Let바카라s talk about what Arundhati Roy doesn바카라t want to talk about: the 바카라high-caste바카라 appropriation of Ambedkar. Not the appropriation that the Right has been engaging in over the last several years, cluÂmÂÂsily saffronising him amidst mockery from the Left. I mean the fervent appÂropriation by the Left which, from 1970 to 2000, completely ignored AmbÂedkar바카라s work. Dozens could be impÂlicated, 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? BecÂause these Jai-Bhim-come-latelys pubÂlish easily with Oxford, Harvard, StaÂnford, or in this case Penguin, while Dalit scholars continue to search in vain for accÂess 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 바카라street cred바카라), while Dalit scholars continue to struggle to be regarded as suitable for hundreds of reserved academic posts lying unfilled in IndÂian universities. Because this is the lot for whom the question, 바카라Who are you?바카라바카라a question aggressively demanded of AmbÂeÂdkar, as described in his autobiography Waiting for a Visa바카라has never posed any problem in terms of gaining access to transport, shelter, food or water: 바카라I went to the toll-collector바카라s hut and asked him if he would give us some water. 바카라Who are you?바카라 he inquired.... They lined up in front of my room and fired a volley of questions. 바카라Who are you?바카라바카라Š. The Karkun contemptuously asked, 바카라Who are you?바카라 I replied, 바카라Sir, I am a Harijan.바카라 He said, 바카라Go away, stand at a distance. How dare you stand so near me!바카라
I ask myself what response my own ansÂÂwer 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 access바카라the privilege and 바카라high-caste바카라 Ambedkarites바카라continues apace: to universities, to top publishers, to invitations to speak, and to review.
When, in 2014, the 바카라high-caste바카라-owned publisher, Navayana, which has always published a majority of non-Dalit AmbÂedkarites, released an annotated edition of Ambedkar바카라s Annihilation of Caste, carrying an introduction by Arundhati Roy that was thrice as long as Ambedkar바카라s work itself, numerous Dalit voices rose in protest against the appropriation. I found myself conflicted. Roy바카라s introduction, 바카라The 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 India바카라s Karthik Navayan rightly remarked: 바카라This 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:Â 바카라What those defending Roy should realise is that what is being contested is not Roy바카라s right to write an essay on Ambedkar바카라I바카라ll add here that I enjoyed reading the essay for the stuff on Gandhi바카라it is this essay framing Ambedkar바카라Šthat is being challenged.
Now, five years later, Arundhati Roy has delinked her writing from the function of framing Ambedkar바카라s own. Not a word has been changed, although this edition carries a new preface. But Roy바카라s new preface does not so much as mention the accusations of appropriation. It does, however, glibly mention a trivial controversy: 바카라I have been faulted for paying an inordinate amount of attention to Gandhi in an introduction to what is essentially AmbÂedkar바카라s work. I am guilty as charged.바카라
It is annoying that non-Dalits find it irreÂsistible to compare Ambedkar with GanÂdhi, 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 let바카라s talk about what I don바카라t 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.