TheDaak review

by Nazreen Fatima

Any critical engagement on the question of caste and gender must begin with acknowledging the politics of knowledge production. The politics of knowledge production involves conscious/unconscious neglect of certain sources to serve as the basis of knowledge production driven either by the desire to conform to the dominant discourses in academia or to give in to varying modes of thinking and action in the context of activism. This commentary draws attention to both these processes which directly or indirectly affect the content of feminist knowledge production on the issue of caste. 

To do so, the commentary first draws on Karl Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge Approach to examine how knowledge is socially situated and Gopal Guru’s theorisations of how upper-caste perspectives have been historically privileged in Indian academic discourses. This results in the marginalisation of the lived experiences and intellectual contributions of Dalits, especially Dalit women as highlighted by Sharmila Rege’s work which sheds light on the ignored feminist dimension of Ambedkar’s anti-caste writings. Second, the commentary critically interrogates the fractures within feminist and anti-caste movements by analysing two major moments of selective solidarities within the feminist movement. It explores how we can engage with these moments creatively, by drawing on the works of scholars such as Susie Tharu, Tejaswini Niranjana, Nivedita Menon, and Sowjanya Tamalapakula.

Using Mannheim’s Sociology of Knowledge Approach helps us understand the social basis of knowledge. Knowledge is situated—that is, it emerges from specific social locations and cannot be entirely separated from the historical and cultural contexts in which it is produced. It is often particularising, shaped by the social position, interests, and experiences of the individuals or groups generating it. The sociology of knowledge traces practices historically over time, to understand their social origins (Mannheim, 1982). 

To move beyond a tokenistic invocation of caste in academic work or movements, it is necessary to interrogate who gets to theorise and whose experiences are allowed to shape theory. ‘The Cracked Mirror’ by Gopal Guru and Sundar Sarukkai (2017) offers a powerful critique of the caste-based hierarchy of knowledge production in Indian social sciences. They draw attention to how theoretical labour has often been reserved for upper-caste scholars, while Dalits have been relegated to the domain of experience and empirical knowledge—mirroring what Guru (2002) terms the divide between “theoretical Brahmins” and “empirical Shudras.” The result is a persistent silencing of Dalit women’s voices in both feminist and anti-caste discourse.

In the context of knowledge production on caste and gender, Rege’s ‘Against the Madness of Manu: B.R Ambedkar’s Writings on Brahmanical Patriarchy’, is a small step in the direction of understanding the neglected feminist dimension in anti-caste writings of Ambedkar by non-Dalit feminists and Dalit Men (Rege, 2006). The two central themes that illuminate the gendered dimension of caste in Ambedkar’s writings are those of endogamy and exclusionary violence.  

Ambedkar refers to caste as “an enclosed class”, implying that castes exist due to “the operation of the process of enclosure, either by enclosing in the case of Brahmins or by being enclosed against in the context of other castes” (Rege, 2013, 35). This enclosure is achieved primarily through the superimposition of the practice of endogamy within castes over any exogamous units of the society. The practice of endogamy stems from an attempt to control the problem of surplus women and men. The former issue is dealt with by either burning the woman with her dead husband or an imposition of widowhood. The latter, due to the superior status of men to women, do not undergo similar treatment, instead, they are provided wives from the ranks of those not yet marriageable to tie down within the group, which also results in girl child marriage. The formation of castes, thus, involves the imitation of the practice of endogamy by different castes to form an enclosed class against others (Ambedkar, 1979). Thus, Ambedkar rightly acknowledges that endogamy is the only sustaining characteristic of caste. 

Rege also draws upon Ambedkar’s writings which seek to provide a comparative analysis between the experiences of women guided by the principles of Manu, and his teachings/interaction with Buddhism. It is through this comparison, that Ambedkar sought to highlight the exclusionary, discriminatory, and violent nature of Manu.  The Manusmriti relegated women to an inferior and subordinate status in Hindu society. It portrayed women as inherently seductive, untrustworthy, and intellectually and morally weak. It prescribed to the husbands of all castes to strive to guard their wives, and by extension, impose restrictions and subject them to various forms of violence to achieve the same. Women were denied independence in every stage of life—subject to the authority of their fathers, husbands, and sons—and were stripped of property rights, education, religious agency, and even the right to divorce. Manu not only justified corporal punishment against women but also allowed men to abandon or even sell their wives without granting them the same liberty. By reducing women to near-slaves, devoid of autonomy, knowledge, or legal personhood, Manu codified a vision of social order that institutionalised gender-based subjugation and normalised violence and inequality against women. Ambedkar viewed the conversion of  Manu into the law of the state as an important factor contributing to the fall of Hindu Women,  the principles of which had always otherwise existed as a social theory (Ambedkar, 2003). 

Moving ahead to the second part of our discussion on the issue of politics of knowledge production, one must draw attention to the fact that just like Ambedkar attributed the deplorable conditions of women in different castes to the process of imitation, many non-Dalit feminists conceptualise Dalit patriarchy as an extension or imitation of Brahmanical patriarchy. 

The politics of knowledge production also play out in the field of activism, where activists employ varied modes of thinking and action depending on the context and larger commitments of the movement. In ‘Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender’, Tharu and Niranjana draw attention to two important instances – middle-class/upper-caste feminist participation in anti-Mandal agitation and the Chunduru incident which resulted in the murder of thirteen Dalits by upper-caste Reddys on the ground of accusations of eve-teasing of the upper-caste women by the Dalit men. In the case of the former, the commitment of the non-Dalit feminist movement is brought into question on the grounds of ignoring the nuances of other violent structures like the caste system and its interaction with patriarchy in favour of class-based solidarity in the face of the implementation of reservations (Tharu & Niranjana, 1994). In the context of the latter, feminist condemnation of Dalit men’s conduct in Chunduru in the background of the long history of sexual violence committed by the upper caste men against Dalit women revealed the fractures within the feminist movement in terms of the symbolic and actual commitment to the ideals of intersectionality. Both these instances are typical of moments within the feminist movement where the dominant understanding of the ‘feminist’  subject has been brought to question in the context of a rapidly globalising economy that disables alliances between feminists and other movements (caste movements in this context).  

Menon (2009) suggests that both Dalit and feminist politics must destabilise each other in different contexts in order to complicate the landscapes of thinking about critical issues that involve gendered violence in a caste-based society. She advises against the fruitless debate regarding which forms the primary contradiction – whether it is caste or gender – which seeks to solidify boundaries between the two, instead of productively opening them up to critically engage with the challenge and criticism provided by the Dalit and non-upper caste feminists. 

A particular step in this direction can be seen to be taken by Sowjanya in her paper titled ‘Dalits and Inter-caste Marriage’ where she critiques the traditional perspectives on endogamy, such as  Ambedkar’s view of putting into motion the process of annihilation of caste by encouraging inter-caste marriage. While not completely disagreeing with Ambedkar’s proposed solution, Sowjanya highlights the politics around present-day inter-caste marriages. She asserts that contemporary Dalit ideology promotes inter-caste marriage to subvert caste endogamy, a central tenet of Hindu society. But not all inter-caste marriages are in the spirit of Ambedkar’s views expressed in ‘Annihilation of Caste’. While many Dalit ideologues and educated Dalit men promote and practice inter-caste marriage, Dalit women, on the other hand,  have voiced their experiences of untouchability and caste discrimination after being married to upper-caste men (Sowjanya 2015). She argues that inter-caste marriages, rather than dismantling caste structures, often reinforce caste hierarchies through gendered oppression and exclusion.

The commentary aims to contribute to the project of epistemic justice by interrogating who gets to produce knowledge and whose voices are validated in the domain of academic knowledge production as well as in movements for social change. By highlighting Rege’s attempt to explore the feminist dimension of Ambedkar’s writings, Menon’s call to destabilise Dalit and feminist politics in different contexts, and Sowjanya’s critique of inter-caste marriage as a site of continued caste and gender-based exclusions, the commentary opens up the space for more inclusive and reflexive forms of theorising gender by being sensitive to the dimension of caste in the Indian society. 

REFERENCES  

Ambedkar, B. R. 1979. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. In BAWS, Vol. 1, 5–22. Mumbai: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra. (Originally published in Indian Antiquary 41 (3): 81–95).

Ambedkar, B. R. 2003. The Rise and Fall of the Hindu Woman: Who Was Responsible for It? In BAWS, Vol. 17, Pt. 2, Sec. 4, 109–130. Mumbai: Government of Maharashtra, Education Department. (Originally published in Maha Bodhi 59 (5–6)).

Gopal, Guru. 2002. “How Egalitarian Are the Social Sciences in India?” Economic and Political Weekly 37 (50): 5003–5009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4412959.

Guru, Gopal, and Sundar Sarukkai. 2017. The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Mannheim, Karl. 1982. The Sociology of Knowledge. In The Sociology of Knowledge: A Reader, edited by J. E. Curtis and J. W. Petras, 109–130. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co.

Menon, Nivedita. 2009. “Sexuality, Caste, Governmentality: Contests over ‘Gender’ in India.” Feminist Review 91: 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.46.

Rege, Sharmila. 2013. Against the Madness of Manu: B. R. Ambedkar’s Writings on Brahmanical Patriarchy. New Delhi: Navayana.

Tamalapakula, Sowjanya. 2015. “Dalits and Inter-Caste Marriage.” Academia.edu, September 18. https://www.academia.edu/15840725/Dalits_and_Inter_caste_Marriage.

Tharu, Susie, and Tejaswini Niranjana. 1994. “Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender.” Social Scientist 22 (3/4): 93–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/3517624.

---

---