A person's credentials may be established by their academic background, but their language exposes the depth of their humanity, intelligence, and ideals. A timeless warning was given by Kabir centuries ago: "Boli ek anmol hai, jo koi bolai jaan; hiye taraju tauli kai, tab mukh bahar aan." His couplet is a lesson on speaking thoughtfully and taking moral responsibility for one's words, not just an exhortation to speak gently. Our thoughts, ideals, and social consciousness are reflected in language.

Ironically, caste-based insults nevertheless find a place in public discourse in a nation whose Constitution rejected social structures and caste discrimination, laying the groundwork for equality and human dignity. When such language is used by a political commentator and professor at a university rather than by a regular person, the issue becomes far more serious. The question then goes beyond word choice to include the fundamental goal of education and the content of intellectual accomplishment.

Education is more than just earning degrees, learning new things, or outwitting people. Its broader goal is to increase human reason, empathy, and dedication to equality. It is unavoidable to question the very claim to intellectual wisdom if years of academic study fail to foster a perspective free from caste arrogance, religious intolerance, and sexist preconceptions.

The prefix "Professor" does not imply wisdom; rather, it is an academic title. A title is bestowed by an institution, but genuine scholarship manifests itself in humanism in language, humility in behaviour, and intellectual openness.

Casteist Speech vs Constitution

The constitutional values of equality, social fairness, and human dignity are seriously called into question by caste-based insults, which are more than just examples of improper language. Any system that establishes a person's superiority or inferiority based on caste or place of birth is rejected by the Indian Constitution. This vision is reinforced by a number of its provisions.

Everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law and equality before the law under Article 14. The State cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, according to Article 15. Untouchability is outlawed in all its forms by Article 17. The right to life, which includes the right to live with human dignity, is safeguarded by Article 21.

In a similar vein, Article 19(2) allows reasonable limits on some reasons, such as public order and defamation, but Article 19(1)(a) preserves freedom of speech and expression. To put it another way, the right to free speech does not grant the right to unilaterally violate the dignity of another person.

Every citizen has a fundamental obligation to uphold peace and the spirit of fraternity while abstaining from actions that diminish the dignity of women, according to Article 51A(e). Additionally, Article 51A(h) exhorts citizens to cultivate humanism, a scientific temper, and a spirit of change and inquiry.

When taken as a whole, these constitutional clauses make it clear that humanity itself, not caste or social identity, determines one's value. In addition to undermining social cohesion, claims of caste supremacy and language that disparages a whole community also go against the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.

Caste Abuse and the Law

In order to provide legal protection for the fundamental values of equality and human dignity, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was passed. While Section 3(1)(s) penalises caste-based abuse aimed at a member of the SC or ST community by mentioning their caste name, subject to the specified legal requirements, Section 3(1)(r) criminalises the deliberate insult or intimidation of such a person in public. If found guilty, the penalty consists of a fine and six months to five years in jail.

However, the Act only comes into effect when all of its fundamental legal requirements are met, such as the victim's membership in a SC or ST group, the accused's lack of membership, and the other statutory requirements. The Supreme Court made it clear in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024) that not all offensive remarks are automatically illegal under this Act. Important factors to take into account include the purpose of the insult and if the victim was explicitly humiliated due to their caste identity.

In addition, Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addresses inciting animosity between various groups based on caste, religion, or community; Section 352 addresses deliberate insult meant to incite a breach of peace; and Section 356 addresses defamation. The facts and circumstances of each case determine how applicable they are.

Therefore, the entire statement, its context, and the relevant legal criteria must be considered before drawing any criminal conclusions in the Sangeet Ragi dispute. The SC/ST Act cannot be invoked simply by mentioning an Ahir or Yadav identity.

However, a statement is not always socially or morally acceptable only because it does not prove a criminal violation in the eyes of the law. Human dignity violations and criminal responsibility are two different issues. Vigilance on both fronts is required by the Constitution.

When Debate Turns Casteist

In this constitutional and social environment, the issue involving Sangeet Ragi, a professor and political analyst at Delhi University, during an ABP News debate on November 3, 2026, gains relevance. "Behooda Ahir, aise hi Yadavon ko hum ganwar bolte hain," Ragi allegedly said in a conversation with Samajwadi Party spokesperson Manoj Kaka.

A report was filed at the Maurice Nagar Police Station after the statement, requesting the filing of a formal complaint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This is still a complaint rather than a court ruling. In contrast, Ragi justified himself by saying that the spokesman had mistreated him initially and that his use of terms like "ganwar" was only a response. Additionally, he expressed regret for offending people with his comments and offered an apology.

It is acceptable to raise concerns about both participants' language and behaviour. It is as improper to refer to someone as "uncouth" or a "donkey". Personal abuse and using caste identity as a tool to degrade someone, however, are fundamentally different. While the latter runs the risk of legitimising class bias in the public sphere, the former is vulgar.

Caste-based humiliation in response to an insult is not a form of resistance; rather, it is an extension of the very prejudice that should be opposed. The offensive language of another person does not relieve you of your need to use moderation, decency, and common sense. Because a university professor's language represents his academic rank and societal responsibilities in addition to being an expression of personal opinion, the demands are inevitably higher.

Degrees, Dignity and Accountability

One could contend that public discourse norms are generally deteriorating. Abuse is a common tactic used by politicians, spokespeople, journalists, and social media influencers. So why should educators be singled out? Because a teacher moulds society's viewpoint rather than just imparting knowledge. Teachers instill in the next generation the values of reason, disagreement, and respect for the dignity of others. Instead than celebrating society's ugliness, it is their duty to serve as a mirror.

The repercussions of a teacher using caste identification as a weapon of humiliation on a public forum go well beyond a private argument. Such behaviour teaches students and society at large. Are caste-based taunts, loud speech, and personal insults evolving into the new standards of intellectualism?

Increasing one's knowledge is only one aspect of knowledge; another is developing one's humility, sensitivity, and discernment. It is only natural to wonder about the societal purpose of a person's research if decades of education are unable to free them from bias and leave no room for human dignity in their words.

Channels on television are equally responsible. It is not journalism to turn contentious discussions into spectacles that generate TRPs. An anchor's job is to maintain the dignity of an argument, not to keep it inflamed. Editors have a duty to take immediate action against insults based on caste.

Although freedom of expression is essential to democracy, it does not grant permission for unchecked misuse. Everyone is free to differ, and no one has the right to degrade someone because of their caste. It is expected of a teacher to exhibit not just information but also the insight that turns knowledge into humanity.

Kabir’s Warning: The Blind Lead the Blind

Kabir wrote: “Jaaka Gur Bhi Andhala, Chela Khara Nirandh. Andha-Andha Theliya, Dunyun Koop Padant.”

Kabir's caution is still applicable today, not just to religious leaders but also to academics, public intellectuals, and political experts. The next generation's viewpoint is shaped by the language and behaviour of society's intellectual leaders. Therefore, it is crucial to consider if people we look up to support equality, reason, and human dignity. We are free to choose who we accept as a guru, but it is our duty to critically analyse their beliefs. Intellectual superiority cannot be demonstrated by degrees, popularity, or political proximity. Criticism must, however, focus on an individual's words and actions rather than denouncing an ideology or the teaching community as a whole. That is what democratic justice is all about.

Degrees Don’t Define Wisdom

The tragedy of a civilisation starts when caste discrimination is confused for intellectual bravery, ignorance for knowledge, and hubris for confidence. Humanity, wisdom, and sensitivity must be earned via behaviour; degrees and positions can be obtained. We learned from Kabir to evaluate our words using the heart's scales. Words can sometimes revive centuries-old social prejudices in addition to insulting specific people.

Who will teach pupils the notion of equality if a teacher sees people through the prism of caste? Where will society look for reason if an analyst transforms bias into an argument? Freedom of speech is guaranteed by democracy, not the right to violate the dignity of another person. Academic designations do not define a teacher's prominence; rather, their personal behaviour and intellectual vision do. In the end, society needs more people with discernment and wisdom than just orators with degrees.

(The author, a Doctorate in Laws, is a senior lawyer and civil society activist.)