After attacking the mentality represented by the Manusmriti, Rahul Gandhi has now opened a debate on untouchability. In doing so, he is addressing three different constituencies. First, the Hindu society as a whole, and particularly its so-called “upper-caste” communities. Second, the Dalit community. And third, those who occupy positions within the state apparatus – the administrative and police officials whose responsibility it is to enforce the law. He says that the act of purifying the spot where Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge stood is itself an act of untouchability and, therefore, a crime. It is this criminal character of the act that Gandhi is emphasising.Will this benefit Gandhi and his party politically? A considerable section believes that raising the issue of untouchability is a political mistake on his part. After attacking the Manusmriti, they argue that Gandhi is now pushing the “upper castes” further away from the Congress by raising this issue. Dalits, according to this argument, will vote for the Congress anyway. Speaking for them will not add anything to the party’s social base. What the Congress needs today is to bring the “upper-caste” communities closer to itself, especially those who appear to be getting disenchanted with the BJP at this stage. Gandhi’s position, however, will have precisely the opposite effect.But are we now to accept that politicians should never say aloud what they believe to be true because doing so might alienate some of their voters or fracture their base? This is the argument being made in the context of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) not taking an explicit stand on the matter of Umar Khalid. We are told that it should not fall into this trap, because taking a stand in favour of Umar might alienate many of its supporters.I am reminded of the first and second general elections of independent India. The Congress’s foremost leader repeatedly told his party: “As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to lose every election in India, but I am not prepared to give any quarter to communalism or casteism.”The Congress was an extraordinarily powerful party in the 1950s, and there is little need to say anything about Nehru’s popularity. Yet, Nehru was saying that if opposing communalism and casteism meant losing an election, he would have no regrets about it. This also meant acknowledging that there was a large section of Hindus who believed in the caste system and might not be happy if it were opposed.Addressing the press in 1954, Nehru said: “We criticise and condemn what we call communalism because it is the very opposite of the conception of broad tolerance of unity of India, that emotional unity, integrated unity which we talk of, because it is separatist, because it disrupts India. But another phase of communalism is casteism. I think that we have not given that intensive thought to the removal of this scourge and curse that we should have done. We have taken it for granted and sometimes I fear we have been afraid of saying much lest we lose an election, lest this group or that caste-group may vote against us. Well, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to lose every election in India, but I am not prepared to give any quarter to communalism or casteism.”Rahul Gandhi’s predicament, then, is not very different from that of his great-grandfather. Even within the Congress of that time, there were many who feared an active opposition to communalism and casteism because it might cost the party Hindu, especially “upper-caste” Hindu, votes. Yet, throughout the 1950s, Nehru did not miss an opportunity to attack either tendency.It may surprise us that 62 years after Nehru’s death, speaking about these two things should still be considered politically dangerous. When Gandhi called untouchability a crime and drew attention to its seriousness, I was reminded of a speech Nehru made nearly 70 years ago, in which he spoke of waging an uncompromising struggle against untouchability:“We have enshrined the abolition of untouchability in our Constitution and in our laws, but the fact remains that when you go to any of our villages, that old and vicious sentiment is still found prevailing there. Even in regard to such simple matters as drinking water from a well, they have to suffer hardships and difficulties. This is a bad thing, a great evil; and today it must be fought without mercy, without compromise.”There is, however, one significant difference between Nehru’s time and ours. Since untouchability is now a punishable offence, people generally refrain from practising it openly. But it is still sometimes practised publicly. Take the familiar example of villages where so-called “upper-caste” children boycott the midday meal at school because the person cooking it happens to be from the Dalit community. No organisation or political party launches a sustained campaign of social awakening against such practices. Is that because they fear offending the “upper castes”?Untouchability today is practised largely in indirect forms. You cannot openly prevent a Dalit from entering a place, sitting somewhere, or touching an object. But there is another way. If a Dalit has stood at a particular place or used an object, that place or object can subsequently be “purified” and restored to its previous pristine state.After Gandhi’s statement, while many began saying that untouchability was a thing of the past, evidence began appearing – in writing and on video – that untouchability is very much alive. From maintaining physical distance in public spaces to declaring certain places out of bounds for Dalits, untouchability continues in various forms. But perhaps purification is the ‘safest’ form of this discrimination.Purification can take place only after there has been impurity. A place or object becomes impure because a “polluted” body has touched it. The remedy is purification. If the law did not exist, that “polluted” body would not even be permitted to commit such an act of transgression. Since that cannot openly be done, the purity of one’s religion can supposedly be preserved through purification.The very idea of purification therefore presupposes the idea of untouchability. If there were no notion that certain bodies are inherently polluting, there would be no need to purify anything after their touch.It is wrong to argue that purification does not insult anyone. When a place or object is purified after someone has touched it, what is actually being erased is the fact of that person’s touch. The place or object can be used again only after it has supposedly been freed from the pollution of that polluted body.The practice of purification also tells us something about the hierarchy of bodies. Pollution is believed to emanate from only one particular kind of body. That body is the Dalit body. Dalits do not perform purification. The right to purify belongs to those belonging to the “upper castes”.Purification, therefore, is unmistakably a form of discrimination. And discrimination is a crime.Gandhi is emphasising precisely the criminal character of such acts of purification. This may cause considerable unease among sections of the so-called upper castes. They may say: how can the observance of one of our social customs be a crime? We are merely reclaiming a space for ourselves. Why should anyone else be affected by it?But unless we tell them that this is a crime, we cannot understand the deceptive presence of untouchability in contemporary society in the guise of purification.Gandhi is certainly saying that untouchability is a social evil. But he is also reminding the police and the administration that their duty is to recognise this crime and act against it. This is their constitutional obligation. When the police fail to act, they are not merely overlooking the crime; they are allowing it to flourish.Those who habitually speak in the language of patriotism and treason should understand something else: untouchability is one of the great obstacles in the making of India as a nation. How can people become members of the same nation without a sense of equality and shared belonging?By that logic, untouchability ought to be regarded by them as an act of treason against the nation.Kharge said in parliament that he had never sought any special protection because he was a Dalit. But he said that he felt humiliated when a place was considered impure merely because he had touched it. He had been made to feel inferior. And this had caused him pain.Why is it so difficult for us to feel Kharge’s pain? Why are we unable to recognise untouchability when it hides itself behind the mask of purification? Why do we squirm in our seats as Rahul Gandhi calls purification a crime?Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University.