Assam’s grapes of wrath

RAJESH DEV
The Statesman, 3 December

The face of the vulnerable, guiltless Adivasi gaped at the press cameras to clumsily convey his innocence. He began to recount how the picketers were left to fend for themselves by the leaders who brought them to the “Capital” to assert their genuine demands for inclusion as a Scheduled Tribe.

The most mortifying and infuriating was the flagrant violation of the dignity and modesty of women during this nauseating frenzy that the region, and most possibly also the nation, watched on the streets of Guwahati. The dehumanising actions allowed to run riot on the occasion stood as testimony to our increasingly cannibalised selves.

An otherwise peaceful afternoon was defiled when members of the dominant groups giggled and conveyed jubilation at the naked reality of our society where stripped women run for shelter while the marginalised and the reviled go on destroying “symbols” they associate with domination and control. The irony of the situation was made conspicuous when an inadequate police force became totally incompetent.

The cascading effect of that 24 November afternoon will slowly unfold in a predictive fashion in different parts of Assam. The fragile inter-ethnic cohesion of this pluralistic society will be under increasing strain and the beginning of the blame game of who “started it” will not only politicise the event to the advantage of entrepreneurs, but will also result in a dialogic cul-de-sac that inhibits the possibilities of any reconciliation.

The edging of a peaceful picketing into this riotous event symbolises a number of issues that we have deferred resolving for a long time. The brutality with which the picketers were mauled by residents possibly reflects deep-seated resentment against the state and its methods of inclusion. The demand of the Adivasis for ST status was an instant alibi for contest. Yet the viciousness of the retaliation also revealed the perceived sense of superiority that dominant groups bring to bear over minorities in ethnically hierarchical societies. This subliminal aversion stimulated the need to “teach them a lesson” for making political claims to indigenousness in social settings that does not recognise such claims. The consequence is riotous social rage.

Though the Guwahati incidents have their subtle differences with similar other claims in different parts of India, they are not unique, as claims originating in the region are often designated. They express the same need for “recognition” to entrench cultural and political self-preservation that would also moderate the perceived backwardness of a group. Such claims are inevitably amenable to rancorous contest by those who perceptively sense a reduction in the share of their pie.

Yet the events at Guwahati nevertheless again oblige us to more substantive reflection about the processes and mechanisms of our current paradigms of the democratic inclusion of marginalised groups. A politics of social engineering that emphasises the need for “quotas” as an indication of empowerment is only deferring the concerns for social, political and economic equity of marginalised groups.
This adjournment though well serves the purposes of political mobilisation that generate instant electoral advantages for parties, like in the approaching panchayat elections in Assam. It, however, does not ensure empowerment of “scheduled” groups. Numerous instances throughout the country indicate that inclusion in “scheduled” lists is not the most effective method for ensuring social justice and equity. In all these cases, an a priori preference based on “scheduled” status has not proven to be the best method for maximising the power and resources available to a group.

The muted discontent of “rising frustrations” that sees a magic potion in the inclusion of a community in the list of favoured groups continues to fracture not only the region but the entire country. The riotous demands of the Gujjars in Rajasthan, the Paharis in Kashmir, the Koyas and Lingadarikoyas in Andhra Pradesh, the Kuravars in Tamil Nadu, the Adivasis, Tiwas and a host of others in Assam for inclusion in the category of the Scheduled Tribes reflect the new form of “mutinies” that challenge the Indian state and its pluralistic intentions.
These “million mutinies” by marginalised groups who perceive a deep sense of alienation and deprivation will only add to the crises that a gravely immobilised state has to confront in the coming years.

A state that has been indolent, inconsiderate and politically manipulative in executing its responsibilities towards its marginalised people will no longer have the wherewithal to fulfill those tasks. Yet the burgeoning aspirations of these people will continue to seek resolutions in the initiatives and intervention by the state, one of which is being “recognised” as Scheduled Tribes/ Castes. The incendiary mix of democracy with social fractures that magnify when the state adopts inexplicable justifications for recognising a group as “tribe/caste” will only add to future crises. Unless we change the discourse, demands for empowerment will continue to be merely manipulated as political totems rather than ensuring social justice.

(The author is a lecturer in political science at Women’s College, Shillong, the executive secretary of the Advanced Research Group for Understanding Eastern India and can be contacted at rajesh@argueindia.org.)