Bhatt 1

Shivangi Bhatt

Professor Tapan Basu

M.A. English Previous SC-1

21 November 2016

Should the Savarna Represent the Dalit?

The caste system in India stratifies Hindu society into four castes on the basis of the

Varna, an occupation based class distinction. This has resulted in millennia of severe

discrimination against the hierarchically lowest social group that is excluded from the four

Varna, whose members are traditionally forced to perform jobs associated with impurity and

pollution. The Savarna, or Hindus that are included in the fold the four major castes, deny

them the most fundamental human rights. Under the influence of Jyotirao Phule and B.R.

Ambedkar, they have adopted the term Dalit to refer to themselves in the past century,

rejecting titles imposed upon them by the Savarna. The term’s association with the Dalit

Panthers Movement in the 1970s has turned it into a symbol of political identity. In the past

century, Dalit literature has flourished as a distinct literary genre in vernacular languages,

especially Marathi, and has spread to Hindi and English. The question of representation is a

major debate that has irrevocably rooted itself within the critique of Dalit literature, and can

be traced back to Bhimrao Ambedkar and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s contestation on

the right to represent the Dalit. Many critics question the legitimacy and authenticity of Dalit

literary representation by Savarna intellectuals like Premchand and Mulk Raj Anand, as

opposed to Dalit writers like Omprakash Valmiki and G. Kalyan Rao. This paper will

highlight the elements that eminent critics consider essential to satisfactory Dalit

representation in a text, and use them to compare the portrayal of Dalit experience in Mulk

Raj Anand’s Untouchable and Om Prakash Valmiki’s autobiography Joothan: A Dalit’s Life,

to ascertain whether a Savarna writer can adequately represent the Dalit. This paper will then
 Bhatt 2

address the question of the right of privileged members of the upper castes to speak on behalf

of the perceived interests of the Dalit, an act that marginalises the voices of those they

presume to represent.

There is no unanimously accepted definition of Dalit literature because many Dalit

critics refuse to include works of Savarna intellectuals addressing the Dalit subject in this

genre. Even Toral Jatin Gajarawala’s definition of Dalit literature refuses to accommodate all

works addressing the Dalit experience:

It isn’t enough to say that Dalit literature seems to be about Dalit peoples, in

Dalit spaces, doing “Dalit things.” Replacing a hegemonic space and time with

a Dalit one, or Dalit ones, reanchors ideologically every narrative moment,

plot turn, dialogue, action. Following a tradition set by realist writers in many

places and times, Dalit writing creates new literary spaces (a Valmiki home,

for example) and new literary actions (the prototypical animal skinning), as

narrative forms of compensation, and demands that they be read. (53)

Major critics such as Omprakash Valmiki, Sharankumar Limbale and Laura Brueck

emphasise the importance of Dalit chetna or Dalit consciousness, as an essential element in

Dalit representation. It is a “political awareness” and a “collective notion of identity among

diverse Dalit communities” (Brueck). It also “makes slaves conscious of their slavery”

(Limbale, qtd. in Brueck). Brueck emphasises the link between Dalit chetna and Ambedkar’s

“ideology of emancipation”, as well as his “message of the human dignity of Dalits (sic)”,

that necessitates an honorable portrayal of Dalit characters in literature. Another essential

aspect of Dalit chetna is the conscious opposition of casteism and the “traditional aesthetics

and hierarchies of language and privilege” (Valmiki, qtd. in Brueck). Dalit literature requires

the othering of Savarna characters as they are reduced to intruders or “(adversaries)…who

(enter) the narrative space”, while Dalit characters “have legitimate narrative arcs”
 Bhatt 3

(Gajarawala 53). Hence the characteristics of political self-reflexivity, compatibility with

Ambedkar’s beliefs, rejection of traditional literary conventions, and the complete othering of

the Savarna are indispensable to Dalit literature.

Mulk Raj Anand’s Untouchable and Valmiki’s autobiography Joothan must now be

evaluated using these principles. Untouchable was written in the 1930s in English. It was

influenced by Gandhi’s assimilative politics and reflects the contemporary interest of social

reformers in the upliftment of the untouchables. Set in India during the British colonial rule,

the novel depicts a single day in the life of the untouchable sweeper, Bakha. It attempts to

describe the constant humiliation and abuse experienced by the Dalit, as well as the hypocrisy

of the upper castes, through various incidents. For instance, Bakha is slapped for “polluting”

an upper caste man by accidentally running into him (Anand 41). In addition, both Bakha and

his sister Sohini are chased out of the temple for contaminating it with their presence

immediately after a priest sexually harasses Sohini (Anand 49-55).

Valmiki’s autobiography Joothan was written in Hindi in 1999, and was translated

into English by Arun Prabha Mukherjee. It is set in Uttar Pradesh in the 1950s and describes

various phases of his life as a member of the Chuhra caste that is composed of sweepers. He

writes about his childhood, education, vocation and marriage, the narrative tracking his

movement from Barla village to urban spaces like Dehra Dun, Jabalpur, Bombay and

Chandrapur. The commonplace nature of the agonizing and degrading experiences of Dalit

life emerges through his detailing of mundane life. He meticulously catalogues the

humiliating incidents and the intellectual influences that shaped his Dalit chetna. On

comparing Bakha’s experiences with those of Valmiki, the condition of the Dalit appears to

have worsened after Independence, despite the laws designed to protect the Dalit, due to the

rigid beliefs of Hindu caste society. This becomes extremely evident in Valmiki’s depiction of

multiple instances of casual violence against the Dalit characters.

In some ways, Joothan epitomises Dalit intellectuals’ expectations from Dalit

literature. Dalit writers often favour the autobiographical mode as they value the “authenticity

of experience” (Mukherjee xxxv). Valmiki asks, “How will those who have never suffered the

needle pricks of hatred and jealousy feel my pain? Who have never endured humiliation?

How will they know what it feels like?” (56). Anand’s incongruous portrayal of poverty

comes to mind, as Bakha, whose family relies on the charity of upper-castes for food and

water, liberally uses his wages to buy cigarettes and jalebis (33-38). His family does not

experience prolonged starvation on that one day which represents his daily lifestyle. Despite

their poverty, Bakha can afford to worry about “fashun”. Their concerns seem contrived in

comparison to the genuine destitution described in Joothan. Valmiki’s childhood is bereft of

certainties in terms of food and shelter. He writes, “This taste for mar [rice water] didn’t

come about because of some trend or fashion. It was due to want and starvation. The thing

that everyone discards was a means to quell our hunger” (Valmiki 26). Even the degree of

violence depicted by the two writers is extremely disparate, as the singular instance of

physical abuse directed at Bakha is limited to a slap (Anand 41), which is more humiliating

than painful, while the Dalit characters are repeatedly assaulted in Joothan, such as the

caning Valmiki receives for questioning the epics (27).

Joothan embodies Dalit chetna and displays an affinity for Ambedkar’s ideals.

Valmiki aptly writes: “We need an ongoing struggle and a consciousness of struggle, a

consciousness that brings revolutionary change both in the outside world and in our hearts, a

consciousness that leads the process of social change”(152). The characters even retain an

intrinsic dignity despite the degrading situations they are placed in, unlike the Dalit characters

of Untouchable, a text that is devoid of Dalit chetna. Bakha never becomes fully conscious of

his own enslavement, and as he is praised for his dutiful hard work, he comes to embody

Gandhi’s vision of an ideal Dalit: “one born a scavenger must earn his livelihood by being a
 Bhatt 5

scavenger, and then do whatever else he likes” (qtd. in Mukherjee xxviii). On the other hand,

Valmiki highlights the desire of the Dalit to escape from their ancestral roles, evident in his

sister-in-law’s words: “Don’t make him do that work. We can bear hunger. Don’t drag him in

this dirt” (42). This contrasts Bakha’s acceptance of his role after Gandhi’s speech as his

adulation of Gandhi is firmly established with the words: “He loved the man. He felt he could

put his life in his hands and ask him to do what he liked with it. For him he would do-

anything. He would like to go and be a scavenger at his ashram” (138). Through this speech,

Gandhi invisibilises Ambedkar’s voice, preventing it from reaching Bakha (136).

Anand’s representation of Dalit characters is also problematic due to the lack of

dissent expressed by meek and docile Bakha. His anger at the discrimination he faces

constantly buckles under his internalised inferiority. He lacks self-pity, which Gajarawala

considers a “structural requisite” in Dalit literature (64). His dejected resignation morphs into

contentment after every episode of debasement, in anticipation of positive events such as the

hockey match. Thus his rage and hurt always dissipate before they can turn into rebellion.

This indicates the limits of Anand’s imagination: he does not know the “anguish of standing

outside the door” (Valmiki 19). In Joothan, Valmiki writes that even time cannot heal the

scars left on his psyche: “The wounds from the torment that I suffered with Uncle on that hot

afternoon are still fresh on my skin” (41), and these festering wounds form the foundation of

dissent. He describes many instances of Dalit rebellion against Savarna oppression, such as

his father’s protest against Valmiki being forced to sweep the school instead of attending

classes (6-7), his mother’s rejection of the joothan (12), the collective refusal to perform

unpaid labour (43-45), and Valmiki’s unabashed choice of last name that acts as a marker of

his caste identity (143-154).

At its core, Untouchable is a novel of surrender while Joothan can be called a

“literature of protest” (Gajarawala 1). Joothan rebels against Savarna hegemony even at a
 Bhatt 6

formal level. Rejecting the literary and aesthetic conventions of mainstream literature by

employing a non-linear narrative, Valmiki often disrupts the chronological flow of the text by

mentioning more recent events from his present-day life. He vividly describes violence, blood

and gore in some scenes that are “shocking to the reader”, as Limbale says in “Dalit

Literature and Dalit Writer”, such as the incident when Valmiki is forced to leave school to

skin a dead bullock (40-41). In contrast, Anand employs more conventional writing strategies

by depicting a chronological sequence of events occurring in a single day.

Valmiki’s autobiography gives the reader first-hand experience of the process of Dalit

identity formation through the internal othering of the Savarna. He expresses rage and

indignation towards the hypocritical and severely prejudiced Savarna characters. On the other

hand, in Untouchable, Bakha’s first interaction with an upper caste man sets the tone for the

novel, as verbal abuse, followed by condescending benevolence induces a disproportionate

gratefulness in Bakha:

he stood smiling with a queer humility overcome with gratitude. Charat

Singh’s generous promise had called forth that trait of servility in Bakha which

he had inherited from his forefathers, the weakness, of the downtrodden, the

helplessness of the poor and the indigent, suddenly receiving help, the passive

contentment of the bottom dog, . . .

A soft smile lingered on his lips, the smile of a slave overjoyed at the

condescension of his master, more akin to pride than happiness. (Anand 9)

This undignified perception and portrayal of the Dalit unquestionably springs from a

privileged mind-set and shows that despite his valiant attempts, Anand fails to identify the

upper caste as the other by mentally disconnecting himself from his social position. It is thus

evident that Savarna writers cannot represent the problems of the Dalit as well as a Dalit can,

especially as Anand believes that the change of occupation provided by the flush can erase
 Bhatt 7

casteism; only a Dalit understands that “One can somehow get past poverty and deprivation,

but it is impossible to get past caste” (Valmiki 21).

The next question that arises is whether the Savarna, from their position of power and

privilege should represent the Dalit. Savarna intellectuals argue that they certainly have the

right to do so, citing the Gandhian belief in the duty of the upper castes to uplift the

untouchables that lack political awareness and the intellectual ability of articulation due to

their oppressed condition, claiming to be sympathetic and objective in their representation. It

must also be admitted that they have played a role in raising awareness about the plight of the

Dalit in the past. In his preface to Anand’s Untouchable, E. M. Forster even writes:

“Untouchable could only have been written . . . by an Indian who observed

from the outside. . . . And no Untouchable could have written the book,

because he would have been involved in indignation and self-pity. Mr Anand, .

. . has just the right mixture of insight and detachment” (vii)

Unfortunately, Forster’s words just serve to highlight the flawed presumptions of the

privileged intellectuals whose attempt at Dalit representation inadvertently or purposely

marginalizes the Dalit voices. Hatred in the Belly includes Arundhati Roy’s defence of her

extremely contested introduction to Ambedkar’s “Annihilation of Caste”. She argues that

“not every non-Dalit reading is ‘misleading’” and that it is the ultimate goal of “fighting

against Brahminism” that matters the most (84). In addition, critics such as Mohammad

Azhar Dherivala are wary of “defining Dalit literary reception along caste lines” (Brueck).

Even so, the idea of privileging the authenticity of Dalit writers does hold merit.

Dalit intellectuals articulate several valid objections against Savarna representation of

Dalit interests like Arundhati Roy’s “The Doctor and the Saint”, in the collection, Hatred in

the Belly. Gurinder Azad’s poem “Confronting Brahminical complacency” raises the

reasonable question:
 Bhatt 8

And tell us

How to walk?

How to think?

At a time when our agitating people, across the nation,

Are using words as flaming sparks

to challenge the darkness your vile community has spread-

You want to tell us how these sparks should blaze? (6-7)

While some degree of bias does enter the arguments of Dalit critics as they blame Roy for

“the commercialization and appropriation of the cultural capital of the marginalized”

(Michael 156), their arguments are legitimate nonetheless. A “rescue project initiated by the

oppressors”, as Huma Dar phrases it, does indeed merit doubt (192). Furthermore, her

complaint about Roy’s introduction drawing attention away from Ambedkar is quite valid

(Dar 194). Careful observation intriguingly reveals that more than sixty percent of her essay

does not talk about Ambedkar at all, and while she devotes thirty pages to a detailed

biography of Gandhi, she spares only five for the life of Ambedkar. These facts are damning

regardless of her professed intentions and alleged Dalit sympathies. The issue of sympathy is

further problematized by Gajarawala, who writes about Brahminical literature’s attempt to

“confine (the Dalit) within a discourse marked by ‘sympathy’ and ‘compassion’”(67). This is

evident in Untouchable, where sympathy transforms any lingering sentiment of mutiny into

submission. Anand writes, “Bakha saw himself pitied by the Mahatma … and consoled by

him. It was such a balm, it was so comforting, the great man’s sympathy” (139). Therefore,

Savarna representation of the Dalit is objectionable on multiple fronts, although not all non-

Dalit thinkers are guilty of misrepresentation. Nevertheless, Dalit intellectuals, with full

awareness of the empowerment and autonomy that lies in defying Savarna hegemony, are

quite justified in considering themselves the rightful representatives of their social group.
 Bhatt 9

Thus the authenticity a Dalit writer’s experience cannot be replicated by Savarna

imagination, which is evident on comparing Mulk Raj Anand’s Untouchable to Omprakash

Valmiki’s autobiography Joothan: A Dalit’s Life, using the principles of Dalit chetna,

Ambedkar’s ideology, rebellion against hegemony and the othering of Savarnas as a

yardstick of legitimacy. Even if a Savarna writer does representative justice to the Dalit, the

act of being defended by the oppressor is disempowering for the subaltern. With the increase

in writings by Dalit intellectuals in the last five decades, the necessity for a privileged

intellectual to lend them a voice has almost disappeared. While Savarna intellectuals do have

the right to support the upliftment of the Dalit, they risk marginalising the Dalit voices by

appropriating their site of resistance (Shakyamuni 48). Hence the Savarna should not try to

claim the right to represent the Dalit; the portrayals of Dalit life by Dalit writers should

receive primacy, as they have the greatest right to speak for themselves.
 Bhatt 10

Works Cited

Anand, Mulk Raj. Untouchable. Mumbai: Penguin, 2001. Print.

Azad, Gurinder. “Confronting Brahminical complacency.” Hatred in the Belly: Politics

behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s Writings. Comp. Ambedkar Age

Collective. Hyderabad: Shared Mirror, 2015. 6-7. Print.

Brueck, Laura. “Dalit Chetna in Literary Criticism.” Seminar Web Edition 558. N.p.: n.p.,

2006. n. pag. Web. 14 November 2016. <http://india-seminar.com/2006/558/ 558%20

laura%20r.%20brueck.htm>

Dar, Huma. “A Rescue Project Initiated by the Oppressors.” Hatred in the Belly: Politics

behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s Writings. Comp. Ambedkar Age

Collective. Hyderabad: Shared Mirror, 2015. 192-198. Print.

Forster, E.M. Preface. Untouchable. By Mulk Raj Anand. New York: Penguin, 1990. v-viii.

Print.

Gajarawala, Toral Jatin. “Modernism, Marxism, Metaphor: The Origins of a Literary Politics

of Particularism.” Untouchable Fictions: Literary Realism and the Crisis of Caste.

New York: Fordham UP, 2013. 68-97. Print.

---. “The Dalit Limit Point.” Untouchable Fictions: Literary Realism and the Crisis of Caste.

New York: Fordham UP, 2013. 32-67. Print.

---. “Three Burnings: An Introduction.” Untouchable Fictions: Literary Realism and the

Crisis of Caste. New York: Fordham UP, 2013. 1-31. Print.

Limbale, Sharankumar. “Dalit Literature and Dalit Writer”. One World, One English, the

Many Languages of the Imagination, Toronto Festival of Literature and the Arts. N.p.:

2013. Web. 19 November 2016. <http://www.generallyaboutbooks.com/2013/

05/dalit-literature-dalit-writer.html>
 Bhatt 11

Michael, James and Akshay Pathak. “The New Harijan Sewak Sangh.” Hatred in the Belly:

Politics behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s Writings. Comp. Ambedkar Age

Collective. Hyderabad: Shared Mirror, 2015. 155-174. Print.

Mukherjee, Arun Prabha. Introduction. Joothan: A Dalit’s Life. By Omprakash Valmiki.

Trans. Mukherjee. New York: Columbia UP, 2003. xvii-xlviii. Print.

Roy, Arundhati. “Arundhati Roy Replies to Dalit Camera.” Hatred in the Belly: Politics

behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s Writings. Comp. Ambedkar Age

Collective. Hyderabad: Shared Mirror, 2015. 84-88. Print.

Shakyamuni. “The Brahmean Machine: Distorting Revolt into Surrender.” Hatred in the

Belly: Politics behind the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s Writings. Comp.

Ambedkar Age Collective. Hyderabad: Shared Mirror, 2015. 44-50. Print.

Valmiki, Omprakash. Joothan: A Dalit’s Life. Trans. Arun Prabha Mukherjee. New York:

Columbia UP, 2003. Print.