Moving untouched: B. R. Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses the complex nature of untouchability by examining its connections to space and racialization in Ambedkar’s political writings, including his experiences of using movement through space as a counter-hegemonic strategy. For Ambedkar, untouchability rested on a perpetual threat of violence which pushed Dalits to “self-racialize” or adopt bodily markers which gave away their caste status in specific places. This permitted the organization of caste hierarchies in space and its constant reproduction through time. Ambedkar became aware that places like the village facilitated the racialization of certain bodies as touchable or untouchable. Yet, the connections between space and racialization were not fixed. Ambedkar’s memories of untouchability were linked to “in-between spaces”, such as train stations or hotels, where the racialization of Dalits could not be assumed a priori. Such spatial indeterminacy allowed Ambedkar to challenge the behaviour Dalits were supposed to conform to in dominant caste spaces.

KEYWORDS:

• Racialization
• untouchability
• Ambedkar
• caste
• race
• Dalit

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the editors of this special issue Malini Ranganathan, Mabel Gergan and Pavithra Vasudevan. I also would like to thank Amanda Eastell-Bleakley for supporting the publication of this article. Finally, for multiple conversation around passing, race and untouchability, I thank Steve Legg, Sunil Purushotham and Laura Loyola, all errors are mine.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See, for instance, Dumont (1980), Kothari and Maru (1965) and Srinivas (2002).

2 See Baber (2010), Gorringe and Rafanell (2007), Ramdas (2018) and Viswanath (2014).

3 I have used the anachronistic term Dalit throughout the essay, except when in quotation. Throughout the text, however, there are a number of other terms that make reference to the concept of what today we understand as Dalit. The term untouchable was used throughout twentieth-century India. Before 1935, the term used by the government to refer to these groups was “Depressed Classes”. After 1935, the category Scheduled Castes was coined and has been in use in official matters since then. Equally, M. K. Gandhi and the nationalist movement used the term harijan (children of God).

4 The Report was commissioned by the Education Department of the Government of Bombay. The Committee was composed by Starte et al. (1930).

5 For more on Ambedkar, see Zelliot (2004), Omvedt (1994), Keer (1954), Jaffrelot (2006) and Rao (2009).

6 Ambedkar ([1919] 2014, 249). Ambedkar used the concept of osmosis or endosmosis to highlight the lack of cohesion in Indian society throughout his career including one of his more iconic texts such as Ambedkar ([1936] 2014, 57). Ambedkar picked up the term from John Dewey’s (1916). For more on Ambedkar’s use of endosmosis, see Elam (2020).

7 Adivasi is the term used for the groups that are considered indigenous to the subcontinent. The official term used by the government of India is “Scheduled Tribes”.

8 See Gopal Guru’s chapters in Guru and Sarukkai (2012). For more on untouchability and space, see Rawat (2013), Cháirez-Garza (2014) and Lee (2017).

9 Guru is referencing specifically Lefebvre (1991).

10 Studies associated with the experience of Dalit women show how discrimination keeps reproducing even within lower-caste circles, see Paik (2014) and Gupta (2016).

11 The way travel and movement transforms notions of caste, even if momentarily, has been explored by Arnold (2014) and Karve (1962).

12 Laura Bear’s (2007, 45–62) discussion of how Zenana carriages were introduced into India and the identification of “respectable women” in railways stations is particularly good; For an analysis of how missionary schools catering Dalits were opposed, see Viswanath (2014, 71–90).

13 For Gandhi’s train experience, see Lelyveld (2012, 9); For Nehru’s memories concerning railways and exclusion, see Nehru (1941, 20–21).

14 Starte et al. (1930, 57).

15 Rajah (2005); for Phule’s view, see Bergunder (2004).

16 Ambedkar defended this position in a number of places, see for instance Ambedkar ([1947] 2014a).

17 See B. R. Ambedkar letter to M. R. Jayakar, 8 December 1929. National Archives of India, M.R. Jayakar Papers, f. 422.