Dalit Feminist Theory: A Reader (published by Routledge in 2020) revisits Indian feminist thought by bringing the category of caste to the centre of the gender question, considering the limiting perspective of the feminist thesis, and offers a theoretical explanation for caste-based feminist inquiry in India. This volume contains eighteen chapters that are thematically organised into six parts, and have been written by renowned feminist scholars like Nivedita Menon, Sharmila Rege, Mary John, Susie Tharu, etc. Chapters of this book discuss several debates in Indian feminist thought, such as Indian feminism versus Dalit feminism; Brahmanical patriarchy versus Dalit patriarchy; theory versus experiences; the concept of difference; the concept of intersectionality, and so on, by taking the Dalit women’s standpoint as the base for understanding and ultimately developing Dalit feminist theory.

In the last decade, identity representation has been a significant topic of discussion for feminist scholars in India. Several scholars have claimed that past writings on caste and gender have homogenised the experience of caste through Dalit men’s vantage point and that of gender through the vantage point of savarna women. It makes the co-constituted caste, class and gender identity of Dalit women invisible. This book recognises this omission as deeply problematic because its leads to theoretical and ideological flaws in Indian feminism.  It engages with this gap in Indian feminism, which it claims to be “as Brahmanical as the patriarchal system they seek to dismantle” (p. 24).

‘Indian feminism’ has theoretical and ideological flaws because it neglects caste from the gender discourse. This raises a question of gender justice and creates the need for Indian feminism to redefine itself from a Dalit point of view. For this, a re-investigation of the concept of patriarchy, feminism, and difference in a case-sensitive manner, is required. The volume critiques the work of scholars including Gopal Guru, Uma Chakravarti and V. Geetha on misleading the concept of patriarchy by coining new terms like ‘Dalit patriarchy’ (patriarchy that is perpetuated among Dalits), ‘graded patriarchy’ etc., for the same practice of ‘Brahmanical patriarchy’ without backing with empirical evidence. However, empirical evidence that suggests the absence of graded patriarchy has also not been supplied in the book. Both these strands of argumentation are theoretical and need further deliberation and research on what they empirically signify. Further, if the starting point of the discussion on Dalit feminism is ‘difference’, then there is little to gain from homogenising the experiences of patriarchy for women of different castes.

Engaging with gender politics, this volume also questions the influence of feminist scholars on the concept of “positionality” from the Dalit feminist perspective. The book critiques the position taken by many feminists and activists on sex work. Nivedita Menon, for example, opposed the ban on sex work by arguing for women’s ‘choice’ and agency to earn the way they want. In opposition, many Dalit feminists argue that sex work is inevitably dominated by Dalit women and marginalised women’s entry into sex work is dictated by birth and not by choice. Here, the book states that Marxist feminists again reflect from the axes of gender alone, and Dalit feminists urge for the necessity of intersectionality that takes caste, class, and gender inter-relations to understand reality.

This volume also intensively discusses the application of intersectionality in India and its necessity in identity politics. Aloysius and Tharu’s chapters have presented how untouchability, labour control, gender control, and control on Dalit women’s sexuality make Dalit women’s position most vulnerable from the caste-class-gender intersectional position and shape their hierarchical relationship vis-a-vis the dominant castes (men and women) and Dalit men. This book offers intersectionality as a tool to address this structure. Nivedita Menon’s question on the applicability of Intersectionality in India is criticised by Mary E. John and Meena Gopal. In place of blunt rejection of the framework, they ask for engagement with the concept and note that Menon’s analysis privileges class position. This book questions Menon’s social location (as a savarna upper-class woman) on her non-recognition of intersectionality.

The book engages in the discussion of Dalit women’s lived experiences as ‘difference’ by reviewing Hindu texts and Dalit women’s autobiographies. Vizia Bharati (Chapter 8) analyses past and contemporary Hindu writings to see how epics like Mahabharat and Ramayana portray Dalit women in the most undignified manner (like Matanga Kanya, Tataka, Surpanakha etc.). To counter the mainstream narrative, the book focuses on the voices and perspectives of Dalit women themselves. Sharmila Rege, in one of the chapters, states that Dalit women’s autobiographies are a valuable contribution to understanding difference, that has been neglected by mainstream Indian feminists. She considers lived experiences as necessary for authentic feminist theory in India. This part also discusses Dr Ambedkar, Jyotiba Phule, and Pandita Ramabai’s contribution to social justice by emphasising the need for gender justice. Shailaja Paik, in another chapter, maps the history of Dalit feminism and attempts to forge a new “Dalit womanhood” by integrating the Phule-Ambedkarite feminist paradigm with contemporary Dalit women’s assertive agency.

The various chapters of the book discuss the perspectives on experience and its relation with theorisation in feminist research. Kanchana Mahadevan argues for theorising experiences based on the collective shared experience of individuals who live, share, and explain it in a literary form. She suggests that “authentic theorisation is possible only when the subjects and the objects of feminist research coincide” (p.199).

This book is an essential source for scholars and practitioners who want a holistic view of caste-inclusive feminist inquiry. The book provides a comprehensive overview of the feminist history, current state, and future directions of the Dalit feminist movement in India. However, it could have delved more into advancing an operational praxis of Dalit feminist theory that is inclusive, cohesive and complete. The core strength of the book lies in its incisive commentary on Indian feminist thought, and the collation of various debates in one place.

***

Sonu Bagri is a PhD Scholar at the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Delhi.