Introduction

The book is directed to comprehend the roles of two dissenters in two different parts of the world who felt that these well-established customary practices for segmenting humanity are devised for sustaining the privileges of those with power and authority at the cost of the rest. In the US, Malcolm X (1925–1965) was a powerful voice against such discriminatory practices nurtured by the supremacists against the African-Americans who were brought to the US as slaves to work for white agriculturists. One of the first signs of Malcolm’s protest against slavery was to abdicate his surname Little, because as per the widely accepted practice, African slaves were given the surname of their owners, which he declined; hence, he added an X as his surname. This was a unique form of protest which is also a comment on his determination to pursue a mission against socio-cultural discriminatory practices being protected by developing appropriate politico-ideological designs. His Indian counterpart is B. R. Ambedkar, a Dalit by birth, who rose to prominence by his involvement in the making of India’s democratic constitution in 1949. Like Malcolm, he challenged socio-culturally discriminatory practices from when he was a student in a secondary school. Of course, he did not openly oppose them when he was humiliated because of his lower-caste origin; however, he mentioned later that many of his ideas which flourished over the course of time had their roots in manifold exploitative designs he confronted when he was pursuing his studies in the school. He was not allowed to have drinking water from the well which was earmarked for the upper castes, just like the Afro-Americans were not allowed to sit in the area of the bus designated for white passengers. Gandhi (1869–1948) had this experience in South Africa and the famous Maritzburg incident when he was thrown out of a first-class railway compartment, despite having the requisite ticket, to accommodate a white passenger, which charted a definite course of action for the Mahatma against the racist South African regime. Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) had also narrated the nature of exploitation in his famous dance-drama, Chandalika (1938) which told the story of a Dalit girl, Prakriti, who was denied drinking water from the well which was meant for the upper castes. When a Buddhist monk accepted water from her, she realized that discrimination practised by her Hindu neighbours was peculiar to Hindus, but not universal. To many in this world, Ananda, the Buddhist monk, was an example of humanism which was seldom witnessed by a Chandal or untouchable girl. B. R. Ambedkar was also subject to many such humiliating experiences. When he joined an office in Baroda after his return from the West with two doctoral degrees – one from Columbia University in the US and another from London School of Economics in the UK – he was maltreated even by his subordinates. Given his caste background, his peon who belonged to the upper caste was reported to have thrown the files aside because the mere touch of a Dalit was tantamount to being polluted. The idea of pollution appears to be a Hindu concept. As the available evidence demonstrates, the Hindus also maintained a safe distance from their Muslim neighbours in colonial Bengal, which accounted for their alienation from the Muslims. This was politically utilized by M. A. Jinnah (1876–1948) to bolster his campaign for a separate sovereign Muslim state which became a reality with the emergence of Pakistan after the partition of India in 1947. So, the apprehension of being polluted was a universal problem as far as Hindus were concerned. B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956), by being a Dalit, also confronted these difficulties throughout his public life. 1 His conversion to Buddhism towards the end of his life represented a critique of Hindu orthodoxy. Ambedkar’s rejection of Hinduism was grounded in his recognition of the Brahminical supremacy that lay at its core. He was at pains to convey to the world that Hinduism was no neutral doctrine – it was inflected through and through with power, specifically Brahminical hegemony and Dalit suffering. Similarly, Malcolm X’s repudiation of Christianity was similarly constituted as he too realized that Christianity, as a project, was coextensive with white supremacy and the degradation of the figure of the black African.