The
exact meaning of the word “DALIT” is ‘ground down’, or ‘broken to pieces’ in
both the Marathi and Hindi language
Academic Ref: Anupama Rao, Representing Dalit
selfhood
The word ‘DALIT” is
used as an adjective and a noun, derived from the
verb, ‘dalan’ meaning ‘oppression’ but today, it is often
incorrectly used as a noun to label only the historically Avarna Untouchable
communities or the 'Scheduled Castes' . In it's proper context (and according to the above definition), the word dalit is used to describe:
ANY continually
suppressed or down-trodden PERSON, mentally crushed and broken to pieces, who most
likely would be a woman, minor, widow, divorcee, orphan, disabled person,
labourer, a person from SC-ST, OBC or ANY other oppressed minority
group.
i.e, NOT JUST a
person who is from what is termed the untouchable community.
Dalit, a broken continually
suppressed victim of atrocities, could theoretically be a Brahmin who has been (and still is)
grounded and unfairly treated in an inhumane way.
(NOT that it will change the above meaning of the words ‘dalit’ and ‘dalan’, it is said that these words are derived from ‘dal’. ‘Dal’ means ‘a group’).
The 'Dalit Panthers', in their constitution, state that Dalits are all oppressed people including workers, women and the landless.
DALIT (AS A NOUN):
As far as annihilation of caste is concerned, when the word “Dalit” is used as a noun, it is damaging to the crucial SC (Scheduled Castes) identity. "Crucial" because the SC identity is the only identity that categorically proves Avarna "untouchable" are not Hindus and that they never belonged to what is commonly seen as the Hindu Dharma a.k.a. Hinduism
The term "Scheduled Castes"
MUST be understood and read as: "Scheduled Occupations" or as,
"scheduled unrepresented communities", NOT as jatis.
The legally scheduled 'castes' do not
include all ex-untouchable communities. To say or imply that "Dalit is a replacement
for Scheduled Castes" is NOT RIGHT but to say "Scheduled
Castes and other ex-untouchable Avarnas WERE dalits" is
acceptable.
Therefore, if assertion of identity is the aim, people from ex-untouchable communities should unite as SCs (or aim to be included in the list the SCHEDULED castes) and not as Dalits.
DALIT (AS AN ADJECTIVE):
Even as an ADJECTIVE (describing word),
for example as in dalit President, dalit intellectual etc, using the word dalit
doesn't compute well, for then, these terms would mean crushed /grounded
President or a mentally broken to pieces intellectual.
DALIT (Re LEGAL REPRESENTATION)
Using the word "Dalit" for
Castes (community occupations) that were scheduled for representation is also
damaging in reference to legal representation and annihilation of jatis.
Propagating dalit /dalitness to
exclusively represent SCs, the EX-untouchables, is counter-productive to the
original idea of compiling this schedule. This could be intentional or
unintentional, depending on whether one wants to propagate or annihilate the jati system, inaccurately called the caste system (Read the article, "understanding and meaning of the word caste"). It
is counter-productive because the route, Identity-less DALIT
UNTOUCHABLE --> SC Identity (that Babasaheb Dr Ambedkar so
tirelessly worked towards) is in total opposition to the route, SC-->
DALIT UNTOUCHABLE, the later currently being tirelessly worked
toward.
Neither should the word "Dalit" be used as a replacement word for the already senseless term "low/er Jatis/castes" because the "Scheduled Castes" are OCCUPATIONS (not jatis) that the identity-less people of India engaged in. People from these occupations were jatiless and religionless. Having no legal identity meant having NO OPPORTUNITY TO LEGALLY REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.
THE PSEUDO-DALITS
These are people who are not really dalits (as per the definition of “dalit”) but those who simply refer to themselves as dalits, creating a new socio-political identity in the false hope of political unity.
Many Pseudo-dalit academics and entrepreneurs are anti 'caste discrimination' activists but NOT Anti 'Caste' activists.
NOTE: Since in
foreign cultures there is no equivalent word or system to represent the jati system (except
those sprouting from the culture of the Indian subcontinent), it is not
wise to use a European/foreign word to use as a substitute for
the word jati.
The sociologist G. S. Ghurye wrote
in 1932 that, despite much study by many people,
we do not possess a real general definition of caste. It appears to me that any attempt at definition is bound to fail because of the complexity of the phenomenon. On the other hand, much literature on the subject is marred by lack of precision about the use of the term.
Therefore, it would be more
accurate and make more sense to simply use the word ‘jati’ instead
of caste.
JATI, in the Pali Language
means BIRTH; defined in Hindi-English science dictionaries as SPECIES. The
word JATI is an actual biological term, used in biology lessons when teaching
classification of living things in Hindi medium schools.
Using the word ‘Dalit’ to EXCLUSIVELY label the SCs and/or other Avarna ex-Untouchables is counter productive to annihilation of jati/varna, the dream of the 'Father of Modern India', Babasaheb Dr B.R Ambedkar and other great Indians.
Dalitness is more and more being accepted as something which means, related to
"LOW/EST JATI/S" whereas we know that SCs had no jatis.
Thus, the word ‘dalit’, as it is
normally used, is a hinderance to Annihilation of jatis. A “Dalit” is commonly
perceived as someone belonging to a “low” jati (or an untouchable).
THIS IMPLIES THAT:
The
person who calls her/himself a ‘dalit’ (actually a Pseudo Dalit), hasn’t
given up or isn’t ready to give up his/her jati identity and therefore,
annihilation of the CONCEPT of jati becomes IMPOSSIBLE, amongst the Scheduled Castes.
To annihilate the concept of
jati, the victims foremost MUST understand that:
- Strictly speaking, no-one really has or ever had a jati as it is perceived. The literal meaning of jati is SPECIES. Their ancestors were MADE TO BELIEVE that they belonged to a particular jati/species
- The Avarna Untouchables were NOT CONSIDERED to belong to the human jati/species at all and therefore fell outside the Varna system too. They weren’t even worth keeping as slaves, for then, there would be that risk of touching the forbidden species.
- There is NO useful purpose in modern society to classify any Homo sapien as belonging to any particular jati/species UNLESS one professes to belong to the dominant oppressing ‘jatis’/species which are commonly but unethically referred to as the higher jatis/castes.
I find it difficult to understand how
and why Indian academicians have managed to overlook these fundamentals
of annihilation of jati /caste (Maybe this is what they themselves don't want). These fundamentals are etched in the preamble to the
Indian constitution and all Indian citizens should aspire to work towards Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity and justice for all. This is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in a
society which classifies its citizens into jatis (different
species) and Varnas, collectively known as castes.
So the priority for a true Indian
becomes: annihilation of the CONCEPT of jati but a
"dalit" will never be able to do that because this idea (of aoc) is unlikely
to enter her/his mind as s/he is most likely, subconsciously attached to the
jati that was forced on them.
One must also realise that in
reality no person is an untouchable. If you really want to, you are able to
touch any person with consent. People are untouchables only in the sick minds
of those who consider themselves as the touchables.
Question for the Pseudo-Dalits:
Can there be ‘dalits’ as is
commonly understood, if there are no jaatis?
CAMPAIGN against the use of the word
‘dalit’ EXCLUSIVELY for the scheduled castes (or exclusively for all
“ex-untouchables” including Muslims and Christians):
For the English speakers, to
realise the abusive, derogatory and casteist nature of the use of the word
‘dalit’ when exclusively reserved to label a certain section of society,
replace it with any of its English equivalents; broken to small pieces,
crushed, grounded, depressed, suppressed, oppressed, downtrodden victims of
atrocities.
Being referred to as a dalit is a
constant reminder of ones past ensuring the stigma isn’t removed.
IF: A PERSON (OR A COMMUNITY) HAS
BEEN, IN THE PAST CONTINUALLY OPPRESSED /ROBBED /RAPED /VICTIMIZED
/CRUSHED /CURSED /GROUNDED /BROKEN TO PIECES.
THEN: MODERN SOCIETY
WOULD NEVER PERMANENTLY LABEL THAT PERSON (OR THAT COMMUNITY) AS.. THE OPPRESSED, THE ROBBED, THE
RAPED, THE VICTIMISED, THE CRUSHED / THE CURSED /THE GROUNDED / THE BROKEN ETC.
SO, WHY ATTEMPT TO
GLUE THE “DALIT” LABEL PERMANENTLY ON THOSE WHO
WERE (OR WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE) ONCE GROUNDED MENTALLY BROKEN
AND CRUSHED VICTIMS OF ATROCITIES.
Call them dalits if they
really are still dalits, the grounded mentally broken to pieces victims.
Should the word “dalit” be used
or not?
It really depends on who you are
referring to when using that word. It can clearly be used in some cases,
otherwise that word wouldn’t exist.
Regardless of what it means, it is
wrong to use ANY LABEL to refer to people from the so-called lower
castes, other than what is constitutionally allowed and recommended by the
pioneers of annihilation of jatis and untouchability, including Dr
Ambedkar. He too was, rightly against re-labeling the then so-called
untouchables as Harijans.
This is just ONE of the many reasons why
Dr Ambedkar objected to Mr Gandhi’s use of the word “Harijan”
Poison cannot be changed to nectar by a mere change of label. (Dr. B. R. Ambedkar)
By using ANY other word,
whether Harijan or Dalit, to permanently tag these people, you are simply
re-labelling them as permanently belonging to the so called ”low castes” or
untouchables. This is a hinderance to annihilation of caste and Mr Gandhi knew that..
-Period.
Yes, the word “Dalit” is
unwisely, albeit unknowingly, casually used even by many ‘hardcore’ human
rights activists when refering to people who they consider belong to any
ex-untouchable community, scheduled or not.
Most academicians, for various
reasons (assigning of a political identity being one of them), prefer
to use A word and very conveniently (for them) use ‘dalit’,
not realizing that by doing so they are falling in the casteist’s trap that
hinders AOJ (Annihilation of Jati). This must stop. Otherwise they end up doing
the dirty work on behalf of casteist manuvadis who very cleverly promote
Manuism, serving the Brahminvad Agenda.
Until, the historically
deprived groups STOP REFERRING TO THEMSELVES as dalits, the manu-stream
media will carry on with this Neuro Linguistic brainwashing that vehemently
promotes dalitism/harjanism/untouchablization.
So, a Dalit should not be
considered as a label for any person from any particular group /jati
/caste. It can, on occasions, be used to describe those who actually are
depressed, mentally broken, oppressed, grounded, crushed etc.
Statements such as, “Mr so and so fought for the rights of dalits” could be used AS LONG AS the listener/reader understands that the word ‘DALIT” is used to describe:
ANY continually suppressed and downtrodden PERSON, mentally crushed and broken, who most likely would be a woman, minor, widow, divorcee, orphan, disabled person, labourer, a person from SC, ST , OBC or any other oppressed minority group.
I.e. Not just a person from so called low castes and "untouchable" communitied.
A dalit, a continually suppressed victim of atrocities, could theoretically be a Brahmin who has systematically been treated in an inhumane way for a considerable period of time.
ONLY if a dalit is understood as such,
can we really say that a person fought for the rights of dalits (ALL dalits).
Not just for the rights of SCs.
Terms like Dalit-writer should also be
avoided.
Does a “dalit writer” mean: A
person who writes about dalits, the oppressed?
OR: A writer who
himself is a dalit? i.e a mentally crushed and broken depressed and
suppressed victim of continual oppression.
A slave in shackles cannot save other
slaves from slavery. Only a person who is free can do
that. It is noble to fight on behalf of those who are still dalits. But
untruthfully and unnecessarily calling yourself a dalit is a hindrance to
annihilation of the concept of Jati/caste.
ANNIHILATE THE CONCEPT OF JATI/ CASTE. A
self-made dalit will NEVER be able to do that for..
SLAVES
WHO LOVE THE SMELL OF THEIR CHAINS CAN NEVER THEMSELVES BE FREE.
Today a so-called
untouchable can quite easily become a touchable by simply coming out of the
Hindu-fold and is therefore better placed than a pseudo-dalit who calls
her/himself a dalit since, a self declared dalit is more likely to remain a
dalit all her/his life.
Author: Shekhar
Bodhakar
=================
COMMENTS:
From IIBS (Indian Institute of Buddhist Studies)
I Agree Sir,
I define the root problem as below:
Casteless and Equality based Buddhism given by Babasaheb Dr B.R Ambedkar is the solution but the BIGGEST problem is:
"The Proud Dalit Identity and Theory" playing an important and active role in..
OPPOSING the Transformation
FROM "Schedule Castes Identity & Theory"
TO "Buddhist Identity and Theory".
I must say if we don't hit the root cause then we will be too late. Green Snakes in Green Grass are the Proud Dalit Identity and Theory propagators. They are killing 'Annihilation of Caste' and Prabuddha (Enlightened) India Mission.
- Pravin Bhalesain
=================
ALSO READ:
2. WHY did Dr.
Ambedkar say, "Gandhi is the greatest enemy of the untouchables"?
4. Why should Hindu
Identity be given up?
5.When will another Dalit leader like Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar rise?
No comments:
Post a Comment