- The Bahujan Quest for Dignity

For centuries, Shudras, Bahujans and Adivasis in Indian society have struggled for dignity, equality, recognition and a rightful share in social and political power. Over the last five decades, this struggle has acquired a more visible social and political character. The expansion of education, democratic politics, reservations, employment opportunities and social movements has created new possibilities for historically disadvantaged communities. Yet, alongside this process of empowerment, another contradictory tendency has also emerged: the belief that social advancement can be achieved by imitating the customs, rituals and cultural practices of socially dominant groups. In other words, some sections have begun to believe that the closer they move towards Brahminical or Vedic traditions, the higher their social status will become.

This tendency can be seen in the transformation of several local religious and cultural practices. In Telangana and other parts of the Telugu-speaking region, village deities, folk festivals, Bonalu, jatara traditions and community-based forms of worship have historically been closely connected with the everyday lives of ordinary people. These traditions developed through generations in relation to agriculture, nature, local occupations, community relationships and collective experiences. They were not merely religious practices; they were also expressions of local identity and social memory. However, in some places, elements of Sanskritised and Vedic ritual practices, priestly authority and Brahminical forms of worship have increasingly entered these traditions. The underlying assumption sometimes appears to be: “If we worship our gods in the same manner as the socially dominant communities, our status will also rise.”

But this raises a fundamental question: Does changing a ritual change the structure of society?

The sociologist M. N. Srinivas used the term “Sanskritisation” to describe the process through which lower-status groups seek upward social mobility by adopting the customs, rituals and practices associated with socially dominant groups. The concept is useful for understanding an important historical phenomenon in Indian society. But it also forces us to ask whether imitation alone can produce genuine equality. If a community adopts another community's rituals, dietary practices, religious symbols or ceremonies, does it automatically acquire equal access to land, education, wealth, political power, institutions and social authority? History suggests that the answer is not so simple.

Changing the appearance of social identity does not necessarily change the structure of social power.

This is where the distinction between cultural imitation and social emancipation becomes crucial. Brahminical practices may be adopted by individuals or communities for a variety of reasons, and personal religious choices must be respected. The issue arises when such adoption is presented as the primary route to social advancement. If the belief develops that one's own cultural traditions are inferior and that dignity can be obtained only by becoming culturally similar to a dominant group, then the process can result in the loss of one's own historical memory.

A community cannot achieve self-respect by constantly treating its own heritage as something inferior.

True social advancement requires much more than changes in religious rituals. It requires access to quality education, economic independence, political representation, ownership and control over productive resources, social dignity, institutional power and participation in decision-making. Changing the method of worship is not the same as changing the distribution of power. The fundamental question is not simply who performs which ritual, but who controls knowledge, wealth, institutions and political authority.

The intellectual history of social transformation in India provides several alternative examples. Jyotirao Phule did not ask oppressed communities merely to imitate dominant social groups. He questioned the very foundations of social inequality. His concerns centred on who controlled knowledge, who performed labour, who benefited from social institutions and why certain communities were historically denied education and dignity. Savitribai Phule transformed education into an instrument of social liberation, particularly for women and oppressed communities. Their work demonstrated that education could break the psychological and institutional foundations of hierarchy.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar took this struggle further by placing equality, liberty, fraternity and constitutional rights at the centre of social transformation. His message was not that oppressed communities should seek acceptance from dominant social groups. Instead, he emphasised education, organisation and collective struggle for rights. For Ambedkar, emancipation meant developing the intellectual, social and political capacity to challenge structures of inequality.

The same spirit can be identified in several movements and leaders from the Telugu-speaking regions. Gauthu Latchanna represented the politics of social justice and the assertion of backward communities. Konda Laxman Bapuji became an important symbol of social and political assertion and public life. Historical figures such as Sardar Sarvai Papanna Goud have come to represent resistance to concentrated political and social authority. Komuram Bheem, with the powerful slogan and spirit associated with “Jal, Jangal, Zameen”, represents the struggle of Adivasi communities for control over their natural resources, land and collective existence.

The common thread in these struggles is important. Their central demand was not to become copies of another social group. It was to live with dignity, rights and political agency.

Therefore, Shudra, Bahujan and Adivasi communities need to rediscover and critically examine their own histories. Their village deities, folk traditions, languages, occupations, artistic forms, festivals and collective practices should not automatically be dismissed as “lower” cultural forms. They are part of the historical experience of millions of people. They contain memories of labour, agriculture, nature, community life and resistance.

There is nothing wrong with respecting another community's religious or cultural traditions. Indian civilisation has always evolved through interaction, exchange and adaptation. The problem begins when adaptation becomes cultural self-rejection—when people begin to believe that their own traditions are inferior and that only the approval of dominant groups can give them dignity.

There is an old Telugu saying: “One cannot light one's own lamp by merely admiring the light in the neighbour's house.” The message is simple. A society must recognise its own strengths before it can negotiate with others on equal terms.

Another important illusion must also be questioned: the belief that Brahminisation automatically leads to acceptance by upper-caste society. Social status is not determined by rituals alone. Caste location, ownership of property, education, economic resources, political influence, institutional access and social networks all play important roles. Consequently, changing cultural practices does not necessarily erase historical social boundaries.

This is why the pursuit of approval from dominant communities can become a trap. If a community begins to measure its success by how closely it resembles those above it in the social hierarchy, it may gradually lose sight of the very reasons for which it began its struggle for equality.

It is like sitting on a branch and cutting the same branch in the hope of climbing higher.

The objective, however, should not be to replace one form of caste domination with another. The answer to Brahminical or upper-caste dominance cannot be the creation of a new hierarchy. The ultimate goal must be a society in which no caste claims inherent superiority and no community is treated as inherently inferior. The struggle for Bahujan self-respect should therefore be a struggle for equality, constitutional rights and human dignity—not a struggle for reverse domination.

This distinction is particularly important in contemporary democratic India. Political representation by itself does not guarantee social emancipation. A community may produce elected representatives while large sections of its people continue to face educational, economic and social disadvantages. Similarly, symbolic recognition without material empowerment can create the appearance of progress without changing the underlying reality.

Therefore, the next stage of the Shudra–Bahujan movement should be based on historical consciousness, education, economic empowerment, political organisation, cultural confidence and constitutional democracy. Communities must study their own histories, document their traditions, preserve their cultural memory and critically examine the forces that have shaped their social position.

Self-respect does not mean rejecting everything associated with another culture. It means refusing to believe that one's own identity is inferior.

The real question, therefore, is not “How can we become like the dominant groups?” The real question is “How can we build a society in which no one needs to become somebody else in order to be treated as an equal human being?”

That is the philosophical difference between Sanskritisation and emancipation.

Brahminisation may change cultural symbols, rituals and social appearance. But genuine liberation requires a transformation of power, knowledge, economic opportunity and political participation. The path shown by Phule, Savitribai Phule, Ambedkar and numerous social justice movements is therefore more relevant: educate, organise, question, assert and build institutions of equality.

Shudra, Bahujan and Adivasi communities must not merely rediscover what they have lost; they must also recognise what they still possess—their labour, knowledge, cultural traditions, social memory and democratic strength.

One does not become socially superior by imitating another community. One becomes socially empowered by possessing the confidence and institutions necessary to demand equality.

The ultimate destination is not entry into somebody else's hierarchy. It is the creation of a society in which hierarchy itself loses its legitimacy.

The path to dignity is not imitation. The path to dignity is self-respect. The path to liberation is not the approval of the powerful. It is equality, knowledge, organisation, democratic power and constitutional justice.