Caste anhilition: An ongoing battle

I know I am entering into a difficult zone. This is because the given topic is so complex and diverse that a non-scholar like me may not succeed in showing the correct perspective on it. It is because of this limitation that I would like to clarify at the start itself that this article is meant for a lay person who sees and feels the discourse of caste system in the society.

There are innumerable theories and diverse perspectives on the caste system as has been present in India since historical times. Some school of thought believe it to functional for the society while others see it as a tyranny of the so-called higher caste people. Whatever be the reality, it is true to some extent that it is not really seen in a very positive light by the new educated generation. Why is this so? When the accepted norm is that individuals be recognized on the basis of merits, caste system only acts as a stumbling block. 

It cannot be denied that there are instances when two people of equal merit are given unequal treatment based on their caste. Neither the fact that institutions of higher learning have vacant posts reserved for the Dalits or other lower caste candidates is easily comprehensible. 

Let us go back to the history for a moment. Scholars say the "jati" system present during the ancient periods were functioning effectively. The actual phenomena was that every individual is born as a Shudra. After he/she attains knowledge and takes up any particular work that one is characterized as Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra (i.e according to the Varna System). But, this phenomena became disfunctional for the society when the Varna system has been linked with the birth of an individual. In other words, by virtue of being born in a Brahmin family, one becomes entitled to learn the Vedas. While, if one takes birth in a Shudra family, he/she has to serve all the three other varnas. 

Different historians give different dates for the institutionalisation of this system. More than the date, it is important to know that this system got further strengthened during the British Period. British's policy of conducting Census every ten years, reservation for the Dalits etc created some sense of alienation among these groups. The issue of reservation, which was basically the brainchild of Dr. B R Ambedkar, still continues. Whether it has benefitted the respective groups or not is a matter of debate for which I am not qualified enough to comment upon. 

Here comes a very important development in Indian History. When Dr. B R Ambedkar was in favour of anhilition of caste, what made Gandhiji to oppose this view? As far as my knowledge goes, Gandhiji believed that caste system as such was not problematic. It only needs to be reformed by resolving the issue of untouchability.  Sometimes I wonder had it been the same situation as it is at present when the two tall leaders of the nation worked for total anhilition of the caste system? 

While Gandhiji was not incorrect in assuming that the ideal form of caste system (i.e caste system sans the untouchability) could be continued because of it's assumed advantage. However, the sad part is that idealism cannot be guaranteed except under a controlled environment. Human beings and their thoughts cannot be controlled unlike the natural matter. 

While I gloss over the happenings of the 21st century, I still think what Gandhiji would have thought about the caste system as it is working now. No doubt he would have been certainly very happy to see that the issue of untouchability has been made illegal and given a constitutional recognition. However, if one looks carefully through the society, this issue keeps emerging one time or the other. By recognizing this reality, would Gandhiji still work for removing the untouchability or fast unto death for removing the idea of caste system altogether? I definitely need a well read scholar to answer this. 

Applying this in the present context, when I see that various groups voice their desire to be included at a particular position in the caste hierarchy, I think what kind of a situation are we creating for ourselves. In one part of the country, when I find that politics is being played over the death of a Dalit student, I wonder where we are heading towards. On one hand, we are playing a very significant role in International arena by being a knowledge economy. The other moment we find that the human resources are being wasted in no significant issues. 

Can there exist a system which may do some good to the society, but, prima facie creates an obstacle in realising the full potential of a nation by keeping us involved in unnecessary matters? I would have definitely asked this question to Gandhiji had he been alivE.

Edit: One of my friends suggested that this article is not leading to any particular viewpoint. I am aware of this. In this article, my aim was limited to make people think whether this system should be continued or not? I do not have a proper answer for this. Hence, I expected that some of you would write certain arguements regarding this. Thank you all for reading this. 

Indian Society

         This article in not a critical analysis of the entire Indian society. Rather, I have a limited aim of portraying one of its features. My view may not be entirely correct given the huge diversity of our society. But, this is what I have experienced particularly in my own village and within my community.
         In our society, what is the purpose of education? Is it to lead a good social life by adopting good values? Or to lead a good life in materialistic sense? Of-course, both these form a part of our education.
         However, there is one more perspective found in low income groups. We educate our children to lead a "safe life" by getting a job with the available skill.
         Someone, the other day told me that in foreign society (I have no proof of this however), a child is given free hand to decide what he wants to do with his life. However, there are ample number of cases in my knowledge where our society has made one's life difficult if he/she chooses to do something which is not easily achievable.
        One of the examples that comes to my mind like a flash is of a Uttar Pradesh student Govind Jaiswal. His father was a rickshaw puller. With limited education, it was expected out of him that he takes up something in his life which pulls his father out of the clutches of poverty. But, against the tide and due to some kind of social discrimination, he decided to go for an unpredictable career option- IAS.
       It so happened that once his father fell ill. Govind could not visit him on time due to the load of preparation. As expected, the neighbourhood people got opportunity to speak up their mind-  "Baap yahan mar raha hai, beta Delhi mein aish kar raha hai" (the father is suffering here and the son is enjoying there in Delhi).
       The only way out of this situation for Govind Jaiswal in this situation could have been to take up any job that came in his way. However, Govind survived the scare. But, everyone is not Govind.
      What is the consequence?  Many deserving students who are born to do excellent in his/her life become the victim of this society and finds a safe way in life (excellent here does not mean only by being an IAS, but in any other field of his/her interest).
     When I look at the "Breaking News" to see that an Indian has become the CEO of Google, I do not know whether to be happy or not. This is because I am not sure if they could have recognised their abilities had they been here. Not only this, recently, I came to know that Silicon Valley has so many Indian entrepreneurs who are doing exceedingly well. Sometimes, I wonder if they could have made big in their life had they been cruising with their innovative ideas in India. I would not be entirely wrong if I say that it is the societal attitudes and values which promote such talents and gives them the opportunity to rise. (Well, I know in this example of entrepreneurship, it is not only society but the market regulations, tax structure_ but this is not the aim of this article).
     Let me explain this with an example: Once me and one of my friends were discussing something with a professor regarding what to do in life. "What is your goal Mr. X" asked the professor to my friend. He replied "I want to find a job at this time to secure my career". My professor replied "I heard that students of this institute are job providers and you are so eager to get a job. It is surprising to me". Even though it was not at all surprising to me. And I know with full certainty that my friend was so brilliant that he could have done something extraordinary in life. But, he also chose the "safe side" of life. (I know opting for job is not a bad thing at all. But, there is a reason why I have taken this example. My friend in question was working on a novel idea. But, as he got the placement offer, he dropped his start-up idea and played safely. His reason was: my parents are expecting me to take up job).
    I think it is because of these reasons that Indian students prefer to go abroad to pursue their career. One of my friends in my institute once said to me "if given a chance, most students from our institute would like to go abroad". I do not know the amount of truth in this statement, But, I do sometimes think what made him say this.
   Looking at such cases, I think we as a society need to recognise the unique ability every student poses and must provide him/her full opportunity to grow (offcourse if other factors support). The modern society needs differentiation with respect to skills so that an individual is at the position best suited for him/her. This would make the society functional and efficient.

    P.S:  I have only shown one sided view. There is a positive side too in the same context if we look at the new generation.     

Why Government?

Always thought what is the purpose of having a government? Can't there be a society with no government? The answer to the second question was provided by Karl Marx in his theories. He predicted a future with no state and class in the society. Everyone will have equal access to resources to fulfill his/her needs. The world has, however, proved him wrong. No society emerged on the lines as predicted by Marx. Infact, the capitalist society has not witnessed great proletariat revolutions even with the persisting exploitation to some extent.

       In a sense, the world has emerged to a stage where the question of existence of governments have gone unquestioned. It has continued to exist. Only the role of governments may have shifted from being a regulator to a facilitator in some countries depending upon the stage of development.

          Well, the reason for such structure is not hard to determine. Governments are required to maintain and regulate the society so that it perform its functions within a definite set of rules and regulations. Otherwise, an anomic situation may thrive. As a society advance economically and intellectually, the regulatory role reduces. People in such society come to a stage where they internalise the DOs and DONTs of the society.

         Having deliberated upon the question of existence of government, the next question that comes to mind is: For whom the government works and for whom should it work?

            World over there are variations with regard to the basic functioning of a government, In Socialist countries like India, Venezuela, China (not Communist exactly) etc the State aspires to work for those who "need" its help. It aims to create an equitable society (well, that is what the Constitution of these countries say in letter) so that gaps can be filled with respect to access of resources to lead a dignified life. The Capitalist society, on the other hand, gives free hand to individuals to gain and utilise resources according to their capability. The Western Countries are predominantly capitalistic.

        India presents a good example for a researcher interested in economic nature of society. On paper, India wants to create a socialistic economy. However, as globalization is unfolding, it cannot be said with certainty that India is on its stated path. It is true that the State has been adopting principles which is expected to reduce the gap (measured by the Gini Coefficient).

         However, there is an interesting thing to be noted here. India, as a nation, claim that the middle class has increased to an unprecedented level. Unfortunately, without any proper definition for the so-called middle class, everyone in India calls himself/herself as belonging to middle class.

         Mr. Harsh Mander, in his recently launched book, has stated that this middle class is basically the top 10% of India. The majority of population (may be close to 50%) live below or close to the poverty bracket. The idea we are following is that instead of investing directly for the welfare of those at the bottom, economic growth will percolate to the lower levels of the strata. This has been the arguement since independence. It is debatable if the middle class has emerged out of the poor class, or has been the product of factors like increasing population (this leads to the increase in actual numbers). This is particularly important because we have probably not significantly reduced the poor class (both absolute number and percentage). This can be said because the official data has always been disputed. Other researches have provided with data that vary widely with the official data.

         Even if the official arguement is accepted that poverty has reduced since independence, it is not sufficient. The Preamble of our Constitution mentions that every citizen should lead a "dignified" life. It is disturbing to guess how can a person lead a life of dignity with resources sufficient just for survival.

           This situation demands that the government may change its strategy and the point of focus to fulfill its constitutional mandates. 

Need to tag the entire country

Since August, the country has seen many well-known persons being tagged for the

highly popularised Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. This is done by none other than our

Prime Minister himself. At the outset, I want to say with all humility that this piece

is not a criticism but only a humble suggestion to change the way the programme is

being approached.

           This Abhiyan is no doubt a significant step for a country like India which has

not a good image as far as cleanliness is concerned. Even New Delhi lacks properly

developed urban civic infrastructure and presence of dustbins at key places. This

forces one to throw garbage at will at any place. Infact, we as an Indian have not

been sensitized about the idea of keeping our environment clean. But, we have a

good sense of keeping our homes clean. This suggests that it is not intrinsic in us to

be unclean. It is only that we do not regard outdoors as significant enough to keep it

clean. So, there is a sense of “duality” in our behaviour and the need is to

synchronise it with the behaviour we show towards our own homes.

In this light, I think Prime Minister would do well to motivate and start

tagging the most basic unit of our system i.e the Gram Panchayats. This is

necessary and useful because of two reasons:

          Firstly, people at the basic level get highly motivated when a person of the

stature of Prime Minister asks for their support. Young groups can be nominated to

lead a Panchayat and spread the idea of cleanliness and its significance. This, in my

view, will have a larger impact because in that case it may become a countrywide

Abhiyan slowly and gradually. It is not necessary to do it all at a time. But, few

Panchayats in different states are to be nominated in first phase. This may motivate

others as well to take up the job. This can be one of the best examples of bottom-top

approach.

          At the same time, the idea that popular faces will spread the idea of clean

India is not sustainable. It may get reduced to a short term hullabaloo which may

die its natural death. This idea is perhaps not desirable. It can be seen from the till

date nominations of all the big faces. They are nowhere seen except during

promotion of their films. It is true they attract people, but it is equally true they

attract only for serving their interests. They took up the work of cleaning effort for

one day just because they are nominated by the Prime Minister and it is important

to give due respect to this office of the country. It cannot be said with certainty that

they are motivated enough to take up this work.

          Secondly, the idea is to change the habit of the citizens and to generate a

sense of responsibility that it is as important to keep the outdoors clean as their own

residences. Since, it is citizen based abhiyan, it is important to start at the basic level 

only. The aim should be to hit at the core of their hearts regarding the significance of

clean neighbourhood, clean village, clean city and ultimately clean country.

          Till the time the idea of cleanliness does not get delivered to the minds of

people, the programme is destined to fail. Only symbolic gestures of holding a

broom and cleaning some small areas with hundreds of people surrounding and

media ready to click pictures will not serve the purpose. Also, cleanliness should be

understood as more than just litter cleaning exercise. Success requires a clear

strategy and small steps and that needs to come from the side of citizens and not

any big names per se.

        It is not over yet. This is just the beginning. The Prime Minister may do

well to change his strategy of calling big names and time has come to tag the entire

country so that the broom sweeps this nation in its entirety to be rightly called

“Clean India”.

Section 377 of IPC

“I am shocked. The battle is lost but the war will go on,” said senior advocate Anand Grover, who represented Naz Foundation, a gay rights advocacy group. The statement was said after the Supreme Court refused to review the petition filed by the filmmaker Shyam Benegal, feminist activist and writer Nivedita Menon, Voices Against Section 377 and other prominent activists.

The entire episode is in context of the December 11, 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 as constitutionally valid and thus over-ruling the July 2, 2009 judgement of the Delhi High Court which decriminalised consensual sex among adults irrespective of gender. A public outrage was  the immediate result of this verdict by the SC and a sort of injustice was on the offering for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

Section 377 of the IPC, 1860 says that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. It has been more than 150 years and the hunt for the rights of the minority group are still continuing. The world has moved from a colonial era to a globalised and liberalized atmosphere where the vice of apartheid, racist approach has taken a backstage and a progressive society is the aim and that too inclusively. Many international forums have taken birth with their specialized groups-of-focus like women, disabled and are successfully raising their voice to get their long due from the society which has failed them for generations. Navi Pillay, the United Nation Human Rights chief, in this context said that the judgement violates the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified. Same-sex marriage is recognized in the Britain, Uruguay, New Zealand, Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Sweden, Norway, France, Belgium, Iceland, Argentina etc. It is no doubt a proof of the maturity of the nation and its tolerable nature to allow the minority to make “love” according to their wish. India, at this juncture, has shown little political initiative to take decisive action. Pope Francis of Vatican City said in this regard: “If a person is gay and seeks God and goodwill, who am I to judge him;” and this when Italy has a law against LGBTs. This is the greatness and humility of the faith-keeper of the church.

Let us now look at the current scenario, various views by different sections and the future course of action possible at the political and legal level to give the minorities their rights. These days, after the judgement, several critical opinions are floating in the public domain with everyone with his own version of section 377. One of the views goes as what the SC thinks as “unnatural” with regard to the section 377 might not be true for the liberalised and modern society which has moved ahead of 1860. Others believe it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution which guarantees equality, liberty and a right to live a dignified life. In one of the recent case, SC held that delay in granting mercy petition can be a sufficient cause for clemency of death sentence. This judgement was appreciated by all including the Human Rights activists as it sought to provide a dignified life even to the persons who have committed serious crimes, which is a basic fundamental right enshrined in the constitution. In the light of the above ruling, SC must have protected the fundamental rights of those minorities too whose voice is not as strong as the powerful ones. This could have certainly enhanced the credibility of the institution as the protector of fundamental rights of its citizens. Thus, one of the editorials in The Hindu correctly termed it as “A lost opportunity”.

Having said that, there is still reason to be optimistic as said in the very line “The war is not lost”. This is because the Supreme Court judgment had given clear power to the legislature when it said: “Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377, IPC, from the Statute Book”. However, to critically look at the motive of the political parties when election is knocking at the door, it would be a bold step, if taken. This is because no party would like to play with their voters in the rural areas and even the older generation with  whom the judgement would have probably found resonance to. Also, the steps taken by the central government which sought for the review of the judgement was believed to be misleading the public. This is because “review petition” was not the best solution at this instance according to the legal experts. It was in order to show solidarity and gain the support of such people who are against section 377. This is because the parliament has full authority to repeal the act and could have done it smoothly without much delay.

At the end, it would be grossly unfair to say that these communities are very miniscule in number and hence section 377 was constitutionally valid. This is what SC wrote in its judgement and the institution has found no supporter for its view. This is because unlike elections where the candidate needs majority support, law does need to be only for the majority. As far as social acceptability is concerned, we as a nation have moved far ahead in our path of development and have left such regressive ideas behind. To maintain a fair society, law must not encroach the “bedroom” of its citizens as was correctly pointed out by Chapal Mehra in one of his articles in The Hindu: “A love must be equal in the eyes of law”.

BSBE sports event: A lesson to learn

In a country like India where there is tremendous hierarchy, a gap between rich and poor is the reality, but there are some rare occasions where all such differences dissolve and we blend into oneness.  It was on 10th November, 2013 that a sports event in the department of BSBE was held. The game selected was "obviously" Cricket and the event got huge response from the students as well as the faculty members. It was brilliantly executed by the organizing team mainly consisting of PhD students. The main reason this article was written is the theme of "inclusion of all members under one umbrella".

            That Sunday morning was really something special. Unlike every day, we did not maintain a very strict demarcation of who was a faculty member, a post graduate or an undergraduate. From a staff in the department to the faculty including the HOD, everyone shared the same enjoyment on the ground. That high-five with the professors and other members gave a unique kind of happiness to me. The praise from the professors when one hits a ball or gets a wicket was something very special. The scenario was such that the intermingling among the professors, the students and the staff of the department brought about a story which is not seen in general in our country. Where we can easily differentiate between the haves and have-nots, low and high and other barriers, the event seemed to be a striking lesson for everyone. Winning was probably not the goal for many in that event, the aim was to include all. I am almost sure that no day could see as many "happy faces" in the department as that one on the special Sunday.

          It is a sports event that has been able to start this feeling of togetherness, but this feeling should be actively maintained by our routine interactions by imbibing the same spirit.

          It is very true that sports bring togetherness among people of a nation. When one is watching the national team play, one forgets his/her status for a moment and the only thing that seems to be true at the moment is the victory of the nation. In that happiness, one feels that we as a nation have won. The moment we generate this feeling of "we", is the one we are striving for and this is what humanity is all about.

         I hope, in future, this feeling of oneness will spread and the gaps are reduced. These small events (which bring everyone together) can really act as an antidote and bring miracles in the society. I hope that every walk of life would be like that game of cricket where everybody had equal ‘opportunity’ in spite of their initial conditions.