" 84CD6F076EBF75325F380D8209373AE1 JOURNAL OF SUBALTERN AND CULTURAL THEOLOGY

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

JOURNAL OF SUBALTERN AND CULTURAL THEOLOGY



                                                             James Ma (Editor)


On picking up the inaugural issue of a journal the first question that crosses the mind of a reader could be 'What was it that inspired the launching of a new Journal?' or 'What's new in it?' Without beating about the bush therefore, we declare the following two objectives that we have kept as our focus in this publication.

• To provide a common platform for reflection for the Indian theologians, especially younger ones, belonging to various subaltern communities, who have been victims of caste-class Indian social system, so that they are able to pave the way for liberation of their communities by asserting their rights for freedom and justice. To encourage active participation of subaltern theologians, thinkers, activists and educationalists in a constructive theological debate in the light of their experiences and through critical-reflection, and thereby develop theology(ies) as an instrument of establishing a 'just society' based on the universal principle of 'justice', which means equality, liberty and fraternity. These two broader objectives before us offer a concise answer to our question about the purpose and validity of the Journal.

Now let us examine the name with which the Journal is being launched. As the name suggests, the Journal shall explore the areas covered by Theology within the context of Indian subaltern communities. To say this is not to limit the overall scope of the Journal; instead it shall aspire even beyond, to represent various perspectives on the issues related to the oppressed communities of Indian society, which have been historical victims of caste, class, gender etc. In our effort we shall also try to dig out from the past the forgotten/ignored stories of people that are usually overlooked/ignored/undermined and are denied rightful place in secular or ecclesiastical annals. As it stands, generally the existing written sources are divested of these stories because of the discriminatory attitude; we shall therefore, go to our oral traditions and try to shovel them out for the Journal. We believe that such stories can indirectly inspire many fresh theological reflections and liberative actions.

In its stride the Journal also proposes to explore theological relevance in the works of the people of other faiths who have contributed to the cause of the depressed people. Jyotirao Mahatma Phule, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, E.V. Ramasami, Narayanswami Guru, Acchutanand, Mangoo Ram and Ayyan Kali are some names that come to my mind, but I am sure there are many others. To expand our scope further we also propose to approach overseas scholars and thinkers who are working on issues connected with various oppressed communities in different parts of the world viz., Black, Minjung, Baruaka, and Aboriginals. This will certainly open new vista for Indian theologians because the issues faced by these oppressed communities are akin to the issues that affect the subaltern communities in our country.

At the outset however, I will take the opportunity to define (or re define) the expression 'subaltern' as it is used in the Indian context. Literally the word means 'of inferior rank' or 'next below'. Like many other important expressions 'subaltern' has also travelled from European context to our Indian context. As each context is different from the other, it is important to see if 'subaltern' fits well in our context as well or not. The expression was first used by an Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci while he prepared notes on various social issues during his prison-term between 1929 and 1935. Gramsci's notes are available now in English translation under the title Selections from the Prison Notebooks and include his thoughts on Education, Italian History, Politics, State and Civil Society, and Philosophy of Praxis. In 'section two' of his notes on 'Italian History' and 'The Philosophy of Praxis', Gramsci used the expression 'subaltern' in very general sense, while making a distinction between the ruling and non-ruling classes. According to Gramsci, the ruling classes historically are hegemonic and opposite to the non-ruling classes that are non-hegemonic groups or classes; he called the latter as "subordinate”, "subaltern" and sometimes “instrumental". According to the editors and translators of his work "it is difficult to discern any systematic difference in Gramsci's usage between, for instance, subaltern and subordinate." At one point, while commenting on the Italian history Gramsci observes, "The history of unity of the ruling classes is realized in the State, and their history is essentially the history of States and groups of States”, and adds that "the subaltern classes...by definition, are not unified and cannot unite until they are able to become State". Gramsci adds that the subaltern classes "are always subject to the activity of ruling groups"}, and "In order to become a State, they have to subordinate or eliminate the former and win the active or passive assent of the latter." From these views it becomes apparent that Gramsci has politically dominated or powerless groups in mind, and the undergirded social and economic factors in the European sense were core to his understanding of "subaltern classes."

In India the expression 'subaltern' has been introduced to the serious scholarship by a group of thinkers, who have been working on the Subaltern Studies since 1981 and have already produced more than ten volumes on South Asian history and society, from the perspective of the 'people'. But while they accepted the general meaning to 'subaltern' given by Gramsci, they also tried to broaden its meaning. According to Ranjit Guha, the first editor of these volumes, the word 'subaltern' in the volumes. is used with "the meaning as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that is, 'of inferior rank'. However, he clarifies that the general attributes of subordination in South Asian society can be in several areas, for example in class, age, gender etcetra. But Guha basically accepts Gramsci's usage of the expression: “We recognize of course that subordination cannot be understood except as one of the constituent terms in the binary relationship of which the other is dominance, for subaltern groups are always subject to the activity of ruling groups, even when they rebel and rise up":6 At one place Guha makes it still clear when he says, “The terms 'people' and 'subaltern classes' have been used as synonymous throughout this work. The social groups and elements included in this category represent the demographic differences between the total Indian population and all those whom we have described as the 'elite'" (italics mine).

The use of expression 'subaltern' by the historians of these volumes, as represented by Ranajit Guha, is very general in nature, because it covers all the people across the board,categorizing them according to class, age, gender and office etcetra. But the division of the people according to 'caste' is totally ignored. My contention is that this stance of Guha and his colleagues can be suitable in the European context - about which Gramsci was also concerned - but certainly not in our Indian context or for that matter, even in the context of the entire South Asia. Our system is rooted in the varna system (caste based), which makes our context very different from the European context. In Subaltern Religion and Liberation Theology in India Sathianathan Clarke makes this point clear:

This is not to deny that collectives held together by commonalties of age, gender, class and office do share in the state of subalternity. Rather, this study takes seriously the specific manner by which the institution and ideology of caste engenders of contextual manifestation of subalternity, which is intrinsically tied up to religion in India.8

In support of his argument Clarke even quotes one of the Subaltern historians, Partha Chatterjee':

No matter, how we choose to characterize the subaltern consciousness in the specific cultural context of India, it cannot but contain caste as a central element in its constitution.'

Caste' is indeed 'a central element in the constitution' of 'subaltern consciousness' or in giving birth to the subaltern-ity of certain communities that constitute more than 80 percent of the population of our country. The report of the commonly known Mandal Commission to puts these figures as follows:

Schedule Caste and Tribes, 22.56%; Non-Hindu religious Groups (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist and Jainies),16.16%; and Backward Hindu Castes (Shudra or Other Backward Classes) 43.70%.The net total of these communities are 82.22%.

The subaltern-ity with which we are concerned in this Journal has a unique dimension given to it by the caste-factor in the Indian society. Identities of these groups get fixed by virtue of their birth; a shudra is a shudra only because he/she is born in the family of a shudra, and all deeds and all efforts are not enough to nullify the given status in the hierarchy of Indian social system. On this identity given at the time of birth shall depend his/her social, educational, cultural, religious, political and economic status for the rest of life. It is this characteristic of the Indian subaltern groups that makes them distinct from the rest of the oppressed communities of the world. The Mandal Commission pointing to their 'fixed and immutable ranks' in society, poignantly notes that these people are 'ordained by God for humanity;... Like the limbs of the body, they cannot properly exchange either their place or function." It is this uniqueness of Indian subalterns that shall perhaps make the need for the 'Indian Subaltern Journal of Theology' clear to the reader.

At this point we shall also like to clarify that the existing expressions of Indian Theology are not relevant to the subaltern communities of our country. The Subaltern expression of theology in the Indian context, beside the Dalit theology, should also include the Tribal theology, the Adivasi theology and the Feminist theology. There are two existing theologies in our country: the Western Theology brought to us by the Western missionaries; and the Indian Christian Theology constructed by the so-called upper caste Indian Christian theologians. The first is rooted in the Greek thought form and in the Pietistic thinking of the West, that focus mainly on the affairs of the 'other world' and 'personal holiness'12; and the second is rooted in the classical Hindu philosophical thought form, which does not give due importance to human historyl3. Neither of these considered the issues that touched the life of subaltern communities of the country important enough to be included in their theological reflections. For instance, the issue like 'caste' based division of the society was considered by the theologians of both groups as issue of this world' and therefore not worth the bother. In this way they completely ignored the hard reality of the life of a subaltern in the Indian context and theologized at an altogether different plain. Moreover, different missionary groups came with their varied understanding of the Christian faith, which gave birth to different Christian denominations in our country. Together these divisions, created by 'caste' and various denominations' introduced within the Church, resulted in creating the disease of 'disjointedness' among the Christians of India as a body of Christ.

This dual challenge of the dividing walls of 'caste' and of the - 'Christian denominations' therefore, has to be met squarely by all the theologians interested in doing Theology in the Indian context whether theirs is the 'cultural expression' or the 'subaltern expression' of theology. Theologians should explore this possibility to give Christianity a more solid and wider scope. This approach will certainly add 'newness' to the overall understanding of the Christian faith in our country which is unique because of the social institution of caste. In order to liberate the Christian community, theologians should work towards inspiring the community to follow the Moses' model which as the first step, focused on organizing the slave community of Israelites, and then educating them about the struggle that lay ahead for them. At every stage, Moses stressed not only the importance of the history of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 6:20-25), but also impressed on them the value of their 'solidarity'.

He told them that it was their commitment to their solidarity which will generate power among them to face challenges. This solidarity is twofold: the solidarity with fellow human beings (particularly with the oppressed like Dalits, Tribals, Women and the poor) that goes hand in hand with a deep solidarity with God. This dual commitment to solidarity should become the subject of all subaltern or contextual liberation theologies. For this the focus also needs to shift from worrying about 'the numerical increase of Christians', to becoming an enabling force for their complete liberation of the people. With these objectives before the theologians in general and subaltern theologians in particular, a 'new theology' will emerge which will enable the process of the formation of the 'new community.' It is in this process that this new Journal is to play the enabling role.

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments