ABSTRACT
in drawing together some of the threads discussed in this book, I want to highlight the distinctive contributions this book makes to at least three key areas of anthropological debate. First, my study of Dalit mobilization under the Maoist Movement in Bihar offers a different perspective from that of conceptualizing radical movements narrowly in ‘structure versus agency’ terms. In drawing on Bourdieu’s notion of ‘social fields’, my work makes a case for a more nuanced explanation of peasant revolutions, by integrating notions of social structure and human agency rather than relying on deterministic social models. Second, this book provides a historical sensitivity which goes beyond Stoll’s conceptualization of peasants in the context of revolutionary and counter-revolutionary violence as the victims of ‘dual violence’. In drawing on Tarrow’s concept of ‘protest cycle’ I highlight the changing dynamics of the Maoist Movement which moved from a predominantly Dalit constituency to one based on the interests of the middle castes, and involved a cycle of shifting mobilisations, strategic recruitment, and de-mobilisation. Third and most importantly, drawing on my methodological closeness to the Dalit articulations of self and community in the context of violence, my work highlights the significance of close experience and the relational nature of anthropological knowledge.
