Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra - TICI Journal

Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra | TICI Journal 02/07/22, 8:07 PM
Social Justice And Social

Development Of Scheduled Caste
And Scheduled Tribes In
Maharashtra
Published On: Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Shaileshkumar Darokar
IJDTSA Vol.2, Issue 1, No.1 pp.1 to 23, June,

2014
Abstract
This paper attempts to provide operational definition of social justice by

presenting debate on justice in general and social justice in Indian context
in particular. It highlights various models of ‘just society’ or ‘social order’
envisaged by our founding fathers and subsequent attempts in post-
independent India by the state to realize the goals of democratic socialist
India and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity enshrined in the
preamble of India’s constitution. The paper further presents the unique
problems faced by SC/STs in India such as untouchability in case of SCs
and isolation in case of STs. It highlights the socio-economic exclusion
and marginalization they face in the development process by presenting
empirical data and also unravelling the growing gap between legal and
social justice. Finally, it proposes constitutive ingredients or elements of
Human Development Index for SC/STs in Maharashtra.
Dr.Shaileshkumar Darokar is Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of

Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
http://www.ticijournals.org/social-justice-and-social-development-of-scheduled-caste-and-scheduled-tribes-in-maharashtra/ Page 1 of 34
Introduction
In the context of the renewed upsurge amongst the worst victims of caste
in recent years, the nature, implication and importance of caste and other
systems that excludes are being reviewed at all levels. In this context,
dominant development discourse that held sway since India’s
independence are being contested leading to either minor alterations,
processual reformulations or even radical restructuring. Pertaining to such
politico historical articulations, demanding more egalitarian socio
economic spaces, the question of justice occupies definitive categorical
space.
With a vision to maximise justice in the process of development, it has

become essential to critically comprehend political economic road blocks
and social impediments towards achieving the same. In this struggle to
understand and solve the enormous challenge posed by the question of
justice to current development paradigms, it is proposed that an index
that incorporate these elements be formulated, seeking to uncover both
the concomitant social realities of the present and the imperatives of
inclusion in the future.
As we progress in time as a nation and within such a milieu, the

formulation of a human development index that measures excluded
communities especially Dalit and Adivasis has become indispensable.
However, in such a contested socio economic and political space, the
conceptualisation of the same from people’s day to day lived experience
becomes paramount. Such a theoretical postulate then requires that a
critical engagement first be made with the notion of ‘social’ within the
framework of justice, popularly articulated in the forms of social justice.
Rationale for Development Indices for SC/STs
Any exercise to identify and construct the developmental indices of the

Dalits and the Adivasis have to confront a perennial problem of
conceptualization of their situation at the first place and second to

translate it into identifiable, objective and an quantifiable policy initiative.
The problem which the policy makers and the academia must face are
located within the specific experiential circumstances in which these
communities are existing and more or less defy the conventional logic of
objective quantifiability and always pose a problematique to the existing
policy structures. Therefore, while dealing with these communities than
any other, there is at a policy making level an absolute urgency to
understand the conceptual/theoretical underpinnings that explores the
day to day life conditions of the Dalits or the Adivasis, so that policy
making is more enriched with a meaningful formulation than a haphazard,
ill informed and methodologically misplaced bureaucratic application. On
the other hand at the academic scholarship level a metaphysical or a
theoretical workout is also not sufficient and it should be placed such a
way that a meaningful application of it can be worked out or there remains
a possibility of the application of those metaphysical and theoretical
categories. Despite these, the experiential lives of the Dalits and the
Adivasis will always remain beyond the conceptualization of a policy,
which in a way is a perennial challenge both for the academia and the
policy makers to understand and redress the Dalit/Adivasi situation.
It is interesting to note though not enough have been spelled out on this
matter by the commentators- that the problems of the Dalits have been
located within the episteme of justice. The debate ranges from the overall
structural arrangement of the society’s political and economic life- which
sees the origination of the problem in the structural arrangement of the
society and hence its eventual emancipation coinciding with the desired
changes in these structural arrangements. To some the debate does not
stop only at the grand schema of structural arrangement, but also focuses
and gives prominence to the peculiar and the particular aspect of justice
which needs to be addressed ‘there’ taking into a context the lives and
experiences of these communities. As a result, apart from the larger
discourse of justice, the discourse of ‘social justice’ have thus, been
introduced to address those theoretically particular concerns. There is

thus, a dialectical relationship between that of the universal argument of
justice and the particular argument. The issues of universal just
arrangements cannot be satisfied without the aspect of social justice, nor
can the social justice aspect come into prominence and enjoy the visibility
and voice without the foregrounding of the universal justice principle.
However, the debate over justice and most particularly the universal have
focused upon the distributive aspect of justice and have made it its core
operative part, whereas the social justice aspect and argument in India
moves beyond the argument of just distributive justice. The development
as a core methodology to access the status of the human society,
therefore, embarks upon such aspect of distributive justice, and
particularly dependant upon only those formulations that are distributable,
and hence limited in scope as far as the issues of Dalits and the Adivasis
are concerned as they defy all parameters of distribution methodology. It
won’t be surprising that despite the large arrays of policies of the
Government of India relating to the Dalits and the Adivasis, which cannot
be termed as less than impressive, the conditions of these communities
show disturbing pictures of failed attempts, and raises an ever larger
question of how to tackle the situation. The policy makers, though
understand the distributive factors of the universal justice arguments and
incorporate it in the larger framework, they are hardly concerned,
indifferent, callous, or clueless as to the gamut of theoretical and policy
implied arguments the social justice debates have generated in India, and
most prominently from those who have suffered from it. The problem with
the policy makers in India is that they have either not been intellectually
genuine or have adopted the policy of cognitive blackout towards
Dalits/Adivasis by not taking into cognizance the voices concerns of these
categories. In fact, they could have raised the concerns and provide it the
legitimacy within the policy circles, which was the urgent necessity to
address the problems of these communities.
Concept of Social Justice
There is no single universally accepted definition of social justice. Social

justice, in fact, forms the core of the broad concept of justice. However,
there appears a broad consensus over the constituting principles of social
justice. It chiefly concerned about the construction of just society, equal
distribution of goods or resource to all sections of society, equality of
opportunity so on and so forth. This is evident from the ways various
thinkers and philosophers conceived the notion of justice. Plato
conceptualizes justice as ‘deserved treatment’ i.e., giving every individual
his/her due. Robert Nozick conceives it as ‘historical entitlement’ as an
important element of distributive justice where society is aware of its
wrongs and corrects them through compensation. John Rawls
conceptualizes justice as fairness. For Frankena justice is notion of
allotment of something to person, in other words distributive justice that
involves comparative allotment. For David Miller, it is the distributive
character of justice that is important. He further gives three different and
conflicting meanings and interpretations of justice as three principles of
justice i.e., to each according to his rights, to each according to his
deserts, and to each according to his needs. Although, it is difficult to
evolve universal definition of social justice, Frankena, therefore,
emphasizes need to ensure social justice practically. He argues that the
principle of equality may prima facie be the requirement of justice but
there can be departure from complete equality on the ground of
differences in ability, merit, desert and need. Frankena further emphasizes
that the judgment of social institutions as just or unjust presupposes that
it transcends human legislation and is binding on all societies (Jogdand et
al 2008).
Important Theories of Justice
The construction of a just social order or a society that is free of

exploitation, oppression and inequalities – social, economic and political
has been the primary goal of modern societies. The French Revolution has
greatly contributed the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity as basic
tenets constituting of just social order or society. Social science literature
offers numerous theoretical positions or perspectives on social justice and
equality (Rawls 1971, Dworkin 1977, Sandel 1982, Sen 2009). However, it
is observed that the prominent theoretical approaches to social justice
such as utilitarian and communitarian have their own limitations especially
in terms of socio-economic and political contexts, and structural realities
in different societies. Therefore, the conception of social justice,
distributive justice and equality appeared to be contested one in social
sciences. We would attempt to review a few of them in order to evolve
operational definition of social justice to assess social development
impact on SCs and STs in India in general and Maharashtra in particular.
The most debated of all is A Theory of Justice (1971) by Rawls. He

emphasises on the following:
Principle of Equal Liberty : each person has an equal right to the most
extensive liberties compatible with the similar liberties of all.
The Difference Principle : social and economic inequalities should be
arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged persons open to all under conditions of equality of
opportunity (Upendra 2008:29-30).
Rawls’ theory is considered as contractualist theory of justice as it applies

to institutions and practices. It is based on the notions of fairness and
reciprocity. Rawls believed that this theory of justice is an improvement
over utilitarian account of justice (Kumar 2008:105-6). In utilitarian
perspective, justice is driven by the happiness of the greatest numbers. It
overlooks individual gain or losses and instead looks at overall attainment
of justice only. Rawls’ conception treats society distributively, taking into
account the autonomy and right to satisfaction of each of its members
(Ibid). The communitarian thinkers, on the other hand, are not very
different. They too argue for only a social conception of justice assuming
that every individual interest is taken care of by the general conception of
justice. They are more concerned about the groups, communities and
culture (Upendra 2008:32-33).
Rawls and Dworkin are keen to address social inequality through

distribution of goods and resources. It is argued that a programme of
distribution ensures fair possessions to all sections of society with special
attention to those marginalized and deprived of resources on the basis of
caste or race. However, distributive measures alone can hardly restore
dignity and freedom to such marginalized groups (Mahadevan 2008:82).
Thinkers such as Habermas remarks, especially in such context that, “By
reducing justice to distributive justice, it misses the freedom-guaranteeing
meaning of legitimate rights… The idea of just society is connected with
the promise of emancipation and human dignity”. Thus, justice is not
merely about distribution of goods, but is about guaranteeing equal rights
and dignity to all persons under fair, non-exploitative circumstances
(Mahadevan 2008: 82-3).
Western thought which had been frequently referred including those of

Rawls, Nozick, Dworkin etc., deals with the universal principle of justice
and rights and foreground their ideas fundamentally on the nature of the
structure that will promote the idea of justice. Divergent though they are
yet are useful for the construction and our own formulations. Yet, these
debates, generated within the western theories particularly those of the
Rawlsian and the Dworkian tradition are restricted within the distributive
paradigm, distribution of mainly resources, income, deserts, rights,
entitlements, etc., and that too within the contexts of their societies.
Whereas, for Nozick, the issue of entitlement is the core of justice and
that nay arrangement that takes away a rightful entitlement in favour of
distribution only promotes injustice. Thus, both of these major theoretical
position, reflect a restricted view of justice, operative within the context of
those materially advanced societies in which the basic need have been
fulfilled, and the major concern for justice is just distribution or on the
other hand entitlement. They, do not even to an extent address the
concerns of underdeveloped, ethnically, and socially varied societies, and
the problems they throw in addressing their issues.
Amartya Sen in his The Idea of Justice (2009) argues for what is
described as the ‘capabilities’ conception of justice. Sen emphasizes for
alternative approaches to existing theories of justice and urges for a new
way of looking at justice. ‘Capabilities’ is mainly the critique of Rawls’
stress on primary goods. Sen insists that there is no such thing as
“perfect” justice; it is relative to a given situation. The quest for “ideal”
justice is meaningless; instead the stress should be on removing the more
manifest forms of injustice. For Sen, justice is ultimately connected with
the way people’s lives go, and not merely with the nature of institutions
surrounding them. In other words institutions must be seen as instruments
for promoting justice rather than manifestations of justice.
Indian Society and the Vision of Just Social Order
As we all know social order or system in India is characterized by social

stratification of high levels of graded inequalities. In fact, the graded
inequalities are operative at both the levels of philosophical justification
and actual operation (Ram 2002:2). “The Hindu social order, particularly
with its unique feature of caste system and untouchability is a system of
social, economic and religious governance” (Thorat 2002). Many of our
builders of modern India including M. K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, B. R.
Ambedkar, Peiyar, Jayprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia and many
others had envisioned a just social order in India. They had envisaged a
democratic socialist India free of social inequalities and economic
disparities. However, the nationalist discourse on caste and freedom of
certain sections from caste-based disabilities and their inclusion in
mainstream society is represented by three distinct perspectives, namely
nationalist perspective led by Gandhi, the socialist-communists led by
Socialists and Marxists and Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar. It

is, therefore, essential to critically review these perspectives in order to
understand their positions on social justice and development of
Scheduled Castes in India.
As already mentioned, in the nineteenth century many social reformers,

leaders and intellectuals have made a significant contribution to evolve
just society in India. The Indian National Congress in general and Gandhi
in particular recognized, though lately, the need for eradication of
untouchability and improvement of conditions of the untouchables or
Harijans. But Gandhi pinned down his deep faith to the sanctity of
Hinduism and did not find anything wrong in it. Untouchability for him was
undesirable appendage, therefore, not a threat to Hinduism. In his opinion,
if untouchables be reformed on the model of the Brahmanical Hinduism,
the practice of untouchability would automatically disappear and
Hinduism would remain intact (Parvathamma 1989:132-33). In fact,
Gandhi by all means wanted to prove that “Hinduism as tradition has the
capacity to be introspective and self-corrective especially towards such
deformities as untouchability and to build bridges across and establish the
shared space with similar other traditions such as Islam” (Rodrigues
1994:153). Nevertheless, as a leader working for a national goal, Gandhi
argued for removing injustices faced by ‘untouchables’ because he felt
the need to weave the divergent interests in India into a unified opposition
to the British: he argued for pursuing this course of reform without
challenging the social fabric of Indian society (Verma 1999).
Further, Gandhi’s social reformism and proposed development path were

to combine the village-oriented decentralized development and a
reformed Hindu spirituality. “His vision of “Ram Raj’ made him not simply a
Hindu but also an indirect spokesman for upper caste interest” (Omvedt
1994:340). According to Kothari, “There was something wrong with
Gandhi’s whole model of restructuring India of the future. Mere stress on
reviving village economy and decentralization of the state apparatus was
not enough. He failed to give attention to the social power structure that
pervaded it all” (Kothari 1997:451). Similarly, Jawaharlal Nehru, one time
disciple of Gandhi and a supposed architect of modern India had
envisioned, after Independence, for a “socialist pattern of society”
through the planned development. He chose mixed economy promoting
industrialization and rural development through the Five Year Plans, but
his socialism, without much concern for the restructuring of the traditional
domination and exploitation, could not produce the desired result. In fact,
Nehru’s model of Indian society had its specific Hindu character from the
beginning.
Lohia’s Socialism
Ram Manohar Lohia, another disciple of Gandhi, radically differed from

both Gandhi and Nehru. During the 1950s he came with his brand of
socialism which was an ideological break with both Gandhian reformism
and the Marxists’ mechanical focus on ‘class’ (Omvedt 1994:272). Against
Gandhi’s advice to the untouchables to launch active resistance against
caste oppression and to solve their problem within the framework of
Varna divisions, Lohia advocated for their militant struggles for the total
abolition of the caste system in alliance with liberal elements from the
upper castes ‘Shudras, Muslims, Adivasis and Women’ (Roy 1979:304).
He also formulated programmes for destroying caste through organizing
“studies, debates, seminars and all other types of meetings and
discussions… to purify religion and its practices —- by believing in and
practicing the intermarriage… (and) securing of sixty per cent of the
leadership posts in government, political parties, business and armed
services by law or by convention to the backward casts… (Roy1979:304).
It is, however, said that Lohia’s programme was basically a moderate one
as it did not challenge the class rule of minority and its monopoly over the
productive resources in the country. His approach was said to be based
on the faith that “Hinduism could be purged of caste hierarchy and
Brahmanism. In remaining within this framework, without a sharp critique
of the limits of religious reform and in context of focusing on reservations

as a general anti-caste programme,… The result was a general
preservation of the caste equation….transformed into interest groups and
vote banks (Omvedt 1994:276).
Communists in India: Fighting Caste Through Agrarian Revolution
Besides the nationalist and the socialist articulation of the Indian National
Congress for a just society to evolve in India, the undivided Communist
Party of India (CPI) founded in 1920 also envisioned to reconstruct the
existing Indian society with the help of the Marxist ideology. Its leaders
talked of socialism through the revolution or revolutionary means to form
an egalitarian society. Towards this end, they had series of programmes to
follow. Some of these are listed below:
They pledged for full protection of the rights of minorities

They believed in abolition of untouchability in all shapes and reforms
and also in the State aid to be provided to untouchables to improve
their cultural and social status. All discriminations against
untouchables were to be made a punishable offence.
To grant special aid to the Tribal Areas for the development of their
economic resources and to increase in the educational and medical
facilities for the people of these areas.
And to make provision for free and compulsory primary education to
all, and to increase the facilities for secondary, collegiate and
technical education at reasonable fees and with adequate pay for
teachers.
(For more detail, see Jacob (ed.), CPI Document – 1942 – 47, pp.224-26;
also see, Communist Party and problems of National Reconstruction,
1955).
In pursuing its programmes, the CPI claimed to link its struggle against
untouchability and caste system with agrarian revolution. It also claimed to
fight for the complete abolition of slavery, achieving absolute equality of

the working pariahs (Dalits) and all the toilers in the country. It waged its
struggle for guaranteeing the minimum economic living conditions, land
and employment towards eliminating domination of the old-feudal and
semi-feudal landlords as well as of the new rich (Ranadive1979). Further,
the common consciousness among the toiling masses was generated
through its economic struggle directed towards intervention against the
caste oppression. Its far reaching consequences were claimed to be
linked with the necessity of changing the contemporary social order
including land relations by putting socio-economic sole of the Hindu
religion and religion in general before the working class. In brief, the
struggle was said to be heading towards eliminating caste system and
ending domination of the monopolies and the imperialist exploitation. This
was possible through the democratic class struggle. The caste barriers
were to be broken in the course of the struggle aided by the anti-caste
propaganda and education of the peasantry (Ranadive 1979).
Ambedkar’s Critique of the Existing Perspective of his Time on Just

Social Order
This emerging alternative society was criticized by Ambedkar by saying

that Gandhi believed in caste and defended it with the vigour of the
orthodox (Ambedkar 1979:92). Ambedkar said that freedom of India from
British Imperialism was the only aim of the Congress (Ambedkar
1990:169). Gandhi did not want the untouchables to organize and be
strong for he feared that they might thereby become independent of the
Hindus and weaken the ranks of Hindu (Ambedkar 1990:266). Similarly, in
Ambedkar’s opinion an alternative model of the Indian society which the
Indian communists wanted to emerge was not different from that of the
Indian National Congress. According to Omvedt, the upper caste origins of
the Indian communists (a ‘bunch of Brahman boy’, in the words of
Ambedkar) made them unwilling to look at the forms of exploitation which
questioned their upper caste interests (Omvedt 1994:183). Ambedkar on
his own said, “We consider the communist goal of immediate revolution to
be unrealistic, not necessarily unjustified, we support their social and
economic objective, but not their political philosophy, they have done
nothing to educate the common people in their way of thinking. We think
the path of revolutionary communism to be counter-productive. That
cannot be said of the movement for establishing the rights of
untouchables. We do not favour violence as a means or strategy in our
movement” (quoted in Gore 1993:119). Thus, according to Omvedt, “the
communist movement in India originated as Brahmin dominated (in caste
terms), and it remained Brahman dominated; therefore, the process of
social transformation could not take place. As a result, when Ambedkar
reacted to Marxism, he reacted to it only as closed system which was at
crucial point not simply indifferent but in opposition to struggle of the
Dalits” (Omvedt 1994:184-85). Thus, the ideological trends and their
exponents as well as other forces were engage in evolving the alternate
models of society during the period mentioned above. These models were
not different in any way from the contemporary model of the society in
India. In fact, they helped maintain the same social order. This made
Ambedkar to envision a society or new social order, which we shall
discuss in following section.
Dalit-Bahujan vision of social justice and development
For Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar, self-respect, as argued

by Rodrigues was the central concern especially, in the context of caste-
based society where the greatest injury was done to the self-respect of
vast masses particularly to those lower down the hierarchy. Pursuit of self-
respect necessarily required transformation of beliefs and practices which
have hitherto treated masses with contempt and humiliation. Ambedkar
rightly believed and insisted on self-effort, destruction of institutions and
values that heaped abuse on backward classes in general, and
untouchable in particular, demanding that social life be based on
principles conducive to the appreciation of self-respect (Rodrigues
2006:48).
It is difficult to conceptualize the dispensation of social justice to the most

marginalised communities in Indian society without acknowledging the
most significant role played by Ambedkar (Kumar 2008:115). Ambedkar
has played different roles at different point in time of India’s history. He
has been considered a great visionary and therefore long back had
envisioned a social order or a society based on equality, fraternity,
compassion and individual freedom. This was an outcome of experiential
reality as he and his brethren have found total absence of these values in
Hinduism. In other words, consequently in the new social order envisioned
by him there had to be freedom of mind and thought, social equality, and a
sense of fellowship with other human beings or fraternity which were also
the ultimate goal of his movement (Gore 1993:208). Hailing from a socially
stigmatized community (Mahar), Ambedkar had to face all sorts of socio-
religious and caste discriminations. Yet, he strived throughout his life to
secure the rights of equality, fraternity, social justice and human dignity
for the depressed and poor masses, including the untouchables or
Scheduled Castes or the present day Dalits. In the process, he also
inspired millions of Dalits to restore for themselves a respectful place and
identity in the society. He also inspired them “to fight for the
establishment of just society in India and enjoy a dignified status in that”
(Ram 1995:49).
A scholar and intellectual Ambedkar tried to decode the Hindu social

order from his own perspective and highlighted its exploitative elements.
According to him, the Hindu social order is based on classes – castes and
sub castes and not on the individual’s worth (Ambedkar 1987:99). In this
order, the status and function of classes are pre-determined and fixed. It
has sustained for long for three reasons: the use of religious sanctions
making the order divinely ordained and; hence, not open to abrogation,
amendment or even criticism; the Brahmans have been made a superman
and, therefore, worthy of worship by the rest. The possibility of rebellion is
completely absent in it by denying access of knowledge in general and of

the sacred knowledge in particular to the rest (Ambedakr 1987: 124-7).
Eliciting Ambedkar’s conception of Justice, Guru argues that in

Ambedkar’s view the system of graded inequality was not notional but
legal and penal as a result the concept of justice in ancient society
contained no notion of equal treatment to all men. In other words, the
function of justice in such a society was to preserve the existing hierarchy,
serve to validate social stratification and perpetuate casteism (Guru
2002:41). Guru further states that untouchables during this period sought
equality only in relation to God (in the spiritual realm) and failed to attack
social inequality that subverted their material life. Ambedkar, as argued by
Guru, rejected this metaphysical concept of justice. Ambedkar, according
to him, believed that the Touchables lack social conscience. They are also
insensitive to the justice of Untouchables due to the heavy influence of
Hindu Dharma. The discriminatory nature of Hindu law made Ambedkar to
welcome the legal intervention by the British. He found it giving effect to
the concept of equality before law and having potential to declare
untouchability invalid. However, Ambedkar, as Guru argues , maintained
the view that legal justice at the formal or at theoretical level would be
ineffective at the practical level. For Ambedkar, the effectiveness of the
principle of equal justice necessarily depends on the nature and character
of the civil services who administer the said principle. Ambedkar opines
that the personnel in British government’s civil services are drawn from
those classes who believed in the old established order of the Hindus in
which the principles of equality had no place (Ibid.).
Later Ambedkar insisted for representation (political reservations) for

untouchables in proportion to their population which he believed would
enable untouchables to secure social justice on more equitable and
honourable terms. Thus, we see, as pointed out by Guru, the shift in
Ambedkar’s position. He further highlights that Ambedkar negated the
legal concept of justice on the ground that its implementation is in the
hands of upper castes. However, Ambedkar affirmed this kind of justice if

only implementation of legal justice is vested in the hands of
untouchables. According to Guru, Ambedkar’s concept of justice appears
to be embedded within the liberal framework and his idea of social justice
is tantamount to the concept of justice propounded by John Rawls. Rawls’
theory of distributive justice has ‘element of the difference’ principle;
while in Ambedkar’s it is the principle of special treatment. According to
Guru, both these principles of justice require a distribution of resources
that will most effectively satisfy the needs of the worst off. Distributive
justice, in Ambedkar’s case, involves prestige and honour along with
principle of equality, highlights Guru (Guru 2002:45-47).
Finally, Guru emphasises that Ambedkar’s concept of justice is not an

abstract or a static one. On the contrary, it is concrete and dynamic which
moves in a direction away from the limits inherent in the liberal notion of
social justice. According to him, Ambedkar was painfully aware that
despite adequate representation, untouchables would not be able to meet
out justice to their people as they will be operating under terrible
pressures and conditions of socio-economic insecurity dictated by
dominant forces in this country. Therefore, Ambedkar emphasized social
and economic justice as the pre-condition for redeeming political justice
(Ibid).
On the other hand, Verma argues that Ambedkar’s theory of distributive

justice has three components, (a) equality of opportunity for all citizens,
(b) critique of Hindu society based on an autonomous ideology, and (c)
establishment of casteless by removing oppression and domination. She
highlights that while Ambedkar found prescriptive uses of the concept of
equality in moral and political arrangements as quite useful; however, he
was aware of the treatment of inequality on the basis of caste and
tradition. Ambedkar, therefore, insisted on the right to take into account
the special claims of certain communities which had for centuries been
excluded from position of equality and respect (Verma 1999).
Being well aware of all pervasive inequalities in Indian social structure,

Ambedkar departed fundamentally from the individualist premise of the
equality principle and proposed two strategies: (1) A theory of rights as
legal entitlements casting obligations on the members of the society. The
untouchables had a set of rights and the state a duty to eradicate
discriminatory practices. Norms of non-discrimination apply not only to
government but also to civil society – corporations, schools, places of
worship, etc. The crucial point that Verma makes here is that Ambedkar
stresses the relational aspect of rights and these rights are put forward as
important elements or vital ingredients in a fully realized human life. The
core argument, therefore, is that members of the group suffer because
they are neither accorded the same respect nor afforded the same
opportunities as other persons or groups. They are prevented from
realising their capacities, in other words, they are not treated with full
respect and dignity. (2) The basic human needs of the Dalits were not only
material (wealth, occupational mobility) but non-material; all have the right
to be human and the right to live with dignity and self-respect. Verma
argues that although, Ambedkar stressed the need for reservation in
representative institutions, this was only to acquire equality in other
goods. According to Verma Ambedkar accepted the premise of equality
but advocated group-based politics to achieve that goal. The first is
constitutive and the second derivative. Ambedkar pleaded the case of
priority of community claims over individual rights on the grounds of (a)
deeply entrenched structural forms of oppression against the Dalits and
to counter this he raised the possibilities of political participation of Dalits
through reservations which would counter the dominant upper caste
perspective in legislature and ensure laws removing untouchability,
removing ban of use of public street, temples, schools etc. and, (b) The
reparation against historic systematic and cumulative injustice and
deprivation suffered by lower caste in the past (Ibid).
Verma argues that Ambedkar was aware of the conceptual incoherence

these justifications give rise to when applied to policy issues. She,
therefore, argued that this is derivative political position and Ambedkar

was to warn of the possibility of that these special claims might eat the
general rule of equality altogether. Ambedkar, therefore, argued that the
constitution should not only declare that we shall have specific rights that
every community will have, but the constitution should provide ways and
means by which we shall be protected in the exercise of these rights
(Ibid).
Epistemic Foregrounding of Social Justice and Development of Dalits

and Adivasis
The developmental discourse of the Dalits and the Tribes within the ambit
of the “Caste” framework as the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled
Tribes needs an epistemic foregrounding in the framework of
‘untouchability’ and ‘Adivasi’. The reason being that caste as a category,
though is the most visible and identifiable category does not in itself
explain the condition of the untouchable or the Adivasi, and hence can be
reproduced without the circumstantial and the lived experiences of both
the communities.
The epistemic understanding of untouchability need to be fore-grounded

on the axis which explains the praxis of the conditions material and
ideological which remains the source and the eventual produce of the
practice of untouchability. The amelioration of untouchability is therefore
contingent upon the removal of those conditions material and ideological
that gives rise to the birth of the practice of untouchability.
The developmental understanding with its focus upon the various

capacity building measures, only addresses the economic aspect of the
outcome of the economic policies garbed under the nomenclature of
social justice. The argument is misplaced by terming these policies also as
steps towards the removal of untouchability and the eventual
performance and fulfilment of social justice. One needs to understand
that the policies of development are not the policies of the removal of
untouchability but only address the developmental concerns that of

opportunity and access devoid of the removal of those structures that
perpetuate the lack of it and which block it.
The framing of the indices focusing upon the Dalits and the Adivasis,
therefore, cannot afford just to be at the developmental level but their
focus must be to ameliorate those conditions which give rise to
untouchability. The indicators thus, must move out of the conventional
developmental framework to cater to these needs of these special
communities.
The possibilities of distributive justice thus can be placed within these

theoretical understanding of the extent and reach of the distributive
process and its methodology- both of the liberal tradition of the west as
well as the different perspectives that have emerged within India. We,
therefore, have three referral points which generally have been the focus
area of the government since independence dealing with the Dalits and
the Adivasis. These are:
a. Developmental b. Protective and c. Preferential.
Developmental, Protective and Preferential status of SCs and STs in

Post-Independent India
After independence of India, the preamble of the Indian Constitution

solemnly resolved to provide all its citizens: justice – social, economic and
political; liberty of thought, expressions, belief, faith and worship; equality
of opportunity and status; and to promote among them all fraternity
assuring the dignity of individual and unity. The Constitution of India
further states that “The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, place and birth or any form”. In the
directive principles it adds that, “The state shall promote with special care
the educational and economic interest of the Scheduled Castes and
Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation” (Thorat 2002).
Following the constitutional guidelines, numerous measures have been

initiated by the government for the protection of these (SC/ST) social
groups. The nature of the measures is both protective and developmental.
Originally, the social welfare programmes of the government were
oriented mostly towards providing promotive, protective and curative
services. However, of late, the emphasis is more on preventive,
developmental and rehabilitative services and the successive Five Year
Plans have regarded the progress of these programmes as a major
objective of national social policy (Chahande 2001: 10). Government has
duly recognized deprivation and discrimination of SCs and STs and
developed specific anti-discriminatory programmes from time to time for
their development. The approach and strategy of the government in this
regards are influenced by two main considerations, namely (a) to
overcome the multiple deprivations of the SC/STs inherited from exclusion
in the past, and to bring them par with others, and (b) to provide
protection against exclusion and discrimination in the present by
encouraging their effective participation in socio-economic and political
processes in the country (Thorat 2009: 35).
In the ‘protective or preventive sphere’, untouchability was legally

abolished and was forbidden in practice in any form by the Anti-
Untouchability Act of 1955. After nearly two decades, in 1976, the 1955
Act was reviewed in order to make it more stringent and effective, and
thus the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (PCR Act) was enacted.
However, in 1989, the government enacted yet another Act, namely the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in
order to prevent atrocities against members of the SC/ST (Thorat 2002).
In the economic, educational and political spheres some of the provisions
have been made through reservation and representation to improve their
access and participation. The provision of political reservation in various
bodies, reservation in government services, admission to educational
institutions and several other areas are the promotional measures (Ibid).
In fact, the PCR Act prohibits and provides penalties for enforcement of
any religious disability in any religious place like a temple; social disability
in public place like shop/restaurants, hospitals, etc.; refusal to sell goods
or render services because of considerations of untouchability, and
demand of compulsory labour relating to untouchability; like scavenging,
sweeping, removal of carcasses, flaying animals, etc. It contains
provisions for all offenses to be cognizable, for minimum punishment and
summary trials. SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 is more stringent
than the PCR Act. It specifies the atrocities which are liable for penalties
under the Act. These include, forcing the eating of noxious substances,
dumping waste matter on land, denudation, wrongful occupation of land,
dispossession, bonded labour, intimidation during voting, mischievous
litigation, false information, public humiliation, outrage of modesty, sexual
exploitation, fouling of water sources, obstruction of entry to a public
resort, eviction from habitation, mischief with explosives, destruction of
building, and suppression of evidences. These offences carry heavier
penalties than similar offences under IPC (Mander 2002:158).
The SC/STs constitute about 81per cent of the bonded labourers in the
country. The government has programmes for their release/liberation and
rehabilitation. There are special programmes for the education, health and
housing needs of some occupational groups, such as sweepers, mining
workers and bidi workers.
Educational Programmes of Government
Educational development constitutes the major programme of the

government. The main educational problems of SC/STs include low
literacy rate, high drop-out at school and higher level (especially of girls),
poor quality of education and discrimination and exclusion during
admissions into educational institutions. Some of the measures in
educational programmes include (i) to improve educational infrastructure,
particularly in the areas predominantly by the SC/STs, (ii) admission into

educational institutions through reservation of seats and other measures,
(iii) financial support at various levels of education, including national and
international scholarships/fellowships, (iv) remedial coaching to improve
the quality of education and capabilities, (v) special hostels for girls and
boys, (vi) other schemes such as providing uniforms, book bank,
attendance allowance. In all the schemes special focus is on girls’
education (Thorat 2009).
Schemes for Civic Amenities
Government has taken proper care to improve access of SCs to civic

amenities like drinking water, housing, sanitation, electricity, road and
public distribution of food. The physical segregation and isolation of Dalit
and Adivasi settlements are often the causes of their being deprived of
these amenities (Ibid). Each state is eligible to get special assistance
under special central assistance (special component plan for the SC). In
Maharashtra it is Dalit Vasti Sudhar Yojana (Dalit Locality Improvement
Scheme) which was launched in 1974 to provide infrastructural facilities to
Dalits (Chahande 2001:19).
Economic Development
For the economic development of SCs there are three Finance

Corporations, namely Mahatma Phule Development Corporation, Leather
Industries Development Corporation and Annabhau Sathe Development
Corporation. Their main schemes include (i) margin money scheme, (ii) 15
per cent subsidy scheme and, (iii) training programme for self-
employment. Besides this, there is Special Component Plan (SCP) in place
since 1980 across sectors for the special development of SCs and Tribal
Sub-Plan (TSP) for STs (Ibid).
Gap between legal justice and social justice leading to social

exclusion of SC/STs in contemporary India
Despite the impressive range of protective, promotional and

developmental legislations and programmes, the caste system in India
with its unique institution of Untouchability legitimizes and enforces
practices that are discriminatory, humiliating and exploitative to its core. It
is characterised by not only exclusion, but also unfair inclusion;
exploitation and subordination. Some of the recent studies (Shah 2006,
Thaorat and Newman 2009) have brought forward exclusionary character
of caste system which involves, particularly for the low castes, a negation
of equality and freedom, and denial of basic human rights, which are
considered as a pre-condition for the enhancement of human capabilities
and entitlements to goods and resources (Thorat 2009:4). Shah,
specifically emphasize on three main dimensions of Untouchability –
namely exclusion, humiliation-subordination and exploitation (Shah, 2006:
21). Dalits for instance, are prohibited from sharing drinking water
sources, participating in collective religious worship, social ceremonies
and festivals, entering and using public places, transports etc. which is
direct exclusion of Dalits. However, Untouchability also involves force
‘inclusion’ in a subordinated role such as being compelled to play drums
at a religious events, besides performance of publically visible acts of
(self-) and subordination. Numerous other common instances include the
imposition of gestures of difference (such as taking of headgear, carrying
footwear in the hand, standing with bowed head, not wearing clean or
bright clothes, and so on) as well as everyday abuse and humiliation.
Moreover, Untouchability, as mentioned earlier, is almost always

associated with economic exploitation of various kinds and most
commonly through imposition of forced, unpaid (or underpaid) labour or
the confiscation of property. (Ibid. 21) Almost similar to this is the
observation made by Banerjee and Knight, regarding discrimination on
basis of caste, that untouchables are disproportionately represented in
poorly-paid dead-end jobs. (Thorat, UNQUIET WORDS: dalit voices and
vision, heinrich boll foundation: 37)
Most of these poorly-paid dead-end jobs are mainly the ‘filthy’, ‘unclean’
and ‘impure’ occupations imposed on Dalits in traditional caste hierarchy.
This notion is closely associated with deeply entrenched belief in the
minds of caste-Hindus about the ritual ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’. The
inferences for all this are drawn from Hindu religious scriptures and
shastras. The tasks assign to the members of Untouchable community are
considered polluting, and they generally include removal of dead bodies,
dead animals, skinning of dead animals (a source of livelihood for
untouchables), and last but not least is the removal and disposal of human
excreta. The Dalits are traditionally compelled to carry out these
humiliating tasks as these occupations are imposed on them as social
obligation. Moreover, the occupations are made out to be the only source
of their livelihood as the principle of hereditary occupation blocked Dalits’
entry into other dignified occupations. Thus there is institutionalization of
caste-based occupations that the Dalits are forced to perform along with
the stigma/pollution associated with their occupations, together
culminating in assigning them the lowest status in ritual and socio-
economic hierarchy.
Caste system: regulating social and economic life
The dominant role that caste and particularly the caste system with it
manifestation ‘utouchability’ play in India’s economy is proved by Barbara
Harris-White in her “India Working”. According to her, “Caste still shapes
ideologies of work and status… In particular, to be in ‘Scheduled Castes’
(SC) (the lowest castes, mainly untouchables and 29 per cent of the
population) makes a person twice as likely to be a casual labourer, in
agriculture and poor.” She further observed that, “In towns, all the work
connected with sanitation and public health infrastructure, without which
the economy cannot function, is entrusted to ‘Scheduled Castes’. Even
when employed with by the State, these workers face routine harassment
and contemptuous treatment.”(Harriss-White, 2004: 31) But in spite of
being capable and competent enough, the Dalits (SCs) do not get entry
into secular and dignified occupations or employment, especially when

they are traditionally associated with low caste occupation. Harriss-White
underlines from her study of market town in Tamil Nadu that, “Although in
the great majority of the firms, unskilled workers come from a mix castes,
10 to 15 per cent of firms still employ labour of their owners’ caste and a
majority take skilled labour from their owner’s caste or castes ranked
close to them. Counting-in family firms, about half the business are
single-caste. Low-tech, physically dirty and (still, for some) ritually
polluting work, without which the minimal public health infrastructure
could not be provide (sanitation, drains, solid waste and disposal of the
dead) and the economy could not function, is the safest preserve of
Scheduled Castes”. (Harriss-White, 2004: 182) it shows very clearly that
the processes of modernization, westernization and even globalization
have least impact on caste-based, kinship-based socio-economic ties in
Indian society. According to her, “the state regulation and the decades of
planned development have strengthened rather than weakened caste as
the basis for ‘different’ economic relationships.” She further states that,
“Caste membership still affords the trust necessary for informal or illegal
dealings, both within the formal sector and between the formal sector and
the State. It still provides the networks necessary for contracts, for sub-
contracting and for labour recruitment within the informal economy. In fact
modernization in the guise of liberalization makes these caste-based
relationships more important because it places a new premium on the
advancement of interests. In doing so it has revealed a deeply segmented
social structure in which caste is ultimately connected with all the other
organizations of civil society that comprehensively regulate economy and
social life.” (ibid. 178-79)
Atrocities Against Dalits: Long Journey to Eluding Justice
Atrocities and violence against the Dalits are often used by upper castes
as mechanism to keep them in their place (assign within caste hierarchy),
and to reinforce their caste superiority, social-ritual purity, domination and
privileges. Such atrocities take place in multiple contexts but two are most
important, one in Dalits’ defiance to remain oppressed/ subjugated or
dominated and two, in Dalits’ assertion for their basic human rights
enshrined in the Constitution of India and other legislations, programme
for their protections and upliftment.
According to the analysis of cases registered under the SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocity) Act from the annual reports of the Act for the years 1999-
2003 and tabled in the House by P.S. Krishnan (former Secretary,
Government of India), only 50 to 60 per cent of the cases reported to the
police lead to charge sheet. Only 8 to 21 per cent of the cases in which
charge sheets are filed go on to the trial stage. What is most shocking,
however, is that convictions are secured in only 11 to 13 per cent of the
cases that are tried. It is further observed that the percentage of
conviction is only 1 to 2 per cent when calculated against all cases that
reach court (‘Victims of bias’, Frontline, December 4, 2009:27-28).
Besides this, the victimized Dalits are subject to numerous covert and
overt discriminatory practices during the trial of cases in the courts, which
include humiliation in public places and denial of access to basic public
services. In other words they are subjected to social and economic
ostracism and which does not get registered anywhere. Such a situation is
not peculiar to one or two, but to most of the states.
Crimes Against SCs in Maharashtra
Maharashtra, the land of Mahatma Phule, Chhatrapati Shahu and

Ambedkar, is one of the most progressive states in India. The year 2010
was celebrated as golden jubilee year of formation of the state of
Maharashtra. The state that claims the revolutionary legacy of such social
reformers, who spearheaded social movements for equality and social
justice, is also not an exception to atrocities on Dalits. In fact, in last few
years, it has earned a dubious distinction of perpetuating the most brutal
atrocities on Dalits/SCs.
According to the national crime records bureau, an average of 35,500

cases of atrocity against Dalits were registered in the country annually
from 2006 to 2008. In 2008, 30,913 cases were registered in the country
and 1,172 of them were recorded in Maharashtra. Cases in the last five
years include the Khairlanji killings of 2006, the setting on fire of a
prosperous Dalit in Hingloli in 2008, and the parading naked of a 22-year-
old Dalit girl in Sewri (Mumbai) on June 17 2010. According to t he
affidavit filed by principle secretary of the Social Justice department,
Maharashtra government managed to secure only 26 convictions under
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
and 386 cases resulted in acquittals between January 2010 and October
2010. The affidavit further states that, in Mumbai alone, 35 cases are
pending investigation and 69 are pending trial under the ST/SC Act. A
total of 574 cases are pending investigation and 5,221 are yet to be tried.
Thus, it is the traditional social order that continues to govern the thought
process and day to day behaviour of the large majority of the Hindus
particularly in rural areas. The provisions and laws in the constitution are
secular and promote equality, liberty and fraternity. However, the
customary rules of caste system and the institution of untouchability are
based on the principles of inequalities encompassing socio-economic,
religio-cultural and civic/public spheres. This obliviously creates tension
and conflict between what is contained in the constitutions and what is
contained in traditional customary rules, norms and values of the caste
system and institution of untouchability (Thorat 2002:578). This is not all;
even the social, economic, administrative, and judicial arrangements are
heavily weighted against the Dalits with regards to the response of the law
and order machinery to atrocities against these social groups. This is
evident from both the National Commission for SC/STs and the National
Police Commission’s documents revealing recurring pathologies, which
include such as delays in reporting, refusing to register complaints,
delayed arrival on scene, half-hearted investigation, failure to cite relevant
provisions of the law, brutality in dealing with accused persons of the
weaker sections, soft treatment of accused persons from influential

sections, and failing to make arrest on consideration of modification. Poor
quality of prosecution, protracted pendency and procedural delays before
courts, and high percentage of acquittals are some other common
maladies documented by these bodies (Mander 2002:159)
What remain important particularly from the public policy perspective are
the two crucial aspects of inequalities which deserve attention, namely
‘inequality of opportunity’ and ‘inequality of outcome’. Centuries of caste-
based social organization have left a legacy of inequality in access to land,
education, business, ownership and occupation. These processes lead to
unequal access to productive resources and thereby lead to material
disadvantages. However, these caste-based inequalities do not simply
remain limited to inequality of opportunity. it has been often been evident
and argued that even highly qualified members of lower caste face social
and economic discrimination resulting in inequality of outcomes (Thorat
and Newman 2009, Desai and Dubey 2011)
Human Development Index: The Possible Ingredients
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary composite index that

measures a country’s average achievements in three basic aspects of
human development: health, knowledge, and income. The HDI was
created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the
ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic
growth alone. UNDP uses three indicators to construct HDI, namely life
expectancy at birth, adult literacy rates, and log of per capita real GDP
(Corrie 1995). However, in recent years, existing literature indicates fair
amount of scepticism about using human development or capabilities
approach to measure well-being. It stresses need to go beyond incom-
based measures (income, health and education) and argues for inter-
group as well as intra-group inequalities and disparities (Deshpande
2011:61-64).
It is therefore, argued that in the context of Dalits or SC/STs in India, the

human development index must be constructed from the perspective of
one of the most vulnerable citizens or social groups of India (Corrie 1995).
As a result the elements or ingredients that constitute HDI of
Dalit/Adivasis ought to go beyond the existing conventional indicators.
Another concern that needs to be highlighted is the fact that this sizable
population (Dalit/Adivasis) is not treated as ‘human’ itself, in other words,
the element of the ‘human’ is not recognized. Therefore, substantial
amount of the efforts of the policy makers have to go in to elevate them to
a level of ‘human’ in the eyes of others first, in other words, to establish
their ‘right to be human’ and then evolve possible indicators of their
development. Recent literature, in this regards throws some light on this,
for instance, the economists argue for the construction of Caste
Development Index (CDI) which include occupation, education,
landholding, assets (including consumer durables) and livestock
(Deshpande 2011). Similarly, in sociological literature, an attempt has been
made to evolve a ‘Human Distress Index’ (Kumar 2005) which include a
number of structural and cultural elements. It mainly focuses on multiple
exclusionary processes that Dalits have to undergo in their day to day life.
It argues that the effects of the atrocities on Dalits by caste Hindus are
qualitatively different from the general types of atrocities. For instance, a
rape against Dalit woman cannot be treated as just violation of women. In
fact, it is directed to settle the score with the male counterparts from
Dalits and to teach lesson to whole community. He therefore, argues that
the atrocities on Dalits have social structural basis of caste prejudice. As a
result the HDI for SC/STs should include the effects of this caste
prejudice, atrocities, their hazardous and unhygienic occupations (manual
scavenging) and practice of untouchability (Kumar 2005:529-30).
In the light of aforementioned discussion on social justice, developmental

programmes and development indices for SC/STs, there emerge three
broad areas or environments that crucially determine survival and
developmental outcomes of the SC/STs in our country (Corrie 1995).
These are:
1. Material Environment: (a) household income, (b) access to dignified

livelihood opportunities (presently majority suffer from what Amartya
Sen terms as ‘unfavourable inclusion’ referring to unequal treatment
or unacceptable agreement. Besides there is complete denial to
public/common property resources), (c) assets (such as land) and,
(d) claims against the state (equal opportunities and respect par with
other persons and groups to fully realize human life).
2. Physiological Environment: (a) nutrition, (b) health care, (c)
maternal health, (d) economic status, (e) water and sanitation. In this
context the emphasis should be on Dalit and Adivasi female literacy
which directly impact the physiological environment of their family
members and espcially their children. There is plethora of literature to
show how maternal health, nutritional status, educational levels, and
income levels crucially determine thier survival and developmental
outcome (Corrie 1995). Presently SC/STs face discrimination
especially in access to social goods (PDS) supplied by
government/public as well as by private institution in education,
health services, housing etc. They are subject to physical segregation
due to untouchability in case of SCs and isolated life in case of STs
besides; they find very little scope for occupational (upward) mobility
and end up in unclean or poorly-paid dead-end jobs/occupations
which greately affects their household income.
3. Social and Psychological Environment: (a) socio-political (b) civic
and cultural. In political sphere, the SC/STs face discrimination in
exercising their voting rights and in participation in the decision
making process. In case of STs, the source of exclusion is linked to
their ethnic identity and physical isolation. Adivasis have been
ethnically different from the mainland Indian population with their
distinct economy, language, culture and social organization. They
also suffer from what Amartya Sen calls the ‘constitutive relevance’
of exclusion, which arises because of their inability to relate to others
and take part in the life of the community and, thus, it can directly
impoverish them (Thorat 2009). Similarly, in case of Dalits, it is caste
idenity and untouchability that constantly structure thier social
environment. A recent study (Shah 2006) covering 565 villages in 11
states, reveals that untouchability continues to be widely prevalent
and is practiced in one form or other in almost 80 per cent of the
villages. It indicates that although more blatant and extreme forms of
untouchability appear to have declined, discrimination continues and
is most prevalent in the religious and personal spheres. The notion of
untouchability also continues to pervade the public sphere, including
a host of state institutions and the interactions that occur within
them. Assertion by Dalits and Adivasis for their right to live with
dignity and self-respect, unresolved land disputes relating to the
allotment and distribution of government land, conflict over legal
minimum wages and assertion by SC/STs to exercise thier
constitutional rights are some of the major reasons for atrocities and
voilance against Dalits and Adivasis.
The above mentioned three areas should form the key indicators for the
development indices of SC/STs in Maharashtra.
References
Ambedkar, B.R. 1979. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writing and

Speeches, Vol.1, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.
⸻⸻ 1987. Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches,
Vol.3, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.
⸻⸻ 1990. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writing and Speeches,
Vol.9, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.
Chahande Sanjay, 2001, “Programmes for Scheduled Castes in
Maharashtra: Facts and Perspective”, Artha Vijnana, Vol.XLIII, No. 1-2,
March-June
Corrie Bruce P., “A Human Development Index for the Dalit Child in
India”, Social Indicators Research, Vol.34, No.3, pp.395-409

Deshpande Ashwini, 2011, Grammar of Caste: Economic
Discrimination in Contemporary India, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi.
Desai Sonalde and Dubey Amaresh, 2011, “Caste in 21 st Century
India: Competing Narratives”, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol.XLVI, No.11, pp. 40-49.
Gore, M.S. 1993. The Social Context of an Ideology: Ambedkar’s
Political and Social Thought, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Guru Gopal, 2002, “Ambedkar’s Idea of Social Justice” in Shah
Ghanshyam (Ed.), Dalits and the State, Concept Publishing Company,
New Delhi
Harriss-White, Barbara. (2004)- India Working: Essays on Society
and Economy, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi.
Jacob, T.G. (ed.) 1988. National Question in India, CPI Documents
1942-47, Odyssey Press, New Delhi.
Jogdand P. G, Bansode Prashant, Meshram N. G., (Ed.), 2008,
Globalization and Social Justice: Perspctive, Challenges and Praxis,
Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Kothari Rajni 1997, “Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on
Caste” in Partha Chatterjee (Ed.), State and Politics in India, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
⸻⸺, 1994. Rise of the Dalits and the Revewed Debate on
Caste, Economic and Political Weekly, June 25.
Krishnan P. S, (2009) “Wall in Minds”, Frontline, Vol. 26, Number 24,
November 21- December 4, Pgs. 25-28
Kumar Vivek, 2008, “Babasaheb Ambedkar: Conceptualization and
Operationalization of Social Justice” in Jogdand P. G, Bansode
Prashant, Meshram N. G. (Ed.), Globalization and Social Justice:
Perspctive, Challenges and Praxis, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
⸻⸺-, 2005, “Situating Dalits in Indian Sociology”, Sociological
Bulletin, 54 (3), September-December, pp. 514-532.
Mander Harsh, 2002, “Status of Dalits and Agenda for State

Intervention” in Shah Ghanshyam (Ed.), Dalits and the State, Concept
Publications Company, New Delhi.
Mahadevan Kanchana, 2008, “Distributive Justice and Community:
Liberal, Communitarian and Ambedkarian Perspective” in Jogdand P.
G, Bansode Prashant, Meshram N. G. (Ed.), Globalization and Social
Justice: Perspctive, Challenges and Praxis, Rawat Publications,
Jaipur.
Omvedt, Gail (1994). Dalits and the Democratic Revolution: Dr.
Ambedkar and the Dalit Movement in Colonial India, Sage
Publications, New Delhi.
⸻⸺– 1994. Dalit Visions, Tracts for the Times/8, Orient
Longman, New Delhi.
⸻⸺–2004. Ambedkar: Towards and Enlightened India, Viking
Penguin, New Delhi.
Namboodiripad, E.M.S. (1986), A history of Indian Freedom Struggle,
Social Scientist Press, Trivandrum.
⸻⸻—, 1979, “Caste conflict Vs. Growing Unity of Democratic
Forces”, Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, 1979.
Ram, Nandu.1995. Beyond Ambedkar: Essays on Dalits in India, Har-
Annad Publications, New Delhi.
⸻⸺- 2002, “Abstraction to Substantiation: Ambedkar’s
Thought on Justice and Social Equality in Comparative Perspective”,
Ambedkar Journal of Social Development and Justice, Vol.X, Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar National Institute of Social Sciences, Mhow,
MP.
Ramaiah A., 2007, Laws for Dalit Rights and Dignity, Rawat
Publications, Jaipur.
Ranadive, B.T. 1985. Selected Writings: Vol.I., On Left Adventurism,
National Book Centre, New Delhi.
Randive, B.T. 1979. “Caste, class and Property Relations”,Economic
and Political Weekly, Annual Number, 1979.
Rodrigues, Valerian. 1994. Between Tradition and Modernity: The

Gandhi-Ambedkar Debate”, in Narain, A.k. Dhir, D.C. (ed.), Dr.
Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change, B.R. Publishing, New Delhi.
⸻⸻—-, 2006, “Dalit-Bahujan Discourse in Modern India” in
Mehta V. R. And Pantham (Ed.), Political Ideas in Modern India:
Thematic Explorations, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Roy, Ajit.1979, “Caste and Class: An Interlinked View”, Economic and
Political Weekly, Annual Number, 1979.
Shah G, Harsh Mandar, Thorat S, Deshpande S, Baviskar A, (2006)-
Untouchability in Rural India, Sage Publications, New Delhi
Thomas, (Ed.), Political Ideas in Modern India: Thematic Explorations,
Volume X Part 7, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Thorat Sukhadeo and Newman Katherine 2009 (Ed.), Blocked by
Caste: Economic Discrimination in Modern India, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.
Thorat Sukhadeo, Omvedt Gail and Macwan Martin, 2009, Social
Justice Philanthropy: Approaches and Strategies of Funding
Organizations, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Thorarat S. K (2004) – ‘Caste, Exclusion and Poverty’, in “UNQUIET
WORLDS: dalit voices and vision”, heinrich boll foundation, New Delhi
⸻⸻, (2007) “Paying the Social Debt”, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol XLI No 24, June 17-23, Pgs. 2432-2435
⸻⸺–, 2002, “Oppression and Denial: Dalit Discrimination in the
1990s”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.XXXVII, No. 06, pp.572-
578
Upendra C., 2008, “The Simple-Conplex Debate in Theorizing Social
Justice” in Jogdand P. G, Bansode Prashant, Meshram N. G. (Ed.),
Globalization and Social Justice: Perspctive, Challenges and Praxis,
Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Have you like this article?

Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra - TICI Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra - TICI Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra | TICI Journal 02/07/22, 8:07 PM

Social Justice And Social

IJDTSA Vol.2, Issue 1, No.1 pp.1 to 23, June,

This paper attempts to provide operational definition of social justice by

Dr.Shaileshkumar Darokar is Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of

With a vision to maximise justice in the process of development, it has

As we progress in time as a nation and within such a milieu, the

Rationale for Development Indices for SC/STs

Any exercise to identify and construct the developmental indices of the

conceptualization of their situation at the first place and second to

introduced to address those theoretically particular concerns. There is

Concept of Social Justice

There is no single universally accepted definition of social justice. Social

Important Theories of Justice

The construction of a just social order or a society that is free of

The most debated of all is A Theory of Justice (1971) by Rawls. He

Rawls’ theory is considered as contractualist theory of justice as it applies

Rawls and Dworkin are keen to address social inequality through

Western thought which had been frequently referred including those of

Indian Society and the Vision of Just Social Order

As we all know social order or system in India is characterized by social

Socialists and Marxists and Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar. It

As already mentioned, in the nineteenth century many social reformers,

Further, Gandhi’s social reformism and proposed development path were

Ram Manohar Lohia, another disciple of Gandhi, radically differed from

of the limits of religious reform and in context of focusing on reservations

Communists in India: Fighting Caste Through Agrarian Revolution

They pledged for full protection of the rights of minorities

fight for the complete abolition of slavery, achieving absolute equality of

Ambedkar’s Critique of the Existing Perspective of his Time on Just

This emerging alternative society was criticized by Ambedkar by saying

Dalit-Bahujan vision of social justice and development

For Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar, self-respect, as argued

It is difficult to conceptualize the dispensation of social justice to the most

A scholar and intellectual Ambedkar tried to decode the Hindu social

completely absent in it by denying access of knowledge in general and of

Eliciting Ambedkar’s conception of Justice, Guru argues that in

Later Ambedkar insisted for representation (political reservations) for

hands of upper castes. However, Ambedkar affirmed this kind of justice if

Finally, Guru emphasises that Ambedkar’s concept of justice is not an

On the other hand, Verma argues that Ambedkar’s theory of distributive

Being well aware of all pervasive inequalities in Indian social structure,

Verma argues that Ambedkar was aware of the conceptual incoherence

therefore, argued that this is derivative political position and Ambedkar

Epistemic Foregrounding of Social Justice and Development of Dalits

The epistemic understanding of untouchability need to be fore-grounded

The developmental understanding with its focus upon the various

untouchability but only address the developmental concerns that of

The possibilities of distributive justice thus can be placed within these

a. Developmental b. Protective and c. Preferential.

Developmental, Protective and Preferential status of SCs and STs in

After independence of India, the preamble of the Indian Constitution

exploitation” (Thorat 2002).

Following the constitutional guidelines, numerous measures have been

In the ‘protective or preventive sphere’, untouchability was legally

Educational Programmes of Government

Educational development constitutes the major programme of the

particularly in the areas predominantly by the SC/STs, (ii) admission into

Schemes for Civic Amenities

Government has taken proper care to improve access of SCs to civic

For the economic development of SCs there are three Finance

Gap between legal justice and social justice leading to social