This chapter opens with a very pertinent observation of Dr Ambedkar, who demonstrates how the caste system is not only responsible for the division of labour but also for the division of labourers. He detects how the caste system leads to the creation of different groups of labourers based on economic disparities. The interrelation between caste and class is one of the most poignant issues in the Indian social milieu. While some social scientists put emphasis on the idea of caste as responsible for the social rift in Indian society, others point out the economic imbalance. From this point of view, while Dalit literature tries to highlight the social discrepancies due to the caste system and talks about the annihilation of the caste system, Marxist literature talks about the gradations of economic structure that need to be destroyed to establish social equality. Therefore, a distinct division is conspicuous between Marxist literature and Dalit literature. The main focal point is that the Marxist ideology of evolution is grounded only on economic disparity, but Ambedkarite ideology is founded on social inequality which is the result of the Indian age-old caste system. According to Marx, social conditions change due to systems of production, relations of production, and class conflict. He considers that the fields of religion, ethics, art, literature, and even culture are inspired by economic forces and the amount of material owned by persons in society. Indian Marxists focused on exploitation based on economic disparity but they did not focus on the caste system and untouchability, which is the key to social disparity. That is why the Marxists ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Dalits. Dalits consider that inequality in Indian society is not solely founded on capitalism. They opine that caste discrimination mainly leads to inequality in Indian society. That prompts Ambedkar to say, “If Lenin had been born in Hindustan, he would have first destroyed caste discrimination and untouchability completely; and he would not even have imagined a revolution without this”. He also claims, “If Tilak had been born in a boycotted caste, instead of roaring, ‘Swaraj is my birthright’, he would have said with confidence, “Annihilation of untouchability is my supreme duty”. This indicates that Ambedkar put utmost emphasis on social revolution to annihilate the caste system rather than political revolution to gain swaraj. In his unpublished essay “Buddha or Karl Marx” Ambedkar preferred Buddha because he talks of non-violence whereas Marxism promoted a violent class struggle to acquire dictatorship. However, it should be remembered that both Marx and Ambedkar thought of human liberation from exploitation, so a convergence between their ideologies is essential for the emancipation of all the marginalised people who are the victims of social inequality. As a result, after the death of Ambedkar, a number of Dalit writers came forward to make a fusion of Ambedkarite thoughts with Marxist thoughts since these thoughts possess some common traits. These Ambedkarite writers believe that both Marxist and Dalit literary traditions take the side of the exploited people and try to make people conscious of their degraded condition, of their slavery. They feel that both Marxist and Dalit literature spring out of real, first-hand experiences of the writers. And apart from these, the most striking point is that Dalit literature is thoroughly humanistic and so is Marxist literature. As Maxim Gorky says:So, it is seen that both these works of literature believe in the greatness of the common human being; both of them present the common man, exploited man, who had been unrecognised, as the hero. This belief led M.N. Wankhede to claim, “Not only are the Buddhist or the backward defined by the word Dalit, but whoever are exploited workers, all of them are also included in the definition of ‘Dalit’”. Another Dalit writer and activist, Namdeo Dhasal, stands in solidarity with this idea and has broadened the notion of Dalit by saying, “Dalits are the scheduled castes, sub-castes, Buddhists, working masses, labourers, landless farm workers, yayawars and adivasis”. As a result, renowned Dalit critics and writers like Namdeo Dhasal, Arjun Dangle, Baburao Bagul, Daya Pawar, M.N. Wankhede, Yashwant Manohar, Raosaheb Kasbe, Sharad Patil, Sada Karhade, Narayan Surve, Sudhir Bedekar, Sharatchandra Muktibodh, P.S. Nerurkar, and V. S. Jog accepted the ideas of Ambedkar as well as Marx. It is because these writers and critics believed that both caste identity and economic disparity are responsible for the exploitation of marginalised people. These Dalit critics and writers who are in favour of making a synthesis of Ambedkarite thought and Marxist thought opine that the Dalit question is not only social but also related to the economic state. Dalit identity and economic backwardness contribute simultaneously to the suffering of the Dalits who are economically poor. In addition, miserable economic conditions also led them to remain as Dalits. Thus, the stigma of untouchability and economic powerlessness is significant in the subjugation of the marginalised people. This economic fragility forces them to remain deprived the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, and, more importantly, water. They are to lead a life of extreme poverty and abjectness. Plays by Dalit playwrights are imbued with this overlapping idea of caste and class, and by reading these writings, it is easily perceived that poverty or economic weakness of the marginalised people hugely contributes to their exploitation and marginalisation. In order to establish the overlapping relationship between caste and class, this chapter studies two representative Dalit plays by one of the pioneering Bengali Dalit playwrights, Achintya Biswas. The two texts, Encircling Pressure and Portrait of Ambedkar, solely touch the caste–class interface.