Atheism is a cancer to the anti-caste movement
There is no value judgment that is not inherently subjective. Every voluntary choice stems from a foundational framework of resources, yet for atheists, this foundation is entirely arbitrary.
Fellow liberationists, what truly motivates your advocacy for affirmative action if not emotionally charged, intellectually bankrupt arguments riddled with confirmation bias?
What they claim as an Intersubjective basis for liberation and justice is nothing but an illogical pursuit of "self-realisation"(whatever that means). Atheism leads necessarily to Brahmanical Hegemony. And this hegemony cannot argue for a Just society, for their moral arguments are logically equivocal regardless of the position they take.
Atheism, being a cultureless and reactionary phenomenon, merely reiterates rhetoric without a substantive framework for structural change. Whether or not a God exists, Brahminical hegemony persists. Thus, the only effective counter to this patriarchal and Brahminical order is not atheism but a theistic reproach—one that dismantles Brahminical authority itself rather than merely rejecting the deities they worship.
In India, atheism does not grant immunity from Brahminism. When atheism is wielded to dismiss Buddhism, it exposes a deeper bigotry, particularly among individuals from oppressed castes. In doing so, it inadvertently undermines the anti-caste movement, further entrenching Brahminism and obstructing the path to genuine emancipation.
Furthermore, an atheistic society often lacks fraternity, which is the most crucial foundation for escaping any oppressive structure. This absence is particularly concerning in the case of Brahmins, who already possess a strong social fraternity. Without a unifying basis to counter Brahminical solidarity, the fight against caste oppression becomes even more challenging.
Moving forward, I will document key insights from Babasaheb himself, illustrating the futility of the so-called atheistic society, not only within the anti-caste movement but also in any broader struggle against oppressive systems.
The rationalists who uphold the mission of reason believe that injustice could be eliminated by the increasing power of intelligence. In the mediaeval age, social injustice and superstition were intimately related to each other. It was natural for the rationalists to believe that the elimination of superstition must result in the abolition of injustice. This belief was encouraged by the results. Today it has become the creed of the educationists, philosophers, psychologists and social scientists who believe that universal education and the development of printing and press would result in an ideal society, in which every individual would be so enlightened that there would be no place for social injustice. History, whether Indian or European, gives no unqualified support to this dogma. In Europe, the old traditions and superstitions which seemed to the eighteenth century to be the very root of injustice have been eliminated. Yet social injustice has been rampant and has been growing ever and anon. In India itself, the whole Brahmin community is educated, man, woman and child. How many Brahmins are free from their belief in untouchability? How many have come forward to undertake a crusade against untouchability? How many are prepared to stand by the side of the Untouchables in their fight against injustice? In short, how many are prepared to make the cause of the Untouchables their own cause? The number will be appalingly small.
Why does reason fail to bring about social justice?
The answer is that reason works so long as it does not come into conflict with one’s vested interest. Where it comes into conflict with vested interests, it fails. Many Hindus have a vested interest in untouchability. That vested interest may take the shape of the feeling of social superiority, or it may take the shape of economic exploitation such as forced labour or cheap labour. The fact remains that Hindus have a vested interest in untouchability. It is only natural that that vested interest should not yield to the dictates of reason. The Untouchables should, therefore, know that there are limits to what reason can do.
(Babasaheb was not against reason or rational thought; rather, he exposed how these concepts, when weaponized by oppressors, become unnoticed barriers that obstruct the emancipation of the oppressed)