The hall was full, the dialogue was to begin. The fiery take
of Ambedkar against the caste system was
to be brought on stage through the pen of Arundhati Roy. The issue probably one
of the most important that questions the endorsement of a democratic India. The
thoughts inspiring, dialogue engaging. However among all these stood a discord
in the sidelines, can Roy introduce the thoughts of Dr. Ambedkar! Roy, an image
often perceived as split between dissent and elite discourse is up for the
trial.
The question is not however limited to Roy. For a
significant section of the citizen who is not born into a cause or apparently
do not belong to the platform-may be caste, religion or some other
socio-economic issue- the social context and pertinence of engagement remains a
central concern. The engagement of citizenship is constantly fraught with the
question of “can they”!
The question is not without merit. Often in the vogue of being
part of a social cause, there is a penchant for such participation. Not to deny
such trend is apparent, rather can be argued is in a rise with the proliferation of
social media. The sentiment of the people against it, who are at the
receiving end is also perfectly justified. But as much as it is important to secure the
seed of a dissent or resistance, it is problematic if the choice of constituents
is determined through the understanding of symbols.
From khadi-wearing activists to black-tie policy makers, the
preamble of symbols is entrenched in most public discourse today. Symbols are
important as they manifest representation in a collective manner. The red
headband does stoke the fire in the darkest dungeons. It is equally true that a
climate controlled existence cannot survive the sweat of the naked sun. But it becomes
problematic when the perception of symbols become greater than the cause; and
as it does so we tend to live through impressions than means. In the process of
eliminating perceived weeds, we fall into the same trap of losing out on the
cause by the process of symbolic selections. The possibility of diversity is reduced to
singularity possibly feeding into the marginalization.
Dialogues are often uncomfortable as they entail plurality.
But the success of a dialogue also lies in assimilation of the plurality. And
without such assimilation, however uncomfortable the platform might be to begin
with, the triumph will remain incomplete. Certainly we need to be cautious about a movement just being reduced to a drawing room conversation, but we also need to be cautious about restricting its territory. So I say, let Arundhati speak and let
the annihilation knock at the door of the protected, even if late. Atleast there
lies a possibility (however small) of opening some doors, otherwise there only
rests the longstanding divide.
