The Hindu : Diversity: Bhopal and beyond

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 21, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Diversity: Bhopal and beyond

By Gail Omvedt

In a society that is divided by religious, caste, linguistic and gender identities, every major institution should have representation from all groups.

"DIVERSITY" IS the key word that has emerged from the Bhopal Declaration to encompass all of those programmes symbolised by the terms "reservation" (for India) and "affirmative action" (for the U.S.). The Bhopal Conference hosted on January 12-13 with great style by the Madhya Pradesh Government brought together 250 delegates representing Dalit intellectuals from all over India — plus at least 1,000 participants from Madhya Pradesh itself, ranging from MLAs to Government employees and activists.

Held in the Legislative Assembly hall, with sometimes tumultuous discussion, activists sitting late at night somehow agreed on the 21-point Declaration which calls for land to every Dalit family, provision of quality education, awarding contracts to Dalits, "reservation in the military and judiciary", programmes of "affirmative action" in the private and corporate sector. The goal as proclaimed by the conference and accepted by the Chief Minister, Digvijay Singh, was to move beyond "reservation" in the public sector, recognising that these had brought Dalits to a certain point but had little scope for the future. Instead, the new theme is to make Dalits independent smallholding peasants, small and large business entrepreneurs, media stars, journalists and editors, and "millionaires and billionaires". But this is a process that requires Dalit representation in all the public, semi-public and private institutions of India — from corporations to the media to the Judiciary and defence.

The means of achieving such representation cannot be summed up in the words "reservation'' and "quotas" which are thrown around so carelessly in India. They include special training programmes, awarding contracts to Dalit businessmen, "talent hunts" looking for hitherto untapped capacities among the excluded sections of the population — ensuring that diversity can take many forms. In regard to the Bhopal Declaration, for example, the most important immediate commitment made by the Chief Minister was in terms of awarding Government contracts to Dalits. The means can, and should be, discussed for every specific sector. What is necessary first of all is to lay out the rationale and principle behind programmes for ensuring diversity. "Diversity" means can be defined fairly simply. In a society that is divided by religious, caste, linguistic and gender identities, every major institution should have representation from all groups. If it does not, that itself constitutes an evidence for saying the existing social diversity is a hierarchical diversity, in which major sections are excluded from or have only minimal representation in positions of status, power and wealth. It means we are not only talking about "past injustices" and "past hierarchies" but inherited hierarchies and injustices that continue to exist.

To establish whether or not this is true, it is necessary to identify and count the people in each major social institution. The precedent and principle for this was first expressed, in modern times, by Jotirao Phule in his last major book, Sarvajanik Satya Dharma, in an examination of the meaning of "Sarvajanik" as it was used by the Sarvajanik Sabha in Pune. This, we might remember, was the main association in western India that was the forerunner of the Indian National Congress. It proclaimed itself as a public association that represented the people of India. But, according to Phule, it was not representative; and the method he used to assert this is worth quoting in full.

His thesis is set forth in dialogue: "Govindrao: From the pure name of the Sarvajanik Sabha it would seem that Kunbis, Malis, Dhangars, Kolis, Bhils and other farmers must be its members, doesn't it?

Jotirao: I think that there is no likelihood that Kunbis and others are its members.

Govindrao: Then those Gujars, Marwaris and other shopkeepers who do business and the Salis, Koshtis, Khatris and others who sell cloth and other goods must be members, don't you think?

Jotirao: The Gujars, Marwaris and other shopkeepers and the Salis, Koshtis, Khatris and others are not even nominal members, as I have heard.

Govindrao: Well, then, at least the Lohars, Sutars, Chambhars, Kumbhars, Nhavis, Parits and others of the 12 balutedars and the Mangs, Bhats, Joshis and other alutedars should be members of the sabha?

Jotirao: In that sabha! Don't even mention the name of the 12 balutes, but among the others, the Brahman Joshis, bhats are the only ones there.

Govindrao: What? Of all the 20 crores of population in this Balisthan only two crores are Arya Brahmans. If the Arya Brahmans of Pune have included only five or 20 people of other castes in the sabha, then how can anyone call this a Sarvajanik Sabha?" (Phule, 1991: 492-3).

In other words, it is necessary to ask how many Brahmans (and even what kind!), how many of the various kinds of OBCs and peasant jatis, how many of the various Dalit jatis are there? The question is put specifically in terms of the regional characteristics of the various jatis (note that this is also a justification for those like the Madigas who have asked for "categorisation" of reservation on the grounds of their monopolising by more affluent Dalit jatis). And, if there is no representation or inadequate representation — then this is a reason for challenging the "public" character of the institution. (Note that we are not talking about the rights of people to associate privately with those of their own community if they want; or to worship only with certain people in temples of the community — we are talking only of those institutions which either claim to be public or impinge on the public, for example by taking public funds).

Very many of the educated, literate sections of India's population express this discomfort at this kind of questioning, which asks for an open caste identification. It is taken as if it is a perpetuation of caste to make a public proclamation of an identity that would otherwise be "private". In fact, it is not. In fact, it is only the upper castes who can claim to ignore the realities of caste, who can argue that "it has never affected my life and I don't follow caste criteria in anything!" Those coming from castes considered low in the social hierarchy do not have such a luxury, because the realities of the caste society impinge on them directly and negatively — and for the lowest in the scale, the Dalits, they impinge on a way that amounts on many occasions to deep psychological humiliation and severe economic exclusion.

Therefore, a beginning point in making a public commitment to diversity — which means a commitment to abolish the inherited equalities and oppressions of caste and gender — is to identify the situation in every major public and public-related institution, to identify just who is there, and to judge how representative they are of the general population. After that it is possible to discuss what kinds of methods should be used to move towards true "diversity", true representation of every major section of the population as a step towards breaking inherited social inequalities and injustices.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

The plague within

Restructuring India

Diversity: Bhopal and beyond

In defence of the CAG

Don't blame VHP

Will it be different?