In India, the term “backward” has a specific meaning. It refers to a group that is considered traditionally marginalized. Though in the social hierarchy, as defined by the Hindu Verna system, this group considers itself one step ahead on the caste ladder, in reality, all such groups are part of what is referred to as Shudras. I don’t want to get into the debate about who are Shudras. Jyotirao Phule and Dr. B R Ambedkar in their various writings have explained it quite eloquently. My concern here is, to initiate a new debate about the idea of a political theory and what it has to offer to those called the “backward.” When I hear discussions about political theory, it’s all full of scholars who come from a certain caste, class, or cultural background. They talk in a language that is quite professional and specialized and specifically meant for theory formation. A major concern of this branch of scholarship is to think in terms of ontology, epistemology, and above all harbingering upon the knowledge traditions which were developed in an alien space popularly referred to as “the west.” Another form of knowledge that these scholars refer to is the traditions that are referred to as indigenous and concern themselves with a particular form of traditional knowledge. The knowledge hierarchy that is produced in the name of theory is built upon these two foundations.

In both cases, the idea of political theory seems hollow as its conceptual categories, methodologies, and above all its sociological character barely reflect the reality of Indian society, the prevailing power relations in it, and above all its thinking processes and complications. There are only a few names that are used as only symbolic figures in the name of representation who refer to the very idea of political theory in India as a Brahmanical project. Even their ideas are preferred because they don’t really challenge the philosophical foundations of the political theory that scholars in India “do” in a methodological sense. The challenge to the Brahmanical project also operates within the Brahmanical folds of political theorizing.

The attempts to bring in concerns for Dalits (popularly referring to the untouchable communities also referred to as the Scheduled Castes, but in real sense Dalits also refer to the Schedules Castes, Tribes, and the Backward Castes) were emphatically highlighted by Dr. Ambedkar through his various writings. Since the backward castes considered themselves above the untouchables, they considered themselves as a separate social group that could identify themselves more closely with the upper castes. Some backward castes being the land-owning castes also added to this phenomenon. This resulted in a situation in the Indian knowledge industry wherein the “backward” didn’t think of carving out any space for their knowledge as they identified Brahmanical or Colonial forms of progress as emancipatory forms meant for them as well. Consequently, the backward castes can be seen in India trying to imitate caste-based mobilization and socialization quite in line with the similar efforts by the Brahmins, Rajputs, or the Banias. This process of mobilization or caste-based networking may not be a homogenized, unilinear process but psychologically, ethically and in terms of ideas, identification with the upper castes is a motivating force for the backward castes in larger parts of India.

The project of political theory nicely feeds into this narrative by lack of providing any exposure to conceptual categories which emerge or relate to the experience of any of the backward communities. The same can also be said about the experiential realities of Dalits and women. A political science classroom in Indian universities doesn’t problematize the prevailing knowledge hierarchies in any fundamental sense. The prevailing realities of caste-based socio-political or economic hierarchies that form the basis of various forms of social order in India despite it getting weakened in the wake of globalization do not figure in the political science syllabi. The experiential realities of working communities are not concerns of Indian political theory teaching and learning. In the name of Indian knowledge traditions or Indian intellectual traditions, the localized forms of knowledge that formed the core of the Indian rural and agrarian societies are being further marginalized.

The contemporary political theory, its philosophical concerns, and its conceptual foundations, in India, is a “backward theory of those who are historically forward”, whereas what it needs is a theory of the “forward defined in terms of a dream of a better life for those who are backward”. Such a theoretical intervention demands out-of-box thinking of conceptual categories as well as methodological endevors. A political theory that doesn’t open up avenues for democratization needs to be critically questioned on multiple fronts and if need be should be discarded. We need to remember that the political theory that is being taught in the western university system even to date doesn’t deal with what is called the “natives” and their concerns. The only manner in which such concerns figure is through the theories of exclusions. Exclusions are not a powerful conceptual category used in political theory.

To me, a political theory ought to be emancipatory in nature. Here, I don’t mean emancipation in terms of attaining liberation or Moksha as the great Indian traditions do. Emancipation is the rights of individuals being protected so that anyone can harness his/her creative potential self for the imagination of a life that is full of happiness, satisfaction, and meaning. Such emancipation is about material goods as well as emotions- emotions of joy, peace, and above all recognition with dignity. All of these conditions emanate from one’s work other than the measurement of material resources defined in terms of purchasing power capacity. Does the current political theory in India offer that?

My simple answer is “No”. I have already highlighted some of the features above on the basis of which I argue this. In the traditional Indian intellectual traditions, the whole culture of work and work culture gets subsumed in the overarching category of Shudras. One common feature of Shudras is that they are the workers (kaamgaars). Pottery, farming, carpentry, handicraft making, cooking, serving, and the list can go on. They are workers who struggle in the field with various tools and inputs. They are the ones who possess the skill, and knowledge that makes the life around us colorful, diverse, and beautiful. They also struggle to ensure that production happens so that the supply chains are not disrupted. They are the ones who make sure that the life of others also keeps functioning smoothly. They perform all of these functions while possessing their knowledge of all of these skills with them. They are the ones responsible for developing seeds that could survive during drought conditions. They are also responsible for developing techniques for saving water or animal rearing or designing village architecture so that it could cater to the requirements of various sections of society.

Yet, the absence of an agency to convert these activities and skills into the form of knowledge, boils down to being a skill and not an art of knowledge. It gets converted into knowledge when the powerful sections of society recognize them as knowledge. However, by the time it happens, it’s a bit late for the ‘backward’ themselves. By that time, art has already been converted into a commodity of knowledge production. The contemporary knowledge industry is undergoing this form of transformation only.

For such workers, the first condition of emancipation is recognition of their work i.e. some form of acknowledgment. The jajmani system provided that much space and it was enough for the backward to feel dignified. The caste system in India along with masculinity, patriarchy, and exclusion has survived with this bare minimum sense of recognition. For the backward, any small-one form of recognition from the dominant section is enough of an achievement. Even to date, the majority of backward communities are trying hard to achieve the status of a social category that is recognized either by the Brahmins or by the Rajputs. Backward communities in India, irrespective of their status of wealth still draw a sense of pride from false recognition in the Indian social order. There is no pride for them in the traditional works that they or their forefather did.

The Marxist notion of class or economy of class emanating from the economic agenda of emancipation such as equal pay for equal work comes after this social fight for recognition. Acknowledgment of human dignity is the first step to beginning a discussion on emancipation. The current political theory in India refers to empty, hollow conceptual categories which emanate largely from a tradition that too of a certain king. It has more to do with the spiritual, and religious aspects of human beings. Spirituality and religion give meaning to human life but only after their labor is recognized.

The current political theory is all about ideas and thoughts emanating from specific types of texts and their interpretations. What they lack is a description of the workers’ everydayness of struggle, hardships, joy, pleasure, community, alienation, or emotions. Here the worker is not a Marxist notion. It refers to any form of labor: physical, mental, or emotional that is being put in to get a reward along with due recognition and dignity. It also demands the right of such individuals and groups to express their concerns independently on various platforms. It rests upon the whole idea of representation.

However, the present-day political theory discourse in India is away from such empirical concerns. It leaves such empirical concerns to be studied by other “junior disciplines.” Political Science is presumed to be a master science that should engage only with the question of thought, its interpretation, and reinterpretation. Within this, the political theory doesn’t deny the existence of such discourses and yet it doesn’t engage with such efforts. Instead, it tries to appropriate all these forms of knowledge in the category of Indian intellectual and knowledge traditions. In reality, they are the knowledge of soil belonging to the real workers and no intellectual can claim them to be their own.

So when I say the “political theory of backward”, it refers to the aspects. of work, labor, its hardships, and associated forms of humiliation, exclusions, and marginalization. it wouldn’t originate from texts but from the experiential articulation of their work. It would also acknowledge the kind of ideas propagated by the texts of tradition but they won’t be the only defining feature. The methodology of this theory has to be empirical and yet it won’t be devoid of a dream of coming up with wider generalizations about other forms of knowledge.

It’s the poverty of political philosophy in India that doesn’t acknowledge the poor beyond welfarist measures. It doesn’t talk about the cultural formulations of the workers and their life experiences. it rather focuses on empty conceptual explorations. For example, it talks about secularism, and religion without referring to the empirical realities of riots, and religious violence. it talks about exclusion, discrimination, and non-representation without linking it with caste atrocities. It presumes that the former is the concern of theory whereas the latter is the concern of policy or government or may be the subject of empirical analysis. The deliberate creation of this false dichotomy of empirical versus conceptual serves the purpose of those who would want to defend traditions under the garb of knowledge while fitting it within the popular conceptual frames emanating from the “European” continental philosophy. In other words, the poverty of the philosophy of Indian scholars is a colonial hangover without accepting the same.

Before concluding let me also stretch this argument a bit further. Precisely, this is the reason that women are still out of the purview of political theory in India. Women are workers in the household, on the farms, and also in the community. However, their role is defined by the same traditions that define the work ethics of Shudras. Hence, the only articulation of their concerns in political theory is through feminist inquiry. Political theory in India minus feminism indicates a complete absence of recognition of women as a group.

I would like to discuss a few more aspects of political theory in India in the next few episodes. Keep reading and keep commenting