aste prejudices and discrimination against Dalits are a social fact of Indian society.
Dalits have suffered social exclusion based on caste since time immemorial. Because of prejudice and social exclusion they
have not been allocated a legitimate place in the Hindu social order and have been reduced as an appendage to the Hindu society.
Even today Dalits suffer from crude forms of humiliation, stigmatization, and exclusion, specifically in the villages of India
. This is evident from the number of facts. For instance they still live in their separate settlements, perform defiling and
stigmatized occupations, are addressed contemptuously, abused, and ridiculed routinely, and suffer from numerous types of
physical atrocities. The social exclusion of Dalits although not absent in Urban India yet its intensity and nature is different.
It is subtle and sophisticated and detailed inquiry of such types of exclusions is long pending.
When Dalits in general are treated in such contemptuous manner then the women of the Dalit community are
naturally more vulnerable. That is why it has been argued that Dalit women are triply exploited that is on the basis of caste,
class and gender. It is in this context of Indian society we have tried in this paper to evaluate the structural location
and treatment meted out to Dalit women in general. This paper tries to understand the existing prejudice in the society against
Dalit women which in a way gets articulated by the atrocities committed on them by the so-called upper castes. This prejudice
got manifested also in the way caste-ist remarks were hurled by the leader of a dominant caste at Mayawati- who is emerging
a Dalit icon in spite of existing structural hurdles in a hierarchically arranged society. We have analyzed this issue in
detail in the paper. The paper also deals with the facts and events because of which Mayawati has successfully become an icon
of the Dalit society. Further we have explored that how she has deconstructed many established images of Dalit and general
caste women?
In the end this paper raises three main issues. One, why at all a leader of a dominant caste ridiculed Km. Mayawati with
caste-ist remarks who is now recognized as one of the most powerful women of the world? Secondly, we have tried to understand
why Indian media has failed to appreciate her achievements in full glory. Thirdly, why has Indian women’s movement does
not accept Mayawati as part and parcel of Indian women movement and defend her from onslaught of media and prejudices of caste
in the male dominated society? Before we come to the main theme of the paper let us understand in what sense the term
Dalit has been usedDefining the term Dalit
Lots of confusion prevails regarding definition of the term Dalits in the sociological literature. Therefore
it is necessary to define the term at the out set. The Dalits in the annals of Indian history were addressed with different
nomenclatures like-Chandalas, Avarnas, Achhuts, Namashudra, Parihas, Adi-Dravida, Ad-Dharmis, Depressed Classes, Oppressed
Hindus, Harijans etc. at different point in time. But especially after the emergence of Dalit Panther’s movement in
1970s in Maharashtra they preferred to be called as Dalits. The definition of Dalits as propounded by Dalit Panthers was a
class definition as they included members of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), the land-less and poor peasants,
Women and all those who were exploited politically, economically and in the name of religion (Murugkar 1991: 237). The term
has both negative and positive connotation. Some Dalits associate themselves with negative and more objective situation of
the Dalits that is of exploited and excluded community. On the other hand many Dalits have asserted that the term Dalit is
symbol of assertion and ‘Dalitness’ is a source of confrontation. It is a matter of appreciating the probability
of one’s total being (Murugkar 1991: 54). Here a point should be noted that it was political compulsion of the Panther’s
that forced them to propound such a definition of a group, which never existed before, as they wanted to forge an alliance
between these aforesaid groups so that they can get maximum support from these groups. But sociologically this definition
cannot be sustained, as each group that is Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, landless and poor peasants and women is different
from the other.
Their unique construction of consciousness, which is anchored
in their structural location and social exclusion.
Based on the above elements of structural location, social exclusion and construction of consciousness we
can argue that the Dalits are different from Scheduled Tribes (STs), Women and poor persons belonging to caste Hindus that
were included in the definition of the Dalits given by the Dalit Panthers.
The logical question then would be how are Dalits different from other groups? At the out set economically
poor person is different from the Dalits because he (or the group of economically poor persons) may be deprived in economic
spheres especially in terms of income necessary to participate in the economy. But he may not be necessarily deprived in social
and cultural spheres i.e. he may not face the same type of exclusion in the social and cultural life either in his neighborhood
or in the society at large as Dalits face. For instance penury stricken Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra are never forced
to live out side the boundaries of the main village. They interact within themselves at least in secular realms on more or
less equal terms. Contrary to this the Dalits were excluded form the main residential areas of the village and were also kept
out side the interaction pattern of the social life. Similarly, although a penury stricken Brahmin begs but has power to give
blessings. Richest of rich may go to Kahi and Haidwar and bow down in the feet of poorest of the poor Brahmin. On the other
hand although a Dalit with his hard labor cleans shoe, lifts the dead animal or toilet yet he is looked down upon Hence we
can argue that a poor may be economically or politically deprived or may be in both but he is never excluded from the social
and cultural spheres. But an ex-untouchable is deprived in all the three -social, economic and political realms. And therefore
Oommen has rightly pointed out, "If proletarian consciousness is essentially rooted in material deprivations… Dalit
consciousness is a complex and compound consciousness which encapsulates deprivations stemming from inhuman conditions of
material existence, powerlessness and ideological hegemony" (Oommen 1990:256).
The social exclusion of an ex-untouchable is so overpowering that even though he attains economic and political
mobility or even goes beyond the national boundaries through his hard labor, he is not accepted by the castes located higher
up in the caste hierarchy as an equal. His social identity remains stigmatized and his achievements are basically associated
with that social identity. Few examples in this regard can make the fact clearer. One, it is a fact that as soon K.R. Narayanan
became the president of India in spite his high educational achievements and political experience, every one tried to evaluate
his ascendance to presidential post only on the basis of his caste identity. Most of them argued the Narayanan was elevated
to the post of president because he belonged to Dalit community (Kumar 2007 b). Secondly, if we take the Dalit Diaspora as
another example the issue of social exclusion of Dalits becomes further clear. It is true that amongst Indian Diaspora, "that
caste was increasingly an aspect of culture rather than social stratification per say…[however] the stigma of caste
did not die out completely" (Jain 2003, Kumar: 2004). Jain (2003:74) makes amply clear how the caste stigma exists with the
Dalits even though they have transcended the national boundaries. In his own words, "Women of high caste married to low caste
men…looked down upon their husbands …and even told their children how their fathers were of a lower caste than
them" (ibid). The caste stigma and consciousness haunts the Dalits in Diaspora in spite of their economic mobility, whenever
they visit o their ancestral village. The villagers still looked down upon them.
Another impact of social exclusion on Dalits is that the loss of ‘social capital’ that could
give them the potential to develop consciousness and motivation for their amelioration. Moreover, because of lack of this
consciousness, they could not revolt against the existing unequal Hindu Social Order for long. Their culturalco-option in
the Hindu Social Order, even though they were formally not the part of Varna hierarchy, was affected by the artificial
consensus. The artificial consensus was of course part of Hindu hegemony legitimized by the Karma theory, which makes people
believe in the deeds of previous births determining one’s status in the present.
Further, who can deny the differences between Dalits (ex-untouchables) and Tribals? Tribals are not a part
of Hindu social order. Although few sociologists have tried to include Tribes in Hindu social order, by calling them as backward
Hindus (Ghurey 1963). Moreover, the theory of Tribe-Caste continuum, which argues that there are certain castes and tribes
which have substantially retained some attributes or characteristics of tribes and vice versa (Ram 2007: 23-24). However it
is difficult to accept both these explanations because the traits or characteristics commonly present in them may be because
of diffusion not because any continuum. There is no shared life situation and interaction between tribes and Dalits and there
is no consciousness of presence of each other. Therefore mere presence of common traits between the two groups does not make
them member of the same society. That is why it is difficult to accept the tribals as a part of Dalits. As the tribes have
their own independent social system with its stratification, deity, family, kinship etc. they did not face the same type of
social exclusion, atrocities and violence as the Dalits. Their exclusion was more because of their geographical location in
the hilly or forested terrain. On the whole, Tribals differed from Dalits in political, religious, economic and psychological
aspects. These aspects have kept them away from the Hindu hegemony in terms of their status in the caste hierarchy, occupation,
commensality etc. In addition, this differentiation from the Hindu social order has resulted in a different type of construction
of consciousness among the Tribals and therefore, unlike the Dalits, they revolted against their exploiters a number of times
in the past. Consequently because of differences in their structural location, social exclusion and construction of consciousness
from the Dalits we cannot include them in defining the Dalits.
Women also cannot form a part of the category of Dalits as propounded by the Dalit Panthers. The reasons
are very clear. One, women in Indian society, no doubt exploited on the gender and class basis, do not constitute a monolithic
whole. There is differentiation among the Indian women on caste lines as well. For instance, the women belonging to the castes
located in the upper echelons of the caste hierarchy have the same attitude toward the Dalits as their male counterparts.
They practice untouchability in the same manner, as any caste Hindu male would do. Secondly, general caste women have never
revolted or organized any movement against the exploitation of the Dalit woman and men by Hindu caste men. Not only that,
they have also not launched a decisive movement against the exploitative Hindu religious sanctions for them. On the contrary
most the so-called upper caste women feel proud of their structural location and cultural heritage. Hence, how can we differentiate
caste Hindu women with Hindu men and include them in the category of Dalits (Kumar: 2005, Kumar: 2007 b).
Based on the afore-discussed social facts, the term Dalit can be used for ex-untouchables in the contemporary social science
parlance. Now, here a paradoxical situation merges. The paradox is that the Dalits who were never accepted by the caste Hindus
as the part of the their society, at least in the ‘book view’ are now being accepted by the caste Hindus as their
part and parcel. Caste Hindus justification that Dalits are part of Hindu social order cone only from the fact that there
are number of cultural traits which are common to both Dalits and caste Hindus. However this preposition is not sustainable.
As Ambedkar has emphasized long back that the cultural traits found in two different communities may be because of process
of difussionism and not necessarily as a part of each other. On the other hand the Dalits claim an independent status of a
separate community from Hinduism. Consequently, Dalits can claim their separate and independent status from the Hindu social
order on the basis of three characteristics viz. structural location, social exclusion, and unique construction of consciousness.
In this social exclusion of the Dalits assumes more significance than economic and political exclusion, as we have seen earlier.
This sociological conceptualization of he Dalits is necessary because only then we can draw exact contours of a social group
that is useful for analytical purposes, in researches, without confusing it with other social groups. Structural Location
and Status of Dalit women
At the outset Dalit women is located at the lowest ebb of the caste hierarchy. That is why she is triply
exploited in terms of caste, class and gender. It is because of this structural location the Dalit woman was accorded statuses
like- Devadasi, Dai (midwife), Dayan (witch) etc. It will be worth mentioning the wretched condition of the
Dalit women in the different aspect of the Indian society here.
Analyzing the exploited situation of Dalit women Omvedt argues that, "the Dalit girls were dedicated to the
goddess Yellama/Renuka…Following this ‘marriage to the god’ most of the girls remained in their own village;
they were considered accessible to any men but at the same time not bound to or polluted by sexual relations…These girls
were as ‘Murali’ and among Mahars, ‘Matangi’ among the Madigas and ‘Basavi’ among Holeyas…whatever
the ‘matriarchal’ or ‘matrilineal’ remnants that can be seen in the custom, by late feudal times it
also helped to institutionalize the sexual accessibility of the Dalit women for higher caste men (Omvedt 1994:72). Vijayshree
(2004) explains the prevalence of custom of Devadasi among Dalits. She argues that because of the existential condition of
Devadasis- Sule/Sami customs in the Telugu speaking area, Jogin or Basavi in Andhra and Karnataka calls them as ‘Outcaste
sacred prostitutes’. There was no ritual space for them and marginalization was more starkly signified through the imposition
of beginning as they were not granted land rights, she opines. Further, she explains that outcaste Devdasis were forced to
dance during funeral procession and were forced into prostitution as they had no alternative way of earning once they were
out of their youth (ibid).
Bhriggs has also highlighted the vulnerable condition of Dalit women in his study of Chamars- an untouchable
caste of North India . He wrote in 1920s that, "There are other social customs, more or less objected to but often allowed
and not considered wrong, which are gradually disappearing under modern conditions. Such are the jus prima noctics of landlords
and gurus. The Zamindar often has liberties with Chamar’s wife in consideration of his payments to the Chamar. The Sais
’s wife gives immoral services where her husband is employed in the towns or cities" (Briggs 1920:43). Further in Tamil
Nadu Rudolph & Rudolph (1987:39) have also revealed the pathetic condition of Shanan women in the area. They argued that
a riot broke out in 1858 when Shanan women emulated to cover their breasts like locally dominant Nair caste. The next year,
Sir Charles Terevelyan, the governor of madras, granted them permission to wear a cloth over their breasts and shoulders.
The hegemony on the Dalit women has been so overpowering that even as late as 2002, Arun (2007) while doing his field work
among the Paraiyars-a Dalit caste of Tamil Nadu, reported that the older Paraiyar women do not wear blouse and Sandals in
front of higher castes of the village.
Apart for this look at the occupations of the Dalit women. From cleaning of human excreta to helping women
of every caste in her delivery she performs unique occupation in which women of other castes do not perform. For instance
at every household birth, especially in the villages the Dalit women performs the role of Dai (midwife). According
to pinto (2006: 214)," …this work…involves tasks which others (including, usually, the persons who delivered the
baby) do not perform: cutting the umbilical cord, removing trash and offal, rubbing the baby with dirt, massaging the baby
and mother, and bathing the infant…These women remove pollution from home by removal of trash" . In certain areas the
Dalit women clean human excreta on their heads just for few Chapatis a day or she collects the Joothan (left
over) from some party organized at her client’s house (Valmiki 2003).
Along with the aforesaid exploitation and discrimination of the Dalit women is also victim of societal ridicule
in the society at large. Look at the following examples:
