Dalits and Durban - II

By P. Radhakrishnan

IF THESE lower castes (whom some States have classified under the Most Backward Classes category) have not been included among the Scheduled Castes it is for the reason that they were not identified as untouchables - a requirement for inclusion in the Constitutional category of Scheduled Castes. However, it is officially recognised that most of them have been as backward as Dalits and are also victims of most of the same disabilities. The only difference is compared to Dalits most of them are miniscule, disparate groups, such as washermen and barbers, and certain nomadic groups known in colonial officialese as ``criminal tribes''. In Tamil Nadu, these groups together account for about one third of the population eligible for 20 per cent of the State's 69 per cent reservation. It is in recognition of these groups apart from Dalits, and also other disabled groups in the traditional caste hierarchy, that the Supreme Court ruling of November 16, 1992, approved, with modifications, the Government of India's notifications for reservation for the backward classes.

A third issue which can be raised about the justification for inclusion of caste in the Durban conference on racism is: as no other social institution in India has been so much internationalised as the caste system along with its attendant evils, first by the Christian Missionaries from the West (for example, William Ward in the early 19th century, observed that ``like all other attempts to cramp the human intellect, and forcibly to restrain men within bounds which nature scorns to keep, this system, however specious in theory, has operated like the Chinese national shoe; it has rendered the whole nation cripples''), then by the British administration, then by the nationalist leaders in particular Ambedkar himself, then by Western (followed by Indian) scholars, will a U.N. Conference add any new perspective to the issue and transform possible solutions and the progressive provisions of the Indian Constitution from rhetoric to reality? As the U.N. does not have a magic wand for this dramatic change, is it not for the victims themselves, their political leaders, the ``Dalit activists'' and the Central and State Governments to tackle the problem?

Closely related to the justification of the ``Dalit activists'' for internationalising caste discrimination is that of sections of the intelligentsia that bringing up caste at an international forum like the U.N. will increase global pressure (read pressure from the Master World) on the Indian Government to protect the lower castes. This claim is tacit admission that even as an independent nation India should continue to be the ``White man's burden'', and continue to have a big brother to clean up its Augean Stables. If the Government of India is insensitive and irresponsible to the problems of Indian society, which it is supposed to be governing, no external power on earth can make it sensitive and responsible to these problems. It may introduce cosmetic changes to appear civil in the comity of the Master World, but going by the fate of the welfare commissions not much can be expected from such changes.

Among the opponents to the inclusion of caste in the conference are also NGOs. An example of this is a letter from Teheran purportedly by 35 NGOs, addressed to the Chairman of the Asian Preparatory Meeting on the Conference. The letter vehemently opposed the inclusion of caste in the conference, gave as many as 12 reasons for doing so, and conveyed ``the firm view'' that since caste and race are different, caste is beyond the domain of the conference theme and caste discrimination cannot be treated as racial discrimination.

The most important opponent, however, has been the Government of India itself, whose posture is hamstrung. The views of Professor Andre Beteille, who, stung by criticism by the pro-inclusion camp, resigned from the committee set up by Prime Minister, Mr. A.B. Vajpayee, to draft India's posture, are eloquent on the committee's claim that equating caste and race is harmful to national interest.

Prof. Beteille would have it that race is a biological category having distinctive physical markers whereas caste is social category; treating caste as a form of race is politically mischievous and scientifically nonsensical, the consequences of which will be fabricating or inventing more divisions in Indian society.

While both the arguments may be valid in theory, they sound hallucinatory. For, caste has been discussed in any number of international conferences, and no debate has so far caused, and no debate in future is likely to cause, any harm to national interest unless of course it is understood as interest of the upper castes. While the Government could have certainly seen the U.N. Conference as an important opportunity to sensitise itself and sensitise all those concerned with the caste problem, in the event of its reluctance to do so, it could have at least come out with a detailed well-informed document on caste vis-a-vis race, the constitutional provisions for redress of historical wrongs and traditional social distortions, presenting a self-appraisal of its own performance, and what it proposes to do to place the provisions on a fast track ensuring effectiveness and continuity in future implementation.

In this context, it is relevant to note that India has had a well-conceived pragmatic programmatic for at least the last 50 years to tackle caste discrimination. In fact, India is probably the first country in the world to devise reservation policies, and as Marc Galanter wrote in his book, `Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India', ``India's system of preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged sections of the population is unprecedented in scope and extent''.

In contrast to the gradual dismantling of Affirmative Action in the U.S., and weakening of Black politics, over the years India's reservation policies and caste politics have been gaining in strength and popular support. This is only to be expected considering that American society is fundamentally and foundationally individualistic and even the socially neglected and victimised Blacks would prefer to be ``achievers'' instead of the stigmatising beneficiaries of Affirmative Action; whereas in India caste continues to shadow the individual, so much so that despite the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights of the individual, group is still the unit of state action and the individual is still subsumed under it.

If Dalits and other disprivileged castes have not benefited much from the constitutional provisions and are still victims of discrimination, it is not so much the inclusion of caste in the U.N. Conference but identifying the fault lines in India's governance that needs emphasis. In this sense, the pressure should be on the Government of India to convene a summit to take stock of what the state has done hitherto with the Constitution in relation to the disprivileged groups.

Turning to the U.N., which Christian Gauss in an Introduction to The Prince by Machiavelli characterised as ``a more determined attempt to create a `super-state' which to succeed must have at least some power in the interest of peace and human welfare'', its role as a ``global do- gooder'', especially in the context of its recently-invented exclusion- integration rhetoric and the related summit humanitarianism, is farcical. Given its track record as an active (or passive if you wish!) agent of the U.S. and its allies, which have been active in their attempts to exterminate countries such as Iraq, the U.N. cannot be seen as working for the well-being of the victims of various forms of discrimination and disparities, and the U.N. summits and conferences are too routine and ritualistic often ending up in glossy reports released with much fanfare and distributed in select circuits with hardly any follow-up action.

So, the U.N. summits and conferences, whether on racism or reptiles, should be non-issues to India's ``unwashed millions''. If they want to improve their lot and if the changes for it have to be substantive the victim groups and those concerned about them should directly take on the might of the Indian state and make it work, transparent, and accountable to the public. How they will do it is a larger issue.

(Concluded)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Plotting an economic 'crisis'
Next     : Not ethical this