What do you think?
Rate this book
Hatred in the Belly: Politics Behind the Appropriation of Dr. Ambedkar's Writings
Hatred in the Belly is a Telugu phrase (kaDupulO kasi) taken from a speech delivered by poet Joopaka Subhadra, in Hyderabad, on the appropriation of Babasaheb Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste. The speech, included in this volume, aptly summarises the deep-seated hostility of Brahminic India towards the Dalit Bahujan. Similarly, the other essays and speeches collected in this volume, written and delivered by a number of writers, academics, students, and activists (referred to as the Ambedkar Age Collective in this book), unfurl before you a critical tapestry dissecting the hegemonic brahminic discourse which works towards delegitimizing the radical legacy of Amebdkarite thought. The most stark example of these efforts, from the 'left' and the 'right' of the Indian political spectrum, is the Navayana edition of Babasaheb's AoC with an 'introduction' by Arundhati Roy. The works collected here emerged as spontaneous reactions to the Roy-Navayana project from multiple locations and in multiple languages. The varied interventions, which began online, and the discursive terrains it opened up offer us a glimpse of the ways through which the marginalised resist continued attempts made at hegemonising their knowledge and lives by the brahminic oppressors irrespective of their political leanings. Authors include: Anu Ramdas, Kuffir, Gurinder Azad, Bojja Tharakam Adv. Dr. Suresh Mane, Anoop Kumar, U. Sambashiva Rao, Shakyamuni, Dr Sangeeta Pawar, Sunny Kapicadu, O.K. Santhosh, Dr B. Ravichandran, Dalit Camera: Through Un-Touchable Eyes, Karthik Navayan, Joopaka Subhadra Dr. K Satyanarayana, Vaibhav Wasnik, Nilesh Kumar, Asha Kowtal, Nidhin Shobhana, Gee Imaan Semmalar, Syam Sundar, Murali Shanmugavelan, Praveena Thaali, Dr Karthick RM, Huma Dar, Joby Mathew, James Michael, Akshay Pathak, Vinay Bhat, Yogesh Maitreya, Thongam Bipin, K K Baburaj, Sruthi Herbert, Gaurav Somwanshi, Kadhiravan, Rahul Gaikwad, Joe D'Cruz
262 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2015
26 people are currently reading
495 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
June 22, 2018
It would make an amusing exercise to note how frequently the charge of "identity politics" is bandied around by members of the most dominant groups whose privilege resides precisely in being able to remain unmarked by their "identities", if they so wish; whose identities are secure and prioritised; and most importantly, whose power is strong, pervasive, and invisible to themselves.
-Huma Dar
-Huma Dar
January 2, 2020
At the outset, I would say that if you are considering reading this book, you should make a it a priority. It is a scathing, intelligent, revolutionary, and nuanced critique of the politics of appropriation, not just of Ambedkar's writings, but of Dalit intellectual efforts in general. Of course, it is centrally about Navayana's publication The Doctor & The Saint by Arundhati Roy, but through the arguments made in the book, it can be a primer to generally understand what appropriation looks like. Upper-castes will complain about how they are not "allowed" to talk about Dalit issues, making it about simply lived experience, but the issue is much more complicated than that, as the essays in the book suggest. The issue has more to do with how those who have nothing but contempt for the Dalit movement, or those who have not at all engaged with either Ambedkar or Ambedkarite thought is picked to PURIFY AoC, especially when AoC is itself an accessible, easy-to-read book that needs no introduction after all the years of empowerment that it has brought to the many anti-caste persons who have read it.
Firstly, the book contains essays by seminal anti-caste intellectuals - Anoop Kumar, Anu Ramdas, Asha Kowtal, Huma Dar, Joby Mathew, Joopaka Subhadra, K. Satyanarayana, and many others. Each essay is unmissable. Moreover, Arundhati Roy has also been given space in the book, with her response to the questions that Dalit Camera has posed to her. Within all the other cathartic essays, Roy's essay actually reads very bland. One of my favourite essays in the book was "The New Harijan Sewak Sangh" by James Michael & Akshay Pathak.
This book is not just simply about Roy, but the ways in which upper-castes purify knowledge by calling what they produce "theory", but what Dalits produce as just "lived experience" that needs to be sifted through their knowledge systems to be considered knowledge. For instance, Praveena Thali writes,
Roy's critique of Ambedkar and the Dalit movement is dishonest at best, and shallow at worst. For example, she writes about the millions of statues of Ambedkar across the country as being "mass-produced", as her liberal, so called anti-capitalist stance would have her say. But like most leftists who can't stop reciting Neruda, as an upper-caste woman, she has not truly engaged with the social fabric of the country. James Michael and Akshay Pathak very rightly point out that Roy needs to be able to distinguish between mass-produced statues and statues produced by the masses. Both are strikingly different.
Roy is sensitive to the neo-liberal media tactics that brought Malala Yousufzai to the forefront, but fails to bring this critique back home. She could've exemplified the same with regards to the 2012 Delhi case, and the media attention it received, but stays shockingly silent on such a matter. Again, this is an issue in general with those writing postcolonial theory - when the repeatedly fail to bring the concerns about dominance and hegemony back home. Murali Shanmugavelan puts it well,
Add to this the fact that Roy's book cites very few non-Savarna scholars. All of the defenses of Navayana fall flat against the critique this book poses. Roy's response addresses none of the concerns Bahujan scholars put forth, and instead obstinately defends a poorly written introduction with no reflexivity.
Like I said, this is not a book worth missing. There are many gems of ideas and quotes that I know I will be coming back to again and again in the coming years. To end, I would like to end with Ambedkar's quote in Praveena Thali's essay, originally taken from his essay "Untouchables or The Children of India's Ghetto",
Firstly, the book contains essays by seminal anti-caste intellectuals - Anoop Kumar, Anu Ramdas, Asha Kowtal, Huma Dar, Joby Mathew, Joopaka Subhadra, K. Satyanarayana, and many others. Each essay is unmissable. Moreover, Arundhati Roy has also been given space in the book, with her response to the questions that Dalit Camera has posed to her. Within all the other cathartic essays, Roy's essay actually reads very bland. One of my favourite essays in the book was "The New Harijan Sewak Sangh" by James Michael & Akshay Pathak.
This book is not just simply about Roy, but the ways in which upper-castes purify knowledge by calling what they produce "theory", but what Dalits produce as just "lived experience" that needs to be sifted through their knowledge systems to be considered knowledge. For instance, Praveena Thali writes,
"We saw a similar process of 'prefacing' at work in the upper-caste feminists' collective's introduction to the Intersections of Gender and Caste in EPW, in the Review of Women's Studies, featuring the writings of several Dalit women. Similarly, they believe that whatever knowledge is produced by Dalits needs to have a cover, framework, or flavour from the 'authentic' knowledge makers among the upper-castes."
Roy's critique of Ambedkar and the Dalit movement is dishonest at best, and shallow at worst. For example, she writes about the millions of statues of Ambedkar across the country as being "mass-produced", as her liberal, so called anti-capitalist stance would have her say. But like most leftists who can't stop reciting Neruda, as an upper-caste woman, she has not truly engaged with the social fabric of the country. James Michael and Akshay Pathak very rightly point out that Roy needs to be able to distinguish between mass-produced statues and statues produced by the masses. Both are strikingly different.
Roy is sensitive to the neo-liberal media tactics that brought Malala Yousufzai to the forefront, but fails to bring this critique back home. She could've exemplified the same with regards to the 2012 Delhi case, and the media attention it received, but stays shockingly silent on such a matter. Again, this is an issue in general with those writing postcolonial theory - when the repeatedly fail to bring the concerns about dominance and hegemony back home. Murali Shanmugavelan puts it well,
"According to Roy, the targeted readership conflates Hinduism with mysticism, spiritualism, non-violence, tolerance, vegetarianism, Gandhi, yoga, backpackers, and the Beatles. If challenging these notions is the reason behind publishing this introduction, then it could have been a critique of Brahminism and Hinduism, with reference to Ambedkar rather than an introduction to AoC. At the end of the introduction, Roy says that caste cannot be annihilated 'unless those who call themselves revolutionary develop a radical critique of Brahminism'. Perhaps that hsould have been the start of the book."
Add to this the fact that Roy's book cites very few non-Savarna scholars. All of the defenses of Navayana fall flat against the critique this book poses. Roy's response addresses none of the concerns Bahujan scholars put forth, and instead obstinately defends a poorly written introduction with no reflexivity.
Like I said, this is not a book worth missing. There are many gems of ideas and quotes that I know I will be coming back to again and again in the coming years. To end, I would like to end with Ambedkar's quote in Praveena Thali's essay, originally taken from his essay "Untouchables or The Children of India's Ghetto",
It is usual to hear all those who feel moved by the deplorable condition of the Untouchables unburden themselves by uttering the cry "We must do something for the Untouchables". One seldom hears any of the persons interested in the problem saying 'Let us do something to change the Touchable Hindu'. It is invariably assumed that the object to be reclaimed is the Untouchables. If there is to be a Mission, it must be to the Untouchables and if the Untouchables can be cured, untouchability will vanish. Nothing requires to be done to the Touchable. He is sound in mind, manners and morals. He is whole, there is nothing wrong with him. Is this assumption correct? Whether correct or not, the Hindus like to cling to it. The assumption has the supreme merit of satisfying themselves that they are not responsible for the problem of the Untouchables.
January 8, 2016
Hatred is not a self-perpetuating mechanism. It’s a seed planted, with careful deliberation and thought, in the evolving quarters of education, economy, society, and politics, and nourished with sunshine and water of the hands and minds of those who intend to spread its poisoned abundance, with an aim to establish a hegemony by the few, over the riches of others. The vectors that aid in pollination carry it in blind faith, or sometimes under the burden to maintain the stronghold established by their predecessors. Thus, hatred is constantly taught, fed, and perpetuated.
When asked what the book 'Hatred in the belly' is about, I’m often confused what to reply. To say that it is a scathing critique of the Arundhati Roy-Navayana project to publish Babasaheb Ambedkar’s founding text on caste-based practices in India, ‘Annihilation of Caste’, with a weightier, self-aggrandizing introduction that seeks to delegitimize Ambedkar’s philosophy, would be taking a reductionist stance. The book is not a mere critique, for neither the word ‘scathing’ nor ‘critique’ intensify the sense of disquiet and urgency behind every word of the text.
'Hatred in the belly' is a dossier on caste politics in India; a treatise on how the casteist thought is embedded and kept alive in our collective psyche. Keeping in view the criticism of the Roy-Navayana project—in response to which the collection emerged-- it offers a variety of perspectives on how, wittingly or unwittingly, the Brahminic society—the class at the highest rung of caste hierarchy in India-- does grave injustice to the Dalits—a community considered to be at the lowest rung of caste hierarchy in India--, and how the age-old Brahminic hegemony is preserved and perpetuated through the established knowledge systems.
I was struck by the variety and breadth of thought process. The essays help one sharpen his/her intellect while offering curious insights on the topic in discussion. The writing is astute and succinct, accompanied by passages from ‘Annihilation of Caste’, and a series of short poems and caricatures. Sample how K K Baburaj, a notable cultural critic and political commentator based in Kerala, challenges Roy’s romantic affiliation towards Maoism in light of people’s movements and class struggles in India:
The critical difference here is that the theme of the politics of the marginalized is ‘survival’, while a Marxist agenda is determined by ‘class struggle’. […] In short, a political and military revolution that is arrived at by drawing a straight line from Marxism will not consider marginalized sections or other religio-socio diversities, or sexual minorities, as political agents. […] To be beyond the state, to detest urbanism, to urbanism, to understand class domination ahistorically, to fail to recognize emerging social subjectivities, and above all, to have no trust in democracy—are not these merely the natural convictions arising from her belief in a simplistic modernism?
One pertinent question remains to be addressed, though: Who are these people? A casual glance at the back-pages will reveal a list of writers, academics, students, and activists who refer to themselves as ‘Ambedkar Age Collective’. To call them ‘romantics’ would be a misnomer in terms of terminology, as they don’t strive for a poet’s utopia; their discourses aren’t ‘polemics’; their protests are not ‘mob outrage’; they’re all humanists who have—and still do—unstintingly, vehemently struggled to bring out the truth buried under the irrational prejudices and indoctrinated teachings that have led to the condensed hostility of the Brahminic India towards the Dalits, and in the process hold a clean mirror to the present-day ugly Bharat (India). They attempt to rid our minds of the carefully planted and nurtured ‘seed of hatred’, whose vegetation has been infesting for generations. Thus, 'Hatred in the belly' is a necessary, sanitizing experience of our times.
https://sahilsood.wordpress.com/2016/...
When asked what the book 'Hatred in the belly' is about, I’m often confused what to reply. To say that it is a scathing critique of the Arundhati Roy-Navayana project to publish Babasaheb Ambedkar’s founding text on caste-based practices in India, ‘Annihilation of Caste’, with a weightier, self-aggrandizing introduction that seeks to delegitimize Ambedkar’s philosophy, would be taking a reductionist stance. The book is not a mere critique, for neither the word ‘scathing’ nor ‘critique’ intensify the sense of disquiet and urgency behind every word of the text.
'Hatred in the belly' is a dossier on caste politics in India; a treatise on how the casteist thought is embedded and kept alive in our collective psyche. Keeping in view the criticism of the Roy-Navayana project—in response to which the collection emerged-- it offers a variety of perspectives on how, wittingly or unwittingly, the Brahminic society—the class at the highest rung of caste hierarchy in India-- does grave injustice to the Dalits—a community considered to be at the lowest rung of caste hierarchy in India--, and how the age-old Brahminic hegemony is preserved and perpetuated through the established knowledge systems.
I was struck by the variety and breadth of thought process. The essays help one sharpen his/her intellect while offering curious insights on the topic in discussion. The writing is astute and succinct, accompanied by passages from ‘Annihilation of Caste’, and a series of short poems and caricatures. Sample how K K Baburaj, a notable cultural critic and political commentator based in Kerala, challenges Roy’s romantic affiliation towards Maoism in light of people’s movements and class struggles in India:
The critical difference here is that the theme of the politics of the marginalized is ‘survival’, while a Marxist agenda is determined by ‘class struggle’. […] In short, a political and military revolution that is arrived at by drawing a straight line from Marxism will not consider marginalized sections or other religio-socio diversities, or sexual minorities, as political agents. […] To be beyond the state, to detest urbanism, to urbanism, to understand class domination ahistorically, to fail to recognize emerging social subjectivities, and above all, to have no trust in democracy—are not these merely the natural convictions arising from her belief in a simplistic modernism?
One pertinent question remains to be addressed, though: Who are these people? A casual glance at the back-pages will reveal a list of writers, academics, students, and activists who refer to themselves as ‘Ambedkar Age Collective’. To call them ‘romantics’ would be a misnomer in terms of terminology, as they don’t strive for a poet’s utopia; their discourses aren’t ‘polemics’; their protests are not ‘mob outrage’; they’re all humanists who have—and still do—unstintingly, vehemently struggled to bring out the truth buried under the irrational prejudices and indoctrinated teachings that have led to the condensed hostility of the Brahminic India towards the Dalits, and in the process hold a clean mirror to the present-day ugly Bharat (India). They attempt to rid our minds of the carefully planted and nurtured ‘seed of hatred’, whose vegetation has been infesting for generations. Thus, 'Hatred in the belly' is a necessary, sanitizing experience of our times.
https://sahilsood.wordpress.com/2016/...
February 27, 2016
I rarely give 5 star ratings to any book, but this a tour de force of sorts. The book is a coming together of dalit bahujan intellectuals against the usurpation of Ambedkar's legacy and a complete attempted takeover of the seminal text, annihilation of caste. It owes its genesis to the roy-navayana narrative which is being constructed and how Ambedkar is being astutely brahminised in the process. Read this book to understand why Arundhati Roy's 190 page introduction to Ambedkar's work needs to be taken very very seriously as an attempt to relegate Ambedkar and usurp a commanding voice in order to dumb it down and subsequently crush it.
The writers are brilliant and the text is astounding, if this is the first output from this new publishing house, I am waiting for more!!
The writers are brilliant and the text is astounding, if this is the first output from this new publishing house, I am waiting for more!!
September 29, 2016
Searing, white-hot critique from multiple perspectives. I'm going to use this book like a textbook for the wealth of knowledge that it provides; the way one debate is used to unlock other issues related to appropriation and brahmanical dominance-- from the upper-caste reshaping of anti-caste movements in ancient India into harmlessly spiritual 'bhakti' movements, to tracing the history of dominance of the Syrian Christians in Kerala, to examining the creatively christened 'insurgency tourism' of Roy-- is just brilliant. While the arguments are academically strong, they are not clinical, as the presence of personal narratives, poetry, and illustrations manage to convey the sheer emotional toll of repeated appropriations and caste violence directed at the participants of the anti-caste movement who have carried on Ambedkar's legacy for decades. I know I'm going to go back to Hatred in the Belly again and again, not only to make notes and follow its references' trails towards more resources, but to repeatedly subject my own casteism and immense caste privilege to scrutiny, and to know which voices I might be silencing by having the privilege of always being heard.
September 14, 2016
A book for a book.!
this book replies to an Arundhati Roys AOC book and
additionally it has many speeches,interviews,articles,cartoons and drawings.it will discuss other things like how brahmins are making money using baba sahebs name.
It is one of the best book, written by Dalits and not by so called upper caste Messiahs of Dalits, who are after money and name only! Must read for evryone
this book replies to an Arundhati Roys AOC book and
additionally it has many speeches,interviews,articles,cartoons and drawings.it will discuss other things like how brahmins are making money using baba sahebs name.
It is one of the best book, written by Dalits and not by so called upper caste Messiahs of Dalits, who are after money and name only! Must read for evryone
October 22, 2016
What a read! A truly brilliant collection of criticism. Too much to quote so posting separately on blog about how amazing this experience has been.
July 30, 2017
Exhilarating read!
December 9, 2016
"Hatred in the Belly" is a compilation of essays written by Ambedkarites as a response to the introduction written by Arundhati Roy, "The Doctor and the Saint" for Dr. Babahsaheb Ambedkar's well known speech -- "Annihilation of Caste." Dr. Ambedkar's essay has been revolutionary, and in a sense, so has "Hatred in the Belly." Before talking about how Hatred in the Belly has changed my thought process, I'd like to give a bit of context regarding my experience with Roy's essay.
It was the April of 2014, when I picked up this Roy-Ambedkar combination. The 2014 elections had charged up the political atmosphere, and like any other young'un interested in the future of India, I began working on understanding its socio-political climate. It was the perfect time to read Arundhati Roy and Dr. Ambedkar, and I was excited at the fact that such a well-renowned author has decided to bring Ambedkar to the people again. I have to admit, I loved Roy's essay. Her narration of Dalit crimes, statistics demonstrating their under-representation (and over-representation of Brahmins), Gandhi's blatant casteism and racism, Dr. Babasaheb's losing battles made my blood boil. Questions did arise -- "Why has this been on-going and why haven't people been discussing it before Roy?" or "Why do so few of my friends know or discuss Ambedkar as a radical anti-caste leader?" or "Why hasn't anyone before Arundhati Roy talked about Ambedkar? Why do I know Ambedkar only from the likes of Ramdas Athavale?" It just became easy to answer, "It's because Arundhati Roy is that good, that radical, that concerned to talk about Ambedkar and Dalits." One important element was missing in the whole equation -- my own caste, and as a result, my privileges, my social circles and my understanding of caste.
Don't get me wrong, I had gotten to the point to realize that as an upper-caste Brahmin man, I had been reaping the benefits of social and economic privilege garnered across centuries. What I failed to see was the intellectual hegemony that my caste has enjoyed, somehow more dominant than the economic or social. How could I see that this essay was simply an academic treatment of a very very limited part of Dalit struggle -- one which focuses only on their misery? To me, Dalits had only been shown to be an "oppressed class" and that there were a few good Brahmin activists/scholars/writers who had "deigned to uplift them." For me, Roy's act of writing on Ambedkar was a revolutionary act. Arundhati Roy, Anand Patwardhan had become my favorite Brahmin anti-caste crusaders. Cracks started developing in my understanding of the anti-caste struggle, when one of my facebook friends, Gaurav Somwanshi, along with other Ambedkarites, began talking against the essay. Articles countering the introduction started appearing on the website Round Table India (http://www.roundtableindia.co.in/) and the facebook page The Colonization of Ambedkar. It was apparent that the Ambedkarite community was angry.
It was not apparent why they would take on someone who seemed to be on their own side. I finally decided to find time to read through the praised collection of essays by the Ambedkar Age Collective.
For me, as a member of the elite class, "Hatred in the Belly" has been as revolutionary as Annihilation of Caste has. Understanding Babasaheb's literature is not a piece of cake, and it seems that I have only read his works in the context of opposing the obviously blatant casteist sect of the society that openly revels in caste superiority. Annihilation of Caste, as explained by Hatred in the Belly attacks a far deeper subtler problem of Brahminization. And that is its conscious drive to maintain a superior position even while attacking caste inequality, its need to be the enlightened messiah of the "backward castes", while enjoying the acceptance of upper castes. I don't wish to talk in this review about the arguments put forth to Arundhati Roy by the Dalit community, or her (arrogant) response to the questions. Here, I wish to stress on what I have learned through the process.
Firstly, these essays themselves are a sufficient exhibit that the Dalit community is far from the oppressed community that the upper class audience has been led to believe. It is a strong intellectual and political force, motivated by Dr. Ambedkar's writings and philosophy, developed out of rejection of the laws that have created the hierarchical Hindu society. It is a community that has led to the birth of the Bahujan Samaj Party under the leadership of Kanshi Ram, again a result of an inspiration from Annihilation of Caste. Contrary to my understanding, Babasaheb has never ceased to remain in the hearts of the people, and that there's never been an need for an urgent revival of his literature by hiring an upper-caste celebrity (something that Roy has stressed). The second point which has been harder to digest has been the problem with pitting Gandhi versus Ambedkar. By doing so, the essay clearly acknowledges an inherent higher weightage to Gandhi, and then try to "raise Ambedkar above Gandhi's level." A dispute with Gandhi has been just one facet of Dr. Ambedkar's movement, and Gandhi in no terms serves as the touchstone for determining Dr. Ambedkar's worth. As one of the authors has nicely put it (not ad verbatim), "We don't bring in Dr. Ambedkar when we write a thesis on Gandhi. Why the other way round?"
Lastly, one would wonder, even if there is a concious appropriation taking place (which it is), why should the Dalit Bahujan Samaj worry about it? Roy has written an introduction to Ambedkar, and well, they are free to do it too. Roy posed the exact same argument to the authors in her reply. The author's explanation which really convinced me has a historical perspective. This has not been the first anti-caste appropriation seen through the centuries. They have occurred more frequently than you might think, yet, they have done a good job of eliminating any evidence of their crimes. The radical anti-caste ideologies of Tukaram, Kabir have been cleverly wiped out, and they are popularized as benign saints, who pushed for benign changes that didn't really threaten the power of the upper castes. This has been possible only because of the intellectual propagation being solely in the hands of the Brahmin class, something we really pride ourselves in. Something similar is happening to Dr. Ambedkar right now. It is easy to call out the RSS for saying Dr. Ambedkar was one of their own, but it's not so easy to do so when liberals like Roy try to do that even more subtly. "Hatred in the Belly" through its powerful essays uncovers the agenda wonderfully.
To summarize, Dr. Ambedkar's works are more than just a subject of academic interest. As stated by Gaurav Somwanshi, "The battle against caste isn't just some ideology, it's our existence." Ambedkar's works are not something to be toyed with without a heavy engagement with the people for whom the book has served as a meaning of their existence. Simply reading his works does not make you an expert on Ambedkar. Also, claiming to be the very few people who has "cared to read" Ambedkar (yes, Roy said that) is even worse. And more importantly, if you wish to lay bare the world the struggles of a peoples, they have a much greater say in how it should be done. If you wish to dictate or oppose their terms, you cannot claim to be fighting on their behalf, you are fighting against them.
Hatred in the Belly has given me a fresh perspective of looking at Dalit struggles, Dalit literature and the challenges they face from the upper caste force. My casteist views reflected in Arundhati Roy's writing exist no more.
It was the April of 2014, when I picked up this Roy-Ambedkar combination. The 2014 elections had charged up the political atmosphere, and like any other young'un interested in the future of India, I began working on understanding its socio-political climate. It was the perfect time to read Arundhati Roy and Dr. Ambedkar, and I was excited at the fact that such a well-renowned author has decided to bring Ambedkar to the people again. I have to admit, I loved Roy's essay. Her narration of Dalit crimes, statistics demonstrating their under-representation (and over-representation of Brahmins), Gandhi's blatant casteism and racism, Dr. Babasaheb's losing battles made my blood boil. Questions did arise -- "Why has this been on-going and why haven't people been discussing it before Roy?" or "Why do so few of my friends know or discuss Ambedkar as a radical anti-caste leader?" or "Why hasn't anyone before Arundhati Roy talked about Ambedkar? Why do I know Ambedkar only from the likes of Ramdas Athavale?" It just became easy to answer, "It's because Arundhati Roy is that good, that radical, that concerned to talk about Ambedkar and Dalits." One important element was missing in the whole equation -- my own caste, and as a result, my privileges, my social circles and my understanding of caste.
Don't get me wrong, I had gotten to the point to realize that as an upper-caste Brahmin man, I had been reaping the benefits of social and economic privilege garnered across centuries. What I failed to see was the intellectual hegemony that my caste has enjoyed, somehow more dominant than the economic or social. How could I see that this essay was simply an academic treatment of a very very limited part of Dalit struggle -- one which focuses only on their misery? To me, Dalits had only been shown to be an "oppressed class" and that there were a few good Brahmin activists/scholars/writers who had "deigned to uplift them." For me, Roy's act of writing on Ambedkar was a revolutionary act. Arundhati Roy, Anand Patwardhan had become my favorite Brahmin anti-caste crusaders. Cracks started developing in my understanding of the anti-caste struggle, when one of my facebook friends, Gaurav Somwanshi, along with other Ambedkarites, began talking against the essay. Articles countering the introduction started appearing on the website Round Table India (http://www.roundtableindia.co.in/) and the facebook page The Colonization of Ambedkar. It was apparent that the Ambedkarite community was angry.
It was not apparent why they would take on someone who seemed to be on their own side. I finally decided to find time to read through the praised collection of essays by the Ambedkar Age Collective.
For me, as a member of the elite class, "Hatred in the Belly" has been as revolutionary as Annihilation of Caste has. Understanding Babasaheb's literature is not a piece of cake, and it seems that I have only read his works in the context of opposing the obviously blatant casteist sect of the society that openly revels in caste superiority. Annihilation of Caste, as explained by Hatred in the Belly attacks a far deeper subtler problem of Brahminization. And that is its conscious drive to maintain a superior position even while attacking caste inequality, its need to be the enlightened messiah of the "backward castes", while enjoying the acceptance of upper castes. I don't wish to talk in this review about the arguments put forth to Arundhati Roy by the Dalit community, or her (arrogant) response to the questions. Here, I wish to stress on what I have learned through the process.
Firstly, these essays themselves are a sufficient exhibit that the Dalit community is far from the oppressed community that the upper class audience has been led to believe. It is a strong intellectual and political force, motivated by Dr. Ambedkar's writings and philosophy, developed out of rejection of the laws that have created the hierarchical Hindu society. It is a community that has led to the birth of the Bahujan Samaj Party under the leadership of Kanshi Ram, again a result of an inspiration from Annihilation of Caste. Contrary to my understanding, Babasaheb has never ceased to remain in the hearts of the people, and that there's never been an need for an urgent revival of his literature by hiring an upper-caste celebrity (something that Roy has stressed). The second point which has been harder to digest has been the problem with pitting Gandhi versus Ambedkar. By doing so, the essay clearly acknowledges an inherent higher weightage to Gandhi, and then try to "raise Ambedkar above Gandhi's level." A dispute with Gandhi has been just one facet of Dr. Ambedkar's movement, and Gandhi in no terms serves as the touchstone for determining Dr. Ambedkar's worth. As one of the authors has nicely put it (not ad verbatim), "We don't bring in Dr. Ambedkar when we write a thesis on Gandhi. Why the other way round?"
Lastly, one would wonder, even if there is a concious appropriation taking place (which it is), why should the Dalit Bahujan Samaj worry about it? Roy has written an introduction to Ambedkar, and well, they are free to do it too. Roy posed the exact same argument to the authors in her reply. The author's explanation which really convinced me has a historical perspective. This has not been the first anti-caste appropriation seen through the centuries. They have occurred more frequently than you might think, yet, they have done a good job of eliminating any evidence of their crimes. The radical anti-caste ideologies of Tukaram, Kabir have been cleverly wiped out, and they are popularized as benign saints, who pushed for benign changes that didn't really threaten the power of the upper castes. This has been possible only because of the intellectual propagation being solely in the hands of the Brahmin class, something we really pride ourselves in. Something similar is happening to Dr. Ambedkar right now. It is easy to call out the RSS for saying Dr. Ambedkar was one of their own, but it's not so easy to do so when liberals like Roy try to do that even more subtly. "Hatred in the Belly" through its powerful essays uncovers the agenda wonderfully.
To summarize, Dr. Ambedkar's works are more than just a subject of academic interest. As stated by Gaurav Somwanshi, "The battle against caste isn't just some ideology, it's our existence." Ambedkar's works are not something to be toyed with without a heavy engagement with the people for whom the book has served as a meaning of their existence. Simply reading his works does not make you an expert on Ambedkar. Also, claiming to be the very few people who has "cared to read" Ambedkar (yes, Roy said that) is even worse. And more importantly, if you wish to lay bare the world the struggles of a peoples, they have a much greater say in how it should be done. If you wish to dictate or oppose their terms, you cannot claim to be fighting on their behalf, you are fighting against them.
Hatred in the Belly has given me a fresh perspective of looking at Dalit struggles, Dalit literature and the challenges they face from the upper caste force. My casteist views reflected in Arundhati Roy's writing exist no more.
October 11, 2023
The DBA anti-caste intellectual terrain is such a dignified, excellent and courageous space. This collective resistance to the attempted muddling & rebranding of Dr. B R Ambedkar’s legacy, is a great example of it. Every response to Arundhati Roy’s arrogant attempt at replacing Babasaheb’s stance and thoughts, were meticulous, exhaustively researched and damning.
July 27, 2021
"The social capital of the privileged is built on the usurpation of the cultural capital of the marginalised"
For me the key takeaways from the book were with regards to: the historical appropriation of Dalit intellectual property by savarnas and how the savior complex manifests itself in savarna academics (and everyone else by extension).
While the conversation brought forth by this book is focused on the "introduction" to Annihilation of Caste by Arundhati Roy, it highlights the monopoly of academia and knowledge circuits maintained by the Brahmins. In fact, in the recent case of the viral "Enjoy Enjaami" where the savarna singer Dhee collaborated with DJ Snake leaving out the creator Arivu from the credits, seemed to fall in line with this history of appropriation.
The savarna savior complex is explained in multiple essays as an exoticisation of marginalized lives for the self reflective development of the oppressors.
The essays in this book are brilliantly articulated and provided thorough insight into the much erased history of our country.
5/5 stars
For me the key takeaways from the book were with regards to: the historical appropriation of Dalit intellectual property by savarnas and how the savior complex manifests itself in savarna academics (and everyone else by extension).
While the conversation brought forth by this book is focused on the "introduction" to Annihilation of Caste by Arundhati Roy, it highlights the monopoly of academia and knowledge circuits maintained by the Brahmins. In fact, in the recent case of the viral "Enjoy Enjaami" where the savarna singer Dhee collaborated with DJ Snake leaving out the creator Arivu from the credits, seemed to fall in line with this history of appropriation.
The savarna savior complex is explained in multiple essays as an exoticisation of marginalized lives for the self reflective development of the oppressors.
The essays in this book are brilliantly articulated and provided thorough insight into the much erased history of our country.
5/5 stars
December 25, 2019
Public Intellectuals should have the courage to say that they will not say what they don’t want to say or what they don’t understand. The failure of firebrand liberal like Ms Roy showcase us importance of this statement with the essay ' 'The Doctor and the Saint'. As a reader, we need to rebuff of those who had assumed for themselves the intellectual monopoly of interpreting India as 'The Doctor and the Saint' represents a liberal Brahminical tactical approach for hijacking the discourse. Ms Roy had accepted that she had taken the trouble to read works of Dr. Ambedkar. This statement of her shows the arrogance and failure to accept limitations.
'Hatred in the Belly' does a fantastic job of examining Ms Roy's introduction (The Doctor and the Saint) in critical manner from multiple perspective. The book exposes shallow attempt by the publisher and Ms Roy as a PR agent to market Dr Ambedkar for upper castes and western academia who haven't discover Dr Ambedkar.
A contributor to the book, Nidhin Shobhana has summed up the whole farce in few words: In Tiru Kochi, until the early decades of 20th century, if grains & oil were to be brought to a Namboothiri household by the lower castes, it had to travel through the Syrian Christian household. The traditional role of purification continues in the case of this introduction. An upper caste audience can consume a self-sufficient radical text only when a Syrian Christian performs the caste ordained purification ritual.
There is genuine criticism provided by the contributors to show how Mr Gandhi is inserted to be compared with Dr Ambedkar as a marketing gimmick. How an introduction to book become more popular than original text i.e. Annihilation of Caste ? Dr Ambedkar doesn't need such introduction by the intellectuals who brand themselves martyr with a finger-cut.
'Hatred in the Belly' does a fantastic job of examining Ms Roy's introduction (The Doctor and the Saint) in critical manner from multiple perspective. The book exposes shallow attempt by the publisher and Ms Roy as a PR agent to market Dr Ambedkar for upper castes and western academia who haven't discover Dr Ambedkar.
A contributor to the book, Nidhin Shobhana has summed up the whole farce in few words: In Tiru Kochi, until the early decades of 20th century, if grains & oil were to be brought to a Namboothiri household by the lower castes, it had to travel through the Syrian Christian household. The traditional role of purification continues in the case of this introduction. An upper caste audience can consume a self-sufficient radical text only when a Syrian Christian performs the caste ordained purification ritual.
There is genuine criticism provided by the contributors to show how Mr Gandhi is inserted to be compared with Dr Ambedkar as a marketing gimmick. How an introduction to book become more popular than original text i.e. Annihilation of Caste ? Dr Ambedkar doesn't need such introduction by the intellectuals who brand themselves martyr with a finger-cut.
May 29, 2019
A primer for every new age Ambedkaritr activist
December 2, 2025
This collection of essays was suggested as a parallel read to Arundhati Roy's memoir, "with an anti-caste critique of savarna writings, including Roy’s work." The description was, to put it mildly, misleading. The companion piece to a memoir by an author can certainly be an essay or a set of essays which call out specific aspects of the author and/ or the image the author projects, but it should not be over two dozen essays, each essentially saying the same thing- that Arundhati Roy does not have the authority to appropriate Dr. Ambedkar as she attempted to do by penning an introduction to his definitive work on the caste system.
Despite my caste location, I agree with what each of the writers was saying. Annihilation of Caste is a seminal work which does not need an introduction, and even if an annotated version is to be published, the references cannot be skewed against writers who have lived experience of caste oppression. Among other issues, AoC speaks about how the voices of people at the dispossessed end of the caste spectrum are systemically erased, and by not inviting an Ambedkarite scholar to write the introduction, this particular edition did exactly what AoC says the privileged classes do.
While many of the essays were repetitive, they raised very important points on appropriation, on erasure, on representation, and on the arrogance of the privileged class.
Despite my caste location, I agree with what each of the writers was saying. Annihilation of Caste is a seminal work which does not need an introduction, and even if an annotated version is to be published, the references cannot be skewed against writers who have lived experience of caste oppression. Among other issues, AoC speaks about how the voices of people at the dispossessed end of the caste spectrum are systemically erased, and by not inviting an Ambedkarite scholar to write the introduction, this particular edition did exactly what AoC says the privileged classes do.
While many of the essays were repetitive, they raised very important points on appropriation, on erasure, on representation, and on the arrogance of the privileged class.
May 19, 2025
Unfortunately it seems the 2016 republication of Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste in its so-called "annotated critical edition," complete with Arundhati Roy's book-length introduction, is the version that has in recent years made its way into the Western intellectual imagination. This is a crying shame, because as this collection by Dalit academics, artists, and activists so effectively argues, this hijacking of Ambedkar's original text by a pair of UC elite (despite Roy's suggestion that even with a Brahmin father, as a Syrian Christian she lies outside such designations) replicates the exact structures of Brahminical hegemony that Ambedkar proposes to annihilate. This collection should be required reading for anyone--particularly Westerners who lack conceptions of the social realities of caste--who picks up the annotated critical edition of AoC. It is simply incomplete without this perspective.
January 22, 2022
"A Dalit publisher is there to ensure that the Dalit voices do get published, irrespective of the market demand. There are also a couple of savarna publishers who do publish some of our work. But notice their method and motive. They will take only the few big established names from the Dalits, and publish them at high prices and the demand among Dalits will ensure that their books are bought and their pockets filled, plus they also get to call themselves ‘progressives’. But that is not anti-caste struggle.”
A brilliant, searing analysis of the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar's writing. Reading this collection of speeches, essays, and interviews is like having your mind pierced and stretched on all sides by minds 100x keener than your own, sharpened by anger and passion.
A brilliant, searing analysis of the appropriation of Dr Ambedkar's writing. Reading this collection of speeches, essays, and interviews is like having your mind pierced and stretched on all sides by minds 100x keener than your own, sharpened by anger and passion.
February 24, 2017
I've read somewhere that Brahmins cannot help but feel special; like they're at the center of everything. The special edition AoC by Navayana seems like one more case of this same old phenomenon.
'Hatred in the belly' is a collection of essays by Ambedkarite intellectuals, not Dalits alone, about Appropriation of Ambedkar, particularly the Navayana AoC. It presents all the ways in which Nav. AoC will not do anything to help the people it says it will and moreover it would be harmful even. I have to say though that I was not able to follow everything as I missed the context of the original controversy and I am in general quite illiterate in the social sciences- I have had the privilege to not notice any need for them.
Arundhati Roy's reply to the questions posed by the Ambedkarite is also featured in the book, somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't help her argument all that much. HitB shows why it's a good idea to listen to the people who you say you want to help when you are helping them.
'Hatred in the belly' is a collection of essays by Ambedkarite intellectuals, not Dalits alone, about Appropriation of Ambedkar, particularly the Navayana AoC. It presents all the ways in which Nav. AoC will not do anything to help the people it says it will and moreover it would be harmful even. I have to say though that I was not able to follow everything as I missed the context of the original controversy and I am in general quite illiterate in the social sciences- I have had the privilege to not notice any need for them.
Arundhati Roy's reply to the questions posed by the Ambedkarite is also featured in the book, somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't help her argument all that much. HitB shows why it's a good idea to listen to the people who you say you want to help when you are helping them.
June 3, 2016
One of the worst books ever written, hell it isn't even a book - just a couple of badly translated rants against all the world , the brahmin writer Arundhati Roy, the brahman editor Anand, the brahmin publishing house, the brahminical corporate media and even the privileged high caste audience!
Super Silly! Please don't waste your money! Repetitive, boring, badly written and nothing informative - a classical example of wastage. This book made me seriously doubt all online rating and reviews of books :/
Super Silly! Please don't waste your money! Repetitive, boring, badly written and nothing informative - a classical example of wastage. This book made me seriously doubt all online rating and reviews of books :/
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews