 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
| |
| |
|
Gopal Guru/Spectre of exclusion
Gopal
Guru, from the University of Delhi, made a connection
between Nepal and India by concentrating on certain
conceptual issues so as to overcome the difficulty
of unfamiliar specificities.
The
language of exclusion/inclusion has come to be
used globally since the advent of neo-liberalism.
He said that while to speak of dalit exclusion
in India is seen as ironic, the inclusion of dalits
is still largely only symbolic; thus, dalits have
been included in the spheres that are denigrated
by the social elites in India – sanitation,
tanneries, presidential office, and so on. Guru
made the point that the quality of inclusion is
more important than symbolic inclusion.
Using
the dichotomous method of argumentation to discuss
exclusion and inclusion, Guru elucidated on the
terms and concepts used to explain the dalit situation.
a)
Egoistic/altruistic exclusion: The argument for
egoistic exclusion is driven by modernist confidence,
which stipulates that there is no requirement
of ‘others’, or that the brute majority
does not need others. This rationale, which translates
into ‘I do not want your votes’ is
a way of imposing exclusion on the other. It builds
on the fact that the elites make up only 20 per
cent of the population. As opposed to egoistic
exclusion, altruistic exclusion is a desirable
exclusion and exercised for the common good. That
said, the ghettoisation of dalits cannot be justifiably
validated on moral grounds as it violates civilisational
principles. Guru said that exclusion, as a dalit
strategy, should not become entrenched in a long-term
vision of the future.
b)
Active/passive exclusion: When a dominant person/group
imposes exclusion, it is active exclusion; active
exclusion flows from the top to the bottom of
the hierarchy. This is often simultaneous with
hegemonic inclusion, that is including a token
representative and permanently excluding the group.
This ensures the stability of the dominant person
or group’s position and forecloses protests
from the subordinates. Passive exclusion, however,
is self-imposed. Taking on an unrepresentative
name, for example, because of a fear of social
linkages and prospective humiliation is a form
of such dignified isolation.
c)
Sociological/cosmological exclusion: Wherever
Hinduism goes, it carries with it an ideology
of purity and pollution; hence the category ‘dalit
diaspora’. For exclusion, it is the body
and not the mind which is important and to be
excluded. This is sociological exclusion. Cosmological
exclusion, practised largely against women and
dalits, relies on time and space. Therefore, there
are rules against dalits coming outdoors in the
morning and evening when the chances of one of
the higher castes being ‘violated’
by the elongated shadows are highest. This is
now practised only in a mild form. Instead, in
these globalised times, dalits and the poor are
excluded from the ‘prime time’ in
economic spaces, such as at the vegetable market
where dalits have access only to leftover produce.
Dalits are also excluded from certain spaces.
That dalit elites cannot find accommodation in
a good housing society even when they meet the
economic criteria perpetuates the ghettoisation
of dalits.
Social
exclusion is the root of all exclusion. Dalits
are not given the opportunity to come out of their
exclusion. Thus, the scavenger carries the burden
of her or his task every minute of her or his
life even while not at work, as does her or his
child.
In a democratic set-up, dalits face a tension
when they choose to exclude themselves. Despite
the fact that they are participating more widely
in electoral processes and have achieved the height
of exclusion now, the depth of exclusion remains
questionable. Currently, dalit exclusion has no
depth, and it will not unless the everyday becomes
more important for democracy. Only if that happens,
and the exercise of democracy becomes less ‘episodic’,
will inclusion become meaningful. A deliberative
democracy – argument and talking –
is necessarily exclusionary. Those who are not
equipped with the skills of articulation, for
instance, are left out.
Outlining
the resistance to exclusion, Guru described three
strategies. The stoic argument, that the dalit
sometimes uses to argue for exclusion, relies
on metaphors such as the sun. Thus, as the sun
is untouchable, so is the dalit. To have any impact,
this metaphor must be accepted by the ‘other’,
who is egoistic and recalcitrant. There is also
the pragmatist approach that comes from an awareness
of capacity. So, dalits will demand positions
in one ministry or two, which they are confident
of getting. (Example: the social welfare department
in Maharashtra is always headed by a dalit, and
this is an instance of state ghettoisation.) Asking
for a privileged, dignified inclusion, even if
it is partial, is strategic inclusion. Dalits,
however, continue to find it difficult to enter
civil society. Anarchic inclusion, which is the
complete inclusion of all, should be the eventual
outcome of democracy.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
