Caste is Not Just a Dalit issue, it’s a Human Rights Question: Jyoti Nisha, Documentary Filmmaker

Congratulations on this wonderful documentary on Ambedkar’s life and his relevance in today’s India. Why did you believe that it was an important story to tell?

I think since 2014, especially, you know, a lot of things have been happening in the country, whether it was Rohith Vemula [who died by suicide in 2016] or what was happening in JNU [Jawaharlal Nehru University]. There was a kind of control over the freedom of expression even in cinema. Everybody was also talking about Ambedkar suddenly, and I felt a clear connection, and since I had heard of Dr. Ambedkar all my life, it felt like the right story to tell, and also being aware that nobody else can make this film, the way I do. Therefore, I decided to make a film because film is a really powerful medium.

You use a lot of sketches in the film. What is the significance of art?

Two very important thoughts behind it. One was aesthetic, naturally. There has to be a language in cinema as well, and I was kind of trying to find an aesthetic that was very original. Look at the artwork of Sunil Abhiman Awachar [Mumbai-based Ambedkarite Poet and Artist].

Second, [old] footage and archive material have been used several times in documentaries, and we did not have the money to buy them.

The representation of Dalits in all forms of media is very poor. Almost zero. Do you think there is a kind of prejudice against covering Dalit issues, tribal issues in India?

Prejudice, naturally. Cultural experiences of people are not understood because there is almost no representation in positions of power. But you need to report on these people. Not because it’s a Dalit question, but it’s a human rights question, actually, but also a moral, ethical, social, sociological, political and anthropological one.

Do you believe that institutes such as the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, where you studied, are spaces that are now under threat with the current political regime?

Oh, it has changed so much. Earlier, departments had the autonomy, or students had that kind of autonomy, to make or screen a film. You know, there was freedom of speech and expression. But now you have to really go through a whole mechanism to screen a film. I think that’s very tedious and such a waste of time. I think social science, political science, cultural studies, and cinema should be part of the curriculum. If you understand your society better, you can do better, you know. When I understood caste, class, or gender and their intersectionality with power, I truly understood power structures and how discourses are formed.

While documenting the Rohit Vemula case, you spoke of the incident in Ambedkar’s own life where he had to take Parsi name in Baroda. Do you think the situation has changed?

No, it has changed, certainly. I mean, it has changed in the sense that you are starting to talk about caste. I will never say untouchability does not exist. One has to be really conscious and rational, and critical to really question and ask, “Oh, why are we doing this? Why is it that a menstruating girl is told she cannot touch a jar of pickles or is not allowed to sit on this bed or that? There are still villages in Gujarat where people cannot access clean drinking water”? There is still untouchability.

In these times of identity politics, do you think the anti-caste movement is weakening in India?

No, it is not weakening at all. It is growing. It will continue to grow. There are some leaders who are just focusing on identity politics, but you need that as well, because how will you talk about representation? But there is definitely work that is happening in cinema. We need to now create more spaces, but very structural conversations have to take place. I think the Indian media has mostly misled the issues of the marginalised people. When you talk about reservations then people are like “they are snatching our seats or our jobs”. So, you need to explain and engage with them and make them understand the reasons behind affirmative action. The younger generation has definitely begun questioning. They’re creating art, music, stand-up comedy.

One interesting thing I found in your film is that Ambedkar gives a mantra: Educate, fight, educate, unite, and struggle. I can think of Rohit Vemula, Jignesh Mevani, Chandrashekhar Azad?

I think it is your reading, and he has definitely given this mantra about educate, agitate, and organise. I think upper-caste people and women should also engage with the idea of Ambedkar’s thoughts. We don’t just talk about it. It’s not an agenda for us. It’s our life.

You are also engaging in violence against Dalit women. And you are emphasising that there is a difference between the violence against a privileged woman and a Dalit woman. And you are saying Indian feminism or liberal feminism has missed this point.

They have missed this point because all people’s movements, whether about leadership or labour, have been led by women. But they have never been given the space. There is history, there is literature. So, you cannot deny it. Urmila Pawar talks about it in my film. It happened to me. Upper-caste women have sided with and not given me space, so it’s very interesting. The violence against marginalised women is collective, by society. If it’s a Dalit or tribal woman, you are shamed, paraded naked on the streets, and murdered. Your family is killed, and your property is destroyed. That kind of violence doesn’t happen with upper caste women.

So, basically, you started by saying that most of this country does not find space in popular culture. Could you elaborate on it?

Absolutely. That’s the whole point of making this film. [The marginalised] do not find representation. When I studied pre- and post-independent cinema, you find discourse on class. Nobody says don’t talk about untouchability, but you don’t question the why behind it. Did they have a history? How long is this history? Do we know only about Ambedkar? But there was the Bhakti movement. There was a social and political movement. There are so many people critiquing our hierarchical society.

I’m not a Hindu, I’m a Buddhist, I have been raised in an Ambedkarite family. If I have to find myself, my personhood as a non-Brahminical person, I will find it through an Ambedkarite epistemology. That’s called an Oppositional Bahujan Agency. My theory is published in the Routledge compilation of caste and cinema.

If you see any national movement, a Gandhian movement, then you will consistently see there is a parallel. And that’s the whole point that you see in the film as well. Whether it was the Dandi March or the Quit India movement. Mahad Satyagraha and Ambedkar’s movements were very close. So, yeah, that’s not part of 100 years of cinema. But I thought nobody has the right to use this ideological gaze of looking at us. We’re not that sorry. Your imagination is. It’s very privileged, entitled. It’s very removed. It is not real. It’s a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. Because if you have not interacted with us, if you have not visited our places and our history, our sites, our literature, then it surely is fantasy. It’s a very different imagination. And our life is really based on history, based on the Anticaste movement and resistance against caste. There is a huge literature and history, and leaders and icons.

How do you see the US movement? Because in many circles now, literature, films, and posters are coming. I’m not talking about electoral politics. But the Ambedkarite cultural movement is going forward through all mediums. How do you see the future?

You know, people have started engaging with this question critically every day. If we start talking about it, it’s a great sign. I think the time has now come when you are being told that you don’t know, and you have to learn it. That kind of critical thinking and allyship is also happening. But appropriation is also taking place. Appropriation of Ambedkar’s iconography is also seen in popular culture. I mean, apart from Bahujan spectatorship.