DALITS TO ACCEPT GLOBALISATION

Lessons from the Past and Present

Abstract

A. Ramaiah

The India's most exploited people, the Dalits, have been raising voice against the ongoing process
of globalisation fearing that it would gradually lead to a total dismantling of whatever protective
and developmental measures, including the reservation policy, guaranteed in their favour in the
Indian Constitution. Such apprehensions however seem to be unwarranted in view of the fact that
there are positive aspects to globalisation. This paper brings to light how the marginalised social
groups like the Dalits can effectively use globalisation to achieve what they have not been able to
achieve so far with the help of State measures.

Introduction
The present Dalit intelligentsia is divided in their stand on Globalisation.
While most of them including Dailt activists oppose it, which is evident from their
overt protest in the recently held conference of World Social Forum at Mumbai,
few welcome it. Those opposing it are of the opinion that with Globalisation India
will have no choice but to welcome multinational companies (MNCs) and
organizations, and adopt policies of liberalisation and privatisation. As a result,
more and more public sector industries and institutions are likely to be thrown
open to the private or individual ownership. Subsequently, the special protections
and ameliorative measures guaranteed in the Indian Constitution in favour of the
Scheduled Castes/Dalits, Tribes and other marginalised groups will gradually
wither away since it is not mandatory for such private industries and institutions
to adhere to these special provisions. However, those welcoming globalisation are
of the opinion that it can also be a boon to the marginalised groups to achieve
what they have not been able to achieve so far with State measures.
The aim of this article is to spell out reasons as to why Dalit should accept
globalisation? More specifically, the paper tries to answer the following
questions: 1) How globalisation is generally understood, and what are its
dimensions? 2) What lessons can Dalits draw from the experiences of preindependence globalisation, particularly from the upper castes responses towards
the British, the then global force? What were the upper castes promises to the

Dr. A. Ramaiah, Reader, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. <ramaiah_a@yahoo.com>

<www.tiss.edu/faculty/ramaiah>

Dalits to mobilise Dalits support and to justify their protest against the British? 3)
How far the upper caste leaders in the independent India worked towards
fulfilling their promises to Dalits and what were their approaches to accomplish
the same? To what extent their efforts since independence have not resulted in
producing what they have been arguing against as evils of global force and
globalisation affecting Dlits interests? And in the process which castes and
communities have actually benefited the most with the help of various protective
measures of the government? In short, what are the promises and performances of
the upper caste leadership? 4) Why should Dalits continue to rely only on the
government measures like reservation policy? Cant they go beyond State
measures? Cant they use globalisation as a means to enhance their bargaining
power and improve their socio-economic status? Opposing globalisation without
having proper answers to these basic questions seems to undermine its likely
positive contributions to the oppressed classes like the Dalits and the landless
Backward Castes (BCs). To begin with, it is necessary to understand in brief the
concept of globalisation and its dimensions.
1) Globalisation and its contesting dimensions
Globalisation has been defined from various perspectives: not only as
internationalisation, but also as liberalisation, universalisation, westernisation or
modernization, de-territorialisation and supra-territorialisation (see Scholte,
2000). Further, globalisation is claimed to be an era of intensification and
universalisation of transnational flows of images, people, commodities and capital
(Deshpande, 2003:152). However, globalisation cannot become a reality in a
country, which does not accept the conditionalities of the International Monetary
Fund-World Bank formula, which is popularly known as the Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAP). The typical measures under SAP include the
following:
1. Devalue the currency in order to make exports more competitive;

2. Improve a countrys economic climate by reducing government deficit

through spending cuts in order to control inflation;
3. Attract foreign investment by eliminating trade barriers and liberalising
imports in order to make local industry more efficient by exposing it to
foreign competition;
4. Boost foreign exchange earnings by promoting exports in goods and services
and liberalising capital and financial markets;
5. Privatise state enterprises and embark on radical deregulation in order to
promote more efficient allocation of resources;
6. Repay creditors and as a result, ensure that a countrys debt servicing to
creditors is not hampered;
7. Achieve economic growth by relying on principles of liberalisation and
privatisation and free market mechanisms rather than government regulation
and control;
8. Liberalisation is the removal of government regulation and control in trade of
goods and services, investment and finance (see Bharti, 2004: 71).
Taking into considerations the basic premises on which scholars have
defined Globalisation and the conditionalities of IMF and World Bank which are
reflected in the SAP, the critics of globalisation may define it in the following
words:
Globalisation is a process in which the richest world over come
together and help each other by way of influencing their respective
governments both to enact and evolve those policies and strategies
from within and to accept such measures of international agencies that
would help them achieve their common goal of extracting maximum
wealth from every possible nation by way of establishing profitoriented industries and institutions.
With the above understanding, the critics of globalisation may opine that
globalisation will become a threat to the poor nations political sovereignty,
economic and technological independence, social structure and pre-existent
cultures. They may be of the view that such coalition among the world rich will
widen the gap between the rich and the poor in every nation where globalisation
spreads its tentacles. The critics of globalisation also dont seem to agree that

market economy will lead to higher growth rate and higher surplus reserve, which
in turn is hoped to help the State invest more on social sectors and thereby protect
and promote the interests of its marginalised and vulnerable groups such as Dalits.
They feel that globalisation will put the marginalised social groups in a
disadvantageous position. According to them, the reform process in India, which
began formally from 1991 onwards and manifested itself mainly in the form of
liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, has, on the whole, resulted in the
contraction of public sector and ascendancy of the private sector which in turn
has begun to dismantle the limited protection being granted to the marginalised
sections such as the SCs and STs in the sphere of employment. They fear that
such a process is bound to worsen their plight further in the second-generation
reforms (Mungekar, 2004; also see Throat and Deshpande, 1999). Such scholars
fear that globalisation will drastically narrow down Dalits access to basic means
of sustenance and development such as education and employment, and health
care facilities. With globalisation, they fear, there will be no statutory mechanism
to redress grievances of Dalits especially when the exploitation or victimisation is
by the organizations or companies from outside India.
They fear that the States active persuasion of privatisation of public
sector Units (industries and institutions) and its recognition and encouragement to
globalisation and the entry of MNCs without a proper policy of reservation in
private sectors, will not only reduce the scope of reservation policy, but also
render lakhs of Dalits and other marginalised sections unemployed. And it will
also displace large number of people from their own place of living and render
them landless particularly due to large-scale development projects that come
through globalisation. In short, with globalisation the Dalits will become more
vulnerable and there will be no future for them. Therefore most of the critics
oppose globalisation completely. How far are these criticisms valid? Does it mean
that there is no scope for the marginalised to benefit form globalisation?

Scope for the Marginalised in Globalisation:

Despite number of criticisms, there are few scholars envisaging many

positive aspects in globalisation. They therefore define globalisation differently.
For instance, the noted economist Bhagwati defines globalisation as "diverse
forms of international integration such as foreign trade, multinational direct
foreign investment, movements of 'short-term' portfolio funds, technological
diffusion and cross-border migration" (see Cooper, 2004). What may be
discernable from this definition is that countries, which cannot meet their
economic needs within their means, have the option of accelerating rapid
economic growth by accepting globalisation and adopting necessary strategies
such as privatization and liberalization for the same. Such strategies are expected
to attract huge foreign investment for massive capital-intensive large-scale
production in place of labour intensive small-scale industries. It is also hoped that
with globalisation there will be free flow of money, material, human resources
and science and technology across nations, and emergence of MNCs and
institutions, and formation of alliance among different social and ethnic groups
transcending national boundaries, leading to the formation of the ideal global
family. However, how far such a possibility will help the marginalised social
groups to improve their lot in a highly stratified society like India?
Bhawati has further argued: economic Globalisation is an unambiguously
good thing, with a few downsides that thought and effort can mitigate.
Globalisation, according to him, does not need to be given a "human face"; it
already has one (see Cooper, 2004). The scope and manner in which
globalisation can contribute to the cause of poor or the marginalized has been
asserted also in the following words:
The major instrument for public action in favour of the poor in the
framework of globalisation would have to be through higher growth,
and through orientation of the pattern of growth to impart benefits of
such growth to the poor. (Reddy, 2000)
These views in a way suggest that justice to those being treated unjustly for
centuries need not be achieved only through the State sponsored development and
protective measures, which are argued to be under threat due to globalisation. A
due share to the marginalised can be achieved also by way of moving from higher

growth rate to further higher growth rate, which is considered possible through
globalisation, and investing the surplus so generated in social welfare sectors.
The fear that due to globalisation the Dalits may loose whatever they have
gained so far through State measures seems no doubt valid. But how far are such
conclusions valid particularly in view of the unchanging pitiable socio-economic
conditions of and the ever-increasing incidents of atrocities on Dalits on the one
hand, and that for centuries the leadership has been in the hands of upper castes
on the other. We may now look into each criticism critically.
State becoming powerless:
From the definitions of Scholte and others, it is argued that there is high
possibility of State becoming powerless due to privatisation and liberalisation
policies, the two prerequisites for globalisation. As a result, it may not be in a
position or powerful enough to impose any kind of tax on private industries and
institutions, which is the only source of income for the government to invest on
social and social welfare sectors. Though there is some truth in this argument,
what is not overtly stated is the immense possibility that globalisation brings in
for achieving higher and rapid economic growth rate. And with the advantage of
higher growth rate, it may not be difficult for the State to invest more on social
and social welfare sectors. What is lacking for investing in social welfare or social
justice is the States will.
Moreover, is the problem of State becoming powerless a matter of concern
only for Dalits? Indeed it is ought to be a matter of concern for the entire nation.
Perhaps the argument is based on a wrong assumption that the State protects only
the interests of Dalits and other vulnerable social groups. Does the State not
protect the interests of the rich minority upper castes? Does it not protect the
upper castes industries and business from the competitions of foreign companies
by way of imposing high tariff or heavy tax on those foreign companies and
foreign made products, and by way of encouraging exports and discouraging
imports? More specifically, the State protected upper castes in the following four
ways. Firstly, except for certain sectors such as rail, air and water ways, post and

telecommunication and so on, the State threw open to private sectors many profit
making channels which only the upper castes could take up and amass wealth,
owing to their better economic status and socio-historical reasons. Secondly, the
State also extended protection to all private industries by preventing the entry of
more competent industries and institutions from other countries. Without such
protection, not only the upper castes-owned Indian private companies and
institutions but also the upper caste-dominated public sector companies and
institutions would have collapsed. They would not have survived so long. Thirdly,
the State also gave the upper caste industrialists a concession that their companies
and institutions need not adhere to the special social policies such as the
reservation policy. It is perhaps due to such exemption, industrialists in general
still refuse to accept the reservation in private sector units. They still refuse to
employ in their companies and organisations Indians belonging to other social
background. Even the plea of President of India to recognise reservation in private
sector does not matter to them. With such State protection, they made huge
money and shared the profit mainly among themselves. As will be evident in the
forth-coming discussion on land ownership and employment status among Dalits
and upper castes, the people who immensely benefited since Indias Independence
are in fact not the Dalits and Backward castes, but mostly the Brahmins and other
upper castes communities controlling Indias economy. Therefore, when the State
withdraws either from its social responsibility which includes protection extended
to the private industries or becomes powerless to exercise control over outside
companies and organizations in India, those likely to be affected would be not
only the landless Dalits and Backward Castes but the upper caste/class
industrialists and landlords. It may also be noted that the State withdrawing from
its social responsibility may even ignite a bloody war between the numerically
minority upper castes and the majority lower castes, resulting in a major law
and order problem that the State cannot afford to ignore.
Moreover, the State becoming powerless need not be only due to
globalisation. It may happen even when the State ignores the interests of a huge

section of Indian population comprising mainly the SCs, STs, Backward Castes
and Minorities who share the major proportion of Indian labour force.
Threat to nations political sovereignty and mainstream culture:
The definitions of globalisation indicate that globalisation may become a
threat to nations political sovereignty and mainstream culture. This apprehension
seems invalid in the Indian context in view of the fact that the decision to accept
globalisation is not the decision of the individuals or organisations whose
credibility is under doubt.

But it has been the decision of the duly elected

government. In a way, it is also a decision of the people. The government is not

apprehensive about its decision. Moreover, it has been the decision of two
successive governments. Though the Congress government introduced it, the
subsequent government of BJP and its allies also carried it forward, and the
present government of Congress and its allies has also committed to carry it on.
Moreover, what does political sovereignty mean for a country like India
where most of its castes and communities in rural areas continue to experience
poverty and their lives and livelihood are under perpetual threat by the dominant
caste groups? There have also been cases of starvation deaths. Political
sovereignty that ensures development of only certain communities/castes and that
too of those whose contribution to the nations total workforce is negligible
reflects indeed nothing but a protected-dictatorship. Instead of opposing it, Dalits,
Backward Castes and Adivasis should use globalisation effectively as a strategy
to deal with such dictatorship? After all who did not use globalisation for their
personal gains?
Regarding globalisation having negative impact on the mainstream Indian
culture, Dalits need not worry much about it since their liberative and inclusive
culture has not been considered as part of the mainstream culture. On the contrary
it is often viewed as backward, primitive and also looked down upon. Moreover,
the so-called mainstream culture has been nothing but brahmanic culture which is
basically hierarchical, discriminatory and oppressive in nature particularly for the

Dalits which not only the Dalits and other marginalised caste groups want to get
rid off but some the liberal minded upper caste individuals also.
Globalisation curtailing Dalits employment opportunities:
It is argued that due to globalisation the Sate would not only be privatising
most of its public sector companies and other important institutions but also
attract multinational companies (MNCs) to invest in India, as it has already
started happening. This would lead to the closure of many incompetent
industries and institutions of India. As a consequence, lakhs of labourers - who
are mostly Dalits - would be thrown out of job. Moreover, since it is not
mandatory on the part of such privatised ones to recognise reservation policy, the
Dalits will have no scope of employment therein.
The argument is valid. But the immediate question would be: What is the
option the Dalits are left with? Can anyone stop the process of globalisation
especially when the State/government itself has accepted globalisation? And of
all, how can the powerless Dalits stop this process? The obvious answer would be
No. Instead of opposing globalisation, can the Dalits take a positive approach
towards it and probe into it the various possibilities of finding employment for
Dalits? After all, as will be seen in the forth-coming pages, what has been the
contribution of the State in providing dignified employment to the Dalits since
Independence? A large majority of Dalits employed in government departments
and institutions constitutes mainly sweepers and scavengers whose salary is
miserably low and therefore their standard of living as well. Private sectors also
engage them only in unclean occupations like scavenging and sweeping. After all,
what kind of jobs the Dalits are going to loose due to globalisation?
2) Lessons from history
There seems to be an attempt particularly among the left oriented
academicians and activists to create a kind of guilt complex in the minds of those
favouring globalisation, labelling them as traitors, anti-nationals, anti-poor/Dalits,
as if such a process had never ever happened in the Indian history, and as if the

Indians unitedly opposed it when something similar had happened. Before

dwelling into the question of whether globalisation is to be supported or opposed
by Dalits, it is necessary to see what was the stand taken by the people of India
when globalisation made its first entry into Indian economy. Who supported and
who opposed it, and who ultimately gained?
Pre-Independence globalisation:
Though it is often argued that Globalisation as a process began in India
only in the 1980s and more vigorously from 1991 onwards, one may comfortably
conclude - considering its basic characteristics and the kind of impact it has been
having on the lives of different sections of Indian people - that such a process had
been there since long, even prior to Indias Independence. For the purpose of
trade, number of European companies had been to India during Indias preIndependence period. These include the English East India Company (1600 A.D.),
the United East India Company of the Netherlands (1602 AD), the Dutch East
India Company (1602 AD), the French East India Company (1664 AD), and the
Swedish East India Company (1731 AD). It is a different matter that of all these
companies, it was ultimately the British who established control over India and
sustained their hold over India for centuries (see Majumdar, et. al., 1986: 625).
The entry of these companies into India during pre-Independence period
can be equated to that of the present day MNCs. Both seem to have the basic
characteristics of Globalisation in terms of the process evolved and the outcome
emerged. Both the former and the latter came to India for trade and
moneymaking. The only major difference is that such countries at that time were
viewed as outsiders and exploiters and therefore resentment against, but now not
merely the British but also every possible country is welcome with strong State
patronage. The crucial question now is who benefited and who lost in both these
periods of Globalisation?
The response of India to the pre-Independence Globalisation process i.e.,
the entry of such European Companies had not been uniform from among all
sections. While some sections opposed, others supported it overtly. While the

10

upper castes who were also upper class opposed it for protecting their economic
interests, for perpetuating their hegemony over the labour of lower castes, and for
maintaining their social supremacy over others as upper castes, others did so
mainly for assuming leadership for the country as a whole. But in the entire
struggle, the concern for Dalits stood nowhere: neither in the agenda of the
Indians who opposed the global force, nor in the agenda of the Indians who
favoured it. The Dalits were merely used by both for their own interests.
When the Britishs scientifically and technically advanced capitalintensive profit oriented companies with their large-scale production started their
trade and business in India, a number of Indian small and cottage industries were
paralysed. As a result lakhs of employees were thrown out of employment. While
the owners of such industries were mostly the minority upper castes, comprising
mainly of the Brahmins, Kshatryas and Vaishyas, those thrown out of
employment were mostly the Dalits and Backward Castes who were employed
mostly at a lower level for meagre salary.
At the same time, the British were willing to accommodate the Dalits in
their institutions and establishments. This is evident from the fact that they
recruited them not only in their army in large number, but also in other services.
But the upper caste soldiers in the British army refused to interact with the Dalit
soldiers. This became a major concern for the British to maintain unity among its
soldiers. As a result, they had to stop recruiting Dalits into their army from 1890.
This was a major loss for the Dalit communities (Ambedkar, 1993: 82-89).
Though there was scope for more number of Dalits and BCs getting employment
in the European companies and institutions and that too for relatively higher
salary, the upper caste fellow Indians, who were the land lords and owners of
small and large scale industries did not give them chance for such a possibility.
To prevent Dalits getting employment in the British establishments and to protect
their profit oriented industries and institutions convincingly, the upper caste
Indians came out with an idea of nationalism, and mobilised the majority
Indians - Dalits and BCs to fight against the British. They argued that as long as
the British would be allowed to stay in India, the problems of Dalits and the BCs

11

could never be solved. Even Mahatma Gandhi who firmly believed in the concept
of vasu dev kutumbakam (universal family and universal brotherhood) considered
sending the British out of India to be his first priority rather than ensuring
freedom to Dalits and the BCs from his fellow Indians.
The British came to India for the purpose of expanding their trade and
enhancing their revenue. Obviously, their business ethics would not have
permitted them to become philanthropist to help the Dalits and others living in
similar condition. Therefore, the changes they brought in with their positive
actions may be viewed as nothing but the outcome of certain political
compulsions. However, the Indian side did not passively accept these changes
but was an active partner, now appropriating and demanding more, now opposing
and accommodating (Aloysius, 2000: 33). In this regard, one of the observations
made by the first Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who was also
one of the active fore-runners of Indias freedom struggle against the British is
worth quoting here:
Foreign rule over a civilized community suffers from many
disadvantages and many ills follow in its train. One of these
disadvantages is that it has to rely on the less desirable elements in
the population. The idealists, the proud, the sensitive, the selfrespecting, those who care sufficiently for freedom and are not
prepared to degrade themselves by an enforced submission to an
alien authority, keep aloof or come into conflict with it. The
proportion of careerists and opportunists in its ranks is much higher
than it would normally be in a free country (Nehru 1989: 493).
How true the above observation of Nehru is evident from the fact that certain
Indian moneyed castes and communities such as the Bhatias/Banias of
Ahmedabad, Marwaris of Calcutta and Bombay and Chettiars of south India were
closer to the British at the time of freedom struggle to pursue their personal
business interests, and in turn how they were used by the British to meet their
ends. In this regard Gallagher and Robinson have argued:
because of their minority status some local business
communities were suitable middlemen to support the colonial
empires abroad. Because these businessmen belong to nonmajority groups - and therefore were not an important military or
demographic factor- many colonial governments supported these
12

groups as their local suppliers, translators, informants etc. In this

way, these groups are seen as collaborators and exploiters in
Marxist as well as nationalist historiography (see Oonk, 2004).
But what is more surprising and shocking is the historical truth that a
sizeable number of Indian feudal classes, mostly the upper castes, particularly
from places like Bengal, who enjoyed all possible comfort, actively supported the
cause of and remained loyal to the British for their own vested interests. For
instance, the Government of British India observed:
The Maharajah Scindia and other chiefs, unsolicited, have given
prompt and powerful support to the Government and the
zamindars of the disturbed districts have protected British officers
from violence, and exerted themselves to check disorder.
Maharajah Scindia raised a force of 5000 compact and welldisciplined men out of his own revenue and placed them at the
command of the British to suppress the (Indian Sepoy) mutiny (see
Biswas, 1997: 8).
To this timely help of the Maharaja and such other upper caste Indians, the British
has glorified them in the following words: To remunerate these chieftains with
becoming munificence, would be an act not only of justice but of prudence, for
they have shown themselves able not only to appreciate the British rule, but
support it sagaciously and courageously in times of peril (Ibid.9).
Where has the upper caste nationalism gone? Who can then be called as
insiders and who as outsiders?

If nationalism can permit the upper caste-

upper class joining hands with the oppressive outsiders and that too for the
purpose of accumulating undue wealth through anti-national means, then such
nationalism does not have any scope to preventing Dalits and such others from
taking the support of the outsiders or of what may come through the process of
Globalisation. After all, the Dalits resort to such options not for greed, but for
protecting their lives and livelihood, and for their social dignity and democracy?
Such an option becomes all the more inevitable for the Dalits particularly when
the inhuman indignities and atrocities inflicted upon them by their own fellow
Indians.

13

After all, no country including the British can be accused of having

invaded India for the purpose of usurping Dalits property, because the Dalits
hardly had any access to treasure or property. Indias wealth and valuable artifacts
were under the control of the upper castes and upper class communities. It was
indeed this property that the British were taking away. The trade and business in
India were again under their control. Moreover, the British never treated Dalits as
untouchables; perhaps their faculty had not developed that way. In fact the
exploitation of Dalits by the fellow upper caste Indians is more severe than than
that of the British. Therefore the entry of British was more painful to the upper
castes and upper class communities, as it took away the power they wielded over
the rest of Indians. Thus freedom from the British was a dire need for these
communities; not so much for the Dalits.
The argument that the British were the outsiders and unreliable ones and
therefore have no right to do any business in India gives at the outset an
impression as if the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vasihyas (together constitute 16%
of total Indian populatuion) were the original inhabitants of India. Are these
ruling castes the original inhabitants, in other words, the descendents of insiders?
Mahatma Joti Rao Phule and many western scholars have categorically indicated
the foreign origin of these caste groups as Aryans of Central Asia who came to
India in about 2500 B. C. (see Ghurye 1987: 163-64). Yet, the Dalits not only
joined the Indias freedom struggle but also helped these upper castes to become
the rulers of India once again. They did so hoping that this section would be
sincere in fulfilling its commitment to grant social freedom to them and to share
Indias wealth among every section of India including Dalits and to make them all
economically independent. But what happened after independence?
3) Promises and performances after independence
This section is to review in brief the performance of the upper caste
leadership vis--vis its promises to Dalits particularly during freedom struggle.
As discussed above, the upper caste leadership opposed pre-Independence
globalisation promising rapid economic growth to promote the interests of Dalits

14

and other vulnerable groups. More specifically, they spoke of due share in the
national assets such as land and also better and permanent employment and
dignified means of livelihood to Dalits. They also promised elimination of social
evils such as the untouchability and caste discrimination. It was mainly with these
overarching slogans, the upper caste nationalists mobilised the Dalits, BCs and
Tribals to fight against the British. The much-awaited freedom was won in 1947.
But how far have those promises been fulfilled?
(a) Indias approach to economic development and Dalit empowerment:
Though the Constitution of India reflects in its preambles and guiding
principles the promises of the upper caste leaders and the aspirations of Dalits and
other vulnerable groups, how far the leaders respected their Constitutional
obligations? What was the strategy they adopted to improve the economic status
of the country in general and of the Dalits and Backward Castes in particular after
Independence?
On the eve of the departure of the British, on 14 August 1947, Indias first
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declared that Indias task in the future included
"the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity".
But what went wrong when the time came to redeem the pledge
and free people from want? those who fought for independence
wanted to cash in on their sacrifices. Almost overnight they
became a squabbling crowd of self-seekers, jostling each other for
office or reward. (Nayar, 2000).
What happened to the promises of these nationalists with regard to
developing Dalits and BCs on par with them, in other words, bringing them to the
main stream? While Mahatma Gandhi wanted to promote the labour intensive
small and cottage industries, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru opted for rapid
industrialisation to achieve faster economic growth. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, as
an economist, opted for rapid industrialisation and large-scale production, but
with a precondition of nationalisation of land, water and key industries and
distribution of land to the landless (see Das, B. Vol. 3; Thorat, S. K. 1998).
Ambedkars choice on rapid industrialisation was not only to achieve faster
economic growth, which he considered necessary for investing in social sectors
15

like education and health, for effective future planning and for ensuring greater
control over the nation as a whole, but also to rescue the Dalits and BCs working
as bonded labourers in small scale industries of upper castes, and ensure them
permanent employment in organised sectors with better salaries under the special
Constitutional provisions like the reservation policy. He hoped that such
employment opportunities in large-scale industries, which were generally located
in cities and sub-urban areas, would also attract Dalits to desert their oppressive
villages and to settle in cities and towns where the problem of caste oppression
and exploitation would be relatively less. Though Ambedkar was for
industrialisation, he was not for privatisation. He was in favour of more and more
public sector companies, institutions, and organisations where there is scope for
implementing reservation policy.
However, India, under the leadership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, adopted
only for rapid industrialisation and nationalisation of key industries.

He,

however, did not give due importance to Ambedkars call for nationalisation of
land and water and distribution of land to the landless. Nehrus choice on rapid
industrialisation and that too heavy industries was mainly to achieve faster
economic growth which was considered necessary for the country that had just
got political sovereignty and to become a strong and self-reliant India. India after
independence began nationalising key industries and institutions such as
chemicals, electric power, steel, transportation, life insurance, portions of the coal
and textile industries, and banking. To prevent the entry of foreign or global trade
and to promote the nationalised industries and institutions, India, on the one hand,
levied high tariffs and imposed import restrictions, and on the other subsidised the
nationalised firms, directed investment funds to them, and controlled both land
use and many prices with a view to promoting these industries. Agriculture was
not the priority. This was the approach followed to till 1964 (Hambrock and
Hauptamann, 1999).
Simultaneously India had also resorted to mechanisation of agriculture and
allied sectors. Tractors, harvesters and other such machinery became very much
part of farming activities of landlords. But the often over looked fact was the

16

displacement of lakhs of employees of small and cottage industries and those

engaged in agriculture and allied activities as daily wage labourers as a result of
rapid industrialisation and mechanisation of agriculture pursued by the
government of India. Most of them were obviously Dalits and BCs. In a way, the
British legacy, which had almost all components of the present day globalisation,
continued in the Independent India too. Surprisingly, this time there emerged no
overt protest against industrialization.
One of the important reasons for the same could be that Nehru promoted,
along with public sector companies, private companies as well. He was for mixed
economy. With State patronage and protection from global competition, a few
Indians emerged as big industrialists and powerful business giants capable of
competing even in international market. Though they contributed in a big way for
the economic and scientific advancement of India as a nation, it may be recalled
that they also contributed to the misery of lakhs of Dalits and Adivasis who were
displaced from their own place of living due to industrialization.
But the approach changed during 1966-71 under Prime Minister Mrs.
Indira Gandhi. Two major shifts took place: a) priority to agriculture, instead of
industry, which resulted in green revolution. Subsequently by mid 1970s, India
became self-sufficient in food grain; and b) further tightening of State control
over every aspect of the economy, including nationalization of banks, restriction
on foreign trade, imposition of price control on a wide range of products, and
squeezing of foreign investment. Despite all such constrains, there was flow not
only of foreign money and investment but also of foreign technology till that time.
But with the implementation of the Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act
(FERA) in 1973, such an inflow of foreign money and technology was restricted.
However, the over-restrictive and often self-defeating nature of the
regulatory framework became evident by the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
approach of comprehensive planning also came under severe criticisms since
many of the planned programmes were not even implemented. And even those
implemented did not meet the desired targets.

17

However, what may be noted is the fact that there was hardly any scope
for green revolution making significant contribution to the development of Dalits
since most them were landless wage labourers. Neither the land ceiling nor the
minimum wage Acts were implemented earnestly during this period for the Dalits
to benefit from.
From agriculture the focus was once again shifted to industry. India began
encouraging foreign investment in the 1980s when it started liberalising its trade
through appropriate economic reforms, industrial and financial policies on the one
hand, and subsidies, tax concessions and the depreciation of currency on the other
to encourage export. With these measures, the GDP rose from 3.5 percent per year
during the 1970s to as high as 5 percent per year during the 1980s, though the
problem of high tariff continued to remain a major hurdle in attracting foreign
investment. In 1984 Shri Rajiv Gandhi, after becoming Prime Minister,
introduced New Economic Policy which was an attempt towards liberalisation of
Indian economy, and more particularly towards enhancing industrial production.
As a strategy to mange the crisis of balance of payments, the Narasimha
Rao government accepted in July 1991 the International Monetory Fund-World
Bank formula, also known as Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP) with their
conditionality. Fiscal austerity (through spending cuts and high interest rates),
privatisation and market liberalisation are the central pillars of SAP ( Bharti,
2004: 71).

This was the second major economic reform programme of the

government, diverting its focus from agriculture to foreign trade and investment
particularly in the field of electricity generation, oil industry, heavy industry, air
transport, roads and some telecommunications. It also introduced number of
incentive schemes for the purpose, including: significant reduction in the use of
import licenses and tariffs (down to 150% from 400%), an elimination of
subsidies for exports, and the introduction of a foreign-exchange market.
Obtaining any license or permit to carry out import-export trade has become nonmandatory since April 1992. Except for a small list of imports and exports that are
either regulated or banned, trade across nations has become almost free of import
and export regulations from April 1, 1993. According to an estimate of WTO, the

18

average import tariff of 71 percent in 1993 has come down to mere 40 percent in
1995. Moreover, with successive additional monetary reforms, the rupee can
nearly be considered a fully convertible currency at market rates since 1995. It
seems India is now a much more open economy (Hambrock and Hauptamann,
1999). In this long process of shifting approaches, what has happened to the
primary sector agriculture and allied activities and to the economic condition
of people depending on it, mainly the Dalits?
Of the three major sectors agriculture (primary), manufacturing
(secondary) and service (tertiary), majority Indians (69%) still depend on the
agriculture and allied activities for their sustenance. India, despite being an
agrarian economy a highly labour intensive economy - has ignored agriculture
considerably over the years, and thus the share of agriculture in the countrys
GDP has come down drastically from 56.89 per cent in 1950 to mere 24.90
percent in 2000-01. On the contrary, the GDP share of industrial sector has gone
up from mere 14.27 percent to 26.92 percent, and of service sector from 29.80 to
as high as 48.18 percent (almost half of the GDP) during the same period. The
fact that the percentage of workforce found employment in agriculture has come
down from 68.45 in 1983 to 59.84 in 1999-00, the fact that employment in the
manufacturing sector has gone up from 14.34 per cent to 17.43 per cent and the
fact that the share of services sector from 17.21 per cent to 22.74 per cent during
the same period further validates the governments attraction towards the
industrial and service sectors at the cost of agriculture sector which provided
employment to a large majority of Indian workforce. Though the number of
persons employed in the entire organised sectors including the IT sector
accounted for 27.96 million in the year 2002, the quantum is mere one-eighth of
those employed in agriculture sector. It seems, even by 2008 the IT sector would
not have generated more than 2.1 million jobs which is not even a consolation for
a country that adds annually around 8 million to its labour force. (see Guruswamy
and Kaul, 2004). Why has then the government not developed agriculture, instead
actively promoted other sectors? It only reflects that the State is mainly for rapid
economic growth, which is possible mainly through higher investment in

19

secondary and tertiary sectors. Its concern for enhancing the purchasing power of
the poor or the Dalits seems to be not even its second priority.
However, in what way States higher investment in agriculture going to
help the Dalits when most of them are merely landless wage labourers?
Landlessness has been one of the main factors responsible for the unchanging
poor economic status of Dalits since Independence.
An objective assessment of the following data vividly validates the above
conclusion. Most of the SCs are landless wage labourers, depending mostly on
agricultural and allied activities to eke-out their livelihood. According to 1991
Census among the landless agricultural labourers the SCs constituted as high as
62.76 percent, and among the cultivators (those owning land) they constituted
only 33.89 percent. But most of these cultivators are small and marginal farmers
owning less than two acres of land. (see Government of Madha Pradesh, 2002:
45).
These data indicate the dire need of distributing land to the landless Dalits.
What has been the governments achievement in this regard so far?
Till date 272 legislations regarding Land Reforms have been
enacted. But except in Kerala and West Bengal, Land Reforms
were successful in no other States.. As against the estimated 30
million hectares of available surplus land, only 75 lakh acres have
been declared surplus so far. Out of this, it has taken the
government 50 years to take possession of a mere 6.4 lakh acres
and redistribute 5.2 lakh acres of it. And, still about 10 lakh acres
remain in ineligible hands. Since 1961, despite a host of land
reforms, a great many Dalits lost even the little land they had and
had no choice but to join the rank of landless agricultural
laboureres. In 1961, 38 percent of Dalits were cultivators, but to
day only 25 percent Dalits are cultivators. Today over 86 per cent
of Dalits/Scheduled Caste households are landless or near landless
and 63 percent are wage-labour households (Sharma, 2004: 151152; also see Mahajan, 2003: 51).
Financial outlays for SC development
The States concern for the cause of Dalits can be understood also from its
financial outlays for their development. No doubt, the GDP has increased
considerably over a period of time even before globalisation as noted before. But

20

has the increase in GDP increased the financial outlay for the development of
Dalits? It is only by adhering to such an approach, globalisation can be of help to
Dalits. The declining States concern for the deprived communities like the
Dalits/SCs can be understood in terms of financial outlays earmarked for their
development under special schemes like the Special Component Plan (SCP).
Though as per the SCP, the State Plan outlay for the SCs should be in proportion
to the total SC population in that State, no State government adheres to such
policies earnestly. For instance the average state plan outlay for the SCP among
different states was only 11.58 percent, though the percentage of SC population in
the country accounted for 16.48 percent during 1997-98. Moe alarming is the fact
that out of the amount earmarked for the purpose nearly about 40 percent
remained unspent during this period. The average state plan outlay for the year
1998-99 further came down to 11.11 percent, though the amount remained
unspent decreased to 29 percent. A marginal increase is noticed in the average
State plan outlay for the year 1999-2000 (13.57%), 2000-2001 (12.76%), and
2001-2002 (13.54%). However, a declining trend is noticed in the percentage of
expenditure. In other words, amount actually spent out of the earmarked amount.
For instance though the percentage of expenditure out of the amount earmarked
recorded a marginal decline initially from 71.27 during 1998-1999 to 71.13
percent during 1999-2999, the decline was very high during 2000-2001 with the
percentage expenditure being merely 35.61 (Government of India 2002: 95-96).
Though the government introduced number of antipoverty schemes,
including rural self-employment programmes, only a small proportion of
subsidies and such other benefits reached the poor. Much worse is the muchignored fact that in most cases even the money so spent does not reach the
beneficiaries in its entirety. Most often the middlemen - whose role in the process
is inevitable in view of high illiteracy and economic dependence among the SCs eat away nearly half and sometimes the entire subsidy. In some cases even the
concerned Bank officials seem to have been involved in such illegal acts. These
figures also reflect the fact that neither the Central nor the State governments,

21

which have been under the control of the upper castes, is sincere in implementing
policies that are meant to protect and promote the interests of the Dalits.
Beneficiaries of States employment opportunities - Dalits or others:
Even after more than five decades, the State has not filled required
percentage of posts with Dalits/SCs. Due to reservation, a negligible percentage
of Dalits has become IAS and IPS officers. But compared to the percentage of
upper castes, the percentage representation of Dalits in the top-level government
positions is much less. Though the Constitution of free India provides reservation
for the SCs/Dalits and BCs in employment, which castes and communities have
actually benefited since Independence: Dalits or the upper castes?
The data in Table-1 indicates very clearly that the only community, which
has benefited so much since Indias Independence is the Brahmin community, not
even Rajput or Maratha. The population of Brahmins before Independence (in
1935) was only 3.5 percent. In about 42 years after independence i.e., by 1989,
Table- 1
Percentage Population of Castes/Communities and
Their Share in Class I Service (in Govt./non-Govt.) in 1935 and 1989
1935
1989
Population Share in
Population Share in
(%)
(%)
services (%)
services (%)
0.85
40.00
1.03
7.00
21.00
35.00
3.20
10.13
4.00
15.00
2.08
1.00
(Tyagi
3.5
3.00
5.20
70.20

Castes

Kayasth
Musalman
Christian
Brahmins
Bhumihari)
Rajput
Baniya
(Arora
Khatri)
Sikh
Other (Maratha Jaat)
Dalit (SCs, STs and
Backward)

2.5
1.20

2.00
1.00

3.80
1.78

1.70
3.50

1.40
1.60
64.00

1.60
0.9
1.00

1.60
5.50
68.85

1.90
2.50
8.00

Source: Government of India (1998), Report of National Commission for SCs 1996-97 and 199798, Fourth Report, Vol. I: 16
The sudden decrease in Muslim population is perhaps due to partisan.

22

their population increased to 5.20 percent. But their share in Class I service which
was only 3 percent in 1935 increased to as high as 70.20 percent. In contrast, the
population of SCs, STs and BCs (Backward Castes) together was as high as 64
percent in 1935 and their share in Class I service was just 1 percent (one percent
only). Despite number of Constitutional safe guards, special Commissions and
other establishments at different levels, those, including political leaders,
entrusted with the task of ensuring them due representation in government jobs
did not or could not carry out their responsibility effectively and earnestly.
Though the SCs, STs and BCs together constituted as high as 68. 80 percent in
1989 their share in Class I service was only 8 percent.
Another indicator to understand the governments commitment to ensure
due share of employment opportunities to different castes and communities is the
representation of these castes and communities as teachers in Social science and
Science faculty in Universities. As evident from Table 2, out of more than 150
universities studied, the representation of Minority, SCs/STs and OBC teachers in
1998 in the Social Science faculty was as low as merely 1.7 percent, 1.2 percent
Table-2
Percentage of Minority, SC/ST, OBCs and Upper Caste Teachers in
Social Science and Science faculties in more than 150 Indian Universities
Social Science
Category
Faculty
Science Faculty
Minority
1.7
3.2
SC/ST
1.2
0.5
OBC
6.8
2.3
Upper Caste
90.3
94.0
Source: Government of India (1998), Report of National Commission for SCs 1996-97 and
1997-98, Fourth Report, Vol. I: 14.

and 6.8 percent though they constituted as high as about 11 percent, 22.5 percent,
and 52 percent respectively of the total Indian population. The situation is much
worse in the case of Science faculty. But the representation of Upper Castes that
constitute only 17.58 percent (as per the Mandal Commission Report) is as high
as 90.30 percent in social science faculty and 94 percent in Science faculty. These
data reiterates the lack of will on the part of the upper caste-managed government.

23

Dalits - victims of globalisation or States development initiatives:

One of the frequently advanced criticisms against Globalisation is that it has
lead, through its development projects, to the displacement of large number of
Dalits and Tribals not only from their place of habitat but also from their means of
livelihood. Such criticisms is obviously not valid in view of the fact that
globalisation, as formally understood, began only in the 1990s, whereas the
process of Dalits and Tribals being displaced and dispossessed began as early as
1950 due to massive industrialisation that the government resorted to soon after
Independence. As noted earlier, the amount of sufferings and the human and
material loss that the Tribals and Dalits have been subjected to since
Independence is comparatively much higher than those caused by the process of
globalisation since 1990. The immense damage caused to the lives and livelihood
of Tribals of Jadugoda of Eastern Singhbhum, Jarkhand since 1967 by the
Government of Indias mining project viz., The Uranium Corporation of India, is
no less than any possible damage one can think of due to globalisation.1 Similarly
the contribution of the forest department of Government of India is no less. In
its recent Press Release, the Jana Sangharsh Morcha, an affiliation of 15 mass
organizations working among the tribals of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh,
has expressed its anguish over the State sponsored human rights violations against
the innocent Tribals of Madhya Pradesh in the following words:
In the districts of Burhanpur, Damoh and especially in Betul the forest, police and revenue
officials enter in one or other tribal villages every other day in the dark cover of night. They
beat tribal women, misbehave with them and often put them in overnight illegal confinement
without the knowledge of their husbands. In Betul, on the intervening night of 4th and 5th
July they razed Bhandarpaani, a tribal hamlet under Chopana police station. In the incident
they took away 73 tribal women and men, including children in their illegal confinement.
Many of the women were taken away in the absence of their husbands. The poor tribes lost
everything but for the clothes on their body. In the evening of July 9th, Danwakheda village
was destroyed and the forest department without the knowledge of their husbands took two
tribal women away. Recently on 17th July a team of 50 police, forest & revenue personnel
team entered Ghorpadmal village under Mohda police station. They dragged tribal women
out of their houses; misbehaved with them and later abused and terrorized the villagers. To
cover up the incident the police has registered false cases of dacoity against 13 tribals. 2

see http://www.dalitstanorg/journal/recthist/nuclear/jadugoda.html ; and

http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/nov/06ucil.htm

For more details write to Shramik Adivasi Sangathana, Betul-Harda-Khandwa, Kothi Bazar,
Betul, M. P., Tel. 07141-233971; or visit <Bhandarpaani-Betul.doc>; or mail to Shramik Sanghu
24

In the words of the noted novelist turned activist Arundathi Roy, the
damage that the State has caused to these innocent people is expressed in the
following words:
A government's victims are not only those that it kills and imprisons.
Those who are displaced and dispossessed and sentenced to a lifetime
of starvation and deprivation must count among them too. Millions of
people have been dispossessed by `development' projects. In the past 55
years, Big Dams alone have displaced between 33 million and 55
million people in India. They have no recourse to justice.
In the last two years there has been a series of incidents when police
have opened fire on peaceful protestors, most of them Adivasi and
Dalit. When it comes to the poor, and in particular Dalit and Adivasi
communities, they get killed for encroaching on forest land, and killed
when they're trying to protect forest land from encroachments by
dams, mines, steel plants and other `development' projects. In almost
every instance in which the police opened fire, the government's
strategy has been to say the firing was provoked by an act of violence.
Those who have been fired upon are immediately called militants (Roy,
2004).
The above observation reiterates the fact that a large number of Dalits,
Adivasis and the landless BCs being thrown out of their basic means of
sustenance (employment) and from their place of living is not something that is
happening only due to globalisation. This has been part of Indias development
initiatives since Independence.

Change in upper castes attitude:

Since independence foreign or global money and technology have been
flowing into Indian economy and making whatever impacts the Globalisation is
capable of. Lakhs of upper caste professionals and technocrats who received
professional education in India at cheaper rate have gone globally. They have
settled forever in Europe and America for higher salary and perks. Thousands of
upper castes NGOs have been receiving millions of foreign money to fulfil their
cherished dreams. All these in fact have led to polarization of national wealth and
honour by the minority upper caste groups. And this process has been very rapid
since Indias independence. Though all these have been very much the
25

characteristics of Globalisation, the Indian elite never opposed it till recent years.
But why only now?
Those opposing globalisation in the interests of Dalits are perhaps under
the impression that by not allowing the entry of foreign companies and
institutions till 1991, the State has only protected the interests of Dalits. In fact,
such a position of the State has benefited both the Dalits and the upper castes.
While the Dalits could improve their educational status, and a negligible
percentage of them could even become IAS and IPS officers using States special
provisions like the reservation policy, the upper caste Hindus also could enhance
their economic and other status through their profit-driven industries and
institutions using States special polices against the entry of multi national
companies and institutions. However, as noted earlier, those benefited the most
were the upper caste Hindus and a small percentage of minority communities.
Though there have been exchange of goods and services, and scientific
knowledge between India and other nations all these years, which are also the
characteristics of globalisation, why suddenly the upper caste industrialists are
opposed to such a process? The main and the only reason one can think of for the
same is that till recent past what had been allowed to come to India were mostly
money, material, modern goods and values and science and technology. And with
the State protection against the global market competition, all these could help the
upper castes to run their industries and business profitably and comfortably all
along. But now, a number of MNCs themselves have started coming to India
offering high salary and perks to Indian technocrats and labourers. Besides,
varieties of quality products have started coming to Indian market at a cheaper
rate. These developments have indeed become a threat to the very survival of
private companies. Unable to face such competitions from the MNCs, many
Indian private companies have already become the victims, and many others
giving up the hope of survival.
Therefore the Indian companies, which are at the verge of extinction, have
started raising voice against the entry of MNCs into India. Though the employees
of these companies feel that they have not been treated fairly, their companies

26

have been successful enough to divert their energies against globalistion,

particularly against the entry of MNCs and other such organisations. In this way
these companies have been successful in mobilising not only their employees but
also the people in general to protest against Globalisation for the survival and
revival of their own companies and to retain and regain control over their cheap
labour force as it happened during pre-Independence globalisation.
Globalisation is also argued to be the main cause for the failure of Indian
public sector enterprises. This accusation seems to contradict the popular image of
upper caste as efficient and meritorious professionals. The Dalits are never
preferred for such positions as if they were ever inefficient. This is the reason why
we are yet to accept reservation for higher positions. Mainly the meritorious upper
caste professionals and technocrats manage the public enterprises. They make
decisions. Dalits participation in the decision making process is very marginal ;
most often nil. Yet the performance of public enterprises has been very poor. It
may be noted that nearly 20 percent of Indias GDP was controlled by the
relatively inefficient public enterprises. This was another important factor
dragging Indias economic growth considerably ( Hambrock and Hauptamann,
1999). What does this failure of public enterprises really reflect? One can think of
two possible options: a) it reflects that most of those upper castes holding key
positions are inefficient, and b) they never liked the public sector enterprises to
function efficiently since it employed Dalits under the reservation policy. One of
the senior IAS officers who held key positions in managing public sector
enterprises observed in a seminar held recently at University of Mumbai that it
was due to the reason cited later.
All these data overtly portray the yawning gap between the promises made
at the time of Independence and the performance till date of the trusted upper
caste leadership. This also indicates the fact that the upper castes in power
except for a few exceptionally liberal minded and committed individuals like
Justice Krishna Iyer, the then SC and ST Commissioner B. D. Sharma and a few

The seminar was on Economic Development of SCs and STs: A State level scenario organised
by Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Social and Economic Change, during 27-28 March, 2004.
27

others never wanted these deprived and discriminated castes even to experience
freedom. Gandhi once observed:
Unless the capitalists of India help to avert that tragedy (the Britishs
economic imperialism through rapid industrialisation) by becoming
trustees of the welfare of the masses, and by devoting their talents
not to amassing wealth for themselves but to the service of the
masses in an altruistic spirit, they will end either by destroying the
masses or being destroyed by them. (Gandhi, 1928: 422)
Despite such warning by a person no less than Gandhi, there seems no
sign of the ruling castes paying due attention to the cause of Dalits. When such
has been their attitude, how can Dalits have faith in the upper caste leadership and
their promises, which they repeat in every election?
4) Need and scope for Dalits going beyond State measures
As evident from the above conclusions, even over fifty years of
affirmative actions, implementation of number of special programmes, and
judicial activism to uphold the ideals of Indian Constitution have failed to bring
any substantial positive change either in the living condition of Dalits or in the
mind set of upper caste Indians. Then why not Dalits seek justice going beyond
State measures? The performance of the upper castes as rulers of India since
independence seems to suggest that the Dalits should not be content only with the
State measures. It also seems to suggest that they should advance their interests
adopting other means such as globalisation. After all, globalisation also talks of
the poor and the marginalised. In any case, going beyond State measures does not
mean going against the State as one may try to interpret it.
Dalits should actively probe the various possibilities of optimally using
globalisation to accomplish their hitherto unfulfilled aspirations. The opponents of
globalisation seem to undermine the fact that social and economic justice, and
more specifically a due share of employment opportunities both in government
and in private firms and institutions, can be achieved not only through reservation
policy but also through political power, the BSP way. As long as organisations
function within the State and with the State protection legal and political- the
28

State can exercise considerable influence over such organisations to consider the
development of social sector. They also seem to disagree that reservation in
private sector is something within the reach of the oppressed groups. Taking
examples from the USA where the Supreme Court now has appointed the
coloured people as judges and heads of military force, it is argued that such
appointments have become a reality not through reservation quota, but simply
because the President has found it politically necessary. Today the highest paid
private TV personality in the US is a black-women. If all these have been possible
in USA, why one doubts such a possibility in India? (see Omvedt, 2004). Shri K.
R. Narayanan became the President of India despite being a Dalit, not because of
reservation but due to political compulsion. Shri Sushilkumar Shinde has become
the Chief Minister of Maharashtra despite being a Dalit, not because of
reservation but again due to political compulsion. Even BJP and Shiv Sena kind
of political parties have given top positions to Dalits for the same reason. It is
high time that Dalits aimed at such option rather than relying only on reservation
kind of a measure.
It may be noted that taking advantage of Globalisation hundreds of Dalits
and BCs have found jobs (since mid 1990s) in Europe and America for a salary
that they could never even dream in India, although the merit of such Indians is
always questioned by the fellow upper castes. This has been possible for the
Dalits because the outsiders are mainly for talents; not for identifying ones
lower caste background and selectively ignore him, as it happens in India in most
cases.
Another frequently posed question is, What benefits do the Dalits from
rural area will get due to globalisation? An objective question to answer this
would be, What benefits have the rural Dalits got before globalisation? As seen
before, there has hardly been any substantial change in their economic and social
status till date. Today it is due to globalisation, even a small village is connected
globally through telephone. Even computers have reached villages. Dalit parents
are able to be in touch with their children who have moved to Dubai and other
countries as manual labourers and professionals through telephone, though they,

29

as untoucbales have no access to walk in the main street of their own village
where the caste Hindus reside. This situation is very common in villages of Tamil
Nadu in south India.
True. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. But on what grounds
one can attribute the growing gap to globalisation only? In fact this is something
that has been happening since Independence.
The entry of MNCs is in fact an opportunity for Dalits to prove their worth
as these are more likely to be free from caste prejudice. Profit being their ultimate
motive they look not for upper caste talents, but for talents. In a fair competition,
at least the convent educated Dalits have the scope to enter into the Indian based
prestigious foreign educational and professional institutions. This has not been
possible till date in the Indian managed private institutions.
Such opportunities have helped the Dalits to realise not only their worth but
also the politics behind their imposed untouchable identity. Finding lucrative jobs
in developed countries has been the domain of upper castes till recently. But with
internet, another contribution of globalisation, even Dalits have begun to gain
access to such avenues. This is not to ignore the fact that even the outsiders often
come under the influence of the prejudiced upper caste Indians, who, for historical
reasons, have had the opportunity of establishing contact with them much earlier
and have sustained their contact for much longer period for their sustained
economic and career prospects. But with the outsiders, there is scope for
sensitizing them on the caste issue and their need to recognise diversity as a
means to enjoy the support of majority Indians.
Yet another acquisition against globalisation is that Dalits will loose what
ever they have gained. After all, what did Dalits loose in the pre-Independence
globalisation, particularly due to the Britishs business and trade in India? Daits
lost nothing. The fact, they had nothing to loose. They only gained. They gained
access to education and dignified employment, which were denied by their fellow
Indians who controlled these sectors all along. In the British India, the Dalits
(Chamars) involved in shoe making and other related works could export their
leather goods and became economically very rich. Similarly the then Dalits,

30

Chanan (Nadar) of Tamil Nadu exported their palm tree products viz., jaggery
(gud) and became very rich. They became so powerful that they could completely
detach themselves from their untouchable identity. They are no more
untouchables. Moreover, to loose something due to globalisation, the Dalits must
have gained something in the absence of globalisation. What have they gained
vis--vis others since independence?
With more and more MNCs coming to India, there is every possibility of
mushrooming of more and more schools, colleges, and professional and technical
institutions of high standard. Similarly there is scope for expanding quality health
care facilities. The argument that the poor/Dalits cannot afford quality education
and health care facilities that come through globalisation (as these would be
relatively more costly) does not seem valid since this has been the experience of
Indian poor/Dalits from 1950 to till date. As stand today educational institutions
and health care facilities of high standard are very limited in number and are
accessible mostly to the 20 percent Indian elite who constitutes mostly the upper
castes/class.
The expansion of such facilities is bound to happen. The establishment of
railways, post and telegraph and opening up of many educational institutions of
high standard in the British India by the British are the standing testimonies to
such possibilities. It was these institutions that opened up education to the Dalits.
It is therefore certain that with globalisation there is scope for even Dalits getting
access to education and health care facilities of high standard.
These things will happen not because the MNCs are committed to the
educational advancement of Dalits, though one cannot rule out such a possibility.
It will happen because there is a possibility of negotiating with them to recognise
diversity not only in admission to educational institutions but also in appointment
in their establishments, and in their economic development activities. It will
happen because of competitions between Indian institutions and foreign ones on
the one hand and between foreign companies. The declining price of certain
goods such as mobile/cell phone and cars, which had been the status symbols of
upper castes/class till recently is the witness. This will happen also because the

31

MNCs and their establishments would be much more open, compared to the
companies and establishments of fellow upper caste Indians who prefer
employing them only as sweepers and peons despite having the required
credentials.
More over, with Globalisation the Indian government would be compelled
to deal firmly with humiliating and dehumanising practice of manual scavenging.
Higher salary and other incentives to such jobs would also become inevitable.
This in turn would automatically encourage even other caste groups to take up
such occupations as it has been happening in developed countries. Indian upper
castes have no problem working as sweepers and cleaners in developed nations.
With globalisation there is high scope for such defiling occupations being
mechanized. Such mechanisation, no doubt, may render lakhs of Dalits
unemployed, but change is never possible without any loss. After all, what will be
lost is not the job alone, but indignity and social stigma as well. Gradually such a
process could even break the link between caste and occupation, and redeem the
Dalits forever from their centuries old bondage of social stigma as untouchables.
There is hope that globalisation will end caste one day and fulfil Dalit dreams of
living in a free and democratic society (Jadhav, 2004).
Thanks to globalisation, which has helped even Dalits to start their own
NGOs, educational institutions and training centres of high standard. These
organizations have been doing a commendable job in sensitizing people the world
over and globalising Dalit concerns. It is due to globalisation, the Dalits could
take their issues to Durban and other countries and seek justice even from
international organisations like UN.
Perhaps those Indians opposing globalisation seem to undermine its scope
to uprooting the centuries of economic hegemony of the upper castes, which has
been one of the most important factors responsible for the perpetual misery of
Dalits and landless BCs.
Conclusions

32

Globalisation is no doubt a global force spreading its tentacles to suck

profit from wherever possible. One can also not rule out the possibility of the gap
between the rich and poor widening. However, none can ignore its positive sides.
Globalisation is useful not only for the poor and developing nations but also for
the poor people of such nations, which are generally ridden with social and
economic disparities. The approach of India resorting to drastic economic reforms
and of the Dalits taking up their issues globally to resolve their respective
economic and social problems are the standing witness to the possible positive
contribution of globalisation.

Moreover, Globalisation as a force cannot be

halted so easily, and that too by the poor of poor nations like the Dalits. Protesting
against globalisation amounts to protesting against the State, because
globalisation is the conscious choice made by the State. Given this context, Dalit
should focus more on how they benefit from globalisation, instead of opposing it.
They should see how best they globalise their concerns. They should see how best
they could use globalisation as a means to draw global attention to protect their
basic human rights as citizens of India and to have access to a decent means of
livelihood and dignified social life.
The fact that the foreign industries and institutions that emerge out of
Globalisation are likely to be free from caste prejudice, unless such institutions
are abundantly represented by prejudiced upper caste Indians. This brings
immense scope for talented Dalits to find jobs, to become entrepreneurs and to
enter into various other fields where the Dalits have had no scope till date. There
is scope for Dalits gaining access to quality education and health care facilities.
There is immense scope not only for improving the economic condition of those
involved in manual scavenging, but also for eliminating the practice of manual
scavenging itself.
In the globalisation era majority of those likely to be affected in one way
or the other are not the Dalits but the upper castes/class. If at all Globalisation to
be opposed, it should be by those directly affected - the upper castes. Dalits need
not be treated once again as pawn in the hands of upper caste elite and used for
others cause. Dalits should negotiate with the government to come out with
33

policies that would make private industries, institutions and organizations accept
affirmative action policies. Dalits have nothing to loose. If at all they do, it would
be their misery; it would be their humiliation and social stigma.
More specifically, before opposing globalisation Dalits should ask: Do I
have industries? Do I even have land to earn my living? Or are most of my caste
members employed in dignified or higher-salaried jobs? After all, what is there
with me that Globalisation can take away from? When I have nothing to loose,
why should I feel threatened and oppose Globalisation? Are the industrialists and
landlords who are affected or likely to be affected directly by Globalisation using
the Dalits to protect their interests? Can the Dalits not learn lessons from the past?
Dalits should welcome globalisation.
..
References:
Aloysius, G. (2000), Nationalism without a Nation in India, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press
Ambedkar, B. R. (1993), Writings and Speeches (vol.12), Government of
Maharashtra, Bombay
Bharti, A. K. (2004), Globalisation, Communalism and Dalits In Mukul Sharma
(ed.), Unquiet Worlds: Dalit Voices and Visions, Heinrich Boll
Foundation-India, New Delhi.
Biswas, A. K. (1997), Sepoy Mutiny (1857-58) and Indian Perfidy, Blumoon
Books, New Delhi.
Cooper, R. N. (2004), A False Alarm: Overcoming Globalisation's Discontents,
Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004
Das, Bagwan (vol. 3), Thus Spoke Ambedkar, Ambedkar sahitya Prashana,
Bangalore
Deshpande, S. (2003), Contemporary India: A Sociological View, Viking, New
Delhi.
Gandhi, M. K. (1928), Result of Exploitation, Young India, December 20.
Government of India (2002), Annual Report 2001-2002, Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, New Delhi.

34

Government of Madha Pradesh (2002), The Bhopal Document: Charting a new

course for Dalits for the 21st century, Bhopal.
Ghurye, G. S. (1987), Caste and Race in India, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Guruswamy, M. and Kaul, A. (2004) Farm sector: Another food crisis ahead,
Business Line Internet Edition (January 28).
Hambrock, J. and Hauptamann, S. (1999), Industrialization in India, Student
Economic Review, University of Dublin, Trinity College.
Jadhav, N. (2004), Dalit Dreams, Times of India, January 16.
Mahajan, Ulka (2003), Dalits and Land, Land, People Centred Advocacy Series,
National Centre for Advocacy Studies.
Majumdar, R. C. et. al. (1986), An Advanced History of India, Macmillan India
Ltd., Madras.
Mungekar, B. L. (2004), Indias Economic Reforms and the Dalits: An
Ambedkarian Perspective, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Social and Economic
Change, Mumbai.
Nayar Kuldip (2000), Between the Lines: Why did we falter?, Deccan Herald,
16th August.
Nehru, Jawaharlal (1989), The Discovery of India, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi.
Omvedt, Gail (2004), Reservation in Private Sector, www.ambedkar.org (as found
on April 6)
Reddy, Y.V. (2000), Pro-poor growth: new realities and emerging questions.
Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, 54(6), June.
Kapila, Uma. (2003), Indian Economy Since Independence (Ed.) Academic
Foundation, New Delhi
Oonk ,Gijsbert. (2004), Industrialisation in India, 1850-1947: Three Variations in
paper
at
the
Emergence
of
Indigenous
Industrialists,
www.kun.nl/posthumus/research/programmes/Paper_Oonk.doc, March 25
Roy, Arundhati. (2004), Do turkeys enjoy thanksgiving? Online edition of India's
National Newspaper, (Sunday, January 18).
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalisation: A critical introduction, Palgrave, London.

35

Sharma, M. (2004), Unquiet Worlds: Dalit Voices and Visions,

Heinrich Boll Foundation-India, New Delhi.
Thorat, S. K. (1998), Ambedkar's Role in Economic Planning and
Water Policy, Shipra Pub. Delhi
Throat, S. K. and Deshpande, R. S. (1999), Caste and labour market
discrimination, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 42, No. 4,
October-December.
______(2004), It is the remedy for market discrimination The
Economic Times, New Delhi (March 26)
___________

36