Paper short abstract:

This paper is an attempt to understand the (framing of) meaning in the debates on ontology of caste with reference to the idea of experience in general and my own experiences as a Dalit activist in particular.

Paper long abstract:

Caste is debated and talked in both particular and general terms. How do we decide the meaning in the debates on ontology of caste, through experience or theory? Meaning could be ascending or descending, the former being positive and the latter negative. The experiences of caste has both demeaning and well-being experiences. The demeaning experience speaks of the ascending meaning, which in turn speaks for the 'annihilation of caste' i.e. Ambedkar's meaning is ascending. The well-being speaks descending meaning which doesn't speak for the annihilation of caste i.e. Gandhi's meaning is descending. The descending meaning speaks only the phenomenon of caste implicating the phenomena which is artificial. However the ascending meaning speaks the archaeology of caste implicating the need for annihilation. The archaeology intends a meaning framing the analysis which indicates a resolution.

Those understanding the meaning in the theory of caste, though not experienced, will head towards annihilation. In the recent past there is a misrepresentation of the meaning in the experiences of caste discrimination. For example documenting the lives and experiences of most marginalized Dalits never sees light. How does the 'meaning' reflect and realize caste? Is reason grounded in the experiences of caste? With these few questions and ideas this paper is an attempt to understand the (framing of) meaning in the debates on ontology of caste with reference to the idea of experience in general and my own experiences as a Dalit activist in particular.