(This is the second part of a two-part article. First part can be found here.)
Relevance in
Modern Times
Dr. Ambedkar refers to caste as an “anti-social
spirit” i.e. the “spirit of protecting
its own interests.” Although the Constitution of India itself does not provide
a definition of ‘caste’ there are just under a hundred references to it in the Constitution.
The Constitution uses the term caste in two senses. Firstly, it is used in the term
“Scheduled Caste,” usually along with ‘Scheduled Tribes‘, ‘weaker sections,‘ or
‘backward classes'. In this sense, caste consists of several groups and tribe. It
includes those who endured social or economical discrimination at for
centuries. These groups or tribes are those for whom certain special provisions
of representation were made due to inter
alia inadequate representation during British administration and to make up
for past social, economical and
political inequalities as well. Secondly, the Consititution uses caste in articles
prohibiting “discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex” and also,
‘class,’ ‘place of birth,’ ‘language,’ ‘descent,’ and ‘residence.’ In the first
sense, caste is a curative measure to make up for historical inequalities. In second
sense, seeks to bring about equality in society, with its focus on present and
future scenarios, irrespective of the historical inequalities. However, in both
senses, the word ‘caste’ functions, as an anti-social spirit protecting its own
interests.
Under article 366 (24), of the Constitution
“Scheduled Castes” has been defined as “such castes, races, or tribes or parts
of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article
341 to be scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.” Clause 25 of
the same article provides a similar definition for “Scheduled Tribe” and refers
to article 342 of the Constitution. Article 341 and 342, state that “The President may with respect to any
State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the
Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which
shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be” Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe, respectively.
Thus, the scope of the terms scheduled caste and scheduled tribes are
not fixed. It is dynamic and can easily be widened, narrowed and changed. The
framers of the Constitution probably understood that caste may in the future
not have the same meaning it did then, and the safeguards must be provided for
such a contingency. These provisions look after the apprehensions Dr. Ambedkar put forward in
Annihilation of Caste, allowing for discretion to the Government, whenever it
felt necessary to exercise the powers under Article 341 and 342.
Dr. Ambedkar’s views on inter-caste
marriage as the remedy to destroy caste are still applicable even today. People
are not only forced by family to marry within their caste, but preferably also
within sub-castes. Incidents of honour killings inspired by inter-caste marriages
are reported frequently in the newspapers.
In 2001 at a United
Nations human rights conference Dalit activists pressed for a resolution
connecting the treatment of “untouchables” to race-based oppression. However,
the same failed due to rigorous opposition from official Indian delegates. They
argued that the treatment of lower castes differed from the scenario in
apartheid South Africa, since the Constitution in India did not promote, an in
fact prohibited, untouchability and caste discrimination. The same view was
also taken by renowned sociologists such as Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman and
Angela Bodino.
In December 2006 Mr. Manmohan Singh, the then Prime
Minister of India, became the first leader of India to publicly compare the condition of low-caste Hindus with that of black South Africans under
apartheid thereby opposing the stance taken by the
previous BJP-led government. "Even after 60
years of constitutional and legal protection and support, there is still social
discrimination against Dalits in many parts of our country,"
he said. "Dalits have faced a unique
discrimination in our society that is fundamentally different from the problems
of minority groups in general. The only parallel to the practice of
untouchability was apartheid."
Conclusion
In ‘Annihilation of Caste’, Dr.
Ambedkar makes several articulate submissions with respect to caste. He asserts
the various contradictions and irrationalities that exist in the caste system:
“It must
be a source of silent amusement to many Non-Hindus to find hundreds and
thousands of Hindus breaking Caste on certain occasions, such as railway
journeys and foreign travel, and yet endeavoring to maintain Caste for the rest
of their lives”
Thus, the rules regarding caste were
very often broken and ignored by the higher castes, when convenient and then
would be followed and preached again when it became convenient. Thus, the rules
governing caste were not concrete and caste as a concept was purely abstract.
This constant flux in the nature of the people’s adherence to the caste system
represented that the caste system was not something which could be controlled
or reformed.
It is true that a legal remedy by itself cannot solve a social issue. Change brought about by
change in society’s mentality is far more lasting. However, it cannot be
ignored that legal remedy itself is also necessary and the various laws
prohibiting caste discrimination and untouchability have benefited the nation
greatly. Perhaps one day Article 17 of the Constitution and the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 may become simply
namesake and the concept of untouchability only found in history books, but
that day is not today.
Keeping in mind the literacy rate in India in 1936 and the wide-spread practice
of untouchability, Dr. Ambedkar’s views and apprehensions were well
founded. Today, the vast majority of the
population condemns untouchability and the trend is rapidly turning in favour
of equality of all castes. Thus, texts promoting untouchability are understood
to be from a different time and the same have no place in a free world. All this has only proved Dr. Ambedkar’s
submission that caste could not, and should have not, been only reformed, but
completely annihilated. Thus, it can be said that Dr. Ambedkar solution to the
issue of caste was correct; however, his manner of presenting the solution was
such that people were reluctant to appreciate it. Dr. Ambedkar wrote in great
length about what he meant by ‘destruction of religion’ and even he knew that
people would find the concept revolting, yet the use of the very phrase itself
would make most turn a deaf ear to entire notion. Dr. Ambedkar has been
criticized for being too blunt and plain. But in some cases this same plainness
of speaking has proved to move the people.
In light of the aforesaid, it is
submitted that the ‘Annihilation of Caste’ has deeply influenced social reform
in our country and the principles laid down in it are capable of being applied
to several other social problems which we may face in the future.
“The
ancestors of the present-day English fought on one side or the other in the
wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War. But the decendents of those who
fought on the one side do not bear any animosity— any grudge against the
descendents of those who fought on the other side. The feud is forgotten. But
the present-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins for the
insult their ancestors gave to Shivaji. The present-day Kayasthas will not
forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers by
the forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due ? Obviously to
the Caste System. The existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to
keep the memory of past feuds between castes green and has prevented
solidarity.”
(This is the second part of a two-part article. First part can be found here.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 comments:
Post a Comment