DA LIT STUDIES

R AMNAR AYAN S. R AWAT & K. SAT YANAR AYANA , EDITORS

DALIT STUDIES
 DALIT STUDIES
R A M N A R AYA N   S . R AW AT & K . S AT YA N A R AYA N A , E D I T O R S

Duke University Press • Durham and London • 2016

© 2016 Duke University Press

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America on

acid-free paper ∞. Designed by Courtney Leigh Baker and Typeset
in Scala, Scala Sans, and Minion Pro by Westchester Publishing Services

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Rawat, Ramnarayan S., editor. | Satyanarayana, K., editor.
Title: Dalit studies / Ramnarayan S. Rawat and K. Satyanarayana, editors.
Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2016. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: lccn 2015040886|
isbn 9780822361138 (hardcover : alk. paper) |
isbn 9780822361329 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
isbn 9780822374312 (e-book)
Subjects: lcsh: Dalits—India. | Caste—India.
Classification: lcc ds422.c3 d2016 | ddc 305.5/688—dc23
lc record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040886

Cover art: Courtesy of Laxman Aelay, Secular Song, 2013. Acrylic on canvas, 72" × 48".
Laxman Aelay is a contemporary artist from Telangana.
To Dalit men and women who have dedicated their lives
to the pursuit of human dignity
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgments • ix

introduction . Dalit Studies: New Perspectives on

Indian History and Society • 1
ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

1 The Indian Nation in Its Egalitarian Conception • 31

gopal guru

part i. Probing the Historical

2 Colonial Archive versus Colonial Sociology: Writing

Dalit History • 53
ramnarayan s. rawat

3 Social Space, Civil Society, and Dalit Agency in

Twentieth-Century Kerala • 74
p. sanal mohan

4 Dilemmas of Dalit Agendas: Political Subjugation and

Self-Emancipation in Telugu Country, 1910–50 • 104
chinnaiah jangam

5 Making Sense of Dalit Sikh History • 131

raj kumar hans
 part ii. Probing the Present
6 The Dalit Reconfiguration of Modernity: Citizens and Castes in
the Telugu Public Sphere • 155
k. satyanarayana

7 Questions of Representation in Dalit Critical Discourse:

Premchand and Dalit Feminism • 180
laura brueck

8 Social Justice and the Question of Categorization of Scheduled

Caste Reservations: The Dandora Debate in Andhra Pradesh • 202
sambaiah gundimeda

9 Caste and Class among the Dalits • 233

d. shyam babu

10 From Zaat to Qaum: Fluid Contours of the Ravi Dasi

Identity in Punjab • 248
surinder s. jodhka

Bibliography • 271 Contributors • 293 Index • 295

viii • contents
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dalit studies has recently emerged as a new field of study in India. As we

explain in the introduction to this volume, a number of factors have contrib-
uted to the rise of this exciting field. Perhaps the most striking is the entry
of Dalit intellectuals into academic institutions. Since the late nineteenth
century there has been a long tradition of Dalit activist-scholars outside
academia. This volume brings a new group of scholars and activist-scholars
to academic attention in North America and the West more generally. The
rise of the field of Dalit studies has been propelled by the emergence of a new
generation of Dalit activists and intellectuals since the 1990s. This develop-
ment coincided with the discussions of caste inequities in the Indian media
and academia. In Indian—or, more broadly, South Asian—academia, histori-
cal and anthropological research in the first two decades of the twenty-first
century yielded information about previously unacknowledged struggles by
Dalit groups, tribal people, women, and other marginal sections of Indian
society. This period also coincided with new research in the disciplines of re-
ligious and literary studies and in historical and contemporary fields, which
further highlighted the role of marginal social groups in sustaining different
forms of devotion and protest. The exciting new research in the past two
decades, especially the rise of Dalit studies and new attention paid to B. R.
Ambedkar, also coincided with the formal end of the subaltern studies col-
lective. It is in this new exciting moment that Dalit Studies raises a new set
of questions, focusing on Dalits as subjects of study and on Dalit studies as
a location of marginality to be studied in Indian history. The book seeks to
draw attention to the persistence of practices that sustain caste inequality and
its relationship with the unraveling of modernity in India. The last two hun-
dred years of Indian history seems to suggest, as several essays in this volume
argue, that commitments to equality can not only coexist, but can be made
coeval, with regimes of caste inequality. This volume explores many of these
themes.
A distinctive feature of the volume is that the contributors to the volume did
additional new research and substantially rewrote their essays after presenting
them as papers at the Dalit studies conference at the University of Pennsylva-
nia in December 2008. The discussants, chairs of sessions, and audience at the
conference played a crucial role in asking the right questions and enabling
the contributors to further develop their research. The anonymous referees
at Duke University Press provided solid feedback to all the contributors by
asking insightful questions, which were specific but also addressed the overall
theme of the volume. The volume introduces a new group of scholars who
have addressed the concerns of Dalit studies in different regions of India. Most
contributors to the volume belong to the marginal social groups in India. In-
deed, many of us were deeply influenced by the political and academic debates
in the 1990s following the Mandal commission report controversy in 1990.
These debates were also shaped by the rapid rise of right-wing Hindu groups
following the demolition of the Babri masjid (mosque) in December 1992.
We have addressed these concerns in the introduction to the volume.
Our objective in writing a definitive introduction was to introduce Dalit
studies to a diverse audience. It also provided us with a valuable opportunity
to formulate the idea of Dalit studies as a critical location that allows the
study of Dalits as marginalized subjects but also offers a perspective for rein-
terpreting Indian society and history. We wrote the introduction together in
the fall of 2010 when K. Satyanarayana was a visiting fellow at the Center for
the Advanced Study of India (casi) at the University of Pennsylvania. The
introduction eventually became a bold statement on our part, motivating us
to engage a variety of topics from several disciplines. Recognizing the merit
of the introduction, the two anonymous referees of the book’s manuscript
for Duke University Press became the most valuable interlocutors with their
incisive comments and suggestions. Feedback from them has helped us con-
siderably revise and rework parts of the introduction, making it sharper and
clearer. Most of the comments by the two referees dealt with the introduction.
We would like to thank the participants at the Dalit studies conference,
where this volume began its journey. Nearly three hundred people submit-
ted proposals for papers to be delivered at the conference. The conference
brought together a new group of scholars and was instrumental in creating
new friendships and collaborations. We are grateful to those who presented
papers at the conference, who in the order of presentation there are Nar-
endra Jadhav, Chinnaiah Jangam, Gopal Guru, Sanal Mohan, Raj Kumar

x • ac know ledg ments

Hans, Rupa Viswanath, Sukdeo Thorat, Shailaja Paik, Laura Brueck, Jebroja
Singh, Hugo Gorringe, M. S. S. Pandian, Sambaiah Gundimeda, Shyam Babu,
Surinder Jodhka, Chandrabhan Prasad and Devesh Kapur, Karthik Muralid-
haran, Katherine Newman, and Paul Attewell. We are especially thankful to
the discussants at the conference for their valuable time and suggestions:
Douglas Haynes, Lucinda Ramberg, Mrinalini Sinha, Sudipto Kaviraj, Steven
Wilkinson, and Lant Pritchett. We are also grateful to the chairs at the confer-
ence: Priya Joshi, Jamal Elias, Ania Loomba, Atul Kohli, and Gail Omvedt. We
are extremely grateful to Barbara Savage and Tufuku Zuberi for participating
in the African American and Dalit studies roundtable. This roundtable was
another highlight of the conference because it attracted a large audience, nearly
ninety people. casi provided substantial financial support for the conference,
enabling us to invite a large number of scholars from India. In addition,
it provided a small research grant to all contributors. Additional support was
provided by the South Asia Center, the Department of South Asian Studies,
and the Center for Africana Studies, at the University of Pennsylvania.
Over the years we have accumulated boundless debts to friends, colleagues,
and institutions, and we made new friends during the course of producing this
volume. Most of all, we acknowledge our deep gratitude to Devesh Kapur, di-
rector of casi, for his support to the conference and the volume. The confer-
ence was his idea. The remarkably professional but kind staff at casi made the
conference and the book possible. Their commitment to the conference turned
it into a choreographed festival of ideas. Our heartfelt thanks go to Juliana Di
Giustini, deputy director of casi and a dynamic leader and person of ideas,
who planned and executed the entire conference when Ramnarayan Rawat
was in India on sabbatical. We are also very grateful to Tanya Carey, admin-
istrative coordinator, for managing the conference with so much ease and
a smile. Alan Atchison, the online editor and expert, was always around
and ready with answers to our numerous questions. Our thanks go to Tan-
maya Nanda. Several Penn undergraduates who worked part-time at casi con-
tributed immensely to the success of the conference. They include Katherine
Maughan, Rahul Reddy, and Yashas Vaidya, all of the class of 2009. Thanks
are also due to Maisha Philips and Paola Campos at South Asia Center.
In the Department of South Asian Studies and at the South Asia Center at
Penn, our heartfelt thanks go to Kathy Hall, who was director of the center;
the late Aditya Behl, who supported the conference plan; and Jody Chavez,
assistant director of the center. The graduate students in the Department of
South Asian studies provided support in various ways. Christian Novtzke
and Sunila Kale, Ramnarayan Rawat’s colleagues at Penn at the time, played

ac know ledg ments • xi

a crucial role in conceptualizing and planning the conference—thank you
both. A special thanks to Deven Patel and Jamal Elias.
Over the years Ramnarayan Rawat has greatly benefited from conversa-
tions with his colleagues at the University of Delaware, not just in history
but also in anthropology, English, political science, foreign languages, and
area studies. They have all been very supportive of his various projects. He is
grateful for the camaraderie of his colleagues in the Asian studies program.
The Dean’s Office, the Center for Global and Area Studies, and the Institute
of Global Studies have been generous with their support.
Susie Tharu, Madhava Prasad, Satish Poduval, Uma Bhrugubanda, Par-
thasarathi, and Sujit—K. Satyanarayana’s colleagues and friends in the
Department of Cultural Studies at the English and Foreign Language Univer-
sity, in Hyderabad—encouraged and contributed to teaching of Dalit studies.
This intellectual collaboration has made it possible to conceive of Dalit stud-
ies as a location of critical intervention. Our conversations with Lisa Mitchell
gave clarity and sharpness to our introduction to this volume. Lisa read drafts
of the introduction, and her comments and criticisms helped us revise it and
make a bold and sharp statement.
Devesh Kapur and Gopal Guru have been coeditors of this volume. They
proposed the idea that we should organize a series of conferences on Dalit
agendas and produce solid academic scholarship to create an impact in the
intellectual arena. Their support was critical to creating the Dalit studies edi-
torial collective. We wish to expand the collective and plan how to forward
the Dalit studies project of alternative knowledge production. The present
volume is a first step in that direction.
Ramnarayan Rawat’s two brothers, Ved and Yogesh, and their wonderful
families in Delhi have always been a source of emotional strength and sup-
port. Thanks to them for taking care of father. Sara and Larry Mitchell, thank
you for your endless enthusiasm at all times. A special thanks to the neigh-
bors on Beaumont Avenue, Philadelphia, who have been the most reliable of
friends and well-wishers. Leela (age ten) and Rohan (age three) bring joys
every day to our lives. Of course, thanks also to Lisa Mitchell for her deep
wisdom, thoughtful suggestions, and boundless affection. K. Satyanarayana’s
wife Pavana and daughter Taara (age four) were a great source of support and
love while he was working on this volume.

xii • ac know ledg ments

 INTRODUCTION

Dalit Studies: New Perspectives on

Indian History and Society
r am n a r aya n s . r awat a n d k. s at yanar ayana

These privileged young Indians [studying in England] during English rule

[gulami, or slavery] in India had to suffer humiliation [apaman] at every
step of their stay in England, unable, for example, to travel by first class even
though they had a first-class railway ticket. They could not enter some hotels.
They had to listen to the humiliating [apaman-janak] English term “Indian
dog.” Such humiliation [apaman] enraged them. These elite Indians didn’t
know that Dalits in India had to suffer the worst kind of humiliation. . . .
Among the foreign returned [Indians] were Gandhi-ji, Jawaharlal Nehru,
Subhas Chandra Bose, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Lala Lajpat Rai and others. When
these people experienced humiliation and loss of dignity [in England] they
then became conscious of the need for independence.
—mata prasad, Jhompri se Rajbhavan

The Contemporary Context

Mata Prasad’s 2002 autobiography attributes the emergence of Indian na-
tionalism to the everyday humiliation experienced by the English-educated
Indian elite under colonial rule. Like earlier Dalit authors, Prasad argues that
the origins of Indian nationalism must be located in the nationalist leaders’
personal experiences of colonial humiliation, during which they were treated
as second-class citizens both in India and England. Furthermore, Dalit writ-
ers like Prasad insist that Indian nationalism cannot be explained merely as
an outcome of economic inequity; rather, they argue that colonial conditions
of social and cultural exclusion motivated middle-class Indians to launch a
nationalist struggle. Prasad illustrates the question of humiliation by dis-
cussing at length Mahatma Gandhi’s experience on a train in South Africa
in 1893, which was a formative incident in his politics. Gandhi was evicted
from the first-class compartment, despite his English attire, his education in
England, his status as a lawyer, and his legal right to be in the compartment
because he had bought a first-class ticket. Prasad further argues that the Dalit
struggle is against caste Hindu discriminatory practices that have humiliated
Dalits for centuries. Using experiences of racism and exclusion as the main
lenses for understanding the emergence of Indian nationalism, Prasad draws
parallels between Indian elite experiences of humiliation at the hands of the
British and Dalit experiences of humiliation at the hands of caste Hindus. As
Prasad shows, experiences of humiliation similarly form a crucial explana-
tory role in fights for dignity in Dalit narratives.
In descriptions of struggles for dignity and against caste inequality, the
term “Dalit” is today widely used to describe India’s former untouchables.
Beginning with the Dalit Panthers’ movement in the 1970s, the term acquired
a radical new meaning of self-identification and signified a new oppositional
consciousness.1 The Congress Party and several other organizations, follow-
ing Gandhi, adopted the term “Harijan” (children of god), a term that con-
tinues to be used by members of these groups even today. But from the 1970s
onward the term “Dalit” has been widely used in academic writings follow-
ing its adoption by Dalit activists and writers—especially in the vernacular
literary sphere.
Dalit vernacular narratives in the twentieth century have conceptualized
the category of humiliation not merely as personal but also as informing social
and political processes like nationalism and Dalit struggles for personal and
political dignity. Drawing from their own individual and collective struggles
and activist backgrounds, Prasad and other Dalit authors writing in Indian
languages offer an analysis of human dignity, and they echo Charles Taylor
by insisting that they are engaged not only in a political project but also in a
historiographical one.2 Gopal Guru offers us a theoretical engagement with
the contentious histories of humiliation and dignity present in both West-
ern and Indian contexts. As he argues, in colonial India the caste Hindu
“traditional elite develop an insight into humiliation not because they have
an innate moral capacity” but because the “colonial configuration of power,

2 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

produced by western modernity, necessarily disrupts their feudal compla-
cency and awakens them to their own subordination within this framework
of power.”3 He has emphasized the privileged location of the colonial Indian
elite in defining the intellectual and cultural agendas of anti-colonial struggles.
It has maintained dominant position after independence within social, politi-
cal, and academic contexts. The categories of humiliation and dignity, salient
in Dalit vernacular writings, have entered South Asian academic discourse
because Dalit intellectuals, consciously retaining an activist sensibility, have
entered academia in a significant fashion since the 1990s. Once almost com-
pletely absent from the academy, Dalit academics are now beginning to bring
vernacular histories of these two categories to bear on debates in the study
of India.
This volume represents the beginning of a qualitative transformation of In-
dian academia, both in terms of debates and in its recognition of the entry of
new social groups into academia after the 1990s. A number of developments
after the 1990s (discussed below) contributed to the emergence of Dalit stud-
ies as a significant intervention to reassess the study of Indian society and
history. Dalit academics and activist-intellectuals outside of formal institu-
tions contributed a significant number of essays to this volume, with eleven
of the original nineteen papers at the conference presented by Dalit scholars.4
It would be more accurate to describe these scholars as belonging to non-
elite social and educational backgrounds. The conference acknowledged the
emergence of a new generation of scholars—both Dalit and non-Dalit—who
do not belong to the traditional elite of India. They do not belong to the elite
landed and bureaucratic Indian families. They did not study at elite colleges
in India such as the St. Stephen’s, the Lady Shri Ram, or the Presidency, and
they do not have PhDs from English institutions such as Oxford and Cam-
bridge, which is characteristic of Indian academia. Another crucial feature of
this group is that for the majority of them English is not their first language;
they learned it in college. The entry of social groups who have often been
the subject matter of academic scholarship rather than actors in the produc-
tion of that knowledge is perhaps the most significant recent development in
India. In that sense, this volume’s contribution goes well beyond simply pay-
ing attention to the study of Dalit society and history and enables a signifi-
cant reconsideration of many of the core assumptions in Indian academia.
All of this is also an indication of the rapid changes taking place in India in
recent decades, visible especially after 1989–90.
The project of this volume must be located in the context of post-1990
political and intellectual developments. According to Partha Chatterjee,

introduction • 3
this period marks the rise of autonomous Dalit politics and regional political
formations in India that have decisively replaced the Congress Party, which
dominated Indian politics until the 1990s, “as the central active force.”5 Five
broad trends have made the rise of Dalit studies possible: (a) the political
and intellectual controversy in the 1990s over implementation of the recom-
mendations of the 1980 Mandal commission report (named after B. P. Man-
dal, chairman of the Second Backward Classes Commission, 1979–80) that
expanded the constitutionally mandated reservations in public education
and employment for “lower-caste” Hindu groups;6 (b) the rise of new Dalit
activism in southern India; (c) political and electoral interventions by new
Dalit political parties such as the Bahujan Samaj Party (bsp ); (d) the rise of
Dalit feminism in India; and (e) global discussions of caste, race, and social
exclusions, such as those at the 2001 Durban conference (the World Confer-
ence Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racial Intoler-
ance) in South Africa. Rajni Kothari suggests that the new Dalit movement
in the 1990s has forced a “detailed consideration of the theoretical and politi-
cal issues involved in the whole debate on caste and its role in social transfor-
mation.”7 It has challenged structural injustices and hierarchical practices by
demanding “education, employment and special rights.”8
First, questions of dignity and the stereotypes associated with Dalit com-
munities culminated in critical discussions in the 1990s. In August 1990 the
Indian government decided to accept the recommendations in the Mandal
commission’s report, expanding statutory reservation (or affirmative action)
policies from Dalits to other backward classes (or “lower-castes”). Considered
a feature of rural India, caste became extremely visible in urban India during
student protests in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta, Hyderabad, and Bengaluru. The
caste Hindu students in urban centers protested the extension of affirmative
action from scheduled castes and tribes to other historically disadvantaged
“lower-caste” groups. Several commentators at the time, such as K. Balagopal
and Gail Omvedt, noted that the vast majority of the Indian intelligentsia
opposed implementation of the recommendations in the Mandal commis-
sion report, arguing that such policies would tear the national fabric apart.9
Perhaps the most productive contribution of the debate was to bring into
focus the dominance of Indian academia by caste Hindu intellectuals from
relatively homogeneous economic, cultural, and educational backgrounds.
Most important, caste became a recognized legitimate political category and
a modern and living one, as opposed to its prior representations as primor-
dial, backward, and reactionary. Yet at the same time, the continued visible
exclusion of Dalits from formal academic institutions, the media, and the

4 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

private sector has further validated the primacy of caste in institutional ex-
clusions. The controversy over the Mandal commission report also deeply
affected the Dalit intelligentsia, especially the younger generation, many of
whom had previously identified primarily with Marxist ideas. For example,
in the 1990s, Dalit groups questioned the dominance of Brahmins and caste
Hindus in leadership positions in Marxist and Naxalite organizations. The
past decade has seen the emergence of Dalit student organizations in univer-
sities and Ambedkar Youth Forums throughout India and the expansion of
Dalit political organizations into new regions of the country.10 The concep-
tion of caste as a form of inequality and discrimination emerged on the cen-
ter stage of the Indian political scene for the first time in independent India,
creating intense discussions in the public domain.
Second, in the 1990s, South India witnessed the rise of the new Dalit ac-
tivism. The phenomenon of mass killings of Dalits in southern India and the
failure of both parliamentary parties and Marxist organizations to satisfac-
torily address this challenge led to new discussions of caste-based violence
in India. In the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, a large number of Dalit
activists discarded Marxist-Leninist (Maoist or Naxalite) ideological frame-
works and embraced a Dalit identity as a more effective way of engaging with
mainstream political discourse.11 The declining ideological appeal and legiti-
macy of socialism and communism in India, especially among Dalit activists,
has also played a major role in catalyzing identity-based Dalit struggles in
Kerala. Class-based activism is no longer the dominant and legitimate mode
of activism in India today, as it was prior to the 1990s. This ideological re-
alignment also led to the resurrection since the 1990s of Indian leader and
jurist B. R. Ambekar, born in a Dalit family, as an important social phi-
losopher and icon.12 In Tamil Nadu, Dalit organizations and activists have
questioned the legacy of Periyar (E. V. Ramasamy) and the Dravidian move-
ment.13 Autonomous Dalit organizations such as the Dalit Sangarsh Samiti
in Karnataka, Dalit Panthers of India in Tamil Nadu, and Dalit Mahasabha
in Andhra Pradesh and many other caste-specific Dalit forums such as the
Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti in Andhra Pradesh and Adi Tamilzhar
Peravai in Tamil Nadu were all established in the 1990s. The consolidation of
Dalit identities and their increased presence in the public domain is a hall-
mark of the 1990s.14
Third, one of the significant contemporary developments in Indian poli-
tics is the remarkable electoral success of the bsp in northern India. The
bsp was founded in the Punjab in 1984 as an all-India party, but its electoral
success has been most striking in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh

introduction • 5
after 1990. The controversy over the implementation of the Mandal com-
mission report’s recommendations in 1990 played an important role in the
bsp ’s success by realigning the political and electoral map in India. The bsp
entered into a pre-election alliance with the Samajwadi Party, represent-
ing “lower-caste” interests (particularly those of the Yadavs), and the coalition
stunned political pundits by winning the 1993 state assembly elections. Since
then, the bsp ’s increasing political and social strength has continued to sur-
prise the mainstream establishment.15 By building a formidable alliance of
Dalits, poor backward communities, Muslims, and Brahmins, the bsp won
a majority in the 2006 elections in Uttar Pradesh. This electoral and political
success in the last two decades in northern India has inspired and motivated
a cross-section of Dalit groups in different parts of India, reflected in the
bsp ’s presence in almost all of the southern states, including Dalit parties
such as the Dalit Panthers of India and the Pudiya Tamilazham.
Fourth, the post-1990s context, defined by the mobilization of groups that
supported and those that opposed the Mandal commission’s report and the
rise of Dalit movements, also marked the emergence of Dalit women’s fo-
rums as a distinct political formation that enabled a new inquiry into the
foundational paradigm of liberal and Marxist Indian feminist ideologies. The
implementation of the Mandal commission report’s recommendations in
1990 motivated sections of caste Hindu women to participate in anti-Mandal
political forums. The centrality of caste in women’s lives was illustrated by the
caste Hindu women who took to the streets to protest the implementation
of the Mandal commission’s recommendations and who displayed placards
expressing their anxiety about finding a good caste Hindu husband in light
of the new reservation policies. Such a public display of caste arrogance and
upper-caste identity by sections of Hindu women also revealed the social
divide between Dalit and upper-caste women.16 Institutionally, the formation
of the National Federation of Dalit Women in 1995 signaled a new politi-
cal intervention within the women’s movement in India.17 Describing main-
stream Indian feminism as Brahmanical for its failure to recognize caste as a
crucial element of social and political life, informing norms that shape even
the most intimate and sexual domains, Dalit women’s organizations challenged
upper-caste Indian feminists’ right to speak on behalf of all women. Dalit
feminist organizations have emphasized three distinct modes of subjugation.
These are patriarchy (male domination of females in the family and society,
and the exclusion of Dalit women from Dalit male–dominated political and
cultural organizations), caste inequities (exclusion of Dalits by caste Hindu

6 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

men and women), and sexual violence (especially used by caste Hindu men
to enforce their domination over Dalits, but also used at times by Dalit men
in the family context). Gopal Guru’s 1995 essay, “Dalit Women Talk Differ-
ently,” emphasized the crucial role of caste identity in instituting forms of
domination, exclusion, and violence. Citing testimonies of Dalit women ac-
tivists at a 1995 conference, Guru argued that caste identity plays a significant
role in the humiliation and violation of Dalit women’s bodies and takes on
a severe and intense form that cannot be explained by existing frameworks
of patriarchy, class, and psychological factors. By foregrounding the cen-
trality of caste inequities against Dalit women and articulating the complex
connections between caste and patriarchy and between caste and class, the
emergence of a Dalit feminist movement after the 1990s has posed new ques-
tions for interrogating a feminist history of India. The 2003 Gender and Caste
reader edited by Anupama Rao contains many articles published after the
1990s that reflect this shift.18
Fifth, with Indian economic liberalization in the 1990s, new institutional
and formal public spaces have become available as sites of debate. The new
political economy has created new opportunities for Dalit writers and ac-
tivists. The rise of the Internet, an explosion in vernacular media, and the
growing availability of resources outside the state framework have all helped
Dalits gain public attention through literary productions, print media, and
social media mobilization.19 Global communication, transportation net-
works, and access to international forums have enabled new dialogues and
alliances. For example, a large contingent of Dalit activists and scholars
participated in the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimina-
tion, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” held in Durban, South Africa, in
September 2001. Dalit participants demanded that caste be included as a form
of racial discrimination in the conference agenda. This reconceptualization
of caste discrimination allowed Dalit activists to declare the rights of their
community to be legitimate human rights.20 The reinvigoration of the study
of India in the United States over the past two decades and the increasing
exchange of scholars between the two countries gave additional impetus to
the emergence of Dalit studies. The African American civil rights movement
and the presence of black studies departments in the United States have pro-
vided a forum for comparative analysis and exchange. This global circulation
of Dalit issues, the rise of a Dalit diaspora, and an engagement with questions
of diversity and race have all helped enrich and expand the debate on caste.
In this context, the University Grants Commission, a federal institution of

introduction • 7
higher education in India, established centers for the study of “Social Exclu-
sion and Inclusion Policy” in several Indian universities to examine caste-
based and other forms of exclusion.21
The increasing visibility of Dalits in contemporary India and abroad has
been accompanied by the rise of the Dalit intelligentsia. In the 1990s, Dalit
activists and intellectuals began to enter Indian academe, marking the ar-
rival of a new social group in the mainstream Indian public sphere.22 For the
first time questions were raised about the domination of Indian academia by
intellectuals belonging to the caste Hindu groups. There is no doubt that the
protests and counterprotests in 1990 over the implementation of the recom-
mendations of the Mandal commission, along with the rise of Dalit move-
ments all over India, brought the question of caste discrimination into the
center of academic and political debates.23 This is a historic development that
has largely gone unnoticed, even as it has made possible a reconsideration of
Indian history and politics.

Interrogating the Prevailing Paradigms

There has been a general absence of research into and engagement with
the perspectives of twentieth-century Dalit intellectuals like Swami Ach-
hutanand, Bhagya Reddy Varma, Kusuma Dharmanna, and Iyothee Thass,
and their critiques of untouchability and caste inequality are not widely
known. Until the 1990s, even Ambedkar’s critique of Indian society and the
Gandhian national movement remained on the margins.24 In Indian histori-
ography, Dalit struggles against untouchability and upper-caste domination
were frequently regarded as sectarian and pro-British, and therefore as anti-
national. The prominent Marxist historian of India, Sumit Sarkar, suggests in
a self-critical essay in 2002 that “it has proved difficult to accommodate within
this framework [colonialism versus nationalism] sympathetic evaluations of
many movements for women’s rights and “lower caste” protests, for these often
utilized aspects of colonial policies and Western ideologies as resources.”25 In
the context of his work on Tamil Dalits in 1998, G. Aloysius points out that
“social crises in subaltern life had begun to throw up organized activities as
early as the middle of the 19th century,” though such actors “still await the
historiographers and social scientists to unearth and install them in their le-
gitimate niches of history.”26 A notable shift since the 1990s has been the rec-
ognition of Dalits as actors in India’s history. New attention has been devoted
to the contributions of Dalits to the shaping of modern India, both in terms
of their political struggle and in the recognition of their key leaders. This is

8 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

in marked contrast to the absence of attention to Dalit struggles and intel-
lectual agendas in English-language publications and mainstream academic
writings in the long twentieth century.
In this section we discuss dominant frameworks in Indian academic
scholarship on Dalits. These include (a) the Gandhian Harijan ideology; (b)
the primacy of the colonialist historiographical framework over the national-
ist one to study modern India; (c) the nationalist idea of Indian civilization;
and (d) the Nehruvian model of modern developmentalism. Each of these
prevailing notions excluded Dalits and their perspectives from academic de-
bates. The latter half of this section traces the noticeable shift in the tone and
content of academic writings on Dalits from the 1960s to the 1990s. The per-
ceptible transition is from a general study of Dalit society and movements to
the positioning Dalits as actors with a distinct ideological agenda, recovering
their active role in shaping debates in India.
The hegemony of the Harijan perspective is one explanation that helps
account for the absence of systematic engagement with Dalits as political
and historical actors. It represents Dalits through the powerful stereotype
of the bhangi (scavenger) figure and stigmatized victim in need of reform
from above.27 Removing other more prominent forms of Dalit lives from
discussion, the scavenger figure became the dominant trope through which
questions related to Dalits were discussed and debated in the nationalist
discourse. Gandhi played a prominent role in creating this discourse when
he idealized the scavenger figure and sought to ennoble the occupation of
scavenging. Gandhian discussions of reforming Hindu society relied heavily
on the reform of untouchables’ impure occupation of scavenging. “An ideal
Bhangi,” Gandhi claimed, would be an expert who “would know the quality
of night soil and urine” because of his scientific education.28 In the Gandhian
agenda the reform of untouchables became intricately linked to the reform
and modernization of the profession of scavenging. Gandhi maintained
that the varna model of social division consisting of four orders (Brahmin,
Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra) is an ideal system because the “callings of
a Brahmin—spiritual teacher—and a scavenger are equal, and their due
performance carries equal merit before God.”29 Harijan perspective denies
any notion of liberty and freedom to the scavenging community. Follow-
ing Gandhi, the manual scavenger was romanticized in early Indian classics
such as Mulk Raj Anand’s 1935 novel, Untouchable, and Sivasankara Pillai’s
1947 novel, Tottiyute Makan (Scavenger’s son), both of which reinforced the
stereotype of the scavenger figure and stigmatized victim as the normative
figure of the Dalit.30

introduction • 9
 Gandhism, or the Harijan perspective, became the normative framework
for representing Dalits in modern India. Ambedkar argued in his 1945 book,
What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, that Gandhi or-
ganized campaigns in the 1930s against untouchability to reform the practice
by elevating the traditional occupations of Dalit communities. Gandhian
campaigns also perpetuated the notion that untouchables were victims and
objects of reform. Ambedkar argued in his critique of Gandhism that it will
render Dalits the eternal scavengers of modern India.31 Such a perspective
did not promote Dalits as active political actors. Indeed, during his lifetime
Gandhi refused to engage with Dalit political movements. Ambedkar’s pre-
dictions have been borne out by Indian historiography, which continued to
be informed by the Harijan perspective even fifty years after independence.
In an insightful essay in 1993, Guru argued that existing studies of caste and
untouchability in modern India have only further reinforced the Harijan
perspective.32 According to Guru, caste studies have emphasized the role of
Gandhi-led campaigns against untouchability in which untouchables were
represented as victims, scavengers, and objects of reform. The caste studies
informed by the Harijan perspective have focused on the elite-led initiatives
in instituting social and political reform practices among the Dalits. The
prominent Indian sociologist M. N. Srinivas’s Sanskritization model, which
assumes that Dalit groups and individuals imitate religious and cultural
practices of caste Hindus, formed an important conceptual tool for studying
Dalit struggles as initiatives for social mobility in modern India.33 The model
of Sanskritization or emulation denies agency and autonomous consciousness
to Dalits and also prevents us from recognizing their role in initiating social
struggles against caste hierarchy.
Another reason for the absence of Dalit actors and their agendas in
Indian academic knowledge production is the dominant conceptual frame-
work defined by the binary of colonialism versus nationalism.34 Indian his-
toriography views colonialism as marking a decisive break in Indian history
by constituting a single and unified discourse of power. Colonialism, in the
dominant Marxist and nationalist understanding, was conceptualized as the
single most important cause of India’s social and economic backwardness,
and the colonial state was the instrument of exploitation and subjuga-
tion. This view discouraged the study of Dalit social and religious reform
movements that invoked the promise and possibilities of colonial moder-
nity. Anti-untouchability agitations, temple entry movements, and struggles
for access to public spaces and representation in colonial institutions were
neither concerned with anticolonial agendas nor nationalist in motivation.

10 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

Rather, these struggles emphasized caste discrimination in the social and
cultural arenas and lack of representation in the political sphere.35 Dalit
groups used the colonial state and its institutional framework to articulate
their rights, and therefore a total rejection of the colonial state was never on
their agenda. Dalit histories remain untold in modern Indian history because
autonomous Dalit organizations and groups could not easily be assimilated
into the anticolonial nationalist narrative. Instead, Dalit histories, as Neeladri
Bhattacharya has argued, were appropriated into the nationalist narratives
for their opposition to colonialism, in much the same way as that of peasant
and working classes.36
Sociologists like G. S. Ghurye and M. N. Srinivas were inspired by nation-
alist notions of India as a civilization that has been sustained by its inherent
cultural unity since ancient times.37 The idea of Indian civilization was con-
ceptualized essentially in the caste Hindu framework by nationalist leaders
such as Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, and Jawaharlal Nehru.38 A generation
of scholars demonstrated the unity of the nation in terms of its religion, cul-
ture, and social institutions primarily by focusing on the caste system.39 That
system was conceptualized as a social structure that encouraged consensus
by emphasizing the principles of reciprocity and interdependence among
various caste groups. Particularly instructive here is Srinivas’s model of San-
skritization, which valorized consensus over conflicts and, as noted above,
interpreted Dalit protests as mere aspirational imitations of caste Hindu
practices.40 They did not pay attention to anti-untouchability protests that
were also anti-Hindu. This focus on the caste system and its antiquity ac-
quired canonical status in the work of Louis Dumont, who located the system
in Hindu religious values and ritual status linked to purity and pollution.41
This view, derived from Indological and anthropological studies (discussed
below), largely obliterated Dalit life and social protest from sociological stud-
ies. Dalits and other subordinated caste groups challenged the Sanskritiza-
tion model in the 1990s. The pro-reservation agitations and autonomous
Dalit movements in the social and electoral domains posited new identities
(Dalit, Dalit-Bahujan, Madiga, and so on) for subordinated caste groups.42
The dominant representation of Dalit society prior to the 1990s stemmed
from colonial sociology. Its objective was to understand untouchability and
discrimination against Dalit communities in terms of their “impure” religious
and social customs. Representing Dalits as objects of study, these sociological
works nevertheless opened up discussions of the practice of untouchability
in India. Colonial volumes on castes and tribes published between the 1890s
and 1930s offered the first extensive descriptions of Dalit societies in modern

introduction • 11
India. These volumes—for example, on Malas, Madigas, Paraiyars, Mahars,
Namasudras, Chamars, and Pasis—contained extensive details about specific
Dalit communities.43 Such descriptions also associated each of these castes
with an occupation that was considered impure by Brahmin textual sources
like Manusmriti and dominant-caste Hindu groups in each locality. These
volumes paid attention to the religious and social ideas and practices of Dalit
groups to understand their relationship with Hindu society. Anthropological
studies from the 1960s on used extensive ethnographic field work to address
the question of Dalits’ social and cultural practices in relationship to Hindu
society. Studies of Chamars and Doms of northern India and of Paraiyans
and Pallans in southern India examined social customs, economic struc-
tures, and political practices to distinguish those groups from caste Hindus.
Another set of studies focused on what was perceived of as the re-creation
of hierarchical practices in Dalit neighborhoods.44 Until the 1990s the domi-
nant focus was on identifying the impure practices of Dalit communities that
set them apart from Hindu society.
Given the Dalits’ stigmatized status, another leading trend from the 1960s
onward has been to view Dalit protest as “a necessary and inevitable response
to, and outcome of, an obscurantist Hindu tradition.”45 This tendency pro-
moted a new theoretical framework, including the concepts of social mobil-
ity and relative deprivation, which were used extensively by sociologists and
anthropologists. These concepts constrained the scholars to imagine a future
based on autonomous life and values. Attaining the status of the caste Hin-
dus was posited as the goal of Dalits and other subordinated castes. In other
words, the normative reference group used to assess mobility and depriva-
tion in these studies remained the dominant-caste Hindus. The 1972 collec-
tion of essays titled The Untouchables in Contemporary India examined two
broad themes.46 The first concerned strategies adopted by Dalits to overcome
deprivation and the second outlined restrictions created by upper-caste
groups, who were also regarded as the reference point for normative behav-
ior. Bernard Cohn’s essays on the Chamars of northern India tracked avenues
of social mobility created by electoral politics and new work opportunities
outside of the village.47 Departing from the framework of social mobility, a
new body of work from the 1970s on focused on Dalit protests. The unique
feature of this body of literature on Dalits was to identify Dalit movements
and focus on the ways that their localized initiatives challenged dominant
groups. These issues were elaborated in the context of western India by Elea-
nor Zelliot’s work on Ambedkar, Dalit activism, and Dalit saints and by Ros-
alind O’Hanlon’s history of Jotirao Phule’s movement and his intellectual

12 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

world in the 1860s–1900s.48 In northern India, Owen Lynch’s study of Dalit
(Chamar) activism in the city of Agra, R. S. Khare’s significant discussion of
Swami Achhutanand as an Indic ascetic who crafted an alternative history
of Dalits, and Mark Jurgensmeyer’s discussion of Mangoo Ram’s ideological
agenda of Adi-Dharma in Punjab drew attention to Dalit actors who chal-
lenged caste Hindu practices of domination and exclusion.49 According to
Guru, these writings from the 1970s onward demonstrated for the first time
the role of caste inequalities in shaping the cultural and political protests of
Dalits in modern India.50
It is through the state-led developmentism that the Nehruvian idea of an
Indian nation was postulated as an inclusive space of casteless and secular
citizens. The Nehruvian era produced a pan-Indian elite “exclusively of upper
caste [Hindus] and middle class . . . from a very select cultural background
and a specific set of regions.” This national elite “spoke in the modernist
idiom of secular nationalism, scientific technology, and economic develop-
ment; by adopting this idiom, the elite was able to render invisible its own
ascriptive markers.”51 It is the ideological project of national modernity that
suppressed and made invisible “ascriptive markers” such as caste in the pub-
lic sphere. Studies of Indian society in the 1960s and 1970s, in the context
of post-independence liberal democracy, reinforced the dominant political
agenda by demonstrating that the nationalist modernity has transformed
the “traditional institution of caste” into a secular “para community.”52 Lloyd
Rudolph and Susanne Rudolph argued that caste-based mobilization in the
context of liberal democracy and elections led to secularization and democ-
ratization of the caste order.53 The thesis of modernization of caste still shares
the assumption that “caste is a traditional system, its central principle is ritual
hierarchy and its known structure is vertical.”54 Based on the empirical so-
ciological criteria (vertical or horizontal groups, mobility, modernization of
tradition, and so forth), it was argued that caste identities have declined and
transformed in modern India. Invoking modern developmentalism and the
constitutional abolition of caste-based discrimination, some social scientists
and commentators—such as Srinivas, A. M. Shah, B. S. Baviskar, Andre Be-
teille, and Veena Das—maintained that caste is an anachronism in modern
India and caste-based quotas are a legacy of colonial policies of divide and
rule. They actively opposed the extension of caste-based reservation through
the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal commission in
1990.55
The subaltern studies project didn’t develop a systematic engagement with
questions of caste inequality, even though caste continues to be the primary

introduction • 13
form through which hierarchical discrimination is practiced even today.
However, both Ranajit Guha and Partha Chatterjee have pointed to the
significant role of caste consciousness and hierarchical practices in constitut-
ing subaltern radicalism and political struggles, describing them as modern
rather than traditional. Chatterjee has argued that caste and subaltern con-
sciousness were specifically concerned with questions of bodily and ritual
purity and sought to challenge the dominant social groups’ use of dharma to
claim authority.56 Questions of caste discrimination were (and are) a crucial
part of everyday life in modern India, but they remained on the margins
because of the way the category of the subaltern subject was formulated. The
unqualified use of the term “subaltern” to mean peasant has tended to ignore
the world of Dalit peasants and laborers within agrarian society and their
exploitation and subjugation by the landlords and the subaltern peasants. In
the subaltern studies project, the subaltern was an unmarked subject, and
caste inequity was not the core feature of its cultural and political formation.
The subaltern peasant in most cases belonged to “lower-caste” groups (but not
to the untouchable castes), who were culturally committed to forms of Hin-
duism and values of caste inequality. The subaltern was rarely either a Dalit
peasant who was involved in struggles with other caste groups over land and
segregation or a laborer in the cities dealing with exclusionary practices of
workforce consisting primarily of people from “lower-caste” backgrounds. In-
deed the question of caste or jati (regionally defined social group) in the for-
mulation of subaltern consciousness did not receive much critical attention
in any of the volumes of the subaltern studies project. There are a number of
essays in the series that failed to recognize Dalit subalterns as actors in rural
peasant mobilizations (volume 1) or criticized Dalit struggles for their fail-
ure to recognize the class character of their politics while refusing to engage
with their political agendas (volume 10).57 It is hard to theorize the subaltern
subject, in its protest against the colonial state or against the local elites, or in
postcolonial democratic struggles, as untainted by caste markings.58 Consist-
ing of a new generation of scholars, the authors of the penultimate volume
of the subaltern studies project (published in 2005) sought to address the
question of caste inequality.59 The volume represented an attempt to en-
gage with the recent political transformation in India after the 1990s, when
debate and research on caste inequality took over the public sphere.
Since the 1990s a number of authors have shed light on numerous Dalit
initiatives about which little was previously known. From the literary ac-
counts of the Namasudras in Bengal between the 1880s and the 1930s to the
new religious practices created by Satnamis in central India, there is substan-

14 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

tial evidence of a long history of Dalit efforts to envision new social and po-
litical structures free from caste Hindu domination.60 Aloysius’s 1998 study
draws our attention to Iyothee Thass and his organizational efforts between
1890 and  1914  in claiming that Buddhism is the original religion of Tamil
Dalits.61 Thass’s work on the 1900s has enabled the recognition of the emer-
gence of an autonomous Dalit movement that used the language of south-
ern Indian indigeneity well before the mature Dravidian movement of the
1930s.62 Anupama Rao’s 2009 book discusses the strategies of emancipation
advocated by “caste subalterns” in questioning caste inequality as “forms of
civic and political exclusion” and their efforts to rewrite history, rename
identity, and challenge Brahmanical knowledge production.63 Rao further
argues that the liberal state’s policies of affirmative action also created new
sites of violence against the Dalits. More recently, Ramnarayan Rawat’s 2011
study recovers the role of Dalit actors in intervening in and reshaping politi-
cal practice in northern India from 1922 onward, providing new models not
just for Dalits but for all political actors.64
The rise of Dalit feminism has interrogated existing stereotypical as-
sumptions of Indian feminist historiography, especially its representation
of Dalit women as liberated.65 Urmila Pawar and Gopal Guru have urged
an investigation into Dalit patriarchy and representations of Dalit women
in mainstream historiography as liberated subjects.66 Dalit women, Pawar
has argued, have had to deal with “caste based atrocities . . . the threat of
rape, [and] in the family . . . tolerate physical violence and other atrocities
of men.”67 Guru’s influential essay has emphasized the social location and
experience of the woman intellectual-activist in articulating a distinctly Dalit
feminist standpoint that is markedly different from the experience of caste
Hindu women. Sharmila Rege has expanded on this point by arguing that
the feminist movement in India did not analyze the formative influence of
Brahmanism in shaping the cultural and political practices of caste Hindus,
both men and women.68 The visibility of Dalit women in work and social
roles and their increased political activism after 1990 has elicited violent re-
prisals against them.69
One of the more systematic efforts to rethink colonial modernity and
offer a conceptual framework for the study of colonial and postcolonial India
has been provided by Guru. He asks a historiographical question that is ex-
tremely important for the study of India when he writes, “what are those nor-
mative grounds on which the struggle for rejection of rejection is carried out
by the subaltern masses?”70 He goes on to suggest that the normative grounds
are created by the politics of recognition, emancipation, and education of

introduction • 15
the subject. At the same time we must recognize that these modern prin-
ciples, along with modern institutions, bureaucracy, industrialization, and
the public sphere, have also created new conditions for the perpetuation of
humiliation. Modernity, argues Guru, creates new shared moral and ethical
commitments to egalitarian values among dominant and subordinate groups,
yet it also creates new practices that contribute to the latter’s exclusion. D. R.
Nagaraj has emphasized the long history in Dalit neighborhoods of Dalit
cultural memory of saints and yogis who have challenged caste hierarchy.
The efforts of indigenous rebels and radicals to fight caste discrimination
“has been one of the spiritual requirements of their tradition.”71 It is impor-
tant to note the continued popularity of an alternative tradition built by the
followers of saints like Ravi Das in northern India, Chokhemala in western
India, and Basavanna and Nandanar in southern India in shaping struggles
for dignity. At the same time, Dalit intellectuals and activists are wary of
Nagaraj’s suggestion of a civilizational connection between Dalit and caste
Hindu societies and his criticism of Dalit social and literary movements’ faith
in the project of modernity. Instead, what we are emphasizing is that the
Dalit groups were particularly attentive in appropriating cultural practices
and using them to engage with the modern liberal context to transform their
self-identities to fight caste inequality. Departing from the subaltern studies
project, this volume seeks to emphasize struggles related to dignity that suc-
cessfully engage with colonial liberalism to interrogate religiously sanctioned
caste discrimination that has shaped the politics of nationalism and contin-
ues to inform democratic practices today.
By writing histories of struggles for human dignity and recovering his-
tories of struggles against caste discrimination, this volume seeks to outline
a new historiographical agenda for the study of India. Dominant scholarly
frameworks have elaborated aspects of exclusion and deprivation faced by
caste subalterns through the paradigms of social mobility and Sanskriti-
zation. However, because of the overwhelming concern with movements
against colonialism and a commitment to the cultural unity of Indic civiliza-
tion, until recently Indian historiography has paid little attention to Dalit
thought and activism. The pedagogical projects of nationalist elites identified
Dalits’ activities, including their social and political struggles, as occupying
the domain of tradition, as primordial and backward, or as a product of the
colonial state’s patronage politics. Yet Dalits found colonial modernity, in-
cluding colonial liberal thought, useful in addressing concrete questions of
representation for minorities, which offered new opportunities for engaging
with caste Hindus. Most Dalit organizations engaged with the colonial state

16 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

over issues concerning affirmative action to secure representation in legisla-
tive assemblies and schools and colleges. The longer history of Dalit struggles
related to questions of self-esteem and self-worth deserves serious academic
attention today.

Notes for New Scholarship on India

One of the most important objectives of this volume is to offer a new per-
spective for the study of India. Some of the key interventions the authors
in this volume offer include (a) foregrounding issues of human dignity as
central to the study of Indian history, (b) examining discursive practices that
have allowed caste discrimination to persist, and (c) moving beyond the con-
ceptual obsession with the framework of colonialism versus nationalism. The
long quote with which this introduction opened offered Mata Prasad’s inter-
pretation of India’s freedom struggle. He examined it not through the dyad
of colonialism versus nationalism that has dominated Indian historiography
but through a framework of human dignity. Prasad insists that the Indian
elites’ experience of the loss of dignity was central to their struggle against
colonial domination. Humiliation and dignity are the prominent themes
that permeate the Dalit vernacular literary and political sphere in provinces
throughout India.
This volume is conceived of as an academic intervention that can con-
nect activists and writers with scholars to investigate the untold narratives of
Dalits as active participants in the project of imagining new visions of modern
India. It aims to move beyond the nationalist historiographical framework of
colonialism versus nationalism and recover struggles related to dignity. In
the process, we reexamine prevailing conceptions of colonial rule and co-
lonial knowledge. In the nationalist narrative, colonial rule is seen only as
exploitative, repressive, and therefore anti-Indian.72 This view of colonialism
as a homogeneous and singular structure of oppression does not adequately
explain the complex transformations of the colonial period or the diverse
responses of different social groups within society. Yet this uniform view of
colonialism has helped a caste Hindu nationalist elite appropriate both his-
tory and power in modern India. In contrast, we demonstrate that proto-
cols of colonial public space and its normative categories enabled Dalits and
other subordinated caste groups to use modern juridical practices.73 Promi-
nent Dalit leaders and intellectuals in the twentieth century like Ambedkar,
Swami Achhutanand, Mangoo Ram, Bhagya Reddy Varma, Jagjivan Ram,
and Iyothee Thass viewed the colonial state as offering new legal structures,

introduction • 17
which guaranteed Dalits new access to public space and provided employ-
ment in new professions. A small section of the Dalit community benefited
from colonial education, employment, and political representation. This
group of educated rural and urban Dalits fashioned counter-ideologies to
challenge organizations such as the Congress Party and caste Hindu orga-
nizations. They swiftly embraced new opportunities, establishing local or-
ganizations, setting up printing presses, launching newspapers, and opening
schools and hostels to mobilize their community and take advantage of op-
portunities for engaging in the new public space. Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5 in
this volume demonstrate that Dalit groups deployed the language of rights,
social equality, and affirmative action to challenge caste Hindu organizations’
refusal to discuss issues relating to caste inequalities.
Research over the past three decades has revised the nationalist and Marx-
ist representations of the colonial state as a purely secular and external entity.
Such research has drawn attention to the colonial state’s role in consolidating
Hindu society and nationalizing Hinduism as a unified Indian tradition.74
Caste Hindu dominance—particularly by Brahmans—in the colonial bureau-
cracy, education, and middle-class professions has been well demonstrated.
Practices that helped produce colonial knowledge like the census and caste
and tribe surveys in the nineteenth century classified and organized Indian
society on the four-fold varna model of social division, based on Brahmani-
cal texts like the Manusmriti (one of the most cited texts in colonial sources),
with Brahmans at the top and untouchables at the bottom of the census
table. The varna ideal in the Brahmanical texts excluded untouchables from
the social order by describing them as avarna—literally, “out of caste” or
outside of society. Furthermore, the colonial state enumerated and identi-
fied impure occupations as a unique feature of Dalit communities. By equat-
ing Dalit groups with traditional impure occupations, the colonial state ig-
nored its own evidence of Dalit groups’ other occupations in the nineteenth
century, including work as agricultural peasants, stonemasons, and weavers.
Stereotypes of Dalit occupations also shaped the colonial state’s land tenure
policies, which favored caste Hindus and “lower-caste” groups but worked to
the disadvantage of Dalits. In many provinces, colonial tenancy laws barred
Dalits from buying and selling agricultural land because of occupational ste-
reotypes that defined them as nonagriculturalists and limited the buying and
selling of land to those groups explicitly defined as agriculturalists. Colonial
policies reinforced caste Hindu notions of Indian society, which also en-
sured caste Hindus’ domination of the modern institutional apparatus.

18 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

 Religious and social values associated with untouchability have continued
to shape the evolution of modern India and contributed to new exclusion-
ary practices. Historical and anthropological studies have documented caste
Hindu attitudes that consider agricultural work, urban and rural sanitation
work, and forms of industrial work like the leather industry as unfit occu-
pations.75 These attitudes also affect the occupations available to women
in Indian society. For example, “lower-caste” and Dalit women worked in
the fields and elsewhere as laborers, whereas caste Hindu women were fre-
quently prevented from working in the fields.76 Recognizing the formative
role of caste Hindu attitudes to work and space, recent debates on the ideo-
logical inheritances of the Indian working classes have highlighted the role of
religion and caste in shaping their politics.77 In rural India, spatial configura-
tions have played a significant role in the perpetuation of inequality. Dalit
groups typically live in separate villages that are normally situated at some
distance away from the main caste Hindu village. Dalits’ autobiographies
have underlined spatial exclusion as a prominent method through which
discrimination is practiced in rural India.78 Hindu temples occupy a canoni-
cal place as a particularly compelling symbol through which exclusionary
regimes have been perpetuated and also challenged. Not surprisingly, one of
the earliest forms of Dalit protest in the early twentieth century was about
the exclusion of Dalits from temples. Modernity has reinforced caste Hindu
society’s commitment to exclusionary regimes that rely on religion and the
social values of Hinduism.
The continued practice of untouchability in explicit forms and the ways
in which these sustain ongoing strategies of exclusion illustrate the urgency
of this volume and bring home the importance of investigating everyday
struggles related to questions of dignity, which have been central to Dalits
and other marginalized groups. In pursing this agenda we must bear in mind
that in both public and private domains vast numbers of caste Hindus have
continued to embrace practices of caste inequity in modern India. Rege
has argued that the production of social sciences knowledge in India was
shaped by nationalist agendas in ways that normalized elite caste Hindu per-
spectives on Indian society as academic knowledge. Rege has convincingly
demonstrated that the social sciences knowledge produced in India has also
systematically obscured and erased Dalit actors and agendas.79 This volume
provides a new framework for rethinking the agendas of Indian social sci-
ences and humanities from a Dalit perspective. This has several implications.
First, the field of Dalit studies seeks the inclusion of the study of Dalits in the

introduction • 19
Indian context and in the global diasporic context within broader trends of
knowledge production and pedagogy. Second, it offers a framework to com-
pare Dalits with related social groups in other national contexts, including
African American struggles, with which Dalits have forged long-standing
connections; the Burakumin protests in Japan; and the anti-apartheid pro-
tests in South Africa. Third, with the upsurge of Dalit political and cultural
movements in the 1990s and the renewed national and international debate
on caste, efforts like this project have emerged as sites of new scholarship
being produced by both Dalits and other like-minded scholars that reframe
the analysis of society from the structural position. The project provides a
new perspective for the study of Indian society and has the potential to rede-
fine existing models of scholarship in both the Indian humanities and social
sciences.80

Critical Questions in the Study of India

This volume, whose authors include a large number of Dalit scholars, in-
tervenes in the study of India in three distinct ways. First, the essays in this
collection draw attention to practices of caste exclusion in ways that seek
to refocus Indian historiography and social sciences. Second, in contrast to
earlier ideological positions that viewed Dalits only as passive victims or
as objects of reform (as illustrated by Gandhi’s Harijan discourse or Arya
Samaj’s embrace of temple entry movements), this volume recognizes Dalits
as intellectuals, leaders, and active participants in processes of social trans-
formation, highlighting their interventions in shaping debates in modern
India. Third, the essays demonstrate that Dalits were not passive imitators of
dominant discourses and practices; rather, they actively articulated their own
agendas for advancing struggles against caste discrimination.
Dalit writings in Indian languages have praised the arrival of colonial mo-
dernity for introducing new principles and institutions that enabled Dalits
and other marginal groups to participate in the public space. This is a widely
shared theoretical framework that informs many Dalit writings. Arjun Dan-
gle’s review of Dalit literature associates the arrival of the British with “new
knowledge, technology and production processes” and, more importantly,
with “a new codified legal system” that enabled Dalits to challenge Hindu
religious- and scriptural-based systems.81 Baburao Bagul associates colonial
modernity with “the rise of new literary expression” based on “self-critical
thinking” that made possible for the first time an expression of “social themes
rather than the metaphysical, transcendental or religious.”82 Essays in this

20 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

volume develop and expand on this view of colonial modernity in the con-
texts of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab. As one method
of building a movement and claiming a space in modern institutions, Dalit
organizations and activists relied on colonial laws and appropriated the po-
litical language of equality and representation.
The essays in this collection highlight struggles related to dignity in the
colonial and postcolonial periods to move beyond the mainstream preoc-
cupation with anticolonial struggles. Guru’s essay alerts us to the dominant
framework of Indian historiography within which Dalit histories have been
examined. He outlines at length the theoretical flaws of Indian historiogra-
phy and concludes that “mainstream scholars of history direct their acrimony
toward colonial racism but refuse to contribute any criticism on the question
of caste outside of a rhetorical accommodation in the nationalist agenda.”
Ambedkar had argued in the Constituent Assembly debates of 1946–48 that
Indian nationalism as led by the Congress Party had developed the doctrine
of “the divine right of the majority to rule the minorities,” and “any claim
for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism while the
monopolizing of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism.”83
This was a widely shared view among Dalit activists and intellectuals in much
of the twentieth century. In 1949, the Dalit Hindi author Nandlal Viyougi
argued that the unique feature of caste discrimination in Hindu society is the
absence of a cultural and religious commitment to equality in Hindu reli-
gion. It is therefore easy, he wrote, for a radical Indian nationalist like Gandhi
to be socially conservative and yet claim a revolutionary image by being an
anticolonial nationalist.84
In contrast to Indian historiography’s stereotypes of Dalit activism as a
product of the Congress Party and British patronage or enlightenment, this
collection of essays highlights Dalits not only as engaged participants but as
actors who effectively intervened in political and cultural debates in mod-
ern India. Sanal Mohan’s chapter outlines a history of Dalits’ engagement
with questions of modernity in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
Kerala. From 1898 onward, the Dalit activist Ayyankali and his organization,
the Sadhu Jana Paripalana Sangham, organized protests to demand access to
public schools and spaces like roads and markets in the Travancore region of
southern Kerala. These Dalit struggles created what Mohan rightly describes
as a “modern social space” in Kerala. Chinnaiah Jangam reveals the active
role of Bhagya Reddy Varma in creating a Dalit public space in the Hyderabad
region through the mobilization of Dalit groups, the opening of schools, the
publication of newspapers and books, the organization of conferences, and

introduction • 21
ongoing engagements with leaders of dominant groups on the question of
Dalit rights. Bhagya Reddy established the Central Adi-Hindu Social Service
League in Hyderabad in 1922 to address issues of inequity and discrimina-
tion that Dalits faced in public spaces. Ramnarayan Rawat’s chapter similarly
uncovers the history of Dalit activism in Uttar Pradesh during the 1920s,
highlighting the role of Chamar organizations in intervening in public dis-
course. Rawat outlines Swami Achhutanand’s role in creating and mobilizing
a Dalit public in Uttar Pradesh through the organization of conferences and
demonstrations that challenged the failure of the Congress Party to address
questions of untouchability and caste discrimination.
Essays in this collection further demonstrate Dalit engagements with the
question of representation that helped expand the language of democratic
politics from the early decades of the twentieth century. Nationalist histori-
ography interpreted Dalit commitments to liberal ideas as a product of the
colonial state’s policy of divide and rule or as a deliberate strategy on the part
of colonial officials to weaken the Congress-led nationalist struggle. Particu-
larly relevant here are Dalit groups’ demands for constitutionally mandated
provisions that would guarantee specific rights within representative bodies.
Mohan’s essay documents the initiatives of Dalit organizations in Kerala that
used the courts and the language of minority rights to gain access to public
spaces between 1898 and  1910. Jangam’s essay argues that members of the
Adi-Hindu Mahasabha in Hyderabad played a significant role in debates over
constitutional and political rights for Indians by passing resolutions in 1937
to seek affirmative rights for Dalits. Rawat demonstrates that in Uttar Pradesh
Dalit groups appropriated the language of affirmative action in the 1920s, most
spectacularly by organizing an all-India conference in 1928 in Allahabad.
The search for alternative religious identities has become a crucial aspect
of Dalit activism in the past hundred years. The appropriation of Buddhism
by Dalits in Maharashtra in the 1950s has been well documented. Focusing
on equality and a critique of caste hierarchies in the contexts of Christian-
ity in Kerala and Sikhism in Punjab, essays in this volume tell us about less
well known aspects of this search for new religious identities. According to
Surinder Jodhka, the search for a new religion is most visible in the contin-
ued transition of the Adi-Dharamis into the Ravi Dasi community in Pun-
jab. This became more pronounced in the 1940s when its leaders, including
Mangoo Ram, began to adopt the teachings of northern Indian Nirgun saint
Sant Ravi Das, whose teachings are part of the Sikh text, the Guru Granth
Sahib and his followers are known as Ravi Dasis. Adi-Dharamis, primarily
Chamars, have patronized Ravi Das deras (places of worship) and following

22 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

their teachings to distance their religion from Sikhism, but also to build a
conscious Ravi Dasi community. Members of the Punjabi Dalit diaspora in
England (who accounts for around 10  percent of the total Punjabi popula-
tion in the United Kingdom) have played a key role in sustaining the deras
in Punjab as an alternative to the Sikh Gurudwaras. Similarly, several Dalit
Christian organizations have led struggles against inequality in the Christian
denominations. These organizations sought, for example, to distinguish Dalit
Christians from Syrian Christians by expanding the meaning of salvation
and revelation with ideas drawn from Dalit lives to build what Mohan calls a
new “emancipatory discourse.” Borrowing from the biblical notion of salva-
tion, the Dalit Christian leader Poikayil Yohannan has emphasized the role
of a Dalit messiah in liberating their community.
By providing evidence of Dalit activism in social, political, and religious
spheres from the early decades of the twentieth century, these essays sift
through modern Indian history to recover Dalit agency. Raj Kumar Hans’s
essay traces the critical role of Dalit activists in Sikh history from the era
of Guru Gobind Singh in the seventeenth century to their role in the Singh
Sabha movement in Punjab in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centu-
ries. Hans’s essay captures the visible tensions in Sikh religion and its history,
including contestations over its theological claim of equality, its criticism of
caste oppression, and the continued persistence of untouchability. The resul-
tant fractures evident in Sikhism are well described by Hans, who accepts the
Sikh theological standpoint but accuses Jatt Sikhs, who came to dominate
Sikh religious organizations and political economy in the past two centuries,
of introducing exclusionary practices directed against Dalit groups. Do we
describe the leading role of Jatt Sikhs as a Brahmanization of Sikhism? Hans
also explains why Dalit Sikhs have begun to create alternative religious sites
for their community, the Dalit Sikh deras. Hans’s essay reveals a typical pat-
tern in which such debates are frequently present in Indian-language liter-
ature but do not exist in English-language academic writings, and it alerts
us to the importance of ensuring that such debates and narratives are in-
cluded in mainstream English-language scholarship. Hans demonstrates that
despite the claims in Sikh history of an absence of caste, Dalit Sikh activists
from the seventeenth century onward have carefully documented ongoing
discrimination against untouchables.
Dalits’ visibility as agents of change in the postcolonial Indian social and
cultural domain, especially since the 1980s, marks a remarkably new devel-
opment (even if their activity is not new).  K. Satyanarayana argues that it
was the phenomenon of mass killings of Dalits and the controversy over the

introduction • 23
implementation of the Mandal commission’s recommendations in 1990, with
its implication for an extended system of affirmative action, that created the
necessary social and political conditions for caste to begin to be debated as a
national question. Caste has emerged as a key category of political, social, and
cultural mobilization in Indian politics in the 1990s. During this period it has
also challenged dominant Marxist and nationalist paradigms of class-based
politics. Laura Brueck’s and Satyanarayana’s essays demonstrate that this de-
bate has taken place most intensely and productively in the Hindi and Telugu
literary spheres. Discussing the absence of Dalits and other marginal groups as
literary writers and poets, Dalit writers have challenged the dominant canons
associated with writers like Munshi Premchand in Hindi and Sri Sri in Telugu
to displace class as the most important category for understanding Indian soci-
ety. In contrast to Indian historiography’s focus on anti-imperialist, nationalist,
and peasant struggles, these two essays shine light on Dalit writers’ efforts to
challenge the dominant construction of modern secular and class-based citi-
zenship by emphasizing the continuing power of caste identity.
Reflecting on political and cultural debates in the Dalit community, the
essays by Brueck, Sambaiah Gundimeda, and Shyam Babu address the ques-
tion of inequity in Dalit groups, including gender inequity. Brueck’s essay
focuses on Dalit women activists’ criticisms of male-dominated Dalit or-
ganizations and their inability to practice gender equality. Brueck critiques
the feminist assertion of “a Dalit feminist standpoint” that hinges on under-
standing gendered violence as constitutive of Dalit women’s experience and
their womanhood. Such an assumption, she argues, can reduce Dalit women
to a hypersymbolic state of victimhood to defend the collective masculine
community identity. Brueck demonstrates that Hindi Dalit feminist writers
have sought to move beyond mainstream Dalit male writers’ representations
of a “Dalit rape script” that has been employed to serve and mobilize the
Dalit community. Recent Hindi Dalit feminist writers have made claims for
a literature of dignity that brings core issues of education, labor, and women’s
rights into the discussion.
Gundimeda’s essay examines the recent rise of the Dandora movement
among the Madigas of Andhra Pradesh, which questions the overwhelming
dominance of Malas in the state’s educational, administrative, and economic
spheres. This recognition has galvanized Madiga youth to demand a caste-
based categorization in existing reservation policies to ensure more equitable
admissions into educational institutions and employment opportunities in
the federal and state government. Such a policy, Madiga groups argue, would

24 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

enable a more equitable distribution of resources among the scheduled caste
communities. In describing the history of the debate over reservation poli-
cies in Andhra Pradesh over the past two decades, Gundimeda compares the
demands made by Dandora activists with Dalit demands for affirmative ac-
tion in the Constituent Assembly debates in 1947–48, claiming that in many
instances the arguments made by Malas against Madigas are similar to those
offered by caste Hindu leaders. Babu argues that the recent emergence of
a Dalit bourgeoisie, a promising development, has posed new challenges.
Many Dalits in this position have been unable to resolve the dilemma posed
by their status and find themselves confronting the question of whether
their caste or their class is more fundamental to their situation. Babu’s essay
captures this post-1990 phenomenon by arguing that affirmative action has
created contradictory challenges. On the one hand, the Dalit middle classes
want to be a part of the consuming Indian middle class, and on the other
hand, they continue to recognize the role that caste plays in Indian society
and politics and in their own lives.

Conclusion
In his 1938 foreword to G. R. Pradhan’s Untouchable Workers of Bombay City,
Ambedkar pointed out that this study would have been “of greater value if
it had been a comparative study contrasting the social condition of the Un-
touchables with that of the Caste Hindus.”85 He urged foregrounding the role
of untouchability in shaping the choices available to Dalits and caste Hindus
in the modern “competitive society.” Ambedkar cautioned against studying
Dalits in isolation, removed from their wider social and political context.
From the 1920s through the 1990s, Indian scholarship, both sociological and
historical, that centered on Dalits focused exclusively on their stigmatized
conditions and the exclusionary practices of untouchability. Scholars empha-
sized processes like social mobility and Sanskritization as central objectives
of Dalit struggles in the twentieth century. In contrast, building on Ambed-
kar’s insight, essays in this volume restore agency to Dalit activists and orga-
nizations and critically engage with the persistence of caste inequalities in
Indian society.
With essays by Dalit and nonelite scholars, most of whom have been edu-
cated at nonelite institutions not usually associated with mainstream Indian
academia, this volume is a product of the post-1990s reconfiguration of power
in India. The authors in this volume represent the post-1989 Mandal generation,

introduction • 25
whose members recognize caste inequality and hierarchy as important po-
litical, social, and ethical questions of our time and see the pressing need
for a more thorough inquiry into these topics. It is insufficient to suggest
that struggles against caste inequality emerged in response to the practices of
colonial governmentality or to the demand for affirmative action. Questions
of humiliation, dignity, and struggles against caste inequality have a longer
history, which has been reshaped and reframed by Dalit organizations in the
context of colonialism. Dalit engagements with colonial modernity, along
with longer histories of struggles related to questions of self-esteem and self-
worth deserve serious academic attention today. The essays in this volume
pose these questions to recover actors who engaged in initiatives that sought
to protect the human dignity of all Indians.

notes
1. Guru, “The Politics of Naming.”
2. Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” 37–50.
3. Guru, “Introduction,” 3.
4. Recognizing the emergence of Dalit studies as a significant field of study and
a perspective to use in reassessing Indian society and history, a conference on this
theme was held at the University of Pennsylvania in December 2008, as noted in the
acknowledgments. Organized by the Center for the Advanced Study of India, this
conference was the first of its kind in the United States and marked the culmination of
a series of conversations that had started the previous year. See Babu and Prasad, “Six
Dalit Paradoxes.”
5. Chatterjee, “Introduction,” 38–39.
6. The Indian government introduced the policies of positive discrimination for
the backward groups in India because of historic social and educational barriers
imposed by the dominant Hindu groups. The Indian constitution of 1950 provided
the scheduled castes (formerly known as untouchables) and the scheduled tribes with
15 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of the seats in representative institutions such
as the Indian Parliament and state legislative assemblies and of jobs in public educa-
tion and employment. The Mandal commission report recommended expanding this
reservation to the other backward classes in admissions to centers of public education
and in employment, to total 27 percent. The category of other backward classes is
made up of a cluster of “lower-caste” Hindu groups identified on the basis of the con-
stitutional principles of social and education marginalization.
7. Kothari, “Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste,” 441.
8. Ibid., 450.
9. Balagopal’s “This Anti-Mandal Mania” captures the spectrum of responses to the
government’s decision to implement the recommendations in the Mandal commission
report. See also Omvedt, “ ‘Twice-Born’ Riot against Democracy.”

26 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

 10. The B. R. Ambedkar Students’ Association and Dalit Students Forum at the
University of Hyderabad and the United Dalit Students’ Forum at jnu , Delhi, came
into existence in the 1990s.
11. Srinivasulu, “Caste, Class and Social Articulation in Andhra Pradesh.”
12. Kothari, “Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste,” 450–52.
13. Ravikumar, “Re-Reading Periyar.”
14. See Pendse, At Crossroads. This collection of essays provides a detailed discussion
of the Dalit movement in independent India. See also Gorringe, Untouchable Citizens.
15. Pai, Dalit Assertion and the Unfinished Democratic Revolution; Pushpendra,
“Dalit Assertion through Electoral Politics.”
16. Chakravarti, Gendering Caste, chapter 1.
17. Guru, “Dalit Women Talk Differently,” 2548–49.
18. A. Rao, Gender and Caste.
19. The 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Racial Intolerance, Durban (South Africa), and the International Dalit confer-
ence at Vancouver, BC, in 2003 brought together representatives of Dalit diasporic
nonprofit organizations and other international agencies to debate caste discrimina-
tion in the global context. A significant group of Dalit scholars and activists attended
these conferences. The international French literary festival “Les Belles Etrangères”
(Beautiful foreigners) honored the Dalit writers Bama (Faustina Mary Fatima Rani)
and Narendra Jadhav in Paris 2009. Two academic conferences were held in the
United States: the Dalit studies conference in December 2008 organized by the Center
for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, mentioned above;
and “Caste and Contemporary India,” a conference held in October 2009 at Columbia
University, in honor of its alumnus B. R. Ambedkar.
20. For an extensive discussion on race, caste, and the 2001 Durban conference
see D. Reddy, “The Ethnicity of Caste.”
21. See “Guidelines for Establishment of Centres in Universities for Study of So-
cial Exclusion and Inclusive Policy,” http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/2118716_social
-exclusion-colleges.pdf, accessed September 15, 2015 (also on March 26, 2011).
22. Guru organized a small but significant group of scholars under the ban-
ner of the Dalit Intellectual Collective. A major outcome of Dalit activism in the
1990s was the “Bhopal Conference: Charting a New Course for Dalits for the 21st
Century” in January 2002 which brought together Dalit scholars, activists, and
nongovernmental organizations to demand a share in the development in a global-
ized economy.
23. Such debates were most evident in the Dalit vernacular writings; some are
recently translated, including Dangle, Poisoned Bread; K. Satyanarayana and Tharu,
No Alphabet in Sight. A large number of Dalit vernacular writings are being translated
into English.
24. Since the 1990s Ambedkar has attracted considerable academic attention, but
his theoretical contributions have not yet been sufficiently appreciated in the main-
stream social science disciplines.
25. Sarkar, Writing Social History, 359.

introduction • 27
 26. Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, 49. However, some of these issues were
addressed in Tamil-language writings in the early 1990s (see Ravikumar, Venomous Touch).
27. Human Rights Watch, Broken People. See also the Dalit commentator Chandrabhan
Prasad’s critique of this report in the Indian English daily Pioneer, February 21, 2001.
28. Gandhi, “The Ideal Bhangi,” in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 70:127.
29. Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, 1:83. The vedic conception of the varna model
excludes the untouchable castes as avarnas who perform “impure” menial services
to the four varnas. The varna order is an ideal imagined in classical Hindu literature
which resonates with the real and lived caste order. When Ambedkar and others argued
against caste and untouchability, Gandhi was forced to take a public position. Ambedkar
explains how Gandhi opposes the practice of untouchability but justifies birth-based
social division and hierarchy in his interpretation of the varna model. In Ambedkar’s
view, Gandhi’s ideal of vedic varna model and the lived caste system theoretically fix the
social position of the individual based on birth in a particular varna or caste. Gandhi’s
endorsement of the vedic varna model does not question the imposition of scavenging
on certain untouchable castes based on birth, in the past, and even today (92–94).
30. Anand, Untouchable; Pillai, Tottiyute Makan.
31. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables, 306.
32. Guru, “Dalit Movement in Mainstream Sociology,” 570.
33. Srinivas, Caste in Modern India, chapter 2. Srinivas popularized Sanskritization
as a conceptual model in the 1950s to assess social change among the “lower-caste”
groups in Indian society. “Sanskritization” was defined as a social process by which
castes placed at the bottom in the caste hierarchy seek upward mobility by emulating
the rituals and practices of the upper or dominant castes.
34. Sumit Sarkar observes that the “dominant historiographical assumption here,
cutting across many otherwise widely varied approaches, has been that of a single, co-
lonial/anti-colonial binary, setting both narrative pattern and standards of evaluation”
(“The Limits of Nationalism”). For a more elaborate discussion, see Rawat, Reconsid-
ering Untouchability, introduction.
35. See the chapters in this volume by Sanal Mohan, Chinnaiah Jangam, Rajkumar
Hans, and Surinder Jodhka.
36. Bhattacharya, “The Problem.”
37. Upadhya, “The Idea of Indian Society.”
38. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, “Kosambi and the Discourse of Civilization,” Hindu,
July 31, 2008, accessed June 27, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp
-opinion/kosambi-and-the-discourse-of-civilization/article1303866.ece.
39. Uberoi, Deshpande, and Sundar, “Introduction.”
40. For a critical analysis of Srinivas, see Deshpande, “Fashioning a Postcolonial
Discipline.” See also Rodrigues, “Dalit Struggle for Recognition within India.”
41. Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications.
42. The Indian sociologists Srinivas, A. M. Shah, and B. S. Baviskar opposed caste-
based reservations for other backward classes recommended by the Mandal commis-
sion and described the caste system as divisive and premodern. See Kothari, “Rise of
the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste,” 444.

28 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana

 43. Thurston and Rangachari, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, 4:292–325
(“Madigas”) and 329–87 (“Malas”), and 6:77–140 (“Paraiyan or Pariahs”); Crooke, The
Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, 2:168–94 (“Chamars”)
and 4:138–52 (“Pasis”).
44. Moffatt, An Untouchable Community of South India.
45. Guru, “Dalit Movement in Mainstream Sociology,” 570.
46. Mahar, The Untouchables in Contemporary India.
47. Cohn, An Anthropologist among the Historians, chapters 11–14.
48. Zelliot, Doctor Bahasaheb Ambedkar; O’Hanlon, Caste, Conflict, Ideology.
49. Lynch, The Politics of Untouchability; Khare, The Untouchable as Himself; Juer-
gensmeyer, Religious Rebels in the Punjab.
50. Guru, “Dalit Movement in Mainstream Sociology,” 571.
51. S. Deshpande, Contemporary India, 71.
52. Rudolph and Rudolph, The Modernity of Tradition, 29–36.
53. Ibid., 64–87.
54. K. Satyanarayana, “Dalit Reconfiguration of Caste,” 51.
55. Kothari, “Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste,” 443; Dirks,
Castes of Mind, 286–88.
56. Chatterjee, “Caste and Subaltern Consciousness.”
57. This theme is discussed in Rawat, Reconsidering Untouchability, 12–18.
58. Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe, 10–11.
59. Mayaram et al., Subaltern Studies XII.
60. Bandyopadhyay, Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India.
61. Aloysius, Religion as Emancipatory Identity, especially chapters 3 and 4.
62. Satyanarayana and Tharu, No Alphabet in Sight, 119.
63. A. Rao, The Caste Question, 2.
64. Rawat, Reconsidering Untouchability, chapters 4 and 5.
65. Liddle and Joshi, Daughters of Independence, 85–94 and 65–69; Ilaiah, Why I Am
Not a Hindu, chapter 2.
66. Pawar, “What Has the Dalit Movement Offered to Women?,” 84–85; Guru,
“Dalit Women Talk Differently.” See also Pawar and Moon, We Also Made History,
chapter 9. For a brief discussion of Dalit feminist arguments, see “The Dalit Woman
Question,” in Satyanarayana and Tharu, Steel Nibs Are Sprouting, 36–43.
67. Pawar, “What Has the Dalit Movement Offered to Women?,” 84–85.
68. Rege, Writing Caste/Writing Gender, 3–7.
69. A. Rao, introduction.
70. Guru, “Rejection of Rejection,” 219.
71. Nagaraj, The Flaming Feet and Other Essays, 25.
72. David Ludden writes incisively that in Ranajit Guha’s “accumulated writings,
colonialism appears to be a single, unified, discursive structure of power inside a vast
ethnographic present; and state institutions, texts, personnel, and discourse, including
those of the nationalist movement, stand in stark opposition to subaltern India and its
indigenous culture from the first day of British rule down to the rupture of Subaltern
Studies. Ranajit Guha might be said to be the Louis Dumont of colonialism, which

introduction • 29
in his writing attains a comprehensive power like that of caste in Homo Hierarchicus”
(“Introduction,” 14).
73. See the chapters in this volume by Sanal Mohan and Chinnaiah Jangam.
74. See Dirks, Castes of Mind, chapter 11; Dalmia, The Nationalization of Hindu
Traditions, introduction.
75. On sanitation, see Prashad, Untouchable Freedom, chapters 3 and 6. On land and
caste, see D. Kumar, Land and Caste in South India. On labor, see R. Gupta, Labour
and Working Class in Eastern India.
76. Chowdhry, The Veiled Women. See also R. Kumar, The History of Doing, chap-
ters 2 and 3.
77. On this point, see the review article by Sarkar, “The Return of Labour to South
Asian History.” See also Chakrabarty, Rethinking Working-Class History; Chanda-
varkar, The Origins of Industrial Captialism in India.
78. Namishray, Apne-Apne Pinjare; Moon, Growing Up Untouchable in India; Om-
prakash Valmiki, Joothan: An Untouchable’s Life.
79. Rege’s essay on Dalit studies may be one of the first attempts to conceptualize
Dalit studies (Dalit Studies as Pedagogical Practice, 10–51).
80. K. Satyanarayana, “Dalit Studies as a New Perspective in the Indian Academia,”
87.
81. Dangle, “Dalit Literature: Past, Present and Future.”
82. Bagul, “Dalit Literature is but Human Literature,” 278. In recent years Chan-
drabhan Prasad, a Dalit writer and public commentator, has started celebrating Lord
Macaulay’s birthday in Delhi every year to applaud his role in establishing colonial
modernity by formulating a uniform rule of law from which groups like Dalits
benefited.
83. Ambedkar, States and Minorities, 427.
84. Viyougi, Ambedkar ki Awaz Arthat Achhutoin ka Federation, 33.
85. Ambedkar, foreword, iii–iv.

30 • ramnarayan s. rawat and k. satyanarayana