A Statue in the Basement: Politics of Symbolic Containment in India's Elite Institutions

I. The Basement

I learnt about the basement the way most truths about caste are learnt, not headlong, but through the slow, sickening clarity of details. The kind that you realise when you observe closely and the awareness clicks. When Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s statue was installed at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, the news travelled through the Ambedkarite circles as a victory. A statue in an IIT. It felt, for a moment, like a threshold had been crossed. I was stunned when I heard about it from a friend. And then came the detail that unmade the celebration: the statue was in the basement.

The official institutional circular confirms it in plain administrative language: the Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment, along with the Director, Deputy Directors, and Registrar of IIT Bombay, inaugurated a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar at “the basement of the Nandan Nilekani Main Building.”

This essay is about that underneath. It is about what it means when an institution places the symbol of Dalit assertion in the one location that guarantees it will never be casually, routinely, unavoidably seen. It is about how elite institutions in India, the IITs, the IIMs, the prestigious central universities, have become sophisticated machines for reproducing the spatial logic of caste while wearing the language of merit, inclusion, and modernity. And it is about what it means to be SC/ST/OBC student in these institutions, learning everyday to read the architecture of exclusion for what it is.

II. Caste Has Always Been Spatial

To understand the basement, we must first understand that caste in India has never been merely a social hierarchy. It has always been a spatial one. Babasaheb understood this with devastating clarity. In Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development (1916), he described caste not as a ladder but as “an enclosed class”, sealed through endogamy (BAWS Vol. 1: 15). It is a system that divides not just labour but life and geography, not just status but presence. Caste tells you not only who you are but where you “should” be.

This spatial logic is ancient and it is modern. In the village, it manifested as segregated streets, separate wells, and the Dalit colony located in the outermost periphery, beyond the boundary of the settlement, beyond the sight of the upper-caste household. Dalits were literally removed from the shared space of the community. What the modern Indian university apparently promised was that this spatial order would be dismantled. The Constitution guaranteed equality. Reservations opened the doors of elite institutions to students who had been historically excluded from them. And yet, the doors opened, but the architecture inside remained. The question was never only who could enter. The question was always: once inside, whose presence would be centred, and whose would be contained? The formation of the village ghetto and the university basement are separated by millennia and a context. But the logic that produced them is the same.

III. The Architecture of Benevolent Containment

I wish to name what happened in IIT Bombay precisely, because vagueness is how institutional Brahmanism survives. What happened was not an oversight. What happened was not a matter of available space, or logistical convenience, or bureaucratic accident. What happened was benevolent containment: a deliberate, structured mode of performing inclusion while ensuring that inclusion does not disturb the existing spatial and symbolic order.

Benevolent containment works like this: the institution acknowledges the demand. It grants a concession. It installs the statue, issues a press release, and allows photographs. And then, quietly, in the fine print of location, it ensures that the concession does not accumulate into assertion. The statue is given a place but it is not one that signifies. Not a place that, simply by existing in it, makes a claim on the institution's identity.

In The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why Did They Become Untouchables? (1948), Babasaheb identifies territorial segregation as the defining and most fundamental feature of untouchability as practised by Hindus. He writes that unlike other societies which may have temporarily isolated individuals on grounds of ritual impurity, the Hindu system demands something categorically different: not isolation but permanent, structural spatial separation of an entire class. As Babasaheb writes, “it is not a case of social separation, a mere stoppage of social intercourse for a temporary period” but rather a case of “territorial segregation, and of a cordon sanitaire putting the impure people inside a barbed wire into a sort of a cage. Every Hindu village has a ghetto. The Hindus live in the village and the Untouchables in the ghetto.” (BAWS Vol.7: 266)

This spatial logic is not incidental to caste, it is constitutive of it. The Untouchable does not merely occupy a lower rung of a social ladder. The Untouchable is spatially expelled, pushed to the literal periphery of the settlement, beyond its boundary, outside its thresholds. Babasaheb is clear that this impurity is not temporary or curable. It is permanent and hereditary: they are born impure, live impure, and die impure (BAWS Vol. 7: 266). The spatial periphery is not a consequence of untouchability, it is one of its primary mechanisms. You do not need to announce a hierarchy if you have already built it into the geography. The modern university has updated this mechanic. It does not merely say that Babasaheb does not belong here. It says: Babasaheb’s statue belongs here, in the basement. The basement is not the part of the structure that is visible. It is invisible, beneath and othered. The basement is beyond the boundaries, it is outside of the thresholds.

A statue in the basement is not visible to the Brahmin-Savarna presence in the institution. Thus, the symbol of Dalit assertion is yet again pushed to the periphery of the dominant Brahmin-Savarna consciousness. They are not compelled to witness Babasaheb’s statue when it is not present in a common corridor. The Dalit presence is therefore effectively neutralised and invisible. It does not threaten the Brahmin-Savarna gaze, and hence, it does not incite a rupture in their sanctified spaces.

The closing-in is performed with ceremony. The closing-out is performed with architecture.

This is the insidiousness that must be named. The benevolent oppressor is more dangerous than the overt one, because benevolence provides cover. It allows the institution to claim progress while reproducing hierarchy. It forces the Dalit student into an impossible position: be grateful for the statue, or be accused of ingratitude. Celebrate the milestone, or be accused of never being satisfied. The “gift” of the basement is designed to foreclose the question of why it is not the entrance.

IV. This Is Not One Institution

It would be convenient if IIT Bombay were an exception. It is not.

Look at the landscape of India's elite institutions and the spatial politics of caste becomes visible everywhere, once you know how to read it. At institutions across the University of Delhi, Ambedkarite students have fought for years for spaces to organise, to meet, to assert, and have been met with bureaucratic obstruction, denied permissions, and offered inadequate rooms at the margins of campus. These symbols of assertion are not just statues, but murals, posters and graffiti which are relegated to insignificant spaces of the college campuses. While the mainstream art is displayed in its full glory in common spaces and bigger walls, artworks showcasing the cultural celebration of Dalits are contained in places which are hidden in plain sight, the ones which no one would notice. It is not incidental, it is to make sure that Ambedkarite culture and symbolism never ruptures or obstructs the dominant Brahmin-Savarna field of sight and consciousness.

Then there is JNU, and the spatial politics of containment takes a more complex and insidious form. Because what happens when the space of protest itself gets captured?

Recently, JNUSU office bearers, led by Left student organisations, destroyed biometric installations in the Dr. Ambedkar Central Library, vandalising public property.¹ Following a proctorial inquiry, they were rusticated and fined. What followed was a masterclass in narrative capture. The Left reframed their rustication, which followed the destruction of public property, as punishment for protesting the VC's remarks against Dalits and the Supreme Court's stay on UGC guidelines protecting SC, ST, OBC, Women, PwD and EWS students. The two events were stitched together into a single story, and the single story served the Left's political agenda.

The result: a genuine grievance by Dalits, the VC's deeply casteist remarks comparing Dalits to Blacks drugged into permanent victimhood, became the scaffolding on which a Left political crisis was rebuilt. Left office bearers became the protagonists. The university was locked down, classrooms were shut, and Babasaheb's name was invoked throughout, in the Dr. Ambedkar Central Library, no less, the very space whose infrastructure the Left had just destroyed.

This is benevolent containment in its most sophisticated form. It is not the institution that contains Dalit assertion here, it is the Left, which occupies the space of protest, crowds out Ambedkarite politics, and emerges as the defender of Dalit rights without ever ceding political ground to Dalits themselves. The space of resistance is captured. The assertion is redirected. And Babasaheb's name, once again, ends up in the basement, this time, not of a building, but of someone else's political agenda.

And then there is Hyderabad Central University, where Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar, an Ambedkarite, a writer of extraordinary beauty, was socially boycotted, stripped of his fellowship, and eventually driven to take his own life in January 2016. Before his death, he and his fellow Ambedkarite students had been evicted from the students' union room, forced to live in tents on the campus grounds. The institution had made them outcasts within its own borders. This is benevolent containment at its most violent extreme: when there is no more room to contain, you expel.

Across the prestigious central universities and colleges of India, the difficulties in allocation of rooms and timings for SC-ST Cell meetings, events and gatherings are well-known in whispers and murmurs. When every college festivity is celebrated for more than a day, a Dalit celebration of Jayanti or other days is still contained and permitted to only an obligatory time period of bare minimum, with minimal spaces.

The notorious attempt to segregate non-vegetarian tables in the same IIT Bombay is well-known, along with the segregation of messes in other IITs like Madras. At IIMs, where the culture of caste among faculty and peers has been documented and spoken about by Dalit alumni at significant personal and professional cost, the spatial politics operate more subtly, through the social geographies of group work, mentorship, networks, and belonging that determine not just who enters but who thrives. The classroom is a space too. The study group is a space too. And caste governs them.

V. Reading the Architecture

Babasaheb showed that caste is an ideology made structural, a system of enclosures that feels, once established, like simply the natural arrangement of things. The spatial order of caste is one of those enclosures made of material. And material things like buildings, basements, borders, feel permanent. They feel inevitable. They feel like simply the way things are arranged.

This is why learning to read the architecture is a political act. When a Dalit student looks at a campus and sees not just buildings but a map of whose presence is centered and whose is marginalised, when they look at a basement or a wall and understand it not as a neutral location but as a political one, they are doing the work that Babasaheb did when he looked at the village well and named the exclusion for what it was.

I am a first-year student. I have only just begun to learn this reading. But I have already learnt enough to know that the campus I walk through every day is not neutral. The spaces I am welcomed into and the spaces I am not. The syllabi that centre certain voices repeatedly and erase others. The casual assumptions about merit and excellence that float through the corridors of elite institutions like natural weather, when they are in fact the accumulated sediment of centuries of caste privilege. None of this is accidental. All of it is architecture.

VI. Babasaheb’s Jayanti as Rupture

It is in this context that Ambedkar Jayanti must be understood, not only as a commemorative occasion but as a political intervention. When Ambedkarite students and communities take to the streets, when they occupy public city squares, when they install portraits and statues and hold meetings in the open air of shared civic space, they are not simply remembering Babasaheb. They are refusing the spatial order that would contain his memory in a basement.

Ambedkar Jayanti is the annual insistence that Babasaheb belongs everywhere. In the street. At the centre of the campus. At the entrance of the building. On the first floor, the second floor, the ground floor. Everywhere.

The celebration becomes a cartography of refusal. Each procession redraws the map. Each portrait held aloft in a public space says: this figure, whom you tried to relegate, is central. His thought is not a footnote. His face is not a basement exhibit. His silhouette is not supposed to be hidden in the corners of small walls. He is here, in the light, in the street, in the square, in the threshold itself.

The Dalit students of this generation, those of us navigating the IITs, the IIMs, the central universities, the “progressive” and elite colleges of the University of Delhi, the JNUs, are not guests in these institutions. We are not recipients of charity. We are not here to be grateful for the basement. We are here because Babasaheb fought so that we could be here, and we carry that fight forward not by accepting the terms of our containment but by refusing them.

Refusal looks like many things. It looks like asking, when a statue is installed, where it has been installed and why. It looks like organising, writing, speaking, naming the spatial politics of caste in the language of the institution so that the institution cannot claim it does not understand. It looks like this essay. It looks like every Dalit student who submits their work to a journal that was built to hold their voice, because the mainstream journals were not.

Babasaheb spent his life breaking those closures open. He wrote, thought, argued, and organised across every space that would not originally have him, and then he made spaces that would. We are the inheritors of that practice. We do not ask to be let into the centre. We understand, as he did, that the centre must be remade.

The rupture is reading the basement, naming it, refusing it, and building, word by word and step by step, the institution that Babasaheb imagined: one where we are finally emancipated from the question of who belongs where, and one where the question has at last been annihilated.

Jai Bhim.

Notes

1) Anshul Kumar, Left’s Appropriation and the Failings of the Dalit Intelligentsia, Roundtable India, 2026. https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/lefts-appropriation-and-the-failings-of-the-dalit-intelligentsia/

References

Ambedkar, B.R. (1916). Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1. Government of Maharashtra.
Ambedkar, B.R. (1948). The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why Did They Become Untouchables? In Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 7. Government of Maharashtra.