ABSTRACT
In 1933, K. M. Panikkar, an Oxford-educated historian, diplomat and administrator, published a book titled Caste and Democracy. He argued in the book that caste and democracy are irreconcilably opposed to each other. According to him,
Democracy and caste are totally opposed . . . the one is based on equality, the other on inequality of birth. The one is actuated by the principle of social inclusion, the other by the principle of social exclusion. Democracy tries to break down the barriers of class; caste seeks to perpetuate them. . . . In all matters that are of importance, caste and democracy are fundamentally opposed, they are at their very bases, incompatible. (Panikkar 1933 [2004]: 24)
Yet, Panikkar claimed that, in the inevitable contest between caste and democracy, democracy would eventually vanquish caste. With enthusiasm, he noted:
The metal [caste], hardened by centuries of unreasoning obedience, may melt only under extraordinary heat. But it is melting
and when the molten metal solidifies again, the contradiction between caste and democracy will not be there. The principle of social exclusion and inequality based on birth will vanish; something nobler and purer will take its place and in that will lie the future of India. (Ibid.: 26)
In important ways, the hope that Panikkar had pinned on democracy has not proved wrong. As a political system and as a set of practices, democracy has indeed provided the space for varied forms of subordinated caste mobilizations in India against caste-based discrimination and violence. This is no doubt evident from the rise of backward caste political parties such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in south India, and the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in the north. Moreover, there is large-scale mobilization of the Dalits across the Subcontinent. The politics of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) in the south and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in the north are significant cases in point.
