If India becomes a Hindu Rashtra, how will it Impact Dalits?

If India becomes a Hindu Rashtra, how will it Impact Dalits?

SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

If India were to become a Hindu Rashtra—a state explicitly defined by Hindu nationalist principles—the impact on Dalits (historically marginalized communities within the Hindu caste system, often referred to as "Scheduled Castes") would depend on how such a transformation is implemented and the policies that follow. Let us break this down based on historical context, current socio-political dynamics, and potential outcomes.

Dalits have long faced systemic discrimination under the caste hierarchy, which is rooted in traditional Hindu social structures. A Hindu Rashtra could, in theory, either reinforce or challenge this hierarchy, depending on the interpretation of Hinduism that dominates. Historically, upper-caste dominance has marginalized Dalits, denying them equal access to resources, education, and social mobility. If a Hindu Rashtra strengthens orthodox interpretations of Hindu texts—like the Manusmriti, which justifies caste-based discrimination—Dalits could face intensified exclusion, with legal and social systems potentially institutionalizing their subordination.

On the flip side, some Hindu nationalist voices, including factions within the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates, claim to advocate for a unified Hindu identity that transcends caste. In practice, this rhetoric has had mixed results. Programs like "samajik samrasta" (social harmony) aim to integrate Dalits into a broader Hindu fold, but critics argue this often amounts to assimilation without dismantling caste privilege. If a Hindu Rashtra prioritizes this approach, Dalits might gain symbolic inclusion—temple entry, participation in rituals—but substantive equality (land rights, economic power, political representation) could remain elusive.

Data from recent decades offers clues. The 2011 Census pegged Scheduled Castes at 16.6% of India’s population (over 200 million people). Despite constitutional safeguards like reservations, Dalits still face disproportionate poverty (NSSO data shows higher rural poverty rates among SCs) and violence (NCRB 2021 reported over 50,000 crimes against SCs). A Hindu Rashtra might amplify these issues if governance shifts toward majoritarian priorities, sidelining secular protections. For instance, if affirmative action is weakened under a "Hindu unity" pretext, Dalits could lose critical mechanisms for upliftment.

Politically, Dalits have leveraged their numbers through parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and leaders like Mayawati. A Hindu Rashtra might curb such autonomy if it consolidates power under a singular ideological banner, potentially alienating Dalit movements that draw from Ambedkarite ideology—secular, anti-caste, and skeptical of Hindu orthodoxy. Conversely, co-optation is possible: BJP, the leading Hindu nationalist party, has made inroads among Dalits (winning 24% of SC votes in 2019, per Lokniti-CSDS), offering a mix of welfare schemes and Hindu identity. A Hindu Rashtra could double down on this, trading material benefits for political loyalty.

Socially, the impact hinges on enforcement. If laws reflect upper-caste norms—say, restricting inter-caste marriage or labor mobility—Dalits could face heightened oppression. Violence might rise too; cow protection vigilantism has already disproportionately targeted Dalits and Muslims. Yet, if the state pushes a reformist Hinduism (unlikely but possible), it could challenge caste norms, though historical precedent suggests entrenched elites rarely cede power voluntarily.

In short, Dalits could face a spectrum of outcomes: from deeper marginalization under a rigid, caste-reinforcing Hindu Rashtra to limited gains under a paternalistic, assimilationist one. The reality would likely blend both—symbolic gestures masking structural inequality—unless a radical reimagining of Hindu identity upends centuries of precedent. What do you think about this tension between ideology and lived experience?

Courtesy: Grok 3

 

Begumpura: Saint Raidas' Concept of a Welfare State

 

Begumpura: Saint Raidas' Concept of a Welfare State

-         Kanwal Bharti

(English translation from original Hindi: SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front)

 

ऐसा चाहूँ राज मैं जहाँ मिलै सबन को अन्न।

छोट बड़ो सभ सम बसै रैदास रहे प्रसन्न।। --संत रैदास

(I want such a rule where everyone gets food.

High and low live together and Raidas remains happy.)

--Saint Raidas

Dr. Ambedkar's warning on the establishment of Hindu Rashtra-

If Hindu rule is really established, then undoubtedly it will be the biggest misfortune of this country. No matter what the Hindus say, Hinduism is a threat to freedom, equality and fraternity. It is inconsistent with democracy. Hindu rule should be prevented from being established at any cost.

--Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

The above Sakhi of Raidas Sahib contains the concept of such a welfare state, which is relevant even after six hundred years. This concept was made in the era when there was monarchy in India. Inequality and richness-poverty were at their peak in the society. In the words of Kabir, some people used to sleep on beds in palaces, while a large population was not even fortunate enough to have a thatched roof or a bed of straw. Elephants were tied at someone's door, and many poor people sold their children to survive.

It was still four centuries before freedom and equality came to India legally. But the ideology in favour of freedom and equality has existed in India since the Vedic period. Kabir and Raidas Saheb were followers of the same tradition, who fearlessly and courageously raised their voice against all kinds of inequality and injustice, and made the public aware for change.

It was the human consciousness of Raidas Saheb that he had imagined a welfare state in the fifteenth century itself. Such an imagination can be made only by a person who is both the observer and the sufferer of the community suffering from the state system of his time, or belongs to the class which is deprived of the facilities of the state. Tulsidas could not even imagine such a welfare state in the sixteenth century, even though he himself used to call himself a beggar. Even in Tulsidas' time, people did not get enough food to eat despite working hard day and night. But Tulsidas considered the Varna system to be the ideal system and said that happiness and sorrow, richness and poverty and high and low are the results of the deeds of the previous birth. If one-third of the population was not getting enough food, then in the eyes of people like Tulsidas, it was not the fault of the state system, but the fault of the deeds of the people in their previous births. Therefore, it was impossible for him to imagine an inclusive welfare state. He even considered the education and rebellion of the Shudras against the Varna system to be the ill-effects of Kali Yuga.

But Raidas Saheb, who refuted the Varna system, had told a hundred years before Tulsidas that richness and poverty and happiness and sorrow are not the results of the deeds of the previous births, but the bad governance of the state is responsible for it. If people are not getting enough food, it is because the system of the state is not welfare oriented. The grace of the state is not on the downtrodden and the poor.

That is why Raidas Saheb has asked a well thought out question that how should a state be? He said that the state should be such that no one in the state dies of hunger. This will happen only when the state arranges food for all its subjects. If food is not available to all the people of the state, then it cannot be a welfare state, rather it will be a state that oppresses the subjects. Access to food does not mean that the state should distribute free food to the people, rather it means that the income of the people of the state should be such that every person can easily buy food. If the ability to get food is limited only to the rich people, then the rest of the subjects will remain deprived and will not be able to fill their stomachs.

Raidas ji's concept of state is not only that food grains should be available to everyone, but also that there should be no discrimination of any kind between the big and the small in the state - neither social nor economic. They should live equally, that is, with complete equality. There should not be discrimination that the big people get special privileges, and the low people are suppressed and do not get respect.

This concept of state of Raidas Saheb is so revolutionary that it advocates those fundamental rights of freedom and equality, which we find explained in the democratic system of the West. Although it was the period of political subjugation, but even in the period of subjugation, the people of the upper classes were independent and self-reliant, whereas the productive people like farmers, cobbler, potter, oilman, blacksmith etc. who earned their living by hard work were neither independent nor self-reliant. They were so dependent and enslaved that they could not even complain against their miserable condition, because it was considered rebellion. They got neither respect nor love. Such people were considered lowly by all. Raidas Saheb had deep sympathy for these exploited people. He said-

पराधीन का दीन क्या, पराधीन बेदीन।

रैदास पराधीन को, सभ ही समझें हीन।

(What is the religion of a subjugated person? A subjugated person is considered lowly.

Raidas, everyone considers a subjugated person to be lowly.)

Raidas ji has said a very touching thing in this Sakhi. He not only says that a subjugated person has no religion because religion is of the independent ones only, but he also says that people consider those who are subjugated to be lowly. This thought of Raidas Sahib is not about political subjugation, but about social and economic subjugation. The entire country was subjugated politically. But socially and especially economically, the hardworking people of the lower classes were subjugated. In fact, Raidas Sahib has attacked the Varna system in this Sakhi, which had kept the Shudra class subservient to the Dwij. These subjugated people have been called 'Bedeen' by Raidas Sahib, that is, those who are religionless or Dharmaless. Since they were Bedeen, that is why they were deprived of the rights of freedom and equality.

Raidas Saheb's concept of the state is relevant today because today the RSS and BJP are building a Hindu state which has a hidden agenda of implementing the caste system. The anti-people policies and disinvestment plans of this government have destroyed the employment of crores of people and left them helpless to die of hunger. Under this government, not only education, medicines and justice have become out of the reach of the people, but even dal-roti (food and drink) has become out of reach. Hindu state is not only dangerous for the democracy of India, the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity, but it is also fatal for the unity of the country. Dr. Ambedkar had realized this danger in 1940 itself, hence he warned the countrymen that in the interest of a welfare state, the establishment of a Hindu state must be prevented.

Why does BJP oppose the word secular?

 

Why does BJP oppose the word secular?

-SR Darapuri National President, All India People's Front

Speaking on Constitution Day in Parliament in 2015, BJP representative Rajnath Singh again reiterated that the inclusion of the word secular in the Constitution is unnecessary and has been misused a lot. He further defined secularism and said that it does not mean secularism but sect neutrality. Even before this BJP and its allies have raised similar objections to this word.

It is known that the words secular and socialist were included in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. It is also noteworthy that under the Right to Equality in Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination based on religion is prohibited by the state against any citizen. Apart from this, according to the right to freedom of religion in Article 25 of the Constitution, every citizen has the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. It is clear from these provisions of the constitution that our state is completely secular. These provisions are so clear that there is no scope for any kind of doubt in them, the BJP wants to keep them confused in the definition.

Being a secular state, all political parties are expected not to use religion in politics, which is also prohibited in the People's Representation Act. Similarly, it is the constitutional duty of the ministers and officers of the government to behave completely secularly in discharging their duties. But it is unfortunate that since independence till now neither our politics could become secular nor the people sitting on constitutional posts and administrative officers could become completely secular. The biggest example of this was our first President Dr. Rajendra Prasad. The first thing he did on assuming the office of the President was that he had replaced all the Muslim chefs (cooks) working in Rashtrapati Bhavan with Hindu cooks. His second act, which annoyed Nehru very much, was that after becoming the President, he went on a pilgrimage to Kashi and washed the feet of 200 Brahmins there and gave them dakshina. He probably did this because he was a Kayastha by caste, which is considered a Shudra in Bihar. Therefore, he thought it necessary to take blessings from the Vidvatjan Sabha of Kashi for his acceptance. Another act of his was to go for the installation of Shivling in Somnath temple after renovation, with which Nehru was very angry. Nehru's private secretary John Mathai wrote in his memoirs that the Somnath temple was renovated with the money that the then Agriculture Minister K.K. Munshi by increasing the price of sugar to the sugar mill association by Munshi in connivance with Sardar Patel, a part of it was received as a bribe. This information was received by Nehru when he could not do anything.

Nehru's personal secretary MO Mathai has also written in his memoirs that when Dr. Rajendra Prasad entered Rashtrapati Bhavan, he had ordered many langurs (Monkeys) because he was a Hanuman devotee. Dr. Rajendra Prasad used to feed the langurs with his own hands. They also used to go to North and South Block near Rashtrapati Bhavan and used to pick up the tiffins of the employees and tear files. When their population grew, they used to reach even the nearby houses and cause damage but they could not complain because they were President's baboons. Later, when Dr. Rajendra Prasad left the Rashtrapati Bhavan after the completion of his term, all the langurs were caught and sent to the Delhi Zoo.

Similarly, Babu Rajendra Prasad had also threatened to refuse assent to the Hindu Code Bill brought by Nehru and Ambedkar to give rights to Hindu women because he was against it as a Sanatani Hindu. It is also said that Sardar Patel wanted the Somnath temple to be renovated with government money, but Nehru did not allow it. In Nehru's absence, Sardar Patel had even got the Congress Working Committee to pass a resolution that Congressmen could become members of the RSS, but Nehru got it cancelled after returning from abroad.

Similarly, Madan Mohan Malaviya, who was a staunch Hindu, used to take Gangajal with him whenever he went to England. When an Englishman visited him, he used to purify his room by sprinkling Ganges water on his departure.

It is clear from the conduct of some of the above persons who held high positions that Indian politicians have never been completely secular. Our former Vice President Shankar Dayal Sharma had gone to pilgrimage with full official trappings. Not only this, all our government programs are completed only by Hindu religious rituals and worship of Gods and Goddesses. Whenever and wherever the BJP has come to power, it has introduced RSS for government employees. The doors of membership have been opened. From this, you can get an idea that how secular our governments and administrations have been in practice or are at present. By the way, Congress too has mostly been pretending to be secular. Its behaviour has also mostly been communal. It is known to all that the idols were placed in the Babri Masjid of Ayodhya in 1949 during the Congress rule. It was the Congress government that opened the locks of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and laid the foundation stone of the Ram temple there. Rajiv Gandhi started his election campaign from Ayodhya only after taking the blessings of Ram. In fact, Congress has always been playing the card of soft Hindutva, in which BJP later defeated it because BJP has always been doing politics of Hard Hindutva. Even on the issue of Ram Mandir, it went ahead of the Congress and won the battle by getting the Babri Masjid demolished.

Some time ago in the Parliament, by interpreting the word secular instead of secularism, the BJP has again given the message that it is not ready to accept India as a secular nation because till now it has been doing the politics of religion and wants to make India a Hindu Rashtra. Even if BJP's definition is accepted that our constitution is only sect neutral but not secular, then it means that India is a religious nation. Now because Hindutva is the biggest sect, then only the Hindu religion can be the religion of the nation. Therefore, BJP is very muchafraid to accept the word secular, because by accepting it, its Hindutva politics will be in danger and its resolve to make India a Hindu Rashtra will remain incomplete.