Undergraduate Internship Report: Dalit Social Justice and the Panchayati Raj: A Contextual Analysis for NGO Strategy Development

Dalit Social Justice and the Panchayati Raj

A Contextual Analysis for NGO Strategy Development

Cortney Evans The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Submitted July 26, 2010 to

UNNATIOrganization for Development Education

Jodhpur, Rajasthan

3

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………3

1. Social Justice…………………………………………………………………………………...3

2. Dalits……………………………………………………………………………………………4

Today’s Dalit……………………………………………………………………………………...4

Historical Origins of Dalits…………………………………………………………………..……5

Historical Origins of Untouchability………………………………………………………...……6

Analytical Approaches to Dalits…………………………………………………………………11

Policy Approaches to Dalits……………………………………………………………………...15

3. The Panchayat………………………………………………………………………………..21

Historical Origins………………………………………………………………………...............21

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment

Act…………………………………………………….......22

4. Social Justice, Dalits, and the Panchayat: Concluding

Remarks…………………………26

4

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to contextualize the role of Dalits in society with respect to social justice and further, thePanchayat. The meaning of social justice, in context of this report, will first be established. The historical origins of bothDalits and untouchability will then be discussed and the implications on the place of Dalits in society considered with regard to the theories presented. This leads to the question of if Dalits are inclusive members of Hindu society, or in fact, a somehow separate group. That this question is the key to understanding untouchability becomes the thesis of this report. This thesis is evaluated throughout a discussion of the analytical and policy approaches that have been prevalent over the last century. The contextual origins of the Panchayati Raj Institution will then be detailed and relevant aspects of the current system compared to the earlier policy discussion and critiqued with respect to the thesis of this report. Finally, therole of the Panchayat as an agent of Dalit social justice will beconsidered, along with the implications this has for future knowledge and capacity building NGO strategy development.

1. Social Justice

Reaching a consensus over how to conceptually define social justice has proven a mammoth task for scholars. Much of the debate centers on the differences between social equality and social justice. For the sake of this report, it will be assumed that social justice implies social equality. Further, social

5

justice will be understood in the sense that it encompasses a society that functions in such a way that it is able to responsibly and accountably incorporate all its members in a manner that is perceived just by all parties.

Given that the thesis of this report centers on the questionof the place of Dalits in society, it should be made clear at this time that this question is with regards to Hindu society. Theories detailing the ways in which Dalits may in fact be outside of this group will be discussed later, but general society and Hindu society should not be confused. By nature of their existence, Dalits are a part of society as a whole. The greater question is if they fall within or beyond the bounds of Hindu social order. The implications of this question with regards to social justice are crucial to understanding the perspective of Dalits, Politicians, and Panchayat officials and further, what strategies have and have not been successful over the years and why.

In the midst of a developing society, highly invested in andfocused on progress and increased well-being, social justice is acrucial concept. In the absence of social justice, forward movement will unquestionably be retarded. Social injustice permeates social functionality on such a deep level that it can prevent access to livelihood, education, and basic necessities for survival. Aside from the inhumane implications of this, it also prevents critical government policy from reaching targeted populations and can destroy crucial linkages among community members.

Untouchability associated with Dalit populations has been recognized as one of the greatest threats to social justice in India. The topic has been highly politicized over the years, which opens up space for a significant amount of analysis regarding the nature of untouchability. The following sections seek to further detail this nature and their implications for society.

2. Dalits

6

Today’s Dalit Differences of definition over precisely who Dalits are and

the nature of their untouchability have led to clashing perspectives on how untouchability should be approached. Yet, these perspectives cannot be fully understood without taking intoaccount the reality of who Dalits are in present day. If anything, it is their ambiguous origins and identity that emphasizes the importance appreciating the experience of today’s Dalit.

Dalit identity varies widely across India. In any given region, there are variances across economic status, occupation, religion, language, and social place in community. In a sense, Dalits are everywhere. They live in rural areas, they live in urban areas, they live in primarily like-caste communities, they live in mixed caste communities; and wherever they are, they tendto generally follow local customs and speak the local language. They may have an occupation associated with the prescriptions of their caste; they may have an occupation of higher status. They may practice Hinduism, or they may, for one reason or another, practice Buddhism or Christianity. This scrambled identity makes clear the point that to use the term Dalit to refer to merely onegroup of people is a quite narrow approach. As Omvedt poignantly notes, “to give a single account of the Untouchable experience would be to overstate commonalities among untouchables, and to understate convergences with higher society.”

Despite variances in identity among Dalits, the one thing they share is social inequality. This leads to common experiencesof social alienation, humiliation, and discrimination. Stark regional differences may make definition of the group itself difficult, yet it is their common familiarity with particular inequalities that can be systematically used to define them. In this sense, their identity is externally derived. Whether they are of separate racial origins, or originally nomadic, or more likely, some combination thereof, they are the depressed and oppressed of society. Even when they are able to individually break away from relegations of caste and class, they are on the whole still affected by persistent social norms and taboos. From the Dalit perspective, untouchability is primarily a social phenomenon.

7

Yet, over the years the Dalit cause has worked its way into the political realm. It is this internal variance that presents the main political dilemma in appealing for Dalit populations over the years. Succinctly, there is no pan-Indian Dalit rights movement. There are however, movements all across India. Dalit activist groups have struggled greatly to mobilize an effectivelylarge base of support on the social level, and have struggled to bring together Dalit voters under a sufficiently powerful electorate. Fragmentation and regionalism are key challenges facing Dalit movements today. Further, because of their largely externally defined identity, the factions within Dalit groups areweakened under the pressure of external unity that defines them collectively and thus expects them to mobilize collectively. Unlike Civil Rights era America, the Dalits do not present a united front; and unlike Apartheid South Africa, the government is not divided. In this sense, Dalits face a struggle with untouchability that is the worst of both worlds that makes it a truly unique scenario.

It is in attempting to understand how to rid untouchability from society; through social, political, religious, or economic means, that the context of untouchability’s origins becomes important. Bringing Dalit issues into the spotlight of mass social consciousness has forced categorization and definition of both Dalits and untouchability as social and political leaders have attempted to breach the question of achieving Dalit social justice.

Historical Origins of DalitsUnderstanding the current theory and policy regarding Dalits

and social justice first requires knowledge of the background behind the development of these perspectives. Further, contextualizing Dalits begs insight into the nuances and interaction among a plethora of disciplines all collectively in the context of the history of India. Yet, as time has passed and each of these realms has had an effect on the story of today’s Dalits, the overriding cause of these effects revolves around a difference of perception over precisely who the Dalits are. Theirhistorical origins are thus the most logical place to begin.

8

Aryan TheoryAmong scholars, the origins of the Dalits divide into two

main schools of thought: one being a primarily racial explanationand the other primarily social. Some find root with the Aryan invasions of Northwestern India (citation, citation, citation), which has most commonly come to be known as the “mixed race theory”. To aid the Aryans attempts to conquer the indigenous people, they began to reproduce with them as a means to promulgate their culture. Yet, this mixed breeding between Ayransand the indigenous peoples provided a dilemma that made it difficult to distinguish racial differences. It is thought that from this, the Rig Veda period (1200 BC) emerged and with it, theestablishment of the varna system as a means to establish those of Ayran origin as racially pure.

The Veda system instituted the division of society into a series of varnas, considered to be most conceptually analogous tothe modern day caste system. It thus rings familiar that the highest veda was the Brahmin, or priest, followed by the Kshatriya, ruler and warrior, the Vaishya, traders, and lastly, the Shudra, or servant. The precise development of this system over the years is up for debate, but it is generally understood that by 200 AD, social order in this system was stratified by levels of both occupational and racial purity. Whether those thatwere considered the lowest of the low and thus impure were in fact within the bounds of the Veda system and a jati, sub-caste, of Shudra, or if they were people who had relocated to the fringes of Ayran occupation and thus were of altogether differentracial origins, is a question that will be addressed at a later point.

The key point scholars assert with reference to the Rig Vedic period is that it established a system of stratified socialorder, most likely as a solution to a racial dilemma, which created precedent for the notion of a group of people belonging to the lowest strata of society, considered to be the ancestors of the modern day Dalit. This theory finds support in the observation that with the spread of Aryans to the Davidian south,records can be found of occupational and racial discrimination similar to modern day untouchability associated with Dalits.

9

Tribal TheoryAn alternate theory for Dalit origins can be found within

pre-Vedic Indian tribal society during the transition from nomadic lifestyles to that of settlement. There is much variationin theory, but the consistent trend in opinion is that somewhere in the process of this transition there arose a need for having away to distinguish between those people that were settled and those that were not. Bahuguna posits that this manifested itself in the form of settled people’s ceasing to eat meat and those that continued to eat it became categorized as impure, with this impurity deriving from religious origins. Others argue the need for stratification arose economically, either from settled peopleneeding a way to organize their society, thus leaving nomads out of it, or to have a way to ensure already settled people maintained the best jobs as nearby nomadic groups attempted to assimilate to society. Ambedkar argues that as tribes settled, there arose a need for protection from other tribes and thus “broken men,” defeated nomads from other tribes, were used as militants but were not allowed to live within the bounds of the settlement and were considered outcaste from society. Ambedkar’s theory is somewhat different from the others in that it points tosubordination as the very cornerstone of what has eventually become modern Hindu society. In all cases, the role assumed by the lowest in society is thought to explain the existence of Dalits.

There is only weak genetic support for those of higher castebeing of more Aryan composition, yet the writings on the time period, particularly the manusmirti serves as supporting evidencethat emerging social system stratified society, with particular occupational provisions within each strata, and complex rules about marriage between strata. On the other hand, most of tribal theory is the result of anthropological speculation rather than absolute documentation; although many argue that it makes more sense in context of modern society than Aryan theory. What is certain is the existence of the writings of the Veda period and hence the institutional establishment of a divided social order and consequently, the development of a lower class of people. Further, the teachings of Buddha dating back to 600 BC which callfor equality and rejection of caste indicate through opposition

10

that a stratified social system was already firmly in place and that inequality prevailed such that there was cause to renounce it.

Historical Origins of UntouchabilityThe origins of the Dalits are crucial to understanding the

origins of Untouchability. It is this, untouchability, that is perceived to be the greatest threat to social justice in India today, and thus the root cause for concern over the status of Dalits in society. Yet, it should be made very clear that to synonymously interchange Dalithood and untouchability would be equivocal. Etymologically, the word used to refer to the group ofpeople considered Dalits today has changed over time. Manu’s textrefers to them as Chandala, ambiguously either a jati of Shudra or outside the varna system altogether. The term Atishudra, literally not Shudra, can also be found in Vedic literature. British officials used the term “Depressed classes,” colonial legislature politicized the term “scheduled caste,” Gandhi insisted on the term “Harijan” meaning, children of god, and 1931saw the introduction of the term “Dalit” first on record, later popularized during the Harijan atrocities of the 1970s. Some of these terms merely denote a group of people, some of them categorize a group of people of low class, and still others hint at a low class group of people that are somehow consequently inferior.

Alongside this, the idea of untouchability has also developed over time. Just as the ancestral roots of Dalits are ambiguous, the cause for the introduction of untouchability is also ambiguous and forces confrontation with the question of precisely what place Dalits have in Hindu society. It is this question that serves as the pivotal point around which modern theories regarding Dalits revolves. Depending on which theory of Dalit origins is accepted, and further which perspective on untouchability is ascribed to, directly impacts which approach topolicy will be taken in addressing pertinent Dalit social justice issues.

Aryan Theory

11

Looking at the Rig Veda period, there are a number of theories that possibly shed light on untouchability. It might be that the Chandala group were in fact a jati of Shudra. Vedic writings indicate documentation of treatment of this group in a manner similar to modern day Dalit discrimination. The idea that they are a part of the Varna system indicates that this discrimination was religiously the result of ritual impurity and consequently influenced their occupational options and lead to the development of a separate socio-economic class in addition tocaste discrimination that prevented them from interacting religiously with other members of society.

There are questions about the translatability of the Vedic varna system and the current day Hindu caste system. It is possible that discriminated people in the varna system simply translated over to the Dalits of the caste system and with them, the idea of ritual impurity. However, it is also possible that they were a group of people not included at the time of hindu caste development, either because they were not a part of the varna system or because they did not translate into the new system, and thus were considered impure because of their lack of social place. Both rejection of karma and different sutra practices are sometimes pointed to as evidence that Dalits were in fact never a part of Hinduism.

Tribal theory Tribal theory also has a few suggestions to offer . If the

first Dalits were in fact conquered nomads, broken men, relegatedto the edges of settlement, it makes sense that untouchability could have been a result of viewing them as impure as a means of keeping them separate and outside society. In this sense, the development of untouchability and caste based social order developed hand in hand. The practice of beef-eating common among Dalits today is considered evidence that they originally were nomads that did not adopt the ways of settled peoples. If they were nomads that attempted to assimilate to settled society, untouchability may have developed as a means to ensure low occupational standing such that those that were there first maintained the best jobs. In this sense their impurity has more practical origins.

12

Implications The range of possibilities within the theories discussed can

be said to fall into two categories. The first being that untouchability is an inherent aspect of the caste based social order and adversely affects Dalits either by excluding them from society or holding them permanently low within society. Contrastingly is the idea that untouchability developed separately to the emergence of Dalits, thus implying that it the caste system is actually benign.

It can be see that this divide over the place of untouchability is the central concept to understanding different approaches to Dalit social justice given that it has direct implications on the place they have in society, and further how change can be brought about within the context of current society. Yet, social scientists often chose, instead, to center their attention on questions of whether untouchability is an issue of caste or class. This approach will be discussed in further detail in the following section, but it should first be made clear that this is an inconsequential approach given that untouchability permeates both realms today. If it started as pragmatically occupational impurity, it has found enforcing legitimacy in the Hindu caste system. If it originated from ritual impurity, it has lead to the cultivation of socio-economicnorms as well. Untouchability is inextricably intertwined in matters of both caste and class. The greater question is the nature of this untouchability; specifically, is its relationship with Hindu society inherently ingrained in caste conceptualization, or is it an issue that developed anti-synchronically and thus can be “removed” from the system without needing to upset the existing social order of caste and class.

A Tale of Two LeadersThese two ideas, one that Dalits were outside of Hindu

society and thus untouchability would forever hold them outcaste,and the other that untouchability was very much not an inherent part of society, came to a head at the turn of the century through the voices of two leaders. Thus, the stances of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar will be contrasted continuously to

13

establish a consistent reference each time a new contextual layeris folded in. It could be argued that this approach is a gross oversimplification and prevents the nuances of any given context from being fully conveyed. Two points stand in contradiction to this. Firstly, given that this report seeks to understand Dalits in context of social justice and Panchayat system, understanding both the political and social context of Dalits is of prime importance to establishing a lens through which to view the topic. Ambedkar has by and far been the voice of the Dalit movements in India over the last century. There were those that came before him that paved the path he walked, and those that have extended that path after his passing. Yet, both in the scholarly world and Dalit reality, he is the most consistent reference. Gandhi, on the other hand, was the voice of social justice that has had the greatest impact on political philosophy with regards to equality over the years. It thus makes sense thatthe two must be understood together to fully see the purpose of this report. Secondly, Ambedkar and Gandhi had directly conflicting perspectives on how to approach Dalit related issues,around which two differing schools of thought have developed which are most directly analogous to the central thesis of this report. Thus, understanding the perspectives of these two contemporaries provides for greater theoretical understanding. Assuch, the stances of these two leaders create a sense of continuity that allows each new topic and argument to be considered in context of the whole by establishing a common reference. It is from this that the nuances of each topic are thus able to “shine forth”, as Gandhi might say, rather than getting lost in conceptual disjoint.

Dr. B. R. AmbedkarA Dalit born himself, Dr. Bhiramo Ramji Ambedkar emerged on

the political scene in the 1920’s and began establishing himself as a representative of oppressed classes and an activator of depressed classes’ rights. Ambedkar stepped into the arena at a time when Aryan Race theory was popular among upper caste people and when; consequently, non-Brahman movements were at their height. Ambedkar was essentially the first to ascribe strongly totribal theory, which he explored extensively and provided his own

14

version of, yet the implications of his theory are essentially similar to those that rejected Brahmanical perspectives on Aryan race theory: that Dalits were indeed somehow different from the upper echelons of society and thus approaching Dalit issues required stepping outside of the existing social order. In this sense, Ambedkar is not entirely original. Where he gains status as a “revolutionary” is the manner in which he applied this conclusion to politics.

Ambedkar’s theories developed over the years and while this may have hindered him from establishing a consistent platform, itdoes make it clearer the thought process that he went to and the consequent affects this had on his approach to Dalit issues. Ambedkar’s most distinguishing conclusion was his insistence thatDalits were outside the Hindu social system, and that untouchability is therefore inherent in society as a means to forever hold them outcaste. He thus argued that they have specific and different needs that need to be attended to separateof the rest of society. Consequently, he demanded that the Dalit people have a separate place in the national government and its respective institutions. Further, because the Dalits were a non-distinguishable group the shared a common experience of discrimination that limited them socio-economically, Ambedkar often took an economic approach to dissolving the limitations faced by Dalit groups.

Politically, his championing success, measured in terms of achieving what he intended to achieve to a notable extent, is provision of reserved seats for schedule castes and scheduled tribes in parliament with the signing of the Poona Act at the Round Table Conference of 1931. Following the same logic, that Dalit populations have separate needs to address and because theywill be silenced by the oppressive upper caste, Ambedkar concluded that a separate electorate was the only viable means toestablish a space in the national government for Dalit voices to be heard,. Due both to divides among Dalit leaders and Gandhi’s famous “fast until death” response to the suggestion, separate electorates were removed from the Poona Act. He founded the Independent Labor Party (ILP) in 1936 with all oppressed classes platform that particularly emphasized welfare issues and working class land and labor opportunities. At the time of the 1937

15

elections, the Congress party, lead by Gandhi, unquestionably dominated in securing the vote of both the caste Hindu vote and those of lower castes that Ambedkar was hoping to bring into the ILP. Those that did support the ILP were largely from Ambedkar’s home region of Marhar. Ambedkar asserted that this wasn’t due to the Congress party actually representing Dalit issues more fully,but due to confusing and disorienting splits among smaller electorates vying for Dalit support.

Whatever the case, Ambedkar experienced what has been one ofthe most persistently prevailing issues in politically representing Dalit issues: factionalization. Despite attempting to appeal to Dalits overall on the basis of their common lower economic standing, caste politics seem to persist among Dalit jatis just as strongly as between Dalits and other castes. Other Dalit leaders over the years who have taken similar approaches have also encountered issues with failing to gain widespread support and being limited in creating unity only from smaller regional groups.

After the 1937 elections, Ambedkar reorganized and formed the Schedule Caste Federation (SCF) in place of the ILP. Their success in the 1942, 1946, and 1952 elections were all of decreasing significance compared to the 1937 elections. At the time of the 1947 Independence, Nehru appointed Ambedkar as First Minister of Law and was held responsible for overseeing the drawing up of the post-independence constitution. This ensured that large steps were taken towards Dalit social justice in the constitution, including banning untouchability, caste-based discrimination, and expanded the reach of seat reservations in governing institutions. Yet, the full implementation of these provisions was far from realized at this time. Additionally, likely both because of the popularity of the Congress party’s nationalism which Ambedkar had to reconcile with and Ambedkar’s vehement disdain for village societies, provisions for the development of the Panchayat as an aid in reaching these constitutional provisions to Dalits were largely ignored.

Ambedkar never wavered from his insistence that Dalits couldnot realize social equality in the context of the existing Hindu society and that further, because society was inextricably interlinked with untouchability and caste order. It was this that

16

eventually led Ambedkar to renounce Hinduism and declare that it should be abolished. He felt that regardless of efforts by the government to abolish caste practices, the Hindu religion would forever reinforce them. Accordingly, it was his conversion to Buddhism in 1956, along with almost half a million of his Maharashtan followers that was his last major political act.

Mahatma Gandhi The Mahatma is often discussed in literature on Dalit issues

as a fringe character given that the majority of his ideologies were directed towards society as a whole rather than a particularpopulation and thus his theories are generally inapplicable, if not even contradictory, to the Dalit cause. While there is truth in this logic, given his impact on society his perspective is crucial as a means to better understand the context in which social workers supporting Ambedkar’s ideas must work. Additionally, with regard to social justice, Gandhi is a landmarkon the theoretical landscape and thus is a key part of bridging the concepts of Dalits and social justice.

A contemporary of Ambedkar, Gandhi also emerged on the political scene in the 1920s. Firm in his stances from the beginning, Gandhi fervently insisted that the only viable approach to attaining equality was to maintain and perfect the established social order. Gandhi and Ambedkar agreed that untouchability had directly religious implications. Where they differ is that Ambedkar saw Hinduism as inherently discriminatoryand Gandhi saw the presence of discrimination as a corruption of pure Hinduism; a stratified society did not inherently entail hierarchy. This idea, that Hinduism needed to be reevaluated, wasradical and not completely embraced, yet his ideas of non-violence, self-sufficiency, self-governance, and equality have earned widespread respect.

The delineation between Gandhi and Ambedkar’s stances came to a head during the Round Table Conferences mentioned earlier. Gandhi directly opposed Ambedkar’s approach to Dalit issues and was absolutely insistent that Dalits were a part of the Hindu community and should be treated as such. To do otherwise was the antithesis of equality. Rather than single out the Dalit population, the question of who Dalits were and their origins was

17

irrelevant in the sense that it was a given that they were a partof Hindu society, which already firmly established how they should be treated and approached. In keeping with this, Gandhi insisted on reinvigorating pure Hinduism on the premise of acceptance and interaction among of all members of society. He defied the physical manifestations of untouchability by adopting Dalit children and dining among Dalits. He also campaigned for Dalit entry into Hindu temples, although didn’t push the issue asfar as other leaders of the time when it became clear that force would be needed to make an immediate impact.

Perhaps because of his moderate stance, Gandhi remained in the good graces of the British colonials and took over as head ofthe Congress party; consequently, his was a key voice in the leadup to independence. His emphasis on nationalism as a means to unite the country’s push for independence was probably influential to his emphasis on working together as a society, sharing the common foundation of Hinduism, in striving to achievesocial equality. Consequently, his Harijan campaign, launched in 1932, focused on the removal of untouchability from all of society, rather than the raising up of Dalits. In his own words, “a reform will not come by reviling the Orthodox. The so-called higher classes will have to descend from their pedestal before they can make an impression on the so-called lower classes”. Manyhave critiqued his campaign as general and inconcrete and thus had little political impact. Yet, given his political prestige, the few ways in which he sought political change had lasting effects. Perhaps most distinct is that because of his insistence that the Harijan people were an incorporated part of society, hisconsequently insisted that politically, the scheduled caste people be defined as strictly Hindu, consequently excluding thoseof lower socio-economic status that were of any minority religion. It is the speculation of the author that the widespreadParliamentary acceptance of this may have partially been derived from the timeliness of the Indo-Pakistani war, which would have put pressure on the government to not be too friendly to Muslim Indian groups. Whatever the case, this established a precedent that has by and large been the prevailing trend in legislatively defining Dalit populations over the last century.

18

ComparedThe contrasting political careers of Gandhi and Ambedkar

serve to demonstrate that that question of untouchability took onvery distinct forms for these two leaders. Where Gandhi accepted Hinduism, Ambedkar rejected it. Where Gandhi looked to society, Ambedkar looked to politics. Where Gandhi focused on removing untouchability, Ambedkar sought to defy it. Gandhi felt that Ambedkar’s approach was an inappropriate politicization of a social issue that required a change of society’s perspective in order to attain political equality. Contrastingly, Ambedkar felt that because untouchability was inherent in society, political change was the only means to pave the path for social change, otherwise the government, run by members of an unequal society, would forever withhold equal rights from Dalit populations. Keay phrases it in such a way that, “Ambedkar transformed Untouchability from a moral problem dominated by reformist Hindusinto a matter of political rights for a subordinated segment of Indian society” which has had a direct impact on the stance of Dalit activist groups and movements. Gandhi, opposingly, impactedexternal definitions of Dalit identity. Both these perspectives had have an impact on the political ideologies that have prevailed over the last century, yet the policy has also been influenced by the common theoretical approaches that scholars have taken to understanding untouchability. The following sectionwill seek to discuss the scholarly divide between questions of caste and class with respect to untouchability and show the places Ambedkar and Gandhi fit into the theory where appropriate,in addition to setting the stage for better understanding the perspective of the politicians that have breach Dalit issues.

Analytical approaches to DalitsAccording to the majority of scholars, approaching Dalit

issues can be seen as a question of whether Dalit identity is that of class or caste origins. It is the personal opinion of theauthor that this delineation is an inadequate handling of the topic, that it is an issue of both caste and class, and the greater question lies in determining whether they are inclusive or exterior to Hindu society. Yet the literature demands some

19

level of understanding in order to further contextualize this report.

To seek to understand the differences between these two analytical approaches is to pursue the questions of whether classis derived from caste, or if caste is derived from class. Heralding back to the historical origins of Dalits discussed earlier, it can be seen that the Aryan race theory stands more insupport of the former, while tribal theory lends support to the later, which partially explains Ambedkar’s political emphasis on Dalit welfare. Depending on which approach is ascribed to, the place that Dalits are perceived to have within Hindu society is influenced, while also effecting the implications of that perception. Yet, because government policy has largely aligned itself with caste explanations for Dalithood, it would be painting an incomplete picture not to show the logic behind both methods of analysis as a means to better understand why the government has taken the stance that it has and the consequent policy approaches that have prevailed over the last century. It will be shown that often times, when the government has entertained this theoretical argument of caste versus class and has been unclear, even hypocritical, in its conclusion and thus has developed policy that inappropriately attempts to respond to this theoretical divide. .

Caste analysisThus far, much of the background presented has taken a

primarily caste based approach to Dalithood. It forces an evaluation of the interaction of religious, social, and politicalfactors in defining Dalit identity. In a simplified sense, the Hindu caste system could be considered to be a social order made legitimate through the Hindu religion. Thus, the lowered social and economic status of Dalits is the result of ritual impurity derived from their caste ranking. Further, in order to raise their economic standing, the Hindu caste system must first be addressed. As discussed earlier, the answer to the question of whether or not Dalits are in fact Hindu has been a key point in the theoretical split within this branch of analysis. In a sense

20

then, given that the thesis of this report focuses on Hindu society, it could be conceded that untouchability is in fact, primarily a caste issue. Yet it will be shown later that it is a caste issue insofar that caste has enabled the development of a social order that extends beyond caste delineations.

This intricate relationship between society and religion raises controversy over the role that religion can have in indentifying Dalits. Further, it is this religious emphasis that both gives caste arguments their validity, while also serving as their primary constraint. Attempts to rectify caste discrimination with religion have been seen to hold valid theoretically but fall short in practicality. Those Dalits that have converted to Buddhism or Christianity have not experienced notably lower levels of social discrimination and thus have made considerably little progress towards realizing social justice regardless of individual changes to their perceived social identity. However, this point is not intended to support theargument that religion does not affect a caste oriented social order. Rather, it must be taken in context of the observation that those that have attempted to address Dalit issues by religiously stepping outside their caste may not have actually removed themselves from the system. It can be seen that even after conversion, many Dalits remain a part of their community and maintain a similar place in that community. Many of them inter-marry with Dalits that have maintained Hindu practices. This drives home the point that religion is part of understandingDalits place in the caste system, but the caste system carries over beyond religion and has social implications that must also be addressed in tandem. The caste system receives its legitimacy from society. Religion may be a valid way to enact change in thissocial order, but it requires similar legitimacy from society to be effective.

The stance of the government has not helped much either. Over the last century the Indian national government has been consistent in attempting to define Dalits along primarily religious lines. The implications of this are that by defining the SC/ST populations as only Hindu, conversion to any other religion removes the Constitutional protections designed to impact Dalit groups. In effect, the provisions are for only for

21

those that are the “right kind” of Dalit. Further, this indicatesa class based analytical approach being countered with policy that would normally result from a caste based analysis.

Class analysisClass based analysis seeks to present discrimination issues

encountered by Dalits as primarily derived socio-economically. Inthis sense, the impurity associated with Dalits is the result of a lowered occupational status, rather than the other way around. According to this method of analysis, to be Dalit is to experience lower standards of living and opportunities due to their primarily being of lower economic status. This analysis lends itself to the logic that to raise them up as a class will consequently raise their place in society. It is precisely how toenact class change that is a difficult question to answer. Again,the “Ambedkar versus Gandhi” question of whether to work within or outside of the Hindu system becomes relevant. If the stance istaken that economic change should come from within the system, Ambedkar’s concept of compensatory discrimination makes sense. Contrastingly, Gandhi’s approach of destigmatizing untouchabilityin order to engender a social order of inherent equality can be seen as an alternate approach to understanding the policy implications of class analysis.

Just as religion serves as the basis and limitation of casteanalysis, it is economics that set the boundaries, and hence limitations, of class analysis. The argument that increased economic standing leads to more opportunities, particularly educational, that can in turn lead to more equal social standing makes theoretical sense. Yet in reality, it has been seen that Dalits that have found themselves in occupations of higher socialorder than would normally be associated with their caste have still experienced discrimination and social inequality. This leads to the point that there are other factors at play beyond class standing. As Michaels asserts, even if impurity is intendedto be originally explained by occupational status, over the yearsit has taken on a dimension of inheritability that transcends economic status.

Caste, class, and policy

22

The inability of both caste and class analysis’ ability to sufficiently explain occupational and social discrimination leadsto a number of points. First, it becomes apparent that in order to approach the issue, a dual method of analysis is needed to fully envelope all the factors at play. Secondly, while both may contain theoretical soundness on their own, the necessary assumptions they require to constitute theoretical validity fall short when the reality is taken into context and the lines between the two become blurred. Hindu society has morphed over the millennia; social order has become less occupationally rigid and caste identity is less constrained to religious practice. This leads to questions of how to approach policy even after a theoretical approach has been established. As hinted at already, these questions center on whether to work within or outside of the system. It follows that it is absolutely critical that historical origins, present day reality, method of analysis, and policy perspective all be considered in attempting to understand who the Dalits are and what it is to be Dalit.

Policy Approaches to Dalit Social JusticeThe primary purpose of this report is to contextualize Dalit

social justice in the Panchayat system as means to establishing an approach to pertinent issues relating to the topic. An understanding of both social and political happenings pertaining to Dalits is thus necessary, yet this report takes on a primarilypolitical lens given that the panchayat is a governmental institution. This leads to a somewhat unique perspective. To pit Dalithood and social justice side by side in context of the government further separates this work from previous literature. A detailed explanation of the approach of this report is thus crucial. Thus far, the handling of both Dalit and untouchability origins have been for the purpose of defining the appropriate paradigm to understand the political ideologies that have guided politics over the last century with respect to Dalit social justice.

Political institutions both guide and are guided by society.It can be seen that social movements across the world over the last century have found a spotlight in the political arena. Because government is at once both a part of and a result of

23

society, the process of politicizing social issues causes the issues to take on a new dimension that is both affected by attempts to fit the issue within institutional frameworks (or redesign the framework) and by the social ideologies of those that govern. While this interaction of society, politics, institutions, and ideologies is complex, the following section will attempt to shed light on the interplay of these factors withrespect to Dalit social justice.

Given that untouchability is a social phenomenon that has political implications, it becomes important to not only understand the stance of political leaders and their impact on the governments’ approach to untouchability, but also how social leaders that have impacted society. The majority of Dalit rights literature centers on the ideas and influence of Ambedkar. A household name among Dalit communities, Ambedkar is the cornerstone of many social rights organizations focusing on Dalitrelated issues. Despite what some would consider a rather unsuccessful foray in politics, his approach has had lasting impact and he has undoubtedly contributed to the identity of current Dalit populations. Yet, for most of society, Ambedkar is a minor character. His name is known, most often in reference to the post-independence constitution, and that he had something to do with Dalits but his particular ideas are only vaguely understood. In this sense Ambedkar has been a social leader for Dalit issues, and a political leader for society as a whole.

Contrastingly, for the vast majority of society, it is Gandhi that is considered to be the primary social leader. He could be said to be more successful than Ambedkar in that his ideas are more widespread. Thus, while understanding Ambedkar ishighly important to understanding issues pertinent to Dalits, it should be recognized that these issues must be approached in context of the rest of society and thus the impact of Gandhi cannot be overlooked. Further, Gandhi and Ambedkar notoriously disagreed over what this analysis argues to be the central issue of untouchability, discussed earlier as a difference of whether it is treatable or inherent to society. Thus, they serve as primeexamples for further detailing the policy implications of these differing ideologies and will be referred to throughout the

24

following sections as a means to herald back to the question of Dalit place in Hindu society.

Three Policy ApproachesThe political ideologies that dominated the quarter of a

century before Independence can be seen as the foundations for the public policy approaches that have prevailed since then. In turn, these approaches have directly impacted the government actsand schemes that have not only affected Dalit populations, but also the development of the Panchayat system and the approach to Dalit issues within the Panchayat. While the context leading up to the period of public policy from 1947 to current has been established, it must be kept in mind that an applicable understanding of the policy requires tandem knowledge of the government leaders and relevant political issues at the time. Further, it could be said that policy results from any shift in the balance between the government and civil society. Understanding this balance with respect to Dalit social justice thus requires a hand in hand understanding of both the popular political ideologies in parliament and the pressure from Dalit movements at any given point in time. These two groups are interrelated and often have a cause and effect relationship, withthe causal arrow oscillating between the two; sometimes movementsagitate a government response, sometimes government acts agitate a civil society uprising. Given this, one cannot be taken into consideration without the other in understanding public policy and thus they both will be interwoven in the following discussion.

It should be kept in mind that the chronological trends regarding the main approaches to be discussed are only weakly correlational; there have been indistinct ebbs and flows over theyears. Thus, the topics discussed within each category will oftenspan vast time periods. Additionally, given the interaction of government acts, schemes, and Dalit movements they will be referred together where thematically appropriate, rather than separately. However, this should not be confused with disorganization; it should be understood that the process of organization is theoretical, rather than chronological or topical. It is recognized that the ideologies discussed below are

25

by no means a catch all. The categorical lines that have been drawn follow the accepted trends in the literature on the topic, which enables understanding of why the lines have been drawn where they have as a means to better understanding the perspectives prevalent in approaches to public policy. There are obvious limitations to this, and where appropriate the author hasattempted to provide understanding of these approaches in contextof the theory presented in this work. The author feels it is important to take this approach given the implications it has on understanding the perspective of today’s panchayat leaders and, consequently, the implications this has on the implementation andeffectiveness of government schemes relevant to the Panchayat system and further, progress towards Dalit social justice.

Compensatory DiscriminationAlso referred to as positive discrimination, the concept of

compensatory discrimination is documented as far back as 1902, bywhich time the non-Brahman movement was well established and it thus emerged as a means to counter-balance the perceived imbalance between Brahman and non-Brahman populations. Its first major usage however, was with the 1932 signing of the Poona Act as a result of the Round Table Conferences in London. As discussed earlier, it was Ambedkar who first suggested the idea, in context of pushing for a separate electorate for Dalits, but it was Gandhi’s absolute rejection of the proposal that lead to the compromise of parliamentary seat reservations for what becameknown as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) peoples. Shortly thereafter, it was also clarified in the Order in Councilthat the SC/ST populations where to be defined as lower class Hindus in need of governmental protections similar to minority groups such as Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs.

The combination of these two pieces of legislation has a number of interesting implications. Firstly, defining SC/ST populations as singularly Hindu has been the overwhelmingly popular approach of the government over the last century. Additionally, this forces the issue religiously such that abolishing the caste system had little impact on governmental identification of Dalits, if not even enabling them use the Hindulabel as a proxy for caste. Also, although Ambedkar lamented and

26

resented Gandhi’s interference, which could be argued to have been the source of Ambedkar’s inability later to fully politically mobilize his cause, the resulting legislation actually ended up helping Dalits in ways Gandhi probably did not intend. In a simplified sense, Ambedkar argued that Dalits were socially separate and thus should be treated like any other minority, whereas Gandhi insisted that they were a part of society and should be treated like everyone else. The resulting compromise was to define Dalits as a part of society, yet with minority treatment. The twist in the story is that this precedence prevailed such that when, in 1950, protections for minority religious groups were dropped, SC/ST populations, definitionally Hindu, were the only group to maintain special governmental protections. Consequently, Dalits were thrust into the spotlight as the group which the vast majority of minority legislation has been targeted at over the last century.

As implied by the term, the key point of compensatory discrimination is that it seeks to rectify social injustices through compensatory provisions that create space for equality inwhat would otherwise be an unequal society. There are a number ofcrucial ideological assumptions embedded in this approach. The first is that the targeted group’s place in society is such that direct societal change cannot be sought as a means to establish equality and rather; interventional force must be initiated to implant the seeds of change. Secondly, it assumes that governmentis a viable means to initiate this change and that society consequently will follow suit over time. Given this, much of the resulting legislation was required to be specific and direct and thus took on an administrative nature and focused on using politics to open economic space in society, since this was easy to tangibly define and measure. Definitions became crucial and the definition of SC/ST peoples as Hindus inextricably intertwined them with what may be considered a primarily class handling of the issue with that of caste ideology.

Compensatory discrimination policy was popular around the time of Independence, partially due to the basic need for concrete legislation to include in the 1950 Constitution, and partially due to Ambedkar’s influence as Minister of Law. Yet, Nehru worried about seat reservations on the premise that it was

27

a temporary solution that stood at high risk to persist longer than intended, crippling society from actually dealing with the issues it sought to rectify. There’s something to be said about his assertion given that seat reservations, originally intended to last only 20 years, longer than Nehru’s suggested 10, have been amended and extended four times such that, rather than expiring in 1970, they are still a key part of politics today. Asa part of resurged popularity, and hence controversy, in the last30 years, likely a direct result of increased emphasis on demanding political rights after the Dalit Panther Movement, seatreservations have been ingrained into almost all major bureaucratic arms of the government and have become a required component in admissions to tertiary education institutions. Therehas also been a push recently to continue to extend positive discrimination practices into the private sector.

There have been a number of limitations to the effectivenessof compensatory discrimination policies, and a number of causes for these limitations. To paraphrase Michaels, it is thought thatcompensatory discrimination is the result of a poor compromise between Dalit activists and their government dominating non-Dalitfellows as a means to appear to be broaching the issues of socialjustice without actually addressing them. This is a somewhat accusatory stance, but it should not be overlooked given that thegenerally accepted primary critique is that there is doubt that these policies actually reach the people that are being targeted.In combination with seat reservations, there are often specific prerequisite requirements for attaining a particular position that must be met. Yet, it has been seen to be difficult for SC/STto fulfill these requirements due to limited access to education or work experience at lower, non-reserved levels. This creates a vicious cycle that perpetually holds them down. Additionally, it is often argued that those that do qualify for SC/ST reservationsare the highest ranking of the low ranking, termed by Michael’s as a “harijan elite”. Thus the reservations are not actually providing for the neediest of the population, and further, those that do receive bureaucratic benefit from the reservations are detached such that they are not adequately equipped to fully represent their populations’ needs. Further concern over the limitations of the reach of policy arises from the narrowness,

28

yet recognized difficulty, that comes with the territory of this approach to defining SC/ST populations. The policy approach has often been proclaimed to be a means to leverage the poor and oppressed of society, yet definitionally does not draw a base wide enough to capture this expansive group. Other Backward Caste(OBC) populations are often legislated separately, only certain Dalit jati’s have been identified as SC/ST, and given the definitionally Hindu association with Dalithood, the fact that over 80% of India’s Muslim population identify themselves with the key socio-economic indicators of Dalithood is deeply concerning.

In addition to the constraints inherent in the nature of thepolicy, society itself may be a key limitation in the policy’s effectiveness. This is a result of both backlash and manipulationas a result of non-compliance on the part of non-Dalit populations, and non-performance on the part of the Dalit populations. This cleavage is a key divide in useful and effective implementation of the policy. It is thought that these societal cleavages are deepest at the state and village level, where reserved/non-reserved class interaction is highest and traditional caste relations most prevalent. This sets the stage for the absolutely crucial importance of the Panchayati Raj as a social justice institution that holds the power to either build or burn bridges. The implications of seat reservation in the Panchayat will be detailed more fully at a later point, but at this time it should be noted that the prevailing societal issues,at all levels, run along the lines of dummy leadership. Given thelack of a Dalit political party base, the vast majority of their parliamentary reservations fall into the Congress party and the SC/ST leaders are consequently constrained from having space to voice their opinions due to unpopularity by their non-reserved colleagues. Further, those reserved populations that are elected often fall prey to upper caste ruling, meaning that efforts to support their fellow SC/ST populations are inhibited, discrimination practices perpetuated, and Dalit injustice continued. Societal backlash that stigmatizes those that got their position “only” because of their SC/ST standing also stripsaway their legitimacy and renders them ineffective.

29

Regardless of their limitations, compensatory discriminationpolicy is a key part of the politics today. It has prevailed as an institutionally popular method over the last century and its upswing in popularity in the last 30 years also makes it pertinent to this report. It is a key part of today’s Panchayat system, and is approved and supported by many social justice NGOs, particularly those that follow some level of Ambedkarite ideology. It could be argued that the limitations of compensatorydiscrimination in yielding effective SC/ST leaders is not due to an inherent flaw in the policy itself, but rather, beckons the point that societal change needs to be enacted in tandem with thepolicy as a dual pronged approach that captures both ends of the spectrum, this stance further asserts that positive discrimination can in fact, be one of the safest bets to opening up societal space for Dalits.

Yet, it is with a tone of caution that it should be noted that compensatory discrimination policy falls prey to a contradiction of Dalits place in society. Because it singles out the SC/ST populations, it is implicitly asserting that Dalits area separate part of society and should be treated as thus. Yet, itis understood to be a temporary legislative approach that seeks to create space for SC/ST populations to be accepted into the political sphere and consequently, society. Thus, this approach of exclusion runs the danger of institutionalizing and consequently perpetuating their exclusion further into society such that inclusion is actually barred from being a possibility, thereby contradictorily defeating the purpose of the legislation.It could be argued then, that the greatest failure of compensatory discrimination exists in the failure of the government to enact legislation that clearly handles the issue ofthe place of Dalits in society.

Anti-Adverse DiscriminationThese final thoughts on compensatory discrimination make an

appropriate segue into an examination of anti-adverse discrimination policy. Complementary to the approach of positive discrimination, anti-discrimination policy assumes that social justice is to be achieved through the targeting of society as a whole, rather than a particular group. As such, the role of the

30

government is perceived as a societal facilitator, rather than aninstigator. Because of this, change does not need to made in the existing system of governance (an assumption of positive discrimination), but rather social space is to be made for discriminated people’s through first changing society’s perception of them, and all else follows.

This type of policy was widely propagated by Gandhi and thusreceived a fair amount attention during his years as head of the Congress party prior to Independence. The 1938 Madras Act, which banned discrimination of Untouchables in publically financed places, is often referred to as the first major piece of anti-discrimination policy and set an example for similar legislation across other Indian states and was extended nation-wide to include ritual discrimination in 1947. In response to the times, other attempts and legislating discrimination have been made as particular issues have arisen over the years. Some of these include the 1950 Constitution of India which banned Untouchability, followed by the Untouchability Offense Act in 1955 which further associated criminality with untouchability.

The 1970’s represent an interesting shift in Dalit politics and it seems most relevant to discuss this in context of anti-discrimination policy. Two interesting things happened: the rise of the Dalit Panthers, and other neo-Marxist Dalit activists, around 1972; and Indira Gandhi’s socialist crack down during the 1975-75 Emergency. Contextualizing these events individually would be a seminal work in and of themselves. In context of this paper, what is to be understood is at this time, there was a perception of both increased instances of violence against Dalit groups, and increased political unrest among Dalit groups themselves; the relationship between which was probably reciprocal rather than directly causal. In response to the influxof ‘Harijan atrocities’ the government responded with the anti-discrimination legislation and introduced the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976 (however, it had already been in the works for some time before this, and the 1986 Prevention of Atrocities Act could be saidto be a more direct result of the decade). It makes sense that this legislative approach would have been taken, given that the growing unrest could have been perceived as a threat to the unityof society, and in turn, a direct threat to Indira Gandhi’s

31

presidency. Additionally, it demonstrated that the nature of Dalit activism was changing: rather than struggle within the existing system for change to prove their rights, they were loudly demanding them. By the end of the decade, Dalit rights movements had taken on a much more political nature and thus anti-discrimination policy has fallen somewhat to the wayside over the years, given its emphasis on social change.

Additionally, enacting effective anti-discrimination policy has grown increasingly difficult over the years. It cannot be successful one step further than society is willing to accept it.The fact that it has not, on the whole, been successful could therefore be an indicator that society is not ready to accept further legislation and a more tolerant civic culture must first be garnered through other means. Yet this makes a conundrum of the key principle of the policy that societal change must come from society. Because it does not target any particular part of society with the specifity required of compensatory discrimination, it able to legislate to a large group without having to deal with precisely who that group is, thereby not ruffling any feathers. It’s ability to be successful and its primary constraint are thus found in the same breath; it has the broad reach capable of encompassing most Dalit groups, yet its intangibility makes implementation difficult. Unlike compensatorydiscrimination, which is behavior changing, anti-discrimination policy is behavior correcting. This introduces into the process of implementation a large risk factor for corruption given that it requires discrimination citation and justice being served. Also, because it is an aversion oriented policy approach, it seeks to eradicate discrimination by barring all things discriminatory. This presents the dilemma of defining, distinguishing, and targeting directly what things are to be defined as illegal. Similar to how compensatory discrimination faces the dilemma of population targeting, anti-discrimination policy faces challenges of discrimination targeting.

Given its working assumption that the Dalit populations effected by it are an inherent part of society, it has been parliamentarily popular because it presents no particular threat to the status quo. It’s most direct assault is on orthodox Hinduism, yet with the declining grasp on orthodoxy during

32

Nehru’s presidency, it became easier to accept legislation that had religious implications. Thus, anti-discriminatory policy has largely sought to approach discrimination issues in both the obvious secular places, such as roads and trains, and the obviousritual places, such as temples and extension of priests’ services.

In these senses, this approach has either been effective, oreffectively represented the changes in society over the century. The remaining issues that anti-discrimination has struggled to deal with are found in the space between the secular and the orthodox. This is seen most dramatically in villages where the lines between religion and society are most blurred. Tremendous amounts of documentation exist that point to a prevailing presence of upper caste interference at the water well, tea stalls, houses, public seating and meetings, just to name a select few, that serve as compounding evidence for the alienation, humiliation, and discrimination indicative of social injustice. It is in the personal opinion of the author, that thisgap, which has not been able to be filled by anti-discriminatory policy, is the result a failure to fully address the question of whether Dalit populations are indeed inside or outside of the Hindu society.

Anti-Poverty PolicyAnti-poverty policy, more accurately programs, is the third

key prong of government policy. Less directly analogous to compensatory or anti-discrimination policy, it is most succinctlyexplained as the government’s direct attempts at development and poverty alleviation. This thus puts it slightly outside the box of social justice efforts, but given that Dalits are often the poor, the landless, the waterless, the hungry, the uneducated, and the unemployed, this policy approach directly affects them. Also, it is the type of policy that has the tightest linkages with the Panchayat system. Given that much of anti-poverty policyis directed at sectors in the village, and that the Panchayat is the village governance system, it is thus that much of this policy is handed off to the states to further be handed off to the Panchayats so that the people can hypothetically be reached directly and effectively. Additionally, anti-poverty approaches

33

have been most prevalent in the last few decades, during which time an increased interest in devolution and self-governance havebeen guiding principles in parliament.

Given the centrality of British rule and the emphasis on political ideology as a means for change in the lead up to independence, it was not until after independence that anti-poverty programs began to receive attention as the new country sought for ways to provide for its poor. Perhaps the earliest form of significant anti-poverty efforts were observed during the1950’s in the form of land redistribution, and with the advent ofthe Green Revolution around 1965; parts of India expanded their land reform efforts to also include land augmentation and droughtaversion. These programs were generally structuralist efforts to reorganize such that efficient space and opportunities were opened up in the economy for growth. As a temporary aid to coincide this, work-for-food programs were frequently initiated as a means to provide temporary employment to compensate for sectoral shifts as the economy expanded. In this sense, programs were focused on economic growth in numbers and rural areas were targeted more mechanically.

This proved difficult and came to a near hault during the 1975 Indira Gandhi Emergency. With the following Janata government heading up the 6th 5 year plan, the Integrated Rural Development (IRDP) and Special Component programs were introducedin 1980 and the role of anti-poverty programs in public policy shifted. The basic idea of the IRDP is asset provision to the poor so that they can provide for themselves while increasing thefunds available in the economy through the enhancement and/or selling of the provided assets. This pro-poor approach sought to use increased sector resources as a way to increase the livelihood and well-being of the people in the weakest sectors. Consequently, the vast majority of these programs have been agrarian projects targeted at rural development. Shortly after this, the Special Component program linked the concept of Compensatory Discrimination with Anti-Poverty policy. To better ensure that the neediest members of rural areas that the programswere designed for actually received the benefits of the programs,the Special Component program sought to integrate population ratios into IRDP programs, most specifically by requiring SC/ST

34

recipient quotas by population percentage. This precedent carriedover into the 1990’s and emerged as the popular policy approach after the 1991 Economic Crisis which brought with it a consequentrecommittal to liberalization and growth.

Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs in India would require not only a comparative approach, but also a vast explanation encompassing the micro-economic, development economic, political economy, and sociology factors at play. This is far beyond the scope of this report. Yet, a few points are worthy of relevant mention. Firstly, it can be seen that the majority of these programs have been sector oriented, rather thansociety oriented. Omvedt cogently makes the point that this not only assumes that the people will simply follow suite, but also creates a body of highly compartmentalized policy. It could be said that similar to the ways in which anti-discrimination policyblocks discrimination one particular piece at a time, anti-poverty policy seeks to enable progress one particular project ata time. The micro-economic implications of this are complex, but the social ramifications are considerably simpler. It is a difficult pond to wade through. Each new project has new parameters and qualifications and directions and funding to allocate and therefore brings with it an entirely new body of information that must be passed on and disseminated to the people. With no attempts to evaluate if this is an effective approach or not, given that it will likely persist as the preferred approach, it stands important to recognize that this stresses the eminent need of a well-functioning Panchayat system.

Because anti-poverty policy arises from a desire to help thegenerally poor population, it targets Dalits indirectly to the extent that they are often poor. It asks question of what sectorsthe poor are found, how they behave economically, what can be done to help them, and how they can better help themselves. To the extent that it asks who the poor are, it points to the governmentally defined poverty line and reaffirms the below poverty line (BPL) population as the best measure that can be mustered at this time. Thus, the legislative framework for anti-poverty policy could be said to subvert the question of Dalit identity. It does not seek to confront untouchability other than to assume its non-existence or give the occasional head nod to

35

SC/ST populations in appraisal of the fact that there has been discrimination in the past that needs current leveraging. Given its whole society approach and its perceived success in many places, the poster child of which being the centralized governance of Kerela, it could be said that the best way to mind the social gap created by untouchability is to simply step over it, rather than building the bridge of positive discrimination orattempting to fill it up with anti-discrimination policy.

The author feels that this would be a dangerously quick conclusion. There have been seen to be a number of road blocks tothorough anti-poverty policy implementation, and at every level, these can be seen to have direct implications on the prevalence of untouchability. There have been numerous instances of Panchayat officials failing to meet special component requirements, or failing to inform relevant populations about schemes pertaining to them. It could be said that this is a result of a lack of leadership and education, and not due to any particular discrimination. Yet, this begs the question of why there is a failure to lead. Many who agree to the lack of training being the main cause cannot deny that this often comes from a failure of non-Dalit officials to work effectively with their SC/ST peers, and for SC/ST leaders to have access to the resources they need to lead effectively. Further, there are common instances where schemes have been blocked from implementation by upper caste locals, such as blocking the distribution of water or denying access to assets, and the Panchayat leaders have turned a blind eye. This makes strikingly,if not alarmingly, clear the point that yet again the government is operating on the assumption that Dalits are an inclusive part of society and yet, society is dictating otherwise. Beyond a matter of caste, class, or poverty, this failure to address the question of the place and role that Dalits have in society is preventing effective legislation from reaching them. This stresses that the matter cannot be simply dismissed, and further there is no room for contradiction or hypocrisy in the governments declared stance on the matter. Panchayat leaders, as the key link between the government and the village, must be a part of addressing Dalit social justice.

36

3. Panchayat

Historical Origins The historical origins of the Panchayati Raj Insitution

(PRI) are speculative. The most direct source might be found in the presence of sabhas (meetings) during the Rig-Veda period, which later developed into what became known as the panchayat, or, group of five. These groups functioned at the village level and were responsible for the allocation of land and other resources in their area. The feudal empire built by the Mughals lead to the decline of decentralized rural governance, and was further depressed during British colonial rule, which operated more rigidly on a national level of governance. The Independence Movements of 1920-1947 were wrapped up in the ideas of national independence and consequently attempts at rural development were a lower priority in context of the times.

However, it was during this time period that Gandhi and Ambedkar engaged in much debate over the appropriate mode of village governance. Both leaders presented contrasting ideals in their approach to governance and consequently had contrasting opinions about the village system. Of most relevant importance isthe point that Ghandiji’s ideals sought to work within the existing system. Thus, he saw villages as the source and hope of democracy of India. He sought to develop the village system such that it was the ideal of equality and liberty through total self-governance, leading to the complete eradication of poverty and illiteracy. Ambedkar, opposingly saw the villages as “dens of inequality” and argued that the institutionalization of village governance would only ensure that this inequality continued. Due in large part to a lack of consensus over this debate, the 1947 Constitution of India gives no more than a tip of the hat to the PRI by stating that the government “shall take steps” towards PRIorganization. Subsequently, a series of committees were organizedfrom 1957-1992 to study possible routes for local development in India. The 72rd Constitutional Amendment Act

The story of the current Panchayat system begins in 1992 with the passing of the 73rd constitutional amendment act (CAA)

37

as an attempt to establish the legitimacy, and hence increase theefficacy, of the PRI. The existence of the Panchayat system was widely known, but it was not until this move that it became a constitutionally mandated institution. By attempting to ensure further realization of self-governance and decentralization, the bridge between the village governance system and the national government was built.

Due to this emphasis on devolution that came with a new waveof liberalization attempts in the early 1990’s, the 73rd CAA is unique in a number of ways. Rather than establish the specific details of the PRI, the CAA establishes the, “form, functions, and functionaries” to serve as a framework for the Panchayat and requests that more specific details be prescribed by the state governments. This ensures that the state government is established as a supporter of the Panchayat through state electoral and finance commissions and that provisions can be specified according to the particular needs of each state.

It is the provisions of the 73rd CAA that have been the cornerstone for development of the Panchayat system in the last 18 years. Provisions were made for the organization of the village PRIs into jurisdiction levels of gram; responsible for a block of village groups, sar; responsible for a group of about a dozen villages, and ward panch; responsible for the hamlets in one village. Form and functions of the Panchayat were further specified; ranging from administrative, financial, electoral, andsocial roles and responsibilities of the Panchayat leaders. Without overly-specifying the means through which these roles andresponsibilities were to be fulfilled, the 11th Schedule was included with the CAA to prescribe the particular realms for withthe Panchayat has direction over. This is a long list of items including infrastructure enhancement, water, sanitation, housing,women and children, marginalized members of society, and social justice. It is from this that it becomes especially clear that the Panchayati Raj Institution is directly intended to be a tool for achieving social justice in the villages.

This potential for the PRI to fulfill this role is exciting.The reality of the matter, however, is less exciting. Due to a confluence of factors, there is a general level of apathy with respect to garnering a direct consciousness of the role of a

38

panch as a leader for social justice in their community. It is inthe opinion of the author that given both the inconcreteness of the specifications regarding social justice (intentionally, as a means to allow Panchayat leaders to fulfill this responsibility in the manner best suiting the needs of their community) and the concreteness of the financial and tangibly developmental obligations of the Panchayat, social justice has been largely overlooked. Out of desire to be an effective Panchayat leader, itis easiest to focus on things like building roads and public sanitation. Additionally, given the responsibility delegated to the Panchayat in relevant rural development schemes this emphasison the tangible is further ingrained. Social justice is simply not a priority. It is either not considered an issue that needs to be addressed, or one that cannot be addressed, or is simply beyond the scope of a panch’s responsibilities.

The irony of this is that the focus on direct results to help the community while disregarding the social aspects is actually inhibiting a Panch from being able to help their people as much as they say they want to help. The following sections outline some of the key functions of the PRI as prescribed by the73rd CAA and the nature of those functions will be discussed withparticular regard to their role in Dalit social justice.

Seat schedulingMost radical of these specifications was the inclusion of

seat reservations as a means to ensure broader representation more reflective of the communities the leaders represented. The conduct of elections every five years was declared mandatory, andleaders were to be directly and democratically elected in a manner void of partisan politics. Yet, SC/ST seats were held for Dalit and other backwards caste (OBC) representatives in proportion to the percentage of the population they represented in their state. In 2007, Rajasthan reported a 17% scheduled population, compared to a national 16.2%. Of these seats, one third must be held by women, and further, one third of seats overall must be comprised of female representatives.

The intentions of PRI seat scheduling are clearly understoodto be in pursuit of direct democracy, yet the practicality of the

39

notion has received critique and controversy. Michaels posits theargument that the reservation of seats is a clear impediment to democracy and thus is a counter-intuitive practice. Forced representation prevents the fulfillment of direct representation.Seat scheduling has been argued to be an ineffective superficial solution for greater social issues that are consequently detainedfrom being dealt with. If the state of society is such that not all social groups are inherently equally represented, then changeneeds to be targeted at the society.

Those that argue in favor of seat scheduling refute this with the point that scheduling ensures full representation in a society that would normally not be representative. Thus, this forces all social groups to become accustomed to coexistence and thereby paves the path for greater social equality. Without this,inequality would only be perpetuated through dominance of a few oppressive, elite groups with little motivation to impact societal change. It can be argued that any increase in the well-being of marginalized Dalit populations in the villages can be atleast partially attributed to their increased representation in the Panchayat system.

Those opposed to seat scheduling see this as a dangerous stance in that it runs high risk of being less temporary than intended and actually makes the path ahead more treacherous. Mendelssohn and Vicziany make the point that, “with the entrenchment of the quota mentality, the transition from equality between communities to equality between individuals will not be easy.” Additionally, ensuring equal representation in an unequal society runs the risk of more deeplyentrenching discriminatory attitudes. Literature on the topic informs us that a key issue of Dalit leadership in the Panchayat is a lack of attention and regard for Dalit leaders by their non-Dalit counterparts. This prevents their voices from being heard, discourages them from speaking up, and hinders their ability to serve the people they are responsible for.

Yet, this is not to say that seat reservations are a completely ineffective lost cause. Rather, it is a difficult pathto walk yet may be the most viable path if not for any reason other than process of elimination. If this is the case, then a number of aspects of the policy need to reevaluated in order to

40

render it effective. It operates on the assumption that increasedrepresentation of all caste groups will consequently increase interaction among these groups within the Panchayat. It also assumes that this increased interaction will consequently engender changed perspectives that lead to more socially just attitudes in the Panchayat and further, society. In this sense, it argues that untouchability can be dissolved through efforts tomake a currently exclusive society more inclusive. As mentioned while discussing compensatory discrimination, this creates a contradiction of assuming that Dalits are outside society and yetuntouchability can be removed from within society. In this sense,it does not confront the core issue of untouchability. As such, SC/ST reservations will continue to be largely ineffective unlesssocial norms are addressed in tandem such that a bridge can be built over the societal gap created by untouchability. As of now,the policy assumes that hurtling people over the gap will cause untouchability to simply disappear once they land on the other side.

Gram Sabha Another key component of the 73rd CAA is its provision for

gram sabhas. While these meetings were already a recognized practice of the panchayat system that existed before the amendment, it institutionalized them such that they were mandatory and further clarified their purpose. The amendment makes it clear that it is the gram sabha which hinges the system together around the key components of democracy. It is at these meetings that the link between the Panchayat leaders and the villagers they represent is built. Information is passed from villagers to their panches and from panches to their villagers. It is here that concerns and questions are to be raised and addressed, programs suggested and plans for implementation drawn up. The constitutional provisions for the gram sabha are unique in that they distinguish between presentation and participation. This different consequently stresses the need to go beyond the mere action of passing along information, and rather, be inclusive of all stakeholders and participants. In keeping with the spirit of devolution and decentralization ingrained in the CAA, the specific requirements for sabhas were delegated to the

41

state level. Rajasthan’s constitution currently calls for meetings conducted by sar panches on a at least a quarterly basis, and ward panches at least semiannually.

There are currently a number of issues with the implementation of gram sabhas. Firstly, there is a lack of scheduling with meeting such that many panches fail to reach the community members as frequently as they are supposed to. This is a huge roadblock enabling the Panchayat to be the bridge between the government and the community. Further, when meetings do occur, there are frequent citations of voices not being heard andrequests disregarded. This could involve any range of scenarios in which a Non-Dalit sar panch fails to listen to the requests ofa Dalit ward panch, a non-Dalit ward panch refuses to listen to aDalit community member, or a DRC leader. There are also a significant amount of instances where appeals are taken at Gram Sabhas but not further action is taken. These bare minimum attempts to appease are spoken of in terms of people being heard,but not listened to1. Some view this as a small step of progress given that in the past, people were not even listened to, but this raises questions of if this is actual progress or a more advanced effort stalemate progress.

As the reader can probably guess by now, this leads to a fewthoughts on the role of the perceived place of Dalits in society.Given the responsibility that Panches have to create a socially just community, it follows that they are also responsible to report and take action on instances of Dalit injustice. These instances of injustice are identified via the prescriptions of anti-discrimination legislation. This is not to say that people themselves do not know right from wrong and cannot determine thisfor themselves without being constitutionally ordered at every step along the way. Rather, the differences between the perceivedplace of Hindus in society according to legislation and society creates confusion that can inhibit progress towards social justice. As discussed earlier, the majority of attempts to abolish discrimination have come from the stripping away of untouchability in matters specific to secular spaces and religious spaces. It assumes that Dalits are inherently a part of

1 This assertion comes from data gathered personally by the author ispreparing this report

42

society. Yet, they are being treated in their community, in the panchayat, in gram sabhas, in their appeals for resources and information, as if they are a separate and different part of society. Thus, anti-discrimination policy fails to adequately andappropriately address the issue and turning a blind eye to it in instances of untouchability discrimination may be rationalized bysome as in fact, not discrimination but rather simply how things are. This disjoint, this cleavage, over what constitutes discrimination is directly inhibiting progress towards a sociallyjust society, and thus, a justly functioning Panchayat.

Government Schemes Given the emphasis on self-governance, the Panchayat has

become a central part of rural scheme implementation. It is to the Panchayat that the flow of funds is directed, and it is the Panchayat that is responsible for ensuring that those funds access the community both fully and fairly. Given this responsibility, government schemes are a large part of the perceived role of a Panchayat leader. With self-governance also comes the importance of good governance. This also conveys the importance of understanding government schemes pertinent to the Panchayat in the context of Dalit social justice.

There is general consensus among Panchayat leaders that the government schemes are worthy of approval. They provide assets and resources to those that would otherwise not have them, given the recent trends in community design; they allow the people to choose for themselves which projects are most needed, which allows the community to be more involved, more motivated, and more effective. NREGA is the popular champion of the day, established in 2005 it is just old enough for most people to not have forgotten about it and not new enough for people to not knowabout it. There are also a number of schemes that are generally common knowledge, ranging from housing schemes such as Indira Awaas, mid-day meal schemes for schools, and a mouth-full of acronyms such as PDS, TLC, BRGF, and TSS. All of these have prescriptions built in for the Panchayat relating to the distribution of funds, the creation of projects, and the selection of recipients.

43

There is a lack of sufficient scheme knowlegability in both the Panchayat and the community. Given that there is no official government training in Rajasthan about schemes for Panchayat officials, much of their knowledge is limited to word of mouth orpersonal experience. If they are hindered from full participationin their community, their level of knowledge will also be hindered, creating a cyclical effect of disabling them from reaching out to their community effectively. Further, discriminated people’s in the community may not speak up in seeking for information, or may not even know that there is something to speak up about, consequently barring the schemes from reaching the people they are in fact, most directly intendedfor. If a non-Dalit Panchayat leader is preferential in his selection of scheme recipients or fund distribution, social inequality may further damage the well-being of the Dalit community. There have however, been both Dalit community members,and Dalit and non-Dalit Panchayat leaders alike that have spoken to the special component provisions enabling the Dalit community to not only receive the benefits of these schemes, but have preferential access to them.

It is thus that the greatest social justice issue with the Panchayat and government schemes falls to a question not of government provisions and legislation, but rather, becomes a question of the presence of untouchability in society. As noted in discussing gram sabhas, if a leader has an insensitive perception of discrimination, this will permeate in their leadership and, however inadvertently, inhibit their ability to help the Panchayat effectively function as a mechanism of social justice.

4. Social justice, Dalits, and the Panchayat: Concluding RemarksIt can be seen that a number of the key issues found in the

Panchayat system are reflective of the political ideologies discussed earlier in the paper. Seat reservations for SC/ST populations face the challenges of compensatory discrimination policy, the limitations of anti-adverse discrimination policy becomes palpable in discriminatory practices relating to gram

44

sabhas, and the responsibility of the Panchayat in implementing government schemes has the potential to struggle with approach ofanti-poverty policy. These points do not stand for the mere sake of analogy, but rather, demonstrate that the popular political perspectives regarding untouchability are consequently ingrained into the design of the Panchayati Raj. Further, the complicationsthat come with these often conflicting and contradictory approaches are also inherited by the PRI.

It is at the local village level that these challenges not only become most tangible, but also confrontation with difficult questions most crucial. At every level, albeit national or local,policy or analytical, failure to impact progress towards social justice can be seen to arise directly from a failure to address the question of the place of Dalits in society and consequently, the precise nature of untouchability. The scholarly world has chosen to focus on questions of caste or caste and ignored the reality of the irrelevance of this question. Contrastingly, the government has taken a predominately caste oriented approach and insisted the Dalits are in fact an integrated part of society andhas thus either inadequately handled policies of exclusion or grossly overlooked the social spaces where society and religion are blurred. Society, on yet another hand, has treated Dalits as outsiders for millennia, a stance that the Dalits themselves haveaccepted in their own way. This has misconstrued policy and rendered it ineffective given that there is frequently a misalignment of perspectives on Dalithood.

Progress towards Dalit social justice cannot be made until these perspectives are consolidated and crucial questions answered. The political and social spheres of influence regardingDalit issues are currently riddled with contradiction, if not even hypocrisy, over whether Dalits are in fact a part of Hindu society. Regardless of the answer to this question, it is a question that must be approached in order to better understand the society that is currently discriminating against Dalits, create effective policy that reflects that society, the build viable linkages between the government and people, especially viathe village Panchayat.

Given that this report begs a reevaluation of a society, there are a few recommendations that emerge from the earlier

45

discussion as a means to confront a number of the social issues faced by both prevailing policies and the PRI. Primarily, given that untouchability extends beyond class and caste, greater awareness and sensitivity needs to be engendered such that society is able to more specifically discern discrimination in the “blurry” places that previous policies have not been able to reach. In this sense, knowledge building is key. This could be particularly effective with the youth, who are at the peak of socialization and thus stand to benefit most from exposure to both Dalit issues and also the Panchayat system. Education on these topics can help to build a community that is more socially conscious and also, more politically aware and thus able to better hold the Panchayat accountable for social justice. A key part of justice implies that there must be a balance; to expect the Panchayat to fully oversee its responsibilities to society without complementary oversight on the part of society would be afailure to achieve this necessary balance.

Capacity building is another key factor in enabling the Panchayat to better function as a social justice mechanism. Due both to persisting discrimination of Panchayat officials and discriminatory practices regarding Panchayat responsibilities, Dalit leaders are preventing from fulfilling their role effectively. Training is thus crucial on a number of levels. Community members can receive training regarding the government schemes, Dalit discrimination, and how the Panchayat and its relevant appendages, such as the DRC and CSO, can function to their benefit. Further, Panchayat leaders need training regardingtheir specific roles and responsibilities so that they can be better equipped to meet the demands of their community. Finally, training with respect to particular issues of discrimination can better enable Panches to fulfill their roles as an agent of social justice, understand what they can do, and hold each other mutually accountable. All of these approaches can help to deal with untouchability as precisely what it is: a social phenomenon.Thus, efforts made in this direction can help to overcome convolution in policy ideology that forces the matter economically or politically. Further, it forces society to definitively take a stance on the question of the place of Dalitsand consequently requires the attention of the government from a

46

society that is more distinctly asserting itself, which can hopefully lead to a reevaluation of the currently existing ideological political lines.

It stands worthy of note that this report takes a broad brush approach. Further particular details can be found easily elsewhere. The purpose of this report, however, was to discuss the theoretical implications of the prevailing ideologies regarding today’s Dalit. Further, it is noticeable that no particularly special attention has been given to the implicationsof the ideas discussed with regards to Dalit activists and movements. This is due to the central thesis of this report beingdirected at society as a whole. At this point, it should be clearthat untouchability cannot be understood without also seeking to understand the society that enforces it. Dalit movements can be helpful in decrying the social issues relevant to this report, but given that the movements face challenges and constraints of their own, this report has been on the whole directed towards NGOs seeking to better understand the societal context of untouchability for the means of enabling effective strategies. Itis hoped that credence will be given to the author’s point that untouchability cannot be addressed without addressing the place of Dalits in society and that this will be considered in NGO project development.

47

Bibliography

Ananda W.P. Guruge. "Emperor Aśoka and Buddhism: Unresolved Discrepancies between Buddhist Tradition & Aśokan Inscriptions." in King Asoka and Buddhism: Historical & Literary Studies, Ed. by Anuradha Seneviratna, Buddhist Publication Society: Kandy, Sri Lanka, 1994.

Bahuguna, Rameshwar Prasad. Conflict and Assimilation in Medieval North Indian Bhakti: An Alternative Approach. SAP-History Monograph. Jamia MilliaIslamia University: New Delhi.

Bhaskar, Utpal. "Ram Vilas Paswan: Victory not 'caste' in stone."livemint.com & the Wall Street Journal. 24/4/2009. Accessed on 16/4/2010.

Chauhan, Hitendra. "Dalit Organising in Western Rajasthan" and "Introduction" in Organsing Dalits: Experiences from the Grassroots. Unnati:Ahmadabad, India. 2006.

Centre for Science and Environment. An Assessment of the Performance of The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme in Terms of its Potential for Creation of Natural Wealth in India's Villages. 2008.

David, Sudhakar M. et al. "Dalits in the World of Globalisation."NCDHR. 2003.

Development Alternaties. State Tribunal on National Rural Employment Guarantee Act under ‘Neerja’ Campaign, U.P. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Ltd. 2006.

Dhammika, Ven S. The Edicts of King Asoka. "Fourteen Rock Edicts." Buddhist Publication Society: Kandy, Sri Lanka, 1993.

Ganguly, Debjani. Caste and Dalit Lifeworlds: Postcolonial Perspectives. OrientLongman: Hyderabad. 2005.

Gavaskar, Mahes. "Colonialism within Colonialism: Phule's

48

Critique of Brahman Power" in Dalits in Modern India: Vision and Values. Ed. by S.M. Michael. 2nd Edition. Sage Publications: New Delhi. 2007.

Gombrich, Richard. "Asoka – The Great Upasaka." in King Asoka and Buddhism: Historical & Literary Studies. Ed. by Anuradha Seneviratna. Buddhist Publication Society: Kandy, Sri Lanka. 1994.

Guidelines for Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY). http://sirsa.gov.in/htfiles/IAY.pdf. Accessed on 1/5/10.

Hooker, Richard. "The Decline in India" in World Civilizations: An Internet Classroom and Anthology. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/DECLINE.HTM. 1996. Accessed on 8/5/2010.

"India Human Rights Report 2009." Ed. by Suhas Chakma. Asian Centre for Human Rights: New Delhi. 2009.

"Indira Awaas Yojana." http://rural.nic.in/rh.htm. Accessed on 1/5/10.

IRMA. The State of the Panchayat: 2007-8: An Independent Assessment, Vol 1. Thematic Report. Anand. 2008

Jaffrelot, Christophe. "The BSP in Uttar Pradesh: Whose Party is It?" in Dalits in Modern India: Vision and Values. 2nd Edition. Edited by S.M. Michael. Sage Publications: New Delhi. 2007.

Keay, John. India: A History. Harper Perennial: London. 2004.

Mendelsohn, Oliver & Marika Vicziany. The Untouchables: Subordination, Poverty and State in Modern India. Cambridge UP, Foundation Books: Delhi.2000.

Michael, S.M. "Dalit Vision of a Just Society" in Dalits in Modern India: Vision and Values. 2nd Edition. Ed. by S.M. Michael. Sage Publications: New Delhi. 2007.

"Mid-Day Meal Scheme."

49

http://india.gov.in/sectors/education/mid_day_meal.php. Accessed on 23/4/10.

National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights. Alternate Report to the Joint 2nd to 5th Periodic Report of the State Party (Republic of India) to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (A Periodic Report Submitted by the State Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant). New Delhi. 2008.

"National Land Records Modernization Program." Department of LandResources, Ministry of Rural Development. http://www.dolr.nic.in/land_reforms1.htm. Accessed on 22/4/2010.

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). http://jkrd.nic.in/schemes/nregs.pdf. Accessed on 23/4/10.

"National Safai Karamcharis Finance Development Corporation." http://www.india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=http://nskfdc.nic.in. Accessed on 23/4/10.

"National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation." http://www.india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=http://nsfdc.nic.in/.  Accessed 23/4/10.

Omvedt, Gail. Dalit Visions: The anti-caste movement and the construction of Indian identity. Orient Longman Limited: Hyderabad. 1995.

Palanithurai, Ganapathy. Process and Performance of Gram Panchayat Womenand Dalit Presidents. Concept Publishing Company: New Delhi. 2005.

Prakash, Louis. Casteism is more horrendous than Racism: Durban and Dalit Discourse. Indian Social Institute: New Delhi. 2001.

Prakash, Louis. Political Sociology of Dalit Assertion. Gyan Publishing House: New Delhi. 2003.

Pritchett, Frances. "Dr. Ambedkar's Life-- and beyond." http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/index.html. Accessed on 1/5/10.

50

Raj, M.C. Dalitology: The Book of the Dalit People. Ambedkar Resource Center – Rural Education for Development Society: Tumkur, India. 2001.

"Report of the Committee on State Agrarian Relations and the Unfinished Task in Land Reforms." Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development. http://www.dolr.nic.in/Committee%20Report.doc. Published online 24/12/2009. Accessed on 24/4/2010.

Sahbhagi Shikshan Kendra. Role of Panchayati Rai Institutions in Implementation of NREGA: Uttar Pradesh Study Phase I. PRIA: New Delhi.

Selected Thoughts of Dr. Ambedkar. Ed. by Prof. P. Thangarag. Puratchikkanla Publications: Madras, India. 1996.

Sen, Amartya. The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. Penguin Books: London. 2005.

Sikligar, P.C. Atrocities on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe: Prevention andImplementation. Mangal Deep Publications: Jaipur, India. 2002.

Singh, K.P. "Liberation Movements in Comparative Perspective: Dalit Indians and Black Americans" in Dalits in Modern India: Vision and Values. 2nd Edition. Ed. by S.M. Michael. Sage Publications: New Delhi. 2007.

"Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS)." http://fcamin.nic.in/dfpd/EventDetails.asp?EventId=26&Section=PDS&ParentID=0&Parent=1&check=0. Accessed on 23/4/10.

"The Buddha, His Life and Teachings: Caste Problem." http://www.buddhanet.net/bud_lt21.htm. Accessed on 8/3/2010.

The Constitution of India as modified up to the 1st December, 2007.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA): Operational Guidelines 2008 3rd Edition. http://nrega.nic.in/Nrega_guidelinesEng.pdf. Accessed on 23/4/10.

51

The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1995 (Act, No. 22 of 1955) (As on the 1st September, 1977).

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (No. 33 of 1989).

Unnati. Annual Report 2008-2009.Unnati. “Evaluation Report of Programme on Social Justice ThroughGrass Root Empowerment in Western Rajasthan”

Unnati. "Mapping of Shifting Occupational Patterns of Dalits, Marginalised and Vulnerable Communities in Western Rajasthan: Draft Report." Submitted 3/5/2007.

Unnati. “Report on Dalit Injustice and Legal Issues” Submitted 20/5/2006.

"Untouchability – The Origin of Untouchability." http://science.jrank.org/pages/11539/Untouchability-Origin-Untouchability.html. Accessed on 10/5/2010.

Wakankar, Milind. "The Anomaly of Kabir: Caste and Canonicity in Indian Modernity" in Muslims, Dalits, and the Fabrications of History. Edited by Shail Mayaram, M.S.S. Pandian and Ajay Skaria. Permanent Black: Ranikhet, India. 2005.