Showing posts with label caste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label caste. Show all posts

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

I, Phoolan Devi | This is not a Book Review

My copy of 'I, Phoolan Devi'

I read this book to clear some doubts. When I watched ‘Bandit Queen’ by Shekhar Kapoor, I’d felt that something was wrong. That it was an upper caste, male narrative. Then I got to know that Phoolan Devi had moved court against the release of the film. So I bought her autobiography. Along with it, I bought ‘Outlaw’ : India’s Bandit Queen and me by Roy Moxham. My research list has grown bigger. I have more books to read before I – I don’t know – change the world?

What I found out, was that Shekhar Kapoor was being a complete mansplainer when he made the film. Roy Moxham was obnoxious in narrating ‘India’s Bandit Queen’s story.

The preface is succinct.

‘This book is the first testimony that a woman of my community has succeeded in making public. It is an outstretched hand of courage to the humiliated and downtrodden, in the hope that a life like my own may never repeat itself. I should be dead today, but I am alive. I took my fate into my hands. I was born an underdog, but I became a queen.

Phoolan Devi

New Delhi, 1995’

Sexual harassment, rape, gender

In the prologue, Phoolan Devi speaks of the house she was married into, where she was raped as a child.

‘…The only good thing there was the food. I was allowed to eat four chapatis with every meal, and I only wished I could have saved some for my sisters and my brother…’

A child trying to protect herself from the abuser ‘husband’:

‘…I would wear my skirt and my petticoat as well as my blouse and wrap my sari over that, and then tie it so tightly he wouldn’t be able to undo it…’

In Chapter 8 we see how the society reacts to a child coming back home after she was raped by her husband. She was instructed not to disclose what her husband had done to her to anyone.

‘The neighbours entered and began to talk with my parents. Some of them said I ought to go back because it was dishonourable for a wife not to live with her husband. Others thought I should wait a few years at least. They all stared at me as though I had changed somehow in their eyes, and they were trying to work out what it was. I thought they couldn’t have known of the tortures I had been made to suffer. But I obeyed my mother and said nothing, without understanding why it would be me who would have the bad reputation, while he was the one who beat me and tortured me…’

Chapter 9

‘. . . the whole village was busy deciding my fate – as though I belonged to all of them.’

Chapter 10

‘. . . Nobody knew the real ages of the women of our villages. There was nothing to mark the time apart from the lines that formed on their faces. . .’


‘. . . Mayadin protested to my father that marrying me to another man would be a stain on his good name. When it came to land, we weren’t part of his family, but when it came to the disgrace of being a woman without a husband, I belonged to his family again. The men made the decisions and the women could weep however much they liked, their fears and hopes would always be carried away like the walls washed away by the rain.’

Chapter 15

Here we see how courts are not people friendly. More specifically, not women friendly. See how the language itself is a problem for people seeking justice. About the judge who was hearing the case against Phoolan accusing her of robbing Mayadin’s house, she says,

‘He made some more comments in English to the other judges that I didn’t understand. Even in my own language, he spoke too well for me to understand much of what he was saying.’

After getting bail, while returning home,

‘In Kalpi, I had to ask my way several times as I couldn’t remember the road back to our village. As soon as they realised I was alone, men tried to take me aside. One of them threatened me with a knife, and I ran until I was out of breath, fearing that at any moment, I would turn the corner and see the red and blue sign of the police station again.’

Chapter 17

After Phoolan and her family refused to pay the Sarpanch for drawing water from the well, she was again raped by upper caste thakurs.

After that, again her mother beat her. She said to Phoolan,

‘. . . she started beating me with her fists, yelling and cursing hysterically. It would be better if you died this time!’

And again, Phoolan describes what the saddening psychology behind it.

‘. . . I knew she didn’t want me dead, she was only beating me because she was powerless. It was all she could do. I was the only person she could beat and curse.’

Phoolan had to go to the police station alone to report rape. About it she says,

‘. . . I didn’t know how to tell a good policeman from one who beats and rapes, . . .’

She, therefore, went back to the police officers who themselves had raped her. And what happened there?

‘. . . He asked me for my name, and the first policeman began to type a report while the deputy superintendent asked me questions. But when I started describing the thakurs and telling him I had recognised some of them, the superintendent stood up and slapped me.


‘Even if they raped you, so what? Don’t you have any shame at all, coming here to accuse them?’

He had me thrown out into the dusty street.’

After this incident, the thakurs told people that Phoolan was a ‘fallen woman.’ People started coming to her house asking for her, to rape her.

‘We kept our front door locked. I had to hide all the time. I could no longer sleep at my house. I used to sleep in a tree instead, hidden up in the branches among the monkeys and birds, with fear knotting my gut and tears constantly in my eyes. There were so many thakurs coming around looking for me that the villagers began to worry about the safety of their wives and daughters and I was the one who was blamed. . .’

In Chapter 18:

‘I was even more afraid of thakurs than I was of the police. When I had asked the police to keep me in the lock-up, they had just joked that they would be only too pleased to keep me there . . .’

When she was taken by the bandits from her place,

‘. . . I found myself praying only that they wouldn’t rape me before they killed me.’

Later,

‘. . . And it seemed they couldn’t agree on whether to rape me or kill me.’

After Vickram killed Baboo when he was trying to rape Phoolan, it was written on a scrap of paper that ‘Baboo was killed in the name of Phoolan Devi.’ Phoolan was told that it was the rule. Now see how the notion of ‘gratitude’ works. Phoolan hoped that they would then let her go.

‘Bare Lal made a face. ‘he has killed in your name, Phoolan. You owe him your life. You must obey him now. Who knows what he will ask of you. You must be patient.’

An argument that we have all heard too many times. It means that the act that the person did, was not because they thought it required action but because they’d get something in return for it. There cannot be a feebler political stance.

The same kind of abuse was what was happening in the marriage that happened between Vickram and Phoolan. The first thing Vickram did after marrying Phoolan is make the members of the gang take a pledge that he shall be their leader from then and Phoolan shall be regarded as a mother or sister. ‘Protection’ was linked to marriage and it was yet another power play that enforced more gratitude on Phoolan.

Before marriage, Vickram asked Phoolan if she liked him. Look at what she felt at the time:

‘. . . I giggled, and I began to cry. I couldn’t help myself. I was disappointed and excited all at once. I had expected him to say I was free to go, perhaps even to bring me back in triumph, but I was still his prisoner, and I had no idea what he meant by his question.’

This is clearly abuse. Phoolan was around sixteen and this man, who was holding her captive was asking her if she ‘liked him’. And look how dangerous this is because what happens in the mind of a sixteen year old when she is shown even some kindness in the midst of abuse.

‘He came towards me and stroked my hair gently. ‘Don’t cry,’ he said. ‘Why are you crying? I’m not going to hurt you.’

His gesture was new to me as well. Nobody other than my mother and father had ever shown me tenderness. No one had ever touched me like that, certainly no man.’

And again here,

‘ . . . I had never talked to anyone like that before, for such a long time. I had never talked to anyone at all. It was always orders: come here, do that, shut up. Or insults. Talking was new to me, saying what was on your mind or in your heart, saying the things that choked you, expressing the pain that twisted your heart.’

When people mentioned ‘love,’ Phoolan didn’t understand what they were talking about. It was also because of the difference in dialect but I felt that it was true in the meaning of love as a concept itself. When they uttered the word ‘love’, Phoolan ‘thought it must have been something sweet and delicious because they said it would make me forget the bad things that happened to me.

‘. . . In my village, we spoke Bhundelkhandi, and Vickram spoke a dialect called Chaurasi. Many of the words were different, and I had trouble understanding him. I didn’t know the word love in their dialect. I thought it must be something to eat – because it was something you gave, something sweet and delicious from the way they said it. But I understood his gestures . . .’

This is perhaps the reason why while looking back at it all, as an adult, she thought this about the whole incident:

‘ . . . But many years later, thinking about it, I would ask myself why didn’t this man, if he loved me as he said, just let me go? Then I wouldn’t have become a bandit like him. I would have had a family, children, cattle in the shed, a fire in the hearth.

Or I would have died, and none of it would have mattered.’

In Chapter 21, she speaks about the way she felt about this ‘marriage’ with Vickram.

‘But to tell a man I loved him . . .

No, I couldn’t say it. I couldn’t bring myself to believe I belonged to him, that he was going to protect me.

I had told him I was sleepy, but I couldn’t sleep. I lay with my eyes wide open, staring in the dark. He had promised he wouldn’t hurt me, but she was strnger than me and he was a man, and a man for me meant rape. . .’

Soon, Phoolan realized that Vickram was already married and had children in that marriage. When Phoolan got angry with Vickram for keeping that from her, when she asked how many girls he had kidnapped and then married, he and his friends and relatives made Phoolan believe that it was a normal practice.

Chapter 22

Phoolan Devi speaks as a mallah woman. When she went to take revenge on Mayadin, Vickram told her that she couldn’t do that to someone from her own community. They could loot a thakur but not a mallah. About these rules that were essentially made by men, she says,

‘It was to these rules, the unwritten code, that I owed my life. But I still couldn’t accept it, I couldn’t abide by it, because I was a woman. I had no place in this hierarchy of caste. I was lower than all of them, and the demons I had to slay were more devious. Whatever caste they belonged to, they were all men.’

And in Chapter 23, the following portion further explains what she thought about it

‘I watched a little bird with blue wings flutter away from the shore. He didn’t have to thank anybody except God for the insects he ate; he could sing and fly higher than the tallest trees, up towards the light; he could fly into houses and peck at grain in the stores, and drink water from the stream if he was thirsty. He didn’t have to obey the rules of men. But I still did. Compared to the bird, I was powerless.’

After she killed Mansukh, because Mayadin had escaped, the police put a reward on her head. About it, she says,

‘But what they called a crime, I called justice.’

And then, when she was really going to kill Mayadin, when she got a chance to, she was not let to do that by the males in her gang. Her father said the same thing. Chapter 23

‘ . . . Madhav woudn’t give me back my rifle, and the jackal Mayadin was trying to pay me his respects.’

When Mayadin offered Phoolan money and begged for her forgiveness, she rejected it this way:

‘Get out of here with your filthy rupees!’ I said. ‘I’ll give you your miserable life for nothing, because that’s all it’s worth, nothing!’

But Vickram accepted the money.

‘Vickram pocketed the fifty thousand rupees Mayadin had brought.’

Phoolan felt that she should not have listened to her father and that she shouldn’t have spared Mayadin. She felt that ‘There was no justice’ for her after all.

Chapter 25,

‘It was an advantage being eighteen years old but looking only fifteen. In a petticoat and lunghi I resembled any other village girl on her way to wash. They didn’t give me a second glance. Phoolan Devi had a reputation as a dangerous dacoit. Just like the villager in the fields, the police too imagined her to be twice as tall as me, armed to the teeth and galloping across the fields on a white horse.’

Chapter 26

‘. . . I only knew how to read faces and how to understand what people said. I could tell the difference between an honest face and an untrustworthy one, between a promise that would be kept and one that would be broken, but that wasn’t enough.’

This is important because in many narratives about Phoolan Devi, one finds a narrative of Phoolan as a naïve woman, who did not know how to make decisions for herself. The truth is that she knew all it took to command people, wage wars and execute ambushes.

Later, in Chapter 35, while she was having talks with politicians about surrendering, she lays emphasis on this fact again.

‘It all seemed to be easy enough for them to understand, it was all just politics, but I had only my instincts to rely on for the truth. My struggle for survival had taught me to be wary. I didn’t know anything about politics, governments or states. All I knew was what I felt in my bones.’

And what a woman feels in her bones is important no matter how irrelevant patriarchy tells her it is. This could be the reason why, during her surrender, the man on the microphone was very nervous and worded it thus, as seen in Chapter 36

‘Phoolan Devi will now lay down her arms.,’ a man announced in the microphone. ‘The government has taken into account her decision to surrender of her own free will. We have accepted her conditions, er . . . No. She has accepted our conditions.

It was the same man who had made the mistake earlier. I couldn’t help myself. I smiled.’

She continues, about the plight of women,

‘. . . A woman couldn’t live alone in the city. She would be easy prey. Without a husband, she would be singled out, and without a family she would be considered a prostitute. With no one to defend her, any man could take her.’

After murdering Vickram, Shri Ram took Phoolan captive and raped her. He then made everyone in the village rape her. In the following portions you can clearly see how rape is a power crime and what goes on in the mind of the abuser.

‘I heard Shri Ram encouraging them, telling them to use me, to take advantage of me while they had me tied up like that.’

In Chapter 29 we see how Phoolan evolved with her experiences. She learned gender politics while she was in Vickram’s gang and you can see it in the decisions she took while she formed her own gang in order to take revenge.

‘. . . Balwan had about a dozen men. He offered to let me join him, saying we could run the gang together, but I didn’t want to get into a situation like that again. I didn’t need anyone’s protection this time and I wasn’t going to take orders from anybody. I was going to be the leader, I was the one who was going to be obeyed from now on.’

. . .

‘Since I didn’t want to join him, Balwan proposed to lend me money for arms and supplies. But I didn’t want to owe anything to anyone either. I knew that to be able to assert your will, independence was essential.’

I thought of many women who had said the same. M.D Radhika, feminist and ex-professor, Inji Pennu, blogger, Kani Kusruti, actor. I believe in this. Phoolan did too, and because people who asked for independence were not considered ‘womanly’ she put it this way.

‘. . . It’s simple, Balwan,’ I explained. ‘I don’t consider myself a woman any longer. I don’t want anybody’s protection, nor their help. I want to control everything myself. If I take a gun from you, I’ll pay you for it.’

Truly, this is the only way women can function in this society, in every sphere and profession even now.

There is also a portion that reminded me of the violence people do online to women. A very common phenomenon is that of addressing women ‘chechi’ [a term used to address one’s elder sister but becomes sexually coloured and sexist while in a debate. A sexually coloured form of ‘dear’ ‘darling’ ‘sweety’ used to put women down in online and offline discussions. So it brought a smile to my face when I read this incident where Phoolan was robbing a rich landowner who was robbing peasants.

‘No, no Bahanji, I haven’t done any harm. I haven’t hurt anyone. It’s my right!’

‘Don’t call me your sister! Where is the loot?’

Later in Chapter 32, she talks of how she gave the loot money to women. Another reason why representation is important.

‘Most of all, I liked to be able to give money to women. I very rarely gave it to men. They could work in the fields, go from village to village, find money somehow, but not the women. Nobody helped the women, not even their husbands. They didn’t give the women a rupee. Without money, women were forced to suffer hunger and humiliation, and even sell their bodies like sacks of flour, while the men spent their money drinking and gambling.’

Phoolan Devi also speaks about the fame and importance she received because she was a bandit. The Chief Minister of the state had to resign because of her. She was a living legend. And listen to what she had to say about it. In Chapter 33, she says,

‘. . .The radio and newspapers wouldn’t stop talking about me.

If only they had talked about me before, I thought, when I was being mistreated and I was the one crying out for justice. But the bad things done by the poor were all anyone ever talked about, not the bad things done to them.’

I thought of the six women who had gone to meet Hadiya. When they were released on bail, social media was busy calling them attention seekers. When will the world realize that people don’t enjoy it and the fame they are talking about is a result of their silence, the added collective silence of the society.

In Chapter 35, we can see how oppressed people look for similar people all around them. Phoolan wanted to meet Indira Gandhi, who was the Prime Minister then. She had a reason.

‘I had heard of her and I had admired Mrs. Gandhi. She was a woman, like me, after all, in a world of men. I knew nothing about her life but I knew she must have had to overcome many enemies, like me. . .’

She also fought for the women in jail when she was there. In Chapter 38, she says,

‘For a time, there was a prison director at Gwalior who was as corrupt and heartless as them. He let the madwomen mix with the common prisoners and die like dogs, their skinny bodies eaten by rats. I couldn’t rest after seeing their half-eaten corpses. All the time I was there I continued to rebel and fight. I protested every day against the filth, the laziness and the corruption. I went on hunger strike twice, trying to obtain some decency for us, and I nearly died the second time but nobody cared.’

Phoolan Devi had to spend more time in jail than what was agreed upon during the time of her surrender. Dacoits who had surrendered before her were all let off before her. ‘Even in jail, a woman had to wait in silence.’ She said about it. It was after eleven years that she was finally out of jail.

Caste

Caste is the context in which Phoolan’s story has been told. Her uncle Bihari was from the mallah caste and according to Phoolan, he behaved like a thakur - a caste considered to be above mallahs. This was because he owned land that he won by cheating Phoolan’s father. Her father found it hard to find money to pay for lawyers and Bihari tortured Phoolan’s family. In Chapter I


‘To reach the field, though, I had to go along the path and by the big house that belonged to Bihari. And he always tried to beat me. He was old, cruel and mean. With a smile like a rascal pretending to sell sugar-cane juice, he used to call out to me as I went by. ‘Come, little girl, come Phoolan,’ he would say, ‘come and see your uncle Bihari…’ I was meant to obey my elders, but I knew that if I put a foot inside his yard, he would try to catch me and beat me. He beat Choti too with his stick. And he beat my big sister Rukmini if she was foolish enough to pass by his house. He even beat my mother if he was very angry with us. He pretended we were spying on him or doing something we shouldn’t. He was the one who was always spying – there by the doorway inside his courtyard stretched out on his bamboo khat with its soft straw matting. He didn’t work like my father but spent the days lying in wait for us, watching his servants sweep away the dust.

If he got up from his khat, it was usually just to shout at my mother over the walls. ‘Can’t you keep your filthy daughters inside?’ he would yell.’

‘…we were poor mallahs, with only what the river gave us to live.

If I crossed Bihari’s field with our cows, he beat me. If I passed his house, even if I just ran past to pee in the field, he tried to beat me! I didn’t know why he wanted to hurt us. My mother used to say that he was always complaining to her that we were causing mischief, that we were trespassing on his property, and that we were ugly and dirty.’

The incident at the Pradhan’s. He had ordered Phoolan to massage his head. She usually never spoke in his presence because ‘He was an important man, the head of all the villages in the district,’ and Phoolan was ‘too timid to utter a word.’ There was a big pile of mangoes in front of him. Phoolan was a child.

‘…Those were the best mangoes I had ever seen. I dreamed of tasting the soft pulp in my mouth and feeling the sweet juice trickling down my throat. Finally the smell of them was so strong, it overcame me.

‘Please can I have a little piece of mango?’ I asked.

The slap was so fierce I heard it resound in my head. I was stunned – I couldn’t see clearly, everything was spinning around me, and I fell over.

The Pradhan was furious. ‘How dare you ask me for a mango! Today you want a mango and tomorrow it’ll be something else!’

In Chapter 2,

‘…Our village had two temples, ne dedicated to Kali where my father went all the time to make offerings to the goddess and pray for help, and another, much more beautiful, dedicated to Shiva, where the rich went to give thanks for all they possessed. The Brahmin was the village priest. He looked after the temples.’

She says that the Brahmin was the one who taught them how to read and write. Phoolan discontinued her studies soon. The Brahmin was an impatient man who beat children. She also had to work. The following portion about Ramayana talks about caste and gender again.

‘…The only book I ever saw was the Ramayana, the story of Rama, the incarnation of Vishnu. The Brahmin used to read it to the villagers gathered under a tree. Sometimes he would ask other Brahmins to come and read some of it with him because the book was very big and the story very long and very beautiful. I only ever saw the book from afar. Women were not allowed to touch it.’

The first lessons about sexual violence was given to Phoolan by her mother. She told her that she and her sisters did not need education but warned them.

‘…She told me the main thing I had to learn was to stay out of danger. She was always warning me that I was going to get myself into real trouble one day, and I wondered what this trouble might be. It must have been something terrible as my mother’s eyes were full of dread when she said it.

And like God, it was everywhere . . .’

Later, in Chapter 7, while talking about her marriage to Putti Lal and rape, she says that while this danger that her mother spoke about was everywhere, it was performed as a good occasion in case of marriage.

‘All those dirty, ugly things he had done, I knew, were the danger my mother had warned us of. That was what happened to girls at the bend in the river. And they happened with everybody’s blessing when a man like Putti Lal said ‘She is suitable.’’

Caste is everywhere in the book. In the film, it is downplayed. Phoolan talks about Dalits while talking about the cruelties of Brahmins. She also lays emphasis on how it was even worse for women of ‘lower’ castes. In Chapter 2,

‘. . . It was as though even the ground that we walked on in the village was forbidden to our feet. We were almost as wretched as untouchables, who were less than animals.

And being a girl meant being even lower. A girl didn’t exist without her father, her brother, her uncle or her husband – or any man at all belonging to her family or her caste. She couldn’t even walk without fear between the village and the river.’

Chapter 13

The Sarpanch’s son always harassed Phoolan. Once after she was groped in broad daylight by the Pradhan’s son, Phoolan’s mother complained to the Sarpanch. He shouted at her sent her off. That night, his son along with a gang, raped Phoolan in front of her parents.

‘. . . Two bodies; two hurried rapes.’

When a woman’s body is violated, the blame first goes to the woman herself.

‘My mother looked at me and shook her head. ‘What did I do to deserve a daughter like you Phoolan? Why did I bring you into this world? I’m ashamed.’

Her strong mother was blaming herself for bringing a woman who got raped into the world. This is a woman’s narrative. It shows how people start blaming themselves when a person whom they love very much is violated.

It is after this incident that Phoolan went to another village to talk to Phool Singh, a thakur, to help her. He and his gang went to Phoolan’s village and threatened the women in Pradhan’s house. Phoolan felt victorious but only for a short while.

‘I hadn’t broken the silence, after all, but as the joy of my triumph began to wear off, I realised I had done something worse. I had gone to ask for help from someone of a higher caste. I had betrayed my caste, and it only really dawned on me then that the thakurs from Narihan had taken my side purely because it was to their advantage. I remembered what Kunjan’s mother had said about Phool Singh having a dispute with our Sarpanch. If they had come, I realised, it wasn’t for my sake. I had just given them an excuse. But there was one comfort, at least. I had prayed so hard to the goddess, asking her to give me revenge, and this time she had heard me.’

After this incident, the Sarpanch tried to marry Phoolan to a widower. Phoolan was against this and she ran away from home. After this, Mayadin and the Sarpanch spread a story in her village that Phoolan was a dacoit. Phoolan did not even know the meaning of the word then. It was her brother-in-law who explained it to her. Mayadin had said that there had been a robbery in his house and that Phoolan was behind it. When she returned home from her sister’s place, she was arrested by the police. She was again raped in the police station. While raping her in front of her father in the lock-up, they asked her to admit that it was she who had robbed Mayadin’s house. She was threatened into agreeing that she was a dacoit. They asked her to keep shut about what they’d done to her. If she didn’t do so, they would rape her again, they told her.

Chapter 17

She was raped by upper-caste thakurs after she drew water from the well against the Sarpanch’s orders.

‘Who do you think you are?’ the old man asked me. He tried to grab hold of me. ‘Girls of your caste are only good for one thing,’ he sneered.

It happened again. I was beaten, assaulted and humiliated – and again my parents were forced to watch.

I was less than a dog, one of them said.

When my mother and father pleaded with them to stop, they were beaten too.’

She also talks about how people from her own caste thought themselves superior till the upper-caste people showed themselves. After they raped Phoolan, the thakurs took her to Mayadin’s house. Then Mayadin became defensive. About this, Phoolan says,

‘I couldn’t believe it! He was embarrassed because the men who had beaten and violated me were thakurs, and we were just mallahs, even Mayadin. Because he had land, he thought he could behave like a thakur, he thought he could use them to scare me and my parents. But he was also afraid of them. . .’


‘I was beginning to realise it was not just our poverty that made us victims, it was being born in a lowly caste. I couldn’t accept it . . .’

Chapter 18

Caste among bandits. While Vickram was a mallah, Baboo was a thakur. Thanks to a woman who became a bandit, we also got to know the rape culture of bandits. The descriptions of her bandit days are filled with incidents of rape committed by the bandits. Baboo raped defenseless young girls. In one incident, it is described that,

‘. . . He took the megaphone and used it to summon the gang, shouting that the police were on their way. Instantly, the men came running from every direction, some still clutching their trousers.’

Vickram killed Baboo when he was trying to rape Phoolan and subsequently became the leader of the gang.

‘. . . There were around twenty of them. Fifteen were mallahs, there were two Brahmins, and some who belonged to a caste of leatherworkers called chamars.’

Chapter 24

When Shri Ram – Vickram’s ‘guru’ and Shri Ram’s brother Lala Ram came back to the gang, everybody was apprehensive. Phoolan too somehow felt that it was not a good sign. But Vickram had bailed them out, using the money Mayadin had offered Phoolan for forgiveness. [She declined the money but Vickram accepted it against her wish.] Phoolan says about the thakur brothers’ return,

‘ . . . It was the usual story: mallahs and thakurs could never get along.’

In Chapter 27, we see that this is true. The reason why Vickram was assassinated is explained thus

‘. . . They had planned it all right from the start, and the villagers who had come to us to propose the truce between Vickram and Shri Ram had been on it too. I heard Shri Ram asking for his money. They had collected funds to pay Shri Ram to get rid of us, because we belonged to a backward caste and we defied the rule of thakurs. We were a lowly tribe and we had been shown our place, they said. By killing Vickram, they had reminded us who gave the orders. They wanted to pretend I had done it to show I was disloyal – a whore! – and on top of it all they hoped to collect a reward and let the police share in the glory.’

Chapter 29 is where Phoolan meets with the leader of a powerful Muslim gang, Baba Mustakim. She explains the situation of Muslims.

‘I Talked through the night to Baba Mustakim. Muslims were usually poor and had as much to fear from thakurs as my community. Baba Mustakim was determined to join me and it wasn’t until the early hours of the morning that he finally acknowledged my reasons for refusing his help.’

When she chose men from Baba Mustakim’s gang, caste figured again.

‘. . . They were all from castes of shepherds or leatherworkers, castes compatible with my own.’

Later in Chapter 33, Phoolan Devi remembers how she was saved from the police by the Muslim villagers.

‘. . . I had thought then my last hour had come, and the women wept for me saying, ‘Allah be with you!’ The Muslims were poor, as poor as mallahs. In a Hindu community, where everyone feared and respected Thakurs, I might not have been protected.’

Chapter 34

‘. . . A poor person didn’t need to say he was poor.’

Caste based gender violence


Chapter 24, where thakur bandits Shri Ram and his brother Lala Ram had been brought back from jail by Vickram, Shri Ram treated Phoolan this way:

‘So this is Phoolan!’

He looked me up and down again, the way thakurs always looked at mallah women, twiddling his red moustache. . .

. . . ‘So this is Phoolan,’ he repeated. ‘And she sleeps with everybody! She’s the gang’s girl!’

And when Phoolan told Vickram how much she loathed Shri Ram’s behaviour,

‘Don’t let him stay here, Vickram. He was undressing me with his eyes!’

‘I told you he said he was sorry. I owe him everything, Phoolan. Please, come and sit with us. Don’t embarrass me in front of him.’

The harassment continued. Shri Ram cornered Phoolan after making sure that there was nobody around, he started calling her ‘Bahanji’ [sister / sister-in-law] Just like how Malayalee males call a woman ‘chechi’ [elder sister] and then sexually and otherwise harass her. He asked her,

‘Who do you think you are, you little bitch? You little piece of shit! You think you’re too good for me? How can people like you – backward caste people – think you’re better than us? One day I’m going to teach you to obey me!’

I ran in tears to Vickram as he shouted behind me. ‘She is lying! Why do you keep her in the gang? She’s a hussy. She keeps on tantalizing me. Get rid of her!’

And Vickram?

‘Again Vickram’s men pointed their rifles at him and warned him not to speak to me like that. Vickram had to calm them, taking them aside and trying to play down what they all knew in their bones, that Shri Ram was a thakur and he despised them. . .’

Shri Ram shot Phoolan and pretended that he was aiming at a bird. Phoolan aimed her own barrel at his head.

‘. . . For an instant, our eyes met. In his I could see all the hatred and frustration of a thakur who couldn’t crush me or frighten me. I hoped he could see pride and contempt in my eyes. . .’

Vickram continued to try to appease the thakurs.

After Phoolan and Vickram went into hiding after Vickram was shot by Sri Ram, in Chapter 25, she narrates how upper caste appearance was considered to be ‘normal’ and beyond suspicion.

‘. . . but when the sipahi on duty saw a little woman with her head covered by a sari shuffling along timidly by the mud walls, accompanied by a well-dressed thakur, he didn’t think there was anything unusual about it.’

In Chapter 27, after Vickram is killed and Shri Ram gets everyone in a village to rape Phoolan Devi, she remembers he had said,

‘You piece of shit! Mallah bitch! You thought you could bully us around and give us orders. You understand now who you belong to? You remember now why you were born?’

‘Shri Ram said if he had his way, he would bring all the Thakurs in the world to use me.’

Shekhar Kapoor’s film Vs. Phoolan Devi’s Autobiography

Phoolan describes how her mother was a fighter in Chapter 1. After she was slapped by the Pradhan, Phoolan wet herself and ran back home. She was afraid her mother would scold her. When she said what had happened, her mother dragged back to the Pradhan’s house and shouted at him from the street.

‘You think we bring children into the world just to be your slaves? Instead of hitting her like that you should have just killed her! Go on, kill her! Then she won’t ask you for any more mangoes. Kill her if you want.’

Her father wasn’t like that.

‘When he came home and heard what had happened, my father was ashamed. He said it was our duty to serve them. That was how the world was. If we did what they asked without complaining and bowed our heads and touched their feet to show them respect, they would give us food. He said the world was like that because God made it that way.’

This is one portion where the film differs. Her mother is not portrayed in this manner. Phoolan even says that she was like her mother.

‘…I tried to submit as my father said I should, but I was unable. I was like my mother. There was too much anger in me.’

In the film, her mother is as submissive as her father.

In Chapter 11, Phoolan talks about the time when she had come back from Putti Lal’s place, after being raped. The whole village was deciding her fate because that was how it worked once a woman was without a husband. Mayadin thought it was a good opportunity to harass Phoolan’s family more.

‘. . . he harassed my mother whenever she passed his house on her way to the well. He called her all sorts of names, and threatened her with all manner of punishments, but all he ever got back was the growl of a tigress: ‘Go to hell! Leave us alone!’

Now listen to how Phoolan describes her own rise as a rebellious woman. It all started from her going to work. Phoolan and her sister, Choti, joined their father in the masonry work that he was doing. He was paid twelve rupees a day and they were paid two-and-a-half rupees each. According to Phoolan,

‘. . . We labored from dawn until the sun went down, and the work changed me.

As my strength returned, my confidence grew. I was no longer the submissive young girl who accepted whatever others decided. . . I stopped caring that tradition had left me abandoned. All that mattered was to earn enough to eat. And that meant getting paid for our work. All too often, Thakurs who hired us forgot to pay us. ‘Come back tomorrow,’ they would say, waving us away. And when we returned they said they had already paid us with food, or that we hadn’t worked on certain days, and they would deduct it from our wages. . . I started asking for my wages day by day, to be sure.

‘I worked today,’ I would tell them, ‘and I want my money today!’

My father was afraid of this sort of talk. He would tug me by the arm and whisper to me to be quiet and not to say such things. But more often than not they gave in and paid what they owed. And if they refused, I found ways to blackmail them. Choti and I would sneak up on their cows or goats, untie one and set it loose in the fields. Or else I would lead the animal back to our house, and then go see the owner.

‘Are you going to pay now?’ I would say to him, ‘or shall I keep your goat?’

People threw me out, calling me insolent and saying I had been raised badly. They complained that I used bad language. But as far as I could see I was doing nothing wrong, simply requesting the money I was owed for my work. It wasn’t bad language to ask for it loudly, with my head held high, and without fear.

I had been through so much, I had been so often in the grip of terror, that I had nothing to fear from them. I don’t think I was afraid of fear even. I certainly wasn’t afraid of confronting them. . .’

Phoolan says she even confronted physically those people who hurt her physically. Her sister Choti would run away but Phoolan thought she couldn’t be hurt more than she already had been. Again, her mother stood with her in her rebellious nature while her father asked her to behave.

‘. . . ‘Phoolan is right,’ she told him. ‘We work hard and sweat blood for them, so they should pay us.’ And if someone who owed us money came to complain about us taking his animals, she would say, ‘God is punishing you for not paying my daughters. You’ll get your goat back when you’ve paid what you owe.’

Later she says, talking about the time she started her fight with the upper caste males and landowners,

‘I had found a strength in me that I hadn’t suspected, a force I drew from my mother. ‘Stand up straight,’ she always told me. ‘Be proud of yourself. If somebody slaps you, slap them back; if someone throws a stone at you, throw one back; if someone beats you and you don’t fight back, then I’ll beat you.’ And she always added, ‘Be fair; don’t steal anyone’s fruits or crops; be honest.’

Later, after her first arrest and release on bail, the Sarpanch tried to make Phoolan’s family pay for drawing water from the well because she was ‘impure.’ [And it was his own son who had raped her.] The Sarpanch knew that it would bankrupt the family. See how Phoolan’s mother reacted in Chapter 17:

‘. . . My mother threw him out of our house. She screamed at him all the way back to his little shop.

‘I don’t care what the Sarpanch said, we aren’t paying anything.’

She screamed so fiercely that the villagers scurried back inside their houses to hide.’

The film has completely erased this woman from the narrative.

Phoolan invented tricks to get people to pay her. When her father built a house and the owner delayed the payment, she and Choti destroyed the house at night, when it was raining. She told the man that it happened because he had not paid them. People were superstitious and this worked in their favour.

Phoolan further describes her metamorphosis thus:

‘I was discovering piece by painful piece how my world was put together: the power of men, the power of privileged castes, the power of might. I didn’t think of what I was doing as rebellion; it was the only means I had of getting justice. But it was then that my rebellion began, when I was fourteen or fifteen years old and struggling to survive by any means I could. I was a woman who belonged to a lowly caste. Faced with power and rupees, I used any trick I could. I encouraged the other girls to sabotage the crops if the landowner wouldn’t pay us. I reminded the landowners that we were the ones who ploughed their fields, we spread the manure, we sowed the seeds and gathered the harvest, and they had to pay for our backbone and sweat. I warned those who refused to pay what we asked that they would see nothing growing on their land the next season. I didn’t realise that by doing this, I was making many enemies.’

The film does not mention that Phoolan was raped by the brahmin Pradhan’s son. Nor does it mention that the first time Phoolan was arrested on charges of robbery, she was being framed, as is clearly depicted in the autobiography. It had happened after the Sarpanch tried to get her married to a widower, after she was raped by his son. She had run away to her sister’s place and there she found out that Mayadin and the Sarpanch had spread news that Phoolan had robbed Mayadin’s house. When she returned to her village, she was arrested and was raped by the police. The film does not mention these incidents. It makes it look as if Phoolan had gone to the bandits herself.

The film does not mention the rape that took place after Phoolan refused to pay the Sarpanch for drawing water from the well.

When people started using her status as a ‘fallen’ woman to not pay her and her father for the work they did, one day, Phoolan decided to react. She held a sickle in her hand and told them that she’d kill them. That was a beginning. She says about that incident,

‘Because they lived in fear, I realised, all you had to do was frighten them! Because they used violence, you had to be violent too!’

Later, when she was abducted by bandits, in one of the raids they conducted, Phoolan describes how she was ‘initiated’ into the world of bandits.

In Chapter 18:

‘That morning, they had divided the village up into ‘sectors’. Vickram and his men had gone to the other part of the village but Baboo had made me go with him, and now I was sitting on a cart, guarded by tw of Baboo’s men, taking part, terrified, in my first pillage.

Some of Baboo’s men were running around the house looking for girls, the rest were barging into rooms and dragging out trunks that they burst open by firing at the locks. They were stuffing handfuls of gold and silver jewellery and bundles of rupees into their pockets, and battering any women who screamed in protest. No one tried to resist them. The men who lived there had all run away to hide when they heard the rifles. I could only see shadows fleeing in the dark and hear panic-stricken cries.

Suddenly Baboo shouted to the men guarding me, ‘Show her what to do.’

After this, she was shown into a room where she was asked to beat the women and take their jewellery. She refused to do it. She also says that they took a girl just as old as herself, around sixteen, and raped her. She was unable to bear her cries and covered her ears.

In pictures, is a photo from the day of her surrender. About it she says,

‘. . . We were given new clothes. The uniform that I wore in the jungle – the boots and shirt that smelt of the forest, of sweat and freedom – fell in a heap on the ground. I am wearing a new, clean, well – ironed uniform. Man Singh – my lieutenant, my friend, my brother – is beside me. (Ludwig/SIPA Press) [This can be found in Chapter 36 as well. ‘. . . The uniform I had been wearing, the shirt and the boots that smelled of the jungle, of sweat and freedom, and of the anguish of the last few days, fell in a little heap on the cement floor.’]

This is another place where I felt that the director had denied Phoolan representation. It mattered to her to mention this detail about the uniform. But it has not been shown in the film. This is all part of violence and abuse. How people look at things, objects, people after they emerge out of it. If a woman says that clothes mattered to her, it has to be noted and acknowledged.

There is no mention of Vickram’s other wife and children. There is no mention of how the patriarchy worked within Phoolan’s and Vickram’s relationship. When Mayadin offered money as compensation, Phoolan was dead against taking it but Vickram took it. About it, she says later,

Chapter 18

‘. . . Vickram had paid eighty thousand rupees to bail them [Shri Ram and his broter Lala Ram] out; at least that explained why he hadn’t spat at Mayadin’s money. . .’

In Chapter 28 there is a portion that Phoolan Devi describes as being a decision making one. I felt that the omission of this from the film wasn’t good. In it, she was stating how something that sounded superstitious or like a hallucination mattered to her. If such personal experiences are struck off according to the director’s whim, what is the point in making a film on a true story?

‘. . . A large snake with black and yellow scales slowly uncoiled his body and raised his head in front of me. . .’

. . .

‘All of a sudden, he turned and slithered towards a rock. He pulled himself up on top of it, looked away in the distance, and then he turned back to me. Twice more he made the same gesture with his head, looking away in the same direction and then turning back to me.

‘I should go that way?’ I asked him.

. . .

‘Is it true? You will show me?’ I bowed to him with my hands together in relief and prayer. ‘Whoever you are,’ I said, ‘don’t abandon me now. Watch over me and give me the strength to survive.’

Majestically, the snake slithered away.’

In Chapter 37, Phoolan talks of what she felt about filmmakers and her being depicted in art without her permission. If Shekhar Kapoor had read the book, which he should have, before making the film, he wouldn’t have made these mistakes.

‘On the third day, a man came saying his name was Ashok Roy. He said he had made a film called Kahani Phoolan Ki and that he had been waiting to see if I was killed or put in prison to finish his film. He began to show me photos. I lunged at him and grabbed him by the collar of his shirt.

‘How dare you? What is all this film business? What is it you want?’

His collar tore away in my hands as I shook him. He ran away in alarm, taking his photos.

I wanted to know how he dared to take these pictures of my life without my permission. I had been to the cinema once in Nepal, but I still didn’t know what a film was. Before the man came, some of the prisoners had told me that it was a bad thing, and that I would have very big problems with a film. It was bound to be full of lies, they explained, but people would believe all of them.’

In the Epilogue, she leaves no room for doubt when she speaks about the way she was portrayed by people, including filmmakers and what she thought of it. Next time you hear someone praise the film ‘The Bandit Queen’ by Shekhar Kapoor, be sure to mention that the director was wrong to have made it.

‘I had seen all kinds of bandits. Assassins had tried to take my life, journalists had tried to capture me on film. They all thought they could speak about me as though I didn’t exist, as though I still didn’t have any right to respect. The bandits had tried to torture my body, but the others tried to torture my spirit.'

She continues, about her autobiography,

‘Now, for the first time, a woman from my community has been able to tell the truth about her life, and testify in public to the injustice we all had to suffer. It was my hope that my testimonial would give help to others: other women, my sisters who have been humiliated, and my brothers who are being exploited.

I want to prove that we all have our honour, whatever our origins, our caste, the colour of our skin or our sx.

I wanted respect

I wanted them to say, ‘Phoolan Devi is a human being,’ because then they would say it about others.’

Monday, 14 August 2017

The Great Indian Shit Problem

An Indian toilet (kunjila CC-BY-SA)

I am just back from the toilet. I had gone to pee. When i entered the toilet i realised that it had happened again. From the stench. I didn’t want to look there. It would ruin my day, sometimes weeks. It was the Great Indian Shit Problem.

My partner’s friend had come over. They chat about cinema. Sometimes i join in. But most of the time, when this friend of my partner whom i’ll call ‘Amt’ comes over, i am worried about just one thing. That like he had done the first time he visited, he would shit in my toilet and leave without flushing. It meant that if i was the one who went to toilet after him, i would have to pee/shit in the stench of his shit and see his shit.

Surprised? Don’t be. This is not an isolated incident or one of Amt’s idiosyncrasies. It is a problem that India has. As a country. We don’t know what to do with our shit. So much so that we entrust people — from a caste that we consider below others — with the job of cleaning it. If you have heard of India and not heard of the caste system, it means that you have only been reading brahminical news all this while.

India is a country where human beings were, as a tradition and as a profession, asked to carry the shit of other human beings. Manual scavenging in English. In Malayalam, my mothertongue, the word is derogatory ‘thotti’. This ‘job’ is reserved — oh the irony — only for Dalits. Would you believe it if i told you that manual scavenging was legally banned in India only in 2013? (Only the cleaning of ‘dry-toilets’ was banned in 1993)That is, just four years ago and 184 years after the ban on Sati. 148 years after the official ban on slavery in US, 52 years after the laws against dowry in India. Despite the law, manual scavenging continues unhindered, claiming lives of Dalits.

Amt’s habit is definitely not that of enforcing manual scavenging. Amt does not expect me or my partner to carry his shit on our head and dispose it. It is a habit that is common in India and only i seem to have a problem with. In here, the person who goes to the toilet after a practitioner of this ideology will have to see the colour and consistency of another person’s stool. With Amt, i have been that person and have flushed his shit down the toilet whenever it happened.

And it happens quite frequently. In hostels and even in strangers’ places. (As a matter of fact, we as a country are used to seeing a lot of human shit because we also practice open defecation. Here women get raped while they go to fields to defecate.) I am talking about manual scavenging and open defecation because i believe that the Great Indian Shit Problem has roots in it.

I thought about the problem a lot because for me, whenever it happens, it becomes a traumatic experience. I say traumatic, because like many incidents of abuse that i have faced, these shit-incidents flash before my eyes without warning. In my mind i get disgusted and get angry with the owner of the shit. For me, talking about shit is more awkward than talking about sex so it all happens in my head. The sight haunts me for weeks and it plays in my head when i talk to the perpetrators of the Great Indian Shit Problem. My thinking has resulted in the following conclusions.
  • In many parts of India, people don’t know how to use the Indian toilet.
OR
  • They pretend they don’t know how to use the Indian toilet.
  • People in India, especially Brahmins, believe it is okay for others to see their shit in the toilet.
Everyone seems to know that in a Western toilet you have to flush the shit down by pressing the flush handle. Not everyone does it. Some ‘forget’ to flush. Some leave after they flush without waiting to see if all of the shit goes down or not. For them, it is not important. I don’t know if there are others like me who have panic attacks thinking they forgot to flush and rush back before someone else enters the toilet. Or wait to see if there is even a speck of shit left in the closet after flushing, fill a bucket with water and flush it down again.

Oh the bucket. I have seen people who are not aware or who pretend to be not aware that shit can be flushed down even when the flush is not functioning and when there is no water in the flush tank. You just have to fill a bucket with water and dump it in the closet. I have even taken mugs of water repeatedly to flush shit down when there was no bucket in sight. These are very common situations in India and if a person doesn’t know these, it means that they believe that cleaning their own shit is not their business. Like most men. (Literally and figuratively.)I have seen shit floating in many public Western toilets. Where else is this belief and the audacity to practise it coming, than from India’s ‘tradition’ of manual scavenging?

Now the Indian toilet.

Consider the time when i was at this professor’s place in Thrissur, Kerala to learn how to play chess. This professor was a champion and a few children, including myself, had camped at his place for a week for coaching. One day, a girl came back from the bathroom clasping her nose with her hand, indicating disgust. She told us not to go to the bathroom where she had just gone. When we asked what the matter was, she said that someone had ‘done number 2’ in there. I soon saw the ‘number 2’ because my mother asked me to stay there for one day more than the other students because she thought i would get special lessons that way. I didn’t. What i got was the sight of someone’s shit in an Indian toilet in the bathroom where i was sent to take bath. I had to take bath standing in the stink of the shit that was now days old. I even thought of picking up a toilet brush and cleaning it up. (i have a servitude gene that helps me get into abusive relationships so…) I couldn’t do it. I cried. I took bath. And waited to be released from that place, chess coaching or not.

What i gathered from that incident was that in some families, it was not uncommon to leave one’s shit for someone else — in most cases, a domestic help — to clean.

I faced another version of this attitude when i lived in a hostel while learning cinema in Kolkata. Hostel meant shared bathrooms. That is when i realised that there were students who thought that after shitting and pouring water to clean their ass as well as the accumulated shit in the ceramic part of the toilet, their job was done. But that is not true about Indian toilets. Even if you clean the shit from the ceramic area, it only accumulates in the pipe filled with water at the end of it. It is very visible, floating over there. It is also very ‘smellable’ if left there. You can see the area (the round opening that is filled with water) i am talking about in the picture below.

Indian toilet — people refuse to remove shit from the pit area in the picture by pouring water in a bucket with some force. As a result, other people end up seeing other people’s shit. And bearing with the stench. (Image — kunjila CC-BY-SA)

It amazes me that a person can grow up in India and still not know these basics about cleaning one’s own shit. The first time i called it out was in my final year of filmmaking. I had knocked on my neighbour’s door and told them that they hadn’t flushed the toilet. When i went back in, the shit was gone. This mean that they knew how to do it. Yet, it was repeated and i had to knock on their door once again. I have lost count of times when i have seen this ‘floating shit’ in Indian toilets. This was what had happened with Amt too.

Another friend had complained that her neighbour left shit floating in the common Western toilet in the hostel. She suspected that he was doing so because he was high on marijuana. When i told this to the neighbour, he accused her of the same. Both were Brahmins. My neighbour in my hostel was too.
When i moved in with my partner, i got to know that he was someone who thought that in an Indian closet it was okay for him to leave his shit floating in the water pipe for me to see and smell. After i confronted him, he too proved that he certainly knew what to do because the shit disappeared. So did his habit. (Did i just save a relationship?)

When I saw Amt’s shit floating in the toilet for the first time, i immediately told my partner that it had happened. I was hoping he would talk to Amt. Instead, he replied, “At least he has started washing the plate he ate in.”

I don’t know what Indian men, Indian Brahminical men and those who emulate them smoke. Whatever it is, it is a substance that generates the illusion that women, dalits or your fellow human beings exist to clean up after them. This sexist wall drawing from a local
train station here says it the best.

Sexist wall drawing at Goregaon station, Mumbai (kunjila CC-BY-SA)

My partner is not brahmin and i don’t know Amt’s caste but i do think that this is a brahminical behaviour with roots in casteism. I can’t be sure because i have not heard anyone else talk about it.
Epilogue: I questioned Amt before he left. He swore that he always flushed after he shit and used copious amount of water. He gets chided at home for it, he said. I continue getting flashes of his shit and don’t know if he will ever visit again. My partner is taking lessons on doing dishes and laundry from me. In other words, i am shoving it down his throat.

Sunday, 13 November 2016

Hatred in the belly That Changed my Life

It was a mind blowing experience reading this book. It is a very well compiled bunch of writings on the politics behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar's writings. I have not read Dr Ambedkar's writings, yes, i know it's a shame. My reading life is rather shameful. I am late to read pretty much everything. Anyway this book has widened my knowledge and perspectives about caste. The book is a very neat compilation and all the articles are available online in Round Table India. I am trying to write down various arguments in the book from different people and perspectives but which were essentially on the same issue. I believe that by doing this i shall remember them more and also get more clarity on the topics discussed.
[In writing this i have often mixed up the web version and the book version so sometimes a replaced word or a comma and other such things are the result of me being confused. Please forgive] 

Let me begin by quoting from this interview. In one analogy it sums up the debate. 

Joe D'Cruz on saviors and censors
An interview by Kadhiravan
...I would like to tell you about Dhritarashtraalingan in Mahabharata. Dhritarashtra is a selfish, self centered person, keen only on his own and his children's welfare. One can say that the entire unfolding of Mahabharata is a result of this attitude of Dhritarashtra. One of his peculiar qualities is that, when he dislikes someone, he would embrace the person and in the process smother him/her to death. I see such groups as possessing this particular quality of Dhritarashtra--they make sure that they keep you under their control and smother you to death
[Joe D'Cruz, the renowned Tamil writer also has a history with Navayana and its Brahmin translator V. Geetha also which i will be quoting in some time]

On Arundhati Roy's introduction to Navayana edition of Annihilation of Caste, Appropriation of Ambedkar.

In
The Question of Free Speech,
Vaibhav Wasnik
explains why writing about appropriation is very important.
The power structures in the Indian context are explicitly as well as implicitly engaged in the business of maintaining caste heirarchies that dominate Indian society. The explicit tactics used by these power structures are there for everyone to see and hence are not matters to be exposed or to be invested with deep analysis right now. However, the power structures that work under layers of sophistication, masquerading as 'well intentioned' and prentending to promote the cause of justice for the victims of caste order, are the ones that need careful scrutiny.


AoC does not need any introduction 
Bojja Tharakam 

The 'we-are-doing-you-a-favour-by-writing-about-you' attitude is easily discernible to Dalits. People think it's rocket science or since they are casteist anyway they think Dalits are not capable of understanding this age old practice of appropriation. On this, Tharakam says,
Navayana claims that they are not casteists even though they are Brahmins. At this juncture, I feel whom are they fooling? Where is the necessity for S. Anand to say that I am a Brahmin but still I am praising Dr Ambedkar? I am getting Ambedkar to the people so I am doing a great service to untouchables. Being a Brahmin I am doing all these things. He wants to say all this only to please Dalits. 
Arundhati Roy wants to say the same thing probably. Because in the book she claims that she is a Syrian Christian. Where is the necessity to tell us that she is a Syrian Christian? Though I am a Syrian Christian I am praising Ambedkar, I am assessing Ambedkar in a great way...Arundhati Roy claims her Syrian Christian status, they are probably top among the Christians; probably, they are very upper caste; probably she is a Brahmin convert or her ancestors were Brahmin. So she wants to claim her genealogy - I am also a Brahmin upper caste but still I am writing about Dr Ambedkar, introducing Dr Ambedkar. Probably she wants to claim that by introducing Ambedkar she is doing great service to Ambedkar and Dalits. In fact, she has done great disservice to Ambedkar and Dalits by writing that preface.
In Arundhati Roy failed to grasp the significance of AoC
Dr K. Satyanarayana tells us what Dalits' reply to this attitude is.
To expect that just because Roy has written an introduction for AoC, we should be grateful and fall at her feet, that stage is gone. So now there is the next stage where we want the argument at that level; you have to treat us at that level. Now, you can no more get away by saying 'I have done this so you should be happy and thankful.' You have to rather throw away your introduction. You cannot get away by saying, "this is my introduction, and you write your own."
And in
Masked Messiahs: The Politics of Comparison,
Joby Mathew points out,
...In actual fact, a person like Arundhati criticizes Gandhi by using the foundation created by Ambedkarite movements...
The history of this book and its politics is explained here in
Stigmatizing Dalits, From the Wadas to the Web by
Nilesh Kumar
The thing I want to convey here is that we were the carriers of these texts [like AoC]. Much like the many Buddhist monks who carried the Buddhist texts to safety, to the East and other places, during the Brahmin invasion when they were either being burnt or destroyed by the invaders.
There are similarities between the two cases. We have a stake in it; we were the soldiers who pulled the movement's chariot, loaded with texts, forward.
In
A tactical, brahminical trick  ,
U. Sambashiva Rao says that,
But what we learn from the views expressed through various signals by Andhra Jyothi is that: whether in the pre-independence or in the post independence period, no one from the upper castes ever looked at Ambedkar positively; Arundhati Roy is the first one to do so, therefore they're hinting that we shouldn't look at her negatively.
A clear case of Brahmin benevolence. So kindly have they bestowed this 'favour' on dalits that they should not bear grudge and in fact be thankful.
I am not saying that if you belong to an upper caste in this country you should not talk about the tribals or the Dalits or the backwards or the poor. But caste is such a cunning system, and those castes which introduced this system in this society have not yet escaped from its framework. 
 And till that happens, can one speak of it, really?
...Moreover, they [Brahmins] become more famous than us by highlighting our contributions, contributions from dalit bahujan classes.

...She had analyzed tribal life; after she had done that, many people started praising her as a kind of authority on tribal life. Yes, she did offer some good analysis, but until the tribals themselves brought the issue of their autonomy and rights to the forefront, before anyone else - did any of us recognize it (their contribution) in this country?
In From Manusmriti to navayana Publishing: A history of appropriation,
Naren Bedide (Kuffir) stresses on why it is important that every single voice which is capable of doing it is raised regarding issues of appropriation. It has a history and he feels it should not be repeated. See here.
The first mistake the Bahujan did, one could say, the original sin of the Bahujan world, was to allow the Brahmin to enter into their little shrines - to control the worship of their holy stones, trees, serpents, whatever they considered sacred. They invited the Brahmin to come in with his mumbo jumbo. They allowed the Brahmin to introduce their gods to themselves. It started there. We can't allow that to happen again. 
In
The Brahmean Machine: Distorting Revolt into Surrender 
Shakyamuni says that,
It was the same machine that rendered Kabir toothless in the past. The act started with the very categorisation of what Kabir's life and words meant: what should have been called a revolt was wrongly and cunningly termed as Bhakti i.e. surrender. Kabir was mutilated by a Hindi-chauvinist Brahmin organisation, which was formed for Brahminising Hindi- interpolating it with, and ''purifying'' it, by sprinkling the Gangajal called Sanskrit on it. This happened in the 1890s under the leadership of a Punjabi Khatri, Babu Shyam Sundar Das, and a reactionary Brahmin, Ramchandra Shukla. To see how far their appropriation and distortion was institutionalized one must consider the fact that the Hindi-English Dictionary edited by the duo is accepted by American universities and the Government of India as standard and authoritative.
Dalit Hindi (a language that found voice among the lower caste viz. Ahirs – its old name was Ahiri Bhasha) or any other version of Hindi, was either erased or made impossible to continue. In a similar manner, the canonization and distortion of Kabir (the mutilated Kabir) disallowed any alternative reading. For example, they had substituted 'sunna' and 'shabda' with 'Rama' in the renditions of Kabir. This has been pointed out by Sadafal Guru, a Saint belonging to the Kabiric tradition, in his book 'Swarwed'.

The introduction of 'Rama', a strong and problematic Hindu symbol, into this tradition was very dangerous. This was tantamount to Brahminisation of Kabir. Furthermore, the very tradition of Sadafal Guru has been appropriated by his son and a certain Swantantra Dev ji Maharaj who organised hawanas and chanting of Vedas in the name of Kabir. How shocking to know that Kabir who was vehemently against Vedas and their nasty teachings was made a vehicle for propagating Vedic Karmakanda (rituals)! The Kabir Project of Linda Hess is also a product of the same ugly machine of appropriation. They all want to reduce Kabir to meaningless metaphysics.

The mutilated Kabir edited by the Punjabi Khatri, Babu Shyam Sundar Das, is prescribed in the syllabus of Hindi Literature in Civil Services exams conducted by UPSC. This was the clever tactic by which the monopoly of 'revised' 'Brahminised' texts, through which Brahmins inflict and maintain hegemony over entire knowledge systems, was ensured beyond any doubt. Would this also be the fate of Babasaheb's AoC as already pointed out in an earlier essay [The New Harijan Sewak Sangh by James Michael and Akshay Pathak].
The title in Round Table India is A Glass Menagerie for the Bahujans—Annihilation of Caste and Gandhi’s Wards ]
Taking further the example of Kabir, we must bear in mind that he was a revolutionary poet. The tampering and appropriation of his works transformed him into a spineless creature: a Bhakta (devotee). The Brahminist forces falsely reduced him to someone contemplating vacuous and obtuse rubbish on Brahma. The social resistance and struggle offered by the poet-revolutionary was erased from the collective memory of his caste peers and it was thus absent in the narratives of even Dalit history.
This is a harsh reality to face because when we Dalits try to reconstruct our own splintered history, our sources are often those managed, controlled and distorted by the Brahmins. Other sources of history are deliberately erased. They make it impossible to reclaim Dalit history by creating a certain mythology around the Dalit personality. A total closure of history is effected by them through this mythologizing and 'fixation' of meaning. Text is no more the infinite play of meaning in the Brahminised world. Apart from that they play around with the narrative too. For example they made a prince out of Buddha who was otherwise a citizen of the republic of Shakyas. Or they made Kabir the illicit son of a Brahmin ''saint'' (not doctor?) Ramananda while in fact Kabir was the son of lower caste parents- Niru and Nima.

In this connection it is not misplaced to recall the hypocrisy of the arrogant Arundhati Roy (hereafter referred to as AR). AR declined the offer to make her debut (and only) novel, The God Of Small Things, into a film citing her reservations against the danger of 'fixing' the meaning etc., in the cinematic interpretation of the story. The same AR, however, is ruthless and adamant on 'fixing' the meanings of AoC through so-called critical 'annotations' and creating a hyper-reality by mapping AoC into a preface longer than the book itself. It is like making a map of Puducherry3 which is bigger in area than Puducherry itself. One would wonder how is that a problem? First of all, this map which involves magnifying the text and its meanings is 'justified' by them under the dubious pretext of making it 'visible' (touchable? cf. commentary named 'Touchable Tales' by Navayana) to the elite Hindu-Brahmin and white audiences. But actually this misdemeanour not only reduces AoC but also severely disfigures it, destroys its totality.
By production of Brahminism, I mean its development, sustenance, reproduction and perpetuation. Despite the false claims around cultural studies, the production in the culture industry in India, which is usurped and managed by the Brahmin, has been left unanalysed. One sees that even in how they have dubbed any Dalit resistance (even the one to this latest AA project) into Identity politics, while they cleverly refuse to see any identity politics in how the savarnas hold on to their positions of power in media, academia, publishing etc.
Not only is the Brahmin politics made clandestine by dint of this hegemony over knowledge but the very Brahmin hegemony over production and reproduction of knowledge and knowledge systems is intentionally obscured.
One of the many eye openers was how knowledge and its control is important in any discourse. In

From Manusmriti to navayana Publishing: A history of appropriation 
Naren Bedide (Kuffir) we see, 
...this is about knowledge which is produced and mediated by a certain kind of worldview which is supposed to favour some sections of people and go against certain other sections of people. Control of knowledge is very important. If control of knowledge was not important, Ambedkar would not have said Educate (from his advice: Educate, Agitate, Organize), the first point is to Educate. And this is what the Roy-Navayana project is attemting to do: control Dalitbahujan knowledge, to mediate it, to manipulate it. 
In
A Tale of two Prefaces,
Karthick RM
says, about knowledge and caste privilege
...The superiority of the Brahmin is not just based on economic powerthat can change with fortunes. It is also not just a weak pseudo-science argument of race superiority. It rests largely on the Brahmin's power over definition, to determine good and evil, social and anti-social, clean and unclean, high and low, acceptable and unacceptable, interpretation and misinterpretation. It is the Brahmin's power over the Word, over knowledge and over meaning.

I found the following argument very valid. Again, it was an aspect i had not thought of at all. 
...You say, 'Arundhati Roy has written, let her write. What is your problem?' If Arundhati Roy has written, in a scenario where 98% of faculty in central universities are Savarna-Brahmin - who are the faculty going to teach and read in the classroom? Ambedkar or Arundhati Roy? They will segregate the original AoC from that book. It will be purely Arundhati Roy, portrayed as being in the forefront in the struggle against caste, which Ambedkar had actually waged, which Phule had waged, Nanak had waged, Kabir had waged, which Buddha had started, which the Charvakas had inspired.
In connection with this, we should also look at how criticism of this book was received by the spaces and media controlled by savarnas.
...the Telugu media, which is contractor media, is standing up for this book. And we see the Times of India, which is corporate media, standing up for this book. And we also see universities and scholars from across India and Europe, America, savarna scholars, standing up for this book, abusing us, calling us all kinds of names, on the site and social media. Because the social media is the only social media for Dalit-Bahujan, there is no other social media for dalit Bahujan outside the virtual media, all spaces are anti-social spaces for us, let us be clear about that. They have been calling us all kinds of names, that is also there, that is one structural aspect wherein they are springing up to defend Roy.
In the following portion from Vedic Chants for the 21st Century, a collection of responses to the criticism of Roy's introduction, we can see what exactly he is speaking about. Here for instance,
Of course I've several issues. Also with how the entire 'debate' is being conducted online-where AR and I are being held responsible for all rapes, murders of Dalits.
-S. Anand, Publisher, Navayana.
What a reply. Sounds so similar to Roy who puts 'research' in quotes while replying Dalit Camera. [Can see it in the excerpt after this one] Why does he think 'debate' should be in quotes? Is it because it is not happening in one of those book launches and online, a space which he utters with contempt? is it a coincidence that this contempt is directed towards the only media which Dalits consider free of anto-social elements? The portion about rapes and murders of Dalits is where the man totally gave it away. Caste simply does not disappear, you see, if Dalits question savarna logic they reply by saying that Dalits are making a mountain out of a molehill. Dalits say appropriation and he reads rape. I have not seen a greater trivialization of rape, murder and Dalit voices all in one sentence. Well done, Anand. 

In The New Harijan Sewak Sangh,
James Michael and Akshay Pathak 
highlight another aspect of these attempts to belittle social media. Repeated attempts for the same further confirms the fact that it remains the only space which is not anti-social for Dalits. From Arundhati Roy herself comes this bit
Ms Roy, continuing with her Gandhian patronisation, asked everyone to 'keep a cool head', for the Internet, she insisted was an 'insult machine'. She chose to pay little attention to the fact that the social media give scores of Bahujans the choice and freedome to cut through the mesh of segregation that had so far kept them away from the very castles that were built for the privileged by them. Social media, in a sense, enables a very modern form and space for 'Direct Action' that Babasaheb had advocated. Perhaps the criticisms posed by the lower castes could be looked down upon as the schadenfreude' or the 'clicktivists'. But, as is evident by now, the 'insult machine' has managed to expose the insincerity and hollowness of the perpetrators of this bizarre exercise.
Michael and Pathak  say, quite correctly, that
...In short, they do not just appropriate a text, they Brahminise it.
...The process involves containing a text that has been floating freely and widely and was enabling the ongoing struggles of the Bahujans against the tyranny of caste by incarcerating and monetising it, adding 'value' by way of 'research'. And this 'value-addition' also tries surreptitiously to canonise the incarcerated version of the text, even as the original falls by the wayside and is forgotten. This becomes clear in the introduction itself, where, by the time the reader reaches page 4, the footnote (No.5) boldly declares the forceful pulling out of AoC from the seminal government published Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches (BAWS) and placing the Navayana edition as the source to be referred to 'henceforth'. The usurpation is completed with the new stamp of authority.
In here, we also find the history of Navayana
...Although the publication was jointly started by Mr Iyengar and Dalit politician Ravikumar in 2003, the latter seems to have become more involved in politics since 2006, when he joined Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, a Dalit political party based in Tamil Nadu. Navayana has been an Iyengar show ever since.
I had tried reading The Myth of the Holy Cow once or twice. It is when i read this article that i realized it was a Navayana publication as well. I could never read much of the book written by D.N.Jha because i disagree with his approach. The approach is that of saying that beef eating was quite common during vedic period also and it is silly for the right wing to now argue that it is a sacred animal. I do not think this is the way to approach the problem. What if people worshipped cow during vedic period as well? Is it right to do what is being done in this country in the name of deference to the cow god? Also it had a lot of Sanskrit names and phrases in italics and it turns me off immediately as a reader who don't understand the point of Sanskrit at all. So i was quite happy to realise that my doubts about that book weren't misplaced. Here is another part of Navayana's history

Navayana seemed to have perfected this technique in its earlier attempts to repackage Babasaheb's thoughts. The exemplar in this case is The Myth of the Holy Cow by D.N. Jha, which was republished by Navayana in 2009, with an additional material appended to it-- 'B.R. Ambedkar on Beef-eating and Untouchability'. Whereas he mentions several works by scholars including Rajendralal Mitra's 1881 work on the same, among others, Mr Jha neither credits Dr Ambedkar nor cites him anywhere, not even in the bibliography. We would not be suprised if the book, which is on politics of beef-eating in India, would make one think that itis Mr Jha who discovered the politics of myth-making around the holy cow or that the Brahmins used to eat cow meat during Vedictimes, and completely (deliberately?) ignoring and erasing extensive research on the topic done by Dr Ambedkar
This obsession with the vedic age is a very brahmin concept. It is like when confronting pope's stance against abortion you running to the bible to see if there is any portion which says that abortion is okay. Chanced upon this in Big Bazar the other day. 

Vedic Tea. Photographed by Gaurav Puri
We know that there is a brand called 'Brahmin's' for cooking ingredients etc. I am waiting for the day they will change all these names to sanskrit script, that dead language which only brahmins could learn. 

No, it's not over. 
Joe D'Cruz on saviors and censors
An interview by Kadhiravan
throws light into another incident which happened to the renowned Tamil writer who has been interviewed. He explains the injustice meted out to him thus:
V.Geetha is talented and has clarity in her understanding of society. She was the one who introduced Navayana to me and told me that S. Anand would do his best to promote my book. I went to Delhi for some work and got to meet Anand there. At the very first instance he commented that, "It is not that great a work (referring to the novel) and I can give you a maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees. I can arrange for five to six reviews and you will get five copies of the (translated version) book. This is the best I can do for you." This was the offer. 
Dare anyone say they can't see the violence in this. Later they refused to publish him because he supported Modi in on social media. As if what they themselves have been doing is completely different from Modi's politics. The author explains further,
This is all about politics. One the one hand, they would have a Modi sympathiser in their ranks, and on the other, they would employ the discourse around Modi to silence people like me.
James Michael and Akshay Pathak also effectively dispel some of the key arguments of Roy supporters
The argument that AoC was originally written for a 'caste Hindu' audience is flawed, for it ignores the most crucial fact that it was to be delivered by an 'Untouchable'. Moreover, it inadvertantly places Arundhati Roy and Babasaheb on a common platform which is unacceptable on moral, intellectual, and political grounds. Let us also not forget that his speech was not delievered, because Babasaheb refused to alter his speech to make it palatable to caste Hindus. In fact, the very act of re-packaging and monetising a text under the pretext of getting it across to newer and ignorant readers defies the original spirit in which it was to be delivered. It is as if, 80 years down the line, the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal has risen like a phoenix to avenge Babasaheb's refusal to change even a comma of the original document, by siezing and manipulating the text, and making it malleable to their demands.
Look at what another one of Roy supporters says about the issue. You can see this in Vedic Chants for the 21st Century.
...it is great time for an authentic deghettoisation of Ambedkar to happen. Not one that would santitize Ambedkar and downplay his criticism in order to make him fit to the nationalist vulgate, but one that really engages with his critique seriously in order for a revolution of thought to happen. So we definitely need more Arundhatis, Perry Andersons and Navayanas!...
The Dalit movement has developed a ghettoized culture, and certain stakes in it, precisely because of the historical experience of the harm done by false friends like Gandhi... Nicolas Jauol, Anthropologist
Can someone please tell me what he means by deghettoization? Ambedkar should be taken from the ghettos and should be integrated to mainstream. Seriously? Am i reading it right? Did he actually say that? Well then we will have to go to basics. If your uppercaste eyes see Ambedkar as belonging to a ghetto, his literature being ghettoized then you are the one who should go to the ghetto and learn what he has to say. It is not deghettoization of Ambedkar that is needed, it is your ghettoization. And no, it is not more Arundhatis that we need, it is more Ambedkars. An Ambedkar to every ghetto. You feel the need to deghettoize because you think a ghetto is not a place for intellectual talk to be done. That is your problem and you deal with it. Dalits have better things to do than to spoon-feed you on politics. 

The part where the hollowness of in Roy's arguments became apparent was the exchange she had with Dalit Camera. I found her reply inadequate and unconvincing. You can see the questions here. Her answer can be found here. In it she says,
Have I 'researched' Dalit history? Have I been part of Dalit movements? Do I consider myself an authority on Ambedkar? Do I think Dalit scholars are better placed to write an introduction to Annihilation of Caste? How can any non-Dalit be part of a Dalit movement when you will not even concede that they have the right to engage with Ambedkar? On the subject of my engagement with caste, my past work as well as this introduction may contain the answer. I am not a Dalit, I am not a Hindu, and I am not an authority on Ambedkar, though I have, unlike many people, including many Dalits, taken the trouble to read him
There you have it. However much you try to hide it under to garb of intellectual jargon, in plain english language it peeps out. Every sentence in this reply is an account of how much ingrained is casteism in an individual of india. Writer/activist or not. 'Researched' in quotes. Why? Does she think it is not a valid question? Does she think that it is silly because for a person like her 'research' is not required to write on any topic or does it mean that it is not required to write on Ambedkar? How can any non-Dalit engage with Ambedkar? I just finished reading this collection of criticism on her introduction. I have not seen anybody ever saying that a savarna cannot engage with Ambedkar. It is the appropriation of Ambedkar that is being questioned and it is impossible that someone like Roy who has excellent command over english language can mistake it for anything else. She says that the answer lies in her past work and her introduction. I have not found any testimony of her engagement with caste in her past work. What is she talking about or am i wrong? Is everyone who points this out wrong too? Take a look at this question from Nilesh Kumar
 ...Among the several issues being raised in the protests, an important and crucial one is the non-engagement of the celebrity writer with the anti-caste movement
...During the period when Roy's career as a writer surged ahead, the country witnessed quite a few momentous anti-caste struggles - for example, the protests against the Khairlanji massacre that kept Maharashtra burning in a prolonged battle for justice. This massacre and protests did not happen in some distant past but in 2006, they occurred when Ms Roy was well known as an activist in the global arena. These protests do appear in her introduction to the AoC, but where was the voice of the introducer during these protests?...
Her phenomenal global research was never extended towards any Dalit struggles; no article of her appeared anywhere to show solidarity with the Dalits and draw the world's attention to them. This lack of engagement with anti-caste struggles forms the core of the questions the Dalits wanted to raise. And in response to their critical questions they are being pathologized by the publisher, members of the academia and their friends.
Does she have any answers to this?  
And the most attractive sentence. What arrogance Ms Roy! Unlike many people including Dalits, she says she has 'taken the trouble' to read Ambedkar. Applause. Does she really think she has any right to point fingers at Dalits and what they have read or not read? Does she realize the arrogance and belittling attitude in the sentence of taking the trouble to read Ambedkar? Of course she does. She just didn't think it needed any sugarcoating. The same attitude is repeated in the following portion as well.
You say I patronize Ambedkar? I find that offensive. Why would I spend so much time reading what he wrote, and writing this introduction, just in order to patronize him? 
If she was earnest in her approach she would never have been able to write this way, making it sound as though her reading Ambedkar and studying him was a favour done to Ambedkar. It is, a favour done to herself. And by writing the introduction which also she clearly thinks is a favour from the above quote, she had only proved that her knowledge of Ambedkar is inadequate. So all the 'trouble' she took is in vain. She definitely has to read him again, prepare notes and study him. Not as a favour to Ambedkar or Dalits, as a favour to herself, to rid her of the phantom of caste.
Everything i felt about this has been said effectively in
The Not-So-Intimate Enemy: The Loss and Erasure of the Self Under Casteism
by Gee Imaan Semmalar
If for 80 years, savarna readership has ignored this treatise written against them by the greatest leader of modern India, the first law minister of independent India, the man behind drafting the Constitution, political thinker par excellence, awe inspiring social commentator, passionate learner and teacher of the masses for the sole reason that he was dalit, the loss is theirs. They needn't "take the trouble", like Roy hasm to read him. They also needn't take the trouble to make use of any of their constitutional rights either, since the constitution was also drafted by the same leader whose texts are untouchable to you without savarna mediation.
Really, if Arundhati Roy really thinks she took "the trouble" to read him, I wish she hadn't. She doesn't have the humility, the political sense to realise she has done nobody but herself a favour by reading him. The fact that she arrogantly says she has "taken the trouble" to read him amounts to glorification of her own privilege and is casteist. Though, how much of him she has understood, is unfortunately, questionable. For someone who has such a control over the English language, this is surprising. So it is something else that makes her misquote and isunderstand what Babasaheb has said. She misquotes Dr. Ambedkar who talked about the graded nature of inequality of the caste system, only to erase her own position and give herself legitimacy.  
Hatred in the belly
Joopaka Subhadra 

Felt happy seeing that the title of the book had come from this piece. There is a portion in this one that i have a different opinion about.
She further says, about Gandhi, can we say, only Gujarati banias should write about Gandhi? Gandhi has to be owned by everyone, right? She claims, the Hindu society in India doesn't know how Gandhi suppressed Ambedkar, I am revealing that, as no one else has done it. She says this very proudly. Who does not know this? Everyone knows how Gandhi suppressed Ambedkar. 
This is not true. Yes, i understand the argument. In my opinion, the truth is a little different. How Gandhi suppressed Ambedkar is very clear within the Dalit discourse. Privileged people never knew of it nor try to know of it. Again this is their shortcoming. Arundhati Roy's argument is that she was trying to educate these privileged people on the suppression of Ambedkar by Gandhi. The problem is that introduction to AoC is not where it should have been done. If an author had to do it, it would have been the topic of an essay. The author in question has penned excellent essays on many issues. She did not feel the need to educate the privileged people in any of those. [Even this is upper caste snobbery. To learn Ambedkar you should venture out yourself because it is your need. But the privileged are used to spoon-feeding.] So of Arundhati Roy felt the need to spoon-feed upper caste privileged ignorant people, she should have done it in one of her independent essays and not in an introduction to a seminal work by a Dalit leader.

But i think the befitting reply to Roy's argument is given by Semmalar
She should know better than to ask Dalit Camera what they would do if tomo0rrow Gujarati banias say only they can write about Gandhi. Why would Ambedkarites care if banias write or do not write about Gandhi? What a twisted reversal of the question to make a mockery out of identity politics. It sounds suspiciously like the reverse racism argument made by white people when called out on being racist or occupying space that is not theirs. Why don't we ask this question instead - why didn't you do a comparative analysis between Gandhi and Dr Ambedkar and expose "the saint" in an introduction to Hind Swaraj? Nobody disagrees that it is politically important to expose the misogyny, casteism, racism etc of Gandhi's positions to the world. But that could have been done in so many ways other than angering the very sections you claim to stand in solidarity with. "What if Mahars say that their understanding of Ambedkar is more authentic and more radical than that of other Dalits", she asks. Dalits have read, translated, enacted plays on, sung about and followed Babasaheb Ambedkar's ideals for several decades now, I seriously doubt if tomorrow they would make stupefying, jaw dropping arguments like the one only Roy seems capable of making!
Also by Michael and Pathak here:
Although everybody gets to interpret AoC, only a certain somebody gets the privilege to be heard, as the mass media choose to listen only if the enunciator happens to be a savarna who can dip into her privilege-pickle-bottle network at will. This automatic transition from everybody, who has the 'right' to publish and speak, to a certain somebody, who has the 'wherewithal' to command a premium audience, and rub shoulders with the powers that be, is not incidental.
So it's like this: Arundhati Roy will be heard, always. Dalits have to fight to be heard. Now what arrogance is this to attach one's writing which will anyway be heard to a text which has to be fought to be heard. Further consider it an act of kindness and unabashedly proclaim it. The essence of the Dalit fight is being usurped by somebody who has never had to fight as a Dalit. 

Resisting a messiah
Anoop Kumar

I just said that Arundhati Roy could have spoon-fed the upper caste privileged readers in her independent essays if she wanted to. The shameful fact about this is that it makes it very clear how the upper caste logic is always that it is the world's need to keep them informed about everything even when they are knee deep in information possessed and controlled by them. On top of that the question that 'can only Dalits write about Ambedkar?' is asked. Writing an introduction to Ambedkar's book is not writing about Ambedkar. Look at this portion in which it is explained well.
Closely related to what she [Roy] represents to us is another issue of the whole politics of her introducing Ambedkar's seminal text to the world, to upper castes, to western world as has been continuously professed by her publisher and his friends - both desis and whites- telling me in no uncertain terms that this publication is actually not meant for me, for Dalits, for all those who "know their Ambedkar" but for upper castes who have refused to read him and for western academia who are yet to discover Ambedkar
You (Roy) introducing him will make them all read more about Ambedkar, they say.


And they are accusing me of wrongly calling you a messiah!
Nilesh Kumar further explains how flawed this argument is

Similar to the white people claiming reverse racist discrimination by African Americans, it is a logical fallacy to even think that Dalits can discriminate or can 'stop' any savarnas from writing on Dalits or Ambedkar; being marginalized they can't raise their voice against the dominant on a level platform. Dalits have remained a 'subject' of study or research for savarnas. Dalits don't have the institutional power to oppress them. An individual Dalit abusing a savarna can be wrong because of his personal prejudice, but that cannot be equated to reverse discrimination. Racist and casteist discrimination is enabled by the combination of prejudice and power at all levels. The processes of discrimination are possible only for the privileged and not the underprivileged.
Adding to this, i shall also point out why my argument about writing for uppercaste privileged people is also lame. See here in
Caste in the name of Christ: An angry note on the Syrian Christian Caste
Nidhin Shobhana
the author says,

...Christianity should be seen as a mere influence/variable on the bedrock called caste). 
In Tiru Kochi, until the early decades of the 20th century, if grains and oil were to be brought to a Namboothiri household by the lower castes, it had to travel through Syrian Christian household. The traditional role od purification continues in the case of this introduction. An upper caste audience can consume a self-sufficient radical text only when a Syrian Christian performs the caste ordained purification ritual. Since they have the knowledge of the world of trade, they would even market the text. This process is dangerous.
Arundhati Roy failed to grasp the significance of AoC
Dr K. Satyanarayana


In one of her [Roy's] replies, she says that, "Annihilation of Caste got published in so many newspapers." What has been circulated in many newspapers? Excerpts from the introduction written by you and nothing from  Annihilation of Caste. Not even a single paragraph. Is this not because of the fact that you are a famous writer hailing from a Malayali Syrian Christian background with certain kind of inherited access to privileges? Do you not know that the space that you occupy in the media is not available to any Dalits? While for Dalits their opinions there are only these alternative social media forums as no space is provided to them in the mainstream media platforms.
The other point is that, if today you want to write about Ambedkar then there are already a number of scholars who have researched about him. One could compare with this, say, if today you want to write an anthology of feminist literature, would you go to a prominent male person and ask him to write an anthology for women? If you were to look into the history of Black thought, who would you go to? Would you not be going to a black intellectual? This is such a simple question, yet they do not understand this
In Between Saviour and Seller: Critiquing Preface Politics by
Praveena Thaali are some important comments on this attitude of Roy.
Though Dalits are fully capable of articulating their subjectivity, Arundhati Roy believes 'history has been unkind to Ambedkar and that consequently his books are not shining in the bookshelves unlike Nehru's and Gandhi's. In other words, Arundhati's upper caste motherly sympathy operates to undertake a mission to deliver Ambedkar to the unreached, and to 'fill the gap' or 'bridge the gap'.It is this messiah consciousness (as Anoop Kumar has observed in his essay 'Resisting a Messiah', also featured in this book) thatmade Arundhati Roy take on an hegemonic saviour role whith the mission of introducing AoC and Ambedkar to the Indians 'schooled differently'. However, if she wants to 'de-school' Indians with her non-practicing caste ideology, shouldn't she start with herself?
In A Tale of two Prefaces
Karthick RM
after comparing Sartre's preface to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth the author says,
Now let us turn to a book that can rightfully be called a Bible, a manifesto of liberation, for the Dalits and the other oppressed castes in India - Babasaheb Ambedkar's "Annihilation of Caste". Is there any indication anywhere in "Annihilation of Caste" that he wanted a Brahmin publishing house and upper-caste intelligentsia to frame how he should be read? Is there any indication anywhere in any of Ambedkar's works that he wanted upper castes to assist in interpreting him?
...It is as though they are responding "Ooh, we understand and sympathize with your lived experience but we are trying to help you with our knowledge." This seems to be a way of saying: "knowledge still belongs to us, but you guys can only talk from experience." Sorry to disappoint you friends. Ambedkar's critique of caste was not based on lived experiences alone but rather was and is one of the most rigorous theoretical analysis of a social system of oppression that has confounded and condemned the oppressed for millenia. And likewise, the Dalits and lower castes who are "claiming Ambedkar for themselves" are not doing so based on their lived experiences alone, but also because of a thirst for emancipatory knowledge by challenging the epistemological privilege that Brahmins have enjoyed for ages.
In
A Rescue Project Initiated by the Oppressors
Huma Dar
says,
It [Navayana's decision of Roy's introduction] assumes that there was no better intellectual, with a strong record of engagement, available to write an introduction from amongst the Dalit-Bahujan.
Does Arundhati have any other qualification than her stardom?
Sunny Kapicadu interviewed by Dr. O. K. Santhosh

Sunny Kapicadu says, in this interview,
...One of the shortcomings of Arundhati Roy's introduction is that it is ignorant of the anti-caste crusades that have been initiated by Dalits...In AoC, Ambedkar asks why is it that India's savarnas, or the Brahminical system, instead of confronting caste, are posing obstacles to activities aimed at annihilating caste?
 He says that Roy has not spoken about this aspect at all. Also adds that
...if Arundhati is writing a foreword to a book which deals with issues such as this, we expect new interpretations about caste and observations that matter to the present. However, this foreword does not do that but ends up doing certain other things.
Another important aspect of appropriation is pointed out by Kuffir
...The annotation part is supposedly looked as a harmless aspect of this book, but this is the most dangerous aspect in my view. Because one of the writers, actually a couple of our writers, both non-Dalits - they pointed out that out of the 160 or so bibliographical references in that book, around 150 were non-Dalits, there were only 10 or so Dalits and two or three OBCs, out of which Dr Iliah was one I thimk, and there was G Aloysius also. So this is the most dangerous aspect wherein if you want to know about caste - being from a Dalit or an OBC background - you still have to go back and refer to a Savarna text to learn what caste is about. This is the most dangerous aspect. To know about our lives we have to go back to the brahmin and ask him again, is this our life?
Arguments/ Highlights on annihilation of caste and caste.

This is not Babasaheb's Annihilation of Caste
Suresh Mane

The author quotes Kanshi Ram's speech which was delivered at the first international convention at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
...so long as caste is beneficial to the upper castes, it will never be annihilated. The day on which caste will become a liability to the upper castes, they will say, hands off, bye bye. And that will be the beginning of caste's annihilation...

 Let it [caste] be proved as a disaster to the protectors and they will say bye bye to caste. Those stages are coming, slowly, it may take time, but annihilation of caste is possible. The only thing is that you shouldn't try to annihilate the very author of AoC instead.
Sunny Kapicadu says,
...Ambedkar concludes that it is quite difficult to eradicate caste. He says that as long as Brahmins maintain their intellectual dominance, these difficulties would not end. He points this as one of the important reasons why caste cannot be eradicated.
Kuffir says,

Caste is the mode of production in India. This is a caste economy. This is a caste society. 90% of Bahujan are even now engaged in under-capitalized, traditional occupations. That is how your food is produced, your sarees and shirts and everything else is produced. Your jewelry is produced by artisans who are dying. Your fish, whatever fancy names you give and order in posh hotels paying 2000 rs for two pieces, is produced by fishermen who are dying, who are being driven out of their homes...
As he [Ambedkar] said there is no difference between a secular/liberal brahmin and a priestly brahmin. They are essentially the same. Because you can't be a liberal and a brahmin. That is an oxymoron
Babasaheb Ambedkar, speech delivered at the Bombay Presidencly Mahar Conference, 31st May 1936.
Why then do the caste Hindus get irritated? The reason for their anger is very simple. Your behaviour with them on a par insults them. Your status is low. You are impure, you must remain at the lowest rung; and then alone they will allow you to live happily. The moment you cross your level, the struggle starts.
So much like patriarchy. 
Praveena Thaali draws parallels between oppression of Dalit women's writing by upper caste women,
We saw a similar process of 'prefacing' at work in the upper caste feminists' collective's introduction to the Intersections of Gender and Caste, the EPW issue (May 2013) on the Review of  Women Studies, featuring the writings of various Dalit women. Similarly they believe that, whatever knowledge is produced by Dalits needs to have a cover, a framework or flavour from the 'authentic' knowledge makers among the upper castes. 
On the greater problem of untouchability she quotes Ambedkar
...a crucial point, which Ambedkar had already raised about those who wish to 'liberate' the untouchables before they liberate themselves:
"It is usual to hear all those who feel moved by the deplorable condition of the Untouchables unburden themselves by uttering the cry "We must do something for the Untouchables". One seldom hears any of the persons interested in the problem saying 'Let us do something to change the Touchable Hindu'. It is invariably assumed that the object to be reclaimed is the Untouchables. If there is to be a Mission it must be to the Untouchables and if the Untouchables can be cured, untouchablility will vanish. Nothing requires to be done to the Touchable. He is sound in mind, manners and morals. He is whole, there is nothing wrong with him. Is this assumption correct? Whether correct or not, the Hindus like to cling to it. The assumption has the supreme merit of satisfying themselves that they are not resposible for the problem of the Untouchables".
She also speaks of one important right of Dalits which nobody considers a right and on the contrary calls an 'overreaction'. I know only of reactions. Yet to understand what an overreaction is. See here. 
Dalits, as a community are being humiliated by the bitterness of casteism and they have the right to be doubtful about the interference of upper caste reformers/liberators in their dscourses, even if the latter have genuine intentions. [Emphasis added by me] Any reformer can be sympathetic to Dalits and even to Ambedkar in order to patronize them. However, the politicized readers know the history of publishing and circulation of Ambedkar's writings and speeches all over India. The book Annihilation of Caste has been read by millions of people without any introduction by any upper caste messiah. Therefore, any reformist manoeuvres, which advocate for the greatness of Ambedkar in the name of charity and loyalty must be condemned
I completely agree with the following observation about privileged caste writers. 
It is unfortunate that people who are privileged by caste never talk about how they are engaged with it from their childhood itself, instead they just want to interpret lowe caste people's experiences to declare their solidarity with them.
A quote:
Do not allow those that have historically oppressed and continue to oppress you today to define your history, reality and interests for you. To say this is not rocket science. Nor is it racist. It is just common sense.
-Runoko Rashidi
It is while reading Michael and Pathak that i was able to put into words something that every one of us should realize, that caste is the capital you are born with. Like how some are born rich and some poor, caste is something you don't acquire, it is that which you inherit. See here:
Caste privilege does not begin at ground zero; neither is it a zero-sum game. As a social capital, it defines a subject's identity at the very moment of her birth--the very act of naming the subject, with various privileged surnames such as Roy, Iyengar, Menon, Cherian, Chacko, Syed, Pathak, Sharma etc., is just a socially visible confirmation of this capital accrued at birth. The communitarian aspect to this understanding of caste means that the subject is not an autonomous individual, but part of a community that is hierarchically up in the order vis-a-vis the castes on the lower rung 
Something which i was not aware of, 
A strong example of such segregation and subsequent usurpation of the capital of lower castes is that of Bharata Natyam. As is known, in its earlier avatar the dance form was known as 'Sadir' or 'Dasiattam', performed by Devadasis, who were lower caste women 'dedicated' to a temple. Subsequently, in the early 20th century, members of the Brahmin varna such as Rukmini Devi Arundale and E. Krishna Iyer became instrumental in 'reviving' and 'purifying' the art, which is now closely identified with Brahmins. Similarly the anti-Brahmin 'Bhakti' movement contributed to the many traditions, including that of keertana, which congealed to form the present-day genre of Carnatic Music. However, Carnatic Music is now emphatically identified with the Brahmins, as if they are the sole heirs and proprietors of the art form. 
One should also remember that all of the musical instruments that constitute the ensemble of a Carnatic music performance are made by the lower castes. Cowhide is a major component of many temple-based musical instruments such as mrudangam, chenda, idayka, pakhawaj, dholak etc., and communities that work with the remains of a dead cow or eat beef are historically considered to be the lowest in the caste hierarchy. Similar is the fate of hundreds of thousands of artisans, craftsmen, and weavers who design and produce Kancheepuram or Pochampalli or Banarasi sarees that adorn savarna bodies, or artists and stone masons who construct the temples populated by the savarna masses. The Bahujans are reduced to types that constitute a menagerie called 'bharat', constructed after the imagination of the 'twice-born'.
Huma Dar says,

...it would make for an amusing exercise to note how frequently this charge of "identity politics" is bandied around by members of the most dominant groups whose privilege resides precisely in being able to remain unmarked by their "identities," if they so wish; whose identities are secure and prioritized; and most importantly, whose power is strong, pervasive, and invisible to themselves. It's like men who whine about not having an "international men's day," or whote folks about not having a "white history month," or "upper-caste" elite Indians who castigate Kashmiris for their 'nationalistic" fervour and call them "intoxicated-by-Azadi," and other such inanities.
For me it is easier to understand when the logic is applied to patriarchy, something which i, as a woman, have to deal with every day. So i have understood that people who say 'why do you want to bring caste into this' are able to say that only because they are privileged. For them caste never mattered because they were not at the receiving end of its oppression. 

Joby Mathew says,

...Interestingly, many of the dominant caste intellectuals refer to 'scavenging' to explain the brutality of caste. Though Roy criticizes Gandhi's concept of the 'ideal Bhangi', she end up underlining the imagery of scavenging. It has been argued thatif any intellectual wants to empathize the pathetic condition of Dalits through these derogatory images, that itself amounts to symbolic violence.
...In reality, comparisons between the contributions of Dalit-subaltern leaders and Gandhi are unnecessary, because the Dalit movement never used Gandhi as a metaphor to read Ambedkar.
In The battle against caste is not just some ideology, it's our existence,
Gaurav Somwanshi
speaks on a very important topic. The author wonders why, books which are read widely by Dalits and are always on demand, are never published by the savarna publishers. The answer he gets is this:
..."Why should they? Aren't you wrong in expecting our liberation to come from them? I'm always surprised when they do publish us. What makes a Dalit publisher a Dalit publisher is not his caste, but the fact that he's in the publishing field to make sure Babasaheb's thoughts and ideas are never lost. That is most crucial. A Dalit publisher is there to ensure that the Dalit voices do get published, irrespective of the market demand. There are also a couple of savarna publishers who do publish some of our work. Butnotice their medthod and motive. They will take only the few big established names from the Dalits, and publish them at high prices and the demand among the Dalits will ensure that their books are bought and their pockets filled, plus they also get to call themselves 'progressives'. But that is not anti-caste struggle."
The author also says that the anti-caste movement 'has always been about preserving them [ideas of Dalits] without loss or distortion.' He quotes Ambedkar "Lost rights are never regained by begging, and by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggle." Somwanshi continues in his essay which is one i liked a lot in this collection that,
Today, the savarna world's doors are closed and its shutters down. And if these shutters open at all, they're only open somewhat halfway, so that we Dalits must bend our spine to stoop and enter, because sometimes that's the only way the savarnas will allow us to come in front of them. But as the title of a chapter I learned in school said, 'moden pan vaankar naahi', "we'll break but won't bend".
Disagreements/ Further reading

Suresh Mane says,
Further she says, "Constitution has limitation with respect to revolution." Arre, even the Soviet Union had to make a constitution after their revolution. This is not your area. For this, dedicated scholarship is needed, learning is needed. After reading newspapers, watching television and writing a story while sitting in an airplane, you call it authentic scholarly work? It is foolish. This is a mockery.
I feel the attack is personal. If the statement had to be opposed it could have been but i don't think anybody can comment how a writer had written unless they know it personally. Nobody knows how Roy wrote anything she wrote. I don't think anybody has the right to tell anybody what their area is. Dedicated scholarship and learning are also achievable things by anybody in fact.

Personal Note: Look up this quote for later.
Ambedkar has described Gandhi as not only a saint but as a political saint. The adjective is there. That adjective this lady has cleverly removed. He called him a political saint. The title should have been very clear, The Doctor and the Political Saint. She removes the word political. 
After AoC was published, Gandhi felt bad, and in his Harijan magazine in 1936, he wrote in an issue that 'Ambedkar is not a man who will easily be allowed to be forgotten.' He made this accusation. Ambedkar responded to that. In 1936, Gandhi was an established leader, Babasaheb was not as well established as he was in 1946 or 50 or 55. This was 1936. So the book Annihilation of Caste is not about Gandhi, kindly remove such a view, if held by some youngsters who have not read the original book.
Personal Note: Belonging to the group mentioned in the last line, read up.

Kuffir says,

In the same 2001 interview so ironically titled as 'The Colonization of Knowledge', she [Arundhati Roy] talks about her arrest when she participated in a protest against the Maheswar dam: 'They arrested thousands of people, including me. They dumped me in a private car that belonged to S. Kumars. It was so humiating. The jails were full. Because I was there at that time, there was a lot of press and less violence than usual. But people have captured the Maheshwar dam site so many times before, and it doesn't even make it to the news.'

There have been many translations and reprints of the Annihilation of Caste before, but because she wasn't there, the press didn't notice, probably. It is quite clear she is very aware of her caste capital, about how it makes the state and society treat her different from the hoi polloi.
I felt that this was extrapolation. What i understood from what she wrote about the dam protest was that she was unhappy of her privilege and was using that to point fingers at how media makes invisible people's protests unless there is a popular figure like her over there. Yes, it means that she is aware of her caste capital and how the is treated differently because of it but i don't see how it means that she thinks of it as an achievement. In AoC context may be it is true, her introduction should definitely be subjected to this criticism but does it hold true for all of her political acts? I disagree.

Introducing Arundhati Roy and Friends
Karthik Navayan
People like Arundhati Roy have taken 80 years to read Dr B.R. Ambedkar's Annihilation of caste.  
Guilty here
Read: No Alphabet in Sight: New Dalit Writing from South India, Susie Tharu and K. Satyanarayana
Watch: bandit Queen 

Michael and Pathak says about The God of Small Things,
"He was called Velutha--which means White in Malayalam--because he was so black." His body cosntantly is carved out by the author's exotic gaze: "She knew his back. She'd been carried on it. More times than she could count. It had a light-brown birthmark, shaped like a pointed dry leaf." Or: "As she watched him she understodd the quality of his beauty. How his labour had shaped him. How the wood he fashioned had fashioned him. Each plank he paned, each nail he drove, each thing he made had moulded him."
I will have to confess that it is one of my favourite novels. Now i will re-read it fitting another lens.

Arundhati Roy's inquisition: How she groups Ambedkar with European fascists
Murali Shanmugavelan

...Gail Omvedt's open letter to Arundhati Roy on why the movement's leadership (or representation) was filled with urban elites and there was no top ranking Adivasi leardership
Read this. 
From footnotes:
In the words of Suryakant Waghamore: "The Namantar movement is a critical event in the history of Dalit assertion in Marathwada, and evokes memories of large-scale political violence against Dalits. It refers to the Dalit demand for Namantar of Marathwada University to Dr Ambedkar University. Namatar mobilisation and political violence lasted for fifteen years (1979-1994) costing Dalits, especially the Mahars, loss of lives and property as the upper castes, mostly Marathas, attacked the Dalits in the villages
Read up on this. 
I want to binge read Ambedkar now. Thank you for this book. It has changed my life.