Search

Recent caste conflicts have revolved around discourses of honour, caste pride and shame. Although Dalit movements have been at the receiving end of the violence and have condemned the casteism underpinning it, they operate within a society in which questions of honour are highly significant. Dalit women activists are trapped in an unenviable position within the twin structures of caste and patriarchy, both of which speak to debates about group boundaries and honour. Taking the recent violence as its starting point, this paper draws on interviews with and observations of Dalit women in the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (Liberation Panther Party) in Tamil Nadu to chart how discourses of honour both facilitate and constrain their capacity to act. For all the party’s emphasis on women’s rights, women activists face an uphill struggle to secure recognition, respect and responsiveness both within the party as well as wider society. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Movement rhetoric invites us to consider: ‘Which is violence?’ But it is clear that the lines between violent acts are indeterminate. When is ‘self-defence’ ‘retaliation’? When does revenge become an offence to be avenged and when does liberatory violence become oppressive? This paper tries to provide an understanding of the issues and discourses that label the Dalit Panthers as violent. Dalit movements in Tamilnadu operate in a social sphere coloured by acts of violence. Such groups understandably talk about ‘hitting back’ and ‘asserting their rights’, yet violence is never an isolated act. By viewing violence as processual, I draw on various theorists to argue that the ‘will to violence’ is bound up with cultural expectations, meanings and identities. This allows us to grasp the relational character of violence and its centrality to the construction of social identities. Furthermore, shifting the emphasis of analysis from the act of harm to incorporate the wider implications reveals the spatial and social patterns that ensue. The concept of a ‘repertoire of protest’ is useful here in highlighting how violent protest may be complementary to (or feed into) ‘normal’ politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outbursts of collective violence are often (understandably) met by expressions of outrage or condemnation. ‘How is it,’ accounts muse, ‘that ordinary people can commit such atrocities?’ This article argues that an exclusive focus on the violent act can contribute little to our understanding. Instead, it seeks to elucidate the routine processes and actions that serve to render violence acceptable (even banal) as a mode of action. Exclusive identities and a powerful rhetoric of honour, pride, and shame persuade people that violence is either desirable or even necessary in a given context. Following Billig's account of banal nationalism, I argue that grasping these mundane day-to-day processes is essential for an understanding of collective violence. The article draws on research amongst caste-based movements in South India to support this argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]