An Introduction

Ever since the early days of Indology patronizingly nurtured under the colonial gaze, we have seen countless Savarna attempts to infer, interpret, dialogue and report on Bahujan anthropology. Our lives, cultures, infinite diversities and ingenuity, flattened into an academic discourse which we were welcome to neither access nor critique. It is, however, a different time, say Savarna scholars. It is a different world apparently. The subaltern now shall indeed speak and the Adivasi will not dance. Huzzah, for all the Savarnas— for their progressive ‘passing the mic’ ushered in this new era. Of course, this new era was celebrated by creating more Savarna-led publishing houses printing more Savarna-scholarship which was explained by Savarnas at Savarna-led LitFests where we learnt that indeed, the time had come for Savarnas to not speak over or infer or interpret or dialogue on behalf of the Bahujan. Bravo! I feel humbled and grateful that much equality has now been achieved and that I live in an era where Savarna scholars feel ‘caste is important and should be studied’. Bahujan students in all the mediocre educational institutions of this country are immensely grateful for this groundbreaking concession granted by Savarna teachers, academics and intellectuals. 

Of course, in these giddy times, it is easy to forget that sometimes unintended consequences of such magnanimity do occur. For instance, if caste is ‘important and should be studied’, there may be a small… tiny even… the chance that Bahujan academics may invert the gaze and interrogate the casteist anthropology of the Savarnas themselves. For it is immensely enlightening to learn from such masterful interpreters of our anthropology, what they think of their cultural anthropology & give their critical insights thereof.

It is in this context that Dr. Suraj Yengde’s Dialogic series is so timely and potentially pathbreaking. It is a window into a scholarship that should not exist, and yet it does. Bahujans listening to, interpreting and inferring caste insights from Savarnas.

Now, before I proceed, I must admit my mediocrity in front of meritorious stalwarts assembled. Some from elite US institutions, some teaching in elite Indian institutions and associated with a dynamic civil society. I confess I have neither of these acclaims, being as I am simply an armchair reviewer here. But inspired by Savarnas of countless generations, I will with full vigor and gusto claim to review, analyze and critique the commentaries of caste-subjects who I claim to understand very little of. Banias are as aliens to me as crows nesting around my house. I mean I see them all the time, I hear of them, I am even witnessing to some of their observable behaviour, but I honestly have little insight into crow ornithology or Bania caste discourse. So, if I do err or exceed my basic brief, I offer every non-sincere apology and stoic, defiant silence that I have learnt from meritorious Savarna scholars whenever they have been questioned about their mediocrity. In other words, monkey see… monkey do, and I am a monkey. *insert gibberish whoops and screeches*. Don’t shoot the monkey ok. 

Dialogics with Banias

On 27 June 2020, a webinar titled ‘The Problem of Caste among Baniyas’ went live. It was moderated by Dr. Suraj Yengde as a part of his ongoing ‘Dialogics’ series. At its outset itself, the inversion of a Dalit academic moderating Baniyas as they discussed the anthropology of their varna, seemed very promising. It did not disappoint. Apart from some very intriguing insight into the closeted and claustrophobic stranglehold of Baniya community over its own (narrated in a refreshingly searing honest self-critical tone), the talk also gave us spectacular insight into the (bordering on surreal) material disconnect from caste realities of some elite academics. 

Nishaant Choksi, an undergraduate from University of Chicago and PhD from University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, was on the panel. His Google Scholar lists an impressive resume of publications focusing on Santhals and tribal language. I was keenly awaiting cultural insights on Baniyas from this man who has studied in some of the most critical universities in the world and has studied tribal culture ‘up close’. So, I was more than a little surprised when he, sort of, stated that his perspective on caste broadened when he visited The Adivasi Academy in Tejgadh, Baroda. Really? As a Baniya, a Savarna man of privilege, he had to visit Tejgadh to encounter caste complexity? Surely he’s joking, I thought, no one would make such a tacit admission of academic mediocrity. But he was serious. It so happens, that I have had the fortune of being to the Tejgadh academy, a lifetime’s work by Ganesh Devy. A commendable enterprise. But while I was there I was more than a little put off by its boutique feeling and the retinue of clueless visiting academics who ‘loved and adored’ this place, coming and partaking in ‘Adivasi culture’. I must insist, this isn’t a comment on the academy but on academics like Choksi who have to go all the way to Tejgadh to encounter caste. I wonder who cleans the toilet in Choksi’s bathroom. You know, sometimes when you take a shit, some stubborn flecks of shit stick to the white walls of the toilet. In most Savarna homes, those flecks are left alone, ignored even because there is the safe knowledge that the next day, a toilet cleaner will come and clean those. Has Choksi encountered this inside his own house? Maybe he is quite handy with his toilet brush, but surely he has family and friends? Who cleans the toilet in their homes? Do they have cooks in their homes? Are cooking and toilet-cleaning tasks given to the same person? If not, what does Choksi think is the reason for this labor differentiation? Or has he not encountered it ever? What about garbage? Who comes to collect the garbage? Maybe Choksi does his own waste segregation, they are quite savvy about that in the US I am told. But surely other people in his housing complex, his friends’ or family’s housing complex, somewhere he would have seen people employed to collect trash and then manually, with bare hands often, segregating wet and dry trash from homes of the rich and environmentally literate people who couldn’t be bothered to ‘work with garbage’. What sociological explanation for this does Choksi have? Or has he not encountered it? 

It is amazing that a scholar can publish multiple texts on Santhali and tribal literature, but not have encountered caste complexity in his own immediate vicinity. 

Maybe I am fixating too much on this. I should listen more and understand nuances better. 

I heard Dr. Rita Kothari, currently teaching in Ashoka University—famous for its liberal education program and lack of caste-based reservations in admissions. Kothari had a unique nuance to offer about Baniyas. She contends that given their innate need to be ‘pragmatic’ while navigating the choppy waters of business and finance, the Baniyas are essentially not a very orthodox group. Especially in comparison to the Brahmans. She takes this nuance further and suggests, that if there is a bloc within the Savarna fold which can be weaned away, it would be the Baniyas since practical matters of profit-seeking would overrule the social conservatism imposed by caste norms. 

My jaw drops at this analysis. I feel I am either listening to a first-year male Economics student or am in a parallel dimension where words can mean anything.  Baniya wealth has been built on Bahujan exploitation, by under-valuing and undermining Bahujan labor and assets. The Baniya has been, historically, very pragmatic in profit-seeking— no amount of guilt or empathy has come in the way of levying steep interest rates to leech off rural farmland poverty. The Baniya factory owners and traders will routinely speak suspiciously of the ‘labor class’ (euphemism for the predominantly Bahujan workers) and attempt to squeeze maximum possible surplus by paying meagre wages and no practical social welfare. Surely, Kothari who also offers cinematic deconstructions, has encountered the evil Baniya money-lender trope in the pre-2000s Indian cinema. If Bollywood could figure out how the Baniya pragmatism works, it’s a little absurd for me to hear the opposite possibility for the same. 

Dr. Suraj Yengde picks up on this point also. His usual, calm and academic demeanor, for a while is animated by this analysis. He asks Kothari to explain again how she feels the Baniya bloc can break away from the Savarna identity fold under compulsions of economic and pragmatic finance. However, we get no new or deeper nuance, just academic-sounding words. Or maybe I am just too mediocre or reactionary to not understand the nuances.  

I’ll be brief about the parts that I really liked. Surbhi Karwa, gave a chillingly honest account of Maheshwari samaj and its omnipresent social network. Through an intermeshed web of social organisations, meetings, ashrams, publications and events, the community keeps a close tab on all its members. Their deeply invasive and close-to-the-chest kinship networks, seemingly defeat the liberal cosmopolitanism offered by the information age. Urban anonymity is no match for Baniya caste anthropology. Pankaj Pushkar, was most savage (and yet polite) in his absolute lack of pretensions on the true character of Baniyas, beginning by suggesting that ‘Brahmanism’ should be instead renamed ‘Brahman-Baniya-ism’ given how closely the caste interests of the two complement each other. His call for a more in-depth study of the Baniya caste is very timely, since there is hardly any credible sociological investigation into Baniya caste network and mapping of its countless ashrams, muths, Babas and Swamis, as well as its intersectional takeover of the Jain religion, or the financial anthropology of caste as traced by a historical study of Baniya capital and debt. 

Suraj’s attempt to bring caste discourse beyond its Dalit-centricism and localized inward gaze, is a welcome push and for once putting Savarna scholars under the spotlight is revealing. Baniya discourse needs a more critical commentary, and the comments of seemingly materially disconnected Baniya scholars need to be critiqued much in the same way Bahujan scholarship has been historically snided, chided and derided in the polite company over chai, poha and veg pakoras. 

What is the point of annihilation of caste if Bahujan scholars cannot tear apart Savarna academics in a sarcastic, polite and smiling manner—just as the vice-versa has been in vogue, since forever. Come now darlings, enough with this aggravating review, let’s eat some cake. Thankfully not eggless ones!

Postscript:

Dear reader, I apologize for the length of this review. I just realized I could have made it much shorter without my LONG introduction, which is not often relevant to the text it introduces except in a tangential way. I wonder where I learnt that from, which book did I read this in? Monkey see… monkey do, maybe I’ll get a Navayana book deal out of this. After all, that is my ultimate ambition—to be just as comfortable and successful in my mediocrity as my Savarna academic colleagues.

I know it’s unlikely and far-fetched….  but well, a monkey can dream.  

By: Buffalo Intellectual

1 July 2020