Speaking Stones

Initially published in www.artconcerns.com, ed: M.L.Johny

Johny ML goes through the arguments forwarded by Shivji Panicker and Santhosh.S on articulating the Dalit aesthetics, during the Delhi Biennale Society Seminar and tries to locate them in the context of ‘other English’ as proposed by H.A.Anil Kumar.

Shivji Panicker

Articulating the Dalit aesthetic interventions in the field of visual arts is perhaps a new phenomenon in Indian art history. For the last few years, art historians/critics from various parts of India have been voicing their concerns on subaltern visual aesthetics. These articulations mostly included the issues pertaining to the feminist aesthetic production as well as the aesthetics of the homosexuals. However, there was a deliberate silence on the issues of the Dalits and the marginalized people from the ‘scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.’ Though Dalit literature has become a special category in itself by now, there has been a deafening silence on the Dalit articulations in visual arts.

Two questions become pertinent at this context. Are there no Dalit artists in India? If there are Dalit artists, why their aesthetics concerns are not addressed in and by the art historians? These two questions bring forth another set of questions: How many artists who belong to the Dalit communities, ideologically stick to their ‘Dalit-ness’? If they do so, are their voices silenced within the academies? How do the Dalit artists transcend their social categorization as ‘Dalits’? Or are they forced to disinvest their Dalit interests for getting included in the larger category of ‘modern’ artists? If someone sticks to his/her Dalit ideology, how are they facilitated to continue with it in the academies? Or the academic structures incapacitate them by clipping their ideological frills using hegemonic arguments and interpretations?

There is no doubt that Indian art historical practice is a domain of elitism. The field of Indian art historical and critical practices is dominated by English speaking and affluent personalities from the bourgeoisie class who do not naturally feel affiliated to the Dalit issues. Even their academic interests automatically find boundaries within the feminist/gay discourse, which by this time has become fashionable or worth articulating thanks to the international acceptance of such discourses. Besides, the feminist and homo-sexual visual aesthetics is actively handled by those artists who come from English speaking affluent classes, who could transcend the imposed social constraints using their class affiliations. Their marginality within the cultural discourse, in this sense becomes a handy tool as this marginality could always find voice in the mainstream platforms of cultural discourse. I am not overlooking the fact that there was a concerted effort by the art historians working from advantageous positions to make these ‘marginal voices’ as a part of the mainstream art historical discourse.

Before getting into the elitist structure of Indian art history, which Y.S.Alone accuses of being Brahminical, I would like to linger on the issues of ‘class and language’ that identify the Dalit as Dalits. Young art historian H.A.Anil Kumar has once pointed out (during a panel discussion at the Ramkinker Baij Seminar, Santiniketan, February, 2007) that Indian art historical/critical discourses are limited by the ‘language structure’, which is almost like ‘caste and class structure’. One has to learn or adopt to the ‘naturalness’ of a language, which is not his/her own, in order to articulate the aesthetic concerns dear to him/her. This adoption functions as a double burden on the art historian. To articulate his concepts and ideas in a language which is not his natural language, one has to overlook his own regionality and thereby deceive and betray his own audience. According to H.A.Anil Kumar, this adoption of a new language posits the art historian/critic in the field of a pan-Indian discourse, where the audience is seen as an English speaking nebulous category. Excelling in a language that is not one’s own then becomes akin to transcending one’s class affiliation and connotes the generic aspiration of the members of the middle class who endlessly aspire and try for breaking loose of the class binding and reach to the upper echelons.

Bringing linguistic structure as a part or as a parallel to the class structure Anil Kumar almost touches the anti-climatic experiences of the art historians/critics who continuously strive for adopting the ‘English’ language as their medium of expression. The generic aspiration of the middle class is intended here. Like the upper portion of the class structure always finds a new high, the system of language too finds a new high always, disprivileging the middle class of the final transcendence of their class consciousness. English language, as a system of mediation renews itself continuously so as to make the aspiring classes to remain where they began. However, the established upper class reinvents itself (while retaining its traditional beliefs on the notion of purity including that of the linguistic purity) in the new systems of language, which reiterates its position in the socio-cultural hierarchy.

The auto-destabilization of the upper portion of the class hierarchy should be seen as a clever strategy of the hegemony in order to prevent the aspiring classes from reaching or invading the upper portion of the hegemonic order. The disqualification of expressionism as an effective art language comes from this attempt of destabilization. Shivji Panicker is nothing but perceptual when he says that the Euro-American refusal of expressionism is an ideological strategy to disinvest the minorities with their right to express. Shivji Panicker points out that the ‘uncouth and unsophisticated’ nature of expressionism is ‘the’ rightful expression of the subaltern classes. Disowning or repudiating this language as a defunct one, would naturally take away the right of the subaltern classes from expressing themselves.

I would like to draw a parallel between the linguistic destabilizing by the upper class as pointed out by H.A.Anil Kumar and the repudiation of expressionism as an effective art language as cited by Shivji Panicker. Anil Kumar does not push the issue of English language into the arena of the post-colonial discourse. He does not see English language as a residual of the colonial hangover as it would only distract the argument from the core issue. English came to India as a language of governance, which later became the language of a particular class; a class that could address the governed from many positions. The intricate relationship of this language with the governing class, and the aspirational level of the governed class to attain the position of the governing class, problematizes the purity of this language. The purity is retained only when either one belongs to the governing class or when gains the membership of the governing class. This transcendence of class still seems to be an illusion as the consciousness of the original class still remains an un-erasable stigma.

English language as a problem, then opens up another area of discourse. If one does not speak the English of the hegemonic class, and yet speak in English, what English is he/she speaking? In that case one has to accept that there are several Englishes, which defy the purity of the language. However, the art historical/critical practice in India looks for and entertains the English and this adherence to ‘the English’ as the system of mediation excludes all the other Englishes from its consideration thereby stifling the many voices of art history. It is the same what happens, as Shivji points out, when ‘expressionisms’ of the subaltern are made redundant by the hegemonic class of India. Ironically, the Euro-American art has abandoned expressionism as an effective language, their museums have given Expressionism its due classical status.

Though Shivji Panicker does not touch upon the classical status of Expressionism, his formulation of expressionism as an uncouth and unsophisticated language corresponds well with the many Englishes in India, which according to Anil Kumar, are stifled by the hegemonic English. The rejection of expressionisms stems out from the cultural elitism and untouchability as a covert national policy of governance in India, Shivji observes. He cites the works of the noted artist Savi Savarkar in this context. Savi Savarkar, who employs a variant of the expressionism is not accepted as a ‘national artist’. His affiliation to the neo-Buddhist ideology and his belongingness to the Dalit class prevent him from getting due recognition in the national art scene. Ironically, Savi was initially taken as an ethnographic example in the west and later his works were appreciated for their aesthetic verve, Shivji says. India still resists the inclusion of Savi in its mainstream cultural discourse as he does not use ‘the Expressionism’ but one of the expressionisms that is ‘uncouth’ and ‘unsophisticated.’

In this context, S.Santhosh’s observations on the category of Dalit aesthetics become a little problematic. One can nothing but accept that the art historical/critical practice is in the hands of the elite, who are driven by the westernized bourgeoisie angst. Santhosh also says that the voices of subaltern are always stifled for the fear that it would pollute the sanitized areas of art historical practice. He accuses the Left (radical left excluded) for co-opting the subaltern issues/voices for entering into the hegemonic domain of governance. He envisions a future when the Dalits themselves could write off (erase?) their Dalitness through multiple articulations. Despite all these well argued cases, Santhosh contradicts himself in the formulation of Dalit aesthetics as a category (of discourse).

Santhosh S

For Santhosh, unlike Anil Kumar and Shivji Panicker, subaltern (read Dalit) is not a linguistic issue. While defining Dalit as a generic category, Santhosh brings in a host of references, which is socio-political and racial in complexion. He invests his arguments in the fact that the Dalits’ gains in the socio-political front do not get translated as their cultural gains. The exclusion of Dalit from the elite (for Y.S.Alone, Brahminical) discourses, for Santhosh, has got neo-imperialist designs.

How do you locate the Dalit aesthetics within or without the elite art historical/critical discourse? Can all the kinds of Expressionisms be Dalit expressions? Is there any other category, other than the artist’s belongingness to the Dalit groups, that could be termed as the location of Dalit aesthetics (in visual art)? How many Dalit artists do you know in the Indian art scene? How do you unpack the nebulous Dalit art practitioners’ aesthetics? If there is a Dalit aesthetics, what is the nature of it? Are all the Dalit artists progressives in nature? If they need not be ‘progressives’ per se, what they could be? How do you locate different Dalit positions within this (these) Dalit aesthetics? Except for Savi Savarkar, how many Dalit artists articulate their positions in a vehement manner? These could be some of the questions, perhaps, Santhosh does not address in his presentation. Unless and until he finds answers for this, he also will be co-opted by the ‘elite’ stream of art history/criticism.

Before I conclude, let me try to go back to the questions that I formulated in the beginning of this essay. Savi Savarkar becomes a representative of the Dalit artists in India. Interestingly, as he is the only artist cited by both Y.S.Alone and Shivji Panicker, my question still remains, where are the other Dalit artists gone? How did both Alone and Shivji fail to cite a few more names? Why Santhosh, though he referred Kerala several times, could not cite a single Dalit artist’s name from Kerala in his paper?

Noted art historian R.Nandakumar has once observed that when an art student gets enrolled in an art institution, he/she unconsciously assumes the responsibility of progressiveness and modernity. An art student who hails from a Dalit community enters the gates of an art academy, he/she also assumes the responsibility of progressiveness and modernity. What he/she speaks then onwards is the language of modernity that helps him/her to transcend the class and caste positions. If  that is the case, how many artists/art students would be ready to enter into an active identity politics? If he or she does not articulate their Dalitness, would they be considered as renegades? Is transcending the Dalit position a sin? Or is it mandatory that all those artists coming from the underprivileged classes should articulate their class in their works? Where do we find the freedom in our academic curriculum to articulate Dalit awareness, at the cost of ‘modern art’? Who would tell the students that their ‘uncouth’ and ‘unsophisticated’ expressions(isms) are, in reality effective tools of subaltern expressions? My genuine question is this, is Dalit articulation possible only from within the academies.///