Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability.pdf

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rers20
Ethnic and Racial Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20
Moving untouched: B. R. Ambedkar and the
racialization of untouchability
Jesús F. Cháirez-Garza
To cite this article: Jesús F. Cháirez-Garza (2021): Moving untouched: B. R. Ambedkar and the
racialization of untouchability, Ethnic and Racial Studies, DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2021.1924393
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.1924393
Published online: 17 May 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Moving untouched: B. R. Ambedkar and the
racialization of untouchability
Jesús F. Cháirez-Garza
History Department, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses the complex nature of untouchability by examining its
connections to space and racialization in Ambedkar’s political writings,
including his experiences of using movement through space as a counter-
hegemonic strategy. For Ambedkar, untouchability rested on a perpetual
threat of violence which pushed Dalits to “self-racialize” or adopt bodily
markers which gave away their caste status in specific places. This permitted
the organization of caste hierarchies in space and its constant reproduction
through time. Ambedkar became aware that places like the village facilitated
the racialization of certain bodies as touchable or untouchable. Yet, the
connections between space and racialization were not fixed. Ambedkar’s
memories of untouchability were linked to “in-between spaces”, such as train
stations or hotels, where the racialization of Dalits could not be assumed a
priori. Such spatial indeterminacy allowed Ambedkar to challenge the
behaviour Dalits were supposed to conform to in dominant caste spaces.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 September 2020; Accepted 15 April 2021
KEYWORDS Racialization; untouchability; Ambedkar; caste; race; Dalit
Untouchability in India has been widely understood as the practice of exclud-
ing, from social or religious life, people who are believed to be permanently
impure. Yet, this perspective fails to grasp how untouchability is played
through different bodies and diverse spaces at specific historical contexts.
This view often results in an anachronistic portrayal of untouchability as a
pan-Indian millenary and mostly religious phenomenon.1
This paper analyses
the complex nature of untouchability by examining its connections to space
and racialization in Ambedkar’s political writings and autobiographical notes,
including his own experiences and political program of using movement
through space as a counter-hegemonic strategy. Here, I follow Malini Ranga-
nathan’s definition of racialization as “a continuous process of ascription
whereby humans are grouped (and self-grouped) according to assigned qual-
ities that are assumed to be natural, but are in fact deeply shaped by the
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Jesús F. Cháirez-Garza jesus.chairez-garza@manchester.ac.uk
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.1924393

unequal distribution of power, resources and knowledge” (Ranaganathan
Forthcoming). For Ambedkar, untouchability rested on a perpetual threat
of violence against Dalits which pushed this group to “self-racialize” or
adopt bodily markers which gave away their caste status in specific places
(Baber 2010; Gorringe and Rafanell 2007; Ramdas 2018; Viswanath 2014).2
This permitted the organization of caste hierarchies in space and its constant
reproduction through time. By analysing the relationship between untouch-
ability and the spaces associated with it, Ambedkar became aware that places
like the village facilitated the racialization of certain bodies as touchable or
untouchable.3
However, Ambedkar’s writings about his experience with
untouchability show the connections between space and racialization were
not always stable or fixed. Rather, Ambedkar’s memories of untouchability
were linked to “in-between spaces”, such as train stations or hotels, where
the racialization of Dalits could not be assumed a priori. Such spatial indeter-
minacy allowed Ambedkar to challenge the behaviour Dalits were supposed
to conform to in dominant caste spaces where they were expected to self-
racialize as untouchables. Similarly, the link Ambedkar made between
untouchability and “in-between spaces” allowed him to reimagine such prac-
tice not only as a ritual or religious problem but as a method to exclude
untouchables from specific places associated with power.
The paper has three main sections. First, I look at the importance of
analysing untouchability through a spatial lens. Here, I start with one of
the first instances in which Ambedkar discusses the connection
between untouchability, space and racialization. I follow this with a dis-
cussion of the work of Gopal Guru and his theorization of caste, space
and experience. The second section looks into Ambedkar’s writings
about the link between space, racialization and the threat of violence.
Here, I use the findings made by the Starte Committee on the issue of
untouchability as a thread linking the views that Ambedkar develops
around the question of space and untouchability after the 1930s. In
these writings, the role of the racialization of Dalit bodies is prominent
as Ambedkar aimed to explain the features of untouchability to a
foreign audience. In the third section, I analyse briefly some of Ambed-
kar’s memoirs in which he describes his encounters with untouchability.
I particularly focus on Ambedkar’s experience as a child as they show
his awakening to untouchability as a system of oppression. Such mem-
ories dramatically challenged dominant narratives of space and caste by
locating the fight against untouchability beyond religion and into the
politics of space. I suggest that Ambedkar’s re-imagination of untouch-
ability through space is linked to the notion of movement as a method
to recognize untouchability as oppressive. That is, leaving
specific spaces organized by caste hierarchies, allows the possibility of
change.
2 J. F. CHÁIREZ-GARZA

Untouchability, racialization and space
In 1930, the Bombay Presidency published the Report of the Depressed
Classes and Aboriginal Tribes (Starte) Committee. This report was the result
of almost two years of work in which different British and Indian politicians
had toured the presidency to inquiry about the social and political state of
Dalits and Adivasis.4
While the Committee was a multifarious set of individ-
uals which included colonial penologists such as the Chairman O. H. B
Starte, and romantic nationalist social workers such as A. V. Thakkar, the
report bares a strong imprint of the ideas of a young B. R. Ambedkar.
Today, Ambedkar is considered one of the most prominent thinkers of twen-
tieth-century India. In recent years, his ideas about democracy, equality and
caste have received a lot of scholarly attention as an alternative to rethink
India’s political past and present.5
Yet, Ambedkar’s view on the interconnec-
tion between untouchability and space has been largely ignored. This is quite
surprising as, and we shall this see later on, Ambedkar’s writings about
untouchability are filled with references about how the control of space
and the identification of specific bodies within such spaces is vital for the
endurance of the discriminatory practice of untouchability. Therefore, this
paper explores Ambedkar’s analysis of the relationship between untouchabil-
ity, space and the racialization of Dalit bodies. Indeed, the aforementioned
“Starte Committee Report”, already reflected some of Ambedkar’s views on
space as he regarded isolation as the main problem in the lives of Dalits:
Notwithstanding the fact that it observes the religious rites prevalent in the
Hindu Community, and recognizes the sacred as well as the secular laws of
the Hindus, and celebrates the Hindu festivities, yet as a mere touch of the
Depressed Classes is held to cause pollution, which the orthodox Hindus are
taught in the name of religion to avoid as sin, the Depressed Classes are
obliged to live in a state of isolation from the rest of the Community. (Starte
et al. 1930, 3)
The Committee found that isolation was the key element in the supposed
backwardness of Dalits as it prevented “social osmosis” in Indian society. Such
term shows the imprint of Ambedkar as he had been using the concept
“social osmosis” or “endosmosis” since his first public appearance as a Dalit
representative in the Southborough (Franchise) Committee of 1919, after bor-
rowing it from his Columbia University mentor John Dewey.6
Similarly, it was
considered isolation “had developed in such a manner that it [had] educated
the Hindus to become masters and the Depressed Classes to become servile”
(Starte et al. 1930, 3). Finally, the report established the “vast difference
between the cultural development of the Depressed Classes and the other
Hindus is largely to be explained by this isolation” (Starte et al. 1930, 3).
The use of the concept of isolation in regard to Dalits in the Report was
peculiar. In the Committee’s analysis of the role of the Depressed Classes in
ETHNIC AND RACIAL STUDIES 3

the village economy, rather than isolated, Dalits were presented as an essen-
tial force of labour linked to the rest of village society. Instead of staying away
and isolated from villages altogether, Dalits were expected to perform a
number of essential duties raging from serving as peons, messengers, watch-
men, cleaners and even midwifes. The supposed isolation of Dalits even con-
trasted to that of Adivasis as described in the report.7
The Starte Committee
noted that while “the problem of the Aboriginal and Hill Tribes is not essen-
tially different from that of the Depressed Classes”, Dalits were fighting for
social and political opportunities which were often denied to them. On the
other hand, “in the case of the Aboriginal Tribes the problem [was] due to
geographical difficulties combined with the lack of desire to avail themselves
of such opportunities” (Starte et al. 1930, 5). In other words, in the report,
when it came to Dalits the concept of isolation did not stand for the lack
of interaction of this group with the rest of the community or their physical
absence within particular geographies. Rather, isolation stood for the exclu-
sion and control of Dalits bodies from particular spaces associated with
power. The key to enforce such exclusion and control was the racialization
and “casteization” of Dalit bodies, this was possible only through a constant
threat of violence. Later in the paper, we will return to the Starte Committee’s
views on violence but before that a few clarifications are in order.
One of the most interesting takes about untouchability and space is the
one put forward by Gopal Guru.8
Taking a cue from the work of Lefebvre,
Guru understands space as socially constructed and intrinsically related to
the experience of subjects.9
Guru’s understanding of space and experience
rest on two main tenets. First, for Guru, the “production of experiences
hinges on the reproduction of spaces” (Guru and Sarukkai 2012, 72). Such
spaces may be ordered along different lines such as colonial, racial, caste,
gender, economic or discursive, and they often produce fragmentary forms
of experience. In other words, the experience of a given subject depends
on their position in a dominant order of space. So in a space organized
along colonial lines, the colonizer’s experience would be quite different
from that of the colonial subject. Similarly, in spaces organized by hierarchies
of caste, the experience of a Brahmin will differ from that of a Dalit.
Second, Guru also claims that “ideological restructuring of spaces leads to
the stability and continuation of experience in different forms” (Guru and Sar-
ukkai 2012). For him, spaces organized by a dominant order exist through the
experience of the subjects within it. Due to his interest in the questions of
untouchability and humiliation, Guru understands the relationship between
space and experience as a binary inhabited by a tormentor and a victim.
While the tormentor might dominate a specific space, his/her experience
would not be complete without the supporting experience of the victim
and his/her relationship with a dominant space. Space is reconfigured by tor-
mentors to establish their central position as a way to produce violent and

paralysing experiences to victims. Such production of space and experiences
regulates victims and place them within the symbolic universe of the tormen-
tor. Thus, in a space ordered by caste, violence or the mere possibility of vio-
lence keeps Dalit subjects in place, both as servile collaborators and inferior
beings. In other words, violence and the threat of violence provokes the
identifications and self-racialization of Dalits as untouchables.
Guru’s understanding allows for the challenge and re-organization of
dominant spaces by victims. In his view, the victim, who is born into the
experience of untouchability,
seeks to reconfigure spaces with the purpose of divesting him or her off the tor-
menting or humiliating meaning that, as part of the hegemonic politics of the
dominant, gets blamed on with the victim. The victim is motivated to restruc-
ture and rearrange the space in favour of egalitarianism. (Guru and Sarukkai
2012, 73)
According to Guru, victims use motivating categories such as dignity, self-
respect, freedom, social justice and equality in order to transcend their servile
identity in dominant spaces.
I accept most of Guru’s theorization of space, experience and untouchabil-
ity, but I do so with three caveats. First, I struggle to accept Guru’s claim Dalits
are inclined to develop a notion of self-respect just by being born into the
experience of exclusion. This is an interesting but problematic proposition
that needs further consideration. Being born into a dominant space of exclu-
sion, more often than not, leads to the (unwilling) acceptance of the experi-
ences and practices sustaining and organizing spaces associated with
power.10
The continuous existence and reproduction of caste, racial or
gender discrimination rest on what seems to be the immutability of the
status quo where injustice and exclusion are prevalent or a part of the
“habitus” (Bourdieu 1994; Berreman 1991). In order for notions of resistance
and self-respect to emerge within the Dalit community, or in any other
group, first exclusion needs to be recognized as oppression.
Second, my analysis of Guru’s argument does not pretend to define what
the experience of untouchability is. My intention is to historicize how
untouchability became associated with notions of racialization and space,
and how such association has changed through time. As Stuart Hall has
noted in a different context, to assume that shared identities of resistance
such as Black-British, African-American or, in this case, Dalit, are an automatic
result of policies and methods of exclusion erases the history and organiz-
ation of subaltern groups that came together to fight a system of oppression
(Hall 1999). It replicates the dominant narrative of space by placing all the
non-dominant groups into the single category of the “Other”, in this case,
the untouchable. To see Ambedkar’s challenges against untouchability as a
result of being a victim at the hands of the upper castes, as per Guru, is to

accept, to some extent, the ordering of dominant caste spaces through the
binary of purity and impurity. Rather, the proposal here is that the Dalit iden-
tity is a learned concept aiming to bring together a heterogeneous group of
people with different experiences of exclusion and discrimination under a
single national political category. It has a specific history which differs
greatly from other narratives of untouchability that were often in conflict
with the concept of Dalit, such as the benevolent bhakti saint, the regional
caste groups of Chamar or Mahar, or Gandhi’s nationalist version of the
“harijan”. Instead of trying to “counter-sterilize” dominant caste spaces,
Ambedkar emphasized the recognition of such spaces as part of a system
of oppression in order to change them but also to create a common identity
of emancipation, the Dalit.
Third, I would like to complement Guru’s understanding of space, caste
and experience by adding the element of movement. I argue that in Ambed-
kar’s writings movement and travelling could cause reflective thought in the
lives of individuals as well as a crisis in the notions and practice of caste and
untouchability. As I have noted elsewhere, Ambedkar wrote in Annihilation of
Caste:
Railway journeys and foreign travels are really occasions of crisis in the life of a
Hindu and it is natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain
Caste at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. (Ambedkar [1936] 2014, 73)
Thus, Ambedkar associated the idea of movement with the possibility of lib-
eration and with the unsettlement of one’s own status.11
Of course, I am not suggesting that movement through space is an infall-
ible method for caste liberation. As Ambedkar’s experiences will show,
moving without being identified was not easy to achieve as the custodians
of the status quo in systems built around hierarchical structures of power
(caste, race, gender, etc.) are everywhere. As Rupa Viswanath and Laura
Bear have shown, despite their supposed capacity to “modernize” and
promote social interaction in Indian society, the construction of “casteless
spaces”, such as missionary schools or a railway system did very little in
such respect.12
Rather, the construction of such spaces was fought every
step of the way by conservative forces, with the help of the colonial govern-
ment, who eventually imposed caste hierarchies and practices within such
spaces. Yet, movement is such a significant element in all of Ambedkar’s
experiences with untouchability it deserves to be analysed.
The concept of movement has been used as a common trope to illus-
trate self-awareness and the beginning to a path of liberation numerous
times, in India and elsewhere. For instance, African-American scholarship
on the experience of “passing” is full of instances in which the movement
to a new place opens up opportunities to access previously denied privi-
leges, whether it is travelling in a first–class carriage, getting service in a

restaurant or being accepted in a university among many others (although
this always comes with a certain risk) (Hobbs 2014; Jacoby 2016). Other
important examples in which the notion of movement and liberation are
present include the nationalist biographies of Indian leaders such as
Gandhi and Nehru. After travelling beyond the confines of a space orga-
nized by caste and being racialized as inferior beings, both Gandhi and
Nehru became aware of their condition as colonized subjects and fought
against it.13
In his memoirs, Ambedkar also used the motif of movement and travelling
to signal the moment when he became aware of his status as an untouchable.
Indeed, almost all of his recollections of untouchability begin after a train
journey in which Ambedkar had to decide whether or not to conform to
the guidelines of a dominant space ordered by caste. By delaying an auto-
matic racialization of bodies as untouchables, movement and travelling
could cause reflective thought in the lives of individuals as well as a crisis
in the notions and practice of caste. Untouchability could be challenged
and conquered by moving outside of the spatial constraints of a dominant
caste-space in which the racialization of Dalit bodies was harder to
implement. For this very reason, Ambedkar believed urban geographies
could offer an escape from the strict observation of untouchability
(Cháirez-Garza 2014). Ambedkar encouraged Dalits to abandon villages in
favour of cities in a variety of his writings, including the Starte Committee.
More than an argument against rural life or an absolute defense of modernity,
Ambedkar’s ideas explored the relationship between space, racialization and
untouchability.
Racialization of Dalits through time
The findings made by the Starte Committee suggested the key problem in
the life of Dalits was their exclusion from particular places associated with
power. Such exclusion could only be enforced by their racialization in
space, sustained by a constant and open threat of violence. The Committee
noted one of the major impediments for Dalits to take a stand for their
rights was retaliation and “fear of open violence against them by the ortho-
dox classes … who are bent on protecting their interests and dignity from
any supposed invasion by the Depressed Classes at any cost”.14
Open vio-
lence was not the only weapon available to keep Dalits in line, a “social
boycott” was also enforced:
We have heard of numerous instances where the orthodox classes have
used their economic power as a weapon against those Depressed Classes
in their villages … Frequently it follows on the exercise by the Depressed
Classes of their right to the use of the common-well, but cases have been
by no means rare where a stringent boycott has been proclaimed simply

because a Depressed Class man has put on the sacred thread, has bought a
piece of land, has put on good clothes or ornaments, or has carried a marriage
procession with the bridegroom on the horse through the public street (Starte
et al. 1930, 58, my emphasis).
Apart from displaying the different shapes violence against Dalits could
take in the village, I want to highlight what the “orthodox classes” considered
an offence were really just a refusal of Dalits to “self-racialized” as untouch-
ables. Wearing a sacred thread, putting on ornaments or riding a horse
through a public street are traditionally considered signs of an upper caste
status. Following Guru’s views on experiential space, by refusing to wear
the marks of untouchability in their bodies, Dalits disrupted the caste hier-
archical structure through which the village space was organized. By doing
this, the identification and control of Dalits was not only more difficult to
establish but the experience of superiority, ensured by the observance of
untouchability, was denied to upper castes groups.
The way in which Dalits were expected to self-racialize was not subtle. The
location of their home, their livelihood, their looks, their voice and even their
posture was affected by the experience of untouchability and the space they
inhabited. One of the most striking descriptions of this can be found in a
passage of Baby Kamble’s autobiography, The Prisons We Broke, where she
recounts how a Mahar (Dalit) man would prepare to do his begging lap
around the village (Kamble 2008).
When the Mahar set off in the evening on his begging round, he felt great pride
in the sheep-wool blanket on his shoulder and his belled stick. His chest would
swell with pride … But the moment he entered the village, his chest would deflate
like a balloon and he would shuffle around as inconspicuously as possible so as not
to offend anyone from the higher castes.
When he stood at the door of any high caste house, he was forbidden to call
out. He had to sound the bell on his stick thrice. Then the leftover food in the
house would be thrown into the blanket that he spread as a makeshift bag. […]
After having gone all over the village his ghongadi bag would be almost half-
filled. Then he would stride homeward joyfully as if he was carrying not left-
overs of food, but some great catch (Baby Kamble 2008, 74).
In the description above, the dynamic between the production of space
and racialization-casteization can be observed through the changes in the
behaviour of the Mahar man while approaching the village, a space where
untouchability is observed. The man goes from showing a chest “swell with
pride” to shuffling around the village in a deflated state to avoid offending
the higher castes. He makes his identification as a Dalit possible by changing
the posture of his body and by announcing his presence by sounding a bell.
Simultaneously, the racialization-casteization of the Mahar man reproduces
the village as a space organized through caste.

The influence of Ambedkar in the findings of the Starte Committee Report
is evident when looking at his later writings such as The Untouchables: Who
were they and why they became untouchables? or “Untouchables or the chil-
dren of India’s ghetto” (Ambedkar 2014 [1948], 2014a). In both of these writ-
ings there is an emphasis on the racialization of Dalit bodies in space as a key
element in the observance of untouchability. For instance, in “Untouchables:
The children of India’s ghetto”, Ambedkar explained how rural villages across
India are divided in two sections, one for the “touchables” and another for the
untouchables. These divisions were possible as “in every village the Touch-
ables have a code which the Untouchables are required to follow. This
code lays down the acts of omissions and commissions which the Touchables
treat as offences” (Ambedkar 2014a, 20–21). The code mentioned by Ambed-
kar was designed to allow quick identification of Dalits in the village and
included very similar aspects to the ones mentioned in the Starte Report.
Ambedkar made the relationship between untouchability, space and raciali-
zation explicit:
An Untouchable must conform to the status of an inferior and he must wear the
marks of his inferiority for the public to know and identify him such as – a)
having a contemptible name; b) not wearing clean clothes; c) not having
tiled roof; d) not wearing silver and gold ornaments. A contravention of any
of these rules is an offence. (Ambedkar 2014a, 20–21)
Unlike the Report, in his books Ambedkar had space to theorize about the
origin of the racialization of Dalits, and traced such practice to the Hindu
sacred code of the Manusrmiti. Using G. Buhler’s translation of The Laws of
Manu written in 1886, Ambedkar noted how Dalits were treated differently
since these laws existed. For instance, The Laws of Manu stated that the dwell-
ings of untouchables were to be “outside the village … and their wealth (shall
be) dogs and donkeys” (Ambedkar 2014a, 277). Similarly,
their dress (shall be) the garments of the dead, (they shall eat) their food from
broken dishes, black iron (shall be) their ornaments, they must always wander
from place to place … By day they must go about for the purpose of their work,
distinguished by marks at the King’s command, and they shall carry out the
corpses (of persons) that have no relatives, that is a settled rule. (Ambedkar
2014a, 277)
Rather than accepting Dalits were religiously impure, Ambedkar offered
two different explanations for the exclusion and racialization of Dalits. First,
Ambedkar claimed untouchables were broken men who lost their clan
after a violent conflict. In need of protection, these broken men approached
other clans and villages to offer their services as watchmen and peasants
(Ambedkar [1948] 2014, 278–281). However, due to their different lineage,
Dalits settled at the outskirts of the main villages. Second, Ambedkar
argued Dalits became untouchable due to their refusal to abandon Buddhism

and for continuing eating beef after Hinduism made a sacred animal of the
cow (Ambedkar [1948] 2014, 311–350). When Buddhism lost the favour of
Indian rulers, according to Ambedkar, Buddhist practitioners became out-
casts and untouchables. As we shall see next, these theories and historiciza-
tion of how Dalits have been racialized through time were quite important as
they had the specific purpose of negating the racial inferiority of Dalits. This,
was not only a Hindu affair, rather it was a problem being transformed by
colonialism and scientific racism theories.
The nineteenth and twentieth century changed the nature of the dis-
course around the issue of untouchability. The growth of colonialism and
the ideologies used to sustain colonialism saw the foundation of scientific
racism and colonial anthropometry as a way to explain social and political
hierarchies across the world (Gould 1996; Stocking 1994). As Arjun Appadurai
and Sureshi Jayawardene have shown, not only were people of the world
being placed on a racial hierarchy but the spaces and geographies where
these people came from were also being racialized (Appadurai 1988; Jayawar-
dene 2016). Thus, not only were white British people seen as superior but also
colder places, like Europe, were seen as most advanced spaces and geogra-
phies. In contrast, Indians were seen as lazy and inferior. It was believed
that the warm weather of the subcontinent inspired laziness and femininity
instead of hard work or manliness (Arnold 2004). The concept of movement
and mobility also played its part both in hegemonic and counter-hegemonic
manoeuvres. The theorization of racial superiority and racialization of space
was also supported by the supposed fixity and permanence attributed to
Indians and their society. Colonial rulers and ethnographers saw themselves
as mobile individuals, travelling across space and time whenever they left or
returned to Britain. Their mobility distinguished them from colonial subjects
which were seen as immobile and subsumed in “uncivilized” traditions (Appa-
durai 1988). Despite the constant and political interactions caused by coloni-
alism, colonizers distinguished themselves from the people they rule in racial
and spatial terms. The rulers came from abroad, they saw themselves as
racially superior and more civilized. The ruled, in contrast, could be studied
as colonial and anthropological subjects, they were considered to be
immobile, racially inferior and “native” to an uncivilized land.
The appeal of scientific racism came from its claims to universality. Colonial
rulers-cum-ethnographers quickly began to make comparisons between
caste and race. One of the most memorable and influential examples of
this was H. H. Risley work, a colonial official and ethnographer who
became the Commissioner for the 1901 Census of India (Banerjee-Dube
2008). He argued that while for the “untrained [European] eye all Indians
are black”, India had an extraordinary diversity of races and types which orga-
nized society in a subtle way (Risley 1908, 5). Risley thought such racial differ-
ences permeated all aspects of Indian society and was convinced an upper

caste status was linked to an “Aryan” or European past, while a lower-caste
status was linked to a Dravidian or a non-Aryan origin. In other words,
Risley believed a higher place in the caste system was due to a purer and
superior racial origin and vice versa.
The racial theories of the origin of caste had important political impli-
cations for untouchability. Before Risely’s work, theories of the Aryan invasion
of India were already popular. Political leaders such as Jotyrao Phule and
M. C. Rajah, claimed lower-caste groups were the original inhabitants of
India and their oppressed status was due to the savagery of Aryans.15
While this argument aimed to establish the existence of a glorious Dravidian
past, at a time when scientific racism and colonialism were on the rise, this
type or argumentation could easily be transformed into admitting an inferior
racial origin. Equally, upper caste Hindus would use this argument to claim
their supposed racial superiority over the lower castes. Put differently, the
racial theories of caste were dangerous for the advancement of Dalits as
the fixity of race naturalized the oppressed condition of this group. Ambedkar
was aware of this problem and worked to annul the link between race and
untouchability.
It’s precisely when it came to the question of race where Ambedkar dis-
tinguish himself from other thinkers of his time. Unlike Phule and
M. C. Rajah, Ambedkar rejected the pre-Aryan status of Dalits in India.
Influenced by the works of anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Alexander
Goldenweiser, who rejected the fixity of race, Ambedkar argued while there
could be racial distinctions among the Indian population in different regions
of the subcontinent, these were not related to the caste status of specific
groups (Cháirez-Garza 2018). In other words, a low caste status was not
linked to racial inferiority. Indeed, Ambedkar vehemently rejected the
Aryan race theory of caste and linked its popularity to the desire of both
colonial rulers and upper caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins, to justify
their political dominance (Tilak 1903). In Who were the shudras?, he noted
how absurd was the attraction certain Hindus felt towards the Aryan
theory of race:
This is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a
dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority of the
European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only
no such aversion but he most willingly hails it. The reasons are obvious. The
Brahmin believes in the two-nation theory. He claims to be the representative
of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the
non-Aryans. The theory helps him to establish his kinship with the European
races and share their arrogance and their superiority. He likes particularly that
part of the theory which makes the Aryan an invader and a conqueror of the
non-Aryan native races. For it helps him to maintain and justify his overlordship
over the non-Brahmins (Ambedkar [1947] 2014b, 80).

Ambedkar’s rejection of the racial theories of race helps us to comprehend
his efforts to historicize the spatial exclusion and racialization of Dalits in
India. By rejecting the racial inferiority of Dalits, Ambedkar was opening the
possibility to improve their condition. Race and caste were not fixed or
related to birth or a genetic past. Rather, the racialization of Dalits operated
on a well-controlled space organized through a caste hierarchy. In this vein, if
Dalits abandoned an area where they could be easily racialized, the opportu-
nity for change would arise. Once again showing Ambedkar’s influence on
the Committee, this is what the Starte Report observed about Dalits’
migration into cities:
We would draw attention to the influx of the Depressed Classes into the towns
and cities. This influx is mainly due to the fact that caste prejudices are less
strong in towns and cities than in village and hence a Depressed Class
person has less difficulty in breaking through tradition and obtaining work.
We are of the opinion that the Depressed Classes have benefited by this
migration. (Starte et al. 1930, 48)
If Dalits abandoned the village for the city, according to Ambedkar, their
exclusion due to untouchability would be harder to observe.16
While cities
can be equally oppressive and caste has adapted to urban environments, I
would like to suggest the notion of movement allows individuals to recognize
caste as oppressive. This is something Ambedkar experienced first-hand.
Untouchability, space and movement
Ambedkar ruminations about space, racialization and untouchability can be
found in his short autobiographical notes “Waiting for a visa” (Ambedkar
2014b). I focus particularly in his childhood memories. Ambedkar’s recollec-
tions show how the notion of being in movement or “out of place”,
allowed him to recognize a dominant space ordered by caste and reflect
about the spatial nature of untouchability. These remembrances are useful
to comprehend the importance of racialization and space in the understand-
ing of untouchability and why Ambedkar embarked in certain actions against
this practice.
Ambedkar’s memories begin in Satara, where he lived with his siblings,
their father was away working in Gurgaon as an army cashier. One day,
Ambedkar’s father sent a letter inviting the children for a visit. Ambedkar’s
brother, his nephew and himself were to take a train to Masur where a
peon would be waiting to take them to their father. The invitation was
taken seriously and even new clothes were bought for the trip. Ambedkar
recollects this as a happy memory, he even remembers the excitement of
buying lemonade immediately after boarding the train. Yet, the easiness of
the trip was to be spoiled soon.

After a few hours on the train, the children arrived to Masur but no one was
there to meet them. Being well-dressed children, the station-master took pity
on them and offered to help, as it was customary, the station-master asked
the kids who they were. Ambedkar tells us:
Without a moment’s thought I blurted out that we were Mahars. (Mahar is one
of the communities which are treated as untouchables in the Bombay Presi-
dency). He was stunned. His face underwent a sudden change. We could see
that he was overpowered by a strange feeling of repulsion. (Ambedkar
2014b, 666–667)
These words changed everything, in an instant, the station-master went from
feeling empathy for the kids to disgust. The emotions of the children changed
too. Ambedkar described the happiness of the journey went sour: “We
were quite bewildered and the joy and happiness which we felt at the begin-
ning of the journey gave way to the feeling of extreme sadness” (Ambedkar
2014b, 667).
In shock, the station master left the kids, after a few minutes, he returned
and tried to help Ambedkar and his siblings to get to their destination. The
problem now was the cart drivers outside the station found out the children
were Mahars. Despite Ambedkar’s brother offered to pay double the fare,
nobody would take them. In the end, one driver accepted to take the kids
under the condition that they had to drive the cart themselves. To avoid
being polluted, the driver decided to walk next to the cart, but to Ambedkar’s
surprise, a few miles down the road and well away from the station, the driver
decided not to walk anymore and jumped on the cart. This incident left an
imprint on Ambedkar’s mind, he couldn’t understand what made the driver
board the cart.
The worst part of the trip was not over. The children left the station around
six pm as the driver assured them Goregaon was three hours ways. Thinking
they would arrive before nightfall, the children decided to go ahead with the
journey. After a few hours the kids found themselves in the darkness and in
the middle of nowhere. Ambedkar remembers this as a terrifying time, they
feared the driver would rob them or even kill them.
A distant light on the road gave some peace to Ambedkar and his siblings,
it was a collecting toll where they could spend the night with people around.
The children were hungry and thirsty but due to their untouchability, getting
water was going to be a problem. Desperate, Ambedkar tried to pass as a
Muslim and approached the toll collector and asked for some water. After
a short conversation, the toll collector was not convinced Ambedkar was
telling the truth. The toll collector refused to help Ambedkar and his siblings,
the children went to sleep hungry and thirsty. The next morning, the driver
woke up the children at five am but the latter refused to continue with the
journey in the dark. After the sunrise, the children finally arrived to their

father who was surprised of seeing them. As it turns out, the children found
out that the peon had failed to advice Ambedkar’s father of their visit.
Ambedkar would later write about this as a disturbing experience which
made him recognize the oppressive nature of untouchability. Interestingly,
despite admitting being aware of his untouchability, Ambedkar acknowl-
edged living in a military cantonment somewhat protected him against dis-
crimination. He knew that barbers would not cut his hair or that dhobis
would not wash his clothes. In the same way, he recalled how at school he
was forced to sit separately and had to wait for the peon to get him water.
Nonetheless, the journey to Goregaon hit Ambedkar in a different way, he
noticed that
this incident gave me a shock such as I never received before, and it made me
think about untouchability which, before this incident happened, was with me a
matter of course as it is with many touchables as well as the untouchables.
(Ambedkar 2014b, 671)
Taking this into consideration, we have to ask why was this incident so shock-
ing for Ambedkar? Why did he remember it so well? What was different from
his previous experiences?
Linking untouchability to space, I argue it is the movement from one space
to another that elicit the slippages in the performance of untouchability.
There are three things I want to highlight. First, Ambedkar’s movement and
his siblings by train, combined with their new clothes, threw off the
station-master of his understanding of caste. He did not expect for those chil-
dren to be Mahars and he did not know how to treat them. Despite his initial
empathy for the abandoned children, once the station-master knew they
were untouchables he felt disgust and had to behave according to the nor-
mativity of caste. This shift from empathy to disgust is quite interesting as
it reflects how untouchability works beyond a corporeal schema of identifi-
cation and being. As Frantz Fanon argued while describing his own experi-
ence being referred to as “a Negro”, beyond the corporeal schema there is
“historico-racial schema”, authored by “the white man”, which is composed
by details, anecdotes and stories about Black people and their supposed
inferiority and dangerousness (Fanon 2008, 84). In the case of Ambedkar,
after the utterance of “We are Mahars”, the station master does not only
have to recognize his failure of identifying the corporeal schema of untouch-
ability; but now he also has to process the “historico-caste schema” associ-
ated with untouchability. That is details, anecdotes and experiences of the
supposed impurity and inferiority of untouchables. In this way, we can
grasp how untouchability transcends the bodies and feelings of those
deemed untouchables and touchables.
The second point we need to notice is how space changed the observance
of untouchability of the driver. As Ambedkar mentioned, they payed doubled

the fare and agreed to drive the bullock cart themselves. However, after a few
miles, when no one was around, the driver hoped on the cart with the kids.
This was something new for Ambedkar, it meant that space and movement
determine how untouchability was observed and performed. Since the kids
were well dressed and foreigners to the area, no one would have guessed
that they were untouchables. This allowed the driver to ignore the way he
should act around them. We can look at this in two ways, first we could
say untouchability is determined socially and spatially. Similarly, we could
say that untouchability comes and goes according to the space certain
bodies inhabit.
Third, we need to comment on how the movement through space allowed
Ambedkar to think of himself and about untouchability. Ambedkar realized
that certain behaviour was expected of him as an untouchable no matter
where he was. He realized that being an untouchable outside of a specific
context was difficult as certain power relations were unstable. In the same
way, Ambedkar’s writings also tell us about how moving through space
made bodies more difficult to read. We can see this as the station-master
took them for Brahmins and later as he pretended to be a Muslim with the
toll collector. Ambedkar realized caste was harder to observe while in move-
ment and that he could pretend being someone else while travelling. This
came with specifics risks. As I have shown, and as Guru has noted, the obser-
vance of untouchability often depends on the self-racialization of Dalits,
which is sustained on the threat of social boycott or violence. If this is not
respected there could be violent consequences and certain risks.
Conclusion
Ambedkar learnt about the violent consequences passing as a “touchable”
could have the hard way. In the rest of his autobiographical notes, Ambed-
kar’s described a few instances where members of the Muslim and Parsi com-
munity reacted aggressively towards him due to his supposed untouchability.
With these anecdotes Ambedkar showed that the racialization of Dalits was
not only a Hindu matter but something enforced by a majority of the
Indian population. The second incident is particularly memorable as Ambed-
kar was chased out by an angry mob for staying in a Parsi hotel under false
pretences. His attempt at passing was possible as Ambedkar was just arriving
to a new city to start a new job. After getting off the train, Ambedkar made a
conscious decision and took the risk of staying in the Parsi inn, showing that
racialization and untouchability are harder to enforce if a certain movement is
involved.
This anonymity was not always possible. Coming to a full circle, Ambedkar’s
final anecdote in his autobiographical notes came, after a train ride to the
town of Chalisgaon. Upon his arrival, Ambedkar was greeted by a group of

Mahars waiting to take him to a near village in a cart. Yet, it was a bumpy ride
and in the middle of the journey, Ambedkar felt out of the cart and broke his
foot. Ambedkar remembered this incident as a bitter-sweet moment, on the
one hand, he was happy to get some recognition from his community for
the work he was doing. On the other, he later found out the reason the acci-
dent occurred was because the driver of the cart was not a driver at all. The
owners of the cart did not want to rent it to the Mahars, thus an agreement
was made so Dalits would drive the tonka by themselves. This was a reminder
for Ambedkar about the power of untouchability. As he put it,
To save my dignity the Mahars of Chalisgaon had put my very life in jeopardy. It
is then I learnt that a Hindu tongawalla, no better than a menial, has a dignity by
which he can look upon himself as a person who is superior to all untouchables
even though he may be a Barrister-at-law. (Ambedkar 2014b, 681)
Interestingly, Ambedkar’s visit to Chalisgaon was related to work. While
Ambedkar did not mention this in his autobiographical notes, a letter to
the nationalist veteran M. R. Jayakar reveals that at the time of this incident
Ambedkar was touring the Khandesh district doing research about the
nature of untouchability, precisely, for the Starte Committee.17
Notes
1. See, for instance, Dumont (1980), Kothari and Maru (1965) and Srinivas (2002).
2. See Baber (2010), Gorringe and Rafanell (2007), Ramdas (2018) and Viswanath
(2014).
3. I have used the anachronistic term Dalit throughout the essay, except when in
quotation. Throughout the text, however, there are a number of other terms
that make reference to the concept of what today we understand as Dalit.
The term untouchable was used throughout twentieth-century India. Before
1935, the term used by the government to refer to these groups was
“Depressed Classes”. After 1935, the category Scheduled Castes was coined
and has been in use in official matters since then. Equally, M. K. Gandhi and
the nationalist movement used the term harijan (children of God).
4. The Report was commissioned by the Education Department of the Govern-
ment of Bombay. The Committee was composed by Starte et al. (1930).
5. For more on Ambedkar, see Zelliot (2004), Omvedt (1994), Keer (1954), Jaffrelot
(2006) and Rao (2009).
6. Ambedkar ([1919] 2014, 249). Ambedkar used the concept of osmosis or endos-
mosis to highlight the lack of cohesion in Indian society throughout his career
including one of his more iconic texts such as Ambedkar ([1936] 2014, 57).
Ambedkar picked up the term from John Dewey’s (1916). For more on Ambed-
kar’s use of endosmosis, see Elam (2020).
7. Adivasi is the term used for the groups that are considered indigenous to the
subcontinent. The official term used by the government of India is “Scheduled
Tribes”.
8. See Gopal Guru’s chapters in Guru and Sarukkai (2012). For more on untouch-
ability and space, see Rawat (2013), Cháirez-Garza (2014) and Lee (2017).

9. Guru is referencing specifically Lefebvre (1991).
10. Studies associated with the experience of Dalit women show how discrimi-
nation keeps reproducing even within lower-caste circles, see Paik (2014) and
Gupta (2016).
11. The way travel and movement transforms notions of caste, even if momentarily,
has been explored by Arnold (2014) and Karve (1962).
12. Laura Bear’s (2007, 45–62) discussion of how Zenana carriages were introduced
into India and the identification of “respectable women” in railways stations is
particularly good; For an analysis of how missionary schools catering Dalits were
opposed, see Viswanath (2014, 71–90).
13. For Gandhi’s train experience, see Lelyveld (2012, 9); For Nehru’s memories con-
cerning railways and exclusion, see Nehru (1941, 20–21).
14. Starte et al. (1930, 57).
15. Rajah (2005); for Phule’s view, see Bergunder (2004).
16. Ambedkar defended this position in a number of places, see for instance
Ambedkar ([1947] 2014a).
17. See B. R. Ambedkar letter to M. R. Jayakar, 8 December 1929. National Archives
of India, M.R. Jayakar Papers, f. 422.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the editors of this special issue Malini Ranganathan, Mabel Gergan and
Pavithra Vasudevan. I also would like to thank Amanda Eastell-Bleakley for supporting
the publication of this article. Finally, for multiple conversation around passing, race
and untouchability, I thank Steve Legg, Sunil Purushotham and Laura Loyola, all
errors are mine.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Jesús F. Cháirez-Garza http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6296-8602
References
Ambedkar, B. R. 2014a. “Untouchables or the Children of India’s Ghetto.” In Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Vol. 5, edited by Vasant Moon, 3–
126. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. 2014b. “Waiting for a Visa.” In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches, Vol. 12, edited by Vasant Moon, 663–693. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. [1919] 2014. “Evidence Before the Southborough Committee.” In Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Vol. 1, edited by Vasant Moon, 243–
278. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. [1936] 2014. “Annihilation of Caste.” In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings and Speeches. Vol. 1, edited by Vasant Moon, 23–98. New Delhi: Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation.

Ambedkar, B. R. [1947] 2014a. “States and Minorities.” In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Writings and Speeches. Vol. 1, edited by Vasant Moon, 381–449. New Delhi: Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. [1947] 2014b. “Who Were the Shudras? How They Come to be the
Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society.” In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and
Speeches. Vol. 7, edited by Vasant Moon, 11–227. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar
Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. [1948] 2014. “The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They
Became Untouchables?” In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches. Vol. 7,
edited by Vasant Moon, 231–382. New Delhi: Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1988. “Putting Hierarchy in Its Place.” Cultural Anthropology 3 (1):
36–49.
Arnold, David. 2004. “Race, Place and Bodily Difference in Early Nineteenth-Century
India.” Historical Research 77 (196): 254–273.
Arnold, David. 2014. “On the Road: Social Itineration of India.” Cotemporary South Asia
22 (1): 8–20.
Baber, Zaheer. 2010. “Racism Without Races: Reflections on Racialization and Racial
Projects.” Sociology Compass 4 (4): 241–248.
Banerjee-Dube, Ishita. 2008. “Introduction.” In Caste in History, edited by Ishita
Banerjee-Dube, xxxix. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bear, Laura. 2007. Lines of the Nation: Indian Railway Workers, Bureaucracy, and the
Intimate Historical Self. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bergunder, Michael. 2004. “Contested Pasts: Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu Nationalist
Reconstructions of Indian Prehistory.” Historiographia Linguistica 31 (1): 63.
Berreman, Gerald. 1991. “The Brahminical View of Caste.” In Social Stratification, edited
by D. Gupta, 84–92. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1994. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:
Routledge.
Cháirez-Garza, Jesús F. 2014. “Touching Space: Ambedkar on the Spatial Features of
Untouchability.” Contemporary South Asia 22 (1): 37–50.
Cháirez-Garza, Jesús Francisco. 2018. “B.R. Ambedkar, Franz Boas and the Rejection of
Racial Theories of Untouchability.” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 41 (2):
281–296.
Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Dumont, Louis. 1980. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elam, Daniel J. 2020. “Of Castes and Crowds: B.R. Ambedkar’s Anticolonial
Endosmosis.” In B.R. Ambedkar: The Quest for Justice. Vol. 1, edited by Aakash
Singh Rathore, chapter 8. London: Oxford University Press.
Fanon, Frantz. 2008. Black Skin, White Masks. London: Pluto Press.
Gorringe, Hugo, and Irene Rafanell. 2007. “The Embodiment of Caste: Oppression,
Protest and Change.” Sociology 41 (1): 97–114.
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York.
Gupta, Charu. 2016. The Gender of Caste: Representing Dalits in Print. Seattle: University
of Washington Press.
Guru, G., and S. Sarukkai. 2012. The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and
Theory. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1999. “Whose Heritage? Un-Settling “the Heritage”, Re-Imagining the Post-
Nation.” Third Text 13 (49): 3–13.

Hobbs, Allyson. 2014. A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing in American Life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacoby, Karl. 2016. The Strange Career of William Ellis: The Texas Slave Who Became a
Mexican Millionaire. New York: Norton.
Jaﬀrelot, Christophe. 2006. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analyzing and Fighting
Caste. Delhi: Permanent Black.
Jayawardene, Sureshi M. 2016. “Racialized Casteism: Exposing the Relationship
Between Race, Caste, and Colorism Through the Experiences of Africana People
in India and Sri Lanka.” Journal of African American Studies 20: 323–345.
Kamble, Baby. 2008. The Prisons We Broke. Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
Karve, Irawati. 1962. “On the Road: A Maharashtrian Pilgrimage.” The Journal of Asian
Studies 22 (1): 13–29.
Keer, Dhanajay. 1954. Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Bombay: A.V. Keer.
Kothari, R., and R. Maru. 1965. “Caste and Secularism in India: Case Study of a Caste
Federation.” Journal of Asian Studies 25 (1): 33–50.
Lee, Joe. 2017. “Odor and Order: How Caste is Inscribed in Space and Sensoria.”
Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 37 (3): 470–490.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lelyveld, Joseph. 2012. Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India.
New York: Vintage Books.
Nehru, J. 1941. Toward Freedom: The Autobiography of Jawarharlal Nehru. New York:
John Day Company.
Omvedt, Gail. 1994. Dalits and the Democratic Revolution. New Delhi: Sage.
Paik, Shailaja. 2014. Dalit Women’s Education in Modern India: Double Discrimination.
New York: Routledge.
Rajah, M. C. 2005. The Oppressed Hindus. New Delhi: Critical Quest.
Ramdas, Anu. 2018. “Mythicizing Materiality: Self-Racialization of the Brahmin.”
Prabuddha: Journal of Social Equality 2: 75–86.
Ranaganathan, Malini. Forthcoming. Environmental Unfreedoms in Urban India: Caste,
Segregation and the Racialization of Property.
Rao, Anupama. 2009. The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rawat, Ramnarayan. 2013. “Occupation, Dignity, and Space: The Rise of Dalit Studies.”
History Compass 11 (12): 1059–1067.
Risley, Hebert. 1908. The People of India. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co.
Srinivas, M. N. 2002. Collected Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Starte, O. H. B., P. G. Solanki, B. R. Ambedkar, P. R. Chikodi, L. M. Deshpande, L. C.
Burfoot, A. V. Thakkar, A. A. Thorat, Rao Saheb J.K. Mehta, and D. A. Janvekar.
1930. “The Committee Met in Diﬀerent Areas to Survey the population including
Bombay, Poona, Dharwar, Belgaum and Ahmedabad.” Report of the Depressed
Classes and Aboriginal Tribes Committee. Bombay: Bombay Presidency.
Stocking, W. 1994. “The Turn-of-the-Century Concept of Race.” Modernism/Modernity 1
(1): 4–16.
Tilak, B. G. 1903. The Arctic Home in the Vedas: Being Also a New Key to the Interpretation
of Many Vedic Texts and Legends. Poona City: Messrs. Tilak Bros.
Viswanath, Rupa. 2014. The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern
India. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zelliot, Eleanor. 2004. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Untouchable Movement. New
Delhi: Blumoon Books.

Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability.pdf

Similar to Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability.pdf (13)

More from Cassie Romero

More from Cassie Romero (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ambedkar and the racialization of untouchability.pdf