Abstract
The left leaning or the Marxian school deals with the social, economic and political ideology or a movement, which aims at establishing a communist stateless society. According to the left-leaning thinkers, the proletarian rule will exist for some point of time, after which the state will wither away. In this case, understanding Ambedkar from a left perspective would be a new paradigm. Anand Teltumbde on one side says that Ambedkar was not a Marxist and that he was under the intellectual influence of his teachers, who were known as the Fabian socialists, and on the other side says that he practiced the class politics.
The left-leaning or the Marxian school deals with the social, economic and political ideology or a movement that aims at establishing a communist stateless society where the means of production would be in the hands of the proletariat. According to the left-leaning thinkers, the proletarian rule will exist for some point of time, after which the state will wither away. They firmly believe that in the capitalist economic and social order, two classes will exist, such as the working class and the capitalist class. There will be a conflict of interest between these two classes, which ultimately will lead to the formation of a communist rule over that particular state. This is a general glimpse or understanding of the left-leaning school of thought. In this case of understanding, Ambedkar from a left perspective would be a new paradigm, where his analysis of caste and religion would be interpreted from a new angle. In this article, an attempt has been made to look into this new development, where a serious endeavour has been made by people like Anand Teltumbde to understand Ambedkar from a left perspective.
Dealing with the caste atrocities and violent acts against the Dalits, Anand Teltumbde narrates the myths associated with globalization and its developments. Explaining globalization’s effects on caste, he says that globalization has been projected as an emancipatory theory, which is assumed to weaken the caste system through the process of expansion of the free market. Teltumbde says that more than twenty years of liberalization could not weaken the caste, but contrary to that, caste contradictions are growing at an exceptional rate. At the beginning, when globalization entered British India in its capitalist form, many thought that the caste system was going to get extinguished. However, capitalism itself got infected by the caste system and this survived for a longer period. The Nehruvian model of modernization of colonial India, which transformed the countryside production relations to a capitalist form, also could not combat feudalism, and like in Europe, capitalism could not break the caste and feudal barriers in India. Rather, capitalism got associated with the caste system and perpetuated it. This long failure story of capitalism, where it failed to de-construct the caste, should be an example of the failure of globalization in fighting the caste system in India.
Explaining globalization and its relation with the caste system, Teltumbde says ‘classical liberalism which lent capitalism its ideological support, it reclaimed by globalists in the form neo-liberalism, it individualist extremist concoction that advocates extreme individualism, social Darwinist competition, and free-market fundamentalism’ (2010). He identifies that globalization as an elitist in its basic nature will create extreme forms of inequalities in the economic as well as social sphere also. Globalization pitches every individual, irrespective of their resources, into the market and makes everyone psychologically vulnerable. He says,
it leads people to seek support through the familiar occult systems such as religion, custom, and tradition. The increase during the last three decades in religiosity, marketed mysticism and hyper-orthodoxy worldwide is the result of this process. (Teltumbde, 2010)
Thus, according to him, the caste system in India sustains and people believe it because of this trend. According to him, casteism and communalism in India were due to the impact of globalization, which affected the lifestyles of individuals and led to the crisis of living in many the people, and because of the retreat of the state from its welfare policies.
Regarding the increasing caste atrocities on Dalits, Teltumbde makes it clear that after the implementation of globalization policies, the caste atrocities increased significantly in every category. 1 He observes that there is a steep rise in all the atrocities committed on Dalits in the era of globalization; he points out a change in its nature of perpetuation. He says that before the globalization policies were implemented, the atrocities that took place were mostly committed by individuals or small group of people. However, he says that in recent years, the mode of atrocities shifted to a form of a public spectacle of brutalities, which occur in a celebratory mode. The level of torture and the stature of barbarity displayed have changed in their nature completely. 2
He says that individualism, which is a by-product of the social Darwinist nature of globalization, makes the upper castes more privileged and superior and makes them believe that their power and dominance are well deserved. However, when it comes to the Dalits, the same social Darwinism makes their lives impossible to survive. He says,
it is the privileged castes who favour the free market because it assumes them, as a class, their domination without any moral baggage. It is they who are the ardent votaries of globalization, for it gives them unhindered freedom of maximizing profits globally. (Teltumbde, 2010)
Individuality as the core component globalization, with the existing caste privileges, dominance of the upper castes and their insensitivity towards the lower castes makes the country as a casteist and communal as like tribalism in Africa or neo-Nazism elsewhere (Teltumbde, 2010).
There was a belief that with the economic development and with the educational and cultural advancements, the caste system would get eradicated, and with economic power, one could achieve other resources such as political as well as social. But in the case of Dalits, according to him, this works contrary. The economic power of the Dalits in rural India will disturb the psychological equilibrium of the village community. The pride of the privileged caste may get hurt and the economic power of the Dalit family may end up in other added atrocity to the piling atrocities. According to him, the relation between the economic development and the caste is negative, where Dalits possessing economic prosperity might affect them negatively. He recounts the incidents of Khairlanji, Godhra, Gohana, Talhan and other caste atrocities, where the economically independent, and educationally and culturally advanced Dalits and Muslims were killed and their properties destroyed.
The other issue he raises here is the question of possession of land, which in the rural economy is also a reason that leads to such atrocities (Teltumbde, 2010). In his words,
with respect to dalits these conflicts mainly arise in relation to land transfers under land reforms, allotment of house sites and agriculture- worthy lands, use of common pastures and community land, irrigation rights and land alienation. Conflicts mainly take the form of interference with the dalit ownership, possession, cultivation and enjoyment of land. It is true that many of these conflicts lead to violence against dalits. (Teltumbde, 2010)
Caste prejudice is one of the leading factors of the economic and land disputes in the caste atrocities. Here, he tries to say that land disputes have never been a source of committing atrocities on Dalits, but it is the caste privileges, superiority and caste dominance. It is prejudice that is the root cause of all the major infamous atrocities. He gives the example of Khairlanji, where a Bhootmange family, which had 17 long years of land disputes with a couple of families, ended in a gruesome gang rape and murder by the entire Hindu community of the village (Teltumbde, 2010).
Globalization and Liberalization in India
According to Teltumbde, the economic reforms in India resulting in liberalization were not planned but crisis-driven reforms. India’s economic and political situation in the early 1990s forced it to accept the conditions prescribed by the Bretton Woods institutions. There was a sharp fall in the foreign exchange reserves, growing inflation, increasing deficit, and growing domestic and foreign debt. There was also political instability. Two governments changed within four months, the presentation of the union budget had to be postponed, and the former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated. International agencies downgraded India’s rating. This made it difficult to obtain credit. Thus, according to Teltumbde, India’s reforms were not a choice made by the people of India with a vision of long-term development, but something forced on it.
As part of these reforms, India had to accept the IMF and World Bank policy recommendations. These were of two types: macroeconomic stabilization and structural adjustment. The stabilization reforms consisted of the following:
(i) Devaluation of currency …, (ii) withdrawal of restrictions on imports, (iii) reduction/elimination of fiscal and balance of payments deficits, (iv) removal of all controls on prices, exchange and interest rates, (v) elimination/reduction of subsidies, (vi) introduction of financial reforms and free entry of foreign financial institutions, (vii) complete autonomy of the central bank to pursue the independent monetary policy. (Teltumbde, 2001)
The structural adjustment programme consisted of the following:
(i)Decontrol of industries, (ii) privatization of government-owned entities, (iii) structural changes in the economy aimed at export-led growth, (iv) free entry of foreign capital and technology…, (v) free entry and exit of foreign firms including financial and service industries, (vi) free cross border movement of capital and other funds, (vii) legislative safeguards for the protection of intellectual property rights, (viii) creation of legal climate for the enforcement of legal contracts, private property rights, and (ix) free entry and exit of business industrial and financial firms. (Teltumbde, 2001)
Teltumbde describes the perspective behind these reforms as neo-liberalism. He says that the objective of neo-liberalism is nothing but the rule of the market in place of the state, spending less on social and public services, and eliminating the concept of the public good. The neo-liberal policies are anti-poor and favoured by the elite. He says,
while the reforms have always been sold in the name of the people and justified with the dubious trickle-down theory, they are actually meant to promote the interests of capital through laissez-faire economy and are therefore anti-labour. Privatization of public sector units, commercialization of the public services, handing over the natural resources to the private sector, reliance on the market mechanism for pricing, fiscal measures to incapacitate the State to undertake any economic activity and thereby promote private interests [these] are typical neo-liberal policies. (Teltumbde, 2014a)
Impact of Globalization/Liberalization on Dalits
According to Teltumbde, there is no doubt that after the economic reforms, economic inequalities have risen. People are losing jobs because of privatization, there are fewer jobs because of shrinking of the public sector, loss of livelihood sources because of degradation of environment and habitat, and loss of social security for the vast majority of the people (Teltumbde, 2011a).
On the issue of caste discrimination, he says that globalization/liberalization is presented as a process that will weaken the caste system through the expansion of the market and liberate the oppressed castes. But after more than twenty years of liberalization, the caste system has not weakened, and instead, caste conflicts are growing. The caste system has survived by infecting capitalism. In contrast to Europe, capitalism could not break the caste and feudal barriers in India. Given this failure of capitalism, we should not expect the globalization/liberalization phase of capitalism to succeed in weakening the caste system.
Globalization is bound to increase inequalities because it pitches every individual irrespective of their resources in the market on equal footing. This market mechanism makes everyone vulnerable: ‘it leads people to seek support through …religion, custom and tradition. The increase in the last three decades in religiosity, marketed mysticism and hyper orthodoxy worldwide is the result of this process’ (Teltumbde, 2010). According to him, casteism ad communalism in India were due to the impact of globalization on the lifestyles of individuals, crises of livelihood and the retreat of the state from welfare.
On the issue of reservations, Teltumbde says that with the neo-liberal policies, the public sector will keep on becoming smaller and smaller. The public sector is where job reservations are in force. But in the new economic context, there will be so few jobs in the public sector that the reservation policy that protects Dalits has lost its relevance.
Going into the history of the policy, he says that reservations came into existence through the Gandhi–Ambedkar pact or the Poona pact. They were meant to benefit the communities treated as untouchable. It was believed that other communities would not be able to properly represent and protect the interests of Dalits. Hence, the reservations came into existence to do that.
Reservations thus became a countervailing mechanism against the social discriminative instinct of the Indian society. It was like a bitter pill for a sick Indian society, a necessary evil, required as long as the disease lasted. (Teltumbde, 2007)
But the discrimination continued, and hence, the reservations also continued. However, the political reservations gave the ruling classes to co-opt Dalits. This negated the independence of Dalits. Since Dalit voters did not have much impact on the elections, the Dalit representatives did not have to care about their community. The reservations became a tool in the hands of the ruling parties. The shortcomings of reservations were clear when Dr Ambedkar was defeated by an unimportant candidate supported by the Congress party (Teltumbde, 2013b).
Regarding the reservations in the fields of educational and employment, Teltumbde says that they were helpful. They promoted education among Dalits and contributed to their development through jobs in the public sector. It is true that the first beneficiaries of these reservations monopolized the benefits and did not let them reach the majority of Dalits. The small number of the Dalit beneficiaries became very influential and the landless, marginal farmers and slum dwellers from the community remained without any benefits. Currently, with the liberalization, and shrinking of public sector jobs, the limited usefulness of reservations is clearly exhibited (Teltumbde, 2009).
Regarding caste atrocities, Teltumbde says that after the introduction of economic reforms, caste atrocities of every category increased (Refer note 1). Though there has been a steep rise in the number of atrocities on Dalits, the pattern has changed. Before liberalization, the atrocities that took place were mostly committed by individuals or small groups of people. But in recent years, the mode of atrocities has changed to ‘public spectacle of brutalities’, committed in a ‘celebratory mode’ (Refer note 2).
He says that individualism, which is a by-product of the social Darwinism of the new policies, makes the upper castes feel more privileged and superior. They believe that their power and dominance are well deserved. However, Darwinism makes it difficult for the Dalits to survive. According to him,
it is the privileged castes who favour the free market because it assures them, as a class, their domination without any moral baggage. It is they who are the ardent votaries of globalization, for it gives them unhindered freedom of maximizing profits globally. (Teltumbde, 2010)
With such individualism, caste privileges and dominance, it makes them insensitive similar to the neo-Nazis (Teltumbde, 2010).
There was a belief that with the economic development and with the educational and cultural advancements, the caste system will get eradicated. Also, with economic power, one can achieve political and social power. But according to Teltumbde, in the case of Dalits, this works contrary. If Dalits do well economically, the balance in the village gets disturbed, upper castes get hurt, and then there are atrocities on Dalits. For Dalits, the relationship between economic development and caste is negative. Economic prosperity affects them negatively. He gives examples of the incidents at Khairlanji, Godhra, Gohana, Talhan, etc., where the economically independent, and educationally and culturally advanced Dalits and Muslims were killed and their property destroyed (Teltumbde, 2010).
He points out the importance of the land issue in the atrocities (Teltumbde, 2010). He is of the view that
with respect to Dalits … conflicts mainly arise in relation to land transfers under land reforms, allotment of house sites and agriculture-worthy lands, use of common pastures and community land, irrigation rights and land alienation. Conflicts mainly take the form of interference with the dalit ownership, possession, cultivation and enjoyment of land. It is true that many of these conflicts lead to violence against Dalits. (Teltumbde, 2010)
This shows that even if liberalization leads to the improvement in their economic situation, it will not end caste discrimination and caste dominance.
Talking about religious fundamentalism in the age of liberalism, Teltumbde coins a new word: ‘saffron neo-liberalism (Teltumbde, 2014a). According to him, Hindutva and neo-liberalism are complementary to each other. They support each other (Teltumbde, 2002). The social Darwinism of neo-liberalism atomized individuals. This made it easy for the fundamentalist and fascist forces to spread (Teltumbde, 2002). According to him, saffron neo-liberalism is an aggressive drive towards neo-liberal economic reforms with a simultaneous consolidation of the Sangh Parivar’s constituency. Hindutva is spread through various socio-cultural channels. It includes privatization, liberalization, deregulation and making things easy for capital. Teltumbde says that
saffron neoliberalism will entail a revamp of labour laws, simplification of the laws and amendments to the Constitution to make India more business-friendly. It would mean easing land acquisition and freeing the natural resource of the country to be plundered by the capital. It would mean progressively positioning Hindutva supporters at all important nodes in bureaucracy and saffronising the educational and other institutions. (Teltumbde, 2014a).
Teltumbde finds similarities in the neo-liberal philosophy of extreme individualism and social Darwinism and the ideology of Brahmanic supremacy. Neo-liberalism results in crisis but the masses are unable to see who is responsible for the crisis. The ruling classes exploit the situation by dividing and disorienting the people. This process of exploitation has been the reason behind the rise of fundamentalist ideologies. Therefore, globalization and Hindutva should be fought simultaneously because they are interdependent and mutually supportive (Teltumbde, 2014a).
Dalit Capitalism
On the issue of Dalit capitalism, he says it is an urban-centric concept. With 81% of Dalits living in rural India, consisting of landless farmers and marginal farmers, and the rest in slums in cities and working in the informal sector, who will benefit from Dalit capitalism? Teltumbde says that individual Dalits’ achievements are laudable, but when that success is proposed as a solution of the problems of the community as a whole, then it becomes problematic (Teltumbde, 2011c). The total income of these Dalit capitalists is like a drop in the ocean of corporate wealth. He thinks that it is a cruel joke to celebrate a 100 individuals’ achievements as a community’s achievements when most Dalits are suffering from poverty, famine and atrocities. He compares some Dalits joining the class of entrepreneurs to the proletariat trying to become the bourgeoisie instead of fighting it. It is like Dalits joining Brahmins and thus ending caste discrimination. This is what Dalit capitalism preaches (Teltumbde, 2011c).
Those advocating Dalit capitalism are wrong in saying that Dalits developed better after globalization and liberalization than before it. Also, migrations to cities took place earlier as well. There were rich Dalit individuals earlier as well. The wealth of a few Dalits does not make any difference to the endless suffering of the community. Their success does not count for much in the project of the emancipation of the whole community, which can happen only with a complete transformation of the society. Celebrating a few individuals’ success and praising the government for its pro-globalization policies when the Dalit masses live in bad conditions are a betrayal of the community (Teltumbde, 2011c). He concludes, ‘extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of few can only be celebrated if one deliberately chooses to ignore the marginalization of the multitude’ (Teltumbde, 2013a).
Teltumbde says that the reforms are against the spirit of the Indian constitution. Dr. Ambedkar had successfully secured in the constitution some safeguards for Dalits and the marginalized castes, such as educational, political and economic safeguards. However,
the free market ethos unleashed by the reforms, conceptually can neither confirm to the democratic spirit of the Indian constitution of one vote one value, nor can co-exist with the system of positive discrimination embodied in these safeguards. For the market grants moneyed person more value, and believes in the jungle law of might is right. (Teltumbde, 2001)
Understanding Ambedkar
Explaining the stature and importance of Dr. Ambedkar among the Dalits, Teltumbde says that ‘Babasaheb Ambedkar has undoubtedly been the central figure in the epistemology of the Dalit universe. It is difficult to imagine anything serious or important in their collective life that is totally untouched by Ambedkar’ (Teltumbde, 1997). He identifies the key features of Ambedkar’s thought as follows:
Teltumbde criticizes those who have tried to project Ambedkar as a supporter of free market. Dalit community has been made to believe that Ambedkar was against communists, and economic issues are taken by communists. This misunderstanding kept Dalits away from struggles over material issues like land. Hence, when the pro-market economic reforms came, Dalits thought that there was nothing for them to do. They did not react and accepted the reforms, which made their lives vulnerable. The Dalit movement leaders often say that their struggles are not for bread, but for dignity. This character of the Dalit movement has kept it away from ‘constructive’ actions in the political and economic realm (Teltumbde, 2011c).
Teltumbde says that it is wrong to project Dr. Ambedkar as a free market economist or a neo-liberal as the proponents of Dalit capitalism do. This is based on a mischievous reading of his DSc thesis on the problem of the rupee. In his thesis, Ambedkar chooses gold standard over the gold exchange standard. His argument is that the gold exchange standard will lead to inflation and rise in prices. This will affect the poor. He also made some remarks on the failings of public servants. Based on this, one cannot make him a monetarist or a socialist. His argument in the thesis was entirely based on the context of the situation then (Teltumbde, 2011c).
Teltumbde points out the influences on Ambedkar. He was greatly influenced by John Dewey when he was at Columbia University and by American Fabians in general. Fabian socialism is nothing but democratic socialism. It believes in gradual rather than revolutionary means. It does not believe in scientific socialism of Marxism–Leninism, but believes in evolutionary socialism. At the London School of Economics, there were Fabian scholars like Bernard Shaw, Sydney Webb and Beatrice Webb. Thus, the intellectual context in which Dr. Ambedkar carried out his research was socialist. The slogan of educate, agitate and organize was a Fabian slogan, which he adopted and used as his motto for the journal Bahishkrita Bharat. This shows the influence of Fabian socialism on Ambedkar (Teltumbde, 2013c).
Teltumbde says that Ambedkar had reservations about some economic theories of socialism, but broadly, he remained a socialist. Many scholars who doubt this point to his views on Rousseau’s criticism of property rights and the importance given by him to social issues such as the annihilation of caste. Ambedkar called the love for money as ‘the philosophy of sour grapes and criticised materialism as “the ideology of pigs”’ (Teltumbde, 1997).
Despite this, he was a staunch socialist because he believed in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
He gave priority to the annihilation of caste and warned the communists that unless they stop regarding caste as a superstructure and recognize the importance of caste, class struggle will not be successful in India. However, this meant that according to Dr Ambedkar, caste annihilation can alone make it possible for the communists to succeed in their class struggle (Teltumbde, 1997).
Another evidence that Teltumbde provides is Ambedkar’s views on the state. He wanted the state to monitor economic arrangements. In his states and minorities memorandum that he submitted to the constituent assembly, he proposed nationalization of land, promoting collective farming, keeping of important industries with the state, insurance for every citizen, etc. This shows that his beliefs were socialist. He did not object to the private sector, but he felt that it should not dominate the public sector (Teltumbde, 1997).
When it comes to globalization, it is a matter of speculation what Ambedkar’s position would have been. But we can relate his thoughts to the nature of globalization. Globalization is an extreme form of capitalism. It makes every individual compete with others. It follows the social Darwinist principle of the survival of the fittest. It justifies inequalities and exploitation. Teltumbde asks how Ambedkar ‘whose vision was to see human destiny in the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity’ could have supported globalization (Teltumbde, 2011c)?
Thus, Teltumbde strongly believes that globalization/liberalization increases inequalities and discrimination and is not good for Dalits, and any person following the main principles of Ambedkar’s thought cannot support it.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.