NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND THE DALITS

CONTEXTUALISING CASTE IDENTITY

Dalits in India faced different forms of oppression in the name of caste

system irrespective of the province they belonged. It is also true that at
various points of time people raised voices against exploitation in the name
of caste. One can refer here to Buddhism, Bhakti movements and other anti-
caste egalitarian movements. However, since late nineteenth and early
twentieth century we witness the emergence of organised movements by
Dalits in different provinces of India challenging their given social identity
and also claiming their rights in decision making process. The great revolt of
1857 shook the foundation of the colonial rule and the British bureaucracy
was seriously engaged in devising strategy to prevent any form of discontent
in the local society which may become a threat to the empire. Analysing the
complexities of indigenous society the colonial authority decided to make
use of internal oppression within local society in the name of caste hierarchy.
Along with identification and legitimisation of caste division through official
documentation the colonial government adopted specific measures for the
benefit of the socially oppressed groups. This friendly gesture of the colonial
government aroused aspirations among Dalits to voice their grievances and
with the support of government they wanted to defy the authority of upper
castes. The policy of colonial government to protect the interests of Dalits
and the values of liberty, equality and justice that educated Dalits had learnt
from western education gave birth to a new consciousness among Dalits.
Nineteenth century socio-religious reformers cautioned about social
oppression in the name of caste system but in their criticism they could not
come out with an agenda of action which could win over the confidence of
Dalits. Early nationalists and even their successors were preoccupied with
the oppressive nature of imperialism and their prime concern was to mobilise
Indian public opinion for political liberation of India without giving much
space to the concerns of Dalits. The aspirations of Dalits, independent of
mainstream Indian polity, found expression in the writings of Mahatma Jotiba
Phule (1827-1890) who in modern India first raised voice for the liberation of
Dalits. Phule is considered the first ideologue of anti-caste movement in
modern India. Re-interpreting Indian history and mythology he tried to
demolish the ideological foundation of Brahmanism which he considered the
key of upper caste hegemony. The journey towards nation building can not
be possible so long the oppression continues in the name of caste hierarchy.
In his book Gulamgiri (1873) he described Brahmans as Aryans who came
from outside and subdued the indigenous people who were Shudras and he
gave a call to discard caste. Through his writings and speeches Phule tried to
construct a new history with the help of symbols and local stories situating
Dalits in a powerful position delinking them from the past depicted in the
Dharmashastras and itihasa-purana tradition. Given his understanding of
history Phule was a natural critic of nationalism which he equated with
another form of Brahmanism. He made it clear: ‘There cannot be a ‘nation’
worth the name until and unless all the people of the land of King Bali – such
as Shudras and AtiShudras, Bhils (tribals) and fishermen etc., become truly
educated, and are able to think independently for themselves and are
uniformly unified and emotionally integrated. If a tiny section of the
population like the upstart Aryan Brahmins alone were to found in the
‘National Congress’ who will take any notice of it?’ Phule was critical of the
reform initiatives taken by Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj and
others to rationalise Brahmanical system and strongly argued that without
emancipating the oppressed the reform initiatives ensured domination of
upper castes in other forms. Phule wanted to unite the ‘bahujan samaj’, the
Shudras and the Ati-Shudras. Nationalism was seen by him an ideology
created by upper castes to downplay the internal divisions within Indian
society.

The colonial rule opened up educational and economic opportunities by

making provision of reservation for socially oppressed groups. A small
section of the oppressed people could take advantage of the new
opportunities and became conscious of the exploitation they suffered over
the years. They became vocal about the disabilities imposed over them in
the name of caste hierarchy and took initiatives by mobilising their fellow
caste members to challenge their existing sufferings. Thus in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century in different provinces we find the
sudden growth in writing of caste histories and establishment of caste
associations to assert for new identity as well as protection of the interests of
their respective caste members. The government initiatives of bringing
administrative changes by involving local people through various reform acts
further encouraged the socially oppressed groups to demand for political
rights which they were denied so far. Phule and Ambedkar in Maharashtra, E.
V. Ramaswami Naicker and M. C. Rajah in Tamil Nadu, Narayana Guru in
Kerala, Bhagyareddy Varma in Andhra, Mangu Ram in Punjab, Acchutanand
in Uttar Pradesh, Panchanan Barma, Rasiklal Biswas, Jogen Mandal and
others in Bengal challenged the caste-based discrimination and domination
and were critics of the anti-colonial struggle by the upper caste elites without
abolishing internal oppression in Indian society. The new political awakening
of Dalits is reflected in the writings and activities of Dalit intelligentsia of that
period. Emancipation and empowerment of Dalits became the major concern
of Dalit intelligentsia which was not in the immediate agenda of mainstream
political leaders whose immediate concern was political liberation from
colonial rule.

NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND INTEGRATION OF DALIT ISSUES

As we have explained in the previous section that from the beginning of the
twentieth century the Dalit leadership became very vocal for their rights. It is
generally argued that the policies of the colonial government like the
inclusion of caste status in the census, provision for welfare measures along
caste lines, nomination of Dalits in local bodies, etc. encouraged the Dalit
leadership to assert for social emancipation as well as empowerment. Take
for example the resolution passed in the Central Legislative Assembly in
1928, ‘This assembly recommends to the Governor General in Council to
issue directions to Local Governments to provide special facilities for the
education of the untouchables and other depressed classes, particularly by
reserving seats in teachers’ training classes for them and also for opening all
public services for them’. In its early phase the nationalist leaders engaged
themselves in taking up political and administrative issues rather than
addressing social problems. There was the National Social Conference which
was expected to deliberate on social issues. At individual level the Congress
leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Lala Lajpat Rai were of the opinion
that removal of untouchability and social reform were necessary for national
regeneration. In its annual session at Calcutta in 1917 for the first time
Indian National Congress passed the resolution for abolition of untouchability
and appealed to the people for removing all disabilities imposed by custom
upon Dalits. Emergence of Gandhi brought a significant change in the
character of national movement by bringing masses in the mainstream
national movement. Gandhi was particularly concerned of the sufferings of
Dalits and made the removal of untouchability an integral part for national
liberation. In the Nagpur session of Indian National Congress held in 1920 it
was resolved that

‘…the movement of non-co-operation can only succeed by complete co-

operation amongst the people themselves, this Congress calls upon the
public associations to advance Hindu-Muslim unity and the Hindu delegates
of this Congress to call upon the leading Hindus to settle all disputes
between Brahmins and nonBrahmins wherever they may be existing and to
make a special effort to rid Hinduism of the reproach of untouchability, and
respectfully urges the religious heads to help the growing desire to reform
Hinduism in the matter of its treatment of the suppressed classes.’

Gandhi firmly believed that removal of untouchability was essential to attain

Swaraj and he played a key role in incorporating the removal of
untouchability in the resolution of the non-cooperation. Following the
suspension of noncooperation in 1922 the Congress party workers were
instructed by the party working committee to encourage Dalits to send their
children to national schools, to provide them same facilities as given to other
citizens and also to assist in improving their social and moral condition. As
president of the Belgaum session of the Congress in 1924 Gandhi said that
Hindu Congressmen in particular should devote greater attention to anti-
untouchability movement because the British government was exploiting
Dalits for a political end. In 1924 Gandhi supported the Vaikom Satyagraha
movement organised by the Kerala Congress Committee to secure the rights
of untouchables for using the forbidden roads to the temple. The Congress
Working Committee in its meeting at Delhi in 1929 appointed an Anti-
untouchability sub-committee with Madan Mohan Malaviya as its president
and Jamnalal Bajaj as the secretary to ensure Dalits’ rights to enter temples,
to use public wells, to provide sanitary living and to remove restrictions
which Dalit children were facing in schools. During the course of civil
disobedience movement the campaign for removal of untouchability
continued and Gandhi said that ‘Remember that in Swaraj we would expect
one drawn from the socalled lower class to preside over India’s destiny’.
[Young India, 3 April 1930]. Thus the nationalist leadership was very
concerned with the sufferings of Dalits and made efforts to initiate actions for
securing social justice to Dalits in order to have their support in the
movement against the colonial rule. In the next section we will discuss that
how the nationalist leadership succeeded in persuading Dalit intelligentsia to
accept joint electorate system in place of their demand for separate
electorate system for the larger interest of the nation.

POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION

In the 1920s, when the process was set in for electoral reforms aiming at
making the government more broad based and representative, the issue of
representation of the Dalits created divergent views within the local society.
Among the Dalits at the national level two major identifiable groups emerged
in the late 1920s, one around M.C. Rajah and the other around B.R.
Ambedkar. M.C. Rajah and his associates who dominated the All India
Depressed Classes Association decided not to accept proposals of the Simon
Commission in the absence of separate electorates. They were of the opinion
that joint electorates would return only dummy representatives of the Dalits
backed by upper caste Hindus. However, in the ensuing struggle within the
Dalits to represent them in the proposed round Table Conference in London,
Ambedkar was nominated by the British government to represent the Dalits.
In a bid to check Ambedkar, M.C. Rajah convened an All India Depressed
Classes Leaders special conference in August 1930 at Allahabad. This
conference disowned the resolutions taken at the first session of the All India
Depressed Classes Congress committee under the leadership of Ambedkar
and declared the All India Depressed Classes as the real body. But Rajah,
failing to get the British support in favour of his claim, came close to the
Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was also seriously trying
to get the support of the Dalits so that the unity among Indians remained
strong. Equally anxious were the Hindu Mahasabha leaders to find some way
out to check the disintegration of the Hindus. In this process M.C. Rajah and
B.S. Moonje, president of the Hindu Mahasabha, entered into an agreement
known as the RajahMoonje Pact in 1932, based on the principle of
reservation of seats in joint electorates. Opinions among the Dalits were
divided over the Rajah-Moonje Pact. A section of the Dalits made a statement
that the All India Depressed Classes Association was not representative of
the Dalits in India. They expressed their support in favour of separate
electorate. Ambedkar was very much opposed to the Rajah-Moonje Pact and
stated that the Dalits had repudiated the Pact.

Communal Award

Next important development on the question of ensuring political rights to

Dalits was the announcement of Communal Award by the British
government. The Communal Award gave the Dalits voting right along with
caste Hindus in the general constituencies and also an extra vote in special
‘Depressed Classes’ constituencies numbering 71 for a period of 20 years.
The announcement of Communal Award was considered as clear indication of
widening the rift between the Dalits and caste Hindus posing a serious
challenge to Indian nationalist movement. Gandhi opposing the segregation
of the Dalits into a separate electoral group wrote,

‘So far as Hinduism is concerned separate electorate would simply vivisect

and disrupt it. For me the question of these classes is predominantly moral
and religious….I feel that no penance that caste Hindus may do can, in any
way, compensate for the calculated degradation to which they have
consigned the Depressed Classes for centuries. But I know that separate
electorate is neither penance nor any remedy for the crushing degradation
they have groaned under.’ (CWMG, Vol. LXIX, p. 191).

Gandhi in his letter to the British government informed his decision for going
to fast unto death unless the government withdrew the scheme of separate
electorate for the Dalits. He further explained that he might be wrong in
taking this decision but to him the scheme of separate electorate was
against the interest of the Dalits. Gandhi was supportive of adequate
representation of the Dalits but he was not agreeable to the proposal of
separate electorate. He differed strongly on this matter with the leaders of
the Dalits. The weapon of fast used by Gandhi aroused strong public opinion
and public meetings were organised in different places to bring the caste
Hindus and the Dalits together. Even leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha
appealed to their followers to demonstrate equality in religious and social
matters towards the Dalits. Appeal was also made to the Dalits not to press
for separate electorate. Gandhi confided to his close associates that the
Dalits would fail to understand his decision of fasting when they were
granted some privileges. Ambedkar’s response to Gandhi’s decision of fast
was different and he said, ‘I do not care for these political stunts. This threat
of Mr. Gandhi to starve himself to death is not a moral fight but only a
political move. I can understand a person trying to negotiate with his political
opponents on equal terms but I will never be moved by those methods….If
Mr. Gandhi wants to fight with his life for the interests of the Hindu
community, the depressed Classes will also be forced to fight with their lives
to safeguard their interests.’ The British government saw in Gandhi’s fast a
ploy to coerce the Dalits in accepting the Congress viewpoint.

Poona Pact

The British government justified its action of announcing the Communal

Award on the ground that Indian leaders failed to arrive at an agreement on
the issue of representation of the Dalits in the Round Table Conference. In
the given situation to protect the interests of the Dalits the government had
announced this scheme. But Gandhi’s moral weapon forced various sections
of Indian leaders to work out a compromise formula between the separate
electorate and joint electorate. Gandhi in principle was opposed to
reservation of seats either through joint or separate electorate. But sensing
the prevailing mood of the Dalits, he agreed to accept reservation of seats in
joint electorates. In spite of opposition to Gandhi’s approach to the issue of
representation of the Dalits, Ambedkar agreed to consider Gandhi’s proposal
provided that the scheme guarantees better than the Communal Award.
Ambedkar after meeting Gandhi who was at that time at Yeravda jail got the
assurance of Gandhi that the interest of his community would be safe in the
proposed scheme. Gandhi assured that he would end fast as soon as the
separate electorate was replaced by joint electorate. This softened
Ambedkar’s attitude. After prolonged deliberations between the leaders of
the two groups a formula based on the principle of joint electorate was
devised. In place of 71 seats given by the Communal Award, 148 seats were
reserved for the Dalits in the provincial legislatures. As regards the central
legislature 18 per cent of the total seats meant for general electorate would
be kept for the Dalits. It was also decided that continuance of reservation
would be decided in future by mutual agreement. On 24 September 1932 the
Poona Pact was signed between the leaders of the Dalits and caste Hindus
and the same was sent to the British Prime Minister for acceptance. The
major provisions of the Poona Pact are as follows:

‘There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general
electorates. Seats in the Provincial Legislatures shall be as follows – Madras
30; Bombay with Sind 15; Punjab 8; Bihar and Orissa 18; Central Provinces
20; Assam 7; Bengal 30; United Provinces 20 (Total-148). Election to these
seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following
procedure:

All the members of the Depressed Classes, registered in the general electoral
roll in a constituency, will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of
four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such
reserved seats by the method of the single vote; the four persons getting the
highest number of votes in such primary election shall be candidates for
election by the general electorate.

Representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall

likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by the
method of primary election in the manner provided for in clause 2 above for
their representation in Provincial Legislatures.

In the Central legislature eighteen per cent of the seats allotted to the
general electorate for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for
the Depressed Classes.’
At a conference of the Hindu leaders in Bombay to ratify the Poona Pact
Ambedkar said,

‘I was immensely surprised that there was so much in common between Mr.
Gandhi and myself….My only regret is why did not Mr. Gandhi take the
attitude he took now at the Round Table Conference. If he had shown some
consideration and the same attitude as he took now, I think it would not have
been necessary for him to undergo the ordeal.’ (The Times of India, 26
September 1932).

In the same conference the president made a resolution in the following

words:

‘This Conference resolves that henceforth amongst Hindus no one shall be

regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth and that those who have
been so regarded hitherto will have the same rights as other Hindus in
regard to the use of public wells, public schools, public roads, and all public
institutions. These rights shall have statutory recognition at the first
opportunity and shall be one of the earliest acts of the Swaraj Parliament, if it
shall not have received such recognition before that time.’

‘It is further agreed that it shall be the duty of all Hindu leaders to secure, by
every legitimate and peaceful means, an early removal of all social
disabilities now imposed by caste-men upon the so-called untouchable
classes including the bar in respect of admission to temples.’ (The Times of
India, 26 September 1932).

As promised Gandhi ended his fast after the signing of the pact. He found in
this victory of his political and social goals. This further encouraged him to
carry forward his movement for social equality. The promise of a large
number of seats for the Dalits aroused the hope of strong voice of the Dalits
in public life.

To Ambedkar rights of the Dalits were most important compared to political

independence, whereas Gandhi was fighting a two-pronged battle, one for
India’s independence, the other for maintaining the cohesiveness of Hindu
society. Gandhi explained the essence of the settlement in the following
words:

‘The settlement is but the beginning of the end. The political part of it, very
important though it no doubt is, occupies but a small space in the vast field
of reform that has to be tackled by caste Hindus during the coming days,
namely, the complete removal of social and religious disabilities under which
a large part of the Hindu population has been groaning. I should be guilty of
a breach of trust if I did not warn fellow reformers and caste Hindus in
general that the breaking of the fast carried with it a sure promise of
resumption of it if this reform is not relentlessly pursued and achieved within
a measurable period….the message of freedom shall penetrate every
untouchable home and that can only happen if reformers will cover every
village.’ (CWMG, Vol. LI).

After Poona Pact

Apart from the importance ensured by the Poona Pact in representing Dalits
in decision making process, it was proclaimed in the Poona Pact that one of
the earliest legislations in free India would be to provide for the statutory
recognition of equal rights for Dalits. In 1932 the Harijan Sevak Sangh was
founded and next year it started a mouthpiece called Harijan. Removal of
disabilities of Dalits through constructive programme of social, educational
and material development of Dalits was the objective of the Harijan Sevak
Sangh. Securing the entry of Dalits in temples as equal citizens was the other
major agenda of the Harijan Sevak Sangh. Although Gandhi succeeded in
drawing large number of people to the Harijan movement but there was also
reservation within the Congress towards Harijan movement. There was also
opposition to the legislation for temple entry and removal of untouchability.
Seeing the opposition to the passage of antiuntouchability legislations
Gandhi observed three weeks fast in 1933. Gandhi travelled various parts of
country during 1933-1934 to create awareness among people for temple
entry and removal of untouchability. In some places Gandhi faced bitter
opposition from orthodox people. The joint electorate and the harijan
movement definitely succeeded in making an impact in society in general
and the massive victory of the Congress candidates from reserved
constituencies in the general election of 1937 may be considered as
indication of this impact.

DALITS’ PERSPECTIVE ON NATIONAL MOVEMENT

Efforts made by leaders of nationalist movement succeeded in bringing a

section of Dalit leadership in the fold of national movement besides the
participation of Dalit masses in various popular movements against the
colonial rule. But majority of Dalit intelligentsia was critical of the lack of
commitment on the part of the Congress to share power with Dalits and
expressed serious doubt about the commitment of upper caste leadership to
bring social equality. The best example of this was Ambedkar’s book he
wrote in 1945, titled ‘What Congress and Gandhi had done to Untouchables’.
Ambedkar was so much concerned about oppression and exploitation faced
by Dalits that any form of struggle without referring to the abolition of
internal oppression had no importance to him. To Ambedkar, without
ensuring equal rights of Dalits political freedom had no meaning. Gaining
political freedom from the British was not adequate to him unless the
struggle for freedom ensured the dignity of life and equal rights to all its
citizens. Ambedkar said, ‘the freedom which the governing class in India was
struggling for is freedom that rules the servile classes in India’. He wrote:

‘Words such as society, nation and country are just amorphous, if not
ambiguous, terms….Nation though one word means many classes.
Philosophically it may be possible to consider a nation as a unit but
sociologically it cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes and
the freedom of the nation if it is to be a reality must vouchsafe the freedom
of the different classes comprised in it, particularly those who are treated as
the servile classes.’ [BAWS, VOL.9, PP. 201-2].

‘I am sure, many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be
given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of
the majority under the Swaraj Constitution it was the Depressed Classes.
Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the
struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of
providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for
ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the
high-caste-Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of
living open to it. Nor are all ways closed by reason of the social prejudices of
the Hindus but there is a definite attempt all throughout the Hindu society to
bolt every possible door so as not to allow the Depressed Classes any
opportunity to rise in the scale of life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration
to say that in every village the caste-Hindus, however divided among
themselves, are always in a standing conspiracy to put down in a merciless
manner any attempt on the part of the Depressed Classes who form a small
and scattered body of an ordinary Indian citizen.’ [BAWS, vol.9, p. 311].

‘We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can, and we
cannot remove them unless we get political power in our own hands. No
share of this political power can evidently come to us so long as the British
government remains as it is. It is only in a Swaraj constitution that we stand
any chance of getting the political power in our own hands, without which we
cannot bring salvation to our people. [BAWS, v.2, pp.503-06].
In the high noon of India’s struggle for freedom Dalit intelligentsia in a big
way expressed its support to the British government on the ground that the
upper caste Hindu leaders were not inclined to share power with Dalits. They
felt that, without social revolution giving equality to Dalits, change in political
leadership would further strengthen the hold of the upper castes over Dalits.
Analysing Dalit movements in Maharashtra, Andhra and Karnataka Gail
Omvedt has observed that ‘…the Dalit movement and the overall radical
anti-caste movements were a crucial expression of the democratic revolution
in India, more consistently democratic – and in the end more consistently
“nationalistic” – than the elitecontrolled Indian National Congress.’ [Gail
Omvedt, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution, p.16].

Valerian Rodrigues argued that ‘irrespective of their other differences,

dalitbahujan thinkers conceive the nation as a good society where its
members, considered as individuals or collectivities, respect one another,
protect mutual rights and show concern and solidarity. Self-respecters,
therefore, felt that as long as there is the existence of untouchability, all talk
of freedom and self-rule is empty. Periyar argued that the liberation of the
Shudra was contingent on, and would be complete only with the liberation of
the Panchama’. [Valerian Rodrigues, Dalit-Bahujan Discourse, Critical Quest,
Delhi, 2008, pp. 24-25]

What is important to note in this context is that strong advocacy of Dalit

intelligentsia for giving primacy to their socio-economic and political rights
and not to anti-colonial struggle was primarily rooted in their experiences of
living in an unjust society. Their notion of nationhood was based on abolition
of existing inequalities and also having equal rights in every sphere of life. To
the mainstream nationalist leaders uniting Indians against the atrocities of
the colonial rule and to compel the British to leave India was the major goal
before the nation. It is also important to note that Dalits were not a
homogenous group and there were differences at various levels within the
Dalit leadership and in many popular revolts like Tebhaga movement in
Bengal Dalit masses in large numbers took part in movement against the
wishes of their caste elders.