28 RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS

Rajula Shah

 INTRODUCTION

Conversion can undoubtedly be considered as an event that results in a transformation or a transition in an individual’s religious life, or a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to lead a new life. Although an individual’s personal choice about his/her religion, the issue of religious conversion does not remain within the domain of an individual’s existence, but rather it has been politicized thus becoming the subject of intensely emotional debate in the contemporary India.

Conversion, irrespective of involving a single individual or an entire community, whether it is forced or voluntary, or whether it is the result of proselytization or any actual inner spiritual illumination, it is inevitably and arguably one of the most unsettling political events in the life of a society. Such religious conversions are known to alter the demographic equation within a society and produce numerical imbalances, besides challenging an established community’s assent to religious doctrines and practices (Gauri, 1998). It is therefore no wonder that the experience of conversion is imbued with multiple and diverse possibilities that focus on new and challenging boundaries, identities, beliefs, doctrines and practices.

In this module, we will try to understand the various aspects involved in the whole process of religious conversions i.e. when an individual or a whole community marks a transition by following another faith. We shall begin with an understanding of the issue of religious conversion in a social, political and historical context. This is intended to give a clearer and deeper understanding on the matter of conversions. This is followed by two opposing viewpoints on conversions: there have been prominent voices, like Mahatma Gandhi, amongst others, who have endlessly spoken against any religious conversions; then there are those, like Dr. Ambedkar, who are totally in the favour of conversions. The differences between the two parties have been quiet sharp and have persistently been existent even today.

The process of conversion can be seen as a ‘socio-economic’ process in India, more than a religious process. Religion as practiced by the old converts and new converts is indeed contrastingly different as also the socio-economic and historical background of the newly converts is totally different, than was the prevalent situation for the old converts. Besides this, at the same time it is important to realize that the complex issue of conversion cannot be understood from two rather narrow-minded perspectives only, i.e. proponents and opponents of conversions. Conversion is often the result of multitude of factors and also results in multiple consequences thus affecting an individual’s or community’s overall social institutions, and not just the religious ones. Conversion is inevitably seen as a negotiation between the former religious tradition on one hand and the later converted to on the other. This is a ‘negotiation’ as the former is never totally forgotten and the latter is never totally integrated into.

II.    UNDERSTANDING RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS IN SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The academic study of religious conversion, although pioneered a century ago by William James (see James, 2008) in his celebrated Gifford Lectures, The Varieties of Religious Experience, is still very much in its infancy. To begin with a delicate issue like ‘religious conversion’, it is important to remember to not to presume its boundaries for the debate on this topic. As it stands, religion is strength as well as weakness worldwide, and particularly in India. Religion, thus, plays a dominant role in governing individuals and their institutions in all direct and indirect ways. Even institution like polity has not been left untouched by religion and religious ideologies in recent past. This is how we come across politics of religion or rather religion in politics. Religion can thus make or break, i.e. unite or divide groups of individuals and institutions across world.

Religion, that, otherwise functions in backdrop in a dormant way, suddenly becomes dynamic when there is sudden value-loaded emphasis on one’s religion at the cost of others’ religion or its ideology. The subtle examples of this would include arguments and fights commenting on one’s religion in public places, grumbling during ‘others’ religious processions thus comparing negatively with one’s own religious celebrations, etc. The prominent examples are demolition of places of worship, riots, propaganda during elections and of course religious conversions. In all such instances, religion becomes the centre of attraction. Thus, politics also plays an important role in religious matters just as religion does in political matters. And nowhere is it more evident than the heated argument surrounding the issue of religious conversion in India. Therefore, today, a thorough understanding of religious ideologies and religious differences is apparently necessary for attaining religious harmony in countries like India, which are culturally, regionally, geographically, and linguistically diverse.

Religious conversion, in the Indian context, is not easy to understand as there are no straight-forward answers to the questions arising out of religious conversions. Conversion neither happens in isolation nor results in changes in only religious sphere of one’s life. Multiple of causes lead to the act of getting converted to another religion, which in turn leads to multiple consequences, or rather negotiations, across the social, cultural and religious as well as ritual spheres, at individual as well as community level. Precisely for this reason, we cannot understand it from two extremely narrow and restrained perspectives of those who are ‘pro’-conversion and those who are ‘anti’-conversion. Besides, while bringing about changes in an individual’s or community’s religious life, conversion undoubtedly changes the equation of individual(s) with the social institutions in that community and society at large. Some amount of change is inevitable in various aspects of social life and therefore, an exclusive undivided position, or even an opinion, on this matter is not recommended. Also, as mentioned earlier, it cannot be denied that conversion means different things in different religious, social-cultural and political contexts as well as the historical contexts. In other words, while looking at the discourse on conversion, it should always be noted the agency of the people should be thoroughly acknowledged without undermining the contextual realities mentioned above.

Robinson and Clarke (2003: 3) clarify on how there is something more than ‘God’ to religious conversion, which includes ‘World’ and ‘Human beings’; these being the three important interlocking and interdependent dominant symbols affecting in a dynamic way. With an idea of such interrelationships, it becomes clear that the point of initial contact between groups is indeed diverse and definitely unpredictable. Therefore, while in some situations, religious conversion may begin with a compelling vision of God, it may perhaps emanate from a more attractive notion of the world or human beings in other contexts.

Interestingly, they also point out that some scholars happen to recognize Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism as a religion but have problems for giving the same status to Hinduism. The issue of conversion operates within the boundaries that are absolutely fluid, confusing and overlapping. Therefore there are instances when certain religious traditions like Islam and Christianity are considered to be ‘proselytizing’ or evangelizing by character, i.e. they firmly believe and desire to bring the unbeliever into the fold. Hinduism is rather seen as a religion that would expand by natural reproduction. But such conclusions are problematic as they are highly complex in character. For instance, modern Hinduism is known to have made an attempt to define itself as a faith that can attract converts. Hinduism is then depicted along the lines of Christianity or Islam, as having canonical rituals, with precepts and obligations like Islam, with sacraments like Christianity and with a conversion strategy that models itself on both.

It then becomes important to re-consider such theoretical arguments in order to explain why conversion is perceived while talking about Islam or Christianity, and becomes irrelevant for South Asian religions like Hinduism or Sikhism. With such an understanding, it is suggested, one can think of the differences between the theory and practice of conversion within particular religious traditions. It should be well understood and remembered that the theories about religious conversion are put forth by the theological elite or specialists of particular religious traditions, and not from the lay people, who often understand the term differently. Besides, paradoxically, the ‘exclusivity’ that is emphasized in certain conversions cases is very hypothetically assumed, which varies greatly in reality (ibid, 2003: 6). This explains how the caste system is still prevalent among the converts, along with religious practices of their new and former religions. Which means, in reality, a lot of accommodation and negotiation happens in the backdrop, which becomes apparent only when one considers the ground reality with all the factors that affect the decision for conversion.

Conversion can interestingly be seen as a fluid process of changing affiliations of religious beliefs and traditions with a wide range of possibilities. These possibilities may range from the more-or-less non-exclusive to the rigidly exclusive. Moreover, it also cannot be negated that these possibilities might manifest themselves in different religious traditions or broadly within the same religious tradition at different moments of time.

Conversions manifest in different temporal and spatial contexts. In fact, the most crucial aspect to remember is that ‘context’ is very important in dealing with conversion. Often, we come across the popular understanding that draws a distinction between ‘inside’ religions, which do not seek to convert, and ‘outside’ religions, which strongly want new followers. But such simplistic formulation has little historical validity or analytical usefulness. For example, two prominent modes of conversions are the sixteenth century Catholicism in Goa and modern Buddhism. Then there have been mass as well as individual conversions. Considering these facts, it is important to remember that none of these differences may be easily mapped on to the divide between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ religions. At different moments of time and in different contexts, various traditions and denominations have worked in remarkably differing ways.

Kooiman (1989) while dealing with the problem of untouchability from a historical perspective among some untouchable communities in southern India looks at how adoption of a new religious identity through mass conversion can become an escape route as part of an effort to gain a more dignified status in society, as seen in South Travancore in the 19th century. Besides, important parts of his analysis were the processes of Christianization and Sanskritization, seen as adaptation to the practices of a great tradition without complete rejection of the little/folk tradition. Likewise, Bugge (1994) while describing the complexity in the dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity, highlights the relationship between material production and conversion to Christianity. She focuses on the manner in which material goods (modernisation, education, famine relief) become agencies of the mission process, thus enhancing the missionary efforts.

In an attempt to define ‘conversion’, Lorenzen (1981) states that formal conversion ‘almost always embodies at least two things (a) “a partial willingness to accept the beliefs and values of the new religion” and (b) “a commitment to perform its exterior rites and ceremonies”.’ (p. 10). However, he has not explicitly mentioned the social dimension of conversion. This is to say that, conversion usually has a social or communal consequence, since rituals, ‘exterior rites & ceremonies’ almost invariably include a form of admission or baptism into the new community. And this ‘official’ admission/baptism is usually like a spiritual rebirth that has profound social or communal impact on the converts.

However, this underestimated point has been impressively dealt with by Dr. Hardy (1972), who has attempted a general history of British India’s Muslims with a deeper perspective. He asserts that the self-image of Muslims in pre-British India and under British rule was radically different. Thus, British rule created altogether a new set of conditions, roles and aspiration for the Muslims in India. Islam, in India, professed more as a way of life and belief, than as a political force, has seen different shades of self-realization under different Turkish, Arabic and Iranian political and social influences. Another important aspect was their occupational pattern that varied extensively depending upon the presence of Muslim merchants as well as the degree of exclusivity demanded and maintained through claims of foreign descent. However, in rural areas and even in towns, they were indistinguishable in occupation from surrounding non-Muslims. Also, their mother-tongue was usually the dialect of their region spoken by the non-Muslims around them. In an attempt to answer how such a variety of people become Muslims, that brings out the missing social dimension of conversion in its definition, Hardy writes that ‘In Indian life, ‘conversion’ means more a change of fellowship than of conduct or inner life – although the latter may in time occur’ (p. 8). And therefore, every convert to Islam becomes uniquely different and can never be equated in terms of extent and intensity with the other Muslims in India. So while their old associates are left behind for the purposes of marriages, etc. their old ways are not. This highlights the underlying context of their conversion to Islam; many, under the Muslim rule, opted to convert for the sake of social convenience as well as the assurance of high status.

The case is somewhat similar to the early conversions to Christianity in southern India. The earliest (known) India’s encounter with Christianity was the community of Syrian Christians of Kerala, which was the result of the evangelical efforts of St. Thomas, who is believed to have arrived on the Malabar Coast in AD 52. When the Portuguese arrived, in the sixteenth century, it was perhaps the second major encounter with Christianity. In this phase of history, trade, conquest and Christianization were all happening at the same time and therefore, sword and cross went hand in hand. Initial conversions took place between 1527 and 1549 among castes of fishermen and people with boat-handling skills such as the Mukkuvars and the Paravas along the southern coast of India. For these castes, involved in occupations considered low and ritually defiling, conversion to Christianity not only helped them climb the status ladder but also heightened a sense of distinctiveness from the agrarian caste world.

For Parava (pearl) fishers, moreover, alliance with the Portuguese yielded economic and political benefits. Christianity was the religion of the rulers, and conversion was often viewed as the first step towards acquiring some of the superiority of their position. Thus for the high castes, conversion meant alignment with the rulers and the protection of their economic, social, and ritual privileges. For the low castes, there may have been the expectation of social mobility, through movement into non-traditional pollution-neutral occupations opened up by the new regime (Granziera, 2011).

However, the converted Hindus retained their mother tongue (which in most cases was Konkani) and caste status, even after becoming Christian. Based on their previous caste affiliations, the new converts were usually lumped into new Catholic castes. The converts from the priestly Brahmin class were Bamonns (Konkani: Brahmins). All Brahmin sub-castes such as the Goud Saraswat Brahmins, Padyes, the Daivadnyas, and especially the goldsmiths and a few merchants, were lumped into the Christian caste of Bamonn. The converts from the Kshatriya and Vaishya Vani castes became Chardos (Kshatriyas); and those Vaishya Vanis who couldn’t become Chardos formed a new caste Gauddos. Those converts from the Gaudas, Kunbis and other lower castes were grouped together as Sudirs, equivalent to Shudras. The Bamonns, Chardos, and Gauddos have been traditionally seen as the high castes in the Goan Catholic caste hierarchy. (Gomes, 1987; Priolkar, 1961).

In the light of this discussion on early conversions, an important argument mentioned earlier about perceiving conversion in the cases of Hinduism and Sikhism can be again looked at. Religions and religious traditions like Buddhism and Jainism, Sikhism and within Hinduism with reference Bhakti movement, there have been cases of followers converting from an unjust, caste-based society to a more liberal one, in order to have equality on the castes and gender lines. In the words of M. N. Srinivas: “The Bhakti movement of medieval India was really pan-Indian attracting a large number of men and women from the lower orders and it even crossed the religious divide between Hindus and Muslims as with Kabir and much later, Shirdi Sai Baba” (Srinivas, 2003). These are the most obvious examples, including the recent one of B. R. Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism with a million followers in 1956, o f conversions of either ex-untouchables, marginalized or excluded communities and groups to any other faith showing strong rejection of Hinduism and Brahmanism. Religious conversions are described as ‘redemptive’(Omvedt, 2002; Pinto, 2005). So these were not just protesting against Hinduism, but also initiated the formation of a distinct identity for achieving equality and development.

In India, conversion can be categorized into three major chronological periods: pre-British, British and post-Independence. Of course, there is further and finer differentiation within each one of these three. The pre-British period spans through many centuries and is therefore difficult to comprehend the meanings of various conversions that took place in this huge phase. The conversions in this case included indigenous conversion movements such as to Jainism and Buddhism, besides the conversion to Islam mediated through trading associations, Sufism and political linkages. Moreover, conversions to Christianity in Kerala (i.e. Syrian Christianity) as well as conversions to Catholicism in Goa and to Protestantism in some parts of South India also fall within this category. The missionary activity was associated with the British period in a very complex and tricky manner. Though initially hostile, the British policy towards such efforts became quite favourable by early nineteenth century. In this period, there were both mass as well as individual conversions to Christianity along with lowest social groups converting to other faiths and traditions like to Sikhism, Islam, the shuddhi movement of the Arya Samaj and the various tribal reform movements (Robinson & Clarke, 2003). Due to the existing disabilities of the caste structures, the lowly groups attempted to move out of it and Christianization was one of the possible options to bring about a change, along with conversions to Islam, Sikhism or the reformed Hinduism of the Arya Samaj (Forrester, 1980). Finally, the post-Independence period saw various conversion movements connected with political movements as well as aspirations for political independence and autonomy, for greater social mobility and economic betterment. However, after Independence, there have been positive institutional changes due to a secular Constitution, which resulted in the conversions as narrowly diminishing. However, there have been cases of revolt amongst the deprived castes like the one on Meenakshipuram in Tamil Nadu in 1982, against the upper castes (Lobo, 2005:189). Other examples in this category include Ambedkar’s decision of mass conversion to Buddhism, conversions to Islam in Tamil Nadu and to Christianity among the various tribal groups. The Hindu Right movement has also politicized the issue of conversion to a great extent (Robinson & Clarke, 2003). But a decisive point in all the conversions, across all the phases in history, is that, regardless of who is converting and what is being converted to, the converts did carry their caste identities and their customs and rituals, thus negotiating between their ‘old’ and ‘new’ religious identities.

III. RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONS: TWO INCOMPATIBLE VIEWS

Having understood the context of conversions, it is now important for us to understand the two contrasting positions that the individuals, communities and even political regimes are known to have taken on the issue of conversion. Both the positions are very clear and the followers of both the positions are adamant on their views – on one hand, we have those who plead for a ban on conversions; on the other hand, we have those who argue that conversion is a fundamental human right to be protected in a democracy. The antipathy towards the proselytising drive of Christianity and Islam is widespread among various Hindu groups – from the radical spokesmen of the Sangh Parivar to the moderate Gandhians. Likewise, Christians and Secularists propose the right to conversion. Despite the clarity on these positions, which have remained unchanged ever since it is come into existence; this debate has not witnessed any significant progress.

The Indian Constitution sees religion as a matter of freedom of conscience. Freedom to convert a person from one religion to another has not been expressly specified in the Indian Constitution. It can be understood as a derivative right flowing from right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion of one’s choice, an important fundamental and democratic right given to every person under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The on-going argument is that does the right to propagate one’s religion includes right to convert as well. However, others have equally vehemently argued that the meaning of right to propagate cannot be stretched to mean right to convert. If it intended that way, a right to convert would have found mention in the Constitution (Engineer, 2003).

One, therefore, needs to understand that the phenomenon of conversion has been subjected to serious misunderstandings, misinformation and even malicious propaganda. Most of the stories of proselytization are spread by the political parties with vested interests to malign minority communities (Michael, 1998). It is therefore clear that debate surrounding the issue of conversion is highly inevitable. But again, people who particularly oppose conversions do not make an attempt to consider the historical and social context in which conversions happen.

In the following next two sections an attempt is made to understand the two prominent opposing views on the issue of conversion in India. These two, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar, are unquestionably the most recurring voices to the arguments of those of proponents and opponents of conversion. Depending on where one positions oneself, negative or positive aspects of conversion are stressed. However, it should be remembered that there are many voices that must be recognized to piece together a more comprehensive understanding of this complex problem.

IV.  GANDHIAN PERSPECTIVE: RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF CONVERSIONS

Being born and brought up in a deeply religious set up, Gandhi believed in ‘sarvadharma-samabhav’. However, he also believed that all religions originate from the same God and thus preach same doctrines. He looked at proselytization by Christians, tabligh by Muslims or shuddhi by Hindus as attempts to simply add numbers to their respective faiths. His personal conviction was that one should not change the religion of his forefathers at the instance of another.

But Gandhi was not the first person and definitely not only one to express such views. Raja Ram Mohan Roy in the early nineteenth century had expressed his opposition to the Christian missionaries’ activities, even though he was simultaneously struggling to reform Hindu society. Sir Syed Ahmed also showed similar concerns over conversions to Christianity by pointing out how the general famine was taken advantage of for converting people including the orphans. Swami Vivekananda was equally disturbed by the missionary activities. But it was only Mahatma Gandhi who persistently and doggedly expressed his criticism of conversions of Hindus to Christianity as well Islam, even while passionately advocating eradication of social evils including untouchability. He is therefore believed to have had profound regard for both the religions. In fact, it is due to this quality of Gandhi that many do not consider him narrow-minded. He was not only explicitly opposed to conversions made through forceful and fraudulent means and inducements, but was principally opposed to the idea of religious conversion itself and any religious preaching related to and leading to conversions.

Gandhi had strong convictions for opposing conversions. Primarily he believed that all paths lead to the same god, and that all religions are equally true and that god can be realized through any path. And therefore he was against the belief that any religion could be better than any other. He also rejected the motive of conversion behind the humanitarian work of various missionaries. He further believed that the convert is uprooted from his own society. Above all, he traced the history of conversions in India with the violent experiences that the natives went through (Nadkarni, 2003). Therefore, Gandhi had these firm convictions against conversions and in fact in many of the voices against conversion, we do get to hear some of the similar arguments that the Father of our nation had put across. But there is always another side of the story, another equally appealing voice, as well. And that is of those who believe that conversion can bring about a desired change in their overall conditions.

V. AMBEDKAR’S PERSPECTIVE: CONVERSION AS AN ALTERNATIVE

Here it is important to understand the issue of conversion from an extremely contrasting point of view. Ambedkar and Gandhi had different worldviews, particularly about religion and conversion. Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar wanted to bring about a change in the core structure of Hinduism, which, according to him, was responsible for the existing caste system. Gandhi, on the other hand, although against untouchability, had no other major issues with Hinduism. And therefore the disagreement between the two, on the issue of conversion, was quiet sharp.

According to Ambedkar, low status, degradation and low esteem of the untouchables should be attributed to the core values in Hinduism. It was his contention that a religion that favours some and curses others must be destroyed (Pinto, 2005). He, therefore, wanted to leave this discriminatory religion of inequality and thus embraced Buddhism, along with lakhs of followers on 14th October 1956. He reasoned out that in order to get socio-eco-political justice for the downtrodden, there is no harm in accepting another faith which will be just, secular and rational.

Ambedkar strongly advocated conversion in order to gain social mobility in the society. He wanted to overthrow the existing caste system and create a just society. He looked at Buddhism as an egalitarian religion, which was not the character of Hinduism. He was thus completely convinced that conversion was the only best available alternative to the downtrodden and weaker sections of the society. From all this, one can make out that, for Ambedkar and other like-minded persons (for instance missionaries) conversion effectively meant a road that could lead the weaker people away from their existing discriminatory social setup. Even with the same perspective we can look at the various conversion movements amongst the tribals, where the converters wanted them to come closer to their faith and lifestyles and thus leave behind an isolated life full of discrimination and disorder. Order and opportunities, therefore, could only be possible when one forgoes his religious dogmas and practices and thus adopt the new ‘appropriate’ religion, along with its canons and rituals.

VI. CONCLUSION

This debate between the two parties has been on-going from decades. Both have strong reasons to believe their convictions. But it has always remained a fact that when individuals or communities convert from a particular religion to another, the conversion is ambitiously intended to transform the consciousness, i.e. individual as well as collective. This is mediated through social interaction along with a new set of practices, both religious and cultural. Imbibing the ideology of the new religion is a very determining factor here. But more often than not, it only results in more confusion and ambiguity. Individuals are apparently stuck between two contrasting identities. For themselves and the larger society, sometimes, it becomes difficult to ascertain what values they are following or believing. Conversion is therefore a very slippery terrain.

REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bugge, H. (1994). Mission and Tamil Society: Social and Religious Change in South India (1840-1900). Nordic Institute of Asian Studies: Curzon Press.
2. Engineer, Irfan 2003. Freedom of Conscience, Conversions and Law. In: Kadam, S. (ed.) Workshop. Mumbai: Rajiv Printers, pp 8-14.
3. Forrester, Duncan 1980. Caste and Christianity: Attitudes and Policies on Caste of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Missions in India, New Jersey: Curson Press.
4. Gauri, Viswanathan, 1998. Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity and Belief, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
5. Granziera, P. (2011). Christianity and Tamil Culture: Father Joseph Beschi and the Image of the Virgin Mary. Toronto Journal of Theology, Vol 27(No. 2), pp 249-266.
6. Gomes, O. (1987). Village Goa: a study of Goan social structure and change: S. Chand.
7. Hardy, P. (1972). The Muslims of British India. London: Cambridge University Press.
8. James, W. (2008). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Maryland: ARC Manor.
9. Kooiman,  D.  (1989).  Conversion  and  Social  Equality  in  India:  The  London Missionary Society in South Travancore in the 19th Century. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.
10. Lobo, L. (2005). Brahmanical Social Order and Christianity in India. In S. M. Dahiwale (Ed.), Understanding Indian Society: the Non-Brahmanic Perspective (pp. pp 182-195). New Delhi: Rawat Publications
11. Lorenzen, D. N. (1981). Religious Change and Cultural Domination: XXX International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa. University of Virginia: Colegio de México.
12. Michael, S. M. 1998. Anthropology of Conversion in India. Hindu-Christian Dialogue on Conversion. Occasional Papers of IIC: Institute of Indian Culture.
13. Nadkarni, MV 2003. Ethics and Relevance of Conversion. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 3, pp 227-235.
14. Pinto, Ambrose 2005. Conversion as Subversion of Hierarchy. In: Dahiwale, S. M. (ed.) Understanding Indian Society: the Non-Brahmanic Perspective. New Delhi: Rawat Publications, pp 142-152.
15. Priolkar, A.   K.   (1961).   The   Goa   Inquisition:   Being   a   Quatercentenary Commemoration Study of the Inquisition in India : With Accounts Given by Dr. Dellon and Dr. Buchanan: A. K. Priolkar.
16. Robinson, Rowena & Santhianathan Clarke 2003. Introduction. In: Robinson, R. & Clarke, S. (eds.) Religious Conversion in India: Modes, Motivations and Meanings. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp 1-21
17. Srinivas, M. N. (2003). An Obituary on Caste as a System. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(No. 5), 459.
18. Omvedt, G. (2002). Ambedkar and After: The Dalit Movement in India. In G. Shah (Ed.), Social Movements and the State. New Delhi: Sage Publications.