dash was born in a dalit family
Answers
Answer:
The term Dalit is a self-applied concept for what was called the untouchables and others that were outside of the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy.[2][3] When these people became part of the Indian subcontinent cannot be easily determined. Ambedkar said that untouchability came into Indian society around 400 AD, due to the struggle for supremacy between Buddhism and Brahmanism (an ancient term for Brahmanical Hinduism).[4] Some Hindu priests befriended untouchables and were demoted to low-caste ranks. Eknath, another excommunicated Brahmin, fought for the rights of untouchables during the Bhakti period.
In the late 1880s, the Marathi word 'Dalit' was used by Mahatma Jotiba Phule for the outcasts and Untouchables who were oppressed and broken in the Hindu society.[5] Dalit is a vernacular form of the Sanskrit दलित (dalita). In Classical Sanskrit, this means "divided, split, broken, scattered". This word was repurposed in 19th-century Sanskrit to mean "(a person) not belonging to one of the four Brahminic castes".[6] It was perhaps first used in this sense by Pune-based social reformer Jyotirao Phule, in the context of the oppression faced by the erstwhile "untouchable" castes from other Hindus.[7] The term dalits was in use as a translation for the British Raj census classification of Depressed Classes prior to 1935. It was popularised by the economist and reformer B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956), who included all depressed people irrespective of their caste into the definition of Dalits.[8] It covered people who were excluded from the four-fold varna system of Hinduism and thought of themselves as forming a fifth varna, describing themselves as Panchama.[9] It was popularised by the economist and reformer B. R. Ambedkar (1891–1956), himself a Dalit,[10] and in the 1970s its use was invigorated when it was adopted by the Dalit Panthers activist group.[2]
Dalit has become a political identity, similar to how the LGBTQ community reclaimed queer from its pejorative use as a neutral or positive self-identifier and as a political identity.[11] Socio-legal scholar Oliver Mendelsohn and political economist Marika Vicziany wrote in 1998 that the term had become "intensely political ... While the use of the term might seem to express appropriate solidarity with the contemporary face of Untouchable politics, there remain major problems in adopting it as a generic term. Although the word is now quite widespread, it still has deep roots in a tradition of political radicalism inspired by the figure of B. R. Ambedkar." They suggested its use risked erroneously labeling the entire population of untouchables in India as being united by a radical politics.[7] Anand Teltumbde also detects a trend towards denial of the politicized identity, for example among educated middle-class people who have converted to Buddhism and argue that, as Buddhists, they cannot be Dalits. This may be due to their improved circumstances giving rise to a desire not to be associated with the what they perceive to be the demeaning Dalit masses.[12]
plzz mark my ans as Brainlist and Follow me