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 an adjective, derived from the verb, ‘dalan’ meaning ‘oppression’ (but is often incorrectly used as a noun) and is, in proper context, 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, laborer, 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.
A dalit, a continually suppressed victim of atrocities, could be a Brahmin who has been and still is 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 word “Dalit” although an ADJECTIVE, a describing word, is harmfully (in reference to annihilation of jati/caste), promoted as a noun to represent persons from a certain section of society, the so-called untouchables. This could be intentional or unintentional, depending on whether one wants to propagate or annihilate the jati system, VERY LOOSELY TERMED as the caste system.
THE PSEUDO-DALITS
These are people who ARE NOT really dalits (as per the defininition of “dalit”) but those who simply refer to themselves as dalits for the sake of a political identity AND still identity themselves as untouchables, whose ancestors were once actually dalits (the grounded).
Many Pseudo-dalit academics are anti caste discrimination activists.
NOTE: Since in foreign cultures there is no equivalent word or system to represent the jaat/jaati 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 words jaat/jaati.
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.
It would be more accurate and it makes more sense to simply use the word ‘jaati’ instead of caste.
JAATI, in the Pali Language means BIRTH; defined in the Hindi-English science dictionaries as SPECIES. The word JAATI, as a biological term, is used in biology lessons when teaching classification of living things in Hindi medium schools.
Using the word ‘Dalit’ to label a certain section of society is counter productive to annihilation of jaati (AoJ), the dream of the father of modern India, Babasaheb Dr B.R Ambedkar and other Indian greats.
Using the word ‘dalit’ as it is normally used, is a hinderance to AoJ because a “dalit” is commonly perceived as someone belonging to a “low” jaati (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 jaat identity and therefore, annihilation of the CONCEPT of jaati becomes IMPOSSIBLE.
To annihilate the concept of jaati, the victims foremost MUST understand that:
1. Strictly speaking, no-one really has or ever had a jaati as it is believed. The literal meaning of jaati is SPECIES. Their ancestors were MADE TO BELIEVE that they belonged to a particular jaati/species.
2. The untouchables were NOT CONSIDERED to belong to the human jaati/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.
3. There is NO useful purpose in modern society to classify any homosapien as belonging too any particularjaati/species UNLESS one profess to belong to the dominant privileged ‘jaatis’/species which are commonly but unethically referred to as the higher jaatis/castes.
I find it difficult to understand how and why Indian academicians have managed to overlook these fundamentals of annihilation of jaati. It is etched in the preamble of the Indian constitution that Indian citizens should aspire to work towards Equality, Liberty, Fraternity and justice for all. This is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in a society which classifies it’s citizens into jaatis (different species).
So the priority for a true Indian becomes: annihilation of the CONCEPT of jaati.
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 so called “untouchables” from historically deprived SC “jaatis”:
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 HAS BEEN, IN THE PAST CONTINUALLY OPPRESSED /ROBBED /RAPED /VICTIMIZED /CRUSHED /CURSED GROUNDED /BROKEN.
THEN: MODERN SOCIETY WOULD NEVER PERMANENTLY LABEL THEM AS:
THE OPPRESSED, THE ROBBED, THE RAPED, THE VICTIMISED, THE CRUSHED / THE CURSED /THE GROUNDED / THE BROKEN ETC.
SO, WHY GLUE THE PERMANENT “DALIT” LABEL ON THOSE WHO WERE (OR WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE) ONCE GROUNDED AND BROKEN VICTIMS OF ATROCITIES.
UNLESS they really still are dalits?
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 jaati /caste 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”
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 the so-called untouchables.
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. This must stop. Otherwise they end up doing the dirty work on behalf of the 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.
A ‘dalit’ is not a proper noun. It is not a name given to a person from any particular group /jaati/caste. It is a describing word as are depressed, 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 as an adjective 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 FROM so called low castes and untouchables.
A dalit, a continually suppressed victim of atrocities, could be a Brahmin who is unfairly treated in an inhumane way.
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 untouchables and so-called “low castes”
Terms like Dalit-writer should be avoided too.
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 Jaati/caste.
ANNIHILATE THE CONCEPT OF JAATI/ 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
ALSO READ:
2. Was Indian president K.R. Narayana denied entry in to a temple for being a Dalit?
0 Comments