|
Rediff.com, October 14, 2000
The curse of casteism
Amberish K Diwanji
A recent issue of Outlook magazine has an article on the insults
that Dalits, the former untouchables and today's 'barely
tolerable' castes, continue to face despite decades of attempts
to annihilate this vicious scourge.
The magazine mentions how one particular judge at the
Allahabad high court, on being given his chamber on the court
premises, had it "purified" because the previous
occupant was apparently a Dalit. A learned judge, who
will sit in judgment on cases that may have a Dalit as an
accused, has shown his prejudice. Can we expect a fair judgement
from him?
On one hand, it must be admitted that in many cases, the evil of
casteism has come down in India. In cities, the previous
divisions that were observed by the so-called higher castes are
no longer followed, Dalits today can be seen in various
professions and at high levels, and India's first citizen is a
Dalit.
But to say that because President K R Narayanan is a Dalit
implies that Dalits are equal to other Indians is a bit like
saying that because India had a woman prime minister for about 17
years, there is no discrimination against them. The truth is very
different.
Today, 53 years after Independence and 50 years after the
adoption of a grand Constitution, which categorically promises
equality to its citizens, it is perhaps important for us to
wonder why this happens.
Why does casteism in its most blighted form of inequality, of the
concept of purity and impurity, continue to bedevil the minds of
the so-called upper castes?
One reason is that the 'struggle' against casteism no
longer exists. There is no effort to actually wipe out this
benighted practice. Today, all that exists in the name
of fighting casteism is reservations in some educational
institutes and in government jobs. These are continuously under
attack as being against "merit". But those who argue
against reservations cannot explain why after so many years
reservations are still needed, or what other action can and must
be taken to wipe out casteism.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the Indian state has
simply given up its fight against casteism. When Dr B R
Ambedkar had mandated reservations for the Dalits and tribal
people, he had said it should be for a period of 10 years. He
earnestly believed that in 10 years, casteism would cease to
exist. He was wrong, and upper castes continue to prove him
wrong.
If we wait for casteism to die a natural death, we may have to
wait another millennium, or at least half a millennium. History
has shown that if society is left to itself, equality among the
people diminishes as does liberty decline. That is why corrective
action is called for from time to time, and the price for keeping
this liberty and equality for all (casteism denies this liberty
and equality to some people) is eternal vigilance, eternal
struggle.
But today in India, the state, the government, the
establishment, and worse, the liberals of the so-called upper
castes, have simply given up the concerted fight. No doubt there
are symbolic gestures, but as explained above, while symbolism
has its place, it can never be a substitute for genuine effort.
What else can explain the fact that today, outside the
Jaipur High Court stands a statue of Manu? Manu, the greatest
enemy of humanity, of liberty, equality and fraternity for all,
and whose Manusmriti condemned millions of Indians to generations
of servitude and deprivation. What are the Rajasthan government,
the Indian government, and the people doing? How could this
statue even come up?
The very fact that some lawyers actually had the temerity to
erect this statue shows that they were acutely aware of the
Indian state's impotence to stop them. And besides some token
resistance, there has been no sustained movement to remove the
statue.
To make matters worse, the Indian government follows
policies - overt and covert - that actually recognise the
existence and reality of caste. Let me give an example. As a
college student, I stayed in the college hostel, run by the
government of Maharashtra. There were many staff members, all of
who had quarters within the hostel building.
When the staffers joined, they start at the bottom as room
cleaners and over the decades rose to become watchmen or even
clerks. All such hostel staffers were eligible for promotions
except one. These were the people who cleaned the bathrooms and
toilets. There were two men doing that, and they were condemned
to stay at that job, regardless of the number of years they
served. There was no other job, no promotion, no avenue available
to them.
And to designate their different class (caste?), while all the
other staff members wore a white coloured uniform, these two men
wore blue.
Now, if such an employment methods, practiced by the state
government, do not actually institutionalise casteism in modern
India, then what else does? How can the government
actually carry out an employment practice that actually
segregates the toilet cleaners from the rest, never promotes
them, and refuses to consider them as part of the mainstream
employees?
India would do well to emulate China. On Chinese trains, each
coach (or two) has an attendant. This attendant does all the jobs
for the coach under him or her. This includes checking the
tickets, cleaning the toilets, and serving food and water to the
passengers! He or she is totally responsible for the coach and
the passengers.
Imagine the impact on casteism if instead of keeping three people
to do three jobs per coach, we had one person do them all. India
needs to do something revolutionary to help bury the curse of
casteism. The state needs to take the initiative to do something
dramatic to ensure that the issue brought to the front and
tackled the way it should be.
Let us remember that casteism is something that the 'upper
castes' believe in, not the so-called lower ones. And thus, as
Mahatma Gandhi had said, it is the upper castes who have to fight
this prejudice. And unless the 'upper castes' actually do that,
casteism will not disappear.
India will then be condemned to enter the 21st century in a few
months time with the prejudices of the 19th century.