Caste -Lokavidya perspective

A discussion is being started with this post on 'Strategies to transcend caste in order to create and strengthen  new bonds within Lokavidyadhar Samaj".

Caste- a Lokavidya perspective

Jati(Caste) refers to the social identity of members of Lokavidyadhar Samaj. It defines the role and obligations of a member of the Samaj. It denotes the active knowledge-base possessed by the members of the jati on which their livelihoods are based ,which in turn determines their role and obligations in the productive life of society. Each jati, therefore had a fairly clearly defined position in the productive, distributive and service processes of society and there is no evidence to believe that this participative status was ever denied to any jati. In almost all important social functions- births,marriages,harvests and deaths, each section had a role to play and we see that, to this day, every 'traditional' function has roles for different jatis to play.The dalits, tribals and 'untouchables' also had clearly defined roles and concomitant obligations, however, at some point(s) in time they were excluded from mainstream society and lived a largely marginalised life fraught with great exploitation and misery.

This social identity, which is self-perpetrating (through birth), is very strong and has formed the basis for social organisation, especially in the colonial and post-colonial era. Caste hierarchy, the origins of which are not clearly understood; especially the origin and continuation of untouchability, has been around for a very long time. Various dubious theories to sanctify this heirarchy have been put forth. In practice, however, it appears that in the pre-British era, caste discrimination never became a factor for social disruption, though the abominable practice of untouchability kept out sizable sections of people from ordinary social life all over the country. The neo-hierarchical classification of castes into 'forward' and 'backward' categories is a colonial phenomenon and goes hand-in-hand with the debunking of Lokavidya.

The 'scramble' for 'employment' in the colonial and post-colonial era, at the cost of delegitimising Lokavidya and all livelihoods based thereon, has led to a fierce struggle for the 'backwardness' tag in order to become eligible for the reservations/concessions/feebies etc given by centre/state/public instituions-some of which are even Constitutionally mandated. This has led to a perverse 'strengthening' of caste-identity and caste-hierarchy. The British used this nascent social discordance to politically divide the people and the current political dispensation also actively encourages this discordance. Our understanding is that, this encouragement of discordance is aimed at completely

delegitimising Lokavidya(even in their own eyes) and reducing Lokavidyadhar Samaj to a slave society. Lokavidyadhar Samaj has to transcend caste-hierarchy and recapture the imagination that can lead to the establishment of a truly egalitarian society where knowledge is in command and equal respect for practitioners of all aspects of knowledge/skills is the norm.

A general survey of the political liberation movements of last century will show that their primary aim ( and to whatever extent, also achievement) was economic equality. This resulted in a certain adhoc perception popularised by the system that economic status will act as the uniformisation agent for social equality. That is, sections of the Samaj economically well off by dint of the strength of the connection with the exploitative system – a rich farmer setting up auctioning/processing produce, a blacksmith or a sthapati setting up a “production” unit, a woman employing women in a “manufacturing” unit, a labourer becoming a “contractor” or aworker in a private/public/ multinational industry, a young educated in a government job, ... - accepted the same values as the dominant ruling /political /economic class. This also gave rise to the most retrogressive welfare measure of money distribution, household goods or food. These measures kept the social inequalities intact and indeed worsened with the added accelerated movements for reservation systems at every level of organization in every department of life. This state of affairs seems to be a result of absolute no-confidence in the dialectics of processes and directions of change. In turn, this meant the loss of certain cardinal principles from the public view, principles which alone demand, every moment of life, the “truth” that is sought through the dialectic. These measures got the direct and indirect approvals from economists and social scientists, domestic and foreign , and also the world finacncial market system facilitating globalization and growth of domestic capitalist class. It became increasingly clear that the radical change and political imagination which we conceive of can not possibly take place via the economic uniformization route , but rather the social uniformization route. That is, while the economic uniformization necessarily led to debate and discourse on the development models and planning, leading to adhoc monetary measures, often on the edge of hopelessness, because of the globalization overheads and the intrinsic charactristics of the new technologies.

It appears that political mobilization based on certain active principles of social uniformization as opposed to economic uniformization measure may be the effective route to unleash a process for achieving social justice for the Samaj. In the context of our knowledge of the history of the Samaj, the following three principles ( and others) seem to have that capacity. They are not demands to the existing ruling power, but by the Samaj on itself. They are formulated in this fashion in the context of the way the ruling system exercises control by framing “laws” and the “code for administration” of the laws which the samaj is subject to. The options mentioned below are deemed to enable the society to counteract in a, possibly long and ardous , process of dialogue with those processes that seem to have acquired a certain quality of “untruth” from lack of reflection and plain ignorance.

1. The practice of assigning Jati or Caste of the child at birth ( via certificate) be abolished.
   
      Instead only the Jati or Caste of the parents ( individually or together) will be recorded. Also the name will be recorded not as Son of Father, butas Born to the Mother , whose name as entered in the hospital/panchayat , is say, Kalyani Krishnan; and Father's name comes through the name of mother the way she registers it. Such a child will be given compulsory education of whatever type by the community until at the age of 12/14 ( to be related to the best age of termination of coeducation and or educational content regarding public life, family life etc.) and will be having the same status as a sant, as being caste neutral ( in the classical Indian thought, as pure embodiment of the spirit). At the end of this period, the child will be eligible to choose any caste of his choice for the purpose of earning a livelihood and/or acquiring the status accorded in society and be deemed eligible for any prevailing reservation on the basis of the economic condition of his parents or any such criteria of the state. However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.
   
       The children of the samaj will have the second choice of choosing a caste/jati for the express and very important purpose of entering into union in marriage ( whatever type) for availing of possible subsidies, choices for getting employment, settling in the natural geographical location of the spouse available with centre/state/public institutions etc. to setup family life and also be deemed eligible for grants for medical services and child care and early education ( see para above). However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.
   
       The adult members of the samaj, considering the rather terrible difficulties they face in the twilight of their life without any assistance, will have the third and final choice to choose jati/caste for the purpose of being deemed eligible of availing concessions on retirement ( interpreted appropriately) for being eligible for medical/survival/group benefits available or by their autonomous faith based on their life and experience thus far, so that justice is served. However, such a choice and/or enjoyment of conferred privilages is not mandatory.

2. The practice of identifying women as a separate jati/community/problem within the general political/development discourse- be abolished.
   The First item having been formulated for any child, women are automatically part of the samaj as understood there. Compulsory education until age 12/14 with no gender discrimination will be subject to some extra criteria arising out of early onset of puberty in females. And any girl child at the age of 14 or a mature girl while getting married or a woman at any time of her life may exercise the option of choosing a jati/caste for the purpose of utilizing the subsidies or other grants available under ay special category currently existing, including choosing her groom. She may also register for any special categories under which survival , nutrition and medical help is freely available under the present ruling order. And just as the child is caste neutral, being adopted either by the king or by the mendicant etc., so also the woman is caste neutral by dint of being inherently capable of bearing the of child of any male ( following the dharma of any caste etc.) . Thus we add woman to child and sant as being caste neutral. And route to social justice runs through the estate of these three categories.

3. The Natural Inheritance of private property and Natural Transfer of public property into private hands be abolished.

In the above, the second adjective “Natural” connotes the same sense as the first. The above is not a fundamentally new principle, but requires serious formulation after deep reflection in the context of the “truth” realized by the samaj that all things in the world are “public”and are deemed “private” by the society in some context, for some purpose, either forgotten or too obvious. And just as the individual “does not know” who/what he/she is and exists on the strength of the “knowledge of identity” given by the family/society , similarly any kind of wealth ( material/otherwise) is not born with the self-declaratory identity, that is, wealth is born owner-neutral just as in the above we considered the child is born caste-neutral and the woman and sant are caste neutral.

We have demanded the 'Right to livelihood based on Lokavidya' that, in practice, translates to a demand for an equal minimum wage for ALL occupations/livelihoods based on Lokavidya and/or modern knowledge. Can Lokavidyadhar Samaj move toward a demand for a Right to an Equality-based Identity? The suggestions made could be seen as the active aspect of such a demand.

These principles if reflected upon and adopted ( in appropriate form) with the right spirit , will unleash hitherto unimagined churning in the social fabric of the Samaj, infusing strength into it with unimaginable revolutionary consequences. It may enable the Samaj to launch a One-point Satyagraha or Constitutional demand, by combining the above neutality into a hitherto impossible limit of meaning for human life. Such satyaghahis may constitute the new core for creating the mass base for social justice in our country.

B. Krishnarajulu & K.K.Surendran

January 2014