Dalit is a word found in ancient Sanskrit, the most important language of archaic Hindu texts. It may appear futile, prima facie, to appropriate a Sanskrit word as a symbol of protest against the caste system when that same caste system belongs to the Sanskrit religion (Hinduism), which oppresses the Dalits, and suggests eternal and divine sanctions for the oppression. The word has, however, been thoroughly adopted into local Indian languages and is included in the Hindi Dictionary. In other words, local Dalits have taken ownership of the word and adopted it into their own language; its Sanskrit origins are acknowledged only in academic text books. Additionally, as the word is also present in Hebrew it is not exclusive outcaste Indian communities infers either that they do not have the resources of protest available within their own micro-cultural language group, or that in a country with over 1,300 local languages, the Dalits have accepted that Sanskrit is the closest thing to a national Indian language (while Hindi is the most widely spoken language, it is considered, by southern Indians, to be biased towards the north).

Dalit is a term chosen by the subalterns to describe their own predicament rather than a term imposed upon them by external commentators, like Harijan, or Depressed Class etc.. John Webster, e to formulate their own theological expressions, they are one step closer to being free. If Dalits passively accept theology formulated by others they are accepting external modes of oppression. Kuruvila points out that the meaning of the word Dalit includes the recognition that the Dalits have been reduced to being �no people� by their oppressors. In choosing their own name, the Dalits challenge this status and the implication of passivity. By naming themselves and tpoints out:
Through this appellation, they not only reject the dominant caste imposed identity of chandala, or �untouchable�, which they find dehumanising or Harijan and depressed classes that they consider patronising, but also assume the identity of an oppressed people who are reasserting their humanity against those who have for centuries treated them as sub-human.

That the meaning of the word Dalit seems to emphasise their status as a no-people presents a challenge for Indian liberation theology. It may suggest that, for God to identify with the Dalits, a no-people, God must become a 'no-God'. However, God did not relate to the no-people by becoming a no-Godhrough the cross that the "no people" are transformed into "God's own people" (1 Peter 2: 9 - 10).

Prabhakar goes on to argue that the fact that God has vindicated the Dalits through Christ's resurrection means that the Dalits should not be passive and that Christ reveals himself through their struggles. Liberation theology in the Philippines has taken the form of a theology of struggle, that is, a theology that does not look ahead to liberation but only to further suffering and martyrdom. Using the word Dalit suggests that, as an oppressed group, the untouchables have taken a sould come tumbling down.

India is a country of around one billion people, and with those identifying themselves as Dalit spread thinly throughout the country, the vast number of titles given to the Dalits makes it difficult to conceptualise them as a unified group. Illustrative of this is Massey's comprehensive list of subaltern epithets.
The Dalits in our country are known by many other names, which were/are given them by others, mainly to despise them or to show contempt: These include: Dasa, Dasyu, Raksasa, Asura, Avarna, Nisada, Panchama, Mletcha, SvapaAchuta, Exterior Castes, Depressed Classes, Scheduled Castes, Harijan, Untouchables etc.

Massey�s list also contains some names which have identified local, small, Dravidian communities whose names predate the caste struggle but indirectly identify them as outcaste communities. The names listed below indicate topographical and micro-cultural identity first, and caste by inference.
[...] there are a number of other titles or names which have been given to them at the regional level. For example, Chura in Punjabi (North West India); Bhangi or Lal-Beghi in Hindi (North India); Mahar in Marathi (Central India); Mala in Telegu; Paraiyar in Tamil, and Pulayan in Malayalam (South India).

For outcaste communities to lose their local identity, in order to identify themselves with the national plight ofheritage and consequently defining their identity only in terms of conflict and struggle. In Sathianathan Clarke's work with Dalit Christians in south India, he observes the double discovery of the community as Dalits and as Paraiyar. If the identity of the Dalits draws from their historical roots, as well as acknowledging their present state of oppression, that identity can move the community towards future liberation. This meant that local cultural identity of a particular group, in this case the Paraiyars, is recognised, while the group also identifies with the national plight of the Dalits.

As well as the diversity amongst the Dalits and the inclusion of Tribals and he struggle against oppression in Indian society as Dalits. This includes converts to non-Hindu faiths, those who are economically mobile but remain stigmatised by casteism, and those Tribals who consider themselves to be of the same generic group as the Dalits. Because such an important part of the caste struggle involves defining an adequate identity, it is imperative that those sections in Indian society which refuse to name themselves Dalit are excluded, in order to preserve their own identity with integrity, and to avoid confusion resistance to casteism, since it is a conscious attempt to reject publicly caste prejudice by claiming not to be part of it. Dalit Christians must deal with the issue of whether they identify themselves first as Dalits or as Christians, as Nirmal has pointed out.
What this means is that the non-Dalit world will ask us 'What is Christian about Dalit theology?' Our reply will have to be: 'It is the Dalitness which is "Christian" about Dalit Theology'.

What Nirmal is suggesting is that being a Dalit, or oppressed, is to be given preference by God, who is just and liberative by nature.

In the preface to the second edition of A Theology of Liberation (1988), Gustavo Guti�rrez focuses mainly on attempts to offer ased in technical senses and need unpacking to be understood. First, the word Preference is not intended to imply exclusivity.
The very word "Preference" denies all exclusiveness and seeks rather to call attention to those who are the first - though not the only ones - with whom we should be in solidarity.

This preference is, then, a matter of universality in outlook with the priority of justice over all other concerns. Second, the word Option, which Guti�rrez admits 'has its limitations,' as a technical term, is also open to misunderstanding. In any liberationist context it is necessary to qualify the term to avoid the suggestion that solidarity with the pthe urgent need for response on the part of the whole church.

Perhaps most divisively used, in the western context, is the technical term 'Poor'. It is possible for people who are relatively rich compared to those who live in the favelas of Brazil, or slums of India, for example, to claim that they are poor, oppressed and, therefore, God has a preferential option for them. While it would be wrong to deny justice to people, for example, living in urban squalor in the United Kingdom, the weight of the message of liberation theology is removed if it becomes nothing more than a global fad, which any group can adopt, manipulate, and use. ological, psychological, and economic. A Dalit is utterly restricted. Since, in the Bible, the word 'Poor' has the same connotations and a similar form, the Dalits of India can identify themselves with confidence with God's relationship to humanity throughout the story of his dealings with Israel. To say that God has a preferential option for the Dalit is to recognise a trend in scripture, one which liberation theology has already identified, but which Dalit liberation theology can more concretely own.
In the final analysis, an option for the poor is an option for the God of the Kingdom whom Jesus proclaims to us [...]. Th The Asian theology of the future or any genuine theology for that matter - will, therefore, have to be one that expresses the mute longing of the downtrodden and the unwanted of the earth [...]. Only that theological reflection is true which grips the masses and thereby becomes a power that changes the world.

This bold assertion has implications for poor and rich alike seeing the church, bringing his total sovereignty, but as a community with an agenda for altering the whole of society. The churches in India, as a minority in a multi-religious context, act as a prophetic, or counter-cultural, community, witnessing to Gverty and religiosity are interwoven culturally and economically to constitute the vast socio-political reality.

Dalit liberation theology empowers the Dalits with the responsibility to do theology from their own perspective, and dictates that the caste elite of the churches must accept the religious interpretations of those they oppress.

The criticism brought against all theologies of liberation must be brought to bear against Dalit liberation theology, namely, that it encourages a polarisation of theologies, and is both anti-ecumenical and anti-evangelical. There is an inference of the exclusion of the rich from Gs, therefore, that the theology of the oppressor is unchristian theology and must be replaced by the theology of the oppressed, who God prefers as missionary agents of the Gospel.
All through the Bible, then, the poor are taken to be an oppressed group of the economically and the socially deprived, who because they are the victims of oppression will be the beneficiaries of salvation and will mediate this salvation to others.

This does not mean that the onus is not on the oppressors to proclaim the gospel, but that they can only do so authentically by taking concrete steps towards solidarity with the Dalits.