Ambedkar exhorted oppressed people to follow the paths of the Buddha and Guru Nanak, who denied the authority of the Hindu scriptures, and to gather courage to tell the Hindus what was wrong with their religion. He reminded people that the break-up of the caste system would adversely affect the Brahmans, who were synonymous with the intellectual class. ‘The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth). The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu says, “If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is, that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force.”’ It was futile to expect Brahmans to consent to lead a movement that would destroy their caste’s power and prestige. Ambedkar saw no difference between the secular and priestly Brahmans. ‘Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the same body, and one is bound to fight for the existence of the other.’
Brahmanvad was then the main foe. Earlier, this concept was used in the dalit movement to counter the dominance of the upper castes. Broad and abstract, it was unlike the term ‘Manuvad’ that Kanshiram coined subsequently. Manuvad explained how Manu’s code led to the oppression and exploitation of the lower castes, by having chalked out punishments for the lower castes who dared to cross their limits. This term also gave space to the Brahmans and other upper castes, who disapproved of the Manu Samhita and were in favour of the dalit movement, to join his party. Kanshiram did not favour the annihilation of caste, which was Ambedkar’s idea. His understanding of caste in politics stood quite apart from Ambedkar’s, and he declared that just as the Brahmans had for long ruled on the basis of casteism, the dalits would now do the same, seeking to eradicate Brahmanism from society.
Kanshiram understood that in spite of all the efforts made by various saints and gurus and leaders like Phule and Ambedkar, the caste system could not be eradicated and so he came up with the concept of politicizing the caste consciousness of marginalized communities. For this he firstly evoked the memories of the suffering of the dalits by the upper castes and dominant sections of society, and tried to mobilize the lower castes around these memories, and secondly he tried to raise the pride of the lower castes by culling out the caste histories and subversive interpretations of the cultures of each dalit caste, through which they could raise their confidence. He believed that for eradicating casteism like Ambedkar wanted, it was important first to make the lower castes politically influential, for which they had to acquire political power. By politicizing caste consciousness he tried to bring about social transformation and carve an egalitarian society.
The BSP formed the government twice in UP with BJP support, though the latter’s Hindutva ideology had the potential to strengthen Brahmanism. Ostensibly, raising caste consciousness was in the name of Ambedkar, but it was entirely Kanshiram’s brainchild. Thus in UP, to strengthen Ambedkar’s vision, Kanshiram and Mayawati transformed the slogan ‘abolish caste system’ into ‘promote caste system’ to mobilize dalits for the restoration of their caste identity and self-esteem. Kanshiram said:
In 1962–63, when I got the opportunity to read Ambedkar’s book Annihilation of Caste I also felt that it was perhaps possible to eradicate casteism from society. But later, when I studied the caste system and its behaviour in depth, there was a gradual modification in my thoughts. I have not only gained knowledge about caste from the books but from my personal life as well. Those people who migrate in large numbers from their villages to big cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata take no possessions with them but their caste. They leave behind their small huts, land and cattle, etc. in the village and settle in slums, near sewers and railway tracks, with nothing else but their one and only possession—their caste. If people have so much affection for their caste then how can we think of annihilating it? That is why I have stopped thinking about the annihilation of caste.
For Ambedkar, villages were the slaughterhouses of dalits since the Brahmanical forces that oppressed dalits were the strongest there. He has described villages in the following manner:
"The Indian Hindu village is known as a republic and they are proud of its internal structure in which there is no democracy, no equality, no liberty, no fraternity. This is a republic of high castes for high castes. For untouchables, it is the imperialism of the Hindus. It is a colony for the exploitation of the untouchables where there are no rights for them. Service, with timeless patience and passivity, is the fate of the untouchables in this village. They have to either do or die. How polluted is this Hindu slaughter house. This is a fact that can’t be challenged for this fact is its truth."
That is why Ambedkar felt that migration of dalits to big cities would help liberate them from this kind of oppression. Kanshiram, on the other hand, believed that whether dalits migrated from villages or not, caste always remained with them. He believed that until a casteless society was formed, it was necessary for dalits to strategically use their caste as a tool for their own emancipation and to dethrone Brahmanism. The ultimate goal of both Ambedkar and Kanshiram was to form a casteless society. But while Ambedkar felt that inter-caste marriage was a pertinent strategy, Kanshiram felt that first the dalit castes had to acquire self-respect by using their own caste and identity resources which would help them attain status in society. Only then could other kinds of interactions like inter-dining and inter-caste marriages take place. According to Kanshiram, caste was a double-edged sword and he wanted to use it in a way that benefited the bahujans and at the same time destroyed Brahman hegemony.
In an interview published in the 2–8 April 1989 issue of Chauthi Duniya, a weekly newspaper from Delhi, in response to a claim that he was encouraging casteism, Kanshiram said: "The people who want to maintain casteism say that we should not talk about caste. If there is any need to do so, they will do it on our behalf, meaning that we should continue to suffer indignities. We are consolidating people on the basis of their caste so that the caste system can be removed. So it is in the benefit of the people who suffered due to casteism that they come together. Here we are criticizing the oppressors less and the oppressed more. We want them to subvert this feeling of inferiority complex linked with their caste due to Brahminism, and convert it into a matter of pride and in this process we are talking about caste. I tell them we will not tolerate oppression but break the audacity of the tormenters."
Excerpted with permissions from Penguin Books India from the book Kanshiram: Leader of the Dalits by Badri Narayan. Viking, Rs 499.
Brahmanvad was then the main foe. Earlier, this concept was used in the dalit movement to counter the dominance of the upper castes. Broad and abstract, it was unlike the term ‘Manuvad’ that Kanshiram coined subsequently. Manuvad explained how Manu’s code led to the oppression and exploitation of the lower castes, by having chalked out punishments for the lower castes who dared to cross their limits. This term also gave space to the Brahmans and other upper castes, who disapproved of the Manu Samhita and were in favour of the dalit movement, to join his party. Kanshiram did not favour the annihilation of caste, which was Ambedkar’s idea. His understanding of caste in politics stood quite apart from Ambedkar’s, and he declared that just as the Brahmans had for long ruled on the basis of casteism, the dalits would now do the same, seeking to eradicate Brahmanism from society.
Kanshiram understood that in spite of all the efforts made by various saints and gurus and leaders like Phule and Ambedkar, the caste system could not be eradicated and so he came up with the concept of politicizing the caste consciousness of marginalized communities. For this he firstly evoked the memories of the suffering of the dalits by the upper castes and dominant sections of society, and tried to mobilize the lower castes around these memories, and secondly he tried to raise the pride of the lower castes by culling out the caste histories and subversive interpretations of the cultures of each dalit caste, through which they could raise their confidence. He believed that for eradicating casteism like Ambedkar wanted, it was important first to make the lower castes politically influential, for which they had to acquire political power. By politicizing caste consciousness he tried to bring about social transformation and carve an egalitarian society.
The BSP formed the government twice in UP with BJP support, though the latter’s Hindutva ideology had the potential to strengthen Brahmanism. Ostensibly, raising caste consciousness was in the name of Ambedkar, but it was entirely Kanshiram’s brainchild. Thus in UP, to strengthen Ambedkar’s vision, Kanshiram and Mayawati transformed the slogan ‘abolish caste system’ into ‘promote caste system’ to mobilize dalits for the restoration of their caste identity and self-esteem. Kanshiram said:
In 1962–63, when I got the opportunity to read Ambedkar’s book Annihilation of Caste I also felt that it was perhaps possible to eradicate casteism from society. But later, when I studied the caste system and its behaviour in depth, there was a gradual modification in my thoughts. I have not only gained knowledge about caste from the books but from my personal life as well. Those people who migrate in large numbers from their villages to big cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata take no possessions with them but their caste. They leave behind their small huts, land and cattle, etc. in the village and settle in slums, near sewers and railway tracks, with nothing else but their one and only possession—their caste. If people have so much affection for their caste then how can we think of annihilating it? That is why I have stopped thinking about the annihilation of caste.
For Ambedkar, villages were the slaughterhouses of dalits since the Brahmanical forces that oppressed dalits were the strongest there. He has described villages in the following manner:
"The Indian Hindu village is known as a republic and they are proud of its internal structure in which there is no democracy, no equality, no liberty, no fraternity. This is a republic of high castes for high castes. For untouchables, it is the imperialism of the Hindus. It is a colony for the exploitation of the untouchables where there are no rights for them. Service, with timeless patience and passivity, is the fate of the untouchables in this village. They have to either do or die. How polluted is this Hindu slaughter house. This is a fact that can’t be challenged for this fact is its truth."
That is why Ambedkar felt that migration of dalits to big cities would help liberate them from this kind of oppression. Kanshiram, on the other hand, believed that whether dalits migrated from villages or not, caste always remained with them. He believed that until a casteless society was formed, it was necessary for dalits to strategically use their caste as a tool for their own emancipation and to dethrone Brahmanism. The ultimate goal of both Ambedkar and Kanshiram was to form a casteless society. But while Ambedkar felt that inter-caste marriage was a pertinent strategy, Kanshiram felt that first the dalit castes had to acquire self-respect by using their own caste and identity resources which would help them attain status in society. Only then could other kinds of interactions like inter-dining and inter-caste marriages take place. According to Kanshiram, caste was a double-edged sword and he wanted to use it in a way that benefited the bahujans and at the same time destroyed Brahman hegemony.
In an interview published in the 2–8 April 1989 issue of Chauthi Duniya, a weekly newspaper from Delhi, in response to a claim that he was encouraging casteism, Kanshiram said: "The people who want to maintain casteism say that we should not talk about caste. If there is any need to do so, they will do it on our behalf, meaning that we should continue to suffer indignities. We are consolidating people on the basis of their caste so that the caste system can be removed. So it is in the benefit of the people who suffered due to casteism that they come together. Here we are criticizing the oppressors less and the oppressed more. We want them to subvert this feeling of inferiority complex linked with their caste due to Brahminism, and convert it into a matter of pride and in this process we are talking about caste. I tell them we will not tolerate oppression but break the audacity of the tormenters."
Excerpted with permissions from Penguin Books India from the book Kanshiram: Leader of the Dalits by Badri Narayan. Viking, Rs 499.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!