‘Forced to Favour Upper-Caste Accused’: Karnataka Dalit Inspector Alleges Bias in Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement
A serious controversy has emerged within the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) in Karnataka after an inspector alleged caste-based harassment by senior officials in the department responsible for handling atrocities against SC/ST communities. Inspector T. R. Srinivas has accused senior officers of targeting him and other Dalit personnel, raising concerns about functioning and accountability within the department. Allegations of Pressure and Targeting In a letter addressed to Director General of Police Umesh Kumar and shared with the media, Srinivas claimed that he was pressured to act in favour of upper-caste accused in certain cases. In a video statement, he named DCRE Superintendent of Police Karibasangouda and Deputy Superintendent of Police Maheshwaragouda, alleging harassment and misuse of authority. “They forced me to act in favour of upper-caste accused. When I did not comply, false complaints were entertained against me and I was harassed in the name of inquiry,” Srinivas said. Claims of Fake Documents and Rule Violations Srinivas further alleged that although he was not officially relieved from his post, senior officers created “fake documents” to show that he had been relieved, which he said violated an order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. He added that despite serving for 20 years without any adverse remarks, he is now being targeted. “Working for Dalits and serving in the police department itself seems to have become a mistake,” he said, expressing concern over lack of protection for Dalit officers. Appeal to Government In his video, Srinivas also alleged lack of transparency in the department and claimed that decision-making is dominated by upper-caste officials. He appealed to the state government to intervene, warning that if the situation continues, responsibility would lie with top authorities, including the Chief Minister, Home Minister, and the DGP. Narendra Modi Jhalmuri Video Shared by The Observer Post Restricted on Facebook, Instagram “Pursuant to Indian Law” Srinivas had recently been transferred from the DCRE but secured a stay on the transfer from the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Department Denies Allegations Meanwhile, SP Karibasangouda has denied all allegations made by Srinivas. Courtesy : TOP Note: This news is originally published on https:/theobserverpost.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Nitish Kumar was compromised’: Rahul Gandhi’s big claim on NDA’s decision behind ‘Sushasan Babu’s’ Bihar exit
NEW DELHI: Lok Sabha leader of the opposition Rahul Gandhi on Monday launched a fierce attack on the NDA, making a strong claim about the recent exit of BJP ally Nitish Kumar from the chief minister’s post in Bihar, a position he held for the longest period in the state. Rahul alleged that the former Bihar CM was “compromised” during his Tamil Nadu poll campaign. Campaigning for the ruling DMK–Congress alliance in Thoothukudi, Rahul targeted JD(U) supremo Nitish Kumar, saying, “Nitish Kumar did not say a word; he silently went to the Rajya Sabha.” The Congress leader also trained his guns on the BJP, asserting, “We will never allow the BJP to have a government they can control in Tamil Nadu.” He added, “The BJP wants a government in Tamil Nadu that it can fully control, a chief minister who does exactly what they say.” Recently, veteran politician Nitish Kumar entered the Rajya Sabha as a debutant, in a move widely seen as a farewell phase to his long tenure in Bihar politics. Nitish Kumar’s exit from Bihar marks a significant turning point in the state’s political history, formally ending the Lalu–Nitish duopoly and paving the way for the BJP to form its first-ever government in the state under the leadership of Samrat Choudhary. The Bihar assembly elections held in November resulted in a landslide victory for the NDA. Despite years of incumbency, the Nitish-led alliance emerged victorious, with the BJP, for the first time, securing a higher seat tally than its longtime “big brother” in the state, JD(U). Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Opposition netas denied women their rights: CM
Patna: CM Samrat Choudhary launched a scathing attack on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and RJD chief Lalu Prasad as their parties did not support the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha last week to implement 33% reservation for women in Parliament and state legislative assemblies. Addressing the ‘Jan Akrosh Mahila Sammelan’, organised by BJP at Gandhi Maidan here on Monday, Samrat said: “The opposition leaders want their own daughters and wives to become members of the Lok Sabha, whereas (PM) Modi Ji thinks of the women of the entire nation. Had the Women’s Reservation (Amendment) Bill been passed, 122 women from Bihar would have been elected as legislators.” He alleged that certain politicians desire only their own women family members to gain entry into Parliament. Rahul Gandhi, for instance, wishes for his sister alone to become a member of Parliament; similarly, in Bihar, Lalu Prasad desires for his wife to become the leader of the opposition and his daughter to become an MP. He also took aim at the Samajwadi Party (SP) for promoting women from the party chief’s family. CM Samrat said there would be absolutely no compromise regarding the dignity and respect of “Nari Shakti”. He emphasised that the NDA has been committed to the cause of women’s empowerment from the very beginning and will continue to strive towards this goal in the future. He said the opposition’s stance exposed their anti-women face for all to see. The CM also highlighted how the NDA govt in Bihar gave 50% quota to women in panchayati raj institutions and urban local bodies. Samrat said anyone who attempts to instil insecurity among women in Bihar will be hunted down. The CM assured the women that PM Narendra Modi’s govt would enact the necessary legislation for the welfare of women and would actively work to ensure they receive justice. He noted that in 1977, when India’s population stood at 70 crores, there were 543 Lok Sabha constituencies. “PM Modi sought to increase the number of seats reserved for women by granting “Nari Shakti” a 33% reservation. Had the elections in Bihar been conducted based on the new delimitation boundaries, the current count of 29 women MLAs would have surged to at least 122. However, individuals associated with the Congress and the RJD deprived women of these rightful entitlements. BJP state president Sanjay Saraogi said the NDA would stage protests at all district headquarters to expose the opposition. Braving the summer heat, thousands of women attended the rally. Former minister Shreyasi Singh said the INDI Alliance leaders have lost all respect in the eyes of women. JD(U) leader and former minister Leshi Singh said by failing to pass the “Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam” , the opposition has snatched away the rights of women. BJP leader Renu Devi said the opposition’s double standards have been exposed. Rashtriya Lok Morcha MLA Snehlata Kushwaha said the women of the country will never forgive the opposition. HAM(S) MLA Jyoti Devi said the opposition has never harboured the mindset to empower or propel women forward. Targeting RJD, she said, “What would they know about the meaning of respect for women? Their very identity is defined by the humiliation of women.” Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
LUCKNOW: Perturbed with unpleasant situation caused in Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s dual citizenship case, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court on Monday recused himself from hearing of the case and requested the chief justice to constitute another bench. On Monday, Justice Vidyarthi was particularly peeved by the social media posts of petitioner S Shishir Vignesh after his previous order. Justice Vidyarthi , however, admitted that he should have issued notice to Rahul Gandhi in the case before dictating filing of an FIR on April 17, 2026 in an open court . He also chastised the lawyers of all the parties for not placing before him the correct legal position as to whether the proposed accused was required to be heard. Hearing a plea from of a Karnataka BJP worker, Justice Vidyarthi on April 17, 2026 had dictated an order in open court , directing Uttar Pradesh police to register an FIR against Rahul in case of alleged double citizenship controversy. However, when the order came to be uploaded on high court’s website on April on April 18, 2026 , it stated that before the order was typed and signed , the judge came to know that in a leading verdict of the Allahabad high court, it was mandatory to issue notice to the proposed accused , in this case Gandhi, before delivery any judgment on the issue. The judge had, thereafter, instead of signing the order, posted the matter for further hearing on April 20 on question of issuance of notice to Gandhi. In its order passed on Monday, the judge clarified that it was mandatory to issue notice to Gandhi prior to passing any order in the case. The judge was specially peeved by the social media posts made by the petitioner, S Shishir Vignesh. “The messages posted by the petitioner on social media after passing of the order on April 17 amount to casting aspersions on this court and keeping those in consideration, I find it appropriate to recuse from hearing this case”, said Justice Vidyarthi. Expressing annoyance that proper legal assistance was not given to him by informing that issuance of notice to proposed accused was necessary, Justice Vidyarthi observed, “ I am pained to note that the lawyers appearing in this case have failed to perform their duty of providing assistance to the Court in a fair manner.” Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Transforming Rights: Transgender Lives Against Legal Exclusion| Book Excerpt
This excerpt is from Transforming Lives, Edited by Jayna Kothari examines how transgender, non-binary, and intersex people are denied the fundamental human rights of love, marriage, family, and kinship through law and social prejudice Bell Hooks said, ‘Love is an action, a participatory emotion,’ but sadly, for transgender-queer folx, love remains a silenced feeling buried deep in the chambers of their hearts, for love as an action and in its momentum is thwarted by State and society. Love and family—in our collective imagination—like everything else, is seen through the lens of heteronormativity, biology and the gender binary, and any act of digression invites penalties. In a world where even rights are pathologised, transgender2 persons are restricted to discussions about their bodies, and rarely do the conversations transcend superficiality or attempt to understand transgender persons as bodies with emotions—capable of loving and being loved. The inherent desires to form intimate relationships, have children and establish families are systematically denied to transgender persons through various acts of commission and omission. The naturalisation of trans persons’ non-existence as equal citizens is ensured by laws and policies that treat transgender, non-binary and intersex persons as less than equal, and by denying them the rights readily available to those that form the perceived normative. As Taylor Flynn aptly highlights, ‘We live in a highly gendered society where sex distinctions have significant legal consequences, particularly within the realm of family—these distinctions affect issues including whom you can marry, whether you can inherit your spouse’s estate, or whether you provide an “appropriate” role model for your children. The emotion of love extends to the various relationships that we form throughout our lives and is subject to the State’s architecture of control; the relationships that citizens forge around blood, community, cast and class are defined and certified by the majoritarian morality and the State. The interference of the State in our personal lives—love, marriage kinship, family, property and inheritance—passes unnoticed till we go against and challenge the system approved by it—a system that is patriarchal, casteist, endogamous and heteronormative. The right to love becomes subversive when it does not align with the frameworks of caste, patriarchy and heteronormativity. As Arvind Narrain writes, ‘What links queer people to couples who love across caste and community lines is the fact that both are exercising their right to love at an enormous personal risk and in the process, disrupting existing lines of social authority.’ Love, marriage and family formation seem like ordinary tasks and rarely do cisgender-heteronormative people perceive them as a matter of rights—unless the exercise of those rights is obstructed and denied. However, for transgender and nonbinary persons, the right to love, marry, have children or make families is denied legitimacy or legal recognition altogether. Family in our society is defined in structural terms, with patrilineal underpinnings. The members of one’s family must be related to each other through marriage, blood or adoption… It is important to recognise that the chosen families and kinship networks of transgender persons are often functional in nature, and at times a blend of both structural and functional, but rarely do they align with the narrowly defined structural models legitimised by law. These familial bonds revolve around the core functions that a family performs, such as caring for each other and the sharing of resources. Marriage, being the foundation of the Indian family system, is reserved for unions that conform to a cisgender, binary, heterosexual framework. The law and language governing love, marriage, family and property continue to exclude transgender persons, reinforcing a patrilineal and cis-heteronormative structure. The denial of love, marriage, kinship and family extends and permeates further into the right to reproduce and/or have children, and lead a healthy sexual and reproductive life. Law, language and healthcare coalesce to ensure the exclusion of transgender persons. Protest against Transgender Persons Amendment Bill 2026 | The Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name The ideas of love, marriage and family—from recognition to regulation—have historically been subject to State and societal interference. As Saurabh Kirpal observes in his essay: If dignity and autonomy are the pillars of the constitution, there is possibly no greater manifestation of that autonomy than the right to choose a sexual partner. And nothing is a greater expression of that choice than marriage. It seems apparent that both the right to choose a partner and the right to marry are intensely personal choices over which the state and the community really ought to have no control… The decision of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Arunkumar v Inspector General of Registration is a milestone in the affirmation of marriages of transgender persons. The Court, in line with the NALSA, Puttaswamy and Navtej Singh Johar judgments, held that the word ‘bride’ in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes intersex and transgender persons who self-identify as woman. The judgment is significant as it gives legality to a marriage between a trans woman and a cisgender man, and further provides scope for interpreting the Hindu Marriage Act in light of the aforementioned judgments, so that it includes both trans and intersex persons. However, the scope of the judgment remains limited, as it can be read to validate only those marriages that are heterosexual in nature—such as between a trans person and a cis person, or between two trans persons (a trans woman and a trans man)—thereby continuing to exclude same-sex, non-binary and gender-nonconforming partnerships from its protective ambit. This was affirmed in Supriyo alias Supriya Chakraborty v Union of India. Who Owns Identity?: Himanshi, 20, lives at Garima Greh in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. She left her home in Agra at 18, when her family disapproved of her identity as a trans woman. She resumed her education after moving to Delhi. The most recent constitutional moment in the marriage equality struggle came in Supriyo. The judgment marked a watershed moment in form, but not in substance. Despite the progressive language employed—on love, dignity, autonomy and non-discrimination—the judgment ultimately
Dalit Bride’s Abduction Sparks Outrage in Uttar Pradesh
In Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh, police have charged six individuals with the abduction of a Dalit woman days before her wedding. Accused include Teju Bind and family, with the case filed under relevant sections and the SC/ST Act. Investigations are ongoing, led by Circle Officer Ashok Mishra. Authorities in the Bhadohi district of Uttar Pradesh have launched a probe into the abduction of a Dalit woman just five days before her wedding. The case involves six suspects, including Teju Bind and his family members, who allegedly abducted the woman. The charges against them include kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Circle Officer Ashok Mishra is spearheading the investigation, as police work to ensure the woman’s safety. This incident highlights ongoing issues of caste-based violence in the region. Courtesy : Devdiscourse Note: This news is originally published on https:/devdiscourse.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Attempted Murder of Youth Over Wage Dispute: In Gangoh, Accused Slashes Ear with Sickle and Issues Death Threats
In the village of Kutubkhedi within the Gangoh region, a Dalit youth was attacked after demanding payment for his labor. It is alleged that a fellow villager assaulted him—using casteist slurs in the process—and attacked him with a sickle, severing his ear. The victim has filed a written complaint at the Gangoh police station, demanding that action be taken. The victim stated that he had gone to the accused to collect his wages. As soon as he asked for the money, the accused allegedly flew into a rage and began hurling derogatory casteist insults at him. Subsequently, he attacked the youth with sticks and clubs, inflicting injuries upon him. It is further alleged that during the altercation, the accused struck the youth on the head with a sharp-edged sickle. When the youth attempted to defend himself, the blow landed on his left ear, resulting in a severe laceration. Hearing the commotion, nearby villagers rushed to the scene. Upon seeing several people approaching—including Pinka, son of Yashpal (a resident of Fatehpur)—the accused fled the spot. The victim has also alleged that the accused threatened to kill him if he ever demanded his wages again. The victim has requested the police to facilitate a medical examination, register a First Information Report (FIR), and arrest the accused. Kotwali In-charge Sanjeev Kumar confirmed that they have received the written complaint. He stated that the matter is currently under investigation and that appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the law. Intazar | Gangoh (Nakur), Saharanpur Courtesy: Hindi News
Uproar in Sidhi, MP, on Ambedkar Jayanti! Allegations of Assault and Casteist Abuse Against Dalit Woman; Serious Questions Raised Over Police Conduct—What is the Case?
In the Amaliya police station area, Pankali Saket has leveled serious allegations against a police constable and others; demands for action under the SC/ST Act intensify, while questions are raised regarding the administration’s silence. Bhopal: On April 14, 2026—the occasion of Ambedkar Jayanti—a grave and disturbing incident came to light in the Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh, raising serious questions regarding the functioning and sensitivity of the police administration. Pankali Saket, a Dalit woman and resident of the Amaliya police station area, has alleged that when she arrived outside the police station around 2:30 PM in connection with the programs and rallies organized for Ambedkar Jayanti, a police constable named Abhishek—along with three other individuals who were allegedly in plain clothes—surrounded her and began beating her mercilessly with sticks and batons. According to the victim, the attack was sudden and unprovoked, leaving her seriously injured. The woman states that she sustained deep injuries to her head, hands, legs, and back—marks of which remain clearly visible. This incident has not only sparked outrage at the local level but has also raised the question of whether the police are failing to ensure the safety of ordinary citizens, particularly women belonging to the Dalit community. Allegations of Casteist Abuse as Well In her complaint, Pankali Saket has further alleged that during the assault, she was subjected to casteist slurs—conduct that is not only socially humiliating but also constitutes a serious legal offense. If these allegations are found to be true, the case could be registered directly under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Inadequate Treatment Received Even at the Hospital Following the incident, the victim went to the hospital to seek medical attention; however, she has alleged that she was unable to receive proper medical care even there. Plagued by pain and injuries, the woman was compelled to purchase medication from a medical store before returning home. She stated that since the incident, she has been suffering from persistent headaches, dizziness, and vomiting—symptoms that have rendered her condition even more alarming. This alleged negligence on the part of healthcare services has also raised serious questions regarding the administrative machinery. If a critically injured woman cannot even receive basic first aid at a hospital, it exposes the utter insensitivity of the entire system. **Complaint Filed with the Superintendent of Police** Pankali Saket has submitted a written complaint regarding this entire matter to the Superintendent of Police. In her complaint letter, she not only recounted her personal ordeal but also alleged that the incident was orchestrated with the specific intent of disrupting the Ambedkar Jayanti rally. The victim further claimed that she was not the only one subjected to physical assault that day; other individuals were also beaten and are now wandering in search of medical treatment. The complaint names another individual, Saurabh Shukla, as an accused, while the identity of a second accused remains unknown. The woman has attached photographs of her injuries to her application to underscore the gravity of the case. **The Issue Heats Up on Social Media** Since surfacing on social media, this incident has rapidly become a subject of intense public debate. Sunil Asteya, a leader of the Azad Samaj Party, has raised scathing questions directed at the state government and the police administration regarding this event. Tagging Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Dr. Mohan Yadav, he questioned whether this is the manner in which the dignity of women is being safeguarded through schemes such as “Ladli Behna.” Those championing this cause claim to have conversed with the victim via video call, during which she provided a detailed account of the entire incident and appealed for justice. They have also issued a warning: if prompt action is not taken, they will travel to Sidhi to stage a protest and demand strict punitive action against the perpetrators. Speaking to *The Mooknayak*, Azad Samaj Party leader Sunil Asteya described the incident in Sidhi as both extremely grave and deeply shameful. He alleged that if the police themselves resort to physically assaulting citizens and hurling casteist slurs, how can the common people ever hope to receive justice? He stated that the injustice inflicted upon the Dalit woman is not merely a wrong committed against an individual, but an assault on the dignity of the entire society. He demanded that strict action be taken immediately against the accused police personnel under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and that justice be delivered to the victim. Sunil Asteya also issued a warning that if prompt action is not taken, the party will personally visit Sidhi to stage a protest and raise this issue on a larger platform. **Questions Raised Over Administration’s Silence; Demand for Impartial Inquiry** So far, no official statement regarding this entire incident has been issued by the police administration—a silence that, in itself, raises numerous questions. In a matter of such sensitivity, the administration’s silence is further fueling public mistrust. Local residents and social organizations have demanded an impartial and time-bound inquiry into this incident. They argue that if strict action is not taken against the accused police personnel, it will erode public confidence in the rule of law. **Incident on a Day Symbolizing Social Justice Sparks Concern** Ambedkar Jayanti is regarded in India as a day symbolizing equality, justice, and respect for constitutional rights. The occurrence of such an incident on such a significant day is not only unfortunate but also serves to expose the deep-seated inequalities and challenges that persist within society. Ankit Pachauri Courtesy: Hindi News
SubscriberWrites: When a Dalit Student Dies: Academia’s Broken Promise to Ambedkar
India adopted a Constitution drafted by Ambedkar, yet we systematically undermine its egalitarian promises. The tragic death of Dalit student Nithin Raj exposes the Indian education system’s systemic caste prejudice, which marginalizes Dalits and disregards Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of egalitarian spaces. Despite constitutional promises, universities remain hostile, failing to affirm Dalit dignity and scholarship. The article calls for a fundamental overhaul of academia to truly achieve caste annihilation and prevent such institutional violence. Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: The news of Nithin Raj’s death carries the familiar weight of preventable tragedy. Another Dalit student lost to an institution that was meant to liberate him through education. Another family shattered by a system that continues to reproduce the very hierarchies our Constitution explicitly forbids. Yet what strikes most painfully is not merely the personal loss, but what it reveals about our profound collective failure to translate Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s vision into institutional reality, nearly 75 years after he warned us that constitutions are not self-executing. Young Dalit students commit suicide at various educational institutions. It is not anomalous. It is systematic. From hostels to subtle contempt embedded in curriculum, they often confront rude comments from roommates, condescension from upper-caste faculties, and erasure of Dalit scholarship from syllabi. Indian education remains in a deep caste prejudice. An institution designed historically to reproduce brahmanical knowledge systems and caste hierarchies. Cosmetic alterations in the constitution have not translated into structural reality. Nithin Raj’s death reminds us that we have failed to produce those egalitarian educational spaces envisioned by Babasaheb. He did not fight for reservations as charity or patronage. Rather, he fought to dismantle caste as a principle for stratifying society. For him, education was a primary weapon against caste oppression, even though that knowledge was weaponised against the masses to perpetuate brahmanism. Hence, he clamoured that educational institutions must become spaces of equality, which would not only grant access to Dalit students but also affirm their dignity and intellectual contributions Instead, we have a system that allows access without belonging, opportunities without safety, admissions without acceptance. When they enter institutions, they are subjected to marginalisation even as they become visible. They are considered as anomalies, as beneficiaries of reservations, as reminders of institution’s generosity. They navigate hostility from peers, disdain from teachers and institutional apathy from administrations. The psychological impact is immense. Depression, anxiety and feelings of profound isolation are prevalent among Dalits at disproportionate rates. In contemporary academia, the relevance of Ambedkar is profoundly understated. His views on caste, social transformation, and education remain among the most incisive. Nonetheless, these writings, the most important for addressing these issues, are often sidelined or reduced to footnotes in academic discourse. Meanwhile, mainstream academia continues to elevate brahmanical intellectuals while keeping Dalit scholars on the margins. The structure of academic knowledge production – what gets published, who gets cited, what constitutes canonical work- remains infected with caste prejudice. For Ambedkar, brahminism was not just historical; it was prescriptive. He insisted that brahminism survives institutionally, through education system, through internalisation of hierarchy. This is precisely what is often missed: caste prejudice in academia is not a bug but a system. Universities remain a powerful mechanism reinforcing casteism. Therefore, symbolic inclusivity and diversity initiatives cannot eradicate anything that needs systemic overhauls. What exactly did Ambedkar want? He urged for annihilation of caste, not living amicably with it. He advocated for intermarriage, inter-dining so as to eliminate all those boundaries which serve as tools for maintaining the status quo among different castes. When this is applied in academia, it means not just recruiting Dalit students and professors, but questioning the notion of “merit”, which sort of knowledge is deemed essential, whose perspectives shape curriculum and whose intellectual traditions are preserved and celebrated. The death of Nithin Raj must be viewed as institutional violence and not an individual tragedy. The violence unfolds through exclusion, disrespect, ignorance and those many microaggressions accumulated daily until they form an unbearable psychological burden. It is highly invisible in a sanitised image of the institution. On his birth anniversary, what might an honour of Ambedkar’s legacy look like in academia? It would mean decentering the brahmanical knowledge system, paving the way for caste-critical scholarship across all disciplines, requiring the unlearning of caste prejudices among professors, and affirming safe spaces for Dalit students. Thus, reimagining what education truly serves to accomplish. It asks to recognise that academic rigour and caste equality are not competing values but interdependent goals. India adopted a Constitution drafted by Ambedkar, yet we systematically undermine its egalitarian promises. Educational institutions, often termed as temples of learning, are actually seats of brahminical privilege. Unless and until there is restructuring of academia in accordance with Ambedkar’s vision of caste annihilation, Dalit students will continue entering universities that remain hostile to them, that continually remind them of the insignificance of their knowledge and that their presence is only due to the consequence of tokenistic efforts rather than as a right. Nithin Raj deserved better. Many others deserve better. The inherent question lies in whether we follow the vision outlined by Ambedkar for us or continue to offer ceremonial condolences over preventable deaths. These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint. Pallavi Sanil Courtesy : The Print Note: This news is originally published on https:/theprint.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Book Excerpt: Documenting Lived Experiences In ‘Dalit Women And The Fullness Of Life’
Blending memoir with social inquiry, this book moves beyond dominant representations to delve into the lived experiences of Dalit women across identity, sisterhood, desire, and faith. Almost a decade after I finished college, I came out as Dalit to a colleague of mine. I didn’t need to, but it felt important then to contextualize my politics to someone I considered a friend. A part of me was also tired of hiding this aspect of my identity at work; by then, I had started writing publicly and was scared that someone would discover it. So, one Friday evening in Bengaluru, I gathered up some courage and told my colleague that I was Dalit. She looked at me quizzically for a second and blurted, ‘Oh, you don’t look like one.’ If this moment had been filmed, the camera might have aptly caught the expressions of my part-embarrassed, part- crestfallen face. ‘But what does a Dalit look like, Aditi?’ I asked. She did not know what to say. Her liberal image notwithstanding, her mind—conditioned by caste—equated Dalit to a stereotype, one that can only be recognized through certain markers, which in my case didn’t seem to apply. So she did what she thought was the right thing to do: assure me that I was not like the rest of them. Dirty, poor, uncultured. I did not feel the need to come out when I was younger. Not only did I lack the political impetus to do it, I also didn’t have to. My socio-economic markers were far less ambiguous back then. I was dark- and dry-skinned, Christian and poor. And if that was not enough, I also spoke broken English and Chennai Tamil. Years later, someone mentioned that my bulbous nose was a dead giveaway. Paara mooku. For Dalit women who grew up with visible caste markers, navigating savarna-dominated spaces can be demanding. Suspended between the pressures to come out as Dalit, the very real possibility of repercussions on account of coming out, and the gnawing suspicion that coming out is just another performative gimmick, Dalit women can be left feeling helpless. This is especially true for those who did not grow up in contexts that were openly anti-caste and/or are operating in spaces that are outwardly caste-blind but inwardly casteist. Indian institutions, for example—whether government, academic, corporate or non-profit—can be made up of populations with varying degrees of caste consciousness. Some are extremely adept at identifying caste markers and, if they hold any kind of power and harbour a caste bias, could sabotage a Dalit worker’s career prospects. Some are like my colleague Aditi—who may readily profess caste-blindness but still believe in caste-based stereotypes. Some are proficient in the language of caste politics, and may even be scholars of caste, while concealing a deep disgust for Dalits. Coming out is therefore a risk, the cushioning of which requires one or more of the following: a higher socio-economic status; anti-caste politicization; adjacency to savarna or white lineage; and an upbringing in, or migration to, a geographical context that is not caste contoured. It is far more challenging to be vocal about one’s Dalit identity if one’s life is in immediate danger; or there is not enough social and economic capital to buffer casteist onslaughts; or there is no lineage to fall back on when one’s Dalit identity is attacked; or one’s anti-caste education has not equipped them with the political ammunition required to defend themselves. Several contemporary Dalit women have, however, openly self-identified—even in the absence of protections and politicization. Yashica Dutt, the award-winning author of Coming Out as Dalit, has spoken at length—both in her book and outside of it—about the struggles with hiding and the complicated but necessary freedom she felt when she came out. To many readers, particularly those who have not had an Ambedkarite upbringing or other types of scaffolding, this was an experience we could relate to. Like my parents, I too made efforts, as an adult, to hide my caste location—not by saying I was Indian Christian, as they did, but by carefully camouflaging my caste markers. At work and at school, I adopted English accents that sounded American and British—at one point, even Australian. There was also my surname—or rather the lack of it—which helped me in some ways. Because of a clerical error, I grew up without a surname or initials. ‘Dhanuja’, one of my middle names, became a proxy for my surname at work, and ‘Dhanaraj’—my father’s name, which should have been my official surname— became a pseudonym. As I began writing on caste, I added a middle name to my pseudonym: Thomas. Christina Thomas Dhanaraj. Malayalee-ish? Maybe. Ambiguous? Absolutely. I had to quit my corporate job, marry into a Dalit family and move countries before I could fully and publicly come out as Dalit. Had I not left India, I would have continued to keep my Dalit identity hidden. Being out as Dalit now feels freeing. It is even more so when the world around me seems to accept it—albeit a carefully curated world, occupied only by those who appear to denounce caste; who listen with rapt attention to my emphatic bashing of savarna arrogance and respond with delightful candour to my self-deprecating humour. It’s sweet relief to be on this side of the bridge— where it appears that I’m celebrated not in spite of being Dalit but because of it. But I’m also convinced that Dalit women—including those who keep their caste location hidden for the sake of self- preservation—should not be under any pressure to come out. Because, one, the act of coming out in and of itself doesn’t guarantee societal acceptance. And two, there is nothing inherently Dalit about any of us that mandates a broadcast. Christina Dhanuja Courtesy : Outlook India Note: This news is originally published on https:/outlookindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights