, heritability studies have shown that genetic factors are more deciding than environmental factors, although both play a role.
In the aspect of homosexuality if the reasons are genetic, people, with no will of their own, develop homosexual tendencies and if they are considered criminals then it amounts to grave injustice.
On the other hand if it is leaning towards the ‘nurture’ side (result of circumstances, the environment), then any kind of popular acceptance of homosexuality can have the ability to develop a following. It can even become a fashion statement, which can attract people, especially the youth. In such a case, in the long run it can even be a threat to the family.
Psychologists who favour this side of the argument say that one of the reasons for homosexuality can be continuous non-exposure to people of the opposite gender.
This is where the focal point of the debate should be.
A debate always keeps an issue alive; let the debate continue with this in view.

Images From the Stonewall Uprising’s Final Night and The Inn today..