A couple of days after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a public gathering at Ramlila Maidan in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, on August 8, members of a right-wing group, reportedly Shri Ram Sena, conducted a ritualistic purification ceremony at the site where Kharge had delivered his speech. The act was widely criticised, with many seeing it as a reminder of the persistence of caste prejudice and notions of ritual purity and pollution.
The incident also prompted questions about whether such an act could fall within the scope of laws dealing with untouchability and atrocities against the Scheduled Castes. Whatever its precise legal character, the episode is troubling because it appears to revive a notion that the presence or touch of a person belonging to a historically marginalised caste can render a place impure and in need of purification.
The incident, however, should not be viewed in isolation. There have been several instances in the past in which places or objects associated with Dalit leaders or visitors have reportedly been subjected to purification rituals. These include the purification of a statue inaugurated by Union Minister Jagjivan Ram in 1978, a temple purification following a visit by Bihar Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi in 2014, and reported instances involving Munni Devi in Kanpur in 2016 and Manisha Anuragi, a sitting Dalit BJP MLA in Uttar Pradesh, in 2018.
The Haldwani incident involving Mallikarjun Kharge, therefore, brings back a question that India has confronted repeatedly: how deeply have notions of ritual purity and pollution associated with caste survived despite the constitutional abolition of untouchability?
The cases involving prominent public figures naturally receive attention because they are visible. But similar experiences may be faced by ordinary people in less visible ways. In all, there were as many as 55,865 atrocities registered against members of Scheduled Castes in 2024 alone.
The idea of ritual purity and pollution has a long history in parts of the Hindu social order. Ancient dharmashastras and smritis contain several prescriptions concerning contact with those regarded as outside the caste order.
The Vishnu Smriti was one of the earliest to refer to the need for purification after contact with a chandala or outcaste (asprushya). The Manusmriti prescribed bath after contact with a chandala, with the touching of food or earthen vessels requiring them to be thrown away and metal vessels scrubbed with ashes. The Apastamba Dharmasutra and Gautama Dharmasutra go beyond touch: if a chandala’s sight falls on another person, that person must look at the sun to purify. If spoken to, the person must converse with a Brahmin or recite a specific Vedic mantra to cleanse themselves.
Thus the Kharge incident is not an isolated one, but an inherent outcome of Brahmanical religious, ethical and legal codes, in which high castes are considered victims. Kharge’s case may have been picked up deliberately because he chose egalitarian Buddhist ideology, not iniquitous Brahmanism.
It is important to distinguish between the historical existence of such prescriptions and the beliefs and practices of contemporary Hindu society. Hindu traditions have themselves undergone considerable change, and millions of Hindus do not subscribe to notions of untouchability or caste-based exclusion. The Constitution, social reform movements and generations of struggles against discrimination have profoundly altered the social landscape.
Yet the persistence of occasional purification rituals suggests that some older ideas have not entirely disappeared. The significance of the Haldwani incident lies precisely here. It raises the uncomfortable question of whether notions that were once embedded in a hierarchical social order continue to influence social behaviour even in a democratic and constitutional India.
For B R Ambedkar, the struggle against caste was not merely a struggle for political representation. It was a struggle for equality and human dignity. His advocacy of Buddhism was part of his larger search for a social order based on equality, liberty and fraternity. The construction of a major Buddhist Vihara at Kalaburagi by Kharge can similarly be seen as reflecting his association with an egalitarian social philosophy.
The history of India has witnessed a long contest between hierarchical and egalitarian ideas. Buddhism, the Bhakti traditions and later the movements led by social reformers such as Jyotirao Phule, E V Ramasamy Periyar and Ambedkar challenged entrenched forms of social inequality in different ways and in different historical circumstances. These movements did not always share the same philosophy, but they contributed to a continuing debate about social hierarchy, dignity and equality.
Independent India ultimately gave this egalitarian principle its strongest institutional expression through the Constitution. Equality, liberty and fraternity became foundational values, while untouchability was expressly abolished under Article 17. The Constitution did not merely prohibit a particular social practice; it sought to fundamentally change the relationship between citizenship and caste.
Ambedkar described his struggle as revolution by Buddhism against a counter-revolution by Brahmanism. The final blow to the counter-revolution was the adoption of the Constitution based on equality, liberty and fraternity, and democracy, secularism and socialism. However, the counter-revolutionaries had opposed the Constitution, too. The Shankaracharya of Puri and Hindu Mahasabha had proposed to base the Constitution on Brahmanism and varnashrama. After its adoption in 1950, the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS had opposed it arguing it did not embody Hindu culture.
The continuing appearance of purification rituals, therefore, deserves attention not simply as an isolated religious practice or a political provocation, but as a reminder of the distance that can sometimes remain between constitutional values and social behaviour.
It is equally important not to generalise from individual incidents to an entire religious community or tradition. The challenge is to identify and oppose discriminatory practices wherever they occur while recognising the diversity and capacity for reform within Indian society.
The Haldwani incident, like earlier episodes, brings an old question into the present. Can a democratic society that guarantees equality to every citizen continue to accommodate practices based on the assumption that some people are inherently polluting or less worthy of social acceptance?
The answer lies in the constitutional promise of equality, liberty and fraternity. Protecting that promise requires not only laws but also a sustained social rejection of untouchability and caste discrimination. The issue is therefore larger than any individual political party, organisation or religious group. It concerns the kind of society India seeks to be—and whether the principles of the Constitution can ultimately prevail over inherited notions of hierarchy and exclusion.
Sukhadeo Thorat | Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University and former Chairman, University Grants Commission
(Views are personal)
