Social Structures, Movements, and

Ideologies in Modern India: An Analytical

Overview
Introduction
This report aims to provide concise, historically informed answers to !"een key questions concerning
India's complex social strati!cation, encompassing the Varna system, caste dynamics, and the distinct
identities of 'Dalit' and 'Scheduled Castes'. It delves into the socio-religious reform movements such as
the Bhakti tradition, the Non-Brahman movement, and the revival of Buddhism, examining their impact
on societal norms. The contributions of in#uential !gures like Sant Eknath, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and
Mahatma Gandhi are explored, alongside pivotal intellectual currents including Orientalism and
Ambedkarism. Furthermore, the report addresses political mobilization through Dalit revolts and the
formation of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).
These themes are profoundly interconnected, weaving a narrative of hierarchy, oppression, resistance,
and reform that is essential for understanding the multifaceted social and political history of modern
India. The issues discussed are not isolated phenomena but rather integral components of an ongoing
historical trajectory. The answers provided are synthesized from historical research, aiming for
accuracy and depth within a concise format, to illuminate the enduring legacies of these social
structures and movements.
I. Social Structures and Classi!cations: Foundations of Hierarchy and Identity
The historical landscape of Indian society has been profoundly shaped by intricate systems of social
classi!cation. Understanding the Varna system, the concept of 'Dalit', and the constitutional category
of 'Scheduled Castes' is fundamental to comprehending the enduring hierarchies and identities that
continue to in#uence social and political dynamics.
A. Two Features of the Varna System
The Varna system, originating in the Vedic period around 1500 BCE, represents one of ancient India's
foundational social classi!cations.1 Two of its most de!ning features are its hierarchical structure and
its principle of occupational specialization.
Firstly, the Varna system established a distinct hierarchical structure that divided society into four
primary groups. At the apex were the Brahmins, traditionally priests and scholars, followed by the
Kshatriyas, who were warriors and rulers. Below them were the Vaishyas, comprising merchants,
traders, and agriculturalists, and at the bo%om of this hierarchy were the Shudras, tasked with labor
and service provision.1 This strati!cation was not merely a division of societal roles but was deeply
imbued with notions of ritual purity and pollution. Higher varnas, particularly Brahmins and Kshatriyas,
were associated with purity, while the Shudras were considered relatively impure, a distinction that
heavily in#uenced social interactions and practices.1 The religious texts of the Vedic period and later
scriptures like the Dharmashastras provided religious justi!cation for this hierarchy, a%ributing divine
origin to the Varnas and thereby lending immense social power to this system of gradation.1 This
institutionalized inequality from ancient times, creating a framework that would later in#uence the
development of the more complex and rigid caste system (jati).
Secondly, each varna was intrinsically linked to occupational specialization. The Brahmins were
dedicated to priestly duties and scholarship, Kshatriyas to governance and warfare, Vaishyas to
commerce and agriculture, and Shudras to manual labor and serving the other three varnas.1 This
division of labor was initially conceptualized as a means to ensure the e&cient functioning of society
and the ful!llment of dharma—the speci!c duties, responsibilities, and righteous conduct prescribed
for each varna. Adherence to one's dharma was believed to be crucial for maintaining social harmony,
cosmic order, and facilitating individual spiritual progress.1
The Varna system underwent a signi!cant transformation over time. In the Early Vedic Period, it was
characterized by a degree of #uidity, where an individual's varna could potentially be determined by
their karma (actions) and merit, allowing for some social mobility.1 However, during the Later Vedic
Period (circa 1000-500 BCE), the system became increasingly rigid and hereditary. Factors such as
growing population density, the codi!cation of social laws in texts like the Manusmriti which reinforced
caste distinctions, and economic shi"s including the rise of landownership, contributed to the
entrenchment of these social hierarchies based on birth.1 This evolution from a more #exible model to
a !xed, birth-based system laid the critical groundwork for the emergence of the jati system, with its
thousands of endogamous groups, and cemented social strati!cation in a manner that limited social
mobility and perpetuated inequality for centuries. The ideological underpinnings of dharma and the
concepts of purity and pollution served as powerful tools to legitimize and sustain this hierarchical
order, making it appear as a natural, divinely ordained structure, thereby discouraging challenges and
reinforcing the deep-seated social inequalities that characterized Indian society.
B. De!nition of the term, 'Dalit'
The term 'Dalit' holds profound historical and socio-political signi!cance in the Indian context,
representing a powerful assertion of identity by historically marginalized communities.
Etymologically, "Dalit" is derived from the Sanskrit root "dal," which translates to "broken, ground-
down, downtrodden, or oppressed".2 It is a name that has been consciously adopted by people
belonging to the castes at the very bo%om of India's intricate caste hierarchy. These communities were
historically referred to by various other terms, o"en pejorative, such as "Untouchables," or
administrative labels like "Depressed Classes," and later, "Harijans".2 The deliberate choice of the term
'Dalit' signi!es a rejection of these externally imposed labels and an embrace of an identity that
acknowledges their history of su'ering while simultaneously asserting their struggle for liberation.
In its social and political connotation, "Dalit" refers speci!cally to one's caste identity rather than
economic class. It applies to members of those menial castes who have historically borne the stigma of
"untouchability" because of the extreme impurity and pollution traditionally associated with their
occupations.2 These groups were considered 'outcastes,' falling outside the traditional four-fold Varna
system of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, sometimes conceptualized as a !"h category
or Panchama.2 The term was brought into prominence in the late 1880s by the social reformer Jyotirao
Phule, who used it to describe the oppressed and broken outcastes within Hindu society.3 Later, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar, himself a Dalit, signi!cantly popularized the term and broadened its scope to
encompass all depressed and oppressed people, irrespective of their speci!c caste.3 The political
currency of 'Dalit' was further invigorated in the 1970s with its adoption by the Dalit Panthers, a militant
activist group inspired by the Black Panther movement in the United States.3
The adoption of "Dalit" is thus more than a mere change in nomenclature; it is a potent act of self-
identi!cation that transforms a legacy of oppression into a rallying cry for liberation and the assertion
of fundamental human rights. The term itself carries an inherent element of political consciousness
and, as some scholars note, a degree of militancy, re#ecting a collective determination to overcome
historical injustices and achieve dignity, equality, and social justice.2 It signi!es a shared experience of
su'ering under the caste system and serves as a unifying banner for a common struggle. This shi"
from externally imposed, o"en derogatory, labels to a self-chosen term marks a crucial psychological
and political transition from a position of passive victimhood to one of active agency in de!ning their
identity and shaping their collective destiny.
However, the term "Dalit" is not without its complexities and contestations. While it is widely used and
serves as an empowering identity for many, it is not universally accepted within the communities it
seeks to describe. India's National Commission for Scheduled Castes, for instance, has expressed
reservations about the o&cial use of 'Dalit,' preferring the constitutional term 'Scheduled
Castes'.3 Furthermore, some individuals, particularly among educated, middle-class Dalits who may
have converted to Buddhism or experienced upward social mobility, might choose to disassociate from
the term, perhaps perceiving it as carrying demeaning connotations or wishing to move beyond caste-
based identities altogether.3 This highlights the intricate nature of identity politics, where even a term
intended for empowerment can evoke di'erent responses and levels of acceptance among a diverse
population. It underscores the ongoing tension between self-ascribed identities rooted in lived
experience and struggle, and state-de!ned categories designed for administrative and legislative
purposes.
J. De!nition, 'Scheduled Castes'
The term 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) is an o&cial and legal designation used in India, primarily de!ned
within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
The constitutional de!nition is provided in Article 366(24), which states that 'Scheduled Castes' means
"such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed
under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution".4 Article 341 further
elaborates that the President of India, a"er consultation with the Governor of a particular state (or
Lieutenant Governor in the case of a Union Territory), may by public noti!cation specify the castes,
races, or tribes which shall be considered Scheduled Castes in relation to that state or union
territory.4 The Parliament of India holds the power to include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe from
this list through subsequent legislation.6 This de!nition is essentially procedural, relying on o&cial lists
or 'schedules' appended to the Constitution, hence the term 'Scheduled Castes'.
The historical basis for this classi!cation lies in the age-old practice of untouchability and the severe
social and economic persecution faced by certain communities due to their low position in the Hindu
caste hierarchy.4 These communities were subjected to various forms of discrimination, including
social ostracism, denial of access to public amenities, and economic exploitation. The term 'Scheduled
Castes' was !rst formally incorporated into Indian law through the Government of India Act of
1935.4 Prior to this, these groups were commonly referred to by terms such as "Depressed Classes,"
"Untouchables," or "exterior castes".6 The primary purpose of designating certain groups as
Scheduled Castes is to acknowledge their historical disadvantage and to safeguard their interests by
providing special concessions, a&rmative action policies (such as reservations in education,
government employment, and legislative bodies), and legal protection against discrimination, thereby
promoting their socio-economic development and helping them overcome centuries of
injustice.4 Article 17 of the Constitution, for example, abolishes "Untouchability" and forbids its
practice in any form.4
The designation 'Scheduled Castes' thus represents a signi!cant a%empt by the Indian state to codify
and address centuries of social oppression through formal legal and constitutional mechanisms. It
links a historical social evil—untouchability—to a modern framework of a&rmative action and
protective discrimination aimed at fostering equality. This formalization, however, can be seen as a
double-edged sword. While it provides a crucial basis for compensatory policies and legal redress, it
also involves the state in the process of categorizing and, some argue, potentially ossifying caste
identities within o&cial records. It marks a transition from a predominantly social and religious
hierarchy to a politico-legal one, where caste identity acquires administrative and political signi!cance.
It is important to understand the distinction and overlap between the terms 'Dalit' and 'Scheduled
Castes'. While they are o"en used interchangeably in popular discourse, and most individuals
belonging to Scheduled Castes might identify as Dalit, the terms carry di'erent primary connotations.
'Dalit' is a socio-political assertion of identity, self-chosen, and rooted in the experience of oppression
and the struggle for liberation.2 'Scheduled Castes,' on the other hand, is a constitutional and
administrative category created for the purpose of a&rmative action and legal protection.4 The o&cial
preference of the state for the term 'Scheduled Castes' in legislative and administrative contexts,
versus the preference for 'Dalit' among activists and many within the community, highlights di'ering
approaches to addressing caste issues—one primarily through state-led mechanisms and policies, the
other through broader social and political mobilization and identity assertion. Some sources also
suggest that the term 'Dalit' may sometimes be used to encompass a wider range of marginalized
communities beyond those o&cially listed as Scheduled Castes.3
The following table provides a comparative overview of these key social classi!cations:
Table 1: Varna, Caste (Jati), Dalit, and Scheduled Castes – A Comparative Overview

Feature Varna System Caste System Dalit Scheduled

(Jati) Castes (SCs)
Basis of Division Four broad Thousands of Communities Castes, races, or
occupational/functional hereditary, historically tribes listed in
categories 1 endogamous considered o&cial
 groups, o"en 'untouchable' and government
linked to speci!c outside the Varna schedules based
traditional system; based on on historical social
occupations and shared experience disability
local hierarchies of oppression 2 (untouchability) 4
Origin Period Vedic Period (c. 1500 Evolved from Term popularized Term !rst used in
BCE onwards) 1 Varna system, from late 19th Government of
solidi!ed over century (Phule) India Act, 1935;
centuries, and 20th century constitutionally
particularly post- (Ambedkar) 3 de!ned from 1950
Vedic period 1 6
Social Mobility Initially #exible (Early Largely rigid and N/A (Identity N/A (Category for
Vedic), later rigid and birth-determined, focused on a&rmative action
hereditary (Later with very limited overcoming to enable mobility)
Vedic) 1 mobility 7 historical
immobility)
Key Hierarchical, Endogamy, Self-chosen O&cial/legal
Characteristics occupational commensality identity, signi!es category, basis for
specialization, concept rules, hereditary oppression, reservation and
of dharma, occupation, resistance, protective
purity/pollution 1 complex local assertion for measures, linked
hierarchies, ritual dignity and to historical
status 7 equality 2 untouchability 4
Primary Socio-religious Socio-ritual and Socio-political Administrative and
Connotation functional hereditary status identity of constitutional
classi!cation 1 groups 7 resistance and category for
empowerment 3 a&rmative action
4
Legal Status No formal legal status Caste-based No formal legal Formal legal
in modern India, but discrimination is status as 'Dalit', status de!ned by
historically in#uential. illegal, but jati but a powerful the Constitution,
identities persist socio-political entitling groups to
socially. identity. speci!c rights and
protections 4
II. Dalit Identity, Revolt, and Political Mobilization: Asserting Rights and Seeking Power
The history of Dalits in India is not only one of oppression but also of resilient resistance and ongoing
e'orts to assert their rights and achieve political empowerment. This section examines the catalysts
for Dalit revolts, the profound importance of Dalit identity, the aims behind their political organization,
and the speci!c, compounded challenges faced by Dalit women within these movements.
C. Two Reasons for Dalit Revolt
Dalit revolts and assertions throughout Indian history have stemmed from a complex interplay of deep-
rooted oppression and an unwavering quest for dignity and justice. Two primary reasons can be
identi!ed as fundamental catalysts for these movements.
Firstly, centuries of socio-economic and religious oppression under the Brahmanical caste system
created conditions of extreme hardship and degradation for Dalit communities.8 This systemic
oppression manifested in various forms: socio-cultural exclusion from mainstream society, including
denial of access to public spaces like temples and wells, and segregation in se%lements; economic
deprivation through the denial of land ownership, restricted access to education and digni!ed
livelihoods, and con!nement to 'impure' and menial occupations o"en associated with manual
scavenging, leatherwork, and handling carcasses, leading to pervasive poverty.8 Furthermore, political
exploitation ensured their powerlessness and inability to challenge their subjugated status. This
oppressive framework was o"en justi!ed and reinforced by religious doctrines, such as the concepts
of karma (actions in past lives determining current birth) and dharma (caste-speci!c duties), which
served to legitimize the hierarchy and discourage dissent.9 Even during broader historical upheavals
like the 1857 revolt against British rule, Dalit participation was, in part, fueled by economic distress
resulting from colonial policies that disrupted traditional livelihoods, rendering artisans jobless,
alongside existing religious tensions.11 This long and brutal history of systemic denial of basic human
dignity and opportunity inevitably cultivated profound resentment and a powerful desire for
fundamental change, forming the bedrock of various forms of Dalit assertion and revolt.
Secondly, Dalit movements and revolts represent a powerful assertion for dignity, equality, and
justice. These are not merely reactive responses to su'ering but proactive and conscious struggles to
dismantle the socio-cultural hegemony of upper castes and to establish a new social order founded on
the principles of equality, liberty, fraternity, and justice.9 Central to these assertions is the reclamation
of self-respect and human dignity, which had been systematically denied under the caste system. This
involved actively challenging discriminatory practices, as exempli!ed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's historic
Mahad Satyagraha in 1927 for the right of Dalits to access public water sources, and the Kalaram
Temple Entry Satyagraha in 1930 to assert their right to enter Hindu temples.13 Beyond challenging
speci!c injustices, these movements also articulated a demand for their righ(ul share in the nation's
resources, development, and decision-making processes.12 The aspiration for upward social and
economic mobility and liberation from the shackles of feudal oppression and servitude also served as
a signi!cant driving force behind Dalit assertion.12 Thus, Dalit revolts are intrinsically linked to a
positive vision of an egalitarian society where their human rights are recognized and their
contributions valued.
The nature of Dalit revolts has been multifaceted, encompassing a wide spectrum of actions. These
range from participation in broader anti-colonial struggles, where their own grievances intersected
with the larger !ght against foreign rule 12, to speci!c anti-caste agitations targeting direct
manifestations of untouchability and discrimination, such as temple entry movements and struggles for
access to common resources.13 Furthermore, resistance has also found expression through powerful
literary and cultural movements, with Dalit writers, poets, and artists using their work to articulate their
experiences, critique oppression, and foster a collective consciousness.8 This demonstrates that
"revolt" in the Dalit context is not con!ned to armed uprisings but represents a continuous and diverse
struggle waged on multiple fronts—economic, social, religious, and cultural—against the pervasive
system of caste oppression.
The prolonged experience of oppression played a crucial role in forging a distinct Dalit consciousness
and identity. The shared su'ering and collective memory of injustice became a powerful catalyst for
unity and organized resistance.8 Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar were instrumental in articulating this
consciousness, providing an ideological framework for the struggle, and mobilizing Dalits into
organized movements for their liberation.8 This suggests a dialectical relationship where oppression
breeds a shared identity, which in turn fuels collective action and revolt, further re!ning and
strengthening that identity in an ongoing cycle of struggle and assertion.
K. Importance of Dalit Identity
The assertion and consolidation of Dalit identity represent a pivotal development in modern Indian
social and political history, carrying profound signi!cance for the empowerment and mobilization of
historically oppressed communities.
At its core, Dalit identity, derived from a term meaning "oppressed" or "broken," has been powerfully
reclaimed by these communities as a symbol of resistance against historical injustice and a
beacon of empowerment.2 This self-chosen identity signi!es a collective consciousness forged from
centuries of shared experiences of marginalization, exclusion, and violence under the rigid Hindu caste
system. It embodies a uni!ed struggle for dignity, equality, social justice, and the annihilation of caste-
based discrimination.14 The very act of adopting the name 'Dalit' is a political statement, transforming
a narrative of victimhood imposed by dominant social structures into one of agency, resilience, and an
unyielding demand for human rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's intellectual and political leadership was
instrumental in shaping this modern Dalit identity, providing a robust ideological framework that
critiqued the caste system and advocated for a new social order based on liberty, equality, and
fraternity.14
Furthermore, Dalit identity serves as a crucial basis for socio-political mobilization and cultural
assertion. It provides the ideological glue that binds diverse Dalit sub-castes and communities across
India, fostering solidarity and enabling collective action to challenge systemic oppression and demand
their constitutional and human rights.8 This collective identity has been fundamental to the emergence
of various Dalit movements and political parties that advocate for their interests in the political arena.
Culturally, the rise of Dalit consciousness has spurred a vibrant e)orescence of distinct traditions,
literature, art, music, and the celebration of icons like Dr. Ambedkar and Jyotirao Phule. These cultural
expressions serve multiple purposes: they counter the dominant, o"en exclusionary, narratives of
mainstream culture; they provide a pla(orm for articulating Dalit experiences, perspectives, and
aspirations; and they instill a sense of pride and self-worth within the community, challenging the
historical erasure and denigration they faced.8
The assertion of Dalit identity is, in essence, a direct and potent challenge to the Brahmanical social
order and the identities it historically imposed on those at the bo%om of the hierarchy. It is the creation
of a powerful counter-narrative that reclaims history from their own perspective, reinterprets their
past, and fundamentally rede!nes their self-worth and their place in society. Instead of accepting an
identity de!ned by notions of pollution and inferiority, Dalit identity emphasizes inherent human
dignity, resilience in the face of adversity, and the ongoing struggle for a just and equitable future.
It is also important to recognize that Dalit identity is not a monolithic or static entity. It is dynamic and
constantly evolving, shaped by ongoing struggles, changing socio-political contexts, and the diverse
experiences and perspectives within the vast and varied Dalit community itself.8 This internal diversity,
encompassing numerous sub-castes with unique traditions and regional variations, adds layers of
complexity to the overarching Dalit identity. However, this very diversity, coupled with a shared history
of oppression and a common goal of liberation, contributes to its strength and adaptability. The
emergence of Dalit feminism, for example, highlights an evolving understanding of intersectional
oppressions within the broader Dalit identity. Similarly, the use of digital pla(orms by Dalit youth for
activism and expression demonstrates the identity's contemporary relevance and its capacity to adapt
to new forms of mobilization and articulation.
L. Aim of Formation of BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party)
The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) was established with a clear and ambitious agenda focused on the
socio-economic and political empowerment of marginalized communities in India.
The primary aim behind the formation of the BSP, founded by Manyawar Kanshi Ram on April 14, 1984,
was to function as a revolutionary social and economic movement for change.15 The party's
explicit goal is to achieve comprehensive social transformation and economic emancipation for the
"Bahujan Samaj." This term, meaning "majority people," was strategically employed by Kanshi Ram to
forge a broad coalition of oppressed and exploited sections of Indian society. According to the BSP's
constitution, the Bahujan Samaj includes Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other
Backward Classes (OBCs), and religious minorities, who collectively constitute a numerical majority but
have historically been denied power and resources.15 The party's ideology is centered on ending the
exploitation and suppression of these deprived groups by fundamentally altering the existing social
and economic structures.15
A crucial and interconnected aim of the BSP is achieving political power as a means to secure
social justice. The party views its political activity and participation in governance not as an end in
itself, but as an essential instrument to further its movement for social and economic change.15 The
BSP's philosophy is rooted in the Ambedkarite principle that political power is the "master key" to
unlocking social upli"ment and liberation for oppressed communities. The party believes that unless
the economically deprived masses secure political empowerment, they will remain ensnared in the
shackles of social and economic dependence and exploitation.15 Therefore, a core objective is to
capture state power to implement policies that promote the supreme principles of universal justice,
liberty, equality, and fraternity, as enunciated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.15 The party
speci!cally aims to organize the masses of the Bahujan Samaj to remove their backwardness, !ght
against their oppression, improve their societal status and living conditions, and ultimately, to
dismantle the caste-based social system and rebuild Indian society on the foundations of equality and
human values.15
The formation of the BSP and its concept of the "Bahujan Samaj" represented a signi!cant strategic
development in Dalit politics. It marked an a%empt to create a much larger and more electorally viable
political coalition that extends beyond the Scheduled Castes. By consciously including STs, OBCs, and
religious minorities under the "Bahujan" umbrella, the party sought to consolidate the political strength
of various marginalized groups, thereby increasing its potential to challenge the dominance of
established upper-caste-led political formations. This was a pragmatic move to build a wider social
and electoral base, re#ecting an evolution from earlier Dalit movements that may have had a more
exclusive focus on Scheduled Caste issues.
Furthermore, the BSP's approach demonstrates a commitment to using constitutional and
democratic means to achieve what it considers revolutionary ends. While the party's stated aim is
to bring about a "revolutionary social and economic movement of change," it seeks to accomplish this
by working within the framework of the Indian Constitution and leveraging political power obtained
through electoral processes as its primary "instrument".15 This strategy aligns with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's
emphasis on constitutional methods for social transformation. It signi!es a pragmatic approach to
achieving radical social and economic restructuring, utilizing the established democratic and state
machinery to dismantle historical inequalities and empower the Bahujan Samaj.
I. Gender and Caste in Context of Dalit Movements in India
The intersection of gender and caste creates a unique and profoundly challenging reality for Dalit
women in India, positioning them at the nexus of multiple forms of discrimination. Their experiences
are central to understanding the complexities of Dalit movements and the broader struggle for social
justice.
Dalit women face dual discrimination stemming from their gender and their caste, a compounded
form of oppression that places them at the very bo%om of India's socio-political hierarchy.17 They are
subjected to patriarchal subjugation not only within the wider society but also, at times, within their
own Dalit communities. Simultaneously, they endure the severe discrimination and exclusion
associated with their Dalit identity in a caste-strati!ed society.17 This intersectionality, as
conceptualized by scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw, means that Dalit women's lived experiences of
marginalization are qualitatively di'erent and o"en more severe than those faced by Dalit men (who
are oppressed by caste but may bene!t from male privilege) or upper-caste women (who may face
gender discrimination but are insulated by caste privilege).17 This "triple burden"—of gender bias,
caste discrimination, and frequently, acute economic deprivation—means their speci!c struggles have
o"en been rendered invisible or inadequately addressed by both mainstream feminist movements,
which have been criticized for an upper-caste, middle-class bias, and by male-dominated Dalit
movements, which may not fully prioritize gender-speci!c concerns.17
This dual discrimination translates into speci!c vulnerabilities and challenges for Dalit women.
Historically, and continuing into the present, they have faced disproportionately high rates of economic
exploitation. Con!ned to the lowest-paid, most precarious, and o"en 'polluting' occupations, such as
manual scavenging, agricultural labor, and construction work, they have limited access to land
ownership, regular employment, and economic independence.18 They are also exceptionally
vulnerable to various forms of violence, particularly sexual violence, which is o"en used by dominant
castes as a tool to assert caste supremacy, punish Dalit communities for perceived transgressions, and
reinforce patriarchal control.17 Furthermore, Dalit women encounter signi!cant barriers in accessing
education, healthcare, clean drinking water, and other basic amenities, leading to signi!cantly lower
human development indicators compared to other social groups.18 The denial of property rights and
limited political representation further exacerbate their marginalization.
Despite facing such immense and layered oppression, Dalit women are not merely passive victims;
they have emerged as powerful agents of change, articulating their unique experiences and
spearheading their own struggles. The rise of Dalit feminism as a distinct political and intellectual
movement is a testament to their agency.17 Dalit women's narratives—expressed through
autobiographies, poetry, literature, and activism—serve as a potent counter-discourse, challenging the
silence and erasure of their experiences within both mainstream feminist and traditional anti-caste
discourses.17 These narratives uniquely address the interplay of patriarchy within caste structures and
caste-based hierarchies within patriarchal systems, o'ering a nuanced and critical perspective. By
bringing their speci!c concerns to the forefront, Dalit women are compelling both broader feminist
movements and Dalit movements to confront the complexities of intersectional oppression.
The historical invisibility of Dalit women's speci!c issues within larger social movements necessitated
the emergence of Dalit feminism. This movement speci!cally aims to articulate their concerns and
challenge both caste and gender hierarchies from their unique standpoint, advocating for targeted
interventions and policy reforms on critical issues such as sexual violence, land rights, access to
education, and economic empowerment.17 Their activism is crucial not only for their own liberation but
also for enriching and radicalizing the broader struggles for social justice in India, ensuring that the
!ght against oppression is truly inclusive and addresses the needs of the most marginalized.
III. Key Thinkers, Reformers, and Ideologies: Shaping Discourses of Change
The landscape of social reform and Dalit empowerment in India has been profoundly shaped by the
contributions of visionary thinkers, dedicated reformers, and transformative ideologies. Figures like
Sant Eknath and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and ideologies such as Ambedkarism, have been instrumental in
challenging entrenched hierarchies and articulating new visions for a more equitable society. The
nomenclature used to describe marginalized communities, such as the term 'Harijan,' also re#ects
evolving discourses and ideological positions.
D. Short Note on Eknath
Sant Eknath (1533-1599 C.E.) was a revered 16th-century Brahmin saint-poet from Paithan,
Maharashtra, who stands as a signi!cant !gure in the Bhakti movement and a notable early challenger
of caste-based discrimination.19 Born into a Brahmin family and the grandson of another Warkari
saint, Bhanudas, Eknath was deeply in#uenced by his guru, Janardan Swami, who some scholars
suggest had Su! connections, likely reinforcing Eknath's egalitarian worldview.19
Eknath's primary contribution lay in his e'orts to democratize spiritual experience and challenge
caste distinctions through the path of Bhakti (devotion). He passionately taught that devotion to a
personal God was accessible to everyone, irrespective of their caste, creed, gender, or social standing,
thereby directly contesting the Brahmanical exclusivity that o"en characterized religious practice in his
era.19 He composed a vast body of devotional literature, including abhangs (devotional poems), owis,
and bharuds (dramatic narrative songs), primarily in Marathi, the vernacular language of the common
people. This made profound spiritual and ethical teachings accessible to a wider audience that was
o"en excluded from Sanskrit-based scriptural learning.19 His major literary works include the Eknathi
Bhagavata (a commentary on the Bhagavata Purana) and the Bhavarth Ramayana.
Particularly noteworthy was Eknath's deep empathy for and active inclusion of Dalits (then referred
to as "untouchables") in his spiritual embrace. He not only preached equality but practiced it, famously
dining in the house of an "untouchable" and engaging with individuals from the Mahar and Mang
castes, who were considered among the lowest in the social hierarchy.19 Remarkably, about !"y of his
three hundred bharuds were wri%en from the perspective of Dalit protagonists, portraying them as
articulate individuals capable of preaching morality, righteousness, and the importance of a
Guru.19 These actions and writings were radical for his time and o"en invited severe criticism and
opposition from orthodox Brahmins who sought to maintain rigid caste boundaries.19 Eknath also
emphasized the oneness of all religions and is known to have interacted with Muslims, re#ecting the
pluralistic cultural environment of the Deccan.19 His e'orts to include !gures like Kabir (a Muslim
weaver saint) and Rohidas (an "untouchable" tanner saint) into the pantheon of revered saints within
the Maharashtrian Varkari tradition further underscore his commitment to an inclusive spiritual
community.20
Eknath's work can be seen as laying some of the crucial groundwork for later social reformers who
more directly and politically challenged caste discrimination. While not a political activist in the modern
sense, his spiritual teachings that emphasized the equality of all devotees in the eyes of God, coupled
with his personal example of transgressing caste norms, provided a powerful moral and spiritual
critique of caste-based discrimination. This critique could, and likely did, inspire subsequent
generations to pursue more direct social and political challenges to the caste system.
Furthermore, Eknath's strategic use of the Marathi language and popular performance forms like the
bharud was instrumental in disseminating his reformist ideas and critiquing social evils to a broad,
common audience. The bharuds, o"en performed as street theatre, featured a diverse cast of
characters from various social strata, including Mahars and other marginalized groups, and operated
on multiple levels—o'ering humor and entertainment while simultaneously conveying deeper
philosophical statements about worldly concerns and spiritual life.20 This approach e'ectively
bypassed the elite, Sanskrit-centric discourses that o"en excluded the masses, making his message of
equality and devotion accessible and impac(ul, thereby subtly undermining the established order that
relied on inaccessible scriptures and rituals.
G. Explanation of the term, 'Ambedkarism'
'Ambedkarism' refers to the socio-political philosophy and ideology derived from the profound
thoughts, writings, and lifelong struggles of Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a principal architect of the
Indian Constitution, a jurist, economist, and a relentless champion of social justice. It is a
comprehensive ideology primarily focused on the liberation and empowerment of marginalized
communities, particularly Dalits, from centuries of oppression.
At the very core of Ambedkarism lies the unwavering commitment to the "annihilation of caste" and
the establishment of a society !rmly rooted in social justice.21 Dr. Ambedkar viewed the caste
system not merely as a division of labor but as a hierarchical division of laborers, inherently unjust,
which perpetuated systemic discrimination, inequality, and the dehumanizing practice of
untouchability.21 For Ambedkarites, social justice is an expansive concept that encompasses equality
before the law, equal protection for all sections of society against exploitation by the powerful, and
equal opportunities in education, employment, and public o&ce, irrespective of caste, race, sex,
religion, color, or creed.21 It also implies a fair and equitable distribution of a nation's wealth and
resources, with a strong emphasis on upli"ing those who have been historically disadvantaged. This
pursuit of caste annihilation is not merely about reforming the system but about its complete
eradication to pave the way for a truly egalitarian social order.
Ambedkarism is fundamentally anchored in the inseparable trinity of Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity, principles Dr. Ambedkar considered essential for a just and democratic society.21
● Liberty in Ambedkar's vision was comprehensive, encompassing freedom of thought, speech,
expression, assembly, association, movement, profession, and religion. It was seen as crucial for
the healthy growth and creative expression of every individual.21
● Equality was sought in all spheres—social, economic, and political. Ambedkar advocated for
the equal worth of all human beings and the removal of all man-made inequalities. He supported
measures like state socialism to ensure equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities.21
● Fraternity, for Ambedkar, meant a sense of common brotherhood, social endosmosis, and
associated living with equal rights and opportunities, ensuring the dignity of every individual. He
argued that liberty and equality would be meaningless without the active practice and
maintenance of fraternity in society.21
Ambedkarism strongly advocates for achieving these transformative goals through constitutional
methods, parliamentary democracy, and the rule of law.21 Dr. Ambedkar had profound faith in the
democratic process as a means for social change. Education is accorded paramount importance
within Ambedkarism, encapsulated in his famous call: "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" Education, based
on science and reason, is viewed as the primary weapon to destroy ignorance, challenge superstition,
and empower individuals to !ght against exploitation and inequality.22 Furthermore, Ambedkarism
emphasizes the critical role of political power in achieving social and economic transformation,
famously stating that "Political Power is the Master Key" to open all locks of social subjugation.22 The
doctrine of "One Man One Vote, One Vote One Value" is seen as the weapon to capture political power
and establish a true social democracy where the voices of the marginalized are heard and their rights
secured.22
Thus, Ambedkarism emerges not just as an anti-caste ideology but as a holistic and comprehensive
vision for the liberation of all oppressed sections of society. It encompasses social, economic, political,
and even religious dimensions of transformation, with an unwavering emphasis on individual dignity,
self-respect, and human rights. While its critique of existing social structures, particularly the Hindu
caste system and its religious underpinnings, is radical and uncompromising, its methodology remains
pragmatic, relying on democratic and constitutional means to achieve its revolutionary ends. This
distinguishes Ambedkarism from ideologies that might advocate for violent overthrow, instead
emphasizing a path of legal reform, political participation, and mass consciousness-raising to build a
society where justice, equality, and fraternity prevail.
O. Coining and Purpose of the word, 'Harijan'
The term 'Harijan,' which translates to "children of God" or "people of God" (Hari being a name for
God, particularly Vishnu/Krishna), has a speci!c history of usage in the context of communities
historically deemed "Untouchable" in India.
The term was originally used by the 15th-century Gujarati Bhakti poet-saint Narsinh Mehta. In
his devotional poetry, Mehta referred to devotees of God (Hari) as 'Harijan,' irrespective of their caste
or social standing, emphasizing a spiritual community united by faith.23 Mahatma Gandhi, who held
Narsinh Mehta and his devotional hymns in high regard (Mehta's "Vaishnav Jan To" was a favorite of
Gandhi's), adopted and popularized this term speci!cally for those communities then referred
to as "Untouchables" or "Depressed Classes".25
Gandhi began using the term 'Harijan' extensively in the period following the Poona Pact of
September 1932.25 This pact was an agreement between Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, reached
a"er Gandhi undertook a "fast unto death" in protest against the British government's Communal
Award, which had granted separate electorates to the Depressed Classes—a measure Ambedkar
supported as essential for their political representation. The Poona Pact replaced separate electorates
with an increased number of reserved seats for the Depressed Classes within a joint electorate of all
Hindus.
Gandhi's rationale for introducing and promoting the term 'Harijan' was multifaceted. He believed it
was a more digni!ed, compassionate, and indigenous term than the pejorative 'Untouchable' or
the colonial administrative label 'Depressed Classes'.25 His intention was to promote social reform,
encourage the upli"ment of these communities, and facilitate their integration and acceptance
within the broader Hindu society.28 By calling them "children of God," Gandhi aimed to appeal to
the conscience of caste Hindus, urging them to eradicate the sin of untouchability and to recognize
the shared humanity of all. To further this cause, he renamed his in#uential weekly newspaper Young
India to Harijan in February 1933, emphasizing that the campaign against untouchability was as vital as
the struggle for political independence.24 He also founded the Harijan Sevak Sangh (Servants of
Untouchables Society), which he described as an organization of "penitent sinners" (referring to caste
Hindus) whose objective was to make "reparation" for the historical injustices of untouchability.29
The introduction of 'Harijan' by Gandhi thus re#ects his particular approach to social reform—one
centered on moral persuasion, changing hearts, and fostering integration within the existing Hindu
religious and social fold. This approach, however, stood in contrast to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's perspective,
which emphasized structural change, the annihilation of the caste system itself, and the assertion of a
separate and distinct political identity for these communities. While Gandhi's intentions in using
'Harijan' were aimed at bestowing dignity and fostering inclusion, the term was later criticized and
largely rejected by many Dalit leaders and intellectuals, including Ambedkar. They viewed it as
patronizing, as a top-down imposition that failed to address the root causes of oppression, and as an
a%empt to subsume their distinct identity within a reformed Hinduism that they felt was irredeemable.
This led to the preference for the self-chosen, assertive term 'Dalit'. Indeed, early signs of resistance to
the term were evident, as noted by the opposition to its use in the Bombay legislative assembly,
leading to its replacement by 'Scheduled Castes' in 1938 for o&cial purposes in that context.6 This
highlights the critical importance of self-de!nition and agency for marginalized groups in naming their
own experiences and identities, illustrating that even well-intentioned labels can be problematic if they
do not align with the self-perception and political aspirations of the community in question.
H. Two Points of Con#ict between Gandhi and Ambedkar
Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, two colossal !gures in modern Indian history, shared a
common goal of upli"ing the oppressed but di'ered profoundly in their diagnosis of social problems
and their proposed solutions, particularly concerning the caste system and the path to Dalit
emancipation. Two major points of ideological con#ict stand out.
The !rst fundamental point of con#ict was their divergent approaches to the caste system and
untouchability. Gandhi viewed untouchability as a grave sin, a moral blot, and a harmful distortion
that had crept into Hinduism, but he did not call for the outright abolition of the Varna system itself, at
least not in its idealized, functional form.30 He believed in reforming Hinduism from within, seeking to
eradicate untouchability through moral suasion, appeals to the conscience of upper-caste Hindus, and
the social and economic upli"ment of those he termed "Harijans," aiming for their harmonious
integration into the Hindu fold.30 Dr. Ambedkar, on the other hand, having personally endured the
brutal realities of caste discrimination, saw the entire caste system, and the Hindu scriptures and
traditions that sanctioned it, as inherently oppressive, hierarchical, and irredeemable.30 For him,
untouchability was not an aberration but a logical outcome of the caste system. He therefore
advocated for the complete "annihilation of caste," arguing that mere social reform or the removal of
untouchability was insu&cient. He believed that true liberation for Dalits required a fundamental
structural transformation of society, which ultimately led him to reject Hinduism and embrace
Buddhism, a religion he saw as inherently egalitarian.30 This was a foundational chasm: Gandhi aimed
to purify and reform the existing social order, while Ambedkar sought to dismantle and replace it.
The second major area of con#ict centered on political solutions for Dalit empowerment, most
notably the issue of separate electorates. During the discussions surrounding the Communal Award
in 1932, Dr. Ambedkar passionately championed the cause of separate electorates for the Depressed
Classes (Dalits).30 He argued that this was essential to ensure their genuine political representation,
protect their speci!c interests from being overwhelmed by the numerically and socially dominant
upper castes, and give them a distinct political voice. Mahatma Gandhi vehemently opposed the
provision of separate electorates for Dalits, fearing that it would lead to a political vivisection of Hindu
society, permanently segregate Dalits from the mainstream Hindu community, and weaken the
nationalist movement against British rule.30 To prevent the implementation of separate electorates,
Gandhi undertook a "fast unto death." This intense pressure ultimately led to the Poona Pact of 1932,
where Ambedkar, in a di&cult compromise, agreed to relinquish the demand for separate electorates
in exchange for a signi!cantly larger number of reserved seats for Dalits within a joint electorate
system.30 This con#ict also re#ected their di'ering views on the ideal form of governance: Ambedkar
favored a strong, centralized government capable of enforcing minority rights and ensuring social
justice, whereas Gandhi advocated for decentralized village self-governance (Gram Swaraj). Ambedkar
was deeply skeptical of Gram Swaraj, fearing that in the Indian context, village councils would
inevitably be dominated by upper castes and perpetuate caste-based oppression and inequality.30
These ideological di'erences were signi!cantly shaped by their distinct lived experiences. Dr.
Ambedkar's unsparingly radical stance on caste stemmed directly from his personal and visceral
experience of the humiliation and brutality of untouchability as a member of a Dalit family.30 This
informed his conviction that nothing short of complete annihilation of the caste structure would
su&ce. Mahatma Gandhi's perspective, while deeply empathetic towards the plight of the "Harijans"
and commi%ed to abolishing untouchability, was formulated from the standpoint of a relatively
privileged upper-caste background.30 This di'erence in social location likely in#uenced his more
reformist approach, which sought to address the evils of untouchability without fundamentally
dismantling the Varna framework, at least in its theoretical ideal.
Furthermore, the intense debate over separate electorates epitomizes an enduring tension inherent in
the process of nation-building, particularly in diverse and hierarchical societies: the con#ict between
the imperative to foster an overarching national unity and the equally crucial need to secure distinct
rights, representation, and autonomy for historically marginalized and oppressed communities. Gandhi
prioritized the unity of the Hindu community and the broader Indian nation, viewing separate
electorates as a divisive threat. Ambedkar prioritized the political rights and autonomous voice of the
Dalits, seeing separate electorates as a necessary safeguard against continued subjugation by the
dominant majority. The Poona Pact was a political compromise born out of this con#ict, but the
underlying tension between these two imperatives—national cohesion and group-speci!c justice—
continued to resonate in Indian political discourse.
The following table outlines some key ideological di'erences between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar:
Table 2: Gandhi vs. Ambedkar – Key Ideological Di$erences

Issue Mahatma Gandhi's View Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's View

Caste System Supported Varna system in its Advocated for the complete
idealized form; saw caste as a "Annihilation of Caste"; viewed
social construct that had it as inherently unjust and
degenerated but could be oppressive, incapable of
reformed 30 reform 30
Untouchability A sin and a blot on Hinduism; An inseparable part of
to be eradicated through moral Hinduism and the caste
reform and upli"ment of system; required dismantling
"Harijans" within the Hindu fold the entire system, not just
30 removing untouchability 30
Political Solution for Dalits Opposed separate electorates Supported separate
(Electorates) for Dalits; feared it would electorates for Dalits to ensure
divide Hindu society and genuine political
isolate Dalits. Favored joint representation and protect
 electorates with reserved seats their interests from upper-
30 caste domination 30
Nature of Village Society Idealized village self- Criticized 'Gramraj' as a system
(Gram Swaraj) governance (Gram Swaraj) as that would perpetuate caste
the foundation of true hierarchy, inequality, and
independence and a moral oppression of Dalits at the
society 30 local level 31
Primary Method of Social Moral persuasion, self- Legal and constitutional
Change puri!cation of upper castes, reforms, political organization
constructive programs, and empowerment of Dalits,
Satyagraha, non-cooperation education, agitation,
30 conversion 22
View on Hindu Scriptures Believed core Hindu scriptures Critiqued Hindu scriptures
did not sanction untouchability (e.g., Manusmriti) as upholding
as practiced; emphasized their caste hierarchy and justifying
spiritual essence 31 the oppression of Dalits;
burned Manusmriti in protest
30
IV. Broader Social, Religious, and Intellectual Movements: Contexts of Change and
Interpretation
The assertions of Dalit identity and critiques of the caste system did not occur in a vacuum. They were
part of a larger ferment of social, religious, and intellectual movements that characterized colonial and
post-colonial India. These included regional anti-Brahmanical agitations, the impact of colonial-era
scholarship, the rise of alternative spiritual paths like the Bhakti movement, and signi!cant religious
revivals such as the resurgence of Buddhism.
E. Location and Reasons for the Non-Brahman Movement
The Non-Brahman movement emerged as a signi!cant socio-political force in colonial India, primarily
concentrated in South India and Western India. In South India, its most prominent centers were the
Madras Presidency (which encompassed much of present-day Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, and Kerala), where it also manifested as the Self-Respect Movement, and to some extent in
the princely state of Mysore (Karnataka).32 In Western India, the movement was particularly strong in
Maharashtra.32 This regional concentration points to speci!c socio-historical conditions prevalent in
these areas, such as the signi!cant numerical presence and perceived socio-economic and ritual
dominance of Brahmins in education, administration, and religious spheres, which created fertile
ground for organized opposition.
The primary reasons for the Non-Brahman movement were rooted in a deep-seated resentment
against Brahmin dominance and a desire to challenge the injustices of the caste system. The
movement was largely initiated and led by non-Brahman castes that had, by the late 19th and early
20th centuries, gained some access to Western education, accumulated wealth (o"en through land
ownership or commerce), and begun to seek greater in#uence in public life.32 These groups included
in#uential agricultural and trading communities such as the Vellalas, Reddis, Kammas, Kapus, and
Balijas in the South, and Marathas and Malis in Maharashtra.32 They raised vociferous issues of social
discrimination, economic exploitation, and, crucially, the disproportionate representation of Brahmins
in government jobs, educational institutions, and political bodies, which they saw as a barrier to their
own advancement.32 In South India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, the movement also acquired a strong
linguistic and cultural dimension, articulating a Dravidian identity that positioned itself against a
perceived Aryan-Brahmin cultural and political subjugation, arguing that Brahmins were successors to
Aryan invaders who had suppressed the original Dravidian inhabitants.32 Key intellectual and political
!gures who spearheaded these movements included Jyotirao Phule, who founded the Satyashodhak
Samaj (Truth-Seekers' Society) in Maharashtra in 1873, and E.V. Ramasami Naicker (popularly known as
"Periyar"), who led the Self-Respect Movement and later founded the Dravidar Kazhagam in Tamil
Nadu.32
It is important to note that the Non-Brahman movement was largely, though not exclusively, driven by
these emerging non-Brahmin elites and intermediate castes, rather than by the most oppressed
groups at the bo%om of the caste hierarchy, such as the Dalits (then "untouchables"). While some
anti-Brahmin movements, particularly those in#uenced by Phule, did include and advocate for the
rights of untouchables 32, the primary thrust o"en came from castes that were themselves relatively
well-o' or upwardly mobile and were contesting for power and resources with the established Brahmin
elites. This sometimes led to situations where the bene!ts of the Non-Brahman movement did not
automatically or uniformly trickle down to the lowest castes.
Colonial rule played a complex and somewhat inadvertent role in fostering the Non-Brahman
movement. The introduction of Western education and new avenues for employment in the colonial
administration and modern professions were opportunities that Brahmins, with their traditional
emphasis on learning, o"en capitalized on more quickly and e'ectively than other communities. This
led to their signi!cant presence in these new sectors, which in turn fueled resentment and accusations
of monopolization from aspiring non-Brahmin groups.33 Simultaneously, the colonial administrative
structures, census operations (which o"en rei!ed caste categories), and periodic political reforms (like
the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms) provided new pla(orms and arenas for non-Brahmin political
assertion. The formation of political organizations like the Justice Party in the Madras Presidency in
1916, which explicitly aimed to secure representation for non-Brahmins in legislative councils and
government services, was a direct outcome of these dynamics.32 Thus, colonial policies, while o"en
designed to maintain imperial control, also created unintended spaces for new social and political
contestations and the rise of new elite groups challenging the old order.
F. Who were Orientalists?
The term 'Orientalists' refers primarily to Western scholars, administrators, and intellectuals,
predominantly European (British, French, German) and later American, who engaged in the
study of the societies, cultures, languages, religions, and histories of "the Orient"—a term
historically used to encompass a vast and diverse range of regions, including Asia (especially India,
China, and the Islamic Middle East) and North Africa.34 Their period of greatest in#uence spanned
from the late 18th century through the 19th and into the early 20th centuries, coinciding with the peak
of European colonial expansion and imperial dominance over many of these Eastern societies.35
The approach of Orientalists to Eastern cultures was o"en characterized by a set of underlying
assumptions and perspectives that re#ected the prevailing Eurocentric worldview of the
colonial era. A common tendency was to view Eastern societies as fundamentally di'erent from, and
o"en inferior to, Western civilizations. The "Orient" was frequently portrayed as static, tradition-bound,
irrational, despotic, and lacking the dynamism and progress a%ributed to the "Occident" (the
West).35 In the context of India, for instance, some Orientalist historiography tended to depict pre-
colonial Indian history in a particular light: emphasizing a supposed ancient "Hindu golden age,"
followed by a period of "Muslim tyranny" characterized by despotic rulers, and then the arrival of the
British, who were o"en presented as bringing order, modernity, and enlightened governance.35 Such
narratives o"en served to legitimize colonial rule by suggesting that India was incapable of self-
governance or had declined into chaos and stagnation before British intervention. The in#uential work
of scholar Edward Said, particularly his book Orientalism (1978), provided a powerful critique of this
!eld of study. Said argued that Orientalism was not merely an objective academic discipline but a
system of knowledge deeply intertwined with Western power and imperial ambitions. It was a
way for the West to construct, de!ne, and thereby control the "Orient" by creating a discourse that
emphasized its otherness, exoticism, and subordination, thus justifying colonial
domination.35 Criticisms of Orientalist methodologies o"en point to their inherent biases, lack of
impartiality, a tendency to generalize vast and diverse cultures, and a propensity to downplay or ignore
the agency, achievements, and internal complexities of Eastern societies themselves.35
The knowledge produced by Orientalists, while in some instances valuable for its philological work in
translating ancient texts, preserving manuscripts, or documenting languages and customs, was o"en
deployed as a tool of colonial governance and justi!cation. By de!ning Eastern societies through a
lens of perceived backwardness, irrationality, or inherent despotism, colonial powers could frame their
imperial enterprises as a "civilizing mission" or as necessary interventions to bring progress and
stability.35 This connection between knowledge production and the exercise of colonial power is a
central theme in postcolonial critiques of Orientalism.
However, the legacy of Orientalism is somewhat contradictory and complex. While heavily and rightly
criticized for its Eurocentric biases, colonial entanglements, and o"en stereotypical representations,
early Orientalist scholarship also played an undeniable role in reviving interest, both in the West and
among some indigenous intellectuals, in the ancient texts, philosophies, and histories of
Eastern civilizations, including India.36 The translation and publication of classical Sanskrit texts,
for example, made them accessible to a wider global audience and sometimes sparked a renewed
engagement with this heritage among Indian reformers and nationalists, even if their interpretations
o"en diverged signi!cantly from, or were formulated in reaction to, those of the Orientalists. For
instance, the late 19th-century interest in Buddhism among some Indian intellectuals was partly fueled
by Western scholarly works on the subject.36 This creates a more nuanced picture than a simple
dismissal of all Orientalist endeavors as purely negative or solely instruments of oppression,
acknowledging that their work, despite its #aws, sometimes had unintended consequences in fostering
new intellectual currents within the colonized societies themselves.
M. Bhakti Modes of Legitimacy
The Bhakti movement, a signi!cant devotional trend in Hinduism that emerged in medieval India and
spread across various regions, established its legitimacy and widespread appeal through several
distinctive modes that o'ered alternative spiritual pathways and social validation, o"en contrasting
with traditional Brahmanical structures.
A primary mode of legitimacy for the Bhakti movement was its profound emphasis on direct,
personal, and emotional devotion (bhakti) to a chosen deity. This approach prioritized an intimate,
loving relationship between the devotee and the divine, e'ectively bypassing the need for elaborate
Vedic rituals, complex sacri!ces, priestly intermediaries, or mastery of Sanskrit scriptures, all of which
were traditionally controlled and mediated by the Brahmin priestly class.37 By advocating for simple
acts of devotion such as singing hymns (kirtans or bhajans), chanting the deity's name, meditating on
the divine form, and cultivating a hear(elt emotional connection, the Bhakti movement made spiritual
experience and the pursuit of salvation (moksha) directly accessible to individuals from all strata of
society.37 This direct path to the divine, based on faith and love rather than ritual expertise or
scriptural scholarship, o'ered a powerful alternative source of spiritual legitimacy and empowerment,
particularly for those who felt excluded or marginalized by the more formal and hierarchical religious
traditions.
Another crucial factor contributing to the Bhakti movement's legitimacy was its remarkable inclusivity
and its inherent challenge to rigid caste hierarchies and social distinctions. Unlike many orthodox
traditions that restricted religious participation and leadership based on birth, the Bhakti movements
were largely open to people from all walks of life, irrespective of their caste, gender, or socio-
economic status.37 Many of the most revered Bhakti poet-saints themselves hailed from lower-caste
backgrounds, artisanal communities, or were women—groups traditionally denied religious authority or
direct access to sacred knowledge. Figures like Kabir (a weaver), Ravidas (a tanner), Mirabai (a
princess who de!ed convention), Tukaram (a Shudra), and Chokhamela (an "untouchable" Mahar
saint) became spiritual luminaries whose devotional expressions resonated deeply with the
masses.20 Their teachings o"en explicitly or implicitly critiqued caste discrimination and social
inequalities, promoting a vision of spiritual equality where devotion alone was the true measure of a
person's worth in the eyes of God.37 Furthermore, Bhakti saints typically composed and sang their
devotional hymns in regional vernacular languages (such as Tamil, Kannada, Marathi, Hindi, Bengali,
Gujarati) rather than Sanskrit, making their profound spiritual and ethical messages widely accessible
to the common populace.38 By rejecting birth-based spiritual privilege and fostering a community of
devotees united by their shared love for a personal God, the Bhakti movement created powerful
alternative social and religious spaces. These spaces legitimized the spiritual aspirations of the
marginalized and o'ered a sense of belonging and validation outside the con!nes of orthodox
Brahmanical control.
Beyond individual salvation, the Bhakti movement's emphasis on equality, its critique of empty
ritualism, and its challenge to caste-based discrimination positioned it as a signi!cant force for social
critique and reform within the broader Hindu tradition. The very act of lower-caste saints
achieving widespread reverence and their teachings gaining popular acceptance inherently
undermined the hereditary authority of the Brahminical elite and the perceived sacrosanctity of the
Sanskrit-based textual tradition.37 This o'ered a di'erent, more accessible, and emotionally resonant
mode of religious legitimacy rooted in personal experience and hear(elt devotion.
In essence, the Bhakti movement e'ectively "democratized" religious and spiritual experience in
medieval India.37 It shi"ed the locus of spiritual authority from birth-ascribed status, ritual pro!ciency,
or scriptural learning to personal faith, sincere devotion, and emotional engagement with the divine.
This was a profound transformation in how religious authority and spiritual validation could be
obtained, allowing individuals from diverse backgrounds to claim their own direct relationship with God
and !nd legitimacy for their spiritual strivings. This emphasis on inner experience over external ritual,
and universal love over social hierarchy, gave the Bhakti movement its enduring appeal and its
transformative impact on Indian society and culture.
N. Understanding the Revival of Buddhism in India
The revival of Buddhism in India, the land of its birth, is a remarkable phenomenon of the 20th and 21st
centuries, occurring centuries a"er its virtual disappearance from the subcontinent by around the 13th
century CE. This resurgence has been driven by a con#uence of socio-political movements, intellectual
currents, and international in#uences.
The most signi!cant and transformative factor in the modern Indian Buddhist revival was the mass
conversion of Dalits (formerly Scheduled Castes and "untouchables") to Buddhism,
spearheaded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. This pivotal event took place on October 14, 1956, in Nagpur,
Maharashtra, where Dr. Ambedkar, along with hundreds of thousands of his followers, formally
embraced Buddhism.36 This mass conversion was the culmination of Ambedkar's long search for a
spiritual path that would o'er dignity, equality, and liberation from the oppressive Hindu caste system,
which he believed was inherently discriminatory and irreformable. For Ambedkar and millions of Dalits
who followed him then and in subsequent decades, Buddhism, with its rational teachings, its rejection
of caste distinctions, and its emphasis on compassion and social equality, represented a powerful
alternative to Hinduism.36 Dr. Ambedkar reinterpreted Buddhist principles to address contemporary
social concerns and the speci!c needs of his community, leading to the development of what is o"en
termed Navayana ("new vehicle") Buddhism. His in#uential book, The Buddha and His Dhamma,
became a foundational text for this new Buddhist movement.36
While the Ambedkarite movement is the cornerstone of the contemporary revival, other factors also
contributed to a renewed interest in Buddhism in India. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a
nascent interest in Buddhist philosophy and history began to emerge among some Indian
intellectuals. This was partly stimulated by the work of Western Orientalist scholars who translated
and studied ancient Buddhist texts, and by the activities of organizations like the Theosophical Society,
whose leaders like Henry Olco% and !gures like Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka (founder of the
Maha Bodhi Society) worked to restore Buddhist sites like Bodh Gaya.36
Another signi!cant, though later, impetus came from the exile of Tibetan Buddhists, including His
Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, to India following the Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1959.36 The
establishment of Tibetan monastic institutions, cultural centers, and refugee se%lements in India
brought a vibrant, living Buddhist tradition back to its homeland. This not only strengthened Buddhism
in Himalayan regions with existing Buddhist populations (like Ladakh) but also increased the global
visibility of Buddhism and fostered interactions between Tibetan Buddhists and other Indian
communities.39
Furthermore, in recent decades, there has been a growing state interest in promoting India's
Buddhist heritage for cultural diplomacy and spiritual tourism. The Indian government has
recognized the potential of ancient Buddhist sites to a%ract both domestic and international visitors,
leading to investments in the conservation of these sites and the development of Buddhist pilgrimage
circuits.39 International interest and investment, particularly from Buddhist-majority countries like
Japan, have also played a role in the preservation and revitalization of these historical locations.39
For Dr. Ambedkar and his countless followers, the revival of Buddhism was far more than a mere
religious conversion; it was a profound act of social and political emancipation. It represented a
radical rejection of the Hindu caste order, which had subjected them to centuries of indignity and
oppression, and a conscious reclamation of an indigenous Indian spiritual and ethical heritage that
they perceived as inherently egalitarian and rational.36 The choice of Buddhism, a religion that
originated in India, was also strategically signi!cant, allowing Dalits to assert a new identity rooted in
Indian soil while simultaneously breaking free from the shackles of caste Hinduism.
The "reinvention" aspect of this Buddhist revival, particularly in the context of Navayana Buddhism, is
crucial. It is not simply a return to an ancient form of the faith but involves a signi!cant reinterpretation
and adaptation of Buddhist principles to address the contemporary socio-political aspirations and
liberation goals of the Dalit community.36 Ambedkar's interpretation, for instance, emphasized the
social and moral teachings of the Buddha, focusing on issues of justice, equality, and human dignity,
and sometimes downplaying or reinterpreting more metaphysical or monastic aspects of traditional
Buddhism. This has led to the development of a unique Buddhist tradition that is deeply intertwined
with the Dalit struggle for social justice, with Dr. Ambedkar himself o"en revered as a Bodhisa%va or a
modern-day savior !gure by his followers.36 This dynamic and socially engaged form of Buddhism
continues to be a vital force for identity formation and empowerment for millions in India.
Conclusion
The examination of India's social structures, historical movements, and guiding ideologies reveals a
deeply interwoven tapestry where caste, identity, reform, and political mobilization are central threads.
The Varna system laid an ancient foundation for hierarchical social organization, which, in its evolution
into the rigid jati system, engendered profound inequalities and the oppression of communities later
identifying as Dalit. The very de!nition and assertion of 'Dalit' identity, distinct from the constitutional
category of 'Scheduled Castes,' marks a powerful shi" from imposed labels to self-de!ned
empowerment and a call for systemic change.
Dalit revolts and movements, fueled by centuries of socio-economic and religious oppression,
represent an enduring struggle for dignity, equality, and justice. The formation of political entities like
the Bahujan Samaj Party signi!es a strategic e'ort to translate social consciousness into political
power, aiming for broad-based emancipation. Within these struggles, the compounded discrimination
faced by Dalit women highlights the critical intersection of caste and gender, necessitating speci!c
a%ention and the rise of Dalit feminism to articulate their unique challenges and aspirations.
In#uential !gures like Sant Eknath, through the Bhakti movement, o'ered early spiritual critiques of
caste hierarchy by emphasizing direct devotion and inclusivity. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar provided a
comprehensive ideology, Ambedkarism, advocating for the annihilation of caste and the establishment
of social democracy through constitutional means, profoundly shaping Dalit consciousness and
political strategy. The discourse around terms like 'Harijan', introduced by Mahatma Gandhi with
reformist intent, also underscores the complex politics of naming and representation in the context of
social upli"ment, contrasting with Ambedkar's more radical approach to structural transformation.
Broader movements such as the Non-Brahman agitations challenged existing power structures from
di'erent social locations, while Orientalist scholarship, despite its colonial underpinnings, inadvertently
contributed to new intellectual engagements with India's past. The revival of Buddhism, particularly
through Ambedkar's leadership, o'ered a path of socio-religious liberation for Dalits, seeking an
egalitarian alternative to caste-based Hinduism.
The struggles for equality, dignity, and justice, as evidenced by the diverse movements and the
philosophies of key thinkers discussed, are not relics of the past but continue to actively shape
contemporary Indian society and politics. The concepts of hierarchy and resistance, identity formation,
and the pursuit of social transformation explored in this report remain profoundly relevant for
understanding the ongoing challenges and aspirations within India. These are not closed chapters of
history but dynamic, evolving processes, as identities are continually rede!ned, movements adapt to
new contexts, and the quest for a more just, equitable, and humane society persists as a central theme
in the Indian narrative.

Works cited

1. Varna System in India, Meaning, Evolution, UPSC Notes, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://vajiramandravi.com/quest-upsc-notes/varna-system/
2. www.iiste.org, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/HRL/article/download/24700/25303
3. Dalit - Wikipedia, accessed on May 11, 2025, h!ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit
4. nhrc.nic.in, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/"les/Civil%20Rights.pdf
5. The Constitution SC/STS – Indian Anthropology, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://ebooks.in#ibnet.ac.in/antp04/chapter/the-constitution-sc-sts/
6. www.historyjournal.net, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://www.historyjournal.net/article/12/1-1-14-217.pdf
7. History of the Caste System in India - ThoughtCo, accessed on May 11, 2025,
h!ps://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-indias-caste-system-195496
8. Understanding the Dalit Identity: A Sociological Approach ..., accessed on May 11, 2025,