I

Hinduism is generally supposed to be dominated by exclusivist orientation. This implies its ethos as being too orthodox to afford liberal space. However, the history of its existence does not subscribe to this view that was chiefly generated in the colonial period. It has remained a rather dynamic religio-cultural order constituted by different orthodox as well as heterodox traditions. An attempt is made in this chapter to contest its exclusivist image in the light of historical experiences.

In the 1930s, J. H. Hutton observed that in Tamil Nadu Dalit women were not allowed to wear gold and silver ornaments, use sandal paste and flowers; Dalit men were prohibited from wearing clothes below the knee and above the waist, etc. Discrimination against Dalits, perhaps, became more prominently visible during the colonial period, which must have been distressing the conscience of a lot of a people. However, a few of them came forward to raise their voice against the very system that was said to have projected and nourished it. Ambedkar, for example, considered untouchability as a ‘permanent hereditary stain’ of Hinduism, which nothing can cleanse. Hinduism, he asserted, has no concern with moral basis, liberty and equality. Perhaps, the extreme level of dishonour to which the Scheduled Castes (SCs) were being subjected in the name of religion, prompted Ambedkar, Gaekwad of Badodara, Anant Krishna Aiyar and others to hold such a view against Hinduism.