Why Bhakti Movement failed to uplift the Untouchables?

 

Why Bhakti Movement failed to uplift the Untouchables?

- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

“The struggle of the saints did not have any effect on society. They raised some dust but not the level of the people. They fought for equality before God but not in society.

The value of man is axiomatic, self-evident; it does not come to him as the result of the gilding of Bhakti. The saints did not struggle to establish this point. On the contrary, their struggle had a very unhealthy effect on the depressed classes. It provided the Brahmins with an excuse to silence them by saying that they would be respected if they also attained the status of Chokhamela."

As the followers of different cults of Bhakti were themselves filled with caste prejudices, Dr. Ambedkar proceeded, they not only turned a blind eye to their message of equality, justice, and humanitarianism but also described their incredible miracles with utmost exaggeration. - “Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission”- Dhananjay Keer, p. 109-110

What were Dr. Ambedkar's apprehensions about the fate of Christians in free India How far they have come true?

 

What were Dr. Ambedkar's apprehensions about the fate of Christians in free India How far they have come true? 

-         SR Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

                                                

 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Apprehensions About the Fate of Christians in India

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the architect of India's Constitution and a fierce critic of caste-based oppression, expressed deep concerns about the future of Christianity in India during a pivotal speech to Indian Christians in Sholapur (now Solapur) on January 1, 1938. At the time, Ambedkar was actively exploring religious alternatives for Dalits (then called "Untouchables") as a means of escaping Hindu caste hierarchies, and he seriously considered Christianity alongside Buddhism and Islam. However, his praise for Jesus Christ as a revolutionary figure promoting equality, liberty, and fraternity was tempered by sharp critiques of how Christianity had adapted (or failed to adapt) to India's social realities.

Ambedkar's apprehensions were not abstract theological debates but practical warnings rooted in his observations of caste persistence, missionary shortcomings, and the political naivety of Indian Christians. He feared that without structural changes, Christians—particularly Dalit converts—would remain marginalized, their conversions offering spiritual solace but little social or political liberation. Key apprehensions included:

1. Persistence of Caste Within and Outside the Church: Ambedkar worried that Christianity would import or retain caste divisions, leaving Dalit converts as "untouchables" even after baptism. He noted that higher-caste Christians often discriminated against Dalit newcomers, mirroring Hindu prejudices, while Hindus continued to shun all Christians as "polluted." In his speech, he lamented: "The Indian Christian is a disjointed—it is a better word than disunited—society... The converts from the Untouchables are looked down upon by the converts from the higher classes." He personally experienced this when a Christian acquaintance in Baroda refused him lodging due to his Dalit status, despite the host's conversion. Without dismantling caste, Ambedkar predicted, Christianity would fail to integrate Dalits into a truly egalitarian society.

2. Vulnerability Due to Lack of Political Engagement: Ambedkar's core fear was that Christians' apolitical stance would doom their institutions and community to irrelevance. He observed that despite high education levels—producing nurses, teachers, clerks, and officers—Christians were "inconspicuous" in public life, with "not a single Christian in the High Court, not a single Christian in the District Court, not a single Christian in the Collectorate." He warned: "It is difficult for any institution to survive without political support," urging agitation for rights like scholarships, which Dalit Christians lost upon conversion without protest. In contrast, he praised illiterate Dalits for mobilizing politically to secure legislative seats and hostels, asking Christians: "Your society is so much educated, how many are District judges or magistrates? I tell you; this is because of your neglect towards politics."

3. Missionary Focus on Conversion Over Emancipation: Ambedkar criticized missionaries for prioritizing baptisms over "political rights" and social justice, stating they "feel they have done their duty when they convert an untouchable to Christianity" but ignore post-conversion injustices. He feared this would leave Dalit Christians dependent on foreign aid, unable to challenge the "Brahmanical Social Order" (BSO), and ultimately segregated like historical Buddhists.

These views influenced Ambedkar's ultimate choice of Buddhism in 1956, as it seemed better suited to Indian soil without the baggage of foreign institutional hierarchies.

 How Far Have These Apprehensions Come True?

Ambedkar's predictions have proven prescient, especially in the post-Independence era amid rising Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) and entrenched caste dynamics. While Indian Christians (about 2.3% of the population, or ~28 million as per the 2011 Census) have made strides in education and urban professions, systemic vulnerabilities persist and have worsened in recent decades. Here is an assessment:

Apprehension | Current Status | Extent Realized

 Caste Persistence: Dalit Christians (over 70% of the community) face "double discrimination". They are shunned by Hindus and marginalized within churches, where upper-caste (Syrian or "forward" caste) Christians control leadership and resources.  Separate burial grounds, segregated seating, and denial of sacraments for Dalit converts are documented. Conversion also strips Dalits of affirmative action benefits (e.g., reservations in jobs/education), unlike Buddhists. Dr. Ambedkar’s apprehension has largely come true as Caste endures, fueling internal church schisms and external hostility. Ambedkar's fear of superficial integration is evident.

Lack of Political Engagement/Representation: Christians hold low parliamentary seats: ~3.5% in the opposition INDIA bloc (8 MPs from 235 seats) and even less in the ruling BJP-led NDA (~2%). No major national Christian-led party exists, and Dalit Christians are underrepresented in state politics. Anti-conversion laws in 11 states (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) target Christian outreach, often without due process. Recent elections (2024) brought slight relief by curbing BJP's majority, but Christians mobilized through prayer and voting blocs rather than independent power. As such Ambedkar’s apprehension has come mostly true: Neglect of politics has left the community "spectral" and reactive, as Ambedkar warned, exacerbating vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability to Injustices/Persecution: Attacks on Christians surged 550% from 2014–2024, averaging 2 per day in 2024 alone— including church burnings, assaults on clergy, and village boycotts (e.g., an 8-month boycott in Chhattisgarh in 2025). Hindutva groups like RSS/VHP frame Christians as "foreign" threats, echoing Ambedkar's BSO concerns. Missionary-led education persists but faces funding cuts and vigilantism. As such Ambedkar’s apprehension has come Fully True: Without political muscle, institutions teeter; Ambedkar's "survival without support" prophecy rings true amid state complicity in some cases.

In summary, Ambedkar's apprehensions have materialized to a significant degree, particularly for Dalit Christians, who remain educationally advanced yet politically sidelined and socially besieged. The rise of Hindutva since the 1990s has amplified these risks, turning his 1938 warnings into a stark reality. However, glimmers of agency—such as interfaith Dalit solidarity and electoral mobilization—suggest paths forward if Christians heed his call for political agitation.

Dalit v/s Bahujan and the Need for Multi -Class Unity

 

Dalit v/s Bahujan and the Need for Multi -Class Unity

- S.R. Darapuri, National President, All India Peoples Front

 

For quite some time now, the term "Bahujan" has been used in politics instead of "Dalit." According to the proponents of the Bahujan concept, Bahujan includes Dalits and backward classes. According to Kanshi Ram, it also includes Muslims, and their number constitutes 85%. According to his theory, the Bahujans should unite and seize power from the 15% upper castes. While this formula sounds very good and seems to hold great potential, the question is, what is the formula for uniting the Bahujans? Is it the commonality of being Untouchable and Shudra, or something else? The Untouchables and Shudras are divided into countless castes, and they suffer from varying degrees of caste pride. They are just as afflicted by Brahmanism (superiority complex) as they accuse the upper castes of being. There are many intense internal contradictions within them. The Backward Castes consider themselves superior to the Dalits and behave accordingly. Currently, most atrocities against Dalits are committed not by the upper castes but by the prosperous (kulak) Backward Castes. Most Dalits are labourers, and the economic interests of these newly wealthy castes clash with those of the labourers. This is why these castes perpetrate atrocities against Dalits regarding wages and forced labour. In such a situation, on what basis can unity be established between Dalits and Backward Castes? On one hand, there is social distance, and on the other hand, a conflict of economic interests. Therefore, merely being Dalit and backward, or Untouchable and Shudra, cannot be the basis for unity. Even if some unity is formed based on political self-interest, it cannot be permanent, as has been observed in practice.

Now, if we analyse the class structure of Dalits and Backward Castes, it is found that even within the Dalit community, a class division between the prosperous and the poor has emerged. The distinction between the forward, backward, and extremely backward classes within the Backward Castes is very clear. For some time now, only the affluent sections of the Dalit and Backward classes have benefited from economic development and gained a share in political power. In contrast, most Dalits and Backward Classes remain severely marginalized. This division has given rise to the concept of the "most backward" among Dalits and other backward classes. This also makes it clear that the concept of "Bahujan" (the majority) is merely an abstract idea. Similarly, among Muslims, there is a division between Ashraf, Ajlaf, and Arzal, which is manifesting itself as the Pasmanda (most backward) Muslims  movement.

Now the question arises: what can be the real basis for unity within these groups? The above analysis makes it clear that within Dalits, backward classes, and Muslims, there are two distinct classes – the forward and the backward – whose economic and political interests are different, and there are sharp contradictions and conflicts between them. Until now, the dominant section of these groups has been leading the entire caste/class and community in the name of caste and religion, and it is this section that has reaped all the economic and political benefits of development. This has intensified caste/class divisions and conflicts within these groups. Various political parties have been exploiting this caste/class division, but no party has identified their real issues or done anything for their upliftment.

 Recently, the BJP has united them in the name of Hindutva and garnered their votes. If we look closely, this class is socially, economically, and politically backward. The real upliftment of these classes can only be achieved by addressing the issues related to their backwardness and formulating policies to resolve them. Therefore, their true unity can only be built around these issues, not based on caste and religion. From the perspective of economic and political interests, these groups are natural allies because their problems are similar, and their struggle for liberation is also the same.

Under the umbrella of "Bahujan," the issues and interests of the most backward sections get suppressed. Therefore, to establish strong unity among these extremely backward sections, instead of the artificial concept of Bahujan based on caste/religion, issues related to their social, economic, and political backwardness should be raised. Politics based on caste and religion only strengthens Hindutva. With this objective, the All India People's Front (AIPF) has included the following issues under social justice in its agenda: (1) separating the quota for backward Muslims from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), amending Article 341 to include Dalit Muslims and Christians in the Scheduled Castes, and implementing the recommendations of the Sachar Committee and Ranganath Mishra Committee; (2) providing separate reservation quotas for extremely backward Hindu and Muslim castes from within the 27% OBC quota; (3) restoring the reservation system in promotions as soon as possible; (4) filling vacant government posts under the SC/ST quota through a special campaign; (5) providing reservations to Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, and Extremely Backward Classes in the private sector as well; (6) granting tribal status to tribal communities like the Kol community of Uttar Pradesh; (7) strictly implementing the Forest Rights Act and making employment a fundamental right, etc.

 With the aim of giving representation to these sections, the party has reserved 75% of the positions in its constitution for Dalits, Backward Classes, Minorities, and Women. The AIPF is striving to promote issue-based multi-class political unity instead of caste-based Bahujan politics, as Dr. Ambedkar also did by establishing the Republican Party of India (RPI). With this objective, the AIPF is currently running an Employment and Social Rights Campaign which is getting good response.