Deconstruction of BAPSA’s Pamphlet

Deconstruction of BAPSA’s Pamphlet: A Footnote to Dinesh Kumar

It is Sep 6, evening. Voting for JNUSU election was to begin in less than twelve hours. A “philosopher friend” of mine named Dinesh Kumar come to my room.

“Whom you are going to vote,” he questioned.

“It could be a female from AISF,” I replied with adding that, “I am also thinking about BAPSA.”

“If I were at your position, then I will vote for BAPSA,” said Dinesh by putting his hand on his head in an advising manner.

I understand the hidden meaning what he was trying to suggest me. Today, two weeks later, he comes with a note “Interrogating BAPSA’s Ideology: Follow the principle of No Hindu Chauvinism, No More Minority Fundamentalism.”

After reading read his words, I decide to write something on this pamphlet. My arguments in this note is purely based on an essay “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell. Some of my sentences also have an indirect resembles with Jacques Derrida’s “Deconstruction” in which he stated the relationship between “text” and “meaning.” Before going deep on the subject, let me quote the words of BAPSA’s Pamphlet with  which my friend Dinesh has  "objection":

Oppression through Egalitarian Religions and Philosophies

Religions like Buddhism, Islam, Christianity and many others have played a significant role in spreading the ideas of equality and humanity at a particular point of its historical development, and they still continue to inculcate humanitarian values for many. Buddha was always against violence and Buddhism is all about compassion and fellow feeling. However it has always lost its egalitarian transformative values once the socially dominant oppressive forces appropriated it for their own interest, producing a larger cultural hegemony for a more stable power structure. The same happened even with a non-spiritual, non-religious egalitarian philosophy like Marxism that produced social Fascism in USSR and China under ‘communist’ or ‘proletariat’ dictatorship. The oppressive forces with the help of state machinery produce, reproduce and regulate regressive social values, inequalities through socially dominant cultures. In such condition a transformative ideal can become a dogma, fanatic and oppressive. Further under a democratic electoral system, the oppressive forces always try to convert political majority into a communal majority through the dominant culture, posing a serious threat to the entire humanity or democracy itself. Therefore this is high time for the oppressed from all faith, all countries, to support each other by isolating the common enemies within.

Here is my deconstruction of the text, meaning, language and its effect on the careful person.

The first line, “have played significant role(s) in spreading the ideas of equality and humanity” is itself a lie as all the religions, except a few, are promoting more hatred and bloodshed against a different community.  Christian hates Jew, Hindu hates Muslim, Shia hates Sunni and many others. So “the ideas of equality and humanity” dies a premature death in the embryo of religion long before it was born. Yes, I forget to mention, "Left" hate "ABVP" so the "BAPSA."

The second line: no objection on the second line.

The third line is most problematic as it stated that Buddhism “lost its egalitarian transformative values once the socially dominant oppressive forces appropriated it for their own interest?” No doubt, when religion mixed with politics, it becomes polluted.

The fourth line remains the biggest hurdle and becomes totally undigested when you compare Buddhism with fascism especially “with a non-spiritual, non-religious egalitarian philosophy like Marxism.” The gap was further widened by making it a synonymous of “social Fascism in USSR and China.”

The language by the writer is unstructured in third and fourth line. The writer has to quote Marxism first and then Buddhism in the context. If this was employed then. the problem remains even less. By using this, one can say that Buddhism is wrong as it is walking on the path of Fascism. But, your meaning is totally opposite. This line with fouth line means that Buddhism is Fascist and rest of the ideologies are its “tail.” And its “head” is Buddhism. By Buddhism, I mean the corrupted Buddhism under the influence of politics, or the bad politics.

Following the essay of Orwell, till four lines, the language is highly Socialist and Marxist. It can be proved by the excessive use of words like “humanitarian values,” “egalitarian transformative values,” “socially dominant oppressive forces,” “cultural hegemony” and “more stable power structure,” “Marxism,” “social Fascism,” ‘communist’ or ‘proletariat’ dictatorship. Here, one like Dinesh could easily interrogate BAPSA with the words “Are you promoting Ambedkarism or Socialism?” If you follow the footprints of Ambedkar, then it was not the language of this “icon” who believed in more democratic and constitutional language. Whether it is Marxists or socialists, they always discredit State and religion. But, name me even a single Socialist country that is able to disband religion from its land. I assure that your answer is negative. Ambedkar believed in “state” and wanted to eradicate all evils by living in the structure (one can interrogate me here on the point of his conversion to Buddhism). It is his belief that leads us to the Constitution.

I recommend you to use original Ambedkarite Language that is solely based on the Constitution. If possible, avoid the words “fascist,” “proletariat,” “dictatorship” or the traditional Marxist terminology. You fight is also against Socialism who never support you in your struggle. And your using of their language, surely giving strength to them instead of you. On a different note, if I ask you a question, “what is the difference between your structural language and the language used by the Socialists,” then what would be your answer. My dear friends, Ambedkar is behind the picture. Bring him on the stage.

The fifth line is correct, but again what is the content of it. “The oppressive forces” “state machinery” stands for which ideology. Even, socialist countries too “oppressive forces with the help of state machinery produce, reproduce and regulate regressive social values, inequalities through socially dominant cultures.” For example China. If so, then how would you justify your words by using the socialist diction.

Sixth: I am accepting it correct. So, no argument on it.

The seventh line is even wrong. Each “political majority” is a “communal majority.” Donald Trump did it in the USA, but everything is subtle in the USA. In fact, it is a communist propaganda. However, the question, does or not the majority have rights? Did they ever stop any advancement of society? If they had stopped, there would never be gender justice in the society. Today they are losing power. “They” means majority as well as elite “socialists” and “Marxists.” Hence, they are dividing people in “majority” and “minority.” Disassociate from such “Comrades” (Finally, I started to exploit the Socialist diction. In fact, Orwell teaches this to me. If someone is interested in knowing then reading the ending of “Politics and the English Language”)

The pamphlet has a final line, “Therefore this is high time for the oppressed from all faith, all countries, to support each other by isolating the common enemies within.” It reminds me of the ending of “The Communist Manifesto” which reads “workers of the world unite.”

But, whether it is Marx or BAPSA or even Socialist-cum-Marxist, everyone failed to tell “how to unite.” “From where to start and where to end?” Is there anyone who can tell. Marx wanted to “unite” in the absence of religion, but it is the irony of the situation is that even his name “KARL MARX” was given by religion. Why did not he change his name? It shows his religious temper, what if it is behind the scene. It is the reason, William Shakespeare writes, “What is in a name?”

Now, I simply ask,

• What is the difference between the “language” of BAPSA and LEFT?
• What is the difference between the “ideology” LEFT and BAPSA?
• Is it promoting Idea of Ambedkar or Marx?
• Is BAPSA a group of Neo-Socialists, (as ABVP claimed in their election pamphlet).

Being a student of JNU, I have a special respect for BAPSA for their struggle and hard work. If they delink from the socialist diction, terminology and even ideology, then it could surely promote and secure the vision of Ambedkar.

There are two types of people in this world. One is Foolish, and another is intelligent. Everyone likes to be in the company of Intelligent. But, a "fool" is full of ideas that are logical, scientific and even ration but intellectual do not like to talk to them. “They are dirt,” for the intellectuals. It is this notion of intelligent towards “fool” which makes them “Outsider.” Dinesh is Outsider. I am Neo-Outsider.

A final note is: do the critique in "language" of Ambedkar, and if possible "avoid to brand" me in socialist style.