Bhima-Koregaon and transition of the Dalit self

Commemorative events like the Bhima-Koregaon battle anniversary open a pathway for alternative cultural expressions. Such sites become spaces for new political aspirations.

On January 1, hundreds of thousands of people gathered at the Bhima-Koregaon monument to mark the 206th anniversary of the battle of Bhima-Koregaon. For about a decade and a half now, the memorial at Bhima-Koregaon near Pune in Maharashtra has become a noteworthy site of public attention, underlining the significance of an alternative reading of social and political histories.

Since the early 2000s, the Ambedkarite Dalits, particularly in Maharashtra, have been celebrating January 1 as a commemoration day of an 1818 battle the Peshwas were defeated. The celebration usually occurs at the obelisk constructed by the English East India Company in 1822 at Perne village (near Koregaon Bhima village), about 20 km from Pune city.

In 2005, the Bhima-Koregaon Ranasthambh Seva Sangh was established to formally commemorate the battle. However, Bhima-Koregaon erupted into national prominence following the violence of 2018. Since then, the state government has taken over the commemoration by organising the venue and providing funds for its celebrations each year. Many prominent leaders attended this year's commemoration. The attendees included Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra Ajit Pawar, politician Prakash Ambedkar, Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, Union minister Ramdas Athawale, and Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani.

Attempts by organisations such as Shivpratisthan Hindusthan (led by controversial Sambhaji Bhide) or Karni Sena to openly oppose the event have visibly declined. Nevertheless, the challenge of smoothly conducting the occasion remains.

Celebrations, like the above-mentioned, are typically construed as a Dalit-Bahujan obsession with identity and politics of symbolism. While this critique is pertinent and well-placed in a particular context, questions must be raised to expand the scope of the discussion. First, can commemorative events (like Bhima-Koregaon) be solely understood through the narrow prism of symbolism or irrational ritualism? Does commemorating such monuments contribute to furthering the agenda of anti-caste politics? Caste politics has a complex relationship with the public sphere to offer an easy answer to these questions. However, even if we accept the supposed Ambedkarite fascination for symbolism, we must ask why such events are often bitterly opposed with the threat of violence by different upper-caste organisations.

This is because such commemorative events also open a pathway for alternative cultural expressions. It is not always necessary to presume that people gather at Bhima-Koregaon only to celebrate its history. Such sites also become possible spaces for new political aspirations. Ambedkarite discourse in Maharashtra has marked its space distinctly because it vehemently insisted on the sustenance of alternative cultural vocabulary. In a caste society like India's, the mainstream historical narratives and dominant cultural symbolism are often monopolised by a few dominant castes. At the same time, the Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, and Other Backwards Classes are rendered invisible in the historical and cultural narratives. Events like the one held on January 1 disrupt the status quo and push the mainstream to accommodate the diverse historic-cultural contexts of contending social groups.

The invocation of unconventional histories and emphasis on ideological narration of such accounts by the Dalits in recent times has also remarkably epitomised how the Dalit self (and consequently, Dalit identity and politics) has transitioned over the decades. However, the danger of Dalits falling into an identitarian trap is equally genuine. Unwarranted glorification of group identities often risks limiting the vibrancy of radical progressive discourse. It could lead to the proliferation of half-baked knowledge that provides an easy route for constructing shallow historical narratives.

For example, some Ambedkarite scholars wrongly attributed the slogan Jai Bhim to the Bhima-Koregaon battle. Thus, an attempt to have a meaningful political engagement with history also gets clouded due to twisted identitarian perspectives. In this context, a meaningful way of commemorating the event would be to reflect on the constructive contribution of Dalits to India’s history.

The monument must be regarded as a site of positive memory and as a symbol of political aspiration. The rigid and unhistorical reading of the battle should be given up immediately. Despite a conspicuous contribution made by the Mahars, this battle that led to the decimation of the Peshwas was neither a battle against Brahminism nor the caste system. The Ambedkarite discourse doesn't need such embellishments, particularly in Maharashtra, where the Ambedkarite Buddhists have succeeded in marking their distinct cultural space in the public sphere.

(Prabodhan Pol teaches at Manipal Centre for Humanities, MAHE Manipal, Karnataka. X: @PolPrabodhan.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.