Seen Through Different Glasses

Let바카라�s talk about what Arundhati Roy doesn바카라�t want to talk about: the 바카라�high-caste바카라� appropriation of Ambedkar. Not the appropriation that the Right has been engaging in over the last several years, clu­m­­sily saffronising him amidst mockery from the Left. I mean the fervent app­ropriation by the Left which, from 1970 to 2000, completely ignored Amb­edkar바카라�s work. Dozens could be imp­licated, be it Partha Chatterjee, Ajay Skaria, Ananya Vajpeyi, Ashwarya Kumar, S. Anand...and the list goes on...from Ganguly, Sharma, Mishra, right up to Arundhati Roy (and yes, indeed, Aakash Singh Rathore).

Why refer to this lot as appropriators rather than as comrades in agitation? Bec­ause these Jai-Bhim-come-latelys pub­lish easily with Oxford, Harvard, Sta­nford, or in this case Penguin, while Dalit scholars continue to search in vain for acc­ess to high-impact presses. Because this is the lot who speak at litfests, give keynotes at conferences, who earn academic distinction and authority (and pseudo 바카라�street cred바카라�), while Dalit scholars continue to struggle to be regarded as suitable for hundreds of reserved academic posts lying unfilled in Ind­ian universities. Because this is the lot for whom the question, 바카라�Who are you?바카라�바카라�a question aggressively demanded of Amb­e­dkar, as described in his autobiography Waiting for a Visa바카라�has never posed any problem in terms of gaining access to transport, shelter, food or water: 바카라�I went to the toll-collector바카라�s hut and asked him if he would give us some water. 바카라�Who are you?바카라� he inquired.... They lined up in front of my room and fired a volley of questions. 바카라�Who are you?바카라�바카라�. The Karkun contemptuously asked, 바카라�Who are you?바카라� I replied, 바카라�Sir, I am a Harijan.바카라� He said, 바카라�Go away, stand at a distance. How dare you stand so near me!바카라�

I ask myself what response my own ans­­wer would have elicited in these scenes that Ambedkar so vividly describes, and I cannot for a moment imagine not having received the water, the shelter, and so on. And even today, my right of access바카라�the privilege and 바카라�high-caste바카라� Ambedkarites바카라�continues apace: to universities, to top publishers, to invitations to speak, and to review.

When, in 2014, the 바카라�high-caste바카라�-owned publisher, Navayana, which has always published a majority of non-Dalit Amb­edkarites, released an annotated edition of Ambedkar바카라�s Annihilation of Caste, carrying an introduction by Arundhati Roy that was thrice as long as Ambedkar바카라�s work itself, numerous Dalit voices rose in protest against the appropriation. I found myself conflicted. Roy바카라�s introduction, 바카라�The Doctor and the Saint,바카라� was quite compelling and significant. On the other hand, many of the arguments raised by those opposing the publication were persuasive and insightful. For example, Round Table India바카라�s Karthik Navayan rightly remarked: 바카라�This spiced up text produced by these elite Leftists is meant to be consumed by savarnas and white people, who are not aware of caste. Because all their show business is over now, they have to face the truth, so they have started speaking about Annihilation of Caste and Ambedkar.

Hence at the time I opined that had Arundhati Roy simply published her introduction as an independent book instead, it would have been universally appreciated. What Karthik R.M. had written in a Round Table India piece resonated: 바카라�What those defending Roy should realise is that what is being contested is not Roy바카라�s right to write an essay on Ambedkar바카라�I바카라�ll add here that I enjoyed reading the essay for the stuff on Gandhi바카라�it is this essay framing Ambedkar바카라�that is being challenged.

Now, five years later, Arundhati Roy has delinked her writing from the function of framing Ambedkar바카라�s own. Not a word has been changed, although this edition carries a new preface. But Roy바카라�s new preface does not so much as mention the accusations of appropriation. It does, however, glibly mention a trivial controversy: 바카라�I have been faulted for paying an inordinate amount of attention to Gandhi in an introduction to what is essentially Amb­edkar바카라�s work. I am guilty as charged.바카라�

It is annoying that non-Dalits find it irre­sistible to compare Ambedkar with Gan­dhi, but this was not by any stretch of the imagination the reason behind faulting the first iteration of The Doctor and the Saint. The fact that Roy reduces the sophisticated arguments, and the righteous indignation, of Dalit scholars to this less significant issue smacks of bad faith.

Now let바카라�s talk about what I don바카라�t want to talk about, but must: With this 2019 edition of her one-time controversial text, Roy had the opportunity to set things right with the very Ambedkarites with whom she repeatedly claims alliance. With this new Penguin edition, what she opted for instead, however, was to flaunt her social privileges.