The recent verdict in the 2016 Una atrocity case has renewed public debate around Una. The court acquitted 35 of the 40 accused, while sentencing the remaining five to five years in prison, a term they had already served. Consequently, all 40 accused in the Una case have now been acquitted. The verdict was viewed as unfortunate by Una victims and Gujarat’s Dalit leadership.
Many might view it as merely another legal decision in the series of caste-related atrocities. However, in Gujarat’s political and social landscape, Una symbolises more than a single incident. It signifies a pivotal moment in amplifying Dalit voices.
To understand Una’s importance, we need to look beyond the courtroom and consider its impact on Dalit politics in Gujarat.
From Atrocity to Assertion
On 11 July 2016, four Dalit men in Una were brutally flogged by self-proclaimed cow vigilantes for skinning a dead cow. The violence was not new. Caste-based humiliation and violence have long structured everyday life in Gujarat. What made Una different was the response. Unlike earlier incidents, Dalits across Gujarat refused to remain silent. Protests erupted across districts, roads were blocked, rallies were organised, and a new language of resistance emerged.
The slogan, “Gaye ki poonch tum rakho, hume hamari jamin do” (You may keep the cow's tail but give us our land), captured a powerful shift, from caste-imposed labour to demands for dignity and economic rights. As the author argues in his article, Dalit agitations in Gujarat often transform collective suffering into organised resistance, drawing on Ambedkarite ideas of dignity, rights, and justice. Una was one such moment where this transformation became visible at a mass scale.
Una observed the emergence of a more radical and assertive Dalit consciousness. This shift was not merely a response to violence but also involved questioning the fundamental structures that supported caste dominance.
Dalits started rejecting traditional caste roles, openly statingthey would no longer participate in degrading tasks associated with untouchability. This change was not just symbolic; it was a confrontation with the caste system.
The movement also associated caste issues with economic concerns. Land rights, initially a minor aspect in Gujarat’s Dalit politics, emerged as a central issue. Campaigns such as the Dalit Asmita Yatra, Azadi Kooch and subsequent land struggles gained prominence following the Una incident. This development helped propel Dalit politics beyond the earlier movements in Gujarat, from Jetalpur (1981) to Golana (1986), shifting it from compromise to more confrontational, rights-based demands.
Organisation, Leadership, and Street Power
Another reason Una remains significant is the mobilisation it sparked. The movement led to the emergence of new leaders, networks, and organisations, such as the Una Dalit Atyachar Ladat Samiti and, later, the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch.
Importantly, the protests combined street action with legal struggle. As reflected in the author’s fieldwork, victims and activists increasingly recognised that justice required both protest and engagement with the law.
This two-pronged approach shows an increasing political awareness, shifting from Dalit consciousness to more radical awareness. During this process, individuals not only identify oppression but also take active steps to oppose and change it.
Why the Judgement Matters, and its Limits
The recent judgment in the Una case, which sentenced five accused and acquitted 35 others, should not be seen just as closure. It reveals a deeper pattern that has long shaped the experience of caste atrocity cases in India, providing only partial acknowledgement of violence and falling short of complete justice.
For Dalit communities, the concern extends beyond individual punishment to whether the system acknowledges the systemic nature of caste violence. Often, delays in investigation, weak prosecution, hostile witnesses, and institutional bias reduce the likelihood of complete accountability. Una appears to follow this common pattern.
Dalit mobilisation in Gujarat has increasingly relied on legal channels alongside protests, indicating greater trust in constitutional methods. However, cases like this judgment highlight
the limits of that trust. When many accused are acquitted, it raises uncomfortable questions about how caste violence is investigated, interpreted, and judged.
Similarly, the judgment does not diminish what Una accomplished outside the courtroom. If anything, it emphasises a fundamental insight of Dalit movements: that justice is not achieved solely through legal verdicts but must be pursued through continuous political effort.
In this sense, the judgement becomes part of the story of Una, not its conclusion.
After Una, Gujarat Today
Nearly a decade later, Una continues to influence Dalit politics in Gujarat. Its legacy persists through ongoing struggles, organisational frameworks, and political debates.
First, Una characterises protest as a fundamental democratic tool. Activities once regarded as extraordinary or disruptive, such as road blockades, rail roko, and mass rallies, are now widely acknowledged within Dalit movements as essential for pressuring the state. Protest has evolved from being solely reactive to adopting a strategic role.
Second, Una transitioned Dalit politics from mere symbolic recognition to tangible demands. Land rights, especially, gained prominence. Although previous movements had touched upon land issues, Una amplified their urgency and attracted widespread support. The connection between caste oppression and economic dispossession became harder to overlook.
Third, Una emphasised Ambedkarite principles as active political practice rather than just symbols. The outright rejection of caste roles, the call for dignity, and conversions to Buddhism in certain areas reflected a profound ideological shift. Ambedkar was not merely cited; his ideas were demonstrated through daily acts of resistance.
Finally, Una also helped establish new organisational structures and leadership. Groups like the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch sustained the momentum beyond immediate acts of outrage. This ongoing effort is vital, indicating that Dalit politics in Gujarat is evolving from sporadic protests in response to atrocities to a more organised and sustained movement.
Still a Long Struggle Ahead
Considering Una as a closed chapter would be a mistake. Its importance is exactly in the fact that it opened up new political possibilities.
Una revolutionised the emotional landscape of Dalit politics in Gujarat. The traditional use of fear as a means of caste control was openly challenged. Instead, feelings of anger, assertion, and a rejection of humiliation as the norm emerged. This emotional transformation is key to what you call radical consciousness: a shift from simply recognising injustice to actively fighting it.
However, this transformation also introduced new challenges. Assertion is often criticised. Greater visibility of Dalit resistance frequently encounters efforts to control, suppress, or co-opt it. Consequently, the struggle becomes more complex rather than simpler.
Una ultimately showed that Dalit politics in Gujarat has reached a new stage: more self-aware, better organised, and more willing to challenge both caste society and the government. It is a politics that doesn’t wait for justice but calls for it, negotiates for it, and, when needed, acts disruptively to ensure its voice is heard.
The recent judgment, despite its limitations, reminds us that the legal system alone cannot resolve caste contradictions. It also highlights the significance of movements like Una.
Because they change the terms of the debate.
Because they make injustice visible.
And because they insist that dignity is not negotiable.
Una, then, is not just about what happened in 2016, or what the court has said today; it represents an ongoing fight for the right to live with dignity in Gujarat.
And that struggle is far from over.
(Mahendra Parmar is a Doctoral candidate at the Central University of Gujarat, Vadodara. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint is not endorse or is responsible for them.)