African American and Dalit: Historical considerations of terminology

The Thorat committee’s recommendations against using the term “dalit” in textbooks has p;rovoked some commentary on terms of identity.   “Dalit”, as we have noted, is a term denoting militancy.   This is its history.  But history, as we should remember, moves on and is always in process.

                We can see this very clearly if we look at the differing terms of identity used for Blacks, or African Americans.  In the 19^th century the preferred term was ‘Negro.”  But this began to fall into disuse.  By the 1960s, with the rise of new militancy and the “black is beautiful” movement, the term “Black” began to come into usage as the preferred and proud term of identity.  The young Blacks I and a friend used to work with in Berkeley used to say, “We have a lot of niggers in this organization but at least we don’t have any Negroes!”   What they meant by this was in reference to the subaltern meanings that predominated.  “Nigger,” while a term of abuse when used by whites, was almost a term of pride when used by Blacks themselves – it pointed to a rebel, someone uncontrollable by the system.  In contrast, “Negro” by that time had come to have the connotation of someone who had sold out, a middle class, “tame” person, amenable to white control.   Black pride was stressed in this days.

                Since then the term “African American” has become more popular.  In contrast to the word “Black” it has no color connotations; rather it denotes an ethnic identity and points to the African origin and history of the people.  It is now the most widely accepted term.   There is no legally imposed term similar to “scheduled caste” in the U.S., so African American is used in most legal documents.

                Are similar changes occurring in the case of India’s scheduled castes/dalits?   “Dalit” has had its history of militancy, but now the word is beginning to be questioned by many.   Perhaps this is one reason why the Thorat Committee has taken the position it did.  But, “Scheduled Caste” cannot really be a substitute.  It is not a self-chosen term of identity, of ethnic identification or popular identification of any kind.  Rather it is a formal and legalistic word, imposed by the constitutional process.  While this may make it acceptable for a neutral usage, it cannot satisfy the deep urge for meaning and significance felt by those who have been oppressed by the caste hierarchy.  Similarly, identities  such as “Buddhist” are too exclusive – leaving out those who do not chose to identify with Buddhism.   For this reason, in spite of the dissatisfaction that many seem to feel with it, the term “Dalit” continues to be used.    There is so far no satisfactory alternative.

Dalit or Scheduled Caste: A Terminological Choice

The Thorat Committee has recommended that the term “dalit” used in textbooks should be expunged and replaced by the legalistic terminology “scheduled caste.”  The reasoning for this is not clear.   “Dalit” has become partly a controversial term, and it is true that not all who fall under the category of “scheduled castes” will accept it for themselves.  Their reasons may differ – for some, it is a negative term, and they have moved into a space where they want a positive identity.  This is true, for example, of many Buddhists.  For others, the traditional caste name is preferable.

However, it is undeniable that the term “dalit” has a militant history.  It first came into use in the 1930s simply as a Hindi (or Marathi) translation for the term “depressed classes.”  “Dalit” of course means downtrodden, or crushed.  But when in the early 1970s the Dalit Panthers emerged, the word took on the connotations of militancy.  The Panthers defined “Dalit” very broadly in their manifesto – to include all the class and caste oppressed, including workers and agricultural laborers as well as Scheduled Castes.  It kept this connotation of militancy, of revolt, of refusal to accept the bitter realities of the caste hierarchy.   Indeed, it can be argued that a word which shows the social reality – the ex-untouchables are “downtrodden” and oppressed – is more valid than one which tries to smooth this over.  For this reason, the word “Harijan” has been almost universally rejected, as a term which tried to ignore and paper over the harsh reality.

“Scheduled caste” is a legal term.   As such it is neutral.  That may be acceptable, even at points preferable for textbooks.  But for movements, for action, those who suffer the realities of caste oppression need a stronger and more assertive identity, something the cold and form “scheduled caste” terminology cannot provide.  This is provided, on the other hand, by the word “Dalit,” with its connotations of resistance and revolt.