Changing colours of racism

Chinky. Dhandewaali. (whore) Momo. These are the kind of slurs she hears every day in
Delhi. Some days, a local goon would ask with a lascivious smile: Rate kya hai?(What is
the rate?) When that happens, she simply looks away and hurries past. On reaching
home at night, she thanks her lucky stars that she has got through another day with
body and limb intact. Before going out the next morning, she mutters a prayer,
apprehending what the city might have in store for her. Racial slurs, she has learnt to
handle. When she first arrived there from her home in Manipur, they would reduce her
to tears. But with time she has learnt to put up with them, as she has with the citys
heat and chaos. She realises that the big, bad city is capable of throwing far more than
hateful words at her.I contemplate her with a mixture of guilt and bemusement. She
works as a barista in my neighbourhoodCosta. Until the past month, she was like any
other barista, greeting me with a ready smile the moment I walked in through the door,
making cheerful small talk while taking my order, stopping by my table to ask if my
coffee and pastry were fine as I was partaking of them. Since the brutal murder of Nido
Tania, however, the smile looks strained and the cheerfulness has all but disappeared.
Today, as the newspaper reports yet another case of a Manipuri girl being groped in
Delhi, she looks pensive and withdrawn. Its obvious that she can no longer summon
even the semblance of a professional veneer to contain the churning inside.
Empathy

I want to tell her that I understand exactly how she feels. That what happened to Nido
Tania brought back memories of a horrific night in Norwich in 2005 where I was beaten
black and blue by racist goons. That for almost a week after that night, one side of my
face was so swollen that it was practically impossible to chew. That there were times in
that week where I was so scared that my face would never heal that I wished my
assailants had killed me. That for months I avoided going out at night and when I did, I
would freeze each time I heard someone behind me.But I hesitate.I have nothing to do
with the racist attacks. Yet that cannot quell the embarrassment I feel because my race
places me right in the middle of the racist mob. I am unsure of how anything I say might
be taken. An attempt at sympathy could sound fake or trite. Condemnation may not go
far enough. And who knows, if we ever had an honest conversation about race, I might
end up becoming defensive about mine and make a bad situation worse. So I do
nothing. When she answers fine to my question of how she is doing, I merely smile and
nod even though I know she is lying and accept my coffee and pastry with a terse thank
you.As I walk home later, it strikes me that this is exactly how my white friends would
have felt in England in the days following my attack. As I would go round Norwich with a
bandaged head and a bruised face, eyes would be averted. People would fall silent as I
approached, like they did not know what to do with me. The exchange that ensued
focussed on the inconsequential and was chock-full of the kind of silence that breaks
out when people are not sure of what to do or say. And there was palpable relief all
round when it was over.
Subtle discrimination

The brutal attacks get all the headlines. But the impact of racism on ordinary lives is far
more subtle and insidious. Invariably, it redraws relations by placing people on the
opposite sides of a divide. It instils feelings of fear and persecution among the people it
targets, while creating guilt and embarrassment among many on the other side.
Suddenly, the most effortless relationship becomes exhausting as a distance that is
difficult to bridge opens up. There are issues that are off limits because they are too hot
to touch, and the whole point of an interaction can devolve to avoiding anything
unseemly. As a result, the distance between people widens. That is its inherent evil.It is
not as if we in India are new to racism. In the past, though, Indian racism was about
caste and colour. Low-caste Hindus would accuse the upper castes of perpetuating a
form of discrimination that amounted to racism. Then there was the gripe that dark-
skinned Indians had with the nations fascination with light skin. The word black in most
Indian languages was synonymous with ugly and it was understood that to be
considered attractive you had to be fair.Caste and colour divisions still exist in India. Just
about every day an honour killing takes place, because a low-caste Hindu has dared to
marry someone from an upper caste. The lust for light skin, too, is alive and well. A
glance at the matrimonial pages of newspapers indicates just about every man or
woman desires a light-skinned spouse. Skin-whitening creams and lotions fly off the
shelves in bazaars and supermarkets, and most Bollywood movies feature actors light-
skinned enough for India to resemble a South European country.However, the kind of
racism that has recently been seen in Delhi with Northeasterners or, for that matter,
Africans, is of the kind that was formerly associated with the West. Caste and colour
have nothing to do with it. Africans and the bulk of the Northeasterners are not Hindus.
Furthermore, in terms of skin colour, most Northeasterners tend to be fairer than the
average Indian. The fact that they are being targeted, along with the Africans, is for one
reason only. They look different. It is no accident that if you see an Indian woman with
an African man in Delhi, more often than not, she is a Northeasterner, the kind of Indian
made to feel foreign in her own country.In the past, India was always at the forefront of
the battle against racism. Both Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela took inspiration
from India and Mahatma Gandhi. In the United Nations and other world forums, India
spoke for suppressed people wherever they were in the world. As one of the first non-
white nations to throw off the yoke of European colonialism, India was a beacon of hope
for freedom fighters everywhere. Yet when it comes to accepting people from other
races in our own society, we are showing that we are light years away from practising
what we have preached.Racism has been the scourge of the Western world for
generations. It is sad to see it spreading its tentacles in India.
Safeguarding the many histories of India
Its hard to tell the truth, harder still to accept it. The truth by its very nature is neither
polite nor palatable. But for a country that equates the truth with victory, we seem to
be increasingly intolerant of it. A growing conservatism seems to be upon us with the
intention to reduce our ability to debate, argue and differ. The recent out-of-court-
settlement between Penguin India and a right wing Hindu outfit that resulted in the
decision to pulp a scholarly work on Hinduism by Wendy Doniger signals the growing
dominance of a conservative and intolerant section of Indian society.This conservatism
can be traced as far back as the ban on Salman Rushdies The Satanic Verses. The ban is
significant because it provided political legitimacy to intolerance and censorship. The
fundamentalists were quick to realise the need to manufacture intolerance and attack
our diversity and freedom of expression, their arch enemies, on the basis of religion. Not
surprisingly, since then, the attacks on our cultural freedoms have only increased.A
quick skim through recent acts of cultural intimidation is revealing. Oxford University
Press, a leading academic publisher, buckled rapidly under pressure and withdrew an
excellent academic book on Shivaji because it hurt regional sentiments. Indias noted
painter M.F. Hussain lived and died in exile, hounded by fundamentalists because of
what he painted decades ago. But the most recent and shameful act was when Indias
celebrated poet academic A.K. Ramanujans work on the Ramayana was removed from
the Delhi University syllabus and later withdrawn from print by OUP.
Disallowing diversity
What do we learn from these arbitrary acts of censorship, cultural intimidation and
bullying? That most institutions charged with protecting our diversity of thought and
freedoms of expression are buckling under this conservatism. How can a leading
publisher acquiesce so easily to bullying or the possibility of an adverse court ruling? By
choosing to pulp or withdraw their books they seem to agree that an alternative
narrative cannot exist. Clearly, they have abandoned their role as guardians of ideas and
the written word.Yet, is the publisher alone to blame? The courts of late seem strangely
inclined towards conservatism. Politicians, across the board, lead this conservatism.
They want to regulate the media, censor books and ban movies. But most disturbingly,
we as a people seem least interested in the truth and comfortably numb in our pursuit
of attainment and entertainment. What should we as a liberal, secular and tolerant
India do?Protest. This book was Penguins to protect but the freedom of expression is
ours to safeguard. Our responsibility here is collective and so should be our response.
Authors and writers have already urged Penguin to take this matter to a higher court.
This settlement and every other act of oppression should be challenged in court and
outside to assert our identity as a diverse and tolerant people who celebrate not silence
but alternative histories and perspectives.Groups like Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti
must be made to realise that this form of cultural bullying or censorship is acutely un-
Indian and will not be tolerated. In India, we have always had many histories. Far from
being a source of conflict, these have strengthened our diversity and philosophical
thinking. Where others see conflict, we have seen interdependence and tolerance an
idea deeply embedded in the Indian nation.These groups, who also misrepresent
Hinduism, must be made to realise that their action is also deeply un-Hindu. The religion
has within itself sufficient conflicting history, ideology and philosophy. While there are
commonalities, no single deity, book or idea defines Hinduism. Hence, there can never
be one Hindu way or one Hindu history. To try and reduce the religion to a single history
is to insult Hinduism itself. Every Hindu must speak up to defend the plurality and
inclusiveness of this religion.
Defence against offense
Finally, to ban or withdraw any book, without sufficient discussion or dissent, is to
diminish and offend the reader. Such an action seems to suggest that either the Indian
reader does not have the capacity to handle diverse ideas of religious history or should
not have access to diverse and alternative histories. We must protest to defend our
right to read and independently judge the truth and merit of each argument because
our right to ideas is the most fundamental freedom any civilised society offers.This
conservatism that arm-twisted Penguin into pulping this book must be made to realise
that Indias diversity is non-negotiable. If we dont fight this, our ability to debate and
argue will slowly vanish. We will then be left with only one version of history and a
broken idea of Indianness, because its not about Hinduism or Doniger but what we
represent as a people. If we cannot exist with tolerance and diversity, what else defines
being Indian?
Commissions and their omissions
What did international pressure and globalisation have to do with the setting up of
commissions for human rights and socially excluded sections? A lot. Under pressure
from countries and businesses wanting to engage with India as it opened its doors to the
market economy, the idea of setting up commissions was first mooted in 1992. In fact, it
was in that year that the then Union Home Minister S.B. Chavan informed the Rajya
Sabha about the proposed human rights commissions. He said they were to be set up to
counter the false and politically motivated propaganda by foreign and Indian civil rights
agencies. So, even at the very outset, the primary intent was to keep the West happy
rather than improve the rights situation within the country. If some pluses have accrued
they are just incidental.So, thanks to the global community, the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) became a reality, broadly applying the Paris Principles laid down
by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly. With the PHRA
in place came the Human Rights Commissions, followed by, among others, Commissions
for Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women, Children and People with
Disabilities at the national and state level. It was implicit that these bodies would serve
to provide India the pro-human rights image that it sought on the global front. Though
these quasi-judicial outfits were government-sponsored and government-funded, there
was a feeling that their citizen-centric functions would steer them towards their stated
goal of providing quick redress to marginalised citizens in the face of extensive red
tape and tedious court proceedings in the country. As a result, each time blatant
violations take place, be it custodial torture or rape, caste or class atrocities, or farmer
suicides, citizens look towards these institutions for justice.But on the ground have the
national and state-level commissions delivered? A recently released report by Poorest
Areas Civil Society (PACS) and Participatory Research in India (PRIA) documents the work
of five commissions and reveals serious shortcomings. A social audit on state human
rights commissions by Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) last year also throws light on
their institutional and infrastructural problems.Through data, material available in the
public sphere, and filing of RTIs, the studies have collected a wealth of information
which point to systemic bottlenecks that have rendered these vital institutions largely
ineffective, save for some exceptions. For instance, the PACS-PRIA report notes that the
offices of these commissions are mostly located amidst government offices in state
capitals or bigger cities far removed from the districts where their presence is more
required. The second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2009, in its 12th report had
earlier observed that the commissions have not been able to accomplish the mandates
to a meaningful extent, and called for making the institutions more vibrant, responsive
and accountable.So what are the inbuilt constraints eating into these institutions that
on paper have immense potential? HRLNs social audit, Rugged Road to Justice, says
that the commissions in India are heavily under government patronage, whether at the
Centre or in the States. As a result, instead of being answerable to an independent
authority as laid out in the Paris Principles, they report to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
At the national level, the Ministry is also in-charge of the police, immigration, laws for
terrorism and insurgency, security and communal harmony. The complaints made to the
commission by stakeholders most often deal with these very authorities. There has
been no recorded evidence of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or the
State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) taking suitable action against the government
of the day or of moving a court to action, the audit report reveals. And this brings to
the fore the basic question of the independence of the institutions.
Arbitary appointments
As far as these statutory bodies are concerned, their independent functioning is further
corroded by the way appointments of chairpersons and members of the commissions
are made, which is often according to the whims and fancies of the government of the
day. It is also often a parking ground for retired judges or civil servants who are
appointed instead of persons with professional experience and track records in
particular fields. Rights commissions depend on government budgetary allocations. It
was found that this varies drastically from state to state and it has been suggested that
commissions prepare a five-year plan with clear deliverables and budgets. During the
study, PACS and PRIA found that the National Commission for Women with a nation-
wide mandate received a budget of over one crore in 2010-11, while the Madhya
Pradesh State Womens Commission received the same amount in 2009-10. In contrast,
Bihar and Odisha were struggling with limited allocations of Rs 30 lakh and Rs 55 lakh
respectively. Further, the report pointed out that a detailed analysis of budgetary
provisions in all commissions revealed that most of the funds were spent in running
offices, paying salaries and meeting administrative expenses. The actual activities and
the mandate of the commission utilised a very limited proportion of the funds.Another
serious lacuna facing all the commissions was that of institutional capacity. It was found
that in most cases, the staff of the commissions comprised largely of peons, drivers and
assistants. Specialists who can deliver on the mandate of the particular commission
were conspicuous by their absence. This serious lack of competencies in jurisprudence,
investigation, data collection, documentation, communication and capacity
development were visible when accomplishments of these commissions were carefully
studied.The studies also pointed out that often stakeholders get confused on who to
approach as the commissions have overlapping scope. As a result those seeking relief
were shunted from one to another. A Scheduled Caste Muslim woman belonging to
three socially excluded groups must get her rights and entitlements without any
inconvenience due to confusion between commissions about their scope of work. The
minority commission should not send her to a womens commission and a womens
commission must not send her to a Scheduled Caste commission for claiming her
entitlements. There needs to be clarity on which commission would serve as her
ultimate recourse, Sister Sudha Varghese, vice chairperson, State Commission for
Minorities, Bihar, reiterated at the national consultation.Many of the commissions were
also found to be faulting on their public disclosures. A large number of them did not
bother to update their websites or uplink annual reports. The PACS and PRIA study,
while looking at Scheduled Caste commissions in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya
Pradesh, found that no annual report was available for Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, while for
Madhya Pradesh, the latest available report was as old as 2009-10.At the very root of
the problem is that the commissions do not perceive themselves as independent, nor do
they seek the autonomy that the Paris Principles wanted to bestow on them. They
believe they are answerable to governments and not to citizens. Unless this mindset
changes, there is very little hope that things will change for the better.
MYTHS ABOUT CULTURE AND CASTE
Delhi chief minister Mr. Kejriwals claim that khaps serve a cultural purpose reproduces some popular
myths about culture and caste. These myths predate AAP and have been put into place over the last few
years by official and expert statements in public discourse such that they are now part of a
commonsense of worldviews about caste and culture.Consider two other statements made by
political figures whose parties are at pains to show how retrograde AAPs statements are.The first
statement sounds far less egregious but articulates a deeper hubris about caste and culture. In doing so,
it prepares the ground for later statements such as the ones by AAP. Delivering the 13th Lester Pearson
Memorial Lecture at Delhi University on April 23, 2007, Mr. Jairam Ramesh (then Commerce Minister)
attested to Indias diversity thus: Indeed, India has the greatest diversities seven major religions and
numerous other sects and faiths, 22 official languages and over 200 recorded mother tongues, around
4,635 largely endogamous communities. The number 4635 of course, refers to the approximately
3990 caste groups and 645 tribal groups in India. Such a positive rendering of the large number of
caste groups as contributing to diversity becomes possible only if we view castes as cultural diversities,
and endogamy as something benign, even admirable.Such a view about caste and culture in India seems
so natural that it seems counter-intuitive to ask: Why is the existence of so many castes viewed as
positive, valuable and contributing to diversity? Could it not be that caste prevents the flourishing of the
human spirit and creativity and hence is actually a hurdle to cultural diversity?The second statement, far
more egregious and combining hubris with a measure of cynical political stratagem, was made by
Gujarat chief minister Mr. Modi who claimed that manual scavenging is a spiritual experience (2007).
This justifiably got the rebuke it deserved for crassly misrepresenting a palpably forced labor within an
oppressive system as if it were an edifying and voluntarily chosen experience. The point that such a
statement exemplifies is the deep cognitive taking-for-granted that the social world with all its
inequalities is something that is natural, or at least something that neednt be tampered with, and
hence deserving only of rationalizations. A more un-modern view of the world is difficult to come by.The
only way out of this morass of spiraling myth-making is to include some reflection on how myths about
culture and caste are reproduced in everyday and expert speech. Myths are not simple fictions; they
are the stuff of commonsense. They work through storylines or narratives that make the world of
experience appear natural through the hidden assumptions within it which are rarely reflected upon.
Myths about caste and culture are pernicious since they make historical and social configurations appear
natural, normal and rationalized. Hence such myths need to be busted in multiple sites of social
interactions (from within households to party headquarters to media and board rooms to playgrounds,
streets, addas and yes, social media).
Myth 1: Culture is coterminous with group boundaries, i.e., one group equals one culture.
As the cultural anthropologist Frederick Barth has observed, culture varies according to
peoples experiences (Barth, 1995). No two people even within a small group such as a family
share the same experiences. Some overlap will be there of course (and that is what makes the
study of patterns and groups possible and interesting), but the overlap or sharing need not
conform to group boundaries. Thus, although a groups culture is shared amongst the youth
of that group, there are also youth cultures that crosscut across different social groups. This
also points to the cultural differences between the youth and elders of any group. The same
holds for women (or men) within a group, and so on even for those groups that are deemed to
be homogenous, say, small, isolated groups living on an island. Such a continuous variation of
culture makes groups and culture, complex. Individuals inhabit more than one cultural group or
identity, forming what are called intersectional identities. Hence, culture is not coterminous
with a groups boundaries, i.e., one social group does not equal one culture, and ones culture
does not stop at the borders of ones social group.
Myth 2: Culture is shared within a group.
This is a corollary to the above myth. Since culture varies continuously, changes continually and
is transmitted with changes over time, we can expect that not all people within a group (even
those claiming to be cultural groups) share the culture in totality. If one thinks about culture as
never too far from ones experience, then it follows that culture will be similar to and shared
among clusters of people who cross social group boundaries. Differences of culture exist very
much within any group, usually along lines of age, gender, sexual orientation, political
disposition, class and occupation. It follows that culture is not shared in any simple way within
any group.
Myth 3: Culture is a property of a group.
Too often people think of culture as something that groups have or own as their
distinctive sign. Groups thus come to be viewed as if culture were a natural or legal property
held in common. However, culture does not get passed down legally, nor is it a property of a
group in the sense that sweetness is a property of sugar, i.e., something essential in defining
the group. Culture is socially transmitted in everyday ordinary life, is less tangible than
property, and typically diffuse i.e., not easily described in terms of essences. Of course, claims
to cultural essence exist in any group, but such claims are better viewed as part of the process
of group formation if accepted, they held groups cohere. Groups are socially formed by
factors that range from external aggression, systemic oppression, governmental policy, internal
attempts to cohere such as the claimed of shared identity, interests and experiences, and other
historical factors that prepare conditions for groups to become conscious of their own selves.
Culture is only one factor, albeit critical, in this process of group formation. Instead of a product
such as property, or as a natural inheritance such as genes, it is usefully viewed as a social and
collective process of production of meanings (about the world, life, relations, ways of doing and
being) that are encoded as information (beliefs, values, worldviews) and embodied in practices.
Viewing it as a process instead of as property allows us to see how culture is continually
produced and not simply a given at any point in time.
Myth 4: Culture is fixed, static and transmitted as such over generations as tradition.
It follows that culture cannot be something unchanging (even if that is what many people
desire it to be or claim it to be). Like life and the world of nature, social life and culture are
always changing, in flux. We can accept this more easily if we think about how cultural
transmission takes place. Unlike a photocopy machine (which too is not precise), and as the
cognitive anthropologist Dan Sperber has argued (Sperber 1996), cultural transmission is never
replication. Its normal mode of transmission is through small changes that allow the next
copy to be merely sharing very general resemblance with the original. This allows for
culture to be changing through micro-processes over time. The idea then of a fixed unchanging
thing called culture or tradition is largely an imagined reality emanating from the desire for
such fixity, typically in order to control culture and the group.
Myth 5: Culture is not about power, only about identity:
Since culture is so important to living meaningful lives, it is always contested. People fight over
what is culture; but we need not assume that such contestation only occurs between groups. It
occurs very much within groups too. Culture is thus always connected to power differentials
within a group, any group. Those who control meaning-making within a group decide what
that groups culture is. Better still (or worse?) they get to represent that group and its culture to
others in society. Thus, one of the first things to highlight when discussing culture is who is
claiming that something (information or practice) is the culture of a particular group?
Attending to this reveals the workings of power behind identity.
Myth 6: Caste is a cultural community, i.e., one caste differs from another due to their
different cultures.
Increasingly, caste groups claim to be simply culturally different (not higher than others,
simply different). Aided by electoral political realities, this takes the form of assertion of
castes as identity groups. Not surprisingly, caste leaders and those who share their worldview
portray the culture of their caste as defining their identity. This need not however lead us to
conclude that the difference between any two castes is that they have different cultures. In
times of crisis and conflict (could be over resources, prestige or inter-caste marriages) castes
make it quite clear about how they view themselves as higher and more honorable than
the other castes. Even in todays India, caste is about social status and the organization of that
status to enable the exploitation, domination, and stigmatization of castes ascribed low
status. Other castes are by definition different in status, not necessarily in culture. This
attribution of different status to other castes (and hence to ones own caste) is what we need
to think of as casteism. We can then say that casteism forces caste groups to be and remain
different. As historian Uma Chakravarti points out in her work on the gendered nature of caste,
we need to remember how it *caste+ is maskedas the culture and tradition of specific
communities (Chakravarti 2003:172). Caste is thus not about culture and difference, but
about differential status and exclusion. Cultural difference the extent it appears to exist
between any two castes it itself only a function of the force of casteism which seeks
difference, separation and hierarchy.
Myth 7: Caste is separable from patriarchy, control over sexuality, and class:Too many times
caste has been portrayed and discussed as if it were a strange kind of group devoid of
anything outside of itself. This is however not how groups form and exist in reality. Groups
(including castes, tribes, religious, linguistic and ethnic groups) always exist as forms that are
shaped by processes of class and patriarchy (among other factors). This is because of the simple
fact that people do not just live on identity alone. Two of the fundamental relations that
everyone enters into when making their lives are those with nature and with other people.
They (usually) have to work for a living by participating in collectively extracting energy from
nature and have relations with other people. These are, also of course, relations of power.
Ideas and relations of gender, sexuality and class then are very much part of any groups
existence. Groups like caste are some of the most dependent upon drawing and maintaining
group boundaries. This is where endogamy the practice of trying to marry within ones own
group or caste becomes the site for patriarchal practices. Not surprisingly, caste groups
engage in boundary-patrolling since they seek to reproduce their sense of identity and culture.
Khaps of course do an additional patrolling work of ensuring gotra exogamy (making sure
people do not marry within their own gotras since many gotras make up a caste). This
necessarily makes castes enforce patriarchal codes of conduct on women (and men) and on the
youth whose life experiences (and hence, culture) are expectedly quite different from their
elders.
Myth 8: Culture is outside of state purview.
If khaps are cultural, so is untouchability (i.e., they are both meaningful practices for those who
benefit from it). Yet, as we know it, untouchability has been banned and rightfully so (although
it continues illegally in many parts of the country) and so were khaps the last time I checked
(Supreme Court of India, 2011). To his credit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made the clear
statement that The only parallel to the practice of untouchability was apartheid (2006). This
logic could be extended to caste in toto. For, so long as caste boundaries are monitored, caste is
a system founded upon keeping socially and historically constructed groups separate,
exclusivist and monopolistic over resources including honor and prestige. It would be useful to
also bear in mind two other points in this regard. One, that khaps routinely delegitimize the
existence of the lowest levels of governance, i.e., the legally instituted panchayats. Anyone
interested in good governance needs to acknowledge khaps as a problem for governance.
Secondly, if khaps are kept beyond the purview of the Indian state, we could remind ourselves
of the ethical possibility pointed out by political scientist Gopal Guru about Dalits taking their
case to the UN at Durban in 2001 that, when the mother, i.e., the Indian state, does not listen
to their grievances, Dalits rightfully took them to the grandmother, i.e., the international
community represented by the UN (Guru 2009). Such logic would rightly extend to anyone
oppressed by khaps.What then can we say about khaps? Kejriwals statement on khaps falls
into what I have called the culturalization of caste the tendency to portray castes as cultural
groups rather than as groups formed from casteism (Natrajan 2011). It is part of what casteism
which needs to be thought of as an ongoing social process of recognizing and relating to others
as different in status and culture due to their descent and lineage. It is casteism then that
brings castes into existence. Castes, in other words, cannot exist without casteism. And,
culturalization is the most fecund way in which caste reproduces itself today in Indian society. It
ensures that we continue to practice casteism and delude ourselves about what we do and its
implications. It remains to be seen whether AAP shows cognizance of this. It is possible that
Kejriwals statement was made with the intention of working for reform of caste from within
khaps (rather than state intervention to ban them). But this assumes that khaps can be
reformed by social forces. Arguably, so long as castes exist, so will khaps since they are simply
the local forms of caste power which acts to discipline the group from within from time to time
as an agreement between the khaps from various castes. Can castes exist without khaps?
Facing this question becomes important if one is serious about democracy.
Here Yogendra Yadavs tweet justifying the AAP position on khaps despite exemplifying the
possibility of a reflexive AAP that could contrast with the stranglehold on imagination
desperately held onto by more established parties is nevertheless far from convincing and
indeed reproduces many of the above myths.First, calling khaps a routine dispute resolution
mechanism conveniently erases the working of power behind the authority of khaps within a
caste. Khaps are, afterall, only a powerful segment of the membership of any caste group a
section that is built by excluding other members (usually based upon age and gender, but also
on favoring particular lineages within a caste). By definition, khaps have to be coercive by
definition, since they are in the thick of internal struggles. Theirs is domination without
hegemony if you wish. For no group (including caste), is internally homogenous or without
dissent. Khaps are routine no doubt, but that cannot be a reason to legitimize their existence.
From the point view of, say, a Babli and Manoj, khaps are routine in their oppressiveness and
that is a huge problem. For such aam aurats and aam aadmis khaps are power structures
within caste groups, and exist to reproduce the power of their caste vis--vis other castes by
using whatever means possible. Culture and legitimacy should not be means given on a platter
to khap leaders. They are already seeking judicial cover behind cultural rights.Second,
assuming that castes are a communitarian organization does not take into account a deeper
reality. Groups (including castes) do not simply form first and then get their leaders. They form
through the ideological and cultural work of leaders who in this process make the
community or group. Forgetting this portrays groups as preconfigured realities. It equates
khaps and caste associations to the community. But, as some scholars of caste pointed out a
long time ago, externally, the caste association tried to convince outsiders that behind the
leaders stood a united community (Arnold, Jeffrey and Manor 1976:373). It would be good for
AAP to call the bluff of khap leaders. They would find support within caste groups, as much as
outside.Third, the caveat that the trouble begins when this dispute resolution becomes
coercive and violates the law of the land is not a sustainable argument. Casteism and
patriarchy are social phenomena. They are never captured thoroughly by the legal lens of
discrimination, crucial as these laws are for any fight against injustice. As pointed above, khaps
are always coercive. One can only wait for the trouble to begin if one does not view already
existing coercion within groups as trouble.Even if khaps may be viewed as cultural in the sense
that they are institutions primarily dealing with values, beliefs and meaning, this does not mean
that they need to be blindly accepted (as the chief minister of Haryana, Mr. Hooda is now
insisting we accept). If culture has any essence, it is only that it is always contested, there is
always a struggle over meanings, values and beliefs. It is therefore always about power (who
decides these meanings, values, beliefs)? Endorsing khaps is endorsing the worldviews of the
powerful. It was culture (of the liberty, equality and fraternity kind) that prompted the pro-Nazi
character in the 1933 play by Johst to exclaim: When I hear the word culture , I release the
safety on my Browning!
CULTURAL IGNORANCE ANF PREJUDICE
While the Supreme Court may have relegated LGBT people back to the closet (at least
legally) the issue of racism in India on the other hand with the vigilante raid against
African women and now Nido Tanias death has been outed and we can either
choose to confront it or continue to live under the delusion that all is well in our
multicultural wonderland. And if the issue is out, it is perhaps time to differentiate
between racism with a capital R and racism with a small r, or, in the world of the media
blitzkrieg that we inhabit we could distinguish it as front page racism and footnote
racism. Nidos death shocking as it is is merely symptomatic of a much larger
systemic malaise of how we deal with cultural difference in this country. While racism
occasionally manifests itself in the form of hate crime it is felt most acutely as an
everyday phenomenon in the form of snideness, smirks, casual references to someone
being chinki and morally upright judgments about clothing and sexuality. On that
count, it would be difficult to find a single northeastern Indian who has not at some
point faced the brunt either of unwelcome banter or culturally curious questions (Is it
true you eat snakes?) whose navet would be touching were it not so offensive.
Ignorance and prejudices
The racism word understandably provokes a fair amount of discomfort since it
presents an unattractive picture which stands in sharp contrast to the official unity in
diversity rhetoric. And yet it is a little ironic that even as we fume with righteous
indignation at the treatment of Indians in the United States or Europe, we are shocked
when we are accused of racism ourselves. Even if we were to agree with detractors who
argue that it may be rash to characterise Nidos killing as an instance of a hate crime or a
racist attack and that it was just an instance of hooliganism that could have happened to
anyone, it is a little difficult to forget that the comments about his looks and hairstyle
which prompted Nidos angry response smacked of racism. Nidos death is a sad
testimony to the fact that we are able to speak about systemic everyday racism only
when confronted with the capital R variety.Commentators have observed that the
cultural ignorance and prejudices have always existed in India citing the familiar
example of how all South Indians are Madrasis and those living north of the Vindhyas
are clubbed Punjabis. But it is important to recognise one crucial difference in the way
that people from the northeast are treated. While a north Indian may be called a
Punjabi or a South Indian a Madrasi, the markers are still within the rubric of Indian
nationhood whereas it is not uncommon for northeastern Indians to be hailed as
Chinese, Japanese, Nepali or Korean. One of the placards in the protest against racism in
Delhi on Saturday read: We are confused and scared in our own country. What shall we
call ourselves? Indians? Nepalis? Chinese? When was the last time someone from Delhi
was called an Afghan because of the similarity of his or her facial features? Kashmiris on
the other hand can equally testify to the generous bestowing of indiscriminate
citizenship having been accustomed to being called Pakistanis.In the protests and the
debates on media that have ensued, one of the recurring themes and slogans has been
We are Indians too. While this is understandable as a claim of equal citizenship it is
also a little disturbing since it casts a burden on people from the northeast having to
prove their sameness rather than assert the right to be different. What then of the
expatriate Japanese or Chinese community? Do they abrogate their right against non
discrimination because they are not Indians? By framing the experience of racism within
a limited rubric of citizenship alone we run the risk of obfuscating questions of national
identity with questions of belonging. It is in fact ironic that groups who have proudly
claimed their self-determination on the basis of their unique identity have to respond to
the experience of racism through a sentimental language of citizenship.A truly
cosmopolitan ideal is one in which a city or a country can belong to you even if you do
not belong to it and while it is tempting to resort to a liberal plea for promoting cultural
awareness and the importance of mainstreaming the northeast the complicated
history of the northeast with its various self-determination movements and armed
struggles requires a slightly different imagination of multicultural citizenship one in
which we move not from cultural difference into sameness but from cultural difference
to cultural difference.
Opportunity to imagine
Racism in India has so far been debated in relation to the caste question but the
northeast question is one that allows us an opportunity to imagine modes of collective
living which go beyond the lip service multiculturalism of exotic floats accompanied by
tribal dances in Republic Day parades. The presence of northeastern Indians in
mainstream India extends the very concept of India and demands a political and
ethical imagination beyond inclusion into history textbooks and speedy trials of hate
crime cases alone; it asks instead what it may mean for the mainstream to be open to
be northeasternised, for Maharashtrians to be a little more Biharid and to acknowledge
that a plurality of hairstyles and food cultures only enriches our collective selves. The
French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze once remarked that it is better to be a schizophrenic
out for a walk than a neurotic on a couch perhaps a bold imagination of our diversity
demands that we be comfortable with our multiple identities if we are not to collapse
into the neurosis of the singular.Incidents like the Richard Loitam, Dana Sangma and
now Nido Tania cases have the possibility of opening many old wounds which have only
been tenuously resolved in recent times. It is not surprising that in the midst of the
protest against racism, one protester chanted Hame kya chhahiye? Azadi chhahiye.
This was echoed by many others who were there. It was a spontaneous act but one that
stands witness to the fact that even if the Azadi is not about self-determination any
longer, it echoes an underlying sense that they have never belonged. If we fail to
understand that the call for freedom first and foremost emanates from the struggle
against racism and discrimination, we run the risk of collapsing into what Tagore once
described as a world broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls.
Caste Based Reservations Dont Make Sense Anymore, Heres Why I
Think They Should Go!
It happens only in India. And it happens mostly during elections, when political parties out to
secure votes begin doling out reservation quotas like cash or gas subsidy. For the 2014 general
elections, the drive to bribe as many votes as possible has already begun. First, the Jains, a
community comprising mostly upper-class and middle-class, were given minority status and
related benefits. Congress then went ahead demanding quota for Jats, another tribe of rich
land-owners capable of taking care of themselves. (Though Congress vehemently denies the
link to elections but Jats are present in large numbers in nine North Indian states.) Now, the
Congress-led UPA government has moved the Supreme Court seeking inclusion of Muslims in
the 27% OBC quota.Let it be said here in the beginning that reservation has today truly lost its
meaning. The quota system was officially introduced in India in 1982 to ensure the historically
disadvantaged communities with no equal access to resources live a dignified life and get a
level-playing field. To put words into action, it was decided that 22.5% of seats in educational
institutes and government jobs will be filled by SC/STs.Over the years, however, as senior
journalist Tavleen Singh wrote, it has given birth to a distorted mindset that the government
would take care of everyones needs even if nobody lifted a finger. The reservation system has
today become an easy way, creating a population that feeds off welfare payments and lacks the
motivation to improve their surroundings and status. Myopic politics continues to win even as
merit is damned.Reservation can never be the route to equality. It is a tool that works as a
propeller for few, not an equalizer for all. If, however, everyone gets equal resources, do we
then still need a reservation system? If I say the disadvantaged would not be that
disadvantaged in terms of access to resources, is there still a need to secure them under a
socialist environment when the majority struggles in a free-market one?Consider the UPA
governments three crucial flagship schemes MGNREGA, Right to Education and Food
Security Bill. Though the three populist schemes have earned their share of laurels and labels
from its supporters and critics, the UPAs trident has raised a more pertinent question: If the
government is giving guaranteed employment, free food and free education to all, do we then
need caste-based reservation?The Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act was launched in
2010 to give every child an equal education. According to the Census 2011, around 36% of the
entire illiterate population in the country is from the backward classes the ones that need
access to education most urgently and the ones that the RTE Act hopes to reach. According to
the 2012-13 annual report of the HRD ministry, in 2009-10, before enactment of RTE Act, the
enrolment of SC/ST children was 5.77 crore which has increased to 6.11 crore in 2011-12.The
National Food Security law, as it states in the bill, is more deeply connected with ensuring
that people get quality food to live their lives with dignity. It aims to provide highly subsidized
food grains to approximately two-third of Indias 1.2 billion people. Interestingly, as defined in
the law, 75% of the beneficiaries will be from rural areas. Considering that 73% of Indias
population lives in the villages, it means that everyone in rural India will be eating quality food
at a negligible cost. What is more important is that out of the 73% rural population, 30% are
SC/STs. Hence, dalits form one of the biggest beneficiaries of the food bill. As revealed in NFHS-
3 data, 54% of SC/ST children are severely malnourished.In case of the MGNREGA scheme, the
governments own admission is worth reading. Five crore families have been benefitted so far
and two lakh crore rupees spent. Out of this, 50% beneficiaries are from SC, ST sections and 70%
of money has been utilized for giving wages.The three schemes together guarantee the SC/STs
an equal right on quality food, nourishment, education, prosperity and livelihood the crucial
elements that can ensure they sustain a dignified livelihood and enable them for the challenges
of a free-market system. Why is reservation needed when every child, irrespective of their
caste, gets the same food to eat and same books to read? Why is reservation needed when
everyone begins from the same point?Emancipation of any caste cannot be achieved by mere
seat allotments. What is immediately needed is an effective, quality implementation of the
three schemes to see they deliver to every caste the promised access to equal resources and
opportunity that the quota system has and will fail to plug. These three schemes, if properly
implemented, can create an infrastructure that enables hard-work and merit to rise from any
caste or class bracket of the country. Most importantly, they can put an end to the present
toxic culture of handing out free, untied welfare benefits to everyone who is not needy and
undeserving.There comes a time when almost everything overstays its welcome and Indias
reservation system is one of them. The idea was brought-in in the hope that it would erase the
caste lines and divisions in the Indian society, but it ended up etching them even deeper,
redefining the hatred among general castes against lower castes. It was thought that
reservation would promote greater social mobility for the weaker sections and would empower
them but it ended up making them vulnerable tools of vote-bank politics. It is thus time we let it
go. And we have three very good reasons to do so.