Thursday, 25 August 2016

Dr. Ambedkar’s Historical Speech at Agra

Dr. Ambedkar’s Historical Speech at Agra 
(18th March, 1956)

(Note: This is Dr. Ambedkar’s historical speech in which he had put forward his experiences and the future strategy. In this speech he had addressed different sections of society. In fact it was a guideline for future Dalit movement but it is quite agonizing to say that Dalits have forgotten it. It is reflected in a sharp fall in growth rate of Buddhists as shown by Census 2011 population statistics. Today Dalit society has moved away from Dr. Ambedkar’s agenda of annihilation of caste and conversion to Buddhism. Unprincipled and opportunistic Dalit politics has pushed back social and religious movement. Today Dalit society is infected with caste divisions. It appears that caravan of Babasaheb is moving backward in place of moving forward.It should be a cause for worry for all Ambedkarites.) - SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)

To the Public
I have been struggling for the last 30 years to get you political rights. I have got you reserve seats in Parliament and State Legislatures. I have got proper provisions made for education of your children. Now it is your duty to carry on a united struggle for removal of educational, economic and social inequality. For this purpose you should be ready for all kinds of sacrifice even to shed blood.

To Leaders
“If somebody calls you to his palace, you are free to go. But do not set your hut on fire. If tomorrow the owner of the palace throws you out, then where will you go? If you want to sell yourself, you are free to sell yourself but do not harm your organisation in any manner. I have no danger from others but I feel endangered from my own people.” 
To the Landless Labourers
“I am very much worried about landless labourers. I could not do enough for them. I am not able to bear with their sorrows and hardships. The main cause of their vows is that they do not own land. That is why they are victims of insults and atrocities. They won’t be able to uplift themselves. I will struggle for them. If the government creates any hurdles in it I will give them leadership and fight their legal battle.  But I will make every possible effort to get them land.” 
To his Supporters
“Very soon I am going to take refuge in Buddha. It is a progressive religion. It is based on liberty, equality and fraternity. I have discovered this religion after many years search. I am soon going to become a Buddhist. Then I will not be able to live among you as an Untouchable. But as a true Buddhist I will continue to struggle for your uplift. I will not ask you people to become Buddhists with me. Only those persons, who aspire to take refuge in this great religion, can adopt Buddhism so that they remain in it with a strong belief in this religion and follow its code of conduct.” 

To Buddhist Bhikkhus
“Buddhism is a great religion. Its founder Tathagat preached this religion and it reached far and wide due to its goodness. But after its great rise it disappeared in 1293. There are many reasons for it. One of the reasons is that Buddhist Bhikkhus became addicted to a life of luxury. Instead of going from place to place to  preach religion they took rest in Viharas and started writing books in praise of royal persons. Now for reviving this religion they will have to work very hard. They will have to go from door to door. I see very few Bhikkhus in the society. Hence good persons from the society will have to come forward for preaching this religion. “

To Government Servants
“Our society has progressed a little bit with education. Some persons have reached high posts after getting education. But these educated persons have betrayed me. I expected that they would do social service after getting higher education. But what I see is a crowd of small and big clerks who are busy in filling their own bellies. Those who are in government service have a duty to donate 1/ 20th part of their pay for social work. Only then the society will progress otherwise only one family will be benefited. All hopes of society are centred on a boy who goes for getting education from a village. An educated social worker can prove to be a boon for them.”

To Students
“My appeal to the students is that after completing education instead of becoming a petty clerk they should serve their village and nearby people so that exploitation and injustice arising out of ignorance may be ended. Your rise is included in the rise of society.” 

Future Worry
“Today I am just like a pole which is supporting huge tents. I am worried about the moment when this pole will not be in its place. I am not keeping good health. I do not know when I may leave you people. I am not able to find a young man who could defend the interests of these millions of helpless and disheartened people. If some young man comes forward to take up this responsibility I will die in peace.”
PS:  So far this speech was available in Hindi only. I have translated it into English.

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Zelliot, Dr. Eleanor - Interview on Dalit Liberation, Hindutva Fascism and Cultural Revolution

Zelliot, Dr. Eleanor - Interview on Dalit Liberation, Hindutva Fascism and Cultural Revolution
By Yoginder Sikand

(Dr. Eleanor Zelliot, a leading American Scholar, has done pioneering work through her studies of various aspects of the Dalit liberation movement, about which she speaks here to Yoginder Sikand.)

Q: How did you develop an interest in the Dalit movement?
A: I got interested in Ambedkar when I was reading widely about India when I was at the university, and found his name in most books which I referred to. I however, had no analyze to explain his rise. I have been supporting the African-American movement since I was 14, so the comparable Indian movement was a natural subject for me.
Q: You have written a great deal on Dalit Cultures. How would you define that term?
A: Every act, including a poem, song, object or design that a person who defines himself or herself as a Dalit does or creates act of creation arising out of the fact of the consciousness of one’s being a Dalit is a part of Dalit Culture.
Q. Can non-Dalits play any role in developing Dalit Culture?
A. A white man cannot write Black literature, though he can write wonderfully well about Black society.

John Griffin, a white American sociologist, painted himself black, lived in a black ghetto for two months, and then wrote a book which be claimed faithfully represented an insider’s view of Black society in America.
But the blacks asserted that despite this attempt at identifying with them, he was unable to fully capture the story of their plight.
The same is true for the Dalits in India. Non-Dalits cannot write Dalit literature, but they have a crucial role to play in facilitating its development. The social awakening brought about by non-Dalit reformers in Maharashtra such as Ranade, Agarkar and Bhandarkar did play a crucial role in the later rise of the Ambedkarite movement. A group of Maharashtrian non-Dalits were the first to publish radical literature written by Dalits. I therefore see the possibility of non-Dalits being facilitators to the Dalit movement but not its guides or preachers. Non-Dalits cannot direct the Dalit movement. When Gandhi announced that he was a “Harijan”, that ended forever the possibility of his leadership of the Dalits.

Q. Do you see the possibility of a radical liberation theology on Latin American lines emerging in Ambedkarite Buddhism today?
A. To a great extent, conversion to Buddhism has meant psychological liberation to many Dalits. The Dalits today appear to be moving towards a socially more engaged Buddhism, but not really in the direction of liberation theology. This is akin to the recent developments in Thai and Vietnamese Buddhism. The Dalits could learn a lot from the efforts of people like the Vietnamese scholar Thich Nat Than who teaches “Buddhism and Social Action” in France.
There are several training institutes for the Buddhist Sangha in Maharashtra, but 1 am not sure if the Sangha is really necessary. What is required are more lay teachers moving from one Viharaђ or Dalit settlement to the other.

There is also a pressing need to develop Buddhist cultural activities to transmit the message of social emancipation through dramas, folk songs etc. The cultural side of Buddhism bas been neglected by the Sangha. Buddhism appeals directly to the intellectual, but for the masses one requires more colour, more activity.
Q: But are these efforts radical enough or are they at best reformist?
A: I am not quite sure what the term “Revolution” really means today. Marxists in many countries, while not ignoring macro-level issues, are thinking in terms of local problems, grassroots level organizations and decentralized leadership. And as far as liberation theologyђ is concerned, I do not think it has as yet emerged in India and most certainly not in Hinduism. Instead, what has happened is that the secular Indian intelligentsia have left the field of religion completely to the conservatives and reactionaries. In such a situation, where is the possibility of liberation theology emerging?
Q. Is it possible to creatively draw upon the epics, legends and collective memory of the Dalits and other oppressed groups to assist in their mobilization for social emancipation?
A. Such a venture would work wonders for arousing the awareness of the Dalits. Much work has to be done to collect the peoples own versions of history or oral history their stories and songs of defiance of caste oppression, etc. These can then be used by activists in the field in a creative way. For instance, the stories of Eklavya, Shambhukh and the ballads of the Dusadhs of Bihar that an associate of mine has collected, could be used as crucial images in the creation of a positive Dalit culture. Dalit culture and the Dalit movement cannot be built on the mere negative platform of anti-Brahminism. The infusing of Dalit culture with the images of the long-forgotten Dalit heroes and heroines would serve as a positive foundation of the Dalit cultural movement.
Q: Would the Ambedkarite Dalit cultural movement that you talk about be able to unite the various Dalit castes?
A: I feel that Ambedkarites ought to make efforts to link their movement to the local folk heroes and anti-caste charismatic leaders of the various Dalit castes so that its appeal could be much wider. I saw a good instance of this at the Ravidas Temple at Ramakrishnapuram in New Delhi recently. A picture of Ambedkar there is placed next to one of Ravidas and this is an effective means to link the Ravidasis to the Ambedkarite Movement. However, it is also a fact that the Bhakti and ב Untouchable Saints had a limited social programme, and the Dalit Cultural Movement needs to be aware of this. Preaching the equality of all people in the eyes of God is not the same as actually transforming society in the direction of social equality.
Q: Is it not the case that many Dalits today have almost turned Ambedkar into another divine prophet and thereby refuse to critically evaluate or re-interpret Ambedkarism?
A: It is true that many Dalit Buddhists are not going beyond Ambedkar. In the minds of these Dalits, Ambedkar was the one who gave them self-respect, and so they feel the same way about him as many Indians feel about their “Gurus”. As regards the need to creatively reinterpret Ambedkarism today, some Dalits do not seem to agree and they appear to be arguing that if Marxism was in existence for 150 years but Marx was not capable of being critically evaluated until only some years ago, a somewhat similar logic operates in their strict adherence to the views articulated by Ambedkar.
Q: Do you sense any danger to the Dalit Movement as the result of the growing threat of Brahminical Hindu chauvinism?
A: The RSS is trying to co-opt Ambedkar. They even go to the extent of claiming that Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, and Ambedkar had similar aims! (laughs)...If the RSS are genuinely admirers of Ambedkar they ought to denounce caste and convert to Buddhism as Ambedkar did! It is simply impossible to go back to the Varna System as many Hindu revivalists argue. In today’s context only the Brahmin Varna has any meaning and sociological relevance. Even in the Varna system the Shudras are considered to be menials, so attempting to revive this system would not change their degraded status at all.

Unpublished Preface to Buddha and His Dhamma: A Book by Dr. Ambedkar

Unpublished Preface to Buddha and His Dhamma: A Book by Dr. Ambedkar

A question is always asked to me how I happen to take such high degree of education. Another question is being asked why I am inclined towards Buddhism. These questions have been asked because I was born in the community known as the ‘Untouchables.’ This preface is not the place for answering the first question. But this preface may be the place for answering the second question. This conviction has grown in me after thirty years of close study of all religions.
How I was led to study Buddhism is another story. It may be interesting for the readers to know. This is how it happened.
My father was a military officer but at the same time a very religious person. He brought me up under a strict discipline. From my early age I found certain contradictions in my father’s religious way of life. He was a Kabirpanthi though his was a Ramanandi.  As such he did not believe in Murti Puja (Idol Worship) and he performed Ganapati Puja  of course for our sake but I did not like it. He read the books of Ramayna and Mahabharta to my sister and other persons who assembled at my father’s house to hear the Katha. This went on for a long number of years.
The year I passed the English Fourth Examination community people wanted to celebrate the occasion by holding a public meeting to congratulate me. Compared to the state of education in other communities this was hardly an occasion for celebration. But it was felt by the organisers that as I was the first boy in my community to reach this stage. They thought I had reached a great height. They went to my father to ask for his permission. My father flatly refused saying such a thing would inflate the boy. After all he has only passed the examination and nothing more. Those who wanted to celebrate the occasion were disappointed. They went to Dada Keluskar,  a personal friend of my father and asked him to intervene. He agreed. After a little argumentation my father yielded and the meeting was held. Dada Keluskae presided. He was a literary person of his time. At the end of his address he gave me as gift a copy of his book on the life of the Buddha which he had written for the Baroda Sayajirao Oriental Series. I read the book with great interest and was greatly impressed and moved by it.
 I began to ask why my father did not introduce us  to Buddhist literature. After this I was determined to ask my father this question. One day I asked my father why he insisted upon our reading the Mahabharta and Ramayana which recounted the greatness of the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas and repeated the stories of the degradation of the Shudras and the Untouchables. My father did not like the question.  He merely said, “You must not ask such silly questions. You are only a boy; you must do as you are told.”
My father was a Roman Patriarch and exercised most extensive Patria Protestas over his children. I alone could take a little liberty with him and that was because my mother had died in my childhood leaving me to the care of my aunty. So after some time I asked again the same question. This time my father had evidently prepared for the reply. He said, “The reason why I ask you to read the Ramayana and Mahabharta is this. We belong to the Untouchables and you are likely to develop an inferiority complex which is natural. The value of Ramayana and Mahabharta lies in removing this inferiority complex. See Drona and Karna. They were small men but to what heights they rose?  Look at Valmiki. He was a Koli. But he became the author of Ramayana. It is for removing this inferiority complex that I ask you to read the Mahabharta and Ramayana.”  I could see that there was some force in my father’s arguments. But I was not satisfied. I told my father that I did not like any of the figures in Mahabharta. I said,“I do not like Bhishma and Drona nor  Krishna. Bhishma and Drona were hypocrites. They said one thing and did quite the other thing. Krishna believed in frauds. Equal dislike I have for Vali-Sugriva episode and his (Rama’s) beastly behaviour towards Sita,” My father was silent and made no reply. He knew that there was revolt.
This is how I turned to the Buddha with the help of the book given to me by Dada Keluskar. It was not with an empty mind that I went to the Buddha at that early age. I had a background and in reading the Buddhist Lore I could always compare and contrast. This is the origin of my interest in the Buddha and his Dhamma.
The urge to write this book has a different origin. In 1951 the Editor of the Mahabodhi Society’s Journal of Calcutta asked me to write an article for the Vaishakha Number. In that article I argued that the Buddha’s Religion was the only religion which a society awakened by science could accept without which it would perish. I also mentioned that for the modern world Buddhism makes slow advance due to the fact that its literature is so vast that no one can read the whole of it. That it has no such thing as a Bible, as the Christians have  is  its greatest handicap. On the publication of this article I received many calls written and oral to write such a book. It is in response to these calls that I have undertaken the task.
To disarm all criticism I would like to make it clear that I claim no originality for the book. It is a compilation and assembly plant.  The material has been gathered from various books. I would particularly mention Ashavaghosha’s “Buddhacharita.” whose poetry no one can excel. In the narrative of certain events I have borrowed his language.
The only originality that I can claim in the order of presentation of the topics in which I have tried to introduce is  simplicity and clarity. There are certain matters which give headache to the students of Buddhism I have dealt with them in the introduction.
It remains for me to express my gratitude to those who have been helpful to me.  I am very grateful to Mr. Nanak Chand Rattu of village Sakrauli and Mr. Parksh Chand of village Nagla Khurd in the district of Hoshiarpur (Punjab) for the burden they have taken upon themselves to type the manuscript. They have done it several times. Shri Nanak Chand Rattu took the special pain and put in very hard labour in accomplishing this great task. He did the whole work of typing etc. Very willingly and without caring for his health and Mr. Parkash Chand did their job as a token of their greatest love and affection towards me. Their labour can hardly be repaid. I am very much grateful to them.
When I took upon the task of composing this book I was ill and am still ill. During these five years there were many ups and downs in my health. At some stages my condition had become so critical that doctors talked of me as a dying flame. The successful rekindling of the dying flame is due to the medical skill of my wife and Dr. Malvankar, the physician who has been attending till I completed the work. I am also thankful to Mr. M.B. Chitnis, who took special interest in correcting proof and to go through the whole book.
I may mention that this is one of the three books which will form a set for the proper understanding of Buddhism. The other two books are – (i) Buddha and Karl Marx and (ii) Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India. They are written out in parts. I hope to publish them soon.
B.R. Ambedkar
5th December, 1956.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Dalit Politics in India Recognition without Redistribution

Dalit Politics in India Recognition without Redistribution
-Radha Sarkar, Amar Sarkar
(Economic & Political Weekly EPW may 14, 2016 vol. lI No 20 15)

Dalit political parties in North and Central India have overwhelmingly pursued an agenda of recognition, calling for equal respect, rather than one of redistribution. While this has improved the social and economic standing of Dalits better situated in terms of class, it has failed to substantively improve the lives of the majority of Dalits. Ultimately, Dalits’ quest for equal treatment will be limited so long as it lacks a redistributive politics that addresses exploitative economic relations.
How should we understand the rise of caste-based politics among India’s Dalits since the 1990s? Should we celebrate it as the empowerment of a historically oppressed community and a major success of Indian democracy, as some scholars have (Jaffrelot 2003; Kohli 2001; Varshney 2000)? Or should we be more sceptical in examining the gains and limitations? We argue that caste-based politics cannot achieve social justice for Dalits unless it takes class into account, which it has largely failed to. The politics of recognition employed by Dalit parties has brought only limited gains for Dalits on the whole as the benefits associated with it have been reaped by Dalits better situated in terms of class. Ultimately, Dalits’ quest for equal treatment will be limited so long as it lacks a redistributive politics to address exploitative economic relations. We use the case of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh (UP)—one of the largest and most electorally successful of caste based parties—and its project for Dalit equality to illustrate our arguments.
Social Justice 
Nancy Fraser (1998) distinguishes two conceptions of social justice: one that centres on redistributive claims, comprising calls for a more equitable distribution of goods and resources; and a second conception built on claims for recognition with the goal of a “difference friendly world” that accords equal respect to a plurality of social groups (Fraser 1998: 1). While redistribution has had a central place in calls for justice, Fraser highlights the equal importance of recognition in achieving justice for those groups for whom “institutionalized patterns of interpretation and valuation [have] impede[d] the parity of participation in social life” (Fraser 1998: 4). Fraser argues that to adequately add ress injustice, the politics of redistribution and recognition must be employed tog ether: either one on its own is incapable of dealing with the complex cultural and economic realities of injustice. Her argument primarily concerns women but is also well suited to explain the nature of caste oppression in India. Caste, like gender in Fraser’s account, is a two-sided category, composed of economic and cul tural dimensions. And as with gender, redressing caste-based injustice calls for attention to both redistribution and recognition (Fraser 1998: 2)
Recognition vs Redistribution 

They are concerned primarily with changes to the cultural order as means of securing equal treatment in social  relations, or, in Fraser’s words, they pursue “parity of participation in social life” (1998: 4). But changes to the cultural order can at best address misrecognition, or the unfairly low social status accorded to a group; they are unable to address what Fraser terms maldistribution, or the unjust distribution of resources and goods. If caste constituted the sole principle of distribution, then it would correspond perfectly with class. If all members of a caste engaged in their traditional occupations, then we could expect few differences between property ownership, education, wealth or income between the members of any one caste or sub-caste (Weiner 2001). Misrecognition of a group’s status in society would directly entail maldistribution, and a politics of recognition would serve to address injustices of distribution as well as recognition. However, the reality of caste is more complex, for caste and class do not map seamlessly onto one another. With changes in economy and policy, caste Hindus as well as Dalits have become increasingly differentiated internally. With deregulation, liberalisation of the economy and higher economic growth rates, individuals from various rungs of the caste hierarchy have gained diverse economic benefits (Weiner 2001; Kohli 2001). As some members of lower castes acquire higher levels of education and have benefitted from caste-based reservations in government employment, class divisions among them have increased. Weiner (2001) predicts an increasing trend of social mobility for educated, urban Dalits; the prospects for the more numerous rural sections of the Dalit population, with less education, are less optimistic. Thus, all the members of any one caste do not belong to the same class: caste and class are not interchangeable, and we cannot infer one directly from the other. Consequently, a politics of recognition does not, in and of itself, entail a politics of redistribution. In the remainder of this article, we demonstrate the ways in which the caste based politics of Dalit parties are unable to address the economic dimensions of oppression, in addition the cultural ones, for the overwhelming majority of Dalits.
The Case of Uttar Pradesh
Consider, for instance, the pro-Dalit BSP in UP. The BSP emerged as a competitor for state-level power in 1991, winning 9.4% of the vote that year. In 2007, it won a landslide victory with 30.6% of the vote (Jeffrey et al 2008). The BSP’s attempts to better the social, economic, and political position of Dalits in UP comprised of two interlinked strategies. The first consisted in a symbolic transformation of the landscape of UP—parks, statues, and libraries were dedicated to Dalit leaders; and hospitals, stadia, and educational institutions were renamed along similar lines (Jeffrey et al 2008). The BSP’s second strategy was to alter the implementation of existing government policies rather than effect new legislation (Chandra 2004). For example, the BSP sought to change the nature of the state government by transferring Dalits into key positions in the bureaucracy and by expanding Dalit presence in the police force. In the six months that the BSP’s Mayawati was chief minister in 1997, she transferred 1,350 civil and police officers (Jaffrelot 2003: 419), made a concerted effort to recruit Dalits to the police force, and made existing  reserved seats in government training and professional training more accessible to Dalits (Chandra 2004; Hasan 2001). In sum, the strategy of the BSP was to raise the profile of UP’s Dalits writ large by increasing their presence and power in the bureaucratic and coercive apparatuses, as well as in the symbolic landscape. Clearly, the BSP improved the political and economic standing of some Dalits. Varshney (2000) argues that, although the BSP has not substantially improved the economic position of ordinary Dalits, it has nonetheless benefitted the Dalit community, politically and symbolically, across North India. He suggests that Dalits are better positioned to challenge the legitimacy of caste discrimination and to engage in politics. Jaffrelot (2003) goes further in suggesting that many ordinary Dalits are using their recently acquired state-level representation to significantly improve their access to political resources, economic goods, and social contacts in rural UP. While the rise of low-caste  politics has indeed altered local-level politics to a certain extent (Jeffrey et al 2008), hailing the BSP as the harbinger of a “silent revolution” (Jaffrelot 2003) is as yet premature, for a politics of recognition, divorced from that of redistribution, is limited from the very outset. Without a radical shift in the distribution of economic and social opportunities, a politics of recognition does little to reconfigure entrenched power relations.
Socio-economic Inequality  
The limits of a politics of recognition are evinced by the BSP. Even as it has embraced a politics of recognition and advanced a largely symbolic agenda, the BSP has failed to intervene in disputes over land and labour and to implement policies that address inequality and  poverty in UP (Jeffrey et al 2008). The realities of socio-economic inequality, rooted in unequal land and asset ownership, also impact the ways in which Dalits are able (or unable) to take advantage of the policies of recognition offered to them. While reservations in state educational institutions and government offices have been implemented with the claim of advancing Dalits’ economic, political, and social standing, in reality they have done little for the majority of the community. For instance, rural Chamars, a Dalit group in UP, argue that reservations have little impact on their community’s chances of securing government work because the competition for reserved government posts is     fierce and corrupt (Jeffrey et al 2008). The Chamars’ less prestigious education, obtained primarily from rural state schools with poor educational standards— the only schools most Chamar families can afford—combined with a lack of money for bribes marginalised their bid for government jobs relative to urban members of their caste (Jeffrey et al 2008).
 The politics of recognition have thus allowed those Dalit individuals better positioned in the class hierarchy to take advantage of the opportunities offered for recognition. Furthermore, a politics of recognition without redistribution is limited even in its pursuit of respect in a largely rural society where dignity and respect are bound up with landownership and use. Landownership has been a source of self-respect and a claim to respectful treatment from others across the Indian countryside (Bhatia 2005). For the majority of rural Dalits, their landlessness has left them completely dependent on landlords. The skewed labour relations engendered by this pattern of land ownership has been a source of enduring humiliation among Dalits and has exposed them to continued exploitation by their employers (Bhatia 2005). Respect for Dalits can only be meaningfully secured through a direct intervention in the labour relations between them and other castes—either through land redistribution, heightened minimum wage regulation, or other redistributive measures. The aim of a politics of recognition— parity in participation in social life—can only be achieved with redistribution.   All of this is not to deny the value of a politics of recognition. Dalits have been denied dignity and respect, even their humanity has too often been denied. These harms are indeed injustices of recognition and demand remedies of recognition of equal worth. However, a Dalit politics of recognition that is unable to substantiate a redistributive agenda is doomed to be shallow, bringing tangible gains to those better off in class terms while permitting at best symbolic achievements for many. Furthermore, such a politics ignores the interrelated nature of economic and social relations: without significant redistribution, Dalits are fated to continued dependence on higher castes to make ends meet. This economic dependence in turn fosters relations of exploitation that preclude the parity of participation in social life to which a politics of recognition aspires. Indian democracy can only be (at most) a partial success without the full social and economic incorporation of the country’s most oppressed and marginalised groups. 
Basu, Ipshita (2012): “The Politics of Recognition and Redistribution: Development, Tribal Identity Politics and Distributive Justice in India’s Jharkhand,” Development and Change, Vol 43, No 6, pp 1291–1312. Bhatia,
 Bela (2005): “The Naxalite Movement in Central Bihar,” Economic & Political Weekly,  Vol 40, No 15, pp 1536–49.
 Chandra, Kanchan (2004): Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, Nancy (1998): “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, Participation,” WZB Discussion Paper No FS I 98–108.
 Hasan, Zoya (2001): “Transfer of Power? Politics of Mass Mobilisation in UP,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 36, No 46–47, pp 4401–9.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003): India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, Orient Blackswan.
Jeffrey, Craig, Patricia Jeffery, and Roger Jeffery (2008): “Dalit Revolution? New Politicians in Uttar Pradesh, India,” The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol 67, No 4, pp 1365–96.
Kohli, Atul (2001): Introduction, The Success of  India’s Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Varshney, Ashutosh (2000): “Is India Becoming More Democratic?” The Journal of Asian Studies,  Vol 59, No 1, pp 3–25.
 Weiner, Myron (2001): “The Struggle for Equality: Caste in Indian Politics,” The Success of India’s Democracy, Atul Kohli (ed), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.