Showing posts with label EDITORIAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDITORIAL. Show all posts

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Partner, what is your politics?


Emaan mujhe roke hai, jo hai khiche mujhe kufr 
Kaba mere piche hai, Kalisa mere aage-Mirza Ghalib
(Faith holds me back, impiety lures me/Kaaba is behind me, the church is before me)

Partner, Tumhari Politics Kya Hai? (Partner, what is your politics?) was the question the great Hindi poet Muktibodh used to ask his friends when he wanted to know their ideological leanings. That was in the 1960s. Today, we want to put the same question to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
AAP, which came into being about a year ago, performed unexpectedly well in the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections held in December 2013. Nearly 30 per cent of the votes fell into its kitty and it won 28 of the 70 seats up for grabs. In the 2008 polls, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) had garnered 14.5 per cent votes and 2 of its candidates had won. It was hoping  to perform better this time. However, it got only 5 per cent of the votes and lost both its seats. On the other hand, AAP emerged victorious in 9 of the 12 constituencies reserved for SCs in Delhi. It is thus clear that Dalits and OBCs sided with AAP in a big way. AAP is not only admitting this but is enthused by the development. On the basis of this strength, it is planning to take a plunge into the Lok Sabha elections.
Delhi Legislative Assembly polls – Vote share
Vote percentage

While forming its government in Delhi, AAP kept social equations in mind. On 28 December 2013, six ministers were sworn in along with the chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. Of them, two – Rakhi Birla and Girish Soni – are Dalits. Somnath Bharati is an OBC from Bihar. Besides, Satyendra Jain, a minority community member, has also been made a minister. As no Muslim candidate of the party had won, AAP could not have a Muslim in the council of ministers.
Thus, AAP followed the old ritual of Indian politics – of balancing the ministry in terms of caste and community. Through its Dalit-bahujan workers, it also publicised this fact among the communities concerned.

Caste/ Varna / Community
Home state
Arvind Kejriwal
Chief Minister and Home, Finance, Power and Vigilance.
Vaishya – General
(equivalent to Agarwal)
Hisar, Haryana
Manish Sisodia
Education, Public Works Department, Urban Development.
Pilkhuwan, Uttar Pradesh
Somnath Bharati
Administrative Reforms, Law.
Vaishya – OBC
Nawada, Bihar
Satyendra Jain
Health, Industries and Gurdwara Elections
Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
Saurabh Bhardwaj
Transport, Food Supply and Environment.
Rakhi Birla
Social Welfare and Women and Child Development.
Girish Soni
Labour, Development, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.


AAP Dalit-bahujan mask?
But what is the reality? The Dalit-OBC ministers of AAP believe that ‘caste’ cannot be the basis of any discourse. They are not only unacquainted with the ideology and thoughts of Phule, Ambedkar and Lohia but also think that this kind of discourse is a bottleneck in the development of the country and of the so-called ‘aam aadmi’.
Twenty-six-year-old minister Rakhi Birla refuses to describe herself as a Dalit leader. Every time any question regarding caste is put to her, she becomes uneasy. This was palpable in an interview of hers, aired by NDTV, after she became minister. On a caste-related question she said, “I am proud that I am a daughter of the Valmiki community, the members of which get up at 6 in the morning and instead of cleaning their own homes, clean the homes of others ... you people should rise above this politics of caste and religion.”
Another Dalit AAP minister Girish Soni comes from a Communist background. He was associated with the Democratic Youth Federation of India. This organization has been demanding reservations for the economically weak sections of the upper castes. His own political career has been limited to the issues of power and water. Dalits figure nowhere is his social concerns.
The OBC minister of the new government Somnath Bharati comes from the Baranwal caste of the Vaishya community. His caste is listed as OBC in his home state Bihar but in Delhi and in many other states, it is included in the general category. Bharati has never had anything to do with the ideological stream of social justice. Though he is a lawyer by profession he does not express any faith in the Indian Constitution and judiciary. He prefers ‘direct action’ to solve all problems. After taking over as minister, at midnight of 16 January, he, along with his workers, kept several African men and women captive for hours on the charge that they were drug addicts and indulged in prostitution. One of them was forced to give his urine sample in public. A Patiala house court had held him guilty of tampering with evidence during his lawyer days. The truth is that he, along with other ministers and MLAs of AAP, satisfies the yearning of the Indian middle class for harum-scarum musclemen, donning the cloak of Robin Hood.
The constitution of AAP says that at least five members of  ‘deprived social groups’ like SCs, STs, OBCs and minorities would be compulsorily represented among the district, state and national level executives of the party. If any such group does not get adequate representation, the executive committee concerned will co-opt up to 5 such members. If the co-opted members are not active members, they will be treated as such. Once they are co-opted, these members will enjoy the same rights as elected members.
From the Dalit-bahujan perspective, there are other positive aspects of AAP, in so far as its documentation is concerned. The ‘sankalp patra’ (resolution document) of the party, issued during the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections has a long section on ‘Social Justice’. In this section, there are many populist assurances which fit in perfectly with the theoretical concepts of social justice. One of the assurances is that if voted to power, the government of AAP will “ensure proper implementation of the reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs in services and educational institutions under the Delhi government”. We all know that AAP was born from the womb of an NGO during the anti-corruption movement of Anna Hazare in April 2011. The movement was anti-reservation in its orientation and its leaders and supporters were of the firm view that “reservation is the biggest corruption”. At that time, the main leaders of the movement were Anna Hazare, Shanti Bhushan, Ram Jethmalani, Santosh Hegde, Kiran Bedi and Arvind Kejriwal. Of them, the former Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde and Arvind Kejriwal were openly associated with ‘Youth For Equality’ – an organization of anti-reservation students. Hegde was infamous for giving judgments against and making unwarranted comments about reservations.
 Congress hand behind AAP?
There are reasons to believe that the Congress had sponsored the movement and hyped it up in the media to deflect attention from the proposed ‘Bring back black money’ agitation of Govindacharya and yoga guru Baba Ramdev and from the involvement of heavy-weight union ministers in various scams – and the party succeeded in this endeavour too. (See my article ‘Media aur Anna Ka Andolan’ [Media and Anna’s movement] in the collection ‘Anna Se Arvind Tak’ [From Anna to Arvind] edited by Sandeep Meel and published by Ananya Prakashan, Delhi 2013). It is another matter that the party born out of the movement proved to be the Congress’ nemesis. Anna disassociated himself from this party. 
Be that as it may, Anna’s urban middle-class movement, which sought to challenge the Indian Constitution, Parliament and the pro-social justice democratic polity, has faded away and now before us stands a gleaming new political party called AAP. It has entered the democratic political arena with a bang and is trying to find its place in parliament within the constitutional framework. This is definitely a good sign and a victory for Indian democracy. But given the social base of the party and its intent, an eagle eye needs to kept on its activities. Has it really accepted Indian democracy along with its concept of social justice? Or, has the enemy, after losing the war, infiltrated into our territory in disguise?
The claims, policies and assurances regarding social justice, made in the various documents of the party, at least so far, seem to be meant only to remain on paper. To date, the party has confined its agenda to implementing policies that would benefit the working middle class and small traders.
During the run-up to government formation in Delhi, AAP had posed 18 questions to the BJP and the Congress and had said that only if the two parties assured it of their support on these 18 issues, it would form the government. These questions related to the end of VIP culture, passage of Jan Lokpal bill, auditing of the accounts of power companies, regularization of illegal colonies, provision of basic facilities in industrial areas, opposing FDI in retail, improving the education system,, etc. No question was even remotely related to social justice. If AAP really intended to fulfil its promises regarding social justice, reservations and filling up of the backlog posts then it would have asked the BJP and the Congress that in light of the reservation backlog in government jobs in Delhi being so large, that if only backlog posts are filled, no general vacancy will be advertised for the next several years, would they support AAP in just addressing the reserved positions backlog. In his emotional maiden speech in the Vidhan Sabha, Kejriwal reiterated all the points of his party’s political agenda but nowhere did social justice figure.

            Where does AAP really stand on reservations?
On the issue of reservations, AAP seems to be wearing two masks. During the Anna movement, Arvind Kejriwal used to say that reservations should be given but not to well-off Dalits. And no one should get the benefit of reservations twice (He has been a supporter of reservations on economic basis). But after the formation of AAP, he has maintained a stoic silence on the issue, thus sending out a message to the upper castes that his party would uproot the system of reservations while at the same time assuring the communities covered by reservations that their solution to problems related to corruption, water, power and other civic amenities would benefit them too. But when the issue of reservations in promotions held centre stage in Uttar Pradesh, it became necessary for the party to take a stand on it. Breaking its silence on the issue, AAP, on 15 December, 2012, made its stand clear through its Rajput leader Manish Sisodia. In the only official statement on reservations put on the party’s website, Sisodia vehemently opposed reservations in promotions and termed it as an instrument to divide society: “It is not logical to promote a junior, ignoring his senior, on the basis of reservations. This will vitiate the atmosphere.”
On the other hand, AAP leader Yogendra Yadav, who is considered a protagonist for social justice told The Economic Times on 6 January, 2014, that “We [AAP] didn’t have clarity about it until recently. However, we are now clear about it. We will work for more reservation for disadvantaged groups.”
Two or three points are important in this respect. First, AAP chose a Rajput, Sisodia, to oppose reservations in promotions but since it did not want to antagonize the pro-reservationists, especially with the Lok Sabha elections round the corner, it propped up a ‘Yadav’ to support the measure. Secondly, this is not the official statement of the party and has not been put on its website. It is only something said in the course of conversation with a newspaper reporter. And lastly, when The Economic Times tried to seek the views of other party leaders on this issue, they remained non-committal. Those who declined comment included some who have joined AAP to “serve the nation” after quitting their lucrative jobs. They want to establish the rule of ‘meritocracy’ in India. 
News pouring in from different parts of north India indicates that the AAP is expanding at a rapid pace. People are making a beeline to join the party. Many honest Bahujan leaders in different states are also being drawn towards it. They are the people who are disgusted with the nepotism and hypocrisy of ‘their’ political parties where ‘their’ leaders have been relegated to the sidelines. If AAP has to find a place in Indian politics, it will not be able to do so without the support of Bahujans. It owes its success in Delhi to the massive support extended by these communities.
When media persons tried to corner Yogendra Yadav on the issue of him supporting reservations in promotions, he came out with several interesting pieces of information and made revealing claims on Headlines Today which need to be taken into consideration. He demolished the interviewer’s contention that AAP was a party of the middle classes. He was asked whether supporting reservations would not dent AAP’s basic constituency. He said that the party had got the maximum number of votes from slum clusters, illegal colonies and the rural areas of Delhi and that the voters of posh areas of the city had not contributed significantly to its success.  
Yogendra’s utterances reflect the ongoing tug-of-war within AAP. In fact, the political arena of north India is witnessing many a tug-of-war. The Bahujan intellectuals and social-political activists are on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot decide whether to side with ‘their’ political formations like BSP, SP, RJD, JDU, etc or to jump on the AAP bandwagon. AAP is also yet to decide the direction it wants to take. On the one hand are its mentors – the upper caste, middle-class city dwellers – who shaped it initially and who want to replace the plebeian democracy with a sanitized meritocracy, entirely free from corrupt babus. On the other hand are the Bahujan voters, who have the potential of bringing it to power but who, as a compensation for their repression for centuries, seek affirmative action for the creation of equal opportunities for them.
In the words of Ghalib, it remains to be seen whether AAP chooses ‘emaan’ (faith) or ‘kufr’ (impiety). In fact, what is to be seen is which stream they consider ‘emaan’ and which ‘kufr’.
            As of now, everyone is waiting to see on which side the camel settles down. Or whether the heavy load of expectations breaks its back the moment it leaves Delhi. 

Published  in Forward Press, February,2014.  

Pramod Ranjan is active in Hindi journalism for the last 15 years, Presently Consulting Editor of Forward Press.                       

Friday, April 12, 2013

बहुजन साहित्य और आलोचना

(संपादकीय लेख, बहुजन साहित्‍य वार्षिकी, फारवर्ड प्रेस, अप्रैल, 2013) 

- प्रमोद रंजन

अगर आप मानते हैं कि आलोचना के लिए साहित्यएकमात्र साध्य होना चाहिए और विचारउसे दूषित  करता है, तो मुझे आपसे इस समय कुछ नहीं कहना है.

ब्लैक साहित्य
, दलित साहित्य, बहुजन साहित्य आदि अवधारणाएं सीधे तौर पर विचार’, दृष्टिकोण पर आधारित हैं. इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं कि साहित्य, साहित्य होता है. जैसे, दुनिया, दुनिया होती है. लेकिन मनुष्‍य के लिए दुनिया सिर्फ दुनिया नहीं होती. वह इसका विभाजन भौगोलिक, राजनैतिक, सांस्कृतिक, नस्ली आदि अनेक आधारों पर करता है ताकि उसे जीवन को जीने तथा उसे समझने में सुविधा हो. ज्ञानइसी विभाजन से जन्म लेता है, दरअसल, विभाजन और ज्ञान अन्योन्याश्रति हैं. अन्यथा  पशु के लिए दुनिया सिर्फ दुनिया है.
साहित्य का विभाजन ही आलोचनाके उत्स में है. हम किसी साहित्य को कैसे देखें, कैसे उसे दूसरे अलगाएं और उसकी विशेषता , उसके महत्व, उसके उद्देश्य, उसके प्रभाव को कैसे समझें; किस कोण से उसका आस्वाद सबसे अधिक से अधिक ग्रहण किया जा सकता है - क्या यही बताना आलोचना का दायित्व नहीं है?

अरसे से हिंदी साहित्यिक आलोचना इस दायित्व को नहीं निभा रही. रामचंद्र शुक्ल
, रामविलास शर्मा और बाद में नामवर सिंह आदि कई मुर्द्धन्य आलोचकों ने इस दायित्व को अपने-अपने समय में निभाया. पुराने अनेक प्रकार के साहित्यों की पहचान, प्रगतिशील  आंदोलन से लेकर नई कहानी आंदोलन आदि तक के अनेक प्रकार के विभाजन, इसी आलोचकीय दायित्व की देन हैं. लेकिन, अपनी द्विज सामाजिक पृष्ठभूमि  के कारण हिंदी के इन आलोचकों ने शूद्रों और अतिशूद्रों के साहित्य को अलग से अपने आलोचकीय संज्ञान में नहीं लिया. साहित्य की अन्य धाराओं की तरह उन्होंने उसे एक स्पष्‍ट और स्वायत्त पहचान नहीं दी. कारण चाहे जो भी रहे हों.
इसी कारण, हम दलित साहित्य को मराठी साहित्य से चलकर हिंदी में राजेंद्र यादव जैसे शूद्र लेखक के हाथों में आते देखते हैं. हिंदी में इसका जन्म क्यों नहीं हुआ? महाराष्ट्र  में ही पिछले कुछ वर्र्षों  में ओबीसी साहित्य की धारा और उनके सम्मेलनों का पता भी हमें मिलता है लेकिन आज हिंदी के आलोचकों के लिए यह आष्चर्यचकित करने वाली हास्यास्पद अवधारणा है. क्यों?

बहरहाल, ‘बहुजन साहित्यकी अवधारणा का जन्म फारवर्ड प्रेस के संपादकीय विभाग में हुआ तथा इसका श्रेय हमारे मुख्य संपादक आयवन कोस्का, आलोचक व भाषा विज्ञानी राजेंद्र प्रसाद सिंह तथा लेखक प्रेमकुमार मणि को है. यह पिछले लगभग डेढ वर्षों  में हमारे बीच चले वाद-विवाद और संवाद का नतीजा था. राजेंद्र प्रसाद सिंह ओबीसी साहित्यकी अवधारणा लेकर सामने आये थे लेकिन प्रेमकुमार मणि ने इस शब्दवाली का घनघोर विरोध किया था. मैं भी इस शब्दावली से सहमत नहीं था. (  मैंने हमेशा  ओबीसी साहित्यकी जगह शूद्र साहित्यकहने का प्रस्ताव किया. शूद्रशब्द संस्कृति और धर्म द्वारा प्रदत्त है तथा शूद्रों तथा अतिशूद्रों की एक लंबी साहित्यक परंपरा भी हिंदी पटटी में मौजूद रही है.
अंततः हम बहुजन साहित्यनाम की एक बड़ी छतरी के नाम पर सहमत हुए और वर्ष  2012 में फारवर्ड प्रेस ने पहली बहुजन साहित्य वार्षिकी प्रकाशित की . अनेक पत्र-पत्रिकाओं में उस वार्षिकी  की चर्चा हुई, लेकिन इस वर्ष  बहुजन साहित्य वार्शिकी का संपादन करते हुए मुझे महसूस हुआ कि हम हिंदी के साहित्यकों को इस अवधारणा के बारे में बताने में शायद असफल रहे हैं.
बहुजन साहित्य क्या है?

*     बहुजन साहित्य को उस बडी छतरी की तरह देखा जाना चाहिए जिसके अंतर्गत दलित साहित्य, (सुविधा के लिए इसे हम अतिशूद्रों का साहित्य भी कह सकते हैं) के अतिरिक्त शूद्र साहित्य, आदिवासी साहित्य, तथा स्त्री साहित्य समाहित  है. आम्बेडकरवादी साहित्य, ओबीसी साहित्य आदि जैसी अनेक शब्दवालियां, विचार, दृश्टिकोण इसके आंतरिक विमर्श में समाहित हैं.
* हिंदी में पिछले दो दषकों के दौरान  दलित साहित्य की अवधारणा को स्वीकृति मिली है. लेकिन इसके दो बडे़ विरोधाभास भी हैं. पहला, इसे यह स्वीकृति हाशिये  के साहित्यके रूप में मिली है. यानी मुख्यधारा में कोई औरसाहित्य है. कम्युनिस्ट लेखक इस कोई औरसाहित्य को प्रगतिशील / जनवादी साहित्य कहते हैं. जबकि राजेंद्र यादव समेत सभी दलित साहित्य के लेखकों और समर्थकों का मत है कि जो दलित साहित्य नहीं है, वह सवर्ण साहित्य है.यानी, उनके अनुसार, हिंदी की मुख्यधारा का साहित्य सवर्ण साहित्यहै. दूसरी ओर, प्रगतिशील साहित्य के नाम पर अनेक ऐसे द्विजों के साहित्य की भी गणना की जाती है, जिनके लेखन की अंतर्वस्तु का बड़े भाग पर उनकी द्विज चेतना हावी रही है.

   दलित साहित्य का दूसरा विरोधाभास यह है कि वह सिर्फ अनुसूचित जाति तक सीमित रह गया है यानी जो जातियां भारतीय संविधान के अनुसार एससीसुची में दर्ज हैं, उन्हीं में पैदा हुए लेखक का साहित्य दलित साहित्य होगा. यानी वह सिर्फ अतिशूद्रों का साहित्य है, जिन्होंने अस्पृश्य  होने की पीड़ा झेली है. शूद्र भी इससे बाहर हैं.

* हिंदी साहित्य के इतिहास में जो भी बड़े आंदोलन हुए चाहे वह भक्ति आंदोलन हो या प्रगतिशील आंदोलन, नई कहानी आंदोलन सभी मुख्य धाराका साहित्य बने. क्या यह एक प्रश्न नहीं बनता कि अपनी बौद्धिक गुणवत्ता और विराट परिर्वतनकामी चेतना के बावजूद दलित साहित्य को क्यों हाशियेके साहित्य के रूप में देखा गया और द्विज साहित्य’ ‘मुख्यधारा का साहित्यकी पदवी को इंज्वाय कर रहा है. अगर इसमें षड्यंत्र  की बू नहीं भी आती हो तब भी क्या यह तथ्य दलित लेखकों को अपने भीतर झांकने, अपनी अवाधारणात्मक गलतियों को सुधारने के लिए नहीं उकसाता?

* दलित साहित्य की नींव कबीर, जोतिबा फूले और डॉ आम्बेडकर के विचारों पर टिकी है. इनमें से कबीर (जुलाहा) और जोतिबा फूले (माली) अतिशूद्र नहीं थे बल्कि वे शूद्र परिवार में पैदा हुए थे, जो आज संवैधानिक रूप से ओबीसी समुदाय का हिस्सा है.
* हम कबीर और रैदास के साहित्य में अगर समानताएं पाते हैं तो क्या पर्याप्त फर्क भी नहीं पाते? इसी तरह, जोतिबा फूले और आंबेडकर के चिंतन में अनेक समानताएं हैं तो अनेक फर्क भी हैं. अतिशूद्र और शूद्रों और आदिवासियों तथा स्त्रियों के बीच मुख्य समानता उन्हें ब्रह्मणवादी व्यवस्था द्वारा प्रताड़ित किये जाने तथा उसके विरुद्ध उनका संघर्ष  है. यह समानता इनके साहित्य को भारत के संदर्भ में बहुजन साहित्यके खाते में रखती है तथा असमानताएं (जो न सिर्फ जीवन मूल्यों में बल्कि उसकी साहित्यक अभिव्यक्ति में साफ तौर पर झलकती है) उन्हें अपने अपने साहित्य (दलित साहित्य, ओबीसी साहित्य, आदिवासी साहित्य) को बनाए रखने का उचित आधार प्रदान करती है.
* बहुजन साहित्य की अवधारणा का विकास वस्तुतः हिंदी साहित्य की आलोचना के विकास का सवाल है. जैसे-जैसे हम बहुजन साहित्य को चिन्हित करते जाएंगे, द्विज साहित्य स्वतः हाशिये का का साहित्य बनता जाएगा क्योंकि हिंदी साहित्य का अधिकांश हिस्सा बहुजन साहित्य ही है. जरूरत इस बात की है कि हम कितने कोणों से अपने साहित्य को परखते हैं.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Bahujan Literature and Criticism

EDITORIAL ESSAY, Published in Forward Press,  Bahujan Literary AnnualAPRIL 2013

Bahujan Literature and Criticism

If you believe that literary criticism is aimed only at ‘“literature”“ and that “thinking” contaminate  it, then I have nothing to say to you, at least for now. Concepts like Black literature, Dalit literature and Bahujan literature are directly based on thinking and outlook. There is little doubt that literature is literature, just as the world is the world. But for humans, the world is not just the world.  They have divided it into many parts on geographical, political, cultural and ethnic considerations so as to facilitate their life and to give it a meaning. In fact, division and wisdom are mutually interdependent. Otherwise, like for an animal, the world is just the world
In fact, the division of literature is fundamental to criticism. How do we look at  literature, how do we make distinctions between it, its characteristics, its importance, its objectives, its impact, from which angle can it be understood the best - shouldn’t criticism answer all these questions? For quite some time now, Hindi literary criticism is not discharging this responsibility.  Ramchandra Shukla, Ramvilas Sharma and later Namvar Singh and other eminent critics discharged this responsibility in their own times. The classification of Progressive literature, “Nayee Kahani,” and so on were all born out of the discharge of this responsibility. But due to their ‘Dwij’ social background, these Hindi critics did not take cognizance of the literature of ‘Shudras’ and ‘Atishudras’ as a separate genre. They did not give a clear, distinct identity to this literature, whatever might have been the reasons.
That is why Dalit literature originated in Marathi and thence reached Shudra writers like Rajendra Yadav. Why was it not born in Hindi? We are aware of the existence of a distinct stream of OBC literature and of its literary congregations in Maharashtra but today, for the Hindi critics, it  is nothing except an astounding but laughable concept. Why?
Be that as it may, the concept of ‘Bahujan literature’ was born in the editorial department of FORWARD Press and the credit  must go to our chief editor Ivan Kostka, critic and linguist Rajendra Prasad Singh and writer Premkumar Mani. The evolution of the concept was the outcome of the debate and discussions between us, which lasted for well over  a year and a half. It was Rajendra Prasad Singh who came out with the concept of ‘OBC literature’ while Prem Kumar Mani doggedly opposed this terminology. I too was not agreeable to the use of this term. I preferred using the term “Shudra literature” rather than “OBC literature”. The word ‘Shudra’ has its origins in culture and religion and there is a long literary tradition of Shudras and Atishudras in the Hindi belt.
  Ultimately, we agreed on the umbrella term “Bahujan literature” and in the year 2012, FORWARD Press published its first Bahujan Literature Annual. The publication was discussed and debated in many newspapers and magazines but while editing the Bahujan Literature Annual this year, I realized that perhaps we have failed to apprise Hindi litterateurs of the concept of “Bahujan literature”.

·                   Bahujan literature  is a big umbrella, under which fall Dalit literature (For convenience sake we can describe it as “Atishudra literature”), Shudra literature, Tribal literature and  Women’s literature. Terminologies, thoughts and viewpoints like Ambedkarite literature, OBC literature, etc. can be included in its internal discourse.
·                   In Hindi, the concept of Dalit literature has gained acceptance only over the last  two decades. But there are two contradictions inherent in it. First, it has only been accepted as a marginal literary genre, which means that some “other literature” constitutes the mainstream. Communist writers call this other literature Progressive or People’s literature. Whereas, Rajendra Yadav and all writers and supporters of Dalit literature insist that “what is not Dalit literature is ‘Savarna literature’” Thus, according to them, the mainstream Hindi literature is ‘Savarna literature’. On the other hand, the compositions of many ‘Dwij’ writers, a major part of the contents of which is dominated by their ‘Dwij’ consciousness, is also counted in Progressive literature. The second contradiction of Dalit literature is that it has been confined to the Scheduled Castes i.e. only the writings of persons born in one of the castes listed in the SC list of India’s constitution is qualified to be described as Dalit literature. This means that it is only the literature of the Atishudras, who underwent the agony of untouchability. Even the Shudras are out of its ambit.
·                   All the major movements in Hindi literature - whether it was Bhakti movement or Progressive movement or “Nayee Kahani” movement - ultimately went on to become “mainstream” literature. Does this not beg the question, despite its intellectual promise and its powerful pro-change thrust, why only Dalit literature was designated as marginal literature whilst ‘Dwij’ literature enjoyed the status of mainstream literature? Even if this does not smell of a conspiracy, shouldn’t it make  Dalit writers introspect and correct  their conceptual mistakes?
·                   The foundation of Dalit literature lies are the thoughts of Kabir, Phule and Dr. Ambedkar. Of  these , Kabir (weaver) and Jotiba Phule (gardener) were not Atishudras. They were Shudras and the communities they were born in are, today, constitutionally speaking, part of the OBC community. If we find many similarities in the writings of Kabir and Raidas can’t we comprehend the differences thereof? Similarly, if there are similarities in the thoughts of Jotiba Phule and Ambedkar, there are ample differences too. The similarity between Atishudras, Shudras, tribals and women is that they all were victims of the Brahmanical system and they all struggled against it. This similarity, in the Indian context, places their literature in the category of Bahujan literature. The dissimilarities (which are evident not only in their values but also in their literary expressions) affords them the rationale to maintain a distinct identity of their own literature (Dalit literature, OBC literature, Tribal literature).
·                   The question of the growth of the concept of Bahujan literature is, in reality, the question of the growth of criticism in Hindi literature. As we go on identifying Bahujan literature, ‘Dwij’ literature will automatically shift to the margins. Because, the majority of Hindi literature is Bahujan literature. The need of the hour is to examine our literature from all possible angles.