Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (VMMRC), Vakkom is organising a Special Web-Lecture on Saturday, at 7.00 PM (IST), on 12 February, in association with the Institute for Global South Studies and Research.
Dr Sabrina Lei, Director, Tawasul Europe Centre for Research and Dialogue, Rome will speak on the theme Religion, Culture, Identity and Nationalism: A Brief Philosophical Exploration. Ambassador K.P. Fabian,Diplomat and Commentator will chair the session.
You are cordially invited for the Lecture and discussion.
“History begins in a barbarism of sense and ends in a barbarism of reflection,” says Italian Philosopher Giambattista Vico. Vico claimed that men ‘make’ their own history, and his claim had a different view of what ‘making’ means. When Dr. Abdel Latif Chalikandi—a Rome-based scholar, who serves as the Cultural Advisor, Tawasul Europe Centre for Research and Dialogue—was speaking on British Raj: Orientalism, Power and Formation of Indian History, while delivering ‘Shahul Hameed Memorial Lecture-2022’ organised by Vakkom Moulavi Memorial Research Centre (VMMRC) in Kerala, the problematic concerns of colonial historiography began to get a new analytical trail. Latif himself quoted Vico to highlight how civilization developed in a recurring cycle of three ages: the divine, the heroic, and the human and how each age could be characterised by its distinct political and social features.
Abdul Latif Chalikandi
Latif raised an important question of ‘objectivity’ in the making of history, which he sought to highlight through critiquing the prism of ‘Orientalism,’ the term employed by Edward Said, for a constellation of false assumptions underlying Western attitudes toward the East, particularly vis-à-vis the Muslim world. The significance of Said’s critique is in pointing out how, even after colonialism, the systems of thinking and representing, which formed the basis of colonial power relations, still live on.
According to Latif, the “British Raj represented one of the most overwhelming modern colonial powers. In terms of its culture and in terms of its durability, it is more overpowering than the American imperialism of the present-day world. American imperialism started dominating only in the post-war period, but the British imperialism controlled almost one-fourth of the world and lasted for more than a century and a half. The influence of the British Raj is all pervading. Modern Indian state and its institutions, such as bureaucracy, judiciary and other structures are still influenced by the British Raj, whether in a good way or bad way.”
Latif tried to show how the British Raj and its historiography still holds sway in India, even after several decades of independence. He said this “colonial historiography is deeply connected with orientalist version/projection of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ It also carried within itself the ‘civilising mission’ in the locales of oriental backwardness.” Latif says that the new rulers have inherited this culture and mission of the colonial historiography.
This he tried to explain, again, through the framework set by Edward Said in his Culture and imperialism. Said quotes Basil Davidson (Africa in Modem History) saying that “History, in other words, is not a calculating machine. It unfolds in the mind and the imagination, and it takes body in the multifarious responses of a people’s culture, itself the infinitely subtle mediation of material realities.” Then Latif extracts Said: “Appeals to the past are among the commonest of strategies in interpretations of the present.” And “what animates such appeals is not only disagreement about what happened in the past and what the past was, but uncertainty about whether the past really is past, over and concluded, or whether it continues, albeit in different forms, perhaps.”
Latif went on explaining how the Malabar rebellion in Kerala (1921-22) has been depicted by radical nationalists in India, in recent decades, as an instance of projecting ‘Muslim atrocities’ on the majority community, in the way Said argued, obviously with a view to serving the political objectives of the present. He further noted that even characters in films and novels are subjected to such gross misrepresentation and distortions.
According to Latif, ideology and identity continued to be challenging forces in the making of history, as they were during the colonial period through the prism of Orientalism. He said “radical nationalists in India today, inspired by the divisive British Raj historiography and the negative orientalist projections of Islam and Muslims, are causing further divisiveness and religious violence in India.” He said “many British historians and colonial administrators, like Mill and Lord Macaulay, were not only contemptuous of India’s ancient culture but also created a discourse of Hindu-Muslim rivalries by dividing India’s history on religious basis.” Latif also said that “radical identity politics championed by certain minority groups further erodes the communal peace and harmony in the country. In spite of all opportunities to come together, humanity is at a critical juncture with religious neurosis, and imperialist neurosis. And amidst this, we must stress the pluralistic ethos of India, upholding a refined humanism that cut across all religions, cultural and ethnic divisions,” he added. He also noted that “research should be conducted into roots of the colonial historiography to make both academics and laymen aware of its perils and the way its germs continue to shape the country’s community relations in a negative way.” Latif appealed: “We must necessarily de-colonialise our approach to Indian history and re-form it in a more inclusive, humanistic terms.”
Dr Jose Abraham, faculty at the Fuller Theological Seminary at California, Dr. B. Ekbal, former vice chancellor of the University of Kerala, Dr V. Mathew Kurian, Joint Director of the KN Raj Centre, MG University, VMMRC Secretary Er. Sameer Muneer, P.M. Joshi and others spoke. Mujeeb Rahman Kinaloor chaired the session.
Dr Abdel Latif Chalikandi and his Italian wife Dr Sabrina Lei are instrumental in making Tawasul Centre at Rome an important institution of inter-faith dialogue. Dr Lei, a noted Italian philosopher, translated The Gita, The Quran, the Upanishads, Sree Narayana Guru’s Atmopadesa Satakam, and several works into Italian as part of creating better interfaith relations and cross-cultural literacy in Italy and Europe.
Vakkom Moulavi Memorial Research Centre is organising A. Shahul Hameed Sahib Memorial Lecture – 2022 to be delivered by Dr. Abdel Latif Chalikandi, a renowned scholar and Cultural Advisor, Tawasul Europe Centre for Research and Dialogue, Rome on the theme British Raj: Orientalism, Power and Formation of Indian History on Saturday, 8 January 2022 at 07:00 PM (IST).
Mujeeb Rahman Kinaloor, Chairman, Vakkom Moulavi Centre for Studies and Research, Kozhikode will chair the session.
A. Shahul Hameed (1930-2018) was a great scholar and writer who associated himself with several organizations and endeavours in Kerala committed to the cause of education, peace and communal harmony. He was a passionate follower and promoter of the teachings and insights of Vakkom Moulavi. Even while working as a senior official in the Government of Kerala, Shahul Hameed devoted his time and energy to the study of religion, science and literature, contributed several articles and made scholarly interventions over a period. He also translated and published some prominent writings of scholars.
Dr. Abdel Latif Chalikandi
Dr. Abdel Latif Chalikandi served as one of the Executive Directors of Maqasid Institute of Philosophy of Law, based in Rome, and Cultural Advisor of Tawasul Europe Centre for Research and Dialogue, Rome. Dr. Abdel Latif is an internationally known Indian scholar of religious studies, law, post-colonialism and philosophy. Over the past two decades, Dr. Abdel Latif has contributed enormously to interfaith understanding and building a humanistic approach to legal, cross-cultural and religious studies, as he worked in countries like Kuwait, the UK, Italy, etc. He has lectured in some of the prestigious universities, academic centers and think tanks in Europe and the Middle East, besides mentoring and guiding a large number of European and American students, researchers, academics, diplomats and other policy makers in the fields such as interfaith literacy, peacebuilding and media studies. Dr. Abdel Latif has taught and guided the students and researchers of NATO Defense College Rome, University of Tor Vergata Rome, Sapianza University of Rome, Loyola University Rome Centre, etc. As the cross-cultural and interfaith expert at Tawasul Centre for Publishing, Research and Dialogue, he has also taught many visiting student groups from Columbia University, Yale University and many other student delegations from various American and European universities. Dr. Abdel Latif, after completing his LLB from Calicut Law College, went on to study his LLM at the prestigious Aligarh Muslim University, passing LLM, with First Class and gaining second rank at the university level. Later, in the late 1990s, Dr. Abdel Latif spent a term as a visiting researcher at Oxford University affiliated Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, following which he obtained his MPhil research degree from University of Birmingham, England, specializing in the concept of human nature in the thoughts of the medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas. And, following his MPhil, Dr. Abdel Latif studied the life and works of Edward Said, the famous author of Orientalism, for his doctoral research. Dr. Abdel Latif is deeply interested in the six classical Indian philosophical systems, classical Islamic law, post-colonial studies, the works of Joseph Conrad, V.S.Naipaul, the medieval Andalusian jurist Ibn Hazam, etc. Dr. Abdel Latif has played and continues to play a key role in guiding the various translation projects of Indian and other eastern classics into Italian undertaken by his wife and the noted European philosopher and cultural critic Dr Sabrina Lei. Some of Dr. Abdel Latif works on Indian philosophy and religious humanism are set to be released early next year. Dr. Abdel Latif is also deeply interested in human rights and the question of human dignity, inspired by the life and works of the late Justice V.M. Tarkunde, with whom he worked very closely during his LLM study period in Aligarh.
Amid the challenges posed by the regime in power—characterised as a majoritarian political dispensation with authoritarian tendencies—social and political movements have made headway in India. However, this has not been properly acknowledged and analysed by academics and observers. Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi has pointed out this in her recent analysis, delivered as part of the Annual Lecture organised by the Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (VMMRC) in Kerala. The topic of her lecture was Three Movements and the Dynamics of Indian Democracy.
Prof Zoya sees the recent the farmers’ struggle as the finest example of how public protests have acquired a new meaning today.
Delivering the lecture, Prof Zoya Hasan said that “the social and political movements have been a conspicuous feature of public life in India over decades. It would be difficult to visualise India’s modern history and critical political events without acknowledging the role of public protests and social mobilisation in their making at important junctures in the life of the nation.” She said that “over the past decade, the public protests have increased with bewildering rapidity. The spurt in protests and movements have engendered a new awakening and tumult in Indian society and in some cases resulted in progressive outcomes and policies.”
She said that the decade when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was in power witnessed a surge in protests. The most important was the campaign led by the civil society groups in India against corruption. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) also faced several protests from a range of social groups. The two most important ones are the protests against the Citizens Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 and the farmers’ movement. The passage of the CAA and the proposal to create a National Register of Citizens (NRC) “had galvanised thousands of people in an unparalleled display of anti-government opposition.”
“Beginning in November 2020, thousands of farmers had gathered in a prolonged sit in on the borders of New Delhi. These protests began eight months after the equal citizenship protests that started in December 2019. The farmers’ movement and the equal citizenship protests have been compared with the anti-corruption movement of 2011-12. While there are similarities between these protests, there are important differences which are important to note in terms of its political impact on democracy,” Prof Zoya said.
Prof Zoya Hasan pointed out that the anti-corruption movement that began in 2011 under the UPA dispensation was quite different from the anti-CAA and farmers’ protests. It had brought corruption to the political centre-stage, crystallised public opinion against the government, feeble executive and paved the way for the ‘strongman alternative’ to a floundering Congress-led coalition.” Importantly, the anti-corruption movement operated with a high degree of preparation and coordination pursuing closely calibrated timeline of protests, starting over a year before the Ramlila dharna in 2011. The organisers had established a virtual organisation, India Against Corruption (IAC) in 2010. The IAC shifted the critical conversations squarely on corruption to the exclusion of everything else. But this shift was possible because dissent was allowed the space to carry on. There is another important difference. In 2011 the media was an active participant in shaping the political narrative and in elevating the leaders of this movement to national heroes. Whereas years later, the mainstream media is unwilling to challenge the government even while it is routinely interrogating and cornering opposition parties and is reluctant to report on oppositional movements. But the key difference in the response of the regime in power is the political impact of the protests.
Prof Zoya said that “the government response to anti-CAA and farmers’ movements have demonstrated intolerance of protests while the anti-corruption movement did not face any such constraints under the previous regime. These three movements are watershed events in the history of political movements in contemporary India. They are important examples of political resistance against the regimes in power even though they have had no same effect,” she pointed out.
She said that the anti-corruption movement “took Delhi by storm and garnered wide shades of support because corruption was an issue that aroused huge anger in India.” But, she pointed out, “it was propped up by the RSS and its affiliates with a view to dislodging the Congress-led government.” “The anti-corruption movement had positioned itself in the non-political space, denying its platform to any politician. But, evidently, it had the support of the RSS, its affiliates and sympathisers. The movement steered by IAC was sustained by the RSS-BJP to finish UPA-2. They succeeded despite Manmohan Singh conceding to all of Anna Hazare’s demands — joint drafting committee, holding a special parliament session and passing the Lokpal Bill.”
With the ascendency of the right-wing BJP, “India’s socio-political landscape was radically altered through unconcealed majoritarianism, creeping authoritarianism, and abuse of state institutions, shackling of media, and the exclusion of minorities,” she added. “While public protests have progressively increased in scale and intensity, over years, the response of the regime has been predictable — ranging from reluctant accommodation of some to largely ignoring others or brutally suppressing a few with the help of heavy-handed crackdowns to branding opponents as anti-nationals.”
“Public protests have been very frequent during the BJP-led NDA rule even though this has not been closely examined by academics who focussed mainly on the ideology and politics of the regime rather than the opposition.” She noted further: “ in 2019, the government introduced changes in CAA, shifting towards a religion-based citizenship as against the prevailing birth-based definition. Based on religious identity, the CAA gave undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan the opportunity to apply for Indian citizenship but does not offer the same exemption to refugees and emigrants who happened to be Muslims. Importantly, the CAA is not a stand-alone law. It has to be seen in conjunction with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). This combination would mean that Muslims with ‘illegal’ status would not be eligible for refugee status or citizenship. Taken together, the CAA and the NRC were widely perceived by Indian Muslims, and not just by them, to be an attempt to force them to statelessness and this triggered massive nation-wide protests.”
“The protests first erupted in Assam and then it began to spread to campuses in Delhi and elsewhere, before extending to other groups. The protests turned out to be the biggest in decades drawing people from over a hundred cities and towns across the country. Unlike the anti-corruption movement, the anti-CAA movement was not led by politicians with ambitions or with leaders like Anna Hazare. It did not have the organisational backbone or media support enjoyed by the anti-corruption movement. The protesters devised a political drama centred on the Constitution to assert equal citizenship. The Preamble of the Constitution was read out in all meetings. Using National Anthem and the National Flag as signposts of the social movement, the protesters sought to reaffirm the democratic values of equity and inclusion. For the first time in the history of the Republic, the Constitution was used so extensively by the people. It was held out as the only document that mattered, and constitutional slogans outnumbered all other slogans.”
Prof Zoya said that “the anti-CAA movement took the form of a broad-based secular movement that underlined the unconstitutionality of new law and discrimination inherent in it. The political vocabulary of the anti-CAA protests was very different from anti-corruption movement which was directed against the political class.”
Prof Zoya reminded, “what differentiates the present regime from all previous regimes is the space it provides for the construction of ‘an enemy within’ that it needs in order for the majoritarianism to thrive. This includes the portrayal of anti-government movements as anti-national indicating high degree of intolerance. The ‘enemy within’ is being accused of anti-national and is therefore subjected to harassment, silencing and in some cases long periods of incarceration. One of the consequences of this approach is that the security advisers have begun to see civil society activists as enemies.”
The farmers’ protest became the biggest test so far to the regime and naturally it posed the most serious challenge to the government’s economic agenda. Though it had also drawn a predictable response from the BJP leaders and its spokesmen in the media, neutralising these protests through the usual tactics of divide and rule did not work unlike the anti-CAA protests, which were brutally curtailed through such tactics, Prof Zoya said. “The decision to repeal the three farm laws is a historic victory for the farmers movement” and it showed that popular protests would work despite a determined effort by the regime to crush it. “The farmers’ movement has underlined that no government, regardless of the strength of its mandate, can disregard public opinion and voices of people emerging from the ground, Prof Zoya added.
Prof Zoya Hasan categorically stated that “farmers’ victory is a vindication of the Indian democracy exemplified by mass protests that could powerfully challenge a powerful government.” She noted that “despite the undermining of political institutions and a partisan media, Indians have not been silenced.” The anti-CAA protests across the country and the farmers’ agitation that continued for more than a year have demonstrated that “people are making their presence felt and determinately staking a claim to democratic participation.”
Prabhat Patnaik
Responding to Prof Zoya’s lecture, Prabhat Patnaik, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University said that corruption has reached an unimaginable level now when public sector enterprises built with public money are being handed over to a few large monopoly houses which “is the most scandalous instance of corruption in post-independence India.” Though we cannot point fingers at any individuals at this moment, privatisation of the public sector means selling huge assets to monopoly houses. What is equally important is that even land which has a value is also given along with enterprise to the private capital. This institutionalised corruption should be seen in conjunction with other forms of corruption such as donations to the ruling party etc.” Prof Prabhat said.
K. Ravi Raman
Intervening in the discussion, Dr. K. Ravi Raman, member, Kerala State Planning Board said that it would not be sufficient in describing the Indian state without understanding its real character, which he called “corporate Hindu state.”
P.K.Michael Tharakan
Prof P.K. Michael Tharakan, Chairman, Kerala Council for Historical Research, who chaired the VMMRC meeting, explored the possibility of ‘decentralisation of politics,’ rather than mere decentralisation of administration, given the range of problems emerging from overcentralisation. Ambassador K.P. Fabian pointed out that Modilatry—excessive reverence of Modi—is waning among the poorer sections of the population, given the price hike and decline in jobs.
Dr. V. Mathew Kurian, Sri. S. Sen, Sri. Sameer Muneer and others spoke. Prof Rajan Gurukkal, Prof Ayoob and others also participated in the session.
Prof Zoya Hasan was also former Dean of the School of Social Sciences, and former Chairperson of the Centre for Political Studies and founder Chairperson of the Centre for Women’s Studies and Centre for the Study of Discrimination and Exclusion in JNU. She also held visiting appointments at National University of Singapore, University of Zurich, University of Edinburgh and fellowships at, among others, University of Sussex, Rockefeller Centre, Bellagio, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris, and the Centre for Modern Oriental Studies, Berlin.
Prof Zoya Hasan also served as National Fellow, Indian Council of Social Science Research and was a member of the National Commission for Minorities, National Integration Council, CABE and the National Book Trust. Prof Zoya Hasan has published widely on Indian society and politics, state, democracy, party politics and political movements and on issues of equity and social justice. She is the author/editor of 18 books, including most recently Congress After Indira: Policy, Power Political Change (1984-2009); Politics of Inclusion: Caste, Minority and Affirmative Action; Agitation to Legislation: Negotiating Equity and Justice in India, India’s Living Constitution: Ideas, Practices, Controversies.
The Second VMMRC Annual Lecture is being delivered by Prof Zoya Hasan, an eminent Political Scientist and former Professor and Dean of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi at 7.00 PM (IST) on 28 December through Zoom Meet.
The topic of the lecture is “Three Movements and the Dynamics of Indian Democracy.”
The session is chaired by Prof P.K Michael Tharakan, Chairman, Kerala Council for Historical Research.
Dr Ravi Raman, Member, Kerala State Planning Board, will welcome the guests.
The caste system in India has long been considered as “the most resilient and adaptive system of inequality and oppression ever invented, the most inhuman too, even excluding sections of people from the very domain of the human, of the moral and the spiritual, of sociality, fraternity, etc.” Joseph Tharamangalam, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Mount St. Vincent University Halifax, Canada quotes Columbia University scholar Akeel Bilgrami to argue that even “slave owners were at least willing to share their faith with their slaves offering hope for a better life in the next world.” But, Tharamangalam says, “this was not so with the caste system; rather the Dalits were deprived of access to all means of enlightenment and spiritual progress, and they were destined to be re-born as Dalits, if not even lower.”
Joseph Tharamangalam was delivering the Second Renaissance Web-Lecture on the theme “Ayyankali: Innovative Analyst and Strategist” organised by Vakkom Moulavi Memorial and Research Centre (VMMRC) in Kerala. Tharamangalam said that “in spite of the legacy of a century-old struggles and social movements in Kerala, the caste system is so entrenched in the system that even the merit and abilities of the Dalits are less appreciated and acknowledged.”
Mahatma Ayyankali (1863-1941)
Ayyankali—a pioneer in the Dalit emancipation and struggles in Kerala—remained “a missing chapter in history” as some biographers had written, according to Tharamangalam. He was not adequately acknowledged by historians for quite a long time. However, “the most innovative and pioneering struggles launched and led by him, as well as his contributions, are well known and undisputed,” said Tharamangalam.
He said that “Ayyankali’s brilliant understanding of the oppressive system under which the Dalits lived and the unique capabilities they possessed enabled and empowered him to design effective and innovative strategies to resist the oppression.” He said these “were innovative and unlike those of most social reformers, including Ambedkar and Sree Narayana Guru. Actually, he was far more than a social reformer, he was a true revolutionary,” Tharamangalam said.
Tharamangalam pointed out that “Ayyankali was a unique, exceptional personality, proud and courageous with an unusually high degree of self-confidence and self-respect, a man who boldly and defiantly refused to accept his status as untouchable and boldly threw off the shackles of servitude and bondage.”
Prof Joseph Tharamangalam
Tharamangalam noted that Ayyankali was the first Dalit revolutionary organizer of the first successful agriculture labour strike in Kerala, the first leader to launch a successful strike to get admission for the Dalits in schools, and the first Dalit representative in the Sreemoolam legislative assembly demanding and obtaining for the downtrodden many concessions and social support measures from the government.
Tharamangalam said that “the Dalits have unique capabilities not shared by the upper castes.” They possessed three significant assets—human capital, physical capital and the social capital. While human capital entails knowledge of agriculture and of the eco-system, besides skills, techniques and methods of production and the ability to convert the land into fertile fields, physical capital unfolded the strength to resist violence and the social capital ensured a sense of solidarity and community among themselves and a culture of mutual support, of caring and sharing, even with other lower castes.”
“Ayyankali had understood the basis of upper caste power and control of means of production as well as of violence. He had seen a window of opportunities here as the upper castes did not control the capabilities to utilize the land and that the Dalits could resist them by withdrawing their knowledge and skills.” Tharamangalam noted that “Ayyankali had seen freedom as not something to be gifted by someone, but something to be exercised and asserted in the act. He showed his freedom to use a public road by riding on the public road – and doing this in the most public and spectacular manner imaginable,” he said. Prof Tharamangalam also reminded that “Ayyankalidid not spend time raising consciousness in preparation for the struggles; consciousness was raised/developed in and through the act, in the struggle. He succeeded in mobilizing vigorous support from passionate and committed followers.” According to him, Ayyankali’s struggles “were unique in the long history of anti-caste movements—from Buddhist/Jain times, from the Bhakti movements to modern ones,” Tharamangalam added.
He also argued that the struggles Ayyankali had launched were unique in different ways. The famous villuvandi yatra (bullock cart ride of 1893), for example, was known for “flaunting his strength, aristocratic dress and demeanour, also a knife when called for assertion of freedom to claim his right to public space.” Referring to the role of dress, Tharamangalam quotes scholar Sanal Mohan to say that “the mode of dressing is capable of emitting messages of dominance and subordination…” The Pedestrian march (1898) was an extension of the former, this time an organized yatra of multiple Dalits claiming rights of many public roads around, leading to the notorious Chaliyar riots, where several fighters even lost their lives. Similarly, the struggle for the Dalits’ school entry was notable as Ayyankali had taken young girl, Panchami, to a public school for admission; but this was opposed and rejected despite new government order allowing this. This had led to other riots lasting seven days. The agriculture labour strike was equally significant, the first ever in Kerala. “Each of these was won, teaching a new lesson to all, including the upper castes and the government,” said Tharamangalam.
However, Ayyankali’s role in the Sreemoolam Assembly during 1911-1941 was not sufficiently researched. The period witnessed numerous petitions he submitted on behalf of Sadhujanam with many significant successes—schools and roads opened, some very limited distribution of fallow lands, etc. But Ayyankali did not organize or lead a struggle for “land to the tiller, the landless labourer,” which, according to Tharamangalam, amounted to losing “a golden opportunity for a sustainable agricultural system.” Tharamangalam said that “this is a very critical issue today in the context of the debate about sustainable agriculture and food production, and ‘food security’ and ‘food sovereignty’—when our food system is controlled by corporate agri-businesses such as Monsanto, and Cargill.”
Tharamangalam recollected that on the occasion of the celebration of Ayyankali’s memory, EK Nayanar, former chief minister of the Left government of Kerala had pointed to something significant when he said: “If singing praises of Ayyankali and unveiling of his statue is to have any meaning, allotment of land for the tenants and pension for agricultural labour is a must.”
Regrettably, Tharamangalam said, Sadhu Jana Paripalana Sangham (Association for the Protection of the Poor) which Ayyankali had launched fragmented over years, with different castes pleading for concessions for themselves. He also noted that even after a century of Ayyankali’s struggle to get schools opened to Dalits, the increasing gap in educational achievements between the Dalits and upper castes/classes continued with the latter moving to profit making private schools. There are also new forms of prejudices and discrimination in such institutions, and the upper castes are still unable to see merit in the achievements of Dalits, he added.
Former Vice Chancellor and health activist Dr B. Ekbal chaired the session. Dr. S. Ayoob, Pro Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University welcomed. Dr V. Mathew Kurian, Sameer Muneer, E. K. Dineshan, and others spoke.
