In dealing with this part, of the question, we would like to point out that the existing nomenclature of Depressed Classes is objected to by members of the Depressed Classes who have given thought to it and also by outsiders who take interest in them. It is degrading and contemptuous, and advantage may be taken of this occasion for drafting the new constitution to alter for official purposes the existing nomenclature. We think that they should be called “Non-Caste Hindus,” “Protestant Hindus,” or “Non-Conformist Hindus,” or some such designation, instead of “Depressed Classes.” We have no authority to press for any particular nomenclature. We can only suggest them, and we believe that if properly explained the Depressed Classes will not hesitate to accept the one most suitable for them. We have received a large number of telegrams from the Depressed Classes all over India, supporting the demands contained in this Memorandum. – Dr. Ambedkar, What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables (Nov. 4th, 1931) 

I am not that great that my suggestion counts. The very fact we are discussing the name for us suggests that we have been awakened and we do not wish to be called what the others called us in the past. That is certainly commendable. But I do not think that the issue is so important that we waste our time in on this issue. I would only point out certain facts and leave the great people who like to debate on the issue.

The ancient name ‘antajya’ was discarded because the old Law books had prescribed harsh and derogatory connotations. So all old names like antyaja etc. are out of question.

Our ancestors, during British days organized under various names by adding a prefix of Adi before the regional or religious name. [like Adi Andhra etc.]

Some of us fought for changing their names to “Namo Sudras” from “Chandalas”. I have a feeling that including ‘Shudras’ in their name, they agreed that they are a part of ‘Hindus’. In my humble opinion, “Chandalas” was better named to denote our aloofness from everything at is ‘Vedic’, Brahminic, or Hindu.

In my childhood, Mahars of Maharashtra were referring themselves as Chokhamela and not as Mahars. Chamars of UP, I believe, refer themselves as ‘Raidas’ even today.

Babasaheb used various names and that he opposed the name Harijan given by Hindus. Why? Because, as I understand, the name Harijan was used by medieval saint poet of Gujarat  Narsi Mehta for the fatherless children of temple prostitutes the Devadasis thus carrying the notion of ‘BASTARD’. This name was suggested purposefully by Gandhi, knowing fully well the Gujarati meaning. If Gandhi was not a Gujarati and did not know the fact of this name being to given to the children of Devadasis and was in vogue for about four centuries, perhaps there could not have been many objections to this name.  This is because, HARI is the name of GOD, more specifically for VISHNU. But it was also used for the BUDDHA. And if it was innocently used with good intention by some non-Gujarathi unlike Gandhi, perhaps Babasaheb would not have rejected it.

DALIT is the name popularized by Dalit Panthers around the seventies, but it was not coined by them. Around the 1950s, Jagjivan Ram had formed some organization by that name and the name DALIT was associated with his name.

Kancha Ilaiah has suggested ‘Dalitbahujan’. Kanshiram used Bahujan to include SC, ST, OBC, and Minorities and newly registered BAMCEFs have been trying to popularize ‘Mulnivasi’ for denoting the same people.

Yashwant Manohar and his followers had opened a movement to call it ‘Ambedkarite Literature’ to denote what was called “Dalit literature”. Even now they call it Ambedkarite to same literature what others call ‘Dalit Literature’. There was a big debate on the issue for some time.

And there are many who prefer to call ‘Buddhist’. But they oppose the word ‘Nav-Buddha’. I do not know why? How do you differentiate followers of Ambedkar from old Buddhists then?

It must be kept in mind that the meanings of the words change. The original meaning of the word “Hindu”, they tell me, was not all that glorious and was ‘dark’, ‘thief’, etc. But today they say, “garv se kaho hum hindu hai.

The word “DHED” is supposed to have originated from “THER”, a respected Buddhist monk. So Brahmins coined many derogatory names from Ther in Marathi, like ‘Therda’ etc.

The important point is to see who is using the name and for which people and is any derogatory sense implied. If you are using the name for legal purposes like claiming facilities etc, there is no other choice than using “Scheduled Castes” for (?ex-) untouchables and “Scheduled Tribes” for Adivasis and “OBCs” for respective castes etc. as per schedules.

Read – Why I Use ‘Dalit’ Word

The difference between ‘Bahujan’ and ‘Mulnivasi’ seems to be due to the ego of leaders of registered BAMCEF(s). The Mayawati BAMCEF people continue to call themselves Bahujans. They practically refer to same people by that name. Mulnivasi, in my humble opinion it could be applied to ALL people of India including Brahmins, as all had been integrated during the period of Asoka. But I could not convince my friends about this.

But the Adivasi leaders, like L. K. Madvai prefer to call themselves ‘Mulnivasi’ [and RSS wants to call them Vanvasi]. I had discussed the point with L. K. Madavi. He insists that only Adivasis are Mulnivasi and not others. He also insists that the difference is RACIAL. I could not convince him also that the present day ‘Adivasis’ (at least in Schedule V) are not that ancient and they are post-Buddhistic, as the sociologists claim. I think except perhaps the residents of Andaman Nicobar, all the Adivasis especially under Schedule V areas are all post-Buddhistic and are created during Rajput Age after the death of Harshavardhan in the seventh century by the newly formed ‘jamindars’ and the Brahmins pushing away the borderline peasants to interior away from Brahmadeya villages.  I have written a book on the subject and also an introduction to PATANA.

I do not know whether the (Regd) BAMCEF(s) people have ever thrashed out the point with Adivasi leaders, whether only Adivasis are Mulnivasis or all except Brahmins are Mulnivasi.

Let us confine ourselves to ex-untouchables. The choice falls on two names. Harijan should be for followers of Gandhi and Dalits for the followers of Ambedkar, whether they are converted to Buddhism or not.

It is true that Gandhi used the following words about Babasaheb while criticizing his “Annihilation of castes”.

‘…a man who has carved out for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.’

It was certainly not in his praise. If you read it correctly, what Gandhi said was that Dr. Ambedkar is hankering after cheap publicity by publishing his speech when the conference was canceled and sarcastically observed that cost of the book should have been kept 4 annas instead of eight annas. Babasaheb read that correctly and replied in a fitting language that it was Gandhi who always craved for publicity.

The word Dalit does not mean “broken”, as is suggested. It means ‘depressed’ or ‘oppressed’ or ‘pushed down’. It does not show a bad quality of the ‘depressed’, it shows the bad quality of the ‘depressor’. After being depressed or pushed down, the depressed could tolerate meekly or oppose the depression. Those who tolerate meekly by the Gandhi’s advice are ‘Harijans’.  Those who jump back to oppose are Ambedkaerite ‘Dalits’. That is how I see it.

So it is preferable to say ‘lowered’ castes to saying ‘lower’ castes. Or say ‘privileged castes’ to saying ‘upper’ castes. But this does not happen always, and we use the words loosely. Dr. Annamalai had suggested the use of word ‘evil caste’ instead of ‘upper caste’ but it did not work.

The word INDIGENOUS came into vogue, (and translated into Marathi etc.) after UNO declared 1993 (I think) as the year for them. But their meaning was slightly different. Perhaps they meant a people of “threatened race”. Maybe I am wrong. Or am I?

Ultimately, the use gets confined to certain words, which are practiced regularly. The words DALIT and JEWS need not be taken literally. They are used by VTR symbolically. Everybody knows there are at least three meanings to every word. The words could be used literally, symbolically and even sarcastically.

Words could also change the meaning by the way you pronounce it. Just try the word “OK” to pronounce it in different ways!  (Thanks Pralhad, you had suggested that)

I think this should suffice. I, myself, do prefer the word DALIT to denote SCs, ADIVASI to denote STs, and BAHUJAN to denote SC, ST, OBC, and Minorities together.

I prefer “Nav-Boudha” to denote Buddhists converts after the advice of Ambedkar and I prefer “Buddhist” while referring to the world’s Buddhist population in general. There are many types of Buddhists in the world. I hope someday, they would become one, and then we could all call ourselves Buddhists. But that is a different subject.

This is my opinion for whatever worth it is.

Author – Dr. K. Jamanadas

“Shalimar”, Main Road, Chandrapur – 442 402

Friday, November 23, 2007

[irp]