Following my blog “AAP’s rising star in Gujarat or guardian of patriarchy? The Gopal Italia dilemma”, I received an interesting comment from social activist Sudhir Kariyar, who works among tribal workers in Gujarat. The blog discusses how Italia, who won a by-election, wrote a letter to the Gujarat chief minister claiming that, on getting involved in love affair, young girls are being “lured” and “trapped” by wedding mafias across the state, urging the authorities to take legal action against this.

In his message, Kariyar said that the well-known Gujarati writer Pannalal Patel’s novel, written in 1931, “about the inter-caste love story between Patel and Barber caste individuals,” should be sent to Gopal Italia. He referred to a social media post by Dalit rights leader Raju Solanki, whom I have known for some time, which featured the cover of Patel’s novel Malela Jeev (Meeting Souls).

I looked up Raju Solanki’s timeline and found that he not only shared the novel’s cover but also posted a write-up on it. In his powerful piece—without once mentioning Italia by name—Solanki dismantles the AAP rising star’s contention that love marriages are an organized racket. Solanki titled his post Balela Jeev (Burnt Lives), a pun on Malela, symbolically referring to Italia.

Let me quote Solanki. He calls Malela Jeev a remarkable novel, recommending it to anyone who has not read it. The novel, he says, tells the “love story of Kanji, from the Patel caste, and Jeevi, from the Valand caste. Because of caste restrictions, they cannot marry. On the advice of his friend, Kanji convinces Jeevi to marry Dhulo, an ugly man from her village, so that she can remain close to him.”

Jeevi agrees and marries Dhulo. “A suspicious and violent man, Dhulo beats Jeevi daily. Kanji moves to the city for work, while Jeevi, weary of her life in the village, one day tries to commit suicide by mixing poison into bread. By mistake, Dhulo eats it and dies. Widowed Jeevi becomes the subject of public slander and eventually loses her sanity. Kanji returns from the city and takes her away with him. The story ends there.”

Providing historical context for when Pannalal Patel wrote the novel (1941), Solanki says, “it was still 14 years before the system of ganot (forced agricultural labor) would be abolished. The Patels were ganotiya (bonded labourers) of the landlords. In the Sarth Gujarati Dictionary, Kanbi was defined as slave and Valand as useless person. Thus, at that time, both Patels and Valands were considered Shudra castes of equal status, yet marriage between them was unthinkable. It still is today.”

Solanki quotes Kanhaiyalal Maneklal Munshi, a well-known Gujarati litterateur, as telling the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad in 1934 that among Gujaratis “men outnumber women,” pointing out that in the Bombay region, which included Gujarat, for every 1,000 men there were 900 women; in India as a whole, there were 950; but as for the Patel community, “there were only 772 women for every 1,000 men.”

Adds Solanki, “Because of this shortage of women, Patels became a gender-challenged caste. Patel youths married tribal girls, and even fairs were held to bring brides from the Kurmi caste of far-off Bihar.” Yet, alluding to Italia’s opposition to love marriages, he adds, “When it comes to their own daughters marrying for love, they oppose it.”

He wonders, “In 1941, Pannalal Patel wrote a great novel on the theme of love marriage. Who today will write about the burnt lives who oppose love marriages?”

Praising Malela Jeev in an online lifestyle journal, one Snehal Parmar writes, as a “huge fan” of romantic Gujarati novels, that in Malela Jeev Pannalal Patel “illustrates the power of true love: it always lasts, always wins, and always has won. In contrast, false love quickly fades and cannot stand up to the power of true love.” Parmar adds, “The writer expresses the difficulty of finding and sustaining true love in today’s age.”

Indeed, Pannalal Nanalal Patel (1912–1989) is renowned for his seminal novels Malela Jeev (1941) and Manvini Bhavai (1947), having written over 61 novels and 26 short story collections. He is celebrated for using the local dialect and idioms of the Sabarkantha region, making his characters and settings feel vividly authentic.

Keen observers note that the timeless tragedy of Pannalal Patel’s Malela Jeev resonates with chilling relevance in today’s Gujarat, particularly in light of recent remarks by AAP MLA Gopal Italia concerning inter-caste love marriages. Italia’s controversial statements, questioning the social harmony of such unions and suggesting they sow discord within communities, starkly contradict the core message woven into Patel’s classic.

It is pointed out that Italia’s assertion that inter-caste love marriages lead to “social and community tensions” attempts to shift blame from the entrenched caste system and its proponents to the individuals daring to defy it. Malela Jeev, by contrast, powerfully refutes this notion by demonstrating that the tension does not arise from love itself, but from the judgmental, exclusionary responses of the community.

Courtesy: Counterview

The post Love, caste, politics: Pannalal Patel’s timeless novel challenges Italia’s claims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case was heard by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who was responding to a writ petition filed by Venkatesan, seeking permission for himself and fellow community members to worship and perform rituals during the temple festival—an event traditionally open to the local public.

Despite resistance from certain quarters, including the submission by a Special Government Pleader that the temple was not under the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, the Court maintained that religious access cannot be determined by departmental control but by the principles of constitutional equality and human dignity.

Caste and community are creations of human beings; God is always neutral: HC

In his order, Justice Venkatesh observed that any temple open to the public acquires the status of a public temple, regardless of whether it is managed by the HR&CE Department or not.

In such a scenario, the judge said, “irrespective of the caste or community of the devotees, they must be permitted to offer their prayers to God. Caste and community are the creations of human beings; God is always considered to be neutral.”

The court further emphasised that denying access to a place of worship on the basis of caste is not only unconstitutional but an affront to human dignity. It violates the foundational values of the Indian Constitution and the spirit of inclusiveness in Hinduism.

“This can never be permitted in a country governed by the rule of law,” the Court stated, firmly anchoring its view in legal precedent and social justice.

Referring to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947, the judge reiterated that “Every Hindu, irrespective of the caste or sect to which they belong, shall be entitled to enter any Hindu temple and offer worship therein—notwithstanding any law, custom, or usage to the contrary.”

All classes of Hindus are permitted to enter into the temple and participate in the festival: HC

The Court went on to clarify that any restriction imposed on entry based on caste constitutes an actionable wrong—one that can invite both civil and criminal liability. Justice Venkatesh reminded that “the Act was brought into force as a policy decision by the State Government to remove the disabilities imposed on certain classes of Hindus with respect to entry into Hindu temples.”

The High Court directed the concerned authorities to ensure that all Hindus, irrespective of caste or community, are allowed full access to the temple and its associated rituals during the festival. The Court made it clear that any obstruction or discrimination must be met with immediate legal action.

It also instructed the local administration to ensure law and order is maintained, and that no disturbance is created under the guise of religious custom or tradition.

This ruling is not just a legal order, but a reaffirmation of the principle that faith transcends caste. In a time when discrimination still exists in subtle forms, the Court’s stand serves as a reminder of India’s constitutional promise—that equality and dignity are not privileges but rights for all.

The Order of Madras High Court Dated 17.07.2025 can be read here:

Related

Religious structures inside the public institution are invalid, what the constitutional courts say

MP: High Court temporarily stops temple construction in police stations, questions legality on government land

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

The post Caste and community creations of human beings, God is always neutral: Madras HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was Krishna Kumar, the well-known educationist, who I believe first introduced me to the name — Gijubhai Badheka (1885–1939). Hailing from Bhavnagar, known as the cultural capital of the Saurashtra region of Gujarat, Gijubhai, Kumar told me during my student days, made significant contributions to the field of pedagogy — something that hasn’t received much attention from India’s education mandarins. At that time, Kumar was my tutorial teacher at Kirorimal College, Delhi University.

When Kumar — who is said to have been the main mind behind Prof Yashpal’s seminal report “Learning Without Burden” — mentioned Gijubhai, I vaguely recalled my father, Jagubhai Shah, also referring to him as a great Gandhian educationist. As often happens in youth, I didn’t pay much attention to what my father said about him. I vaguely remember my father telling me he had been associated as an art teacher at Ghar Shala, or perhaps Dakshinamurti Balmandir, both founded by Gijubhai for his educational experiments.

My recent interest in Gijubhai, also known as “Mucchadi Maa” (mother with moustaches), stems from a contact I received from someone in Pune — of Mamata Pandya, my school classmate. I was told she is Gijubhai’s granddaughter and had created a site: https://gijubhaibadheka.in. After leaving school in 1970, I met her sometime in the early 1990s after I joined The Times of India, Ahmedabad, as assistant editor. It was at the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), where I had been invited to speak on media and the environment. I was told she had spent around 35 years at CEE.

This prompted me to recall two contrasting viewpoints on Gijubhai that exist in Gujarat today. One, a critical perspective, is from top Dalit rights leader Martin Macwan, who had written a critique of Gijubhai objecting to his views on Dalits several years ago.

During a recent interaction with Macwan, I asked him specifically about his objections. He said that while Gijubhai’s contributions to pedagogy were unparalleled (“he used the Montessori method of teaching in Indian circumstances”), he suffered from the same casteist attitudes that plagued most Gandhians of his time.

“My article was published in the journal Naya Marg (now defunct), edited by the late Indubhai Jani,” he said, and went on to describe a story written by Gijubhai for children. “The story is about a princess who falls in love with what Gijubhai calls a bhangi. The term itself is derogatory. The boy wants to marry the princess.”

Macwan continued, “Her brother, the prince, lays down a condition: she can marry the boy if he wins a gambling game. The prince loses, and the princess marries the boy, who lives in a low-lying area inhabited by so-called untouchables. She is unhappy with the place. Seeing her distress, the king attacks the locality, destroys it, and ‘frees’ the princess. The story ends with the ruler’s family living happily ever after.”

“What message does this give, especially to young minds?” Macwan asked, adding, “Such views can be found in other stories by Gijubhai as well. I read many to understand his perspective.” A similar view, he said, is shared by Joseph Macwan, a well-known Gujarati litterateur, “who has also written critically about Gijubhai.”

Martin Macwan, Sukhdev Patel

 

He added, “And to those who say Gijubhai should be seen in the context of his times, I
want to remind them that the couple Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule, also educationists and living a generation earlier (in the 19th century), strongly opposed untouchability and passionately advocated for Dalit and women’s rights in Maharashtra.”

The other viewpoint comes from Gujarat’s well-known child rights leader Sukhdev Patel, who once told me that branding Gijubhai as casteist “overlooks” his immense contribution to pedagogy. A look at Gijubhai’s work suggests that while he opposed social discrimination and advocated inclusive education, there are no direct quotes in which he explicitly denounces caste discrimination.

At the institutions he established in Bhavnagar, it is said that Gijubhai promoted the inclusion of marginalized groups, encouraged Dalits to join in, and facilitated education for all, regardless of caste. His educational philosophy was centred on child-centric learning, freedom, and respect — challenging the rigid and discriminatory norms of his time.

However, the farthest he went was to say things like: “Every child has the right to a quality education, regardless of their background or circumstances,” “Education is not a privilege; it’s a fundamental human right,” or “Children are not vessels to be filled with knowledge but lamps to be lit.”

Gijubhai also said, emphasizing the need for schools to adapt to children’s diverse needs: “It is not that they are unfit for the school. Rather, the school is unfit for them. The school is unable to teach them what they have the aptitude for.” He was, his defenders point out, critical of the conventional, exam-driven schooling system that treated children as passive recipients, and instead advocated activity-based learning, storytelling, music, and hands-on experiences — something Prof Yashpal’s report “Learning Without Burden” also emphasized.

It is precisely for this reason, it is pointed out, that Krishna Kumar, in a paper titled What is Worth Teaching?, laments: “We have failed to give Gijubhai the place he deserves in the national narrative of educational thought. His experiments in Bhavnagar were a far more radical challenge to colonial schooling than many better-known reform efforts.”

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Revisiting Gijubhai: Pioneer of child-centric education and the caste debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First Published on: 11 Apr 2016

On his 189^th Birth Anniversary, April 11, we bring to you excerpts from Jyotiba Phule’s path breaking work, severely criticising Brahminism and the Caste System

Jyotiba Phule was born on April 11, 1827

If a Bhat happened to pass by a river where a Shudra as washing his clothes, the Shudra had to collect all his clothes and proceed to a far distant spot, lest some drops of the (contaminated) water should be sprayed on the Bhat. Even then, if a drop of water were to touch the body of the Bhat from there, or even if the Bhat so imagined it, the Bhat did not hesitate to fling his utensil angrily at the head of the Shudra who would collapse to the ground, his head bleeding profusely.

On recovering from the swoon the Shudra would collect his blood- stained clothes and wend his way home silently. He could not complain to the Government Officials, as the administration was dominated by the Bhats. More often than not he would be punished stringently for complaining against the Bhats. This was the height of injustice!

It was difficult for the Shudras to move about freely in the streets for their daily routine, most of all in the mornings when persons and things cast long shadows about them. If a `Bhat Saheb’ were to come along from the opposite direction, the Shudra had to stop by the road until such time as the `Bhat Saheb’ passed by – for fear of casting his polluting shadow on him. He was free to proceed further only after the `Bhat Saheb’ had passed by him.

Should a Shudra be unlucky enough to cast his polluting shadow on a Bhat inadvertently, the Bhat used to belabour him mercilessly and would go to bathe at the river to wash off the pollution. The Shudras were forbidden even to spit in the streets. Should he happen to pass through a Brahmin (Bhat) locality he had to carry an earthen-pot slung about his neck to collect his spittle. (Should a Bhat Officer find a spittle from a Shudra’s mouth on the road, woe betide the Shudra!)…….

[[The Shudra suffered many such indignities and disabilities and were looking forward to their release from their persecutors as prisoners fondly do. The all-merciful Providence took pity on the Shudras and brought about the British raj to India by its divine dispensation which emancipated the Shudras from the physical (bodily) thraldom (slavery). We are much beholden to the British rulers. We shall never forget their kindness to us. It was the British rulers who freed us from the centuries-old oppression of the Bhat and assured a hopeful future for our children. Had the British not come on the scene (in India) (as our rulers) the Bhat would surely have crushed us in no time (long ago.)]]

Some may well wonder as to how the Bhats managed to crush the depressed and down-trodden people here even though they (the Shudras) outnumbered them tenfold. It was well-known that one clever person can master ten ignorant persons
(e.g. a shepherd and his flock). Should the ten ignorant men be united (be of one mind), they would surely prevail over that clever one. But if the ten are disunited they would easily be duped by that clever one. The Bhats have invented a very cunning method to sow seeds of dissension among the Shudras. The Bhats were naturally apprehensive of the growing numbers of the depressed and down- trodden people. They knew that keeping them disunited alone ensured their (the Bhats’) continued mastery ever them. It was the only way of keeping them as abject slaves indefinitely, and only thus would they be able to indulge in a life of gross indulgence and luxury ensured by the `sweat of the Shudras’ brows. To that end in view, the Bhats invented the pernicious fiction of the caste-system, compiled (learned) treatises to serve their own self-interest and indoctrinated the pliable minds of the ignorant Shudras (masses) accordingly.

Some of the Shudras put up a gallant fight against this blatant injustice. They were segregated into a separate category (class). In order to wreak vengeance on them (for their temerity) the Bhats persuaded those whom we today term as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (tillers, peasants) etc. not to stigmatise them as untouchables.

Being deprived of their means of livelihood, they were driven to the extremity of eating the flesh of dead animals. Some of the members of the Shudras community today proudly call themselves as Malis (gardeners), Kunbis (peasants), gold-smiths, tailors, iron smiths, carpenters etc, on the basis of the avocation (trade) they pursued (practised), Little do they know that our ancestors and those of the so¬called untouchables (Mahars, Mangs etc.) were blood-brothers (traced their lineage to the same family stock).

Their ancestors fought bravely in defence of their motherland against the invading usurpers (the Bhats) and hence, the wily Bhats reduced them to penury and misery. It is a thousand pities that being unmindful of this state of affairs, the Shudras began to hate their own kith and kin.

The Bhats invented an elaborate system of caste-distinction based on the way the other Shudras behaved towards them, condemning some to the lowest rung and some to a slightly higher rung. Thus they permanently made them into their proteges and by means of the powerful weapon of the `iniquitous caste system,’ drove a permanent wedge among the Shudras.

It was a classic case of the cats who went to law! The Bhats created dissensions among the depressed and the down- trodden masses and are battening on the differences (are leading luxurious lives thereby).

The depressed and down­trodden masses in India were freed from the physical bodily) slavery of the Bhats as a result of the advent of the British raj here. But we are sorry to state that the benevolent British Government have not addressed themselves to the important task of providing education to the said masses. That is why the Shudras continue to be ignorant, and hence, their ‘mental slavery’ regarding the spurious religious tracts of the Bhats continues unabated. They cannot even appeal to the Government for the redressal of their wrongs. The Government is not yet aware of the way the Bhats exploit the masses in their day to day problems as also in the administrative machinery. We pray to the Almighty to enable the Government to kindly pay attention to this urgent task and to free the masses from their mental slavery to the machinations of the Bhats.

I am deeply beholden to Shri Vinayak Babji Bhandarkar and Rao Saheb Shri Rajanna Lingu for their continued encouragement to me in the writing of this treatise.

(From the Introduction to ‘Slavery’ by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule)
­­­­­­­

The post Jyotiba Phule’s Trenchant Critique of Caste: Gulamgiri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Coronation …

“By the beginning of 1673 the idea of a public coronation began to materialize, and when preparations were fully completed, the event took place at fort Raigad, on Saturday 5 June 1674, the day of the sun’s entering the constellation Leo.

The orthodox Brahman opinion was not favourable to Shivaji’s claim to be recognised as a Kshatriya by blood, although he had proved this claim by action. More than a thousand years had passed since such a ceremony was last performed, and on that account men’s memories had been entirely dimmed. All ancient learning of the Deccan had migrated to Benares after the invasion of Ala–ud–din Khilji and the Muslim conquest of the Deccan.

Ancient families noted for hereditary learning like the Devs, the Dharmadhikaris, the Sheshas, the Bhattas, the Maunis, had left their hearths and homes at Paithan, with all their sacred books, and opened their new university of letters on the bank of the holy Ganges. The ignorant unthinking folks of Paithan had now no voice of authority left in them. Benares now began to dominate Hindu thought and learning. So Shivaji had to negotiate with Gaga Bhatt of Benares, a learned representative of that school of Hindu law–givers. He was invited to Raigad to arrange the details in such a way as to suit the needs of the present moment as much as to conform to ancient usage.”

(New History of The Marathas, Govind Sakharam Sardesai).

(Archived from the October 2001 issue of Communalism Combat)

The post The Story of Shivaji’s Coronation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On January 3, 1831, 176 years ago Savitribai Phule, arguably India’s first woman teacher and forgotten liberator was born. With the first school for girls from different castes that she set up in Bhidewada, Pune (the seat of Brahmanism) Krantijyoti Savitribai as she is reverentially known, by the Indian Bahujan movement, blazed a revolutionary trial. There have been consistent demands to observe January 3 as Teachers Day. Without her, Indian women would not have had the benefits of education.

To mark the memory of this remarkable woman we bring to you her letters to life partner Jyotiba. Jyotiba and Savitribai were Comrades in Arms in their struggle against the emancipation of India’s disenfranchised people.

Translated from the Original Marathi with an introduction Sunil Sardar Reproduced here are the English translation of three important Letters – (originally in Marathi and published in MG Mali’s edition of her collected works, Savitribai Phule Samagra Wangmaya) – that Savitribai wrote to her husband Jyotiba in a span of 20 years.

The letters are significant as they write of the wider concerns that drove this couple, the emancipation of the most deprived segments of society and the struggle to attain for them, full human dignity and freedom.

This vision for a new and liberated society – free from ignorance, bigotry, deprivation, and hunger – was the thread that bonded the couple, arching from the private to the personal.

Theirs was a relationship of deep and shared concerns, each providing strength to the other. When large sections of 19^th century Maharashtrian society was ranged against Phule’s reconstructive radicalism, it was the unfailing and shared vision and dedication of his life partner that needs have been emotionally sustaining.  In our tribute to this couple and the tradition of radical questioning that they harboured, we bring to our readers these letters.

1856. The first letter, written in 1856, speaks about the core issue: education and its transformative possibilities in a society where learning, had for centuries been the monopoly of the Brahmins; who, in turn, used this exclusive privilege to enclave, demoralize and oppress. Away at her parental home to recuperate from an illness, Savitri describes in the letter a conversation with her brother, who is uncomfortable with the couple’s radicalism.

October 1856
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!

After so many vicissitudes, now it seems my health has been fully restored. My brother worked so hard and nursed me so well through my sickness. His service and devotion shows how loving he really is! I will come to Pune as soon as I get perfectly well. Please do not worry about me. I know my absence causes Fatima so much trouble but I am sure she will understand and won’t grumble.

As we were talking one day, my brother said, “You and your husband have rightly been excommunicated because both of you serve the untouchables (Mahars and Mangs). The untouchables are fallen people and by helping them you are bringing a bad name to our family. That is why, I tell you to behave according to the customs of our caste and obey the dictates of the Brahmans.” Mother was so disturbed by this brash talk of my brother.

Though my brother is a good soul he is extremely narrow-minded and so he did not hesitate to bitterly criticize and reproach us. My mother did not reprimand him but tried instead to bring him to his senses, “God has given you a beautiful tongue but it is no good to misuse it so!” I defended our social work and tried to dispel his misgivings. I told him, “Brother, your mind is narrow, and the Brahmans’ teaching has made it worse. Animals like goats and cows are not untouchable for you, you lovingly touch them. You catch poisonous snakes on the day of the snake-festival and feed them milk. But you consider Mahars and Mangs, who are as human as you and I, untouchables. Can you give me any reason for this? When the Brahmans perform their religious duties in their holy clothes, they consider you also impure and untouchable, they are afraid that your touch will pollute them. They don’t treat you differently than the Mahars.” When my brother heard this, he turned red in the face, but then he asked me, “Why do you teach those Mahars and Mangs? People abuse you because you teach the untouchables. I cannot bear it when people abuse and create trouble for you for doing that. I cannot tolerate such insults.” I told him what the (teaching of) English had been doing for the people. I said, “The lack of learning is nothing but gross bestiality. It is through the acquisition of knowledge that (he) loses his lower status and achieves the higher one. My husband is a god-like man. He is beyond comparison in this world, nobody can equal him. He thinks the Untouchables must learn and attain freedom. He confronts the Brahmans and fights with them to ensure Teaching and Learning for the Untouchables because he believes that they are human beings like other and they should live as dignified humans. For this they must be educated. I also teach them for the same reason. What is wrong with that? Yes, we both teach girls, women, Mangs and Mahars. The Brahmans are upset because they believe this will create problems for them. That is why they oppose us and chant the mantra that it is against our religion. They revile and castigate us and poison the minds of even good people like you.

“You surely remember that the British Government had organised a function to honour my husband for his great work. His felicitation caused these vile people much heartburn. Let me tell you that my husband does not merely invoke God’s name and participate in pilgrimages like you. He is actually doing God’s own work. And I assist him in that. I enjoy doing this work. I get immeasurable joy by doing such service. Moreover, it also shows the heights and horizons to which a human being can reach out.”

Mother and brother were listening to me intently. My brother finally came around, repented for what he had said and asked for forgiveness. Mother said, “Savitri, your tongue must be speaking God’s own words. We are blessed by your words of wisdom.” Such appreciation from my mother and brother gladdened my heart. From this you can imagine that there are many idiots here, as in Pune, who poison people’s minds and spread canards against us. But why should we fear them and leave this noble cause that we have undertaken? It would be better to engage with the work instead. We shall overcome and success will be ours in the future. The future belongs to us.

What more could I write?

With humble regards,

Yours,

Savitri

The Poetess in Savitribai

The year 1854 was important as Savitribai published her collection of poems, called Kabya Phule (Poetry’s Blossoms).
Bavan Kashi Subodh Ratnakar (The Ocean of Pure Gems), another collection of what has come to be highly regarded in the world of Marathi poetry was published in 1891. (The Phules had developed a devastating critique of the Brahman interpretation of Marathi history in the ancient and medieval periods. He portrayed the Peshwa rulers, later overthrown by the British, as decadent and oppressive, and Savitribai reiterates those themes in her biography.)
Apart from these two collections, four of Jyotiba’s speeches on Indian History were edited for publication by Savitribai. A few of her own speeches were also published in 1892. Savitribai’s correspondence is also remarkable because they give us an insight into her own life and into the life and lived experiences of women of the time.

1868. The Second letter is about a great social taboo – a love affair between a Brahman boy and an Untouchable girl; the cruel behavior of the ‘enraged’ villagers and how Savitribai stepped in. This intervention saves the lives of the lovers and she sends them away to the safety and caring support of her husband, Jyotiba. With the malevolent reality of honour killings in the India of 2016 and the hate-driven propaganda around ‘love jehad’ this letter is ever so relevant today.

29 August 1868
Naigaon, Peta Khandala
Satara
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
I received your letter. We are fine here. I will come by the fifth of next month. Do not worry on this count. Meanwhile, a strange thing happened here. The story goes like this. One Ganesh, a Brahman, would go around villages, performing religious rites and telling people their fortunes. This was his bread and butter. Ganesh and a teenage girl named Sharja who is from the Mahar (untouchable) community fell in love. She was six months pregnant when people came to know about this affair. The enraged people caught them, and paraded them through the village, threatening to bump them off.

I came to know about their murderous plan. I rushed to the spot and scared them away, pointing out the grave consequences of killing the lovers under the British law. They changed their mind after listening to me.

Sadubhau angrily said that the wily Brahman boy and the untouchable girl should leave the village. Both the victims agreed to this. My intervention saved the couple who gratefully fell at my feet and started crying. Somehow I consoled and pacified them. Now I am sending both of them to you. What else to write?
Yours
Savitri

1877. The last letter, written in 1877, is a heart-rending account of a famine that devastated western Maharashtra. People and animals were dying. Savitri and other Satyashodhak volunteers were doing their best to help. The letter brings out an intrepid Savitri leading a team of dedicated Satyashodhaks striving to overcome a further exacerbation of the tragedy by moneylenders’ trying to benefit.  She meets the local District administration. The letter ends on a poignant note where Savitribai reiterates her total commitment to her the humanitarian work pioneered by the Phules.

20 April, 1877
Otur, Junner
The Embodiment of Truth, My Lord Jyotiba,
Savitri salutes you!
The year 1876 has gone, but the famine has not – it stays in most horrendous forms here. The people are dying. The animals are dying, falling on the ground. There is severe scarcity of food. No fodder for animals. The people are forced to leave their villages. Some are selling their children, their young girls, and leaving the villages. Rivers, brooks and tanks have completely dried up – no water to drink. Trees are dying – no leaves on trees. Barren land is cracked everywhere. The sun is scorching – blistering. The people crying for food and water are falling on the ground to die. Some are eating poisonous fruits, and drinking their own urine to quench their thirst. They cry for food and drink, and then they die.

Our Satyashodhak volunteers have formed committees to provide food and other life-saving material to the people in need. They have formed relief squads.
Brother Kondaj and his wife Umabai are taking good care of me. Otur’s Shastri, Ganapati Sakharan, Dumbare Patil, and others are planning to visit you. It would be better if you come from Satara to Otur and then go to Ahmednagar.

You may remember R.B. Krishnaji Pant and Laxman Shastri. They travelled with me to the affected area and gave some monetary help to the victims.

The moneylenders are viciously exploiting the situation. Bad things are taking place as a result of this famine. Riots are breaking out. The Collector heard of this and came to ease the situation. He deployed the white police officers, and tried to bring the situation under control. Fifty Satyasholdhaks were rounded up. The Collector invited me for a talk. I asked the Collector why the good volunteers had been framed with false charges and arrested without any rhyme or reason. I asked him to release them immediately. The Collector was quite decent and unbiased. He shouted at the white soldiers, “Do the Patil farmers rob? Set them free.” The Collector was moved by the people’s plights. He immediately sent four bullock cartloads of (jowar) food.

You have started the benevolent and welfare work for the poor and the needy. I also want to carry my share of the responsibility. I assure you I will always help you. I wish the godly work will be helped by more people.

I do not want to write more.
Yours,
Savitri

(These letters have been excerpted with grateful thanks from A Forgotten Liberator, The Life and Struggle of Savitrabai Phule, Edited by Braj Ranjan Mani, Pamela Sardar)

Bibliography:

Krantijyoti : Revolutionary flame
Brahmans: Priestly “upper” caste with a powerful hold on all fairs of society and state including access to education, resources and mobility (spelt interchangeably as Brahmins)
Mahars:The Mahar is an Indian Caste, found largely in the state of Maharashtra, where they compromise 10% of the population, and neighboring areas. Most of the Mahar community followed social reformer B. R. Ambedkar in converting to Buddhism in the middle of the 20th century.
Mangs: The Mang (or Matang -Minimadig in Gujarat and Rajasthan) community is an Indian caste historically associated with low-status or ritually impure professions such as village musicians, cattle castraters, leather curers, midwives, hangmen, undertakers. Today they are listed as a Scheduled Castes a term which has replaced the former the derogatory ‘Untouchable’
Satyashodhak Samaj:  A society established by Jyotirao Phule on September 24, 1873. This was started as a group whose main aim was to liberate the shudra and untouchable castes from exploitation and oppression
Shudra: The fourth caste under the rigid caste Hindu system; these were further made more rigid in the Manu Smruti
Ati Shudra: Most of the groups listed under this category come under the untouchables who were used for the most venal tasks in caste ridden Hindu society but not treated as part of the caste system.
Jowar: The Indian name for sorghum

How the Education for girls was pioneered

The Phule couple decided to start schools for girls, especially from the shudra and atishudra castes but also including others so that social cohesion of sorts could be attempted in the classroom. Bhidewada in Pune was the chosen site, a bank stands there today. There is a movement among Bahujans to reclaim this historic building. When the Phules faced stiff resistance and a boycott, a Pune-based businessman Usman Shaikh gave them shelter. Fatima Shaikh Usman’s sister was the first teacher colleague of Savitribai and the two trained teachers who ran the school. The school started with nine girl students in 1848.

Sadashiv Govande contributed books from Ahmednagar. It functioned for about six months and then had to be closed down. Another building was found and the school reopened a few months later. The young couple faced severe opposition from almost all sections. Savitribai was subject to intense harassment everyday as she walked to school. Stones, mud and dirt were flung at her as she passed. She was often abused by groups of men with orthodox beliefs who opposed the education for women. Filth including cow dung was flung on her. Phule gave her hope, love and encouragement. She went to school wearing an old sari, and carried an extra sari with her to change into after she reached the school. The sheer daring and doggedness of the couple and their comrades in arms broke the resistance. Finally, the pressure on her eased when she was compelled to slap one of her tormentors on the street!

Once the caste Hindu Brahmanical hierarchy who were the main opponents of female education realized that the Phule couple would not easily give in, they arm-twisted Jyotiba’s father. Intense pressure was brought by the Brahmins on Phule’s father, Govindrao, to convince him that his son was on the wrong track, that what he was doing was against the Dharma. Finally, things came to a head when Phule’s father told him to leave home in 1849. Savitri preferred to stay by her husband’s side, braving the opposition and difficulties, and encouraging Phule to continue their educational work.

However, their pioneering move had won some support. Necessities like books were supplied through well wishers; a bigger house, owned by a Muslim, was found for a second school which was started in 1851. Moro Vithal Walvekar and Deorao Thosar assisted the school. Major Candy, an educationalist of Pune, sent books. Jyotirao worked here without any salary and later Savitribai was put in charge. The school committee, in a report, noted, “The state of the school funds has compelled the committee to appoint teachers on small salaries, who soon give up when they find better appointment…Savitribai, the school headmistress, has nobly volunteered to devote herself to the improvement of female education without remuneration. We hope that as knowledge advances, the people of this country will be awakened to the advantages of female education and will cordially assist in all such plans calculated to improve the conditions of those girls.”

On November 16, 1852, the education department of the government organised a public felicitation of the Phule couple, where they were honoured with shawls.
On February 12, 1853, the school was publicly examined. The report of the event state: “The prejudice against teaching girls to read and write began to give way…the good conduct and honesty of the peons in conveying the girls to and from school and parental treatment and indulgent attention of the teachers made the girls love the schools and literally run to them with alacrity and joy.”

A Dalit student of Savitribai, Muktabai, wrote a remarkable essay which was published in the paper Dyanodaya, in the year 1855. In her essay, Muktabai poignantly describes the wretchedness of the so-called untouchables and severely criticizes the Brahmanical religion for degrading and dehumanizing her people.

The post Love-Letters like no other appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through a critical analysis of media narratives, state interventions, and cultural rhetoric, the article examines how the term “Love Jihad” taps into historical anxieties about caste boundaries and sexual control over Hindu (upper-caste) women. Additionally, it highlights how this narrative operates within a broader framework of Hindutva politics that seeks to maintain socio-religious boundaries and reinforce patriarchal control, therefore, its impact on the everyday lives of women in society.

Locating the violence

Behind the meticulous task of monitoring and verifying hate crime cases compiled by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), integral to the organisation’s ‘Hate Hatao’ program across India, a trend can be discerned over the past four to six years. This regular monitoring is reflected in the Nafrat ka Naqsha (map) that meticulously depicts such classified incidents for ready reference. There have been multiple cases of crimes related to disrupting interfaith marriages, attacking Muslim men for “hanging out with Hindu women,” and vice versa by accusing couples involved in this association of “love jihad.”[1] For instance, on January 20, 2023, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, a 24-year-old Hindu woman was celebrating her birthday with her friends when a mob, allegedly comprised of Bajrang Dal men, barged into the house and started assaulting the Muslim men on allegations of “Love Jihad.”[2] These Muslim men were later taken to the MIG Colony police station, where they were put in custody. The video of this incident went viral the next day.

In another case, on June 30, 2024, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal members[3] created a disturbance outside a Police station in protest against an interfaith marriage between a Hindu and Muslim couple after they applied to register the marriage in Uttar Pradesh’s Bijnor. A Hindu woman and a Muslim man had decided to get married and followed the appropriate legal procedure by applying for their marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. As soon as the news of the couple’s application to register their marriage spread,[4] an appropriately readied mob hit the streets, staging aggressive demonstrations and making inflammatory statements to stop the marriage. The mob accused a couple of engaging in ‘love jihad,’ a conspiracy theory propagated by Hindu right-wing organisations to convey that Muslim men are luring Hindu women into both marriage and conversion. The mob threatened the police with aggravating communal tensions in the city if the marriage was not stopped! The couple had followed all legal procedures, submitting the necessary documents to the authorities in a move that should have been straightforward. However, their decision to marry was met with outrage from local right-wing Hindu groups. This incident also highlights the fragility of communal relations and the deep-seated biases that persist within Indian society.

In a fictional world, back in 2020, the jewellery brand Tanishq, part of the esteemed Tata Group, created an advertisement titled “Ekatvam,” a Sanskrit term that translates to “Unity.” The ad showcased the story of an interfaith couple, specifically, a Hindu woman who had married into a Muslim family. The narrative unfolded around a baby shower ceremony organised by the Muslim in-laws to honour their Hindu daughter-in-law, highlighting themes of acceptance, harmony, and the blending of different cultural practices. The advertisement was intended to convey a message of inclusivity, celebrating the unity of cultures through gestures of love and familial support. However, the ad faced a significant backlash on social media, particularly from organised right wing trolls associated with specific segments of Hindu nationalist groups and right-wing activists, who accused the brand of promoting an agenda referred to as “love jihad,” the alleged encouragement of Muslim men to marry Hindu women to convert them.[5]

This criticism so far escalated (or was made to escalate!) on social media — hashtags like #BoycottTanishq began to trend—leading to panic in the corporate entity that had put out the ad, attempting a message of social cohesion. With calls for a boycott of the brand gaining momentum online, Tanishq was forced to withdraw the advertisement in response to the mounting pressure. The entity issued an official apology, clarifying that they had aimed to spread a message of peace and togetherness, not “to provoke or offend.” In a post truth India, messages of harmony and cohesion are considered offensive! The same ultra-nationalists who had previously admired Tata’s philanthropic contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic, even dubbing the Tata group “true nationalists” saw no problem in this violent and stark reaction to the Tanishq ‘Ekatvam’ ad, an ad which aimed to promote social harmony through the portrayal of a Hindu-Muslim family. Despite Tata’s well-crafted reputation for supporting communities in need, some viewers criticised Tanishq’s message of cultural inclusivity, viewing it through the lens of ‘Love Jihad.’ A similar controversy emerged after the series ‘The Suitable Boy’ aired on Netflix, which has the lead character, a Hindu girl called Lata, passionately kissing a Muslim boy against the backdrop of a temple. Politician Gaurav Tiwari from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) youth wing had claimed that this scene “hurt religious sentiments” of Hindus and demanded Netflix to remove the ‘objectionable’ scene and apologise for encouraging ‘love jihad.’ He also called for a boycott of the Netflix streaming platform.[6]

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has documented several cases illustrating the growing controversy and societal tension surrounding interfaith relationships in India as part of its Hate Watch initiative across India. Monitoring, acting on hate complaints and depicting trends is core to this programme. All these cases reveal a concerning trend in which couples from different faith backgrounds face increasing hostility, driven by strong currents of intolerance and division within society. This hostility is not isolated; instead, it reflects an organized and systematic effort to stigmatize and communalize interfaith unions. This article examines these patterns and explains the ideological connections to Brahmanical patriarchy behind such divisive societal practices.

‘Love Jihad’ and the organised nature of anti-Muslim hate narrative:

It is a well-established fact that interfaith and inter-caste marriages, regardless of the religion of the individuals involved, have been vehemently opposed in India. This opposition is not limited to Hindu-Muslim marriages. There are numerous instances where couples belonging to different faiths, including Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikhs, Jains, and also sub-castes of the same religion faced difficulties going ahead with their interfaith and inter-caste relationships. In 2009, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC),[7] a prominent body within Kerala’s Catholic Church, played a significant role in amplifying the narrative of ‘love jihad.’ The KCBC claimed that approximately 4,500 Christian women had been manipulated or ‘conned’ into relationships that resulted in their conversion to Islam.[8] These assertions by the Catholic Church in Kerala became a central point in discussions around the ‘love jihad’ controversy, contributing to its prominence in both state and national discourse. The BJP and various Hindutva organisations have escalated this issue by terming it a systematic agenda of the Muslims as a religious community to lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam as part of their larger goal of achieving demographic imbalance in South Asia through Ghazwa-e-Hind.[9]

Going back to its origin, the term “love jihad” first came into prominent public discussion in the states of Karnataka and Kerala. The “Hindu Janajagruti Samiti,” a Hindu nationalist organisation, first used the term “love jihad” in the year 2007 during their campaign of policing interfaith couples in public places.[10] However, it was not very popular in public discourse. After the cases emerged from Kerala in the year 2009, where two non-Muslim girls were converted after marriage to their respective Muslim partners, the term “love jihad” resurfaced. In those cases, girls who eloped with their Muslim partners initially expressed their desire to remain with their respective partners; later, they changed their statements and wished to return to their parents. This was the first time the term got an official mention of judicial proceedings while hearing the bail petitions of two Muslim youths involved. The judge ordered a police investigation to know in detail about the alleged “love jihad” movement.[11] However, the police inquiry did not find any substantial evidence proving the alleged “love jihad” movement among Muslims. These attempts to revive “love jihad” as a conspiracy theory did not gain much currency until 2014.

After the BJP came into power in 2014, they (and their offshoot organisations who work as the ‘brown shorts of the regime’) started utilising selective incidents of gender violence to divide the communities further and polarise them on communal lines for the political advantages, where victims belonged to the Hindu community and accused Muslims. In the recent past, in 2022, in Shraddha Walkar’s case- the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar by her live-in partner Aftab Poonawala in Chattarpur, Delhi, political leaders were seen peddling the conspiracy theory of “love jihad.” Poonawala admitted his crime in which he strangled Walker, chopping her body into 35 pieces, storing them in a refrigerator, and dumping them in the Mehrauli forest for 18 days.[12] Politicians like Giriraj Singh, BJP MP from Bihar, while referring to Walkar’s case, said, “Under a conspiracy, non-Muslims and Hindu girls are being targeted through love affairs, and if they refuse religious conversion, they face the fate that Shraddha faced. This is a heinous crime, and such incidents have forced the people of India to think.” Another BJP politician, Ram Kadam, an MLA from Maharashtra, wrote a letter to the Delhi Police Commissioner, seeking a proper inquiry into Shraddha’s case, investigating a possible ‘love jihad’ angle.

In another incident, Nitesh Rane, also a BJP MLA from Maharashtra, was also seen giving hate speeches after the tragic death of Yashashree Shinde, a Dalit girl from Uran, Maharashtra, who was a victim of gender violence committed by a Muslim youth, Dawood Shaikh.[13] Yashashree’s case also reveals how incidents involving Hindu-Muslim dynamics are manipulated for political purposes, but often in selective and inconsistent ways. In her case, the accused was a Muslim man, which initially sparked interest among Hindutva leaders and right-wing groups. In his inflammatory remarks, Rane has called for the “elimination” of Muslims who are involved in relationships with Hindu women, painting Muslims broadly as a threat to Hindu women’s safety, connecting and blaming the entire community for the crime committed by an individual.

By framing incidents of gender violence within a Hindu-Muslim narrative, political leaders like Giriraj Singh, Ram Kadam, and Nitesh Rane capitalise on communal fears (these are also regularly stoked and based on irrational misgivings), side-lining the actual issues of gendered violence and social justice. Human rights lawyer Asim Sarode has pointed out on his social media post that once the Yashashree case began receiving (and had a socially disruptive impact) attention for its Hindu-Muslim angle, Hindutva leaders exploited it to polarise communities and further fuel communal tensions. That is until the case remained a “hot topic of discussion” in a pliant and un-discerning media. Subsequently, no Hindutva leader cared for the individuals affected; the case was “dropped” with no consistent follow-up and financial help to the victim’s family. In fact, Sarode’s consistent follow-up ensured the government released help grants to the victim’s family.[14]

This pick-and-dispose attitude for propaganda purposes, followed by abandonment, reflects these leaders’ selective concern, often guided more by communal interest than genuine empathy or a commitment to justice for the victim. Yashashree’s case, especially in light of the selective outrage demonstrated by Hindutva leaders, rather than addressing the underlying issues of gender violence or caste-based discrimination, is exploited for political advantage, amplifying religious and communal divides. This approach highlights the instrumental use of gender violence cases within a polarising agenda that focuses less on justice and more on advancing communal agendas.

Hate speeches by influential right-wing leaders, politicians, and organisations have fuelled this rhetoric, painting Muslims as predators and stirring up fear among Hindu families about the safety and honour of their daughters. Such speeches often emphasise “protecting Hindu daughters,” drawing on the cultural symbolism of women as bearers of community honour. This narrative feeds into long-standing communal stereotypes and pre-existing biases, deepening societal divisions. These speeches deliberately aggravate tensions, fostering mistrust and hostility between communities. This rhetoric not only vilifies Muslim men but also contributes to a culture where Hindu women are seen as needing “protection” from supposed threats outside their community.

This trend of prevalent insecurities among parents over their daughter’s choice to marry Muslim men can also be observed in the case of Hadiya, formerly Akhila Asokan, a Hindu-born medical student from Kerala who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. Hadiya became a focal point of the “Love Jihad” controversy in 2017, the discourse around denying her both agency and autonomy.[15] After Akhila Asokan adopted Islam and her new name, Hadiya, her father, K M Asokan, contested her marriage in the Kerala High Court, alleging that she had been coerced into conversion. In response, the court “invalidated Hadiya’s marriage” and placed her in her parents’ custody, against her wish, a decision that reflected a broader societal suspicion toward interfaith marriages involving Muslim men and rejecting the agency for women to make decisions in her life.

Shafin Jahan took the matter to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that Hadiya had converted and married him to her wish. In a landmark ruling in March 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision, asserting Hadiya’s right to freedom of religion and choice in marriage. However, the Supreme Court’s directive for an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the alleged “love jihad” aspect further highlighted the alarming trend of public pressure on judicial and investigating agencies rooted in the upper caste anxieties around interfaith relationships in India. Significantly, in October 2018, the NIA found no evidence of a coordinated conspiracy aimed at converting non-Muslim women to Islam through marriage. Therefore, ‘love jihad’ is very systematically created categories by right-wing ideologies across the religious and political spectrum, who presently enjoy proximity to those in power, in the union, and several states.

Love Jihad Laws: criminalising personal choices through state-endorsed Islamophobia.

In a widely shared video on social media, Pravin Togadia, president of the far-right extremist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), is seen administering an oath to hundreds of Hindus. The offender in the video uses Hate Speech when addressing a big audience and saying that they need to work on getting a Population control law, a “love jihad” law, and kicking out Bangladeshis (often a reference to Muslims) out of India. The incident was reported in the Palwal district of Haryana on 24^th January 2023.[16] Members of Hindu Janakrosh Morcha held three public rallies and processions in February 2023 in Maharashtra’s Vashi, Solapur, and Vasai towns, raising slogans in demand of “Hindu Rashtra” and making calls for laws against ‘love jihad’ and also raised slogans demanding capital punishment for interfaith marriages and alleged forceful conversions by calling “Hang Love Jihadis” repeatedly amidst a busy street.[17]

This narrative framed around the allegation that Muslim men are systematically converting non-Muslim women through marriage has become a powerful political tool, and its influence was evident in the judicial and legislative responses, which are not limited to one region or state; it has a more profound impact and consequences across the country. Such tales of organizing protest marches and mobilizing people around fake narratives of ‘love jihad’ to influence the state have paved the way for a slew of new State laws that penalise interfaith marriages under the guise of preventing forced conversions despite no credible evidence to support the prevalence of “love jihad.” The BJP-ruled states brought out laws that restricted individuals from converting to marry someone from other religions. The acts passed by the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh were the first to introduce a clause regarding marriages. Uttarakhand’s Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage. Its punishment ranges from a jail term of one to five years and a fine, making it a non-bailable offense. Himachal Pradesh also passed a similar law in 2019. These laws are popularly called “love jihad” Laws.

Interestingly, legal history points to the fact of the existence of the Freedom of Religion Acts passed by different State governments in India at various points in time before BJP-ruled States passed these ‘love jihad’ laws. For example, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act came into existence in 1967, the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, and the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1978. These acts, brought in at the time of the United Front governments, including the Jan Sangh in the 1960s, were limited to the issue of proselytization and conversion. They did not enter the terrain of the private lives of individuals. Recently passed laws directly violate fundamental freedoms and interfere with people’s choice of marrying someone from a different faith and religion.

In this context, the right to choose (and autonomy) of every other adult woman who either cohabited or married by choice, either through conversion or not, to another faith is prone to be questioned to the point that these choices are even criminalized. They are deemed invalid by the state and judiciary, which not only negates their right to marry but also places women under their parents’ custody. In December 2020, a video clip that showed a group of men, with orange scarves draped around their necks, mocking a woman in Moradabad town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh went viral. “It’s because of people like you that this law had to be enacted,” one of the men scolds her. The hecklers were from Bajrang Dal, a hardliner Hindu group that supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The law they were talking about was the ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance,’ which the Uttar Pradesh state has recently brought in to target ‘love jihad.’ The incident in the video took place on 5^th December. The Bajrang Dal activists handed over the 22-year-old woman, her husband, and his brother to the police, who then sent her to a government shelter and arrested the men.[18]

These legal enactments, all brought in by states governed by the BJP, restrict the movement and have forced adult women to live against their own will. Such laws reflect an implicit bias. They also reflect the patriarchal mind-set of our system that believes women cannot convert nor marry off their own free will, violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. Such policy interventions underscore the tendency for state bodies to act paternalistically in cases of interfaith relationships, mainly where the individuals involved belong to a Muslim minority group and a Hindu majority group. Such proceedings set a troubling precedent that individual autonomy can be overruled if society or family alleges coercion, especially when the decision involves crossing religious boundaries.

Hadiya’s legal struggle brings to light the deep-seated challenges surrounding individual autonomy and fear of losing the honour of the family and the community due to interfaith relationships in India, mainly when such relationships involve religious conversion. However, her case symbolised the broader debate on the right to personal choice versus societal and familial pressures. This conflict has only intensified with the rise of the “love jihad” narrative.

On December 15, 2020, a 32-year-old labourer named Nadeeb faced accusations of “trapping” a married Hindu woman in a “net of love” with the intent of converting her. The Allahabad High Court stepped in, temporarily halting the arrest of a Muslim man from Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under the state’s newly implemented anti-conversion law. In its ruling, the court asserted that both Nadeeb and the woman are adults who possess a “fundamental right to privacy” and are fully aware of the implications of their alleged relationship. The court further highlighted that “Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, along with other provisions specified in Part III of the Constitution, which encompasses fundamental rights.”[19]

Such Court rulings, including the one in Hadiya’s favour, were a landmark for personal freedom, affirming the right to religious and marital choice. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to involve the National Investigation Agency (NIA) added a layer of surveillance and complexity. By directing India’s top counter-terrorism agency to investigate Hadiya’s marriage for any “love jihad” motives, the Court acknowledged, though indirectly, the influence of the “love jihad” discourse. This move illustrated how easily personal choices, such as conversion and marriage, can be transformed into matters of national security under a climate of Islamophobia, where Muslim motives are scrutinised under the assumption of potential threat. Despite the NIA’s eventual conclusion that there was no conspiracy, the investigation itself highlighted the extent to which individual relationships can become subject to governmental scrutiny when framed within communal narratives.

Legislative and judicial responses in such cases represent the struggle between individual rights and social or political agendas. When state and legal mechanisms are influenced by narratives like “love jihad,” personal freedoms, specifically for individuals from minority communities, are compromised under the guise of protecting societal interests. This politicisation of personal decisions reflects a government-endorsed Islamophobia that subtly sanctions anti-Muslim biases in the guise of public order, using such cases to fuel stereotypes and communal distrust. These “love jihad” cases stand as a reminder of the precarious position of individual autonomy within a framework where interfaith relationships become fodder for divisive narratives, affecting the personal lives of countless individuals. They also illustrate the potential for personal decisions, such as religious conversion and marriage, to become politicised under a climate of State-endorsed Islamophobia. These cases underscore the impact of “love jihad” narratives, which, despite lacking substantiation, have influenced state policies and judicial proceedings.

Love Jihad: upholding caste endogamy to preserve caste hierarchies by opposing conversion through marriage

The narratives surrounding interfaith marriages, often referred to as “love jihad,” and the associated anti-conversion campaigns aim to restrict social mobility by opposing conversions that arise from these marriages. Stemming from Hindutva ideology and its non-missionary religious practices, the antipathy of privileged sections to depressed castes who have historically converted (aspiring to a life of dignity) is evident. Historically, religious conversion among marginalised communities has been problematized and questioned. Though an act of active real and spiritual affirmation, ‘conversions’ have been reduced to acts of allurement.’ Caste being a brute reality of Hindu faith and practice, the historical notion of conversion is anathema as the act of conversion would snatch away the power of dominant caste hierarchies to maintain a cruel and exclusivist status quo. At the root of the resonant insecurities and accusations stems, therefore, from the non-missionary nature of the Hindu religion.

In the Hindu fold, there is no option of becoming part of the faith through conversion, and the only way to be Hindu is to be born in one of the thousands of castes that are segregated and placed in vertical hierarchies. Any individual leaving this religious order by quitting their caste membership and joining some other religious order directly affects the existence of Hinduism as a religion. Therefore, the religious conversions to other missionary religions, such as Islam and Christianity in the Indian context, are termed “violent acts” and are accused of “disturbing the social fabric and age-old traditions and culture in local communities.” Conversion has also been described as a conflict between “local and foreign religions.” These arguments try to portray Hinduism as a peaceful, non-missionary religion that never disrupts the socio-cultural fabric of other religious faiths, as it is alleged that other missionary religions do to Hinduism.

Arguably, however, defending the non-missionary nature of Hinduism is like effectively enforcing caste-based hierarchies, as there is no other way to transcend these caste boundaries within Hinduism. These narratives position Hinduism as a “non-missionary” religion and portray missionary religions as violent disruptors of local culture; they, however, conveniently overlook the violence and oppression inherent in enforcing caste and the social order it sustains. The claim of Hinduism as a non-missionary religion, rather than being peaceful, serves as a tool to confine individuals to their birth-determined caste and religion, ensuring no opportunity for social mobility or escape from marginalized positions. The politically coined ‘ghar wapasi’ (return to the fold) concept coined by a militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a product of the 1990s. It is also an effort to bring back converted Hindus to their “home” religion, but again to their respective caste. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages are ways people could transgress these rigid boundaries. Therefore, this rigidity of opposing inter-caste and interfaith marriages favours those born into privileged castes, as it reinforces their social advantage while keeping lower castes in a disadvantaged role.

In this context, Hindutva’s stance against “love jihad” and religious conversion extends beyond claims of cultural preservation; it represents a deliberate strategy that limits individual freedoms, mainly targeting those seeking dignity and equality outside the traditional caste framework. By framing interfaith relationships and conversions as threats, this stance works to preserve the status quo of caste hierarchies, blocking pathways for social mobility and preventing individuals from escaping their designated social roles. This restriction is incredibly oppressive for women, who are often cast as the bearers of the family’s honour. Within this ideology, a woman’s body, choices, and movements are policed to ensure she remains within the bounds set by her family and community, reinforcing control over her autonomy. Their decisions—especially in choosing life partners or religious identities—are scrutinized and, when seen as violations, are punished severely.

In India’s rigidly hierarchical caste structure, the “upper caste,” for instance, has often taken extreme measures to prevent alliances that would challenge caste boundaries. Numerous tragic cases reveal the extent to which upper caste families are willing to go to “protect” their caste’s perceived honour, with parents or other relatives sometimes resorting to the ultimate violence of honour killings of the low caste men. In March 2024, a couple belonging to the dominant Vellalar Gounder caste in Erode, Tamil Nadu, attempted to murder their Dalit son-in-law, J Subhash- an Adi Dravidar Man. The Vellalar Gounder couple Chandran and Chitra rammed their pick-up truck into a Dalit man’s bike while he was out to drop his younger sister Harini to school, intending to kill him for marrying their daughter, and ended up killing his sister.[20] In another case, on 14^th July 2024, a Dalit man, Amit Murlidhar Salunkhe, was attacked with sharp weapons by his father-in-law and brother-in-law belonging to the dominant OBC caste in the Sambhaji Nagar city of Maharashtra. He was immediately admitted to a local hospital, where he passed away on July 25.[21] His wife, Vidya Kirtishahi, told the police that her parents had cited the plot of the popular Marathi-language film Sairat while warning her against the marriage. Nagraj Manjule’s film, released in 2016, tells the story of a dominant-caste girl who falls in love with and eventually marries a lower-caste boy. They are hacked to death by members of the girl’s family in retaliation.

Though these instances frequently target low-caste men for marrying upper-caste women, there are also cases in which both partners have been killed for defying caste boundaries; in one of the cases where the whole Jat village of Ballah in Haryana is proud of the “honour killing” of a young couple. It was a dreadful killing of 21-year-old Sunitha, who was three weeks pregnant, and her 22-year-old husband, Jasbir Singh.[22] Their bodies, half-stripped, were laid out on the dirt outside Sunita’s father’s house for all to see, a sign that the family’s “honour” had been restored by their cold-blooded murder. An entire village stands united behind the act, proud and defiant, to teach the lesson to the couples thinking of entering into marital ties with upper-caste women of the same village.

In another case, in September 2024, a couple from the same upper castes married each other in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The 19-year-old woman had to pay the price for it as her family members allegedly murdered her, as they disapproved of her relationship with a man who belonged to the same community and village as theirs. It is considered taboo for a man and woman of the same village to marry. Although the couple were unrelated, they were considered brothers and sisters in the community to which they belonged. The Kanbha police booked five people, including the woman’s father, uncles, and cousins, for not only killing her but also for trying to dispose of her body by secretly burning it in their Bakrol village in Daskroi tehsil.[23]

While honour killings are often associated with rigid practices among certain upper-caste families, similar cases have also been documented among so-called lower-caste and non-Hindu tribal communities. Recently, in September 2024, a tragic incident took place in the Koppal district of Karnataka, where the in-laws of a 21-year-old woman from the Madiga community, classified as Scheduled Caste (SC), was killed by poisoning her food.[24] This cruel act, which occurred after her marriage to a man from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community, was unequivocally an act of honour killing that must be condemned. Such heart-breaking incidents are one of many reminders of the deep-seated violence women face, often rooted in the oppressive structures of a patriarchal society. While caste-based discrimination played a role in this case, the underlying issue speaks to a broader societal problem: the control exerted over women’s autonomy and choices in a male-dominated culture.

Like inter-caste marriages, interfaith marriages also challenge societal norms and religious boundaries, often provoking similar violent responses. The tragic case of Yagnik Dudharejiya, a Hindu man from the Devbhumi Dwarka district of Gujarat, exemplifies this. Yagnik was reportedly murdered by the relatives of his Muslim wife, who disapproved of their union.[25] Incidents like this highlight the difficulties young couples face in defying traditional expectations. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages, therefore, irrespective of one’s identity, have long been symbolic of the courage required to bridge societal divides and challenge entrenched norms. These unions are often seen as bold steps toward a more inclusive society, where individuals are free to marry based on love and personal choice rather than the constraints of caste, religion, or community expectations. However, these choices can come with profound challenges and risks of honour killing. Such deaths underscore the intense social pressures and familial opposition when they choose to defy traditional expectations, especially in conservative communities where boundaries between caste and religious identities remain deeply entrenched.

These incidents shed light on a broader societal issue: the resistance to relationships that cross religious or caste lines, driven by cultural traditions, fear of community backlash, and the perceived threat to family honour revolving around women. For such families, preserving cultural purity is women’s duty. It outweighs the importance of their personal happiness or individual choice. Couples who cross these lines have to endure social ostracism, harassment, and even violence, highlighting the intense polarization that persists around matters of marriage. Such violent reactions reflect a broader resistance to relationships that cross perceived social and cultural boundaries, demonstrating that the outrage often ascribed to “love jihad” is part of a larger pattern of controlling individual choices in the name of preserving the community’s “honour.” In reality, both interfaith and inter-caste couples challenge rigid social structures. They are met with hostility, suggesting that the fundamental resistance is to individual autonomy and choice, irrespective of religious affiliation. By selectively framing only interfaith relationships involving Muslim men as a “threat,” the “Love Jihad” narrative manipulates public sentiment and leverages communal tensions, ultimately side-lining the rights and autonomy of individuals. In this context, it becomes clear that “love jihad” is not a genuine social issue but rather a political farce designed to incite fear and demonize a particular community, obscuring the deeper societal problems that perpetuate discrimination and violence in the name of honour and tradition.

Conclusion:

Both interfaith and inter-caste couples present a challenge to entrenched social structures, facing hostility and violence for asserting their autonomy. This hostility symbolizes the fundamental resistance to individual freedom, irrespective of religious affiliation. The framing of “love jihad” as a threat allows for the selective targeting of Muslims while deliberately ignoring genuine issues of social and caste-based discrimination. In reality, the “love jihad” narrative serves as a political tool rather than a social issue, designed to fuel division, incite fear, and demonize Muslim communities while concealing the systemic caste-based hierarchies that restrict social mobility and perpetuate inequality. By branding conversion and interfaith marriage as threats, the Hindutva agenda seeks not to protect cultural values but to reinforce a caste-based system that ensures the continued subordination of marginalized communities, ultimately privileging the status quo under the guise of defending Hinduism.

Women from all social locations, irrespective of caste or class and religion, endure oppression and abuse due to the pervasive influence of patriarchy. A woman’s desire to make choices, especially in interfaith marriage, often faces fierce resistance from those who view her autonomy as threatening traditional power structures. In this case, the people’s choice of marriage out of faith was deemed unacceptable by right-wing political forces, highlighting how, for many women, the right to choose a life partner remains conditional on external approval. This serves as a sad reminder of the compounded barriers faced by women at the intersection of caste, gender, and religion, underscoring the urgent need for societal change to end these cycles of violence and discrimination.

[1] The term jihad, itself, within Islamic religious discourse signifying a positive struggle forward, was politically perverted after the Taliban amplified their ugly politics by the blowing up of the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan in March 2001.

[2] https://sabrangindia.in/article/bajrang-dal-barges-birthday-celebration-thrashes-muslim-friends-hands-them-over-police

[3] VHP and Bajrang Dal, both are right wing organizations indulged in far-right politics, identify themselves with conservatism and ultra-nationalism.

[4] This itself draws attention to Para 47 of the 2021 single bench judgement in Safiya Sultana v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, where the High Court (Allahabad) had mandated that while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954.

[5] https://theprint.in/india/after-severe-backlash-tanishq-pulls-down-ad-accused-of-promoting-love-jihad/522593/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/netflix-india-version-vikram-seth-novel-stirs-love-jihad-suspicions-rows

[7] Kerala Catholic Bishops Council is an apex body of the Bishops of the various catholic rites in Kerala.

[8] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/now-catholic-priest-warns-against-ignoring-love-jihad/articleshow/73648625.cms

[9] https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/495

[10] https://www.outlookindia.com/national/the-roots-and-evolution-of-the-myth-of-love-jihad-in-kerala-news-277712

[11] https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-love-jihad-conspiracy-theory/

[12] https://www.newsclick.in/Shraddha-Murder-Case-Turns-Communal-Right-Wingers-Term-Love-Jihad

[13] https://swarajyamag.com/society/love-jihad-case-dawood-shaikh-arrested-for-brutally-killing-hindu-girl-in-navi-mumbai-was-accused-under-pocso-act

[14] https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10161905258640185&set=a.10152241411140185

[15] Krishnan, S. (2023). Carceral domesticities and the geopolitics of Love Jihad. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 41(6), 995-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231212767

[16] https://sabrangindia.in/article/hundreds-can-be-seen-repeating-communal-and-anti-muslim-oath-administered-pravin-togadia

[17] https://sabrangindia.in/article/maharashtra-vasai-navi-mumbai-solapur-3-rallies-held-hindu-jan-aakrosh-morcha-demanding

[18] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55314832

[19] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/15/indias-love-jihad-laws-another-attempt-to-subjugate-muslims

[20] Couple arrested for attempting to murder their Dalit son-in-law, fatally running over his sister in Erode – The Hindu

[21] Maharashtra: Dalit man killed by in-laws, wife says parents cited plot of movie ‘Sairat’ as warning

[22] Upper Caste Village in Northern India Proud of “honour Killing” of Couple

[23] 19-year-old woman murdered in Gujarat honour killing; father among 4 arrested | Ahmedabad News – The Indian Express

[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/woman-killed-by-in-laws-in-hate-crime-say-cops-101725391190659.html

[25] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/man-killed-by-wife-s-kin-over-interfaith-marriage-101722882513212.html

The post 2024: Love Jihad – A Socio-Political Weapon: Caste, Endogamy, and Hindutva’s Grip on gender and social boundaries in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Introduction

Despite efforts to redefine these identities, with, for example Mahatma Gandhi’s introduction of the term “Harijan,” meaning “children of God,” the stigma persists. The term has often been underlined through a normalization, further entrenching discrimination. Other abusive terms targeting Dalits, such as “Bhangi,” “Chamar” and “Quota Khane Wale” not only demean individuals but also perpetuate a cycle of segregation and inequality. These derogatory terms reinforce societal hierarchies, leading to systemic discrimination and social ostracism. The societal sanction behind the use of such language fosters an environment where Dalits are targeted, marginalised, often resulting in boycotts from local communities, leading to both social and economic exclusion.

The repercussions extend beyond an individual humiliation or insult; they contribute to ghettoization and reinforce the stigma surrounding Dalit identities. Understanding the profound impact of these slurs is essential in dismantling the structures of inequality that continue to affect millions.

Common derogatory phrases, such as “Kya Bhangi Ki Tarah Kapde Pahna Hai?” (Do you wear clothes like a Bhangi?), “Bhangi Ki Tarah Lag Rahe Ho” (Commenting on someone’s unusual attire.) highlight the ongoing prejudice and stereotype against the Dalits. These stereotypes portray Bhangis as inherently “dirty,” and “Impure” fit only for menial labour, and lacking in intellect, reinforcing systemic oppression through the derogatory vocab. The linguistic and cultural marginalization faced through these slurs exemplifies the broader challenges confronting Dalits in their struggle for dignity and equality in a caste-driven society.

Abuse against Dalits:

Stereotypes and slurs against Harijans (Dalits) and Bhangis (a term often used for certain groups within the Dalit community) reflect deep-seated prejudices and can vary regionally. Here are some common stereotypes and derogatory phrases associated with these groups:

Phrases reflecting this stigma include:

• “Kya Bhangi Ki Tarah Kapde Pahan Rakhe hai?” (Referring to someone wearing awkward clothing.)
• “Bhangi Ki Tarah Lag Rahe Ho” (Commenting on someone’s unusual attire.)
• “Ye kaam sirf mehtar ka hai” (Implying that a task is fit only for a sweeper.)
• “Mujhe Bhangi Jaisa Nahi Dikhna” (Expressing a desire not to appear like a Bhangi.)

Stereotypes:

1. Impurity: The belief that Harijans and Bhangis are inherently “dirty” or “impure,” leading to social ostracism.
2. Menial Work: The stereotype that they are only fit for low-status jobs, such as sweeping, cleaning, or manual labour.
3. Criminality: The unfounded assumption that members of these communities are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour.
4. Ignorance: The belief that they are uneducated or incapable of intellectual achievement due to systemic barriers.
5. Cultural Inferiority: The idea that their traditions and lifestyles are inferior to those of higher castes.

Normalisation of casteist slurs and the severe damage to Dalit’s identity:

This normalization of derogatory language perpetuates systemic oppression, marginalising Dalits both linguistically and culturally. Historically, the term “Bhangi,” associated with one of the lowest sub-castes of Valmiki, translates to “broken identity” and reflects the derogatory nature of its usage. This label is commonly applied to individuals traditionally tasked with scavenging and cleaning work. Throughout history, certain castes in India have been relegated to occupations deemed “impure,” including sweeping and handling dead bodies. As a result, communities labelled as Bhangi, along with others like Mehtar and Chamar, Dedh etc., occupy the lower echelons of the social hierarchy and are officially recognized as Scheduled Castes in India.

Similarly, the term “Chamar,” once associated with skilled leather workers, has been weaponized into a derogatory label, inflicting significant damage on Dalit identity. Phrases like “Kya Chamar Jaisa Kapde Pahna Hai?” (Do you wear clothes like a Chamar?) and “Ye Chamaaro Ka Ghar Hai” (This house belongs to Chamars) reinforce harmful stereotypes that equate caste with inferiority. This transformation from a caste identifier to an insult illustrates the social stigma attached to the Chamar community, perpetuating a narrative of humiliation and exclusion. Additionally, the slur “Chori-chamari Na Karna” (Don’t steal like the chamars) shows the negative associations, linking criminality to an entire community.

The Supreme Court’s observations in Swaran Singh & Ors. vs. State thr’ Standing Counsel & Anr. (2008) 12 SCR 132 underscore the term “Chamar” offensive nature, emphasizing that its use is not merely about caste but a deliberate act of derogation.

Notably, Justice Markandey Katju in Swaran Singh (Supra) observed that;

“21. Today the word ‘Chamar’ is often used by people belonging to the so-called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person Chamar’ today is nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word Chamar’ when used today is not normally used to denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone.

“23. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word Chamar’ when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the Chamar’ caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings.”

Similarly, the Meghwal community, a specified Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujrat known for their expertise in weaving, embroidery, and traditional crafts, faces systemic oppression through the derogatory casteist slur “Dedh“, originating from Sanskrit “Dhed” (washer/cleaner), like “saale dedh” (a slur used for SCs, especially Meghwals), “dedho ke guru” (to refer to Dr B R Ambedkar), “aukat dikha di” (showed them their place), “dhari bichhane wale” (to refer to Dalits who are tasked with spreading family bedding on the floor), reflect a broader cultural devaluation of Dalit identities, fostering a sense of inferiority, These damaging narratives not only fragment community solidarity but also obstruct pathways to dignity and empowerment, making it imperative to challenge and dismantle such derogatory language.

Moreover, contrary to popular belief, caste oppression is not limited to those from the most privileged category of castes; it is also perpetuated by communities classified as Other Backward Castes (OBCs). This highlights the complexity of caste dynamics, where discrimination can arise from various social groups, complicating the narrative of privilege and oppression.

Casteist Slurs in daily life: ongoing impact on Dalit community

Casteist slurs permeate daily life, leading to significant repercussions for Dalit communities. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India declared that calling people ‘dhobi’ or ‘harijan’ was offensive. Dhobi is used as a generic name for all washermen. The term Dhobi is mostly used to denote the Washerman. Generally Muslim washermen are identified by the term Hawari and, in West Bengal they have been recognised as an Other Backward Class.

The derogatory and casteist phrases such as “Dhobi Ka Kutta, Na Ghar Ka Na Ghat Ka” reduce individuals to a state of limbo, stripping them of dignity and belonging. Similarly, the slur “Kameena” carries connotations of low character, reinforcing negative stereotypes about certain communities by using the slur “Kitna Kamina Insan hai” (What a low person he is!).

Terms like “Kanjar” reflect the marginalisation faced by a nomadic ethnic group, framing them as untrustworthy and criminal through derogatory phrases that perpetuate Dalits in undignified manner while includes the casteist slur like “Kya Kanjarkhana Bana Rakha Hai” (What kind of brothel have you set up?) “Kanjarkhana Khol Rakha Hai” (You have opened a brothel.)

Many misconception and fake narratives that Kanjars are inherently dishonest or involved in criminal activities, which supports social discrimination. Additionally, the Kanjar cast categorised as the Scheduled Cast in Rajasthan, Bihar, UP, Jharkhand, MP, West Bengal, Chhatisgarh, Uttarakhand and Delhi.

In Punjab, the term “Chura” serves as a casteist slur for Dalit Sikhs, also known as Mazhabi (Balmiki Mazhabi), a Scheduled Cast in Punjab, with real-world consequences such as restrictions on entry to gurudwaras and segregation during Langar (community meal). Likewise, “Pallan” in Tamil Nadu is used not only to denote a caste but also as an insult, which is legally recognized as an offense under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Overall, these terms encapsulate a broader pattern of linguistic discrimination.

Justice Markandey Katju observed in Para 10 of the Judgement in Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [SLP (Crl.) No. 8084 of 2009] that “It is just unacceptable in the modern age, just as the words ‘Nigger’ or ‘Negro’ are unacceptable for African-Americans today (even if they were acceptable 50 years ago,”

Boycott as a weapon: the cost of survival for Dalits

It’s not strange and unfamiliar in  our surrounding that when a Dalit rape victim lodges a complaint against an accused from the privileged castes, the repercussions often extend beyond the immediate trauma of the crime. In many instances, the Dalit victim’s family faces severe social boycott, fine, ban on temple entry, beating up and expulsion from their community and village, enforced by local “Panchayats.” These informal councils may impose fines on the victim’s family, further entrenching their marginalization. The cost of survival for Dalits is disproportionately high, as they navigate not only the trauma of violence but also the stigma and repercussions of seeking justice.

Just a month before, in September, 2024, 50 Dalit families faced social boycott in Karnataka’s Yadgir for pursuing a POCSO complaint against an accused belonging to an upper caste and in a similar incident occurred in Karnataka village people from Lingayat and Caste Hindu communities were imposed a ban on Dalits from entering their localities after they brutally assaulted 28-year-old Dalit youth, Arjun Madar. In Andhra Pradesh a 55-year-old mother from Dalit community tied to a tree and thrashed as her son married a girl from another caste. These incidents starkly illustrate a criminal mind set and deep-seated bias against the Dalit community.

A detailed report of Sabrang India can be read here

Casteist propaganda perpetuated a negative stereotype about Dalits, reinforcing their status as “untouchables” that led to normalization of derogatory words against the Dalits and as a tool of segregation. This long-standing social hierarchy devalues the dignity of Dalit individuals, leading many to choose silence over the risk of ostracism. The interplay of violence, social stigma, and economic penalties creates a vicious cycle that traps Dalits in a system of oppression from a period of time despite the enforcement of stringent laws like the Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 was introduced to combat persecution and discrimination against Dalits and Adivasi (tribal) people.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)’s “Is Caste name calling not an offence under the SC/ST Act? may be read here.

Misconception of unworthiness: the slur “Quota Khane Wale”

The slur “quota khane wale” (these “quota people” are stealing our seats) epitomizes the misconception that Dalits are unworthy recipients of affirmative action through reservation on the basis of caste. This derogatory label implies that their achievements are solely the result of quotas rather than merit, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and societal biases. By dismissing the struggles and contributions of Dalits and the historical untouchability and injustice faced by the members of Dalit community, this language perpetuates anger and prejudice against the Dalits. Such rhetoric not only undermines the purpose of reservations—designed to rectify historical injustices—but also devalues the talents and efforts of individuals within the Dalit community.

Uttar Pradesh tops in cases of Dalit atrocities

The SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act reports thousands of cases annually. Normalizing derogatory language fuels this violence, making it imperative to challenge and dismantle such language to promote dignity and safety for Dalit communities.

As reported in Sabrang India, States ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) top in high number of cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (PoA Act) in the year 2022. A union government report published by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment reveals that Uttar Pradesh, reported a staggering 12,287 cases accounting for 23.78% of the total 51,656 cases registered under the PoA Act (97.7 % atrocity cases against Dalits). Following this, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are positioned on top in registration of cases of atrocities against Dalits. The report’s findings are a grim reminder of India’s ongoing struggle with caste-based violence and discrimination against marginalised communities.

The union ministry report also reveals that, 52,866 cases of atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and 9,725 cases of Scheduled Tribes (STs) were registered in year 2022 under the PoA Act. The majority of these cases, a staggering 97.7%, were recorded in just 13 states, with BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh topping the list. In 2022, out of 51,656 cases registered under the PoA Act, Uttar Pradesh reported 12,287 cases accounting for 23.78% of the total 97.7 % cases of atrocities against Dalits in 2022 was reported in 13 states. Following this, Rajasthan reported second highest atrocities cases of Dalits with 8,651 cases (16.75%), while Madhya Pradesh had 7,732 cases, making up 14.97%. Other states with a significant number of cases include Bihar with 6509, Odisha with 2902 cases and Maharashtra with 2276 cases.

Full report of Sabrang India may be read here.

Related

BJP-ruled states account for highest Dalit violence cases, UP on top, MP records highest reported crimes against STs

15-yr-old Dalit ‘gangrape victim’ takes her own life: Chitrakoot, UP

Cruelty for Caste: Dalit youth, Scholar, Student targeted in shameful attacks 

The post From Slur to Segregation: the language of abusive stigma, sketches concentric circles of rank exclusion for India’s Dalits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukanya Shantha, a journalist wrote an article “From Segregation to Labour, Manu’s Caste Law Governs the Indian Prison System”—published in December 2020—highlighting the caste-based discriminations in the prisons in the country. She also petitioned to the court to repeal the provisions in State Prison Manuals which perpetuate caste discrimination.

Not content with winning awards for the investigation, she petitioned the highest court in the land and achieved results. State have been given three months’ time to comply, make the required changes in their respective Prison Manuals. The Supreme Court has now taken suo moto cognisance of the continuing case, requiring compliance. The court is now examining discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability and asked all the States and also directed the Union government to file a compliance report.

This article aims to explain what the provisions were, what the arguments were against these provisions, and the reasoning of the judgement Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India [2024 INSC 753]:

What are the discriminatory provisions?

Submissions by parties

Petitioners

It was emphasised that State prison manuals themselves endorse unconstitutional caste-based discrimination, violating multiple constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. The petitioners also highlighted the various forms of discrimination in prisons across the country with respect to division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and provisions that discriminate against prisoners belonging to de-notified tribes and habitual offenders. The Model Prison Manual, 2016—prepared by the Union and circulated to states for them to adopt-does not address the provisions related to caste discrimination inside prisons, other than the discrimination in kitchens, argued the petitioners.

Petitioners also prayed that the Home Departments of the State Governments be directed to clarify the definition of Habitual Offenders in their respective prison manuals so as to prevent its misuse against denotified tribes in prisons.

Respondent-governments

The counsel for Union government submitted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016— circulated to all governments—explicitly prohibits caste and religion-based discrimination practices and that another advisory was given to states to ensure that prison manuals do not contain discriminatory provisions.

The counsel for the state of West Bengal submitted that the discriminatory provisions are under scrutiny and a proposal is underway to amend them. The counsel for the intervenor prayed for deletion of “caste’ column and any reference to castes in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers.

Judgement

Tests of Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23

The Supreme Court noted the various tests that have been evolved through decades of jurisprudence on Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23. It stated that the Constitution demands that colonial-era laws comply with its provisions. It emphasizes reversing colonial philosophies of subordinating individuals to the state, acknowledging past injustices to shape a just, humane future for all citizens, according to the Court. The Court stated that criminal laws must not reflect colonial or pre-colonial ideologies.

The following, essentially, are the tests and interpretations of concerned articles the Court arrived at, from the rich constitutional jurisprudence.

On Article 14: Article 14 permits classification if it is intelligible and reasonably connected to its purpose, but it cannot be arbitrary. Courts must assess the true legislative intent and prevent excessive or irrational actions by the state

[Para 34 of the judgement].

On Article 15: Discrimination can be direct or indirect, and laws must not harm marginalised groups. The state has an obligation to prevent both systemic and indirect discrimination, as courts are tasked with addressing the deeper roots of such biases

[Para 48 of the judgement].

On Article 17: Article 17 ensures equality and prohibits practices like untouchability. Laws such as the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Act and those banning manual scavenging aim to uphold dignity and dismantle caste-based discrimination

[Para 54 of the judgement].

On Article 21: Under Article 21, prisoners retain their dignity and must be treated humanely. Prison systems should address both the physical and mental health needs of incarcerated individuals, ensuring their rights are upheld

[Para 67 of the judgement].

On Article 23: Article 23 prohibits exploitative labour practices, including non-payment of wages and lack of social security. It applies to both state and private entities, ensuring protection from degrading labour, even in prisons

[Para 85 of the judgement].

The Supreme Court acknowledged and extensively discussed the historical struggles faced by De-notified Tribes, tracing their challenges from colonial times to post-Independence India. It highlighted the transition from punitive measures for habitual offenses to their eventual decriminalization, which marked a significant shift in recognizing their rights. The Court also pointed out the establishment of the Criminal Tribes Act Enquiry Committee, which was tasked with examining the Act’s implications and addressing the injustices faced by these communities. Ultimately, this process culminated in the repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act

[Paragraphs 87-126 of the judgement].

The court stated as follows:

“Discrimination against the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Denotified Tribes has continued in a systemic manner. Remedying systemic discrimination requires concrete multi-faceted efforts by all institutions. In discharge of their role, courts have to ensure that while there should be proper implementation of the protective legislation such as the PoA Act, there should not be unfair targeting of members from marginalized castes under various colonial-era or modern laws. With this nuanced approach, we shall now examine the prison manuals.”

[Para 144 of the judgement]

On Caste being an “intelligent principle of classification”

The Court noted that caste can be an intelligent principle of classification as it has been used to create protective policies for the marginalized castes. The Constitution recognises caste as a proscribed ground of discrimination under Article 15, it added. The caveat, according to the court was that any use of caste as a basis for classification must withstand judicial scrutiny to ensure that it does not perpetuate discrimination against the oppressed castes

[Para 164 of the judgement]

Valid Classification must be a functional classification, according to the court. The Court found that there is no nexus between classifying prisoners based on caste and securing the objectives of security and reform. In this context, it stated as follows:

“Inmates are entitled to fair treatment that promotes rehabilitation, and classification of any kind must be geared towards the same. Courts have been enjoined with the duty “to invigorate the intra-mural man-management so that the citizen inside has spacious opportunity to unfold his potential without overmuch inhibition or sadistic overseeing”. Segregating prisoners on the basis of caste would reinforce caste differences or animosity that ought to be prevented at the first place. Segregation would not lead to rehabilitation.”

[Para 166 of the judgement]

The court ruled that the differentia between inmates that distinguishes on the basis of “habit”, “custom”, “superior mode of living”, and “natural tendency to escape”, etc. is unconstitutionally vague and indeterminate. These terms and phrases, according to the Court, do not serve as an intelligible differentia, that can be used to demarcate one class of prisoners from the other.

[Para 162 of the judgement]

For the lack of both intelligible differentia and a nexus with the object, the Court ruled that the rules that discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality.

On discriminatory manuals

The Court noted that the impugned provisions discriminated against marginalized castes and favored certain privileged groups. By assigning menial tasks, such as cleaning and sweeping, to marginalized castes while allowing higher castes to perform cooking, the provisions constituted direct discrimination under Article 15(1).

The Court highlighted that— phrases like “menial jobs” and “castes accustomed to perform such duties,” though appearing neutral, reflected historical discrimination and reinforced harmful stereotypes. This language perpetuated traditional caste-based divisions of labour, undermining the constitutional commitment to equality.

Furthermore, the Court criticised rules that classified individuals from de-notified tribes as inherently predisposed to criminality, which reinforced damaging stereotypes and excluded these communities from meaningful social participation.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that these discriminatory practices could not coexist with the constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination, emphasizing the need to dismantle oppressive frameworks that harm marginalized communities. [Para 175 of the judgement]

On Rules being violative of Article 17

To consider an occupation “degrading or menial” is an aspect of the caste system and untouchability, the Court noted. It stated as follows regarding the practices of untouchability in the Indian Prisons:

“Refusal to check caste practices or prejudices amounts to cementing of such practices. If such practices are based on the oppression of the marginalized castes, then such practices cannot be left untouched. The Constitution mandates an end to caste discrimination and untouchability. The provision that food shall be cooked by “suitable caste” reflects notions of untouchability, where certain castes are considered suitable for cooking or handling kitchen work, while others are not. Besides, the division of work on the basis of caste is a practice of untouchability prohibited under the Constitution.”

[Para 180 of the judgement]

The court particularly stated that a prisoner of a high caste be allowed to refuse the food cooked by other castes is a legal sanction by the state Authorities to untouchability and the caste system. On the provisions related to ‘wandering tribes’ and ‘criminal tribes’ the Court stated that these provisions reflect a stereotype that has its basis in the colonial understanding of the India’s Caste system. It stated as follows:

“These stereotypes not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce caste-based prejudices. They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion. By marking them as “criminal by birth,” the law institutionalized a prejudiced view of these tribes, treating them as inherently dishonest and prone to theft. This stereotype—echoing elements of untouchability—reduced their humanity to a set of negative traits and perpetuated their exclusion from mainstream society. Once labelled a criminal tribe, individuals from these communities faced systematic discrimination in employment, education, and social services. The stigma attached to these labels extended beyond legal frameworks and became a part of social consciousness”

[Para 183 of the judgement]

On Right to overcome caste prejudices under Article 21

The court stated that the impugned rules foster antiquated notions of fitness of a particular community for a certain designated job. It noted that such rules are indifferent to the potential of the individual prisoner to reform and the state of affairs they operate in is entirely opposed to substantive equality as it contributes to institutional discrimination—depriving inmates of marginalised castes of an opportunity to reform like everyone else. In this context, it stated as follows:

“When Prison Manuals restrict the reformation of prisoners from marginalized communities, they violate their right to life. At the same time, such provisions deprive prisoners from marginalized groups of a sense of dignity and the expectation that they should be treated equally. When prisoners from marginalized communities are subjected to discriminatory practices based on caste, their inherent dignity is violated.”

[Para 188 of the judgement]

On caste-based division of labour being forced labour

The court noted that provision that “food” shall be cooked by prisoner-cooks of “suitable caste” empowers the jail officer to discriminate against the marginalised castes. The Court observed that it takes away the opportunity from them to cook food and the imposition of cleaning latrines and sweeping work to only “Mehtar, Hari caste or Chandal” or similar castes is forcing only a type of work, which is considered low-grade, upon them. In this context, the court noted as follows:

“However, the prison rules, by exploiting the labour of the oppressed castes, perpetuate the same injustice to guard against which Article 23 was inserted into the Constitution. Assigning labour based on caste background strips individuals of their liberty to engage in meaningful work, and denies them the opportunity to rise above the constraints imposed by their social identity”

[Para 195 of the judgement]

Is Model Prison Manual, 2016 adequate?

The court noted that the Model Prison Manual, 2016 defines ‘Habitual Offender’ as a prisoner classified as such in accordance with the provisions of applicable law or rules. The Court noted that since the phrase ‘habitual offender’ in several prison manuals refers to people for de-notified tribes or wandering tribes, the definition cannot be left to be interpreted and applied in accordance with the provisions of appliable law and rules.

The Manual prohibits neither the physical caste-based segregation of prisoners (except in prisons for women) nor does it prohibit division of work on the basis of caste, except in cooking.

The court noted that Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which prohibit manual scavenging has a binding effect even on prisons. In relation to toilets, manual scavenging or hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank inside a prison shall not be permitted, ruled the Court.

[Paragraphs 200-208 of the judgement]

On Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023

The court noted that the Model Act does not contain any reference to the prohibition of caste-based discrimination, raising significant concerns about the potential for caste-based discrimination in prison management. It was highlighted that the officer-in-charge of the prison is empowered to utilize the services of prisoners for administration and management, which could lead to discriminatory practices if not properly regulated. The court suggested that a provision should be inserted in the Model Act to explicitly ban any segregation or division of work based on caste.

[Paragraphs 210-212 of the judgement]

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the definition of “Habitual Offender” under Section 2(12) is problematic due to its vague wording, stating that it refers to a prisoner who is committed to prison repeatedly for a crime. This broad definition could classify individuals as habitual offenders without requiring a proper conviction, potentially leading to unjust consequences. The Act also creates a separate category for “recidivists,” defined as prisoners convicted of a crime more than once, which allows for additional classification and segregation.

Additionally, the court expressed concern regarding Chapter IX of the Model Act, which addresses the protection of society from the activities of high-risk prisoners, habitual offenders, and hardened criminals. The provisions in this chapter were deemed over-broad, as they impose restrictions on parole and furlough eligibility for these categories of prisoners. The court emphasized that such provisions grant wide powers to the police, raising the possibility of misuse, and called for careful scrutiny to prevent potential abuses of authority.

On the term ‘Habitual Offender’

The court noted that “habitual offender” legislations were enacted to replace the Criminal Tribes Act but have been misapplied in certain states, such as Rajasthan, to refer to individuals from criminal tribes or de-notified tribes. This misuse has extended to various Prison Manuals and Rules, which have defined “habitual offender” in a manner that encompasses members of de-notified or wandering tribes. The court asserted that it is unacceptable to label an entire community as criminal, either historically or in the present context, emphasizing that the classification of “habitual offender” has been used disproportionately to target members of denotified tribes.

[Para 218 of the judgement]

Since the habitual offender laws enacted by the state are not under challenge, the Court did not go into their validity. However, it noted that the classification into Habitual offenders is Constitutionally Suspect given the vague and broad language employed by various laws and rules-which then can be used to target members of denotified tribes.

[Para 219 of the judgement]

The court urged state governments to reconsider the necessity of habitual offender laws within a constitutional framework. It stated that the definition of “habitual offender” in prison manuals and rules must align with the respective state legislation, pending any future constitutional challenges against the act itself. In the absence of such legislation, references to habitual offenders are deemed unconstitutional and were struct down by the Court. The court directed both Union and State governments to amend prison manuals and rules in line with this judgement.

Directions by the Court

1. The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories were directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months;
2. The Union government was directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in the judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months;
3. References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules were declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments were directed to make necessary changes in line with the judgement, within a period of three months.
4. The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted;
5. The Police was directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;
6. The Court took suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India. The Registry was directed to list the case after a period of three months before an appropriate Bench; On the first date of hearing of the above suo motu petition, all States and the Union government were directed to file a compliance report on this judgment;
7. The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors formed under the Model Prison Manual 2016 shall jointly conduct regular inspections to identify whether caste-based discrimination or similar discriminatory practices, as highlighted in this judgment, are still taking place inside prisons. The DLSAs and the Board of Visitors shall submit a joint report of their inspection to the SLSAs, which shall compile a common report and forward it to NALSA, which shall in turn file a joint status report before this Court in the above-mentioned suo motu writ petition; and
8. The Union government was directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union territories within a period of three weeks from the date of delivery of this judgment.

Conclusion

The Court used the rich, available jurisprudence to negate the impugned rules on all counts of Articles 14, 17, 21 and 23. However, the Court did not provide any reasoning as to why the deletion of column of caste in jail register is being ordered. While it is a relevant direction which would have the result of superintendents or any jail officer having no information about a prisoner’s caste for them to be able to discriminate, there is a threat of this rule being used to render invisible the incarceration of the marginalised communities.

According the 2022 Prison Statistics, compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau(NCRB) from States and UTs, 2 in 3 undertrial prisoners belong to the oppressed caste groups of SC, ST and OBC communities. This has been a trend, according to a study by Indiaspend, and the share has remained over 60% for 25 years since 1998.  It is unclear if states and UTs collect the caste data from the registers and if they do so, deletion of caste column would erase the future data points on prison populations. It is not to say that the benefit of these data points supersedes the chance of potential discrimination in prisons due to caste column.  Notably, even with the deletion of caste column, jail officers could know the caste by simply asking the prisoners. The judgement while being progressive and extensively explanatory for the most part, misses this discussion.

Prisons, as Foucault argued, are where the state’s power is most visibly and viscerally exercised. They’re not just places of confinement—they are arenas where the state’s authority shapes lives, controlling bodies and behaviour. One would assume that such a concentrated expression of power would automatically impose the state’s ideals, erasing societal divisions like caste. After all, in a prison, nothing usually runs in prison except the sheer power of the state and its control over those it holds. Yet, in India, that same power has allowed caste-based segregation and discrimination to persist within prison walls, reflecting the societal inequalities that should have no place in such a controlled environment.

This raises a fundamental question: if the Indian state, with all its authority in prisons, cannot rid its most controlled spaces of caste prejudice—even in its two policies of Model Prisons Manual, 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023—how can we expect it to challenge these same divisions in the open society, where its influence is far more diffuse? If state power is supposed to be strongest in prison and yet fails to enforce the principle of equality, what does that say about its ability—or willingness—to confront caste-based discrimination beyond those walls?

The judgement may be read here

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

SC asks States to improve prison conditions, address the issue of overcrowding in prisons in its latest rebuke to States for not following its..

More 90k undertrials in UP prisons with 24% SCs, 5% ST and 46% OBC: MHA

Why Judiciary and Executive must heed President Murmu’s serious concerns on prisoners’ rights

The post ‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Historical figures like Jotirao Phule and Bhimrao Ambedkar have highlighted the exploitation experiences of marginalized groups, which led to upper-caste organizations promoting ideas of a glorious Hindu past and the concept of a Hindu nation, drawing from the values propagated in the Manusmriti.

In recent years, particularly under the influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a narrative has emerged portraying all castes as equal. RSS ideologues have produced numerous publications that assert an egalitarian history among different castes.

Nevertheless, some RSS leaders attribute the emergence of Dalits and tribal communities to “Muslim invasion” during medieval history. Bhaiyyaji Joshi, a prominent figure within the RSS, argues that the category of ‘shudras’ was never synonymous with untouchables in Hindu scriptures, claiming that so-called “Islamic atrocities” gave rise to this social stratification. He elaborates that historical foreign invaders forced Hindu communities into degrading labor, perpetuating a caste engaged in tasks like skinning animals as a punitive measure.

Amidst the rising calls for a caste census, there is an orchestrated effort to recast the caste system in a favorable light, portraying it as a protective structure of Hindu society. An article in the RSS publication Panchjanya, penned by Hitesh Shankar on August 5, 2024, asserts that foreign aggressors failed to dismantle the caste system and that it has been integral to maintaining the well-being of the nation. The piece even references former Bombay Bishop Louis George Milne, suggesting that caste is inherently tied to both social structure and religious identity.

Shankar’s article posits that just as missionaries once criticized caste, the Indian National Congress (INC) – likened to the colonial East India Company – similarly perceives it as a societal impediment. It suggests that those invaders could not breach the “caste fortress,” instead relegating upper-caste individuals to menial tasks, an assertion the author argues lacks historical grounding.

Ambedkar famously denounced the Manusmriti, while the RSS promotes its values of caste inequality

However, this perspective is rife with inaccuracies. The caste system, as delineated in the Manusmriti, predates foreign invasions and laid the groundwork for practices of untouchability and manual scavenging, steeped in notions of purity and pollution. Works like the Narada Samhita and the Vajasaneyi Samhita explicitly describe roles and duties tied to caste hierarchies, including tasks involving sanitation.

Dr. Ambedkar, a key advocate for the rights of the oppressed, viewed caste as a Brahminical constriction on society and called for its complete eradication. In stark contrast to the pro-caste sentiments expressed in the RSS’s narrative, many radical Dalit scholars and activists identify the caste system as a grave ailment of Hindu society.

While the call for proportionate representation and a caste census is viewed as a threat by Hindu nationalists led by the RSS, its roots can be traced back to the historic Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar. The caste census eventually found its place within the Indian Constitution, even as opposition efforts have historically manifested through violence, such as the riots in Ahmedabad in the 1980s.

The claim is that the INC is merely a vestige of the East India Company and its founder, A.O. Hume, is a distortion of history. Key figures in the INC, from Lokmanya Tilak to Gandhi, actively resisted British colonial rule. Grassroots organizations, such as the Madras Mahajan Sabha and the Bombay Association, sought platforms to voice their demands, eventually aligning with the INC to champion the aspirations of a burgeoning national consciousness.

The INC evolved to call for ‘Total Independence’ and the ‘Quit India’ movement. Its agenda included social justice principles championed by Ambedkar, a stark contrast to the RSS’s hierarchy-defending ideology.

In conclusion, the divergence between Ambedkar, who fought for the equitable ideals embedded in the Indian Constitution, and the RSS, which advocates for Hindu nationalism and caste hierarchy, remains profound. Ambedkar famously denounced the Manusmriti, while the RSS promotes its values of caste inequality.

Ambedkar’s role in drafting the Indian Constitution stands in opposition to the long-standing resistance from the RSS, reflecting deep ideological divides in contemporary Indian society.

Author is Political commentator

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Seeking caste census? Sharp rise in move to portray caste as Hindu protective shield appeared first on SabrangIndia.