Symbolic Boundaries and Moral Demands of Dalit Student Activism

Abstract

Emerging literature on Dalit student activism explores the ways Dalit students position themselves with regard to other student groups and the broader caste structure. However, less attention has been paid to intragroup relations and dynamics within the community of Scheduled Caste (SC) students. This article explores the emerging differentiation and boundary-making among the SC students, thus contributing to the ongoing discussion on differences and divisions within the larger Dalit community. Focusing on symbolic boundaries, morality and socio-political backgrounds, I discuss the actual conflict between two SC students, in which they debated the moral dictate of the Dalit movement of “paying back to society.” Though both students seem to have internalized the moral demand, their perspectives on how to implement it differed. One student I shall call Raju advocated that paying back should be done through political action; the other student, Devan, argued that artistic expression is an equally legitimate way to “pay back to society.” The two protagonists also had substantively different relations with regard to the Dalit student organizations that advocated for political activism and “paying back to society.” For Raju, Dalit political activism served as a main avenue for personal upward social mobility, while Devan viewed political activism as a restrictive imposition limiting other legitimate means for “paying back to society.” I argue that symbolic boundaries between students cannot be reduced to class or caste distinctions, but rather that they are based on differing ideological and moral alignments. While acknowledging the influence of Ambedkarite ideology in forming students’ moral views, this case study shows that SC students do not espouse a single ideology or moral stance regarding modes of political activism, which brings out tensions that arise at the intersection between Dalit movement’s ethics and multiple individual moralities. The paper also describes two different ways students may imagine their social mobility.