Varying Conceptions of Culture, Ethnicity and Ideology in the



Varying Conceptions of Culture, Ethnicity and Ideology in the

Left Discourse on Indian Politics

In the previous section, we saw that the concern with the ‘economy’/ ‘class’ has been central to Left statements on politics generally. Yet, in recent years, other categories such as ‘culture’ and ethnicity have also received increasing attention. Indeed, a close reading of recent Left writings on India also show that such terms have figured with growing prominence in contemporary political analysis. Not only have there been several statements on ‘cultural’ and ‘ethnic’ issues in such writings but the analysis of traditional concerns of the Indian Left such as agrarian and working class struggles, communalism and nationalism or even problems of political economy have been increasingly studied with reference to the former.1 

Indeed, several Indian scholars have taken critical note of the neglect of categories like culture, ‘meaning’ and ‘identities’ in traditional Marxist works. Thus, according to Dipesh Chakrabarty, uptil the 1970s “we saw the replication, in India, of the kind of Marxism that, in the context of English history, had once been happy to understand the ‘machine-breakers’ of the early nineteenth century as simply carrying out wage-bargaining in a different form. Even where popular unrest had to do with religious demands, historians sought credit for discovering that the unrest was actually economic in ‘content’ and religious only in ‘form’...”.2  Similarly, Rajeev Bhargava has stated that Leftists need to “work with a more complex notion of collective intentionality” as we have traditionally concentrated on “explaining crises situations rather than normal existence” and paid inadequate attention to “notions of ordinary life, individual desire and privacy”.3 

Despite the greater emphasis on concepts such as culture, ‘intentionality’, ‘meaning’ and consciousness, important differences and ambiguities have remained in their varying applications in our sources. Differences which appear to be far deeper than those involved in the conceptualisation of categories like state, class and economy. The former involve not just varying evaluations but, also, sharp differences in the methodological criteria adopted by scholars for their interpretation, as we shall note.

What is the precise meaning of concepts like ‘identities’, ‘discourse’ and culture? Is it valid, at some level, to talk of a single ‘Indian culture’ with its (paradoxical?) features such as casteism and ‘syncretism’ at the ‘popular’ level today ? What are the various types of ‘identities’ operative in Indian politics ? How are they internally organised and how do they relate to each other ? How is socialist internationalism to be meaningfully related to a politics centred on ‘ethnicity’ ? What is the place of nationalism in Left ideology and politics in India today? To what extent is ‘bourgeois hegemony’ already established in our society ? What can be the strategies for building an “alternative secular and Left democratic culture” in our polity ? Questions such as these have been the source of some significant differences (implicit or explicit) in Left writings on Indian politics. Before we turn to a detailed examination of such differences, a deeper conceptual problem underlining these may be briefly noted.

A Variety of Concepts

As stated above, one reason for difficulties in discussing questions of ‘culture’, ‘consciousness’ or ‘identity’ has been the lack of an adequate method which would be acceptable to most social scientists for their interpretation or understanding.4  Apart from this, problems in the study of such categories also seem to have grown with the tendency to assign different referends to same terms and to denote same referends through a number of parallel terms. Thus, while categories such as culture, ideology and ethnicity have been given varied interpretations in different essays or, within the same statement, terms such as ‘popular culture’, ‘common sense’, ‘common meanings’ and ‘popular consciousness’ etc. as well as ‘ideology’, ‘ruling class ideas’ and ‘discourse’, have been used interchangeably, at times.

The term ‘culture’, for example, has been applied in historical and sociological literature to denote a wide array of referends including the ‘social whole’, the ‘meaning embodied in symbols’ as well as the ‘basic values, practices and beliefs’ of a social group and also, more narrowly, to refined expressions in classical art, music and philosophy etc.5  Indeed, the broad (or civilisational) as well as the narrow (or artistic) conceptions of the term ‘culture’ have even been applied simultaneously in some statements. For example, while commenting on the alleged ferment in ‘non western cultures’ today, Kalpana Sahni has observed that “cultures as diverse as those of the ancient Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Harappans and the ancient Greeks and Romans” have gone through various cycles through their history. At present, attempts “to harmonise contemporary elements with one’s own culture are resulting in some of the most exciting discoveries in the field of creativity...in the literature of Latin America...and the dance of Chandralekha (India), to name but a few.”6 

Within the so called ‘social’ definition of culture, focussing on collective values and their tensions, the sense in which we shall apply the term hereafter, at least four different referends have been suggested in varying combinations in different statements. Thus, conceptions of ‘popular culture’, have stood, at one level, for “values and beliefs”, or, “worldview and ethos” ascribed to a collectivity and on the other to its “customs and practices” or, systems of education, media and religion. At another level, the same category has been used to refer to “meaning embodied in symbols”. Moreover, different ‘symbols/ signs’ may be selected for attention out of their vast range in religion, literature, language, folklore, mass media, by analysts of culture, with scant unanimity in this regard.7 

Another major category which has been conceptualised in remarkably different ways in recent political writings is that of ‘ideology’. It has been acknowledged that the term has undergone important transformations in its applications in the West, since the early nineteenth century, from denoting ‘the science of ideas’ to standing for ‘ideas about society’. Indeed, there is some consensus today in viewing ‘ideologies’ mainly as broader sets of ideas with specific ideals and interests to push for.8  Beyond this, however, there have been striking differences in the understanding of the exact nature and role that ‘ideologies’ play in society today. Not only have there been radical differences between Liberal and Marxist perspectives in this regard but, within each tradition, the same term has been applied in qualitatively different ways.

Thus, while some liberal scholars have applied the term ‘ideology’ to refer to any ‘coherent system of thought’ or a ‘principled approach to politics’ other spokesmen of a ‘libertarian’ standpoint have emphasised the propagandist/ distorting character of ‘ideologies’ and their essentially partisan perspectives.9  In Left writings, on the other hand, the notion of ideology has been more fundamentally linked to questions of power and class. Though, within this broad perspective, pejorative as well as positive conceptions of the term are possible. While, in one important approach, the term ‘ideology’ has been seen as referring essentially to ideas supporting dominant interests in any class divided society; in another Left conception, the same term has been applied to refer to revolutionary ideas, including Marxism.10 

A Multiplicity of Terms

Apart from changing conceptions of categories such as culture and ideology, our sources also draw attention to some ambiguities arising out of the very range and multiplicity of terms used to invoke the same referends in different essays and sometimes within the same statement too. For example, while talking of the notion of ‘common sense’ in Marxism, Arun Patnaik, has stated that his “paper is about the popular element, its ‘feelings’, its ‘precepts’, its ‘common sense’, especially as these are formed within hegemony processes... In Section one, the views on common sense (or, ‘ordinary’ folk’s sense-perceptions) as viewed in bourgeois traditions are briefly presented... In Section four and five, relationships between the hegemony process and the ‘common sense’ of subalterns, on the one hand, and relations between certain counter hegemony systems and subaltern consciousness, on the other, are delineated”.11 

A similar tendency towards multiple characterisation of aspects of ideology can be seen in Sudipta Kaviraj’s statement that “Ideologies bear a peculiarly close relation with narrativising discourse... Europe came to India predominantly through powerful rationalist narratives... The European intellectuals’ feeling that the meaning of modernity was still unclear...did not stand in the way of creation of ideological myths and their persuasive narratives. Ideological narratives simplify historical complexities...In time, greater acquaintence with Europe’s history served to destroy this classical ideological theory... (And) the crystallizing discourse of bourgeois modernity.”12 

While the critical references to ‘ideology’ have been often accompanied by related concepts such as ‘hegemony’ and dominant paradigms/narratives/ideas/discourse, there are obvious conceptual differences between these which also need to be noted here. The most important of these distinctions, in the post structuralist ‘moment’, has been the notion of ‘discourse’ which has been preferred by some analysts in place of ‘ideology’ in such references as ‘nationalist discourse’ and ‘colonial discourse’, of late. And though ‘discourse’ and ‘ideology’ need not be seen as neat subsitutes yet, how exactly they differ has been a point of some dispute which may again be noteworthy.

Thus, in such conjoint usages as “ideological discourse”, while the term ‘ideology’ has been applied critically with reference to hegemonic ideas, the notion of ‘discourse’ seems to have been taken as socially neutral.13  But, a neutral interpretation has also been given to the notion of ‘ideology’, by scholars referring to ‘coherent thought’ through this term;14  while ‘discourse’ again has been seen by some as neccessarily implicated in relations of dominance and power.15  Another subtle distinction within critical conceptions of ‘ideology’ and ‘discourse’ may be seen in the interpretation of the former as more explicit and systematised political doctrines and the latter as a more diffuse and less structured set of ideas or, any group of utterences united by a common concern and context.

Apart from ‘culture’ and ‘ideology’, another concept appearing prominently in Left writings today has been that of ‘ethnicity’/ ethnic identities; and, again, as a family of related terms including “ethnic identities”, “cultural enclaves”, “local identities”, “ethnic consciousness”, “primordial loyalties”, “community bonds”, “plural identities”, “cultural minorities” and so on. These terms have been applied in conjunction or even as substitutes by several authors in our sources. Referring broadly to communities defined by birth and centred on bonds of religion, caste, race, language such groups have been seen as juxtaposed to the ‘secular’ identities based on classes, parties and ‘ideologies’, as we shall note. Yet, important variations in the former conceptions have also been evident in several statements on politics.

Thus, while in some cases the notion of “ethnic identities” has been applied more comprehensively to refer to various types of communities, on other occasions, the term has been used more particularly to refer to linguistic cum regional identities alone. Similarly, while the ‘ethnic group’ has been defined at times to refer to a “minority” of some kind whose ‘culture’ is different from the dominant majority (social and/or numerical) and the ‘nation state’ in particular, a sense in which we shall apply the term hereafter, on other occasions, the former has been seen as subsuming the latter. 16 

Another important category which has been often applied in diverse ways is that of ‘civil society’. While, on one hand, this notion has been juxtaposed to that of the state and used to focus on the sphere of family and “exchange relations” in modern societies; in other applications, the state has actually been seen as an organ of civil society itself. Similarly, while in some usages ‘civil society’ has been clearly associated with ‘modernity’ and the new political discourse of the ‘rational’ individual; some other essays have, in fact, referred to different ethnic groups and traditions as constituting ‘diverse civil societies’ in our society.

The latter coception is evident in Arun Bose’s observation that “Marxian internatio- nalism is based on the fundamental idea that when an aroused civil society is ready to emerge as a nation, nothing can be or should be done to stop its onward march... The main issue facing us in India now is the hardening of mutually exclusive civil societies within the Indian nation.”17  On the other hand, Dr. Neera Chandhoke has, in a recent work, applied an entirely different notion of civil society while arguing that “Civil Society is a peculiarly modern concept, it is associated with the idea of the rational human subject, the notion of rights and the idea of an impersonal state based on the rule of law.”18 

In another conceptual variation, while some scholars have emphasised an essential opposition between the notions of civil society and the state, Rajni Kothari has hinted at a different relation between the two while arguing that “Central to (present day) social and political erosion is the sharp decline in the legitimacy and authority of what was till recently considered the key institution of civil society, namely the modern State.”19 

An Area of Consensus

Despite these variations in the application of categories such as culture, ideology and civil society one issue, on which most Left analysts have placed emphasis, is that of fundamental connections between these and processes of power and class.20  Thus in contrast to liberal conceptions of culture and ideology most Left scholars have seen these not as bases of social consensus but essentially as contested spaces carrying divergent meanings for the dominant and the oppressed, the ruling and the ruled classes. 21 

However, the problem of relating the concepts of culture and ideology with those of power and class has led to another controversy within Left scholarship which may be briefly noted here. Does the emphasis on relating culture and ideology with relations of power and class also imply that analytically these can be seen as two distinct ‘realms’ or ‘domains’ ? How far is it valid to club culture and ideology on one side and economy and class on the other ? Is it also possible to represent culture, ideas and politics as the ‘superstructure’ and economy and class as the ‘infrastructure’ of a social formation ? In this connection, while Sumit Sarkar has taken critical note of “the habit of segregating the ‘economic’ and ‘political’ from the ‘cultural’ or ‘ideological’, fairly deep rooted in Indian Left traditions”, on the other hand, a large number of essays have often expressed precisely such a separation of the ‘ideational’ from the ‘material’, implicitly or explicitly. 22 

Another distinction on which there has been considerable consensus amongst Left scholars has been that between the notion of organised and ‘hegemonic’ ideas about power and politics...frequently referred to as ideology (also “ruling class ideas”, “dominant paradigm” etc.) and less organised but more diverse popular perceptions and values (often referred as culture, common sense, ‘beliefs’ etc.).

Thus, in the words of Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid, “Beliefs and ideologies are mutually dependent and interpenetrative as well as discrete and internally differentiated... Ideologies have a narrower time frame... (As regards ‘sati’) the human widow appears to be central to the pedagogy of both. But while local beliefs centre on miracles performed through the agency of ‘sat’, middle class ideologies produce high traditions: the two co-exist in structural and historical relationship and use each other for self-legitimation.”23 

Similarly, while discussing the specific conjuncture in which “Hindu communalism is currently offering a language for the translation of many kinds of conflicts”, Uma Chakravarti and Prem Chaudhary etc. have referred to an incident in Khurja town of western Uttar Pradesh in a recent communal flareup in which “The crowd targetted old blind Abdul Waheed who used to give ‘mannat’ to both Hindus and Muslims inside the masjid Sharari Qalaam... Besides the purely material considerations, the killing served an ideological objective-the elimination of signs of a syncretic culture, indeed the only sign of a local tradition of syncretic culture that we came across in the town.” 24 

Following the above distinction between notions of ‘culture’ and ‘ideology’ (in which, the former is seen as popular, more traditional and ‘contradictory’ and, the latter as middle class, ‘modern’ and hegemonic), it may be noted that on the relationship between ‘ideology’ and popular ‘culture’ again, some important differences in recent writings are discernible. While, most scholars associated with subaltern studies and with ‘alternative perspectives’ on politics have suggested a sharp disjunction between ‘elite’ ideologies and autonomous consciousness of the ‘subalterns’, most Marxist thinkers have conceptualised them in more ‘dialectical’ terms.25 

At a more polemical level, the respective implications of the peculiarities of middle class ‘ideologies’ and ‘popular culture’ for the deepening political crisis today have also been perceived differently in the recent discourse on Indian politics. While there has been a broad consensus on the linkage between our deepening political crisis and the changing ‘ideology’ of the state in our country, the broader interpretations of the nature of political ‘culture(s)’ in India and its relationship with the present crises have been the subject of major differences and contradictions too.

Popular Culture in India

Amongst the differences, in Left statements, on the relation between culture and politics, the most outstanding, perhaps, have been the contrasting generalisations regarding the basic features/ characterstics of Indian culture(s) today. As noted above, a series of questions have led to diverse assumptions in this regard. Is it possible to talk in terms of one ‘Indian culture’ at some level ? To what extent, values of syncretism on the one hand and casteism, on the other, are/have been its characterstic features ? Are the oppressed in our society particularly passive or fatalistic in political terms ? How has Left politics in India related to our ‘popular culture’ over time ? On issues such as these, while some Left scholars have refrained from larger generalisations and emphasised instead the importance of rapid conjunctural shifts in political loyalties of different groups others, however, have offered generalisations of a very contrasting nature.

Thus, while a number of scholars have stressed the distinctness of the Indian culture as also its essential unity while stating that “the ‘Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai’ approach based on nationalism and humanism... appeals to the Indian people” others have taken an extremely critical view of such “romanticised” perceptions of our recent/ distant past.26  At another level, important differences have also been evident between Left analysts, on the extent of politicisation of the oppressed in our society today. In this context, while some have been of the opinion that “(t)he movements of people seeking freedom in various spheres of our society (is keeping) the freedom discourse alive” and that “the coming years will see an intensified contradiction between the elite’s pursuit of capitalist modernisation and the Janvadi Andolans’ pursuit of freedom”27 ; others have expressed a much less optimistic opinion of the dominant characteristics of the prevailing political culture in India.

Thus, according to K. Balagopal, “Whatever form and meaning we give to electoral democracy as an instrument of representative government, the social structure and culture of a sizeable part of India is a hinderance to it. (For example,) what prevails in Rayalseema (a poverty stricken district on the Eastern coast of India) is a culture in which the human traits of loyalty and faith are tied to the feudal-patriarchal mode of society... Even in factional conflicts among followers of different Reddy landlords, the violent anger and hatred that can and does divide close kith and kin is startling...It should not be thought that this violence is committed by some paid agents or hirelings of the landlord. The landlord’s loyal following would normally consist of quite ordinary villagers who would lynch the disobedient with a genuine sense of outrage.”28  Similarly, Sudipta Kaviraj has pointed out that there was rarely a notable challenge from the lower orders to the repressive system in India’s history. Even the National Emergency exposed, in 1975, the ease with which democratic structures could be dismantled in our polity (though authoritarianism subsequently became a victim of its own mistake.”29 

Another major aspect of Indian culture which has invited contrasting assessments has been the strength of ‘syncretic traditions’ and, ‘peaceful coexistence’ of different communities at the popular level. While some thinkers have asserted that “(p)luralism has been a long established Indian tradition” and that ours has been “one of the oldest and most dynamic civilisations in the world” with its “wonderfully mixed culture”30 ; in a sharp departure from such views, Sudipta Kaviraj has argued that, “there is a certain pluralism in the sense of existence of variation. Equally certainly, there is no democracy, and no conscious, rational tolerance for other modes of behaviour. Coexistence of numerous local communities, which would have liked to impose their ways on others had they the power to do it, cannot be regarded as pluralism-tolerance. It is a pluralism which represents a powerless intolerance.”31 

Indeed, it is notable that the complexities involved in the assessment of popular culture have also lead some authors to make extremely contradictory statements at times. For example, following her victory in parliamentary elections in 1989, a prominent Left ideologue and leader — Subhasini Ali — claimed that, “people do not vote for posters and graffitti. They voted against corruption and missuse of power... No one could intimidate them”32  Yet, following her defeat in the 1991 general elections, from the same constituency, Ali asserted that “actually an election campaign brings one up against indifference, cynicism and total apathy in vast sections of people... those who actually vote, do so under pressure of one kind or another”33 

Similarly, A.A. Engineer, on the one hand, has argued that, “we are secular by ideals but communal in practice both at popular and elite levels.” And, on the other hand, that “the masses of Hindus and Muslims, especially in small towns and rural areas, are much more integrated and are part of same socio cultural milieu... The educated elite is creating a communal ethos to win their battles in the political and economic arena.”34 

Methodology

Contrasting assessments of the chief characterstics of popular culture in India in various Left statements on contemporary politics ultimately point towards their underlying methodological differences and ambiguities too. Important questions which still need to be answered in this regard are: how, and to what extent can we ‘interpret’ culture or identify the meaning(s) of different, often, contrasting cultural symbols ? What is the meaning of ‘meaning’? What are the various types of symbols and how shall we identify culturally significant symbols from an infinity of symbolic processes in any social setting? Does meaning reside in ‘symbols’ separately or in the ‘structure’ of their interrelations? What can be the common minimum criteria for their comparable identification and interpretation (even) within particular ‘schools’ in social sciences? At a more general level, what is the exact ontological status of ‘popular culture/common sense’ ? How do they relate analytically to notions of class consciousness and individual consciousness? Besides values and beliefs, does culture influence, at a more subconscious level, collective patterns in tastes, emotions and psychological traits too? What marks out the boundaries of different cultures? How do language, region, religion, state and class intersect in the formation of such bounderies?

Not all such questions can be adequately answered on the basis of statements in our sources. Yet, some explicit theorisation on this front has been evident in recent Left writings on Indian politics. Thus, in a unique reflection on the category of “common meanings” in the periodical literature, Rajeev Bhargava has stated that the notion of ‘common meanings’, implying “a shared world and situation”, needs to be analysed further in political theory. Indeed, a community exists when “we share not just a conceptual scheme and a common world but also weigh items of the world on the same scale...a shared ethical life.”35 

More generally, however, the examination of some substantive questions related to culture and its location, meaning, interpretation has remained rather thin in our sources, as the few statements in this regard have mostly contented with offering critiques of functionalist and rightist constructions of ‘culture’. In this context, the launch of the Subaltern Studies volumes on Modern Indian History could be significant, as it helped in sharpening the debate on ‘consciousness’ within Left circles in India. Unfortunately, much writing under this banner also has remained repetetive on the alleged ‘autonomy’ of popular consciousness and has veered increasingly towards some polemical stances on the importance of the ‘fragment’ — as a methodological and political category, of late.36  Another issue, raised recently in these writings, has been the diverse assessments of rationalism, relativism and post-modernism in studies of popular consciousness.37 

However, the most fundamental, perhaps, of the various methodological issues related to the question of culture, has been that of its compatible ‘interpretation’, across perspectives, based on ‘selected’ symbols, specially, from the ‘popular’ level. Within our sources, one significant suggestion offered in this regard by some recent historians has been for interpreting “the contested spaces” in history, “the fine detail of social existence” and ‘meaning’ given by people to their actions, with the help of historical ‘fragments’, where possible. Thus, according to Ranajit Guha, “historical scholarship has developed, through recursive practice, a tradition that tends to ignore the small drama and fine detail of social existence”; “a critical historiography can make up for this lacuna by bending closer to the ground in order to pick up the traces of a subaltern life in its passage through time.”38 

Despite these recent efforts, however, certain ambiguities remain in the methods suggested for conceptualising and interpreting culture/consciousness/ meaning from different symbols or ‘fragments’. One such problem, noted above, has been that of the same ‘fragment’ or symbol being seen as representing very different, even contradictory meanings to different interpreters. Besides this, for those who do not entirely share the ‘fragmentary’ approach towards social sciences, there is an obvious lack of agreeable criteria with regard to the more basic methodological steps of selection and correlation of extremely diverse fragments and their readings offered in these writings. These controversies clearly reflect the types of difficulties and ambiguities persisting in the study of cultural issues. The same has been acknowledged explicitly by some analysts in our sources too.39 

Strategies for an Alternative Culture

Apart from various controversies regarding the conceptualisation and interpretation of culture, the task of creating an “alternative culture” of radical politics has also been a matter of concern in recent Left writings in India. Thus, several Left scholars have emphasised the need to strive for “a new secular and democratic culture” in our polity, specially in the wake of two closely related developments today, namely, the rise of ‘Hindutva’ and the adoption of the ‘new economic policy’, discretely or openly, by almost all the ruling parties in the country. 40

Even as the importance of changes on the ‘cultural’ front have been emphasised by several analysts today, the question of developing appropriate strategies for the same has been the source of considerable differences. While some Left analysts have suggested that changes in ‘culture’ or, people’s fundamental values and beliefs, are likely to emerge only after revolutionary changes in the economic organisation of society or, follow from more conventional ‘political and economic’ demands and struggles on their own, some others have emphasised for this the importance of consistent and more direct Left ideological efforts. Indeed, the cultural work of the Left in India has had a long history from IPTA to SAHMAT and, a wide range, from theatre to ‘deconstruction’ of texts.41 

At a more general level, however, a few questions regarding the cultural strategies of the Left in India, may be relevant to raise in retrospect. To what extent has the Left intellectual concern with critiques and ‘deconstruction’ of texts to “confront the authority of the author”, within small intellectual communities, really given a more indepth understanding or command over “the politics of ideas” as has been claimed by some scholars ?42  Also, what precise success have different Left ideological and cultural campaigns, movements and ‘fronts’, had so far in different social groups and regions and with what variations and why ? In what ways can our cultural strategies be supplemented with some new or “alternative” ideological approaches today? Do we need to pay greater attention to the adoption of principled means along with the pursuit of radical ideals for the transformation of our political culture and for wider mass mobilisation? Do recent innovations in media and the new ‘information technology’ hold some promise for the politics of radical transformation too?

A detailed analysis of different strategies for building an ‘alternative culture’ of politics today has not been often discussed in our sources.43  And though more general remarks on the question of ‘cultural alternatives’ have not been lacking yet, these have also remained sketchy by and large.44  For example, Tapan Basu and Pradeep Dutta. have concluded their otherwise lucid and significant tract on ‘Hindutva’ with the observation that “Hindutva is an ideological formation that draws a great deal of its power from the use of stereotypes and symbols...A creative Left wing response to this challenge, as Neogy’s and other experiments indicate, can engage in varied struggles involving different relationships of power... (yet,) the death of Neogy, as well as the living tradition of his and other similar movements, pose questions as to how such initiatives are to be generalized beyond a locality, and how, if necessary they can extend the range of issues they pose. In other words, it leaves us with the problems of constructing an alternative culture of change.”45 

Ideology

While the conceptualisation of ‘culture’ has been the source of some significant differences within Left writings in India, the understanding and applications of the notion of ‘ideology’ in these statements has been more uniform. Among the various conceptions of ‘ideology’, discussed above, it is the one standing for “ideas sustaining and promoting dominant groups’ interests in society”, that has figured most prominently in Left perspectives on politics. Indeed, several Left scholars have highlighted the essential connections between “the deepening crisis” in Indian polity today and the shifting contours of the ‘ideological’ stances of the Indian state from Nehruvian ‘socialism’ to ‘New Economic Policy’ to ‘Hindutva’ more recently.46 

Indeed, the growth of communalism and the rise of Hindutva itself has drawn considerable comment from Left scholars in India recently. This deserves a fulfledged study in its own right.47  At the moment, however, we shall restrict our attention to some general issues linked to the conception of ‘ideology’ in these writings.

In this context, it is notable that several Left analysts have commented upon the attempts of the ruling classes to fortify their position through distorted propagation of categories such as ‘development’, ‘welfare’, ‘human rights’ and also the complicity in this of important sections of the intelligentsia, the ‘free’ press, the bureaucracy and sections within the academy itself.48  At the same time, there have remained some important differences on the assessment of the exact reach of ‘bourgeois hegemony’ or ideology in our society today. While some have laid greater stress on highlighting the dominance of such hegemony at the centre and amongst urban and rising rural elites, others have emphasised the point that ‘pre-capitalist’ traditions and forces still hold sway not only in the districts and the countryside but in the vital institutions at the ‘centre’ too.49 

More significant than the classification of ideological constructions into ‘bourgeois’ and ‘pre-capitalist’ in Left political writings have been the specific analyses of ‘ideological’ applications of categories such as ‘democracy’, ‘terrorism’, ‘development’ and nationalism in the discourses of the Indian state since independence. We shall confine ourselves here to a brief discussion on principal Left interpretations of the implications of ‘nationalism’ in India today.

Nationalism

The role and implication of nationalism as an ‘ideology’ has been the subject of extensive comment in Left writings. Within India, while many scholars have emphasised the distinctions between different streams and phases within ‘nationalist’ politics since colonial times, some broader evaluations have also been offered in this regard. The latter have again brought forth notable differences amongst Left scholars. While some have stressed that nationalism in India has “to be carefully sustained, promoted and nurtured” and that “nationalism will become irrelevant not by its negation but only when the rest of the world will also no longer be formed into territorial, political economic units” others have argued that the struggles of the Left “require no opium of patriotic feelings, only a socialist commitment to the cause of the Indian people”.50 

At another plain, recent subaltern studies have questioned official ‘nationalism’ not only for its class bias but for its feasibility too. In this vein, while Gyanendra Pandey has challenged “the totalising standpoint of a seamless nationalism” and asserted the ‘fragmentary’ point of view which “struggles for other, potentially richer definitions of the future political community”51 ; Partha Chatterjee, on the other hand, has taken critical note of Indian nationalism as a “derivative discourse” which was based on the same intellectual premises of ‘modernity’ on which colonial domination was based.52 

In an important critique of such romantic views of ‘tradition’ as well as ‘fragment’, Sudipta Kaviraj has stressed that it was with some luck that a vaguely secular identity came to represent the identity of the Indian nation. “The strand of nationalism associated with Nehru has, of late, come under heavy and unrelenting criticism, an understandable cross borne by any political ideology that has won power.”53 

Ethnic Identities

Besides culture and consciousness, the issue of ethnic and religious ‘identities’ has also attracted considerable comment in Left writings on Indian politics in recent years. We have referred above to some common terminological differences in this regard. (Refer here p.51) Apart from these, there are a number of other issues which have been the source of important ambiguities in recent writings. These centre on the following questions: what are the various types of ‘identities’ operative in Indian politics at different levels and how have they related with each other over time ? Are there some fixed identities behind which people have organised frequently? Do ‘identities’ change rapidly in various conjunctures ? What are the important internal characteristics of ethnic organisations based on language, religion and caste in India today ? How do they relate with each other in different regions? Can such identities be described as “pre-capitalist legacies” or unique to “non-western societies”? Have their political articulation sharpened in India in recent times ? If so, to what extent has this been associated with the process of ‘development’ or ‘underdevelopment’ or, immiserisation or upward mobility of social groups? Can the sharpening of intra ethnic conflicts be ascribed to “ruling class politics” predominantly? Or, to weak nationalist (or socialist ?) consciousness in the masses in our society ? How do different types of identities relate to the project of radical transformation of society today?

Amongst these questions also, it is the one on implications of different ethnic identities for the politics of radical transformation which has, perhaps, drawn maximum comment and controversy in recent writings in India. In this context, on the one hand, scholars like Zoya Hasan had argued, nearly a decade ago, that “the role of caste and community is limiting and not constitutive, because caste and community identities are primarily used to counter radical class mobilisation.” In a similar vein, Javeed Alam had observed that “factors such as caste cannot create a new future for man as they totally lack in social transformative capacity.”54  More recently, however, such scholars have accorded much greater value to caste and other identities as vehicles of radical politics.55  In a sharper departure from class centred Marxist views, Manoranjan Mohanty has stressed that Marxism will remain alien to the third world as long as it overlooks the specificity of “tribal formations, castes, religious practices, gender relations” and dismisses them as pre-capitalist practices or in terms of ‘Asiatic’ or ‘Oriental’ formations.56 

Indeed, with the betrayal of earlier hopes of the decline of ethnic solidarities with economic ‘development’ and/or the growth of revolutionary movements; and, with accumulating evidence of the rise of struggles and organisations based on identities of various types, specially since the nineteen-eighties, in Indian politics, a significant shift has been discernible in the statements of several Indian scholars. Thus, a number of thinkers who emphasised class struggles alone in their earlier writings have now turned their attention to the differential socio economic and political location of various ethnic ‘minorities’ in our society too — with some even suggesting a broad equivalence between classes and certain ethnic divides in Indian society. 57 

At a more general level, also, the need to accomodate the redistributive demands and aspirations of certain ‘backward classes’ and ‘minority’ groups within the socialist agenda has been admitted and emphasised by several Left thinkers recently. The striking interventions made by several intellectuals, in defence of the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations regarding fifty per cent reservation for ‘Backward Classes’ in public sector employment, was an important indicator of such thinking.58 

At the same time, some intellectuals have voiced their concern for the aspirations of different ethnic groups or ‘fragments’ of our society at a more ‘radical’ plain and critiqued both liberal and soviet models of state building from this angle. As against this, the recent post modernist strand within subaltern studies has celebrated “the moment where we stay — permanently, not simply as a matter of political tactics — with what is fragmentary and episodic...fragments that challenge not only the idea of wholeness but the very idea of the ‘fragment’ itself (for if there were not to be any wholes, what would ‘fragments’ be fragments of?”59 

But it is important to note that such a radical relativist perspective has again been critically veiwed by other Left analysts who have warned against the “cult of the ‘popular’” and its “rejection of Enlightenment rationalism as irremediably tainted in all its forms by colonial power-knowledge”.60  Indeed, several scholars have noted with concern that the internal organisation of most ethnic formations has been the basis of contrary pulls in Indian politics because of which no neat division of the oppressor and the oppressed can be easily established. While it may be easier to specify some ‘minorities’ and ‘majorities’ in specific conjunctures still, the rapidity with which such contexts may change, along with the volatile and authoritarian character of their leadership, has also made the task of forging durable political alliances between them extremely difficult. The tendency, on the part of the principal Left parties, to promote/ally with stronger Indian ‘minorities’ rather than the less organised ones, has again been a matter of some concern.61  More commonly, however, the majority of Left scholars have simply stressed the need to integrate the aspirations of ethnic ‘minorities’ within the agenda of class politics for a radical transformation of Indian society.62 

Perspectives on Religion

While concepts such as ‘ideology’, ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ may be distinguished analytically yet, it would be erroneous to view them as clearly separable compartments or levels in society. Before we conclude this essay, it might be useful to focus on one important concern which overlaps all three, namely, ‘religion’. In recent years, significant differences have indeed emerged between various Left scholars on the role of religion as an ‘identity’ and as an ‘ideology’ in our society today.

On the possible role of religion in mobilising people for a radical politics three divergent approaches are discernible. While some analysts have taken a more or less dismissive view of religion as a resource for radical politics others have stressed the need for a more dynamic understanding of the same in certain political conjuntures, while still others have taken a critical stand against the Left as a whole for its failure in tapping the potentialities of religion as a popular tradition. Thus, on one extreme, Avijit Pathak has argued that for Leftists “it is futile to pretend not to see religion” as it “makes the day to day world meaningful” to people.63  In a sharp departure from such a stress, K.N. Panikkar has stated that “if people are to be made to face the reality, the illusion that masks that reality is to be removed. Developing a critique of religion therefore becomes an immediate political task.”64  On the other hand, Sumit Sarkar has acknowledged that everyday economic struggles cannot skirt the question of religion, yet, “this does not mean that non-religious secularists should engage in a breast-beating exercise for having been ‘alienated’ from the ‘mainstream’...even profound differences need not rule out common action in defence of basic values.” 65 

This brings us, however, to a closer examination of Left concern with problems of ‘power’, the nature of Indian state and its constitutional ideals such as ‘secularism’ which have again been a source of considerable debate in recent years. In the next chapter, we shall dwell at length on these issues.

Notes

1 For examples of such studies of working class struggles, agrarian conflicts, nationalism and communalism in our sources refer: Uma Chakravarti, Prem Chaudhury et.al. ‘Khurja Riots-1990-91: Understanding the Conjuncture’, EPW, May 2, 1992, pp.951-65; Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Of ‘Communal’ Workers and ‘Secular’ Historians’, Seminar, 374, October, 1990, p.21-24; Partha Chatterjee, ‘The Peasantry’, Seminar, March, 1984, p.26-29; Pradeep Datta, ‘VHP’s Ram at Ayodhya: Reincarnation through Ideology and Organisation’, EPW, November 2, 1991, p.2517-26 and K. Balagopal, ‘Democracy and Fight against Communalism’, EPW, January 7, 1995, pp.57-60.

2 Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Invitation to a Dialogue’, Subaltern Studies-IV, 1985, p.370. For similar critiques of ‘economism’ informing earlier Left writings refer Gyan Pandey, ‘In Defence of the Fragment,’ EPW, December, Annual No. 1991, p.560; K. Balagopal, op.cit. EPW, January 7, 1995, p.60 and Arun Ghosh, ‘Recent Ferment in Eastern Europe: Lessons for the Left’, EPW, December 2, 1989, p.2636 etc.

3 Rajeev Bhargava, ‘Continuing Relevance of Socialism’, EPW, October 3, 1992, p.2163 & 66. For similar critiques of dominant Left approaches to problems of culture and identity, also refer Avijit Pathak, ‘Towards Spiritualisation of Marx’, Mainstream, January 1, 1992, p.17 and Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism’, EPW, April 8, 1995, p.758.

4 Refer Randheer Singh, ‘Politics-The Dialectics of Science and Revolution in Karl Marx’, Teaching Politics, 1984, p.129 and K.N. Panikkar, Culture and Consciouness in Modern India, People’s Publishing House, 1990, pp.27-28.

5 For an overview of diverse conceptions of ‘culture’ in different writings refer J.B. Thompson, Ideology and Modern Culture, Polity Press, 1990, p.124-27.

6 Kalpana Sahni, ‘The Ends of the Ladder Leading to the Future Rest on the Past’, The Journal of Arts and Ideas, June-July, 1987, p.1. For more examples of Left statements viewing ‘culture’ largely in terms of trends in cinema, literary writings, arts etc. again refer G.P. Deshpande, Vivan Sundaram and Kumkum Sangari (eds.) Journal of Arts and Ideas, vols. 10 &11, New Delhi.

7 For other examples of diverse conceptions of ‘culture’ in recent Left writings refer K. Balagopal, ‘Seshan in Kurnool’, EPW, July 23, 1994, p.1903; Sarah Joseph, ‘Culture and Political Analysis in India’, Social Scientist, October 1991, p.48; Rajeev Bhargava, ‘Socialism, Democracy and the Problem of Common Meanings’, Social Scientist, March, 1992, p.26. and K.N. Panikkar, op.cit. 1990, p.30.

8 J.B. Thompson, op. cit. p.29 & 44 and Tom Bottomore (ed.) Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Basic Blackwell, Oxford, 1983, p.219.

9 For example, note the contrast in: Balraj Puri, Can State, ‘Region and Ideology Stem the Hindu Wave.’ Teaching Politics, 1989, p.64. and Andre Beteille, Ideologies and Intellectuals, OUP, 1987, p.22.

10 Refer: K. Balagopal, ‘Why Did December 6, 1992 Happen ?’ EPW, April 24, 1993, p.790; Ashok Mitra, ‘Perestroika and After’, Seminar, September, 1990, p.17 and Ranajit Guha, ‘Historiography of Colonial India’, Subaltern Studies-I, 1982, pp.4-5.

11 Refer Arun Patnaik, ‘Gramsci’s Concept of Commomn Sense: Towards a theory of Subaltern Consciousness in Hegemony Processes’, EPW, January 30, 1988, PE 2 and K. Balagopal, op.cit. EPW, January 7, 1995, p.59 & 60.

12 Refer Sudipta Kaviraj, ‘On the Structure of Nationalist Discourse’, T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.) State and Nation: The Context of Social Change, 1991, p.303-4 and M. Mohanty, ‘Changing Terms of Discourse: A Poser’, EPW, Sept.16, 1989, pp.2071-2. For more examples of a variety of references to the notion of ‘ideology’ refer Partha Chatterjee, ‘On Gramsci’s ‘Fundamental Mistake’’, EPW, January 30, 1988, PE 24 and Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Marx after Marxism: A Subaltern Historian’s Perspective’, EPW, May 29, 1993, p.1096 etc.

13 Sudipta Kaviraj, op.cit. T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.), op.cit. 1991, p.301.

14 Balraj Puri, ‘Communalism and Regionalism’, EPW, July 11, 1987, p.1136.

15 M.Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, September 16, 1989, p.2069.

16 For diverse applications of terms like ‘ethnicity’ and ‘identities’ refer: Javeed Alam, ‘Political Articulation of Mass consciousness in Present-day India’ in Zoya Hasan, R. Khan et.al.(eds.) State, Political Process and Identity: Reflections on Modern India, 1989, p.237; Geetha and Rajadurai, ‘Interrogating ‘India’: A Dravidian ViewPoint’, Seminar, November 1991, p.40; Anirudh Deshpande, op.cit. Mainstream, March 23, 1991, p.9; Sarah Joseph, ‘Culture and Community’, EPW, April 24, 1993, p.807; A.A.Engineer, ‘Ethno-Communal Aspects of South Asian Nation-Building’, Mainstream, March 11, 1989, p.23; Gyan Pandey, ‘The Problem’, Seminar, February 1993, p.12; Manoranjan Mohanty, ‘Swaraj and Jiefang: Freedom Discourse in India and China’, Social Scientist, October, 1992, p.27 and S.N. Jha, ‘Dynamic View of Identity Formation: Agenda for Research’, Zoya Hasan and R. Khan et.al. (eds.) op.cit. p.225.

17 Arun Bose, ‘Diversities in Indian Politics’, Seminar, August 1983, p.21.

18 Neera Chandhoke, Civil Society and State, Sage Publications, 1995, p.244.

19 Rajni Kothari, State against Democracy: In search of Humane Governance, Ajanta, 1988, p.ii.

20 Amongst diverse Left thinkers amongst whom, despite other differences, this basic consensus remains noticeable are: Antonio Gramsci, George Lukacs, Louis Althusser and E.P.Thompson.

21 For examples see: M. Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, September 16, 1989, p.2069; Sarah Joseph, op.cit. EPW, April 24, 1993, pp.808-9 and K. Balagopal, ‘Perception and Presentation: A Telegu Film on Naxalites’, EPW, July 20, 1991, p.1727. Also refer Tapan Basu and Pradeep Datta, Khaki Shorts: Saffron Flags: Tracts for the Times-1, Orient Longman, 1993, p.113; Arun Patnaik, Gramci’s Concept of Common Sense, EPW, Jan.30, 1988, PE 9 and Randheer Singh, Terrorism, State Terrorism and Democratic Rights, EPW, February 8, 1992, p.279.

22 Refer Sumit Sarkar, ‘The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar’, EPW, January 30, 1993, p.166; Randheer Singh, op.cit. Teaching Politics, 1984, p.125 and K.M. Shrimali, ‘Religion, Ideology and Society’, Social Scientist, December, 1988, pp.41-3. Also refer P.H. Prasad, ‘Economic Roots of Political Struggle in Independent India’, EPW, February 2, 1991, pp.225-8 and T.V. Sathyamurthy, op.cit. EPW, July 20, 1985, p.1218 etc.

23 See Kumkum Sangari, Sudesh Vaid et.al. ‘Institutions, Beliefs, Ideologies: Widow Immolation in Contemporary Rajasthan’, EPW, April 27, 1991, p.WS-2; K. Balagopal, ‘Economic Liberalism and Decline of Democracy: Case of Andhra Pradesh’, EPW, September 12, 1992, p.1961and Sudipta Kaviraj, op.cit. T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.) op. cit. 1991, p.330.

24 Uma Chakravarty, Prem Chaudhuri et.al. op.cit. EPW, May 2, 1992, p.959. For other parallel notions of categories of culture and ideology refer Tapan Basu and Pradeep Datta, op.cit. 1993, p.5 & p.31 and Arun Patnaik, op.cit. EPW, January 30, 1988, PE-8.

25 For contrasts in this regard refer Gyanendra Pandey, op.cit. EPW, November (spl.), 1991, p.559 and Partha Chatterjee, op.cit. Seminar, March 1984, p.26, on the one hand, and Uma Chakravarty and Sudesh Vaid et.al. op.cit. EPW, May 2, 1992, p.951 and Sudipta Kaviraj, ‘On State, Society and Discourse in India’, James Manor (ed.),op.cit.1991, p.300, on the other.

26 For diverse attitudes in this regard refer Bipan Chandra, ‘The way out’, Seminar, June 1988, p.40 and S. Kaviraj, op.cit. James Manor (ed.) op.cit.1991, pp.74-5; Also, for a field-report emphasising constant shifts in popular responses to questions of identity and religion etc. in differrent conjunctures refer Uma Chakravarty and Sudesh Vaid, op.cit. EPW, May 2, 1992, p.951.

27 Refer M. Mohanty, op.cit. Social Scientist, October 1991, p.34 & p.28 and P.C. Joshi, ‘The Voice of the Himalayas’, Seminar, January 1995, p.67 & 69. Also refer Nikhil Chakravarty, ‘Our True Heritage’, Mainstream, March 25, 1989, p.33 and Anirudh Deshpande, op.cit. Mainstream, March 23, 1991, p.10.

28 K. Balagopal, op.cit. EPW, July 23, 1994, pp.1904-06.

29 Sudipta Kaviraj, ‘Political Culture in Independent India: An Anti Romantic View’, Teaching Politics, 1982, p.16. For similar views on important aspects of ‘popular culture’ in India, also refer Javeed Alam, op.cit. in Zoya Hasan and R. Khan et.al.(eds.), op.cit. 1989, pp.250-51; Randheer Singh, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1989, p.724; K.N. Panikkar, op.cit. 1990, p.44 and P.H. Prasad ‘Self-Reliant Progress versus Dependent Paradigm’, EPW, January 29, 1994, p.37.

30 Refer Arun Ghosh, op.cit. EPW, December 2, 1989, p.2636-37 and Gyanendra Pandey, Introduction, Seminar, February 1993, p.14.

31 S. Kaviraj, op.cit. Teaching Politics, 1982, p.5 and James Manor (ed.), op.cit. 1991, p.77. Also refer K.N. Panikkar, op.cit. 1990, pp.41-42.

32 Subhasini Ali, ‘An Interview’, Seminar, April 1990, p.48.

33 Subhasini Ali, ‘Man with the Gun’, Seminar, December 1991, p.20.

34 A.A. Engineer, ‘Communal Bloodbath: What is the Way Out ?’, Mainstream, January 5, 1991, p.9.

35 Rajeev Bhargava, op.cit. Social Scientist, March-April, 1992, pp.27-29.

36 For some examples, refer Sangeeta Singh and Minakshi Menon et.al. ‘Subaltern Studies: A Review Article’, Social Scientist, October 1984, p.3; Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. in Subaltern Studies-IV, 1986, p.364 and Manoranjan Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, Sept. 16, 1989, p.2070.

37 For diverse views in this regard refer Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1995, p.757 and op.cit. EPW, May 29, 1993, pp.1094-95; Sumit Sarkar, ‘The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar’, EPW, January 30, 1993, p.165 and K. Balagopal, op.cit. EPW, July 20, 1991, p.1727 and op.cit. EPW, April 24, 1993, p.790. For some more examples of differences in philosophical approaches in the study of political culture in modern India also refer Partha Chatterjee, ‘Secularism and Toleration’, EPW, July 9, 1994, p.1768 and Sarah Joseph, op.cit. EPW, April 24, 1993, p.807.

38 R. Guha, ‘Chandra’s Death’, Subaltern Studies-Vol.V, 1987, pp.138-39 & 150. For more implied views on the methodology of cultural interpretation refer: Sumit Sarkar, ‘The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy: Bengal from Swadeshi to Non Co-operation’, Subaltern Studies-III,1984; Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Conditions for Knowledge of Working Class Conditions: Employers, Government and Jute Workers of Calcutta:1840-1920’, Subaltern Studies-II, 1982; Partha Chatterjee, ‘Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal: 1926-35’, Subaltern Studies-I, 1982; Shahid Amin, ‘Gandhi as Mahatma Mahatma, 1921-22’; Subaltern Studies-III, 1984 and Gyan Pandey, op.cit. EPW, Annual No. 1991, p.556.

39 For example, see Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. Subaltern Studies-IV, OUP, 1985, p.375; Gyan Pandey, op.cit. EPW, Annual 1991, p.559 and Sarah Joseph, op.cit. Social Scientist, October 1991, pp.59-60. Also refer Yogendra Yadav, ‘Towards an Indian Agenda for the Indian Left’, EPW, October 9, 1993, p.2199 and Avijit Pathak, ‘Gandhi and Dilemmas of Contemporary Politics’, Mainstream, December 30, 1989, p.21.

40 Refer K.N. Panikkar, op. cit. 1990, p.29, 43 & 45 and Tapan Basu, Pradeep Datta et.al., op.cit. Orient Longman, 1993, p.ix.

41 The Indian People’s Theatre Movement’ (IPTA) attracted eminent artists and writers with strong Left sympathies specially during 1940s and 50s. For diverse views on the work of Sahamat, in recent years, refer: Nikhil Chakravarty, K.N.Panikkar et. al.‘Ayodhya and Hindu-Muslim Unity’, Mainstream, January 9, 1993, p.8. and ‘The Right to Know’, Mainstream, October 16, 1993, pp.20-21. Also, some interviews showing perceptions of political and ideological alternatives available at the ground level, may be seen in investigative reports by Pradeep Datta, op.cit. EPW, November 2, 1991; Uma Chakravarty and Sudesh Vaid et.al. op.cit. EPW, May 2, 1992; and Pradeep Datta and Biswamoy Pati et.al. Understanding Communal Violence: Nizamuddin Riots, EPW, November 10, 1990 etc.

42 See Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak, ‘A Literary Representation of the Subaltern: Mahasweta Devi’s ‘Standa- yini’, Subaltern Studies-V, 1987, pp.91-2.

43 Amongst the more recent reflections on Left’s cultural strategies, in our sources, mention may be made of K.N. Panikkar, ‘Left Cultural Interventions: Perspectives and Practice’, EPW, April 12, 1997, p.761.

44 For examples of varying understandings of the scope of cultural change through revolutionary politics on the one hand and “literacy”, “communication technology” and “education” etc. on the other, refer: Randhir Singh, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1989, p.724; Nikhil Chakravarty, op.cit. Mainstream, March 25, 1989, p.33) and P.C. Joshi, ‘In Search of India’s Renaissance’, Mainstream, December 17, 1988, p.18. Also, for a political defence of deconstruction see Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak, op.cit. Subaltern Studies-V, 1987, pp.91-2. Lastly, for some principled critiques of the cultural and ethical approaches of the Indian Left today refer K. Balagopal, ‘Andhra Elections: What Happened and What did not Happen’, EPW, January 30, 1995, p.57; Baren Ray, ‘Reflections on the Future of Socialism’, Mainstream, November 6, 1993, pp.17-22; and Dilip Simeon, ‘Whither India?’, Mainstream, November 10, 1990.

45 Shankar Guha Neogy was a courageous Left union activist recently murdered in central India. Refer Tapan Basu and Pradeep Datta, op.cit. 1993, p.116. Also see Rajeev Bhargava, op.cit, Social Scientist, 1992, pp.25 & 33-34; K.N. Panikkar, op.cit. 1991, pp.43-44 and Sudipta Kaviraj, op.cit. James Manor (ed.), op.cit. 1991, pp.90 & 95.

46 Specially, see K. Balagopal, op.cit. EPW, April 24, 1993, pp.790-91. For other statements highlighting the subtle interrelations between political crises in independent India and different ‘ideological’ strategies of the ruling classes, also refer: A.R. Desai, ‘Trends of Change in Indian Society since Independence’, EPW, August 19, 1989, p.1887; Randheer Singh, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1989, p.723; Sudipta Kaviraj, op.cit. T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.), op.cit. 1991, pp.329-30; and Manoranjan Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, September 16, 1989, p.2071.

47 Mention may be made, in this context, of leading articles on communalism today by: Gyanendra Pandey, ‘In Defence of the Fragment: Writing about Hindu Muslim Riots in India Today’, EPW, November (special), 1991, pp.559-72; Ghanshyam Shah, ‘Surat 1993’, Seminar , November, 1993, pp.34-7; Uma Chakravarti et.al., ‘Khurga Riots: 1991: Understanding the Conjuncture’, EPW, May 2, 1992, pp.951-65; A.A.Engineer, ‘Roots of Communalism’, Seminar, June 1986, p.20; Prabhat Patnaik, ‘The Fascism of our Times’, Social Scientist, March 1993, pp.69-77; Tapan Basu et.al., Khaki Shorts Saffron Flags, Orient Longman, 1993; Sumit Sarkar, ‘The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar’, EPW, January 30, 1993, pp163-67; Acin Vanaik, ‘Situating Threat of Hindu Nationalism’, EPW, July 9, 1994, pp.1742 and Sudhir Chandra, ‘Of Communal Consciousness and Communal Violence’, EPW, September 4, 1993, pp.1884-87 etc.

48 For examples refer Neera Chandhoke, ‘Democracy in the Post-colonial Society: Inadequate Perceptions and Uncertain Futures’, Teaching politics, 1986, p.77 and C.P. Bhambri, ‘Challenges to Indian Democracy’, Link, January 26, 1985; Randheer Singh, op.cit. EPW, February 8, 1992, p.279 & 284 and K. Balagopal, ‘The End of Spring?’, EPW, August 25, 1990, p.1883 and op.cit. EPW, July 20, 1991, p.1730. For similar reflections on varied articulations of ruling class ideology in the media in India today, also, refer Tapan Basu and Pradeep Datta etc. op.cit.1993, pp.102-06 and Mukul and Charu Gupta, ‘The Muslim and the News’, Mainstream, February 13 1993, pp.15-19 etc.

49 Sudipta Kaviraj, op.cit. James Manor (ed.) op.cit. 1991, pp.72 & 94.

50 For diverse perspectives on Indian Nationalism refer: Bipan Chandra, ‘Basis of India’s Nationhood’, Mainstream, June 13, 1992, p.33 and Bhagwan Josh, ‘Strait-Jacket of Marginality’, Seminar, July, 1993, p.36 and Sumit Sarkar, ‘The BJP Bomb and Aspects of Nationalism’, EPW, July 4, 1998 pp.1725-30. Also note the contrast between J.D.Sethi, ‘The State against Nation’, Mainstream, June 27, 1987, p.17 and S.G. Sardesai, ‘India at Crossroads’, Mainstream, December 23, 1989, p.7, on one hand, and Randheer Singh, ‘In Memory of Punjab Revolutionaries (1914-15)’, Mainstream, February 1993, p.27-28; A.R. Desai, op.cit. EPW, August 19, 1989 and Geetha and Rajadhurai, op.cit. Seminar, November 1991, p.40, on the other.

51 Gyanendra Pandey, op.cit. EPW, Annual 1991, p.559. Also refer Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1995, p.757.

52 Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, OUP, 1986 and The Nation and its Fragments, OUP, 1995.

53 S. Kaviraj, op.cit. in T.V. Sathyamurthy (ed.) op.cit. 1991, pp.312 & 332. For contrasting interpretations of the ‘ideology’ of nationalism also refer Manoranjan Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, September 16, 1989, p.2071 & A.N. Das, India Invented: A Nation in the Making, OUP, 1992, on the one hand, and Paresh Chattopadhyay, ‘Concerning Revolution in Third World’, EPW, September 5, 1987, p.1540 and Arun Ghosh, op.cit. EPW, December 2, 1989, p.2636, on the other.

54 Zoya Hasan, ‘State and Identity in Modern India’, p.26 and Javeed Alam, op.cit. pp.253-54 both in Zoya Hasan and R. Khan et.al. (eds.) op.cit. 1989.

55 Specially see Javeed Alam, ‘Behind the Verdict: What Kind of Nation Are We’? EPW, June 22, 1996, pp. 1612-15 and Nalini Rajan, ‘Multiculturalism, Group Rights and Identity Politics’, EPW, July 4, 1998.

56 Manoranjan Mohanty, op.cit. EPW, September 16, 1989, p.2071. Also see Avijit Pathak, op.cit. Mainstream, January 11, 1992, p.18.

57 For some examples, refer A.N. Das, ‘Caste For Itself: Social Articulation in Bihar’, EPW, September 15, 1984, p.1616 and Anirudh Deshpande, op.cit. Mainstream, March 23, 1991, p.9.

58 For significant Left statements on the Mandal Commission recommendations refer: K.Balagopal, ‘This Anti-Mandal Mania’, EPW, October 6, 1990, pp.2231-33; Gail Omvedt, ‘Twice-Born Riot against Democracy’, EPW, September 29, 1990, pp.2195-2201; Randheer Singh, ‘Reservations: A Different View’, Mainstream, October 6, 1990; and Rajni Kothari, ‘Essence of Mandal Report’, Mainstream, October 6, 1990 etc.

59 Refer Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1995, p.757 and Partha Chatterjee, op.cit. EPW, July 9, 1994, pp.1774-75. Also see Gyanendra Pandey, op.cit. EPW, Annual, March 1991, p.559 and Pandey (ed.) Hindus and Others: The Question of Identity in India Today, 1993, p.20.

60 Sumit Sarkar,op.cit. EPW, January 30, 1993, p.166.

61 Neera Chandhoke, op.cit. 1995, p.244 & 251 and H.K. Paranjpe, ‘State of the Union: Unity, Integrity and Stability’, Mainstream, March 15, 1987, p.8-9. Also refer Randhir Singh, Five Lectures in the Marxist Mode, Ajanta Publications,1993, pp.58-9 and

62 Balraj Puri, ‘Multiple Identity of Indian Voters’, EPW, February 1985, p.535 & 537. and op.cit. EPW, July 11, 1987, pp.1133-36. Also refer A.R.Desai, India’s Path of Development, 1984, p.129 and K.N. Chaube, ‘Ethnicity, Regionalism and the Problem of National Identity in India’, Zoya Hasan, R. Khan et.al. (eds.), op.cit. 1989, p.283.

63 Avijit Pathak, op.cit. Mainstream, Dec. 30, 1989, pp.21 & 23. Dipesh Chakrabarty, op.cit. EPW, April 8, 1995, pp.752 & 758.

64 K.N.Panikkar, op.cit. 1990, p.6 & pp.22-23. For similar critiques of religion also refer K.M. Shrimali, op.cit. Social Scientist, December 1988, p.46; Randheer Singh, op.cit.1993, pp.43-44; A.R.Desai, ‘Congress(I), Communist Parties and Communalism’, EPW, July 28, 1984 and EMS Namboodiripad, ‘Unity, Democracy and Secularism’, Seminar, November 1985.

65 Sumit Sarkar, op.cit. EPW, January 30, 1993, p.166. Also refer M.Mohanty, ‘Secularism :Hegemonic and Democratic’, June 3, 1989, pp.1219-20; Balraj Puri, op.cit. EPW, July 11, 1987, pp.1132-35; A.A. Engineer, ‘Inter-Faith Dialogue for Communal Harmony’, Mainstream, December 7, 1991, pp.33-34 and Rajeev Bhargava, ‘Giving Secularism its Due’, EPW, July 9, 1994. For alternative (non Left) interventions on the question of religion in India today specially, see T.N.Madan (ed.) Religion in India, 1991 and Ashis Nandy, ‘An Anti-Secularist Manifesto’, Seminar, June 1985.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download