Skip to main content

No Indian is familiar with the term “Hindu” as applied to his religion in 1921

The 1921 Census of India Report noted that ‘No Indian is familiar with the term “Hindu” as applied to his religion’. In 1911, the census commissioner E. A. Gaits issued a circular with certain questions to help the census officers to determine the viability of ‘Hindu’ as the religion common to all those disparate groups. Most of these questions pertained to the wall of separation between the castes. For example, the circular asked all castes to answer if they had access to the upper caste temples; whether they had access to a Brahmin priest for the ceremonies in life such as weddings; whether they were familiar with the gods of the upper castes. If it could be demonstrated that the disparate caste groups shared, at least occasionally, the same cultural spheres and activities, then there could be a case for a single religious category encompassing them all. The answers recorded for these questions made it obvious that this was not the case, and that the upper castes were then a small minority in the subcontinent. The upper castes soon saw the danger, protested against the circular, and forced it to be withdrawn. Their leaders expected that similar circulars would be used again. They therefore proceeded to invent the very customs and enforce the very practices which would be able to meet the Gaits criteria in the future, including temple entry programs for the lower castes, which are euphemistically called ‘social reforms’. These cosmetic changes left the material conditions such as land ownership and political power of the lower castes unchanged, which was of course their goal. Hence, the very criteria that had failed in the ‘Gaits’ circular’ would form the basis for the new ‘Hindu’ religion.

The subsequent census operations of the Raj, especially the 1921 and 1931 census, made the demographic difference between the upper and lower castes even more apparent. Even the Muslim religious minority were found to have outnumbered the upper castes. This fact would not have had any special sense if not for the modern legal and electoral procedures that were being introduced by the Raj, such as the ‘Caste Disabilities Removal Act’ in the mid nineteenth century, the increasing devolution of government to elected Indians in 1919 and 1935, and separate electorates for lower castes. Thus, under the colonial introduction of reforms, religious conversions, modern democratic electoral processes, and laws criminalising caste-based discriminatory practices in the early twentieth century, the lower castes had an opportunity for the first time in millennia to become visible as the claimants of public good, and to seek freedom and equal rights. These freedoms were not spectacular but as quotidian as the right to walk the same streets as everyone else, the right to drinking water of a village, the right to education, and the right to ask for a wage for the labour performed.

However, these freedoms are still not available to the majority of the people.

The reform measures of the colonial administration were met with extreme reproach by the upper castes who were fighting for ‘transfer of power’ under the leadership of the coalition of interests that was the Congress party. They anticipated that the social hierarchy of the caste order would not survive in a constitutional democracy based on principles of political, material and social equality. Under the Congress coalition, upper caste leaders including Gandhi launched agitations against these very reforms. But they were also confronted with the growing agitations from the lower caste people; in 1924 in Kerala, the lower caste people began their agitation for their right to walk on all streets including those in front of the temples which considered them as ‘polluting’. In 1927 B. R. Ambedkar led the agitation of thousands of Dalits in Mahad (a place in Maharashtra) to drink water from the public tank. When the upper castes opposed it with the use of force, the Bombay High Court had to intervene and rule in favour of the lower castes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unveiling the "Real Majority" of India

Unveiling the "Real Majority": Divya Dwivedi’s Critique of the Hindu Majority Narrative * In contemporary Indian discourse, the notion of a "Hindu majority" is often taken as an unassailable fact, with official statistics frequently citing approximately 80% of India’s population as Hindu. This framing shapes political campaigns, cultural narratives, and even national identity. However, philosopher and professor at IIT Delhi, Divya Dwivedi, challenges this narrative in her provocative and incisive work, arguing that the "Hindu majority" is a constructed myth that obscures the true social composition of India. For Dwivedi, the "real majority" comprises the lower-caste communities—historically marginalized and oppressed under the caste system—who form the numerical and social backbone of the nation. Her critique, developed in collaboration with philosopher Shaj Mohan, offers a radical rethinking of Indian society, exposing the mechanisms of power t...

Raise of RSS-affiliated think tanks

Since 2014, the number of think tanks affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has significantly increased. India had 192 think tanks in 2014, which surged to 612 by 2021, reflecting a notable rise in nationalist-oriented institutions like the India Foundation and the Vivekananda International Foundation  This growth is part of a broader strategy to challenge leftist intellectual dominance and promote a "New India" ideology through policy research and public discourse. The main goals of RSS-affiliated think tanks include: Promoting Hindutva Ideology : They aim to spread the ideology of Hindutva to strengthen the Hindu community and uphold Indian culture and civilizational values Challenging Leftist Dominance : These think tanks seek to counter the intellectual hegemony of leftist ideologies in India, providing an alternative narrative in policy discourse Supporting Government Policies : They produce research and reports that s...

Casteist Indian Bankers: Caste Bias Still Haunts Indian Banking

The Problem: Caste discrimination continues to plague the Indian banking sector, limiting access to credit for millions of lower-caste citizens. Data Point: A study  found that Scheduled Tribes (STs) face a 5-7% lower loan approval rate compared to higher castes, even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. How it Works: Discrimination in Action: Lower-caste individuals often encounter: Higher rejection rates for loan applications. Smaller loan amounts compared to higher-caste applicants. Less favorable terms, such as higher interest rates and stricter collateral requirements. The "Depositors, Not Borrowers" Mindset: Banks often view lower-caste individuals primarily as depositors, not as creditworthy borrowers. The Impact: Limited Economic Mobility: Restricted access to credit hampers entrepreneurship, reduces income growth, and perpetuates poverty cycles within marginalized communities. Reliance on Informal Lenders: The lack of access to formal ba...