**9. Jagjivan Ram's Caste Challenge in India (1980)**

In addition to his public support for a Ravidas memorial project from 1976 to 1986, during this ¯ period, he also wrote a book called *Caste Challenge in India* (Ram 1980). In this book, he put together a carefully constructed discourse, aimed at non-Dalit readers, which set out his understanding of how caste discrimination arose and how it should be challenged.

He started from the standpoint that there was a tendency in all cultures for the development of inequality. However, he argued that when the Aryans entered India, they had only three castes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, but after they clashed with the aboriginal inhabitants, the Shudras and those excluded from society came into being and became the "*Asparshya*s or the *panchama*" (the untouchables or the "fifth"). This system was then codified by the Brahmans and people were conditioned by belief in *karma* and rebirth to accept the new system. There were, however, revolts against this system, and the Buddha attempted to reform it, but did not succeed. Then, later reform movements fought against this system led by saints, such as "Ramananda, Kabir, Ravidas (Raidas), Eknath, Tukaram, Chaitanya, Nanak and many others", and all of them "sought to reform the people

of the country and inculcate in them a new belief in the equality of all men before God." However, these movements did not fully succeed, as they were transformed into sects within society, rather than reforming society as a whole (Ram 1980, pp. 10–14).

The main chapters in the book carefully examine the issues facing India due to discrimination on the basis of caste. However, it is notable that his vision of a casteless society is ultimately based on a vision of an egalitarian society where all have equal economic abilities, and in order to achieve this, there will be a need for a three-pronged attack upon the caste system, based on legislation, economic development, and reservations for downtrodden members of society. It is only in this way, he argued, that prejudice against the formerly downtrodden members of society would be forgotten, and "we shall not only succeed in creating a new social and economic life in this country, but also in giving a decent burial to a system which has defied the endeavors of saints and savants from Lord Buddha to Mahatma Gandhi" (Ram 1980, p. 67). Key to understanding this book's message is that, unlike Ambedkar's rejection of Hinduism, Jagjivan Ram presented in this work his own approach to challenging caste in India, which preserved the diversity of Hindu religious traditions that was central to Jagjivan Ram's spirituality.

### **10. Jagjivan Ram's Ravidas as a Symbol of Identity (1986) ¯**

In 1986, the year that he passed away, Jagjivan Ram presented a much more radical public presentation of his ideas on the importance of Ravidas than he had in 1980. This was a Hindi language ¯ article in the magazine *Ravidas¯* called "Guru Ravidas as a symbol of identity for the embodiment of the ¯ divine" (Ram 1986). The term I have translated here as "embodiment of the divine" is in Hindi *¯ı´svar ke a m. sdharo ´ m.* , literally "embodiments of a portion of God". The idea that all living beings are equal embodiments of a portion of God is central to Ravidas's teachings and is found in a Ravid ¯ as verse in ¯ the Sikh sacred text, the Sr ´ ¯ı Guru Granth, where Ravidas said that "Ravid ¯ as teaches to all, the divine is ¯ equally present in all" (*sam dal samjhavai kou*, see Callewaert 1996, p. 93). This is a key teaching, as it implies that the divine is equally present in all, from the highest caste Brahmin to the lowest castes, such as Chamars.

In this article, Jagjivan Ram laid out much more clearly than in his 1980 English language publication, his vision of the historical relationship between spirituality and social inequality. His basic position was that the desire for equality was present in all world societies, but that in India, the Aryan invasion had replaced the values of the original inhabitants of India with those of the Brahmins and their caste system. He then described the teachings of the original Indians as forms of *tantra*. It should be noted that his use of the term *tantra* here was not intended to be derogatory, as some modern Indians see the term, but was being used in the way it is sometimes used to describe the Sant teachings, as mentioned in relation to Siv N ´ ar¯ aya ¯ n.¯ı sacred texts by Bellwinkel-Schempp (2007). Moreover, he does not appear to have been using this term to sugges<sup>t</sup> any shortcomings in the original teachings of the aboriginal ( *mul niv ¯ as¯ ¯ı*) inhabitants of India but, rather, using *tantra* as a term to describe the inner spiritual practices of the Sants, such as *sabda* yoga and their views on the fundamental equality of all people.

However, Jagjivan Ram's message has been, on some occasions, misunderstood. This can be seen from a Government of India publication by Om Prakash Maurya translated into English by Rupali Kishore, which contains a translation of part of Jagjivan Ram's 1986 article. However, the translation completely alters the meaning of what Jagjivan Ram wrote. In particular, perhaps due to the translation process, the notion that the religious system of the aboriginal inhabitants of India was a form of *tantra* is transformed into Jagjivan Ram writing that the aboriginal inhabitants of India had been followers of "black magic" (Maurya 2010, p. 193). This mistranslation points to a larger problem; when considering the political career of Jagjivan Ram, some Hindu authors conflate Jagjivan Ram's faith in Ravidas¯ ¯ı and Siv N ´ ar¯ aya ¯ n.¯ı Sant traditions with the beliefs of followers of orthodox high caste *Hindutva* Hinduism. This means that public perceptions of the role of religion in Jagjivan Ram's life run the risk of conflating

Jagjivan Ram's own spirituality based on the Sant tradition with forms of *Hindutva* ideology that he specifically rejected in his 1956 preface to S´astri and P ¯ an¯ . d. ey (1956) work on Ravidas. ¯

Reporting of his spirituality also often conflated his reverence for the Hindi work the *Ramcaritm ¯ anas ¯* with the Sanskrit epic the *Ram¯ ayan ¯ . a*. For instance, his long-time associate Nau Nihal Singh, who was Deputy Secretary of Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, described Jagjivan Ram as a *vais.n. ava sagunopasaka* (a worshipper of forms of Vis.n. u with attributes) whose daily religious practices included recitations from Tuls¯ıdas's ¯ *Ramcaritm ¯ anas ¯* (Singh 1977, pp. 11–12). He also mentioned that, like Kab¯ır, he "condemned the evils that have crept into Hinduism" and he "follows the dictates of a small voice even if they run contrary to the commandments of the 'Shastras'" (Singh 1977, p. 13). He also pointed out that he would quote verses by Kabir "who was a favorite of his father" (Singh 1977, p. 108). This appears to have been an account of his spirituality that retained an accurate description of how his practices reflected Sant spirituality.

In contrast, Triloki Nath Chaturvedi who was Governor of Karnataka in 2005, when speaking about Jagjivan's religious life, said "Ramayana was a grea<sup>t</sup> favourite. When Ramayana Paath, took place at his house on Sundays, he would read out to the gathering the meaning of each verse in the epic" (Chaturvedi 2005, p. 55). This seems to conflate his Sant spirituality with a perception of him as an orthodox Hindu.

In his 1986 article, Jagjivan Ram then developed his argumen<sup>t</sup> in more detail about how from the moment that the caste system had been introduced into India, opposition to it from the Dalits had also begun, in particular, in the medieval period, led by Sants from all corners of India. The Sants rejected the roots of the caste system and argued in favor of a liberal egalitarian religion that was di fferent from that espoused by the false and empty forms of caste Hinduism that had infected India. Central to this struggle, he suggested, was that Ravidas, a Chamar, had taken on the proponents ¯ of caste Hinduism in their central fortress, the city of Varanasi. Key to this struggle, Jagjivan Ram argued, was the centrality in Ravidas's teachings of a denial of there being any di ¯ fferent castes; instead, Jagjivan Ram said Ravidas proclaimed that we were all of the same flesh and blood, and rather than ¯ belonging to di fferent castes, such as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, all humanity belonged to only one caste. Jagjivan Ram also argued that this was a core teaching of Sants, such as Ravidas, ¯ and Sants who had Muslim backgrounds, such as Kab¯ır, and that both Kab¯ır and Ravidas alike had ¯ argued for Hindu Muslim equality and unity. He then cited a number of verses by Ravidas and his ¯ contemporaries, which witnessed to the truth of what he was arguing.

The sources of these verses which he quoted were not given, and mostly they do not match with any particular textual tradition that I can identify. From various features of the Hindi language in them, such as the inclusion of modern forms of some words, it also appears possible that they were, in some cases, drawn from contemporary oral traditions. His argumen<sup>t</sup> could perhaps be read as meaning that Jagjivan Ram's own views were also the views of Ravidas. My translation of some of the core of this ¯ article dealing with caste discrimination is as follows. Jagjivan Ram began by citing verses from Kab¯ır, Ravidas, and N ¯ amdev, which argued against discrimination by ¯ *jati ¯* ¸ caste, or birth:

Ravidas, did not directly attack [the institution of caste] or like Kab ¯ ¯ır say.

'When did you become a Brahmin, when did we become Shudras? When did we become blood, you become milk? If Brahmins are born di fferent, Why aren't you born from a di fferent way?' Ravidassaid.¯

'Don't ask what caste a man is born in, what is *jati ¯* or community (*jati k ¯ a pat ¯* )? O Ravidas! All sons are sons of God, ¯ none is high or low born.'
