“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
– George Orwell
What B.R. Ambedkar thought of the word ‘dalit’ is an important question. Considering its implications for the ‘education, organisation, agitation’ and overall progress of the people who aspire to follow him, it demands solemn deliberation and engagement.
In a recent article, ‘What B.R. Ambedkar Thought of the Word ‘Dalit’, Shailaja Paik has explored the political use of the word. She has rightly pointed to the contesting opinions which exist among the followers of Babasaheb Ambedkar; one stands against, and the other stands for, the use of ‘dalit’.
Paik evokes a judicial order to illustrate the schism, but there seems to be a misunderstanding with the issue.
“In 2018,” she writes, “some dalits also petitioned the Supreme Court of India to ban the word ‘dalit and instead replace it with ‘Scheduled Caste’. However, the Supreme Court rejected the Union government’s circular. The word continues to be contested”.
In reality, the Supreme Court in February 2019 rejected a plea challenging the Centre’s circular advising the media against using ‘dalit’ to refer to members of the Scheduled Caste. The plea had said that the word ‘dalit’ is a self-chosen name, used as a “positive self-identifier and as a political identity”. The petitioner, advocate Sriram Parakkat, who represented a group of individuals and organisations working for ‘dalit’ rights, said the name represented the people who have been affected by the caste system and the practice of untouchability. However, a bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, said the petitioners could approach the “appropriate authorities” as it was “not interested in entertaining this petition.”
Although the issue is no longer contested by the state, it continues to be contested in the popular political discourse and within the movement.
One faction, which believes it is holding fast to Ambedkarite ideas and actions, consciously rejects the word ‘dalit’ as a degrading marker of their identity. On the other hand, those who advocate ‘dalit’ politics believe their use of the word is also linked to the ideology and politics of Dr. Ambedkar and other harbingers of socio-political emancipation.
Also read: To Be or Not to Be a ‘Dalit’?
The latter group rely on certain sparse historical facts that seem to justify the use of the word ‘dalit’. This quest often explores the words used by Jotiba and Savitribai Phule. They also invoke the rare use of the word by Dr. Ambedkar himself.
But does the mere use of the word by the pioneers of social emancipation provide sufficient political, social and cultural justification for its use today? In particular, is the scant usage of the word by Dr. Ambedkar enough reason to justify using the term ‘dalit’ as the marker of an identity and movement?
The question is all the more relevant because Dr. Ambedkar’s own rare use of the word reflects his own belief that the depressed classes should not be identified by names that degrade their social-being and show them as lower compared to other socio-political classes.
Though defenders of ‘dalit’ try to validate their own use of the word by pointing to its limited use in Dr. Ambedkar’s spoken Marathi, they ignore the fact that whenever he used the word, it was just a simple translation of the term ‘depressed classes’, which he used as the socio-political category for the community. Some of these direct translations are mentioned in Paik’s essay.
Here, the point to note is that, unlike the ‘Dalit Panthers’ and the other proponents of the word ‘dalit’, Dr. Ambedkar hardly used it. Krittika Mondal and I have already problematised the culture and politics of the word ‘dalit’ in a 2018 article published in The Wire. In Dr. Ambedkar’s writings and speeches, one may find the rarest reference to the word in Marathi, but not one of his English writings mention it.
This conscious rejection of the word ‘dalit’ in Dr. Ambedkar’s writings clarifies his thoughts on the word and also on its politics. He never used ‘dalit’ as a marked political category, unlike many contemporary advocates of the word. In fact, they have kept the word as a political category in all languages. Against this, Dr. Ambedkar was conscious of progressing positively from the cultural category of “Bahishkrut” (outcaste) to “Prabuddha” (enlightened) and from the political category of the “Depressed Classes” to the “Republican”.
‘There have also been many Ambedkarite thinkers who have constantly refuted the dalit name. Unfortunately, it is popular because of its perpetual usage in academia, the media and electoral politics.’ Photo: Reuters/File
In the light of this, the attempt to seek validation from Dr. Ambedkar’s rare use of the word ‘dalit’ seems to be a case of clutching at straws.
But there is more: Dr. Ambedkar’s own awareness of the politics of naming had led him to admonish the use of what he called “stinking labels”.
The word ‘dalit’ is a part of nomenclature. It is the name used to denote a particular community. As mentioned above, it is also the name used to classify this community into a political category. As is accepted by almost all the proponents of dalit politics, the word itself possesses negative force – invoking the horrors of caste by constantly reminding people of their weaker or degraded status in the society. One has to carry the stain of caste while bearing this stigmatised political category of the word ‘dalit’. In fact, this negative carriage of the filth of caste is misunderstood as a positive force by many. In contrast to the political literature that highlights and celebrates the negative force associated with the word ‘dalit’, Dr. Ambedkar was conscious of the need to repudiate the negative politics attached to nomenclature.
In the Annihilation of Caste, he says,
“It is common experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments, which determine a person’s attitude towards men and things. The names, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly. The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare. There is no doubt; in my opinion, that unless you change your social order you can achieve little by way of progress.”
In his May 1936 speech, ‘What Path to Salvation’, Dr. Ambedkar notes,
“The names that depict your caste are considered so filthy that even their utterance is enough to create a vomiting sensation in the heart of Hindus. Thus, by calling yourself a Chokhamela instead of a Mahar, you try to deceive people. But, you know, people are not deceived. Whether you call yourself a Chokhamela or a Harijan, people understand what you are. By your actions, you have proved, the necessity of a change in name. Then I would like to ask you, if you feel the need of change in your name, what objection should there be for the change of religion? Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of a religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you.”
In his statement on electoral representation in the Round Table Conference, Dr. Ambedkar even agrees to exchange the category of ‘depressed classes’ that he used, noting it as inappropriate and unsuitable, for more respectable names.
Here, he notes,
“the term ‘depressed classes’ has led to a great deal of confusion in the census because it includes others who are not strictly untouchables. Secondly, it gives the impression that the depressed classes are a low and helpless community when as a matter of fact in every Province numbers of them are both well-to-do and well- educated, and the whole community is acquiring consciousness of its needs, is charged with ambition for securing a respectable status in Indian society and is making Stupendous efforts to achieve it. On all these grounds the term ‘depressed classes’ is inappropriate and unsuitable. Mr. Mullan, the Census Superintendent of Assam, has brought into use a new term called ‘exterior castes’ to cover the untouchables. This designation has many advantages. It defines exactly the position of the untouchables who are within the Hindu religion but outside the Hindu society and distinguishes it from Hindus who are economically and educationally depressed but who are both within the pale of Hindu religion and Hindu society. The term has two other advantages. It avoids all the confusion that is now caused by use of the vague term depressed classes and at me same time is not offensive. Our Committee did not feel competent to make recommendation in this behalf. But as a representative of the depressed classes I have no hesitation in saying that until better nomenclature is found the untouchable classes should hereafter be described by the more expressive term ‘Exterior Castes’ or ‘Excluded Castes’ and not as depressed classes.”
In his essay, ‘Away from Hindus’, Dr. Ambedkar writes,
“The social attitude of the Hindu towards the Untouchable is determined by the very name ‘Untouchable’. There is a fixed attitude towards ‘Untouchables’ which is determined by the stink which is imbedded in the name ‘Untouchable’. People have no mind to go into the individual merits of each Untouchable no matter how meritorious he is. All untouchables realize this. There is a general attempt to call themselves by some name other than the ‘Untouchables’. The Chamars call themselves Ravidas or Jatavas. The Doms call themselves Shilpakars. The Pariahs call themselves Adi-Dravidas, the Madigas call themselves Arundhatyas, the Mahars call themselves Chokhamela or Somavamshi and the Bhangis call themselves Balmikis. All of them if away from their localities would call themselves Christians.
“The Untouchables know that if they call themselves Untouchables they will at once draw the Hindu out and expose themselves to his wrath and his prejudice. That is why they give themselves other names which may be likened to the process of undergoing protective discolouration.
“It is not seldom that this discolouration completely fails to serve its purpose. For to be a Hindu is for Hindus not an ultimate social category. The ultimate social category is caste, nay sub-caste if there is a sub-caste. When the Hindus meet ‘May I know who are you’ is a question sure to be asked. To this question ‘I am a Hindu’ will not be a satisfactory answer. It will certainly not be accepted as a final answer. The inquiry is bound to be further pursued. The answer ‘Hindu’ is bound to be followed by another; ‘What caste ?’. The answer to that is bound to be followed by question : “What sub-caste ?” It is only when the questioner reaches the ultimate social category which is either caste or sub-caste that he will stop his questionings.
“The Untouchable who adopts the new name is a protective discolouration finds that the new name does not help and that in the course of relentless questionings he is, so to say, run down to earth and made to disclose that he is an Untouchable. The concealment makes him the victim of greater anger than his original voluntary disclosure would have done.
“From this discussion two things are clear. One is that the low status of the Untouchables is bound upon with a stinking name. Unless the name is changed there is no possibility of a rise in their social status. The other is that a change of name within Hinduism will not do. The Hindu will not fail to penetrate through such a name and make the Untouchable and confer himself as an Untouchable.
“The name matters and matters a great deal. For, the name can make a revolution in the status of the Untouchables. But the name must be the name of a community outside Hinduism and beyond its power of spoliation and degradation.”
Although these are just few paragraphs, the writings and speeches of Babasaheb Ambedkar are full of this kind of qualitative reasoning against the usage of names and terms that are degrading and show people as lower beings.
The aspect of naming in Babasaheb Ambedkar’s writings and actions remained significant. Barring a couple of rare moments of translation, he maintained in his English and Marathi writings first untouchables/depressed classes and then Schedule Castes as the political category. Ultimately, as mentioned above, he named his political party the Republican Party of India, while establishing a new social/cultural category ‘Buddhist’ for his community. Thus, practicing what he opined in the statements mentioned above.
Paik claims that “There is no denying that the word ‘dalit’ is inseparable from its social-political function and it effectively facilitated political action for Dalits.” But, Dr. Ambedkar thought otherwise, because ‘dalit’ was never his category to name people. He, in fact, constructed positive and respectable identities. In his writings, he progressively discarded and outrightly rejected the idea of ‘dalit’ politics.
Also read: What B.R. Ambedkar Thought of the Word ‘Dalit’
There have also been many Ambedkarite thinkers who have constantly refuted the dalit name. Unfortunately, it is popular because of its perpetual usage in academia, the media and electoral politics.
The ‘dalit’ intellectual class can surely make claims to the use of the word even without validating them in the name of Babasaheb Ambedkar. No doubt, in accepting the possibility of the negative force of the word “dalit”, its advocates exponents can definitely argue for their politics without bringing Dr. Ambedkar into the picture.
However, try as they might to dissociate the word ‘dalit’ from the filth of caste, it is not possible to separate the two. The word reflects the stigma attached to caste – and the humiliating degradation of human personality. The politics emanating from and central to the word ‘dalit’ stands on the foundation of caste and Babasaheb Ambedkar’s thoughts are crystal clear in this regard:
“You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.”
Dr. Vruttant Manwatkar is Assistant Professor of Politics, K. C. College, Mumbai.
The author wishes to thank Dr. Krittika Mondal and Dr. Piyush Kant for their suggestions and feedback on the essay.