The Selective Lens of Hindu Nationalism: Ignoring Dalit Oppression in Historical Narratives

 

The Selective Lens of Hindu Nationalism: Ignoring Dalit Oppression in Historical Narratives

Hindu nationalism in India often constructs its identity around a selective reading of history, emphasizing perceived injustices inflicted by Muslim rulers while sidelining the deep-rooted and millennia-long oppression of Dalits within Hindu society. This selective historical narrative serves a political purpose but distorts the broader reality of India’s social history, particularly the systemic discrimination faced by Dalits under caste hierarchies that predate and outlast any external rule. By focusing almost exclusively on Hindu-Muslim conflicts, Hindu nationalists conveniently evade accountability for the internal structural violence perpetuated by upper-caste Hindus against Dalits, a practice that has persisted for over two millennia.

The Hindu Nationalist Historical Narrative

Hindu nationalism, as propagated by organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates, often portrays Indian history as a saga of Hindu victimhood under Muslim rule, particularly during the Mughal era. This narrative highlights events like temple destructions or forced conversions, framing Muslims as perpetual aggressors against a monolithic Hindu identity. While historical instances of conflict between Hindu and Muslim rulers are undeniable, this framing deliberately oversimplifies India’s complex past, ignoring the diversity of Hindu society and its internal hierarchies.

What is conspicuously absent from this narrative is any acknowledgment of the caste system’s role in oppressing millions of Dalits, who were relegated to the margins of society long before the arrival of Muslim rulers. By fixating on external “invaders,” Hindu nationalists deflect attention from the internal systemic injustices that have defined Hindu social order for centuries.

The Millennia-Long Oppression of Dalits

The caste system, deeply embedded in Hindu social and religious practices, has systematically marginalized Dalits (formerly referred to as “untouchables”) for over two thousand years. Ancient texts like the Manusmriti codified discriminatory practices, prescribing harsh punishments for lower castes who dared to transgress their assigned roles. Dalits were deemed impure, their touch or even shadow considered polluting by upper-caste Hindus. These beliefs were not isolated but institutionalized, shaping social interactions, economic opportunities, and religious access.

Historical accounts, such as those by the Chinese traveler Faxian (Fa-Hsien) during the Gupta period (4th–6th century CE), describe the plight of the Chandalas, a lower-caste group forced to live outside villages and announce their presence to avoid “polluting” others. This is not a relic of the distant past; discriminatory practices persisted into the modern era. Dalits were barred from temples, forbidden from drawing water from village wells, and subjected to humiliating customs like the “breast tax” in parts of South India, where lower-caste women were forced to pay to cover their bodies. These practices were not imposed by Muslim rulers but were enforced by upper-caste Hindus, who held social and religious authority.

Even today, the legacy of caste oppression endures. Manual scavenging, a dehumanizing practice where individuals (overwhelmingly Dalits) clean human waste from dry latrines, remains a stark reminder of caste-based exploitation. Despite legal bans, reports estimate that over 1.3 million Dalits are still engaged in this work, facing social stigma and health risks. Hindu nationalist discourse rarely addresses these modern injustices, focusing instead on historical grievances against Muslims or contemporary issues like “love jihad.”

Why Hindu Nationalists Avoid the Dalit Question

The reluctance of Hindu nationalists to confront caste oppression stems from both ideological and strategic considerations. Ideologically, their vision of a unified Hindu identity requires downplaying internal divisions like caste, which fracture the notion of a cohesive “Hindu nation.” Acknowledging the historical and ongoing oppression of Dalits would force a reckoning with the role of upper-caste Hindus in perpetuating this system, undermining the narrative of Hindu victimhood.

Strategically, Hindu nationalism relies on mobilizing a broad Hindu voter base, including Dalits, to counter perceived threats from minorities. Admitting the historical guilt of upper-caste oppression risks alienating Dalit communities, who have increasingly asserted their rights through movements inspired by leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Instead, Hindu nationalist rhetoric often co-opts Dalit identity, portraying them as part of the Hindu fold while ignoring their specific grievances. This tokenism is evident in the selective celebration of Ambedkar as a Hindu icon, while his critiques of caste and Hinduism are conveniently ignored.

The Consequences of Selective History

This selective reading of history has profound implications. By focusing on Muslim oppression while ignoring caste-based atrocities, Hindu nationalists perpetuate a distorted understanding of India’s past that fuels communal tensions. This narrative not only marginalizes Dalits but also erases the contributions of lower-caste reformers who fought against caste oppression, from Jyotirao Phule to Periyar.

Moreover, it distracts from addressing contemporary issues like manual scavenging, caste-based violence, and discrimination in education and employment. According to a 2020 report by the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, over 40% of Dalit households in rural India still face untouchability practices, such as being denied access to public spaces or services. These are not relics of a distant past but ongoing realities that Hindu nationalist discourse sidesteps.

Toward a More Honest Historical Reckoning

A balanced understanding of Indian history requires acknowledging both external conflicts and internal injustices. The oppression of Dalits is not a peripheral issue but a central feature of India’s social history, one that predates and outlasts Muslim rule. Hindu nationalists must confront the uncomfortable truth that upper-caste Hindus were complicit in a system that dehumanized millions for millennia. Only by addressing this can India move toward a more inclusive national identity that honors all its citizens.

This is not to diminish the complexities of Hindu-Muslim relations or the historical realities of invasions and conquests. But a singular focus on one form of oppression while ignoring another is not just selective — it’s dishonest. True nationalism should uplift the marginalized, not erase their suffering. Until Hindu nationalists engage with the full spectrum of India’s history, including the painful legacy of caste, their vision of a unified nation will remain incomplete.

The Myth of Merit in India: Unpacking the Reservation Debate

 In India, the concept of "merit" is often wielded as a weapon in debates over caste-based reservations, particularly by those from the general category. Critics argue that reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) undermine merit by prioritizing caste over hard work. The underlying assumption is that general category students succeed solely through diligence, while reserved category students are "lazy freeloaders" who benefit unfairly. This narrative, however, ignores the structural inequalities that shape access to opportunities. Merit, as popularly understood, is not a neutral measure of hard work but a product of socioeconomic privilege, access to resources, and systemic advantages. This article explores why merit is not what most Indians think it is, using data to highlight disparities in wealth, education, and access to resources.

The Misconception of Merit as Hard Work

The popular notion of merit equates it with individual effort—hours spent studying, discipline, and perseverance. General category critics often imply that their success in competitive exams like JEE, NEET, or UPSC is due to superior hard work, while reserved category students rely on "undeserved" quotas. This framing paints SC, ST, and OBC students as inherently less capable, ignoring the broader context of their circumstances.

In reality, success in competitive exams is not solely a function of hard work. Access to quality education, private coaching, and socioeconomic stability plays a massive role. As the Supreme Court noted in 2022, “Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination” and must be “socially contextualized” to account for systemic inequalities. The court emphasized that competitive exams do not reflect the “social, economic, and cultural advantage” accrued by privileged groups, which significantly boosts their performance.

The Resource Gap: Private Schools, Coaching, and Wealth Disparities

One of the most significant factors shaping exam performance is access to resources, which is heavily skewed along caste and class lines. General category students, who are disproportionately from upper castes, often benefit from better schools, private coaching, and tuition—resources that are financially out of reach for many SC, ST, and OBC families.

Private Schooling and Quality Education

• Disparity in Access: A 2024 study in Tamil Nadu revealed that 62% of upper-caste students attend private elite schools, compared to only 16% of SC and 25% of Most Backward Classes (MBC) students. Meanwhile, 60-70% of SC/ST students study in low-quality government schools, where English is often introduced only in the fifth or sixth grade. This early educational divide creates a lasting gap in foundational skills.
• Impact on Outcomes: Private schools offer better infrastructure, trained teachers, and exposure to English, which is critical for competitive exams. The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data shows that scheduled castes are the most educationally backward, followed by STs and OBCs, with large gaps in higher education enrollment compared to upper castes.

Coaching and Tuition

• Cost of Coaching: Preparing for exams like JEE or NEET often requires enrolling in expensive coaching institutes, with fees ranging from ₹1-2 lakh per year. General category students, with greater financial resources, dominate these programs. In contrast, SC, ST, and OBC students, who often come from economically weaker backgrounds, are less likely to afford such coaching.
• Wealth Disparities: The 2011-12 India Human Development Survey showed that upper-caste households have a median income nearly twice that of SC households and significantly higher than ST and OBC households. This wealth gap limits access to supplementary education. For example, a 2023 post on X noted that Dalits own only ~5% of rural land, reflecting their limited economic resources.
• Coaching Impact: Coaching institutes provide structured preparation, mock tests, and exam strategies, giving students a competitive edge. Without this, even hardworking SC/ST/OBC students face a disadvantage, as their preparation relies on self-study or subpar resources.

Socioeconomic Barriers

• Financial Strain: Many SC/ST/OBC students come from families with limited means, forcing them to balance studies with economic responsibilities. A 2016 study highlighted that SC/ST students often drop out between school and college due to accommodation costs, travel expenses, and lack of family support for higher education.
• Cultural Capital: Upper-caste students inherit “cultural capital”—social networks, communication skills, and familiarity with elite institutions—that enhances their confidence and performance. The Supreme Court in 2022 noted that this capital, including “access to quality schooling and tutorials,” is a privilege not available to marginalized groups.

The Structural Reality: Merit as a Product of Privilege

The “merit vs. reservation” debate often ignores how privilege shapes outcomes. Michael Sandel, in The Tyranny of Merit (2020), argues that meritocracy can exacerbate inequalities by rewarding those with pre-existing advantages. In India, this is evident in the dominance of upper castes in elite institutions:

• Faculty Representation: Only 6% of faculty in Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and 9% in Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are from SC/ST/OBC categories, with 98% of academics in top IITs belonging to upper castes.
• Systemic Bias: A 2011 study by economists Ashwini Deshpande and Thomas Weisskopf found no evidence that reservations in Indian Railways reduced productivity, suggesting that diversity does not compromise quality. Meanwhile, private sector recruitment often favors upper-caste surnames, indicating caste-based discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on OBC quotas in NEET emphasized that “reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences.” It argued that merit must account for “fortitude and resilience” in overcoming deprivation, not just exam scores. This reframing challenges the narrow view of merit as individual achievement.

The Reservation Reality: Addressing Historical Injustices

Reservations were introduced to correct centuries of caste-based exclusion, not to reward laziness. The Indian Constitution, drafted under Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, recognized that SC, ST, and OBC communities were denied basic rights, including education and employment. Data underscores the ongoing need for affirmative action:

• Poverty and Caste: Five out of six people below the poverty line in India are from SC, ST, or OBC communities.
• Educational Gaps: The Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) in higher education for SCs (25.9) and STs (21.2) lags behind the national average (28.4).
• Discrimination: A 2023 article in Nature highlighted implicit casteism in academic institutions, where SC/ST students face derogatory labeling as “reserved” and experience mental health challenges due to discrimination.

Reservations provide a pathway for marginalized groups to access opportunities, but they do not level the playing field entirely. SC/ST/OBC students still compete in a system stacked against them, with fewer resources and greater social barriers.

Reframing Merit: Toward a Fairer System

The criticism of reservations as “anti-merit” stems from a flawed understanding of merit as an individual trait divorced from context. To address this:

• Economic-Based Criteria: Some argue for replacing caste-based reservations with economic criteria, but the Supreme Court in 1992 ruled that economic backwardness alone cannot define backwardness, as caste-based discrimination persists.
• Strengthening Access: Increasing scholarships, free coaching, and quality government schools for SC/ST/OBC students can reduce the resource gap. Programs like those for ST female students, which led to a 47.6% enrollment increase from 2017-18 to 2021-22, show the impact of targeted support.
• Challenging Narratives: Public discourse must move beyond the “merit vs. reservation” binary. As a 2023 post on X stated, “Merit is a myth” when social capital determines outcomes. Recognizing privilege is key to understanding true merit.

Conclusion

The idea that reservations undermine merit ignores the reality that merit itself is shaped by access to resources, wealth, and privilege. General category students, often from upper castes, benefit from private schools, coaching, and socioeconomic stability, giving them an edge in competitive exams. Meanwhile, SC, ST, and OBC students, despite facing systemic barriers, demonstrate remarkable resilience and achievement. Data shows that reserved category students often meet or exceed general cutoffs, debunking the myth of their “inferiority.” By reframing merit to account for structural inequalities, India can move toward a more equitable system where hard work is truly rewarded, regardless of caste or class. Reservations are not the opposite of merit—they are a step toward making merit accessible to all.