Statement by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on Gandhi’s Fast

Statement by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on Gandhi’s Fast

(Statement on Mr.Gandhi’s attitude at the Round Table Conference towards the untouchables and their demand for Constitutional Safeguards, 19th September 1932.)
I need hardly say that I was astounded to read the correspondence between Mahatma Gandhi, Sir Samuel Hoare and the Prime Minister, which was published recently in the Papers, in which he has expressed his determination to starve himself unto death till the British Government of its own accord or under pressure of public opinion revise their opinion and withdraw their scheme of communal representation for the Depressed Classes. The unenviable position, in which I have been placed by the Mahatma’s vow of self-immolation, can easily be imagined.

It passes my comprehension why Mr. Gandhi should stake his life on an issue arising out of the communal question which he, at the Round Table Conference, said was one of a comparatively small importance. Indeed, to adopt the language of those of Mr. Gandhi’s way of thinking, the communal question was only an appendix to the book of India’s constitution and not the main chapter. It would have been justifiable, if Mr.Gandhi had resorted to this extreme step for obtaining independence for the country on which he was so insistent all through the R.T.C. debates. It is also a painful surprise that Mr.Gandhi should single out special representation for the Depressed Classes in the Communal Award as an excuse for his self-immolation. Separate electorates are granted not only to the Depressed Classes, but to the Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, as well as the Mohammedans and the Sikhs. Also separate Electorates are granted to landlords, labourers and traders. Mr. Gandhi had declared his opposition to the special representation of every other class and creed except the Mohamedans and the Sikhs. All the same, Mr. Gandhi chooses to let everybody else except the Depressed Classes retain the special electorates given to them.

The fears expressed by Mr.Gandhi about the consequences of the arrangements for the representation of the Depressed Classes are, in my opinion, purely imaginary. If the nation is not going to be split up by separate electorates to the Mohamedans and the Sikhs, the Hindu society cannot be said to be split up if the Depressed classes are given separate electorates. His conscience is not aroused if the nation is split by the arrangements of special electorates for classes and communities other than the Depressed Classes.

I am sure many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of the majority under the Swaraj constitution it was the depressed classes. Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it. All ways are not closed by reason of the social prejudices of the Hindus but there is a definite attempt all through out the Hindu society to bolt every possible door so as not to allow the Depressed Classes any opportunity to rise in the scale of life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that in every village the caste Hindus, however divided among themselves, are always in a standing conspiracy to put down in a merciless manner any attempt on the part of the Depressed Classes who form a small and scattered body of an ordinary Indian citizen.

In these circumstances, it would be granted by all fair-minded persons that as the only path for a community so handicapped to succeed in the struggle for life against organized tyranny, some share of political power in order that it may protect itself is a paramount necessity.

I should have thought that a well-wisher of the Depressed Classes would have fought tooth and nail for securing to them as much political power as might be possible in the new Constitution. But the Mahatma’s ways of thinking are strange and are certainly beyond my comprehension. He not only does not endeavour to augment the scanty political power which the Depressed Classes have got under the communal award, but on the contrary he has staked his very life in order to deprive them of little they have got. This is not the first attempt on the part of the Mahatma to completely dish the Depressed Classes out of political existence. Long before, there was the Minorities pact. The Mahatma tried to enter into an agreement with the Muslims and the Congress. He offered to the Muslims all the fourteen claims which they had put forth on their behalf, and in return asked them to join with him in resisting the claims for social representation made by me on behalf of the Depressed Classes.

It must be said to the credit of the Muslim Delegates, that they refused to be a party to such a black act, and saved the Depressed Class from what might as well have developed into a calamity for them as a result of the combined opposition of the Mohammedans and Mr.Gandhi.

I am unable to understand the ground of hostility of Mr.Gandhi to the Communal Award. He says that the Communal Award has separated the Depressed Classes from the Hindu Community. On the other hand, Mr.Moonje, a much stronger protagonist of the Hindu case and a militant advocate of its interests, takes a totally different view of the matter. In the speeches which he has been delivering since his arrival from London, Dr.Moonje has been insisting that the Communal Award does not create any separation between the Depressed Classes and the Hindus. Indeed, he has been boasting that he has defeated me in my attempt to politically separate the Depressed Class from the Hindus. I am sure that Dr.Moonje is right in his interpretation of the Communal Award although, I am not sure that the credit of it can legitimately go to Mr.Moonje. It is therefore surprising that Mahatma Gandhi who is a nationalist and not known to be a communalist should read the Communal Award, in so far as it relates to the Depressed Classes, in a manner quite contrary to that of a communalist like Mr.Moonje. If Dr.Moonje does not sense any separation of the Depressed Classes from the Hindus in the Communal Award the Mahatma ought to feel quite satisfied on that score.

In my opinion, that Communal Award should not only satisfy the Hindus, but also satisfy those individuals among the Depressed Classes such as Rao Bahadur Rajah, Mr.Baloo or Mr.Gavai, who are in favour of Joint Electorates. Mr.Rajah’s fulminations in the Assembly have amused me considerably. An intense supporter of Separate Electorates and the bitterest and the most vehement critic of caste Hindu tyranny, now professes faith in the Joint Electorates and love for the Hindus! How much of that is due to his natural desire to resuscitate himself from the oblivion in which he was cast by his being kept out of the Round Table Conference and how much of it is to his honest change of faith, I do not propose to discuss.

The points on which Mr.Rajah is harping by way of criticism on the Communal Award are two: One is that the Depressed Classes have gained lesser number of seats than they are entitled to on the population basis, and the other is that the Depressed Classes have been separated from the Hindu fold.

I agree in his first grievance, but when the Rao Bahadur begins to accuse those who represented the Depressed Classes at the R.T.C. for having sold their rights, I am bound to point out what Mr.Rajah did as a member of the Indian Central Committee. In that committee’s report, the Depressed Classes were given in Madras 10 seats out of 150; in Bombay 8 seats out of 14; in Bengal 8 seats our of 200; in U.P. 8 seats our of 182; in the Punjab 6 seats out of 150; in Bihar and Orissa 6 out of 150; in C.P. 8 out of 125; and in Assam 9 seats for the Depressed Classes and the indigenous and primitive races out of 75. I do not wish to overburden this statement by pointing out how this distribution compares with the population ratio. But there can be no doubt that this meant a terrible under-representation of the Depressed Classes. To this distribution of seats Mr.Rajah was a party. Surely, Mr.Rajah, before he criticizes the Communal Award and accuses others, should refresh his memory of what he accepted as Member of the Indian Central Committee on behalf of the Depressed Classes without any protest. If the population ratio of representation was to him a natural right of Depressed Classes and its full realization was to him a necessity for their protection, why did not Mr.Rajah insist upon it in the Central Committee when he had the opportunity to do so?

As to his contention that in the Communal Award, the Depressed Classes have been separated from the Hindus, it is a view to which I cannot subscribe. If Mr. Rajah has any conscientious objection to separate electorates, there is no compulsion on him to stand as a candidate in the Separate Electorates. The opportunity to stand as a candidate in the general electorate as well as the right to vote in it are there, and Mr.Rajah is free to avail himself of the same. Mr.Rajah is crying at the top of his voice to assure to the Depressed Classes that there is a complete change of heart on the part of the Caste Hindus towards the Depressed Classses. He will have the opportunity to prove that fact to the satisfaction of the Depressed Class, who are not prepared to take his word by getting himself elected in the general constituency. The Hindus who profess love and sympathy for the Depressed Classes, will have also an opportunity to prove their bona fides by electing Mr.Rajah to the legislature.

The Communal Award, therefore, in my opinion, satisfied both those who want separate Electorates and those who want joint electorates. In this sense, it is already a compromise and should be accepted as it is. As to the Mahatma, I do not know what he wants. It is assumed that although Mahatma Gandhi is opposed to the system of separate electorates, he is not opposed to the system of Joint electorates and Reserved Seats, That is a gross error. Whatever his views are today, while in London he was totally opposed to any system of Social representation for the Depressed Classes whether by Joint electorates or by Separate Electorates. Beyond the right to vote in a general electorate based upon Adult suffrage, he was not prepared to concede anything to the Depressed Classes by way of securing their representation in the legislatures. This was the position he had taken at first. Towards the end of R.T.C. he suggested to me a scheme, which he said, he was prepared to consider. The scheme was purely conventional without any constitutional sanction behind it and without any single seat being reserved for the Depressed Classes in the electoral law.

The scheme was as follows:
Depressed Class candidates might stand in the general electorate as against other high caste Hindu candidates. If any Depressed Class Candidate was defeated in the Election, he should file an election petition and obtain the verdict that he was defeated because he was an untouchable. If such a decision was obtained, the Mahatma said he would undertake to induce some Hindu members to resign and thus create a vacancy. There would be then another election in which the defeated Depressed Class candidate or any other Depressed Class candidate might again try his luck as against the Hindu candidates. Should he be defeated again, he should get similar verdict that he was defeated because he was an untouchable and so on ad infinitum. I am disclosing these facts as some people are even now under the impression that the Joint Electorates and Reserved Seats would satisfy the conscience of the Mahatma. This will show why I insist that there is no use discussing the question until the actual proposals of the Mahatma are put forth.

I must, however, point out that I cannot accept the assurances of the Mahatma that he and his Congress will do the needful. I cannot leave so important a question as the protection of my people to conventions and understandings. The Mahatma is not an immortal person, and the Congress, assuming it is not a malevolent force, is not to have an abiding existence. There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove untouchability and to elevate and absorb the Depressed Classes, but every one of them has failed in his mission. Mahatmas have come and Mahatmas have gone but the untouchables have remained as untouchables.

I have enough experience of the pace of Reform and the faith of Hindu reformers in the conflicts that have taken place at Mahad and Nasik, to say that no well-wisher of the Depressed Classes will ever consent to allow the uplift of the Depressed Classes to rest upon such treacherous shoulders. Reformers who in moments of crises prefer to sacrifice their principles rather than hurt the feelings of their kindred can be of no use to the Depressed Classes.

I am therefore bound to insist upon a statutory guarantee for the protection of my people. If Mr.Gandhi wishes to have the Communal Award altered, it is for him to put forth his proposals and to prove that they give a better guarantee than has been given to us under the Award.

I hope that the Mahatma will desist from carrying out the extreme step contemplated by him. We mean no harm to the Hindu Society, when we demand separate electorates. If we choose separate electorates, we do so in order to avoid the total dependence on the sweet will of the caste Hindus in matters affecting our destiny. Like the mahatma we can claim our right to err, and we expect him not to deprive us of that right. His determination to fast himself unto death is worthy of a far better cause. I could have understood the propriety of the Mahatma contemplating such extreme step for stopping riots between Hindus and Mohammedans or between the Depressed Classes and the Hindus or any other national cause. It certainly cannot improve the lot of the Depressed Classes. Whether he knows it or not, the Mahatma’s act will result in nothing but terrorism by his followers against the Depressed Classes all over the country.
Coercion of this sort will not win the Depressed Classes to the Hindu fold if they are determined to go out. And if the Mahatma chooses to ask the Depressed Classes to make a choice between Hindu faith and possession of political power, I am quite sure that the Depressed Classes will choose political power and save the Mahatma from self-immolation. If Mr. Gandhi coolly reflects on the consequences of his act, I very much doubt whether he will find this victory worth having. It is still more important to note that the Mahatma is releasing reactionary and uncontrollable forces, and is fostering the spirit of hatred between the Hindu Community and the Depressed Classes by resorting to this method and thereby widening the gulf between the two. When I opposed Mr. Gandhi at the R.T.C there was a hue and cry against me in the country and there was a conspiracy in the so-called nationalist press to represent me as a traitor to the nationalist cause, to suppress correspondence coming from my side and to boost the propaganda against my party by publishing exaggerated reports of meetings and conferences, many of which were never held. “Silver bullets” were freely used for creating divisions in the ranks of the Depressed Classes. There have also been a few clashes ending in violence.

If the Mahatma does not want all this to be repeated on a larger scale, let him, for God’s sake, reconsider his decision and avert the disastrous consequences. I believe the Mahatma does not want this. But if he does not desist, in spite of his wishes these consequences are sure to follow as night follows the day.

Before concluding this statement, I desire to assure the public that although I am entitled to say that I regard the matter as closed, I am prepared to consider the proposals of the Mahatma. I however trust the Mahatma will not drive me to the necessity of making a choice between his life and the rights of my people. For I can never consent to deliver my people bound hand and foot to the Caste Hindus for generations to come.

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar

Why Gandhi Lost And Ambedkar Won

Why Gandhi Lost And Ambedkar Won
By Shivam Vij

06 December, 2004
Countercurrents.org

Some gentlemen, who happened to belong to what the Constitution of India calls "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes", got together and built a building called Gaurav Apartments in the east Delhi locality of Patparganj. About two-third flats in Gaurav Apartments are occupied by Dalits and 'tribals'. The remaining flats remain vacant as upper caste (UC) individuals are forewarned about this by (UC) property dealers.

This is the true nature of caste discrimination: it operates via exclusivism. We won't live with you, we won't eat with you, and we won't socialize with you. So it should not be surprising that such marginalisation extends to the job market. A businessman who refuses to rent a flat in Gaurav Apartments, would he ever give a job to a Dalit at his office? Unlikely. He will say that "they" lack "talent", are not educated enough, and so on.

The reason why we hardly see Dalits around us, or in public life, is that we have kept 'them' away from 'us', and continue to do so. Reservations in government jobs and institutions of higher education,
however, created a small Dalit middle class and did what had never happened before: made some Dalits and UC's participants of the same social universe.

I saw this personally in two cases, cases that gave me this perspective and helped me reject the anti-reservations anger of the people around me. In my school in Lucknow I had a classmate, Abhijeet Yadav, whose father was a bureaucrat who had obviously benefited from post-Mandal reservations. Although Yadavs are a middle castes (OBC's), the classroom had a prejudice against him, expressed in the all-encompassing term 'chamaar'. Abhijeet was not a 'chamaar', but that was exactly what he was called whenever he would enter into a brawl with someone in class. Our ignorance about the difference between a 'chamaar' and a 'Yadav' was matched by our ignorance about our own castes, Many of us found ourselves asking our 'progressive' parents as to what castes we belonged to. I, for one, turned out be a Khatree. I never understood what it meant.

By the time we gave our board exams, we had matured enough to realize that we just can't do this to Abhijeet, for reasons of political correctness or the fear of a backlash from a bureaucrat, if nothing else. But by then Abhijeet had been harassed enough (in typical public school method) to not only turn into a bully but also dropped his surname in the high school examination. He must have thought to himself: if my classmates in an elite missionary school can do this to me, my surname on the mark sheet would always beget discrimination and prejudice. Such a clash was happening because it was the first time we were coming in contact with someone who was suffering, in the twentieth century, from the sanction given by Manu to the caste system. Abhijeet's turning into a bully was a way of saying, 'I refuse to become a victim figure'.

This was a failure, too, of the education system: our textbooks never told us much about caste.

And then, a neigbour of ours sold his house. The entire colony was saddened that the new occupants belonged to the caste of 'mochees' or cobblers. Both husband and wife were in government jobs, obviously reserved for them, but the gossip in the street was that one of their kin was still a mochee. Someone went to the previous occupants and regretted: "Kin ganday logon ko apnay makaan de diya hai. Why have you given the house to such despicable people?"

The family in turn could smell this. They decided to throw a party. This was their way of finding out who was casteist and who was not: there were some who made polite excuses and did not attend. But as the family's acceptability in the locality grew, everyone made amends by visiting them and calling them over.

In both cases, the entry of 'low' caste individuals and their families into the (UC) "mainstream" took place because of reservations in government jobs. Before this could adequately happen across India, the Indian state decided that jobs and resources were to be transferred to the private sector. Jobs in the private industry, even in the highest levels of the organized sector, often depend upon who knows whom. When you move in your own society, you think you never discriminate against anyone else.

So how do you solve the problem of Dalits? Indian industry, despite its pretensions of corporate social responsibility, is unlikely to take initiative. Unlike American corporations that believe in "diversity", hire and train individuals from minority communities (including immigrants from India), Indian industry is unlikely to volunteer. The government must step in, as it intends to do very soon.

The Congress party has obviously learnt from its past mistakes in promising reservations in the private sector. The Congress once dominated over Indian politics. We had a virtually one-party regime. The Congress would ideally embrace all political aspirations within itself, thus becoming a microcosm of Indian society. That explains the presence of Nehru and Patel in the same party, in the same government. But the Congress failed to do this with Dalits and ST's in northern India. Christopher Jaffrelot (India's Silent Revolution, Permanent Black, 2003), meticulously shows how the Congress in north India failed to raise a Dalit leadership, and remained dominated by UC's.

This led to the rise of caste-based parties such as those that we identify with Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Laloo Prasad Yadav. Gandhi called them 'Harijans' or the Children of God. They found it condescending, and coined the term 'Dalit', meaning oppressed. Instead of UC's stooping down and offering tea and sympathy, caste was pre-destined to be challenged from bottom-to-top. In the end Gandhi lost and Ambedkar won.

The urban elites of north India detests 'low' caste leaders, calls them names, and accuse them of being casteist. If the same elites refuse to live in an apartment full of Dalits, then that's not casteism. This is why Mayawati keeps calling everyone 'Manuwaadi', because everyone is Manuwaadi. The statues of Ambedkar that she keeps installing all over UP, earn scorn from the elites. They say it amounts to squandering public money. But for Dalits these statues symbolise power and social security. These statues across UP are vandalized every time Mayawati goes out of power. When Dalits from all
over India are brought for a BSP rally to Lucknow, they are immensely proud to see the gigantic Ambedkar statue at the Ambedkar Udayan, grandly seated exactly like Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial. In her rallies, Mayawati declares, "Main chamarin hoon. Main chamaar ki beti hoon. I am a chamaar. I am the daughter of a chamaar." She chooses to use the derogatory term 'chamaar' as a matter of political assertion. To hear this is a moment of great pride for her Dalit "votebank". She is appealing to them to use the ballot to elect a chamaar like them into power. Although realpolitik has forced her to become less radical, there was a time when Mayawati's pet slogan was "Tilak, tarazu aur talwaar/ Maro inko jootay chaar!" My translation: 'Curse be upon the Brahmin, Baniya and Kshatriya castes.' Identity politics at its best. (My personal admiration for Mayawati also has to do with her self-appointment as 'Behen', or sister, when it would have been so easy to construct her as a 'mother goddess' in a mother-fixated nation. But the elites simply dismiss her as BMW, Behen
Mayawati.)

Mayawati, Mulayam and Laloo symbolise political empowerment of 'low' castes, without which you would have had, by now, a million Naxalite mutinies in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. But economic empowerment continues to elude large masses of Dalits. The story has just begun.

Gandhi Vs Ambedkar: Sad Media

Gandhi Vs Ambedkar: Sad Media

 

 Yesterday a poll was conducted by CNN-IBN7, on Mr Gandhi and Dr Ambedkar. IBN7 came out with finding that Dr Ambedkar surpasses Gandhi in legacy. It generated a kind of shock for rich Indians including elitist Indian Media. How and why this is a shock to them is important to analyse. Such introspection will track the role of Indian media in Indian human rights movement.
The history stands itself when Indian Media was at highest level critical of Dr Ambedkar and ill presented his perona all these years. Dr Ambedkar once said for cast-elitist in India, ‘I am the most hated person for them but it will take time to realize if they protect rights of underprivileged their interests are also protected’ (elite).
In last 60 years, Indian Media held interest in glitz & sensationalism than in societal undercurrents. It is heartbreaking, they even succeeded in keeping international audience at bay from learning violation of Human rights in India. No need to say, treated Dr Ambedkar as ‘untouchable’ over the years, and was kept so much isolated. More often that nought Indian media projected Dr Ambedkar in negative compartmental way. His lifetime involement in brining social justice and world peace is shamelessly rejected. This mounts to a serious crime on part of Indian media.
Another grave misunderstanding (may be a conspiracy), the caste ridden Indian Media propels in minds is delimitiion Dalit terminology only to stipulated section. Fact is that Dalits as a broad concept includes broken people, ‘untoucables’ and subjugated sections, may come from SC/ST/OBC/Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Sikh background. Buddhists in India are earstwhile ‘untouchables’; comprise major portion of educated Dalit population. People of India must know that Buddhism helped a Dalit in breaking socio-psychological barrier thereby reclaiming entire personality. By taking out the dogmatic and undemocratic gods in mind much harm is done to Indian society. Corrective Moral and scientific reclamation is need of time for all Indians if they want to produce excellent civilisation. Therefore in the absense of many Indians doing so, ex-untoucables are left with giant responsibility of establishing order in civil society.
We saw in Khairlanji that mother Surekha and learned daughter Priyanka did not believe in Godly-superstitions, this was possible due to love for Dr Ambedkar’s philosophy and alliance to humanistic values. Bhotmanges were aware citizens and helped fellow citizen by submitting witness statement to Police. They did not fear in saying truth. The type of scientific temper and constituional awareness they had is quite rare. Such spirit is need of an hour.
It goes without saying that none of the social groups in India can claim custody of 2500 year old buddhist values i.e. liberty, equality and fraternity as they are so universal and immensely beneficial; same is true with the legacy Dr.Ambedkar. His life is nothing but a struggle for values of liberty, equality and fraternity which humanistic.
Today, the matter of biggest worry for people of India is focus on Humanistic issues is cornered off. Indian democracy has big dangers awaiting if Indian media doesnt learn early to focus right issues.
Coming back to the CNN-IBN7 survey, comparing Mr. Gandhi with Dr. Ambedkar is redundant/illogical exercise due to many reasons. Theory and practice indicates that transformational leadership basically prevents formation of sects and allows easy fusion of minds. Transformational leaders leave behind life philosophies. It is unfortunate that Indian Media is engaged in comparing two leaders instead of taking active interest into doing something for rooting social democracy. Indian media is only playing with notions of people to get some commercial millage but hardly touching roots of social sufferings.
In last years of life Mr Gandhi visibly accepted Dr Ambedkar’s leadership when he saw nude dance of religiocentric politcs within Congress circles during post-independence period. He did not survive more to see Dr Ambedkar approach to transform entire Indian society by peaceful means; alas! he was killed by a fanatic Hindu backed by a group which survives today and wins elections. Reason is Media selectively discounts such ill tenancies in the socio-polity.
But creative Indians will not sit back and enjoy the game silently. To challenge media monopoly , they understand role of technology platform. We,at Atrocitynews, feel that blogosphere has wide potential to defy existing Media codes and could contribute towards alternative Media. We are opstimistic that the best solutions would be coming anytime soon as right thoughts shape up right time. Therefore wild ignorance on part of people of India should be zeroed down by educating and sensitising people & Media through online forums, blogs, workshops and conferences.
Here its worth mentioning usage of right terms in transforming people and their attitudes. In same flow, care must be taken in understanding different terms when we talk about social justice. For example, Dalit is a socially qualitative state, Ambedkarism is a thought philosophy, Buddhist is a life practicing ‘liberty equality and fraternity’ values and Indian is a political identity.
Based on same, our editors have suggested some corrections in following IBN7 news peice on Gandhi & Ambedkar (Click here for CNN-IBN POLL). Readers are free to interpret henceforth, due to inability to correct all such news contents by our editors.
Thanks..
CNN-IBN writes..
As the nation commemorated the 50th death anniversary of Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar on Wednesday, over eight lakh (Indians) Dalits paid homage to their great leader at Chaityabhumi in Mumbai.
Most Dalits(Indians) see Ambedkar as their true leader—someone who challenged the very basis of the caste system unlike other national leaders—notably Gandhi—who they claim followed a middle path.
At a time when India is seeing a people resurgence, Ambedkar seems to have hogged all the attention. To discuss the contentious issue on CNN-IBN’s Face the Nation, was a panel which included Jabbar Patel, director of the biopic of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar; Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson and Professor Mridula Mukherjee, historian and Director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
Has Ambedkar’s legacy proved more durable than that of Gandhi?

Ambedkar’s popularity is at an all time high. But the fact is the legacy itself is frayed — exposing a dichotomy, a paradox. There were vigorous debates over Ambedkar and Gandhi through the ‘30s and ‘40s. At the end of the day, the Gandhian idea of ‘a human society’ seems to have lost out to the Ambedkar’s more revolutionary idea of ‘social justice at all costs’.
Though we can learn from both Ambedkar and Gandhi, the fact remains that Ambedkar’s statues outnumber Gandhi or perhaps that of any other leader’s in India .
Neither on October 2 nor on January 30 do eight lakh people visit Gandhi’s samadhi as we find in case of Ambedkar. What is it that really distinguishes the two?
“Both were great in their own respect and in their own ways. But it was Ambedkar’s work that gave Dalits a status of human beings and a sense of equality and power. There is a vast group that worships Ambedkar as a deity. It is no surprise to see eight lakh Dalits reaffirming faith in him on his 50th anniversary,” Tushar Gandhi said.
Is that the reason why in the 21st century Mahatma is revered in various ways but is not seen as a deity while Ambedkar has become God?
“Ambedkar has become a deity only for the Harijans (Bahujan) who were persecuted and not even treated as human beings by the Hindu community. It was Ambedkar who gave them a sense of belonging, power and status in the society. His becoming a deity was bound to happen,” said Tushar Gandhi.
Has Ambedkar been reduced to a mere statue?
Ambedkar gave Dalits many Indians a sense of status, power, and self-respect, but in the process, has Ambedkar been reduced to a mere statue? Perhaps he has become a mute witness to what he sees around himself. Is that the tragedy of Ambedkar?
“Statue is just the symbol. He was the man who gave an identity to human beings deprived and exploited for a thousand years. Though we have a political struggle going on, we have forgotten that Ambedkar was the one who gave India its very first constitution. His relevance is much more than just being a Dalit leader,” said Jabbar Patel.
Lage Raho Munnabahi—recent commercial Bollywood film discovered Mahatma at a popular level. Does Ambedkar too needs be discovered at a popular level?
Several films have been made on Ambedkar’s life but would ever a film on the Dalit the leader get the same appeal as Lage Raho Munnabahi—the film that took Gandhigiri to the common man—did?
“To me Lage Raho Munnabahi is too much a romanticised version of the whole Gandhian philosophy. Dr Ambedkar’s philosophy is much deeper than that. Ambedkar did not just talk about Dalits, but he also spoke about human rights,” said Jabbar Patel.
One thing is clear, perhaps it’s much more difficult to make a film on Ambedkar than on Gandhi.
“When I made a film on Ambedkar, I realised it’s indeed difficult to do depict his ideas and achievements in their true light. My film took one-and-half- years to be released in the country due to censorship issues. In this country, it is extremely difficult to portray Ambedkar’s philosophy in its true sense,” said Patel.
Ambedkar remains a contentious and controversial figure—but perhaps that is what makes him also a fascinating figure to be studied about.
What do Gandhi and Ambedkar mean to the contemporary India ?
“There was a process of contention and reconciliation between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar was not a member of the Congress. Then how did he get the role of framing the constitution in the Assembly? It was actually the Congress leaders—Nehru, Gandhi and Patel—who gave him this role,” said Professor Mridula Mukherjee.( this is completely wrong)
In today’s India , where the image of militancy within Dalits has (suffering consciousness) become dominant, how can it be reconciled with what Mahatma spoke of – trying to break down the upper caste opposition to unsociability and caste system?
Had Mahatma been alive, what message could he have given the Dalit youth(Indian) who swear by Ambedkar and practice a form of militancy in his name?
“Bapu would have admired the fierce spirit of Dalit youth (Indian) who have been demanding their rights. However, he would not have accepted the violent means that they have adopted. What happened in Maharashtra a few days ago was not a demonstration of anger, but an outcome of frustration of the Dalit community(Indian). The leaders who exist for Dalits (indians) today are exploitative and opportunistic. They do not voice the opinion of the Dalit community(Indian). community at all. These leaders have become more like an upper-caste exploitative lot themselves,” said Tushar Gandhi.
Perhaps the anger and frustration that set afire two train in Maharashtra a few days ago was an outcome of the exploitative and opportunistic leadership that Dalits (Indians)have been given in to today.
Has the intellectual legacy of Ambedkar been lost?
“Ambedkar’s contribution to the country in the form of writings on human rights was extraordinary. The kind of Constitution he wrote for this country—the lengthiest Constitution in this world—is a feat that most people in this county have forgotten,” said Patel.
The phenomenal writings of Ambedkar have been an intellectual legacy for our country. Has the exploitative (Indian) dalit leadership today lost that legacy somewhere? As Tushar Gnadhi points out, it is this opportunistic leadership that has left Dalit youth as a frustrated lot.
“Whether we talk of Gandhi, Ambedkar or any other great legacy, a lot depends on the contemporary leadership. How the present day leaders link up those legacies and transmit them to the present generations or if they use them as mere icons, is something that matters,” said Professor Mukherjee.
The intellectual bankruptcy of the Dalit leaders is imminent and palpable. While eight lakh Dalit leaders visit Chaityabhumi on Ambedkar’s anniversary, not one of them realises the intellectual bankruptcy that they all suffer from today.
Ambedkar, more than being a Dalit icon figure, was someone who asked them to educate, organise and agitate. Dalits today must consider whether their leadership or they themselves have really lived up to the ideals of Dr Ambedkar.
Final Verdict: Has Ambedkar’s legacy proved more durable than that of Gandhi?
81 per cent of the viewers said ‘yes it has’ and 19 per cent of them said ‘no’.
Perhaps Ambedkar’s legacy needs to be re-looked and rediscovered to understand it in its true form. Remember Babasaheb said, “Social democracy and political democracy must go hand-in-hand. And that can happen only if we manage to create a truly equitable society.”
Thanks and Congratz to all..

About these ads

Ambedkar's Journalism

The history of the press in India is the history of the freedom movement in the country. To a great extent, the Indian National Congress owed its popularity and position to the Indian press (Mazumdar, 1993). The history of the freedom movement happened to be the history of Congressmen. Hence the history of the press in India is the history of the newspapers run by Congressmen. The history of the oppressed community is being neglected and the history of the upper caste is celebrated in India. The majority which accepts Mahatma Gandhi as a great journalist declines to speak about the journalism of Ambedkar or the newspapers run by Ambedkar. It is important to identify the different interpretation of history of the freedom struggle as well as the press in India. This paper will look into the experiences of Ambedkar with media.

Its aim is to *explore the newspaper initiatives of Ambedkar, *study the representation of Ambedkar in media and *recognize his views on media. The paper will discuss the data observed using desk research. This is done by summarizing published sources - a form of secondary research.

Ambedkar's Journalism

Dr. Ambedkar was also a successful journalist. He provided a platform for social revolution through his papers. It is important to note that Gandhi started Harijan in 1933 to propagate the cause of untouchables. He started that only after the Poona pact. The Indian media which admires Gandhi's efforts to start a newspaper for the untouchables never addresses Ambedkar's labors that are responsible for running four newspapers for his people. As the pro-Congress media refuse to speak about the oppressed people, Ambedkar's struggles, his ideology, Ambedkar required a media, a mouthpiece. Ambedkar strongly believed that newspapers could bring about a change in the lives of the millions of oppressed people. Dr. Ambedkar's Marathi newspapers announced a new politics and ethics and anticipated a just social order ( Pandian, 2005). Ambedkar published a series of newspapers namely Mook Nayak (weekly newspaper), Bahishkrit Bharat (half-monthly newspaper), Janata (weekly magazine).

The newspapers were actively involved in constructing a nation and mobilizing the masses to participate in the freedom movement. Around the same time, B.R. Ambedkar started propagating a different vision of Dalithood through his newspaper Janata, which stressed the Dalit's difference from the mainstream 'nation'. Ambedkar demanded a separate Dalit-space, rather than a submersion of the Dalit cause in the Gandhian agenda of building a coherent, homogeneous nation-space (Narayanan, 2005). The editor of the weekly Janata was Bhaskarrao Kadrekar.

Ambedkar started Mook Nayak on January 32, 1920, a fortnightly paper with the help of the Maharaja of Kolhapur. Although Ambedkar was not its official editor, he was the man behind it and it was his mouthpiece. Kesari newspaper refused to publish the advertisement about Mook Nayak. How violent and unfavourable were the times can be seen from the fact that the Kesari refused to even announce its publication although solicited to do as a paid advertisement. And this happened when Tilak was still alive! (Keer, 1954). Not only was touching the oppressed people considered untouchability, publishing advertisements about their newspaper (in their publication) was also considered untouchability.

The media history of American Blacks and the oppressed people of India have many similarities. In the 1840s a black man, Willis A.Hodges, took exception to editorials in The Sun opposing voting rights for Blacks. So, he first tried the access approach, writing a reply to the editorial, which the newspaper published for a fee of $15. However, when the newspaper published his message it was modified and carried as advertising. Hodges protested, but was advised, "The Sun shines for all White men but not for Colored men." Told that the mass circulation newspaper would be closed to the views of Blacks, he started the Ram's Horn in 1847 (Wilson & Guteirrez, 1985).

Ambedkar lived and studied in America for a few years, so he was aware of the Media industry. As he was conscious that Indian mass media would reflect the Caste Hindus' ideology, he chose a separate newspaper for the oppressed people and so he started publishing newspapers.

The names chosen by Ambedkar for his newspapers very evidently confirmed the aim of his newspapers. Mook Nayak ('The leader of the dumb'), Janata ('The People'), Bahishkrit Bharat ('Excluded India') were directly related to the oppressed people. The oppressed people marched to Chowdar tank in Mahad led by Ambedkar and asserted their right to water by drinking water from that tank in March, 1927. For doing that, the Caste Hindu groups attacked the unarmed people. That was during the first big, open Depressed Classes conference. This topic became an important news item all over India. In Maharashtra, newspapers arrayed themselves in two camps. Some denounced this bold step on the part of the Depressed Classes, some took shelter under the law, a few shed crocodile tears saying what took place in the city at the end of the conference was not good and others congratulated the Untouchable Hindus on their courageous act in vindicating their right (Keer,1954). Ambedkar had to now face a flood of criticism. So he felt the need for a mouthpiece as never before. So Ambedkar started his fortnightly Marathi paper, Bahishkrit Bharat, on April 3, 1927, in Bombay. Explaining the aim of the journal, he observed that he had taken to the profession of a lawyer because he felt that one's attempt at conducting a newspaper for the welfare of the people should always be backed up by an independent profession for one's personal livelihood (Keer, 1954).

Representation of Ambedkar in Indian Media

Ambedkar is a national leader. But he is projected as a Dalit leader (Venkatesh, 2006). The media plays a major role in the formation of social identity. Ambedkar is always identified as a leader of the Dalits and nothing else. Right from his struggle towards social justice till now, after his 100th birth anniversary, Ambedkar receives less attention from the Indian media. Ambedkar felt that his views were marginalized in the Indian media.

The Indian media, too, takes its cues from the temple of Brahminism before it projects somebody as an acceptable man or woman for the highest position. The Indian media used to hate Ambedkar. (Ilaiah, 2000)

We can identify the ideology, the bias, the partiality of the newspaper towards any issue, by observing the placement, the space and the usage of language of that content. If we investigate the news about Ambedkar by using the above variables, those newspapers had not given importance to him.

An editorial published in the 17th issue of Samathuvam, a Dalit magazine, condemned the bias of the newspaper Swadeshamitran. It alleged that the Tamil newspaper took a massive effort to publicise Congress leaders and their visits to Madras Presidency. But they were not interested in the visit of Dr.Ambedkar. They didn't publicise even his full speech (Samathuvam,). Here the space given to Ambedkar's speech was very minimal and hence it is inferred that he was not given due prominence in the newspapers.

The kind of response Ambedkar received from colonial and post-colonial national media reminds one of the poor coverage that renowned Black American spokesman Booker T. Washington got in the White press. Washington lamented that his successful speeches before large crowds that were normally expected to receive front-page attention would be relegated to the last page and given an inch or so of space. Instead, the front page would invariably be given to considerable reporting of a Black person involved in a minor criminal offence (Wilson & Guteirrez, 1985).

At that time, the newspapers in no way stood beside Ambedkar's struggles. They didn't cover his struggles honestly and objectively. When Ambedkar was arguing for the political rights for his people in the Round Table Conference, the newspapers portrayed him as a traitor. They didn't correlate this with the problems of the oppressed people. They refused to analyze this issue with the oppressed people's perspective. The news was determined from the upper caste perspective. It explicitly reflected the caste Hindu attitude. This reminds us of the coverage of the civil unrest in America. The Kerner commission on the civil disorders in America, while filing its report in 1967, condemned that the press "has too long basked in a white world, looking out of it, if at all, with white men's eyes and a white perspective".

The vernacular press imitated the English Press in dealing with Ambedkar. When Ambedkar succeeded in receiving separate electorates and double vote for the Depressed Classes, the Congress, the Press and the nationalists condemned Ambedkar. The Tamil press condemned Ambedkar's role in the Round Table Conference. An editorial in Vikatan cursed Ambedkar. It accused Ambedkar saying that he was responsible for spoiling the Round Table Conference. It also added that Ambedkar betrayed the majority. It also criticized Ambedkar for propagating that Gandhi was the biggest enemy for the untouchables (Jeganathan, 2006).

In the same issue, an article titled 'Kadhambam' written by Sethjamnawal was published. It commented that Ambedkar was digging a new well for the untouchables. It was not for getting water, but for sinking the untouchables upside down. The name of that well is separate electorates (Jeganathan, 2006).

Ambedkar was called a monster, a traitor and a hireling. The main object of the Award, in the words of the Bombay Chronicle, was to turn the national majority of the Hindus into a minority (Keer, 1954). They echoed Mahatma Gandhi's view. B.G.Horniman wrote a furious article in the Bombay Chronicle on the eve of the Bombay conference, saying that the Doctor had to reckon with his countrymen and should not therefore stick up to his superior aloofness as though he were in a position to dictate to the country (Keer, 1954).

When Gandhi supported temple entry movement soon after the Poona pact, Ambedkar opposed it. Ambedkar in his statement said that the Untouchables were not inclined to support it because the Bill was based on the principle of majority and did not regard untouchability as a sin. Ambedkar argued that even though the majority accepts untouchability, it should be abolished without any concern. Gandhi replied that he cannot be in his camp because he believes Varnashram to be an integral part of Hinduism.

"What was the reaction of the Press to Ambedkar's statement? Infuriated at the statement of bitter facts made by Ambedkar, the whole hierarchy of the national press relapsed into a campaign of hatred against Ambedkar, and some of them described him as Bhimasur, a devil. A Bombay Marathi daily painted him as a Brahmadveshta" (Keer, 1954).

A Study of the Scheduled Castes Federation and Dalit Politics in U.P., 1946-48, reveals that in 1946 when the nation was looking ahead to partition, Ambedkar wants the scheduled castes to form a third nation. Ambedkar supported the separate nation demand of Muslim League. The newspapers in U.P dismissed Ambedkar's speech. The editorial in Vartman described Ambedkar's speech as 'reactionary and against the ideals of Indian nationalism'.

For the press, the Congress symbolised nationalism and national unity, and editors were clear about what constituted nationalism, and consequently, 'Indian' politics, and what was 'anti-national' or 'communal' politics. Ambedkar was described as a potential Qaid-e-Azam, and this despite the fact that he did not raise the SCF's demand for a separate electorate, always the bane of Ambedkarite politics for the nationalist. Ambedkar recommended Satyagraha for Scheduled Caste Federation. The very same newspapers which admired Satyagraha of Gandhi criticized Ambedkar's Satyagraha (Vartman, Hindi daily, 22 July, 1946). It was argued, in the editorial of Vartman that the Gandhian Satyagraha was used to legitimize a political farce and to satisfy the personal ambitions of Dr Ambedkar (Rawat). They never accepted Ambedkar's non-violent protests as Satyagraha. The Mahad struggle and the Nasik temple entry movement which were led by Ambedkar were not considered as Satyagraha by the mainstream.

The usage of language and the tone used to describe Ambedkar was undignified and it reveals the humiliation faced by Ambedkar from the media for his struggles.

The media has not changed even after his 50th death anniversary. The man who drafted the constitution of India still faces discrimination in the media. The one who fought against all forms of discrimination with the prime motto of achieving equality and social justice is yet to receive justice from the media.

The 50th death anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is a time to remember that the larger society ignores or distorts the Dalits' struggle for their rights at its own risk. Interviews in the run-up to the Ambedkar anniversary were mostly with people whining that Shivaji Park had been turned into a toilet. Or who spoke only about pollution and traffic jams (Sainath, 2006). The media seems to create panic among the people. It advised them not to step anywhere near Dadar. The interviews in the newspapers tend to construct the Dalits union to pay homage for Ambedkar as a nuisance. 'The report did answer the last question. Apart from the park and roads being full ("I can't take my evening stroll, nor can I walk my dog, no one can reach my restaurant/clinic''), the main problem seemed to be the sight of people bathing in the open. Ironically, it was a 21-year-old medical student who found this sight "upsetting'''. (Punwani, 2006)

Ambedkar's observations on Media

Ambedkar commented about the newspapers in his works. He observed that the oppressed people were under-represented in the newspapers. He also exposed that the newspapers were silencing his and his people's views.

"It is depressing that we don't have enough resources with us. We don't have money; don't have newspapers; Through out India, each day our people are suffering under authoritarianism with no consideration, and discrimination; those are not covered in the newspapers. By a planned conspiracy the newspapers are involved full-fledged in silencing our views on socio-political problems" (Ambedkar, 1993).

No news about the oppressed people was published in the newspapers. Ambedkar exposed to the world that the Indian newspapers were not prepared to represent the caste conflicts, the reason for those conflicts and the sufferings of the oppressed people due to untouchability. Dr.Ambedkar (in his 17th volume) said that everyday in each village there is conflict between Hindus and Dalits. But nobody knows that. The media are not ready to focus on those issues.

Furthermore Ambedkar found the reasons for the under-representation and the discrimination of the oppressed people in the media. He observed that "The untouchables have no press. The congress press is closed to them and is determined not to give them the slightest publicity. They can not have their own press and for obvious reasons. No paper can survive without advertisement revenue" (Ambedkar, 1993).

According to Ambedkar, one of the reasons for the conspiracy of the news about the oppressed people in the media was the low number of oppressed people in the media. He was aware of the ownership phenomenon which plays a major role in determining the news. Ambedkar was very aware about media ownership which plays a pivotal role in determining a newspaper's objectives, politics, priniciple, ideology.

Ambedkar understood that another source for discrimination in the media was due to the upper caste domination. He said that the staff of the Associated Press of India, which is the main news distributing agency in India, is entirely drawn from Madras Brahmins– indeed the whole of the press is in their hands and who, for well known reasons, are entirely pro-congress and will not allow any news hostile to the congress to get publicity. These are reasons beyond the control of the untouchables (Ambedkar, 1993).

Interpretation

The newspapers of that time were not ready to publish about the oppressed people or the leaders who were striving hard for that people. The oppressed people, who were excluded, segregated, oppressed from the society experienced the same from the media. Ambedkar, who tried to abolish untouchability, was portrayed as bhimasur against the Indian society. The space, the placement, the usage of language and the tone in the news about Ambedkar proved that he was given less attention, less prominence and negative representation.

Ambedkar was aware about the media ownership and the social composition of the media. Most of the newspapers during the freedom movement were under the ownership of Congressmen and caste Hindus. So obviously they were against any views which opposed Hinduism and Congress party. The very same newspapers which represented Dandi yatra of Gandhi as a satyagraha refused to accept Ambedkar's Mahad struggle as a satyagraha. Moreover, they derided that struggle as a betrayal. As it was not possible to rely on the pro-Congress mass media to publish his news and views, Ambedkar decided to run newspapers.

In Marxist media analysis, media institutions are regarded as being 'locked into the power structure, and consequently as acting largely in tandem with the dominant institutions in society. The media thus reproduced the viewpoints of dominant institutions not as one among a number of alternative perspectives, but as the central and "obvious" or "natural" perspective' (Curran et al. 1982). The Indian newspapers too reproduced the viewpoints of the caste Hindus. They were locked into the Caste hierarchy.

It is also inferred that Indian media did not identify the oppressed people who were the minorities in Hindu society. Indian media observed only the Congress movement, correlated it with the freedom struggle and gave importance to that only. They were not interested about the living standards of the oppressed people, the untouchability brutally imposed upon them or Ambedkar who was being the voice of the voiceless.

The social composition of the media at present is the same as in the Ambedkar period. Recently, a survey jointly conducted by Yogendra Yadav (CSDS), Anil Chamaria, and Jitendra Kumar revealed that India's 'national media' lacks social diversity and does not reflect the country's social profile. It also noted that Dalits and Adivasis "are conspicuous by their absence among the decision-makers. Not even one of the 315 key decision-makers belonged to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes."

~~~

References

SAGE Publications has published a book titled 'Practising Journalism - Values, Constraints, Implications'. (2005) , Quoted by Punitha pandian

B.R. Ambedkar, 'Plea to the Foreigner' from 'What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables.

Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar's Book collection: Volume 17, 1993, Government of India.

Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar's Book collection: Volume 2, 1993, Government of India.

Curran, James, Michael Gurevitch & Janet Woollacott (1982): 'The study of the media: theoretical approaches'. In Gurevitch et al. (Eds.), op. cit. [very useful]

Jeganathan. A., Probing into Double vote system, 2006, Kavin friends, Madurai.

Jyoti Punwani, 2006 Khairlanji and the English press: Online: www.thehoot.org, 2006, Available From: (http://www.thehoot.org/story.asp?storyid=Web5917613135Hoot124952%20AM2424&pn=1 [Accessed in November 2006]

KANCHA ILAIAH, 2000 If Laxman plays Hanuman Available From: Ihttp://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/sep00/cover3.htm [Accessed in December 2006]

Keer , Dhananjay (1954) Dr.Ambedkar Life and Mission, Popular Prakashan Private limited, Mumbai.

Mazumdar, Aurobindo (1993) Indian press and Freedom struggle 1937-42, Orient Longman limited, Calcutta, pp117

Narayan, B. (2005) DomiNation: How the Fragments Imagine the Nation: Perspectives from Some North Indian Villages, Dialectical Anthropology (2005) 29:123–140 : Springer

Partition Politics and Achhut Identity: A Study of the Scheduled Castes Federation and Dalit Politics in U.P., 1946-48. Ramnarayan Singh Rawat'This is 1946, not 1932'.

Sainath (2006) The fear of democracy of the privileged http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/08/stories/2006120804231000. accessed on

The editorial published in Samathuvam - jpUe;Jkh? Quoted in the book Dalits printing initiatives in the twentieth century, Stalin Rajangam PP 31-32

Venkatesh, (2006) Letters to the editor, The Hindu, accessed on 12 November, 2007, Available at http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/09/stories/2006120908301000.htm

Wilson, C. & Gutierrez, F (1985) Minorities and Media. Beverly Hill: Sage Publications.

~~~

Ratna Mala is Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication, at Mizoram University.

"Father, Son and Holy War" amongst 50 all-time favourites in world cinema

"Father, Son and Holy War" amongst 50 all-time favourites in world cinema

Preface to DOX 50
January 2004

"Films are like love stories: there are those you'll never forget, the ones that carried you away, swept you off your feet, shook you up." That is how Suzette Glenadel introduces her piece for DOX 50 and expresses the quintessence of this jubilee edition: 50 (+1) love stories. DOX 50 contains essays on 51 of the kind of films that have made an indelible impression on the 51 authors of this publication, and which for some even became a determining factor in how they spent their lives. (We approached more than 50 persons as we knew some would decline, which is why we ended up with 51 instead of 50).

The authors are filmmakers, critics, festival directors, commissioning editors and film connoisseurs, all of whom are spending their lives making, watching and working for the advancement of the documentary. They were all asked to write about their favourite documentary of all time. In a few cases we have asked them to make a second choice, as we wanted 50 different films - and 50 different filmmakers - to be saluted. It was quite exciting to see what films this would end up with - the result was a selection that includes a wide range of documentary films both historically speaking - from Wopaiz das amazonas (1922) to History of a Secret (2003) - and geographically, as the films originate from almost every continent.

The selection also reflects one of the prime virtues of the genre: its abundance. The short poems (Glass;Seasons), and the long cinema verite films (High School II; Love Meetings), the very political films (Land without Bread; Father, Son and Holy War), the personal life stories (History of a Secret) and those borderline films that usually are classified as fiction (Calendar; Still Life).

The latter are titles that one could arguably assert don't belong in a magazine celebrating the documentary, but since the whole discussion of defining a documentary in relation to fiction has been an issue from the very beginning, we thought it would be natural to include them. And it only stresses one of the most interesting aspects of the documentary: it has so many different expressions that it transcends borders with other genres. It's very much a genre undergoing continuous development that creates debate - not only about its subjects but also about its form.

Richard Leacock remarks in his essay about Robert Flaherty's Moana that this was an issue from the very beginning: "No-one anywhere in 1925 could make films without intervention, and it is important to realize that the man who talked of non-intervention and not writing scripts was not Flaherty, but the Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov, and he only talked about it and was no more able to do it than anyone else." (Richard Leacock about Moana by Robert Flaherty)

In the early days, this whole issue was also influenced, of course, by the limited technological possibilities. Today when the possibilities seem limitless, it is a matter of a filmmaker's stylistic choice, and there is a tendency to want to use this liberty to move more freely across genres. Sergio Borelli describes it as follows:
"Both doc and fiction are stories. Doc might be fake as much as fiction might be true. A story cannot be anything but a story, and its relation to truth is in its meaning, not its form, in its message, not its style. Let's emancipate our creativity from the moral shackles of pseudo-realism! Even the seal in Nanook of the North was a fake!" (Sergio Borelli about Black Harvest by Bob Connolly)

This is one issue that preoccupies several authors, while others are more concerned with the potential and political impact of the documentary. Throughout history, documentaries have been considered quite powerful. Several of the filmmakers whose works are written about in this publication have been deported or forced to flee from their country or their films have been banned or held back by various regimes or governments. Measures that were taken out of fear for the effect of this powerful medium, which could tell the people about events and conditions the authorities were trying to conceal. Luis Bunuel's Land without Bread was banned, as were Marcel Lozinski's films in the 1970s. Joris Ivens couldn't enter the Netherlands for years as his Dutch passport had been confiscated, Patricio Guzman was arrested by the Pinochet regime and eventually had to flee the country. All because they had been making films the authorities were afraid of. And as DOX 50 can also bear witness to, filmmakers of today continue that tradition by using their skills to document the injustice and wrongdoings of the world:

" Anand Patwardhan keeps watching the madness unfolding before him. He always wants to be a witness to the tragedy and the cynical comedy of our times. I believe that it's one of the best ways for the documentary filmmaker to take action in the world". (Sato Makoto about Father, Son and Holy War by Anand Patwardhan)

Not only witnessing but also the way of portraying what happens is a major concern of the documentary: the ability to show the complexity of the world, instead of the single-minded picture often provided by the news media, which focus on sharp angles and easy answers to everything. Jose Manuel Costa observes:

" Today, this is precisely what political documentary can be: before standardized strategies to shape our attention and reception modes, the radical concreteness and the radical abstractness of Wiseman films - their refusal to provide us with o meaning - are major subversive responses." (Jose Manuel Costa about High School II by Frederick Wiseman)

DOX 50 is a celebration of every filmmaker who has put everything on the line - some have even risked and are still risking their lives, others 'just' their money - to bring us new perspectives on the world we all live in; to provide us with intense sensory experiences, to get us to laugh and to cry - to create great films. We are very grateful to them for continuing to create that special magic which documentaries are capable of, a magic best described by some of the authors:

" Courage, rage, humility and tenderness. They're all here. Real poetry, poetry that makes people listen, surrounding our daily lives, barging into interpersonal encounters, just waiting for us to stand still and look. Profound, all-encompassing humanism. Which says that there is no such thing as 'Them' and 'Us'. They are Us." (Margreth Olin about A Decent Life by Stefan Jarl)

" What I see is not just a group of ordinary Armenian shepherds who save their sheep from death, but infinitely deep and, at the same time, universal images of Man and Creation. Simple, beautiful and inexplicable as life itself." (Sergey Dvortsevoy about Seasons by Artavadz Pelechian)

" They challenge our attention span, rewarding our patience with gentle epiphanies, making us feel like we discovered something all on our own. They pleasure us with a fine aesthetic sense one moment, then confront us with a veritable crudeness the next. All the while they present a story - about being." (Peter Mettler about The Long Holiday and Amsterdam Global Village by Johan van der Keuken)

The above quotes are appetizers for what this issue has to offer, clever observations of and reflections on the documentary - and then, of course, there are also the films. The texts will take you on a first date or be a reunion with 51 documentary film classics. We are grateful to the authors who took up the challenge and contributed their expertise and personal experience. Thank you, all of you.

The Films Of Anand Patwardhan

The Films Of Anand Patwardhan

 

Anand Patwardhan has been making political documentaries for nearly three decades pursuing diverse and controversial issues that are at the crux of social and political life in India. Many of his films were at one time or another banned by state television channels in India and became the subject of litigation by Patwardhan who successfully challenged the censorship rulings in court. Patwardhan received a B.A. in English Literature from Bombay University in 1970, won a scholarship to get another B.A. in Sociology from Brandeis University in 1972 and earned a Master’s degree in Communications from McGill University in 1982. Patwardhan has been an activist ever since he was a student — having participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement; being a volunteer in Caesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker’s Union; working in Kishore Bharati, a rural development and education project in central India; and participating in the Bihar anti-corruption movement in 1974-75 and in the civil liberties and democratic rights movement during and after the 1975-77 Emergency. Since then he has been active in movements for housing rights of the urban poor, for communal harmony and participated in movements against unjust, unsustainable development, miltarism and nuclear nationalism. [Image Courtesy: Icarus Films, Bio Courtesy: Official Site]

The most acclaimed Indian documentary filmmaker, Anand Patwardhan has been called the Michael Moore of India, although the latter started his career much later than Patwardhan did. The comparison is not entirely unwarranted though. For one, Patwardhan’s political inclination is very similar to that of the Canadian-American. He even admires Moore’s works to a large extent. But of more interest is the commonality between their styles. Like in the films of Moore, the image and the sound counterpoint each other at the most critical junctures. But, unlike in Moore where it’s almost exclusively played out for laughs, this friction is also used to provide highly affecting social ironies or even serve as penetrating summations. Same is true of the dialectical imagery – arrived at though Eisensteinian cutting or, more frequently, within the same shot – in his films. This might sound too crude and simplistic, but Patwardhan’s curious, clear-sighted camera and editing never once call attention to themselves or invite us to marvel their artistry. It is almost as if the sound and the image have independent existence since each of them has its own emotional weight and rumination quotient. At times, the image and sound are linked together by folk (generally recorded directly) or pop songs (official versions), which serve as catharsis for the pent up resentment and tension. Moreover, these folk songs also help illustrate how a community uses its art forms to make a record of its problems and struggles and to develop a sense of clanship among its members to help them go on.

Another singular aspect of Patwardhan’s cinema is his attention to dialects, language and speech patterns. Although there must have been considerable amount of luck in making many of these observations, the amazing consistency with which these nuggets steal the speeches they appear in makes this an ostensible trademark of the director. A chief nuclear scientist believes, albeit with a modicum of humour, that the numerous berserk cows did not spoil the nuclear test because they are sacred. A well-off, educated urban businessman, who has, along with his wife, resorted to religious methods for having a child, tells us (among other atrocities) that Hinduism is extremely liberal and broad minded in comparison to Islam and that “women cannot be divorced very easily”. An atheist (or secular) speaker of the Left uses the term “Lakshman Rekha” to denote the poverty line. This scrupulous attention to representation extends also to the visual language. Mass media, especially mainstream cinema and popular television (shows and news – rather interchangeable really), make regular appearances in Patwardhan’s films and are used to highlight their regressive influence. Although the working methods that he has developed over time bear an unmistakable authorial stamp (save for two rather ordinary short films), Patwardhan claims that he does not believe in deliberate stylization and that there is no conscious aesthetic in his films. In fact, the only cinematic influence that he mentions in interviews is that of Imperfect Cinema (Patwardhan’s films are certainly works of Third Cinema and his essay on The Battle of Chile (1977) is an illuminating read). So it should of little doubt that his politics is what informs his aesthetics.

In a way, Anand Patwardhan could be called the child of Karl Marx and Karamchand Gandhi. If there is one vein that runs throughout Patwardhan’s filmography, it is the attempt to suitably wed class consciousness with nonviolent methods of problem solving. In that respect, all his films could be seen as efforts to demonstrate that this marriage is not just chimerical utopianism, but a practical possibility. He has been criticized for taking sides, for not presenting facts with objectivity and, plainly, for not giving the ‘other’ side a fair hearing. Surely, there can be few qualities more repulsive than non-committedness, neutrality and pseudo-objectivity in a political documentary for you can’t be neutral on a moving train. But then that doesn’t mean films such as Patwardhan’s are propagandistic or, worse, merely personal preferences, worldviews and opinions. His filmmaking is defined by curiosity and compassion rather than didacticism and judgment. Patwardhan’s allegiance is not to any geography, religion, ideology, language or class, but only to humanitarianism (for the lack of a better term), although, ironically, that stance dictates much of his politics. Through the films, it becomes evident that it is not an hatred towards the ruling class, but a genuine concern for the underprivileged that characterizes his cinema. Witness to this attitude is the fact his central interest remains – and this has given birth to the best sections he’s ever done – in the struggles of the oppressed than the acts of the powerful. All his films, in one way or the other, are celebrations of (or pleas for) nonviolent forms of resistance. (He places Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, B. R. Ambedkar and Salvador Allende on the same pedestal.) It is as if, for him, the struggle itself is more important than the end result. These films testify to the filmmaker’s belief that a struggle for human rights need not necessarily entail dehumanization of oneself, that, to borrow Gandhi’s oft-used quote, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.

(NOTE: As usual, there are gaping holes here which will be filled once I see those missing films)

Zameer Ke Bandi (Prisoners Of Conscience, 1978)

Shot on grainy 16mm stock that embodies the spirit and theory of Imperfect Cinema that Patwardhan so cherishes, Prisoners of Conscience (1978) captures a particular facet of the tumultuous years following the declaration of emergency by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in June, 1975: political imprisonment. Through first hand accounts, the director presents details of the appalling brutality of prison procedures and the classism that permeates them. Patwardhan’s major lament is not against Indira’s policies per se, but the very act of holding political prisoners without trial (That the film clearly points out that the situation did not improve much even after Janata Dal came to power testifies to its “nonpartisan” quality). What was unique about the widespread resistance to this political ploy of Indira Gandhi was that it was highly democratic in nature, with participation by both the secular Left and the Hindu-based RSS (a marriage quite unimaginable now), both workers and students, both citizens and immigrants and both radical Maoists and nonviolent Gandhians. Using the various interviews of people from each of these groups, Patwardhan attempts to examine and evaluate his own political leaning by trying to uncover socialist strains in Gandhian philosophy and the possibility of having a nonviolent base for Marxist thought. In additional to his ideology, it is also Patwardhan’s directorial style that seems to have (more or less) found its bearings in Prisoners as is evident in the therapeutic use of folk songs, the ironic cross cutting between Republic Day celebrations and prison proceedings and the general hesitation to be overly acerbic or coldly academic.

Hamara Shahar (Bombay, Our City, 1985)

Bombay, Our City (1985) is a devastating account of the slum clearance operations of the Bombay Municipal Corporation in 1984, in which encroachments by rural immigrants were systematically removed to make way for skyscrapers and to prettify the city. Patwardhan interviews residents of the slums, industrialists in the city, officials at the municipality office and middle class citizens of the city, all of whose words provide a unique insight into the issue. Occasionally, the film falls prey to an unrefined Marxist impulse wherein the director includes images of bourgeois tea parties and yacht races for no reason other than to provide contrast. But then, this sudden shift of gears also seems justified when we witness a group of upper-class folks – the city’s police commissioner included – discussing how to fight this “evil” of encroachments through martial training of youths. What is really extraordinary about the segments involving the slum residents is how remarkably aware these people are of their surroundings and of the numerous forces that bind them. A terrific song compiled by the local theatre group, which forms the spiritual backbone of the film, details the government’s injustices with great humour and pathos. Equally piercing are the testaments of the evicted (One of them says “Instead of removing poverty, they’re removing the poor”, alluding to Indira (and Rajiv) Gandhi’s populist slogan for eradicating poverty). Finally, Bombay, Our City also presents Patwardhan finding his own place as a filmmaker and an activist. One of the slum dwellers accuses Patwardhan of exploiting their misery for artistic gains while the Right accuses him of romanticizing the working class. The director, however, remains the humble inquisitor.

Una Mitran Di Yaad Pyaari (In Memory Of Friends, 1990)

In Memory of Friends (1990) finds Patwardhan in Punjab covering communal clashes between Sikh and Hindu fundamentalists during the Khalistan Movement and the subsequent endeavours of secular parties with Marxist associations in reinstating peace in the state. The subject of In Memory is both philosophically and politically complex (primarily due to different parties holding power at the state and central levels), for the demand for a separate state based on religion is, as Patwardhan remarks, both purely democratic and against democracy. At the focal point of the film is the figure of Bhagat Singh, freedom fighter and revolutionary whose image has been appropriated and manipulated by each political group to suit to its own ideological agenda. The Sikh separatists claim Bhagat Singh was a religious man whereas the right wing extols his nationalism. Even those who remain neutral about him seem to consider him as some sort of an antithesis to the nonviolent Gandhi. This starling rupture between the past and the present – the reality and its image – informs the central structuring device of In Memory. Interleaved with footage of interviews with the secularists, the separatists and the relatives of Bhagat Singh are passages in which Bhagat Singh’s posthumously published jail writings are recited by a narrator (Naseeruddin Shah) which clearly indicate that he was not only a staunch socialist and an atheist who believed that widespread class consciousness was the only way out of communal wars, but also that he deeply admired non-violence. Like all the secular teachings of Sikhism, Bhagat Singh’s beliefs, too, seem to have vanished into the past.

Ram Ke Naam (In The Name Of God, 1992)

In the Name of God (1992) chronicles the immediate and historical events leading up to the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh on 6 December 1992, when thousands of Hindu fundamentalists barged into the mosque premises and started bringing down the structure. Characteristically witty with a very keen eye for tragicomic ironies (The camera casually photographs an eatery named “Shriram Fast Food” as we hear public speakers, mounted on hired trucks, advertising the divinity of Lord Ram), Patwardhan examines the classism that exists within these communal forces (in the form of castes) and charts both the strategies of the then-oppositional Hindu groups, one of whose leaders had undertaken a nationwide propagandist tour, and the efforts of the secular Left in mitigating the communal agitation that seemed to have gripped the country like a plague. Unlike most rationalists, he chooses to view religion not as an entity fascist in its very conception, but as one which is molded by the ideology that propagates it. This is reinforced by the numerous segments featuring with Pujari Laldas, the official priest at the temple inside the mosque premise and a Hindu liberation theologian, the honesty and conviction of whose words suffuse the film with an earnestness and compassion so crucial to sociological filmmaking. But perhaps more than anything, In the Name of God is an elegy for the city of Ayodhya – a city caught unawares by external polarizing forces, its identity erased and reconstituted and its people made to live in perpetual fear.

Pitra, Putra Aur Dharmayuddha (Father, Son And Holy War, 1994)

A twin to In the Name of God, Father, Son and Holy War (1994) is less topical and more contemplative a film than its predecessor in that it attempts to study primeval and deep-rooted social issues with the bloody aftermath of the Babri Mosque demolition as only the backdrop. The central thesis of the film contends that religion and mythology – whatever be their flavour – construct and propagate a skewed sense of masculinity and bravery that is predicated on violence and hatred, which deems non-violence as an impotent principle and which is only exacerbated by most of modern consumerist advertising and certain sections of the mass media. Furthermore, Patwardhan suggests, it is the same texts and practices that define femininity as whatever masculinity isn’t, with passive acceptance, chastity and servility being its prime virtues. The film argues, presenting archaeological evidence, that this was not always the case and that, at the danger of sounding too simplistic, this worship of violence and destruction – in place of fertility and proliferation – started when man learned to domesticate and own animals and settle down. Equally sweeping are its other assertions that attempt to cover of number of social phenomena (including the popularity of WWF and on-screen violence, in general), which runs the risk of decontextualizing the key argument of the film. True, that all these facets are only deeply intertwined, but the film is so ambitious and loosely structured that it almost ends up proving otherwise. These observations would find greater strength and coherence in the director’s decidedly superior work, War and Peace.

A Narmada Diary (1995)

A very pertinent film about the social conditions in the third world – especially after the advent of globalization – A Narmada Diary (1995) sits well alongside works such as West of the Tracks (2003) and Up the Yangtze (2007) in the sense that it chooses to document on film – for us and for posterity – what would otherwise be relegated to the footnotes of most mass media. Co-directed with activist Simantini Dhuru, the film tracks the struggle of an indigenous population (Narmada Bachao Andolan/Save Narmada Movement) living on the banks of river Narmada against the Sardar Sarovar Dam project, which would result in their displacement and massive land submergence. There is a sense of watching history in the making as the group congregates for planning, organizes non-violent protests, confronts key officials responsible for the construction of the dam and exhibits a singular integrity of purpose, further evidencing Patwardhan’s heartfelt admiration for Patricio Guzmán’s masterpiece. Although the Save Narmada Movement is generally known to be led by Medha Patkar, Patwardhan and Dhuru avoid the pitfall of making a hero out of her and building a film around an exceptional individual’s actions. Instead, true to the spirit of this struggle, the directors present her as a key player in a movement organized and executed by the local populace en masse. Additionally, A Narmada Diary is also a personal struggle for Patwardhan as a filmmaker. Like the rebellion, his work stands as the direct antithesis to the pro-dam government propaganda films that make their appearance throughout the picture.

Jang Aur Aman (War And Peace, 2001)

War and Peace (2001) could well have been titled War and Peace: Or How I Learned to Forget Gandhi and Worship the Bomb, for the major theme that runs through the film is the disjunction that exists between the past and the present and a nation’s collective (and selective) cultural amnesia with respect to its own past. Shot in four countries – India, Pakistan, Japan and the USA – and over a period of four years following the 5 nuclear tests done by India in 1998, Patwardhan’s film was slammed by Pakistan for being anti-Pakistani and by India for being anti-Indian, while the film’s barrel was always pointed elsewhere. Tracing out the country’s appalling shift from Gandhianism to Nuclear Nationalism and Pakistan’s follow-up to India’s nuclear tests, Patwardhan examines the role of the two countries as both perpetrators and victims of a major mishap that is now imminent, taking the Hiroshima-Nagasaki incident as a potent example to illustrate why nuclear armament is not merely a potentially hazardous move, but a wholly unethical one. War and Peace is a film that should exist, even if amounts to only the ticking of a radiometer amidst atomic explosions, for it calls for a realization that there can be neither a victor nor a finish point in this internecine race. It is, without doubt, Anand Patwardhan’s masterpiece. [Read full review]