Donate Menu

Condemning J. Mark Ramseyer’s Paper “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan” / Mark Ramseyerの論文 “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan”に対する非難声明

May 1, 2021
Volume 19 | Issue 9 | Number 8
Article ID 5599


The Japanese version of this article follows the English version.日本語版が英語版の後に掲載されています。

We, the signatories to this statement, condemn the publication of J. Mark Ramseyer’s paper “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan,” Review of Law and Economics (RLE) 16; 2 2020. The article does not meet scholarly standards; furthermore, the foundational argument is based on a logical fallacy, blaming Burakumin for the social conditions that underlie their oppression. This is a thin, recognizably reactionary move that has no place in scholarly journals. 

We also draw readers’ attention to the fact that Ramseyer’s work on the Japanese military sexual slavery or “comfort women,” titled “Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War” published in December 2020 in The International Review of Law and Economics, has also been widely criticized for a similar failure to meet the basic scholarly standards. An increasing number of scholars from wide-ranging disciplines such as law, economics and history, have expressed their criticism (many of the letters and statements of criticism can be found at Resources on "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" in the International Review of Law and Economics.

In the article, Ramseyer argues that Buraku leaders “invented a fictive ethnic identify as a leather workers’ guild” (3) as a group facing discrimination, and began to extort money from the government for themselves. Ramseyer further contends that Burakumin are the objects of discrimination because of their involvement in criminal activities and their dysfunctional family structure. The author argues that Buraku groups then have created a criminal “career path” for young Buraku men staying in the Buraku community.

As researchers who have been involved with the minority movements and struggles of the marginalized, we express our concern that the author’s argument is an unwarranted attack that damages the minority movements and oppressed communities by justifying continuing discrimination against them. Although we have many concerns regarding the author’s claims on the history of Buraku, we leave the task of analyzing them to historians. In this statement, we focus our critique on the following three issues.


Research Objectives and Methodology

The first issue relates to the objectives and methodology of this study.

As a standard practice, the author fails to clearly state his research objectives. Because the author’s motives, objectives, academic background, questions regarding the objectives of this study, and its social, academic significance are not established, this paper creates a space for animosity against Buraku people regardless of whether this was the author’s intention. If the author’s objective for this study is to prove the violent nature of the Buraku Liberation League, what is the academic significance? Further, if the objective is to incite animosity toward Burakumin and the Buraku Liberation League, should a paper written with this objective be allowed from the perspective of research ethics? Does research that may encourage discrimination against the research subjects not run counter to research ethics?

We are certainly not advocating that scholars should always support or agree with minority groups. However, they must recognize that minority research may encourage discrimination against its subjects and therefore should explain why a paper with such palpable risks be published and what the value of this project is. Because the author’s research objectives and purposes are not clear, we are left baffled. 

Next, the author’s research methodology has critical flaws. To a minority group that has continued to be the subject of discrimination for generations, the author’s argument that Burakumin are violent, criminal, and corrupt, as he maintains at various places of the paper, is too serious to be overlooked. However, sufficient proof to substantiate this argument cannot be found in the paper. One of the reasons for this is the lack of thorough investigation by the author of prior research that would need to be evaluated during the process of reaching a conclusion.

In particular, the following points are problematic methodologically:

By stating that the credibility of existing research on the Buraku issue is questionable, almost all prior research is rejected. However, not enough critical evaluation has been carried out to convince the readers of the reasons why established research in the field was ignored.

The author relies on “first-hand accounts” as resources to an excessive degree, and it can only be thought that the author arbitrarily selected quotes that suit his opinions. Quotes that do not suit the author’s opinions are not included, neglecting a basic requirement for any scholarship.

Although the relationship between the Buraku liberation movement and identity politics is discussed, prior research regarding the history of the Buraku liberation movement from 1922 when the first national anti-discrimination organization of Burakumin was founded to the present is ignored. Neither existing research related to the political, economic, social, and legal changes involving Buraku nor prior research on Buraku identity is covered.

The author ignores prior research on the processes and background that led to the establishment of the special measures laws which serve as the legal basis for Dōwa Special Measures projects. The author also ignores prior research on how Dōwa Special Measures projects have been carried out and evaluated, and simply claims that the Buraku Liberation League has used extortion tactics to get money.

The author declares that Ishikawa Kazuo from the Sayama incident, who has continued to fight false charges for over 50 years, is a member of a group that committed rape and murder. The defense team has investigated the case thoroughly and built a strong argument for his innocence over the decades. Researchers have repeatedly pointed out the relation between the false accusation and prejudice against Burakumin and the defense team has provided evidence of it. Legal scholars have worked to specify and discuss legal issues of the case. A group of intellectuals and scholars have long been advocating the case for Ishikawa’s retrial. The author does not reference any of such existing materials related to the Sayama incident, neither does the paper substantiate its arguments with credible proof.

As a result of such gaps in evidence, the author’s claims that Burakumin are a violent, criminal, corrupt, dysfunctional group is not proven in any way. Regardless of this fact, the author uses many subjective, prejudicial, value-dependent words, such as self-destructive, mob, extortion, violent, corrupt, and illegal, to describe Burakumin and their movement.

The author’s argument, which is based on a research methodology that ignores prior research, also contains many fallacies from both formal and logical perspectives. Given that there is not enough validity and persuasiveness of the findings, the argument instead reads as subjective, dogmatic malice toward Buraku and the Buraku liberation movement. It is even an act that incites discrimination masquerading as academic research.


Academic and Social Spillover

The second issue relates to the academic and social spillover of this study. As researchers of minority and marginalized people’s movements, we must make a note of the research ethics and responsibility of those who publish papers like the present one.

The author’s claim listed in the beginning is a radical argument against a certain minority group that may encourage prejudice and discrimination against an already vulnerable minority. Although the author’s argument actually takes the form of an academic paper, it coincides with the content of stereotypes and hate speech against Buraku communities. Its impact may go beyond the academic world and damage various relationships, policies, and protective mechanisms that have been created to dismantle structures of oppression this group faces.

As we noted above, the author’s argument is based on unsubstantiated and faulty generalizations regarding the conditions of Buraku communities, Burakumin identity, and the Buraku movement. Groups that are subject to discrimination have been further marginalized as a result of these generalizations. Authorized academic speech like Ramseyer’s article stands to diminish the agency of, and intensify the discrimination faced by, Buraku people. Academic research must be particularly careful about the arguments it makes and the generalizations it draws about marginalized communities.

This paper is published in a highly regarded academic journal and written by an English-speaking professor at a prestigious Western university. This authorial location gives added legitimacy to anti-Buraku sentiment with little material at stake for that author. Further, many people outside Japan become aware of the Buraku issue through English language publications which have disproportionate power to spread mis/information. The responsibility to evaluate and correct each and every flaw belongs to the researched subject. To what extent will society and the academic community in particular lend an ear to the voices of the subjects who resist this content? To Burakumin, it is not an easy task to overturn academic knowledge established by researchers as “fact”, especially when Buraku representation in academia and other fields remains restricted. 

Existing research on the Buraku issue has recognized these difficulties. Researchers of the Buraku issue have endeavored to shed light on the state of Burakumin who do not appear in “authentic history” or are perceived in a mistaken or prejudiced manner by digging up the truth and maintaining written records.

Ueda Masaaki, the historian who served as a special adviser for the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute, applied Benedetto Croce’s concept to state the following:


What is written in “documents” and “records” are not necessarily historical facts. They may include exaggerations or fabrications that justify their own actions. “Documents” and “records” become nothing more than “dead history” if we do not read and understand their content accurately and empirically from today’s perspective. (Ueda 2012: 12)


Research on the Buraku question has sought to shed light on Buraku issues by covering the themes of state interventions, the make-up of discriminatory practices against Buraku and the social structure that continues to reproduce discrimination against Buraku. Researchers have also studied and discussed the assertions and awareness of the anti-discrimination movement in a multi-faceted manner. Research groups were formed in a variety of fields because discrimination has been present in various areas. In addition, given that Burakumin and the assertions of their movement do not represent absolute justice, researchers have studied the background of these assertions while objectifying and externalizing them and also debating their appropriateness in order to present the ideal state of society. Ramseyer’s paper renounced the accumulated results of the research that the Buraku liberation movement and researchers on the Buraku issue have conducted to investigate why people have presuppositions and prejudice about Burakumin that have led to discrimination and exclusion.

Issues faced by Burakumin have long been attributed to problems with individuals rather than their historical and social situations. The Report of the Cabinet Dōwa Policy Council, which established that the resolution of the Buraku issue is the country’s obligation and a national challenge, was issued in 1965. The state of Buraku communities, Burakumin, Buraku discrimination, and the Buraku liberation movement has been changing in accordance with changes across time and society. For this reason, research on the Buraku issue has continuously emphasized the social nature of the Buraku issue, described the Buraku liberation movement as a social movement, and the Dōwa Special Measures project as a social policy.

The process for producing knowledge must involve a community that is created through mutual criticism. However, the author has not fairly evaluated both assertions that criticize the Buraku Liberation League and assertions of the Buraku Liberation League, despite the fact that the subject of the research is the Buraku liberation movement. Discrimination, as contained in Ramseyer’s paper, denies the dignity of Burakumin. Even the movement, which is the battlefield for the recovery of this dignity, has been denied in this paper. This paper can be easily interpreted as an attempt to discredit the Burakumin movement itself and research on Buraku issues. The movement’s objectives to organize minority people around the world in order to reclaim their dignity and human rights are not presented with any honesty.


Authority of Minority Research

The third issue relates to minority research as a whole. To this point, we mainly reference the general principles of integrity in research (Morris-Suzuki 2021). We have pointed out glaring flaws in the author’s research methodology and how this argument could impact the social relationships of Buraku facing discrimination in the present day. However, we must also make note of wider, more substantial issues with research on minorities that go beyond this paper. In Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Linda Tuhiwai-Smith, a Maori researcher in Aotearoa (New Zealand), states the following regarding what “research” means to indigenous people:


... the term ‘research’ is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism. The word itself, ‘research’, is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary. (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 1)


Under colonialism, indigenous people have been looked at, named, discussed, and defined by Western Europeans in the name of “research.” Tuhiwai-Smith states that the collection of information through this “research” can be seen as “random, ad hoc, and damaging” (3) as work by an amateur (explorer, traveler, journalist, etc.) from the perspective of indigenous people. Although the historical and structural backgrounds of the discrimination differ for the Buraku people in Japan and indigenous peoples, the insight offered by Tuhiwai-Smith provides an important point about how a Western colonial project relies on extractive knowledge production to advance itself at the expense of marginalized communities. Ramseyer approaches the history and identity of Buraku people with a similar attitude of total disregard of the voices of Buraku people.

The above tendencies in Ramseyer’s work are not limited to his engagement with the Buraku movement. For example, the author has asserted in “A Monitoring Theory of the Underclass: With Examples from Outcastes, Koreans, and Okinawans in Japan” that members of Okinawa’s élite classes engage in a struggle against the negative effects of U. S. military presence on their islands primarily as a “shakedown strategy” to increase subsidies from the Japanese government for hosting the bases. The media in Okinawa has already criticized the author’s assertions, providing evidence to the contrary (Okinawa Times online version, February 28, 2021). Ramseyer ignores the fact that the majority of Okinawans have repeatedly expressed their will to be relieved from an excessive burden of hosting US military bases, with some demanding the removal of the bases entirely. By describing Okinawans’ struggle against the US bases as a mere “shakedown” strategy, the author denies the agency of Okinawans in the movement against US military bases.

Between the author, a Harvard University professor, and Buraku people who the author unilaterally asserts to have been involved in crime, there exists an overwhelming asymmetry of power. How can Buraku people, who are not “researchers,” are far away from the academic world, and cannot use the English language, provide a timely, effective rebuttal? This asymmetry of power exists as a result of nothing other than the fact that minorities are minorities—they are made minorities because of an uneven distribution of power and access to resources that have been systematically and historically developed and maintained. For what purpose and for whom do discussions and research related to minorities serve without awareness of this asymmetry? (See also Edward Said’s argument in Orientalism or Michel-Rolph Troillot’s argument in “Anthropology and the Savage Slot.”) The journal publishing this paper can be seen to presume that an overwhelming asymmetry of power between the writer of the paper and the group attacked by the paper does not exist. To purposefully put this in rough terms, those who cannot enter or even come close to the field of contest over academic achievements among scholars will only be named, defined and attacked unilaterally. Meanwhile, the subjects remain subjects of élite fascination. 

We believe that research and academic journals should not be conducted like this. Therefore, through this statement, we are calling out to its readers and academic community to pursue the integrity of research in more depth and clarity.



We find that the author’s objectives and purposes for the paper are not clear and that the methodology used is full of serious flaws and fails to meet the basic requirements needed for any scholarship. Not only is the author’s conclusion unsubstantiated but it may also encourage prejudice and discrimination against an already vulnerable minority group through faulty generalizations. We believe that researchers who research minority groups must especially be conscious of the question of power asymmetry involving the researcher and the research subjects and uphold high standards of research ethics. The author of the paper fails to meet such requirements.

One of the central claims of the author in the article, as well as the one on Okinawa cited above, is that minority groups are engaged in “extortion” or “shakedown” tactics. This argument effectively denies the existence of discrimination these groups suffer and discredits their dissenting movements. In other words, it seeks to erase the problem itself. Such an argument also serves to deny human endeavors to correct discrimination, and therefore human dignity. Hence, we must conclude that the author’s argument can only be construed as an attempt to disregard the phenomenon of discrimination and the problems of the human society generating it.

For these reasons, we demand that the editors of the Review of Law and Economics reassess the article and address the concerns laid out here and any other issues raised by other scholars. It is our humble hope that this statement serves to advance future discussions on the responsibility and ethics of researchers, especially for research on the marginalized and discriminated-against groups in society.


Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, 2021, “The ‘Comfort Women’ Issue, Freedom of Speech, and Academic Integrity: A Study Aid,” The Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus, Volume 19, Issue 5, Number 12.

Ramseyer, J. Mark, 2020, “A Monitoring Theory of the Underclass: With Examples from Outcastes, Koreans, and Okinawans in Japan.” Society for Institutional & Organizational Economics (Retrieved March 7, 2021).

Said, Edward W., 1978, Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Troillot, Michel-Rolph, 2003, “Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of the Otherness, “Global Transformations: Anthropology and the Modern World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tuhiwai-Smith, Linda, 1999, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London & New York: Zed Books.

上田正昭, 2012, 『日本古代史をいかに学ぶか』新潮社.


April 2021





Mark Ramseyerの論文 “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan”に対する非難声明

藤岡美恵子・Joseph Hankins・熊本理抄・Suraj Yengde


Mark Ramseyerの論文“On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan”がReview of Law & Economics(Volume 16, Issue 2, 2019年)に掲載されました。

私たちは“On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan"と題するJ. Mark Ramseyerの論文掲載を強く非難します。この論文は、学術的な基準を満たしていません。さらに、部落民が被る抑圧の背景にある社会的状況を部落民の責任に帰するという論理的誤謬に基づいた主張が論文の根幹をなしています。これは浅薄で、明らかに反動主義的と言える行為であり、学術誌にはふさわしくありません。

2020年12月にThe International Review of Law and Economicsに掲載された、日本軍性奴隷制(「慰安婦」)に関するRamseyerの論文“Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”が同様に、基本となる学術的基準を満たしていないとして、広く批判されている事実にも注意を喚起します。法学、経済学、歴史学など幅広い分野の学者が批判の声をあげています(批判表明の書簡や声明の多くは、Resources on "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" in the International Review of Law and Economicsで見ることができます)。 










  • 部落問題に関する既存研究の信憑性に疑問があるとすることで、ほぼすべての先行研究を否定しています。しかし、この分野の研究蓄積を無視した理由を読者に納得させるだけの批判的検証は十分に行われていません。
  • 資料として、直接の見聞に基づく報告(first-hand accounts)を過度に参考にしており、著者の意見に合う引用を恣意的に選んだとしか考えられません。著者の意見にそぐわない引用は含まれておらず、学問の基本条件をおろそかにしています。
  • 部落解放運動とアイデンティティ・ポリティクスの関係を考察する論文にも関わらず、部落民が全国的な反差別団体を最初に設立した1922年から現在に至るまで展開してきた部落解放運動の歴史に関する先行研究は無視しています。また、部落をめぐる政治的、経済的、社会的、法的な変化に関する既存の研究も、部落のアイデンティティに関する先行研究も取り上げていません。
  • 同和対策事業の法的根拠となる特別措置法が制定された経緯と背景についての先行研究を無視しています。また、同和対策事業の実施と評価に関する先行研究に言及せず、「部落解放同盟が金を取るために恐喝戦術を使った」とだけ主張しています。
  • 著者は、狭山事件の石川一雄さんがレイプ殺人を犯したグループの一員であると断言しますが、石川さんは50年以上も冤罪と闘い続けています。狭山弁護団は何十年もかけてこの事件を徹底的に調査し、石川さんの無実を訴える強力な論拠を築いてきました。これまでの研究では、冤罪と部落民に対する偏見の関係が繰り返し指摘されており、弁護団もその証拠を提示してきました。法学者たちは、この事件の法的問題点を明示しながらの議論展開に尽力しています。文化人や学者による会は、長年、石川さんの再審請求を主張してきました。著者は、狭山事件に関するそのような既存の資料に言及しておらず、信頼できる証拠をもって自らの主張を立証してもいません。













「文書」や「記録」に書かれていることが必ずしも史実を伝えているとは限らない。そこには誇張があったり、自分の行為を正当化するための虚偽が加えられたりする。「文書」や「記録」はその内容を正確に、現在の時点から実証的に読み解かなければまさに「死んだ歴史」になる。(上田 2012:12)







第三は、マイノリティ研究全体に関する問題です。ここまで私たちは、主に研究における誠実性(integrity)の一般原則を参照してきました(Morris-Suzuki 2021)。私たちは、著者の研究方法論に明らかな欠陥があることを批判し、論文の主張が現代の差別に直面している部落の社会的関係にどのような影響を与えるかを指摘しました。しかし、この論文にとどまらず、マイノリティに関する研究のより広く、より本質的な問題についても指摘しておかなければなりません。アオテアロア(ニュージーランド)のマオリ研究者であるLinda Tuhiwai-Smithは、Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoplesのなかで、先住民族にとって「研究」が何を意味するかについて次のように述べています。


……「研究」という語は、ヨーロッパの帝国主義および植民地主義と切っても切れない関係にある。「研究」という言葉自体が、おそらく先住民族の世界の語彙のなかでもっとも汚れたものの一つである。(Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 1)


植民地主義下では、先住民族は「研究」という名のもとに、西欧人によって観察され、名づけられ、語られ、定義されてきました。この「研究」による情報収集は、先住民族の視点から見れば、アマチュア(探検家、旅行者、ジャーナリストなど)の仕事と同じくらい「無作為で、場当たり的で、有害」(p.3)なものと見なすことができる、とTuhiwai-Smithは述べています。日本の部落民と先住民族では、差別の背後にある歴史的および構造的背景は異なります。しかしTuhiwai-Smithの洞察は、西洋の植民地主義プロジェクトが、周縁化されたコミュニティを犠牲にしながらプロジェクトを進めるために、いかに収奪的な知識生産に依存しているかという重要なポイントを提示しています。 Ramseyerは部落の人々の歴史やアイデンティティに対して、部落の人々の声を完全に無視するという同様の態度でアプローチしています。

Ramseyerの論文に見られる上記のような傾向は、部落解放運動との関わりに限ったことではありません。例えば、沖縄のエリート階級の人々が米軍の沖縄駐留によりもたらされる悪影響と闘うのは、主に基地を誘致する日本政府からの補助金をつりあげる「ゆすり戦略」である、と著者は“A Monitoring Theory of the Underclass: With Examples from Outcastes, Koreans, and Okinawans in Japan”で主張します。沖縄のメディアはすでに著者の主張を批判し、それに反する証拠を提示しています(『沖縄タイムス』オンライン版、2021年2月28日)。沖縄県民の大多数が米軍基地の受け入れによる過度の負担から解放されたいという意志を繰り返し表明しており、基地の全面撤去を要求する者もいるという事実をRamseyerは認めません。沖縄県民の米軍基地反対闘争を単なる「ゆすり」戦略と称することで、米軍基地反対運動における沖縄県民の主体性を否定しているのです。

ハーバード大学の教授である著者と、その著者が一方的に犯罪に関与したと主張する部落民との間には、圧倒的な力の非対称性が存在します。「研究者」でもなく、学界からもほど遠く、英語を駆使できない部落民が、タイムリーで効果的な反論をすることができるでしょうか。このような力の非対称性はまさに、マイノリティがマイノリティであるという事実に他ならない結果として存在しています。マイノリティがマイノリティであるのは、権力や資源へのアクセスの不均等配分のゆえであり、それは構造的かつ歴史的に強化され維持されてきたのです。この非対称性を認識することなしに行われるマイノリティに関する議論や研究は、何のために、誰のために行われるものなのでしょうか(Edward SaidによるOrientalismでの議論や、Michel-Rolph Troillotの“Anthropology and the Savage Slot”における議論も参照)。本論文を掲載している雑誌は、論文の著者とその論文で攻撃された集団との間に圧倒的な力の非対称性が存在しないことを前提にしているように見えます。あえて乱暴な言い方をすれば、学者同士の研究業績をめぐる競争の場に入り込めない、それどころか近づくことさえできない者は、一方的に名指され、定義され、攻撃されるだけです。他方、研究対象者はエリートたちの関心の対象であり続けるのです。 




4. 結論




以上の理由から、私たちはReview of Law and Economics誌の編集者に対し、この論文を再査読し、私たちがここで述べた懸念事項や他の研究者が提起した問題に対処することを要求しますこの声明が、研究者の責任と倫理、特に周縁化され差別されている集団に関する研究についての今後の議論を進める一助となることを、私たちは切に願っています。


Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, 2021, “The ‘Comfort Women’ Issue, Freedom of Speech, and Academic Integrity: A Study Aid,” The Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus, Volume 19, Issue 5, Number 12.

Ramseyer, J. Mark, 2020, “A Monitoring Theory of the Underclass: With Examples from Outcastes, Koreans, and Okinawans in Japan.” Society for Institutional & Organizational Economics (Retrieved March 7, 2021).

Said, Edward W., 1978, Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.

Troillot, Michel-Rolph, 2003, “Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of the Otherness,” Global Transformations: Anthropology and the Modern World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tuhiwai-Smith, Linda, 1999, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London & New York: Zed Books.

上田正昭, 2012, 『日本古代史をいかに学ぶか』新潮社.



This article is part of Japan’s Burakumin (Outcastes) Reconsidered: A Special Issue Assessing and Refuting Ramseyer’s Interpretation. Please see the Table of Contents.

Please also see our previous special issues on The Ramseyer controversy on the 'Comfort Women' edited by Alexis Dudden, Supplement to Special Issue: Academic Integrity at Stake: The Ramseyer Article - Four Letters 


​See also, a special issue on The 'Comfort Women' as Public History edited by Edward Vickers and Mark R. Frost.



Fujioka Mieko (藤岡美恵子) teaches international human rights at Hosei University and is a coordinator of the Durban+20 campaign against racism in Japan.

Joseph Hankins is Associate Professor and Vice Chair of Anthropology as well as Director of the Critical Gender Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of Working Skin: Making Leather, Making a Multicultural Japan (University of California 2014).

Kumamoto Risa (熊本理抄) is a professor in the Human Rights Institute at Kindai University. Her research interests include: intersectionality, Dowa education, single parent families, and gender and human rights.

Suraj Yengde is a Senior Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School. He is author of bestseller Caste Matters (Penguin, 2019) and co-editor of award winning The Radical in Ambedkar (Allen Lane, 2018).