Dalits

Past, Present and Future

Anand Teltumbde

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367633233
• eBook ISBN: 9781000061451
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book is a comprehensive introduction to Dalits in India from their origin to the present day. Despite a plethora of provisions for affirmative action in the Indian Constitution, Dalits still suffer exclusion on various counts. The book traces the multifarious changes that befell them through history, germination of Dalit consciousness during the colonial period and its f lowering under the legendary leadership of Babasaheb Ambedkar. It provides critical insights to their degeneration during the post-Ambedkar period, taking stock of all significant developments therein such as the rise of the Bahujan Samaj Party, Dalit capitalism, NGOization of the Dalit discourse and the various implicit or explicit emancipation schemas thrown up by them. It also discusses ideology, implicit strategy and tactics of the Dalit movement, touches upon one of the most contentious issues of increasing divergence between the Dalit and Marxist movements, and delineates the role of the state, both colonial and post-colonial, in shaping Dalit politics in particular ways.

This new edition includes a new chapter providing the causal analysis of the rise of Hindutva under Narendra Modi, its fascist march obliterating the idea of India sketched out by the Constitution, and forecasts its future as the Hindu Rashtra – the Brahmanic-fascist state – which has been the goal of its progenitors.

A tour de force, this book brings to the fore many key contemporary concerns and will be of great interest to activists, students, scholars and teachers of politics, political economy, sociology, anthropology, history and social exclusion studies.

1
THE CASTE CONTEXT

Dalits are a product of India’s caste system. For castes to last, the Dalits are necessary. Their emancipation, as diagnosed by Ambedkar, is thus homologous with castes. The castes thus constitute an intimate context for the Dalits. This chapter, therefore, focuses on understanding the essential features of the caste system: its origin, its evolution into a unique system of stratification, its comparison with other such systems and also the comparison between its victims, the Dalits, with those of others. While it will necessarily deal with some prominent theories and opinions, it will also explain how understanding castes in their evolutionary perspective is still a work in progress. The objective is to set the context for the later chapters where we shall discuss how the Dalits articulated their struggles for emancipation.

Caste, jati and varna

Simply put, caste is a defining feature of the Indian society. Etymologically, the English word ‘caste’ derives from the Spanish and Portuguese casta, with its roots in Latin castus. It meant ‘race, lineage, or breed’.¹ The Indian name for castes is jati.

There is much confusion even in scholarly literature between jati and varna,² which together constitute the basis for the caste system. Varnas were brought into India by the conquering tribes of Aryas during the dark period of history. Initially, there were three varnas (classes)³ sans hierarchy, which evolved into four (Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra) varna system (Chaturvarna) by the end of Rigvedic period with a notion of hierarchy and then went on to designate the excluded ones as the avarnas (non-varna) or pancham (fifth) varna.⁴ Thus, varnas were finite and with a definitive hierarchy. Castes (jatis), in contrast, are countless and (because of it) with fluid notions of hierarchy.⁵ Varna is the vedic classification of the four ranked occupational order, whereas caste refers to ranked hereditary, endogamous and occupational groups separated from each other by the ideas of purity and pollution.⁶ Classically, varnas defined the borders of Hinduism, whereas jatis were local and are rarely found beyond the borders of ethnolinguistic regions. The varnas may be taken as theoretical, whereas castes (jatis) are real and concrete. Besides, Brahman and the avarna Dalits, which bracket an overall Hindu social order, all other varnas are rarely found everywhere. Castes though are found all over. As a result, the mapping of castes with intermediate varnas remains hazy and is not accepted by many castes. Many castes reject the legitimacy of the varna hierarchy and/or the places assigned to them by others. In the Brahmanical strongholds of South India itself the intermediate varnas hardly exist. Where they exist, they do so with local variations. Even historically, the village roost was not necessarily ruled by any Brahman caste; when it was, one could find wealth and power rather than its ritual status being instrumental in its placement. Many Brahmans did not enjoy any such reputation.⁷ Second, even their explanation for the advent of varnashram dharma also is unconvincing as it does not explain why it only survived in India and not elsewhere.

Origin of castes

Scholars have proffered theories of the origin of castes, which are at best hypotheses without any agreement. They may be broadly classified into as many as nine classes based on their thrust: (i) traditional or Indological theory, (ii) racial theory, (iii) political theory, (iv) religious theory, (v) occupational theory, (vi) racial/functional theory, (vii) guild theory, (viii) mana theory and (ix) evolution or multi-factor theory.

According to the traditional or Indological theory, the caste system is of divine origin. It is based on the allegorical explanation in Purushsukta in Rig Veda for the origin of four varnas as parts of the cosmic being purusha or the supreme creator (God).⁸ Castes were born later as a result of different types of marriages between varnas in ancient India. Although of little intellectual value, it underlies the popular belief in castes. The racial theory propounded by Sir Herbert Risely⁹ held that caste system was due to racial differences between migrant Aryas and Anaryas (native people). G. S. Ghurye (1932)¹⁰ and Westermarck (1901)¹¹ appear to support this theory. The political theory held that caste system was the result of political conspiracy of the Brahmans to secure control over the functions of the society. This theory was originally propounded by a French scholar Abbe Dubais¹² and found tacit support in many scholars like Denzil Ibbetson and also S. G. Ghurye. The religious theory was advocated by Hocart¹³ and Senart.¹⁴ Hocart postulated that castes were a hierarchy of ritual offices centred on a king (or a local lord) having as their purpose the performance of the royal ritual for the benefit of the entire community. The king, as the representative of the God and religion, allotted positions to different functional groups. Senart tried to explain the caste system on the basis of prohibitions regarding sacramental food. Occupational theory, originally propounded by Nesfield,¹⁵ held that occupations were the main base of the caste system. The notion of hierarchy of castes stemmed basically from the superiority or inferiority of occupations. The racial/functional theory put forth by Slater¹⁶ combines both the racial and functional origins, postulating that the caste system was created to safeguard the professional and occupational secrets of different races. The Aryan invasions intensified and developed the existing structure making occupations hereditary and marriages only within the same occupation groups, sanctified later by ritual practices and religious ceremonies. The guild theory put forth by Denzil Ibbeston¹⁷ holds that castes are the modified forms of guilds and the caste system was the product of three forces, (i) tribes, (ii) guilds and (iii) religion. The guilds evolved into castes imitating the endogamy of the prestigious class of priests. The mana theory based on the views of J. H. Hutton¹⁸ accords the caste system pre-Aryan origin and suggests that the primitive belief in mana among tribes accounted for the origin of the caste system. Mana was associated with magical and harmful powers, and hence the ancient tribes evolved elaborate taboos or restrictions to protect themselves from other tribes’ mana. Lastly, the evolutionary or multi-factor theory propounded by sociologists held that a complex phenomenon of the caste system could not be explained by a single factor and rather was a result of many factors such as beliefs in racial superiority, geographical isolation, metaphysical concepts, belief in mana, desire to maintain racial purity of blood and manipulation by Brahmans.

As could be seen, none of these theories, save for the last one, which does not claim a specific factor and hence is flexible enough to accommodate any of the above or entirely new one within its fold, are able to explain the origin of the caste system. They rather explain the varna system and take for granted that caste system is born out of the varna system.

Ambedkar on caste

In relation to the Dalits, Dr Ambedkar assumes extraordinary importance because of his lifelong devotion to the cause of their emancipation. While engaged with practical struggles he simultaneously worked on theorising many aspects of the caste system. His seminal paper, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, which Ambedkar presented as a student, at an Anthropology Seminar taught by Dr A. A. Goldenweizer in Columbia University on 9 May 1916, dealt with some of these views and also of Dr Ketkar and dismissed them as Petitio Principii of formal logic.¹⁹ It was here that he observed, ‘A caste is an Enclosed Class’.

He disagreed with Senart that the ‘idea of pollution’ was a peculiarity of caste as it was ‘a particular case of the general belief in purity’.²⁰ For Ambedkar, the idea of pollution could be ignored without affecting the working of castes. It was attached to the institution of caste only because the priestly caste enjoyed the highest rank. To Nesfield’s theory highlighting absence of messing with outside the caste, Ambedkar would say that it was mistaking the effect for the cause. Being a self-enclosed unit, caste naturally limits social intercourse, including messing. He did not find Risley’s views deserving of a comment. He rather included Ketkar who had defined caste in its relation to a system of castes, and had focused his attention only on those characteristics which were absolutely necessary for the existence of a caste within a system. Ambedkar, however, critiqued Ketkar for taking ‘prohibition of intermarriage and membership by autogeny’ as the two characteristics of caste and argued that they were but two aspects of one and the same thing. If intermarriage is prohibited, the membership of those born within the group also shall be automatically limited.²¹

Ambedkar argues that Hindu society like other societies was essentially a class system, in which individuals, when qualified, could change their class. However, at some time in history, the priestly class socially detached itself from the rest of the people and through a closed-door policy became a caste by itself. The other varnas, which were subject to the law of social division of labour, developed subdivision with social mobility of the class system. However, as he argued, they too lost the open-door character of the class system and have become self-enclosed units called castes. He explained their becoming castes, saying ‘Some closed the door: Others found it closed against them.’²² He proffered a psychological explanation for the former saying that since the Brahmans or priestly class occupied the highest position in the social hierarchy of the Hindu society, the other classes simply imitated them by adopting endogamy.²³ Over the years, endogamy became a fashion since it originated from the priestly class, who were venerated and idolised in the scriptures. Endogamy was thus practised by all the classes, which ultimately resulted in the rigid formation of castes.²⁴ The custom of endogamy superimposed on exogamy, which prevailed in all ancient tribes, became the creation of castes.²⁵ He points out that without the practice of endogamy, the caste system cannot survive. Along with endogamy, Brahmans followed the custom of sati and enforced widowhood which later spread to other castes. The mainstream sociology never acknowledged this analysis of Ambedkar, although it predated the thesis by G. S. Ghurye, celebrated as the first sociological treatise on caste by a decade and anticipated many of the ideas of the later scholars.

Ambedkar developed his theory...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• CONTENTS
• Preface to the second edition
• Preface to the first edition
• Introduction
• 1 The caste context
• 2 Anti-caste developments
• 3 Pre-Ambedkar movements of Dalits
• 4 Dalit movement under Ambedkar
• 5 Post-Ambedkar movements of Dalits
• 6 Religious conversion as emancipation
• 7 Politics as the master key
• 8 Dalits under neoliberalism
• 9 New trends among Dalits
• 10 Dalits under the Hindu Rashtra in the making
• 11 Whither Dalit emancipation
• Index