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.
0 Comments