Not his birth, but civil society’s hypocrisy is Rohith Vemula’s fatal accident

If asked what is essential to survive in this country, one would unhesitatingly say that it is caste. This statement might evoke negative responses from the many Indians who are known to affirm that caste is a myth. However, the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula and the developments that came after it suggest otherwise. It showed us that the country responds to such incidents by asking ‘who’ is Rohith, and not ‘why’ and ‘how’ Rohith died. It also became evident that civil society primarily looks for caste while deciding whether or not to express their solidarity..The closure report in the Rohith Vemula case that the Telangana police recently submitted in court delves at length on his caste and declares that he did not belong to a Scheduled Caste community. Following the news, former Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated, “Rohith’s issue was politicised”. She said that the university was “not allowed to handle the incident with the utmost sensitivity” but that it was “dragged across the streets all over the country and a narrative was built against the government”. Despite the continuous struggle demanding justice for Rohith Vemula, the former minister is convinced that the issue is resolved, even saying that “Rohith had his dignity to be respected”. Ironically, the only question that is still echoed is “Who is Rohith Vemula?” When the question of ‘who’ dominates the process of delivering justice, how does it ensure dignity to any being? Underlying the “question of ‘who’” is a strong indication of the casteist nature of society. As we saw in the case of Rohith, it will allow civil society to depend on stigma and humiliation as their weapons to make sure the justice process is delayed. Justice delayed is justice deniedAt a public meeting titled ‘Nation without social justice’ organised on behalf of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students Association (BAPSA) at Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on August 24, 2016, Rohith’s mother Radhika Vemula questioned society’s hypocrisy in belittling the ‘Justice for Rohith’ struggle. She expressed deep agony over the developments after Rohith’s death and the delay in justice delivery. Radhika said, “Everyone is engaged in proving that my son is not a Dalit. I know what my caste is, this mother knows what Rohith's caste is. If Rohith belonged to an Other Backward Class (OBC), why should his mother stop her struggle? If Rohith was an OBC, why does this country think I will remain silent?”Beyond his caste identity, Rohith was an emerging scholar of science. Indian society didn't endorse his identity as a scientist even though he stated so clearly in his letter: “I always wanted to be a writer. A writer of science, like Carl Sagan.” Not only was he an emerging scientist, he was also a rational human. However, his life was always surrounded by the question of identity, as Rohith himself stated. He wrote, “The value of a man was reduced to his immediate identity and nearest possibility. To a vote. To a number. To a thing. Never was a man treated as a mind.”When the value of Rohith’s being is reduced to his caste identity, the questions that are echoed in society are – Did Rohith die as a Dalit? Or as a member of an OBC? There were very few who asked if Rohith died as a scientist or a human being. Society didn’t let him die like any other human being. If he was allowed to, we would have seen his last letter written differently, with a sign of hope.A society ‘divorced from nature’During my days at Hyderabad Central University (HCU), I had interacted with Rohith on a few occasions in 2014. During one such interaction, when he was associated with the Student Federation of India (SFI), Rohith had said, “If we limit our democratic and progressive politics only to the campus space, it won’t serve the larger purpose of what we aspire to do.” He always stressed on the fact that we need to connect with the ground reality to widen our political ideology. A sentence in his last letter can be read with this: “I loved science, stars, nature, but then I loved people without knowing that people have long since divorced from nature.” The fact that people have been “divorced from nature” since long, highlights a few key points. One is how people practise socio-cultural distancing from members of marginalised groups by endorsing entrenched inequalities. This way, society stops treating themselves as independent minds. (Never was a man treated as a mind, as Rohith said.) In this process, maintaining silence becomes the norm. This silence that exists in society is a boon to the State. When silence gets institutionalised, it is women and oppressed groups who are affected. But Radhika Vemula couldn’t endorse this silence. She went on questioning and fighting for justice. However, to what extent the country offered her a helping hand in the process of struggle, is a question to be asked.In June 2016, a Dalit scholar in JNU, named Muthukrishna Jeevanantham, described Radhika's struggle as 'A universal mother without a nation'. In 1931, Babasaheb Ambedkar said, “Gandhiji, I have no homeland”. These two statements provide the ideal lens for decoding society’s silence.The marginalised sections in this country struggle to assert their presence in any given field. They question themselves and feel inferior. On the other hand, society often ridicules the existence of those groups. From the Indian independence movement to the present day, this is a known practice.For example, speaking in the Bombay Legislative Assembly (BLA debates, October 27, 1939) on the alarming living conditions of the depressed sections, Dr BR Ambedkar firmly stated, “I know my position has not been understood properly in the country. It has often been misunderstood. My position is: As between the country and myself, the country will have precedence; as between the country and the Depressed Classes, the Depressed Classes will have precedence, the country will not have precedence.”Countering Ambedkar’s position, another member BG Kher stated, “Ambedkar said that between the depressed classes and the country, the depressed classes have precedence with him. My quarrel is with that statement of his. Because the part can never be greater than the whole. The whole must contain the part.”What BG Kher stated was the dominant narrative during the national movement that prioritised the country's interests but not the depressed classes’. Responding to Kher’s statement, Ambedkar said, “I am not a part of the whole; I am a part apart.”Being a part apart in IndiaBoth statements made by Ambedkar – ‘Gandhiji, I have no homeland’ and ‘I am not a part of the whole; I am a part apart’ – make us understand how caste in India has socially and emotionally alienated the oppressed sections from the nation and civil society. Speaking on a similar theme, Mahatma Phule categorically stated, “There cannot be a ‘nation’ worth the name until and unless all the people of the land of King Bali – such as Shudras and Ati-shudras, Bhils, and fishermen, become truly educated, and are able to think independently for themselves and are uniformly unified and emotionally integrated.”Given this historical premise, how is it acceptable for society to sideline the struggle of Radhika Vemula and instead pose the question of ‘who’ is Rohith? Now, Radhika Vemula is “a part apart”, which was rightly described by Muthukrishna as “a universal mother without a nation”. Perhaps this is what society would like to hear from Radhika Vemula: “I have no homeland”.We are still witnessing incidents of deaths by suicide in educational institutions. Many fact-finding committee reports have made it clear that campuses are not devoid of harassment and humiliation. Despite the warnings, we still see sheer apathy expressed by the State in containing the suicides. By going a step ahead, it also belittles and suppresses the struggles for justice. As Radhika Vemula might say, “Dear homeland, I don't even belong to your civil society!”According to various judgements passed by different courts, such as Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika versus State of Gujarat (2012), and others in 2016, and 2022 on the caste of children raised by their mother since childhood, Rohith was a Dalit. As for all those who say otherwise, do they accept him as an OBC? If yes, are we witnessing any struggle in demanding justice for Rohith? Or does this country not care if an OBC student dies? Prime Minister Narendra Modi campaigned in the elections stating he is an OBC. By ignoring the issues surrounding the welfare of OBCs, Modi is working relentlessly to perpetuate his monolithic politics of Hindutva. What is important to note here is that whether Rohit is a Dalit or an OBC, it is the socially wounded weaker sections who are part of the struggle.Between the State’s indifference and the society’s hypocrisy, who should fight for Rohith and support Radhika Vemula? Those who believe Rohith was Dalit? Those who think he was an OBC? The scholars of science who believe him to have been an emerging scientist? Like-minded persons who thought Rohith to be a universal human? Mothers like Radhika Vemula who have lost their daughters and sons to the systemic violence in educational institutions? The Congress party that is promising to deliver justice? Or does Rohith have to rise again to fight for justice and a fistful of self-respect, as Kalekuri Prasad wrote:I'm not a victim, I'm an immortal;I am the fluttering flag of defiance;Don't shed tears for me; If you can; Bury me in the middle of the city; I'll bloom as the bamboo grove that sings the melody of life; Print my corpse as this nation's cover; I'll spread as a beautiful future into the pages of history; Invite me into your hearts; I'll become a tussle of conflagrations; And rise again and again in this land. Amidst many questions, one thing remains true — it is not Rohith who has died, but the civil society. With its hypocrisy and silence, it is socially dead. Rohith is and will be alive.“My birth is my fatal accident,” wrote Rohith in his letter, leaving behind a spirit that would question persisting inequities in campus spaces and expose the silence endorsed by the country to further enable a democratic movement fighting for justice. This spirit also rejects the state-sponsored notion of justice that tries to erase the narrative of struggle, instead bringing up the narrative of compensation. It is not surprising that Radhika Vemula understood these complex mechanisms of state-society functioning and still stood for justice for her son and many others. Now, time will tell us whether society would change its heart and empathise with Radhika Vemula or prefer to a death caused by inequalities.Views expressed are the author’s own.Pallikonda Manikanta is a Phule-Ambedkarite researcher based in Telangana. He is the co-founder and faculty at Phule Ambedkar Center for Philosophical and English Training (PACPET) in Tellapur, Hyderabad..Keep independent journalism alive. Subscribe to The News Minute and make a difference.