Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Dr.Thanigaivelan Santhakumar

Quote by Dr.Thanigaivelan Santhakumar

“The abolition of caste in India is impossible without dismantling the entrenched economic and land-based power structures that uphold it. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar forcefully argued, caste is not merely a division of labor, but "a division of labourers" (Annihilation of Caste 17), where the hierarchical allocation of work is inherited and enforced through socio-economic mechanisms. Historically, caste has operated as a system of economic exploitation, wherein dominant castes consolidated power through control over land, knowledge, and religious institutions, relegating Dalits and other oppressed groups to landless labor and degrading occupations. Ambedkar contended that “caste is not just a social institution, it is also an economic one” and warned that “you cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You have to blow it up” (Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India 23).”

Quote by Dr.Thanigaivelan Santhakumar

Author

Dr.Thanigaivelan Santhakumar

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Dr.Thanigaivelan Santhakumar. more

You May Also Like

“How next generation can become casteless? Educating the next generation for a caste-free society requires more than tokenistic inclusion; it demands a pedagogical revolution rooted in equality, empathy, critical thinking, and epistemic justice. The present educational system, as Ambedkar noted in Annihilation of Caste, is complicit in “manufacturing obedient caste minds” that naturalize hierarchy rather than challenge it. Therefore, education must first deconstruct the hidden curriculum of caste—the ways in which textbooks, classroom practices, language, and institutional norms reinforce dominant caste narratives while marginalizing Dalit-Bahujan voices. Schools must be restructured as spaces of liberation, not discipline, by incorporating the writings, histories, and philosophies of Ambedkar, Savitribai Phule, Ayyankali, Periyar, and other anti-caste thinkers into core curricula, not just as electives or afterthoughts. Pedagogy must shift from rote memorization to dialogic, experiential learning that cultivates empathy and reflexivity in students. Teachers themselves must be sensitized through anti-caste training, and diversity in teaching staff—especially Dalit and Adivasi educators—must be actively pursued through affirmative hiring. Importantly, education should challenge caste not only intellectually but institutionally, through caste-free hostels, fair admissions, and safe grievance mechanisms. As Paulo Freire argued in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “education is either a practice of freedom or a practice of domination”—and in caste society, it has largely been the latter. The next generation must be trained not just to understand caste, but to actively dismantle it, through critical consciousness, solidarity practices, and ethical citizenship. Only when children are taught that caste is not cultural heritage but a violation of human dignity—and are given the tools to resist it—can education become the foundation of a truly egalitarian India.”

“The Classic Question: The Paradox of The Majority or Bahujen. The term Bahujan refers to India’s demographic majority—Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes—constituting nearly 70% of the population. Yet this numerical strength has not translated into structural empowerment, giving rise to what scholars call the Bahujan paradox: the tension between political visibility and persistent social marginality. Historically, caste society imposed graded inequality (Ambedkar), ensuring that even among oppressed groups, internal hierarchies prevented unity. Despite the promise of democracy, land ownership, wealth, education, and cultural capital remain concentrated in upper-caste hands. This creates the first axis of the paradox: majority in numbers, minority in power. The second dimension lies in politics versus structure. From the 1980s, the rise of the BSP, SP, RJD, DMK, and others marked a political awakening. Bahujan leaders captured state power in several regions, but institutions like the bureaucracy, judiciary, and media remained dominated by elites. Electoral success has thus not dismantled systemic dominance. Third is the tension between unity and fragmentation. Kanshi Ram envisioned solidarity across SCs, STs, and OBCs, yet rivalries and caste sub-identities often splinter this bloc, weakening collective bargaining. Fourth, policy gains contrast with social realities. Reservations and welfare have created upward mobility for a small segment, but caste violence, everyday discrimination, and failed land reforms persist. Finally, there is empowerment without emancipation. Leaders once rooted in radical anti-caste thought often compromise with dominant caste and capitalist frameworks. Cultural icons like Ambedkar and Phule are celebrated, but frequently co-opted by parties unwilling to confront caste hierarchies. In essence, the Bahujan paradox reveals a striking contradiction: India’s majority commands votes but not full dignity, wielding political clout without achieving structural transformation.”

“Caste is a very important element of Indian society. As soon as a person is born, caste determines his or her destiny. Being born is not in the control of a person. If it were in one’s control, then why would I have been born in a Bhangi household? Those who call themselves the standard-bearers of this country’s great cultural heritage, did they decide which homes they would be born into? Of course, they turn to scriptures to justify their position, the scriptures that establish feudal values instead of promoting equality and freedom.”