Backpage

SUDDENLY dalits are back in the news and not as hapless victims of atrocities. Despite fevered lobbying by the Government of India, groups campaigning for dalit human rights have managed inclusion in the International Convention on Elimination of Race, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in Durban in the last week of August. True, the inclusion involves a sleight of hand. The sub-commission for the conference has placed not caste discrimination but discrimination based on descent and occupation in the agenda for discussion.

This, dalit groups claim, accords official international recognition to their extant situation, one of systemic discrimination and exclusion from public spaces and services, if not violence and atrocity. The expectation is that with the international spotlight firmly focused on them, their ability to both shame the government and lobby successfully for their rights and entitlements as equal citizens will be enhanced.

Yet, even as those who have worked hard to be included in the Durban agenda claim victory, it needs underscoring that there is little unanimity about this move. The reasons behind the official resistance are not hard to fathom. It is claimed that caste is not race; one is seen as a biological category, the other a social construct. Further, unlike in apartheid South Africa, the discrimination at home, while undeniable, is not officially sanctioned. India has not only constitutionally banned untouchability and provided for legal redressal against discrimination, it has instituted numerous schemes of affirmative action including reservations in the political process, the job market and educational institutions.

Dalit human rights groups do not disagree. Their argument is that while race and caste are not the same, the social impact of discrimination on the ground is similar. In any case, the Durban conference is not exclusively about race but seeks to bring under its purview a wide variety of discriminations – migrants, religious minorities, even victims of HIV-AIDS. While appreciating that caste is a social construct, and that the system does incorporate mobility, they claim that the ameliorative process works only for those within the chaturvarna, not the aprushta, the chandals, the erstwhile untouchables. More dramatically, the assertion is that dalits are subjected to a ‘hidden apartheid’.

This process of naming and categorisation has more than academic consequences; it has political ramifications. It is, for instance, worth examining why many dalit formations, not just those linked to the government, have either opposed the Durban process or maintained a studied silence. Surely not only because of a ‘nationalist’ discomfort with exposing ‘internal’ problems to an external audience. The government unease one can understand. It, for instance, has consistently opposed the entry of international human rights groups within the country. The caste problem, including untouchability, too is seen in a similar light.

Without minimising the dangers of international intrusion, it bears reiteration that we live in an interdependent world, bound by numerous treaties, conventions and laws. As a nation, we have rarely fought shy of appealing to the international community. India was a leader in demanding sanctions against South Africa. Why baulk when we are in the hot seat?

But why have the dalit formations, particularly those in the North and East, kept out of this discussion? So far, there has been no comment from a Ram Vilas Paswan, a Mayawati or a Kanshi Ram. Most Ambedkarite groups too have chosen to distance themselves from the Durban process. No dalit leader from either Punjab or West Bengal, despite both states having a high proportion of SCs, has seen fit to comment on the debate. Is the fear that a collapsing of caste and race would mark the dalits out as a different people, thereby altering the character of struggles for equality. The politics of ‘different but equal’ follows a trajectory quite distinct from ‘same but treated differently’.

Only at the superficial level are the different positions taken by different dalit groups and formations reflective of the wrangling over personal agendas. Political dalits feel that the Durban process has been monopolised by NGO groupings, better equipped to make use of such forums. Equally there is some unease about the preponderance of Christian dalit groups given their greater familiarity with English and linkages with donor organisations.

Whatever the merit of these allegations, what is crucial in the current conjuncture is the need to recognise the dalit disappointment with existing instrumentalities for reform and redressal. They too know that the struggle for equality and justice has to be fought at home. The expression of faith in Durban is more a reflection of internal closures. To not recognise both their disappointment and their rage will only make the situation more intractable.

Harsh Sethi