Dalit Perspective & Dalit Struggle

17.1 Social Reformers & Movements

Dalit and anti-caste movements challenged the social limits of mainstream nationalism.

Key figures:

• Jyotirao Phule · Narayana Guru
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
• E.V. Ramasamy Periyar · Shahu Maharaj

Key movements:

• Satyashodhak Samaj · Self-Respect Movement
• Ad-Dharm (Punjab, 1926) · Mahar (Maharashtra)
• Namasudra (Bengal) · Adi-Dravida (Tamil Nadu)
• Adi-Andhra · Adi-Karnataka · Adi-Hindu (UP)
• Pulaya & Cheruman mobilisation (Kerala)

“One caste, one religion, one god for mankind.”

Narayana Guru

Jyotirao Phule: attacked Brahmanical domination; held that lower castes were the original inhabitants enslaved by Aryans.

“British Raj is better that Peshwa Raj.”

Jyotirao Phule (on equality before law)

17.2 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar & Dalit Nationalism

Ambedkar’s nationalism centres on: Liberty · Equality · Fraternity · Dignity · Representation · Annihilation of caste

“If Tilak was born as untouchable he would have demanded annihilation of caste as his birth right.”

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

In Pakistan or the Partition of India, he defines nationalism as consciousness of kind and awareness of the tie of kinship.

AMBEDKAR’S FORMULATION — Nationalism is negation of casteism, communism, and is rooted in humanism.

• A country cannot be free if its people remain socially enslaved.
• Political democracy without social democracy creates contradiction.
• No nation can exist without fraternity.
• Dalits need independent political representation.

“We are not going to get anything unless we have our own men in the legislatures.”

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

17.3 Critique of the Indian National Congress

• Congress was upper-caste dominated; political independence overshadowed caste annihilation.
• Social reform stayed secondary; separate electorates opposed by Gandhi; the Poona Pact forced compromise.
• Congress did not fully back the Mahad Satyagraha.

Ambedkar charged Congress with being a “Brahmin-Baniya” party.

• K.N. Panikkar — the movement’s limit lay in the disjunction between political and social-cultural struggle.
• T.K. Oommen — Dalit deprivation arose from low ritual status, poverty and powerlessness.
• Arundhati Roy — Gandhi’s non-participation in Mahad deepened Ambedkar’s disenchantment.
• S.N. Gaikwad — Ambedkar was rejecting elite hegemony, not nationalism.
• Arun Shourie read Ambedkar as anti-national — a reading Dalit scholarship rejects.

17.4 Contribution to Egalitarianism

Through:

• Anti-caste critique; equal access to public facilities
• Mahad Satyagraha, 1927; temple-entry movements
• Political safeguards; separate-electorate demand
• Scheduled Castes Federation
• Independent Labour Party, 1936

Constitutional impact:

• Article 17 — abolition of untouchability
• Articles 15 & 16 — against discrimination
• Reservations; political representation
• Affirmative action; social justice

“…the Dalit movement and the overall radical anti-caste movements were a crucial expression of the democratic revolution in India, more consistently democratic — and in the end more consistently “nationalistic” — than the elite controlled Indian National Congress.”

Gail Omvedt

Valerian Rodrigues — Dalit-Bahujan thinkers saw the nation as a good society built on mutual respect, rights and solidarity.

Kancha Ilaiah — Dalit movements made dignity and participation central to nation-building.

Bahishkrit Bharat (ostracised India · exclusion · humiliation) → annihilation of caste · fraternity · representation → Prabuddha Bharat (enlightened India · equality · fraternity). Ambedkar’s social arc — from excluded India to enlightened India.

17.5 Assessment

THE CORE CLAIM — The Dalit perspective is not anti-national. It asks: freedom for whom? · a nation on what social basis? · can a caste society become a fraternity? · can political Swaraj exist without social equality?