33 Dalit Feminism: Caste, Power and Hierarchy

Anurekha Chari Wagh

Introduction:

Caste as we know is the defining feature of Indian society. Dirks (2002:5) states that, ’caste as we know today, is not in fact some unchanged survival of ancient India, not one single system that reflects a core civilizational value, not a basic expression of Indian tradition. Rather…caste is a modern phenomenon, specifically the product of an historical encounter between India and Western colonial rule…and it was under the British that ‘caste’ became a single term capable of expressing, organizing and above all ‘systematizing’ India’s diverse forms of social identity, community and organization’. Drawing on this, Kannabiran (2002) argues that caste is a hierarchical, hegemonic ranking of social groups found majorly in the Indian sub-continent. Continuing the argument, Kannabiran (2012) states that, since the 19th century there has been a systemic critique of the caste system. To this end she refers to the works of Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule’s critique of caste in Maharashtra, in the 19th century; E.V Ramaswami Naicker Periyar in Tamil Nadu in the early 20th century and Dr. B R Ambedkar in the 20th century. She states that ‘it was Dr Ambedkar, who was the architect of the anti-caste movement, who coined the word ‘Dalit’ (literally downtrodden), to designate untouchables as a political entity and referred to caste system as one of graded inequality- a system of hierarchies built on notions of relative superiority and inferiority, with the Dalits occupying the last rung of in the system and thus bearing brunt of cumulative domination by all the other castes’. The category of ‘dalit2’ thus has to be historically located and sociologically developed and constituted (Guru 2005).

The question that emerges is how does gender connect with this understanding of caste?3 Feminists have theorized the manner in which gender is central to the question of caste and argued that women’s experiences, rights, bodies and entitlements are framed with reference to the caste hierarchy. As Kannabiran and Kannabiran (1991:2131) argue ‘in modern India, gender within caste society is defined and structured in such a manner that the ’manhood’ of the caste is defined both by the degree of control men exercise over women and the degree of passivity (and complicity) of the women of the caste. By the same argument, demonstrating control by humiliating women of another caste is a certain way of reducing the ‘manhood’ of those castes’.

All these three stalwarts Phule- Periyar and Ambedkar championed for liberating women to put an end to the caste system (Kandaswamy 2005:127). While Phule called for challenging caste and gender issues simultaneously, Periyar argued that ‘if slavery has to be abolished in society, the male arrogance and wickedness which leads to the enslavement of women must be abolished first’ (Periyar on Women’s Rights, 1994, cited in Kandaswamy, 2005: 127). It was Dr. Ambedkar who argued that castes continued to be maintained through the sexual exploitation of women, particularly dalit women and institutionalization of endogamy. Thus violence,particularly sexual violence is an integral aspect of the experience of being a ‘dalit women’. Dr Ambedkar has referred to the crucial role of women in the Hindu caste system when he said that ‘women are the gateways to the caste system’ and that the closed nature of the caste system is maintained through the sexual exploitation of women,. Thus for Dr Ambedkar the annhiliation of Untouchability was more relevant for women than for men (Kandaswamy 2005:113). As Kandaswamy (2005), states that in India the Dalit women are voiceless and victimized. According to her ‘the life of Dalit women are made worse by the Hindutva forces; for her Hindutva and Dalit women are nothing but contradictory factions, diametrically opposed groups of the maximum oppressor and most oppressed’ (pp 109). It was Dr. Ambedkar who burnt the Manusmriti, because it was not only anti-Dalit but it was anti-women4 and repeatedly laid stress on the fact that the lower the position of the women in the hierarchy the more intense her exploitation. Kandaswamy (2005:127) argues that this statement of Dr. Ambedkar serves as the foundation for the necessity of Dalit feminism.

1 In this module research assistance was provided by Ms . Vasudha Rajkumar, Kolkatta.

2 The concept of dalit has been used as a political analytical category of analysis. Some scholars while using the term ‘dalit’ , use it lower case ‘d’ and some scholars prefer using ‘D’, as in capital. In this module I have continued with the format used by the scholars themselves in their work.

3 To get a more detailed analysis of the gendered nature of caste, please refer to the module titled, Caste and Gender – Sociology of Gender paper.

The module is structured in three sections. Section 1 titled ‘Dalit Feminism: An Overview and Dalit Feminist Standpoint’, highlights the various aspects of dalit feminism and discusses in detail the dalit feminist standpoint. Section 2 Dalit Feminist Autobiography: Analysis of Urmila Pawar’s Aayadan highlights an exploration of Urmila Pawar’s Aayadan so as to highlight the manner in which dalit women have theorized their everyday experiences in their autobiography. Section 3, highlights the challenges that dalit women face in accessing and experiencing citizenship rights and is titled ‘Dalit Women and Citizenship Rights’. This is followed by the conclusion.

Section 1: Dalit Feminism: An Overview and Dalit Feminist Standpoint

An important debate with regard to dalit feminism is the argument of dalit women speaking differently. In this section I have drawn most of the arguments from the works of Gopal Guru and Shramila Rege, whose arguments and theorizations have played a crucial role in shaping the debate on dalit feminism and dalit feminist standpoint5. The main proponent of this debate is professor Gopal Guru, who had theorized on the need to analyse the issues of dalit women within their own historical location. Why is this needed? In this context the argument of Chakravarthi (2004), is relevant, where it is argued that when state intervention are gender blind or lacking gender sensitivity, lower caste dalit women are not only exploited and marginalized by upper caste Brahmanical patriarchs but dalit women are also marginalized by mainstream feminist movements.

Guru (1998:2548) states that dalit women justify their case of speaking differently on the basis of external factors (non-dalit forces homogenizing the issue of dalit women) and internal factors (the patriarchal domination within the dalits). Social location, determines perception of reality – the responsibility of dalit women issues of non-dalit less valid and less authentic. Guru (1995) states that for dalit activists caste factor does not get adequate recognition in the analysis done by the non-dalit middle class urbanized women activists. Claim for women’s solidarity at both national and global level, erases the contradictions that exist between high caste and dalit women. Further as Guru (1995) states dalit feminists rejected tokenism, protested at ‘guest appearances’ (at conferences and campaigns), and consider feminist theory developed by non-dalit women as unauthentic since it does not capture their reality.

4 The Indian Association for Women’s Studies, celebrate Manusmriti Dahan Divas (25 December, the day on which Dr Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti) as the Bharatiya Stree Mukti Divas (Kandaswamy 2005: 127).

5 Please refer to the module on Standpoint Theory – Sociology of Gender

As Rao (2003:2) argues Dalit Bahujan feminists have gone beyond than merely arguing that Indian feminism is exclusive. Rather they demand that for a rethinking of the genealogy of Indian feminism in order to engage meaningfully with the concerns of women’s difference from the ideal subject of feminist politics in India. In this context Guru (1995: 2550) states that ‘dalit women’s perception while critical of the homogenization of a dominant discourse does not make fetish of its own reality and therefore prevents the ghettoisation of dalithood’. Such an awareness of the dalit women renders their theorization of experience and epistemology of knowledge emancipatory and liberating. Rege (1998) argues that the argument for dalit women speaking differently is made in the context where the feminist scholars have ignored and marginalized the contributions and interventions of women in the non-brahman women. The invisibility of this history has led to scholars theorizing on the autonomous assertion of dalit women as a ‘different voice’. Dalit women have always been vocal about their rights, but their voices have largely been ignored and erased.

Rege et al., (2013:35), argue that efforts to develop a dialogue within diverse movements in India and solidarity between non-dalit and dalit feminists faced obstacles in the context of: one, silence of feminists in face of increasing violence against dalit women and two, failure to recognize the structural violence of caste in linkage with sexuality and labour. Thus the demand for dalit perspectives is grossly and inadequately represented within mainstream Indian feminism (Raj 2013). Rege et al., (2013: 36) ’the task is to map the ways in which the category ‘woman’, is being differently reconstituted within regionally diverse patriarchal relations cross-hatched by graded caste inequalities’. Thus as Patil (2014) states that potential of dalit feminist knowledge in Maharashtra is being validated as ‘epistemic turn’ by drawing the challenges it posits on “Indian brahmanical leftist and mainstream feminist ideologies. Dalit women challenge the totalizing nature of feminist culture that does not condemn oppression, and tangible and non-tangible forms of violence based on caste-gender structures.

Further, while Raj (2013:56) while reflecting on the experience of politics in Kerala, states that though Dalit men and women were part of the most visible forms of public action, they remained invisible in both the discourses and the organizational structure of leftist politics at all levels. In a similar vein Namala (2008) argues that dalit women raised the issue of caste, which remained marginalized in debates and practices of the existing movements. The practice has been to club dalit women’s issues under the caption of women’s issues and discusses them in general terms. Such invisibility was one of the reasons which gave a push to the rise of dalit feminism in Kerala. Further as Raj (2013: 62), argues that interventions and demands raised by dalit women activists were articulated by the mainstream feminists in a patronizing generous manner. Raj (2013) state that feminists though mention class and caste, they do it only rhetorically. There has been a deliberate attempt to appropriate the newly emerging criticisms in order to be ‘politically correct’ and address caste and gender in a token form.

Such an attitude by the mainstream feminists, I believe would not lead to building of solidarity among them, rather would push the dalit feminists more into the margins. It was ‘inclusion’ without being inclusive. While the factors are analysed, it is very clear that dalit women have not been integrated into this analysis and focused on. Further as Raj (2013:61), states that dalit women activists are raising demands of the ‘general rights’ sort but they do not easily fit within the ‘set of demands’ that prior women’s movements have been raising for the last two decades. For instance, by prioritizing the question of land for dalit women, these activists are challenging the agendas of contemporary mainstream feminism in the Kerala context. In fact their emergence itself is a critique of mainstream discourse on rights and social equality and in this context Rege states that it was in the 1990s the one could observe the rise of autonomous dalit women’s organisations at regional and national levels. What does such assertion imply for the women’s movement? According to Rege (1998), such assertion has raised questions with regard to theoretical, political issues and highlighting the brahmanism of the of the feminist movement and the patriarchal practices of the dalit politics. The following paragraphs would discuss the debate on dalit women’s experiences being different and the dalit feminist standpoint.

In the end the questions have been organized as one more standpoint, thereby institutionalizing a perspective within this framework of ‘difference’, that issue of caste became the sole responsibility of the dalit women’s organisations (Rege 1998). Thus if it is caste then it is the dalit feminists who should deal with it. As Rege (1998: WS-39), ‘an absence of an exploration of each other’s positions- hinders the dialectics, both of a revisioning of contemporary feminist politics and a sharpening of the positions put forth by autonomous dalit women’s organisations’. Rege (1998; Ws 39-40) argues that ‘assertion of dalit women’s voices is not just an issue of naming their ‘difference’. Naming of difference leads to a narrow identitarian politics- rather this assertion is read as a centering of the discourse on caste and gender and is viewed as suggesting a dalit feminist standpoint’. Rather what one needs is a shift of focus from ‘difference’, and multiple to be converted into oppression, understood in the context of different hierarchies of class, gender, race and so on and thus transforming difference into a ‘standpoint’, by historicizing ‘difference’.

How do we historicize the ‘difference’? Rege argues that this is to be done by mapping and putting on record the voices and contributions of non-brahman women in the movement and the interventions of radical social revolutionaries such as Mahatma Phule, Savitribai Phule, Tarabai Shinde and Dr. B. R Ambedkar. As Pardeshi (1997) argues Dr Ambedkar locates the specificities of women’s subordination, both as ‘dalit’ and as ‘women’.

In this context, Rege argues that based on a review of these works it is clear that the ‘difference’ or ‘different voice’ of the dalit women is a reflection of the long lived experience of everyday struggles, but unfortunately as mentioned above these voices remained invisible to both the women’s and dalit movement in India. Whereas in the dalit movement, dalit women’s voices and experiences were framed in the context of their roles of the ‘mother’ and the ‘victimised sexual being’ and in the women’s movement all women came to framed as ‘victims’ and therefore ‘dalits’, leading to the universalization of the middle class, upper caste women’s experience, subsumed under the larger idea of sisterhood’. Thus while dalit movement did not interrogate gender, the women’s movement did not engage with brahmanism, leading to invisibility of dalit women’s experiences and everyday struggles. It is because of such erasure of experiences a feminist politics organized in the context of the articulation of the marginalized communities could not emerge leaving the movement fragmented and limited (1998: WS 42-Ws 43).

In context of Guru’s (1995) argument of ‘dalit women speak differently’, Rege (1998: WS-44) argues that though one recognizes the need for dalit women to locate their experiences, but to frame their knowledge on the basis of direct experience would limit the revolutionary potential of the movement and its epistemological standpoints. What is necessary in this context is to theorize the ‘difference’, by going beyond it leading to dalit feminist standpoint. A dalit feminist standpoint is seen as emancipatory as it places emphasis on individual experiences within socially constructed groups and focuses on the hierarchical, multiple, changing structural power relations of caste, class, and ethnic and is also open to liberatory interrogations and revisions. In this the argument is not to argue that non-dalit feminists can ‘speak as’ or ‘for the’ dalit women but they can ‘reinvent themselves as dalit feminists’. Such a position steers clear of limited perspective of direct experience based ‘authenticity’ and ‘identity politics’. As Rege (1998: WS- 45) states, ‘adopting a dalit feminist standpoint position means sometimes losing, sometimes revisioning the ‘voice’ that we as feminists had gained in the 1980s. This process, we believe is one of the transforming individual feminists into oppositional and collective subjects’.

In a critique of the dalit feminist standpoint, Kapadia (2007:29), who has researched extensively on issues of dalit women in Tamil Nadu, in a review of the pioneering work of Sharmila Rege, Writing Caste/ Writing Gender, states that reading through the book reveals that there is a radical difference between the lives of Tamil dalit women (based on her research) and Marathi dalit women (based on the writing of Sharmila Rege). Thus she argued that it is impossible to speak of a universal homogenized ‘dalit standpoint’, cultural values. Such a position suggests that it is equally impossible to speak of any universal homogenized ‘dalit standpoint’, as many feminists including Rege have argued for a ‘dalit feminist standpoint’. Kapadia further states that though such ‘standpoints’ are desirable, the social reality is so diverse, and always in constant change and transitions, so it is not theoretically and methodologically feasible to have a universal ‘dalit feminist standpoint’. Datar (1999), on reviewing the idea of ‘difference’, argues that the focus on ‘difference’ and identity ignores the centrality of economic exploitation and market fundamentalism disenfranchising women. Thus one needs to locate the exploitation of Dalit women in the domain of economy rather than identity politics.

Section 2: Dalit Feminist Autobiography: Analysis of Urmila Pawar’s Aayadan

Urmila Pawar one of the more prominent Dalit feminist writers is also one of the pioneers of the Dalit feminist movement. Her autobiographical work- Aayadan could be examined as a testimony of the everyday struggles of a dalit women especially as a member of the Mahar caste. The title is symbolic, as Aayadan represents the primary occupation of the Mahar community, which is the weaving of baskets and the utensils their community used. This was the primary source of income for their community. Further weaving, in this book, is used as a central metaphor, indicative of their position on the lower rungs of the caste system, and their crippling poverty.

What does the work represent? One sees the life of Dalit women through a Dalit woman’s eyes, her perspectives while engaging with the personal and the public6. Further it reflects on woman’s struggle to find her identity and a sense of fulfillment particularly in the background of communal tensions, caste inequalities and patriarchal attitude of the community and family towards women.

The autobiography gives a detailed account of the exploitation Dalit women had to suffer in Aayadan. The book vividly described the hardships Dalit women had to bear. The differences in food habits, and the food itself was an indicator of how different and much more privileged Brahmin lives were. Dalit women were much more poorly fed than men, and this was reflected in the meagre amounts of food described with detail by Pawar. Lower castes were humiliated regularly, in public places, during weddings, and as mentioned in her experiences even in school environments. Pawar wryly observes that these prejudices were passed down to her Brahmin classmates at a very early age, due to which they wouldn’t let her touch the pot while they collectively cooked a meal in school. After their meal, her eating habits were made fun of. This highlights a cultural inheritance, which is a sort of initiation into caste-related prejudices for children, and the fact that they would poke fun at poorer people for their eating and living habits.

The book provides an exploration of Pawar’s life as a Dalit woman, and how she was made aware of the stark differences between her life and that of other, higher castes. The rise of B.R. Ambedkar’s philosophy and his public denouncement of Hinduism and the Manusmriti was welcomed by their community and was a turning point in the lives of the community. He encouraged them to convert to Buddhism, and after Govindadada’s conversion, many people followed suit. Pawar describes the displaying of B.R. Ambedkar’s photo alongside a photo of the Buddha in many Dalit establishments. Pawar autobiography highlighted Dr B R Ambedkar as one of the few feminists in their community, and the few women that were privileged to work with him, turned to writing and documentation.

6 Urmila Pawar’s Aayadan: A New Perspective.

(shodhganga. inf libnet. ac.in/ bitstream/ 10603/6880/ 12/12_chapter%207.pdf )

Pawar writes about how initiation to Buddhism transformed for their community. The autobiography highlights the tribulations of the everyday existence of Dalit women and her struggle with patriarchy, both within the family and in the community. Her father displayed double standards; were to the world, he was a reformer, but to his family, he was abusive and patriarchal. In this context one finds parallels to black feminist writing, for neither in the black emancipation movement, nor in the Dalit one, was there any place for women’s rights and women’s voices were erased by the larger dalit movement led and articulated by the dalit men. What made the life grueling was the fact women in these communities were both exploited by the outside world, and the men in their own community. Pawar highlights about how in the workplace, Dalit women were sexually exploited by their upper-caste co-workers, while at home, they were beaten up by their husbands. Pawar also bravely shares about how she herself was sexually exploited by her maternal uncle (p.6).

Reading through Aayadan, poses a troubling question on the manner in which access to and experience of education is structured around the lines of caste, gender and class. Urmila Pawar’s experience of her schooling reveals the everyday discrimination faced by students of particular caste. Her observation of the differences between her and the Brahmin girls in her school, reflects the pain faced by many in their everyday life. Thus one could observe that Pawar’s views on education were shaped by her largely discriminatory schoolmates and teachers, who humiliated her due to her lack of proficiency in English. In general, a large hurdle to Dalit feminist development was, and remains, the lack of education. Another similar incident was when the writer Kumud Pawde wanted to take up Sanskrit in school, and was discouraged by her upper-caste teachers. Despite the implementation of plenty of literary programmes in India, the number of literate Dalit women remains abysmally low. Other than Pawar, many other examples of autobiographically inclined works like Sumitra Bhave’s Pan On Fire have also appeared, as accounts of illiterate Dalit women and their life experiences.

Marital life experiences also form an integral part of the autobiography. Pawar recounts the happiness she experienced upon receiving her first salary, and then the pang she felt when she had to surrender it to her husband in turn, thus establishing her dependency on someone else. In contemporary India, Dalit women workers are paid less than their male counterparts, and have to resort to unskilled labour and manual labour to make ends meet. With a sharp drop in literacy levels, very few are privileged enough to lead lives of activism like Pawar.

Her home life, and her relationship with her husband would become a sensitive issue throughout her life. Her husband, Harishchandra, also faced much discrimination at the village, so he heeded Ambedkar’s call to work in the city. Pawar notes here that self-respect comes more readily to a man than it does to a woman. She had to spend years and years reading books and participating in college events to gain her self-respect. Here she cites the effect Ambedkar and other Dalit writers had upon her. This was her most significant period, developmentally, as she could pursue writing along with her job in Mumbai. She developed friendships with women, and their shared experiences spurred her on to write.

At home, however, the subject of her Masters degree was a source of much consternation to her husband, as he did not want to feel inferior. Her family remained ambivalent to the subject, and her very traditional husband expected her to take care of household chores and the children. She found solace in Maitrini, an organisation she was inducted into by her friend. She was also invited to read her short stories to larger audiences, and began to make contacts with prominent women in literary circles. She soon began to share stages with noted personalities. Pawar observed here, that there was a difference between the titles and honours conferred upon men and women. Men had ‘Bhausaheb’ or ‘Raosaheb’ attached to their name, while women were simply addressed with the suffix ‘bai’. She felt insulted due to this distinction, and thus raised the question of self-respect among women.

She addressed the issue of the desire for a male child in her work, in her description of the time when her brother had a newborn son. His daughters insisted that they would fight with this brother for their property, during his naming ceremony. Their mother reprimanded them, saying that they could not expect anything from the brother, as they would be happily married. This also throws light upon the property rights of women in that period (p.10). Pawar went on to write much more, and make considerable strides in her field by writing a biography of B.R. Ambedkar, and becoming an eminent name in literary circles. Her husband continued to feel overshadowed by these developments, and his insecurity led to a very turbulent home life. She writes, ‘his attitude towards me was full of contradictions. On the one hand, he was proud of my writing, he admitted to his friends and relatives. However, on the other, he immensely resented my being recognised as a writer, my speaking in public programmes and my emergence as a figure in the public domain.’ (p.11). She looked towards writing as a means of escape from her less-than -satisfactory personal life, and continually looked at her mother weaving as a source of inspiration for her autobiography.

As Pawar’s awareness of feminism developed, she was of the opinion that both men and women should be looked at as exactly equal. The number of rights available to a man must also be available to a woman. Unfortunately, the Dalit movement was indifferent to women, and refused to give women more space in the community. At the same time, the women’s liberation movement failed to take Dalit suffering into account. This particular brand of feminism, referred to by Anupama Rao as ‘Brahminical feminism’ was, at best, woefully unaware of Dalit interests. This was a very tough situation to overcome, and it pained her greatly. She viewed her consciousness as the result of Phule-Ambedkarite influences, and reflected upon the name ‘Dalit’ being that of a rational-humanistic category that faced centuries of oppression, and her place within this identity. She ends her memoir with the heart-rending description of a widow’s plight during her husband’s funeral, and her opposition to the oppressive ritual, with her acceptance of the harsh realities of life that Dalit women have to face regularly.

In conclusion, one must note the constant conflict in Urmila Pawar’s life- between her community and family, which expected her to act in a certain way, and her own conscience, which was in solidarity with the women’s liberation movement and Ambedkar’s progressive views. Another source of conflict was between her activism for Dalit women’s rights, and her affiliation with more Brahmin dominated groups. What differentiates her writing from other Dalit feminist writers, is the constant reference to her personal experiences, with the community playing a large role, albeit in the background. Sharmila Rege observes that this should be viewed exclusively as a ‘historical narrative of experience’ (p.17), simply due to the fact that this has been an account of Pawar’s unique personal experiences as a Dalit woman.

Thus in this memoir, therefore, Pawar not only is able to chronicle her own rather difficult experiences as a Dalit woman, but also make the connection between the private and public patriarchies, thereby highlighting the multiple patriarchies that dalit women have too experience. Remarking on the dalit genre, Patil (2014) argues that though dalit writing reflected on debates relating to caste and gender, but failed to address question of sexuality, thereby not engaging adequately the nuances of power which complicates dalit life. This gap is somewhat bridged by the dalit women writers, who through their autobiographies present a mirror to the everyday struggles of their life and reflect on the manner in which multiple patriarchies organize their lives, rights and experiences. In the next section we would discuss the nature of citizenship rights experienced by dalit women especially in the context of gendered analysis of citizenship rights7.

Section 3: Dalit Women and Citizenship Rights

Patil (2010) maintains that in order to examine the position of Dalit women in this context, it is important to take into account the intersections of citizenship and gender. Due to their existence in a developing post-colonial society, Dalits have been subject to its tensions in addition to their initial struggles. In a post-globalised world, their identities, and by extension, social security are subject to gradual decay. Unskilled Dalits, the author notes, due to this, have little-to-no ability to form networks to navigate the landscape of a largely skilled, exclusionary society (p.7). Drawing from Rege (1998), Patil argues that Dalit women are at the bottom rung of the social ladder, especially, as they are oppressed by non-Dalit women, non-Dalit men and Dalit men- triple forms of oppression. They are offered little to no political representation, because, initially, most political parties are based on Brahminical ideologies and marginalise Dalit concerns. As Patil (2010) argues the social and political locations are constantly challenged by patriarchy within their community and patriarchy outside their community and political parties, larger political parties and in their own community, and parties such as Republican Party of India (RPI), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

Moreover, the complex webs of politicised Dalit organisations find little place for the representation of Dalit women. Thus, Patil (2010) concludes, that the patriarchal structures within and without the Dalit community are the root causes for their suffering. Feudal behavioural patterns, detected in both the rural as well as urban parts of India are influencers of their oppression. In the end, the Dalit woman is unable to question these structures that systemically oppress her. Aside from a systemic lack of facilities and proper social security, Dalit women are victims of harsh abuse and symbolic/physical violence. Mostly Dalit women’s voices, despite the oppression, challenge the question of citizenship and attempt to find their own places within in.

7 To get detailed understanding of the debate on ‘Gendered Citizenship’ , please refer to the module on Gendered Citizenship’- Sociology of Gender paper.

Additionally it is important to recognize that disrespect of dalit women is also fallout of dalit patriarchy, where atrocities against dalit women act as extensions of caste related practices that question the self respect of the dalit women. The dreadful atrocities on dalit women, as observed at Kahilanji, the sexual violence inflicted on Priyanka and Surekha Bhootmange on 29th September 2006 demonstrate the violence against the assertions of dalit women. Thus Patil (2010) argues that the rural caste conflict that perpetuated between OBCs and dalits was mediated through the suppression of dalit women’s voices. In the context of such violence it is important to analyse the intervention of the state to deal with the violence inflicted against the dalits. Kannabiran (2012) states that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Atrocities) Act, 1989 recognizes the gendered nature of caste experience, especially for Dalit women. How is then atrocity understood by the Act? In the definition of atrocity it includes different kinds of violence women may be inflicted on- sexual assault, non-consensual contact using position of dominance, stripping and parading naked.

An important organisation that provides a platform for dalit women is the formation of National Federation of Dalit Women (NFDW), 1995. The manifesto of the NFDW includes:

Establishing a separate identity from the autonomous women’s movement in India and the ‘male dominated secular and progressive movements’, including the dalit movement and progressive movements
This is to highlight the need for critical reflection on caste based discrimination and the violence inflicted on Dalit women.

Kannabiran (2012), analyses the manifesto to state that such a framework will enable women to address its expressions, diversity, locate themselves in their specific regional and historical contexts while at the same time preserve their identity and specificity. She writes that ‘the deliberation on the Dalit woman’s position therefore was based on notions of dignity of labour, cultural expressions, and democratic politics, the notion of belonging for Dalit women situated firmly within an autonomous space that drew its strength from the resistance to appropriation and building of alliances on equal terms’ (2012). If one even focuses on the title of the manifesto of the National Federation of Dalit Women (2003), ‘Transforming Pain into Power’, aptly reflects the growing political articulation of the Dalit women’s experience of pain and tribulations into a powerful radical political identity. The NFDW argues that it is necessary to focus on the intersectionality of gender, race and caste in order to fully understand Dalit women’s location, as Dalit women are ‘dalits among dalits’, because they are thrice alienated – on the basis of caste, class and gender.

Conclusion:

Patil (2013: 43) states that dalit feminism can render the gendered- sociological critique of philosophy as well as larger intellectual productions to generate particular dalit feminist philosophy. As the same time, it can subvert the ideological moves of dominant feminist and other forms of thought that undervalue the epistemological contours of dalit feminism. We can very well conclude by drawing upon the arguments of NFDW where it states that Dalit women is by definition feminist, non-patriarchal, non-hierarchical and positively oriented towards ecology. The important issues that the organisation highlights focusing on Dalit women’s citizenship issues include; recognition of their productive contribution to society, demand for fair wages, equality, dignity, guarantee of security from threat of sexual and physical assault, right to freedom of religion especially in terms of conversion and a right to leadership- a claim posed against non-Dalit men, Dalit men and non-Dalit women. Thus Dalit feminist resistance is an everyday resistance against casteism and exclusion- minute, persistent, cumulative and intense (Kannabiran 2012).

you can view video on Dalit Feminism: Caste, Power and Hierarchy

References:

Agarwal, B (1989): ‘Rural Women, Poverty and natural resources: Sustenance, Sustainability and Struggle for Change’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 24, No 3, WS 46-WS112.
_______ (1995): A field of One’s Own: Gender and Land rights in South Asia’. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge
________ (1999): Social Security and Farming: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in Rural India in E. Ahmed, J Dreze, J Hills and A Sen (eds): Social Security in Developing Countries.
Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
_________ (2003): “Gender and land Rights: Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State, Family and Market’, in S Razavi (ed), Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp 184-224.
Badn, S and Milward, K (1995): Gender and Poverty. BRIDGE Report Commissioned by Sida.
Institute of Development Studies. Brighton.
Darooka, P (2008): Social Security: A Women’s Human Rights Discussion Paper, No 2. PWECSR.
New Delhi.
Discussion Paper (2011): Locating Women’s Livelihood in the Human Right Framework. PWESCR No 3, July 2011. New Delhi. pp 1-12.
Jha, D (2003): Policy Drift in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 38, No 47 (Nov 22-28) pp 4941-4948.
Jodhka, S (2006): Beyond ‘Crises’: Rethinking Contemporary Punjab Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 41, No 16 (Apr 22-28), pp 1530-1537.
Kannan, K P (2010): ‘Social Security for the Working Poor in India: Two National Initiatives’, Development. 53; 338-42.
Krishna, S (2003): Light Shines through Gossamer Theads. Inside- Outsside Political Spaces. Vol 38, No 17, pp 1691-1696.
_________ (2005): Gendered Price of Rice in North- Eastern India. Vol 40, No 25, pp 2555-2562.
_________ (2007): Women’s Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship for Development. SSage Publication. New Delhi.
_________ (2009): Genderscapes: Revisioning Natural Resource Management. Zubaan: New Delhi.

_________ (2010): ‘Gender Equity in National Rural Mission: Institutions and Collective Actions:
paper presented at Two decades of Impact and Learning. Regional Conference: Orissa Watershed Development Mission. DFID and N R Int. U K). New Delhi 21-23. April 2010. Hirway, I (2002): Employment and unemployment situation in the 1990s – How good is the NSS data? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 37, No 21, pp 2027-2036.
_________ (2012): Gender and Sustainable Livelihoods; ‘Sidestream’/’Mainstream’ in W.
Harcourt (ed), Women Reclaiming Sustainable Livelihoods. Plagrave: Macmillan
Krishnaraj M and Shah, A (2004): Women in Agriculture. Academic Foundation: New Delhi.
Krishnaraj, M (2005a): Food Security: How and For Whom? Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 25 (June 18), pp 2508-2512.
________ (2005b): Displaced from Land: Case of Santhal Praganas. Economic and Political Weekly Vol 40, No 41 (Oct 8-14), pp 4439-4442.
_________ (2006); Food Security, Agrarian Crisis and Rural Livelihoods: Implications for Women. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 41, No 52- (Dec 30- 2006 – Jan 5 2007), pp 5376-5388.
Masika, R and S Joekes (1996): Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Gender Perspective Commissioned by SIDA. Report No 37. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
Mishra, S (2007): Risks, Farmers Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India. Is there a way Out?
Working Paper – 2007-014, IGDIR: Mumbai.
Padhi, R (2009): Women Surviving Framer Suicides in Punjab. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 44, No 19 (May 9 -15), pp 53-59 Patnaik, U and Patnaik, P (2001): The State, Poverty and Development in India in Nirija Gopal
Rao, N (2005a): Women’s Rights to Land and Assets: Experiencing of Mainstreaming Gender in Development Programmes. Economic and Political Weekly Vol XL, No 44-45, Oct 29, pp- 4701-4708.
Sainath, P (2007): The Decade of our Discontent. The Hindu. August 9th, 2007.
________ (2011): Census Findings Point to a Decade of Rural Distress’. The Hindu 27th September 2011.
Sayeed, H and Tzannatos, Z (1995): Sex Segregation in the Labour Force’. World Bank.
Sen, G (1999): Gender Mainstreaming in Finance: A Reference Manual for Government and Other Stakeholders. Commonwealth Secretariat. 1999. London.
Standing, G (1989): ‘Global Feminism through Flexible Labour’, World Development. Vol 17, No 7.
Sticher, S and Parpart, J (eds) (1990): Women, Employment and the Family in International Division of Labour. London: Macmillan.
Sydenham, E (2009): Women and the Right to Livelihoods. World Social Forum 2009. PWESCR.
Tzannatos, Z (1995): ‘Women’s Labour Hours’. World Bank: Washington D C.
Vasavi, A.R (1994): ‘Hybrid Times, Hybrid People’: Culture and Agriculture in South India. Man.New Series, Vol 29, No 2 (Jun 1994). Pp 283-300.
_________ (1999): ‘Agrarian Distress: Market, State and Suicides’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol 34(32), April 7th, pp 2263-68.
Vepa, S (2009): Bearing the Brunt: Impact of Rural Distress on Women. Sage Publications: New Delhi