Content uploaded by Carmel Christy Kattithara Joseph
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carmel Christy Kattithara Joseph on Feb 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
Why Indian Universities Are Places Where Savarnas Get
Affection and Dalit-Bahujans Experience Distance
P THIRUMAL
CARMEL CHRISTY
P Thirumal (pthirumal6@gmail.com) works as a professor at the Department of
Communication, University of Hyderabad. Carmel Christy (carmel.christi@gmail.com) is an
assistant professor of journalism at Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi.
Vol. 53, Issue No. 5, 03 Feb, 2018
Dalit Bahujan students relentlessly dream and struggle to experience an intellectual
ambience in elite institutions sans caste prejudice to recreate their “being” in radically new
ways in a society that otherwise seems to be forgetting what resistance with conscience can
deliver in reimagining life and politics afresh.
The controversy surrounding the death of the research scholar Muthukrishnan on 13 March
2017 at the hallowed Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Univeristy, New Delhi
left the progressive and the well-meaning fraternity at JNU and elsewhere pretty
speechless. If one were to decontextualise the issue and focus on the immense cultural
power that an academic aristocracy displays in the day-to-day life of students coming from
marginalised sections, then one should not just limit the discussion to the external
conditions (of unacceptable political and economic regime) that powerfully shape the life of
elite institutions. One has to turn the gaze within in order to throw some light on these
deeply disturbing experiences.
Mandal Commission’s Efforts
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
The intrusion of Dalit-Bahujan students into the portals of elite institutions has been made
possible not by the magnanimity of the learned savarna elite who have managed these
institutions for many decades but by the use of force made possible by a rustic political class
in the form of Mandal Commission report. Liberal, upper-caste academics hold the view that
it is not in the nature of higher educational institutions to de-elitise itself and that process
spells doom for education itself.
The entry of Dalit Bahujans as students and teachers into higher educational spaces has
flagged off the demand for diversity and not a monopoly in the realm of producing and
disseminating knowledge. This demand for diversity is suggestive of a certain need for a
loosening of elite control over these institutional spaces. Until now, this knowledge bearing
aristocracy has exercised an unbridled autonomy in imagining and shaping the socially
distanced horizon of these cultural institutions. This socially distanced character of
knowledge produced in reputed public universities reeks of a solipsistic brahmanic quest for
knowledge. It is possible that an experience of distance and disaffection in elite educational
institutions bothered scholars like Rohith Vemula, Muthukrishnan and others. These
individuals refused to accept the deeply pathological negation of their identity and
embodied presence in university spaces. The critique against the elite institutions is not that
they are disembodied and impersonal, but that they display a brahminical form of
embodiment tothat disallows other bodies and minds to breathe and experience happiness
and pleasure from inhabiting the concrete space of the university.
Here are some excerpts from Dalit–Bahujan students’ concrete experiences of these elite
institutions:
“Once I was presenting a paper on Ambedkar in my Masters’ class as part of
internal assessment in Centre for Historical Studies (CHS), Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU). I used Babasaheb Ambedkar to refer to his works in the
paper. After my presentation, my professor told me that I cannot use informal
titles such as ‘Babasaheb’ in academic presentations. In the same class,
another classmate of mine who is an urban savarna student presented his
paper on Nehru. He started by regretfully saying that he had written Pandit
Nehru throughout his paper and would correct it. My professor told him that
that is not a problem.”
“In my interview for MPhil/Phd admission in CHS, I had submitted a proposal
on Music as a form of resistance. I had discussed my proposal with a Dalit
professor earlier who told me that it was good and had a lot of scope. I had
already scored good marks in the entrance (43/75) and was confident about my
proposal. To my surprise, in my interview, they did not even ask me a single
question about the proposal. They asked only three questions, all about a low
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
grade in one particular paper. Now, this low grade has a background story. I
could not submit one of my assignments on time during my Master’s as I was
down with flu. I tried to meet my professor, who is a very accomplished
academic in the field of tribal culture. She told me that she could not
accommodate my request for extension. When I described her how unwell I
was, she gave me her phone number and asked me to call her later. I tried to
call her five times. The phone rang, but it was never attended. Finally, she gave
me a very low grade in my internals for that paper. She was there in the
interview board and the moment she saw me she asked in a surprised tone,
‘Oh, you got through?’ I replied with a smile, ‘Yes.’ I was disappointed after the
interview that there was not even a single question to gauge my academic
capability. I was awarded very low marks in the viva (3/25). Thus, in spite of
my scoring well in entrance, I did not get through for MPhil/PhD in CHS.”
These are some of the instances narrated by a Dalit research scholar from a mofusil town in
eastern India during a protest meeting in JNU after Muthukrishnan’s suicide. The student in
these narratives seeks to excel in his pursuit of knowledge by redefining the epistemological
possibilities of problematising caste in his class presentation and PhD proposal. His
attempts show his eagerness to embrace academic culture in the pursuit of life of a mind,
which is more than the instrumental purpose of education. But these attempts are
constantly marked either as “out of academic framework” or as “non-fit for the system.”
These phrases—“lack of academic framework” or “fitness to be in the academic
system”—recur in many narratives of Dalit students, especially those who attempt to bring
in their sensibilities and aesthetics like Muthukrishnan, Rohith Vemula, the student in the
above narrative and many others who wade through the everyday discriminatory
“sensorium” of the institution and its people. A Dalit student’s eagerness to envisage a non-
alienating relationship with the modern higher educational institution is interrupted by
subtle suggestions and informal procedures informed by caste as practised by an institution
and its people.
Affective Economy of Caste
Higher educational institutions are supposedly endowed with the responsibility of producing
distinctions in modern society. In recent debates on caste discriminations in elite higher
educational institutions, this responsibility of producing distinction is inverted. That is,
these spaces produce non-synchronic forms of discrimination which are inherited rather
than acquired. In some sense, there is a blurring of differences between forms of
recognition based on modern rational universal principles and recognition based on the
premodern caste system. There are adequate illustrations which exemplify the reproduction
of caste-based forms of recognition instead of a recognition that is solely based on acquired
learning as seen in the excerpts mentioned in the beginning. If one were to look at higher
educational institutions as spaces that are both embodied and disembodied sites that
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
reproduce caste along with knowledge, then it follows that they produce marked
distinctions.
This production of marked distinctions based on caste is successfully perpetuated through
an affective articulation of the body of an institution and its people. Dalit–Bahujans, as
relatively new entrants to this body that has been largely composed of savarna aesthetics
and taste, are constantly made to feel alienated and discriminated. It is sometimes in the
form of informal procedures that delay their scholarships and rights, a lack of recognition of
Dalit–Bahujans’ embodied presence in classrooms, other university spaces and so on. Thus,
there is a whole affective economy of higher educational institutions that devalues the
Dalit–Bahujan “being” by prioritising the already normalised presence of savarna aesthetics
and taste. It is in this realm where Dalit–Bahujan embodiment itself is seen as a threat, Dalit
students like Rohith and Muthukrishnan seek radical equality, which is beyond the demands
for mere presence in modern spaces. They were seeking the life of a mind as well, which is
more than the instrumentality of presence.
Equality may be seen as an effort to recognise the sameness in the other person. Neither
the Hindu right-wing nor the left recognise or grant this space for the production and
reproduction of this radical equality that Ambedkar aspired to and was aesthetically
pictured in the suicide note of Rohith Vemula as the desire to not to be reduced to a mere
identity. But in the present context, equality is not to recognise the sameness but the
incommensurable otherness of the Dalit–Bahujan person. Yet, thousands of Dalit–Bahujan
students relentlessly dream and struggle to experience an intellectual ambience in elite
institutions sans caste prejudice to recreate their “being” in radically new ways in a society
that otherwise seems to be forgetting what resistance with conscience can deliver in
reimagining life and politics afresh.
