Clarke's observation, as stated above, that liberation thmust also reflect on the experience of the Hindu, Neo-Buddhist, Sikh, and Muslim Dalits, since they are also oppressed by casteism. So the hermeneutical circle must be expanded to fit the multi-religious context of the Dalits, if it hopes to transform Indian society.

Proponents of the hermeneutical circle, a key concept of liberation theology, claim that authentic theology must always begin with praxis, rather than pure reflection. However, hermenation theology this motivation is the gospel and a commitment to the poor.
Revelation and history, faith in Christ and the life of a people, eschatology and praxis: these are the factors that, when set in motion, give rise to what has been called the hermeneutical circle.

The hermeneutical circle is universally practical because it accepts that each situation requires a renewed reading of scripture, and a commitment to a new set of goals, and because it accepts that the flux of time and circumstances requires a constant reassessment of interpretation in the light of experience.

However, further expansion of igion'. This pathos is, for the Dalits, an essential component of religion; one which should not be lost by the wholesale adoption of an imported theology of liberation.
While Dalit theology because of its liberation motifs will not question this praxiological basis of human knowledge it would want to affirm that pathos is prior to praxis. [...] This pathos or suffering or pain is prior to their involvement in any activist struggle for liberation.

Dalit theology, according to Aer liberation theologies, it criticises western theology and its focus on the abstract knowledge of God as being the primary source of theological knowledge then applied to every situation. In other words, Martin Luther's most important contribution to the western reformation of the church, the Scriptura Sola (Scripture only). But Dalit theology recognises that knowledge is also knowledge of what is felt by those who suffer and, importantly, how those feelings are expressed. The hermeneutical circle, which is deficient in the Latin American paradigm (because there is no pure praxis), is made complete in the Dalit context because of the recognition of pathos as the motivation forof Hinduism, as the Avatar, as Atman and Paramatman. All these are terms which have meaning to caste Hindus and their religious world view and yet have had only a relatively low impact on the caste community. None of these Christologies are relevant to the situation of the Dalits, who, like all oppressed groups engaged in liberation theology, need to understand Christ in terms relative to their experiences of oppression.
In the emergent and emerging theologies of liberation, [...] in the West but particularly in proportions.

To understand Christ, his relationship with the Dalits, and their identity in him, is to be empowered with identity and hope.

According to Jaroslav Pelikan, "it is the characteristic of each age of history to depict Jesus in accordance with its own character," and he identifies Jesus the Liberator as characteristic of twentieth century Christological formulations. Leonardo Boff, following the tradition of Bultmann, believes the historical Christ to be an almost complete irrelevance, since he is obscured by the Christ of early church faith. Boff's focus is on the Christ of faith whom he calls 'Jesus Christ Liberator' in thBeckford in the United Kingdom have developed Black Christologies that go beyond the historical Christ to the Christ of faith.
Black Christologies - that is, how the Jesus of history has been understood as the Christ of faith in Black thought - have given voice to the way in which Black men and women have come to understand how Jesus becomes the mediator for sociopolitical liberation in the lives of Black people.

For Beckford, this Christ of faith is Jesus as Dread, a word which symbolises the resed in the context of Black Caribbean Rastafarians, whereby the meaning of the word 'dread', as 'despair' or 'fear', is inverted to become a sign of hope against white colonialist oppression.
Dread symbolises freedom, power and upliftment. Therefore, the Dread Christ is one who sides with all oppressed people in their struggle against all that denies them full humanity.

It is possible to expand this sort of Christology into all kinds of spheres of oppression. The Christ of faith might be depicted as Disabled, as Christa (female), or as a homosexual, or a member of any marginalised community. Of course, the Jesus of the New Testament was not portrayed as any of these with their own marginalisation.

According to Prabhakar, the word Dalit, meaning oppressed, crushed, describes, both etymologically and historically, the situation of both the subalterns of India and the Jesus of Palestine.
Jesus' dalitness is best symbolised by the cross. On the cross he was the broken, the crushed, the split, the torn, the driven asunder man - the Dalit in the fullest possible meaning of the term.

But not only on the cross: as a Galilean in a Pharisaic religion, as a Jew in a Roman occupied Palestine, as a teacher and preacherouchable (leper) and uses the outcaste (Samaritan) as an exemplary figure, in all these ways Jesus is both a Dalit and one who is in solidarity with the Dalits. A comparison between Jesus as Dread and Jesus as Dalit shows that Dalit Christology is different even from other liberationist Christologies. Faith in a historical Christ is as much faith in a Christ who is a projection of a situation, more so in fact, for, faith in a projected abstraction amounts to faith in a nothing.

If Jesus is a Dalit, this has implications for the wider church, as well as for the Dalits of India. Writer M E Prabhakar believes that Jesus' Dalitness is central to a proper understanding of his being.
It means that both his humanity and his divinity are to be understood in terms of his dalitness. Hibmission of the Son of God to the limitations of humanity, even death, reflects the nature of God as one in solidarity with the Dalits. Jesus as Dalit is the Christ of faith with whom the Dalits can identify, P M Larbeer, a Dalit theologian, puts it thus:
The Messiah who resembles us, is black, flat nosed and big nosed, dressed in rags, standing always near our slums to protect us. We have many stories to tell about this Messiah's involvement in our struggles and sufferings.

However, Jesus the Dalit, in a wider liberationist context, has macro-specific implications for all oppressed groups. All marginalised groups, whether they are Black people in Britain, or disabled people, or women, can choose the name 'Dalit' for themselves and identify with the dalitnesof Christology and empowers the Dalits who identify with Christ, encouraging them to follow Christ in being in solidarity with all those who are oppressed. Those Dalits who are also Christians may have a further unique perspective on the place of Dalits within the world, and in relation to God. P M Larbeer sees the Dalit community as a contemporary Messianic community. Rejecting the caste-Christian concept of Messiah as holy and aloof, he sees the Messiah of the Untouchables as being in solidarity with them, rather than excluding them as impure.
This Messiah accepts us as we are; we can approach him any time, however badly dressed we may be. We can sleep, we can play, cry, fight - whatever we do in the temple the Messiah accepts.

Larbeer sees this community as historicallere the, "God of Creation," acted as Liberator.' While he argues that this makes the Messianic community an inclusive one, he points out that this concept of the Messiah as one who identifies with the Dalits is bound to be rejected by those who consider the Dalits to be outcaste communities.

Both in the West and in the Third World, women are claiming liberation theology as their own task. Third world women theologians assert that, since they suffer the dual oppression of poverty and gender prejudice, they are the ones who suffer oppression to the greatest degree and most urgently need liberation. The need for particular attention to be paid to the liberation of women was not the primary concern of Latin American liberation theologians, nor of liberationists in most of Asia, aarison made by Latin American liberationist theologians, between the liberation of the Exodus community from Egypt, and the liberation of the poor in Latin America. The comparison is ironic because, in both cases women were a part of the struggle for freedom and yet found themselves oppressed by the patriarchy of their own communities.
They work enthusiastically for the liberation of "their people," only to discover, when the liberated community assembles its new institutions, that they are not included as active members but are relegated to dependency.

The balance is being redressed with Womanist, Mujerista, and Women's theologies, to name a few. Theologians such as Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Ivone Gebara, and Marianne Katoppo, offer contributions to theological thought that are liberating ment of women is extensive. As women, under Manu's law, they have no rights, being subservient to any man in their household, whether father, husband or son. While Dalit men are beginning to oppose the stigma of untouchability, the Hindu traditions that oppress their wives are often still applied without protest from the Dalit community.
For the majority of women in India, the uppermost problem is survival. Poverty, dowry murders, widow burning, female infanticide have assumed new forms with modernisation and technological advancement. The rural Dalit women face more atrocities from the upper caste men and women. [...] Untouchability does not have a place here; if an upper caste man wants, he can rape a poor, pale, weak, unhealthy, dark, voiceless Dalit woman!

The claim made by Dalit women is of a reality entirely different to that o struggle of Dalit women is not for equal opportunity, privilege or status, it is about survival and quality of life. Both caste and outcaste women face the stigma of their gender in patriarchal India. However, in relative terms, it is the Dalit woman who suffers, too poor to afford a servant, or the luxury of not having to earn. A burden on her parents who have to find enough money to offer a dowry to the family of a prospective groom, a Dalit woman's alienation is compounded by her Dalit status. N G Prasuna calls the Dalit women 'thrice alienated,' M Kamal Raja Selvi refers to them as 'fourth Class Citizen[s],' and Aruna Gnanandason, uses the phrase 'the Dalit of the Dalit'. The same message is conveyed by all three, but it is the last which most echoes the liberationist perspective of women as 'the poor of the poor', for whom God has a preferential option. If Geferential option for the most needy, this means women of the most oppressed communities.

Unlike Latin American liberation theology, criticised as slow in its solidarity with women, Dalit theology has taken seriously the plight of Dalit women from the earliest stages of its development. Gurukul Lutheran Theological Institute, in Madras, held its first Summer Institute in 1992 and chose as its first theme for debate Dalits and Women. A book comprising the papers given at that forum has been published which deals comprehensively with sociological, theological, and hermeneutical perspectives of Dalit women. This concern for the struggle of Dalit women is also reflected in Dalit narratives, both within and without the Christian sphere. struggle, and its missiological motivation will then move towards the Dalit community and the rest of India.

Just as Marxist ideology will not transform Indian society with a superficial transposition of class analysis into an Asian context, so liberation theology will have no impact on the wider, multi-religious, Indian caste society unless it expands its sociological remit into the world of the Dalit Indians. Clarke finds liberation theology, in the form taken from the Latin American context, both too narrow and too broad. It is too narrow because of the reasons stated above, its focus on the economic and social factors in society, not taking the case of the Dalits, liberation from the dominant and coercive powers of caste religion is definitely needed. However, turning their backs completely on their own religion and culture which has sustained them through centuries, may in fact be a collective act of avoidance: an attempt to evade and dodge their own identity and self-hood.

Dalit liberation theology must take account of the experience and reflection of the Latin American, Womanist, and Black experiences and ideologies only once it has reflected on the experience of the Dalits. Liberation theology should not e used as a paradigm for Dalit liberation theology but as a point of departure for the emancipation of the Dalits through their own religious state. Such key concepts as the hermeneutical circle, the church's preferential option for the poor, and Liberation Christology, should be readdressed in the light of Dalit experience in order to empower the cause of the Dalits and their missiological contribution to the Christian community, both in India and abroad. Dalit liberationism has the added responsibility of putting the experience and needs of women at the centre of its ideology and praxis, in order to be true to the Biblical concept of the poor as the widow and orphan, and in order to begin with the poorest of the poor and not simply with the men as the dominant representatives of poor communities.