Are Dalits Descendants of Asuras? A Reflection on Student Politics and Asura Discourse

No concept should be accepted as axiomatic without undergoing rigorous intellectual debate. One such notion for debate is the elevation of mythological figures like Ravana and Hiranyakasyapa (Hiranyakashipu) as cultural icons for Dalit/bahujan politics. The annual observances of festivals such as Diwali and Holi are thought to commemorate the defeat of the asuras or rakshasas (often translated as demoniac figures) like Ravana, Narakasura, and Holika Devi. In every festival season, debates resurface about whether the asuras were Dalits. Recently, even these ideas have faced dissent, particularly from emerging voices, notably women. The context of this year’s Holi once again ignited debates regarding whether Holika Devi was an SC (Dalit) woman immolated by the Brahmanical god Vishnu.

By Sowjanya Tamalapakula

Some have challenged this racial theory of caste, deflected and disapproved by B.R. Ambedkar himself. A decade ago, the student political group DAMSA (EFLU, Hyderabad) celebrated the Asura festival, emphasizing a racial connection between mythological asuras and Dalit/bahujan and minority communities. Yet, fundamental issues arise from such assertions, particularly regarding the relationship between caste-Hindu Shudras (Bahujans) and SC outcastes that has been complicated by graded inequalities of caste articulated by Ambedkar. Interestingly this student group asserts unity between Dalits and the Syrian Christian upper-caste community in Kerala that upholds untouchability just as any other Brahmin group. Scholars like Ilaiah have seemingly supported such politics, highlighting environmental protection as a core rationale behind his call for Dalits refraining from celebrating Diwali. In a healthy society, intellectual stagnation must be avoided, and ideas from all perspectives should be welcomed for robust debate. However, most of these debates took place in the new and emergent forms of media and social media.

While Dalit/bahujan’s identification with figures like Ravana or Hiranyakasyapa may be fundamentally flawed, the political significance of such identification remains a complex issue too. Aruna Gogulamanda, in a Facebook post in 2019, detests the notion of Ravana as a cultural icon for Dalits, arguing that both Rama and Ravana perpetrated violence against women who were perceived as mere extensions of men—as wives, sisters, and mothers. Gogulamanda contends if Rama mutating Surpanakha, Ravana, who chooses to abduct Sita rather than waging a war against Rama, equally a patriarchal figure. However, different versions of the Ramayana portray these characters in varying lights which I am not delving upon in this context. Pradnya Waghule, in an article on Feminism in India in 2017, critiques the festival of Holi as a cultural sanction for violating bodily integrity of women. A few users of social media platforms have questioned how Brahmin kings like Hiranyakasyapa and Ravana (aslo known as Ravana Brahma) suddenly became Dalits, unleashing another set of intriguing questions that demand exploration.

In the midst of these debates, several fundamental and moral questions arise with regard to whether these festival celebrations like Holi and Diwali are welcome or not. Dr. Vizia Bharati posits that characters like Tataka, who was killed by the King Rama, were female rulers who opposed violence against animals in the name of Yagnas, thereby challenging environmental harm caused by Vedic rituals (Vizia Bharati, 2003). Tataka’s husband Sunda was killed by Sage Agastya. Tataka expressed sexual desire after her husband’s death, requesting a Brahmin sage to embrace her in order to recall the embrace of her dead husband, which goes against Rama’s values and dharma. Rama was also enraged by Surpanakha’s initiation of dialogue for a courtship, leading to her disfigurement—an act that challenges the notion of women as passive figures in sexual discourse. Both Tataka and Surapanakha were killed as part of Rama’s duty to eliminate anyone who poses threat to the dharma. Widows ruling the subjects and women professing love are considered threats to dharma.

Regardless of Holika Devi’s caste location, her story exemplifies violence against women. Unleashing violence against women is considered emasculation of the whole community she belongs to. In other words women are the properties and extensions of their father/husband/brother and communities. Furthermore, the violence against Surpanakha and Holika Devi can be interpreted as resultant of the conflict between different religions, such as devotees of Lord Shiva and worshipers of Lord Vishnu. These narratives arose during historical periods marked by various religious trends that posed challenges to the continuity of Vedic Brahminism. For example, the tale of Hiranyakasyapa appears in the Vishnu Dharmashastra (also known as Vishnu Purana), composed long after the Vedic era, when the rivalry between devotees of Shiva and ‘Vaishnu had become apparent.[1] In this context, later developments demonstrate that the deities Shiva and Vishnu, previously associated with distinct religions, were integrated as prominent gods within Hinduism. Similarly, during conflicts between the devotees of Manasa Devi, a female goddess worshiped in Bengal and the worshipers of Lord Shiva, mythologies were maneuvered to portray all female deities as manifestations of Shakti and Parvati appropriating all autonomous female goddesses of the subaltern religious trends into “larger Hinduism” (Coomaraswamy K, Ananda, Sister Nivedita, 1914). The concept of continuous appropriation finds its origins in ancient history, as articulated in “Revolution and Counter Revolution” by Ambedkar (1987). During this period, Jainism and Buddhism emerged as significant challenges, opposing violence against animals through vedic rituals. This violence against animals can be seen in the Ashwamedha yaga in Valmiki’s Ramayana and the Sarpayaga in the Mahabharata, where horses and snakes were sacrificed and burnt alive in the yagna fire. Ambedkar viewed Buddhism as a revolution against Vedic Brahminism. With the appropriation of vegetarianism and ahimsa (the ideals that were not part of Vedic religion up until then at least), Vedic religion envisioned its own perpetuation and sustenance.

Years ago, an article titled “Asura Week, Pride: A Few Reflections” by Reju George Matthew was published in Roundtable India. In his article, Reju George Matthew, who claimed to be a fervent observer of EFLU student politics, does not appear apologetic for his oversight of violence against SC women on this campus, particularly by Dalit Bahujan/minority male students who organized themselves (as DAMSA) in exclusive all-male heterosexual Dalit Bahujan students groups.Two decades ago, there were not many Dalit women in EFLU owing to the patriarchal nature of Dalit families, which prioritize educating boy children first in resource-constrained conditions. During that period, Dalit male students seems to have not reflected on gender sensitivity rather resorted to highlighting their exclusion in the upper-caste woman’s sexual choices. This phenomenon is particularly observable in EFLU politics but may also manifest in other campus environments.

However, after 2000, a few Dalit women students enrolled in MA courses and even pursued PhDs. The politics of DAMSA showed little self-reflection on their predatory nature rather justified it by stigmatizing Dalit women students as “morally depraved”. The assumptions of the sexual availability and “characterlessness” of Dalit women is both structural and historical in Brahminical patriarchal society. These ideals spring from the same structures of caste and patriarchy that Dalit/Bahujan men claim to be fighting against. Despite this, the DAMSA students, primarily composed of heterosexual Dalit men, could not escape the deeply ingrained upper-caste ideals against Dalit women evident in several cases  in which DAMSA male students witch-hunting of Dalit women students with the help of upper-caste Syrian Christian teacher(s)-students and Dalit male teacher(s).

During the week-long Asura-Dravida pride event in 2013, heterosexual male students from DAMSA identified themselves with Surpanakha. Simultaneously, these students engaged in the witch-hunting of Dalit women students, attributing their actions to perceived lack of sexual purity, inappropriate dressing, or alleged sexual transgressions of Dalit women students. In a nutshell, DAMSA men emulate the Brahminical values in terms of gender and use the same forms of violence (as used against Tataka and Surapanakha) against SC women and carry within themselves the same ideals purity with regard to women. They nominally uphold the asura figures while fundamentally emulating Brahminical ideals. Whether Tataka and Surpanakha are Dalit women or not, they might have been the reason for leakages in the structure of Brahminical patriarchy, in other words the Dharma.

This asura pride week celebration was orchestrated by a group of heterosexual Dalit and Syrian Christian male students who assumed leadership roles, alongside some Brahmin women who uncritically supported exclusive Dalit male student groups which appears in alignment with the notion that “all Dalits are males” (masculinization of Dalit movement) (Rege, 2003).

Dalit male student groups seems to be orchestrating their mere political rendering against Brahmins and upper-castes in celebrating asuras. Thus, Dalit student politics of that time seem to have no clear visions about creating an emancipatory space for all Dalits including Dalit women, Dalit-queer and Dalit-Transwomen. Many examples from Dalit students’ activism on campuses suggest that Dalit men often held similar views on women and gender politics as their upper-caste adversaries. This view resonates with the expressions of Dalit women leaders at the University of Hyderabad (UoH) in 1990s, particularly in the aftermath of the tragic suicide of Suneetha, a Dalit woman student. Suneetha who was abetted to commit suicide by a Reddy male student who, under the guise of false promises of marriage, sexually exploited her. In the context of prevailing caste and gender norms, where marriages typically occur within the same caste, the Reddy man’s exploitation of the Dalit woman not only violated her dignity but also reinforced her exclusion from the institution of marriage. The news of Suneetha’s death sparked outrage among Dalit male students, leading to a decision to confront the Reddy male student on the UoH campus. Later, Dalit women scholars criticized Dalit male students, highlighting the resemblance between the mistreatment of Dalit women by Dalit men which is not so different from the mistreatment they endured from Reddy men. This critique emphasized a harsh truth: that even within marginalized communities, oppression and gender-based violence persist, highlighting the need for self-reflection within the Dalit politics.

Rather than merely equating Dalits with asuras, it is crucial to contemplate on whether the ideals of Dalit political groups resonate with the Brahminic principles that prescribed differential mating patterns  (Rege, 2013) for upper-caste women and lower-caste women and there by creating diverse patriarchies (Chakravarti, 2002) Furthermore, the unilateral promotion of asuras as the cultural icons of Dalit male groups need to revisit their politics keeping in mind whether asuras promoted democratic ideals of gender equality and anti-caste ideology.

Courtesy : Counter Currents

Note: This news is originally published in countercurrents.org and was used solely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes exclusively for Human Rights