{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018711018711018712, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.377483443708609, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Replication or dissent? Culture and institutions among 'Untouchable' Scheduled Castes in Karnataka

The idea of replication of what Dumont considered the 'essential principle' of the Indian caste system has tended to deny the existence of cultural autonomy among the very low castes, especially the former Untouchable castes. It was argued that former Untouchable castes replicate the dominant social order within their communities. By drawing on empirical evidence from a Karnataka village, this article attempts to refute the idea of a passive acceptance of a low and subordinate status by the former Untouchahle castes. It aims to show that the apparent replication may also be viewed as one of the ways of articulating an independent cultural identity, besides demonstrating dissent against the hegemonic social orden. In the process, the article makes an attempt to refocus the Dumontian discourse from 'replication and consensus' to 'hegemony and dissent'.