Contesting Community and Nation: Caste, Discrimination and Reservation Politics in India Tina Virmani A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Political Science York University Toronto, Ontario May 2014 © Tina Virmani Abstract This dissertation traces debates about reservation policy in India. Reserved quotas in public institutions for communities stigmatized on the basis of caste comprise an enduring and comprehensive form of affirmative action. However, the policy provokes deep resentment among upper castes, manifested in virulent protests, judicial challenges and failed implementation. The purpose of this dissertation is to understand how meanings of caste, community and nation are shaped within and through debates about reservation and in turn, how the politics of reservation contribute to the formation of political subjectivities. Drawing on a variety of sites, including the Constituent Assembly debates, the English press and government reports, I chart the development of a dominant discourse about reservations. I interrogate this discourse in relation to anti-caste perspectives on the issue, found in creative and activist writings and studies of Dalit activism. I argue that dominant discourses conflate the issue of caste discrimination with a series of terms that designate inequality more broadly, such as poverty and unemployment. This enables the portrayal of “lower caste” beneficiaries of reservation as inferior subjects that are unable to understand their “real interests”. Thus trivializing discrimination, the discourse naturalizes caste privilege and conceals the historical contestations over the meaning of the quota. In anti-caste discourse, advocacy of reservations is articulated to a critique of the domination of upper caste interests in Indian democracy and the hegemonic vision of the nation through which this domination is naturalized. Thus, power and representation are underscored as integral to assessments of reservation policy. Attending to the affective registers of the debate, I demonstrate that statements about the quota are also statements about history, nationalism and political subjectivity. Reading dominant discourse through anti-caste analytics reveals that the anger against reservations as a threat to the nation is historically related to the antagonism of institutionalized nationalism towards Dalit politics. Through rights claims, Dalit activists contest dominant meanings of caste and in turn, the meanings of community and nation. This epistemological challenge illustrates the contingent relations of group rights and social transformation, as struggles against discrimination generate novel understandings of difference, commonality and personhood. ii Acknowledgments I have written this dissertation with the support of many individuals and institutions. I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Ananya Mukherjee-Reed and my committee members, Radhika Mongia and Gerald Kernerman. Since I began graduate studies at York University as an M.A. student, Ananya has encouraged and inspired my research interests and provided guidance throughout. Her advice that I be patient with the research process and the formation of arguments, rather than attempt to make premature conclusions, has been invaluable. Radhika has taught me the importance of engaging the arguments of others with care, of approaching writing as a craft and revising with rigor. Her commitment to teaching and learning is a source of inspiration. Thank you for your critical comments and for encouraging me to run, which renewed my energy in the final months of writing. Gerald provided me with the opportunity to explore new ideas in his course and challenged me to read and ask questions differently. I would also like to thank Anna Agathangelou, whose graduate classes greatly influenced my thinking. The knowledge and perspectives I gained from her have critically shaped my approach in this project. In New Delhi, the kind staff at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library helped me access a vast amount of research materials. I am grateful for the resources and insights provided by the Dalit Foundation, the National Confederation of Dalit Organizations, and the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies. Members of the Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation generously shared experiences and knowledge. The staff of the Press Archives division of Jawaharlal Nehru University Library provided a wealth of information for Chapter 3. I could not have written Chapter 4 without the important documents of the Pasmanda Counter-Public Archive, collected by the Patna Collective. I am deeply grateful to Khalid Anis Ansari and Sanjay Ingole for sharing their invaluable knowledge and critical insights on the politics of caste, culture and knowledge production. Many thanks to Amita Joseph and Mohamed Ali for helping me navigate Delhi. My love and gratitude to Suman Sachdev, Durgesh Sachdev and Dhruv Sachdev for welcoming me into their home and making me a part of their family. In Mumbai, I had the privilege of learning from the late Dr. Ashgar Ali Engineer, whose passion and commitment were truly moving. Thank you to the Centre for Society iii and Secularism for providing me with space and access to research materials. Aruna Bhatia and Alka Bhatia generously hosted me. Thank you for your kindness. I am grateful to Omme-Salma Rahemtulla, Vanessa Rosa, Alejandro Campos Garcia, Salima Vaiya, Zahir Kolia, Nashwa Salem, Beenash Jafri and Ian Hussey for their comments on various aspects of the dissertation, especially in the formative stages. Thank you to Nishant Upadhyay for carfully reading various chapters, pointing to connections I missed and asking engaging questions. Apeksha Kumar, Shivani Dhawan and Ruby Sadera joined me in Mumbai and Delhi, and have taken care of me in innumerable ways. Lina Nadar has been listening patiently and sharing her energy since the day I started graduate school. Thank you to Jaspall Sidhu for listening and making me laugh. I could not have completed this dissertation without the love and support of my parents, Ajay Virmani and Monica Virmani. Their strength and devotion to family is unwavering. Thank you for everything you have given me. My best friend, toughest critic and greatest champion, Razaq Shaikh, has seen me through every phase of this project. He has given me strength in times of self-doubt and exhaustion, encouraged me to reflect on this process as a journey and accept my limitations with a sense of humor. I cannot imagine my life without him. Thank you for your amazing love. iv Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………...iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..v Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...1 Chapter One. Feeling Difference, Differentiating Feelings: Caste and Minority Rights in the Constituent Assembly Debates…………………………………………………....54 Chapter Two. Representing Reservations: Caste, Class and Untouchability in Narratives of Social Mobility……………………………………………………………………..98 Chapter Three. Waging Caste Wars: Imagining Community and Nation in the Mandal Commission Debate…………………………………………………………………...145 Chapter Four. Interrogating Minority: Difference, Discrimination and the Muslim Reservation Debate……………………………………………………………………195 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….245 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..272 v Introduction On 8 July 2012 the popular Sunday morning talk show Satyamev Jayate (Truth Alone Prevails) explored the issues of untouchability and caste-based discrimination in Indian society. As a guest on the program documentary filmmaker Stalin K. Padma informed host Aamir Khan that this was the first time these issues were being discussed on national television. “It took us 65 years to get here. Shame. However, Congratulations.” Satyamev Jayate aired its first episode on the subject of sex selective abortions and female feoticide on 6 May 2012. Over the following weeks it presented a range of problematic social issues, such as domestic abuse, child abuse, alcohol addiction and medical malpractice, with the intention of raising awareness and inspiring social change in society. The program’s ability to discuss difficult subject matter and attract a wide audience is attributed to its narration of social issues through a number of “affective tropes” that include cathartic revelations, shocking testimonies, interviews with experts and cutaways of shocked or tearful studio audiences.1 In the 90 minute broadcast dedicated to untouchability, Professor Kaushal Pawar described the meager income that her family earned sweeping and removing waste from the homes of upper castes, and the segregation and exclusion she faced in her village as a child. She had experienced constant harassment and humiliation by fellow students and professors as a graduate student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, an institution reputed for its commitment to progressive politics. Several portions of Stalin K. Padma’s film India Untouched were included in the episode to show how caste discrimination affected children stigmatized as untouchable from a very young age.2 A twelve year old interviewed in the film explained that he had dropped out of school because it was too humiliating to be made to sit separately from other students during meals. Other children Padma interviewed were                                                                                                                 1 Shohini Ghosh, “Dil Se Nahin Dimag se Dekho: Thoughts on Satyamev Jayate Episode 1”, Kafila: Media, Politics, Dissent, 9 May 2012, http://kafila.org/2012/05/09/dil-se- nahin-dimaag-se-dekho-thoughts-on-satyamev-jayate-episode-1-shohini-ghosh/.   2  The entire film can be viewed online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDGmYdhZvU. For further information on the film see http://stalink.wordpress.com/documentaries/india-untouched/.   1 forced to sweep and clean toilets by their teachers. India Untouched demonstrated that caste discrimination was pervasive both in rural villages and, despite their assumed modernity, in urban cities. Further, that it affected the community practices of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs. A large segment of the program was devoted to the work of activist Bezwada Wilson to end the occupation of manual scavenging. The episode concluded with one audience member claiming that he had decided he would not “differentiate” between people, and another wishing that the modernity of Indian cities would no longer be gauged by its malls or metro systems, but by the presence of caste. Both responses were received with resounding applause, as if to echo Stalin’s statement. “Shame. However, Congratulations.” In his critical review of this episode S. Anand, a prominent writer and publisher on issues of caste, noted that during the 90 minute broadcast any mention of two significant issues had been scrupulously avoided.3 First, the work of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was not only the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and India’s first Law Minister, but the most significant leader of the struggle for rights, dignity and political power by Dalits, groups stigmatized as “untouchable” by Hinduism’s caste hierarchy. Secondly, there was no mention of the word Reservations. Enshrined in the Constitution, the policy of quota-based reservations is the principal form of affirmative action in India. This policy “reserves” a fixed percentage of seats in legislatures, public employment and educational institutions for stigmatized communities in order to address the historically entrenched discrimination that conditions their lives. Anand interrogated the politics that motivated these exclusions: How did Kaushal Pawar get a BA, MA, PhD and land a job with Delhi University? What is it that facilitates access to hitherto-excluded spaces for Dalits?...The one weapon that helps them get an education? Get a job? Reservation. And who made this policy possible? Ambedkar.4 Upon contacting Bezwada Wilson about his interview on the program, Anand learned that he had discussed the work of Ambedkar. These portions of his interview had been                                                                                                                 3 S. Anand, “Silence Eva Jayate,” Outlook Magazine, July 23 2012, http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?281646.   4 Ibid.   2 edited out. With the exception of Wilson’s discussion of how the legislation passed in 1993 to eliminate manual scavenging had been largely neglected, there was no mention of the existing legal and political measures that dealt with caste violence and discrimination, let alone their efficacy. Throughout the episode host Aamir Khan implored his audience to change the way they thought, to stop seeing people as “high” and “low” and to teach their children good values. His own emotive responses to the suffering his guests had endured due to their caste location – he was often moved to tears – suggested that sympathy was necessary for social change. By using images of suffering and painful personal testimony to shock and sadden the audience, the program highlighted the agency of non-Dalits in social change. Khan wanted his viewers to realize that the ugly reality of entrenched caste discrimination prevented India from becoming a strong nation. What was it that made the issue of reservation policy so disruptive to this mobilization of sympathy that it could not even be mentioned? Why and how would it prevent the viewers – primarily middle class and upper caste – from identifying with the objective of ending caste discrimination in Indian society? While Satyamev Jayate may have been the first nationally televised discussion about caste discrimination, these exclusions indicate how it drew upon and was structured by particular ways of knowing, speaking about and relating to caste. The program reflected what D.R. Nagaraj describes as the fragmented response to the injustices of the caste system among liberal supporters. Nagaraj argues that although these supporters are moved by lofty philosophical talk against caste and touched by the spiritual beauty of the revolt, Dalit efforts to secure jobs and other material benefits in the name of justice and positive discrimination are met with horror, and seen as mean and ignoble faces of their struggles.5 Even Gandhi, credited with making the fight against untouchability a key priority in the anti-colonial nationalist                                                                                                                 5 D.R. Nagaraj, The Flaming Feet and Other Essays: The Dalit Movement in India, ed. Prithvi Datta and Chandra Shobhi (Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2010), 29-30. Nagaraj’s description of the revolt against caste in terms of spiritual beauty refers to the perception among upper caste social reformers that the purification of Hindu religious practice would replace caste hierarchy with harmonious social relations. Gandhi’s emphasis on atonement for the past sins of untouchability and compassion for the untouchable designated the upper caste self as the primary site of struggle. Gandhi’s views on caste will be discussed in greater detail in the final section of this chapter.   3 movement, could respond deeply to the spiritual beauty of the revolt, but recoiled in utter embarrassment when confronted with its material demands.6 Hence, the deliberate exclusion of the topic of reservations on national television is related to a broader history in which certain ways of approaching the caste question are dismissed on the grounds that they provoke hostility among upper castes and prevent their ability to empathize with the pain of the “untouchable”. This dissertation traces this history through an examination of debates about reservation policy in India. I trace the multiple discursive positions, forms of knowledge, and mobilizations of affect that shape and are shaped by debates about reservation over time. My reading of these debates will show that their content exceeds the immediate question of policy, marshalling passionate views on the legacies of colonialism, the foundations of nationhood, the politics of identity and structures of inequality. I am guided by two main questions: 1) how are the meanings of caste, community and nation shaped within and through debates about reservation? 2) how do the politics of reservation contribute to the formation of political subjectivities? Through a variety of sites including the Constituent Assembly of India, the mainstream English press, scholarly literature and government reports on caste, social and educational disadvantage and religious minorities, I chart how particular understandings of reservation policy, and the subjects it is intended to benefit, occupy a dominant position across different discursive spaces. I consider this in relation to Dalit and anti-caste perspectives on the issue found in creative literature, activist publications and studies of Dalit and anti-caste movements. Juxtaposing these different discursive positions and forms of knowledge brings into relief the conflicting political objectives and social imaginaries that circulate in debates about reservation, and in turn, contribute to their intractability.7 My dissertation highlights the ways in which Dalit and anti-caste writings pose a stark challenge to entrenched assumptions about caste, community and nation that                                                                                                                 6 Ibid.   7  My method aims to understand the connections between different forms of speech and writing in order to demonstrate the pervasiveness of particular assumptions in different discursive arenas. I am interested in questioning the distinctions between formal political spheres, such as law or policy-making and spaces of the imagination, such as creative writing and opinion pieces in newspapers. My method attends to the circulation of affect and emotion across these sites. 4 underpin dominant discourses about and (largely) against reservation policy. In the former, the advocacy and analysis of reservations is rooted in the historical trajectory of Dalit struggles for rights as an autonomous, non-Hindu community and the experiential structure of caste discrimination. However, dominant discourses are marked by the persistent marginalization of Dalit political thought and activism. This enables reservation to be represented as an ineffective and divisive policy and its beneficiaries as dependent and parochial subjects. Through this enduring representation, reservation quotas and the political subjects who support them are framed as detrimental to the nation-state. My dissertation will argue that these discourses are constructed through a conflation of the historically specific question of caste-based discrimination with a series of terms that designate social inequality more broadly, such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and landlessness. These terms are deployed interchangeably as the “real problems” that reservations has failed to resolve. Thus trivializing the question of discrimination while claiming sympathy for the “masses” afflicted by these problems, dominant discourses constitute a site in which caste privilege is naturalized. I will provide a brief outline of the contours of these discourses and their relation to Dalit and anti-caste thought below. The remainder of this introductory chapter is organized as follows. I will review the existing scholarship on reservation policy and identify the limitations that my project aims to address. I outline my approach, which attends to the affective and emotional registers of the debate. This approach contributes to understanding the ways in which claims about the quota are also always claims about history, nationalism and the kinds of political subjects that are produced by the quota. Next, I discuss the relevance of my project in relation to two areas of scholarship: inquiries into the multiple deployments of caste in the modern nation-state, especially its novel political functions, and epistemological questions about the production of caste as a modern category during British colonialism. While these areas of scholarship remain distinct, I argue that a productive engagement between them will contribute to understanding how colonial knowledge continues to uphold caste privilege in post- colonial India. Finally, I provide an overview of the transformations to caste relations during the colonial period and the various responses these engendered. The unresolved 5