Of Goddamned Hindus and Discrination Devil
Sid Harth
An 'Untouchable' Says Caste Is Truly a Human Rights Issue
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
NITED NATIONS, Nov. 15 - A leader of India's Dalits, the "untouchable"
underclass of more than 160 million people whose campaign for an end to
discrimination is rarely heard in the West, is being honored this month
by two major American human rights organizations seeking to raise
awareness of the issue.
On Tuesday in New York, Martin Macwan, a lawyer who founded the
National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, was named by Human Rights
Watch as one of five outstanding human rights defenders around the
world this year. And in Washington on Nov. 21, Mr. Macwan will receive
the 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award.
Last year, Human Rights Watch published the first book-length report on
the conditions of the Dalits and the organization is now also lobbying
to put the cause on the agenda of the United Nations' first
international conference on racism and discrimination next summer.
"The fact that we're honoring a Martin from India reminds us of yet
another Martin from the U.S. who fought racial discrimination in this
country," said Stephen Rickard, director of the R.F.K. Center for Human
Rights, which will give Mr. Macwan his award in Washington.
In an interview today, Mr. Macwan, 41, described the lives of people
who are deprived of land ownership, required to drink and eat from
separate utensils, barred from wells and temples, forced into bonded
labor and made to clean latrines with their bare hands and carry human
waste away from the homes of caste Hindus.
The untouchables, literally outcasts, are also vulnerable to violence
at the hands of upper-caste Hindus and the police, he said.
Dalits who convert to other religions, to escape the Hindu caste
system, face double jeopardy in an era of Hindu nationalism, said Mr.
Macwan, who is a Christian.
Mr. Macwan, who was born into a Dalit family in Gujarat, said in an
interview today that as a student he watched the beatings and sometimes
the killings of fellow untouchables, and decided to establish an
organization to help them. He called it the Navsarjan (New Creation)
Trust. More recently, he formed the National Campaign on Dalit Human
Rights, linking similar organizations in 14 Indian states.
India has given opportunities to Dalits - the country's president, K.
R. Narayanan, was born an untouchable. It also has laws forbidding
discrimination, and has introduced affirmative action programs to bring
Dalits into politics and educational institutions. But for a majority
of the most disadvantaged, abuses continue.
"The Indian government has been very successful at manufacturing an
image as the world's largest democracy with a very progressive
constitution and many progressive laws on the books," said Smita
Narula, who wrote the 1999 Human Rights Watch report, "Broken People:
Caste Violence Against India's `Untouchables."
"We don't dispute any of this," she said, "but none of the laws are
implemented and the Constitution is not enforced."
Mr. Macwan described caste discrimination as an "institutionalized"
system that has allowed, for example, the highest Brahmin caste, with
3.5 percent of the population, to hold 78 percent of judicial positions
and about half of parliamentary seats.
He said the Indian government has argued that caste - a complex
division of society with religious, cultural and economic roots - is a
domestic issue. Mr. Macwan disagrees.
"We say that India did support the U.S. civil rights movement in the
1960's, and also the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa," he
said. "In this era of the globalization of markets and of human rights,
no country can claim that it's a domestic matter. It's a universal
concern."
http://www.ahrchk.net/solidarity/200006/v106_03.htm
Asian Human Rights Commission <../../index.html>
AHRC Publications - Human Rights SOLIDARITY - June 2000 Volume 10 No. 6
AHRC <../../index.html> - Human Rights SOLIDARITY <../hrsolid.html> -
June 2000 Volume 10 No. 6 <200006.htm> - Discrimination and Toleration:
An Examination of Caste Discrimination in India
INDIA
Discrimination and Toleration: An Examination of Caste Discrimination
in India
Basil Fernando
The eminent Indian historian Romila Thapar wrote in A history of
India 'The fundamental sanity of the Indian civilisation has been due
to an absence of Satan.' It may however be said that the fundamental
insanity of the Indian civilisation has been due to the notion of
Caste. When Caste entered into society, it destroyed the homogenous
culture that had already been established.
This paper examines the particular discrimination that grew in India as
a result of the Caste system. While it is not my intention to
generalise, others may compare it to different scenarios.[1]
Though Caste discrimination is worse than slavery and Apartheid in many
respects, the West has not taken any significant position against
Caste. Is it because Caste falls outside the definition of
discrimination for reasons of race and ethnicity? Perhaps it is because
of a widespread view in the West that Indian notions of life are more
religious than their Western equivalents. Yet what have passed as
religious views in India are very often mundane theories and rules of
social control that have been deemed sacred. On this basis, it is
possible to argue that if serfs still existed in Europe believing it
their religious duty to remain subservient to aristocrats, Europe too
would have been a more religious place than it is now.
Ludicrous as this may seem, it is the way the claim to special
religiosity of Asia is made in defence of Caste. Even prominent
intellectuals like Ananda Coomaraswamy have written, 'If it be asked
what inner riches India brings to aid in the realisation of a
civilisation, then from the Indian standing, the answer must be found
in her religion and her philosophy and her constant application of
abstract theory to practical life.'[2] To make this the 'Indian'
paradigm, the views of vast masses of 'low Caste' Indians must be
excluded. In fact, discourses on India constantly ignore their
perspective.
The object of this paper is to draw attention to the realities of their
condition and the nature of Caste from the position of discrimination
and toleration. To develop an adequate response to Caste, it is
necessary to look into the history of social organisation that gave
rise to Caste and the development of philosophical and religious
legitimisation of this form of discrimination.
Folk Life, discrimination and toleration
Before I proceed to examine Caste in detail, I wish to make a
distinction central to ideas expressed in this paper: I distinguish
Folk Life from organised forms of political life. This is not to say
the two are not interrelated, but only asserts that that they are
distinct. The way discrimination and tolerance are looked at and
practised in Folk Life, and the way they are looked at within the frame-
work of the organised political system of a given society need not
always be the same; often they are very different. Experience shows
that frequently a particular form of discrimination against a
particular group is created in the process of making a particular
political system. The political system introduces the problem, leaving
a need for solutions by way of changes to the legal system. The
solutions may fall far short of the problem and seemingly permanent
forms of discrimination may arise as a result. These seemingly
permanent forms of conflict are then attributed to the Folk Life, as
inherent conflicts that had always been present among the peoples of a
particular locality.
It is also necessary to clarify that Folk Life does not mean a
disorganised way of life. Folk Life has its own modes of organisation.
At risk of generalising, it may be said that the chief characteristic
of Folk Life is spontaneity of relationships among the Folk. The
relationships are marked by something more than mere tolerance.
Sharing, compassion and basic justice remain the overarching
considerations in Folk Life. Nicolas Frederick Severin Grundtvig (1783-
1872) recognised these qualities when he asserted that Folk Life is
first and Christianity is second. To Christianity I add all religions
and philosophies, particularly legal philosophies.[3]
Discrimination results in varying degrees of suppression or killing of
Folk Life. When in Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago the hero declares
the end of love in Russia, it is recognition of the death of Folk Life
and the take-over of all aspects of life by the state. We see similar
perceptions elsewhere in the works of Franz Kafka. In fact, the over-
powering effect of the state on peoples is quite a common theme in
modern times.
Study of Caste from the point of view of discrimination and toleration
It is with these preliminary considerations that I approach Caste from
the point of view of discrimination and toleration. In the Indian Caste
system, the following features stand out:
a) Caste was not present in India at all times.
b) Caste is not based on race or ethnicity.
c) A Caste is not a mere social group, like a class or religious group.
d) The essential feature of Caste is its enclosed nature, from the
moment of birth.
e) Among the upper Castes, (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas,) Brahmins
enjoy an incomparably advantageous position over the other two.[4]
f) Every form of social and political power is completely withdrawn
from the lowest Castes (Sudras, Dalits[5]).
g) The overwhelming majority of people in India are of lower Castes.
h) Caste discrimination, based on birth, violates all human rights
norms on which UN instruments are founded.
i) Rejection of equality prevents the possibility of associated living
among the people. It thus blocks development of Folk Life. Politically,
it makes the functioning of democracy impossible.
Caste was not present in India since time immemorial. There were many
migrations and conflicts among various groups. Over a long period of
time an homogenous culture developed and exogamy was normal. Later,
with groups enclosing themselves, Caste and endogamy became the rule.
Discrimination on the basis of group began during this time, and
religious and judicial notions were developed to justify Caste.
Then came a collapse and revolt against Caste, leading to a virtual
ousting of this system. The radicalism of Buddhism at this time was its
fundamental rejection of Caste and acceptance of all persons on the
basis of equality. The results included more widespread democratic
practices, equality and freedom. They were accompanied by abandonment
of religious and judicial norms justifying Caste and emergence of new
ethical and juridical norms. I shall examine this era in greater depth
momentarily.
After this period of sanity, India fell back into the Caste system
again. The re-emergence of forces favouring the Caste system led to a
protracted contest for supremacy between the two sides. Finally, the
Caste system was re-imposed, but this time practices of discrimination
were even worse than before and draconian regulations were developed to
ensure Caste segregation. The notion and practice of 'untouchability'
was introduced. The period of colonialism and subsequent independence
weakened legal aspects of Caste discrimination, but at economic and
social levels discrimination has remained much the same.[6]
The theological justification of Caste was found in Purusha Sukta of
the Rig Veda, according to which Brahmins came from the mouth,
Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs and Sudras from the
feet of Brahma, the Creator. This fourfold division is called
Chaturvarna, the literary translation of which is four Castes.[7] The
Brahmins were in the modern sense the intellectual class, having a
monopoly over knowledge. They were also the priestly class, the most
powerful and all dominating of the four. Kshatriyas were the soldier
class and they alone were allowed to bear arms. Vaishyas were traders.
The Sudras performed menial jobs. To this a fifth category
of 'untouchables' (Dalits) was added later.
As the Brahmins were both the predominant and priestly class, their
arguments took the form of theological positions and were called
Dhramma. Religious rules imposing various forms and rituals were also
developed, and these went into minute details of life. Much later came
the draconian Law of Manu, which comprehensively entrenched the rules
of Caste enclosure.
Importantly, it was the Brahmins who introduced the idea of Chaturwarna
to the West, asserting that the four-fold division did not involve any
form of discrimination. They maintained it was only a division of
labour. Prestigious scholars such as Coomaraswamy, well known to the
West, accepted the Caste system merely as a division of labour and part
of the Varnasharma and Sanatana Dharma. Mahatma Ghandi, who strongly
condemned the present day manifestation of the Caste system, describing
it as a leprosy, likewise defended the conceptual basis for Caste along
these lines.
Tracing the origin of Caste to division of labour or similar functions
is unsatisfactory in that like divisions exist in all societies but do
not give rise to such rigid practices. Comparison of Caste to the
European guild system is not useful for the same reason. Many
misconceptions of Caste have originated due to writers trying to
explain it to a European audience (most of whom may not have had a deep
interest in the matter) by comparing it with experiences that their
audience may understand. However, such explanations understate the
discrimination suffered by those bearing the brunt of the Caste system.
It was left to the first generations of educated people among those who
suffered under the Caste system to make a more comprehensive critique.
Their analyses reflected those of the anti-Caste Buddhist movement
centuries earlier. Dr. Brim Rao Ambedkar (1881-1956) became the
undisputed leader of the Dalits and the pre-eminent exponent of their
cause. Ambedkar left an examination of Caste that remains unchallenged
even by his worst opponents. Himself a Dalit, Ambedkar knew personally
the extremes to which Caste discrimination could touch the most
rudimentary aspects of daily life:
'I would like to tell you some of the reminiscences of my childhood...
One day, I remember, I was very thirsty. I was not allowed to touch the
water tap. I told my master that I wanted to drink water. He called the
peon and asked him to turn on the tap and I drank water. Whenever the
peon was absent I had to go without water. Thirsty, I had to return
home and then only I could quench my thirst.'[8]
Ambedkar argued that Caste practice might have arisen when one social
group enclosed itself from others. Exclusion and enclosure may have
entailed advantages for this group. From this he argued that only the
more socially powerful group would have both found benefit in such
enclosure and also had the ability to isolate itself in this manner.
Others followed, either by imitation of the more powerful social class
or because they had no choice anyway. This is more plausible than any
other theory put forward so far on the origins of Caste. Others have
not even attempted to explain the unique nature of Caste and the
inherent discrimination involved in the practice of Caste. In fact, the
labour-function theory is used to explain Caste as inherently neutral
(if not good) and to claim that any discrimination is only a result of
abuse within the system. The Dalit movement has always proceeded from
this position that the Caste system was discriminatory by origin. The
extent of discrimination far exceeded anything that may occur within an
otherwise non-discriminatory system. It follows that
'To the Untouchables, the problem of discrimination in order of
seriousness is only next to the problem of recovering their manhood.
The discrimination against the Untouchables is practised by the Hindus
on a scale, the extent of which it is impossible for an outsider to
imagine. There is no field of life in which the Untouchables and the
Hindus come into competition and in which the former is not subject to
discrimination.'[9]
Thus, observed Ambedkar, Caste is a division not of labour but of
labourers. The annihilation of Caste, he stated, is an undeniable pre-
condition for democracy in India.
Every form of discrimination involves some type of enclosure. In
Europe, lower classes were denied access to many social privileges by
the aristocracy. Blacks in the United States and South Africa were also
disenfranchised. The difference with Caste is that enclosure is
complete, to the extent that direct contact between Castes is
prohibited, in order to avoid 'pollution'. It means total segregation,
whether in temples, at wells, on roads, in schools and most
importantly, in marriage.[10] Thus, while discrimination by Caste bears
some similarity to that imposed by slavery[11] and Apartheid, the Caste
system is in many respects more dehumanising. The very
term 'untouchable' means ones with whom no social contact of any sort
should be held, under threat of punishment. It degrades beyond all
comparison. Thus Caste was not a mere division of labour but the most
extreme division of social and political power. The question of
balancing interests between groups did not exist, for the simple reason
that each Caste was a world unto itself.
Thus it was that Caste became entrenched practically, theologically,
and jurisprudentially. In every respect, Caste rejects the notion of
human equality and thus justified enclosure of each Caste within its
own boundaries on the basis of graded inequality. In this set-up the
idea of common good existed only within each Caste group.
The first great revolt against Chaturwarna
That there would have been much opposition to Chaturwarna philosophy
and practices is natural, for it imposed barbarous conditions upon
many. In fact, literature provides many examples of such resistance.
However, one great revolt made history and for quite some time kept
Indian society open, defeating forces supporting the enclosed Caste
units. This was the social revolution led by Siddhartha Gottama Buddha.
Buddha refused to recognise Caste distinction. He attacked the
Chaturwarna philosophy both theoretically and practically, by creating
a new type of a religious leadership, the Sangha. This movement, with
begging bowl in hand, entered into communion with all sectors of
society, including the lowest Castes.
Himself a born follower of Sanatana Dharma, Buddha tested its every
tenet and found it false. In his later teaching he repudiated each of
these tenets. He refused to recognise the belief in God or soul as a
precondition for leading a good life[12]; he rejected the authority of
Vedas; he refused to recognise superiority based on birth; he opposed
Vedic sacrifices. He repudiated the Caste system.
Buddha recognised the right of everyone to learn. He admitted persons
belonging to any Caste into his following, admonishing all who became
his disciples to abandon Caste. He allowed women into the Sangha,
whereas the Brahmins forbade women even to read the Vedas, considering
them as 'impure as falsehood itself'. His fundamentalist position was
an all-round attack on enclosed social units and a call for more open
social interactions. From rejection of the Vedas and Vedic sacrifices
also grew his position on non-violence. Rejection of violence against
all beings, insects, animals and others naturally implied opposition to
the use of violence against human beings. The Caste system rested on
the threat of violence by a higher Caste against a lower Caste. Without
this threat, Caste enclosures could not last.
While all these positions can be considered radical, in my view
Buddha's most fundamental attack on the Caste system was the creation
of the Sangha. In it, Buddha created a substitute for the Brahmin.[13]
Yet these religious leaders differed from Brahmins in every aspect. The
most extreme difference between the two was the begging bowl. It is
interesting to note that the begging bowl was called bhiksha patra,
which literally meant 'sharing bowl'. Likewise, the word bhikkhu,
meaning 'member of the Sangha', is derived from bhik, of the root bhaj,
meaning 'the wish to share'. Thus, one religious leadership sought
enclosure, the other acted on a desire to share. To beg for food from
anyone, including a Sudra, was indeed the very annihilation of Caste.
One Indian scholar notes: 'What this means is difficult to explain to
anyone who does not know that most Indians would rather go hungry, and
many have preferred death by starvation to eating soiled food or that
prepared by a person of a lower Caste.'[14] The Sangha moved among all
persons. Their position was not hereditary but one of choice. The
choice was not for power but for sharing. The following poem by an
early monk reflects the radical change of lifestyle that came as result
of joining the Sangha:
I made a hut
From three palm leaves by the Ganges
Took a crematory pot
For an eating bowl,
Lifted my robe off a trash bin
Two rainy seasons passed and I
Spoke only one word
Clouds came again
But this time the darkness
Tore open
Taking a crematory pot as a food bowl, taking a robe off a trash bin;
these were marks of renunciation, from the prestigious position of the
highest Caste to identify with the lowest, the Sudras.
Like the Lutheran Reformation, Buddha's renaissance spread fast. The
sheer frustration people would have had under the Chaturwarna system
may have been the main reason for its advancement. Human nature
inevitably revolts against enclosed systems and Folk Life makes use of
every opportunity to rise again when it appears crushed.
Soon, it influenced even kings, among whom Emperor Ashoka remains the
best known. Ashoka had been shaken by the violence of war. After more
than two and a half years due consideration, he converted to Buddhism
and helped to propagate it beyond the borders of India. It has been
written of his era that 'Buddhism of [Emperor Ashoka's] age was not
merely a religious belief; it was in addition a social and intellectual
movement at many levels, influencing many aspects of society.
Obviously, any statesman worth the name would have had to come to terms
with it.'[15] Ashoka transformed Buddhist teaching into a philosophy
explaining the responsibilities people owe to each other. Ashoka spread
this system by edicts:
'These may be described as proclamations to the public at large. They
explain the idea of Dhamma [Universal Law]. It was in this concept in
the context of Mauryan India that the true achievement of Ashoka lay.
He did not see Dhamma as piety resulting from good deeds inspired by
formal religious beliefs, but as an attitude of social responsibility.
In the past, historians have generally interpreted Ashoka's Dhamma
almost as a synonym for Buddhism, suggesting thereby that Ashoka was
concerned with making Buddhism the state religion. It is doubtful if
this was his intention. Dhamma was aimed at building up an attitude of
mind in which social responsibility, the behaviour of one person
towards another, was considered of great relevance. It was a plea for
the recognition of the dignity of man, and for a humanistic spirit in
the activities of society.'[16] (My emphasis)
During this time, as the Caste system declined, ideas of common
humanity, human dignity and responsibilities towards each other
flourished in its place. As a result, the Caste situation changed
dramatically. The dominant Caste, the Brahmins, became marginalised.
During at least 140 years of the Mauryan Empire the Brahmins lost the
state patronage they had held. As Ashoka forbade animal sacrifices,
Brahmins also lost their main occupation as priests offering the
sacrifices.
With the spread of Buddhism, the history of India became the struggle
for supremacy between Buddhism and Brahminism. The fate of the Caste
system in India depended on who had the upper hand in this struggle. In
this context, something happened quite independently that decided the
outcome in favour of Brahminism: the Muslim invasions of India.
Muslim suppression of Buddhism was ruthless. It was part of their
struggle against idolatry. There are many historical narratives on the
brutality with which Buddhism was suppressed. The greatest loss to
Buddhism was the Sangha, who were either killed or fled to other lands
such as Nepal and Tibet. As Buddhism was weakened, Brahmin attacks
against the Buddhists increased, both physically and theologically. Sri
Sankaracarya conducted a mass propaganda campaign in every part of
India. Against Buddha's secularist position, worship of gods was
restored. The dominance of the male and the priest was also restored.
In short, the dominance of religion over Folk Life was re-established.
The Caste system revived with greater harshness than before. Bereft of
their Sangha, Buddhists soon preferred to be Muslims rather than live
under their age-long oppressors, for Islam also rejected the Caste
system. Thus there were many conversions to Islam from Buddhism.
While much more could be said on this re-imposition of Brahminism and
the Caste system, we may derive more profit from a reconsideration of
the distinct moral principles offered by each of the two competing
systems. The Buddhist view of human beings is that of equals. In
contrast, inequality is a fundamental principle of Brahminism. It is
based on the premise that Brahmins are the most important class and
they are entitled to special privileges and immunities. Yet the
Buddhist view goes further than mere equality; the Human is seen as
part of the wider world of nature. As such the human does not have an
absolute superiority over nature. The Brahmin view was that higher
Castes, being so ordained by God, were superior not only to others but
everything else likewise.
The views on toleration emerging from these two worldviews are
polarised. One admits a feeling of fellowship only towards a particular
group; the other the feeling of fellowship extends to all and cannot be
abandoned at any cost. For one, 'the other' is partially or totally an
enemy, but under the second view, the idea of total enmity is never
acceptable. Under one view, one can (and in fact must) be indifferent
to what happens to 'the other'; such indifference is not morally
possible under the latter. Under one, differences can be absolute and
under the other differences are only of relative importance. Under one,
it is permissible to create and maintain absolute conflicts; under the
other, conflicts (when they arise) are relative and transitory. When
conflicts are made absolute, total war is possible and even
unavoidable. But total war is never acceptable under the other view,
where kalyana mitrata" beautiful friendship[17]" with everyone is the
underlying search in all relationships. Under one, basic, decent human
relationships can be sacrificed for greater goals; but under the other,
nothing is greater than these relationships. That is, as far as I
understand it, the meaning of Folk Life.
Eliminating discrimination, reviving toleration
Rejection of equality via Caste prevents the possibility of associated
living among the people. It thus blocks development of Folk Life.
Politically, it makes the functioning of democracy impossible.
Caste discrimination violates all human rights norms on which UN
instruments are founded. In its application, Caste has led to sub-human
treatment of a vast population. Presently, India's Dalits constitute
around 17% of the population. With other minorities, such as tribal
peoples, Sikhs and Muslims, minorities in India constitute roughly 85%;
the overwhelming majority. To this day, the level of violence against
Dalits and other 'lower' Castes is atrocious. Social degradation
perpetuated under the Caste system has very few parallels in human
history. Such treatment continues to this day. Discrimination is
extended to all aspects of life: whether in employment, education,
health, land holding, security, and all aspects of women's rights. The
psychological effects on 'inferior' Castes constitute gross human
rights abuse and a continuing cruelty.
On 26th of January 1950, the Constitution of India came into force.
This Constitution accepted the principles of equality, fraternity and
liberty. Jurisprudentially, the Constitution outlawed all enclosed
units and philosophies that support such enclosures by implication.
M.V. Pylee, a foremost authority on the Indian Constitution,
remarked, '[The constitution] represents the political, economic and
social ideals and aspirations of vast majority of the Indian
people.'[18] However, between this legal position and the reality of
India there is a vast gap. The world's largest democracy has thus
failed to develop beyond a mere formal democracy.
A Caste can exist only within a system of Castes. An enclosed unit
called a Caste has no meaning if it does not exist in the midst of
other enclosed units. The Caste system is one in which doors and
windows to other Castes are closed. To open or to break the doors
cannot be a decision of just one Caste. It has to be a decision by
consensus. The breaking of Caste boundaries involves an exit as well an
entrance. Whilst one Caste may make a decision to exit from its
boundaries, entering into boundaries held by others requires their
consent. When the most socially and politically powerful Castes want to
remain enclosed, lower Castes' decisions to break open can have little
effect. When higher Castes rules of internal discipline require strict
observance of enclosure, revolts by lower Castes can make very little
progress.
Emancipation lies in destroying Caste enclosure. In other words, making
it open. Yet in India, after a few thousand years of enclosure
practice, breaking open has proved near impossible, despite many
gigantic efforts. It is perhaps not difficult to understand the
inability of some leaders - those who are reliant on the support of the
upper Castes - to take a strong position against Caste. One may recall
that even during the early part of this century, the prominent white
politicians in the United States could not take up the issue of
discrimination against blacks strongly. The emergence of Martin Luther
King and his ilk in the United States and Nelson Mandela of South
Africa were a necessary part of the process dealing with discrimination
in those countries. Ultimately, as understood by Dalits themselves, the
annihilation of Caste is likewise a precondition for democracy in
India. The solution to Caste discrimination does not lie in toleration
among the Castes. It demands nothing less than the elimination of Caste
itself, from within Caste itself.
Discrimination causes suffering, often very deep forms of inner
suffering. People who are thus made to suffer withdraw. As result, they
also refuse to co-operate. In such circumstances, if tolerance is to
have any meaning, it must be sufficiently genuine and strong enough to
restore co-operation. Thus discrimination and toleration both reflect
the quality of compassion, mercy and justice. If there is a perception
that these qualities are missing, the legitimacy of the social
organisation and the political system as whole will be under challenge.
If such legitimacy is finally lost, deep enmities arise, leading to
violence. Violence can reach a point that people become indifferent to
cruelty; cruelty they cause and cruelty they suffer. Such indifference
kills folk relationships and communication. Ultimately, the test of
active tolerance is its ability to genuinely revive the Folk Life in
the face of suffering caused by discrimination.
Footnotes
1 Caste systems also exist in Nepal and Sri Lanka. These are modified
forms of the same system according to different historical and cultural
circumstances. The underlying principles are the same.2 Ananda
K.Coomaraswarmy, Jak Mohan, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India, November 19793 The word used for 'folk' in my
mother tongue- Sinhala - is jana. Buddhist literature uses the word
bahu-jana, meaning 'multiplicity of folks'.4 All of the three upper
classes are considered Dvijas, that is, persons 'twice-born': once from
their mother, physically; the second time spiritually, into a higher
state of consciousness within their same body. It is due to this
perceived difference from the other classes that they derive
privileges. 5 Dalits were previously known as Pachamas.6 Historically,
these periods were approximately as follows: First Chaturwarna era
10th - 5th Centuries BC Revolt against Chaturwarna 5th Century BC - 8th
Century CE Second Chaturwarna era 8th Century CE onwards7 Varna is
usually translated as 'colour'. However, the meaning of Varna
is 'Caste' or 'group'. Ambedkar, Vol.3, 1987, pg.420.8 Ambedkar, Vol.
5, 19899 Ambedkar, Vol. 5, 1989, pg.10810 It has been argued that the
absolute prohibition of inter-Caste marriage is the key component of
the whole system. 11 In fact, slaves in ancient India were able to
obtain buy their freedom, but not the low Castes or outcasts. 12 This
position is very similar to Grundtvig's position on the primacy of Folk
Life noted above.13 In the western context this was very much like
Luther's reforms to Catholicism of his time.14 D.D. Kosambi, The
Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India, Vikas Publishers, New Delhi,
1977 [1970] p.103. Quoted in Swaris.15 Thapar, pg.8516 Thapar, pg 87.
In passing one may note that in the 20th Century there are many writing
on Buddhism and there are many people professing to be Buddhists.
However, among these it is difficult find this Ashokan attitude to
social responsibility.17 Ananda once asked Buddha, his closest
colleague and friend, if life of friendship and mutual support in the
Sangha was half the life of perfection. He answered, 'Say not so,
Ananda! Say not so! It is the whole, not the half of perfection.'
Swaris, pg.38418 M.V. Pylee, India's Constitution, S. Chand & Co. Ltd,
New Delhi, 1994 (5th Ed.)
Asian Human Rights Commission <../../index.html>
Email: ahr...@ahrchk.org <mailto:ahr...@ahrchk.org>
Last updated May 30, 2000 02:31 PM.
For any suggestions, pleased email to the webmaster
<mailto:webm...@ahrchk.net> of this site.
http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/1999/Nov/msg00035.html
Graduation out of a Caste....?
To: deb...@indiapolicy.org <mailto:deb...@indiapolicy.org>
Subject: Graduation out of a Caste....?
From: "Tiwari, Umesh K" <UKTi...@pcgb.com <mailto:UKTi...@pcgb.com>>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: deb...@indiapolicy.org <mailto:deb...@indiapolicy.org>
Sender: owner-ind...@cinenet.net <mailto:owner-
india_...@cinenet.net>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of caste and caste based reservation was touched upon by a
few ppl here in reference to the recent government decision to extend
caste based quota system for another 10 years. Of course it is a
divisive issue and people come up with compelling arguments in support
of whatever side they are on.
The fact that the caste based reservation system is a reality is not a
question, nor the well meaning intentions need any more explanation. As
Retu says this policy has divided our people more then doing any real
good to the people who it was intended to help.
The real, and politically challenging question now is how, if ever,
this caste based discriminating system going to either go away or start
to fulfill its promise of uplifting the downtrodden.
Caste being a birth based label which is somewhat permanent label that
one carries for life, and the very fact that a caste based reservation
system strives to uplift the "Backward Castes" are contradictory
statements unless there is a way that allows a caste to graduate out of
the "Backward Caste" status.
The backward castes that were backward castes fifty years ago are still
called backward castes. If they are still backward, then obviously this
so called caste improvement process has failed miserably, but if there
is some way we can claim that caste based reservations have succeeded,
then we must quantify our claim and graduate some castes out of the
backward label in order to free up some of the resources for others
waiting in line.
I think in order to really challenge this divisive policy, people are
going to have to give up their caste label, and especially the so
called "Upper" caste folks need to lead the way.
I know it is somewhat unrealistic to even imagine that people are going
to like giving up their caste identity, but without any creative change
in our caste consciousness I don't see how we can lift our nation out
of this mess.
Umesh
This is the National Debate on System Reform.
deb...@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:
<http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/>
http://www.indiapolicy.org/lists/india_policy/1999/Nov/msg00054.html
To: deb...@indiapolicy.org <mailto:deb...@indiapolicy.org>
Subject: Re: Graduation out of a Caste....?
From: "Retu Singla" <retus...@hotmail.com
<mailto:retus...@hotmail.com>>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 20:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: deb...@indiapolicy.org <mailto:deb...@indiapolicy.org>
Sender: owner-ind...@cinenet.net <mailto:owner-
india_...@cinenet.net>
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
there have been a number of responses to my intitial inquiry to the
orginial venting comment on this forum by an upper (i am assuming)
caste person complaining of the manner in which teh system
discriminates against him.
Obviously he also believes that i am not mature enough to discuss these
issues in a public forum most probably becasue i am calling him out on
his own inability to give up a piece of power to those in a more
disadvantageous place than his own priveleged (i am assuming)
background. the response back to me is very telling of the manner in
which people who are asked to lead the way, as umesh puts it, are
incapable of making room for others. it is true that there have been
various forms of compensatory discrimination instituted by teh indian
gov't and therefore he automatic question arises-
"who has improved? how is success assessed?" however, there is a
question that arises before this inquiry and that is one whoch examines
the local and state gov't implementation of teh policies set out at teh
national level. not only that but there shoudl also be an assessment of
the manner in whoch the S. court has ruled on issues bringing
fundamental rights into focus.
granted that the S.court has been moving towards an activist role in
enforcing these rights. however, is it not tryue that until a case
comes before them there is no real implementational or watchdog tool
over teh implementation of these rights? perhaps it is the
constitutional's flaw in providing no more immediate of a remedy for
enforcement at teh more local level, perhaps it is the flaw in teh
constitution which limits teh judiciary's role to only fundamental
righst and relies so (failingly) heavily on the parliament to institute
policy. remember policy is nothing if not implemented responsibly,
perhaps the first inquiry into teh success rate needs to be a
comprehensive inquiry.
the danger that umesh's quetsion raises is that by doing this inquiry
the corruption and the real lack of enforcement of this policy will
come to light (afterall who is in the lok sabha?) furthermore history
has told us that those in power will almost do anything (including
lighting themselves in teh street) to hold on to power... it takes a
sincere push from society to teach our children and eachother the
societal benefits and teh moral value in correcting past discimination
to right the wrongs of our ancestors.
--retu (perhaps it is becasue i am a woman that i am considered to be
not mature enoguh for this discussion by some colleagues on this
forum--maybe you should think about that and your own sexism and
discrimination the next time you decide to respond to an intelligent
lawyer and policy advocate)
"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high......
Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake."
- Rabindranath Tagore
--
http://www.indiacyberportal.com/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.