Vivek Singh

Introduction

The free market promised that only the person’s hard work, ability and merit would determine what kind of work he/she will get and how much he/she will be paid. As Aseem Prakash notes, “The dominant stream of social science theories tend to suggest that processes of modernization or capitalist development will automatically undermine the significance of social identities and their role in affecting economic outcomes” Capital would create new jobs and wealth and improve the lives of all. Ascription based identities like race, caste, gender would be broken and transcended and would not matter at all. Inequalities would be fair, since they would be a product of their efforts and thus social status would be mobile. Thus, modernity and the market had emancipatory potential which the oppressed looked up to. (Prakash, 2012)However, the picture is more complex than this. Do identities like caste and gender not matter in market? Does the market allow any real bargaining power to the worker?

It is in this context of contrasting and complex views that we enter the debate on the phenomena of rise of Dalit entrepreneurs. Can the market¹ be used by the Dalits to break the caste system? Should Dalits and Adivasis be apprehensive about the market and oppose the New Economic Policy and Globalisation? Does it offer them avenues and scope for mobility and to challenge Manusmriti? In this paper I will try to map the various arguments that have been made on these questions.

There are some limitations in this paper which I would like to point out at the onset. This paper does not deal with the relation of the Other Backward Class with the market. Although, it deals with the rise of Dalit and Adivasi entrepreneurs, there is greater focus on Dalits using market opportunities. The relationship of Adivasis with modernity and market is a complex and contested one and more work needs to be done in this area which seminars like these seek to do. The statistics that are cited are for SCs and STs as a whole. Research is needed about the sub castes and gender based participation within these categories.

This paper is divided into six sections. The first section analyses with the rise of Dalit and Adivasi entrepreneurs and the opportunities that the coming of globalization has provided them. The second section maps the various studies about the experiences of these entrepreneurs. The third section engages with the criticism and apprehensions about using the market among scholars. The fourth section deals with the Indian capitalists’ engagement with caste. The fifth section examines whether the use of market for mobility can find support in Dr. Ambedkar’s economic thought. The Concluding section argues that the fight against caste has to be in all spheres- economic, social, cultural and political.

1.Capital destroys Caste

The caste system in the Indian subcontinent is an age old system of graded inequality² among closed caste groups. Caste or jatis specialized in certain occupations and a person born in a jati is supposed to be in it by virtue of birth itself. Caste system has survived for centuries enduring all changes and transformation in society and polity. When modernity arrived in India with the coming of British Imperialism, it was seen by many as an emancipatory force. Especially for the lower castes and women, modernity and all the processes and ideas it brought a hope of break from tradition³. Post-independence, the Indian constitution laid down several provisions to address the issue of caste including banning of untouchability, reservations in legislature, reservations in education and public employment etc. Thus, the modern state and its institutions were seen as instrumental in attempting to bring social and political democracy.

Economic democracy, however, remained an unresolved question. The earlier ‘socialist’ era was largely unsuccessful in bringing just distribution of wealth and resources. As Aiyar remarks, “In the socialist era, upper-caste networks dominated the economy and did not allow dalit entrepreneurs to break in.” (Aiyar, 2015 ) The Indian state provided much needed protection to Indian business class post-independence. As we will see in the fourth section, Indian business has been dominated and monopolized by certain castes, especially Brahmins and Banias. Post-LPG, stories of Dalit millionaires started coming up, bringing the idea of Dalits using capitalism as a way of social mobility⁴. Ramaiah notes that “Foreign industries and institutions that emerge out of Globalisation are likely to be free from caste prejudice, unless such institutions are abundantly represented by prejudiced upper caste Indians.” (Ramaiah, 2004) Dalits could also become entrepreneurs, get access to decent source of livelihood, good quality facilities and products.

One of the results of this process was the formation of Dalit Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. DICCI was established in 2005 with Milind Kamble as the Chairman. Presently it has more than 3500⁵ members coming from SC/ST background with 21 state chapters and 7 international chapters. DICCI was formed with an intent to bring Dalit entrepreneurs together on one platform and to encourage SC/ST youth to take up entrepreneurship.

DICCI gives the slogan ‘Fight Caste with Capital’⁶. The rise of many Dalit entrepreneurs in the post-globalization era indicated that capital doesn’t discriminate and allows anyone to rise up. Manusmriti didn’t allow lower castes to accumulate wealth, to wear good clothes or to wear jewelry. With Dalits becoming entrepreneurs, they have started accumulating wealth, wearing modern suits, using the most luxurious cars and jewelry, effectively challenging Manu. The rise of Dalit millionaires is an emancipatory image with potential to inspire. DICCI mentor Chandra Bhan Prasad puts it this way, “Now, Dalits and upper castes and OBCs have common sources of food- wheat and rice. Jeans and T-shirts have become new weapons of emancipation.” (Gupta, 2013)

By giving the slogan of k beyond reservation and chose a more assertive narrative.

Total 

Table 1. No. of SC/ST enterprises according to 3^rd and 4^th MSME Census. Source: (Kamble)

Globalization has led to a decline of the monopoly of few and led to outsourcing. This process of outsourcing has created opportunities for the rise of entrepreneurship. In the Micro, Small and Medium Entreprises, there has been a substantial rise in the number of SC/ST members. Between the 3^rd (2001-02) and 4^th (2006-07) MSME Census, no. of SC enterprises grew from 10,51,903 to 28,34,000 and no. of ST enterprises grew from 5,22,831 to 20,84,000. DICCI sees this rise with a lot of promise. This shift into new occupations is a big challenge to varna system, which restricted occupational mobility. In this sense, globalization creates a lot of new opportunities for Dalits which were not there before and which reservations could not have brought in.

DICCI has tried to bring together all Dalit/Adivasi entrepreneurs on the same platform. It is a platform which seeks to get better deals to them and to provide them with resources and encouragement. It inspires the SC/ST youth to rake up entrepreneurship as a way of socio-economic mobility. To put it in a different way, one can say that DICCI’s larger goal is the democratization of capital or economic democracy. To put it in D. Syam Babu’s terms, we need ‘liberalization with social justice’. (Babu, 2004)

Babu says that he celebrates capitalism for its emancipatory potential.⁷ However he recognizes that economic reform in India has largely not touched two-third of the population and hence cannot succeed. Both the earlier pro-poor policies and the current liberalization policies have been elite-drive and thus ineffective. To have balanced growth across groups and to inject social justice component into liberalization, democracy is the only hope.

Let us examine the steps taken in this direction. The Bhopal Conference, held by a group of more than 250 Dalit and Adivasi intellectuals and activist, in January 2002, demanded supplier diversity and affirmative action in private sector. Supplier diversity means that the government should procure certain percentage of goods from SC/ST businesses. In 2012, government amended its procurement policies (New Public Procurement Policy 2012⁸) under which 4% orders must be from SC/ST entrepreneurs. In 2013, DICCI established Venture Capital Fund to raise Rs. 500 crore and help new entrepreneurs. The government committed to contributing thrice the amount DICCI raised. (Press Trust of India, 2013) In 2016, National Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Hub was announced in the budget, trying to build a link between government and Dalit businessmen to better implement supplier diversity. (Press Trust of India, 2016)

What is the progress in these efforts so far? In the edited volume “Dalits in Neoliberal India” by Clarinda Still, Sudha Pai examines the implementation of Supplier Diversity(SD, wherein 30 per cent of all government orders are reserved for Dalits) and Rani Durgawati Scheme (RDS) (wherein Dalits entrepreneurs are provided ‘margin money’ upto Rs. 50,000) in Madhya Pradesh between 2002-2007 (Pai, 2014). In the five years of study, 932 Dalit/Adivasi⁹ entrepreneurs adopted SD across 50 districts. In 19 of the districts, 57 entrepreneurs had even entered the manufacturing. Between 2004-07, 5174 Dalits availed Rs. 154,494,452 (that is an average of around Rs. 30000 each). Her analysis shows that ‘Dalit/tribal entrepreneurs have welcomed the SD policy and shown keenness to adopt it as it has provided them an opportunity to improve their socio-economic position.’ (ibid)

The SC Venture Capital Fund provides financial assistance of Rs. 0.5 crore to 15 crores to entrepreneurs (ownership by SC entrepreneur must be at least 60 per cent). Till 10^th Oct, 2016, 53 entrepreneurs were sanctioned Rs. 201.49 crores while Rs. 85.33 crores had been dispersed to 21 entrepreneurs (STATUS ON VENTURE CAPITAL FUND FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, 2016). The projects were of a wide range like manufacturing garments, solar power plant, amusement park, health care institute, launch of mobile app, setting of fitness centre, manufacturing copper tubes, set up UIDAI kits etc. The locations of these projects were also widely spread across different regions- Delhi NCR, Lucknow, Mumbai, Bhavnagar(Gujarat), Nalgonda, Kutakpally (Telangana), Ropar (Punjab), Pondicherry. Thus we find that Dalits and Adivasis are eagerly using the avenues provided by the market when they get some access to finance. The Manusmriti which forbade accumulation of wealth by the lower castes, is effectively challenged by the opportunities of the market. The monopoly of upper castes over business has been challenged and members of hitherto denied groups were entering the business class.

Along this line Dalit/Adivasi entrepreneurs have thus attempted the process of democratizing capital. For them, liberalization is a great equalizer where anyone can rise. As Prasad says, ‘In India, capitalism is emancipatory because in capitalism, nothing is fixed by birth. The only permanent thing is competition and a Dalit has the opportunity to move ahead through competition’.

2.Could Market Beat Manu?

Does market fulfill its promise of beating Manu? What is the experience of Dalits who took up entrepreneurship? What further steps need to be taken considering these experiences?

Although there is a rise in the number of SC/ST entrepreneurs, they are not in proportion to their population yet. In 2006-07, in the registered MSMEs, SCs constitute 7.6%, and STs constitute 2.87% of the total. In the unregistered MSMEs, SCs constitute 11.38% while STs contribute 5.18%. (Ministry of Micro,Small and Medium Entreprises, 2015)¹⁰ Thus, SC/ST enterprises remain highly under-represented even at MSME level. ‘The share of SC-ST ownership has declined over the period, SC-ST enterprises tend to be smaller, more rural than urban, have a greater share of owner-operated (single employee) units’. (Deshpande & Sharma, ENTREPRENEURSHIP OR SURVIVAL? CASTE AND GENDER OF SMALL BUSINESS IN INDIA , 2013, p. 1) Non SC-ST businesses employ most of the MSME workforce and there is ‘evidence of homophily¹¹ in OBC and upper-caste-owned firms’. (p. 21)

Several studies have examined the situation of Dalit/Adivasi entrepreneurs, trying to understand how successful they have been able in achieving mobility. These studies have tried to map what kind of businesses they have opened, whether they face discrimination in market etc.

In the above mentioned study by Pai, she takes case studies of nine entrepreneurs from Bhopal. All of them reported that they continued to face caste bias and discrimination, difficulty in getting finance and competition from vaishya and other upper caste traders. They ‘strongly argued that the SD policy is required as Dalits are unable to set up business establishments of their own.’ (Pai, 2014) She also observes that only a few have been able to take up manufacturing and ‘mostly simple items are being manufactured such as coolers, furniture, leather goods and clothes.’ About the suppliers Pai notes that ‘About 70 per cent of the suppliers deal in four items: stationary, kirana or general provisions, furniture and electrical goods. A small number supply fertilizers, steel goods, cement, stone chips, electronic items and heavy machinery.’ SD policy was ‘limited to a small Dalit/tribal class based mainly in the better-off districts and cities such as Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore, Jhabua, etc.’ (ibid)

Deshpande and Sharma over-representation of Dalits in leather businesses and under-representation in food business. This indicates continuance of traditional caste bias. They argue that most Dalit businesses are placed at the bottom of production chain, doing low productivity, survival activities. (Deshpande & Sharma, Can Capitalism be a vehicle for social mobility in India?, 2013) Self-employed individuals or owner-owned manufacturing enterprises cannot be called entrepreneurs since they are mostly ‘distress-driven’. The highest of proportion of these (40%) is among SCs, ‘indicating that a large part of Dalit manufacturing is small-scale and survival driven’. (Deshpande & Sharma, ENTREPRENEURSHIP OR SURVIVAL? CASTE AND GENDER OF SMALL BUSINESS IN INDIA , 2013, p. 13)

Jodhka has surveyed of 321 Dalit Entrepreneurs from two towns- Saharanpur and Panipat. Of these, seven were women and of these seven women, six had small grocery shops. 57% of the respondents felt that caste had a negative impact on their business. 63% reported experiencing caste related discrimination in everyday life. Availing finance and finding a structure were the most frequent problems reported. Only 21% could avail bank loans and there was a general sentiment that government agencies should provide cheap and easy loans. (Jodhka, 2010)

Aseem Prakash’s study of 90 Dalit businesses also shows similar results- numerous forms of discrimination continue against them, difficulty in securing initial orders, lack of social networks having negative effect etc. (Prakash, 2012) (Prakash, 2010) Of the 90 businesses, 26 were in caste-related businesses and only 12 in occupations considered restricted.

If market was expected to beat Manu, how do we explain the continued caste discrimination faced by Dalit entrepreneurs? The ‘social embededness school’ says that economy interacts with the social structure, which the mainstream economists have failed to understand. ‘Economic activities require cooperative action in the market which finds its expression in social networks.’ (Prakash, 2010, p. 294) One’s social identity determines the social networks he/she will be part of. Thus caste retains its importance in access to capital, in finding space, in dealing with others, in getting social acceptance. Thus even in the capitalist order, caste continues to operate.

These studies point to the continued discrimination that Dalits and Adivasis face even after becoming entrepreneurs and entering businesses. However, this is not enough reason to oppose using market opportunities. Such discrimination is faced even in the public sector, where they are often referred to as ‘sarkar ke damaad’(son in law of the government) and seen as non-meritorious and undeserving. The under-representation in business¹², continued caste discrimination, lack of access to finance and resources, hostility from traditional elites reinforces the importance of stronger affirmative action, state intervention to support Dalit entrepreneurs and wider social reform. Of course caste system as a whole won’t be broken as it continues to operate in different spheres. It has however provided some economic mobility and democratised business. Although not all Dalit entrepreneurs are not millionaire, they have utilized it as an avenue for mobility. To dismiss this as a ‘low intensity spectacle’ is a denial of this fact.¹³

3. The Dark side of the globalization story in India

Many scholars including Dalit and Adivasi intellectuals are apprehensive of celebrating globalization. They point towards the negative and dark impact of the NEP on Dalit Adivasis. It is important to engage with these arguments.

Incidence of Poverty and consumption

In a study on the inclusiveness of growth in India between 1993-94 and 2009-10, Thorat and Dubey have calculated the incidence of poverty and mean per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) according to social groups. Their findings show that though poverty has overall fallen down, the rate of decline per annum for SC/ST at 2.4% and 2.1% is lower than that of others, i.e. 2.6%. (See Table 2) Also in terms of percentage, incidence of poverty is still much higher among SC/ST than others. In the real MPCE, SC/ST lag behind others and have not been able to cross the Rs. 1,000 barrier (except STs of Gujarat). (Thorat & Dubey, How Inclusive has Growth Been During 1993/94-2009/10? Part-II: State-Level Analysis , 2013, p. 27) A similar disparity is found in nearly all indicators.

Table 2. Poverty incidence according to social groups (Thorat & Dubey, How Inclusive has Growth Been During 1993/94-2009/10? Part-II: State-Level Analysis , 2013)

Constitutional Provisions

The Indian Constitution laid down several provisions and safeguards for empowerment of SC/STs. The most important of these are reservations in government and government-aided educational institutions, reserved constituencies in the Parliament, reservation of jobs in public sector and legal safeguards against untouchablity and atrocities. Post-independence, these have been the most important avenues for the mobility of Dalits.

The main difference between using entrepreneurship and using state measures for mobility is that while the former allows Dalits to make money, the latter gives access to positions of power. Due to reservations, Dalits could enter Parliament, could enter the bureaucracy at all levels to some extent which was earlier totally controlled by upper castes and could get secure and dignified jobs. It also enabled the rise of a middle class, which in turn led to greater political assertion by Dalits through Bahajun Samaj Party¹⁴. Reservations in education also enabled the formation of intellectuals/academicians among Dalits. Constitutional measures also enable the Dalits to enter the mainstream institutions and claim their rightful stake at it. These measures ensure representation and democratization of institutions.

With the adoption of New Economic Policy in the 1990s, there was a move towards privatization and a disinvestment from the public sector. This meant a significant reduction in the number of secure, regular paying government jobs. Unemployment rate has also risen. Thorat observes that the rate of unemployment which had been showing negative trend before reform, showed an increasing trend after 1990-91. In government jobs and services, number of SC employees went down from ‘6.28 lakh in 1991 to 6.04 lakh in 1992’. In Public Sector Undertakings, the decline is from 4.32 lakh to 3.69 lakh. Most of this decline happened in the ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D grade jobs, thereby implying that they affected the relatively poor among the SCs more. (Thorat, 1997) Babu has similarly documented the decline in public sector employment from 19.56 million in 1997 to 19.14 million in 2001. (Babu, 2004)

The move towards privatization also means that lower castes will be more vulnerable. There is enough empirical evidence to suggest caste based discrimination against Dalits in the labor market. Several studies show that in the private sector there is a lot of direct discrimination in employment or indirect discrimination by using proxies like ‘family background’¹⁵, use of networks¹⁶ for employment which puts lower castes at disadvantage, payment of lower wages¹⁷, exclusion in hiring¹⁸ in certain sectors and only employing Dalits in certain jobs that others don’t want to do like dyeing¹⁹. (Thorat, 1997) (Thorat & Newman, 2007)

The dark side of Globalisation, in the form of reduction of public sector jobs, disparity in poverty levels etc. is open for all to see. Responding to this, Ramaiah makes a very important point that “Globalisation as a force cannot be halted so easily, and that too by the poor of poor nations like the Dalits. They should see how best they could use globalisation as a means to draw global attention to protect their basic human right…” (Ramaiah, 2004) Arguing that globalization and the market can and are used for mobility, one is not supporting the ill-effects like informalisation or reduction of governmental employment, but rather trying to utilize the available economic policy to reach economic democracy.

The way towards economic democracy is long and the efforts that have been taken so far are hardly sufficient. The importance of reservation and public sector employment must not be undermined. Fighting for proper implementation of reservation at all levels and in all institutions²⁰ is one of the most important steps in this regard. Many Dalit intellectuals are strongly putting the case for reservation in the private sector to ensure representation and employment avenues.²¹ The amount of money allocated to Dalits in the government budget is also very low. Special Component Plan (SCP) and Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) was introduced by the Planning commission in the 1970s, according to which funds must be channeled for development of SC/STs in proportion to their population. However budgetary allocations have been far lower than this requirement²². This is despite the Jadhav Guidelines and Thorat committee’s recommendations on implementing SC and ST Sub Plan and various reports by organizations like NCDHR. (Thorat S. , 2006) (Jadhav, 2010) (NCDHR, 2013) For SCs, it was as low as 1.10 percent (2008-09), 0.84 percent (2009-10) and 1.28 percent (2010-11)’. Allocation for women specific schemes in 2015 was as low as Rs. 73.70 crore (0.23%). In the schemes and projects under this plan, there is ‘no focus on entrepreneurship, employment and skill development projects’. (CBGA & NCDHR, 2011) Funds allocated are often not utilized and are diverted to other purposes. For instance, only Rs. 107 crore was spent on fellowships/scholarships or coaching for SC/STs out of a total allocation of Rs. 1047 crore. One of the most important steps towards democratizing capital is to ensure that the mandated proportion of funds are allocated for the SC/STs, that there is no diversion of funds, that there is fair amount of funds for women-specific schemes and that a non-lapsable Central Pool of Resources for SCs and STs must be made.²³ These are some of the ongoing attempts to democratize capital and several more steps will be needed to reach the goal, along with the attempt of using market opportunities for mobility. What is clear is that the state has to play an active role in reaching this end, whether in fulfilling reservations or in budget financing or in providing capital to emerging entrepreneurs. The present government has in fact gone the other way in this year’s budget by reducing funding of many schemes, scrapping the subplan policy and merging plan and non-plan categories²⁴.

4. Caste and Indian Capitalists- A project of legitimization

The casteist nature of businesses in India is already evident from the studies mentioned above. They either practice direct ‘taste for discrimination’ wherein they don’t employ lower castes, or do ‘statistical discrimination’ by using proxies like family background, or provide lower wages.

Capitalism in India has been a monopoly of the upper castes. Of the 55 billionaires from India that figured in the Forbes list of 1210 billionaires, there are 26 Baniyas, 3 Parsis, 2 Muslims, one Sikh. In the top 10, 8 are Baniyas. (Patel, 2011) Omvedt mentions a study by Santosh Goyal which finds that

…caste composition of top corporate officers in 1979-80 showed that out of 2082 whose caste could be identified (of a total of 3129), 858 or 41.2 per cent were Brahmans; Khatris and Vaishyas were a poor second and third with 18.5 per cent and 17.9 per cent. Only 4.2 per cent were “Shudra” of any type.” (Omvedt, 2001)

Another study finds that, ‘The distribution of board members according to caste shows that nearly 93% were forward caste members; 46% vaishya and 44% brahmin. The OBCs and SCs/STs were a meagre 3.8% and 3.5% respectively.’ (Ajit, Donker, & Saxena, 2012, p. 42) Does this not beg the question that why should only certain castes have the right over doing business? Why does their entry raise so many eyebrows and questions and induce guilt of supporting an oppressive capitalism on Dalits and Adivasis, while no such questions are raised to the upper castes who have held the monopoly for centuries? Doesn’t the entry of Dalit/Advasis signify a process of democratising of economy?

On the question of caste, Indian businesses have kept silence. They have let the myth that ‘it is merit and not caste that matters in the market’, by making the question of caste itself invisible. There has been no transparency on the number of SC/STs hired by them and on what level. However, we find a sudden shift in the attitude of the Indian capitalists with the coming of DICCI. Two trade bodies, FICCI and CII, which had neither bothered to talk about caste before nor taken any steps to enable Dalits to enter businesses or include them in their organizations²⁵, have suspiciously come out in support of DICCI. Why is this unlikely support extended? I would like to argue that upper caste dominated Indian Capitalists are trying to use the rise of Dalits as millionaires and entrepreneurs to legitimize themselves. They wish to absolve themselves of any responsibility and want to continue their monopoly over the economy. Their symbolic support, of course, does not come from the larger goal of reaching economic democracy, but avoid any concrete democratization of capital. It is comfortable for them to highlight the rise of Dalit entrepreneurs since it allows them to deny the need of any larger questions of redistribution and democratization of capital. By showing that Dalits can rise in this capitalist system, they want to hide the glaring inequalities and discrimination that exists in the market for which they have historically been responsible. It is the rise of DICCI that has forced them to acknowledge and address the issue of caste in the market. To show their honesty, they must make the caste-wise data of their workforce at all levels public, must implement Affirmative Action at all levels and provide finance to aspiring entrepreneurs among other things.

5.Would Dr. Ambedkar approve?

The two inspirations behind DICCI are black capitalism²⁶ and the economic thought of Dr. Ambedkar. While a comparison with Black capitalism is not possible here, in this section I will try to examine whether our argument would hold in line with Dr. Ambedkar’s economic thought.

A largely accepted view is that Ambedkar supported ‘State socialism’²⁷, based on a reading of ‘States and Minorities’ and his 1938 address to Mahar railway workers at Mahad. According to Jadhav,

Ambedkar’s concept of State Socialism is based on three basic tenets: ‘(i) state ownership of agricultural land and key industries to meet the demands of the poorer strata of society; (ii) maintenance of productive resources by the state; and (iii) a just distribution of the common produce among the different people without any distinction of castes or creed. (Jadhav, 1991)

Ambedkar stood for social, political and economic democracy. However, he didn’t advocate communism as he wanted a ‘classless society but not in a stateless society’ (Jadhav, 1991, p. 982) He saw the state playing an ‘active but well-defined role’ in equitable distribution of resources, without forsaking ‘individual incentive’. (ibid) Ambirajan tries to answer why Ambedkar might have prescribed state socialism. He says

It was probably more due to functional reasons than any fundamental change in his enlightenment economic ideology, because he felt that private sector had not achieved growth and his rational mind told him that we should “put an obligation on the state to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth.” (Ambirajan, 1999, p. 3285)

Ambirajan thus argues that Ambedkar supported state socialism not because he prescribed it but because it seemed pragmatic at that moment. Gail Omvedt argues on a similar line. She agrees that in ‘States and Minorities’, Ambedkar prescribed ‘state socialism’. However, in the 1952 Manifesto of Scheduled Castes Federation,

…he was turning away from “state socialism” towards a more Deweyian pragmatism. There he argued that rapid industrial development was necessary; where state control worked best its should be used, but where private industrial ownership could give the most rapid development, this would be acceptable. In this sense, Ambedkar was not a Fabian so much as a pragmatist. (Omvedt, Ambedkar and the Left, 2012)

The flexibility and pragmatism in Ambedkar’s views is evident from his opposition to include the word ‘socialist’ in the constitution. On 15^th November, 1948, in the Constituent Assembly, he said

What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed. (Constituent Assembly Debates Volume 7, page 1811) ²⁸

In Buddha or Karl Marx, he says ‘Buddha would have probably admitted that it is only the end which would justify the means. What else could?’ (Ambedkar B. , DR. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, 2014) If our end is reaching economic democracy, the means could be different from state socialism also. If using the market enabled us to reach the goal to some extent, Ambedkar probably wouldn’t have any problem with it. In any case, we have argued for intervention by the state in the economy in the form of providing capital and affirmative action schemes like Supplier Diversity. This is in line with Ambedkar’s view of state playing an enabling role in the economy.

Ambedkar’s shift in later years towards Buddhism is also not inconsistent with this view since Buddhism can have a materialist interpretation along with a pull towards redistribution. Although Omvedt recognizes that capitalism and globalization is exploiting Dalits, she argues that instead of simply fighting globalization, Dalits need ‘a real analysis and understanding of how to deal with the situation they find themselves in’²⁹ since it is ‘impossible and even undesirable to withdraw from the global economy’³⁰. She argues there is ‘futility of capitalism’, but not of the ‘fight for reforms’.³¹ As pointed out earlier, Ramaiah argues on similar lines.³²

Taking this interpretation of Ambedkar as a pragmatist, one can argue that he might see the formation of DICCI and the rise of Dalit entrepreneurs as making the best deal within the capitalist order, but not as an ideal project to annihilate caste. He wouldn’t be completely opposed to them or their project of economic democracy, but it also clear that this is not his ideal or utopia. In the present context when there seems to be consensus among political parties over neo-liberal policies, we must try to democratize capital as far as possible within this system. The need of an organization like DICCI³³ is one important step towards democratizing otherwise casteist capitalism. Some other steps have already been mentioned at the end of section four and there is a need to explore more.

6.Conclusion- Beyond Manu versus Market

In focusing on economic democracy, we must not forget that caste is a multidimensional pheonomena. By focusing too much on the economic dimension, we might fail to get a holistic understanding of caste.³⁴ In this debate about the type of economic order needed, we miss out the fact that neither capitalism nor state socialism nor communism can effectively destroy caste because caste is not an economic problem. In conclusion, my final argument is that we need to go beyond Manu versus Market debate. We must focus our energy in trying to understand the various ways in which caste can be challenged in various spheres- economic, political and social.

It is in this context that we need to understand engagement of Ambedkar and Phule with modernity, wherein they value the instrumentality of modernity in challenging caste at various levels. In the political sphere, fight for proper representation in Parliament, Judiciary and Executive is needed to have meaningful political democracy. It is also important to make the state accountability in providing education and health. State also plays the role of protector by making protective legislations like Prevention of Atrocities Act and by bringing reform in religion where it is oppressive, like banning the practice of untouchability. It also needs to intervene in the economy and ensures redistribution.

In the social and cultural sphere, Ambedkar is very clear that we have to deny the shastras that give sanctity to caste. In ‘Annihilation of Castes’, he emphasized on the need of inter-dining and inter-caste marriages and a rejection of Hinduism. (Ambedkar B. , Annihilation of Caste, 2013) Thus fight against caste has to be holistic one across social, cultural, economic and political sphere. The fight for economic democracy is part of this larger struggle.

End Notes

Have you like this article?

Was this article helpful?

(+12 rating, 6 votes)

Loading...