Anand Teltumbde, Khairllanji. A Strange and Bitter Crop
By Nicolas Jaoul

Teltumbde, Anand (2008) Khairllanji. A Strange and Bitter Crop, New
Delhi : Navayana, 214 pages, ISBN 9788189059156

1  On the post-Khairlanji protests, see Jaoul (2008).

1The importance of the Khairlanji events lies partly, but not mainly,
in the exceptional degree of cruelty displayed by the village mob when
it engaged, in broad daylight, in the murder and collective rape of
four members of a Dalit family. After all, events of caste-based
violence have occurred regularly in Indian villages since the 1970s,
when the dynamics of Dalit emancipation threatened to upset the rural
traditional order. Khairlanji’s historical importance rather lies in
the massive Dalit demonstrations of anger that followed, providing a
sharp contrast with mere ritualised visits and moral condemnations by
leaders of the opposition whose politically motivated interventions
were little concerned by Dalit security. Such an unprecedented Dalit
uprising and its ability to catch the media’s attention explain that
the very name ‘Khairlanji’ has now become a recognised symbol of
extreme caste injustice and violence, a disturbing counter narrative
of the ‘shining India’ myth1.

2  On the failure of this law, see Galanter (1989); also a more recent
press report by Frontline: htt(...)

2The Dalit crowds that took to the streets to demand the hanging of
the perpetrators did so because the local and state administration had
simply sought to conceal and erase the atrocity. The judicial outcome
too was unprecedented: among the 38 accused, eight were recognised
guilty, amongst whom six have been sentenced to death and two to life
imprisonment (however, due to appeal procedures, the final sentences
could still change). A special anti-atrocity law exists to punish
caste-based crimes against Dalits, but the conviction rates are
exceptionally low, testifying to the ability of dominant castes to
neutralize judicial procedures, not to mention the problem of
underreporting of such crimes by the local authorities.2 Their
inability to take advantage of such legal protection is in fact one
aspect of the overall dispossession of Dalits when seeking the support
of the local administration, as a means to protect their
constitutional rights and dignity.

3This book, written by A. Teltumbde, a Dalit intellectual from
Maharashtra, is an expression of the will to remember Khairlanji and
turn it into a symbol, both of caste oppression and Dalit revolt
against it in the 21st century: ‘We cannot allow Khairlanji to remain
an unfortunate incident, an aberration, a forgotten case in some
obscure court. The world needs to know the strange fruit that the tree
of caste has borne’ (p.10). Although not an academic, the author
provides a challenging Dalit critique of the failure of both the
Indian state and of its Dalit representatives to prevent caste
atrocities. His book will be of special interest to readers interested
in the latest developments in the politics of the unprivileged in
India. It argues that Dalit politics have reached a critical stage,
and questions the legalistic approach that it has adopted until now.
Teltumbde in fact constructs Khairlanji as an historical turning
point. His criticism of the Ambedkarite movement’s inadequacies leads
to a series of propositions for the post-Khairlanji Ambedkarite
movement that are reminiscent of the Dalit Panther’s tentative and
short-lived Marxist redefinition of Ambedkarism in the early 1970s.

3  See for instance: Brass (1998); Mendelsohn & Vicziany (1998);
Fuller & Bénéï (2000).

4Teltumbde’s attempt to expose the reality of caste from below through
the scrutiny of an atrocity and its aftermath not only provides first
hand material on the massacre and the Dalit reaction that followed, it
represents a valuable intellectual essay on ‘understanding castes to
annihilate them’, as the introduction’s title proposes. From the
academic point of view, the book provides fruitful and pertinent
insights into the understanding of caste in the contemporary Indian
context. Dismissing Indologist theories on caste, the author expresses
his disagreement with the (formerly) established scholarly perspective
that took the ideological justification of caste uncritically, giving
it the status of the consensual, autochthonic cultural point of view.
As critiques of Dumont’s theory of caste have also pointed out, such
views provided academic authority to Brahminical hierarchy as the
essence of Indian sociology. Pointing to the obsolescence of such a
scholarly tradition and its uselessness for the anti-caste movement
that requires a properly contextualised understanding of caste,
Teltumbde seeks to elucidate the economic and political rationale of
anti-Dalit violence (‘caste atrocities’) in the early 21st century. In
taking such a critical stand against academic research, the author
fails to acknowledge the important work that researchers conducted
from the perspective of the lower castes, which clearly departs from
the Dumontian theory. The profound renewal of academic research on
Indian society, in which the old Indology appears to have been
definitively sidelined, has not been taken into account by the author.
For instance, many recent studies have documented the lives and
struggles of India’s ordinary poor people and their relationship to
the state3, bringing relevant knowledge to his own objective, i.e. ‘to
sharpen our understanding of caste dynamics as they exist’ (p.20).

5Despite his criticism of the Ambedkarite movement and the Marxist
overtones of his analysis, his intellectual effort is well inscribed
in the legacy of the great historical leader of Dalit emancipation,
whose writings are starting to be acknowledged in the academic world.
In this respect, the author dissociates himself from the bulk of
Ambedkarite activists, who have simply adopted the great man as the
ideal combination of upward mobility and engagement on behalf of the
Dalit community and seek to pursue his agenda in an orthodox and
rather uncreative manner, notwithstanding Ambedkar’s own iconoclasm.
Although critical of Ambedkar’s religious focus on conversion to
Buddhism, that his followers now consider the unquestioned antidote
against caste and the religious label of true Amebdkarites, Teltumbde
seems more in tune with Ambedkar’s insistence on the need to base
anti-caste activism on a sharp sociological and historical account of
caste, an organic theory of caste annihilation grounded in the Dalit
experience of caste oppression.

6As a Dalit intellectual, the author builds his critique from the
point of view of an insider, who is entitled to expose of his
community’s political flaws, thus avoiding the trap of pure
victimization. Instead he maintains the militant self-definition of
Dalits as emancipated and radical political subjects struggling to
democratize Indian society from the margins. Far from the kind of
Brahmin bashing with which Ambedkarites sometimes tend to content
themselves, the author seeks to include the Ambedkarite movement’s
faults in his critique of what he calls India’s ‘political economy of
caste’. Hence, much more than just a book on the Khairlanji massacre,
Teltumbde’s essay takes caste atrocity as a relevant feature for the
understanding of contemporary Indian society, focusing especially on
caste interferences in the functioning of the Indian state machinery
and on the caste bias of the dominant media’s public discourse.

7The biased way in which the local and the national mainstream media
treated the issue of the massacre, as well as the negative image they
gave of the subsequent protests are finely analysed. The figures
regarding upper caste domination of the media (90% of the senior
journalists and managers in Delhi’s print media, according to a quoted
survey by the CSDS) do suggest quite a lot about an elitist and urban
view on what matters or not, what deserves a headline or will remain
unnoticed as just another shady crime story involving ‘uneducated
villagers’ in ‘backward India’. The massacre was initially reported in
Nagpur’s local press as being a popular punishment meted out to an
allegedly adulterous mother. The caste angle was concealed and the
criminal crowd who indulged in the collective raping, beating and
mutilating to death, was portrayed as being driven by a sense of moral
outrage, indulging in ‘an act of public-spirited ‘moral justice’’
(p.13), a presentation of the events that is nothing short of a
justification.

8The caste and urban bias of the journalists appeared negatively
through the absence of reports on the massacre in the national media
(despite several attempts by local NGOs to catch their attention by
sending reports of their fact finding missions). The bias became more
manifest and textual in the reports on the Dalit protests, assimilated
as they were to mere public nuisance. Damage to public property was
sensationally highlighted and protestors were framed in contrast to
‘citizens’, victims of traffic perturbations, while the rationale
behind the collective anger was reduced to ‘political manipulation’.

9Such biased reports provide a clear justification for an alternative
account from the Dalit side. Teltumbde’s main argument is that far
from being ‘just the misdeed of some uncultured barbaric monsters’,
Khairlanji in fact ‘illustrates the state of the entire country’
(p.25). ‘Every village in India is a potential Khairlanji. (...)
Khairlanji represents the quintessence of caste in India – that people
have to observe their ascriptive statuses; stay put in their place’
(p.14). Based on the Dalit experience of caste as violence, the social
reality described here is the exact negation of the irenic Gandhian
cliché ‘much celebrated in textbooks and tourist brochures’ (p.13) on
Indian village life; instead it is a world where caste violence is
multifarious, permanent and inescapable, whether internalised with the
acceptance of one’s degraded status, or manifest when refusing to
forsake one’s dignity and rights.

10Reflecting the Dalit standpoint, the author thus argues that
violence is an intrinsic aspect of caste, and that such irruptions of
caste violence, far from being isolated events, have a more
functional, systemic aspect of enforcing the social order, hence its
tendency ‘to be performed as a public spectacle by collectives in a
celebratory mode’ (p.185). This is made clear by the collective
dimension of rape, where the woman’s body becomes the privileged site
of collective punishment. ‘Rape is not a private affair- in
Khairlanji, it becomes a celebratory spectacle. Atrocities involve
intricate and devious planning so that they become a ‘lesson’ for the
entire dalit community.’ (pp.178-9).

11Displacing our understanding of caste from the mythical
Varnashradharma reference to the role that it performs in the Indian
market economy and bureaucratic polity (termed the ‘political economy’
of caste), the author thus makes the polemic statement that ‘in recent
times, atrocities also owe to the structural imperatives of the
neoliberal state that needs to curb public dissent against its
intrinsically anti-people policies’ (p.115). Such a reassessment of
the contemporary functionalities of caste thus invites the readers to
depart from the ‘classical fourfold varna system’, as ‘any discussion
of caste typically begins with or bases itself’ (p.19), so as to
consider caste an integral part of Indian reality, especially as far
as its interference in the functioning of the state machinery is
concerned. Apart from his critique of Brahminical theories of caste,
Teltumbde also directly challenges the anti-caste movement’s narrow
and self-deceiving focus on anti-Brahminism: ‘Anticaste activism too
has reflected and reinforced the worse stereotypes, identifying foes
and friends in obsolete varna terms’ (p.15). The author moreover notes
that the anti-caste movement’s pragmatic reliance on caste categories
showed its limitations when, not knowing to which caste the Bhotmange
belonged (since it is not a typical Dalit name), the Ambedkarite
community initially failed to react to the massacre, thus illustrating
‘the bitter truth that caste identity becomes more important than
human identity in India, even for Ambedkarite dalits’ (p.48).

12The Anti-Brahmin, ‘Bahujan’ discourse emphasizing the cultural unity
of Dalits and Shudras stands particularly discredited in view of the
increasingly Shudra origin of caste violence, especially by dominant
castes, like in the Khairlanji massacre. However, the author’s
contention that ‘in all these infamous atrocities and mass murders
over the last four decades, there was no direct involvement of the
Brahminical castes’ is questionable, especially if we consider the
unprecedented wave of massacres in Bihar by the Bhumihars in the late
1990s. In fact the author’s project of studying the ‘political
economy’ of caste violence without reducing it to class violence would
require more attention to the uses of Brahminical ideology by rural
dominant castes in their attempts to assert their local hegemony and
crush any attempt from the Dalits to improve their degraded position
in local society.

13Another questionable aspect of Teltumbde’s demonstration of a
‘political economy of caste violence’ is his inclusion of the
Chhattisgarh state’s response to Maoism, i.e., the creation of the
Salwa Judum Tribal militia, which has led to a civil conflict in which
Tribals have ended up attacking Tribals, leading to massive population
displacement. The author accuses the Chhattisgarh state of voluntarily
orchestrating the population displacement to meet the requirement of
setting up special economic zones, thus linking the Salwa Judum
state-sponsored repression to the fulfilment of the demands of
multinational corporations. He however fails to justify the
assimilation of the Tribal issue to a caste issue. On what basis does
the author justify his ‘Dalit-Tribal’ category, apart from their
conflictual relationship to the state (which is also qualitatively
different)? Dalits and Tribals have never mobilised jointly, or
produced any common ideology. Dalits, while criticizing the caste
system, and claiming non-Brahmin Dravidian origins, have paradoxically
avoided any identification with Tribals. Even if it makes sense to
study comparatively and simultaneously different kinds of ethnic
discrimination, and if discrimination against non-Hindu minorities
often have underlying caste dimensions (like in the case of Dalit
converts), one should not lose sight of the specificity of caste
discrimination, that Ambedkar himself theorised as the problem of
graded inequality. Although agreeing that ‘discarding caste as an
analytical category altogether would be like throwing the baby with
the bathwater’ (p. 20), the author seems to head in that direction.

14Although he still situates himself in the Ambedkarite tradition of
the politically engaged Dalit intelligentsia, his politics moves away
from the anti-Brahmin alliance of Dalit and Shudra castes that was the
ideological base of Ambedkarite political revival of the 1990s
following the Bahujan Samaj Party’s (BSP) success, but that events
like Khairlanji and the growing class tensions between intermediary
agricultural castes and the Dalits have discredited. Teltumbde instead
advocates that the alternative to such caste based politics of
alliance with other unprivileged groups lies in class unity, which is
conceived as the only possible horizon of the anti-caste movement: ‘it
must be realised that caste cannot be the basis of such unity; only a
class approach can achieve it. Indeed the caste situation today has
become so complex that the caste idiom is proving increasingly futile,
and the earlier one thinks of substituting it the better’ (p. 20).

15The denunciation of the Indian state’s biased attitude towards
Dalits by the Khairlanji protestors offers a valuable account of the
contemporary Dalit condition as citizens whose access to state
resources and constitutional rights is hampered by caste factors. The
problematic relationship of Dalits to the state thus appears as a
major dimension of the caste problem that they face, making the state
part of the problem rather than the solution. The difficulty for
Dalits to register complaints in a police station, that the Khairlanji
events dramatically illustrated, highlights the insecurity and
alienation of Dalits at the hands of the local state apparatus, as
well as the complications created by caste complicities and corruption
in gaining access to representatives of the state: ‘Bhayyalal
remembered that when he had not met the demand for money from PSI
(police station in-charge) Bharane on a previous occasion, Bharane had
threatened him and said he would not entertain any of his complaints’
(p. 42). Indeed, the Khairlanji narrative is woven around shocking
examples of a biased attitude of the administration at different
levels, like the absence of a forensic expert during the post-mortem
examination of the bodies, due to pressure from local political
notables, as well as in the second post-mortem conducted by a medical
team from New Delhi.

16The Dalit state bourgeoisie, whom Ambedkar conceived as sympathetic
representatives of Dalits inside the state institutions, is not spared
in this critique. The Khairlanji revolt was not only a response to
being let down by the administration and abandoned to the dominant
castes’ hostility, but also to the failure of Ambedkarite politicians
to provide any protection to their constituency. What Khairlanji
revealed was precisely the state of powerlessness of the Dalits and
the terrible events to which it could lead. The fact-finding
committees set up by Dalit organisations in order to enquire on the
attitude of the administration discovered moreover that many of the
state employees who were involved in the concealment of the crime were
themselves Dalits. The fear of total abandonment by the official
authorities (as an extreme form of disenfranchisement) that motivated
the protests can thus be linked to the failure of the Dalit elite to
provide protection to its deprived community from inside the
administration. Teltumbde theorizes this popular resentment as the
failure of the Ambedkarite project of Dalit representation.

17Ambedkar’s own expectations from administrative representation in
the shape of public job quotas, which he had himself dismissed at the
end of his life as naive when he denounced the lack of moral
commitment of Dalit administrators, is thus criticized as the
theoretical failure to understand the nature the state, whose
character, like all institutions, ‘is not the same as the sum total of
the characters of individuals manning it’ (p. 112). Moreover, there
are sociological obstacles to assuming the role of committed
representatives, like social mobility that alienates and isolates the
representatives from their social background (‘From a class point of
view, dalit officials no longer remains a allies (sic) of dalits’, p.
195). The author argues that the dominated and insecure position in an
upper caste dominated professional milieu generates internalised self
restrictions to this role model that can even lead to contrary
attitudes towards the community: ‘sometimes even the dalit incumbents,
perhaps on account of their relative lack of security, appear
overzealous in trying to show that they are above caste and identity
considerations, which actually means toeing the caste-Hindu viewpoint
and thereby acting against the interests of their fellow oppressed’
(p.112). Even if bold and militant Dalit administrators exist, the
author argues that they are nothing more than exemplary, individual
exceptions, whose impact on Dalit lives is therefore marginal: ‘This
is not to say that individuals are totally inconsequential.
Individuals– if they are intrinsically capable, courageously
people-oriented and in positions of power- can catalyse some change.
But such a combination in the case of dalits is a rare occurrence,
given the huge systemic inertia and formidable class pressure on them’
(p.113).

18Teltumbde, while reflecting on the Khairlanji protestors’ feeling of
being let down by their own, fails to elaborate an original analysis
of the state based on the Dalit experience, instead contenting himself
with the Marxist characterization of the Indian state as the product
of the post colonial ‘compromise between the feudal landlords and the
emerging bourgeoisie’ (p. 19). He gives an excessively monolithic
account of the state, which is not exempt of essentialist overtones,
as if the Indian state’s nature was fixed once and for all. His
critical account of the Dalit officers’ failure to act from their
administrative positions in Maharashtra could have been contrasted
with the Dalit experience in Uttar Pradesh, where Mayawati’s regimes
not only posted Dalit officers in positions of local authority, but
compelled them to work for their community’s welfare. Her policy of
administrative reshuffle, which was denigrated by the media as
non-meritocratic and casteist, actually contributed to improving
Dalits’ relationship to the state and empowered them by providing them
official support in their local struggles. However limited, this
change is one of the most important results that the BSP governments
have yielded for the Dalits (probably more important than its symbolic
politics and Dalit oriented development schemes), which has generated
hopes of replicating the formula in other parts of India, even if the
BSP has for the moment failed to make any impact outside Uttar
Pradesh.

19The emerging possibility of an eventual break away from the Indian
state because of a feeling of disappointment and disgust, which seems
to be the principal lesson of Khairlanji for Maharashtrian Dalits, is
well illustrated in the vibrant account of the state repression of the
protests, that the author characterizes as ‘not any less grave
atrocity than Khairlanji’ (p. 111). Although the protestors expressed
their anger through peaceful means of collective action, the
Maharashtrian state’s brutal response in which ‘People were badly
beaten, their bones broken, ligaments torn’ (p. 74) not only targeted
protestors but took the shape of a pogrom-like collective vengeance of
the police against Dalit localities: ‘Most of the victims had actually
not participated in the protests; they were targeted simply because
they were dalits living in dalit localities…’ (p. 74-5). Those
arrested randomly were ‘charged with all kinds of crimes, and would be
spending many anxious years and their frugal earnings on courts to
prove their innocence.’ (p.77). Adding to the atrocity itself, the
brutal repression of the Dalit protests shocked Dalit communities all
over India.

4  Patil, Pratap. ‘Khairlanji’, documentary movie. Vivid Vision
Production, 43 minutes.

20The possible convergence between such a hypothetic rupture with the
state and the Maoist strategy of ‘people’s war’, is evoked at several
points and seems to sketch the book’s political horizon. The supposed
Maoist (or Naxalite) involvement in the protests was evoked by the
Nagpur police, as well as the home state minister, ‘as a licence for
the police to unleash terror’ (p. 111). However, the officials failed
to provide any evidence to this claim, and were contradicted by the
fact that the organisers of the local protest committees were well
known Ambedkarite activists from local organisations. Although it
could be politically difficult for the authorities to target the
Ambedkarite movement, fully committed to acting in a legal framework,
the Naxalite thesis could be put forward due to the fact that the
Ambedkarite political leadership lost control over the protests.
Generally, intense factionalism has led to individualized deals
between local Ambedkarite politicians and mainstream political parties
(whose electoral support is rewarded by official positions), political
patronage that exerts an indirect form of political control on their
Dalit constituency. But in the Khairlanji protests, the Ambedkarite
masses came out in unity, responding to the call of newly formed
committees that bypassed the political leaders, thus creating an
impression of uncontrolled insurgency. The Naxalite angle used by the
police was therefore not just an opportunistic and utilitarian claim,
as the author suggests, but perhaps also an authentic feeling of an
emerging Dalit uprising that could be abusively labelled as ‘Naxalite’
because of the threat it represented to the local power arrangements.
‘Naxalite’ is not just ‘a demonic label produced by the Indian state
to assume full authority to do whatever it pleases with ordinary
people daring to dissent in this democratic republic’ (p.68), as the
author claims, even if it is also that. Not far from Khairlanji, the
Gadchiroli Tribal district is one of the Maoist strongholds of central
India. In April 2008, at the time of the death of the Maoist leader
Arunadha Gandhi, it was revealed that she was staying in Nagpur’s main
Dalit locality (Indora, the epicentre of the Ambedkarite movement in
Nagpur, and the main stronghold in Maharashtra), which is a pointer to
the fact that the Naxalites had actually started building links with
Dalits. Although this by no means signifies any substantial
infiltrations of the Ambedkarite movement by Maoists, it could point
to some degree of ideological influence, as is suggested in the
‘Khairlanji’ documentary film, which circulates in Nagpur on copied
CDs, (especially in the last scene when a street singer sings the war
cry halla bol).4 Teltumbde’s book, which reflects the growing popular
distrust of the state, itself testifies to this potential convergence
as an outcome of a growing feeling of injustice among Dalits. This
becomes more obvious when he makes the provocative statement that if
state justice fails to punish severely the Khairlanji accused, then
the Naxalite’s ‘summary justice’ could provide the alternative.

21On the whole, the book is a major statement on the contemporary
Dalit condition, at a moment when their relationship to Indian
democracy has reached a critical point. Breaking away from some major
postulates of the Ambedkarite movement, the author’s attempt to
relocate Ambedkarism in a Marxist framework can be seen as an attempt
to salvage the movement in light of its electoral failure, despite
having remained a powerful instrument of Dalit assertion and pride, as
well as to prepare it for dealing with growing class tensions. Even in
Uttar Pradesh, where Dalit electoral politics have achieved the most,
the BSP’s shift from Dalit identity for the sake of expanding its
constituency has shown the limitations of such minority politics for
Dalits. Many local Ambedkarite activists are now resentful of
Mayawati’s attempt to curb their grassroots social movement. This book
in fact demonstrates that Ambedkarism’s fate among Dalits provides an
excellent indicator of their perceived stakes in the Indian state and
therefore of its credibility among the largest sections of India’s
unprivileged citizens.

Bibliography

Brass, Paul (1998) The Theft of an Idol. Text and Context in the
Representation of Collective Violence. Calcutta: Seagull Books.

Fuller, C.J.; Bénéï, Véronique (2000) The Every Day State and Society
and Modern India.New Delhi: Social Science Press.

Galanter, Marc (1989) ‘Missed opportunities: The use and non-use of
law favourable to Untouchables and other specially vulnerable groups’,
in Law and Society in Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press: 208-34.

Jaoul,Nicolas(2008) ‘The “Righteous Anger” of the Powerless.
Investigating Dalit Outrage over Caste Violence’, South Asia
Multidisciplinary Academic Journal [Online], 2 |. URL :
http://samaj.revues.org/index1892.html

Mendelsohn, Oliver; Vicziany, Marika (1998) The Untouchables.
Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India. New Delhi:
Cambridge University Press.

Notes

1  On the post-Khairlanji protests, see Jaoul (2008).

2  On the failure of this law, see Galanter (1989); also a more recent
press report by Frontline:
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2624/stories/20091204262400400.htm

3  See for instance: Brass (1998); Mendelsohn & Vicziany (1998);
Fuller & Bénéï (2000).

4  Patil, Pratap. ‘Khairlanji’, documentary movie. Vivid Vision
Production, 43 minutes.

---------------------------

Source: Samaj, South Asia Multidiscipinary Journal
<http://samaj.revues.org/index2937.html>





-- 


You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot
build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you
will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a
whole.
-AMBEDKAR



http://venukm.blogspot.com

http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur

http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.

Reply via email to