ARTICULATING CASTE
AND MODERNITY:
LOCATING PHULE’S DISCOURSE
MERIN SIMI RAJ1
“A visionary sometimes arrives ahead of his time, and finds himself unable
to mobilize a sufficient social force to ensure the perpetuation of his ideas
in thought and action. Phule’s history is clearly of this category”
(Muralidharan 17).
Jotirao Phule is considered as the first generation Renaissance thinker
of India. (Omvedt 1). Being a reformer and a revolutionary, who was
driven by passionate humanitarianism, he earned the title ‘Mahatma’ from
his followers and contemporaries. It is indeed a different question whether
he has been accorded his due in Indian socio-political history.
Nevertheless, the foundation that he had laid for social revolution provided
the momentum for taking the social revolution to the political realm,
though after a few decades. Unlike many other contemporary reform
leaders, Phule’s conception of ‘reform’ and ‘progress’ began from within
the family structure itself by addressing the gender question and went on
to address larger questions pertaining to casteism and related oppressive
tactics. Omvedt describes Phule as one of the few social reformers who
‘deserve the respect of women’, and also as the ‘first systematic theorist of
caste’.
Though Phule had initiated radical thoughts and actions way back in
the nineteenth century, socio-political history had pushed Phule’s
contributions into the peripheries and he “had to wait for his first
sophisticated historical study till Gail Omvedt’s book (Cultural Revolt in a
Colonial Society: The Non-Brahman Movement in Western India, 1873-
1930) in 1976” (Sarkar 39). Phule was an advocate of the untouchables,
peasants and widows and promoted women’s education and liberation on a
massive scale. His praxis matched his theory as his own wife Savitri Bai
1 Doctoral Student, Dept of Humanities, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai.
86 Articulating Caste and Modernity
was also working in the girls’ schools that he had started in 1848 (for
untouchables) and in 1851 (for all castes). The emancipatory activities like
widow remarriage, abolition of child marriage, promotion of education etc
were extended to women from upper castes as well. He had thrown open
the drinking water tank in his house to untouchables in 1868. In the
introduction to Selected Writings of Jotirao Phule, G.P. Deshpande
vouches, “No high caste or bhadralok reformer had ever done such a
thing” (Deshpande 3). Phule was the fore-runner of many revolutionary
and radical socio-political thoughts and praxis. Phule’s Gulamgiri was
published in 1873, two years prior to Dayanand Saraswati’s Satyarth
Prakash. Phule also founded the Satya Shodak Samaj / Society of Truth
Seekers in 1867, four years prior to Arya Samaj. However, Indian history
records Dayanand Saraswathi’s contributions in bold letters but Phule has
been dismissed to the fringes of socio-political history.
1. Phule’s Gulamgiri
Gulamgiri (translated as Slavery), the best known of Phule’s works,
was published on 1 June 1873. In this treatise he equates casteism to
slavery and unleashes a scathing attack on Brahminism and its upholders.
He also deconstructs the Vedas and rips them apart by exposing the
‘conspiracy’ of Brahminical ideology. Phule had definite problems in
accepting the Vedas as the foundation of Indian civilization and tradition
as the majority of the native population did not have even access to the
ancient scriptures. Phule’s theoretical deliberations resulted in the
formation of the Satyashodhak Samaj in the same year. Gulamgiri can be
regarded as the manifesto of Satyashodhak Samaj. The Samaj aimed for a
casteless society build on egalitarian foundations rather than abstract,
infallible centres of power which operated with divine sanctions. Phule
hoped that through organized, collective action the inhuman practices
which sprung from casteist divisions could be eliminated from society.
Satyashodhak Samaj also lacked centralized organizational form and
focused more on individual propagandizing efforts. There was no overall
controlling body and that led to its poor sustenance. The Samaj was
founded on Phule’s insatiable passion for rational egalitarianism but that
was not enough to bind the followers together for long.
Omvedt points out that Phule’s writings were intended to shock people
into awareness rather than to provide an extensive analysis. “They are
unsystematic, sporadic, pictorial rather than discursive, hard-hitting …”
(Omvedt 21). The title of Gulamgiri may raise many an eyebrow even
today. Slavery: (In This Civilised British Government under the Cloak of
Merin Simi Raj 87
Brahminism) Exposed by Jotirao Govidraw Fule. The work is originally in
Marathi but the preface is in English written by Phule himself, perhaps,
with the intention of communicating directly with the colonial rulers, as
the preface by and large addresses the British government. The treatise is
“Dedicated to the good people of the United States as a token of
admiration for their … devotion in the cause of Negro slavery”. The work
is written in the form of a dialogue between Dhondiba and Jotirao. It is
divided into sixteen sections and deals with a variety of issues ranging
from critiques on the origin of Brahma to an analysis of the efficacy of the
government system and officials. Most of his views and observations on
the sanctity of religious texts are radical and revolutionary to the core and
were often interpreted as blasphemy. Jotirao tells Dhondiba, “My dear, try
reading the Bhagawata once. I assure you, you will prefer Aesop’s
Fables!” (63), to which Dhondiba replies later, “At least they do not
contain anything which would corrupt the minds of young children” (73).
The first nine sections try to re-read the scriptures and challenge its
infallibility. He deconstructs the divine origin theory and even goes to the
extent of making a mockery out of it. “… the account of human beings
given by Manu is completely wrong, simply because it cannot be applied
to all human beings” (48). His observations are rooted in rationality and he
develops his polemic in the most logical sense. He explains how the
Brahminical ideology had seeped into the minds of the people through
scheming conspiracies and apparently innocent coincidences. He talks
about the distortion of history and the ‘great mischief played by a few
Brahmin authors’ (73) in constructing a dominant ideology favourable to
them – “some cunning brahmans must have interpolated this fishy myth
into the ancient treatise” (51). Phule employs a historical materialist
analysis and explains in simple terms how Buddhism was won over by the
Brahmins through the scrupulous, cunning devices of Shankaracharya (74-
75).
If one reads this from the framework of a postcolonial theory that
identifies two main players, the colonizing power British and the native
one would not fail to detect a pro-British stance that underlies throughout
the entire treatise. However, this can be justified as Phule saw the British
as emancipators as against the upper castes who have been trampling the
lowercastes under their foot for centuries. In the preface Phule says,
“Happily for our Shudra brethren of the present day our enlightened
British Rulers have not recognized these preposterous, inhuman and unjust
penal enactments of the Brahmin legislators. They no doubt regard them
more as ridiculous fooleries than as equitable laws” (29). He ends the
preface with an assurance, “if the hearts and minds of the Sudras are made
88 Articulating Caste and Modernity
happy and contented the British government need have no fear for their
loyalty in future” (35). In the introduction he makes an overt statement,
“And then, as luck would have it God took pity on them and British rule
was established in India. The shudras heartily thank the British for this and
are exceedingly grateful on them” (44). Later he appeals to the British
throne directly. “… the Queen, who alone can remove the bond of slavery
tied around their (the shudras) necks by the wily brahmans” (87).
These statements were later used against Phule and his followers as
‘evidence’ of his pro-British feelings. It should be noted that the
untouchables got recognition as human beings and got an opportunity to
seek employment out of their traditional ‘polluting’ jobs. Hence, Phule
cannot be blamed for seeking solace under the British rule which was far
more emancipatory in terms of education and occupational mobility than
‘home rule’. His appeal to the British – to the outsider – made sense as
there was no hope of finding an ally from within. Besides, Phule’s
personal experiences of discrimination had convinced him that the need to
cleanse the minds of his fellow men and women of the outdated belief
system that propagated inequality and injustice was far more important
than nourishing anti-British feelings. Phule was driven with the conviction
that the British rule would unleash the forces of enlightenment to root out
Brahminical religion that legitimized evil customs and practices. Gavaskar
gives a more pragmatic reason for Phule’s stance. “Given the powerless
site from which Phule was articulating his radical critique of inegalitarian
society, it was inescapable for him to side with one of the two power
centres – the British or the burgeoning nationalist assertion of Brahmins –
to render his reality meaningful” (Gavaskar, 95). At the same time Phule
strategically places his critiques against the British rule as well. “… we are
extremely sad to note that the benevolent British government has ignored
the problem of education of the shudras” (45).
Colonial Rule vs. Brahminical Rule
Phule believed that Brahminical rule is worse than colonial rule. He
sees the brahminical hegemony and ‘their harassing of the shudras and
atishudras as worse than that of the Americans torturing their slaves’ (98).
Compared to the centuries old yoke thrust upon the shudras by the upper
castes, the colonial rule is negligible and does not come across as any
more threatening than Brahminical rule.
“Almost all government departments are so crowded with bhats who
oppress the shudras so much that the stories of their black deeds will
certainly put the oppressive British indigo plantation owners in Calcutta to
Merin Simi Raj 89
shame” (67). Here Phule is referring to the introduction of Indigo
Plantations in Bengal during the 1850s. The cultivators had rebelled
against the British and this had resulted in quite a furore throughout the
country. The Brahma Samaj had extended legal and organizational support
for the indigo workers during that period. However, the same Samaj was
quite indifferent to the caste question and its inequalities and this had irked
Phule. The point here is not to undermine the efforts of the Brahma Samaj
but to point out its peripheral nature in addressing social issues. While a
revolt against the colonial state gained national status and support the
revolt against the centuries’ long suppression was dismissed as being
casteist and communal.
From section ten onwards Phule tries to expose the Brahminical
hegemony even in the modern systems of governance. “… have acquired
various jobs as clerks etc. in government offices and infested the places so
thickly that it is impossible to find any office, either government or
otherwise, without a brahman in it”. (75). Phule is extremely critical and
skeptical of the social reformist movements under Brahmin leadership.
“Their grandiosely named organizations should not just point out to the
shudras the tiny mistakes of the government and instigate them against the
British. What they should do instead is to realize and remove their own
faults” (79). In section 12 Phule points out that since all the higher level
administrative posts are held by the Brahmins the lower castes find it
highly impossible to access them or to approach them for the alleviation of
their grievances.
Though occupational mobility was not popular, caste was not an issue
at all when it came to the recruitments for British army. “Why, the army
recruits people from all castes; that doesn’t lead people to create mayhem
in India?” (96-97). Phule feels that caste is blown out of proportion only
when Brahmins are kept in charge of the government, official duties.
Army recruitment process is done directly by the government without any
Brahmin intermediaries, hence, no bias. The other reason could be that
entry into Army does not bring about any structural change in the society
in terms of power or hierarchy.
The non-Aryan theory of caste
In Gulamgiri Phule fired his first shots against the theory of Aryan
civilization and their superiority. He challenged the prevalent belief that
the Aryans were the original settlers of the subcontinent. “The rowdy
ancestors of these ruffian brahmans came to our country from outside,
defeated our ancestors and turned them to slaves” (76). It is quite obvious
90 Articulating Caste and Modernity
that he had the Brahmins in mind when he used the word Aryan. At the
outset of his treatise he attacks the Aryans/brahmans, “The Aryans …
appear to have been a race imbued with very high notions of self,
extremely cunning and arrogant and bigoted” (78). Phule re-interprets the
scriptures by reading the nine avatars of Vishnu as different stages of
Aryan conquest. (80-83. He projects King Bali, a non-Aryan king, as a
counter-symbol of power against the Brahmins. (85).
The Aryan theory of race was a product of the Western thought as it
was developed and popularized by the German philologists especially Max
Muller (1823-1900) during the 1840s and 1850s. Muller had traced a
common ancestry for the Indians and Europeans. Hence, many upper
castes believed that there were blood ties between the British and the caste
Hindus who descended from the common Aryan ancestor! During Phule’s
time the Orientalists like William Jones (1746-1794) and Sir Charles
Wilkins (1749-1836) were using the Aryan theory of race to assert an
ethnic kinship between Europeans and ancient Vedic people. They
asserted that Aryans were the original inhabitants of the subcontinent and
Indian civilization can be seen as primarily derived from Aryan
civilization. The constant interest of European scholars in ancient Aryan
society and their praises of this society was an important moral boost to
high caste Indians. Through this the caste system was subtly lauded as a
means by which people of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds were
brought together and subjected to the civilizing influence of the Aryans
(Michael 2006).
Views on patriotism
Phule had a very sarcastic attitude towards the romanticized notions of
‘patriotism’ promoted by the nationalists. He saw the attempts to
‘nationalise’ and ‘homogenise’ as deliberate efforts to divert the attention
of the shudras and the downtrodden from the real, compelling issues of
oppression and inequality. He was critical about the kind of minimal
education imparted to the shudra children. “Therefore, instead of teaching
the shudras some basic practical knowledge, they fill up their minds with a
lot of rubbish about the fake principles of patriotism and turn them into
devotees of the English state” (67). At another instance, in section XIV he
elaborates this discussion and ridicules the upper castes for their double
standards.
… one should not really be surprised at their distorting the meaning of the
word patriotism because even their ancestors were unable to understand
the true meaning of the term. … Had their ancestors known what
Merin Simi Raj 91
patriotism really meant, they would never have described the shudras as
inferior to even beasts in their books. … The ancestors of these so-called
enlightened brahmans are supposed to have presented patriotism that is
superior to that of the Greeks! … What fool would accept their advice to
drive the English, who have rescued us from the slavery of bhats, away
from our land? (88-89).
Phule also exposes the ambivalence of the Sepoy Mutiny and its
nationalistic nature. While the revolt was against the ‘loss of caste’, what
implication would it have on those who did not have a caste at all?
However, even those who were outside the caste Hindu fold were forced
to be a part of the struggle though they did not share the common
consciousness. Phule did not consider the 1857 revolt as a nationalist
revolt or war for independence. In fact, he refers to the revolt as the “bhat
rebellion” (94) in which the shudras had no part to play. He also makes a
telling observation that “it would be very difficult to find a single rebellion
against the British which did not have a brahman priest in the leading
position, instigating it either openly or secretly. … who were the people in
the so-called chapati rebellion of 1857? None other than the deshastha
brahmans from the north like Bhatpande, the konkastha brahman Nana,
Tatya Topya such others” (76).
Phule did get support from the upper caste Brahmins when he started
the girls’ school and the school for atishudras. However, voices of dissent
emerged when those shudra children were taught ‘more’ than basic literary
skills. It was then that Phule decided to part ways from his upper caste
friends and continue working on his own with the help of some
sympathetic British supporters. Along with that Phule distanced himself
from the other “nationalist” projects as well as there was no common
consciousness to bind the two historically dichotomous groups together.
To Jotiba’s complaint, “… in 1857 the bhat rebellion broke out. After than
I began to sense that the European officers were giving me the cold
shoulder; they did not speak to me as genially as they used to to, …”
Dhondiba replies, “Why, just because of the arrogance of the bhats they
began to frown at you. That means they chose to ignore and reject the
innocent and side with the guilty!” (94-95). Here it clearly indicates that
Phule and his associates had no intentions of battling against the British; in
fact they were strongly against it. Phule maintained that the upper castes
did not want the shudras to get closer to the British. He admits that for a
while he too was fascinated by the ideals of patriotism and had romantic
notions of bringing about unity by reforming the religious tenets and going
back to the Vedas. Phule says, “They are afraid that if we, shudras, really
become the brothers of the enligsh, we will condemn their wily religious
92 Articulating Caste and Modernity
books and then these bhats who are so proud of their caste will have to eat
dust; … not even the father of their god brahma will be able to claim that
the bhat is superior to the shudra” (88).
There was definite unrest within the ‘nation’ against the nationalist
projects and struggles undertaken by the ‘leaders’. But those were unheard
voices, which had no forum to protest, no legitimacy to convince and no
power to influence. At one instance, though indirectly, Phule attacks the
upper castes’ ambivalent position on social reforms. They consider
themselves much higher in status than the shudras and boast of their rich
tradition and prestigious status. But Phule feels that they are not even
capable of preventing the evils that prevail within their own community.
“… the bhats always blow their own trumpet. What is the point in taking
such people as partners in such work when they can’t snatch away the
razors from the hands of the barbers who shave their young, widowed
sisters?” (90). In fact, Phule had done more for the rehabilitation of the
Brahmin widows than what his upper caste counterparts had done. Phule
extensively talks about widow remarriage (for all castes) and is against the
seclusion of the widows. However, our history telling was so partial and
blinded that widow remarriage has become synonymous to Rammohan
Roy as he was endorsed by the national party.
Phule vehemently criticizes the double standards of the so-called
national leaders. He feels that the leaders protest against the colonial rule
and at the same time try to appease the British rulers. “One day they wax
eloquent on the occasion of the Queen’s birthday at a public meeting in
order to carry favours from the British and the very next day, they display
exactly the opposite behaviour in newspapers or in their personal talk”
(60). Though Phule saw the British as ‘emancipators’ and ‘saviours’, he
was not a naïve supporter of whatever the British did. It is recorded that in
1880 he was the only member of the Poona Municipality who opposed the
spending of Rs.1,000 for the Viceroy’s visit. (quoted by Omvedt 25). His
extension of support to the British was perhaps a political choice made out
of the compulsion of circumstances.
Call to Action
Gulamgiri concludes with a powerful call to action against the
uppercastes and does not suggest joining hands with the freedom struggle.
In section XIV he justifies his stance. “… the English are here today, but
who knows whether they will be here tomorrow? They won’t be here till
eternity. Therefore, all the shudras should make haste to free themselves
from the ancestral slavery of these bhats” (89).
Merin Simi Raj 93
Jotirao convinces Dhondiba and manages to plant the seeds of
revolution in him. “Why don’t you denounce their crafty religion and
undertake the task of awakening our ignorant brothers?”, asks Dhondiba.
Jotirao prepares an open letter to be published in all the newspapers with
the title “How the Shudras can emancipate themselves from the slavery of
the Brahma rakshasa”. The letter appeals to the shudra brethren to join
hands in the efforts to emancipate them from the ‘slavery of the bhats’.
Phule is neither too ambitious nor blindly optimistic about the imminent
changes in the socio-political fabric. He admits that it is a rather long
process which is not going to be easy by any means. “Of course, I am
aware that it is an uphill task. Even the Americans, who are far more
advanced compared to other people, had a tough time rescuing their slaves
from the clutches of their own brothers” (96).
2. Phule’s Shetkaryacha Asud
Shetkaryacha Asud (translated as Cultivator’s Whipcord) was written
in 1883 but the publication was delayed as Phule himself said, ‘we the
shudras have amongst us cowardly publishers’. The work is divided into
five chapters followed by two appendices. In Shetkaryacha Asud Phule
addresses the problems of the farmers and peasants and goes on to analyse
them against the historical dominance of the Brahmins.
Addressing the notion of national unity
In chapter V, Phule lists a series of atrocities committed by the
Brahmins, details out the rigid exclusion that they have been practicing for
centuries and repeatedly asks, “so, how will the farmers and brahmans
unite?” (176-178). Phule does not see any sympathetic gestures from the
brahmans’ side towards the peasants; instead he sees the gap widening.
Injustice is meted out to the farmers from all quarters. The farmers’ access
to the systems of governance is incidentally through the Brahmins who are
heading the various sectors under the British government. Even for minor
things the farmers face insult and injury in getting their grievances solved.
“…when water is not available from them, if they go to their superior
officers for justice, instead of water a stream of rude language ensues”
(152). How can one expect a farmer to join hands with the same brahmans
for a political cause which is not even his immediate reality?
In the nationalist scenario fervent attempts were being made to
homogenize culture through the ‘common’ framework of Hinduism. Most
of the social movements addressed the masses through religious
94 Articulating Caste and Modernity
reformation, by claiming to revive Hinduism to its ancient glory and
restore the egalitarian past that it supposedly had. Phule subverts the
notion of religious reformation altogether and plainly states that “if the
learned Arya bhat brahmans really wish to unite the people of this country
and take the nation ahead, then first they must first drown their cruel
religion … must cease using any artifice in their relationship with the
shudras, who have been demeaned by that religion and trample on
inequality and the Vedanta opinion, and till a true unity is established,
there will be no progress in this country” (178). He is not fascinated by the
temporary relationships that are established in the name of reform
movement or freedom struggle. He says, ‘that improvement will not last
for long’ (178). According to Phule, a few brahmans accepting the shudras
into their fold or a few shudras joining the nationalists will not make any
dramatic difference in the social structure or the psyche of the people.
Unity will remain a distant dream if it is not initiated and supplemented
with equality. Phule’s concerns are not with individuals but with
communities and groups which shape and condition the individual’s
psyche.
Critiques on Reform Movements
Phule criticizes the Hindu reform movements subtly and at times
explicitly as well. In the appendix to Shetkaryacha Asud Phule addresses
the fallacy of treating Sanskrit as the divine language. His argues that
“Vedas were not written for the upliftment of all mankind because most of
the people of the world do not at all speak or know Sanskrit. How can a
scripture which people don’t understand liberate them?” (187). This was
written during the time when Sanskrit was projected by the nationalists
and reformers as the language of Indian tradition and culture.
In the first chapter he makes a passing statement that ‘several wily
brahmans are protecting the silly Hindu dharma’ (130) which obviously
refers to the Arya Samaj and the associates. During the time of Phule,
Arya Samaj was flourishing well in Calcutta and had formed a sister
organization in Bombay named Prarthana Samaj. Their aim was to revive
interest in Vedas and Phule had found this quite disturbing as it meant the
reiteration of the age-old myths which acknowledged and reinforced the
hegemonic hierarchy of caste. Though the nationalist / reform movements
spoke social uplift with vigour and enthusiasm, they practiced
discrimination even in education given to the shudra children. The
learning given to them is deliberately designed to remind them of their
lower status and condition them in such a way that they remain in the
Merin Simi Raj 95
outskirts of mainstream social life throughout. “The Arya bhats and
brahmans do not admit shudra farmers’ children in their Sanskrit schools
but in their Prakrit Marathi schools … and teach them only the basic
letters, arithmetic and modi, some shloka in Prakrit relating to pretentious
and false Puranas, and a few songs, or teach them lavanis, …. Never
giving them sufficient knowledge to even to keep accounts of expenses at
home. So how would they enter into the mamledar’s offices and become
even clerks?” (122). This ‘second-class citizen’ treatment was with the
knowledge and silent consent of the government. Hence, the lower castes
could never see anything unpatriotic in not identifying themselves with the
nationalist movement. Congress appropriated the benefits of colonial rule
and attributed it to the Hindu reform movements and nationalist political
movement. But, the ‘proper’ education which the lower castes including
Phule received was from the church-based schools and the Anglo-Indian
schools opened by the colonial rulers and not initiated or supported by the
Congress or any of its associate reform movements. (Ilaiah 123-4).
3. Satsar (The Essence of Truth)
The criticism is more direct and poignant in Satsar (translated as The
Essence of Truth) where he takes the names of Brahma Samaj, Arya
Samaj and Prarthana Samaj. Satsar (1885) is a booklet published by Phule
in ‘public interest’. Interestingly it was in the same year that the INC was
formed as a political organization. The first section of Satsar (Number 1)
is in the form of a dialogue between a Brahman and a shudra whose names
are not given. The shudra is member of the Satyashodak Samaj and is
engaging in a debate with the brahman, a member of Brahma Samaj,
regarding the conversion issue of Pandita Ramabai2
. The second section is
a conversation between Kondaji Patil and Tatya – both members of
Satyashodhak Samaj. The final section is between Phule and Yashwant.
At the outset itself Brahma Samaj is accused of being casteist as ‘it
wishes to convert the mahars and mangs to brahmaism’ (207). The shudra
rejects the ‘benevolence’ of the brahmans and says, “we do not want
anything to do with your Prarthana Samaj, Brahma Samaj and the like”
(207). The use of ‘your’ is not accidental but deliberate and indicates that
the Other had already formed in the shudra consciousness. The Brahman
tries to argue that the Brahma Samaj was responsible for religious reforms
2 Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922): a Brahmin woman who converted to Christianity
despite the protests and threats from orthodox Hindus. She initiated reform
movements for women. Wrote a book titled The High Caste Indian Women.
96 Articulating Caste and Modernity
and had initiated women’s education. But the shudra refutes these claims
and attributes all the progressive moves to the ‘efficacy of the English
rule’ and asks the Brahman to ‘stop boasting about your Brahma Samaj’
(209). During that period all the progressive reform movements were
attributed to the Brahma Samaj by “nationalist” leaders. Phule was also
working towards female education, widow remarriage, abolition of child
marriage etc. Nevertheless his efforts were not appreciated; not only that,
his plays and writings were rejected by the Dakshina Prize Committee as
his activism did not confine to the standards of traditional Hindu society.
There were educated shudras who could understand the lop-sided
stance of these elite reform movements. But they hardly ever critiqued the
reform movements or the leaders openly. In Satsar Phule expresses his
discontent over this silence as well, though in a mild fashion. He says, “…
even the scholars among the shudras never utter a word against the
deceitful mischief created by the brahmans in their big Samaj” (212).
During that time there must have been educated progressive shudras who
joined hands with the Samaj by accepting and supporting the brahminical
efforts to Sanskritize and revive the Vedas.
Phule exposes the paradoxical nature of the elite Samajs which project
themselves as representatives of Indian modernity. “The founders of that
Samaj were the cunning Aryas who were staunch idolators and such
believers in the pride of their caste that they would not touch an English
book when they had bathed and purified themselves. … in order to
preserve the menace of their dharma they have included a rule in their
statutes that no body should talk about dharma” (212). Here Phule is
ridiculing the ideological stance of Brahma Samaj which in principle was
based on Western ideas but in practice could not get out of the Hindu
tenets. Brahma Samaj, at least at the conceptual level, did want to break
away from the religious clutches of Hinduism but ended up as a Hindu
reform movement which also contributed to the ‘nationalization’ of upper
caste Hindu culture. Phule makes it clear in no uncertain terms that that all
the reform movements were initiated by ‘them’ for serving ‘their own’
interests and is not able identify with them in any ways.
Locating Phule in Nationalist Historiography
There were strong voices within the Indian National Congress which
tried to equate nationalism with that of Hindu nationalism. Bal Gangadhar
Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lajpat Rai were the trio who gave the Hindu
nationalist doctrine a definitive formulation. Tilak even explicitly stated
that ‘religion is an element of nationality’ and reached the conclusion that
Merin Simi Raj 97
unity existed in India only when Hindu hegemony was secure.
Interestingly the rubric term Hindu addressed only the upwardly mobile
castes and completely forgot about the untouchables who have been
suffering for ages under the Brahminical yoke. During this period when
the political terrain was dominated by the ‘greater Hindu’ nationalists and
the genteel anglophiles of the Indian National Congress, the vehicles of
lower-caste socio-political assertion represented mainly by Phule in
Maharashtra were still on the fringes. The anti-caste movement ignited by
Phule was not acknowledged, let alone supported, by either of the two
factions of dominant nationalist movement. In fact, attention was deviated,
for all the wrong reasons, by focusing on Phule’s pro-British stances. For a
while, from 1887 till 1895 the annual sessions of Congress were held in
conjuction with an Indian Social Reforms Congress. However by 1895
Tilak and his followers wrecked this convention and no one in the
Congress bothered to revive it. Thus, in principle, social reforms were
entirely removed from the Congress’ agenda of action. (Muralidharan 17).
Sukumar Muralidharan, in his essay “Patriotism Without People:
Milestones in the Evolution of Hindu Nationalist Ideology” bluntly
records the reasons for Tilak neglecting Jotirao Phule’s reform
movements. “Phule spoke for the lower orders who were beyond the pale
of the ritualistic Hindu hierarchy. He could not easily be accommodated
within the discourse of Hindu nationalism which was then seeking to
establish its influence, under the leadership of the upper castes”
(Muralidharan 16). Though there were no direct, overt tension between
Phule and Tilak one of Tilak’s close political associates, Vishnu Shashtri,
is said to have described Phule as the ‘sorriest of scribblers with just the
clothing of humanity on him’. (Muralidharan, 18-19). More than anything
this was a typical response of the Brahmin orthodoxy towards Phule’s
reform movements. Though Tilak always reserved his comments on Phule,
his biographer N.C.Kelkar reiterated that Vishnu Shastri’s criticisms
against Phule were certainly justifiable. This can leave one with the
assumption that Tilak’s sympathies were not found anywhere near the
reform movements of Phule. Muralidharan points out that despite the
differences, there has been an effort to assimilate Tilak and Phule into a
common ideological stream. He says, “This is a characteristic tendency of
the Congress brand of nationalism that seeks to fudge the ideological
differences and social tensions that were manifest in the course of the
freedom struggle. This is a pretence that is integral to the Congress’ selfimage as a single party that in microcosm, represents a single nation, in all
its diversities and pluralities” (Muralidharan, 18). Whatever be the reason,
the Tilak-Phule dichotomy was never discussed in national history, as it
98 Articulating Caste and Modernity
posed the danger of exposing the paradoxes in the ‘national unity’
designed by the Congress and the nationalist movement.
Aloysius quotes M.S.A. Rao and tries to distinguish between the social
reform movements launched by the upper castes and the transformative
movements initiated by the lower castes. “… reform movements among
the upper castes which were merely adjustive in nature, designed to
strenghthen the existing power relations, and the transformative
movements among the lower castes which challenged the established
social order, the value system and the patterns of superordination and
subordination relationships …”. (Aloysius 79). None of the upper caste
reform movements including the celebrated Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj or
Prarthana Samaj addressed the caste questions of oppression or the issues
of inequality in any way. They only attempted to reform Hinduism or
Brahminism without disturbing the fundamental principles of hierarchy.
Aloysius tries to make a case for the anti-caste movements by arguing that
they were also ‘national’ in the primary sense of the term as they
addressed the common issues of egalitarianism, education and social
mobility which were the concerns of every progressing nation. Phule, Sree
Narayana Guru and Ambedkar emphasized the need for education.
However the clarion calls of Ram Mohan Roys and Vidyasagars and
Dayanand Saraswatis attained legitimacy as they were the voice of the
dominant political voice – which had almost officially accepted caste
Hindu nationalism as the nationalism. The nationalism which came from
Mahars and Ezhavas were treated as casteist and parochial and hence did
not qualify as ‘national’.
Phule’s points of departure from the colonial nationalist
discourse
There were certain dominant threads which ran common through all
the writings of Phule. Hence the paper had been trying to trace Phule’s
nationalist discourse through his three major writings, it would be
worthwhile to cull out the major points of departure which distinguished
his anti-caste polemic.
1. Challenging the historical and religious base of Brahminical
superiority
2. Rejection of Hindu religion and culture as the national
3. Exposing the non-secular base of Brahma Samaj and Arya Samaj
Merin Simi Raj 99
4. Opposing the nationalist tendency to homogenize and unite under
the rubric of upper caste Hindu cultural symbols and traditional
beliefs
5. Initiation of social reform movements without the patronage of
the Congress or the other dominant reformers.
To make a quick conclusion, it would not be wrong to say that the
above five factors were totally at loggerheads with the nationalist ideology
which tried to homogenize ‘India’ at the cost of less dominant movements
and discourses. The appropriation of Sathyashodhak Samaj, as just another
social reform movement without its anti-caste tag, into the Congress fold
in 1930 reiterates the skepticisms regarding the nationalist definitions and
agenda.
Conclusion
Phule’s anti-caste discourse highlights some nascent issues, which
were diametrically in opposition to the nationalist discourse. The demand
for the political representation of the lower castes, the rejection of Hindu
reform movements, the challenging of the definition of the nation and the
national and the questioning of established political figures could not tally
with the nationalist thoughts of the time. It is difficult to read Phule’s
radical discourse within the framework of the nationalist discourse, which
had been trying to maintain a linearity and harmony in terms of ideology
and events. Anti-caste social reform movements were moving in a totally
different direction and very often projected a pro-colonial approach. In a
way, one can also say that, these movements have not been ‘shut out’ but
they have been ‘shut in’. That is, Phule’s initiatives have been subsumed
by the Congress so that the distinct identity does not jut out and disrupt the
projected harmony.
A reading of the writings of Phule clearly shows his annoyance and
distrust with the dominant mode of the nationalist movement. The
critiques of the recent historians and socio-political thinkers substantiate
this as well. It is, hence, a fact that there existed a disjunction between the
national movement and the anti-caste movements during the colonial
nationalist period. The articulations of caste in the form of Brahmanical
reform movements did get the approval and encouragement from the
nationalists but those articulations which challenged the social system
were ignored.
In the context of the anti-caste movements a re-visiting of recorded
history is imperative in finding their own trajectory which has been
100 Articulating Caste and Modernity
overshadowed by many a dominant image. In Pandian’s words, “It is by
critiquing/rejecting the civilizational claims of modernity that the lower
castes, at one level, could claim a space for their politics” (Pandian). This
tracing of history from the sociological perspectives is important in the
study of Dalit Literature as well. In Towards an Aesthetic of Dalit
Literature: History, Controversies and Considerations, Sharankumar
Limbale says, “Unlike classical literature, Dalit literature needs to be
studied from a sociological perspective. … And today, instead of teaching
our youth classics, it is more important to teach them what a social
movement is, what the social order is, and what our social problems are”
(Limbale 147). This observation holds relevant for the modern India of
twenty-first century, which still has a history fraught in mythology and
contested pasts. However, these attempts to re-read through the missing
links, gaps, blanks and silences the historiography cannot be limited within
the academia. As Sarkar says, “… an exploration of the social conditions
of production of history cannot afford to remain a merely intellectual
project. It needs to become part of wider and far more difficult efforts to
change these conditions” (Sarkar 46). An explorative study into critiques
of the disjunction between the nationalist movement and anti-caste
movements is also an effort to partake in ‘the wider and far more difficult
efforts’ to make meaning out of the grey areas in social history which had
been ‘historiographically silenced’.